202 replies to this topic

[Pariah Devalis]

I would recommend a scimitar blade setup. It's a more modern approach to blade design, as it increases lift efficiency, decreases turbulence, and lowers the noise level of the rotor system.

https://www.flickr.c...N08/29895228632

[Karl Streiger]

2 years of work - time of a little quiz:

can you guess the vehicles (in different states of completion)?

for the winner (who got the most correct first) - you can ask me for any vehicle in BT and I will put it into the pipeline

Edited by Karl Streiger, 23 March 2018 - 06:06 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Karl Streiger, on 23 March 2018 - 06:02 AM, said:

2 years of work - time of a little quiz:

can you guess the vehicles (in different states of completion)?

for the winner (who got the most correct first) - you can ask me for any vehicle in BT and I will put it into the pipeline

Without looking anything up, I know the rear tank on the right for sure, and I think I know the one next to it. I'm not sure on the others though.

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 23 March 2018 - 06:02 AM, said:

2 years of work - time of a little quiz:

can you guess the vehicles (in different states of completion)?

for the winner (who got the most correct first) - you can ask me for any vehicle in BT and I will put it into the pipeline

Let's see...

We've got my Yellowjacket
A Hetzer
A Schreck
A Scorpion tank
A Demolisher tank

As for the rest, I've got guesses, but I'm not sure on these:

A treaded APC
A Hover tank
A Wheeled support truck
And some kind of fire support tank.

[Karl Streiger]

another guess.....the tracked APC is to be found in the TRO3060 (although its weight is wrong)

the hover tank is a very very early stage of a 65t tank that is know to have a very low profile (and its tracked)
the wheeled support tank weights also 35tons and has several variants

the fire support tank - well this is difficult... weights 45tons and has several variants (you see 2-3 variants mixed in the turret (2LRM 10 or 2 SRM6 and 4 MGs or 3 SRM 6)
(its described as medium tank in its first appearance )

[evilauthor]

Koniving, on 22 April 2017 - 10:35 AM, said:

As for why the stock Atlas's LRM is hip mounted while the SRM is chest mounted, we will probably never know.

Speaking as someone who has recently been trying to make a good build in MWO with a mech chassis clearly optimized for missiles, the reason is that LRMs are indirect fire (in the MWO interpretation anyway) and SRMs are direct fire. LRMs will go over short obstacles, but the direct fire SRMs should be as close to cockpit level as possible to minimize profile when "peaking".

Although looking at the overall Atlas design, "peaking" maneuvers was clearly not what the designer had in mind what with all the low mounted weaponry.

That being said, I never understood why the original TRO3025 specs gave the Atlas a big AC and LRM launcher with small arm energy weapons when the artwork clearly shows a small gun and LRM launcher and comparatively big arm guns. The original Atlas either should have carried PPCs or Large Lasers in the arms and a small AC and LRM-5 in the torso, or the original artwork should have better matched the canon specs.

[Koniving]

evilauthor, on 30 March 2018 - 07:01 AM, said:

Speaking as someone who has recently been trying to make a good build in MWO with a mech chassis clearly optimized for missiles, the reason is that LRMs are indirect fire (in the MWO interpretation anyway) and SRMs are direct fire. LRMs will go over short obstacles, but the direct fire SRMs should be as close to cockpit level as possible to minimize profile when "peaking".

Although looking at the overall Atlas design, "peaking" maneuvers was clearly not what the designer had in mind what with all the low mounted weaponry.

That being said, I never understood why the original TRO3025 specs gave the Atlas a big AC and LRM launcher with small arm energy weapons when the artwork clearly shows a small gun and LRM launcher and comparatively big arm guns. The original Atlas either should have carried PPCs or Large Lasers in the arms and a small AC and LRM-5 in the torso, or the original artwork should have better matched the canon specs.

Hadn't thought of that but I do agree, that would be a good reason for a high mounted SRM launcher. If the LRM launcher can be tilted, that's even better for it (though the art never encompasses that concept).

Now the barrel size doesn't matter so much as for why it's a big AC. Consider this:

This huge *** gun

is reasonably heavy, but most of the weight is actually in the back with the feeding mechanism, the motors, etc. The barrels are somewhat heavy, it is true.
But the ACs in battletech, much like the weight estimation for autocannons in real life, encompass more than just the barrel and the base "gun". It includes the entire apparatus including the loading mechanisms, and since autocannons in mechs don't have manual refills or exchanges of cassettes (magazines), it must include the auto-loader, which also includes how it gets the different magazines (since many are magazine fed) from the ammo bin to the weapon itself. Some of this weight is actually included in each ammunition "ton" you attach, sure, but part of it is allocated to the weapon.

