That little bucket of ideas.....

[Lixtan]

To add onto that, what would be the point of quadrupedal cyborgs, anyway? From what I can imagine, they may be able to traverse marginally more difficult terrain than bipedal cyborgs. And surely, they'd be more cumbersome.

[kage]

well, from the perspective of the vehicle itself, a quadruped is a much cheaper form of stability and speed, and the stability of it is not as adversely affected by increased speed as is the case with bipedal locomotion.

however, the above doesn't factor in humans at all -- if it was completely ai controlled, quadruped would be better, but when a human is in direct control of it, and must deal with sensory feedback provided by the vehicle, bipedal vehicles are so much better.

[Watermelon]

imnho the legs/mechs are just to make them cooler in movie/game...
there is no real benefits to use such propulsion in modern warfare:
1.slower/weaker/more complex to construct than tracks(damaging any 1 out of the 4 legs will immobilize it)
2.not efficient energy-comsume-wise
3.increased 'height' and make them much easier to hit by projectiles

[DevUrandom]

It looks cool.

[karmazilla]

It looks cool.

.... when that stray shell blasts straight through the upper body of such a walker, yes ;D

[commondragon]

actually, we can always convert the super cyborgs into quads

[Slye_Fox]

*AHEM* We all know as common knowledge that the only things that would survive a nuclear winter is

A. Future people
B. Cockroaches
C. Twinkies

And those in fallout shelters

[Slye_Fox]

1.slower

It has been proven that legs can move faster than tracks.

(damaging any 1 out of the 4 legs will immobilize it)

Same with any other propulsion

2.not efficient energy-comsume-wise

Incorect, it's also been proven that legs are alot more eficient than tracks

3.increased 'height' and make them much easier to hit by projectiles

That's true


Now, let's look at the flip side of the coin;
1. Mechs are highly more mobile than tracks, able to climb tarain and even jump (with the right amount of shock absorbtion)

2. Would be better in performance in an urban enviroment than a tank

3. Their carrying capasity is alot creater than of vehicles.


The ONLY reason we don't have them now, is because no nation wants to spend the amount of money required for the research.

[commondragon]

Ideas if we goes in on this for the quads:

Heavy repair Cyborgs/AA cyborgs.....two Cyborgs that just might help

Walker (slow, heavy)/Hunter (Weak, fast)

[themousemaster]

It has been proven that legs can move faster than tracks.

I've seen videos of a treaded tank moving at roughly 50MPH.  Can you link to the proof of similarly-size quad vehicles moving at superior speeds please?  I'd like to see the vid ;p.

Same with any other propulsion

The thing is, tracks have very little in the way of a "vulnerability" when it comes to specific portions of their tracks.  True, if you de-tread a tank, it's stuck; but that's a total failure of the tread.  In the case of a leg, all you have to do is nick enough of it off to cause its structural stability to not handle the weight/pressure of the mech that uses it, or damage to any of the hydraulics or electronics in it to cause it to not move, and the quad-mech is done for (not that the same problem isn't present in bipedal mechs as well, mind you)

Incorect, it's also been proven that legs are alot more eficient than tracks

Can you link the research on that to me as well please?

Now, let's look at the flip side of the coin;
1. Mechs are highly more mobile than tracks, able to climb tarain and even jump (with the right amount of shock absorbtion)

2. Would be better in performance in an urban enviroment than a tank

3. Their carrying capasity is alot creater than of vehicles.


The ONLY reason we don't have them now, is because no nation wants to spend the amount of money required for the research.

1 - if you give a mech such precise digit control as to be able to climb structures/terrain, then said digits are going to be further liabilities when said digits are on the ground supporting the mech's weight.  More moving parts = more vulnerabilities to weapons; specifically, to weapons of a much lighter punch than would be needed to bring down the mechs with direct hits.  As for jumping, perhaps with the right hydraulics that can be done, but what about the landing?  Specifically, I can see a mech trying to jump in a jungle or desert environment; upon hitting soft ground, the vertical force of the mech is going to cause it to sink partially into the earth.  Until it can free, say, up to the ankles it buried itself to, it's a stationary target.

2 - Only if said mech can fit inside urban structures.  Otherwise, the only advantage a mech has over a treaded vehicle is profile (say, peering around a corner), which is debatable as to how useful that would be, given that much modern weaponry can still hit you, even if you are still around said corner.  Are we talking bipedal or quad-mech here anyway; Even at human-sized, I don't know to many urban environments where the buildings are sized to support movement by a large quadrepedal creature (Imagine, say, a Centaur from that old Hercules show trying to work it's way through an inner-city apartment).

