1126 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Planes in World War II had fixed convergence that could be reconfigured on the ground, between sorties. Having similar on 'Mechs fielded by societies barely getting out of a WWII-era technological setting...is not at all ridiculous.

[Kuritaclan]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 April 2015 - 02:03 PM, said:

Planes in World War II had fixed convergence that could be reconfigured on the ground, between sorties. Having similar on 'Mechs fielded by societies barely getting out of a WWII-era technological setting...is not at all ridiculous.

And again - this ********.

Read the part of Clan fire controll system and the part of the riflemann: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4358041

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 02:22 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 02:16 PM, said:

And again - this ********.

Again a well thought out and reasonable counterpoint from Kuritaclan.

Yeonne Greene is right. This IS the BT universe, if you don't like it, that is fine. Just don't try to dumb it down for those of us who DO like it.

[Kuritaclan]

Hotthedd, on 13 April 2015 - 02:22 PM, said:

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 02:16 PM, said:

And again - this ********.

Again a well thought out and reasonable counterpoint from Kuritaclan.

Yeonne Greene is right. This IS the BT universe, if you don't like it, that is fine. Just don't try to dumb it down for those of us who DO like it.

And again you did not read my apply to your words at the first time (what is the post in the link btw.). You fool yourself. Battletech technology is far more advanced as WW II tech and this is told by BattleTech tech-books themself.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 02:27 PM.

[Mystere]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 02:16 PM, said:

And again - this ********.

Read the part of Clan fire controll system and the part of the riflemann: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4358041

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

Just to make it clear "Pendant" steht für Gegenstück oder Entsprechung, schließt aber nicht etwas weniger fortschrittliches aus! To be clear about it. Pendant is Coutnerpart, but it does not exclude fire controlls - however they might not be so advanced.

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

In other words - there are many targeting/aiming/guidance system in IS as on clan side. On the is side not that good like the clan versions, but good enough to use them for a flak purpose

Note that nowhere do they say that they have near-instant, perfect and pinpoint accuracy/convergence, something MWO currently has now. For all we know, their convergence mechanisms require a 5-second or more prep time to set convergence at XXX range.

Remember, lore says much of IS tech was equivalent to 20th-21st Century.

Edited by Mystere, 13 April 2015 - 02:38 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

And again you did not read my apply to your words at the first time (what is the post in the link btw.). You fool yourself. Battletech technology is far more advanced as WW II tech and this is told by BattleTech tech-books themself.

No, it isn't.

Maybe the copies of the books you read were poorly translated?

[Y E O N N E]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

And again you did not read my apply to your words at the first time (what is the post in the link btw.). You fool yourself. Battletech technology is far more advanced as WW II tech and this is told by BattleTech tech-books themself.

Joke is on you, twice. First, we had very sophisticated fire-control computers in World War II, and they were used clear up until the very late 1970s before being replaced by digital computers. Second, I said they are just coming out of WWII-era technology. That means early digital age.

To wit, Battletech technology is often far more advanced than what we have now. Unfortunately, nobody knows how to properly use most of it and what they do know is not much better than stuff we had in 1990. We're talking about societies run by idiots who A.) kill each other to solve the most petty of problems and B.) can't figure out how to properly stabilize a hard-hitting, ballistic gun.

[Kuritaclan]

Hotthedd, on 13 April 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

No, it isn't.

Maybe the copies of the books you read were poorly translated?

Maybee. How about you find the original book and we make a matching? - You can not, since it is a german published reference book.

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

Note that nowhere do they say that they have near-instant, perfect and pinpoint accuracy/convergence, something MWO currently has now.

Nor is there anywhere claimed that the accuracy/convergence is set before combat and did not be controlled by a target system. Oh it actually is.

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

For all we know, their convergence mechanisma require a 5-second or more prep time to set convergence at XXX range.

And there we have a problem with common sense and consistency, since a aiming system that needs 5 seconds and more prep time is even to slow for artillery. And to adjust lasers, it is pure nonsense. Or aiming for aircrafts like the rifleman is supposed to do.

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

Remember, lore says much of IS tech was equivalent to 20th-21st Century.

