Jump to content

Make all weapons have travel time


97 replies to this topic

#21 Strum Wealh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 5,025 posts
  • LocationPittsburgh, PA

Posted 24 January 2012 - 05:44 PM

And, finally:

I wasn't able to find a concrete definition for "relativistic velocity", but "at a speed of 13,400,000 m/s (30 million mph, 0.0447c), the length is 99.9% of the length at rest; at a speed of 42,300,000 m/s (95 million mph, 0.141c), the length is still 99%", stated in regard to the Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction.

So, if we are (IMO) very conservative and assume that "relativistic velocity" of a PPC's salvo is on the order of 0.010c (1% of the speed of light; 2,997,924.58 m/s or 9,835,710.56 ft/sec), we get the following times-to-target:

IS Standard PPC (range: 540 meters): 0.000180124611 seconds
IS and Clan ER PPC (range: 690 meters): 0.000230159226 seconds

In that time-frame (two ten-thousandths of one second), one of the fastest 'Mechs running at top speed (the Fire Moth, at 60 m/s) would have displaced itself approximately 0.0138095536 meters (1.3 cm, or ~0.54 inches).

I think it would be fairly safe to say that PPCs would also be, for all intents and purposes, "hit-scan" weapons... :)

#22 Yeach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 05:49 PM

I call hyprocrisy.
Staying with short BattleTech ranges and damage values but so crtical that weapons have the correct travel time.

if you want realism I refer you to this thread http://mwomercs.com/...ingame-weapons/

And those are pretty slow muzzle velocities try about 1,700 m/s.
700 m = 0.4 seconds to target.

#23 Nerts

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 05:55 PM

I think we should go one step further, all light sources should also have travel time and the Doppler Effect should be in full effect. :)

#24 Strum Wealh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 5,025 posts
  • LocationPittsburgh, PA

Posted 24 January 2012 - 06:37 PM

View PostGraphite, on 24 January 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

That's a slow muzzle velocity. Current ballistic weaponry is much faster.

I think we can just approximate lasers to "as fast as possible" :) No-one will ever know...


Muzzle velocity, M61 Vulcan and GAU-8 Avenger: 1,050 m/s (Mach 3.09)
Muzzle velocity, RPG-7: 115 m/s (Mach 0.34)
Max. velocity, FIM-92 Stinger: 750 m/s (Mach 2.21)

Using those (the M61 and GAU-8 values for the BT ACs, the RPG-7 value for BT SRMs, and the FIM-92 value for BT LRMs) would generally decrease times-to-target and lead distances even further and make it even harder to dodge weapons' fire (short of your opponent having terrible aim) - exactly the opposite of what the OP seems to have been going for! :ph34r:


View PostYeach, on 24 January 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

I call hyprocrisy.
Staying with short BattleTech ranges and damage values but so crtical that weapons have the correct travel time.

if you want realism I refer you to this thread http://mwomercs.com/...ingame-weapons/

And those are pretty slow muzzle velocities try about 1,700 m/s.
700 m = 0.4 seconds to target.


Well, the OP was calling for SW-esque not-really-laser weapons to replace BT lasers, seemingly with the intent of having all weapons being relatively easy to see coming and subsequently dodge.

I made a point of showing that most, if not all, BT weapons would, even at conservative estimates, have rather low travel times and, as a result, would be relatively difficult to dodge by all but the fastest of 'Mechs (if even they can dodge them).

Even if we go with the longer BattleForce ranges (180 meters per hex, vs BattleTech's 30 meters per hex) or even the Atmospheric Combat Rules for AeroSpace fighters and such (500 meters per hex), it doesn't really change the fact that lasers (and probably PPCs) should/would be, for all intents and purposes, "hit-scan" weapons.

