Several VS opinions

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Kirouni

For the last time, Blackouts are caused from blood pooling at areas away from your brain (like your feet and hands). G-Forces apply crushing loads on your body. If you have time for the blood to go back into your brain, then you would never black out or lose conciousness.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

... it wasn't a yes or no question.

Sure it is. Gravity is directional, so sufficient positive gravity will cause a human being to black out.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

You didn't seem to have any objections there... All of those incidents no pilots were in a mobile suit when the attack occurred, so why would they be turned on?

The part I wasn't objecting to was that only a limited force was available on one particular side.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

You have yet to prove how beam weapons have been said to be relativistic...

they're not light beams, they're charged particles...

There is a chance that there are particle beams that aren't relativistic, but most of them are.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

What happened to the almighty accuracy equation that can even work at dozens of kilometers?

My point is that just about any particle beam used as a weapon, even a nonrelativistic one would be impossible to dodge. This is a matter of propagation rate, so I'm not sure why you're bringing up accuracy.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

It matters because if I can destroy your suit before you get close enough to engage, then I don't have to worry about my machine's faults in being a long range unit.

And? Isn't that precisely the way long range units are supposed to work?

Originally Posted by Kirouni

No... classification is relevant... I didn't say it wasn't. I said terrain plays a role too, and since Space and atmospheric battles are open areas.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Originally Posted by Guppy

It seems there were some early experiments on this in the 1940s and 50s, with acceleration and braking forces between 18G and 35G applied to a subject sitting upright in a chair fixed to a (rocket-powered!) sled on a track. As it turned out the G-forces actually resulted in redouts and whiteouts, as blood was forced away from or into the eyes.

A second series of tests were then conducted with a more powerful rocket sled (!), reaching a maximum force of 46.2G. The test subject - the head of the research project - ended up "barely conscious", and was temporarily blinded by burst blood vessels in the eyes which needed a day to recover, but no permanent ill effects seem to have been noted. (There were a number of concussions and broken wrists suffered in the earlier round of tests - I wonder if these weren't due to the fairly inadequate-looking restraints. In particular, the head and neck don't seem to have been secured much at all; I'm surprised there wasn't a whiplash problem.)

Yup. Colonel Stapp's experiments show quite nicely what the human body can handle. I got a real kick out of it when the rocket sled showed up in the Indiana Jones movie.

[Lelite]

I would think that sufficiently high g-forces would cause blackouts/loss of vision/consciousness through something other than the blood-pooling phenomenon, however, I would hope pilots would be trained, and provided with equipment that purposely couldn't do that. It would kind of be a stupid thing to do, and I'm certain engineers who design fast-going fighting machines consider that. [Additionally, just for fun... Considering a 50-tonne mobile suit (which, according to stats, is actually on the lighter side =/) accelerating at 20g's over one meter in one second would require a motor with an approximately 13142 horsepower output. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm too lazy to look it up and did this through dimensional analysis)]

The most common cause for a blackout in a fighter pilot is the blood not going back to the brain. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like other causes were only the product of experimentally-inclined minds. ETA: It possible you'd lose consciousness from the pain of your body being being torn up; in which case both damages would be simultaneous.

4Tran - gravity only has one direction. Down. Or, you know, towards the object that's exhibiting a gravitational force. Whether it's considered positive or negative is arbitrary, depending on what outcome you're trying to predict. Forces, on the other hand, can go every which way.

Er... I would think that the theoretical charged particles in beam weapons would be traveling at speed very close to light speed. They would travel in a perfectly straight line unless they're exposed to a strong magnetic field. It would be very easy to predict where your beam will end up.

I'd still say you need some kind of accuracy because if you continuously entirely miss your approaching enemy due to a poorly calibrated gun, that kind of defeats the purpose of a long-ranged attack.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Lelite

I would think that sufficiently high g-forces would cause blackouts/loss of vision/consciousness through something other than the blood-pooling phenomenon, however, I would hope pilots would be trained, and provided with equipment that purposely couldn't do that. It would kind of be a stupid thing to do, and I'm certain engineers who design fast-going fighting machines consider that.

You would think that, but there have been all sorts of poorly designed mobile suits in the shows - otherwise we wouldn't really be having this discussion about units which hurt the pilot.

Originally Posted by Lelite

[Additionally, just for fun... Considering a 50-tonne mobile suit (which, according to stats, is actually on the lighter side =/) accelerating at 20g's over one meter in one second would require a motor with an approximately 13142 horsepower output. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm too lazy to look it up and did this through dimensional analysis)]

It should be quite a bit more than that. The power to mass ratio isn't that much greater than some modern automobiles, and they have nowhere near 20g acceleration.

