[Suggestion] How about Mechs

I was in the process of making a long drawn out reply again...

but after seeing Demigan's replies to WTSherman I've come to the conclusion that he simply isn't living in our Reality... So what's the point of wasting all this time if he doesn't even follow the basic rules of physics in his little world?


To the topic...
from a game play perspective - they bring nothing to the table... they would just be... Taller MBTs.

from a real world perspective - they bring nothing to the table... there is no advantage to making a complex and expensive walking platform when it could just as easily roll or fly at a fraction of the cost and be equally as effective.


Ground vehicles that could be added-
Self Propelled Gun - An MBT style vehicle with a more powerful gun that has to Deploy before it can fire.
Assault Tank - Imagine a Lightning with an ATV Style Forward Facing gun mount that is the MBT Secondaries.

Personally, I've seen one too many "this object that bears barely any relation to a Mech-leg has a problem and I'm going to attribute that problem to the Mech leg anyway even though it barely applies!"

The only one who tried to take it seriously in any way has been WTSherman, who actually applied his findings directly to the Mech leg using at minimum 2 things that I designed for it, rather than using one thing I designed (if at all) and only saying "it looks a bit like a Mech-leg, therefore it applies!"

As for PyroPaul, please get your crap together, you've made another half dozen of these kind of mistakes, including that you again like so many others before you attribute track physics to Mech leg physics, even though they have completely different advantages and disadvantages because they work differently when pushing the vehicle forwards. It makes no sense whatsoever, you guys immediately jump at the chance to say "But Mech legs are completely different from tracks!" only to start using track-physics and thinking they apply in a 1:1 ratio to mech legs.

Okay... i was just having a casual discussion...
but i'll take the time and be serious.

Theoretically - lets take a 5 Ton mech leg with a Conical Foot print of your design...
because you've provided no dimensions - we are going to base the foot print off of a .5 meter wide cone that is .5 meters long... we are even going to allow this cone to sink completely into the ground so that it's entire surface area of that cone comes into play.

First we must find the ground pressure produced by the leg in Pounds per Square Inch.
the Lateral surface Equation of a .5 meter wide and tall cone is
AsubL=πr(sqrt(h^2+r^2)
AsubL=π*0.25(sqrt(0.5^2+0.25^2))
AsubL=π*0.25(sqrt(0.25+0.0625))
AsubL=π*0.25(sqrt(.3125))
AsubL=π*0.25(559)
AsubL=π*.14
AsubL=.44
.44 meters^2

.44 meters^2 is 4.7 feet^2 or 56.4 Inches^2

5 tons is 10,000 pounds

PSI is weight/area.

10,000 pounds/ 56.4 inches^2
177.3 PSI.

Each leg produces 177.3 Pounds per Square Inch.

Now for practical comparisons.

An adult human has a ground pressure of ~8 psi.
An M1a2 Abrams tank 15 psi.
An adult riding horse 25 psi.
An adult Elephant 35 psi.

But that's the weight of the Individual Leg.
This leg is supposed to be holding up a tank... and by your discussion we're talking about a 60 Ton tank with 6 independent legs. So 1 leg will only have to account for 1/6th the weight... adding an additional 10 tons to the weight calculation.

30,000 lbs/56.4 inches^2
531.9 PSI.

That is just a Massive amount of pressure.

Marshy terrain has a rating of 10-15 PSI. Soft soils ~30 psi, hard soils (compacted/sun baked dirt) ~40 psi... so in effect - the Your mech leg will be completely unable to traverse almost any terrain... Literally every surface will be like walking on quick sand due to the ground pressure. The leg will continue to sink and sink and sink, until it's compacted enough soil to equalize the weight or the mech bottoms out and the surface area increases.

And that is just Standing Still.

When you motivate walking struts of any kind (be it on man, horse or elephant) the weight applied and distribution for each foot shifts dramatically. Simply said - as one foot is raised to move - the weight it was supporting as well as the weight of the leg now has to be compensated for by all the other legs. What's more because the center of balance has moved, how the object as a whole is pulled to the ground shifts.

Rather then being just a straight up down force, now you have an up/down front/back. Meaning that the pressure on one side of the cone gets amplified while on the other side it gets reduced.

