53 replies to this topic

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Already happend? Just to expensive sadly.

[MarineTechs Protege]

Lily from animove, on 11 January 2017 - 06:39 AM, said:

that was the case for the trains, that was the case for cars, that was the case for guns. it was basically the case of most inventions who were in the stages of fundamental research. And walking vehicles are at the same stage too. And they will surely in future have a role because they will be able to do things tanks can't do.

Way to be an utter liar. The minute guns were made they were put into use. The minute cars were made, they started getting put into use. Steam engine cars were a lot more common than you think, especially here in the USA.

Lily from animove, on 11 January 2017 - 06:39 AM, said:

you yourself showed "Big dog" as an example, and that one does not have a pilot, so don't tell me I can't read, you argued with military experimenting on mechs by bringing up the "Big Dog". You can't even follow your own used arguments. all you did was constantly bringing oranges to the apple discussion. Then suddenly again when we tak about the definition of the apple you try to tell me I don't talk about apples. Because I used your defintion of an apple and showed you an pear that fitted the definition you slapped on the apple. But suddenly you bring up MY defintion of the apple (which never changed) and say my pear doesn't fits my apple defintition.

You were the one who brought up invalid fruits, and when I used your invalid logic you suddenly call mine invalid because you cannot see the same mistake in your logic when i willingyl show this flaw to you with an extreme example. you seriously have basic logical issues.

All you do her eis shine with massively broken logic, like you said:



yet boston dynamics keeps researching on it.

yes thats fundamental research scientific stage. ther ehave been air vehicles in the basic research since the ancient. and there were tons of shelved concept, yet we have very advanced airplanes today and flight is a regular thing. These robots and walkers are exactly the counter parts to those early and shelved concepts.

Fallacy of false equivalence. The Atlas isn't the Big Dog. In fact they aren't even related projects. The Big Dog has been a shelved project for a while. The Atlas is quite literally the only robot Boston Dynamics has made with any promising results thus far.

Lily from animove, on 11 January 2017 - 06:39 AM, said:

you yourself showed "Big dog" as an example, and that one does not have a pilot, so don't tell me I can't read, you argued with military experimenting on mechs by bringing up the "Big Dog". You can't even follow your own used arguments. all you did was constantly bringing oranges to the apple discussion. Then suddenly again when we tak about the definition of the apple you try to tell me I don't talk about apples. Because I used your defintion of an apple and showed you an pear that fitted the definition you slapped on the apple. But suddenly you bring up MY defintion of the apple (which never changed) and say my pear doesn't fits my apple defintition.

I showed it as an example to show how autonomous robotic machines, and robotic machines in general just aren't even suitable for military use yet. I never claimed nor was I trying to claim it was a mech. I was using it as an example as to how robots and such are rather silly and useless at this stage. Which the Military agrees. Also you are the one talking about mechs in a non-mech thread. Method-1 isn't called a mech. It is a manned robot. So in fact you are the one in this conversation who has been bringing oranges to an apples conversation.

Want to talk about broken logic, lets talk about you. The person who has been so intellectually dishonest you refuse to acknowledge anything as a mech that has been rejected because you don't want to face the reality that mechs are unrealistic.

Toha Heavy Industries, on 11 January 2017 - 07:24 AM, said:

Already happend? Just to expensive sadly.

Not a mech. Its on wheels. It is a tank.

Edited by MarineTechs Protege, 11 January 2017 - 02:22 PM.

[Lily from animove]

MarineTechs Protege, on 11 January 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

Way to be an utter liar. The minute guns were made they were put into use. The minute cars were made, they started getting put into use. Steam engine cars were a lot more common than you think, especially here in the USA.

god, get a history lesson.

[MarineTechs Protege]

Lily from animove, on 12 January 2017 - 01:52 AM, said:

god, get a history lesson.

