Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

I've done a bit more digging around and this is the original paper that Fontana cites from which he derives the concept of the Gaser, published all the way back in 1964. I understand it about as well as I did the original, but the theory of generating gravity waves seems to have something to do with quantum quadrupole transitions between different energy states. I don't know what a quadrupole is, so I'm in no position to evaluate this, but if anyone knows a Troper with a background in quantum physics, perhaps they could shed some knowledge on this.

Edited by Gault on Dec 2nd 2018 at 4:22:14 AM

Hey question, how good of a idea is Gundam's Panoramic Cockpit?

The thing is covered in HD screens that work with countless microcameras placed all over the mech unit and are programmed to erase the mech from view when not needed, thus leaving pilots to sit in a projection of the environment around them.

Its a very good idea if you can aford the expense, one of the bigest weaknesses of armored vehicles is there limited visability.

Tanks and the like dont have direct optics, those just pose a weakspot, and periscopes are kinda.... not the best visibility wise.

I would say though it'd be freaky as hell flying through space with that.

I have envisioned myself that spaceships of the future would place the pilot in a VR environment where they can see all the way around themselves in space.

It isn't an unrealistic technology in a broad strokes non-Gundam context. They are working on similar tech in real life for tanks to improve the crews all around awareness. The F-35 reportedly has something similar.

It could be handy in pretty much any vehicle that has a human controlling it directly or even indirectly.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Dec 2nd 2018 at 5:01:27 AM

You also run the risk of too many screens displaying too much irrelevant information.

KISS, (Keep it Simple, Stupid) method is king when designing military tech.

Well as far as every Panoramic cockpit goes I've seen, they do keep it simple. The screens only show the environment the unit is currently in, with a chair mounted screen and terminal setup to show the needed combat data, though other models can display other relevant data as needed on the big screens, such as altitude control or even analysis of IFF data such as enemy Mobiles or Funnels.

some examples◊ of this◊

Edited by EchoingSilence on Dec 2nd 2018 at 10:54:45 AM

Tactical: Not really an issue with something that lets you see what is around you. Its when you start flooding in data-heavy HUD elements that things start to get problematic.

Having a panoramic cockpit actually gives you so much screen room that it's actually easier to manage the data. Biggest issue is that the user can still suffer from tunnel vision.

So basically the Panoramic is actually a highly useful design.

Also.

Okay now here's a fun question, keep in mind I don't want a discussion about how real or not real they are, I already know that.

All things considered what is the best depiction of bipedal and humanoid mecha as machines of war? What is the best depiction you've seen as a machine that must make use of it's tech and tactics, and keep in mind this has to be humanoid and bipedal, so basically the most unreal of all.

The thing about that question is that humanoid mecha are so inherently impractical that there’s no real way to answer it, the answer basically boils down to “whatever you think is cool”. You’re looking for the most realistic entry in a genre where even the most realistic have already thrown realism well to the wayside, and have done so on purpose.

Personally, I’m a fan of the mechanical design and fight choreography in Gundam IBO. The exposed mechanical parts in the joints and under the armor are a nice touch.

Edited by archonspeaks on Dec 9th 2018 at 5:08:07 AM

I think you might be able to justify mini-mecha as a heavy infantry type deal, but once it starts pushing past that size, you start hitting more and more issues.

As for fullblown mecha, I second IBO.

That would actually be a example of what I'm asking for, and yeah same on IBO, I love the motion and weight, how every fight has a sheer brutality.

Battletech could also qualify as well as Gundam Thunderbolt where maneuvers and cover are made extensive use of.

What I meant to ask is, what makes the robots feel like they are tech and not superheroes. What makes them feel like machines and why do you feel that way.

Armored Core is another example of a mecha series I love, even if they are kind of OP.

the V ones in particular ground them significantly better.

Well, again, even in the most realistic (and I use that word with air quotes around it) settings the mechs are still obviously not machines. IBO goes out of its way to make their fights have a lot of visual impact, but the mechs still aren’t “mechanical”. In some scenes you can actually see armor plates and solid pieces change shape as the animators put the designs through their paces.

You’ll also note that mecha tactics are usually just depicted as infantry tactics with very big men, which really isn’t how armor functions in combined arms at all.

You have to accept from the get-go with mecha that they’re basically going to be superheroes in a lot of ways. Like with a superhero you can do a deconstruction or give them the trappings of realism to create a more grounded or gritty feel, but asking what the most realistic mecha is is essentially the same as asking who the most realistic superhero is. And it’s almost not really the point for them to be realistic, as mecha are cool as hell and don’t always need realism anyways.

I’m actually partial to ACFA myself. That one and Last Raven both have excellent mechanical design.

Edited by archonspeaks on Dec 9th 2018 at 5:31:09 AM

I’m partial to the C12 tanks in Infinite Warfare. They’re only about 12 feet tall so it’s not completely out there.

Last Raven has the best gameplay, but I stand by AC:V's design, even if the rest of the game was much less quality, if you could combine the two I would be so happy.

I did enjoy the mechanical design in AC:V. The ultimate weapons were especially cool. A lot of the mech design almost seemed like a throwback to that 90s boxart style the early games had.

Last Raven was definitely a high point for the series gameplay-wise, though I really did like the speediness of AC 4 and 4A. The Arms Fort missions in 4A especially were great.

Edited by archonspeaks on Dec 9th 2018 at 6:42:21 AM

So, I'm trying to design 6th Generation fighters and I'm wondering....is there a reason for a center-stick vs a side stick for pilots? I think side stick looks cooler, personally, but since even the Russian t-50 still has it, I was wondering if there was a practical or design reason to have one?

Side stick was put in US craft where pilots were expected to experience high G maneuvers especially high G turns. In the case of the F-16 around 9+/- G's for some maneuvers. Placing the stick where the arm naturally rests in the cockpit makes it easier to reach and manipulate the controls under those conditions.

IIRC the F-16's first stick iteration, didn't actually move, which pilots absolutely hated.

Or I might be thinking of some other craft

How would that even work...? What..?

The stick was pressure sensitive, but didn't have any physical play to give you a sense that you were moving it. If you're having a hard time figuring out why they'd go with that design, evidently the pilots agreed with you.

It was to save maintenence and replacement costs, because back then human factors engineering had trouble integrating psychological factors.