69 replies to this topic

[evilauthor]

Spr1ggan, on 13 July 2017 - 05:40 AM, said:

How about an old wrecked biodome? Like a cross between river city and bog, urban but overgrown.

Certainly more appropriate to the Battletech backstory. There's plenty of destroyed biodomes destroyed by the early Succession Wars that are (sorta) still standing.

Although I'm still wondering what the hell happened to Frozen City. Looking around, it obviously used to be a temperate coastal city of some kind like River City. But it looks like it was hit with an ice age overnight.

[pyrocomp]

evilauthor, on 13 July 2017 - 06:04 AM, said:

Certainly more appropriate to the Battletech backstory. There's plenty of destroyed biodomes destroyed by the early Succession Wars that are (sorta) still standing.

Although I'm still wondering what the hell happened to Frozen City. Looking around, it obviously used to be a temperate coastal city of some kind like River City. But it looks like it was hit with an ice age overnight.

A winter happend. In a city where population was evaced and any maitenance stopped.
A pic from 1960-is Yakutsk. The traffic light is of normal height (that is 2-3 m from ground to the lowest light).



Another pic from Komsomolsk-on-Amur. This was a single (but long) blizzard.


Compare to Frozen.

Edited by pyrocomp, 13 July 2017 - 07:13 AM.

[evilauthor]

Frozen City has a frozen ocean, complete with a cargo ship or something tilted at an odd angle. Not to mention being strewn with random vehicles parked at odd angles. Also gigantic snowdrifts piled up against the towers poking out of the snow.

How about Terra Therma? For what god forsaken reason is an active volcano considered a strategic target worth fighting over?

[YourSaviorLegion]

Gwahlur, on 12 July 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

With low gravity/no atmosphere that would make lurms less effective than usual?

Otherwise it would be a pure lurm map.

A low low gravity map would be fun either way though

You do realize missiles would actually perform better in space? Kind of the same reasons as to why an ICMB is launched into space then back down.

[SMDMadCow]

YourSaviorLegion, on 13 July 2017 - 02:27 PM, said:

You do realize missiles would actually perform better in space? Kind of the same reasons as to why an ICMB is launched into space then back down.

Only if missiles can vector their thrust and I haven't seen anything in the lore that says they do or don't.

[Gwahlur]

YourSaviorLegion, on 13 July 2017 - 02:27 PM, said:

You do realize missiles would actually perform better in space? Kind of the same reasons as to why an ICMB is launched into space then back down.

I was of the impression that engines still needed something to "push against" (atmosphere), so I started to read up a bit on this https://en.wikipedia...raft_propulsion and this https://en.wikipedia...on_technologies

Can't say i'm that much wiser

Edit: What's an ICMB?

Edit2: So yeah... No atmosphere for steering fins to work with, and no atmosphere for propulsion to work with = dumbfire missiles that would continue up into space due to no steering was my reasoning.

Edited by Gwahlur, 13 July 2017 - 03:21 PM.

[davoodoo]

Gwahlur, on 13 July 2017 - 03:14 PM, said:

I was of the impression that engines still needed something to "push against" (atmosphere), so I started to read up a bit on this https://en.wikipedia...raft_propulsion and this https://en.wikipedia...on_technologies

Can't say i'm that much wiser

Edit: What's an ICMB?

Edit2: So yeah... No atmosphere for steering fins to work with, and no atmosphere for propulsion to work with = dumbfire missiles that would continue up into space due to no steering was my reasoning.

ICBM=intercontinental ballistic missile
https://en.wikipedia...llistic_missile

Also no, our current space rockets travel using scaled up missile propulsion and like i already showed before they dont steer with fins but rather by additional exhausts with fins to stablise.


But that aint even the problem.
How do you fire anything that produces recoil without gravity?

