43 replies to this topic

[Chuck Jager]

Ted Wayz, on 02 June 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

I do not think you understand what you are quoting. This is the trap of the interwebz, so much information but in many cases little understanding.

You could have a ginormous tank if you wanted. It would just require an enormous amount of power to make it mobile. The limitation is the combustion engine, not our ability to build huge tanks. .....

We are not talking about combustion engine. We are talking about internal combustion engines that build a general power pool that is then drawn from - not a drive line. In real life this is hydraulic power that is pressure created by the combustion engine. The speed and agility and equipment is driven by a common pool. I learned this by driving heavy equipment seasonally for a couple of years not the internet.

Now this could be coupled to cool down because it is a common power draw from a reservoir.

Edited by Chuck Jager, 02 June 2016 - 11:54 PM.

[invernomuto]

Ted Wayz, on 02 June 2016 - 10:39 PM, said:

You could have a ginormous tank if you wanted. It would just require an enormous amount of power to make it mobile. The limitation is the combustion engine, not our ability to build huge tanks. Have you seen excavators and trucks used in high capacity mining operations? With an operating weight of over 600,000 kg the Caterpillar 797F far outweighs the largest mech.

And this is exactly the point. More size -> (exponentially) more weight -> more mechanical issues = more power needed to move that weight -> more logistical issues.
The problem IS NOT to build "massive" thing. As I said, with the tech of 70 years ago, Germans and other nations built massive tanks (150+ tons as prototype and almost 70 tons tanks that were effectively deployed on battlefield).
The problem is that they were so huge and heavy that they were not efficient from a military point of view. Slow and prone to bogging down or mechanical failures. A nightmare in terms of maintenance. With a lot of problem for example for bridge crossing.
That's why 70 years after we have MBTs that weights about 1/4 of the Maus and weight less than a Tiger I despite having engines with an output in terms of HPs that is doubled (e.g. the turbine engine of the M1 Abrams). Because - as you know - you have to fight not only on highways but also in fields, flooded areas, sand, and other difficult terrains in which it's better to mantain speed and mobility than have a bogged down monster.
A still tank is a dead tank in modern warfare.
And we're talking about tanks, that have a better weight distribution, by definition, than a bipedal robot.
Are you saying that these problem will be magically solved by a fusion engine on an anthropomorphic mech that is 30-40 meters tall and weights 100 tons?
On a side note, having something huge and tall it's not the brightest idea on a battlefield. That's why we have tank and not mechs... And they're trying to design tank components that are even smaller (e.g. remote, smaller turret as in the modern russian T-14 Armada - the future of the modern MBTs).

Quote

And as for crunching through earth, no. That is a whole other realm of physics but it is easy to point out that with all the earth underneath it a mech isn't going to sink to it's knees with every step. Would like to see more realistic movement on slopes, in bogs, or in loose terrain however.

I did not say that the mech would sink at EVERY STEP, I did say that a mech of this size would be extremely inefficient to fight in a battlefield on planet Earth, due, also, to bogging problems caused by its massive weight and inefficient weight distribution.
I trust evolution: A human shape is efficient to substain a human (180 cm x 80 kgs), maybe the same shape it's not so efficient in substaining a 100 tons x 30 mt robot...

Back to my point, as I said in battletech novels and in the TT BT game mech's knock down is a feature. I do not mind if it's realistic or not: For me the whole concept of gigantic battling mech is silly from a military point of view, so I have no problem to use the "suspension of disbelief" also to accept knock downs.
So, I can understand if someone don't want this feature because there could be issues (exploits, etc), I cannot understand how one could speak against this game feature citing physic.
Real physic? In MWO?
MWO with realistic physic would be totally unplayable, knockdown would be the last of its problem.
YMMV, of course.

Cheers,
D.

Edited by invernomuto, 03 June 2016 - 04:46 AM.

[Zigmund Freud]

invernomuto, on 02 June 2016 - 05:35 AM, said:

Could you please elaborate this point?

any impulse cause equal impulse in opposit direction. If you hit a mech with projectile, that have enough impulse to knock it down, your own mech recived an equal impulse when you fired, and you get knocked down. That what he means anyway.

(There can be way around it, like say PPC fire for some short period of time with small portions of particles, and each next portion is faster and hit the target simultaniously, so for one who fire it's impulse is not so concentrated. Or any other space magic mambo-jambo. After all we are not dealing with 100% acurate physics here)

[Zigmund Freud]

Howly cow, this looks awesome. I mean I've read this thread, and thought knockdown always loocked glitchy and crappy, but in fact both fall and rising animation were grate. If this mechanics were fixed up and returned in MWo it would tremendously improve the game, I'm telling you. It would make you feel that you actually pilot walking mech, not just a tall tank.