198 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

AnimeFreak40K, on 03 December 2015 - 09:14 PM, said:

If the statement I was replying to had implied that it was talking specifically about MechWarrior Online,

If you're not talking about MWO, then what, pray tell, are you talking about on The MWO General Discussion forum?

[fat4eyes]

It's probably limited by the strength of materials. The compressive strength of bone is 170 MPa and it seems that the strength of the strongest metals we know today is about 800 MPa (scroll down until titanium alloy). From Sarna, the caliber of an AC20 is about 203mm (around 8 inches). From these tables it seems that a 8 inch WW2 naval shell penetrates about 15-20 inches of steel at point blank range (which is about the range our mechs fight at). Also note that these tables are for long naval guns (which would have high muzzle velocity and therefore higher penetration power), not the relatively short howitzer-type guns our mechs have. From this thread, it seems that the armor on an Atlas is about half an inch thick, and can stop an AC20 about 6 times. So we can estimate that Battletech era materials are about 30 to 40 times (20 inches divided by .5 inch) stronger than our current materials, so lets make the assumption that 3050-era 'steel' has about the compressive strength of 32000 MPa (800 times 40), or about 188 times the strength of human bone.

The thing is, an Atlas weighs 100 tons, which is 1000 times more than a human. In order for it to be as agile as a human, its skeleton has to be as strong as a human skeleton relative to its weight. Unfortunately from our estimations above, 3050 materials are only about 188 times as strong, so an Atlas is only around 1/5th (188/1000) the agility of a human.

(Of course the real answer is that agile 100 ton mechs look extremely silly in the Battletech universe, but hey, its fun to nerd out about fictional universe physics every once and a while).

Edit: wrong conversion of 203mm to inches, updated other numbers accordingly)

Edited by fat4eyes, 04 December 2015 - 01:30 AM.

[DivineEvil]

Vellron2005, on 04 December 2015 - 12:39 AM, said:

As far as I know, mechs don't have internal structure anything like a human, and the myomers are not positioned like human muscles..
This automatically means mechs DO NOT have the agility and speed a human would have..
Also, like MANY MANY... many... things in Battletech.. keep in mind that was a game designed in the 80's, and that not everything completelymakes sense..

I can name 50 examples of things that modern-day technology does better than 3050 BT tech.

So keep in mind that you should just take BT at face value, don't question it much, and just enjoy it as-is.

Mechs certainly do not have as many myomeres as humans has muscles, but their structure is very similar. If exactly, a tough endoskeleton, surrounded by power/ammo transfer lines, then wrapped in myomere bundles, and covered by structurual wireframe, on which equipment and armor is then installed.

Despite the fact that BT was developed in 80's, most of it's technological fiction makes sense today, as many of technological advances we enjoy today were conceptualized in those years. The only thing that severely overlooked is the size of the Gyro - it would likely need to be much heavier to have a significant effect on a mech's stability. But still, one should not underestimate it's capabilities:

Another misconception, that almost everyone has, is mech's total mass.

A mech can weight from 20 to 100 tons. It is the weight of mech's chassis. Most of its mass is mech's endoskeleton combined with myomeres, and large part of it is relegated for mech's Legs. This allows a mech to carry additional equipment of equal tonnage, distributed across the chassis. Thus, an Atlas chassis weights 100 tons, which allows it to carry extra 100 tons on top. A fully equipped Atlas is roughly equal in mass to the German WW2 prototype superheavy Maus tank, or about 200 tons of composite materials.

So actually that M1 Abrams people keep talking about is as heavy as the loaded-out Urbanmech.

Edited by DivineEvil, 04 December 2015 - 01:34 AM.

[AnimeFreak40K]

Sandpit, on 04 December 2015 - 01:05 AM, said:

If you're not talking about MWO, then what, pray tell, are you talking about on The MWO General Discussion forum?

I don't know, why don't you go take a look at the post that I quoted?

[Lily from animove]

Homeskilit, on 03 December 2015 - 05:07 PM, said:

Where are people getting the idea that a Battlemech is a big, slow, lumbering machine?

• Mechs are not skyscrapers. Mechs are (according to sarna) 10-20 meters (30-60 feet) which is not that big (the actual size of Battlemechs is questionable as multiple sources list them at difference sizes).
  
