97 replies to this topic

[Aaron DeChavilier]

Escef, on 28 December 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

So, aircraft are irrelevant in warfare? Son, you have just overturned almost a century of military history.

I lol'ed

Escef, on 28 December 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

That said, I'm guessing you've never gotten a good look at a Stryker? I was in Iraq supporting a Stryker brigade, I got to see a lot of them. They have "glass" (I'm guessing it's not actual glass) viewports on the front. Not as pronounced as on a mech, but they are indeed there, and visible from tens of meters away. HMMWVs and MRAPs also have pretty large openings for the driver to see out of.

but to bring back around to the topic; would you go so far as to say that these vehicles (the real world ones) have blindspots; and would still have blindspots if windows were replaced with armor and cameras?

Edited by Aaron DeChavilier, 28 December 2011 - 09:40 AM.

[Black Sunder]

I think the grasshopper has a big one....can't remember

[Escef]

Aaron DeChavilier, on 28 December 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

but to bring back around to the topic; would you go so far as to say that these vehicles (the real world ones) have blindspots; and would still have blindspots if windows were replaced with armor and cameras?

I wouldn't be surprised if there were already tons of cameras on them (I never got much of a chance to poke around the inside of one, I was in a support MOS). I think I've seen cameras mounted with some weapon systems, but that is likely something specific to those systems.

Do they have blindspots? Absolutely. Find a vehicle that doesn't. Replace the view ports with cameras and armor? Possible, but in many environments it isn't practical. It's easier for a camera to get covered in sand or frost than a view port. And a pilot/driver's eyes are less prone to equipment failure. Would it eliminate blindspots? Probably. If not all, than at least the most glaring ones.

[Mchawkeye]

of course, we don;t seem to be thinking in terms of team play; you'd always have a wingman (arm-man? legman?) I would hope, and you look out for each others backs.

And indeed, blind spots.

work as a team, and the chances of getting snuck upon lowers considerably.

And don't put your hunchbacks on the left flank....

[Nik Van Rhijn]

"And don't put your hunchbacks on the left flank...." surely thats where they need to be?

[Mchawkeye]

well, it was just a joke...but surely if they are on the left, their view of the centre would be obscured by the big honkin' cannon?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Presumably that will be taken care of by the mechs on the centre- at least they can see if anythings coming up on their left. Hunchies don't like being out in the open - theyre much more the "lurk in dark alleyway" types

[Xhaleon]

Mchawkeye, on 28 December 2011 - 11:42 AM, said:

well, it was just a joke...but surely if they are on the left, their view of the centre would be obscured by the big honkin' cannon?

If they're on the right, they'd be blind to the outside, which is where they're supposed to be looking at when placed at the edge of a formation.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

Escef, on 28 December 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

I wouldn't be surprised if there were already tons of cameras on them (I never got much of a chance to poke around the inside of one, I was in a support MOS). I think I've seen cameras mounted with some weapon systems, but that is likely something specific to those systems.

Do they have blindspots? Absolutely. Find a vehicle that doesn't. Replace the view ports with cameras and armor? Possible, but in many environments it isn't practical. It's easier for a camera to get covered in sand or frost than a view port. And a pilot/driver's eyes are less prone to equipment failure. Would it eliminate blindspots? Probably. If not all, than at least the most glaring ones.

thanks for the info, I've never served in a military so my knowledge is academic at best.

I guess we can all agree; no one puts Hunchie in the corner!

[Mchawkeye]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 28 December 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

Presumably that will be taken care of by the mechs on the centre- at least they can see if anythings coming up on their left. Hunchies don't like being out in the open - theyre much more the "lurk in dark alleyway" types

Valid. though my thinking was more about covering each other backs.

Xhaleon, on 28 December 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

If they're on the right, they'd be blind to the outside, which is where they're supposed to be looking at when placed at the edge of a formation.

Well, yes...except this is/might be a game with established map boundaries...admittedly, I have Mech4 in my head...which no one wants...

[Rhinehart]

"feor..why don't you show a picture of a relevant miltiary vehicle..a tank, not an airplane, especially not a cargo plane. Because it would support my point, not yours? Or do you actually equate a Mech with a cargo plane instead of a tank?"


"Also if you think that B52 is a cargo plane...."


I suppose it could be considered a cargo plane of a sort as it does carry a payload, usually of the lethal kind...

Heh just got caught up on this thread and have to say yeah, Fail moment there.

Edited by Rhinehart, 28 December 2011 - 03:33 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

B52 or Piper Cub, the difference between it and a Mech are the same, that aircraft is NOT standing in the middle of the battlefield being shot at, it's not designed for that function. Show some pictures of TANKS with their big open cockpit canopies..good job for those being purposely obtuse..you win the internets..enjoy.

Strykers..yes, they do indeed have armored view slots, they are meant to take small and medium arms fire. Humvees..armored glass, many with steel plating to reduce the actual exposure of the people inside them, able to take small arms fire. Neither of those vehicles is expected to face tank weapon fire and survive however. Tanks, like the M1A2, very small slit viewports using mirrors to avoid direct line of fire into the tank, and yes, you CAN sit up in the gondola and see, but when that tank enters combat, you don't do that. You get inside the tank and you look at the video displays showing you the world outside the tank.

Cameras mounted on the Mech..don't know how they capture the video for a Mech's 360 view, I only know they do it, and show that entire 360 view in a 160 degree compressed view if the HUD uses a 'flat' appearance, there is also the 360 sphere HUD which is mentioned as well. Obviously whatever is used to capture the video image is extremely tough and uses extremely redundant capture points. BTech Physics..we don't know how it's done, they never explain it, they just state it is so.

And that bit about the Eley sneaking up on the Atlas..yeah..welcome to plot devices, obviously you've never paid much attention to novels written for a series...or tv shows like Star Trek..where they state device Y always does this...until that time that Y works totally differently because it makes the story work..then Y goes back to it's 'normal' state or is just plain never mentioned again. Nice try though!

BTech Mechs have no blind spots, sorry folks, that's just how they work, yell at the folks who originally designed the system..or the folks who've been running it since the reboot who didn't change that system. Cockpit designs are great to look at, I'm not arguing THAT at all, I stated in this thread I love the Hunch cockpit concept art and want to SEE that ingame, and similar for ALL Mechs. But I also want to know that that totally blocked view to the side of the Mech will not allow someone to 'sneak' up on me because I can't see out of that side because that's NOT what a Mech pilot does, look out the windows to spot the bad guys. For pity's sake, you can't even DO that in a Marauder or Wasp, they HAVE no viewports AT ALL, totally reliant upon their sensor systems, and they aren't the only Mechs like that. I don't care if they put a canopy on the Wasp and Marauder either, just don't allow someone to sneak up on me because I can't visually spot them through that canopy, there ARE no blind spots on a Mech.

[Demi-Precentor Konev]

Looking at the Stryker... this thing doesn't have a lot of large view-ports.



But that doesn't really matter. This is a transport/light AFV. For a proper comparison in terms of battlefield roles, we need to look at a tank.



Even less here. Large glass/super-plastic/etc. areas are not realistic in any sort of modern sense. Maybe things are different in the universe of BattleTech, but in 2011 there is a noticeable effort to keep view-ports small.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

super sexy pic of a leo 2a...love it
as the dev's have shown in the cockpit art of the hunchie cpit; you'll get your unobstructed view,
just not in a stupid way. Lemme reiterate from a previous post, you ever condense 360deg down to
160? do you know how much image fidelity you lose? did the original devs? objects directly behind
you in a 160deg view would be nothing more than a couple of vertical lines...making it very 'easy' to
tell what's behind you (/sarcasm)

I would love to see the dev's try it though, and take a screen cap; as a comparison to see which is
right; 360->160 compression, or video panels in the cpit.

[feor]

Tanks are not a fair comparison to mechs, IMHO.