Originally Posted by Lelite

The most common cause for a blackout in a fighter pilot is the blood not going back to the brain. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like other causes were only the product of experimentally-inclined minds. ETA: It possible you'd lose consciousness from the pain of your body being being torn up; in which case both damages would be simultaneous.

The limits for blacking out due to blood flow are much lower than for most bodily injury, so pain is very unlikely to be the cause.

Originally Posted by Lelite

4Tran - gravity only has one direction. Down. Or, you know, towards the object that's exhibiting a gravitational force. Whether it's considered positive or negative is arbitrary, depending on what outcome you're trying to predict. Forces, on the other hand, can go every which way.

Correct. But I'm more referring to the direction in terms of a body's orientation, and that only for illustration purposes.

[Lelite]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

1)You would think that, but there have been all sorts of poorly designed mobile suits in the shows - otherwise we wouldn't really be having this discussion about units which hurt the pilot.


2)It should be quite a bit more than that. The power to mass ratio isn't that much greater than some modern automobiles, and they have nowhere near 20g acceleration.


3)The limits for blacking out due to blood flow are much lower than for most bodily injury, so pain is very unlikely to be the cause.

(too lazy to split up the quotes)

1) Well, they do keep in it mind, remember when Graham had that conversation with Billy and Eifman about modifying the Flag without taking effects on the human body into account? And the Flag seems to be the only one that was shown to cause damage to a body, at least in 00. Though we were also told that it had superior mobility to a lot of the other units. I think it's impossible to built a successful and maneuverable fighter jet/mobile suit that doesn't put strain on the human body.

2) Well, you're probably right, then. I just did some mathmagic to get J/s, aka kgm^2/s^3 (F = ma, J = Fd, Watt = J/s) and then ran it through a converter applet. I've sufficiently forgotten quite a bit of physics after writing the exam on the unit, though.

3) Fair enough. I won't argue with that, though I guess your pain tolerance plays a key role. But I'd think pilots of fighter jets would have one that's pretty high.

[Kirouni]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Sure it is. Gravity is directional, so sufficient positive gravity will cause a human being to black out.

... did you seriously just tell me whether my own question was "yes or no" or not? Sure it will cause them to black out eventually, but not at the level of accelerations that pretty much all mobile suits except V2 and other similar units.

BTW, last time I checked a "how" question requires a bit more explanation than a yes or no...

Originally Posted by 4Tran

The part I wasn't objecting to was that only a limited force was available on one particular side.

Okay, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. But the point was simply this: During a hit and run attack it is entirely possible for the unit in question to be heavily damaged or even destroyed before a pilot is able to get inside. If it is in pilot-able condition, then by the time that a pilot can get into it, the attack will be close to being over if not already over. If it does engage, then the pilot has the greater goal to retreat over fighting, and not only that his unit isn't at it's full potential anymore. The result of that can only be used as an estimate at best. I admit my statement "it's not even a fight" should more accurately be rephrased as "it's not even a real fight".

It may be a tactic that mobile suits are designed for, but really all they have is high-mobility. Dom, Kampfer, Gerbera Tetra, and similar suits all have hit-and-run tactics in mind, but they were designed for high mobility. High Mobility is a category, just like long range. You yourself said:

Originally Posted by 4tran

Even if the pilots involved are equal in every regard, they would still use the tactics that best suit their ride, so why would you disregard this characteristic?

Which leads to the categorization based on characteristics correct? Such as long-range, high mobility, melee (as I've already said characteristics decide the categorization). Which leads to...

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Exactly what I put 2 posts back:

Originally Posted by Kirouni

But for space and fights in the air, the battle field is open, nothing to hide behind, it's extremely hard for a close range unit to get close enough to engage a long range unit.

Seriously, if you're going to say something, could you at least stick to it? If you're going to use "tactics that best suit your ride" then it's characteristics, and by that the categorization of it's type becomes important in how you use it correct?

Originally Posted by 4Tran

There is a chance that there are particle beams that aren't relativistic, but most of them are.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

My point is that just about any particle beam used as a weapon, even a nonrelativistic one would be impossible to dodge. This is a matter of propagation rate, so I'm not sure why you're bringing up accuracy.

My point for both is proven here in a single shot:<Youtube link removed>

At ~ 20 - 35 seconds in
You can see the beam fire, and approach the target if you watch carefully enough, he had a good amount of time to move. The shells fired by the Zaku and beams are even shown to take about the same amount of time to reach their targets. They are NOT relativistic. The video shows a Zaku even accidently dodging a beam making your "even nonrelativistic one would be impossible to dodge" statement false as well.

Also, despite the lock, (which was depicted as being able to target through the smoke) the time of travel caused the need for a the calibration of the shot separate of what the computer already decided as a "lock on".

And since the weapons are not relativistic and can't travel anywhere near seemingly instantaneous speeds, accuracy and calibration DOES play a role.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

And? Isn't that precisely the way long range units are supposed to work?

Originally Posted by Kirouni

Well it's not about giving handicaps, it's the general flow of normal combat. Ranged units have the advantage first, and that's the only time that I can see a ranged unit winning over a mid-range unit or a melee unit.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID!

If you need further clarification it's like this. Long-range mobile suits have the advantage FIRST and loses it's advantage as enemies get closer. Other types such as mid-range and melee gain an advantage the closer they get.

Which again is something I said only a page back.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

Again going to pick at my choice of words? You know what I mean, you start at the distance where a long-range mobile suit has the most effectiveness, while the other is at a large disadvantage because it has to close in.

It's not if reality is biased or not, the general flow of combat favors long-range at first, I've simply been proving as I've said before

Originally Posted by Kirouni

Well I think that you're example is a little over the top, as there's no need to target something so far away unless you're a sniper type, but then it's obvious that you'll win given the advantage of a multi-dozen km headstart.

Originally Posted by 4tran

I It's not a question of giving a handicap to one side, but a natural combat progression. Yes, that does give an advantage to long ranged units, but that's reality's bias.

You made this about giving handicaps, I never said anything about giving a handicap to one side, I said that if one unit has a multi-dozen kilometer "head start", while the other unit has to close in, the sniper type/long range unit has a BIG advantage, and it's obvious that you'll win under those conditions.

I know you're busy with "mod duties", but could you like, try to read my posts a little more carefully instead of making points out of things that I've said?

I also build off of what I've said in previous posts so that I don't have to go back and quote myself like this...

[Guppy]

Originally Posted by Lelite

I think it's impossible to built a successful and maneuverable fighter jet/mobile suit that doesn't put strain on the human body.

That's true, and fighter pilots can and do have certain types of long-term health problems as a result of that strain.

But we're talking about mecha pilots who are portrayed as suffering serious internal injuries as a result of acceleration forces, yet are still able to pilot their craft effectively. What the real-life evidence shows us is that test subjects were incapacitated before they actually suffered significant permanent damage.

The clear conclusion we can draw is that Gundam isn't very realistic on this point. Of course, that isn't a very big problem since it has so many other areas it's unrealistic about (including the entire concept of giant humanoid mobile suits).

Originally Posted by Lelite

3) Fair enough. I won't argue with that, though I guess your pain tolerance plays a key role. But I'd think pilots of fighter jets would have one that's pretty high.

Pain tolerance isn't the problem here - no matter how high someone's pain tolerance, they still won't be able to get around the loss of vision that occurs with excessive Gs. Neither will pain tolerance help a pilot who's unable to breathe due to excessive Gs preventing the lungs from inflating.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Guppy

That's true, and fighter pilots can and do have certain types of long-term health problems as a result of that strain.

But we're talking about mecha pilots who are portrayed as suffering serious internal injuries as a result of acceleration forces, yet are still able to pilot their craft effectively. What the real-life evidence shows us is that test subjects were incapacitated before they actually suffered significant permanent damage.

The clear conclusion we can draw is that Gundam isn't very realistic on this point.

Or that the pilots are on drugs. Which would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

[Lelite]

Originally Posted by Guppy

That's true, and fighter pilots can and do have certain types of long-term health problems as a result of that strain.

But we're talking about mecha pilots who are portrayed as suffering serious internal injuries as a result of acceleration forces, yet are still able to pilot their craft effectively. What the real-life evidence shows us is that test subjects were incapacitated before they actually suffered significant permanent damage.

The clear conclusion we can draw is that Gundam isn't very realistic on this point. Of course, that isn't a very big problem since it has so many other areas it's unrealistic about (including the entire concept of giant humanoid mobile suits).

Pain tolerance isn't the problem here - no matter how high someone's pain tolerance, they still won't be able to get around the loss of vision that occurs with excessive Gs. Neither will pain tolerance help a pilot who's unable to breathe due to excessive Gs preventing the lungs from inflating.

Yeah, but all experimental evidence we have is based on what happens to the body as it accelerates with that rate for a little while (a little while being at least several seconds).

We don't know what happens when a body is exposed to a great acceleration (and a great force) for a short period of time (under a second), because in all likelihood the pilots would only reach hazardous g's when performing maneuvers, and those last a relatively short time. I think it would be akin to receiving a blow of equal force all over your body, which will probably still cause damage like blood vessel rupture, but definitely won't work against your breathing muscles for long enough (though it would be like getting winded).