The first identified gun ever used was from tenth century in China, and was a tubular device with a barrel made of bamboo. We then in history later find illustrations and designs of Fire lances (mid tenth century). These were the forerunners to guns. To give you an idea, China didn't invent gunpowder until the mid 9th century but the first use of gunpowder weapons wasn't until the mid 10th century, i.e. the Firelance. Firelance quickly became widespread and within another 50 years had been altered to be even more dangerous. The fire lance is also considered to be the first "gun." So yeah for the Dark Ages, and within less than a century, gun powder was created turned into fireworks, and then weaponized as Firelances which instantly became huge among militaries.

The first mass production of cars was in 1901. The first combustion engine was made in 1897. Cars however were in production for public use as far back as 1880's. Before that all cars were experimental and failed at almost all corners to actually be practical in any sense whatsoever. There were some steam cars around, but the majority of designs failed to produce enough pressure in the engine to be useful. But yeah within 20 years cars were mass produced. And a gas powered car had only been first designed in like 1886 so... but you will find if you read a history book on car development, that there were several commercially successful steam powered cars (particularly in Europe which eventually led to the UK Locomotive Act). This was in the 1830's. So basically as long as cars have been around, they have been commercial.

Mech's have been prototyped since in the 1950's. So well over 60 years of development, with.... literally no production (other than prototypes), practical application, or really any use today at all... well except to be shelved and put in museums like the fate of the Walking Truck.

So yeah... apparently you are the one in need of a history lesson.

Edited by MarineTechs Protege, 12 January 2017 - 02:50 AM.

[Lily from animove]

MarineTechs Protege, on 12 January 2017 - 02:47 AM, said:

The first identified gun ever used was from tenth century in China, and was a tubular device with a barrel made of bamboo. We then in history later find illustrations and designs of Fire lances (mid tenth century). These were the forerunners to guns. To give you an idea, China didn't invent gunpowder until the mid 9th century but the first use of gunpowder weapons wasn't until the mid 10th century, i.e. the Firelance. Firelance quickly became widespread and within another 50 years had been altered to be even more dangerous. The fire lance is also considered to be the first "gun." So yeah for the Dark Ages, and within less than a century, gun powder was created turned into fireworks, and then weaponized as Firelances which instantly became huge among militaries.

The first mass production of cars was in 1901. The first combustion engine was made in 1897. Cars however were in production for public use as far back as 1880's. Before that all cars were experimental and failed at almost all corners to actually be practical in any sense whatsoever. There were some steam cars around, but the majority of designs failed to produce enough pressure in the engine to be useful. But yeah within 20 years cars were mass produced. And a gas powered car had only been first designed in like 1886 so... but you will find if you read a history book on car development, that there were several commercially successful steam powered cars (particularly in Europe which eventually led to the UK Locomotive Act). This was in the 1830's. So basically as long as cars have been around, they have been commercial.

Mech's have been prototyped since in the 1950's. So well over 60 years of development, with.... literally no production (other than prototypes), practical application, or really any use today at all... well except to be shelved and put in museums like the fate of the Walking Truck.

So yeah... apparently you are the one in need of a history lesson.

see, 50 yrea,s you said it, now you sai sicne the 50's we work on legged vehicles thats just 66 years. so no idea why you deifne "the minute" like this,

cars existed way before the combustion engine, they used gas engines, The first automobile was in 1769 which is like 130 years until your mentioned first mass prouced combustion engine car. That one was steam powered. and resembles mostlikely what the early legged things we talked about are. Once we invent a proper mobile energy source mechs or legged vehicles may become a lot more common, because the current way of using wheels is just more efficient with an ngine that creates circular movement.

so none of these are more different in their timeline than the current start of "legged" vehicles and none of this is what "first minute" would judge as a term. BTW your gun example is right, but you fail udnerstanding what a fundamental science is, the fundamenetl science of gusn is gunpoweder, and that one exists in references at around the 3rd century. And similar to out current walking devices was probably not used because at this time was not "competitve". And this is also not even close to "the minute invented"

So again you just fial by historical knowledge to understand that cars were in fundamental science stage 130 years before they weren common. But surely thats not "within the minute" unless your definition of "minutes" are that long. And gunpowder concepted wepaons even took a few centuries before gettign common.

