135 replies to this topic

[Jackal Noble]

Nightbird, on 10 March 2018 - 07:50 AM, said:

Some of these are not QC related, it's been stated that retrofitting of civil war tech weapons will take place in phases.

Conceptually, Nightbird I agree with you, but from a timeline perspective they start to look more and more like QC related.
Here are some misfits for all y'all.

Weird mismatch on the back side torso hardpoints (minor)


Grill vents on back of ballistic point (right torso is EBJ-A, left is newer EBJ-EC) (minor)


These are both LB5xes on the Mauler Knockout Hero, the RA uses the LB2X model however


Dual UAC20s is not possible in the RA of the WHK-Nanuq. 10s are tho.


Highlander showing off the ultra secret IS weapon - the Gauss Hole cannon

[Koniving]

Davegt27, on 09 March 2018 - 09:20 AM, said:

I have been holding off since you guys are work on Solaris 7 but


AC2 and AC5 look the same


should be 3 UAC2s (same if you mount 3 Rac2s)


Should be a UAC2 not an AC2



also all IS UACs and Rac's use the same art work

HTHs

Centurion hasn't gone through the 'pass" for the new weapons upgrades yet.
Blackjack hasn't either, but that issue's been around since... Blackjack came out. In fact the UAC/5 barrels combined are skinnier than the universal autocannon projectile that the game has.

[Jackal Noble]

Koniving, on 10 March 2018 - 08:39 AM, said:

Centurion hasn't gone through the 'pass" for the new weapons upgrades yet.
Blackjack hasn't either, but that issue's been around since... Blackjack came out. In fact the UAC/5 barrels combined are skinnier than the universal autocannon projectile that the game has.

Alas, this is not what I started the thread for but is relevant none the less.
when is the last patch any mech got a weapon pass?

Edited by JackalBeast, 10 March 2018 - 08:46 AM.

[Koniving]

JackalBeast, on 10 March 2018 - 08:28 AM, said:

Highlander showing off the ultra secret IS weapon - the Gauss Hole cannon

Not sure what the issue is.

Its a Gauss Rifle.
If you remove it, there's nothing there and a void of space.
If you add it... well regardless of light or normal, it looks the same.
And if you change it to an AC, it looks like an AC.

Something off about it?
Is there a comparison to be made?

It's always looked like that.
From side: 2013

Much of the barrel is in the recess protected by the two plates of armor.


And there's another Gauss Rifle. Its identical, minus the protective recesses from an extra-long arm.

You'll need to explain more than "Gauss hole cannon"

[Koniving]

JackalBeast, on 10 March 2018 - 08:46 AM, said:

Alas, this is not what I started the thread for but is relevant none the less.
when is the last patch any mech got a weapon pass?

Having dug through the patch notes:

The last pass was in November.
It applied to the following mechs:
• UrbanMech
• Griffin
• Victor
• Kit Fox
• Linebacker
• Thanatos

Basically, the "Annual reward" aka "Loyalty" mech chassis + Thanatos because it just released... got the pass.

[Koniving]

RACs use a different style. But you're showing mechs that haven't had the retrofit yet.
Lemme get a screen.


Urbie RAC 2, 5, and UAC/5


Annihilator doesn't show it very well. Since the Victor is listed, will check it really quick for some more comparisons.

[Jackal Noble]

Koniving, on 10 March 2018 - 08:47 AM, said:

Not sure what the issue is.

Its a Gauss Rifle.
If you remove it, there's nothing there and a void of space.
If you add it... well regardless of light or normal, it looks the same.
And if you change it to an AC, it looks like an AC.

Something off about it?
Is there a comparison to be made?

It's always looked like that.
From side: 2013

Much of the barrel is in the recess protected by the two plates of armor.


And there's another Gauss Rifle. Its identical, minus the protective recesses from an extra-long arm.

You'll need to explain more than "Gauss hole cannon"

Didn't think it needed much explanation. Here are some regular gauss holes. I realize that the highlander utilizes some old models, but it's pretty obvious that it is different. Below are some chassis' with better normalization







and then this again.

[Nightbird]

MWO weapons have different sizes based on mech size... weapons on assaults would look ridiculously large on lights, and weapons on lights would look ridiculous on assaults.

[Koniving]

Retrofit Victor
Note: Order listed is order mounted.
1) LBX 10 AC/2 and LMG
2) LMG LBX 10 and RAC/2
3) RAC/2, LBX 10, LMG.
4) Ultra/5, Ultra/2, AC/2
5) Light Gauss to Heavy Gauss.
6) AC/5, Ultra/5, RAC/5


Ultra 20 and Ultra 10 are just slightly different scales but otherwise identical so wasn't worth wasting space for.

Anyway, there ya go. Nothing wrong (far as I can tell) with Victor or Urban placements, but these were provided to show the difference between Ultra and RAC models, post-geometry-retrofit.