And there we have another problem with consistency, while lore says "much" it does not mean all! - or does the 20th century did had have something equal to neurohelmets - nopp. "Holotank" is in early stages (beside of some consiracy claims of Blue Beam). And so on.

The lore is a mesh of a possible future out of around the 80's - Somthing like the MIR (http://de.wikipedia....8Raumstation%29) was the thing that set up the "fantastic future timeline" to the http://www.sarna.net...Crippen_Station in 2005 and so on. Talking about the minimum tech lvl is talking about the 80s and the upcoming future develompment. But yeah you are in the mindset that they run around in 100t mechs, which are aiming like the red baron. roflmao.

Yeonne Greene, on 13 April 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

Joke is on you, twice. First, we had very sophisticated fire-control computers in World War II, and they were used clear up until the very late 1970s before being replaced by digital computers. Second, I said they are just coming out of WWII-era technology. That means early digital age.

Battletech is a child of the 1980s all tech available in this time frame an tech "what could come up" in the future is the past where our real future has split from the "parallel future" presented in the Battletech Universe. Claiming that this is all about the standards of ww II tech is just not cohisive. You couldn't shot Flums with a velocity of Jets, with a riflman with the tech of the ww II flak - "end of story telling" and make it common sense, the target computing had to be @ a lvl that surve such a purpose - and therefore claiming ww II like tech is meaningless.

Yeonne Greene, on 13 April 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

To wit, Battletech technology is often far more advanced than what we have now. Unfortunately, nobody knows how to properly use most of it and what they do know is not much better than stuff we had in 1990. We're talking about societies run by idiots who A.) kill each other to solve the most petty of problems and B.) can't figure out how to properly stabilize a hard-hitting, ballistic gun.

Well human nature is I guess human nature - it does not evolve like technology.

And something that is past the 80s the battletech universe evolved with new hand outs which adapt the future to the 90s and up untill into our nearest past. I know some of hardcore TT fans are dry as hell, if they do not get their will, but it is what it is. deal with it.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 03:31 PM.

[Yokaiko]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 April 2015 - 02:03 PM, said:

Planes in World War II had fixed convergence that could be reconfigured on the ground, between sorties. Having similar on 'Mechs fielded by societies barely getting out of a WWII-era technological setting...is not at all ridiculous.

So let's compare a MK41 .50cal to a BT machine gun.

(Hint: the .50's range is measured in miles)

[Mystere]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 03:07 PM, said:

And there we have a problem with common sense and consistency, since a aiming system that needs 5 seconds and more prep time is even to slow for artillery. And to adjust lasers, it is pure nonsense. Or aiming for aircrafts like the rifleman is supposed to do.

I'll just use your own words:

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

Having a mechanical device to turn a [1]12t weight [2]in a certain amount of time [3]with a acceptable precision is [4]hardly to achive in the real world.

You made that too easy.

[Y E O N N E]

Yokaiko, on 13 April 2015 - 03:29 PM, said:

So let's compare a MK41 .50cal to a BT machine gun.

(Hint: the .50's range is measured in miles)

I know my ballistics. Even the lasers should be measured in kilometers.

BT lore is total rubbish. The stories are neat, but the tech descriptions were written by monkeys to balance a game with rules written by even less adept monkeys.

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 03:07 PM, said:

Battletech is a child of the 1980s all tech available in this time frame an tech "what could come up" in the future is the past where our real future has split from the "parallel future" presented in the Battletech Universe. Claiming that this is all about the standards of ww II tech is just not cohisive. You couldn't shot Flums with a velocity of Jets, with a riflman with the tech of the ww II flak - and of story telling and make it common sense, the target computing had to be @ a lvl that surve such a purpose - and therefore claiming ww II like tech is meaningless.

Okay, let me break this down for you. Ignoring what I actually said, which was that they are finally just now getting past WWII-level technology at the current position in the BT timeline (read: that's the '80s), here's what you need to actually have your weapons converge:

• The ability to see the target
  
• The ability to track the target position
  
• The ability to calculate the target trajectory and predict its location in the immediate future
  
• The ability to physically angle your guns to converge on one spot on the target.

