50 replies to this topic

[Rovertoo]

Bombast, on 04 October 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

Legged locomotion is just an inherently inefficient, dangerous system, regardless of any tech advancement in 'muscles.' Small, compact, dense tanks are just a better options nearly across the board.

As FupDup said, there's maybe a niche for very small bipedal designs, maybe a couple meters tall, but a 12 meter tall robot is insane.

To be fair, if you could get robot legs that had the same balance and movement capabilities of say human legs, they would have quite a lot of benefits. Crouching behind cover, stepping up onto ledges, bracing against impacts, jumping, etc. Way more adaptable than wheels or treads ever could be. But its kind of like a million dollar investment, until you get the million bucks it doesnt matter how much money you could make. Wheels and treads are just way simpler than legs ever will be so until you can pretty mutch make gundam style robot legs the costs will outweigh the benefits by a long way!

[Trenchbird]

To be honest, it's less the legs than the equipment and advancements needed to make legs viable. Balancing, responsive handling, able to handle getting hit and getting back up, etc. We can do such things on a human or animal (As in Tiger-sized) scale, but so far, we can't reach 5+ meter height bipedal things yet. And if we can do so without a neurohelmet, I almost assure that said "mech" would be robotic.

[Alan Davion]

Catten Hart, on 04 October 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

To be honest, it's less the legs than the equipment and advancements needed to make legs viable. Balancing, responsive handling, able to handle getting hit and getting back up, etc. We can do such things on a human or animal (As in Tiger-sized) scale, but so far, we can't reach 5+ meter height bipedal things yet. And if we can do so without a neurohelmet, I almost assure that said "mech" would be robotic.

Ever taken a look at Dream Pod 9's Heavy Gear?

Especially the way they've written the lore around the mechs themselves, which are actually the "Gear" in the name. The Gears stand between 4-6 meters tall, and have all the same basic equipment as a Battlemech does, gyro, engine, etc.

The key difference is the Gear doesn't rely on a neuro-link with a human for balance, it instead has a limited form of AI that's capable of reacting far faster than a human mind could. The human still pilots the machine, the "neural network" AI though translates the pilots control inputs into the actual movements of the machine itself.

A Heavy Gear is a far more realistic, possibly even far more achievable form of humanoid war machine than a Battlemech or a Gundam is with the technology of today.

[Trenchbird]

I have, but I only knew a bit about Heavy Gears. That does sound pretty close to what reality would be, except I wager we'd take it a step farther and use robots instead of people as pilots.

After all, why "Waste a body" when you can have a robot that can already walk, and make it so said programmable machine can also use the guns automatically, aim, etc. etc., or be wired to a terminal so the pilot is removed from the actual fight.

Edited by Catten Hart, 04 October 2017 - 05:50 PM.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

My issue with the Uziel's animations is that it plays the death animations too often.

[Alan Davion]

Catten Hart, on 04 October 2017 - 05:49 PM, said:

I have, but I only knew a bit about Heavy Gears. That does sound pretty close to what reality would be, except I wager we'd take it a step farther and use robots instead of people as pilots.

After all, why "Waste a body" when you can have a robot that can already walk, and make it so said programmable machine can also use the guns automatically, aim, etc. etc., or be wired to a terminal so the pilot is removed from the actual fight.

If you've ever watched Macross Plus and you'll have a good idea as to the whole "Man vs Machine" thing. If you haven't seen Macross Plus...

GO WATCH IT. NOW. SERIOUSLY.

A machines biggest disadvantage is quite literally mans biggest advantage. A man can come up with solutions that a machine can't. A machine can only operate within the bounds of its programming.

Sure you can program a machine with battle tactics and strategies, but in the end they are still machines and are therefore predictable. A man, when he chooses, can be completely unpredictable and can turn conventional tactics on their head and break a conventional strategy.

[Snowbluff]

Alan Davion, on 04 October 2017 - 05:38 PM, said:

The key difference is the Gear doesn't rely on a neuro-link with a human for balance, it instead has a limited form of AI that's capable of reacting far faster than a human mind could. The human still pilots the machine, the "neural network" AI though translates the pilots control inputs into the actual movements of the machine itself.