• Mechs use myomers to move. Myomers are artificial muscles designed to imitate biological muscles but with much greater strength.
  
• Mechs use the human pilots sense of balance to control its movements.

That leaves a Battlemechs mass as the cause of its "slow and lumbering" persona. While 60 tons may seem like a great amount, an M1 Abrams tank also weighs in at 60 tons.








For comparison:

• Top Speed: An Abrams tops out at 45 mph (72 kph) while a 60 ton Battlemech can top out anywhere from 64 kph to 86 kph (they can be faster or slower depending on the engine used).
  
• Acceleration: An Abrams tank takes about 30 seconds to reach top speed.

While this may seem a bit arbitrary, there is an important factor here that has been over looked. An Abrams engine outputs 1,120 kw of power and the goal for the first fusion reactors is 500,000 kw (we can expect this to increase as the technology develops, similar to how piston engines and turbines have become more powerful and efficient).







1,120 kw vs 500,000 kw

I would expect a Battlemech with that much more power and the same top speed to have a drastically better acceleration rate than an Abrams. While we do not know how much power is required to move a mech, keep its systems operational, or fire its weapons, it is likely Battlemechs have near infinite power provided they have fuel. A mech only shuts down when its heat becomes too great for it to contain, there is no indication of mechs running out of power.

Finally lets compare some athletic human beings:

Here is an example of Offensive Linemen in American Football running a 40 yard dash:


Here is an example of a small Wide Receiver in American Football running a 40 yard dash:


If the OL is the equivalent of an Heavy or Assault Mech than the WR is the equivalent of a Light or Medium Mech. The Offensive Lineman weighs about twice as much as the Wide Receiver (306 to 156) and is only 0.36 seconds slower (4.65 to 4.29). Thus the WR will have a greater top speed than the OL but as we can see in the videos their acceleration is roughly equal. Granted I chose two very fast players at their respective positions, I think we can expect the Engineers designing Battlemechs to build them to the pinnacle of the human physique.

Here are some examples of human agility:


If a mech is built like a human and controlled by a human then it will perform like a human provided its skeleton can withstand the forces the myomers impart on it while under strain. The fact that Triple Strength Myomers do not tear a mech apart is evidence enough that normal myomer have no problems moving a mechs skeleton without damaging it.

TL;DR
Battlemechs are not the slow, lumbering machines you have been led to believe but are actually fast, agile, and capable of the kinds of complex maneuvers a human being is capable of.

edit*
please do not quote this whole post but only the parts you wish to address.

they can not entirely behave like humans, inertness and air resistance start to play quite a big role at these sizes. So the exact nimbleness in movements is not what these battletechs can do. Surely they can be fast but this would require some acceleration time. Also You can't sprint accelerate a mech to 150mph like a human can instant sprint accelerate to his own max speed. here is still a human pilot in it and the forces that would happen on this scale would not be healthy for him. Also the material itself would probably have problems with such instant speedchanges. The scale matters a lot and just changes things quite a lot.

Thats why I can't stand most of the japanese anime mecha genre their movement is unrealistic superhuman on a scale where physics would like to have a word with you.

DivineEvil, on 04 December 2015 - 01:19 AM, said:

Mechs certainly do not have as many myomeres as humans has muscles, but their structure is very similar. If exactly, a tough endoskeleton, surrounded by power/ammo transfer lines, then wrapped in myomere bundles, and covered by structurual wireframe, on which equipment and armor is then installed.

Despite the fact that BT was developed in 80's, most of it's technological fiction makes sense today, as many of technological advances we enjoy today were conceptualized in those years. The only thing that severely overlooked is the size of the Gyro - it would likely need to be much heavier to have a significant effect on a mech's stability. But still, one should not underestimate it's capabilities:

Another misconception, that almost everyone has, is mech's total mass.

A mech can weight from 20 to 100 tons. It is the weight of mech's chassis. Most of its mass is mech's endoskeleton combined with myomeres, and large part of it is relegated for mech's Legs. This allows a mech to carry additional equipment of equal tonnage, distributed across the chassis. Thus, an Atlas chassis weights 100 tons, which allows it to carry extra 100 tons on top. A fully equipped Atlas is roughly equal in mass to the German WW2 prototype superheavy Maus tank, or about 200 tons of composite materials.