Regular firearms would be too dangerous to use on our moon so how the **** would battlemech stay attached to ground after firing 203mm burst from autocannon??
So you basically throw out mgs, entire ac family and ppcs as sources claim they also produce recoil(though i wouldnt take that as gospel, since gauss produces little to no recoil with how it functions, yet apparently heavy gauss can tear of battlemech arm...)

Edited by davoodoo, 13 July 2017 - 03:43 PM.

[Gwahlur]

davoodoo, on 13 July 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

ICBM=intercontinental ballistic missile
https://en.wikipedia...llistic_missile

Also no, our current space rockets travel using scaled up missile propulsion and like i already showed before they dont steer with fins but rather by additional exhausts for engine.


But that aint even the problem.
How do you fire anything that produces recoil without gravity?

Regular firearms would be too dangerous to use on our moon, but now try to fire 203mm cannon...

Hm, sub-orbital flight. Afaik there's still a bit of atmosphere where satellites, the international spacestation and such orbit the earth though...
And you would have some gravity, how could you not?
But yeah, it would probably have some interesting results... In weightless vacuum, would you end up launching the projectile forwards at half normal velocity while you get launched in the opposite direction at "the other half of the velocity"?

[davoodoo]

Gwahlur, on 13 July 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

Hm, sub-orbital flight. Afaik there's still a bit of atmosphere where satellites, the international spacestation and such orbit the earth though...
And you would have some gravity, how could you not?
But yeah, it would probably have some interesting results... In weightless vacuum, would you end up launching the projectile forwards at half normal velocity while you get launched in the opposite direction at "the other half of the velocity"?

Some gravity.

Our moon basically reduces weight of everything for 1/6th but that doesnt change recoil.

So suddenly even 100ton atlas would become 16.7ton.
Do you know what happens with unbraced 17 ton object which tries to fire 4 203mm guns in quick succession? also dont forget that this is not by any chance logical design which spreads weight and recoil nicely, its a bipedal mech which have problems keeping balance without pilot helping it with his own mind.

Edited by davoodoo, 13 July 2017 - 03:58 PM.

[SPencil]

Gwahlur, on 13 July 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

But yeah, it would probably have some interesting results... In weightless vacuum, would you end up launching the projectile forwards at half normal velocity while you get launched in the opposite direction at "the other half of the velocity"?

The force isn't divided by 2, it's 1:1 as per Isaac Newton: "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." The force we put on our projectiles is the same force we put on ourselves.

Don't try to picture the missiles used in a vacuum looking or functioning anything like missiles in an atmosphere. A missile in space can either use a reaction wheel or some sort some thruster set to orient the missiles mid-flight.

[evilauthor]

LRMs and SRMs work and maneuver in space. In lore, the same LRMs and SRMs used on the ground are also used by fighters and ships in space. In fact, they have BETTER effective ranges in space than they do on the ground.

And more pertinent to MWO, LRMs and SRMs also work on HPG Station... which is in a vacuum. Being in a vacuum is why you can't hear anything but the sounds of your own mech, and even what you do here is muffled because the sound is being transmitted purely through the mech's structure. Yet LRMs perform identically on HPG Station as they do in maps with atmosphere, as do Streak SRMs.

[Hindenhoot]

Khobai, on 12 July 2017 - 04:32 PM, said:

instead of polar highlands in space how bout just space.

mechs would just be dropped off in the middle of space and float around aimlessly. youd have to fire your weapons or use jumpjets in order to move around.

as stupid as that is it would still be better than polar highlands

Didn't MW2:GBL have a map like that late in SP? MW2 Mercs also had that map where you're defending the flying block of ice in space that I fell off more times than I'm comfortable admitting to.

jss78, on 12 July 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

Every time I play Vitric, I keep silently wondering if that planet could even exist, with that blue giant so close. Some resident astrophysicist could probably do the math based on the apparent size and colour of the star.

Gwahlur, on 12 July 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

You'd be quickly spiralling towards your death i believe

That's a pretty reasonable point.