The most important part of that is the last bullet. You need a set of gimbals to carry the gun and a mechanism to move it. Those gimbals have to be strong enough to support the weight of the weapon and, if it's an auto-cannon, Gauss, or PPC mount, withstand the recoil forces from firing. It has to also be able to take the heat and allow your cooling system access to carry it away. All of this is very heavy, very complicated, and very prone to failure. Battleships didn't do it. Not even quad-mount AA batteries today do active convergence for precisely that reason. Instead, we try to have single-mount weapons that only have a single axis to aim along because it is a hell of a lot easier to manage. The Phalanx CWIS, the F-22, the F-35, the M1A2, the Mk. 45 Mod. 0...all single-mount guns to simplify the entire system.

That's why you set a fixed convergence point. It's just easier. You know what the range is on your weapons and you know what ranges you will be using those at, so you set for it. You use multiple mounts if volume of fire is more desirable than per-shot accuracy and, against aircraft, you also typically combine them with explosive munitions to increase the chance of a hit.

Quote

Well human nature is I guess human nature - it does not evolve like technology.

Human nature is better than what is depicted in BattleTech. The people of the BT universe are, frankly, ********. And I mean that as in, yes, they are actually mentally deficient. These poor sods can't figure out how to increase the range on a cannon (hints: extend the barrel length, increase powder charge) or use ammunition types with Gatling guns. I'm amazed they know how to even lace up their boots.

[Kuritaclan]

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:

Quote

And there we have a problem with common sense and consistency, since a aiming system that needs 5 seconds and more prep time is even to slow for artillery. And to adjust lasers, it is pure nonsense. Or aiming for aircrafts like the rifleman is supposed to do.

I'll just use your own words:

Quote

Having a mechanical device to turn a [1]12t weight [2]in a certain amount of time [3]with a acceptable precision is [4]hardly to achive in the real world.

You made that too easy.

The magical word is consistency.

Therefore I asked you how realistic you wanna have it to be? Remember?

Rifleman has its ac5s in the arms, but with your purposal you don't have convergency by the arms, which are "in real virtual BT lore conform future"/"common sense" capable to achive the goal to bring down airplanes/flums and so on, what needs to be a guided convergance.

Also you have nicly cut out the point about the lasers. Consistencyyyyyyyyyyy!

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 04:09 PM.

[Kuritaclan]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 April 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

Okay, let me break this down for you. Ignoring what I actually said, which was that they are finally just now getting past WWII-level technology at the current position in the BT timeline (read: that's the '80s), here's what you need to actually have your weapons converge:

• The ability to see the target
  
• The ability to track the target position
  
• The ability to calculate the target trajectory and predict its location in the immediate future
  
• The ability to physically angle your guns to converge on one spot on the target.

*gähn* - http://en.wikipedia....akpanzer_Gepard
or how about http://en.wikipedia....tzsystem_MANTIS on each arm (mass per system is 5,8t)

Yeonne Greene, on 13 April 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

The most important part of that is the last bullet. You need a set of gimbals to carry the gun and a mechanism to move it. Those gimbals have to be strong enough to support the weight of the weapon and, if it's an auto-cannon, Gauss, or PPC mount, withstand the recoil forces from firing. It has to also be able to take the heat and allow your cooling system access to carry it away. All of this is very heavy, very complicated, and very prone to failure.

Sure but as it stands most tech described in the BT Universe is complcate - ppcs are very complicate - a battle mech by itself is very complicate. So where is the point. This machine is designed to serve the purpose, not the opposite. Sure you can claim it is not possible to make a system to carry the gun and a mechanism to move it, but then we have SiFi within - you know "Myomer" - the magical thing that could sustain heavy use up to let a 100t mech run 50 kph and do not break, and the controll of it over a neuro helm is pretty sweet point on.

Yeonne Greene, on 13 April 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

Human nature is better than what is depicted in BattleTech.

I don't think so, they pretty much point out human nature in all shades of grey.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 04:16 PM.