Actually, Graham's situation is fairly realistic, now that I think about it. He only coughed up blood; the little capillaries in your lungs are certainly as delicate as the ones in your eyes, so I'd think they're very prone to rupturing under high forces. As do the little capillaries everywhere else in your body, which is probably why he was like "I'm all torn up". They only forgot to make him blind, but that would have been pretty anticlimactic, wouldn't it? Like I said earlier, keep it "real", but disregard the ones that lower the coolness factor. (And yes. Agree with you on the purpose of humanoid robots)

Anh_Minh - ...I don't think drugs are going to do much against rupturing blood vessels.

Though is that why Innovators are better pilots? Because they have nano-machines to clean up the damage?

[Guppy]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Or that the pilots are on drugs. Which would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

Could be, but I'm wondering just what kind of drugs would negate the physical effects of having blood jammed into or out of one's eyeballs, blood vessels bursting in the eyes due to over-G, or breathing problems because the lungs just aren't strong enough to inflate against the G-forces.

Sure, you could postulate that the drugs actually make the body supertough and able to withstand all that, but then you'd expect that the rest of the pilot's innards would gain the same extra toughness as the eyeballs, blood vessels and lungs.

Originally Posted by Lelite

We don't know what happens when a body is exposed to a great acceleration (and a great force) for a short period of time (under a second), because in all likelihood the pilots would only reach hazardous g's when performing maneuvers, and those last a relatively short time. I think it would be akin to receiving a blow of equal force all over your body, which will probably still cause damage like blood vessel rupture, but definitely won't work against your breathing muscles for long enough (though it would be like getting winded).

Very high acceleration for very short periods represents pretty much the same scenario as a crash, so the same principles would apply. The funny thing about discussing crashes, though, is that mecha pilots tend to come through them really well - and usually with far fewer, and less severe, injuries than they really should...

In real life you'd try to minimise that sort of thing, because continuous crash-like impacts would tend to have pretty bad effects not only on the pilot's ability to keep flying (and keep track of the situation), but also on the vehicle's critical systems and electronics. (But again, Gundams tend to ignore things like shock damage.)

Originally Posted by Lelite

They only forgot to make him blind, but that would have been pretty anticlimactic, wouldn't it? Like I said earlier, keep it "real", but disregard the ones that lower the coolness factor.

Agreed. Like I said, it's hardly the biggest realism issue that Gundam has. I still enjoy watching it - and other mecha shows - anyway.

Originally Posted by Lelite

Though is that why Innovators are better pilots? Because they have nano-machines to clean up the damage?

Nano-enhanced bodies could definitely change the game.

[nevenacheese]

but even then they should recieve damage... tge nano's arent magical, they cant repair ruptured organs within a few min's or in the time lapse of a normal battle. unless the nano's put something on the blood vessels or organs, something like the teflon layers in 'fake' bones we have now. the nano's could do the same things with layered carbon atoms to strengten cell's. urg ,mobile post

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Kirouni

... did you seriously just tell me whether my own question was "yes or no" or not? Sure it will cause them to black out eventually, but not at the level of accelerations that pretty much all mobile suits except V2 and other similar units.

Technically speaking, you're correct that your question wasn't really yes or no, but the response to "Because I know that black out is due to lack of blood flow, not from the direct forces implied on an accelerating object" is "yes, it is caused by acceleration forces".

While most mobile suits' linear acceleration is below the 9g threshold, they can still be well within the limit using rotational acceleration.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

Okay, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. But the point was simply this: During a hit and run attack it is entirely possible for the unit in question to be heavily damaged or even destroyed before a pilot is able to get inside. If it is in pilot-able condition, then by the time that a pilot can get into it, the attack will be close to being over if not already over. If it does engage, then the pilot has the greater goal to retreat over fighting, and not only that his unit isn't at it's full potential anymore. The result of that can only be used as an estimate at best. I admit my statement "it's not even a fight" should more accurately be rephrased as "it's not even a real fight".

But that's not a hit and run, and it has nothing to do with any of my points.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

Seriously, if you're going to say something, could you at least stick to it? If you're going to use "tactics that best suit your ride" then it's characteristics, and by that the categorization of it's type becomes important in how you use it correct?

I'm still not sure what you're getting at. And if you want to bring up scenarios in different terrain types, please do so.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

At ~ 20 - 35 seconds in
You can see the beam fire, and approach the target if you watch carefully enough, he had a good amount of time to move. The shells fired by the Zaku and beams are even shown to take about the same amount of time to reach their targets. They are NOT relativistic. The video shows a Zaku even accidently dodging a beam making your "even nonrelativistic one would be impossible to dodge" statement false as well.

