Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



Nuclear cars is on-brand for Fallout since all the physics is supposed to be what pop culture in the 1950s thought the future would be like

i.e.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



It is within my suspension of disbelief that battlefield 101 in Star Trek involves doing something to block transporters. Otherwise, skip transporting a bullet and just transport a big ol' bomb.

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



SlothfulCobra posted:

I never got what that was supposed to mean that it's "death star tech", it's just a very large laser, but not as large as the laser the size of a moon.

Does that mean that the Death Star was somehow technologically unique aside from being very large? Is the little death star gun going to do something different from a very large laser? Was the very large gun on the ship in the beginning of the movie also "death star tech"?

It confers a weird about of extra-specialness upon the old movies while also distracting from what was happening in the moment.

Enh, I think it's probably weirder if the death star is just a scaled up version of the gun on an X-wing. Like a real-world nuke isn't just a very big stick of dynamite. It doesn't need to be explained though and it doesn't really matter besides "you need a bunch of secret science to make a death star instead of just a bunch of resources". Little death star gun is still stupid though

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



galagazombie posted:

Another is that there's no books or paper.

It was a long time ago, literacy wasn't widespread yet.

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



Ghost Leviathan posted:

IIRC, the deal with Battletech is that everything works more or less like normal real world tech, EXCEPT for mechs, which are bullshit space magic based on forgotten principles and magical space metal, and since they actually have a worse problem with lost technology than 40k's Imperium, they have no idea how to apply any of that stuff to more practical designs.

Might be funny if all the real weapons got wiped out in the big galactic war and battlemechs are the only thing left because they were made for spectator sports, the equivalent of running out of cars so all you have left is monster trucks

Fluff-wise, they're supposed to be using the same kind of armor, engines, and guns. Rules-wise, mostly everything not mech-shaped is just worse with no explanation to keep the game focused around mechs. There's stuff like putting an identically rated engine into vehicle makes it weigh more, all vehicles are easy to mobility kill regardless of armor, all vehicles have to be heat-neutral at all times, hovercraft aren't allowed to have lightweight engines, etc...

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



Defiance Industries posted:

Stuff like helis and hovers get a really loving big bonus to their engine output for free, and XL engines are not only legal for vehicles, they're much better in vees than they are in mechs. The mobility kill thing, yeah. And the heat thing, yes, except that only energy weapons generate heat for vehicles so you should really be boating those.

By hovercraft aren't allowed to have lightweight engines, I mean the "hovercraft must be >=20% engine" rule. If you have a hovercraft with 20% tonnage spent on a internal combustion engine, you can swap it to a higher output fusion engine of the same size and go faster, but you aren't allowed to swap it to a lighter weight, same output fusion engine and use the tonnage for other things. Plus vehicle engines just cost 150% of the weight for the same output engine in a mech.

It's an arbitrary thing with no fluff justification, but keeps the game focused where the designers want it to be instead of veering off into pesky realism.

Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Aug 26, 2020

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



SavageGentleman posted:

Just wondering as a non STEM guy: Would such an orbital launching ramp (seen on WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE [1951] ) make any sense or just kill everyone riding the rocket in a very messy way?


Depends how fast it's going through the turney bit. It's not very far from the launch point, so if it's like real rockets, probably not particularly dangerous, but also not a very good way to make the rocket point up instead of sideways.

Rockets mostly don't actually accelerate that fast. Space shuttle maxed out at 3G's (~30m/s^2), which is less than peak acceleration on lots of roller coasters. Rockets thing is sustaining that acceleration for a long time. 4-5 minutes at 3G's gets you to orbital velocity.

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



SolarFire2 posted:

Alternatively: The Killbot Solution. Engineer your supersoldiers to have a pre-set kill limit at which point they expire.
Kill limit would be a good backstop for your killer robots. There are only 300 million soviets, so if Skynet has killed 301 million people, something has probably gone and it should turn off.