And those a bit above 60+ yeras in walking autonomous/piloted devices suddenly proof it as a concept that will not work?

This is exactly what you did the entire thread, havign an opinion you tried to support with non objective or just fasle historical knowledge ased "facts".

And no matter how long you continue this discussion unless you correct your false historical knowledge, you are not contibuting to your opinion. And when you correct them, your entire logic of argumens why mechs are "inferior" would break apart, because historical knowledge would show you that all these inventios were inferior once and it took them a long time form fundamental science to get common and replace their alternate or invent something new for the mass. At this point the only way to keep your opinion would be scrappign all your previous argumentation, and coming up with another "reason" but this reason may merely be better justified and founfed on facst than your previosu ones.

objectively seen, these walkign devices are like the gunpowder of the 4th century and the early 1800th cars. And with history of many inventions it is extremely likely that at the time we find a proper mobile power source, they will advance in their utility past tanks within specific roles tanks can't do.

Also i find it quite funny how people always talk abut tanks being superior to emchs because of surface area. In the end surface area of a tank is huge if seen form above. And higher technological warfare will mostlikely happen from above anyways by utilising sattelites and drones. So mechs may have better abilities to hide form the above and get hit form weapons out of the air. But a mech can still decide to lay down flat or stand upright.
Your point of view is extremely limited by your fixed opinion that tries not to see all existing facts of history and their true timeline or you are simply unable to find them.

if people would stop wathcing stupid stuff like netlix and other crap they probably could spent a lot more time watching recent historical documentations, because there are tons of new things we found out that existed way earlier than we thought.

Fully armored knights were a thing of the medieval, at least to the latest historical knwoeldge we were thought in school. But our current knoweldge knows they existed already since the 3rd century BC and probably even in the first millenia BC.

Update your knoeledge if you talk about things and stop using the first common hits on wikipedia, most of them aren't also up to date as well, and often there are even in wikipedia more specific entries with more accurate knowledge. you can also look into more scientific pages of some institutes and get latest scienfitic discoveries more accurately than wikipedia will have.


But until then I will now truly stop repsonding to you because no fact you tried to show here was accurate and I wasted already too much time reevaluating your inaccuracy. I can spent my time for better joy (like Forum drama or gaming) or aquiring proper up to date knoweldge instead.

Edited by Lily from animove, 12 January 2017 - 03:50 AM.

[MarineTechs Protege]

Lily from animove, on 12 January 2017 - 03:39 AM, said:

see, 50 yrea,s you said it, now you sai sicne the 50's we work on legged vehicles thats just 66 years. so no idea why you deifne "the minute" like this,

From what I could decipher from your incomprehensible spelling, apparently you don't know the different between human technological advancement 1000 years ago when Geometry was still being fully developed, and the 1960's when we had begun creating artificial blood cells. Yeah your fallacy of false equivalence is still as impeccable as ever.

Lily from animove, on 12 January 2017 - 03:39 AM, said:

cars existed way before the combustion engine, they used gas engines, The first automobile was in 1769 which is like 130 years until your mentioned first mass prouced combustion engine car. That one was steam powered. and resembles mostlikely what the early legged things we talked about are. Once we invent a proper mobile energy source mechs or legged vehicles may become a lot more common, because the current way of using wheels is just more efficient with an ngine that creates circular movement.

Apparently you don't read. I didn't realize how illiterate internet people are, but if they are like you then I have lost faith in humanity. Apparently you didn't read that bit where cars have been being commercially produced since the 1810's. So you know... about 41 years. Also the first cars in the 1700's were so unstable they were a hazard and not produced for that very reason. In europe the first automobile carriage wasn't made until 1801.

