"neckbeard physics" with some actual math > random guy claiming that a ~140kg (most likely much less) shell being fired from a 35,000kg mech should cause said mech to go flying backwards at the same speed of the shell because he says so...
Also making a fuel tank twice as big will make it hold....twice as much.
You're thinking of making something twice as tall while keeping scale. That is when you get 8 times as much. But that is because the object is actually 8 times the volume, even though its surface area is only 4 times as much.
Hilarious. twice as big, it's a three dimensional object; twice the length(2) twice the width(4) twice the depth(8), that's 8 times the volume. This is why I place little faith in your math(you try to talk about scale and equivalence when you don't understand the first thing about it), besides the fact that its a sci-fi game, and as others have stated, your point is completely moot.
Edited by Drunken Skull, 15 August 2016 - 05:57 AM.
Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself. And that's coming from someone who posts anime gifs on forums regularly.
Not very good at providing "constructive" criticism are you? I'd suggest you don't try to tell me what to do.
Saint Scarlett Johan, on 14 August 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:
Dude, just stop. The more you talk, the less intelligent you sound
Try taking your own advice.
AnarchyBurger, on 14 August 2016 - 12:39 PM, said:
Lets debate reality in a sci-fi fantasy game... Seriously in all these debates about recoil your not even thinking about the whole different planet/gravity/temperature thing. The whole concept of everything is out of whack from reality so its a moot point. Things in this game are based on a GAME balance issue, not reality balance. So yeah, just stop....
^THIS
Edited by Drunken Skull, 15 August 2016 - 05:51 AM.
I like how some people still complain about certain lights yet no one really pilots them. They always have the least population in the ques outside of events. The Cheetahs are fine or should we all play assault warrior online?
You must have forgotten that YOU are the one who brought up the light mech firing an AC20 realism debate.
Nice try though.
Actually no I wasn't... Nice try though.
Here is the OP;
Yeonne Greene, on 12 August 2016 - 11:07 PM, said:
2. Assault and Heavy 'Mechs are Cheating in the game. In reality-based scenario's having a bunch of high-recoil weapons mounted up near the top and fired in unison would cause it to topple over or at least stagger from the sudden, sharp application of torque at the end of a long moment arm with an inherently unstable base. They can also mount these guns in flimsy humanoid arms, which by nature of having so many joints would actually make such a thing untenable. They can also bring LRMs, which are so tiny that you get 180 of these things capable of four times the range of SRMs despite the latter being physically larger. It may as well be powered by Alien UFO fuel. Finally, they can boat Large Lasers, which are gamma ray lasers, which means they shouldn't work at all in the atmosphere except to give everybody cancer because wavelengths over UV just scatter unless it's in a vacuum. Your Large Lasers should only work on HPG and Vitric.
Edited by Drunken Skull, 15 August 2016 - 08:01 AM.
Drunken Skull, on 15 August 2016 - 07:58 AM, said:
..
Actually no I wasn't... Nice try though.
Here is the OP;
Drunken Skull, on 12 August 2016 - 11:52 PM, said:
PMSL at the idea of a AC20 Raven if there were realistic recoil, the Raven would go backwards as fast as the shell going forwards.
Hmmm..
Bonus for making the first "Light mechs are unrealistic" claim:
Drunken Skull, on 12 August 2016 - 08:15 PM, said:
2. Light mechs are Cheating in the game. In all reality-based scenario's when a fast moving object changes direction rapidly it must bleed off the momentum it had in the original vector. Light mechs in this game don't, they don't spin out, they don't slide out, they don't drift, and they don't fall over. You may as well have chopped their legs off and replaced them with an Alien UFO, cause that's the physics-defying **** they're able to pull off.
That moment when a troll post goes deadly serious...@_@
Drunken Skull, on 12 August 2016 - 11:52 PM, said:
Traditionally mounting a Gauss Rifle on a medium mech is supposed to result in comical situations regarding the amount of recoil these weapons are touted to have. Even the Hollander had to "Assume the position" before firing, to avoid being catapulted 3 hexes back IIRC(The Goliath is traditionally the only IS mech that is supposed to field this weapon with any amount of success due to the recoil). It's a very good point that needs to be raised and addressed. There are a multitude of situations that this mechanic/effect could solve, that are currently being band-aid patched with ghost heat and heat sink nerfs(not to mention the dodgy gauss charge up mechanic). Have the 6 ERPPC Stalker fall on it's arse from the recoil of an alpha, would have been a far more elegant fix than ghost heat ever was.
Ignoring for a second that I am pointing out how foolish it is to decry the lack of realism in Lights when it exists on all of the classes, I also never mentioned Mediums. Kudos for recognizing that a PPC should impart a recoil force, though, most don't.
Quote
PMSL at the idea of a AC20 Raven if there were realistic recoil, the Raven would go backwards as fast as the shell going forwards.