Comparing the planet to Mercury's relationship with our sun, for the planet to exist it would have to have a large, probably mostly metallic, mass to survive and not get ripped apart by the tidal forces. The gravity resulting from that required mass would be incompatible with human survival with the tech in the battletech universe I would think.

That close to a blue giant, the temperatures and effects of its solar wind would be very significant, to put it lightly.

Edited by Dahoota, 13 July 2017 - 05:28 PM.

[AssaultPig]

when you play polar, just turn heat vision on and you can pretend

[Alan Hicks]

I would really like to play that, with or without buildings.

Could be like the advanced moon version of Polar Highlands. It would be really nice with an impressive surface distribution, massive or cool land slopes and maybe some spaceships or a part with a destroyed city.

For example, mechs without jump jets should not suffer the movement issues they get on the outside part of Vitric Forge. Looks and play-ability should be considered with the same importance.

Some people would not want just Polar Highlands in space so it would require a really different map distribution, strange and playable trenches, craters, maybe a destroyed base, big ruins or several crashed lore ships.

[Antares102]

davoodoo, on 13 July 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

So suddenly even 100ton atlas would become 16.7ton.

You are mixing mass and weight.
Mass will stay the same, weight will go down.
A MBT fireing its 120mm gun will just work exactly the same on the moon in terms of recoil as it does on earth
because mass is the thing relevant for absorbing recoil not weight.

[evilauthor]

AssaultPig, on 13 July 2017 - 05:40 PM, said:

when you play polar, just turn heat vision on and you can pretend

LOL. I sometimes turn on heat vision on Polar Highlands just to cut down on all the glare off the snow. It's actually easier to see the how the terrain rolls with thermal vision than regular.

[davoodoo]

Antares102, on 13 July 2017 - 07:58 PM, said:

You are mixing mass and weight.
Mass will stay the same, weight will go down.
A MBT fireing its 120mm gun will just work exactly the same on the moon in terms of recoil as it does on earth
because mass is the thing relevant for absorbing recoil not weight.

No.
Weight is amount of force which you exert upon surface due to gravity.

Basically the force which keeps you locked to the ground.
If theres stronger force than it acting upon you from different direction than gravity, then it will send you flying.

1 example of such force would be recoil which isnt completely defeated on 28 tons 203mm howitzers which fire braced at around 60 degree angle
Now ac20 isnt normal cannon which fires once, but instead it fires burst of 4 203mm shells(at least 1 variant of it) in less than 2.5s(solaris 7 rules) Change angle of fire, put it on less stable bipedal platform which isnt braced and reduce its weight by 30%.
What do you think will happen?? on earth mech will fall down, on moon, it will be sent flying back.

Edited by davoodoo, 14 July 2017 - 05:01 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

I know, it is crazy but...why for a change a map which fullfills the following criterias:
1. is a map with tight clustered obstacles (e.g. city map)
2. has no large phallus symbol in the middle around which everyone dances
3. has no huge open killing field in the middle which everyone is afraid to cross

[SMDMadCow]

*stupid phone quotes wrong person*

https://www.livescie...-gun-space.html

Not a direct 1:1 corollary, but you be the idea.

Edited by SMDMadCow, 14 July 2017 - 06:32 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Khobai, on 12 July 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

maps cost 250K each thats why we hardly ever get new ones

and when the Artists not make Maps, the not become money ,and doing nothing ???? and city Maps for PGI to difficult ?! say russ ...all is to Difficult what can make other Companys and Modteams .or has PGI only 25k $ Devs to make Assets,Patterns or Maps ???? and no workers thats working 8 Hours a day for PGI for 2500 $ in the month?
No city maps
no maps with variation in Gravity (space or aquatic)
...thats like reapair &rearm ,Ik ,FW all to difficult and no Peoples with experience for that working by PGI...Alex Iglesis is the glimmering Gold Star (and Freelancer) by PGI

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 14 July 2017 - 08:22 AM.