The PPC, for example, was given a breakdown in Battletechnology. (It was canon for almost 28 years before the guy [Beas or whatever his name is] that put an AI machine controlling several dozen mechs which he called "The Broken" who the hell names an AI broken and then expects it to not break decided "Rather than reprinting them with all new in house assets and updating what they use for lore since we don't really have all the copies anyway, we'll just write them off as not canon anymore. Side note, Mechwarrior RPG 1st edition openly states that they used to run giant Warships by AI... and quickly learned their lesson back in the 2300s before mechs were even built. Never develop AI. So to pull how to build your own AI from Star League stuff, considering that the Terran Hegemony did it and then destroyed it and all the stuff to never repeat the mistake... yeah Bea's creations should be the non-canon element. But I digress.)

Quote

"The magnetic coils, generators and cooling units constitute over half of its mass." The tonnage is typically distributed with 1 ton for a large thick barrel, around 3 tons for cooling units (including thermal insulators), 2 tons for the main weapon itself (generators and magnetic coils) and an additional ton in cables to power it.
It is mentioned that different manufacturers allocate the weight differently to suit their niche.

Lazy quote from another post in Hand Actuators.

In a video about the Abrams, from a Canadian tank engineer/artillery crewman, he noted that among the updates for the M1A3 Abrams, which they intend to retroactively install on previous models, is the transition of replacing the traditional cabling for their targeting computers with Fiber Optics. "The US Army believes that this change alone will reduce the weight of the already existing variants by 2 tons." (So if you ever thought the Targeting Computer weights were unrealistic...guess again. Itisn't the computer itself but other aspects of it).

So when you think about the 100mm AC/20... which from the list of 23 novels so far... AC/2s range from 20mm to 90mm (which I only found up to 80mm, the 90 comes from either Sarna, TechManual, or Battletechnology I can't remember which). AC/5s go from 40mm to 120mm, with the Light AC/5 going from 20mm to 60mm. The AC/10s I have only found in 80mm, 90mm, 95mm, 100mm, and 110mm, though something [I'm not digging it up right now] said they go up to 120mm. With 80 and 100mm being most common. AC/20s on the other hand go from as low as 30mm (40mm in actual novels, Yen Lo Wang sports a 40mm Pontiac 100. Which is taken from a Victor. The Victor states that this weapon, according to Karl, takes about 6 seconds to spend a cassette. I was always told in the blink of an eye. I'm personally reading the novel so I will know sooner or later.) And as high as 203mm, of which I have found only one example, the Cauldron Born aka Ebon Jaguar... The weapon requires two large barrels which alternate like a revolver.

(Note, I don't know how they do this... as the figures don't show any possible way of doing so, they just feature two barrels. But I read that the barrels pivot so that the one closest to the mount fires [likely so it can feed]. The other one then spends its time cooling before the next shot. Consider that an AC/5 at 60mm fires 8 to 10 shells per second [Battletechnology, non-specified variant] and only accumulates 1 heat in whatever amount of time it continues to fire until the cassette is empty, imagine what a 203mm shell might generate if only 2 are fired, out of a system that generates 7 heat per reload/rating, and then its a UAC/20 so it can generate up to 14 heat in a single 10 second time slice.)


And this is not a fluke of the model, either, as here is one with a Clan Rotary Autocannon (later in the timeline than we are)

And an LBX-20.


Anyway, the UAC/20 for the EbonJaguar is depicted as twin barrels which alternate like a revolver. Its firing rate is painfully slow, with 2.5 seconds between actual shells put down range. The kick is horrendous. And this 203mm weapon, given its firing rate, can be broken down to firing 4 shells in about 7.5 seconds for 40 damage at 10 damage per shell.
The Heavy Rifle, a single shot per use CANNON, based on "22nd century tank cannons" of which the only lore example of one in use is 190mm.... is able to do 9 damage against a Barrier Armor Rating of 7 (or against structure). It cuts down to 6 against modern armor with a BAR of 10. (10 minus 7 = 3, lose 3 damage. Structure has no BAR differential. Primitive armor has a BAR of 7, no difference to damage so you net 9 damage.)
So the logic works out.

Anyway, back to the AC... The 100mm Deathgiver AC/20 upholds a pretty continuous rate of fire with little if any down time. I think it was less about the punch and more about the spam. Consider this: DI computers in mechs allow them to automatically try to dodge and deflect enemy fire whenever possible. If you see a big shell coming toward you, there's a lot of momentum needed to propel that thing (and a huge amount of recoil), so you can't really keep an advance while firing them. Furthermore, they are infrequent, so all they gotta do is dodge or attempt to deflect the shot and then keep attacking you. Sure it would HURT if it hits, but... Dodge and keep fighting. Not scary. But a constant stream of shots interfering with your aim and ability to counter attack, with recoil soft enough to keep up an advance, while staring into that skull....