For humans - the pressure variable usually more then doubles as we walk... as we shift or weight to one foot, place more pressure on the balls of our feet, and motivate ourselves forward. But for hoofed beasts (your mech is hoofed because of the cone foot plates) the pressure can increase by a factor of 5.

this means each individual foot during the walking process could be subject to 1100 to 3500 PSI with each step! Not even Jet-Aircraft doing 10 G Turns reach those levels of pressure.

Now Steel has Flex point of Steel is 3000 PSI with a sheer point risk(stress fractures) starting at 2000 PSI... so by just walking in a straight line - this vehicle could potentially bend it's cones into hooks or rip them off completely due to stress.

I know the most common reply here is going to be 'Well it's not going to be made of Steel! duhhh!' but that's also a problem... You see - Harder Materials are more brittle... so while they might not bend or crush as easily as a steel variation... they are at more risk for snapping, cracking, and sheering at those pressure levels.


And everything above is literally of your Mech Standing in Place and taking 1 Step forward. I haven't even gotten into the potential pressures produced by Recoil from firing a mounted cannon, the pressures produced when moving multiple legs in tandem, or how much pressure shift will be produced by doing some of the maneuvers you think your mech will be able to do (elevating height for instance).

Nor have i even begun to discuss the effect the ground has on each individual foot component... The pressure levels produced when walking on a material that has next to no Give like Rock... or the problems that occur when walking on something which has too much give like Mud or other Non-Newtonian fluids.

Balance, recoil compensation, Power requirements, individual component stress levels....
None of that...

Just standing in place and 1 step... and you're already at risk of snapping feet off.



Now - when you reply - don't go saying "I already addressed that" or push some inane statement which is not supported by Facts, Scientific principles, or Mathematics... If you're going to sit here and try and tell me i'm making mistakes, You have to provide conflicting principles, point out flaws in the mathematics equations, or have some scholorly work which support your statements.

To simply say some one is wrong just doesn't work.

And this is why I'm not really willing to continue the discussion like this. You focus on one thing, in this case a cone I randomly used to show how the surface area is inreased compared to a flat circle, and then when that fails to work you instantly shout "And that's why it can't happen at all!"
If you had done it properly, the first thing you would have done is try to design the perfect cone for the feet. You should have asked "at what point would this cone-design work to support the weight of itself and the tank".

But we don't know how thick the legs are going to be do we? We don't even know what the maximum size of the legs is allowed to be before it'll get in the way of the other legs!

So if you want to take this seriously, and you've put in enough time to take it seriously already, we should collaborate. We should together start designing the best Mech design. This means creating different leg and feet designs optimalized for different terrain or purposes, rather than saying "there's one solution that doesn't work so nothing works!". That kind of attitude would have limited us to much lighter vehicles since we would never have started using tracks as alternatives to wheels.

For this to work, we are probably better off using an excell sheet and mixing guesstimates and math together to get an idea of what we are looking at. For instance, we don't know if the legs will be 5 tons. Shorter legs means less stride-length and climbing capabilities but better carrying capacity.

So what do we need at minimum?

• The weight per volume of tank composite armor.
• The weight per volume of graphene (we are applying the same mathematics for a Graphene-build Mech as well)
• The minimum size of the legs to support the weight (A minimalist version with similar resiliance as the tracks could work since it would still be tougher to achieve a mobility kill)
• The maximum size of the legs (when do the legs collapse under their own weight/get in each other's way when moving/other reasons why it can't be bigger)
• different ground strength and PSI required to sink into them. We need hard terrain for WTSherman's possibility for slipping away more easily if you can't anchor (or for foot designs that aren't designed to sink into the ground), asphalt and concrete for assessing the damage it might do to infrastructure during those precious few times these Mechs will cross it and the soft ground properties where a tank has problems/sinks away.
  • Additionally, we need to assess the increased PSI that the ground can support after any foot designed for anchoring in the ground punctures and compresses it. This increase helps a Mech stay standing more easily (aside from the increased surface area and increase in directions the force is divided in the ground) and prevents further sagging
• A guesstimate for how much empty volume will be within the legs, both to keep weight down and to give room for actuators. After all the leg doesn't need to be solid, maximum useful thickness will probably be around the thickness of the tanks own armor or below.
• The amount of distance a tank needs to travel to be less efficient than a Mech
  • Assuming the Mech moves over an obstacle with the added energy requirement and assuming the tank will need to go around.
  • For this we would need an estimate of the extra energy required to haul the legs around while using energy-reabsorbtion systems and the average fuel use per ton for both the tank and the Mech.
  • Also we need to remove the weight of the suspension and tracks from the tank before adding the weight of the legs.
• The possible leg acceleration when lifting it from the ground with an engine.
  • This is helpful to calculate the speed of the legs, and subsequently the speed of the Mech.

