[Suggestion] How about Mechs

I do understand the difference, the primary physics that are supposed to be at play... You don't.

You've done nothing but assumed that what you're using is what is at play here... this is proven by the fact that you can't explain how you've come to the conclusions to use the specific math at hand...

I outline this in the next section by asking where is the Normal Force coming from? because to calculate friction you need to calculate normal force.

Exactly my point...

Where is the Normal Force of additional that is causing 'more soil pressing against it' coming from? If we simply assume that there is no soil below the pylon, such as if the pylon is a deep earth drill which excavates the ground it traverses rather then compresses it - then where does this extra pressure come from?

What is causing the Lateral Normal Force?

In the system you've tried to represent - there is literally no reason for it to occur... the pylon would just go deeper and deeper... This primarily has to do with the fact that there is no Ground Pressure which is created through the compression of materials, which under normal circumstances would produce the radial pressure waves which would produce the normal forces adhering to the sides.

This is why Nails get stuck in a board while a drill does not (usually)

So basically ignore the fundimental rules of physics?
Conservation of Energy? Never heard of it?

The modulus is a proof to define that different soil has a resting potential energy due to it's plasticity and elastic nature, and in turn will react in predictable ways depending on what outside force is applied... This is measured by applying force to different soils and measuring the amount of deformation that occurs - which then produces a usable list for other calculations

That's the problem...

you Don't state any measurable thing... ever.
angles, depths, distances, scale... Nothing.

This makes it impossible to calculate any effects at all because everything displayed is based off of unmeasured assumptions.

No you didn't lose me because not only do i understand the core principles at play here, i also understand the flaws you're making in your 'wet-finger' maths that you're trying to present.

You see you're attempting to point out that the Pressure that is supposed to be exerted on the surface through the material interacting with it through the angle of Repose is also producing a vertical resistance which supports the weight.

However - because you don't actually provide values for anything as well as have intentionally ignored every attribute of gravity up until this point for the sake of simplifying the equation - this revelation serves no real purpose and identifies nothing. It is literally done specifically to go 'But it Also Does THIS!!!' which is a meager attempt to make it look like more is at play then really is.

If we continue to ignore the downward pull as you've done for every other material you've presented so far - then the upward push should equally be ignored.

I don't interpret it as 15 degree's in fact i directly address the problems of your angle of Repose.

Simply said - the angle of Repose is REALLY STEEP... the only way that occurs is on low density materials which are sticky... wet Pulp, snow, slush, etc. or has some very special properties- like below freezing liquid water.



but you want math?

Ground pressure = Weight/Surface Area.

Average human weight ~140 pounds.
Average human feet surface area 17.5 inches squared (both feet)

140/17.5

Average human ground pressure 8 PSI

according to this drawing:

the human foot sinks approximately 1 Foot into the ground.
This means that the ground is so malleable that it is compressed by a simple 8 PSI.

that means that it has a density lighter then freshly fallen Snow.

This is also fitting for the Angle of Repose - because the Angle of Repose for Snow is actually very strange... it ranges between 30 degrees and 60 degrees depending on a myriad of conditions (which is why avalanches occur... snow accumulates up above the 30 degree Angle of Repose until it reaches a critical point and returns to it, taking with it the snow that accumulated)

So lets find the density of snow:
http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Icy-Ecosystems/Looking-closer/Snow-and-ice-density

Freshly fallen snow 50-70 kg/meter cubed.

and for it's weight...
http://www.monroect.org/filestorage/467/469/698/750/SNOW_WEIGH_PER_CUBIC.PDF

5.2 pounds per cubic foot

assuming that the foot gets buried (ignoring your angle of repose and simply saying the foot is entirely buried)

above both feet there is Surface area x depth (1.45 * 1) 1.45 cubic feet of snow above the individuals feet... or 7.5 pounds.
divide by 2 for each foot.

3.75 pounds is on 1 foot.

Using your crude drawing, i've identified the material that the foot is stepping in with math.


Now the reason i did this is because the Angle of Repose in your crude drawing is too steep to create a believable condition.

If we interperate your crude drawing as a simple ~45 degree angle that was poorly and quickly drawn - then that means that the foot was driven into a rigid dense compound like compact earth or Gravel with a high degree of force. You're looking at something that has a footprint pressure of ~200 psi... Which means our portly human would have to weigh over 3000 Pounds.

Which is the point i was trying to make...
Either the thing that is stepping is massive, or what it is stepping on is strange.

