52 replies to this topic

[BLOOD WOLF]

http://www.popsci.co...g-railgun-ocean

The only thing that is important in that article(Also Science is cool), is that their is a cost to running that railgun. Its not energy free.

The same thing goes for AC's

Also lets talk a bit about energy for a bit. Although its an unlimited supply, the mechanisms for storing energy are limited. Even a nuclear power plant can store so much and generate so much at at time. Without making things to complicated, and their are better sources to explain this. The Current ED system does at least make scientific sense, and can be demonstrated to be so, definitely de-bunking certain claims that it makes no sense.

Remember, Heat can be and is always a by-product in the BT universe when it comes to battlemechs.

As long as it requires energy, It's ED

[SlightlyMobileTurret]

The issue is that Railguns take SIGNIFICANT amounts of energy to run. Sort of like B'tech PPCs.

Autocannons on the other hand, come with their own propellant. They're not taking any energy from the engine except ...firing pin level?

It's the combustion of the propellant that propels the ballistic and generates heat, and ideally, all the energy that is drawn from the engine is to keep the autoloader running - which I assure you, modern tanks have no issue supplying.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Keshav Murali, on 27 August 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

The issue is that Railguns take SIGNIFICANT amounts of energy to run. Sort of like B'tech PPCs.

Autocannons on the other hand, come with their own propellant. They're not taking any energy from the engine except ...firing pin level?

It's the combustion of the propellant that propels the ballistic and generates heat, and ideally, all the energy that is drawn from the engine is to keep the autoloader running - which I assure you, modern tanks have no issue supplying.

Thats true, I have to do more reasearch.

The only thing to take note, would be the size, and energy needed to get the distance. The mechanism is what I need to look at.

It still would require energy to be put in to get an output

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 27 August 2016 - 06:29 PM.

[Davers]

Why are we trying to use real world science to justify anything here?

[KriegSturm]

Keshav Murali, on 27 August 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

The issue is that Railguns take SIGNIFICANT amounts of energy to run. Sort of like B'tech PPCs.

Autocannons on the other hand, come with their own propellant. They're not taking any energy from the engine except ...firing pin level?

It's the combustion of the propellant that propels the ballistic and generates heat, and ideally, all the energy that is drawn from the engine is to keep the autoloader running - which I assure you, modern tanks have no issue supplying.

Well we could say the energy is being drawn by the servos and actuators that move and stabilize the mech, hence the complete lack of recoil when you fire. It isn't a perfect explanation, but with a little handwavium it works.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Davers, on 27 August 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

Why are we trying to use real world science to justify anything here?

Because its Blood Wolf. Theres a reason he's one of four posters (in all the time Ive been here) that when they post all I see is

Quote

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by BLOOD WOLF. View it anyway?

[Felicitatem Parco]

BLOOD WOLF, on 27 August 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

http://www.popsci.co...g-railgun-ocean

The only thing that is important in that article(Also Science is cool), is that their is a cost to running that railgun. Its not energy free.

The same thing goes for AC's

Also lets talk a bit about energy for a bit. Although its an unlimited supply, the mechanisms for storing energy are limited. Even a nuclear power plant can store so much and generate so much at at time. Without making things to complicated, and their are better sources to explain this. The Current ED system does at least make scientific sense, and can be demonstrated to be so, definitely de-bunking certain claims that it makes no sense.

Remember, Heat can be and is always a by-product in the BT universe when it comes to battlemechs.

As long as it requires energy, It's ED

I know you are posting this specifically because people like me are saying that firing missiles and smokeless-powder based weapons does not consume anything near comparable amounts of energy as firing electromagneticly-powered weapons (lasers, Gauss, PPCs).

However the OP will simply not admit that the reloading mechanism of an autocannon and the small spark needed to ignite a missile booster requires next-to-no energy compared to "Energy Weapons."

It's sad.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 27 August 2016 - 07:21 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

The trolls are near. Anyways I was thinking about energy, and using real world counterparts, I concluded that the Gauss is comparable with energy draw.

The UAC's and ACS, I need more research and data to see if ED can at least explain how they work with Autocannons.

So i need to think about the mechanism, the size, the force needed to do what needs to be done.

The more I think about it, it's literally all energy anyway.

Keep trolling mechwarrior Buddah, your buddies can't possibly like you anymore as it is.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 27 August 2016 - 07:39 PM.

[MauttyKoray]

KriegSturm, on 27 August 2016 - 07:06 PM, said:

Well we could say the energy is being drawn by the servos and actuators that move and stabilize the mech, hence the complete lack of recoil when you fire. It isn't a perfect explanation, but with a little handwavium it works.

This actually makes the most sense of the thread so far, Ballistics create 'force' which would cause the mechs to compensate and have to draw additional energy when firing to accomodate for the recoil and keep a mech's aim steady.