With those numbers, we can create a guesstimate of what the Mech legs could do or support. Then we can see if that's practical. Imagine if cone-shaped feet need to be far too large in diameter if optimized? Ofcourse they fall off as an idea. But first we need to find that optimization point.

Are you willing to do that? We could take our time and build it up from the ground. If you are right it shouldn't take too long as the iterations and designs quickly fall away, but I dare bet there's a bunch of working designs we can come up with. But it means you have to actively try to make the idea work rather than trying to find a fault with everything and trying to prove stuff by using scenario's that don't work without considering scenario's that could.

Gee, I wonder how many months and people they need to design a new type of tank even though they already have working designs to work from.

If you want to actually disprove it, you have to come up with more than this. Yes you didn't consider balance, recoil, power requirements, and the reason is simple: You only looked at a single foot design based on some random numbers I used to make the calculation easier and show the advantage of a cone over a flat circle. Where's the rest? You think that designing a track is simply "let's give it as large as possible surface area!"? Ofcourse not! They have to go over the design of the track, it's distribution of acceleration forces across the surface area of the material, amount of gears needed to move it, placement of the gears to spread out the tension and prevent extreme peak tensions that rip it apart etc.

Well I already did address it. And I've heard one too many "a foot is like a cone as long as it's both part of a leg" to continue as we've done so far. Either help design it for real or this "discussion" is finished.

Well, when I point out the added weight on top of a foot that's absolutely not designed to sink into the ground compared to a cone all I get is the same argument 2 posts later and people thinking that just because it's in the ground it's suddenly using far different physics than a track being lifted from the ground.
That right there already explains why you are wrong, which I've done with just about any explanation I've given. But the wet-finger physics feels better don't it? So people constantly try to justify it with "physics" by using half-***** comparison that hardly has something to do with the matter at hand, like the foot in the ground above.

Show your father what you just did, then give him your belt and turn around!

...the hell is wrong with kids these days...?

So you're saying we have to actually build a practical mech before we can say a mech isn't practical? Or are you saying we have to prototype and test every possible configuration of mech, past and future, to make absolutely sure *none* of them will ever work before we can dismiss it as impractical, which is even worse?

I'm going to go ahead and call BS on that line of argument. Honestly that's one of the most annoying and oft-recurring internet argument tactics:

"I'll just put all the burden of proof on my opponent even if it means demanding they prove a negative, especially if it means demanding they prove a negative in fact, so that I can just sit here and spout baseless claims all day while pretending to be 'right'. That way I will never have to concede my point unless they actually hit me with a Ph.D. level thesis, and then I can just move the goalposts."

How about we turn it around: you can't claim mechs are practical, or that your design would work, until you've actually made a practical mech and field-tested it to demonstrate its effectiveness. Build a mech that can actually defeat a current-generation M1A2 Abrams, in metal, not paper, then we'll talk.

Doesn't sound so great when it's thrown back at you, does it? And technically what I'm asking is more reasonable than your version: you only have to build one mech, instead of every possible mech.

As far as un-sticking though, a track climbing its way out of a pit actually is very different mathematically from trying to vertically extract an embedded leg. For a vertical extraction you have to directly lift the entire weight of the leg, plus overcome friction and suction in the ground the leg is embedded in, both of which are generally going to be somewhat proportional to the force that got it stuck in there in the first place.

For a track to climb out though, it just grabs the edge of the pit, which creates leverage to lift a portion of the tank's weight and pull it up as if it was on an incline. If the edge crumbles, the dirt just gets pulled under the tread and the tread keeps clawing forward, digging its way out. There's a limit to the depth this will work at, but as long as you haven't exceeded that tracks are very good at un-sticking themselves.

It is continually mentioned because it is a serious issue that you never resolved. When trouble shooting problems, designing components, or inventing objects - you take the project one step at a time... Pour time, effort, and focus into it to ensure that it is functional - then move on. Jumping around from 'neat idea' to 'neat idea' with no idea of how it will all fit together is the best way to fail.

I've personally already mathed out all the basic ideas and principles of how it could work... Each foot would need to be .8 meters wide and .5 meters tall. However that then introduces problems, because that means that the entire shoe would have to be driven into the ground... When a conical shape is driven into the ground it compresses it outwardly in all directions... this puts an equal level of pressure on the active surface area... This is why drawing tent stakes out of the ground is some what difficult.

the best method to allow for a cone to extract is to have only 1/3rd of it be driven into the ground...

So that means - the dimensions of the proposed cone would have to be 2.4 Meters wide and 1.5 meters tall....
This would make each foot almost as tall and wide as an M1 Abrams tank. And having 6 of these 'feet' would rival the length, width and height of an M1 Abrams... and again that is just the feet.

Attach them to legs - move them away from the tanks body and allow space for free movement of each legs...

the proposed size of this vehicle would be 2-3 times Larger then the Largest MBT's out there right now. Which creates more issues - You become a larger target... more surface area means that you're more likely to be hit.... which can only be counter acted with armor... however armor adds weight... which then requires a bigger foot to compensate - which makes you an even bigger target... which requires more armor... that adds more weight, which requires a bigger foot - which makes you a bigger target, which requires more armor, that adds more weight, which requires a bigger foot... and you get the idea.

Why i've said "And that's why it can't happen at all!" is because it's very design is flawed and i've already reached this conclusions using Math, logic, and physics... Mean while - you just attempt to handwave it away as you jump to another neat idea and claim i'm a broken record trying to nitpick.

1 Person, 3 days... more fleshed out designs can go up to 2 weeks.

Ideas and designs are already a dime a dozen... DARPA receives some where around 100,000 new designs for tanks each year. It just requires a smart person to think something through from start to finish rather then haphazardly jumping from point to point thinking that they've got 'the bestest idea ever.'

Oh i already considered it...

Balance becomes a very difficult issue for anything that is walking because the only reason we can maintain balance is because of constant minute corrections that happen on the fly for us... Ever get an ear infection? Your balance get's thrown out the window...

In effect, you would need a very complex program and a rather powerful computer running non-stop just for balance... which is a key vulnerability as complex computer have difficulty with handling shock... something that's going to be happening a lot in a Tank which is going to to get shot at.

Recoil becomes a huge issue because of Torque.



Elongating the distance between a force (such as the recoil of a gun) from the Pivot point (the ground) causes significantly more force to be applied to the object in question. By raising the center of gravity up just a few feet could amplify the amount of force applied to the vehicle by a factor of 3.


Power will always be a problem... Look at how much power Tanks need - and all they have is 2 wheels which only go forward and backwards.... and you're talking about a complex machine comprised of a system of pumps, pneumatic, and hydraulics all working in tandem to hold up, balance and move, a +60 ton vehicle... You think that will take less power 2 drive wheels?

You said something - you got disproved...
it is not my job to fix your problems for you.

It is not using different physics, the Physics behind it act differently depending on how the object interacts with the ground.

This is Ground Pressure Distribution on Dry, Normal, and Wet soil.


As you can see - even on wet soil when the load has sunk into the ground - the pressure still behaves in roughly the same way - just acting more deeply.

Now here is an illustration of Pressure Displacement produced by Piles - Spikes which are driven into the ground intentionally.


Notice the tear drop shaped pressure waves? That means the Pressure of the soil interacts with the sides of the object submerged. Because the pressure is just not on the bottom, but also the sides - it produces a Suction Cup effect - making it difficult to withdraw once it is submerged.

This is the principle every one has been trying to tell you...