That **** can be terrifying. Also while the Atlas is certainly not huge, there are many accounts of narrators exaggerating its size. The 1st Somerset Strikers compendium which serves as an intro to Battletech for those that watched the cartoon... goes on to explain that many "fictional narrators" are biased toward their factions, toward their beliefs, toward their emotional states.

A terrified narrator telling you the reader about a huge 27 meter tall Atlas... is a guy that pissed his ******* pants, shat himself, and then by some miracle is still alive... as that terrifying thing far less than half that size... just waltzes on by.

Edited by Koniving, 30 March 2018 - 08:45 AM.

[Koniving]

Far as the lasers, unlike most mechs where the lasers are largely embded into the structure, Atlas's lasers are almost entirely on the exterior of the arm. This is so that they don't interfere with the muscles and so on. Only the cables run through the arm, so the on boarding cooling etc. is supposed to be on the outside. Wish the art reflected this more, but it works.

Also I think they originally intended to have large lasers on it and an LRM-5.

You can see a number of art assets where the art and the final model don't add up quite as well.
The Thunder, for example...

Was probably gonna have multiple barrels or possibly a missile launcher. But then they changed it.

Also the 1980s art, depicted lasers as LONG barrel weapons.

Take a special note here...
On one mech, the medium laser is embedded inside the arm and it has no hand actuator (so it doesn't need the "guts", skeleton and muscles or armor for a hand, wrist, etc.
On another, it is mounted externally on a hand-held "gun" sporting the same single medium laser (different brand name). Notice how much larger it is?

So the logic here kinda does stick as to why the Atlas might have lasers that appear to be very large.

Griffin with a stubby-headed Large Laser. (Note the Patlabor Technician uniforms...Also the Patlabor Hangar... Patlabor influences much?


Looks closer to the television series version than the 90's movie version.
2:09, As-Tech in winter clothing opens the door to the hangar. The very same hangar depicted here, under different lighting...

Locust, CT turret laser.

Locust (Japanese version), CT Turret Laser.


Mackie
Medium Laser pelvis

I want to note the Mackie's weapon mounts have the most realistic "joints" I have ever seen on a mech in BT.
The pelvis has a turret with a visible range of potential motion.
The arms have very clear ranges of motion given how the joints are designed. I can look at this and tell you exactly how flexible the mech really would be if you 3D printed it as is. That's how good the joints were drawn and defined.

Just how they were depicted back then, and the mechs, new and old, depicting models from the early and pre-Star League eras will have big long-barrel lasers.

Edited by Koniving, 30 March 2018 - 08:29 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Karl Streiger, on 13 February 2018 - 01:07 AM, said:

Good hint.... so the faceplate is always closed? Or might there be a reason to open the heavy canopy?

maybe I can have more space so that the hatch in the rear becomes an option:
In the current SHD model I used the 9.5m from somewhere from lore - but when you put it onto the TRO3039 Size Comparison, things look different. Anybody remember where the 9.5m came from?

the Heights came from the old Robotech Dougram Kits --and the Robotech Sizes

http://robotech.wiki...stroid_Defender


other side seeing the little Cockpits from Helicopters and Jets or Tanks, seeing not the Roomproblem (more for all the Ammunition and Loadingsystems)...Military Vehicle not comfortable and Armor not the big Problem ...the heavy Armored Mercedes Limosine not very oversized against the unarmed Version

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 31 March 2018 - 11:06 PM.

[Koniving]

Karl Streiger, on 13 February 2018 - 01:07 AM, said:

Good hint.... so the faceplate is always closed? Or might there be a reason to open the heavy canopy?

maybe I can have more space so that the hatch in the rear becomes an option:
In the current SHD model I used the 9.5m from somewhere from lore - but when you put it onto the TRO3039 Size Comparison, things look different. Anybody remember where the 9.5m came from?

The SHK-2D, 9.63 meters, the size that another 3D artist came up with when I asked her/him to scale MWO's SHK to the scaled artwork drawn by first novelist William H. Keith.


That was the height s/he came up when that person plugged in the Dougram's height. (Compare to the artwork further down, the 9.63 is a little taller than the actual art, but close enough).

I think, Karl, you came up with the 9.55 on your own by comparing the art found below (or someone else did) and that might be where you got it from.