[Felicitatem Parco]

BLOOD WOLF, on 27 August 2016 - 07:38 PM, said:

The trolls are near. Anyways I was thinking about energy, and using real world counterparts, I concluded that the Gauss is comparable with energy draw.

The UAC's and ACS, I need more research and data to see if ED can at least explain how they work with Autocannons.

So i need to think about the mechanism, the size, the force needed to do what needs to be done.

The more I think about it, it's literally all energy anyway.

Keep trolling mechwarrior Buddah, your buddies can't possibly like you anymore as it is.

Dude...

You CAN'T explain Energy Draw n the context of missiles, autocannons, particle projectors, gauss rifles, and lasers.

Look, I'm a geek. A nerd. I used to work in research laboratories; now I work for a laboratory equipment manufacturer. I am a member of multiple honor societies, an avid hunter, and grew up on educational television and books. I took Organic Chemistry for fun in college, and I know more about the ballistic performance ratios of 5.56mm -> .243 cal -> 7.62 mm than most people even think is marginally relevant to consider. I understand how HEAT warheads operate and how it's exactly the same as the tools used by the technicians that drop the old mob-ran Las Vegas Casinos. I know several different ways how our society has attempted to perform nuclear fusion, how analytical laboratory mass spectrometers (like the ones I used to use) operate under the same principles as PPCs from the BattleTech universe, and how Flamers could never possibly produce smoke and yellow/orange flame like a chemical flame-thrower.


Also, I sound like a huge pompous d-bag.


But, my point is that PGI invented a Mechanism that is in no way founded upon a physical mechanism. It's pure video game Handwavium. It's a game mechanism.

And ya know what? That fact really has no impact on whether or not it's good/healthy for the game. I know this is supposed to be simulator-esque, but it's also based on a fictional futuristic space opera IP. You ca't anchor everything in realty. This is true for SciFi and for video games.




Here's my point: Energy Draw is about as realistic as those red blood vessels that start filling up your screen as you take damage in a FPS. You know, when your "shields" are down and you start taking real damage to your person? The red blood vessels get bigger, and you start to hear your heart pounding, and you hear yourself panting for air... and then you find some cover to hid behind, and your health starts coming back. When you wait long enough, you recover full health despite the fact that you got shot several times by a gun...?

Yeah. Energy Draw is about as realistic as that.

Does it mean it breaks the game? No.



Those kinds of unrealistic things are often very good for video gameplay. It makes the game more enjoyable when you selectively break physics in order facilitate "a good time." I can't really say it would kick-*** to play a true MechWarrior simulator because there's a good chance I would suffer severe tissue damage or even death if it were truly realistic. Maybe an extreme point, but breaking physics can sometimes be a good thing.

Now, are there other ways that the "high-alpha problem" could have been addressed? Surely Yes. Does the energy draw feature help the game in the absence of any other firepower-limiting features, given the current level of convergence in the game...? (note, you have to make arguments in that context - the presence of the current convergence system, not some theoretical land where it does not exist)

I think it makes the game more forgiving to those who are caught at unawares, and it's not more unrealistic than current Ghost Heat. There is no reason in the universe why firing 2 LPL and 1 ERLL would generate a heat tax when firing 2 LPL and 6ML would not.

So, out with the old, in with the new, hope it gets better.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 27 August 2016 - 08:22 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

by kerensky dude?

First and foremost, this is a game. So finding a balance in the game is more important than relating it to Real-world physics.

I also do not know much about organic chemistry, but I did study a bit on Newtons laws, and The laws of conversation of energy. Name I was using the Law of Conservation of energy as a basis for justification. This is a game in the end.

I do not agree that one can not explain the concepts of PPC's or Lasers in the context of ED. I also believe that you can at least reconcile AC's and Missles with ED. The concepts are not far off.

As a matter of fact ED itself is a much simpler system, that works better In my view in explaining the reasoning for heat spikes.

I was actually looking at the number of weapons made, going back as far as the 18th century. The only thing I can conduce is that Energy is a requirement.

Without getting too complex, We can at least say the mechanisms that drive the battlemech to work require some form of energy.

I just need to take a look at Auto-cannons a bit more.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 27 August 2016 - 08:26 PM.

[Novakaine]

Bloodwolf every thing requires some form energy to operate.
Some weapons will require more some less.
Ballistics will require less I know you hate that fact,
So even in a video game your beloved medium pulse laser is going to use more and generate more heat.
Basic science man.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Novakaine, on 27 August 2016 - 08:26 PM, said:

Bloodwolf every thing requires some form energy to operate.
Some weapons will require more some less.

actually I will just take this.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 27 August 2016 - 08:34 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

BLOOD WOLF, on 27 August 2016 - 08:22 PM, said:

by kerensky dude?

First and foremost, this is a game. So finding a balance in the game is more important than relating it to Real-world physics.