1) Mechs don't sit there waiting to get shot, mechs dodge. Mechs are as articulated as a person. There are instances of mechs in the background having to do Calisthenics for training (an entire Trinary in Flacon Guard), shoulder rolls (Grayson's Shadow Hawk in Decision at Thunder Rift), spin kicks (don't remember the exact book but it was Kai in his Centurion), and just outright ducking under enemy fire (Ardan's Victor in the gauntlet in The Sword and the Dagger). So in that sense it makes more sense to compare a mech to super-sized Infantry.

2) Tanks don't have ejection systems. Mechs do, so they need a route through which the pilot can be easily and relatively safely projected out of the cockpit. The more armour you've got between the pilot and the outside the less likely that is to happen. (as demonstrated by the fact that a pilot in a Torso Mounted Cockpit cannot eject)

3) Mechs are far far more resilient that tanks. Any kind of armour penetration on a modern tank is more likely than not going to render it combat ineffective, either by destroying something important in the engine, or breaching the crew compartment and exposing the crew inside to shrapnel/superheated gas/other unpleasantness. A penetrating shot to anything except the head of the mech is actually extremely unlikely to neutralize a mech. Which means it's very likely that whatever camera systems the mech may be carrying are going to be disabled long before the mech stops being combat effective.

4) We do not currently have material sciences capable of producing transparent materials capable of surviving large caliber cannon fire. Battletech does. Therefore why wouldn't you give the pilot a large means of viewing the outside world that cannot fail due to ECM/EMP interferance to act as a backup to their more sophisticated instrumentation?

Beyond that I've already cited all of the background FLUFF material (not artwork since you seem to feel that's unreliable) that talks about mechs having transparent canopies. You can't argue "The 360 in 160 thing exists, its in the background so you can't dispute it" (which I haven't by the way, I'm quite alright with the two systems coexisting) and at the same time say that all the background that talks about mechs with transparent canopies is wrong without being a complete hypocrite. (which is your prerogative, if that's how you want to come across)

[CaveMan]

feor, on 29 December 2011 - 07:23 AM, said:

4) We do not currently have material sciences capable of producing transparent materials capable of surviving large caliber cannon fire. Battletech does. Therefore why wouldn't you give the pilot a large means of viewing the outside world that cannot fail due to ECM/EMP interferance to act as a backup to their more sophisticated instrumentation?

QFT.

The "glass" in BattleTech shrugs off 120mm rounds, high explosive warheads, and death rays without failing (unless your death ray does >9 damage, then the guy inside is crispy manbacon). This is documented in the canon over and over again.

If you've got transparencies that are so close as makes no difference to regular armor, why not use them and use the hell out of them? The cockpits on the Griffin and BattleMaster are a little extreme, but the pilot has unprecedented visibility that you can't get looking through a 3" video screen.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Aaron, what we could do with Quake engines and what IS being done today with VR headsets..not even in the same city, much less ballpark. 360 to 180 on a VR set, it's really quite nice, no fish eye, easy to see everything and tell what is what, none of the squishing that the 360 to 90 produces. A little disconcerting when I put them on at first, seeing things that I KNOW I shouldn't see, but really..maybe a week of playing around with it and it would be almost as natural as my normal eye sight. I suggest, if you try it, don't make sudden movements at first, you'll get dizzy

Feor, Mechs can't be compared with a plane or humvee or LAV or anything else on the battlefield BUT a tank, serves the exact same function, mobile armored weapons platform designed to deal with massive incoming damage and return it. They are a lot more mobile then a tank, but that doesn't change their function, just how well they perform it. Tanks don't have ejection systems..actually..some have had that, it's just found to not be very damn useful to eject into the middle of the battlefield, so they don't use them. Tanks DO have emergency exit points, floor typically, so you can bail out and NOT be in the line of fire, as you would be with an ejection system. Mechs, with the pilot being up near the top, and the Mechs being 9 to 15 metres tall..yeah..that floor exit doesn't work so well and trying to climb DOWN that Mech while under fire? So they use ejection systems, makes sense after all, but they aren't any safer then exiting a tank in the middle of a battlefield either..see the GDL novels for an example of that.

