13 replies to this topic

[Deathticle-ThatsNoMoon]

These are just fun. When I read the articles I immediately thought of myomer and neurohelmets!


https://phys.org/new...uperpowers.html

https://medicalxpres...-arm-minds.html

[Armored Yokai]

Battlemechs are very possible, though they would be considered inefficient compared to no skill drones and tanks.
We can see a "Mech" that can Run/Walk in 2030-2060 instead of being on those stupid wheels.
LEGS are what make a Battlemech cooler than something on wheels.

[Khobai]

quads would be more effective than bipedal mechs

because quads are more stable and can hull down more easily

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 27 November 2017 - 07:27 PM, said:

quads would be more effective than bipedal mechs

because quads are more stable and can hull down more easily

Quad mechs would be great in a circus.

[arcana75]

Mechs are just impractical, too many mechanical parts to get dirt and mud in, too much maintenance. And we're not just talking about the battlefield or military applications. But probably the only thing I can think of that makes sense to have a mech, is force projection. Nothing imposes, be it riot control or military presence, like a towering robot.

Mech-suits on the other hand, more practical applications. For Mechs to work, they have function at GUNDAM levels of agility and proxy.

[Khobai]

getting rid of the human equation would help make mechs more viable too.

theres a lot more freedom if dont have to design a mech around protecting a wimpy bag of meat

unmanned mechs have more potential than manned ones, especially if you want the kindve acceleration in gundam that would realistically kill humans lol.

who wants gundams limited to accelerating at 9g or -3g for short periods of time. thats ZzzzZz !@#$ing slow.

Edited by Khobai, 27 November 2017 - 09:30 PM.

[Xavori]

Khobai, on 27 November 2017 - 09:26 PM, said:

getting rid of the human equation would help make mechs more viable too.

theres a lot more freedom if dont have to design a mech around protecting a wimpy bag of meat

unmanned mechs have more potential than manned ones, especially if you want the kindve acceleration in gundam that would realistically kill humans lol.

who wants gundams limited to accelerating at 9g or -3g for short periods of time. thats ZzzzZz !@#$ing slow.

Who wants aerial weapon platforms that aren't designed to be as aerodynamically sleek as possible which means sticking arms and legs on them is stupid.

Same goes for ground-based weapons. You're wasting so much weight on actuators and controls and the armor to protect them versus simple tracks.

No, big stompy robots are for funzorz, not real life

[arcana75]

Khobai, on 27 November 2017 - 09:26 PM, said:

getting rid of the human equation would help make mechs more viable too.

theres a lot more freedom if dont have to design a mech around protecting a wimpy bag of meat

unmanned mechs have more potential than manned ones, especially if you want the kindve acceleration in gundam that would realistically kill humans lol.

who wants gundams limited to accelerating at 9g or -3g for short periods of time. thats ZzzzZz !@#$ing slow.

Well, sci-fi solved the g-force problem, how they do it I have no clue, but it's apparently solved. G-force is an acceleration force, so anything that accelerates will experience this force. The faster the acceleration the higher the g-force. And g-force applies in space as well. However, lifeforms in Star Trek and Star Wars don't go squish each time they go into warp or hyperspace.

As for nearer-term sci-fi, the implementation by Pacific Rim seems plausible: a fully suspended life-form, attached to a g-force negating arm. That will deal with alot of g-force issues, though not completely eliminating it.

The gundam part, to repeat myself, I was referring to the agility. Not slow lumbering robots, but robots with near human proxy agility, hence the robot is a near extension of the pilot. Such a robot will have immense application eg construction.

[Kuaron]

I want quad Mechs in a Battletech FPS 2017!