So actually that M1 Abrams people keep talking about is as heavy as the loaded-out Urbanmech.

I don't think so, I mean take a "naked" atlas, his most mass comes from the weapons and equipment as well as the engine. Which also adds another part of movement. when a mech isn't laoded symetrically it will have some very restricted movement possibilities because a left side heavy loaded mech may easily flip on this side when he deas a few quick moves into the wrong way. A gyro as shown may stabelise a few things, but it would make specific movements harder than others or without.

Now lets come to MWO. and the other MW games. The mechs in these games were simplified. Batlemechs can crouch and climb and all this stuff very much as regular humans do. However we get a simplified shooter with some mechsimulator. Look at CS:GO you can crouch sprint jump and walk. Thats also just a fraction of humans possible movement. Simply because its a game and using an abstract model of the real world. Even leaning is yet not in CS:GO. because CSGO was designed like this. And MWO has a simplified verison of what BT mechs can do.

Edited by Lily from animove, 04 December 2015 - 02:00 AM.

[Sandpit]

AnimeFreak40K, on 04 December 2015 - 01:32 AM, said:

I don't know, why don't you go take a look at the post that I quoted?

I'm just going to leave this right here for you to understand why exactly someone might be working under the assumption that you might actually be discussing MWO on the MWO forums...

DarthRevis, on 03 December 2015 - 09:54 PM, said:

This is the Mechwarrior online General Discussion forum...

All other topics of discussion dont belong here. So its safe to assume from now on if you are here in this Forum its about MWO or some how related. Im not saying that to be rude, im just saying. There is nothing else really discussed here lol.

This isnt Gundam tho, this isnt Xenoblades or any other anime. Its battletech and THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO MOVE LIKE THAT. Not to mention the G's you would feel as the pilot inside some mecha during those crazy stunts i see on these anime shows would turn your brain to mashed peas.

[Death Proof]

Homeskilit, on 04 December 2015 - 12:57 AM, said:

If a mech is humanoid why would its myomer bundles not be positioned like a humans? If the location of our muscles are not the most efficient way for a bipedal animal to function why have we evolved and developed them like we have?

Just please stop. Seriously.

STOP.

What the F*ck dude.

[Lily from animove]

Homeskilit, on 04 December 2015 - 12:57 AM, said:

If a mech is humanoid why would its myomer bundles not be positioned like a humans? If the location of our muscles are not the most efficient way for a bipedal animal to function why have we evolved and developed them like we have?

Survival of the fittets means the one doing something better than the other is at advantage and keeps spreading his genes. There are multiple concepts of bipedal walking in nature, and mankind is by evolution rather "new" so we are far from optimised in our bipedal movement. But surely our way combined with out other abilities is a way that works very well. I would say the bird like movement which exists since times of dinosaurs is so far beter because it has prooven to work for a much longer time already.

[DivineEvil]

Quote

I don't think so, I mean take a "naked" atlas, his most mass comes from the weapons and equipment as well as the engine. Which also adds another part of movement. when a mech isn't laoded symetrically it will have some very restricted movement possibilities because a left side heavy loaded mech may easily flip on this side when he deas a few quick moves into the wrong way. A gyro as shown may stabelise a few things, but it would make specific movements harder than others or without.

You don't got it completely. A "naked" Atlas is what weights 100 tons. Roughly three-fifths of these 100 tons is mech's Legs. On top of that, add 10 tons of distributed internal structure protective reinforcement, and on top of that - up to 19 tons of distributed armor and an average fusion engine of 22-25 tons placed into the chassis center. Asymmetrical loadouts has almost no effect on balance when placed upon that.

Gyro can compensate for almost anything. It's just takes the reaction wheels of sufficient mass and servo-motors strong enough to regulate angular momentum quickly enough to complensate for inertia and changing center of mass. All I'm saying is that originally claimed Gyro of 0.5-1 ton is insufficient for vehicles of this mass.

Edited by DivineEvil, 04 December 2015 - 03:09 AM.