#25 Graphite

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 07:04 PM

View PostStrum Wealh, on 24 January 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:


Muzzle velocity, M61 Vulcan and GAU-8 Avenger: 1,050 m/s (Mach 3.09)


These velocities still require leading. Even an Atlas can travel 7m (approx?) in half a second. I just think the low velocity you suggested is a little unrealistic for future weapons, and could be a bit frustrating.

Quote

Muzzle velocity, RPG-7: 115 m/s (Mach 0.34)
Max. velocity, FIM-92 Stinger: 750 m/s (Mach 2.21)

Low missile velocities aren't so bad. The stinger is anti-air so needs a much higher velocity than anti-vehicle missiles.


Quote

Using those (the M61 and GAU-8 values for the BT ACs, the RPG-7 value for BT SRMs, and the FIM-92 value for BT LRMs) would generally decrease times-to-target and lead distances even further and make it even harder to dodge weapons' fire (short of your opponent having terrible aim) - exactly the opposite of what the OP seems to have been going for! :)

True. Personally I'm hoping for leading being necessary (I'm sure it will be for non beam weapons), but not huge amounts.


Quote

Well, the OP was calling for SW-esque not-really-laser weapons to replace BT lasers, seemingly with the intent of having all weapons being relatively easy to see coming and subsequently dodge.

I made a point of showing that most, if not all, BT weapons would, even at conservative estimates, have rather low travel times and, as a result, would be relatively difficult to dodge by all but the fastest of 'Mechs (if even they can dodge them).

Even if we go with the longer BattleForce ranges (180 meters per hex, vs BattleTech's 30 meters per hex) or even the Atmospheric Combat Rules for AeroSpace fighters and such (500 meters per hex), it doesn't really change the fact that lasers (and probably PPCs) should/would be, for all intents and purposes, "hit-scan" weapons.

I'm a starwars fan, but nothing annoys me more than watching lasers creep towards their target when I'm the one doing the firing! :ph34r:

#26 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 26 January 2012 - 10:17 AM

Lots of gazinta's in here.

1 gazinta 1 1 times
1 gazinta 2 2 times
4 gazinta 12 3 times

Now that is real Maths. ;)

#27 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 26 January 2012 - 11:13 AM

What it comes down to in reality is that most weapons have no effective time to target. AC's and missiles very little. What happens in game is purely down to how PGI wants it to be in their vision of the BT universe, irrespective of RL physics. ;) Fun arguing it though while we wait for the game.

#28 Gremlich Johns

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,855 posts
  • LocationMaryland, USA

Posted 26 January 2012 - 12:46 PM

View PostGraphite, on 24 January 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

That's a slow muzzle velocity. Current ballistic weaponry is much faster.


Aaaaaah! But what is the caliber equivalence of the AC/RAC-2/5, AC-10/20 projectiles? Is the 2 a 20mm round, the 5 a 25mm or 30mm? Those are all pretty fast munitions. A DU projectile from a 105mm equipped M-1 (early 1980s) travels in excess of 5,500 ft/sec. I dunno what the 120mm (current M-1A2 ammo) DU flies at. As contrast, I've also shot 152mm ammo from an M60A2 (1970s) that was really slow (both service HEAT, willy pete and Missile) - so slow you could almost step out of the way if you could see their tracer/exhaust. Bullet, unless they've been backed by some wicked propellant technology, are not as fast as you might think. Squeeze bore tech could get some speed, and that was peaked in WWII.

#29 Strum Wealh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 5,025 posts
  • LocationPittsburgh, PA

Posted 26 January 2012 - 04:46 PM

View PostGremlich Johns, on 26 January 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

Aaaaaah! But what is the caliber equivalence of the AC/RAC-2/5, AC-10/20 projectiles? Is the 2 a 20mm round, the 5 a 25mm or 30mm? Those are all pretty fast munitions. A DU projectile from a 105mm equipped M-1 (early 1980s) travels in excess of 5,500 ft/sec. I dunno what the 120mm (current M-1A2 ammo) DU flies at. As contrast, I've also shot 152mm ammo from an M60A2 (1970s) that was really slow (both service HEAT, willy pete and Missile) - so slow you could almost step out of the way if you could see their tracer/exhaust. Bullet, unless they've been backed by some wicked propellant technology, are not as fast as you might think. Squeeze bore tech could get some speed, and that was peaked in WWII.


