116 replies to this topic

[Liam]

Fyrwulf, on 13 January 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

I don't think BT uses LIPC, though.

In BT explanation PPC uses charged ions. Anyway it doesn't matter what it uses. In atmosphere you will still need a plasma channel, otherwise the ions will collide with air gases causing ionisation > losses. The beam will lose direction.
The easiest way to produce a channel is the laser.

Edited by Liam, 13 January 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[Razed]

I always imagined PPC fire looking like a rope of lightning, like several strands moving together with smaller bolts arcing off. I also always saw it as not moving in a straight line to the target.

[Commraid]

I really see no point in trying to justify ones opinion with physics facts that may loosley apply to a weapon that does not exist. At the end of the day, its what you think is right and your imagination is the limit when it comes down to the proof. Keeping in mind IS and clan weapons work differently I guess one could be solid projectile while the other is beam. That way there is enough variety to suit everyone. The PPC is and will be my favourite weapon so IMO I dont mind what it shoots like, as long as I can clearly tell that was a PPC shooting at me and not a large laser.

[Dlardrageth]

Liam, on 13 January 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

I like this one.
I hope PPC going to have high velocity in MWO. In MW4 it was a bit slow.

If you think the PPC in MW4 was slow, try out the one in the original MW2, haha! Moreover, it isn't called a "Pulse PPC" for a reason...

[Liam]

Commraid, on 14 January 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

I really see no point in trying to justify ones opinion with physics facts that may loosley apply to a weapon that does not exist. At the end of the day, its what you think is right and your imagination is the limit when it comes down to the proof...

it is not about to justify anything ... it is about inspiration of theoretical stuff, what could be possible ...
People who created BT universe they were interested in technical and scientific stuff, here we go Lasers, Heat mechanic, PPC, AC electronics etc.

To say "we don't need science to describe or influence BT and at least MW game" is simply wrong! Because BT has its origin in science fiction ... inspiration of creators in all this stuff ... otherwise go play some fantasy game and be happy.

If your interest to keep MW game close as possible to TT, why don't you go and play TT or Megamek ...
Then you can imagine everything you wish.

There is a way to make MW game close to BT lore and simulation (close to it) at the same time

@Dlardrageth

I mean of cause high velocity of the particles. PPC velocity in MW4 was to slow. We accelerate in our lab charged particles up to some 100 km/s depends on background pressure, this is actually maybe the reason why they should be much slower than C. Space environment is different, so higher velocities can be reached.
Pulse weapon means it use short energetic pulse (ERLL, PPC in MW)
Continuous weapons are in steady state mode (Pulse laser in MW) here also high frequency pulses can be used.

Edited by Liam, 14 January 2012 - 08:41 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

I'm aware of the option to have a continuous ray weapon to be pulsed, Liam. The point is tho, according to BT lore, pulse weapons are actually firing pulses (as in "bursts"). No matter if some past MW game screwed that up (graphically) or not.

And for the sake of making it visually plausible in a game, I think actually using pulses/bursts for a "pulse weapon" makes sense. I mean, how viable would it be to have instead a continuous ray weapon graphically and an essay somewhere to explain the physics behind that? You and I know the majority of players would never read that anyway.

Particle velocity is something I did wonder about myself. We know the IS uses their "Field Inhibitor" gadget, but would that slow down the particles? I somewhat doubt it. On the other hand a Mech usually has to make compromises in PPC design somewhere, due to not having the whole space available you have in a lab, and demanding a more rugged/sturdy design as well. We could probably speculate that PPC=Particle PC is some sort of misnomer as it doesn't fire actual charged particles, just pseudo ones. Or something. Really hard to get a solid explanation, I think.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 14 January 2012 - 09:00 AM.

[AncientxFreako]

I think PPC's are a man-made directed lightning bolt, and should look and sound like lightning. A Mech3 look but with less blue and more white and with laser-like velocity...with the loud "snap" sound you get from an electrical arc being turned on suddenly followed by a huge thunderclap due to your proximity to lightning coming from your mech's gun. It should be the loudest weapon on the battlefield. There should be variable thunderclap sounds due to the fact that each lightning bolt is different because lightning is highly unpredictable, even if it's mechanically created, and each shot hits the atmosphere differently, causing a different sounding thunderclap. If you are far away from a battle where ppc's are being used it should sound like you are approaching a thunderstorm.

