27 replies to this topic

[boogle]

Why exactly is it that energy weapons (lasers, PPC's etc.) are allowed to be mounted on vehicles powered by internal combustion engines?



http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Galleon


http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Ontos


http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Bulldog


Just to name a few. Anyway, how is it even remotely possible that an internal combustion engine would be capable of recharging the energy weapons with any sort of efficiency (speed, cost effectiveness)? I am willing to accept that over time an ICE could charge the capacitor for a laser; but under combat conditions, it would essentially be a one shot weapon.

Before someone brings up "increased efficiency of future ICE's" consider the fact that even a 100% conversion rate of the chemical energy bound in fossil fuels would be woefully inadequate. Having a laser recycle every few seconds (with an ICE) would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Having 8 lasers on the Ontos recycle every few seconds (again with an ICE) is almost unbelievably ridiculous.

In summary, I propose that energy weapons should be limited to vehicles or mechs containing a fusion power plant. What say you all?

[Aegis Kleais]

I say "This is a more than acceptable variance to real-world physics for the sake of gameplay".

[PewPew]

Don't feed the trolls

[Derick Cruisaire]

It has something to do with the magic contained in the power ampifier.

Or is it the Flux Capacitor?

[boogle]

PewPew, on 06 February 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

Don't feed the trolls

Uhh...so pointing out a physical impossibility and proposing a solution is trolling? I am forced to conclude that your dislike of this topic is related to your inability to comprehend its point.

[CoffiNail]

They have power converters in the vehicles that turn the normal ICE combustion to extra energy that the energy based weapons then use.

[Aegis Kleais]

PewPew, on 06 February 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

Don't feed the trolls

Sorry, but I consider it childish and below the MW Community (though it seems readily acceptable on other forums) to call another person a Troll. He expressed a valid concern, I expressed my opinion, this is kind of how forums work.

[boogle]

CoffiNail, on 06 February 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

They have power converters in the vehicles that turn the normal ICE combustion to extra energy that the energy based weapons then use.

Coffinail, I addressed this with the first law of thermodynamics. My issue is not that an ICE is incapable of charging a laser capacitor, just that it would take a prohibitively long time to do so and thus be worthless (unless you only want to fire that med laser once an hour).

[Larry Headrick]

That or thay add a couple of gas powered generaters....
O wait thats what it would be wouldnt it.

[boogle]

Aegis,

I agree that some suspension of disbelief is required, and I would be totally OK with MWO having ICE vehicles with energy weapons. It's just a nit-picky thing which has bothered me since I noticed it. I was just wondering if anyone else had thought about this too. BTW are you the same aegis on mektek?

[Nick Makiaveli]

It is one of those things that you just have to live with. That or just assume they are packing some capacitors/batteries etc so that during combat operations they can maintain the fire rates.

That or they use some serious additives in the fuel

[Aegis Kleais]

boogle, on 06 February 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Aegis,

I agree that some suspension of disbelief is required, and I would be totally OK with MWO having ICE vehicles with energy weapons. It's just a nit-picky thing which has bothered me since I noticed it. I was just wondering if anyone else had thought about this too. BTW are you the same aegis on mektek?

Yeah, I'm one in the same.

Don't sweat the nit-picking thing; you've every right to do so, it's your own valid opinion of how you're looking to justify a fictional game-world mechanic into a real-world logic.

Personally, I've gotten myself to a point where as long as a sim emulates a good majority of things in a believable way, I'm OK with it. For example, one of my big beefs with MW was "How do energy weapons provide kinetic knock to a Mech? Lasers are light, and photons have such a miniscule amount of mass, even in the energy output of MW lasers." Whose to say that one could provide a real-world logic to a fictional weapon? I just come to accept that it does (though I still think it would be a good con to all the pros that energy weapons have, namely offsets its lack of ammo)

Same thing with MW4. Mechs were often reaching temps of 7000+ Kelvin. In real life, that's 12,000 degrees Farenheit. Tungsten, a metal which has the highest melting point, melts at HALF that. So what the heck kind of material are Mechs made from?! Either the fictional history invents a fictional polymer or addresses it (or not), but I just accept that it's how it is in the game world.

[Brakkyn]

It's science-fiction.

[PewPew]

boogle, on 06 February 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Uhh...so pointing out a physical impossibility and proposing a solution is trolling? I am forced to conclude that your dislike of this topic is related to your inability to comprehend its point.

Once in a while, you should take a step back and just see how ridiculous you are. I understand that sci-fi fans can be pretty hardcore, but this is ridiculous.

Normal folks attribute the impossibilities of the BT world to the unknown. People like you apply what knowledge they have to the universe, then claim something or the other is impossible, and that this fact should be reflected in the world. Meanwhile, the BT universe has thousands of inconsistencies with reality which are ignored until someone else wants to show off what they know about thermodynamics, or to generally be an uptight doofus about something.