[Davegt27]

II don't think people want gundum or any similar mechanic for MWO
I am advocating keeping the Nov speed an agility of MWO

Others want the game and Mechs slowed down and they use there own logic and reasoning to justify the change
The people on the other side of the argument counter with views using using slow humans as examples

I for one am not advocating Mechs that move as fast as humans but I don't want them as slow as hydraulic based road excavators
If in doubt I say keep things as is

The game needs to be fun and playable
I thought MWO was to fast the first few days playing the game but I quickly justified it by saying to myself it must be to have the game appealing to a younger crowd
After all I hardly played MW4 merc's

90% of the PC games I bought since the 1980's where on the sucky side
I just want this game to stay good

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Sandpit, on 04 December 2015 - 01:05 AM, said:

If you're not talking about MWO, then what, pray tell, are you talking about on The MWO General Discussion forum?

meant to go to off topic and failed?

Davegt27, on 04 December 2015 - 03:17 AM, said:

The game needs to be fun and playable

theres yer problem

Its not that now, especially when a 100 ton mech with all that momentum travelling 47-60 kph can be stopped by a ******* pebble

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 04 December 2015 - 03:35 AM.

[PurpleNinja]

Quite a wall of text, but this one I actually read.
Almost made believe mechs' are real.
Good job.

[Lily from animove]

DivineEvil, on 04 December 2015 - 03:07 AM, said:

You don't got it completely. A "naked" Atlas is what weights 100 tons. Roughly three-fifths of these 100 tons is mech's Legs. On top of that, add 10 tons of distributed internal structure protective reinforcement, and on top of that - up to 19 tons of distributed armor and an average fusion engine of 22-25 tons placed into the chassis center. Asymmetrical loadouts has almost no effect on balance when placed upon that.

Gyro can compensate for almost anything. It's just takes the reaction wheels of sufficient mass and servo-motors strong enough to regulate angular momentum quickly enough to complensate for inertia and changing center of mass. All I'm saying is that originally claimed Gyro of 0.5-1 ton is insufficient for vehicles of this mass.

Ah ok, makes sense, because this atlas is 10t, and switching to ES which I know halves the structure is going to make it 5t. Which then would mena actuators and sensors would be 0t weight. Quite impossible.

So the fully equipped atlas then is 200t in total?

Do you have a source of various mechs total weights

[Karl Streiger]

Lily from animove, on 04 December 2015 - 03:58 AM, said:

Ah ok, makes sense, because this atlas is 10t, and switching to ES which I know halves the structure is going to make it 5t. Which then would mena actuators and sensors would be 0t weight. Quite impossible.

Not exactly:
its 14t or 9t (this weight will be added when you place the engine)
not to mention that the drive train (parts of myomer) are also part of the engine:
so the "lightest naked atlas is: 14.5t AS7-D-DC

although the really really lowest weight for a naked atlas would include light cockpit and XL gyro and a 100 XXL engine (only 8.5t now)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 04 December 2015 - 04:06 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Karl Streiger, on 04 December 2015 - 04:03 AM, said:

Not exactly:
its 14t (this weight will be added when you place the engine)
not to mention that the drive train (parts of myomer) are also part of the engine:
so the "lightest naked atlas is: 14.5t
AS7-D-DC

No no no i don't mean minimum built possible. I speak of the components of the mech.

Structure saves 5tons when going endosteel, this means the structure itself is 10ts on non endosteel. Does this structure include sensors and actuators cokcpit and lifesupport? because if not, what is about them and their weight? Or is that all as you say part of the engine when myomers be added to engines.

that XL 200 actually, is 7.5t including its 8 heatsinks. and then you addd 2 external ones. Thats confusing think about this.

The engine is more than just heatsinks. reactor, myomers you said and also shielding. How can hose 8 heatsink weight only 7.5tons? even further when you say ther eis myomer included these 8 heatsink would nearly have no mass at all. what about the rest of the mech?

We have in the build you posted 5t of structure made of endosteel-
We have XL200 including 8heatsinks weighting 7.5ts (which you said includes myomers and such) Already strange by logic
next thing is 2 externals 2t.

so in total those 14.5 tons for a empty minimal working mech.