Yes I've put a lot of thought into this mainly because I've been doing a mod of mech 3 for years.

www.mechwarrior3.org

[Liam]

Dlardrageth, on 14 January 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

I'm aware of the option to have a continuous ray weapon to be pulsed, Liam. The point is tho, according to BT lore, pulse weapons are actually firing pulses (as in "bursts"). No matter if some past MW game screwed that up (graphically) or not.

And for the sake of making it visually plausible in a game, I think actually using pulses/bursts for a "pulse weapon" makes sense. I mean, how viable would it be to have instead a continuous ray weapon graphically and an essay somewhere to explain the physics behind that? You and I know the majority of players would never read that anyway.

I agree,
To bad my knowledge of BT is limited to some TRO books, rulebook (never read it completely) and 7 roman books
Anyway I think it is necessary to discuss especially if we have here so many BT experts. My intention is to bring some science in to MW community, as a pseudo "counterweight" for TT rules. Hard science fiction + BT lore could be amazing mix for simulation like game and amazing game experience.

I think BT and MW community would be really happy with

> TT (is already there)
> Megamek (maybe some new version of it isometric 3D view maybe, Storyline scenarios of many fractions etc.)
> MW Simulation (adapted BT rules to a MW sim game, hard science fiction ) MWO !?
> MW Strategy (Real time, lance based, sim grade very limited (maybe to some MW4 degree))

I know many people do not care.. I still hope there will be MW simulation some day

[AncientxFreako]

Not to get off topic...but in a related tangent is the BT weapons ranges...I know we don't want to get so far into "reality" or "theoretical reality" that we change the gauss rifle to a rail gun with 250 kilometer range, but...present day machine guns; midi guns....have around a 600 meter range don't they? ...but 120 meters?!!! Really table-top battletech? REALLY?? The other weapons ranges are reasonable to me...except LRM's at only 800 meters..should be 1000...but the other weapons have no reference point from the perspective of reality...lbx's, autocannons, although there are similar weapons. The point is that those ranges seem reasonable. Just not the machine guns. Maybe I'm being picky, but...

[ThunderSquid]

I haven't had as much of a problem believing the ranges as some other people seem to. Look at machine guns. Yes, they can reach that far. But one of the first things to go in the succession wars was computer targetting assistance, meaning that mechwarriors had to aim by hand. The question then is no longer "how far can the weapon reach?", but is instead "how far away can the pilot of a moving machine hit another moving machine?" This isn't a flawless model, but it certainly explains why the ranges are so much shorter than would be expected.

[Liam]

AncientxFreako this is what effective range is all about.
Each weapon would have some kind off effective range.

- lack of kinetic energy (MG, AC-AP)
- lack of propellant amount (LRM)
- to long travel time of projectile (here your example of railgun with 250 km range, the projectile would travel some minutes)
- scattering dispersion absorption etc. (Laser / PPC)

if AC projectile travels with average speed of 1000 m/s
and if your target is running with 30 m/s (90° angle direction to your line of sight) at range of 1000 m
you will need at least 30 m aiming lead compensation, and at some point it will be almost unpractical

I hope PPC will travel faster than > 30 km/s

Edited by Liam, 14 January 2012 - 12:35 PM.

[AncientxFreako]

Yes, I understand effective ranges Which brings up something else I'd love to see in a mech game: After propellant runs out, after kinetic energy has fallen off, after atmospheric effects have taken their toll...a projectile is still a live projectile until it hits something or falls to earth. A mech or object should still be damaged by such a projectile where between the effective range and its gradual degradation the velocity drops down and it's damage potential also drops. Haha, is this too much realism to ask for?

[Dlardrageth]

If for economical reasons the propellant is sized up for it falling to earth after exceeeding its nominal range, that is what happens. So give or take a 100 meters or bit more and that might happen (obviously also dependent on projectile size and environmental factors). Now if you want that accurately simulated (meaning for each projectile type under varying conditions) in the game as well, GL getting PGI to spend the man-hours for that...

[Fyrwulf]

Liam, on 13 January 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

In BT explanation PPC uses charged ions. Anyway it doesn't matter what it uses. In atmosphere you will still need a plasma channel, otherwise the ions will collide with air gases causing ionisation > losses. The beam will lose direction.
The easiest way to produce a channel is the laser.