I seriously thought you were trolling because I assume someone smart enough to understand thermodynamics would also understand the realities of science fiction and its translation into video games. I hope you can understand why I believed this, as understanding something like this is far simpler than learning thermodynamics. At least to me. Forgive me. If you had said something like, "I am forced to conclude that your dislike of this topic is related to your inability to comprehend its point " earlier, I would've understood what kind of person you were and just ignored this entire thread.

Edited by PewPew, 06 February 2012 - 04:29 PM.

[Aegis Kleais]

PewPew, on 06 February 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Once in a while, you should take a step back and just see how ridiculous you are. I understand that sci-fi fans can be pretty hardcore, but this is ridiculous.

Normal folks attribute the impossibilities of the BT world to the unknown. People like you apply what knowledge they have to the universe, then claim something or the other is impossible, and that this fact should be reflected in the world. Meanwhile, the BT universe has thousands of inconsistencies with reality which are ignored until someone else wants to show off what they know about thermodynamics, or to generally be an uptight doofus about something.

I seriously thought you were trolling because I assume someone smart enough to understand thermodynamics would also understand the realities of science fiction and its translation into video games. I hope you can understand why I believed this, as understanding something like this is far simpler than learning thermodynamics. At least to me. Forgive me. If you had said something like, "I am forced to conclude that your dislike of this topic is related to your inability to comprehend its point " earlier, I would've understood what kind of person you were and just ignored this entire thread.

You know, I actually had to report this post.

You start off calling the person a troll, then you continue to call him names after he even respectfully requested clarification from you. You shouldn't feel that you have to reply to a thread if you can't put together a worthwhile response that at least furthers the discussion.

You remind me of someone who replies to a post and exudes excitement at being the first, so the entire content of their post is nothing more than the word "FIRST!"; provides nothing to the discussion.

Not to mention the residual name calling you do in your follow up. I don't think this community needs any of this.

[Tryg]

Perhaps they have some really potent lithium-ion batteries?

But in truth, combat vehicles in the battletech universe have always been on the questionable side. Sure, I can see the advantages of having a heavy fast-moving tank... But really, what military power is going to continue to sink money into vehicles like the 50-ton hovertanks who's well-documented weakness is the 'skirt' that maintains its cushion of air and the lift fans beneath it? Yes, they're cheap compared to fielding mechs, however, they're not so cheap as to be used as the 'throw-away' vehicles they become the moment the inevitable mech shows up. Half the time in the books, these things were not merely throw-aways, but became weapons for the enemy as the inevitable lift-fan damage sent the vehicle into an end-over-end death roll through friendly lines.

While I myself am a very strong supporter of logic and reason, there are a great many aspects of the universe in which one has to suspend it or simply ignore huge chunks of the lore.

And to comment on what Aegis mentions, I believe the 'knockback' effect in the books was attributed not to the impact of the laser, but rather the sudden shift in the mech's balance due to armor being flashburned away.

Edited by Tryg, 06 February 2012 - 04:39 PM.

[PewPew]

Aegis Kleais™, on 06 February 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

You know, I actually had to report this post.

You start off calling the person a troll, then you continue to call him names after he even respectfully requested clarification from you. You shouldn't feel that you have to reply to a thread if you can't put together a worthwhile response that at least furthers the discussion.

You remind me of someone who replies to a post and exudes excitement at being the first, so the entire content of their post is nothing more than the word "FIRST!"; provides nothing to the discussion.

Not to mention the residual name calling you do in your follow up. I don't think this community needs any of this.

Although the damage I've done to the MWO community by calling him an "uptight doofus" is irreversible, I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.

[Robert Knight]

Power amplfiers. tt rules for ice and energy weapons

Edited by Robert Knight, 06 February 2012 - 04:51 PM.

[trycksh0t]

Unfortunately, real-world physics rarely applies to any Sci-Fi setting, BattleTech included. In the BT universe, I.C.E. are able to produce the same power output as fusion engines (power output in BT is represented by engine ratings, higher rating = more power).

So, the I.C.E. found in the Bulldog; a 240 Bulldog I.C.E. that weighs 23 tons, has the same power output as the 11.5 ton 240 GoreTex fusion engine found in the Schrek PPC carrier.

Also, I.C.E. powered vehicles are required to have power amplifiers attached to any energy weapons, http://www.sarna.net...ower_Amplifier.

[Rayge]

This thread made me lol a bit. articles from 1985 about cars with lasers

think about this though: why can't you have a bunch of futuristic batteries, ICE charges them for 2 days before combat. Then you can fire your lasers straight for an hour