Lily from animove, on 12 January 2017 - 03:39 AM, said:

so none of these are more different in their timeline than the current start of "legged" vehicles

Fallacy of false equivalence. We are living in a time and age when we can launch nuclear missiles across the globe. When a car was made we hadn't even achieved flight.

Nice try, but the technological, and scientific limitations of the time greatly change the circumstances.

This entire conversation you have literally been nothing but the most intellectually dishonest person. You have based all of your arguments on lies, fallacies, and anything you deem fit so that you don't have to accept that mechs and the likes have been continuously shelved by the military over and over, with barely any advancements seemingly made. The technology used in Method-1 has existed long before, and has been used in other projects (you can look them up yourself, granted you never will).

But you know, I am done here. No amount of facts, or data will change the mind of someone as utterly deluded as you. When you are done masturbating to the thought of mechs, let me know.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

MarineTechs Protege, on 11 January 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

Not a mech. Its on wheels. It is a tank.

Err.. firstly a tank usually has chains.
Secondly, man your personal definition of "mech" is narrow.

I get what you meant tho.

seperate post o/

Am i the only one who thinks it's pretty darn funny that we can't make a robot walk properly, but a cube.. a literally cube.. np np?

[MarineTechs Protege]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 13 January 2017 - 09:41 AM, said:

Err.. firstly a tank usually has chains.
Secondly, man your personal definition of "mech" is narrow.

I get what you meant tho.

seperate post o/

Am i the only one who thinks it's pretty darn funny that we can't make a robot walk properly, but a cube.. a literally cube.. np np?

It doesn't walk. By all standards even the most broad, it isn't a mech. A mech walks is one of the fundamental keys.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

MarineTechs Protege, on 13 January 2017 - 11:29 PM, said:

It doesn't walk. By all standards even the most broad, it isn't a mech. A mech walks is one of the fundamental keys.

Of course it doesn't "walk", it is a cube if you missed it. Still, i think it is impressive that it can move and even balance on its edges. Especially considering that balancing on two legs is obviously more difficult to achieve.

By which standards does a mech have to walk? (serious question).
Some roll, some walk some fly.
Some have torso, shoulders, arms and a head but a tank/jetpack/etc instead of legs.
Some have two humanoid legs but a radardish or cannon on top and nothing else.

kurata has the upper body of a humanoid. It a mech regardless how you look at it.



I see two mechs here. If you don't, well then we just have different opinions about what is a mech.

[Anjian]

El Bandito, on 18 December 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

Bipedal mechs are never gonna find military application, since they are very easy to knock over. Treaded or wheeled mechs sound more practical, as less glamorous looking as they are.

In the Gundam UC universe, which actually spends considerable effort in trying to socially justify the existence of mechs, these Guntanks predated the appearance of military mechs.

[Anjian]

Vellron2005, on 19 December 2016 - 03:13 AM, said:

WOW

"Wanna buy a mech pack?" just took on a whole new meaning...

Seriously though.. on the modern battlefield of earth, mechs will have little use, since they are too tall, and have lots of critical areas that could put it out of operation.. A helicopter would make short work of mechs.. simply cose' they have a tall big profile and are large targets compared to tanks.

BUT..

When humanity takes to other planets, mechs might be the weapon of choice that will replace tanks - simply because of their humanoid mobility over rough terrain.

The humanoid shape is actually earth's best long distance runner, and one of the most dexterous shapes in the whole animal kingdom. When mechs get to a level they can match the full range of human movement - they will replace tanks in rough terrain of other planets.

Other than combat though - mechs could be ideal for use in industry as loaders, transport vehicles and hazardous environment vehicles.

The video shows a great mobility level in the legs - previously unmatched in such a large robot. Also, advanced control systems for the arms.. I like the way the pilot has a full range of arm motion.. add a neurohelmet (wich is a real thing already - rudimentary neurohelmets exist today), and you have a good weapon's platform!