This is actually kind of how Battlemechs work as is. Their "fly by wire" will react to terrain order to keep the mech from damaging themselves. For example, a mech won't let itself be run through a wall normally.

And also... how does the neurohelm even improve balance on a battle mech? THey have gyros that weight several tons. :s

[Athom83]

Alan Davion, on 04 October 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

A man, when he chooses, can be completely unpredictable and can turn conventional tactics on their head and break a conventional strategy.

Which is why I take out my Highlander loaded full with JJs. People never expect the locations I can get to XD.

[Bombast]

Snowbluff, on 04 October 2017 - 08:32 PM, said:

And also... how does the neurohelm even improve balance on a battle mech? THey have gyros that weight several tons. :s

From Sarna...

Quote

With a multi-ton Gyro and powerful Myomers in the limbs, BattleMechs can stand upright and remain balanced on their own, but the limited intelligence of 'Mechs and natural conservatism of their control computers means they often need to be told when it is acceptable to be off-balance, which may be helpful in battle as MechWarriors push their machines to the limits. The neurohelmet provides this by reading the brainwaves of the pilot, though rather than attempting to interpret the complexity of human thoughts it focuses on specific centers of the brain. By focusing on these easily translatable signals, the neurohelmet can help communicate a pilot's intentions to the DI computer; for example, whether a pilot wishes to avoid the enemy 'Mech it's running towards or throw itself forward to charge into it.

So basically, gyros keep the mech upright, but Nuerohelmets tell the mech when its okay not to be, and helps it keep from toppling over while doing something 'stupid.'

You can compare this to, say aircraft - Conventional wisdom would have you believe these planes are perfectly aerodynamic, but that's not true. For high speed maneuvers, there needs to be a certain lack of aerodynamics - If this weren't true, air planes would only be able to fly in straight lines.

[DaZur]

Cathy, on 04 October 2017 - 07:34 AM, said:

It's a bad stance all round. No engineer would ever make something bow legged as it puts the stresses all on one side of the joint. The model maker of the Uziel and the Madcat II clearly has no concept of Engineering

Not an engineer myself... But having modelled fighter aircraft for flight sims, I understand CofG and moment of inertia.

I look at that static image of the Uziel and my OCD flares up because I see all kinds of wrong in that design.

[Trenchbird]

Alan Davion, on 04 October 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

If you've ever watched Macross Plus and you'll have a good idea as to the whole "Man vs Machine" thing. If you haven't seen Macross Plus...

GO WATCH IT. NOW. SERIOUSLY.

A machines biggest disadvantage is quite literally mans biggest advantage. A man can come up with solutions that a machine can't. A machine can only operate within the bounds of its programming.

Sure you can program a machine with battle tactics and strategies, but in the end they are still machines and are therefore predictable. A man, when he chooses, can be completely unpredictable and can turn conventional tactics on their head and break a conventional strategy.

I mean, controlling it from afar is still controlling it.

[Juodas Varnas]

Not really an animation bug, but still another issue with the Uziel, that i found.
The arms are actually not symmetrical. I noticed it and i can't unsee it anymore.

There's a piece of geometry (right under the PPC barrel) that is insanely inconsistent and on some Uziel variants exists but disappears when you add a weapon, in other variants is absent completely, in other variants exists on one of the arms, while in another variant it's on the other arm.

It's an absolute mess and it's pissed me off. It just shows how RUSHED the Uziel was. I would've happily given it another month in the oven to get rid of all these bloody issues.... Ugh... WHY, PGI, WHY?

[Verilligo]

Asymmetry is kind of a tiny, semi-silly complaint when it comes to the Uziel, though. Its arms are intentionally asymmetrical even in the TRO and lore images. Now I wouldn't be surprised if there was some weirdness going on that wasn't intentional, like what happened with the Shadowcat and Orion/Orion IIC, but it is sort of a goofy mech. Like a lot of mechs introduced in MW4, odd instances of asymmetry were kind of the rule.