[Khobai]

Quote

Who wants aerial weapon platforms that aren't designed to be as aerodynamically sleek as possible which means sticking arms and legs on them is stupid.

some gundams transform into planes for that EXACT reason

Quote

Well, sci-fi solved the g-force problem, how they do it I have no clue, but it's apparently solved. G-force is an acceleration force, so anything that accelerates will experience this force. The faster the acceleration the higher the g-force. And g-force applies in space as well. However, lifeforms in Star Trek and Star Wars don't go squish each time they go into warp or hyperspace.

yeah and star trek is stupid in that regard.

humans go squish when you accelerate too fast. the whole concept of an inertial dampener is absurd.

even space exploration works better without human bodies. if humans could download their consciousness into a machine it would work far better for space exploration than physical bodies.

then you can accelerate pretty much as fast as you want. you dont need life support. you dont need to bring all kinds of food and water.

when it comes to doing anything cool, the human body is the biggest letdown there is. the greatest evolution for humans would be to shed their physical bodies for mechanical ones.

Quote

Same goes for ground-based weapons. You're wasting so much weight on actuators and controls and the armor to protect them versus simple tracks.

well ground based weapons in general are primitive these days

aerial drones are far more practical

Edited by Khobai, 28 November 2017 - 09:30 AM.

[Mole]

arcana75, on 28 November 2017 - 12:41 AM, said:

Well, sci-fi solved the g-force problem, how they do it I have no clue, but it's apparently solved. G-force is an acceleration force, so anything that accelerates will experience this force. The faster the acceleration the higher the g-force. And g-force applies in space as well. However, lifeforms in Star Trek and Star Wars don't go squish each time they go into warp or hyperspace.

As for nearer-term sci-fi, the implementation by Pacific Rim seems plausible: a fully suspended life-form, attached to a g-force negating arm. That will deal with alot of g-force issues, though not completely eliminating it.

The gundam part, to repeat myself, I was referring to the agility. Not slow lumbering robots, but robots with near human proxy agility, hence the robot is a near extension of the pilot. Such a robot will have immense application eg construction.

I'm not sure what Star Wars' explanation is but as a Star Trek fan, most vessels come equipped with "intertial dampeners" which is the explanation behind there being so little G-force impact on the crew while performing maneuvers. There's been a few episodes I can remember where a ship got its intertial dampeners damaged in some way or another and the ship was basically disabled until they got them fixed.

[arcana75]

Mole, on 28 November 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

I'm not sure what Star Wars' explanation is but as a Star Trek fan, most vessels come equipped with "intertial dampeners" which is the explanation behind there being so little G-force impact on the crew while performing maneuvers. There's been a few episodes I can remember where a ship got its intertial dampeners damaged in some way or another and the ship was basically disabled until they got them fixed.

I don't think SW ever gave an explanation in the movies, but I bet it's there in the previous EU canon which after Disney bought Lucas, is no longer canon.

The Alcubierre drive proposed by NASA, is a current theoretical system that the newer Star Trek movies are emulating when they depict warp drive, by manipulating the space infront of the vessel, thereby propelling the space behind the warped space.

http://www.andersoni...warp-drive.html

Apparently, this drive, the passengers in a vessel will not experience any g-force because the vessel is in "free-fall" and the passengers will feel nothing. I obviously don't understand the science behind it all, but it does suggest that the meat-bag problem isn't going to be a problem.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

arcana75, on 27 November 2017 - 09:19 PM, said:

Mechs are just impractical, too many mechanical parts to get dirt and mud in, too much maintenance. And we're not just talking about the battlefield or military applications. But probably the only thing I can think of that makes sense to have a mech, is force projection. Nothing imposes, be it riot control or military presence, like a towering robot.

Mech-suits on the other hand, more practical applications. For Mechs to work, they have function at GUNDAM levels of agility and proxy.

thats the same thats all says by the jump from the Horseback to Tanks
more impractical as a Aircraft Carrier ? and not the Giant Big 20m Mechs from MWO today ...by Start of Battletech the Shadowhawk only half of the size from his MWO Part ..only 9,63m Tall..thats the Lenght of a Abrams with Maingun..more Battlesuits with maximal 8-9m Height

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 29 November 2017 - 03:30 AM.

[RedDragon]

If someone hasn't seen it yet: