47 replies to this topic

[razenWing]

So I got bored of all the meta and I am angry at PGI/No I am not talks of late...

Figure I start something lighter...

How would you design a real life Mech Cockpit?

We are going to assume a lot of it are going to be automated, since... it's impossible for someone to have to juggle battlemech balance while controlling movement and other scenarios.

But let's look at the "default" cockpit given to us, by PGI and other work of art...

Which, all pretty much are a sort of rendition of current fighter jet cockpit. The thing is, even modern fighter jet cockpit might not be the "fighter jet" cockpit in a few decades, so this idea of a throttle and a stick is just kinda outdated.

For one, your fighter jet can roll onto itself and change direction, so a stick makes sense for roll and turning, and a throttle can change the diameter of a circular movement. However, a fighter jet doesn't torso twist. And also, a mech doesn't "roll" onto itself. So that control scheme being adopted 100% onto a battlemech is just wacked.

In fact, for IRL jets, with vetoring starting to be the norm, it might require a different control schemes to effectively utilize vectoring for crazy movements in the sky.

Basically, this cockpit that we have, is not logical and out of date.

But how do you really control something like this? Assuming my assumption about ACH is correct, in that a pilot is 50% submerged in the cockpit in a standing position, then it's sorta like gundam where you pilot with your whole body, which would make sense because your whole body would certainly allow more control scheme.

The other way I can think of is like a locust, where a pilot basically squat on the control like a motorcycle and instead of throttle, you have pedals for movement. You have 2 stick. Problem is that it may be weird to try to control direction with one hand while the other hand control body twist. So perhaps you simply twist the front of the control scheme like a motorcycle?

And perhaps... circling back to the highly automated assumption of earlier paragraphs...

Perhaps the cockpit of a mech is more like a data center rather than a "cockpit" per se, and you control with keyboards/mouse scheme? I mean, it's radical, but it makes sense right? Cause, you don't really feel clunky using just keyboard and mouse.

I like to read your thought on this. What would a futuristic cockpit look like that can allow you to comfortably control both movement/throttle? (o and we can even go ultra complicated, what if its in space where it's practically directionless?)

Is it time for a new cockpit for MW5... 6?

[RickySpanish]

KB/M could slip out of your hands when you experience g-forces. I think motion inside the cockpit would be a huge issue, the way 'Mechs move would make most people chuck up their lunch pretty quickly. I'd go for a neural interface and suspend the pilot in some sort of liquid, basically Evangelion. If we have to be somewhat realistic inspite of the tech already used to construct the 'Mech, I'd mount a joystick and rudders into the 'Mech and have most of the interface overlayed inside the pilot's helmet. Visibility could also be greatly improved by using cameras mounted on the 'Mech to construct an unobstructed view to the pilot. The pilot's pod would be mounted inside some sort of motion damping system, and there would be no windows whatsoever.

Edited by RickySpanish, 31 July 2018 - 02:40 PM.

[Stonefalcon]

Any Mechwarrior worth their weight in salt would always use the Razer Artemis.

https://youtu.be/IA5IH4uxbs8?t=3m31s

What a glorious piece of equipment that never saw the light of day.

[razenWing]

Stonefalcon, on 31 July 2018 - 02:56 PM, said:

Any Mechwarrior worth their weight in salt would always use the Razer Artemis.

https://youtu.be/IA5IH4uxbs8?t=3m31s

What a glorious piece of equipment that never saw the light of day.

its a joystick with bad keyboard????

[n8d0g]

Throttle for Forward/Backword motion.

Left/right Joystick to "twist" torso, Up/Down for pitch.

Rudders for changing lower body facing.

Seems pretty simple to me.

As an actual pilot the cockpit actually made sense to me.

[Jackal Noble]

Razen, you and 6thmessenger need to combine forces or jump into a steaming vat of bio soup and become one singular being.

[IIXxXII]

A chair is better suited to absorbing G-Forces than a standing position.

The cockpit viewer screen would likely have some type of automatic filter to decrease the brightness of lasers and explosions. Else a laser to the cockpit might not pierce the armor but could blind a pilot.

Important functions like heat override could be represented by a massive button on the console to make them easier to access.

In terms of controls input density could be key. Rather than a simple stick some type of combination input would be preferred, where a throttle could be merged with a stick maybe similar to how mouses had wheels put on them to increase the density of functionality they could achieve.

Maybe a stick with a trigger for the index finger and a throttle slider for the thumb. Then left and right pedals for the feet to initiate torso twisting.

Edited by IIXxXII, 31 July 2018 - 03:13 PM.

[n8d0g]

IIXxXII, on 31 July 2018 - 03:09 PM, said:

A chair is better suited to absorbing G-Forces than a standing position.

The cockpit viewer screen would likely have some type of automatic filter to decrease the brightness of lasers and explosions. Else a laser to the cockpit might not pierce the armor but could blind a pilot.

Important functions like heat override could be represented by a massive button on the console to make them easier to access.

In terms of controls input density could be key. Rather than a simple stick some type of combination input would be preferred, where a throttle could be merged with a stick maybe similar to how mouses had wheels put on them to increase the density of functionality they could achieve.

Maybe a stick with a trigger for the index finger and a throttle slider for the thumb. Then left and right pedals for the feet to initiate torso twisting.

I have a Warthog Hotas and there's a bunch of 2-axis commands on your thumb and index finger. When I fly the A10C in DCS i almost never have to touch anything else in the cockpit for weapons and navigation.

Im not saying driving a mech with a HOTAS is easy, but its doable. I've been tempted to try it out with TrackIR for a laugh.

Kinda wish there was a realism mode for small lance vs lances that required stick and throttle.

Edited by n8d0g, 31 July 2018 - 03:51 PM.

[Brauer]

RickySpanish, on 31 July 2018 - 02:39 PM, said:

KB/M could slip out of your hands when you experience g-forces. I think motion inside the cockpit would be a huge issue, the way 'Mechs move would make most people chuck up their lunch pretty quickly. I'd go for a neural interface and suspend the pilot in some sort of liquid, basically Evangelion. If we have to be somewhat realistic inspite of the tech already used to construct the 'Mech, I'd mount a joystick and rudders into the 'Mech and have most of the interface overlayed inside the pilot's helmet. Visibility could also be greatly improved by using cameras mounted on the 'Mech to construct an unobstructed view to the pilot. The pilot's pod would be mounted inside some sort of motion damping system, and there would be no windows whatsoever.

A trackball would be a good mouse option. Could be built into the cockpit, so no possobility of it flying around and knocking out the pilot. Trackballs you manipulate with your thumb are pretty good, but that may be partly bias from using one for years and not being used to the other versions.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

Brauer, on 31 July 2018 - 04:05 PM, said:

A trackball would be a good mouse option. Could be built into the cockpit, so no possobility of it flying around and knocking out the pilot. Trackballs you manipulate with your thumb are pretty good, but that may be partly bias from using one for years and not being used to the other versions.

Hat/multi directional switches seem more likely.

[Mystere]

What a silly question! Lore already has the answer:

Edited by Mystere, 31 July 2018 - 05:35 PM.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

Mystere, on 31 July 2018 - 05:34 PM, said:

What a silly question! Lore already has the answer:

If it aint an upside down trashcan I'm not using it.

[Mystere]

Tetatae Squawkins, on 31 July 2018 - 05:38 PM, said:

If it aint an upside down trashcan I'm not using it.

Why have a trashcan when you could have it in style:

[Xaat Xuun]

well my controls would be something simple like the ones used for the Volocopter . . . . one of the Youtube vids
and the cockpit stabilized like a flight simulator

[50 50]

You would think that with the direct neural interface the cockpits would be quite different.

I think the standard cockpit we have is a throwback to the 80s where even in the artwork they were still using the joystick and throttle along with the trashcan helmet.

The DNI should mean that a pilots regular bodily functions are suspended and instead those impulses used to control the movement of the mechs and this would give a very different style and natural more human looking movement.
Controls become virtual.
Having backup systems to 'manually' control the mechs is where the old controls could come in but I could expect that might even be replaced with something closer to what was in Pacific Rim or even the cargo lifter in Aliens.

It might be different depending on if the mech was humanoid, chicken walker or be a tripod/quadruped and maybe even according to tonnage.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

Tangentially I prefer the westernized lumbering robot tank to the asian anime kung-fu humanoid movement style.

I'm glad BT differentiated itself from its origins.

[Khobai]

having a pilot inside the mech is actually a huge liability. battletech proves that with how often cockpit hits occur.

makes more sense for a mech IRL to be controlled remotely or by an AI with preprogrammed targets

humans are squishy, frail, and pathetically weak and have no business being on the battlefield.

Edited by Khobai, 31 July 2018 - 07:05 PM.

[FupDup]

The same way you do it in MWO.

[LordNothing]

read a few books on control theory and you should know everything you need to know about control systems. some of the controls will need to be automatic since you dont want to micromanage every actuator you have. like the gyro (like a cmg or reaction wheel, as opposed to a sensory gyro) is going to be controlled automatically to help maintain the mech at the desired angle. the controls are going to be abstracted down as much as possible to simplify the job for the pilot. controls will only really care about the pilot's intent and the computers will figure out how to achieve that with the available actuators.

i also dont think a 100ton mech is going to be a one man affair either. like your typical tank crew of four. a gunner, a driver, a reloader and a commander. modern tanks have mostly done away with the reloader for automatic systems. and the commander could take on some of the gunnery tasks if you throw on a multi-targeting system with automatic target aquisition. commander's job would be to monitor the sensors, direct the pilot, designating targets for the weapons systems to take out automatically. two man crew seems optimal. piloting is going to be much more involved than in the game as care would be taken for how to navigate past terrain obstacles without getting stuck, slowed down or toppled. a lot more gotchas in the real world than what mwo has.

and that said those crew need not be on board. the could be in a bunker a couple clicks away and operating through a telepresence system. pilots controls would be mostly hands on, probably stick and throttle or something else. gunnery probibly through a console, a screen trackball and some other controls. hands on gunnery is slower than just sticking a box around the thing you want dead and let the computer figure out the angles instantly.

[HGAK47]

FupDup, on 31 July 2018 - 07:29 PM, said:

The same way you do it in MWO.

Best Picture Ever