94 replies to this topic

[Navid A1]

Procurator Derek, on 25 June 2016 - 01:31 AM, said:

Interesting, just one, slight problem.

How do you explain the fact that they don't go slower when arcing up, but yet they speed up while arcing down?

See what I mean? It's flawed, but not entirely. If they could code it to increase velocity on the downside, it'd make more sense.

Because downward forces applies in physics for projectiles, no?

Actually not.... the thruster is powerful enough to keep the missile accelerating.

[Mcchuggernaut]

So yet again it's plain to see the larger LRM classes still need a missile spread reduction...

[Gorgo7]

One thing at a time concerning missiles.
First and easiest would be to reduce the spread of that 10 TON weapon system known as the LRM 20...say the same as the LRM 10.
A good place to begin. Same with the LRM 15 and the 5 as well.

[Belacose]

Personally I hope they never buff LRM. Things are already annoying enough as is. On certain maps like Polar Highlands i get tired of repeatedly shutting my mech down and back on.

Yes, I'm biased as I don't really see myself ever having any desire to play LRM boats. Too boring.

[Belacose]

Sader, you don't sound Canadian but have a ping lower than 25 which is about 5 times better than poor Alistair Winter who was on your team in that last Frozen City match.

In that Shadow Cat you seemed to have darn near the whole enemy team chasing after you. Dude didn't enjoy your robbing him of the kill with your suicide. lol

[Davegt27]

The game is controlled by the computer as soon as you say something PGI will change it just to prove you wrong

[Novakaine]

Procurator Derek, on 25 June 2016 - 01:31 AM, said:

Interesting, just one, slight problem.

How do you explain the fact that they don't go slower when arcing up, but yet they speed up while arcing down?

See what I mean? It's flawed, but not entirely. If they could code it to increase velocity on the downside, it'd make more sense.

Because downward forces applies in physics for projectiles, no?

Yup let's not discount gravity effect of mass.

[wanderer]

Procurator Derek, on 24 June 2016 - 08:57 PM, said:

A good fix, however we shouldn't be quick to dismiss the fact that if we have the same cone for the clan 20 as the clan 5, you suddenly start obsoleting the 5.

Untrue, thanks to the LRM 5 having higher ROF and less weight.

But accuracy has been the most nagging problem for LRMs. Poor clustering for larger launchers, poor velocity meaning it's effective range is nowhere near it's real one.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Procurator Derek, on 24 June 2016 - 08:57 PM, said:

A good fix, however we shouldn't be quick to dismiss the fact that if we have the same cone for the clan 20 as the clan 5, you suddenly start obsoleting the 5.

Only on mechs that have the tonnage to carry anything bigger.....

Which is the point.

Small launchers for mechs with small tonnage, large launchers for mechs with large tonnage.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Novakaine, on 25 June 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

Yup let's not discount gravity effect of mass.

They probably don't to code in acceleration.....static velocity is just a number...acceleration is a function that has to be tracked for every volley based on trajectory peak height from target.

(b/c the thrust should shut off at peak height, letting gravity take over for the most part)

Edited by Ex Atlas Overlord, 25 June 2016 - 11:18 AM.

[Scout Derek]

Ex Atlas Overlord, on 25 June 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

They probably don't to code in acceleration.....static velocity is just a number...acceleration is a function that has to be tracked for every volley based on trajectory peak height from target.

(b/c the thrust should shut off at peak height, letting gravity take over for the most part)

Would that mean that their modified cry engine is limited in what it can do in terms of this?

Because yeah. Acceleration is a pain as well, because in this situation, always change. Painful, but I think it can be done. Unless, again, limits in this engine considering its modified

wanderer, on 25 June 2016 - 09:35 AM, said:

Untrue, thanks to the LRM 5 having higher ROF and less weight.

But accuracy has been the most nagging problem for LRMs. Poor clustering for larger launchers, poor velocity meaning it's effective range is nowhere near it's real one.

Ex Atlas Overlord, on 25 June 2016 - 11:09 AM, said:

Only on mechs that have the tonnage to carry anything bigger.....

Which is the point.

Small launchers for mechs with small tonnage, large launchers for mechs with large tonnage.

I said so because, in all seriousness, and earlier, there's going to be someone, hell, a group of people, that will come here from nowhere and start complaining about the change.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Procurator Derek, on 25 June 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

Would that mean that their modified cry engine is limited in what it can do in terms of this?

Because yeah. Acceleration is a pain as well, because in this situation, always change. Painful, but I think it can be done. Unless, again, limits in this engine considering its modified

I said so because, in all seriousness, and earlier, there's going to be someone, hell, a group of people, that will come here from nowhere and start complaining about the change.

1) I have no idea, I'm not a programmer....I just know (some) physics.

2) We(the MWO community) will always complain about any change....somehow.

[Scout Derek]

Ex Atlas Overlord, on 25 June 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

1) I have no idea, I'm not a programmer....I just know (some) physics.

2) We(the MWO community) will always complain about any change....somehow.

Filthy casual, hardcore people only. (Joking)

Meanwhile, Sader still lurks.

Or he's asleep, or not there, just left his computer on the page...

[smokytehbear]

Novakaine, on 25 June 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

Yup let's not discount gravity effect of mass.

While it's definitely there, gravity just isn't exceptionally relevant in this case because the magnitude of force is very very small comparatively. Thrust and drag are the two most important concerns for sure, and the thrust while the missile is facing up will overpower gravity's minimal acceleration in short order, while the drag will overpower it's benefit while the missile faces down.