[Juodas Varnas]

Verilligo, on 06 October 2017 - 06:19 AM, said:

Asymmetry is kind of a tiny, semi-silly complaint when it comes to the Uziel, though. Its arms are intentionally asymmetrical even in the TRO and lore images. Now I wouldn't be surprised if there was some weirdness going on that wasn't intentional, like what happened with the Shadowcat and Orion/Orion IIC, but it is sort of a goofy mech. Like a lot of mechs introduced in MW4, odd instances of asymmetry were kind of the rule.

The issue is that it's a problem even with the variants that ARE symmetrical, like the 2S (which i prefer). And besides it's not the general asymmetry that i have a problem with, it's the inconsistency. Some variants have that geometry only when there's nothing in the arm, others never have it, other have it all the time.
It definitely doesn't seem intentional.

Also, take a look at the arms of the Uziel variant with the UAC2s. The right-arm is missing half the housing!

It just looks so rushed... But again... Minimally viable product...

[Verilligo]

But the -2S isn't symmetrical. The left arm has 2E and the right arm has 1E. The only symmetrical Uziels are the -6P and Belial. Regardless, the housing issues with the -3P are suspect, so it wouldn't be too surprising to hear that the other variants have some wonkiness as well. I have the same issue looking at the Crabs in the store, there's no rhyme or reason to why different variants have different geometries on each claw from what I can see.

[Juodas Varnas]

Verilligo, on 06 October 2017 - 07:04 AM, said:

But the -2S isn't symmetrical. The left arm has 2E and the right arm has 1E. The only symmetrical Uziels are the -6P and Belial. Regardless, the housing issues with the -3P are suspect, so it wouldn't be too surprising to hear that the other variants have some wonkiness as well. I have the same issue looking at the Crabs in the store, there's no rhyme or reason to why different variants have different geometries on each claw from what I can see.

Actually for Crabs there IS rhyme and reason why they have different claws.
It's the Hand Actuator. Hand Actuator uses the sharp pronged hand-like claws, while the ones without hand actuators use the big crab-like claws.
It's also that way in the original TRO artworks, if i recall correctly.

2S Uziel IS symmetrical in its original loadout. Only reason it might not be is due to completely arbitrary and nonsensical hardpoint inflations PGI does.

[Mark Nicholson]

Juodas Varnas, on 06 October 2017 - 06:04 AM, said:

There's a piece of geometry (right under the PPC barrel) that is insanely inconsistent

It's consistently not showing up when there's a weapon in hardpoint 1, but no hardpoint 2 available, or on double ballistic arms.
Like the missing UAC2 mount, this is not working as intended.

as always, if you think you've found a bug, contact support.

[Juodas Varnas]

Mark Nicholson, on 06 October 2017 - 10:10 AM, said:

It's consistently not showing up when there's a weapon in hardpoint 1, but no hardpoint 2 available, or on double ballistic arms.

Huh...
What was the reasoning behind doing it that way? Especially considering that when you add the second weapon into the arms, that geometry disappears.

Edit: Oh. Brainfart. "Like the missing UAC mount.... not working as intended", i don't engrish very well.
Nevermind me, just being a *******.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 06 October 2017 - 10:52 AM.

[Armored Yokai]

I can't take it anymore, the legs are hideously huge and it is the first thing to go on it...

[Juodas Varnas]

Alright, alright, this is PROBABLY my last complaint about that thing before i lose interest in it and start using my Crappy Trebuchet or Vindicator again.

The leg-joint, the one that's not rigged to any animations and is completely immobile is... It's hard to even describe... Basically when the mech dies and becomes a ragdoll, it basically slumps over as if there's no resistance in the legs at all and the legs especially end up in a tangled mess, with the legs clipping into themselves.
So i assume that the leg joint that is immobile in all of the animations isn't properly rigged to prevent the mech from clipping into itself.

This screenshot is a result of the mech dying from overheating while standing still. Upon death, it instantly smashed itself instead of more or less naturally falling over like every other mech.