[Koniving]

JackalBeast, on 10 March 2018 - 09:09 AM, said:

Didn't think it needed much explanation. Here are some regular gauss holes. I realize that the highlander utilizes some old models, but it's pretty obvious that it is different. Below are some chassis' with better normalization







and then this again.

Ah.

I get it.
Issue with that... is the newer stuff.

Allow me to show you a mech with a Gauss Rifle.


And now a mech with Heavy Gauss Rifles.

The "Owl eyes" on the Fafnir are the barrels of the Heavy Gauss Rifles.
Or as originally depicted..

Basically a Gauss Rifle's supposed to have big barrels.

But the Gauss Rifle on most mechs...

are the same size as AC/2s in terms of barrels, and now that just isn't right...
In fact on most mechs it is no bigger than the opening of an AC/2, which if I'm not mistaken I recall someone saying PGI sized the standardized AC/2 opening to 40mm. Not sure if that's true or not, but considering that the aperture slug of standard Gauss Rifles are at minimum 80mm to 150mm in diameter in my own digging through novels... its pretty much too small.

Though I wonder if they're bigger than that, as the Yen Lo Wang-2's Gauss Rifle was loaded with Iron Girders as an improvised form of ammunition.

Edited by McValium, 10 March 2018 - 01:30 PM.
removed a couple pictures about designchoices to keep the thread clean

[Nightbird]

Nice comparison Koniving. Basically, MWO does not differentiate between 1 slot and 7 slot weapons. Heck, even an AC20 will still fit in the same visual hard point as an AC2.

[Jackal Noble]

Nightbird, on 10 March 2018 - 09:41 AM, said:

Nice comparison Koniving. Basically, MWO does not differentiate between 1 slot and 7 slot weapons. Heck, even an AC20 will still fit in the same visual hard point as an AC2.

Right. My point being from a normalization standpoint with the disparities being front and center.

[Nightbird]

JackalBeast, on 10 March 2018 - 09:45 AM, said:

Right. My point being from a normalization standpoint with the disparities being front and center.

Can't be done in MWO, try to photoshop an AC20 from an Atlas onto an Urbie... it's the same size as the CT+both ST lol!

[Nightbird]

I believe that 'real railgun shell' is a test round designed to decelerate quickly to avoid it from flying off into the horizon on a ricochet lol

The real round doesn't have those bars near the tip and in the middle. Just doing some QC for you

Edited by Nightbird, 10 March 2018 - 10:10 AM.

[Koniving]

Nightbird, on 10 March 2018 - 09:50 AM, said:

Can't be done in MWO, try to photoshop an AC20 from an Atlas onto an Urbie... it's the same size as the CT+both ST lol!

Not quite, the Atlas Ac/20 is bigger, but its doable.


Side note:
None of Battletech's weapons are standardized.
For example AC/2s range from 30mm to 90mm (LBX-2 goes down to 20mm)
AC/5s range from 40mm to 120mm.
AC/10s range from 80mm to 120mm supposedly, but I have NOT found a single case of an AC/10 above 100mm in ANY of the novels I've read so far and I'm starting to run out...
AC/20s are weird. In the novels they go down as far as 40mm, though in listings they go down as low as 30mm... and they cap at 203mm with the Ebon Jaguar being the only example I seen. Someone claimed on reddit that there's an AC/20 at 203mm and swore it was on the Yen Lo Wang. The Yen Lo Wang uses a 40mm Pontiac 100 with 3,000+ rounds in 3 tons of ammunition.... So, no.

And 40mm Pontiac 100 struck me as weird, as in order to get the 100 shot magazine to match the damage rating... well the math points to it being a 30mm after normalization between shell sizes as then 10 shots 30mm AC/2 would have the same damage as 100 shots AC/20... but that makes a lot of assumptions. Also the 40mm Pontiac 100 AC/20 mentioned in Allard (Yen Lo Wang)'s story actually if it were a flat even 3,000 shells in those 3 tons of ammo, would need 200 shells to do 20 damage... And this I only learned when someone tried to discredit my attempt to standardize shot count to damages using the lore I knew so far.

So the whole wildly different sizes could actually be considered in line with the lore. The fact that they all do identical damage with the same number of bullets...not so much. But we'll never get variants, so... I guess standardize 'em?

This was an age old complaint. Still believe its valid, too.


Yep, still is.


Watch the bullets.

The 3 barrels are, combined, almost as big as the bullet being fired... Blackjack.

Long standing issue. ER PPCs, PPCs, etc. the same size as AC/2s when on the arms... but are MUCH larger in diameter on the side torsos.

I wouldn't count on every issue getting fixed... but I do agree some standardizing across variants would be nice since we're not getting variants.
But just like what you see in the volumetric scaling, they didn't scale anything across the board, they scaled in relation to the same weight class... but in terms of weapons...they haven't even done that. Just the most standardized stuff has been copy/pasted while in the past they copy/pasted and rescaled...