That said, I can't tell if the mock up diagram is talking about the missile's path speed or it's speed over ground. "Wasting" a great deal of thrust through the arc's y-axis would definitely reduce it's effective speed when just considering your distance from the enemy. Actually, I don't know that it does/doesn't do this already. Could be an explanation for why it feels so slow shooting beyond 600m.

The other thing is why have a piecewise function for it's velocity? This game loves piecewise functions and I never understood it. Practically nothing in reality works that way. If the missile accelerates leaving the tube, let it accelerate. The drag increase from increasing velocity should if anything make this an asymptotic growth function, not a piecewise flat to linear one.

[wanderer]

Procurator Derek, on 25 June 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

I said so because, in all seriousness, and earlier, there's going to be someone, hell, a group of people, that will come here from nowhere and start complaining about the change.

What complaint? I'd just like the same chance to hit with my LRM 15 as I do with my LRM 5, and for both to not take glacial progress towards their targets. I suppose I'm complaining there IS no change.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

smokytehbear, on 25 June 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:

While it's definitely there, gravity just isn't exceptionally relevant in this case because the magnitude of force is very very small comparatively. Thrust and drag are the two most important concerns for sure, and the thrust while the missile is facing up will overpower gravity's minimal acceleration in short order, while the drag will overpower it's benefit while the missile faces down.

F(air resistance) is just = Some constant (air density*drag*area / 2)(velocity^2)

So it's still just a constant by the velocity function...

The real question is are they going to take the time to code in a function for acceleration (and thus velocity)

[Scout Derek]

wanderer, on 25 June 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

What complaint? I'd just like the same chance to hit with my LRM 15 as I do with my LRM 5, and for both to not take glacial progress towards their targets. I suppose I'm complaining there IS no change.

http://mwomercs.com/...-is-hardpoints/

Like I said, people will complain about anything they don't like.

[smokytehbear]

Ex Atlas Overlord, on 25 June 2016 - 12:45 PM, said:

F(air resistance) is just = Some constant (air density*drag*area / 2)(velocity^2)

So it's still just a constant by the velocity function...

The real question is are they going to take the time to code in a function for acceleration (and thus velocity)

Not sure what you mean by this. My point was that gravity becomes a superfluous detail when concerned with missiles going mach something. Real missiles have thousands of pounds of force behind them so the thrust easily overpowers the gravity on the way up. Now of course missiles in this game are dirt slow but yeah...

And they can easily code in acceleration. They've essentially done so for the flamers. After a certain amount of time active, the rate of heat generation increases linearly, making the heat accumulation (analogous to distance in this case) exponentially grow. If they can do functions for second derivatives in that case, you could for missiles too. Now of course differential equations like with drag would be a little tougher but still manageable, or at least representable by a simpler function that approximates it.

Was trying to post a picture of the heat functions for flamers from my guide but apparently the forum doesn't support PNGs. Click the link in my signature if you're curious.

Edited by smokytehbear, 25 June 2016 - 01:01 PM.

[Alex Morgaine]

.05 second per volley maybe? Could set the atlas back to its 5 tube side launcher like lore

Procurator Derek, on 24 June 2016 - 09:26 PM, said:

That would be a good way.to balance them, considering that a lighter launcher should be able to launch its Missiles faster than a larger launcher.

So you either get smaller, faster, and hotter LRMs, or you get the bigger, slower, less hot LRMs.

Now, we would have to worry about the mechs with +Missile Velocity quirks, considering if a mech gets +20% Missile velocity, or even a 10%, 40% Missile Velocity is mind of scary, if you don't have AMS, even with Radar Deprivation, you've got LRMs that can hit you within 2-5 Seconds if you're within 400-600M of them. (I could be wrong about the speed and time they come at you though).



Probably a .3 Second Delay from each volley, right? Guessing because you didn't specify the delay time.

Requirking would be needed obviously

[Navid A1]

smokytehbear, on 25 June 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:

While it's definitely there, gravity just isn't exceptionally relevant in this case because the magnitude of force is very very small comparatively. Thrust and drag are the two most important concerns for sure, and the thrust while the missile is facing up will overpower gravity's minimal acceleration in short order, while the drag will overpower it's benefit while the missile faces down.

That said, I can't tell if the mock up diagram is talking about the missile's path speed or it's speed over ground. "Wasting" a great deal of thrust through the arc's y-axis would definitely reduce it's effective speed when just considering your distance from the enemy. Actually, I don't know that it does/doesn't do this already. Could be an explanation for why it feels so slow shooting beyond 600m.

The other thing is why have a piecewise function for it's velocity? This game loves piecewise functions and I never understood it. Practically nothing in reality works that way. If the missile accelerates leaving the tube, let it accelerate. The drag increase from increasing velocity should if anything make this an asymptotic growth function, not a piecewise flat to linear one.

That mock up i made a while back was just some quick thinking into this. Didn't go through small details.
I guess constant acceleration can work better than a piece-wise function... the concept was to have some form of acceleration to make this weapon system viable beyond 600m, without changing its current flight times for short range use.

The speed currently listed for LRMs is the flight path speed (not speed on x axis). That is why the missile takes so much time to reach its target. The speed I listed is also for the flight path... to somehow compensate for the flight path arc.



Spread is the other major concern... the main reason behind LRM20 and LRM15 inferiority is that mind-blowing huge spread:

Current spread: