47 replies to this topic

[razenWing]

Maffa, on 31 July 2018 - 10:43 PM, said:

It sort of leave reticle/independent arm movement out. Let's say the reticle is controlled by a F35-like helmet mounted display, so you have both visual targeting, night and thermal vision, superimpressed/augmented reality HUD etc. What i am very confused about is arm movement, expecially in the context of melee: if one hand is on the throttle, how do you control the other arm?

Kinda this...

In the anime Big O, it's shown that the arms are controlled independently by your 2 arm control. Of course, it would make little sense to commit 2 of your control measures for just 2 mech arms (which leave you a little short to control torso and movement). But it makes for cool dramatic shot when the giant robot punch someone.

I still think a standing control makes the most sense with sensors strap around you, as you mimic your natural movement onto the mech. But as someone pointed out, it's a lot harder to stay standing than remain seated.

(PS the neutral cam idea wouldn't solve the torso/movement issue. Cause your helmet HUD is like a second level information display from the cockpit window, it can't control the mech torso/cockpit itself, or otherwise, everytime you look to find a button, you lose your view.)

[Zigmund Freud]

I was first familiarized with BT universe by MW computer games, and even then I didn't have enough English skill to understand them completely. So I had to fill in the blanks by my imagination.
I always kind of imagined that in Battletech silicon crystals were never discovered, and all electronics are operating on vacuum tubes, and so are massive and inefficient. This is why you have not so impressive technologies as you would imagine in 3k, if you had computers. This is why they have giant stompy robbits, but need a pilot inside, instead of AI or radio control. This is why targeting computer weight 1-7 tons, I always imagine something like pic related, lol

[Tetatae Squawkins]

The tech of BT has evolved along with the real world somewhat. It was never vacuum tubes or anything but it was a futuristic post-interstellar war take on 1980s electronics.

The usual explanation for why targeting computers are so heavy is all of the mechanical bits to stabilize the mech and the weapons rather than just the computing system itself. Really though weights in BT are completely unrealistic and meaningless and should not be taken any more seriously than is necessary for comparative bookkeeping.

[United Jenner Warriors]

a static seat would ruin your body, tied to the movement of the mech

u need a 3axis gimbal so the pilot moves freely from the mechs movement

[Tetatae Squawkins]

I'd think something like that would still transfer outside forces directly to your body. The Pacific Rim setup makes more sense.

[n8d0g]

Maffa, on 31 July 2018 - 10:43 PM, said:

It sort of leave reticle/independent arm movement out. Let's say the reticle is controlled by a F35-like helmet mounted display, so you have both visual targeting, night and thermal vision, superimpressed/augmented reality HUD etc. What i am very confused about is arm movement, expecially in the context of melee: if one hand is on the throttle, how do you control the other arm?

Using the hat switches on the throttle for left arm and the hat switch on the stick for the right arm.



There is more than enough controls on a HOTAS to control a mech without you ever having to lean forward.
Or maybe Im just a big flight sim guy, but the whole cockpit setup totally made sense to me.

Edited by n8d0g, 01 August 2018 - 06:30 AM.

[Zigmund Freud]

Tetatae Squawkins, on 01 August 2018 - 06:13 AM, said:

I'd think something like that would still transfer outside forces directly to your body. The Pacific Rim setup makes more sense.

This.
3D stabilization is not needed, as mech doesn't do barrel rolls and saltos way too often. XY stabilization of entire cockpit, on the other hand, is a must, since you would jump up and down with every step the mech takes. So you don't necesserily have to stand, but overall Pacific Rim btw when do we get a sequel? setup looks way better.

[TheArisen]

Khobai, on 31 July 2018 - 07:02 PM, said:

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.

The big issue with remote control is it can be jammed and an A.I. can be hacked. Tanks and airplanes do just fine with people in them. Before you say "but drones", jamming is a big issue facing them.

With nueral interfacing it would be something if the pilot could become the "mind" of a mech or essentially become the mech consciously.

[Zigmund Freud]

TheArisen, on 01 August 2018 - 06:34 AM, said:

The big issue with remote control is it can be jammed and an A.I. can be hacked. Tanks and airplanes do just fine with people in them. Before you say "but drones", jamming is a big issue facing them.

With nueral interfacing it would be something if the pilot could become the "mind" of a mech or essentially become the mech consciously.

Besides, having mechs so expensive, it's way safer to put a pilot in it, just to make sure.

[MeiSooHaityu]

How would I control a mech IRL? Probably remotely with one of these...

[iLLcapitan]

Magic bicycle helmets!!
According to PGI, comes with a ****** module to adjust the sluggish mecha movements into proper brain wave length!!

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 31 July 2018 - 07:02 PM, said:

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.

LordNothing, on 31 July 2018 - 07:30 PM, said:

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.

In a heavily EM-noisy battlefield, you're going to want the pilot inside the Mech.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Mystere, on 31 July 2018 - 05:43 PM, said:

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

"You mean I could have worn something small and ergonomically fit like that instead?!?"...

[Athom83]

Similar method to lore, with your mind. Though in lore you mearly direct your mech with your mind while a better option would be direct controlling it by advance sci-fi handwavium-tech that lets you "be the mech". Iron Dragoons style where you're essentially half-asleep in an amniotic chamber hooked up to your mech.

Edited by Athom83, 01 August 2018 - 09:48 AM.

[Lightfoot]

Joystick and foot pedals for torso twist with computer assisted alignment of weapons. Interactive dashboard for main and aux systems.

[Athom83]

JR7PWR, on 01 August 2018 - 06:03 AM, said:

a static seat would ruin your body, tied to the movement of the mech

u need a 3axis gimbal so the pilot moves freely from the mechs movement

Would also need s suspension based dampening system built to hold the gimbal to help with all the shock from walking, running, jumping/landing, and taking hits. Without this, a gimbal system is sorta pointless.

Edited by Athom83, 01 August 2018 - 12:48 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

control the Mech with Body Movement is a bad idea ..its the Body energy down or the Pilot wounded ist the Strong of the mechanic deleted trough the weak of a Human Body.
Thats like firecontrol from Weapons with arms like one of the worst Babylon 5 Movies ...The pilot is quickly exhausted, the movements with arms and legs take much longer to focus on the target and are inaccurate and the pilot is wounded the weapon system is useless ...a wounded pilot can push a Button without movement ... the mech is to compensate for the problems of the human body, not be hampered by it ,

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 02 August 2018 - 02:32 AM.

[Vellron2005]

razenWing, on 31 July 2018 - 02:34 PM, said:

How would you design a real life Mech Cockpit?

A REAL LIFE mech cockpit? As in in a real-life huge fighting robot with a pilot inside? With real-life physics and scientifically-based things?

OK, here we go.. you asked for it!

1) The cockpit itself - would be armored - no glass bullshait, no windows, no slitted portholes.. full-on armor. The pilot would rely on external cameras for 360 degree vision, with various other visual modes included. Seeing the environment would be done with a cave mounted display akin to VR glasses that would be a part of the Neurohelmet.

2) Motion control - would be achieved by connecting the pilot to the mech's myomer muscles via a Neurohelmet. The Neoruhelmet would be a super-sensitive electroencephalogram (that thigy that picks up brain activity impulses and translates them into electrical signals), in such a way that it would detect brain impulses normally sent to the pilot's own muscles, and copy them, to apply them on to the myomer muscles. So if the pilot though about moving his left arm, he would move his actual arm, and also the Mech's arm. That way, piloting a mech would feel as natural as normal motion. Alternatively, with training, or perhaps a suitable technology, the pilots would learn to move the mech without moving their own muscles, so as to avoid becoming tired.

A fully automatic A.I. controlled mode would also be available for "autopilot" purposes. But such a mode would only have access to movement, and not to weapons.

3) Trigger control - would also be achieved through the neurohelmet, with the pilot having only to think with the intent to fire, and firing would be achieved. There would be no need for pedals, sticks, or controllers. Just a brain-targeting computer interface.

4) Life support - would be achieved through immersing the pilot in a gel or pressurized fluid with healing and nutritive properties (possibly nanites). This way, the pilot would be relatively safe from outside pressure, g-force changes and radiation, while also comfortably cooled/heated and kept fed. In case of breach and damage, the gel would auto-seal the breach, and it's healing properties would heal damage to the pilot as best as possible. The gel would also provide shock absorption.

5) Comfort - Since on an actual real-life battlefield, the mech would need to be as small as possible to avoid presenting a large battlefield target, the pilot would probably be positioned withing the gel in an upright, almost standing position, occupying the chest cavity of the mech, perapse reaching even to the pelvic area, and not the head. The head would be used to house sensors, cameras and communication equipment. This upright position of the pilot would allow for a small range of motion, just enough as to not cause cramping, but the pilot would be free-flowing in the thick gel, basically feeling as if weightless.

6) Sensory input - The pilot would control the mech through the neurohelmet, and get all of it's sensory input through an eye-and-ear mounted VR mask. So more-less total immersion. Available vision modes would include classic, X-ray, Infra red, nightvision, and augmented reality. All communications would be routed through these. The pilot could flip through cameras all around, above and below the mech, 360 degree coverage. Also, the pilot would be aware of the mech's damage and overall durability and where the damage is coming from by visual and acoustic stimuli.

So yeah..

A cockpit more akin to a Gundam than a Mech, but also, much more realistic and scientifically plausible.

Edited by Vellron2005, 06 August 2018 - 04:08 AM.

[Rafe Yomin]

Mystere, on 31 July 2018 - 05:43 PM, said:

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

You can have the style, i'll take the actual helmet which protects my head too

Those who are talking about g-forces etc: remember, a mech has an advanced gyro to keep it balanced together with the neurohelmet translating the sense of balance of the mech pilot to the mech.

About reticules etc: Remember that mechs usually have targeting computers contrary to MWO. You target something and the computer tracks it and aims using current trajectory's, speeds etc. Aiming a weapon manually isn't something that gets done a lot, and is a lot less accurate against anything other than erratic moving light mechs (well, or assaults). It was one of the main reasons the clans were so effective. They could reliably tell their weapons to go for certain components and hit them, where IS targeting computers were a lot less reliable and splashed the damage around a lot more, if it hit at all.

Edited by Rafe Yomin, 06 August 2018 - 09:30 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Mystere, on 31 July 2018 - 05:43 PM, said:

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

because in the Mechwarrior universe we all have a trashcan fetish thats why. *pets urbie*

Edited by Lily from animove, 06 August 2018 - 05:53 AM.