I also do not know much about organic chemistry, but I did study a bit on Newtons laws, and The laws of conversation of energy. Name I was using the Law of Conservation of energy as a basis for justification. This is a game in the end.

I do not agree that one can not explain the concepts of PPC's or Lasers in the context of ED. I also believe that you can at least reconcile AC's and Missles with ED. The concepts are not far off.

As a matter of fact ED itself is a much simpler system, that works better In my view in explaining the reasoning for heat spikes.

I was actually looking at the number of weapons made, going back as far as the 18th century. The only thing I can conduce is that Energy is a requirement.

Without getting too complex, We can at least say the mechanisms that drive the battlemech to work require some form of energy.

I just need to take a look at Auto-cannons a bit more.

The Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 30mm autocannon is a 100% mechanically operated dual-barrel gun with a recoil-operated cycling and feeding mechanism. It's used on Soviet attack craft, shoots depleted uranium slugs at up to 3000 rounds per minute.

You can practically operate it with a freaking 9V battery. It would have ZERO energy draw on a futuristic nuclear reactor, yet is equivalent to a AC/2 or an AC/5.

Zero draw.

How many examples do you need to see (I can pull them out of my butt left-and-right) before you believe that Energy Draw is fictional?

(remember, fictionality and utility in game are not correlated)

Edited by Prosperity Park, 27 August 2016 - 08:36 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Prosperity Park, on 27 August 2016 - 08:33 PM, said:

The Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 30mm autocannon is a 100% mechanically operated dual-barrel gun with a recoil-operated cycling and feeding mechanism. It's used on Soviet attack craft, shoots depleted uranium slugs at up to 3000 rounds per minute.

You can practically operate it with a freaking 9V battery. It would have ZERO energy draw on a futuristic nuclear reactor, yet is equivalent to a AC/2 or an AC/5.

Zero draw.

yea, I was actually looking at the weapons built by the Japanese In WWII, because they I believe still hold the record for the largest AC's in history.

It does require energy, that is the point. Now maybe a AC/2 is fair, but AC/5 and above I can't find anything in battletech that will give me the data i need.

It's not energy neutral, that is for sure.

Largest being a 57 MM Ho-401 cannon(Japanese) which was 330 pounds, and auto-cannon 2 is 12000 pounds.

If anybody can get better data and post it that would be cool. I do not think I got the weight exactly right

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 27 August 2016 - 08:48 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

My point was because this guy doesnt so much as argue, as presents an opinion and will not waver from that opinion even in the face of having been entirely proven wrong.

Hence, the ignore function lol

[BLOOD WOLF]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 27 August 2016 - 08:49 PM, said:

My point was because this guy doesnt so much as argue, as presents an opinion and will not waver from that opinion even in the face of having been entirely proven wrong.

Hence, the ignore function lol

Is there something wrong you?

Guy has me on ignore and yet he comes and comments on a thread I made.

Seriously, Something is wrong with you.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 27 August 2016 - 08:52 PM.

[KriegSturm]

Prosperity Park, on 27 August 2016 - 08:33 PM, said:

The Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 30mm autocannon is a 100% mechanically operated dual-barrel gun with a recoil-operated cycling and feeding mechanism. It's used on Soviet attack craft, shoots depleted uranium slugs at up to 3000 rounds per minute.

You can practically operate it with a freaking 9V battery. It would have ZERO energy draw on a futuristic nuclear reactor, yet is equivalent to a AC/2 or an AC/5.

Zero draw.

How many examples do you need to see (I can pull them out of my butt left-and-right) before you believe that Energy Draw is fictional?

(remember, fictionality and utility in game are not correlated)

AC20s are rather large cannons, with projectile diameters up to 200mm (depending on the manufacturer). Newtons 3rd law and all that means that a considerable amount of force is going to be exerted on the mech when it is fired. Since most mechs don't equip AC20s on their feet, but rather high up off the ground, this force is going to translate into torque.

Now, I have never had my mech bend over backwards after firing an AC20, so this means that torque is being countered by the motors and actuators that help hold my mech upright. I am going to assume those motors are powered by the same energy the main reactor generates, and therefore the same energy that feeds the energy capacitor.

Since countering the recoil torque would cause a sudden load spike on the motors, the best source to feed them would be the energy capacitor (that is kinda what capacitors are made for). So there you go, a reasonable explanation.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Quote

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by BLOOD WOLF. View it anyway?

Sorry, didnt catch that

[Felicitatem Parco]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 27 August 2016 - 08:49 PM, said:

My point was because this guy doesnt so much as argue, as presents an opinion and will not waver from that opinion even in the face of having been entirely proven wrong.

Hence, the ignore function lol

No, no no... hold your horses. It has been declared by all parties that there is a discrepancy between weapon mechanics and the in-game actualization of "Energy Draw." That's good for all parties.