26 replies to this topic

[Burktross]

Yessss. +1 so much! I miss the round barrels of old! The hunchback 4SP arms are great examples of what laser barrels should look like. Hell, our current lego blocks don't even change color with the mech :^(

[TyphonCh]

I really like how the Mauler arms turned out with PPC's. With lasers it's meh, because that generic little laser box thing gets old fast...

Hell, Even the Orion's laser arms look snazzy! I wish more mechs would adopt that look

Burktross, on 25 October 2015 - 05:26 PM, said:

Yessss. +1 so much! I miss the round barrels of old! The hunchback 4SP arms are great examples of what laser barrels should look like. Hell, our current lego blocks don't even change color with the mech :^(

Yes. That's a good example of how SMALL lasers should look. I have a hard time believing .5 ton small lasers fire out of the same receptacle as a 7 ton large pulse laser

Edited by Team Chevy86, 25 October 2015 - 08:03 PM.

[El Bandito]

Yet another reason I have been calling out for sized hardpoints. With it in place, there would be no need to shrink/normalize all weapon sizes to try to fit them into a Light mech without breaking the game.

I weep for the eventual Hollander.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 October 2015 - 08:55 PM.

[MechaBattler]

Special geometry! For the low low price of your soul.

[Juodas Varnas]

Current dynamic geometry on the vast majority of mechs have the aesthetic appeal of a massive tumor growing on the side of someone's face

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

or long ones

Juodas Varnas, on 25 October 2015 - 08:43 PM, said:

Current dynamic geometry on the vast majority of mechs have the aesthetic appeal of a massive tumor growing on the side of someone's face

Catapult A-1

[Speedy Plysitkos]

speaking of barrels.... Why cant we have empty shells from AC10/20 on the ground ?

[Appogee]

I agree. The shape of gun barrels is a key issue and requires immediate attention!

[JigglyMoobs]

I think it's probably a performance issue. Nicely shaped barrels require more polygons and make it harder to calculate hit detection, collisions, etc.

[xengk]

Properly a gameplay decision; allowing player to identify weapon loadout visually.
ballistic get round barrel, energy get square lens, missile comes in boxes.

[stjobe]

xengk, on 25 October 2015 - 11:58 PM, said:

Properly a gameplay decision; allowing player to identify weapon loadout visually.
ballistic get round barrel, energy get square lens, missile comes in boxes.

Nah, that doesn't cut it.

ACs come in all kinds of different sizes and lengths, but every single laser in the game has exactly the same size.
Missiles have visible tubes whose number increase with launcher size, but a large laser is exactly the same size as a small laser.

So no, that's not it.

Edited by stjobe, 26 October 2015 - 02:00 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Marack Drock, on 25 October 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Why is it that PGI never once gives mechs with lasers a round barrel other than stubby and ugly PPC barrels? Why is it Mad Dog has square stubby, pathetic laser arms? Why not have the awesome round barrels it use to have? I know this is tiny and a nitpick but it irks me when mechs that should have round barrels, have these ****** and stubby most unoriginal boxes for guns.

Strum Wealh, on 15 July 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

Lasers are a fairly well-understood technology, and there are several real-world examples of laser weaponry:

"THEL" (Tactical High Energy Laser)




ZEUS-HLONS


COIL laser system (mounted on the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser Testbed)


"LaWS" (Laser Weapon System)




Rheinmetall 50kw "HEL" (High Energy Laser)


There is a reason why real-world laser weapons look more like stubby telescopes than WWII naval guns or MBT cannons.

Specifically: conventional firearms & artillery can gain some advantages (and disadvantages) from having relatively long barrels (see here and here), but lasers are not subject to any of the same considerations that make barrel length beneficial (most of which are related to how the propellant charge burns & the expansion of the propellant gases, and how those translate into effective range & accuracy-at-range) AND would still suffer the negative aspects (increased mass, increased difficulty to traverse & elevate, increased production expense, and others) if a long barrel were attached.

So, there is no advantage to long-barreled designs like those of the classic Vulture illustrations, and why real-world militaries (and, for MWO, PGI) make laser weapons without the superfluous barrels.

BattleTech lasers likely use all of the different lasing techniques (e.g. "semiconductor lasers", "solid state lasers", "fiber lasers", "free electron lasers", and even "gas lasers" to account for things like the Clans' chemical lasers), as there are so many different makes & models of lasers in service throughout the Inner Sphere.

For laser sizes:

• Chapter 08 of Initiation to War confirms that the Intek Medium Lasers on the right arm of the Axman have 4cm (that is, 40mm) apertures.
  
• Chapter 29 of Decision at Thunder Rift confirms that the Martell Medium Laser on the right arm of the Shadow Hawk has a 6cm (that is, 60mm) aperture.
  
• Chapter 25 of Heir to the Dragon confirms that the Martell-manufactured Hellion-V Medium Lasers on the Atlas have 5cm (that is, 50mm) apertures.
  
• Chapter 25 of Heir to the Dragon also confirms that the Thunderbolt A5M Large Laser in the left torso of the Zeus has a 10cm (that is, 100mm) aperture.

Quote

There is a reason why real-world laser weapons look more like stubby telescopes than WWII naval guns or MBT cannons...

...there is no advantage to long-barreled designs like those of the classic Vulture illustrations, and why real-world militaries (and, for MWO, PGI) make laser weapons without the superfluous barrels...

[MeiSooHaityu]

The real world laser designs are great and all, but this is SciFi so aesthetic expectations can overrule practical design on occasion for the sake of cool.