Caveman..we actually have some pretty tough transparent armors today, stop .50 M2 Browning rounds and anti-tank rockets, POTUS has that stuff on the vehicles he rides in, so do other world leaders and rich people. Still..don't see it being used on our military vehicles, not practical by any means. BTech did what it did with that because..it's cool looking, nothing more. There are Mechs with literally no external viewports on them, all external information the pilot gets comes from the sensor systems. All Mech pilots are trained to use those sensors systems at all times, how well they do that..different story. The novels give varying examples of how well those systems work, or don't work, depending on the character and the plot devices in play.

Again, I could give a surat's rear end about them putting canopies on the Mechs in MWO, just so long as they stick with the BTech lore and DO NOT allow the visual feed to be restricted TO that canopy view. Mechs don't have blind spots no matter what their physical design is, relying on your eyeballs isn't what you do in a Mech, those sensors are what you rely on, TT, lore and the novels are clear on that, so don't muck it up by giving me a Mech who's entire left/right side is a honking huge black hole that someone can just walk up on me due to. If they've got ECM, great, they won't show on sensors..but I'll know I'm being jammed. My sensors will STILL give me a good visual image even with ECM going. And EMP..yeah..wrong time for that, and I've never agreed with it being used, CotM bs. ANY EMP strong enough to get around the shielding in a Mech is going to take out EVERYTHING in a large radius..including the dumbass who fired it, when you consider that BTech ranges are 1k and less..NOT the best thought out weapon idea there...thank you CotM!

[Larry Headrick]

CaveMan, on 29 December 2011 - 07:36 AM, said:

QFT.

The "glass" in BattleTech shrugs off 120mm rounds, high explosive warheads, and death rays without failing (unless your death ray does >9 damage, then the guy inside is crispy manbacon). This is documented in the canon over and over again.

If you've got transparencies that are so close as makes no difference to regular armor, why not use them and use the hell out of them? The cockpits on the Griffin and BattleMaster are a little extreme, but the pilot has unprecedented visibility that you can't get looking through a 3" video screen.

Because armor is easier to make probably lighter and considerably cheaper to produce.

[Duke Pitt]

guardiandashi, on 26 December 2011 - 06:24 AM, said:

looking at my copy of 3025 I can see 2 likely locations for the cockpit (based on how the art usually had blacked in cockpit windows)

location 1 in the assembly above and behind the ball turret, with the 2 antenna on it

location 2 behind the chest plate immediately above the waist rotation ring, in the "wedged" section, there is a spot in the front that looks like a common "gundam" cockpit extrusion point with possible "window" plates one on either side

http://www.sarna.net...ine_(BattleMech)

I am looking at the 3 large solid black sections
these are my "best guesses"

Your second guess is what I've been thinking too, but that just seems like a rather odd spot for the pilot to be viewing from.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Wolvy cockpit, we figured in our TT game, was like the Wasp, mostly in the CT with the pilot's head up into that fin looking thing up top, and you didn't look out of any canopy, you used sensors only like the Wasp and Marauder. The figurine of the Wolvy was even more confusing, because that fin is really thin, not wide enough for a human by scale by any means.

Doesn't really matter though, after all in TT, you base where shots on the Mech hit by a random dice roll matched with a table based on direction of fire. We had some discussions on that when the table indicated a head hit and there was NO possible way for the line of fire to intersect with the head of the Mech, more often then not due to the actual physical structure of the Mech. We'd usually toss that head shot and use the most realistic option, worked for us. Other times, it was the other way around and the head WAS in the line of fire while the table decided part wasn't, so..bang, head shot. TT..you alter the silly things if you want, or you leave em alone.

*edit*
Ok..the censoring filter REALLY needs to be looked at..two different words, one ending in s, one starting with h..it turns BOTH words into *...come on.

Edited by Kristov Kerensky, 29 December 2011 - 02:02 PM.