But the gyro, the sensors, the actuators, if they are not weigthed in the mech constructiing rules in regards of tonnage limit/weight for engine wepaons and such. They still can in reality not weigth nothing. So wouldn't this mean a fully 100t filling Atlas like this in its total real weight would then weight more than 100t?

Take this one just to fill one http://mwo.smurfy-ne...4daf675997167fc

its 100t contains the engine (and as yous aid the myomers) 10tstructure, wepaons and ammo, and equip (case, ECM)

but the question still is for me, sensors, actuators and life support as well as cockpit and gyro. They are part of what? And if not part of anythign of what we put in havign weith the resulting atlas weight would have to be more than 100t.

[Karl Streiger]

MWO does take the standard TableTop Building rules:

First Step: Choose Weight: 100t
Second: Add Structure: 10% -10t
Third: Add Cockpit: -3t
Fourth: Add Engine: (in TT you have Hex - say Atlas move 2 = 200 engine rating = 8.5t
Fivth: Add Gyro: Gyro is 1t for every 100t of Engine Rating -2t

= 76.5t

MWO:
Chose Mech: 100t
Structure = -10t
Take Engine: 200 = -11.5t)
Add missing heatsinks = -2t

= 76.5t

Difference?
The Engine in MWO is calculated: Engine(200) Weight (8.5t + Gyro 2t + Cockpit +3t - Heatsinks to get 10)


UM-R60
Can calculate on your own: see the engine weigh of -2.5t for the Engine 60?

It has no negative weight - go the other direction
-2.5t + heatinks (8) = 5.5t -3t Cockpit - 1t Gyro = 1.5t


Anyhow when you take a "accurate RPG builder" CORPS GURPS and create a Atlas: well i will check it

Edited by Karl Streiger, 04 December 2015 - 04:56 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Karl Streiger, on 04 December 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

MWO does take the standard TableTop Building rules:

First Step: Choose Weight: 100t
Second: Add Structure: 10% -10t
Third: Add Cockpit: -3t
Fourth: Add Engine: (in TT you have Hex - say Atlas move 2 = 200 engine rating = 8.5t
Fivth: Add Gyro: Gyro is 1t for every 100t of Engine Rating -2t

= 76.5t

MWO:
Chose Mech: 100t
Structure = -10t
Take Engine: 200 = -11.5t)
Add missing heatsinks = -2t

= 76.5t

Difference?
The Engine in MWO is calculated: Engine(200) Weight (8.5t + Gyro 2t + Cockpit +3t - Heatsinks to get 10)

but why is my engineless Atlas then 10t and not 13t? or is the cockpitweight put into the engine weight for MWO?

[Dassh]

I can only agree with the OP. I have been playing TT since BT 3rd edition, read the books and such and sure, 'Mechs are fast and quite agile giant powersuits. There's a lot of info about how they work, how myomers and neurohelmets work, what are they capable to do. It is a good proof about a 'Mech's agility that by lore a 'Mech's movement resembles of the mechwarrior's own movement. Oh and the neurohelmet gives feedback to the mechwarrior's brain about the position of the legs the whole body, giving a "feel" of the 'Mech actually. A Battlemech is way closer to a giant powersuit than a bipedal tank. Old, rusty, run down powersuits, standing 10-15 meters tall (not 30+). You just have to open any old rulebook or technical readout and check the illustrations about 'Mechs brawling, dodgeing, kicking each other in the face while srews and armor pieces flying al around (or if you don't have a few shelves of BT collection even google it up).
That's how it goes, sorry. And the thing that it has connection with Robotech isn't a suprise since... well, it started kind of a rip-off of it in a sense.
About thhe "rolling dice" arguement: In a TT or RPG you have to roll dice for everything even to blow your nose (who know what happens if you botch it...). It doesn't change the fact that by the rules a 'Mech can pick up a tree, charge an other 'Mech with it while shooting lasers sideways with its free hand to a second enemy. Any day. It isn't harder than hitting a moving target with AC2 mid range.
The arguements about related science are interesting but quite useless to be honest. It isn't just about that we don't have the mentioned technologies but we even lack most of the materials what build up a 'Mech. So this debate is pointless. But if we really want to take it to a realistic level then any kind of Battlemechs are perfectly useless warmachines (anything over a 2-2.5 m tall servo-armor). Doesn't matter it can run at 150 kph or doing blackflips (what it can't, it isn't Gundam...), it can't be a match to a few dug-in tanks, not to mention an air superiority fighter. It is just fiction.
Sure, it's unable to really model them in a video game but I think MW4's movement animations were steps in a good direction. Following that road with the better technology available today would be nice.
I don't even know where this "slow, stompy 'Mech" nonsense arrived recently. Maybe from guys who are new to the franchise and came from Wot or WT, I dunno. But looking over the whole franchise back to the 80s, there isn't much room for debates about what a 'Mech is cabale of in terms of agility/speed and what not.
Oh and 'Mechs can run, even an Atlas or Direwolf can run (like a DWF moving 3 hexes walking and 5 running...).
So this whole thing about slowmotion 'Mechs is a huge misconception as it is, doesn't matter how "reasonable" it is in terms of "science".
Sorry ;-)