Keep in mind the 2D was ancient and armored like a Locust with only 4 tons of armor. It was mostly heatsinks, others dropped many of the heatsinks but all in all they were still small recon mechs. Later iterations were able to get 6.5 tons. Kurita's version was able to get it to 9.5 tons of armor due to taking out the AC altogether for what I assume is a fixed mounted (rather than pivoting) Donal PPC.

The 3s and 5s are larger than the 2s, as necessary to fit larger equipment and its role changes a bit in the process, no longer a lightly armored recon and fire support mech, it becomes quite a bit more capable, making the larger size more acceptable, as well. The armor is at 10.5 tons while totting a autocannon that is functionally superior to the old AC/5, something the 2 model could only come close to after ditching the AC's many mechanisms.

As we know, the entire 5 series came at the same time as "Project Phoenix", when they completely redesign the unseen (both in concept art, and canonically in universe). The SHK-5 series, as shown by this 5D.... are completely different. (Did dig out the 5M and it isn't quite that different.)
Rather than the Lang T1 chassis, the 5D now have the Kallon Type VII (Endo Steel) chassis.
So the entire skeleton change.
Which required all new armor, so instead of Maximillian 43, we now use Kallon Unity Weave Ferro-Fibrous w/ C.A.S.E.
Literally every aspect about them changed entirely.`

Now that's the D variant.

The M variant actually has yet another ENTIRELY different skeleton, the Earthwerks SHD-II Endo Steel skeleton, but is still compatible with the Maximillian 43 armor, which I imagine rather than a shape is more of a metal consistency/build/etc.. but that's always a thing open to interpretation.

Both the D and M are using entirely different setups (though both use Neil comms, but two entirely different systems by that brand name). Davion's version uses the Garret D2J T&T system. Marik's uses RCA (so RCA is in the future too) Instatrak MK XII (12).

All weapon brand names are entirely different, as is the general appearance. Yes the SHK for Marik kinda looks the same but now the head is pivotable according to the artwork, that wasn't possible in the old SHK 2-D as half the pilot's torso was in the head. Also the SHK 5M has missile doors on the chest, apparently, though the space underneath the open door is blank white. Given the action pose I doubt that's for maintenance. Bit of an issue with doors like that, the door would be in the way of the head mounted Streak SRM-2 launcher.

Another neat difference, is unlike the SHK-2D artwork which has no indication of torso twisting capabilities, the SHK 5M does, and in fact the torso is flexed, too. (Edit: Actually the TRO 3025 indicates SHK-2 had torso twisting. But William H. Keith's artwork shows it does not...)

For comparisons...

SHK-2D.
(I should note, that this might actually be a SHK-1R. I've noted the lack of missiles.) William H. Keith (Artist) (If this is indeed a 1R, then the SHK 2 series may be a little larger than this image would indicate. There is no way to know if the skeleton changed between the 1R and the 2 series, however. Since Lang is still producing the 2H until it is destroyed, it stands to reason it hasn't. The 2D is a field refit from the 2H, not a rebuild as is the 2D2 and the 2K.) (1987)

On the above, the length of the head opens up to allow the pilot to enter. The torso cannot flex. The head cannot move either. It appears to have some damage that may have never been fixed and is being used for training. So it is difficult to say if this is a 2H or 1R, but lack of missiles is having me lean toward 1R now.

SHK 2D (First Succession Wars) I think this was a concept art for what they did in 3D, as the 3D one has minor changes (2016)


I'm quite certain this next one is rendered, Catalyst even showed the 3D model off. Quite neat is that there are side panels to look out of. The head appears to have minor horizontal pivot capability. The AC's angle indicates it does 'raise' to be able to attack airborne targets and may retract behind the back, too with the strict rear-connection (nothing attaches it to the shoulder directly, not even a hydraulic for adjusting the height of the aim).

Noticed something neat, look at the feet.
The foot is connected by a Ball joint inside the foot, sticking up into a rod in the leg. There's no other way to recreate that kind of movement in which the foot is off center like that, the ball joint of the ankle is inside the foot, not above the foot like in a human leg. The actual ankle position of a human leg only appears to facilitate 'forward/backward' lateral movement. The side to side appears to be inside the foot on what I assume is a ball joint (could be a lateral left/right joint but I doubt it given what feet are required to be able to do).

SHK 2D (3025) Take note of the design. (1989) Also, is that a backpack?

