131 replies to this topic

[Stone Profit]

Scar, on 20 March 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

I have some cockies for you. Razer Hydra

Except those are not joysticks.Certainly someone so very interested in semantics knows there is a difference between a joystick and a thumbstick...

In case you do need clarification, see the reference page for wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joystick

Edited by Stone Profit, 20 March 2012 - 09:34 AM.

[Scar]

Thumbstick - is on top. But the whole things - joysticks without centered loading. So, everything is fine with semantics here.

Edited by Scar, 20 March 2012 - 09:36 AM.

[Stone Profit]

Scar, on 20 March 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

Thumbstick - is on top. But the whole things - joysticks without centered load. So, everything is fine with semantics.

If you say so, dude. Im done. feeding the troll with this thread. Laters

Edited by Stone Profit, 20 March 2012 - 10:26 AM.
Yep, I wuz here

[Tryg]

Scar, on 20 March 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

It's not my problem if they don't know what the term really means. Black isn't white and Earth isn't flat, even if the whole world said it is.

To clarify on behalf of the educated folks out there, the following are taken from the dictionary entries for Simulation and Simulate:

Simulate: To create a simulation, likeness, or model of (a situation, system, or the like)

Simulation: The representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through use of another system, especially a computer program designed for the purpose.

My point, neither of those states that the system being mimicked must be a real world example of a system. You CAN simulate a nonexistant system. It is done ALL the time in the real world. Especially in the scientific fields and automotive markets, where simulations of new devices or vehicles are developed far in advance of any actual prototype being created.

So yes, this can be a battlemech simulation without there actually being a real world battlemech to base it off of.

[Scar]

Stone Profit, on 20 March 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

If you say so, dude. Im done feeding the troll. Laters

Name calling as the last argument? That was pretty low. At least, i hope now you'll find some time to go by the link and read how the thing REALLY works. These joysticks are working in magnetic field, without centered loading - just like the Wii or PS3 Move sticks.

[Scar]

Tryg, on 20 March 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

My point, neither of those states that the system being mimicked must be a real world example of a system. You CAN simulate a nonexistant system. It is done ALL the time in the real world. Especially in the scientific fields and automotive markets, where simulations of new devices or vehicles are developed far in advance of any actual prototype being created.

Actually, in such case you're simulating not an abstract thing, but the physical system - which is still a real thing. But I still don't know how to simulate the object which is based on the fictional principles. Do you really know how the myomers working are? Do you know exact physical characteristics and formulas of thier behavior? NO! Same true for the most of other aspects and components of the Mech.

It's not a simulation - just a speculation, fiction, not more.

Quote

So yes, this can be a battlemech simulation without there actually being a real world battlemech to base it off of.

Nope.

Edited by Scar, 20 March 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[CeeKay Boques]

HeadWar, on 20 March 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

What? No. Have you ever driven a car?

If you're going to fall asleep in a car, it's gonna be on a highway, and that's the only place you really use cruise control.

PSA: If you're going to fall asleep in the car, cruise control is not the answer.

Throttle: You're increasing the power on a nuclear fusion engine. This has heat ramifications, and other kinds of technical stuff happening. Like a real pilot, being a smart mechwarrior who does exponentials in his head for fun, your throttle is a mathmatical computation for you, not at all like "Punching the gas on mah tractor".

[Tryg]

Scar, on 20 March 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Actually, in such case you're simulating not an abstract thing, but the physical system - which is still a real thing. But I still don't know how to simulate the object which is based on the fictional principles. Do you really know how the myomers working are? Do you know exact physical characteristics and formulas of thier behavior? NO! Same true for the most of other aspects and components of the Mech.

It's not a simulation - just a speculation, fiction, not more.


Nope.

You are making the assumption based on one type of simulation, of the many involved in such a process. A simulation is not required to be a full and complete system. A simple system which tests only one of a great plethora of systems being included, is still a simulation. By definition, a clay model mockup of a concept car design, is a simulation of that car. As are any of several dozen more steps before reaching a full simulation where a concept can be viewed in the entirety of how it would interact.

To keep on topic, a system in which the throttle is simulated, even if lacking the rest of the systems that will make up this game, is still a simulation. So please, keep the opinions of what a simulation is out of the dispute. A simulation can be taken in either direction, with a pressure sensative throttle, an advancing throttle as was mentioned earlier, or even lacking in the more physical realism, with one that launches straight into it's speed. Use of any of these does not change the fact that the developers are creating a simulation of a system described in books, table-top games, etc...

[Reno Blade]

The Battletech universe is so great, because most of it can be physically expained.
Simulation of movement and controls of a physically logical vehicle makes it a sim (i would say).
it doesnt matter if the myomers work like muscles (which is said they do) or otherwise, bot the mechs are walking and the sheer mass of the vehicle and the size makes for limitations in movement.
In theory, you could make your mech shift, skidd over asphalt and do a 100%-0% break (like ski or skaters). As we dont have the means to efficiently simulate such manovers without making it totaly arcade style FPS controls, we just use the more common movements.

Back to topic:

I am using the x52 saitek when playing MW:LL and the throttle for Mechs and tanks are different (maybe i didnt set them correctly).
The Mech is accelerating, if i move the trottle above 70% or decelerating if i move it below 30%.
The Tanks do have a "set fixed throttle" switch or something, which does make the movement of the trottle one-to-one the movement of your speed bar.

I would like to use the trottle like this, instead of accellerating like pressing W / S.

[Mason Grimm]

Now now, let us all behave. Calling someone a troll (like Paul for instance) who openly admits that is what they are doing and it's all for shizzles and giggles is all good but calling someone a troll in a negative light? Not so much.

Behave everyone! or I shall recite Luxan poetry!!