I really want to own my own mech.. I hope I will some day..

I remember there was a game (a series of games --- there were three of them in a series) where humans have landed on a planet, but then the colonists were threatened by alien monsters. In order to survive, the colonists converted and militarized their walking loaders to fight them.

Other than that, in the Gundam UC universe, they took pain and detail to explain and illustrate the social justification of mechs --- being used for agriculture, industry and particularly in the construction of space colonies. But as the "spacenoids" revolted from Earth, they militarized what's available and regardless of their original purpose, and used them for war. That meant the mechs, and in due course, the mechs became specially designed for war.

In the Battletech universe, we know there are Agro-Mechs and Industrial Mechs, especially in the Dark Age period. Since the Republic imposed a quota on all the Clans and the Houses that limit the number of battlemechs, there was not enough battlemechs to come by, and this resulted in the makeshift militarization of available tools, in which case, agro and industrial mechs.

We have seen in real life how peacetime tools were militarized. Wars in Africa has shown that the Toyota Pickup proved to be more valuable even than tanks. We have also seen how trucks were turned into makeshift tanks.

Edited by Anjian, 15 January 2017 - 02:01 AM.

[MarineTechs Protege]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 14 January 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

Of course it doesn't "walk", it is a cube if you missed it. Still, i think it is impressive that it can move and even balance on its edges. Especially considering that balancing on two legs is obviously more difficult to achieve.

By which standards does a mech have to walk? (serious question).
Some roll, some walk some fly.
Some have torso, shoulders, arms and a head but a tank/jetpack/etc instead of legs.
Some have two humanoid legs but a radardish or cannon on top and nothing else.

kurata has the upper body of a humanoid. It a mech regardless how you look at it.

If they fly they are a sort of aerotech unless then are like say: Valkyrie from Robotech which converts to walking modes or the mechs from Code Geass which still walk, but also use wheels and stuff (more similar to Heavy Gear). I don't know what example there is of a rolling mech, unless you mean that to be on wheels... but if they solely only use wheels or tracks to move then by definition they aren't a mech because they don't walk. Walking is the primary thing which differentiates a mech from other things. If they have a tank section instead of legs then they aren't a mech. They are a tank with a humanoid torso plopped on top. They are a hybrid stuck in limbo. They are not a true mech though.

And by what standard? Well basically the standard of BattleTech, Robotech, Evangelion, Code Geass, and Gundam (where the Guntanks are barely considered Mobile Suits at all due to the fact they don't have legs, hands etc). So basically by literally everything that created the standard definitions of a mech. They all have a couple things in common, most notably they all WALK.

When you create a franchise that changes the definition of what constitutes a mech, then you can say that Kurata is a mech. Until then, it does not match any standard due to not having legs. It is just some random thing in limbo. Kurata is something which wishes it was a mech, but in actuality it is the equivalent of the Gundam GunTank... just some weird thing that no one but a few actually considers a mech/mobile suit, and more just a tank with arms.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Tanks seem to get stuck easily in rough terrain.





Engineers could have gotten tired of military personnel complaining about armored vehicles getting stuck in the mud 250 billion light years from the nearest tow truck.

And stuck legs on tanks to prevent it from happening in the future.

Thus mechs?

[MarineTechs Protege]

I Zeratul I, on 16 January 2017 - 10:10 PM, said:

Tanks seem to get stuck easily in rough terrain.





Engineers could have gotten tired of military personnel complaining about armored vehicles getting stuck in the mud 250 billion light years from the nearest tow truck.

And stuck legs on tanks to prevent it from happening in the future.

Thus mechs?

Mechs would very easily get stuck in mud. Tanks have the added advantage of displacing weight across a much larger platform. A mech would sink twice as fast into the mud. Probably would fall over and never get back up. Legs would only make that situation worse.

Imagine a mech walking along and one leg steps into the mud while the other is on dry land.... goodbye mech.