And no - this is not 'Wet-Finger' physics... this is real world physics called Compaction.
In fact - it is used in construction all the time... it is why Nails driven into wood are difficult to withdraw... even if you attempt to pull it out the same way it was driven in. The wood is compacted... not just at the tip of the nail away from the point of entry... but also on the Sides.

that's cute...
did you google 'Strongest Material Known' and just copy paste it?

Too bad Graphene is really really soft.... it's actually one of the softer materials out there.

You see - Graphene is actually not all that Hard... It is Strong - but not Hard. As Strength is an objects resistance to Stress and Strain... Hardness on the other hand is an objects resistance to Deformation... Of which - Graphene - being a 2 dimensional matrix and all - is actually just about as flimsy as Paper. Pull it, push it, it will hold longer then any other material out there... but Twist it? The thing shatters into dust.

Through your entire Rant - you have not produced a Lick of evidence, a single scholarly article, nor any sort of math which in any way backs up anything you've tried to claim...

all you've done is Insult, ignore, and hand wave everything off.

In this context - you've said nothing, there for:
Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.
When given the chance to speak but say nothing, you are given to agree.

you have conceded your argument and have admitted you are wrong.

And at least my 'neat idea's' have something to do with what I'm designing. A foot that sags into the earth? Way different problems that make it a bad idea to sag into the ground.

Only 0,8m diameter per foot. 3 foot per side, 2,4m space required for the feet if you want the legs to be of similar size as the cone to prevent earth piling up when the foot sags beneath it's intended depth. And where does this become some giant problem? Oooh, because the ground starts pressing inwards with equal force on the cone? Well this is something we call "makes it easier to stand on the surface".
Also, do you know how a table works when you put a glass on it? It gives off a force upwards equal to the force downwards to prevent the glass from sagging through the wood. Yet this force isn't a problem when you lift the glass. The only extra forces on the cone when you draw it out of the ground would be the speed with which the hole closes itself. If the earth won't even move inward when you retract the cone, it should take similar forces as lifting a circle (or track) of similar surface area from a flat surface.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Imagine if we trippled the size of the cone and still let it sag into the ground an equal amount, would it suddenly be easier because we added material on top? No it wouldn't!

Why are we looking at a lever instead of a bridge design? This is the kind of thing I keep having to battle, wrong assumptions, wrong comparisons. You should have used a pivot on each side and the weight distributed over the middle.

Yeah, a tank track is completely not complex ofcourse... The system of pumps, pneumatics and hydraulics isn't going to be that much more complex, especially since you can use the same for each leg. Besides, for "holding up" you can have many locking mechanisms to prevent energy being spend when the leg is standing still, you can even have these things called "breaks" which are available in every car and tank as well. "ooh, but those breaks are going to require energy!". Well unlike a car or tank, when you move the break into position you can have the weight apply the breaks for you. This creates a nice feedback design where if more force is applied the break will also apply more force.

I don't get disproved, I get some half-***** theory thrown at me with physics problems that aren't a problem for what I'm designing. Half of you still think that the weight problems a tank track faces are the same as for a Mech leg.

nooooooo really? What do you think I've been pointing out all this time? The ******* fact that every half-***** wet-finger physics comparison you've been throwing at me act differently from what I've designed.

Gee, and how would a more cone-shaped object work? Oh yeah, it would sag into the ground, then have more forces acting outwards instead of just down.
Besides, you never noticed I had already offered alternative feet designs that also work did you?

Gee, what could cause that suction... Oh I know! The fact that if you retract the pile, you'll pull a vacuum! This is ofcourse something different than the force distribution of the pile's weight on the ground, as you are implying. So what if we just add some ventilation holes that can be opened inside the foot to prevent this from happening? It doesn't have to be big, and it doesn't need immense forces to keep the entrance shut and still have it function as a supporting surface.

Fortunately, a cone does not need this as much as said pile. Unlike a pile, extracting a cone offers room for the air to move passed the moment you lift it since the air can immediately reach every surface area if the cone is lifted even the tiniest amount. Which is why this is hardly a problem for a cone, which is again why I keep telling you that this is a wrong comparison but you keep disbelieving it.

