Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[syvarris]

@GWG

More I was commenting on the fact the OOC thread has comments on stuff from all the other threads, so it's harder to keep things straight in my mind.  I didn't really mind reading through lots of OOC anyways, so it's a downgrade for me.  I understand that lots of other people prefer it though.

As far as the profile, if you have weapons with drop, a flat but short target is harder to hit than a tall but thin target.  You wouldn't have to have it fly above it's target, and even if you did, a large percentage of it's area is visible sky from below.  It's really hard to shoot the rotors themselves without a continuous laser, so you'd have to target the central box, which is a far smaller target.

As far as erratic flight patterns, one advantage of the four blades is that the quadcopter has complete control over it's movements.  Assuming you have a good targeting CPU, it can completely predict what movements it'll make and compensate.  But even an animal with a fairly regular gait like a horse can't predict it's own movements so well because the ground varies.  It's not a big problem if you're running in a steel corridor where the floor is regular, but it's a big problem in uneven terrain.


@Sean
Yeah, they're vulnerable to losing a limb.  But it's nearly impossible to hit one of the limbs without a continuous beam weapon, which are fairly easy to armor against.  Anti-ballistic armor would only be needed for the center, and depending on how it's used you would only need to armor the bottom or sides.

As far as losing a limb, I'm told a quadcopter is vulnerable to it, but that it would mostly lose lifting power and manueverability.  Apparently, you can take two opposite limbs out and it can still "fly", by spinning.  You would have to further limit the weight, but it would be able to retreat even if it sustained major damage.

If you're really worried, you can make it an octocopter, which is able to lose half of it's limbs and still fly with nearly peal manueverability.  It'll lose half of it's lift, but it won't be crippled.

Compare to an RT, which is a horse.  I hope you realize what they do to horses that break a leg.



Also, the hobbyist that has been arguing through me told me to post this link: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ#


@Radio Controlled
Thanks for the special mention, although NAV and SS did waaay more than me.  I'll try to put more work in in the future.

[piecewise]

Infirmary:

This is where you will spend the majority of your time.

This is good. I like you.

Wiki link added to first page of all threads.

[GreatWyrmGold]

...Isn't he in a chemically induced coma anyways?))

Once Jim wanders away and lets the nurses put him under again, yup.

More I was commenting on the fact the OOC thread has comments on stuff from all the other threads, so it's harder to keep things straight in my mind.

Ah.

As far as the profile, if you have weapons with drop, a flat but short target is harder to hit than a tall but thin target.  You wouldn't have to have it fly above it's target, and even if you did, a large percentage of it's area is visible sky from below.  It's really hard to shoot the rotors themselves without a continuous laser, so you'd have to target the central box, which is a far smaller target.

Alright, let's start at the top.
1. How is a wide target easier to hit with a dropping weapon than a narrow one?
2. If you don't have it flying fairly high, what are you hoping to gain above a running combot?
3. How can any of its area be open sky?
4. Um...lasers and such are pretty common. And explosive anything would be devastating. And even normal bullets would have a pretty good chance of hitting the rotors because of how fast they spin.

As far as erratic flight patterns, one advantage of the four blades is that the quadcopter has complete control over it's movements.  Assuming you have a good targeting CPU, it can completely predict what movements it'll make and compensate.  But even an animal with a fairly regular gait like a horse can't predict it's own movements so well because the ground varies.  It's not a big problem if you're running in a steel corridor where the floor is regular, but it's a big problem in uneven terrain.

Factor in winds and that isn't such a big benefit. To say nothing of your inability to respond to my actual question, or how most of the roughness would be "absorbed" into the legs (how much does your torso jerk up and down when, say, walking up a staircase or walking across rough ground?).

@Sean
As far as losing a limb, I'm told a quadcopter is vulnerable to it, but that it would mostly lose lifting power and manueverability.

How so? You never really explained this. The rotors, I can see your (incorrect) logic, but the arms holding the rotors don't have any easy explanation.

[PyroDesu]

...Isn't he in a chemically induced coma anyways?))

Once Jim wanders away and lets the nurses put him under again, yup.

Considering that Jim is in the briefing room with me (anything saying otherwise is inaccurate from the viewpoint of my main turn), he's out.

And I actually released The Doctor to heal him. He's getting his fleshy guts back, though, not going cybernetic. Should keep him... out of trouble, for a while.

And Sean, the meeting is IC, in the repair team thread. Next turn, let any stragglers arrive.

[GreatWyrmGold]

What would roboguts do, anyways?

[PyroDesu]

What would roboguts do, anyways?

Be a faster repair job. No pain from disemboweling. No, I do not intend to disembowel him.

[Yoink]

Thinking I might do the project I was planning way back when Charro was still alive... or then I could do the stuff Jobasio wanted to work on back before I stopped playing. Hrm.

I really wonder whether I've an English barrier or there's something else...

Because I did not state something such as that.
I don't like being interpreted as that.
But thanks for the answer anyway.

In interpreted it as a pun on 'great taste', like an advertising jingle for the low-fat version of a product or something.

[Tiruin]

I don't get jokes like that.

I legitimately tried. Sorry.

Your intent is noted. u__u
Thanks.
^{I fial in everything}

[Yoink]

It's alright.
Besides, Feyri didn't actually do that- Piecewise just described his amusing mental image.