[DivineEvil]

Lily from animove, on 04 December 2015 - 03:58 AM, said:

Ah ok, makes sense, because this atlas is 10t, and switching to ES which I know halves the structure is going to make it 5t. Which then would mena actuators and sensors would be 0t weight. Quite impossible.

So the fully equipped atlas then is 200t in total?

Do you have a source of various mechs total weights

Yes. Every mech in Battletech is described as "N-ton battlemech", which is a rough estimate of total mass of it's exoskeleton, myomere assembly and structurual frame attached to it, power grid, modular ammo transfer lines, sensor arrays, heat distribution network, weapon hardpoints, life-support systems and electronics.

None of this items are included into the actual tonnage (effective carry capacity). Tonnage is what provides the mech's functionality as a moving combat machine. When you strip a mech completely, you only see 10 or 5% of the tonnage, that is occupied either by standard or endo-steel structurual feinforcement (not the frame itself, as replacing the entire frame is likely harder, than building the whole new mech), whic provides mech's durability when armor is breached.

Same with Engine - by itself is just a fusion reactor, that is plugged into the existing power grid and working with myomeres, weapon hardpoints and subsystems, that are already in place. Placing heavier engine with larger shielding allows it to maintain larger voltage, and larger voltage means better myomere performance. Both on STD and XL engines there's a weight jump of 1 ton for each 25 rating units, which signified an additional heatsink hard-wired to the reactor. It also includes the gyro and a cockpit weight in MWO, because PGI probably chose to not allow gyro/cockpit modifications originally.

So the total weight of a mech is the double of it's tonnage, not considering for potential deviations which are very likely to be in place, but which are rounded-up for convenience.

Edited by DivineEvil, 04 December 2015 - 05:11 AM.

[Lootee]

Sandpit, on 03 December 2015 - 06:20 PM, said:

[color=#959595]Where are people getting the idea that a Battlemech is a big, slow, lumbering machine?[/color]

Mechs are not and never have been in the history of Btech been described as "nimble" in the sense that you're talking about and trying to compare them to the mobility of a human. Their myomers, gyros, etc. aren't able to lend them that kind of mobility.

Where did people get this idea from?
PSR rolls for things like (Piloting Skill Roll)
going prone
standing up
keeping balance if hit with 20+ in a single round
one crit on a gyrp causing PSR for anything above a walk at a +5 modifier
walking over rubble
turning on pavement if you are moving faster than a walk
getting rammed
kicking another mech
getting kicked

I can go on if you like

That would be where people got the idea that mechs are big lumbering tanks and not nimble human exoskeletons

What he said. Plus the fact that they added a whole new type of unit, Protomechs which ARE nimble half-sized Mech-Elemental hybrids. They never have to make pilot skill checks and they can fire their main gun in any direction. Protos stand up immediately if they falll and can even dodge attacks that would hit a battlemech.

So Protomechs and Elementals are nimble. Battlemechs are not.

Not if they want to remain true to the spirit of BattleTech. Otherwise it's flying mechs doing kung fu with laser swords.

Edited by Lootee, 04 December 2015 - 05:43 AM.