3 - Again, Links please .





(Note:  I'm not actually against mechs in WZ; it's a video game after all, and more cool stuff in game = more cool overall.  I'm just after some edification)

[lav_coyote25]

prepare to be edified.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1f4zrYzDz8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7QhoPW6 ... ed&search=


watch the whole thing... it is quite interesting that what kids start up as a hobby/fantasy role playing sometimes finds its way into actuality.

[DevUrandom]

Funny.

Actually: What is this discussion about? If someone wants 4 leg mechs in WZ, I won't object... I don't think it is all about realism. If someone wants to create a fantasy mod... Go for it, I think that's the fun part about FOSS.

[Rman Virgil]

* themousemaster: Hilarious AND edifying, a rare combo indeed.....then tied-up neatly with your thoroughly reasonable closing comment. Style with substance, definite props.

* DevUrandom: Share this thought a 95% -

I don't think it is all about realism. If someone wants to create a fantasy mod... Go for it, I think that's the fun part about FOSS.

* WHY not a 100% ? Simply because to be captivated even by acknowledged 'Fantasy' the artist (in whatever form) has to be able to achieve versimilitude - that is, the 'illusion of reality'.... or as wordsmiths call it: "the willing suspension of disbelief."

- rv

[themousemaster]

prepare to be edified.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1f4zrYzDz8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7QhoPW6 ... ed&search=


watch the whole thing... it is quite interesting that what kids start up as a hobby/fantasy role playing sometimes finds its way into actuality.

I am sufficiently edified ;p.

For the record, I never said mechs didn't have merit.  I just wanted to see the proof of comparison of them vs treaded vehicles.

[kage]

For the record, I never said mechs didn't have merit.  I just wanted to see the proof of comparison of them vs treaded vehicles.

until such a time as technology advances enough to make mechs exceptionally fast and manueverable, then treads are better in fundamentally every way, and current "security mech" implementations are only effective when the enemy does not have the firepower to take it out, and is otherwise unable to simply outmanuever the mech.

with that particular implementation, if alone, the only place it could be extremely effective is at the end of a very long hallway, where it would be particularly devastating, though, in any other environment (a short hallway, for example, or in an open area with a lot of cover, or even an open area without any cover), the mech would be nearly useless without supporting infantry, since it is quite appearant that this mech cannot quickly react or take aim, and, in any case, the enemy soldiers could simply make a quick run for it, probably evading fire, and to safety before the mech can turn around, or easily, in the case of a lone mech in an open area, distract the mech on one side, and send someone else to run up under it to attach a quarter pound of c4, or depending on the density of the legs, just lay into it with a rotary saw (not as though the pilot of the mech can do anything about it without getting out). if the mech had supporting infantry cover, either of these manuevers would prove suicidal on the part of the enemy. i think "war mech" is, or should be, a bit of a misnomer, since if there's anything available that can knock this thing out, it is absolutely screwed, and given its potential firepower, slow movement, and relatively large profile, it'd always be target #1, and they'd get destroyed just as fast as they were put on the battlefield.

really, though, the technology has a lot of promise: if they can get the thing to move 4 times faster in both forward movement and 4-8 times faster in the turn rate, as well as eliminating the rigidity of the legs (which currently allow the enemy to, perhaps, get 10 guys to rope it and simply knock it over while it's facing the other way), then nearly all of the problems noted above instantly disappear, and it would possibly be able to survive in a true infantry combat situation.

if the "security mech" industry really started getting competitive, in 10 years we might be able to have something ridiculously effective and better than a human combatant in every way. right now, though, if i was going up against one of those mechs, all i'd need was a flashbang or an occluding smoke grenade and i'd be able to subvert it entirely.

in terms of mechs vs treads: they'd mostly have completely different combat roles, and, at least in warzone, mechs should be something nearly impossible to hit by tank rounds, since they're relatively small, fast moving, and can quickly change direction, on the other hand, while able to carry weaponry that could take out a tank, they wouldn't be able to carry much of it, and thus would be far more suited for purely anti-infantry roles, while that anti-tank weaponry would work most effectively on other tanks, or in the hands of true infantry.