Others already answered this.
Quote
As for Lasers not working in atmosphere, sorry to burst your bubble here but they do work in atmosphere. Various Military's around the world have developed and are already now using air-borne and ship-borne laser systems to attack missiles and UAV's.
There is no mention of the Atmospheric limitations of Grazers here, not sure where you coined this info from. Care to share your info source? https://en.wikipedia...Gamma-ray_laser
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I never said lasers in general won't work in atmosphere, I was quite specific on type. And if you know anything about gamma rays, you know that they are absorbed by atmosphere, which is why even short distances between yourself and a radiation source are so effective at reducing the received dosage. You can just look up "gamma rays" and "electromagnetic spectrum" on Wikipedia to find that out. Similar applies to very short UV and X-rays. In addition, it is extremely difficult to build a laser in high energy X-ray or in gamma bands because they tend to transmute materials around them into other things, reducing performance and lifetime of the weapon.
Finally, our current lasers emit an infrared beam at 30 kW. They choose IR because it has terrific attenuation properties owing to long wavelength and it is higher energy than, say, radio waves.
Go look up Project Rho. It is a fascinating website.
Yeonne Greene, on 15 August 2016 - 09:13 AM, said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I never said lasers in general won't work in atmosphere, I was quite specific on type. And if you know anything about gamma rays, you know that they are absorbed by atmosphere, which is why even short distances between yourself and a radiation source are so effective at reducing the received dosage. You can just look up "gamma rays" and "electromagnetic spectrum" on Wikipedia to find that out. Similar applies to very short UV and X-rays. In addition, it is extremely difficult to build a laser in high energy X-ray or in gamma bands because they tend to transmute materials around them into other things, reducing performance and lifetime of the weapon.
To correct a bit, 'gamma laser', while having an existing term and being strongly wanted, does not exist in the reality for warious reasons. Absorption... Erm. If we talk of low energy gamma rays, then we talk about hundred meters in the air, higher energy gamma rays have free path of kilometers. So standing next to ther gamma ray source is strongly not advised. The what distance do is reducing you angular size from gamma rays source view point (back-proportionally to the R^2), thus lowering the dosage. The gama rays absorption in the air is negligible in practice. You might've mistken them with alpha rays that have a meter or two travel distance in the air and can be stopped by a paper list (while being tremendeously more dangerous is ingested or inhaled or just getting on skin).
The X-ray laser is on the contrary does exist. But is ineffective due to the scattering and air ionization, not absorption (well, unless you deliberately target one of the oxygen, ozon or nitrogen absorption lines). For UV and visible light the scattering is the main factor, true.
As to transmutations of materials under X-rays... Well, thats not true and cannot be true. You can degrade organic materials, but won't be able to convert elements (so alloys stay as they are). And gamma rays just degrade material faster. And rarely cause nuclear fission reactions and definately do not cause fusion. The reason they are not built is that there is no known elements with metastable energy levels and no known 'mirrors' to create a stable gamma field. Probably, this problem is even physically unsolvable, but cannot guarantee that.
Drunken Skull, on 15 August 2016 - 05:39 AM, said:
Hilarious. twice as big, it's a three dimensional object; twice the length(2) twice the width(4) twice the depth(8), that's 8 times the volume. This is why I place little faith in your math(you try to talk about scale and equivalence when you don't understand the first thing about it), besides the fact that its a sci-fi game, and as others have stated, your point is completely moot.
1. yeah 3d object...Kind of the whole point and exactly what I was talking about. Note the use of the square cube law in my post.... As in when you make it twice the length(2) twice the width(4) twice the depth(8), that's 8 times the volume so it is 8x as big not 2x as big. Making a fuel tank twice as big doesn't make it hold 8x as much since you wouldn't be making every side 2x. Making a fuel tank twice as big on a side and keeping proportions (or said as scaled up by a factor of 2) makes it hold 8x as much because it is 8x as big.
But whatever, not really important (you didn't really expand on it beyond throwing out the example anyways), maybe just semantics, or maybe we just shouldn't be using the word big in this context.
2. Yeah sci-fi game...again kind of the whole point. You keep going on about realistic physics despite stating completely false physics and not showing any math (not able to?) even when asked multiple times. But as you have now realized...this is a game so your earlier statements on "realistic physics" while wrong didn't matter either way. Even if it had been right it was moot anyways. So like I told you before, now that you understand this maybe you will understand game balance. And that is the important part. Good job.
Saint Scarlett Johan, on 14 August 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:
Dude, just stop. The more you talk, the less intelligent you sound. Volume has not even started to become relevant to this discussion, so I have no idea where you got this from.
It's pretty impressive, actually. He started out sounding kinda dumb, but in his haste to support his ridiculous ideas he's gone so far afield with rampant idiocy it's crossed the line into hilarity.