SHK 5M (3050) Notice some changes? Numerous changes to the torso, the AC appears to be of a higher caliber (especially if you consider that this mech may have increased in both height and girth. Though it could be the shoulder panel in the way, the SHK no longer appears to have a backpack for external ammunition storage. (1990)

I imagine one, or both, of the doors open up to reveal the LRM-20. Most likely both, so I imagine (if the mech is bigger) 10 tubes each shoulder, as part of a single LRM-20 launcher. (Look the mech is maybe 1 to 2 meters larger, and I like to imagine it is in total girth not just height, so that larger size can be split between height, length and width).
AC appears to be able to aim left/right as well as up/down, given the angle. Impossible to tell how it is mounted however. Unknown if it still has a backpack-like excess on the back (likely for ammo storage and feed as well as jumpjets).
Laser no longer needs to be completely externally mounted, making it much more compact.

The foot angle here is more in line with how a normal human ankle works. The "bent metal" indicates that isn't actually metal but more of a dust cover.

SHK 5D (Project Phoenix) (2003, 2005) Huge differences here for obvious reasons.

This one's RAC is indeed hardfixed to the torso. Lasers have been redesigned in such a way that they prevent the use of melee weapons. But seem much more compact than older models. Lasers changed to sit on the arms more like 'guns' in the hands, possibly for psychological reasons?
Jumpjets changed drastically, now omnidirectional and likely 'steerable', indicating potentially higher control for the D variant.

I'm under the suspicion that the 5D is feminine. Pointed toes. An emphasis on long, curved legs. The way it is stepping.
Wonder if that's the "Kallon touch."

Anyway... whether first BT novelist Keith's artwork is the 1R or 2D, there's a clear size difference in some later iterations. (Then again Rifleman and Warhammer used to be depicted with the pilot's heads visible from the cockpits...and only their heads, so the Rifleman was pretty damn short, and the Warhammer just a bit taller than the Timber Wolf with the TBR being 12.6 at the tallest point.)

Considering the drastic changes in torso design from 4R and 5D Enforcers, drastic differences in size would not surprise me for the Shadowhawks, so the more modern 5 SHKs are probably more in line with the 3039 scale than the old counterparts... The 5 SHKs are multi-role, the 2 SHKs were recon and fire support roles only. All variants tended to lend themselves to be medium lance commanders.

[Koniving]

(Also the Komiyaba Type VII Hunchbacks weren't much taller than Commandos, in fact Mech Commander depicts them almost the same height. So I imagine the older SHKS, like Hunchbacks, were just among the shorter anomalies. Seen something about a 6.5 meter tall Light [Locust, brought to my attention by someone saying they saw it in a novel that I can't recall but definitely one of the earlier ones, confirmed by Shar Wolf as having heard the same from his audiobook that has the SHK in it, so if we dig up where I copy/pasted that in the IS Corporations thread we can find exactly what book that was], anyway, that's also short for a Light. So expect some height variance from the "basic" scale.)


Pause at 2:03
They are standing on a road that is 2 lanes going one way, with a median and a single lane going the other way. So it is approximately 4 lanes wide.. So they are pretty damn close.
Centurion is huge by comparison, but we already know the Centurion is an unusually tall medium mech in the BT universe.
The Raven on the various angles is exactly as tall as the Commando, but given all its extra girth that isn't surprising.

In other words, I figure height variance (differences) from the base height scale to be normal. Some will be exceptionally short, or in the case of the Thorn (20 tons, "large enough for technicians to crawl inside its limbs to effect repairs" -- this is because Comstar removed the endo steel skeletons, and redesigned an entirely new skeleton so that nothing else had to change before shipping them to Kurita, as such the Thorns sent to them were so large and unusually spacious with the girth difference between thick endo steel and standard structure that you could hide people inside the limbs.) and Mist Lynx (20 tons, 10.6 meters) to be exceptionally tall for their class.

This is like the Nova is 8.3 meters, but understandably so given how...big it is horizontally (lengthand width).

Edited by Koniving, 01 April 2018 - 08:12 AM.

[Koniving]

Oh a quick last thing.

MechCommander did good about holding true to the original BT stuff. In the outro, I noticed the Catapult has no torso twist capabilities in the design.
But by pivoting on the legs, it can look around. Not as much as torso twist would otherwise allow,but it is worth noting for animations. It can pivot a bit,much like the Nova in MW2, which had extremely limited abilities to pivot.


I think that's worth noting.
Also: Awesome's scale.
Omnimech scale seems consistent with the Omnimech scale chart.
Also: Atlas, Jagermech, numerous others...
Atlas looks to be between 13 and 14 meters tall, edging on 14 to just over 14.

Edited by Koniving, 01 April 2018 - 08:18 AM.