[syvarris]

1.I'm saying the opposite of that.  It's harder to hit a wide target.  A quadcopter facing you is a wide target.
2.Ability to gain a good tactical position, mostly.  Being able to take cover in impossible spots, being able to travel over much worse terrain, being faster, ect.  Also stability during movement.  Anyways, you still retain the ability to fly above them anyways.  Even if you're easier to shoot, a surprise flanking manuever is a good thing to have in your back pocket.
3.The spinning rotors are visible, but ballistic weapon practically can't hit them.  Only the center is really vulnerable to ballistic fire.
4.Yes, I said it's vulnerable to lasers.  You would have to armor the arm and rotors against lasers, or risk losing them.  Explosives... well, airburst stuff would be effective, as well as homing stuff.  But the former is rare and difficult to use in most cases, while the second would probably target thermal signatures due to the prevalence of rockets.  Also, that's rare too.  Other types of explosives would be difficult to hit with- you would have to hit things near the copter to do real damage, and it's less vulnerable to that than land-based things due to flight.

As for ballistic weapons hitting the rotors... you have no idea how fast a buller goes, do you?  I won't say it's impossible, but it is very unlikely.  It would be far easier to hit the center, regardless of erratic flight patterns and whatnot.

The hobbyist is telling me that high wind wouldn't be an issue.  Apparently there's currently fancy gimbals mounted on some of these things that can aim cameras with no effect from wind, and that's with RL tech.

Hobbyist says losing a limb is better than losing just a rotor, because it would rebalancd the weight towards the remaining engines.  Plus it would be lighter, which would somewhat counter the loss in lift.  Assuming your CPU can detect the change, it's trivial to readjust how the remaining rotors operate for the thing to fly.  If you have as many as six or eight rotors, you won't even really lose manueverability.



This argument is funny.  I don't plan to build any, because Saint will be going for automated robobodies or teammates if he goes for any robotic soldiers.  And I highly doubt Anton will try it.  In general, I'm just plain opposed to custom equipment because it's so expensive- for example an RT costs as much as an Avatar, while being less useful than a battlesuit.

At best, I'll convince Simus or Miyamoto to make some for the ARMy.  And I doubt that's happening.

@PW
Thank you!

[Toaster]

I'm no expert, but isn't laser ablative armor lighter than something that will take gauss rounds?  If you're going to bother with armor, better defend against the class of weapon that it is lightest to do so.

[smurfingtonthethird]

We'll need our own version of a battle tank if the enemy makes ground-fall with tanks or if they get fortifed. Any suggestions?

Also, helicopters are for chumps.

Wait, I have a robostomach? Time to eat everything and anything.

[GreatWyrmGold]

1.I'm saying the opposite of that.  It's harder to hit a wide target.  A quadcopter facing you is a wide target.
2.Ability to gain a good tactical position, mostly.  Being able to take cover in impossible spots, being able to travel over much worse terrain, being faster, ect.  Also stability during movement.  Anyways, you still retain the ability to fly above them anyways.  Even if you're easier to shoot, a surprise flanking manuever is a good thing to have in your back pocket.
3.The spinning rotors are visible, but ballistic weapon practically can't hit them.  Only the center is really vulnerable to ballistic fire.
4.Yes, I said it's vulnerable to lasers.  You would have to armor the arm and rotors against lasers, or risk losing them.  Explosives... well, airburst stuff would be effective, as well as homing stuff.  But the former is rare and difficult to use in most cases, while the second would probably target thermal signatures due to the prevalence of rockets.  Also, that's rare too.  Other types of explosives would be difficult to hit with- you would have to hit things near the copter to do real damage, and it's less vulnerable to that than land-based things due to flight.

1. My bad in asking. Mind explaining that?
2. When we control the battlefield, how much of an issue is that? If we were designing them for assaulting a variety of types of areas, they might have one advantage, but for here...
3. Why not? Again, the rotors are spinning pretty fast. If nothing else, a low-velocity explosive would completely destroy a rotor AND damage the hub, if not adjacent rotors.
4. You don't seem to be explaining much of this. Especially considering that mini-nukes are dirt cheap, so what is true about the real world should be highly suspect here.

As for ballistic weapons hitting the rotors... you have no idea how fast a buller goes, do you?  I won't say it's impossible, but it is very unlikely.  It would be far easier to hit the center, regardless of erratic flight patterns and whatnot.

1 5. I know. The rotors also go fast.
6. Alright, they hit the center. What now?

The hobbyist is telling me that high wind wouldn't be an issue.  Apparently there's currently fancy gimbals mounted on some of these things that can aim cameras with no effect from wind, and that's with RL tech.

With fairly small quadcoptors. Under conditions that wouldn't completely screw them up (e.g, not combat or adverse weather).

Overall, I don't think the advantages measure up to the disadvantages.

This argument is funny.  I don't plan to build any, because Saint will be going for automated robobodies or teammates if he goes for any robotic soldiers.  And I highly doubt Anton will try it.  In general, I'm just plain opposed to custom equipment because it's so expensive- for example an RT costs as much as an Avatar, while being less useful than a battlesuit.
At best, I'll convince Simus or Miyamoto to make some for the ARMy.  And I doubt that's happening.

Still, it's fun.

We'll need our own version of a battle tank if the enemy makes ground-fall with tanks or if they get fortifed.

I'd say antimaterial rifles would be more useful.
Still...I'd say big synthflesh thingies would be pretty useful. Or maybe large battlesuits. Or Miyamoto.

[smurfingtonthethird]

I'd say antimaterial rifles would be more useful.
Still...I'd say big synthflesh thingies would be pretty useful. Or maybe large battlesuits. Or Miyamoto.

Big synthflesh thingies? Like a giant Sod or something?

Also, we need a main battle armor unit. Like a combat walker, like Star Wars AT-TE's or Starcraft Thors.

[PyroDesu]

We'll need our own version of a battle tank if the enemy makes ground-fall with tanks or if they get fortifed. Any suggestions?

That's when I break out my Tinker skills. Did you know my last character made a tank?

It had twin LESHO rifles. This will be more modest, but potentially more effective.