[Stone Profit]

Mason Grimm, on 20 March 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Behave everyone! or I shall recite Luxan poetry!!

Better that than Klingon opera!

[Scar]

Tryg, on 20 March 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

You are making the assumption based on one type of simulation, of the many involved in such a process. A simulation is not required to be a full and complete system.

Yes, there is no such a thing as "complete system" in the math/physics - every system has its own simplifications, but there is a factor of enough precision and sufficiency of the physical model which determines is this a speculation/fiction or simulation. Ask any engineer or physics/math scientist.

And still i don't see the model of mech which can be determined as simulation - only speculation.

Quote

A simple system which tests only one of a great plethora of systems being included, is still a simulation. By definition, a clay model mockup of a concept car design, is a simulation of that car. As are any of several dozen more steps before reaching a full simulation where a concept can be viewed in the entirety of how it would interact.

It's not a simulation of the car. Becuase the term "car" means not only external form, but exact functionality. Do not confuse imitation with simulation.

Edited by Scar, 20 March 2012 - 10:32 AM.

[Tryg]

You are once more applying your opinion of the definition rather then a textbook definition. By textbook definition of the word simulation, imitation of a thing is simulation of it. Even if all you are imitating is the appearance. The only reason I bring it up is you are insisting that because your definition of a simulation doesn't fit that it must not be a simulation, regardless of the fact that it far exceeds the minimum definitions of what constitutes a simulation.

Because yes, by definition of the word simulation, Imitation IS simulation.

[Scar]

not every imitation is a simulation - it's a scientific fact. period

Edited by Scar, 20 March 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[Tryg]

This has drifted completely off topic, but please, go look up the word simulation. Take a look at its numerous definitions. For something to be a simulation it need meet only ONE of those criteria. However, if you'd like to continue this debate, I'd recommend we take it to a more appropriate venue rather then obstructing this thread further.

[John Talbert]

speed needs to be throttled.. jet sim.. 1-100% on throttle.. diddo on mechs..

while we are on this.. add in pedal control for torso twisting.. at least let me use my expensive hardware and make me feel omnipotent!

[CeeKay Boques]

Wikipedia says:

Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.^[1] The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics or behaviors of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time.


And then further goes on to say:
Simulation is also used when the real system cannot be engaged, because it may not be accessible, or it may be dangerous or unacceptable to engage, or it is being designed but not yet built, or it may simply not exist .<sup>[3]"

The model that has been created, in this case, is the BattleTech Rules. I hope this doesn't help. At all.</sup>

[Trevnor]

Well, I use a Sidewinder joystick that's about six years old now. Throttle on the base, serves me well. The thing I would like to address is the hole dynamic throttle in a mech. Sure, as gamers playing a fictional game, we could choose between either or. But if these machines actually existed, for arguments sake, they wouldn't have a place to have a dynamic throttle. Both feet are occupied already, as the two foot petals are for torso twist, and pushing down on them is reserved for those 'mechs that have jump jets. The cockpit isn't really designed in such a way that there would be extra room for a third petal, and constantly switching between the throttle petal and the torso twist ones would be a pain, not to mention potentially deadly.

[Tryg]

Lt Trevnor, on 20 March 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

Well, I use a Sidewinder joystick that's about six years old now. Throttle on the base, serves me well. The thing I would like to address is the hole dynamic throttle in a mech. Sure, as gamers playing a fictional game, we could choose between either or. But if these machines actually existed, for arguments sake, they wouldn't have a place to have a dynamic throttle. Both feet are occupied already, as the two foot petals are for torso twist, and pushing down on them is reserved for those 'mechs that have jump jets. The cockpit isn't really designed in such a way that there would be extra room for a third petal, and constantly switching between the throttle petal and the torso twist ones would be a pain, not to mention potentially deadly.

A rather valid point in consideration of the sheer number of human-imput points needed to work the assortment of controls at the pilots disposal. With only two feet and two hands, this limits the number of actions a pilot controls at once. As battlemechs are developed to be mobile weapons of war, and not stationary gun platforms, the necessity of movement can be assumed. So having a set throttle allows the vehicle to remain in motion while the pilot shifts focus to other (often more pressing) concerns associated with being in combat.

The comparisons to the systems used in cars or tanks I find to be somewhat flawed, a car is most typically not a weapons platform, you need little more then basic situational awareness to drive it. You need to be aware of signs and what people around you are doing, however you do not often need to focus on anything that isn't directly in front of you (and in fact should not be focusing on something that isn't) Where in a combat situation, you may be moving in one direction while focusing in another (presumably...where an enemy is located).

And the flaw with the tank comparisons, while it does fulfill a similar role on the battlefield, a tank is a crewed vehicle, operated by a number of folks each tasked with a specific role, rather then a single pilot who must attend to every role of vehicle operation.

[TeaL3af]

Riordan Lionheart, on 19 March 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Gonna be honest, never really liked the idea of mech speed determined by a set throttle instead of a more, and I know I'll get flak for this, arcade motion dynamic. To me it always seemed counter intuitive to have a basically forced cruise control for bipedal humanoid vehicles. I understand how it fit well into the TT game but in MW it doesn't seem more practical than a pressure sensitive joystick since most of us likely will be using alternate controls anyway (i.e. joysticks, usb 360 controllers, etc). Personally, I don't relish the idea of having to stop start using set speeds all the time, especially considering the increased emphasis on urban combat the devs said this game would have.

thoughts?

There are several reasons that the Throttle has to be the way it is:

1. Mechs need variable speed, you can't create this in a better way on a keyboard and it would be naive to assume everyone is going to be using something else.

2. One less button to hold.

3. Mechs aren't agile enough to take advantage of smoother speed changes anyway.