[Y E O N N E]

Koniving, on 10 March 2018 - 09:52 AM, said:

4th, 5th, and 6th are sabots (this is a list of ammunition of "the US Abrams tank" uses so no clarification if this is the 105mm M1 Abrams cannon or the 120mm M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams cannon).

Given the M830 designation, it's the 120 mm.

Koniving, on 10 March 2018 - 09:52 AM, said:

No wonder they did big ACs as single shots... PGI's looking at artillery cannons and not autocannons. This kinda explains a lot actually.

Considering that the BT ACs do reach to artillery sizes, it's not that strange for PGI to take that route.

[McValium]

Devs asked for help in finding issues, please keep this thread clean of unrelated picture spam. If you want to discuss specific design choices please open a new thread for that.

[PhantomDust]

Thanks for posting guys, really appreciate your feedback. Some of the mechs mentioned still need to go through the retrofit phase so you guys will be seeing those changes going forward.

Also want to point out that small mechs and Assault mechs have different sized weapon models so that they would fit properly. and we do make slight modifications to the weapon sizes to help them fit properly on mechs that have issues with the standardized sizing.

also if you guys could keep the thread on topic that would be great, as i would like to tackle actual bugs and not design choices that we have made.

Again thanks for all the feedback! it really does help

[Jackal Noble]

PhantomDust, on 10 March 2018 - 12:42 PM, said:

Thanks for posting guys, really appreciate your feedback. Some of the mechs mentioned still need to go through the retrofit phase so you guys will be seeing those changes going forward.

Also want to point out that small mechs and Assault mechs have different sized weapon models so that they would fit properly. and we do make slight modifications to the weapon sizes to help them fit properly on mechs that have issues with the standardized sizing.

also if you guys could keep the thread on topic that would be great, as i would like to tackle actual bugs and not design choices that we have made.

Again thanks for all the feedback! it really does help

thank you.

[Koniving]

Spoiler

Howitzers are not autocannons, however. Nor are autocannon shells guided, as that howitzer shell is. (Used to work artillery, MOS 13 Mike, but never seen a guided howitzer shell before; then again we focused on the MLRS).

Autocannons
30 and 40mm ACs Generally these fit more along the lines of big freaking bullets (that explode) as opposed to tank shells or artillery shells.

Naval ship autocannons such as the 155mm, far as I can see, use traditional discarding ammunition rather than guided howitzer shells (though one would think it might make sense... but guess you wouldn't need them considering how big ships are?).
https://defencyclope...modern-warship/
http://www.navweaps....S_61-62_ags.php


That's the length for autocannon shells intended to fire and accurately hit targets at 30+ miles (while the girth might be similar to those used by mechs, given the size of mechs there's no feasible way they're using AC shells that length, plus the bold statement that ACs go out to 2,000 meters (1.24 miles), while the operational range of a 203mm howitzer is 523 kilometers or 324 miles ).
There's no existing autocannon that uses field artillery munitions of that nature.
Even Naval 8 inch cannons, 203mm in nature, don't appear to fire that kind of ammunition.

Though from what I see, the operational range of a naval 203mm (aka 8-inch cannon) seems to be between 17 and 20 miles? Not entirely sure as to why though I figure it has to do with ammunition; at first I thought it was because most references go into world war II, but apparently even the 1990s weren't too kind to its range.

The longest range straddle (where you place a shot or salvo too far and then too close or vice-versa) in history is 35,700 yards (32.6 km) or 20.2567 miles, 16th of February, 1944 using a 16 inch (406mm) / caliber cannon (the same caliber that is apparently still mounted on US naval battleships produced in the 1990s but with better targeting systems but perhaps that explains why the operational range hasn't changed much; the ammunition didn't see any major changes beyond adding new types, also by the list of ammo types, perhaps the reason that naval autocannons and "self-loading cannons" [which apparently are NOT the same thing...didn't know that but good to know] are using traditional shells is due to the nature of their intended targets, howitzers do not typically have the same firing missions as naval cannons... ).


Though I am curious as to why I can't find autocannons listed above 155mm which seem debatable as to whether they are classified as ACs or simply cannons, and most lists of the world's ACs end the list at 76mm

World War II, though, apparently had rotary autocannons on naval ships.... that's new. I know they had remote control mini-tanks if you can call them that...

On that image earlier that someone said was a training round. Actually do believe it was part of an effort to produce a smaller rail gun for mounting on tanks.

Spoiler

Ignore the subtitles this is a Canadian tank engineer discussing the stuff, but I happened to see the footage and it reminded me of it when he disassembles the parts intended to break off after launch (the frame is necessary to launch the projectile straight).

Spoilers added.

Edited by Koniving, 10 March 2018 - 01:33 PM.