No, the principle they were trying to tell me was that the forces of the ground pushing in would instantly put so much pressure on it that it wouldn't be possible to retract. No one mentions vacuum, they just mention the surface area touching the ground keeping it in place. And sure, with a Pilon this works ofcourse, but if you slant the edges you prevent this.
This is actually something constantly used in construction, like when filling up a mold. The mold uses slightly slanted edges in the direction of the mold's middle (where you open it up and try to extract it) and as little as possible straight edges since this causes a suction and you have a problem getting it out. If you have slanted edges, the moment it moves a little it instantly offers the room for the air to get in and you don't pull it vacuum.
This gives it a similar suction rate to the ground as a cup on a flat surface. Sure this suction can be strong if you for instance have two glass pieces with water in between (or such a perfect fit that it sucks itself vacuum anyway), but we aren't designing that are we? An elephant or tank track would have similar chances of getting stuck with the suction on the ground.

Gee, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_compaction

It doesn't mention anywhere that it makes things harder to retract, in fact it's all the proof that what I've been saying it true all along: Using a cone will compact the earth (compaction, compact, it's almost the same word! Could it be?) and increase the amount of pressure the ground can take. Your examples of nails is because if you retract the nail it leaves a smaller hole than when the nail went in. This elastic force with which the wood presses down on the nail is what causes it to be hard to remove. Fortunately, earth doesn't really do much of that, at least not on those speeds.

Yes, so soft that it has similar softness to high-grade composite armors. I already had that discussion with Chingles. It is relatively soft, but still useable enough as armor. You did notice me saying that several times already didn't you? Or did you read the same articles as Chingles did when he compared low-grade impure Graphene? Because the purer versions (which still aren't 100% pure and strong) actually have far better properties.

Check out the Quadruped artillery thread, I mention it there.

You see, rather than paraphrasing what you read, you could have looked it up yourself. If it's good enough to be rated as high-grade composite armor in brittleness, but still has 200 times the strength of steel in strength, and it's much lighter, then I think we have a winner there as a replacement for armor, right?

Actually I did, it's just that you immediately think "but that doesn't compute with how I think physics work! Let's look up some things, completely misinterpret them and present them as facts!"

Nope, I have insulted, you did too, but I haven't ignored or hand-waved. Well, I did start to ignore things I've already explained.

Well if we are going to speak ********, I think you constantly violate the principle of hom o sapiens non urinat in ventum. I have not conceded any argument and I have not admitted that I was wrong. Unless you come up with something that actually applies, I'm not going to respond anymore.

Nope, I have taken the burden of proof on me. I have taken to fighting every misconception and wrong comparison that's been thrown here, but that ends at some point. That limit has been reached, so the burden of proof now must come from you. The only way I see that happening, is if you convince yourself by designing one, looking deep into the subject matter instead of finding some remote looks-like-it-might-have-the-same-problem-so-it's-valid and instantly presenting it as a definitive problem that shows how it supposedly can't work

Because you take it to an extreme, while I am trying to teach you something in the misconceptions that were thrown around and at the same time prove that a Mech could be possible with much harder numbers. The reason this "discussion" doesn't work is because people constantly think of a single problem that something else has and apply it to the Mech leg, while most of the time it isn't a problem for a Mech leg.

Well Hallelujah! Someone who recognizes that a tank track has different problems with physics than a Mech leg!

Damn, shouted hallelujah too fast.
And a tank track has to have enough friction to prevent slipping down, because the moment it leaves the pit it'll have a much higher chance to slip away. This requires extra energy and a slower movement.
The cone on the end of the leg will not have to fight suction. It might have to fight the added forces that push inwards and start closing up the hole the moment the foot is retracted, but that same force is also helping the foot stay stable, reducing the amount of surface area that touches the ground.

Yes, and the moment a tank track isn't capable of that, you know what still is capable of moving? A Mech leg. That's why I've been designing a Mech leg for rough terrain.

Still - no Math, No scholarly articles, no evidence...

i don't even need to quote anything else you've said because you can't prove anything you've said... you can't illustrate your claims to see if it even applies to the argument... in fact, you don't even understand some of the principles you've been spouting.

Basically - in so many words i am saying:
PROVE IT.

but here - let me go into specifics...

What math proves this?
What is the principle physics you're talking about?
And what like forces can be observed?