Also, despite the lock, (which was depicted as being able to target through the smoke) the time of travel caused the need for a the calibration of the shot separate of what the computer already decided as a "lock on".

And since the weapons are not relativistic and can't travel anywhere near seemingly instantaneous speeds, accuracy and calibration DOES play a role.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, but all you managed to accomplish even if every single one of your points is correct is that One Year War beam weapons aren't relativistic, and that their targetting systems aren't particularly good for long range. That says nothing about beam weapons in other shows or later UC material at all. For that matter it's a stretch to say that your points are correct since the scene even uses slow motion effects.


By the way, it's a licensed show, so youtube links are a no-no. If you want to illustrate a point, it's better to post still pictures and describe what you claim they prove.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

THAT'S WHAT I SAID!

If you need further clarification it's like this. Long-range mobile suits have the advantage FIRST and loses it's advantage as enemies get closer. Other types such as mid-range and melee gain an advantage the closer they get.

Which again is something I said only a page back.

You made this about giving handicaps, I never said anything about giving a handicap to one side, I said that if one unit has a multi-dozen kilometer "head start", while the other unit has to close in, the sniper type/long range unit has a BIG advantage, and it's obvious that you'll win under those conditions.

Then what were you trying to argue against?

Originally Posted by nevenacheese

but even then they should recieve damage... tge nano's arent magical, they cant repair ruptured organs within a few min's or in the time lapse of a normal battle. unless the nano's put something on the blood vessels or organs, something like the teflon layers in 'fake' bones we have now. the nano's could do the same things with layered carbon atoms to strengten cell's. urg ,mobile post

Any rebuilding of the basic ways that human bodies work is going to have to be a lot more extensive than the mere addition of nanomachines.

[Kirouni]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Technically speaking, you're correct that your question wasn't really yes or no, but the response to "Because I know that black out is due to lack of blood flow, not from the direct forces implied on an accelerating object" is "yes, it is caused by acceleration forces".

But I said "how", asking you how it happens, despite that...

Originally Posted by Kirouni

Because I know that black out is due to lack of blood flow, not from the direct forces implied on an accelerating object. Blackouts are pulled FROM MANEUVERS.

Is in no way a question...

Originally Posted by Kirouni

Think about it, how would higher gravity cause you to lose vision?

but this is... and your response was

Originally Posted by 4tran

The answer is yes.

despite the lack of sense, this isn't about grammar so I won't dwell on it...

Originally Posted by 4Tran

While most mobile suits' linear acceleration is below the 9g threshold, they can still be well within the limit using rotational acceleration.

What is it exactly that you are trying to say, because from that the point you seem to be making is that...

Most mobile suits have a linear acceleration of below 9g's, and they can still be within some limit (what limit are you talking about?) using the concept of rotational acceleration that may or may not apply in the given situation...

On top of that rotational acceleration about an object requires a reference point, the further you are from it the slower you accelerate. What reference point were you using? If you used the center of the Earth (I find it the most logical considering you were talking about altitude), high altitude movements would provide lower acceleration (and by our knowledge of acceleration, g-forces) than anywhere else in the atmosphere... so your point is very unclear.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

But that's not a hit and run, and it has nothing to do with any of my points.

HOW is it not? In my scenarios the result of the "hit and run tactics" were that the only units that weren't damaged belonged to named characters, and were to be used for the plot.

I said

Originally Posted by Kirouni

The tactics of hit-and-run are more like, strike hard and fast and get out before the enemy has time to retaliate.

In which you laid down no objection to my definition of what a hit and run was, and according to THIS definition, my scenarios where all hit and run. Why didn't you disagree with my definition then instead of focusing on my statement that it's "not a fight"?

If I need to break it down further...

Originally Posted by Kirouni

But the point was simply this: During a hit and run attack it is entirely possible for the unit in question to be heavily damaged or even destroyed before a pilot is able to get inside. If it is in pilot-able condition, then by the time that a pilot can get into it, the attack will be close to being over if not already over. If it does engage, then the pilot has the greater goal to retreat over fighting, and not only that his unit isn't at it's full potential anymore. The result of that can only be used as an estimate at best.

Like I said, building off of the fact that this attack is a "hit-and-run", you bring up the variable that the unit might be damaged or destroyed before it has a pilot. In addition, the opposing unit is not at full potential anymore because it used up it's ammo/propellant and may have sustained some kind of damage. This isn't a fair fight anymore. And PLEASE don't bring up something stupid like "who said the fight had to be fair?" Because then it's not truly decisive, AND you add NEW MAJOR factors that can't be quantified.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I'm still not sure what you're getting at. And if you want to bring up scenarios in different terrain types, please do so.

Please read:

Originally Posted by Kirouni

If you're going to use "tactics that best suit your ride" then it's characteristics, and by that the categorization of it's type becomes important in how you use it correct?

Just because it ends with a question mark does not mean that it's not my point.

And before you try to dispute my claim, I will reiterate what I said:

YOU said use tactics that best suit your ride. The tactics you use are decided by the equipment of your unit, the characteristics of your unit basically. Characteristics of a unit decide what category it falls under, so category is important if you are going to use "tactics that best suit your ride".

I said that if you're going to argue something, then PLEASE stick with it, instead of simply trying to come up with something to counter my argument.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, but all you managed to accomplish even if every single one of your points is correct is that One Year War beam weapons aren't relativistic, and that their targetting systems aren't particularly good for long range. That says nothing about beam weapons in other shows or later UC material at all. For that matter it's a stretch to say that your points are correct since the scene even uses slow motion effects.

I only used it because it was the best illustration that even beams require time to travel. In the case of shot fired by Sanders, it's impossible to tell if it's a slow motion effect... You can see the glimmer of the shot in the mountains before the beam hits the Zaku... looked pretty full speed to me... but like I said you can't tell.

If you want proof from alternate universes... take a CLOSE look at when Destiny is targeting Strike Freedom, there is the lock-on signal AND a crosshair, the same as with with the 08th team Gundams... In 00, Cherudium's sniper mode is shown to even be a manual shot, there's no lock-on when it attacks the first Memento Mori, and Lyle even comments about how he always misses in the begining. The only reason I don't use any UC at the moment, is because I can't remember any moments where the targeting system is explicitly shown. Targeting systems aren't as good as you think.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Then what were you trying to argue against?

Originally Posted by 4tran

The versus scenarios crop up mostly because it's usually not intuitive that one machine holds a vast advantage.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

Ranged units have the advantage first, and that's the only time that I can see a ranged unit winning over a mid-range unit or a melee unit.

Long range units have too many downfalls in mid to close range, I can pretty much only see them winning at LONG-RANGE, and so they don't just "crop up" as I've said before, it is intuitive that given pretty equal suits, the one equiped for long range will win at long range. -_-

[willyvereb]

My opinion about MS types: "artielly" or "flying fortress"(if it's got a decent defense system) mobile suitse(most of the long range weapons sacrafices fire rate, lightness or mobility for more firepower, range or accuracy). And thanks to the minovsky, GN practicles or the N-jammers you can't use more precise targeting systems, so the long range barrage only loosens the enemy lines. Even if the long ranbge weapons more destructive at mid range(cause of the projectile/beam's speed and perhaps accuracy) at the time when the higher mobility mid-range mobile suits reach the optimum range the long range suits are pretty much toast without proper escort.
So the mid-range suits are perfect as main force(what a surprise).
The short-Range mobile suits are useless exept some extreme occurences.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Kirouni

Is in no way a question...


despite the lack of sense, this isn't about grammar so I won't dwell on it...

while I was being more than a little tongue-in-cheek, just because a phrase isn't posed as a direct question, it may still be answered as if it were.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

On top of that rotational acceleration about an object requires a reference point, the further you are from it the slower you accelerate. What reference point were you using? If you used the center of the Earth (I find it the most logical considering you were talking about altitude), high altitude movements would provide lower acceleration (and by our knowledge of acceleration, g-forces) than anywhere else in the atmosphere... so your point is very unclear.

The reason it's unclear to you is because you're still not thinking in terms of rotational acceleration, which would usually be the greatest source of g-forces. Under rotation, a vehicle can generate far more perceived acceleration than its overall thrust can in under linear acceleration. Thus it'd be quite possible for a <2g thrust to generate 10 or more g of positive g-force.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

HOW is it not? In my scenarios the result of the "hit and run tactics" were that the only units that weren't damaged belonged to named characters, and were to be used for the plot.

In which you laid down no objection to my definition of what a hit and run was, and according to THIS definition, my scenarios where all hit and run. Why didn't you disagree with my definition then instead of focusing on my statement that it's "not a fight"?

Getting out before the enemy has time to retaliate is a very different concept from doing so before the enemy are even in their vehicles. The latter should be entirely irrelevant to this discussion, so why bring it up in the first place?