[Leone]

Karl Streiger, on 23 March 2018 - 06:02 AM, said:

2 years of work - time of a little quiz:

can you guess the vehicles (in different states of completion)?

for the winner (who got the most correct first) - you can ask me for any vehicle in BT and I will put it into the pipeline

So, I'mma guess the yellowjack, Vedette, ?, Shreck for the top row.
I wanna start with a goblin? Scorpion, ?, Hetzer, Manticore?

The lower left definitely looks like an infantry carrier, but I think I've got the armaments wrong, can't think of what other tracked APC it could be. third I'd guess as some sort of wheeled Apc, but can't name one. As for the fourth on the bottom, could be an arty piece instead, but it doesn't quite look finished, so I'm banking on the Hetzer.

No clue on the Manticore, but that's the only thing I could think of with lrm10 and srm6. I think I'm off.

Also, that upper second from the right doesn't look like a Demolisher, just cuz it should rival the Shreck in size since they're the same tonnage. But I can't think of what else it'd be. My vehicles are fairly rusty.

~Leone.

Edited by Leone, 01 April 2018 - 10:33 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Leone, on 01 April 2018 - 10:33 AM, said:

So, I'mma guess the yellowjack, Vedette, ?, Shreck for the top row.
I wanna start with a goblin? Scorpion, ?, Hetzer, Manticore?

The lower left definitely looks like an infantry carrier, but I think I've got the armaments wrong, can't think of what other tracked APC it could be. third I'd guess as some sort of wheeled Apc, but can't name one. As for the fourth on the bottom, could be an arty piece instead, but it doesn't quite look finished, so I'm banking on the Hetzer.

No clue on the Manticore, but that's the only thing I could think of with lrm10 and srm6. I think I'm off.

Also, that upper second from the right doesn't look like a Demolisher, just cuz it should rival the Shreck in size since they're the same tonnage. But I can't think of what else it'd be. My vehicles are fairly rusty.

~Leone.

well almost correct.

The Vendette - is a very very very very rough first sketch for the Rommel (a Defiance 100mm AC backed by a LRM System) everything in the turret - and with the need to be a ultra flat tank (it should not stand out much bigger than the 25t Scorpion)

The Shreck was create in a Top-Down Method (I used Gurps and Corps Vehicle builders to consider the total volume necessary - and build the tank accordingly)
For the Demolisher I used a Bottom-Up Method - in "modeling" internal components and arrange them (engine block, acs with breach, autoloader, ammunition storrage, radiators ....)
So the size looks different (the Shreck needs much much more cooling and storrage banks (I think I will reduce it in size)

Bottom is the Heavy APC with enough space to really mount 2 platoons of infantry) - scorpion is correct (single shot 125mm AC) - very very first concept of the Striker -
The Hetzer concept (contains of the Hetzer refit kit (I will try to make it universal so it could be placed on different vehicles - from a half track - snow vehicle, over dune buggies or simple lorrys

Well the unknown - thing is a Goblin - left side of the turret is a LRM 10 (Longbow) while on the right there is a SRM6 (Harpoon)
the center are 4 machine guns (so its a mix between 3 different variants of the Goblin)
As the Heavy APC and the Demolisher its Bottom-Up - with "real space for a squad of infantry plus reloads and engine)

as a side note - I try to keep the l/w ratio between 3:1 or 2:1 - while classic BT vehicles tend to use 1:1 (a wobling uncomfortable ride with absolute no precision on the move)

Because I did this "contest" at several sources.... I already started with the work/concept of the Behemoth.
So Leone or Metus - any hints where I should look, too?

Edited by Karl Streiger, 02 April 2018 - 10:58 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Koniving, on 01 April 2018 - 07:57 AM, said:

I imagine one, or both, of the doors open up to reveal the LRM-20. Most likely both, so I imagine (if the mech is bigger) 10 tubes each shoulder, as part of a single LRM-20 launcher. (Look the mech is maybe 1 to 2 meters larger, and I like to imagine it is in total girth not just height, so that larger size can be split between height, length and width).

considering that the Doombud is also mounted on Archer and the Downgraded Bombardier, the modernized Griffin, the Salamander, Legacy 2 and a King Crab and a Zeus Variant - I wonder if those missile doors are a unique trademark of this missile system.
Although all the artworks with exception of the Archer, Bombardier and Shadow Hawk do not include missile doors. So why missile doors at all on Archer & co....

[Leone]

Karl Streiger, on 02 April 2018 - 10:58 PM, said:

Because I did this "contest" at several sources.... I already started with the work/concept of the Behemoth.
So Leone or Metus - any hints where I should look, too?