[Burktross]

TL;DR Summary of Last Page or Two, for any poor sods daring to suddenly happen over here.
"wwii tech fixed convergence"
"stompy robot target computers"
"WWII fixed convergence bad tech!"
"AUTOCONVERGE ROBOT SUPER TARGET"
"WWWWWWII TECHHHH NOT MUCH WORSEEEE"
**repeat for like, 20 more lines

[Mystere]

Yokaiko, on 13 April 2015 - 03:29 PM, said:

So let's compare a MK41 .50cal to a BT machine gun.

(Hint: the .50's range is measured in miles)

But, can you guess how the 50 cals were arranged?

[Yokaiko]

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 04:15 PM, said:

But, can you guess how the 50 cals were arranged?

Yeah, as a 16 year military weapons guy I could give it a shot. Lol

[Y E O N N E]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 04:05 PM, said:

[/list]*gähn* - http://en.wikipedia....akpanzer_Gepard


Sure but as it stands most tech described in the BT Universe is complcate - ppcs are very complicate - a battle mech by itself is very complicate. So where is the point. This machine is designed to serve the purpose, not the opposite. Sure you can claim it is not possible to make a system to carry the gun and a mechanism to move it, but then we have SiFi within - you know "Myomer" - the magical thing that could sustain heavy use up to let a 100t mech run 50 kph and do not break, and the controll of it over a neuro helm is pretty sweet point on.


I don't think so, they pretty much point out human nature in all shades of grey.

First, the guns on the Flakpanzer Gepard are fixed convergence, if they converge at all (it does not look like they do, no joints for lateral movement of each individual gun).

Second, there are some forms of complicated that can't be fixed with new, shiny, unobtainium. Trying to actuate your individual guns in real-time such that they can always provide time-on-target to a single, tiny location is one of them. The weapons are thousands of kilograms. They are going to have a lot of inertia that your system has to fight to re-angle it. Add in the sway and rapid change in direction for the 'Mech, and it's not practical. There's also the issue of space; the mechanisms have to be able to move the gun, and most of these guns are big and bulky, requiring a big and bulky set of gimbals just to be able to wrap around it.

And why would you bother with convergence? In real life, you design your weapon system to be effective against a target to the point of needing one shot to do the job. The whole sandpaper fighting is just TT rules being translated into a videogame. In the lore, it often took only one or two laser shots to incapacitate a 'Mech. You read of lasers instantly boiling off the armor and piercing the 'Mech surrounding the pilot regularly.

Finally, yes, they nail the humans being nasty and violent. However, they also depict them as being unable to figure out how a pencil sharpener works, which is ridiculous. If nothing else, we are very good at coming up with efficient ways of killing one another and iterating on those ways with alarming rapidity.

[Telmasa]

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 11:12 AM, said:

And even then, I do at times do get rude to someone who chooses to paste a whole wall of text, especially if the intent is to obfuscate, rather than just placing a concise argument that goes straight to the point.

*giggles*

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 12:27 PM, said:

Converting to your numbers (and if my math is correct ), it is equivalent to around 15 MoA while stationary and firing 1 weapon, and 60 MoA when running at full clip and firing XXX weapons or more. At 500m, that should be good enough to possibly miss the component you want to hit.

Honestly I prefer his numbers over yours.

Quote

You're a cruel person. Hope I don't see you in the Hague.
On a more serious note, let us not forget that according to lore (according to the lore folks here anyway), much of the IS tech in 3050 is early 20th Century equivalent. So 10-15 MoA is fine by me under ideal conditions.

[Mystere]

It's obvious some are already just trolling instead of willing to engage in a reasonable discussion. In that light ...

[Yokaiko]

Yeonne Greene, on 13 April 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

I know my ballistics. Even the lasers should be measured in kilometers.

BT lore is total rubbish. The stories are neat, but the tech descriptions were written by monkeys to balance a game with rules written by even less adept monkeys.

BT lore is grounded in the fact that it was a TABLE top dice based game, every hex was 33m (100ft), and IRL Battleships had 26 MILE 16" guns, and missiles passed 200miles.


That would take a ******* BIG table.