Mech In Progress

Cosmic Average · Post by **Cosmic Average** » 2007-09-18 01:18am

What do you think? Should I change stuff or..?

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2007-09-18 05:44am

Just hope that "cockpit" is alot lighter then anything else, since if it isn't that thing will tip over (if you want to make a bipebel mech that's not a humanoid you should look at stuff like flightless birds for example (AT-ST isn't called a chicken walker for no reason).

atm it looks like some one took a shuttle/speedboat and welded some legs and other doodads to it.

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-09-18 05:54am

You appear to have an excessive mass and area devoted to giant smoke launchers.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2007-09-18 06:42am

Looks like the bastard offspring of an A-Wing and AT-ST walker...

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2007-09-18 08:25am

Not enough weapons.

Get close enough and that mech is toast.

What I'd recommend is lose the legs and replace it with weapon turrets, slap some drives in the back, lose those smoke launchers and give the missile launchers a lower profile and you'd have a decent fighter\gunboat.

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-09-18 09:02am

Enigma wrote:What I'd recommend is lose the legs and replace it with weapon turrets, slap some drives in the back, lose those smoke launchers and give the missile launchers a lower profile and you'd have a decent fighter\gunboat.

It does seem odd to put missile launchers in that position when missiles are essentially indirect fire weapons, and can be fired in pop-up mode from a hull down position. Those top mounts would be a good place for direct fire cannons or beam weapons, the missiles could go in verticial or inclined tube launchers where the smoke launchers currently are. It could use a top mounted sensor/radar mast. The cannon on the front would be more awesome if it was gattling.

Otherwise not bad for a mech. Though that curvy hull looks harder to fabricate than a faceted one for no obvious advantage (it isn't going to run fast enough to need streamlining), and that huge window area is going to preclude armouring it properly against anything above medium machine gun fire (unless you have sci-fi materials for super-strong transparencies).

Sidewinder · Post by **Sidewinder** » 2007-09-18 09:55am

It looks like a frog that's missing its front legs. (Sadly, it reminds me of some of my own mech designs, way back when I was in junior high.)

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-09-18 11:55am

Sidewinder wrote:It looks like a frog that's missing its front legs. (Sadly, it reminds me of some of my own mech designs, way back when I was in junior high.)

There is a fair amount of detailing that serves no obvious function; the dishing on the upper legs, the circular projections on the middle legs, the ribbing on the lower legs. The lower-leg-to-foot joint in particular looks vulnerable to attack or shock; the whole weight of the mech is on those two very thin axles. I'm not entirely clear how you get into this thing, as that projection over the cockpit looks too small to be a hatch; maybe that bathtub-like bottom section descends on jacks (should still have an escape hatch for when the vehicle is disabled though. Plus I just noticed; most of the feet don't touch the ground, just the little pads at the tips. Why? This is pointlessly increasing your ground pressure by a factor of three or so.

It would be amusing to see a mech with RPG slat armour (in fact I'd imagine that would be essential to giving one this size any kind of combat survivability).

Lord Revan wrote:Just hope that "cockpit" is alot lighter then anything else, since if it isn't that thing will tip over

I doubt it; the rear section is quite hefty and failing that the feet could easily come forward a little to match the CG. However,

if you want to make a bipebel mech that's not a humanoid you should look at stuff like flightless birds for example

Birds have two effective leg sections for a reason; it saves weight. For a mech, it also reduces complexity, which means less maintenance, fewer acutators, simpler control system etc. What is the reason for having three-segment legs? I can't see any obvious advantage in speed, obstacle scaling ability or (given that the leg joints are single axis only) maneuverability. The AT-ST has this problem even more badly, but no reason to follow it.

Cosmic Average · Post by **Cosmic Average** » 2007-09-20 08:35pm

Starglider wrote:Plus I just noticed; most of the feet don't touch the ground, just the little pads at the tips. Why? This is pointlessly increasing your ground pressure by a factor of three or so.

'Cause it makes it look cooler, IMMHO.

Starglider wrote:(given that the leg joints are single axis only)

Hmm.. How would you alter the joints to allow them to 'bend' in multiple directions? Some sort of ball-joints?

Anyways, thanks for the input, everyone. I'll try to incorporate the suggestions into the next mech.

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2007-09-20 09:04pm

Cosmic Average wrote:'Cause it makes it look cooler, IMMHO.

You can't even notice it from any angle other than the bottom-right one.

Hmm.. How would you alter the joints to allow them to 'bend' in multiple directions? Some sort of ball-joints?

Yes, but the marginal benefits almost certainly aren't worth the increase in complexity and fragility. It's enough of a fragile maintenance nightmare as it is (simply by virtue of being a mech, though at least it isn't humanoid).

Phantasee · Post by **Phantasee** » 2007-09-22 09:53am

I don't know if I'd listen to Starglider, Cosmic. He is in the HAB; his advice could just as well weaken your design so the HAB can take it out easier.

The first thing I thought of when I saw the mech is that shuttle Data steals in Insurrection, as if the All Spark had touched it.