From Tech Manual, pg. 207:

Quote


For what amounts to one of the most basic combat systems on the modern battlefield, autocannons (often abbreviated as ACs) are a broadly varied class of rapid-firing, auto-loading, heavy ballistic weaponry—gigantic machine guns, in other words. With calibers ranging from 30 to 90 millimeters at the lighter end, to as much as 203 millimeters or more at the heaviest, most autocannons deliver their damage by firing high-speed streams or bursts of high-explosive, armor-defeating shells through one or more barrels. While caliber and firing rate can vary greatly, four main classes have emerged over the centuries, setting the standards by which all other ACs are rated, based on their relative ballistic damage. At the lightest end is the AC/2 class, followed by the long-time standard AC/5, then the heavy punch of the AC/10 class, and finally the brutal, close-in AC/20.


Additionally, the description of Ultra ACs (Tech Manual, pg. 208) states, "Even though they cannot use special munitions (their own magazines are tailored to the high-speed firing modes, which can be dangerous or detrimental to most specialty ammo), these weapons remain popular for attack and assault units."
This would seem to indicate that ACs are magazine/clip-fed (like the L21A1 RARDEN autocannon or most assault rifles) rather than belt-fed.

So, lighter ACs (AC-2 and AC-5) range from ~30mm to ~90mm, while heavier ACs (AC-10 and AC-20) range from ~90mm to ~203+mm
(Bear in mind that damage per shell should/would be a function of the shell's kinetic energy, determined by KE = 0.5*m*v^2; a massive shell moving very slowly and a very small shell moving very quickly can actually have the same KE, and thus inflict the same amount of damage despite the difference in size).

ACs are grouped by "damage classes" (essentially DPS) rather than by caliber.
AC-2s produce approximately 2 units of damage per 10-second period (the length of 1 CBT turn), or approximately 0.2 units of damage per second, at very long ranges.
AC-5s produce approximately 5 units of damage per 10-second period, or approximately 0.5 units of damage per second, at long ranges.
AC-10s produce approximately 10 units of damage per 10-second period, or approximately 1.0 units of damage per second, at medium ranges.
AC-20s produce approximately 20 units of damage per 10-second period, or approximately 2.0 units of damage per second, at short ranges.

As such, an AC that fires five bursts of four 1-damage shells at 2.5-second intervals is an AC-20 (4 damage per salvo * 5 salvos per 10-second period = 20 damage per 10-second period), as is an AC that fires a single 20-damage shell every 10 seconds, as is an AC that fires a steady stream of 2-damage shells at a rate of one-per-second for 10 seconds - they all have the same average DPS of 2 units of damage per second or 20 units of damage per 10-second period, so all are technically "AC-20s" regardless of caliber.

#30 DarkTreader

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 307 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 26 January 2012 - 04:54 PM

But the question then becomes... are these calculations taking place using Earth's gravity, friction, and resistances? Or are we assuming a lack of general atmosphere for these?

Either is just fine, I'm just curious about the maths involved. ;)

#31 Konka

    Rookie

  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 4 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationFinland

Posted 26 January 2012 - 05:18 PM

About lasers. In clear and cold weather they would rock really. In hot desert with sandstorm they would be worst weapon to take with you in the battle? Dust particles in air make laser less effective and the enviroment heat makes firing the lasers even more hot then they are really. Same with heavy snowy weather, execpt the heat wouldnt be that big problem. Make maps where lasers are nerfed due bad weather for example. Under water they would also lose effect. Shorter range for full damage etc.? Dunno. Just few cents to throw in the convo. ;)

#32 Sirisian

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo, Michigan

Posted 26 January 2012 - 06:08 PM

100% agree with this idea. Unrealistic travel times will greatly affect the skill of this game. Look at a game like Tribes Ascend where leading and predicting your targets movements are skill based and not just just mindless point and click. Would love to see MWO let you fire cannons and have the rounds travel through the air for a few seconds or have machine gun fire require leading on fast mechs. Also agree with the lasers. Slowing down their travel time to be more gameplay friendly and easier to balance would be key.

Not sure what is with people and trying to pull realism into games like this. It usually utterlly destroys the gameplay. Seriously think about what you're suggesting when you say "all weapons should be hitscan". It really dumbs down the game.

#33 Treffies

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 49 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 06:40 PM

View PostSirisian, on 26 January 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Slowing down their travel time to be more gameplay friendly and easier to balance would be key.

Visually that would be hilarious but I don't think it's necessary. Changing the damage and heat values should be enough to balance this type of weapon with the others.

#34 McQueen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ironclad
  • The Ironclad
  • 187 posts
  • LocationOff grid

Posted 26 January 2012 - 07:16 PM

Heat management should be the skill factor in using DEWs. If you alpha strike with your laser boat and get killed right after because you had to shut down to vent heat and the enemy commander waxed you with artillery, you haven't helped your team much.

#35 tunabreath

    Rookie

  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 11:52 PM

Just a quick thought to make aiming hitscan lasers more skillful, in addition to a short damage over time duration which requires maintaining bead on the target to get full damage, how about a short pre-firing charge up delay?
It would make firing lasers a lot more dramatic, the sound of capacitors preparing to unload, the tension of having to commit to firing before the actual act is carried out, etc.

It doesn't have to be long (neither does the DOT effect), but it could make it more interesting and require a bit more planning/skill and risk/reward assessment on low probability targets.

Edited by tunabreath, 26 January 2012 - 11:53 PM.


#36 chill1ray

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 42 posts
  • LocationSome Back Water Planet!

Posted 27 January 2012 - 12:40 AM

Is it possible that accuracy would be affected by both yours and their mech moving!

As to travel time maybe the actual technology behind the interfacing, I/E from pulling the trigger to actual firing of weapon!

as for PPC's always thought it was a superheated dense plasma ejections so ! assumed it would be alot slower!

I like the idea that lazers are instant also some straffing will happen I hope they show actuall accurate dmg

But I dont like the idea of scan based hitting, I really think player skill with regards to aiming should be the rule thats why you lead the

moving targets with ammo based weapons, so an alpha-strike with both lazer and AC would require the mech to either be immobile or

moving towards or away from you.

#37 Steel Talon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts

Posted 27 January 2012 - 01:34 AM

In MW:LL lasers are instant, but they are not clearly hit-scan based, when use laser & there is some object between laser emmiter & enemy, it will stop laser doing no damage


edit: object is in trajectory of laser, but NOT in your crosshair, cause of lasers on mechs are ofen far away from place where u are aiming them

Edited by steel talon, 27 January 2012 - 01:38 AM.


#38 Yeach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 06:33 PM

Then I think about LRMs which always seem to have the longest travel time (of all the weapons)

I mean LRMs were so SLOW they could be shot down by PPCs (i think) in the animated BattleTech cartoon.

#39 whiskey tango foxtrot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 1,075 posts
  • LocationWith the Wolfs

Posted 30 January 2012 - 06:56 PM

You guys are giving me a headache............but it is semi fun to watch.......lol

#40 Kenyon Burguess

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 2,619 posts
  • LocationNE PA USA

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:44 PM

instead of focusing on range of weapon look at it as penetration of the armor. ac-20 has a large shell so its harder to punch thru the starslab. small laser uses a small amount of energy so therefor it doesnt penetrate as deeply. my vote is for weapons getting to the target almost instantly with a energy weapon (ppc included) lead time with a projectile weapon. much slower for missles





5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users