I'd like to see your take on a Thumper or Long Tom vehicle. How you'd do the armoured artillery piece. If you want.

~Leone.

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 02 April 2018 - 10:58 PM, said:

Because I did this "contest" at several sources.... I already started with the work/concept of the Behemoth.
So Leone or Metus - any hints where I should look, too?

I'm leaning towards the Corsair Areospace fighter, she could use a little overhaul...

[Koniving]

Karl Streiger, on 03 April 2018 - 02:20 AM, said:

considering that the Doombud is also mounted on Archer and the Downgraded Bombardier, the modernized Griffin, the Salamander, Legacy 2 and a King Crab and a Zeus Variant - I wonder if those missile doors are a unique trademark of this missile system.
Although all the artworks with exception of the Archer, Bombardier and Shadow Hawk do not include missile doors. So why missile doors at all on Archer & co....

Well, the Destroids...
Rifleman, Archer, Warhammer, etc. all had shoulders that opened up to reveal missile launchers. I still remember the Warhammer toy, so many "guns" under each shoulder thing and then the shoulders open up to reveal LRM-10s. Except it wasn't a Warhammer, it was a Destroid...whatever it was.

I wonder if the missile door is a tribute to that. Also it would make more sense if you think about it, open tube missile launchers near the center mass is like saying "Here's where the armor weakest and likely to go boom please shoot me here." Also the Centurion is in a similar boat.

I would think more mechs would have the doors.

As for whether that would be a feature of the Doombud launcher, I'm certain the artists aren't thinking of things like that, after all an example of a Donal PPC on a newer mech completely lacks the physical description of a longer than normal barrel and a blocky power chamber.
We're not talking Star Citizen levels of detail, I'm not even sure if these guys say "Well if you're gonna use DoomBuds then they should open up before firing, like a budding flower of death."

Which, honestly, I like that idea.
Bud is like a closed flower or rose.. and when it opens, it brings doom... launching death and destruction upon you. It is almost poetic.
The question is what does the launcher sacrifice, if we say the launcher comes with the added protection of doors? Say they gain a quarter to half ton of additional "armor", where would you say it loses that quarter to half a ton? Reload speed? Accuracy? Lock speed (such as time it takes for the lock acquired to be told to the missiles, as such firing prematurely not all missiles would have a properly set target?) Number of tubes?

I confess of the "give and take" system for weight distribution in variants, the missile launchers are under developed for ideas. After all a longer tube/barrel doesn't necessarily give you greater accuracy or range out of a missile like it does with a bullet.

---
The Ballistic examples from the give and take system for setting up variants.

Spoiler

This is not a complete list.

Variant concepts:
Ballistics.

Examples:
Carbine; gives faster rate of fire with a shorter barrel in exchange for reduced accurate range. Change in weight is applied to firing and loading mechanisms?
Long barrel; has longer accurate range in exchange for reduced rate of fire. Change in weight is taken from firing and loading mechanisms?

Basic elements for modification.
Caliber (determines bullet size which in turn determines bullet characteristics and base stats).
Range (both of weapon and ammo) (barrel is a modifier of base ammo range) (bullet drop is a bullet factor)
Rate (how fast and how frequently it can fire)
Accuracy (barrel and weapon are modifiers of ammo accuracy) (stability of projectile is a bullet factor but does weapon modify this?) (Recoil is a weapon factor and affects accuracy potential).
Heat
Reload
Cassette size (half-cassette, double cassette, etc)
Economics (cost, availability)
Repair, ease there-of.
Durability (Materials, number of slots necessary for weapon to function)
Weight
Alignment (convergence)
Total damage output
Fire type (auto, singles, bursts)
Special munition compatibility
Jam potential? Can unjam?
Double-fire?
Hard Point size (could vary)
Audio level? (Report, reload; important in regards to detection by sensors)
Emission (flash, smoke, visual indicators that could give position away)
Thermal visibility (through enemy scanner)
Detectability (Recognition?) (delay until the system can be detected and identified on an equipment info-gathering scan.)
Position (has considerable factors in balancing but is a consideration not a tool for variant differential).