Why is it the wrong assumption? the wrong comparison?

Considering that the argument is about the force applied to an independent leg standing upward - where do these extra 'pivots' come from that you talk about?

How is this complex in any way?

Further more - How is this not that much complex?




And that is just the Hydraulics of a Backloader boom arm...
you still have the pumps, the gears, and the motor.

Then why don't you provide the math or evidence that proves that it isn't a problem for your design?

Exactly what proof do you have which supports your claim that a cone that penetrates into the ground intentionally does not suffer from the same effects as a pile which also penetrates the ground intentionally? What physics principle proves it is the wrong one applied again? And what math do you have which displays the pressure values applied to the active surface area of a cone?

You're making these claims as if you know the answer - please share.

how do the Slant edges prevent this?

Odd - having made casts, molds, and the like myself... this principle has never come up or been applied to the countless successful molds I've made. What is the name of this principle you speak about?

Why does a track have an increased chance of getting suctioned to the ground? it's ground pressure is so low... what math do you have which proves that something with 10-15 psi can get suctioned to the ground?

What does Soil Compaction and the ecological effects it has on plants have to do with the compression of materials and the increased levels of pressure it produces on the material that compacted it?

Any links to articles which support your claims? Scholarly works?
Anything?

Strength and Ductility are 2 very different things...
Armor needs to have both.

Having something that is super strong but not ductile makes the object incrediably weak to Radial Shock... like that produced by High Explosive ordinance.

Do you have any research, information, or math which supports your claims that Graphene is a good choice for Vehicle Armor?

Another aspect is the mech legs DONT have to push a mech forward. The mechs head/body can LEAN forward and the legs then catch up from behind, so its like the mech is always falling forward but the legs catch it. (like a human running downhill)

Would be interesting to see how the mechanics of the mechs cannons will adust its walking path too. Like if the mech is walking forward, then looks left and fires cannon the legs would side strafe to the right.

I really dont get the intention of all these guys trying SOOO HARD to argue against mechs.... Its a sci-fi fantasy game.... Shouldnt you be trolling political forums or something?

Why do people believe this? Seriously - didn't you take Basic Biology back in High School?
Did you not listen during PE and Health Ed?

How do you not know how to Walk?

Seriously - do it yourself... Stand up and 'LEAN' forward and see how well you move...
Go ahead.

We are propelled forward by our feet, as they contort, stretch, and adjust to push us forward... not by off-centering our weight...


If simply off-centering balance is what caused walking motivation... then how in the world do Centipedes move forward?

Well this is an extension of the basic argument in the simple question - What role does the Mech even Fill?

A heavier tank which invalidates the MBT? a Medium tank which conflicts with the Lightnings Role? A more rugged 1 man Harrasser? An up-armored ATV?

You totally ignored my Sci Fi Fantasy aspect, you are a HUGE troll. It comes down to majority of people think mechs are awesome and you guys are like, "huuuu blah blah it isnt realistic, hoooo blah blah world of tanks world of tanks."

Why are you acting like such a snivelly little ***** trying to talk ****? There is a little thingy you can do with a bipedal body called SPILLING YOUR GRAVITY (in martial arts and in dancing) Notice i said its like walking DOWNHILL.

If you want to dodge something you do not start moving with your feet first.

A bipedal creature moves the APEX of its gravity (head and upper chest) so that the momentum begins in this direction THEN the feet hop behind the spine. Maybe you should go back to thinking about tanks where they HAVE to move from the 'feet' first. Take that same picture of a foot and see what it looks like when walking down a 35 degree slope.

Or better yet... look at some bipedal creatures that are GREAT at moving their bodies and notice how they spill their gravity from the top down first so the whole body ends up moving faster.

Notice that whenever he LEANS forward real far or DODGES backwards real far the movement ALWAYS starts with his head first and the feet come after.



You must get some real sick sorta joy outa baiting people that are passionate about seeing something in a game.

In short, Mechs can do Kung-Fu. Tanks are really fast turtles with cannons.

At what point in that post did i ever use the word 'realistic'?