Originally Posted by Kirouni

YOU said use tactics that best suit your ride. The tactics you use are decided by the equipment of your unit, the characteristics of your unit basically. Characteristics of a unit decide what category it falls under, so category is important if you are going to use "tactics that best suit your ride".

Why? And is this going to be true of all cases?

Originally Posted by Kirouni

I only used it because it was the best illustration that even beams require time to travel. In the case of shot fired by Sanders, it's impossible to tell if it's a slow motion effect... You can see the glimmer of the shot in the mountains before the beam hits the Zaku... looked pretty full speed to me... but like I said you can't tell.

If you can't tell, then how is it a useful reference?

Originally Posted by Kirouni

If you want proof from alternate universes... take a CLOSE look at when Destiny is targeting Strike Freedom, there is the lock-on signal AND a crosshair, the same as with with the 08th team Gundams... In 00, Cherudium's sniper mode is shown to even be a manual shot, there's no lock-on when it attacks the first Memento Mori, and Lyle even comments about how he always misses in the begining. The only reason I don't use any UC at the moment, is because I can't remember any moments where the targeting system is explicitly shown. Targeting systems aren't as good as you think.

You're confusing the appearance of effectiveness with actual effectiveness. All that really counts is how accuracy the shooting is over such distances.

Originally Posted by Kirouni

Ranged units have the advantage first, and that's the only time that I can see a ranged unit winning over a mid-range unit or a melee unit.

Long range units have too many downfalls in mid to close range, I can pretty much only see them winning at LONG-RANGE, and so they don't just "crop up" as I've said before, it is intuitive that given pretty equal suits, the one equiped for long range will win at long range. -_-

Why? And what would you classify as medium range and short range?

Originally Posted by willyvereb

My opinion about MS types: "artielly" or "flying fortress"(if it's got a decent defense system) mobile suitse(most of the long range weapons sacrafices fire rate, lightness or mobility for more firepower, range or accuracy). And thanks to the minovsky, GN practicles or the N-jammers you can't use more precise targeting systems, so the long range barrage only loosens the enemy lines.

I don't like generalized statements like this because we can see specific cases where it's not true at all.

Originally Posted by willyvereb

Even if the long ranbge weapons more destructive at mid range(cause of the projectile/beam's speed and perhaps accuracy) at the time when the higher mobility mid-range mobile suits reach the optimum range the long range suits are pretty much toast without proper escort.

As with my question to Kirouni, can you define medium range or short range?

[Kirouni]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

The reason it's unclear to you is because you're still not thinking in terms of rotational acceleration, which would usually be the greatest source of g-forces. Under rotation, a vehicle can generate far more perceived acceleration than its overall thrust can in under linear acceleration. Thus it'd be quite possible for a <2g thrust to generate 10 or more g of positive g-force.

Can you please provide an example then, so I can understand what you mean by rotational acceleration? From that definition it sounds like you took the concept of torque, and reversed it.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Getting out before the enemy has time to retaliate is a very different concept from doing so before the enemy are even in their vehicles. The latter should be entirely irrelevant to this discussion, so why bring it up in the first place?

It's not really different... I mean you get out before they get in their vehicles, so they can't retaliate right? I think it's actually related...

So, that's another factor that you'd add in that's not quantifiable, so why add it? This discussion was originally on why a unit would run away, and so now the only point we have is that hit-and-run is where it would fit, BUT we add in new factors that add complexity to the situation.

Like I said, there's really no need to run away excluding pilot error, except in the case of hit and run and VERY similar situations.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Why? And is this going to be true of all cases?

Okay then, let's send a long range unit to the front lines, while the melee range units protect the back line.

Let's not USE the stealth capabilities of stealth suits to infultrate enemy lines.

But we said before in certain conditions, such as those where it is easy to hide certain types of units have their effectiveness increased/decreased. Such as short-range mobile suits in urban/forest areas. The decrease of long-range abilities outside of open areas, etc.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

If you can't tell, then how is it a useful reference?

As far as you can tell the shot is in normal speed, but this is anime, where 1 minute can span an entire episode. That's all I'm getting at. You can't tell despite what it shows. For all intents and purposes though, it SEEMS to be completely full speed. I mean if the shot SHOULD have only took half a second, why slow it down to just under a second. If they were really using slow motion effects to make it dramatic/cool/whatever, why not slow it down to maybe 2 - 3 seconds instead?

Originally Posted by 4Tran

You're confusing the appearance of effectiveness with actual effectiveness. All that really counts is how accuracy the shooting is over such distances.

Then what's the point of lock, AND a cross hair? Planes have them too, fighter plane simulators, mech simulation games all have them too. Just because there's a lock on a target by the computer doesn't mean the pilot actually has to shoot at exactly where the lock is.

