29 replies to this topic

[HumpingBunny]

Would PGI consider adding a projectile drop compensator to the aiming reticle? The biggest reason for needing one is the A/C 20 - the projectile drops quickly across even 200m. Having a projectile drop compensator embedded in the aiming reticle would be sweet! Thoughts?

[Mitsuragi]

+1

[Brody319]

personally I find them distracting and really cluttery and useless. I can just learn the drop myself without a visual reference that may not always be true.

[AlphaToaster]

I'm not even sure if it's a constant flight path. I seem to aim with the bottom of the aiming circle and the trajectory seems to flatten out once it does the intial drop.

I can't expect actual physics from this game simply because the larger bore weapons have shorter range, which makes no sense either.

[LordNothing]

if you aim for the head or top of the ct (whichever is higher) then the drop will usually land it ct from pretty much any range.

[LordNothing]

if you aim for the head or top of the ct (whichever is higher) then the drop will usually land it ct from pretty much any range.

AlphaToaster, on 29 July 2015 - 04:26 PM, said:

I can't expect actual physics from this game simply because the larger bore weapons have shorter range, which makes no sense either.

as a physics nut i find it rather disturbing. it takes more energy to accelerate a bigger slug than a small one, likewise it takes more energy to slow it down. you also get less delfection from other forces (such as aerodynamic drag) acting on the projectile because it takes more force to change the velocity of a more massive object. the bismarck's 15-inch guns fire at about mach 2.4, and have a range of 35.6 kilometers, and thats 1930s tech.

but it is a game. if games had the weapons that the us military (or ww2 germany for that matter) has, everything would be op. peeking would be insta-death. engagements would be over before you even got a glimpse of the enemy.

Edited by LordNothing, 29 July 2015 - 04:54 PM.

[MerryIguana]

The way this game handles convergence would make this a nightmare imo. The drop indicator would go crazy everytime your reticle moved from close to distant terrain.

[IronChance]

Every weapon has a learning curve. Part of the fun of the game, IMO, is learning their behaviors and figuring out how to play each one to its optimal level. I wouldn't want PGI to take that away from me by adding UI that does it for me.

[Mister Blastman]

HumpingBunny, on 29 July 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:

Would PGI consider adding a projectile drop compensator to the aiming reticle? The biggest reason for needing one is the A/C 20 - the projectile drops quickly across even 200m. Having a projectile drop compensator embedded in the aiming reticle would be sweet! Thoughts?

Oh please. No. This game doesn't need to be dumbed down any further.

[BigBenn]

One would think that by 3050 AD, targeting computers would auto compensate for trajectory. By all the data it delivers I bet it does. LRM's auto compensate when then are fired. The velocity variations are penalty enough.

I vote to remove the uncorrected trajectory from ballistics. PPC's dont have a trajectory...

[Dino Might]

AlphaToaster, on 29 July 2015 - 04:26 PM, said:

I'm not even sure if it's a constant flight path. I seem to aim with the bottom of the aiming circle and the trajectory seems to flatten out once it does the intial drop.

I can't expect actual physics from this game simply because the larger bore weapons have shorter range, which makes no sense either.

Depends on the gun and the cartridge design.

You can have a 32 pounder carronade (larger shot) and a 4 pounder cannon, and the cannon will have a significantly longer range.

[Rear Admiral Tier 6]

just use gauss instead

[Phex]

HumpingBunny, on 29 July 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:

Would PGI consider adding a projectile drop compensator to the aiming reticle? The biggest reason for needing one is the A/C 20 - the projectile drops quickly across even 200m. Having a projectile drop compensator embedded in the aiming reticle would be sweet! Thoughts?

Only for people that can`t aim!
*Sarcasm on* Why not auto aim for all weapons !? *Sarcasm off*
If you want a simple game, take Tetris!

Greetings Phex

Edited by Phex, 29 July 2015 - 11:56 PM.

[Khobai]

A better solution is just to increase the projectile velocity on the AC/20

Its stupidly slow and needs to be increased anyway IMO.

[aniviron]

Brody319, on 29 July 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

personally I find them distracting and really cluttery and useless. I can just learn the drop myself without a visual reference that may not always be true.

The biggest problem with this is that every mech seems to have ballistic speed quirks. Every time you drop in a different mech, you have to relearn lead times and drop all over again. It's terrible.

[Joseph Mallan]

HumpingBunny, on 29 July 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:

Would PGI consider adding a projectile drop compensator to the aiming reticle? The biggest reason for needing one is the A/C 20 - the projectile drops quickly across even 200m. Having a projectile drop compensator embedded in the aiming reticle would be sweet! Thoughts?

You want to need even less culpability for how you do in game? Really? Our AC20 rounds have a sharp Drop off? Aim a little higher. Why does the game have to do everything for us?

[Narcissistic Martyr]

LordNothing, on 29 July 2015 - 04:54 PM, said:

but it is a game. if games had the weapons that the us military (or ww2 germany for that matter) has, everything would be op. peeking would be insta-death. engagements would be over before you even got a glimpse of the enemy.

Future materials. Battletech armor is so strong that weaponry is only effective at very close range.

[Dino Might]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 30 July 2015 - 01:43 AM, said:

Future materials. Battletech armor is so strong that weaponry is only effective at very close range.

"Future materials" = space magic. While materials science has significantly improved our engineering, there's a limit to how much stronger or more durable or tougher you can make something. You can't get something for nothing, and it's hard to believe that these future materials (their composition, mfg process, or application) would be so drastically different from what we have today.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Dino Might, on 30 July 2015 - 01:49 AM, said:

"Future materials" = space magic. While materials science has significantly improved our engineering, there's a limit to how much stronger or more durable or tougher you can make something. You can't get something for nothing, and it's hard to believe that these future materials (their composition, mfg process, or application) would be so drastically different from what we have today.

Space magic is entirely acceptable reasoning in a fictional setting. I mean what's cooler, noble knights riding their mechanical suits of armor into epic close range battles or console monkeys in space sipping their lattes and nuking it from orbit?

[Joseph Mallan]

Dino Might, on 30 July 2015 - 01:49 AM, said:

"Future materials" = space magic. there's a limit to how much stronger or more durable or tougher you can make something. You can't get something for nothing,

You are only thinking with the knowledge we have now. So unless you are willing to shift you paradigm, you will never be able to accept possibilities.

Narcissistic Martyr, on 30 July 2015 - 01:52 AM, said:

Space magic is entirely acceptable reasoning in a fictional setting. I mean what's cooler, noble knights riding their mechanical suits of armor into epic close range battles or console monkeys in space sipping their lattes and nuking it from orbit?

Depends what you are into. Sometimes you just have to