I was literally talking from a balance perspective... There is no role for a Mech to fit in unless if you intentionally want to make one of the many vehicles in the game obsolete. It's what happened with the Battleframe Robots in Planetside 1... they where stronger more effective 1 man Tanks with Shields and over night they made MBT's obsolete.

Nothing to do with realism - everything to do with game design.

I just gave you the awnser. "Top head, apex of gravity dodging. With cannons"

MIKE TYSON.

Im trying to give you Mike Tyson.

A tank with MANY attacks.

Spilling is a term used to loosely translate the word 'Do'lana'. The real translation is into the word 'oscillation' which means: movement back and forth at a regular speed.

The concept you are mentioning has to do with shifting your center gravity or simply balance. We control our center gravity by applying force or pressure at specific points in our body. Often this is through the legs and hips as they are in contact with the ground and provide the greatest support and power when we apply pressure and power.

If you want to dodge something well or at a speed that is significant then you want to start with some kind of power or tension in your legs. You then take this tension / power / pressure / momentum and move it through your body so that you can shift your torso (giving it to your core strength). If you start with your torso first you will only be using your upper body strength to move (core strength). Footwork is key if you have any intention of throwing a solid strike and or dodging with ease.

If this were true then large bipedal animals would not have tails. Olympic athletes do not start a race by moving their head forward. They start by pushing their body forward with their legs. The same goes for swimming and basic walking. If you lean forward you do nothing but lean forward. We do not put our heads forward and then start moving. Ask someone in a wheelchair.

Such as? Most bipedal creatures are NOT great at moving fast for their size because they are bipedal. A Cheetah can beat almost every modern day sports car out of the gate in a drag race. It does this because of the biological design of their four legs. The legs move the body forward. The more you have, the faster you tend to move. Imagine how horribly slow an animal like an Elephant would move if it only walked on two legs. It would be a real-life Godzilla.

Speaking of...to move the Godzilla suite (way back when) the actor had to move his legs first to create enough momentum to move. If he leaned his head forward and then stepped he would just fall.

Timestamps:
0:19 - He moves his legs / feet first.
0:21 - He moves his legs / feet first. Continues to move them while keeping his upper body composed with minor rotation to avoid grapple / clench.
0:22 - He moves his legs / Feet first.
0:29 - He moves his legs / feet first to brace for clench.
0:33 - He moves his legs / feet first in order to dodge the potential blitz.
0:55 - He moves his legs / feet first.
0:59 - He moves his legs / feet first.
1:04 - He is capable of leaning / moving backwards because his front leg moved first. Without the front leg in front he would have eaten it.
1:38 - He moves his legs first. The front leg extending gives him the speed needed to move far enough away. His torso, after this happens, then moves backwards to avoid the attack. Without the leg movement he would not have dodged.
1:41 - His legs / feet are why he dodges this and 1:42. Ducking his head at the angel and speed was due to the balance change made with his legs which shifted his center of gravity from over his hips to over his front knee.
2:16 - His legs / feet move first.
2:18 - His legs / feet move first.
2:25 - His left leg moving is why he dodges this. They moved first. The stance change happened first. He did not lean until the motion of the legs started.
2:32 - Both his shoulder (torso) and leg / feet move at almost the same time but the leg leads.
3:15 - Legs move first and torso / head follow.
3:20 - Legs / feet move first.
3:24 - Legs and feet move. Torso / head move because of the legs. His upper body stays composed.
3:33 - His upper body moves because of his knees and legs moving (although his stance does not change until he steps back)
3:42 - His leg is moving back and his torso follows.
3:46 - His stance dips before his upper body drops. His legs / feet also move backward before his torso goes down.

No where in the entire video does his upper body move before his legs and feet. He is constantly shifting his weight and balance through his feet and legs.

Mike Tyson was an excellent boxer because he could move with his entire body. Giving him agility, speed, and endurance since he was not taxing the muscles he used for striking. At the core of this movement was his footwork. A good couch will start with footwork before ever touching striking. Your strikes do nothing if they sit atop a weak foundation. That's why you don't strike on flat feet. You also don't sprint on flat feet either.

No.

Funny...but also no.

I enjoy reading these forums and being an observer of conversations. Normally I would not take the time to post but your approach needs some adjustments as you are running headfirst into a wall of DBZ logic.

-Cel