How would Kira disable mobile suits instead of destroying them? How could you engage in melee range combat if the computer did everything for you? You are just overestimating the efficiency of targeting systems.

If targeting systems are advanced as you say, then why do mobile suits miss at all? According to you, distance doesn't play a role because the targeting computer accounts for it, and it is "impossible to dodge even nonrelativistic weapons". So how is it possible to miss a shot at all?

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Why? And what would you classify as medium range and short range?

Because if it were equal to a point where it came down to overall range of the mobile suit, a long-range MS is usually only equipped to fight well at long range.

Edit: Read your question wrong.

Medium range really depends on the year and universe of the fight. Most easily put at the range where standard issue weapons such as assault rifles, beam rifles, cannons are most effective. Basically from where the best option is to use a gun over a melee weapon until effectiveness of these weapons drops sufficiently enough to not try with them. I'd say anywhere from maybe 500m to 10 km maybe? If only armed with a beam rifle/assault rifle maybe even 500m - 7, maybe 8 km. For sake of effectiveness, because without serious sniping skills, anything longer than that becomes a chore.

Short range, I'd definitly have have to say within a kilometer, and and shorter than 500m is probably around melee. But even that is still a stretch.

In the Gundam game Zeonic Front melee is considered 50m, effective range for machine guns are 150m, and range for bazookas and sniper rifles is 250m, despite the sensors reaching much further. But that's for One Year War, it's also a game, and I understand that, but it's to put things in perspective. Multi-kilometer engagements is already quite a task, and often times one shot does not take down an MS, despite what many of the recent series have been showing us.

[Lelite]

Kirouni - 4Tran probably means Centripetal Acceleration. Which is, in a round-about way, related to torque, but they're different concepts. As per Newton's second law, F = ma, thought in this case it's F(c) = ma(c).

[Kirouni]

OHHHHHHHHHH, that makes sense now. Okay, but that is predominantly a problem while performing maneuvers common to planes, which mobile suits do not have to perform as I've said before. Maneuvers such as high - g turning and flips would cause this, but mobile suits don't need to perform these maneuvers.

Planes can only move in the straight forward direction (or in some cases up with VTOL crafts), but mobile suits have a much greater range of motion of flight, and some can hover, which most planes can not do.

Sorry, you kept saying rotational acceleration, which is a different concept. I understand what you're trying to say now. Thanks for clearing that up Lelite

[Lelite]

Well, no. A mobile suit's gotta turn somehow too; that would require it to turn in arcs or semi-circles or something like that. A curve in their trajectory would still require centripetal acceleration, and therefore centripetal force, which is the force needed to change the direction of motion. And because of inertia, the force needed to change the direction of motion is greater than a force needed to speed up or slow down - hence the greater g's. Hovering doesn't reduce the need of F(c); helicopters hover and still experience centripetal force.

And in the case of the Flag - which was, again, the one were shown to have caused the greatest damage - it actually WAS a plane for at least part of the time.

So I looked up some more stuff on rotational acceleration, and yeah... I don't think it applies, thought only 4Tran knows for sure. 4Tran, did you mean rotational acceleration or actually centripetal acceleration?

[Kirouni]

Well the original argument was on the difference between blacking out in the atmosphere and in space. Mobile suits don't have to pull off the same high g moves as planes, although they can.

Given the same thrust in space there's no drag to slow you down, however in the atmosphere there is.

Even with centripital acceleration you're actually significantly slower than in space, due to drag. Drag takes a significant amount of force out of your acceleration, which heavily reduces your acceleration. But I'm not entirely sure how centripital acceleration works, but I'm thinking that it can't quintuple the g-forces like 4tran claims. You know?

[Lelite]

Hmm. Well, yes, the lack of drag in space would require less force to acquire the same speed, however I don't think it would make much difference because the g's experienced by the pilot are a NET force; so while the force of propulsion in the atmosphere may be greater, there would also be a component of the force of drag in the opposite direction, so in the end the pilot would experience a similar force, provided all the other parameters we're comparing stay the same. (Speed, radius of rotation, etc) (long sentence is loooong)

Centripetal acceleration is basically what is behind the direction change of velocity during a maneuver. It's related to the square of the velocity at which you carried out the maneuver (turn), and inversely related to the "radius" of the rotation, i.e. if you could pretend that while you were turning you were going around a circle, it's the radius of that circle.

It builds up really quickly, though. As a matter of fact, I'm trying to see if I'm forgetting something because it seems like going around a curve with a radius of 100 m at 100 m/s ends up with an acceleration close to 10 g's, and I somehow don't think that's right.