I then offer up an alternative - something which a human foot would sink into - a Mud or other non-newtonian fluid - which has an angle of Repose closer to 10-15 (technically it is 0-1 degree's due to it behaving more like a liquid then a solid but that's only if it is given enough time to settle).

I... Don't know how to reply to this with out being insulting.

No - you're being stupid.
you need a base line for comparison.
that is basic science.

for F=M*a - the Force produced (F) is the base line which is used for comparison...
which is why we can compare the force produced by heavy objects moving more slowly and compare them to the force produced by smaller objects moving faster...


how do you not understand this?

in inaccurate drawing to try and represent something is just about as useful as a picture of chicken scratches... it doesn't make something clear nor convey an idea.

try again.

Well, besides the fact that i have and you've ignored it.

My reply Aug 18th.

You still haven't proven your claims in any way shape or form... Screaming the world is flat repeatably does not all of a sudden make it right after the millionth time you've said it. Prove your claims or continue to be wrong... it is that simple.

PROVE.
IT.

Plug the numbers - use the math you've seemingly made up and PROVE what you are saying.

The Burden of Proof lies on you... not me.



Hmm, let's see.

Weird... if the Friction Coefficient was the same...
then why is it that Rubber has 5 different entries into this table?

I mean - you said it yourself:

Too hard for you?
how about this

μ=F/N

on a Flat Surface...

μ = Friction Coefficient
F = Force to Move.
N = Weight.

For this - the weight will be identical.
100.

1 unit of force.
μ=F/N
μ=1/100
μ=.01

10 units of force
μ=F/N
μ=10/100
μ=.1

100 units of force
μ=F/N
μ= 100/100
μ= 1

1000 unit object
μ=F/N
μ=1000/100
μ= 10

Because the Weight of the material remained constant but the force to move didn't the Friction Coefficient for each changed as well.

This supports the above chart represented - as the Rubber component remained the same weight, however the force to move the rubber component changed as the material it was rubbed against changed.

again - you've been proven wrong while trying to claim victory yourself.
how many times does that make it?

let me point you out to this then:
This is your Math - directly quoted from your Post.

In this equation you provided you ADDED the Friction Coefficient to somethings force.
This is what happens when you don't check your work nor try and plug your equations to see if they actually math out.

And this isn't the Only time you've done it either:
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps2/index.php?threads/how-about-mechs.242171/page-2#post-3416251

1252 TIMES the area of a circle with the same diameter?
might wanna recheck that math...

Of course this is exactly why you probably avoid actually doing any math in the first place.

Welcome to page 10, by the way.

Thanks! I quit with this "discussion" now, there's no point.

Dude we had real mechanics in BETA... DBG took away PhysX & real mechanics... because of poor FPS. We had guns that shot shells out of it. with real mussle blast and smoke. and real sparks with real tracers and real bullets that fly by you in beta.

The DEV's dumbed down the game from stupid Smidely .... you know the guy that ran sony and got fired for being extra extra stupid with no brain at all and a giant ego....!. (and failed his own company) the guy that no one should have listened to.

They are still following Smidely and his orders... and think he is right.... what do you expect from stupid people.

Any marketing person will tell you flash and bling sell... everything... this includes games.

So more graphics is good in a game not less no mater what it cost.

In Beta you might have had flashy particles. The PhysX physics engine is still in there but it's not being used for particle-based graphical fluff to the extent that it was previously.

As far as I am aware, the game didn't simulate any fewer bullets as seen being fired from the other person's weapon than it does these days.

It shoots 50% less bullets than beta... tracers are 80% less Bullets are gone... in the sense they use to be seen. They have cut the graphics in half at least.

To be honest it is a crying shame what the DEV's have done to the game graphics wise. If the DEV dumb down the game more we will have stick figures next for graphics... hell just play PS1

Yeah! And all that we got in return was the ability to see our enemies from distances more than 10m!

Oh wait. Do you even remember launch? The game was an epic of imbalance and failed mechanics. Everything ate your framerate, nothing worked completely how it was supposed to. One murderous spawn camp balance was only replaced by another one. The only reason why G2A weapons had any effect was because the MAX bursters only popped into view when you were almost on top of them anyway. Aircraft machineguns from the top dealt similar damage as a current rocketpod strike in the back, rocketpods could kill 6 people with 3 rockets. Fire one volley at a Sunderer and you could kill 15+ people with ease. It took months to get the game at any playability. The only salvation was that few people really had any standards of what to expect of the game and it did deliver on the massive battles.

You keep insulting him with stupid pictures, yet you haven't provided any genuinely substantial comeback. And at least in this case, I can 100% attest to his statement. Release PS2 was a mega-unbalanced *********** of death and carnage.