I love how, in his haste to make a (thinly veiled) complaint that lights are OP and ruining the game, he keeps bringing up analogies and such that not only don't help his case but each manages to make him look worse than the last.
Quote
Yes, there are only five shots per tonne in TT, also irrelevant as there are only ten shots per tonne for an AC10 yet here we have twenty to account for the doubling of armor values.
650m/s is "MWO-Only-Specific" that PGI "has made up?" Dude, are fncking high?
The M107 HEDP 155mm howitzer shell weighs in at 41.86kg. The recoil produced from the firing of a single MACS charge (Charge 1) at 0 degree QE is 15.1m/s against the hydraulic recoil dampening system. The muzzle velocity of that round is ~450m/s.
Here is a video of one of my friends howitzers (the woodland one) and mine (the tan one) firing a Charge 2 fire mission (in case you don't know, Charge 2 is twice the powder charge). The muzzle velocity of the round is about 690m/s with a Charge 2 and the M109A6 weighs in at just over 27 tonnes.
A Charge 1 in the real world is about 2.5kgs to get a 42kg projectile moving at 450m/s. A Charge two will get it moving 690m/s, which means that the powder charge is about 32% the weight of the projectile.
So back to one tonne of AC20 ammo, the projectile weight would be ~98kg and the appropriate powder charge around 45kg. And that's assuming separate powder charge and projectile and not a fully self contained shell. Which is unlikely as having separate shells from charges is a needlessly complex way of doing things. So a casing would be another 25% of the weight (by comparing the weights of modern cannon ammunition) so now we're looking at 60kg projo, a 35kg casing, 45kgs of propellant.
Still want to say a Raven would fall on it's *** from firing an AC20?
[citation needed]*
*Don't bother, I'm artillery in the real world and you clearly are poorly read regarding ballistics.
Context of said quote is in regards to how battle rifles handle differently from hunting weapons, 1/10 for the effort.
EDIT:
Also UM-R60L would like a word with you.
You're clearly a math-using neckbeard artilleryman.
My favourite: calling people "neckbeards" for using facts and math against him, while the only thing he's supporting his arguments with is random bits of fluff from Battletech novels. +3 internets for unintentional irony.
Edit: Also, firing those howitzers looks incredibly fun. For reals. Jealousy is being had.
Edit: Also, firing those howitzers looks incredibly fun. For reals. Jealousy is being had.
They were loads of fun. That is, until it was time to clean them. Then life sucked for about two days. Some of my uniforms have a permanent gunpowder smell to them, which is nice...
Drunken Skull, on 15 August 2016 - 05:47 AM, said:
Try taking your own advice.
I took my advice years ago by not acting like I knew what was going on when I had no clue. You obviously missed that part of growing up and it's serving to embarrass you greatly now.
Applicable for you:
Edited by Saint Scarlett Johan, 15 August 2016 - 02:45 PM.
I read some posts in this thread and came to the conclusion that all rank 1 players i saw said, that lights are too weak and the ACH is the only mech that is at an ok point.
This leads to the assumption that people who complain are of lower rank and might suck. Now think about it, who should a game be balanced for? Good players and people playing a lot or some dorks and newbs?
I read some posts in this thread and came to the conclusion that all rank 1 players i saw said, that lights are too weak and the ACH is the only mech that is at an ok point.
This leads to the assumption that people who complain are of lower rank and might suck. Now think about it, who should a game be balanced for? Good players and people playing a lot or some dorks and newbs?
I'd guess they are trying to balance for all of them. I think that is part of the problem. Also good players in bad mechs will generally beat bad players in the best mechs almost everytime. Put those good players in the top meta mechs match after match and you get a perception of imbalance, and an invitation for a nerffing. Meh.
I read some posts in this thread and came to the conclusion that all rank 1 players i saw said, that lights are too weak and the ACH is the only mech that is at an ok point.
This leads to the assumption that people who complain are of lower rank and might suck. Now think about it, who should a game be balanced for? Good players and people playing a lot or some dorks and newbs?
It should be balanced for.everyone, or at least as much as possible.
However, in this instance the ACH isn't OP at any level. It's the best light, but even at low end play it's definitely not an iwin button. Lights are hard to play well, and that applies at all levels of play.
If lights where dominant at low end play, you'd see a hell of a lot more of them in the queues and that simply isn't the case.
So, in this instance, meeting it isn't the right approach. They should be buffing the other lights, virtually all of which are horrible.
If this leads to more people playing lights, that's a good thing.
If it's tough for bad assault pilots, they can L2P. You don't need to be faxing to fend of lights in an assault.
You can't balance purely for the very top, but you definitely cannot balance for people who are unwilling to learn basic piloting/gunnery skills - that way lies madness.
12
dario03, on 14 August 2016 - 06:56 PM, said:
