66 replies to this topic

[SirDubDub]

I'm much more interested in how a PPC will SOUND

Its basically a lightning gun, right? I was always annoyed by the little steamy sound it made in the games. Why not have a weapon that sounds like a thunderclap?

[Razor Kotovsky]

It should sound exactly like the gauss (propulsion principle being the same), but with less oomph (since it's not a hard body).

Edited by Razor Kotovsky, 04 November 2011 - 11:00 PM.

[goon]

I want them to use the MW4 PPC sound effect because it is pure nostalgia in weaponized form.

SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESHAH

Edited by goon, 04 November 2011 - 11:03 PM.

[xVeNoMNXx]

My personal opinion is this. Above is a very descriptive explaination of what the PPC is and what it fires. (BTW, thank you Nebfer.) This game is more than just a series to many of us who have been fearlessly loyal to it. Even more so to those of us that got started in it playing the table top, BattleTech. Ral Partha and FASA spent a lot of time creating these weapons, giving a detailed description of what they are, how they look and what their effects are. Everyone has their own opinion of what a weapon should look like or how the projectile/beam should look. Personally, with respect to its creators, it should look just the way it was intended to, the way it is described. I mean, anything less than that, not only would it be dishonorable, but it would'nt be a PPC anymore. It would just be something else that was cooked up.

[Amechwarrior]

They could sounded like this when fired and this this when they hit you.

[Infine]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 04 November 2011 - 12:54 PM, said:

Wrong, its a Particle Projector Cannon which fires a concentrated stream of protons/ions at the target.

So it's plasma by ******* physical definition. They can call it Radiant Blaster for all I care. Plasma is plasma.

But back to topic. Trailer stuff is fine.

[T S Hawk]

PPC's should look well like PPC's see the Awesome or the Warhammer for what they should look like.

[HanaYuriko]

Amechwarrior, on 04 November 2011 - 11:10 PM, said:

They could sounded like this when fired and this this when they hit you.

First link sounds great! Second one doesn't seem to imply the impact of a weapon that can sheer off nearly a ton of armor.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

HanaYuriko, on 05 November 2011 - 02:22 AM, said:

First link sounds great! Second one doesn't seem to imply the impact of a weapon that can sheer off nearly a ton of armor.

'Nearly a ton'?
It only destroys a bit over half a ton of standard armour (10/16th).
Even less with ferro-fibrous.

[terminator]

Should be a visually upgraded version of the one from mechwarrior 4.

[HanaYuriko]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 05 November 2011 - 02:40 AM, said:

'Nearly a ton'?
It only destroys a bit over half a ton of standard armour (10/16th).
Even less with ferro-fibrous.

You are partially correct.
Full Contact Damage Rule adds damage (roll +3 over the target number).
Glancing Blow halves it (roll matching the target number exactly).
Clan ERPPC does 15 Damage
PPC Capacitor adds 5 Damage (on top of the 10 for the standard PPC)
Heavy PPC does 15 damage
Snub Nosed PPC does 10/8/5 depending on range

And that's just against standard armor. There is also as you said, ferrofiberous, as well as hardened, reflective, reactive, and stealth armor.

But this topic is about the sensory detail of the weapon in question. Either way, be it 1,000kg or 500kg - the destruction of that much material in a split second would most likely be rather explosive.

Edited by HanaYuriko, 05 November 2011 - 03:03 AM.

[Draco Argentum]

It should look like the original MechCommander graphic.

[Daneiel]

I liked the sound and visual effect of the PPC in MW3 , I didn't liked at all MW4 effects of the energy weapons .

[ice trey]

I would say that while all the versions of the PPC in the Mechwarrior series are quite showy, I think they all get it wrong but Mechwarrior 1. That said, Mechwarrior 1's graphics were so simple it was unavoidable.

Long story short, PPC's are Particle Beams, not Lightning Guns or Electron Flux cannons. However, they're often depicted as such. What is more, I couldn't imagine lightning on it's own being enough to do more damage than a large laser.

What I DO imagine the PPC as acting like is sort of like a dim laser - a beam of infinitesimally minute particles of matter fired at the target at close to the speed of light - which is why the PPC would be the only energy weapon with recoil. The impact of this matter would clearly have a powerful effect against anything it hits.

This matter, as it travels through the air at such speed, would inevitably create huge amounts of static electricity, which would appear as lightning, or electricity, which hugs the path of the beam straight to the target, this damage would further boost the devastating power of the particle beam, hitting the same area.


This would also explain Blue Shield systems, which halve all PPC damage - Only the damage from the particle beam itself would be damaging the 'mech, but the electricity would be dampened and shunted through the 'mech.

Edited by ice trey, 06 November 2011 - 06:11 AM.

[r4plez]

PPC should look like one in MW3, those were awesome sound+particle effects

Edited by r4plez, 06 November 2011 - 07:17 AM.

[Thomas Hogarth]

I've always felt that PPCs just move too darn slowly in just about every MechWarrior iteration I've ever played.

[SnagaDance]

I'm not a big fan of MW3 but I really liked how they did the PPC in that game.

[Rodney28021]

Razor Kotovsky, on 04 November 2011 - 01:08 PM, said:

Protons don't have a charge so they might be in plasma as well.
Electrons get left behind and the massive positive charge is what causes the electrical disturbance.

PPCs are Not Plasma weapons, they are weaponized Linear Particle Accellerators, Throwning beams of atomic particles down range, They are affected by gravity, magnetism, air. An electron particle beam weapon works by disrupting electric circuits and electronic devices in its targets. If any living animals or persons were to be caught by the electric discharge of an electron beam weapon, they would most likely be electrocuted. An electron beam weapon can also damage or melt its target by the electrical resistance heating of the target (because of Ohm's law).

Wall of text follows


Particle accelerators, also called atom smashers or particle colliders, are a well-developed technology used in scientific research for decades. They use electric and magnetic fields to accelerate and direct charged particles along a predetermined path, and electrostatic “lenses” to focus these streams for collisions. .
A particle beam is a weaponized version of this technology. It accelerates charged particles (in most cases electrons, positrons, protons, or ionized atoms) to near-light speed and then shoots them at a distant target. The particles have tremendous kinetic energy which they impart to particles in the target’s surface, inducing near-instantaneous and catastrophic superheating.
Particle beams come in two broad categories: charged and neutral. Similliar to the phenomenon of lightning, and the two share a number of common characteristics. But whereas lightning will follow the often-jagged path of least electrical resistance, a particle beam will forcefully punch its own path through the air.
However, this act of ionization saps energy from the beam, limiting its effective range. Depending on how much energy the shot initially had, this might give the weapon a typical range limitation of several hundred meters to several kilometers before it becomes too weak to effectively damage a target.
One major advantage of a charged particle beam over a laser in an atmosphere is that the particle beam is practically unhampered by almost any kind of weather. It will punch through snow and rain and fog as readily as clear air, and the ionization effect is unaffected by any such phenomenon.

NEUTRAL BEAMS


In space, without air, the ionization effect is not present, and the beam will quickly fly apart as the like-charged particles repel each other. Neutral particle beams do not have this limitation, however, and can remain focused in the beam for great distances. However, neutral particles cannot be accelerated using electromagnetic fields. While this may seem limiting, an easy solution is just to neutralize a charged beam just as its leaving the weapon’s accelerator.
Several different forms of this “neutralizer” component have been suggested. In one case its assumed that protons or ionized atomic nuclei are being accelerated, and by adding an electron to each of the particles to form a whole atom, the beam becomes electrically neutral. In another, hydrogen or deuterium atoms are exposed to an extreme electrical charge, and that these extra electrons are stripped form the atoms as they leave the accelerator aperture.
One concept is to put a physical barrier, a foil or gas, on the end of the accelerator. As the beam passes through it, it picks up or takes away the electrons needed. While relatively simple in concept and execution, this scheme has the disadvantage of sapping some energy from the beam as it passes through, reducing its potential effectiveness and range. The neutralizing barrier would also have to be replaced after each shot.
Another idea is to intersect the proton beam with an electron beam. The protons or nuclei pick up the needed electrons, and get a slight boost from the electrons’ own energy. However, this in turn can lead to reduced effective range, as the increase in energy also leads to an increase in heat in the beam, causing the more energetic particles to spread out faster.
Still, because they are not losing energy to ionizing the air, neutral particle beams can have truly epic ranges in space, on the order of many thousands of kilometers. They can still be deflected and warped by the gravitational fields of stars and planets, however. Even though these deflections can weaken the focus of the beam, systems can be set up to actually take advantage of such phenomena, such as “curving” a beam slightly so it can hit a target that might otherwise be occluded by the curve of a planet.
Particle beams can also be designed to deflect the beam to a certain degree within the barrel, so their aiming can be fine-tuned without having to move the gun significantly. This can be perhaps as much as forty-five degrees or more from the line of the accelerator, depending on the weapon’s exact configuration. This will be of significant use in space, as the immense ranges involved would require ultrafine pinpoint targeting that would not be easily achieved with turret tracking or ship maneuvering alone.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS


Particle beams also have two secondary damaging effects. Though often minor considerations in light of the catastrophic damage of a direct hit, these effects may still be felt even if a target is missed or simply near the beam when it fires.
The first is that the outer fringes of the beam tends to spread out along its path, creating a diffuse “halo” of high-energy radiation in a radius around the main beam. Thus, even objects not struck directly by the beam may still suffer a major dose of radiation, the exact type depending on the type of particles in the beam.
Another effect particular to the charged versions of this weapon is that the beam and its radiation ‘halo’ ionizes any particles in comes into contact with, generating an electromagnetic pulse. As charged weapons are for use exclusively within an atmosphere, this EMP will be in effect all along the beam’s length and envelop the target point as well. Even if the target survives a direct hit by the beam and the pulse of radiation, it could still be neutralized by the EMP. In fact, a beam could be powered down so that its only significant damage would be EMP, potentially taking out an unshielded target without a great deal of physical damage or loss of life.
Particle beams can be fired either in pulses or in a continuous beam. Like with lasers, to maximize the amount of energy in the beam, and therefore penetration, range, and damage to the target, pulses may be preferable in most combat circumstances against mobile targets. Continuous beam fire, though not as powerful as pulses, would have its place in battle, but will probably be useful in non-warfare applications.
Heat regulation will always be a consideration in designing a particle beam weapon system. Similar in some respects to a coilgun, a particle beam requires the generation of very potent electromagnetic fields--on the order of tens of megawatts of power in the coils--along the length of the linear accelerator that makes up its barrel. The super-high currents required in turn create a great deal of heat that could affect performance or even start melting the weapon if not dealt with. Some real-world research accelerators require cool-down periods of several hours between firings.
Larger systems can use very large radiators or heat sinks to deal with this problem, especially if the weapon is on a space- or water-borne platform. Smaller weapons may need more elaborate active cooling systems.
Because of the ionization effect, most types of particle beams would actually be visible in the atmosphere, appearing as blue-white beams, or the way lightning would look if it moved in a perfectly straight line. However, in space, without any air molecules to ionize, particle beams will be as invisible to the naked eye as lasers.

Edited by Rodney28021, 12 June 2012 - 09:10 AM.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Eight months devoted to writing that wall of text. Rodney, you sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

[Grayson Carlyle]

Like in the books. A cross between man-made lightning and a laserbolt.