For instance, look at all the space ships that are designed for purely space travel, and yet are aerodynamic-ish for no real practical reason. Why does the U.S.S. Enterprise need to be a sleek saucer shape with a tubular body and nacelles? It stays in space (not counting the last Star Trek movie which decided all of a sudden it could make planet fall). Really the Borg got it right. Every ship in reality should pretty much be a cube in space.

Point is, style can be chosen over function (especially in fiction). If Battletech designs have these long laser barrels, it should be implemented in MWO (especially if it is crucial to the design). I think PGI has kind of realized this with the Mauler. I just kind of wished they would have realized it with the Mad Dog and other older designs .

[stjobe]

MeiSooHaityu, on 26 October 2015 - 04:46 AM, said:

Every ship in reality should pretty much be a cube in space.

Sphere, to maximize volume. Other than that, yeah I agree. Rule of Cool trumps real-world design, especially in a game about giant walking combat robots.

Bring on the long laser barrels!

[Flak Kannon]

Why was the T-34 and Panther tank superior in WWII.

And the Sheman and Grant tank so poor? ( besides the lack of muzzle velocity of its Kannon )

Because of sloped armor.

Maybe in 3050, they think that a sloped gun barrel housings may deflect a Autocannon round or an LRM or SRM round slightly?



..I don't know, I just wanted to play devils advocate ..




That, or its easier to code and process angular things?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 25 October 2015 - 10:52 PM, said:

or long ones

I was expecting at the least a "thats what she said." I'm dissapointed

[Mister Blastman]

Marack Drock, on 25 October 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Why is it that PGI never once gives mechs with lasers a round barrel other than stubby and ugly PPC barrels? Why is it Mad Dog has square stubby, pathetic laser arms? Why not have the awesome round barrels it use to have? I know this is tiny and a nitpick but it irks me when mechs that should have round barrels, have these ****** and stubby most unoriginal boxes for guns.

This looks like a honkin' big round barrel to me. Make it so, PGI.

[Nightmare1]

I miss my non-standardized weapons and their unique looks. Now everything looks butchered.

Has anyone taken a gander at the Commando recently? It's horrid! Sadly, it's become an example of a lot of Mechs in this game.

What I miss most though, is the mammoth cannon arm on my CN9-YLW. It feels neutered without it!

[1453 R]

MeiSooHaityu, on 26 October 2015 - 04:46 AM, said:

The real world laser designs are great and all, but this is SciFi so aesthetic expectations can overrule practical design on occasion for the sake of cool.

For instance, look at all the space ships that are designed for purely space travel, and yet are aerodynamic-ish for no real practical reason. Why does the U.S.S. Enterprise need to be a sleek saucer shape with a tubular body and nacelles? It stays in space (not counting the last Star Trek movie which decided all of a sudden it could make planet fall). Really the Borg got it right. Every ship in reality should pretty much be a cube in space.

Point is, style can be chosen over function (especially in fiction). If Battletech designs have these long laser barrels, it should be implemented in MWO (especially if it is crucial to the design). I think PGI has kind of realized this with the Mauler. I just kind of wished they would have realized it with the Mad Dog and other older designs .

stjobe, on 26 October 2015 - 05:52 AM, said:

Sphere, to maximize volume. Other than that, yeah I agree. Rule of Cool trumps real-world design, especially in a game about giant walking combat robots.

Bring on the long laser barrels!

In actuality, the 'lozenge' shape for starship design makes more sense than cubes or spheres. The engines have to go somewhere, and unless you put engines literally across the entire face of the engine side on a cube/sphere, you end up with a design where much of the starship's superstructure is put under radial/perpendicular stress from the force of its own engines rather than axial stress. A ship which expands hugely wide around its own engines is going to be much more fragile and liable to rip itself apart.

Aerodynamics obviously doesn't matter to starship designers, but physical engineering is still a key factor. A long, narrow ship is much easier to build strong enough to hold up to its own thrust than a Death Star or a Borg Block. Of course, all the sci-fi tropes get it wrong - the decks would not be arranged the long way, with people standing perpendicular to the line of thrust, but would instead be arranged the short way, with people's heads pointed the same direction as the ship's nose. Think a skyscraper, in space, with engines at the bottom and you have the most logical basic layout for a starship.

...anyways. Just felt like pointing that out.

Edited by 1453 R, 26 October 2015 - 08:07 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

1453 R, on 26 October 2015 - 08:05 AM, said:

In actuality, the 'lozenge' shape for starship design makes more sense than cubes or spheres. The engines have to go somewhere, and unless you put engines literally across the entire face of the engine side on a cube/sphere, you end up with a design where much of the starship's superstructure is put under radial/perpendicular stress from the force of its own engines rather than axial stress. A ship which expands hugely wide around its own engines is going to be much more fragile and liable to rip itself apart.

Aerodynamics obviously doesn't matter to starship designers, but physical engineering is still a key factor. A long, narrow ship is much easier to build strong enough to hold up to its own thrust than a Death Star or a Borg Block. Of course, all the sci-fi tropes get it wrong - the decks would not be arranged the long way, with people standing perpendicular to the line of thrust, but would instead be arranged the short way, with people's heads pointed the same direction as the ship's nose. Think a skyscraper, in space, with engines at the bottom and you have the most logical basic layout for a starship.

...anyways. Just felt like pointing that out.

Fair enough

My point is (with a questionable example I suppose), is that you don't have to base scifi off of real world tech 100%. There are creative licences a person can make. If part of a mech's defining feature is long narrow laser barrels, it doesn't have to be altered because the current optimal laser design is a round orb or box with a lens. We can take some liberties as long as it is somewhat believable.