The beam in question is almost surely electrically neutral. To quote qikipedia:

Quote

Cyclotron particle accelerators, linear particle accelerators, and synchroton particle acclerators can accelerate positively charged hydrogen ions until their velocity approaches the speed of light, and each individual ion has a kinetic energy range of 100 MeV to 1000 MeV or more. Then the resulting high energy protons can capture electrons from electron emitter electrodes, and be thus electrically neutralized. This creates an electrically neutral beam of high energy hydrogen atoms, that can proceed in a straight line at near the speed of light to smash into its target and damage it.
The pulsed particle beam emitted by such a weapon may contain 1 gigajoule of kinetic energy or more. The speed of a beam approaching that of light (300,000 km/sec) in combination with the energy created by the weapon would negate any realistic means of defending a target against the beam. Target hardening through shielding or materials selection would be impractical or ineffective [1], especially if the beam could be maintained at full power and precisely focused on the target.[2]

That type of beam probably wouldn't need any kind of pre-made channel, because atmospheric gas isn't going to seriously degrade the beam at relativistic velocities. However, because we know a PPC isn't a superweapon, we can probably guess that at most it travels a 0.5c, or alternatively we can conclude that relative to modern armour what mechs use in BT is extraordinarily tough.

Whatever the case, this thread is quickly diverging off topic and I believe the picture I posted is not only the most cannon representation but also the coolest graphically.

[Fyrwulf]

Dlardrageth, on 14 January 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

If for economical reasons the propellant is sized up for it falling to earth after exceeeding its nominal range, that is what happens. So give or take a 100 meters or bit more and that might happen (obviously also dependent on projectile size and environmental factors). Now if you want that accurately simulated (meaning for each projectile type under varying conditions) in the game as well, GL getting PGI to spend the man-hours for that...

The actual equations aren't that hard to do quickly with paper and pen, so the coding isn't the problem. The problem is that no computer or server can handle all of the lead flying around in a 12 v 12 game.

[Liam]

Fyrwulf, on 14 January 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

The beam in question is almost surely electrically neutral.
...
That type of beam probably wouldn't need any kind of pre-made channel, because atmospheric gas isn't going to seriously degrade the beam at relativistic velocities. However, because we know a PPC isn't a superweapon, we can probably guess that at most it travels a 0.5c, or alternatively we can conclude that relative to modern armour what mechs use in BT is extraordinarily tough.

Whatever the case, this thread is quickly diverging off topic and I believe the picture I posted is not only the most cannon representation but also the coolest graphically.

Fyrwulf it is almost impossible to achieve relativistic velocities in gas (air) environment. Because of particle interaction. So long the particles collides they lose energy so the beam starts to ionize the surrounded gas. Such a beam would produce a plasma cloud in front of you.
Here is a picture that shows what happens with a beam in gas environment:


[... 60-inch cyclotron, circa 1939, showing a beam of accelerated ions (likely protons or deuterons) escaping the accelerator and ionizing the surrounding air causing a blue glow ...]

The plasma channel will be needed.
The problem with neutral atoms you cant accelerate them property. That what is described above is done for physical test to smash atoms not ions. This is the only reason. You can do it in a weapon, but then you can't accelerate them anymore. The ionization of the air doesn't have something to do with charge of your accelerated particles, it is more about their energy and impact ionization.

I agree the graphic is really cool and it would be nice to see it in MWO

Edited by Liam, 14 January 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[Fresh Meat]

I was thrilled when i saw the ppc they came up with for the initial reboot teaser, i hope the one they use will be similar.

Edited by Fresh_Meat, 24 January 2012 - 11:54 PM.

[Zervziel]

I liked the strobing laser-lightning look of the Reboot's trailer. It was a bit more beam like than lightning, but it still looked damn cool. I also like MW:LL's PPC.

[Thorn Hallis]

I always liked the looks of the MW3-PPC. It looked cool and really gave me the feeling that I shot something big at the opponent.

[Charlic Wolf]

DMurph51, on 12 January 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

im a fan of the ball style as well. i grew up on MA and MA2 (srsly one of the best pilots in MA2. srs.) (respect the srs tag), and MW2 mercs was the first video game i ever owned, so im quite fond of that style

and perhaps i read the SARNA site wrong, and maybe it's not a laser....

edit.

edited the OP to reflect SARNA's description

ew. mech assault . the whole charge up thing was stupid. it should be in like evey other mech warrior game where you pull the trigger and BOOM a hole in the other mech. i like the MW3 look