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



Appleseed mechs have the most plausible seeming control scheme I've seen:


- Big chonky thighs to fit the pilot's legs and have space for them to move so the robot legs&feet can mirror it.
- Pilots arms go into human-scale gloves/vambraces and stick out the torso, then robot arms mimic the motion.
- All other controls are external, like a robot-size rifle has a robot-size trigger

Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Feb 9, 2021

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



A Buttery Pastry posted:

The design of the torso armor literally deflects incoming fire unto the vulnerable arms, which are clearly far less armored than the rest. The mech would be disabled almost immediately as the pilot has an arm blown off and goes into shock. Feel like maybe going with the thigh idea and having the pilot lean back inside the torso so the arms stay inside makes more sense.

It's not quite that bad since they normally have the big arms out in front holding a rifle and covering the torso and little arms. Plus storywise, they're more small-arms resistant infantry that are expected to be hiding behind cover instead of Gundams out in the open.

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



Gravitas Shortfall posted:

We have the technology right now to pilot drones remotely, why aren't we using the same technology for tanks and jet fighters

Tanks: Getting a reliable radio signal on the ground when there's terrain and trees in the way is harder than in the air
Jet fighters: The air force is run by ex-fighter pilots who think piloted fighters are cool and somehow inherently better than drones

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



It's kind of a thing in Tie Fighter/X-Wing because if the capital ships were shooting at each other directly, there'd be nothing for the player to do. So they park out of laser range of each other and you intercept enemy bombers/launch torpedos yourself.

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



If I were trying to justify a Star Destroyer's numbers into making sense, I'd go with that they are primarily troop transport with a splash of point defense lasers and fighters. Their main intended role would be to park over rebellious planets and be a base for occupation and anti-insurgency. Size and endurance would be so you could have a base that's less bombable by locals than a ground base.

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



SlothfulCobra posted:

It's a fun for writers or nerds to flesh out the niches of various ships or try dredging up obscure things out of the EU to fill a niche that they needed, but it's gotta be a bit soul-destroying to be a visual designer on one of these big projects and every time your job is mainly to replicate the same thing. Possibly because the company doesn't want to be obliged to give artists any extra credit or money and it's cheaper to pull up some old EU material.

I'm honestly surprised at home samey everything was in the sequels, since more ship types = more toys to sell

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



Anonymous Zebra posted:

Don't the Fremen gently caress with the Sardaukar early on using personal shields hidden in sand dunes? The Sardaukar had a habit of sweeping the sand with Lasguns since the Fremen could hide in the sands. So the Fremen starting leaving active shield devices buried and let the Sardaukar nuke themselves a few times so that they would stop doing that.

Duncan Idaho leaves a shield behind that some Sardaukar/Harkonnens blow up on when they're fleeing. The Fremen themselves don't particularly try to build/acquire shields since they attract & enrage worms. The explosion is also supposed to be very unpredictable and the same setup might make anything from hand grenade to citykilling nuke.

My memory was that shield-lasgun explosions were avoided for political reasons during the first book, widely used during the Fremen's genocidal wars between books, then Leto II bans shields and wipes out knowledge of how to make them

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



Was TIEs being fragile in any of the EU stuff prior to X-Wing (the game)? In A New Hope, the X-wings also blow up immediately when shot. I thought shields vs not came from the game where the player got shields and the enemy didn't mostly for gameplay reasons

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



Yeah, they have shields that are presumably doing something, but both TIEs and X-wings go down to a well-aimed burst of lasers, so I don't think there's movie support for X-wings being more durable. As far as the movie goes, there's no reason to think TIEs don't also have shields that are only good vs near misses/shrapnel/whatever

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Foxfire_
Nov 8, 2010



Schadenboner posted:

Counterpoint: Pittsburg is complete poo poo. When the crowning cultural produce of your city is an average-to-good FO3 DLC you’ve got to start asking yourself some searching questions.

Counter-counterpoint: Mr Roger's Neighborhood was made in Pittsburg

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply