8 replies to this topic

[Johannes Falkner]

Battlemechs have numerous sensors:
Mk I eyeballs (x2 normally)
Visual sensors (with zoom and presumably light amplification [starlight night vision])
Thermal Sensors (All weather vision)
Radar
Magnetometers
Seismometers
Others?

The Mk I eyeballs and Visual Sensors are trivial, we have basically already seen how they are implemented in the videos. Light amplification based night vision is also a well understood mechanic and most people would recognize the green phosphoresence video as night vision. Thermal sensors get more interesting, do you go with a black and white scale image or draw colors? For all of the visual modes so far, they could be implemented in such a way that each sensor is transparently layered over the cockpit, allowing pilots/players to see information from all of them simultaneously.

Radar is another well understood sesnor in game terms, but can be implemented in vastly different ways. The first is as a 360 detector a la Halo and other FPSs, The second is more of an aircraft based system where objects are identified by their motion and the radar detects and displays speed, distance and vector information.

Magnetometers and seismic sensors are the ones I am most interested in seeing people's opinions on.

A magnetometer generally gives you the strength of a magnetic field and with multiple sensors it is possible to determine direction. In order to magnetometers them useful and still keep them distinct from other detectors, as well as keep real world physics in the loop< I would prose a field strength and bearing indication. Because of electromagnetic drop off a large field far away would look similar to a smaller, closer field. For example a reading of 15 on bearing 195 could be an Atlas at 700m or a Javelin at 400m. This keeps them interesting and since they should be very useful in detecting hidden and shutdown mechs, it keeps an element of uncertainty that should keep the game interesting.

Seismic sensors should have some of the same concepts of magnitude and distance uncertainty, but should only work while stationary. Logically, why would your mech's seismic sensors work when the mech is walking and parts are moving, producing its own tremors? This would also encourage scouts to stop and smell the roses once in a while.

What are your thoughts?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Thermal sensors normally are in coulour with red for hot and blue for cold. Outlines tend to be "fuzzy" and shapes can be somewhat indistinct, especially at a distance.
For Radar, if you look at the details of the different types of mech computers thay all have different ranges and often only cover a sector rather than give 360 degree coverage.
I agree with you on magnetometers.
Seismic would probably have the least descrimination with regard to size and distance. I would imagine they would give an approximate bearing to "something". They would only work if all the lance stopped moving and I could imagine them being fairly useless if you had a number of mechs moving around in the area as I cant see how you would get fine discrimination from something inside a mech. In fact to use with amy certinty I would envisage a probe needing to be inserted into the ground, or at least in direct contact. Something perhaps in the sole of the mechs foot?
The "radar" display in the cockpiy is in fact a composite image (according to fluff) produced by the mechs computer synthesised from all the sensor data.
I would like to see differing types of computer with differing abilities, such as number of mechs tracked, range etc available as upgrades for your mech.
This could be tailored, along with modules, to the chosen role. ie a Scout would have a long range, 360 degree detection but could only target a limited number of mechs and would take slightly longer to lock on.
A fire support mech would be able to target and lock on more quickly with a ,imited sector of view.

[Johannes Falkner]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 23 March 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

Thermal sensors normally are in coulour with red for hot and blue for cold. Outlines tend to be "fuzzy" and shapes can be somewhat indistinct, especially at a distance.

False color thermal definitely exists, but most military stuff I have seen sticks with black and white scales because it does not require processing the video (The cameras are all black and white in the first place.). I could see this being maintained into the 31st century for several reasons but they booil down to two. Lowest bidder, it will be cheaper to not process the video. Reliability, a video processor is one more thing to fail. The degree to which those apply can be debated, and I would expect that video processing would be a trivial thing in 1000 years, but the military procurement mind set is a truly amazingly stubborn thing.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 23 March 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

Seismic would probably have the least descrimination with regard to size and distance. I would imagine they would give an approximate bearing to "something". They would only work if all the lance stopped moving and I could imagine them being fairly useless if you had a number of mechs moving around in the area as I cant see how you would get fine discrimination from something inside a mech. In fact to use with amy certinty I would envisage a probe needing to be inserted into the ground, or at least in direct contact. Something perhaps in the sole of the mechs foot?

I think that the seismometers would absolutely be built into the feet. I would also not be surprised if the feet had cleats of some kind for traction, which would make sensible seismic sensor mounting points. The cleats would also explain why people did not want mechs fighting in the city, potholes.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 23 March 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

I would like to see differing types of computer with differing abilities, such as number of mechs tracked, range etc available as upgrades for your mech.
This could be tailored, along with modules, to the chosen role. ie a Scout would have a long range, 360 degree detection but could only target a limited number of mechs and would take slightly longer to lock on.
A fire support mech would be able to target and lock on more quickly with a ,imited sector of view.

Canon fluffwise there is definitely enough material for reasonable differences. Just think about the Rifleman which fluff wise has an antiaircraft targeting system. Also, how would C3, C3i and iC3 be depicted in game?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

C3 etc are still some way off in the timeline but will take up crits and weight. As for the computers the are all listed in great details in the Compendium I think - they even have module slots it's referred to here http://mwomercs.com/...s-take-spoiler/ well worth a read.

[Johannes Falkner]

I am glad C3 is still a ways off so that they can get basic game balance right first, What I really meant is what would the player experience be like carrying C3? How would it change compared to other sensor configurations?

Nik Van Rhijn, on 23 March 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

As for the computers the are all listed in great details in the Compendium I think - they even have module slots it's referred to here http://mwomercs.com/...s-take-spoiler/ well worth a read.

Cool read.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It looks like we will have something similar to the C3 data sharing system with the Battle Grid.

[movingtarget]

with Seismic sensors you could probably get a idea of rough distance and weight of the target maybe a scale that spikes with each footfall of the enemy mech so you need to work a bit to derermin weight

Edited by movingtarget, 24 March 2012 - 01:45 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Seismic sensors that are portable and limited to one location just don't have that sort of discrimination. You could determine that there was something or some things in a general direction and thats about it Plus to do so your standing still and thus a prime target.

[Johannes Falkner]

Seismic sensors would be the least reliable and have the least resolution because different types of underlying soils, levels of water saturation and compaction conduct seismic waves differently. I would think that seismic sensors would be more of a "you are not alone" type of sensor. Maybe they should be able to tell weight class differences, not necessary tell exactly which weight class a target is, but tell that targets A and B are different weight classes and which is heavier.