All traits (quirks) come from sacrificing something to gain something else by changing the base weight distribution in the "control" (base) weapon design, (which has no traits going either way).
Positive quirk examples derived from modification.
Longer range
Reduced recoil
Greater accuracy
Faster rate of fire
More ammo (something has been added to the weapon that reduces the storage and feed requirements of ammo storage bins, allowing them to hold more ammunition per ton.)
Faster reloading
Secondary reload method
Constant ammo flow (no down time from changing magazines.)
Cooling jacket (STD) or improved
Reinforced parts and barrel (reduces heat-related issues from pushing the weapon beyond safe operation.)
Jam recovery mechanism (enables in-battle recovery from jams).
Added protection (a layer of armor is added specifically to protect the weapon)

Negative quirks derived from modification.
Shorter range
Stronger recoil
Reduced accuracy
Slower rate of fire
Less ammo (something has been sacrificed from the weapon related to the basic functions of ammunition consumption, requiring it to be added to each ammo storage bin and thus reducing the maximum potential ammunition per bin.)
Slower reloading
Risky reload (limb must be kept straight or could break/jam)
Vulnerable belt (the ammunition feed is exposed and can be forcefully cut)
Insufficient or lacking cooling jacket
Exposed (reduced protection)
Faulty workmanship (One or more issues is chosen at random which will stick to the weapon permanently.).

Uncertain quirks (more like traits)
Ammo conservative (automatic or burst fire weapon will automatically stop firing when the target is lost).
Mini-cassettes. (Uses smaller than standard magazines, a mini-cassette could contain half or quarter damage ratings and are used as a method of forced fire discipline in weapons that discharge the entire cassette on trigger pull.)
Empty shell retainer (shells do not eject and are instead stored to reduce rearm costs.)
Upward ejection (shells eject from the ‘top’ of the weapon.)
Side ejection (shells eject from the side, typically away from the mech.)
Bottom ejection (shells eject from the ‘bottom’ of the weapon.)
Delayed ejection (the time between the actual firing and the ejection of the spent shell is delayed)

Again, its just an idea list of things to give (sacrifice) and take (gain) in order to make distinct variants and its incomplete.

[Metus regem]

Koniving, on 04 April 2018 - 12:17 PM, said:

Well, the Destroids...
Rifleman, Archer, Warhammer, etc. all had shoulders that opened up to reveal missile launchers. I still remember the Warhammer toy, so many "guns" under each shoulder thing and then the shoulders open up to reveal LRM-10s. Except it wasn't a Warhammer, it was a Destroid...whatever it was.

The Warhammer was modeled after the Tomahawk....

What does the Tomahawk say?



F*ck You Space Alien Trash!

In that shot, you have a 6x AA missiles system, 24x Close in support missiles, 2x TZ-III Gun Clusters (each containing 1 of the following 180mm Grenade Laucnhers, Flame thrower, Laser Cannons, 25mm MG), 2x 12.7mm MG's and you can see the base of the practical beam cannons too...


A decent rundown of their kit is found here:

http://www.macross2....id-tomahawk.htm

Edited by Metus regem, 04 April 2018 - 12:58 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Leone, on 04 April 2018 - 07:48 AM, said:

I'd like to see your take on a Thumper or Long Tom vehicle. How you'd do the armoured artillery piece. If you want.

~Leone.

Well - I have a Goblin with a Thumper - in the pipeline - I could add a Ballista ....(Sniper)
for the LongTom maybe the Rommel?

Metus regem, on 04 April 2018 - 07:59 AM, said:

I'm leaning towards the Corsair Areospace fighter, she could use a little overhaul...

you really know how to burn through "my time" - I had only made a very very very short attempt in creating aerospace fighters and totally failed.... just in the concept phase.

a aerospace fighter needs fuel lots of fuel, it need to be hypersonic capable or need a special profile to make the entry in one piece.... heck I bet that 90% of the BT aerospace units would only make it as burning debries onto a planet.....

but I will try....by Blake I will try.

Koniving, on 04 April 2018 - 12:17 PM, said:

I confess of the "give and take" system for weight distribution in variants, the missile launchers are under developed for ideas. After all a longer tube/barrel doesn't necessarily give you greater accuracy or range out of a missile like it does with a bullet.

well you know I take a different approach for missiles....
just for additional food for brain:

• Holly Missile Family (always fire 3 missiles - the SRM2 fire 3 missiles, as does the MRM 40) - the difference is the size, speed and payload - multi-role
  
• Shigunga LRM fires 1x missile for each group of 5 (LRM 20 ~4 per volley) - different warheads and guidance systems (based on profile)
  
• Longbow LRM 10 / Harpoon SRM 6 - highly interchangeable - fires as many missiles as listened (10 or 6)
  
• FarFire - one very heavy artillery missile - different payloads
  
• Coventy LRM - (not a clue yet)
  
• Zeus LRM - is a SAM and only a SAM
  
• Doombud? (not a clue not really, I thought it might be a missile that use a strong booster for the inital path - and use some barrels on a svivel mount to be directed for this path (so flaps to protect the mount???)