Imagine how many players we could have kept had PS2 not been the *********** it was at release.

Because it's about something else.

I'm not going to lie, I came close to doing the same thing.

I have no idea what PSI has to do with the topic. (its a magical nanite world that already has mechs in the lore)
I have no idea what BETA balance has to do with the topic. (that was four years ago and hundreds of patches ago)
I have no idea what performance issues has to do with the topic. (its just another vehicle and not a fast moving one at that)

A few people went on a pretty stupid tangent in this thread. Not defending the guy you quoted, but everyone else aren't very innocent either.

I assumed you weren't defending me and added me to the "few people".

Anyway I might have missed, what kind of Mech would you like to see in instant-vehicle Planetside?

Check first page.

90% vets would agree, new content would be great.

PS1 had mechs took 5 guys to run them... HELL NO....! (took hours to kill them) Thank god forgelight does not support them mechs. ... enough said..... wish all you want your not getting them.

ESMAR has base walls because of VS crybabies crying all the time about not being able to defend the bases. How has that turned out. (yet a giant patch because of VS)

If you want something changed in the game -- go to reddit and say your VS and you don't want it... the DEV will bow and scrape to you and change what ever you want.

NC and TR did not want walls on any bases... but look how that turned out because of the VS....!

99% of all VS are ex-halo players.... just the most paranoid people there are.

And in BETA we had 6000 meters to see people... don't tell me about 10 meter.... we could shoot 2000 meter in beta. And we still ran a 45 FPS like this. PS2 can support HD full screen at 6000 meter if they want at 60 FPS.

One round of Hellfire rockets use to kill a magrider. All of these changes and nerfing are because of the VS crying. 90% of all patches were because of VS crying.

I want a giant 50' mech armed with 100 chain-linked GateKeepers and a single targeting laser for hip shooting.

Well your not getting it because the forgelight engine does not support it.

Why should it be the exact same Mechs?
Just having Mechs with comparable power to MBT's but with different advantages/disadvantages in movement would already give us a unique new set of vehicles.

Esamir's base walls were erected after everyone complained about vehicles. And they were right, there was no way to defend a base once the tanks rolled up to it. Esamir was a failed experiment, it was supposed to be the vehicle-oriented continent. But in effect, once a vehicle column got rolling and beat their enemies, there was no holding them back since you couldn't build up a counter column fast enough without half of the people building the tank group getting real bored... Or blown up before they grew large enough to beat the enemy vehicle column.

But instead of the smart thing, giving infantry the tools to counter vehicles properly, they erected walls to keep the vehicles out altogether.

What's your beef with VS?

No one wanted walls, they wanted a solution. The devs decided walls was a good idea. At the time practically no one complained but the vehicle players who couldn't curbstomp things anymore. VS didn't complain, TR didn't complain, NC didn't complain. And even today, practically no one complains about walls even though they are one of the hallmarks of why the game still has bad design! They never fixed the overpowering features of vehicles! They only segregated vehicles from the important bits to give infantry a chance! Segregation is always a bad balancing method if it applies to most of the game.

Feels like the old Scrincrusher talking here. Weird accusations about.

Shoot 2000m, render terrain 6000, render the players 10m. Maybe in beta, when there was less people about, it worked for a time, but not at Launch. They didn't remove all the features because they liked it. No one would even look at all those features if it worked allright. Do you really believe there's any developer team, even the SOE one, that would pay it's people to dumb down the game for no reason at all? They removed them for a reason a purpose, and that purpose was playability for the masses.

If that's true, you must be the supreme VS dude, right?

Ok so in the first part you outline that they should have better movement in rough terrain and the ability to go deeper into bases by ignoring small obstacles. This does sound a lot like a Magrider, meaning the Mech should have a unique set of targets to engage to prevent the Magrider losing it's unique capabilities. You seem to outline something like a Lightning weapon and MBT secondaries.
The height might need some changing. Vehicle barriers are as tall as a Sunderer. Unless you allow these Mechs to duck they won't be able to move under them.
Their price seems weird. Less firepower but more nanites for a better strafing Magrider?

I would rather have a smaller version. We don't really have a vehicle that's designed to beat infantry and/or aircraft. So a smaller Mech with an aircraft MG could work well in that role, especially if it is still good at climbing, perhaps jumping/microjumpjetting and uses infantry-aiming. So if you step on an incline, your gun doesn't go sideways as well.

This is what I'm looking for in movement mode:



Damn I forgot how much like PS2 that game actually was... or rather how much like PS2 is like it.