"Ashes, Rust, and Dust", a mechwarrior inspired short film.

[Daemion]

Okay. This get's my mind rolling. I'm curious how similar your mecha are going to be compared to BattleMechs. Will they march along steadily as you've demoed, or will there be moments of incredibly fast speed?

What kind of firepower will they be packing.

If you were to give them BT stats, what would they have?

What kind of futuristic ballistic protection would your infantry grunts have? What kind of firepower?

Are all my questions subject to the 'Wait and see' reply?

[tyrrollins]

Okay. This get's my mind rolling. I'm curious how similar your mecha are going to be compared to BattleMechs. Will they march along steadily as you've demoed, or will there be moments of incredibly fast speed?

What kind of firepower will they be packing.

If you were to give them BT stats, what would they have?

What kind of futuristic ballistic protection would your infantry grunts have? What kind of firepower?

Are all my questions subject to the 'Wait and see' reply?

Well I am a fan of the battletech formula of what is essentially a "walking tank" and behaves thus.  In terms of weapons you can expect to see things resembling autocannons, with some advanced mechs sporting energy based weaponry.  Shields have been talked about.  Don't expect to see any super fast anime type mechs.  I am not a fan of those.  (Though nothing is cast in stone at this point)  In terms of infantry, they would not stand up to a mech.  Very innersphereish I'm guessing.  Power armor that looks like it could stand up to hits from mechs is very labor intensive production wise.  I hate to say it, but the honest answer is a "wait and see".  If we could get enough support behind the project anything is possible.

[Diablo48]

That looks fantastic, I am very much looking forwards to seeing the rest of this and am glad you are sticking with the BT-style walking tank rather than the silly stuff they throw around in anime.  Something as big as a 'Mech would have far too much inertia to bounce around like that.  You could theoretically get a very respectable linear speed going thanks to the length of the legs, but cornering at that speed would be tricky so the performance would come back to tank-like.  The real mobility improvements are at low speed where you can step laterally and in obstacle avoidance where you can carefully place your feet to avoid stepping on things.

Really, the only concern I have is the energy shields you mentioned because those are almost completely banned by physics, although it would be theoretically possible to protect yourself behind a plasma barrier against some forms of attack.  Do bear in mind this would be extremely limited in a lot of ways because that plasma is going to drive your internal temperature through the roof and can pose a serious hazard to nearby allies among other things, but depending on what you are working with it could be worthwhile.

[Matti]

Don't expect to see any super fast anime type mechs.  I am not a fan of those.

Excellent! That is my major gripe against anime mecha. Closer it is to AT-AT, the better! If you can make some discussion where walking tanks are compared to wheeled & tracked ones and make some sense out of it, it'd be great. BattleTech has vehicles more prone to motive and critical hits + vehicle fusion engines require more mass for shielding, but that is most of it... Someone says walking tanks have better weapons and tougher armour, someone else counters why not to use those in tracked tanks?

Really, the only concern I have is the energy shields you mentioned because those are almost completely banned by physics, although it would be theoretically possible to protect yourself behind a plasma barrier against some forms of attack.  Do bear in mind this would be extremely limited in a lot of ways because that plasma is going to drive your internal temperature through the roof and can pose a serious hazard to nearby allies among other things, but depending on what you are working with it could be worthwhile.

Don't forget magnetic fields. Magnetic field could at least deflect splinters. For missiles best to use equivalent of BattleTech's AMS and/or directional mines of Hammerverse (mounted on tank's hull, explodes automatically and spreads pellets at incoming missile).

[Diablo48]

Don't forget magnetic fields. Magnetic field could at least deflect splinters. For missiles best to use equivalent of BattleTech's AMS and/or directional mines of Hammerverse (mounted on tank's hull, explodes automatically and spreads pellets at incoming missile).

I didn't.  The only way to contain a plasma barrier is a powerful electromagnetic field, so the generators for that will naturally give you the ability to deflect or slow a charged particle beam.  It will not work against projectiles unless they are electrically charged or magnetically polarized which means that unless they are using a coil gun (which is different from a rail gun) they can easily make shells that will pass through unimpeded.

As for missiles, the AMS is really the way to go because it will work more consistently than a reactive armor system, is reusable, and can provide blanket protection for allies.

[tyrrollins]

I think it is a little silly to talk about science fiction in terms of what can and can't be done.  I'm a firm believer of anything is possible and I'm a physics major with a focus in practical application versus theoretical.  Also I think focusing on the technology that we choose to portray is secondary to the philosophical messages.   Technology won't be chosen arbitrarily,  its going to further those points.   So if shields are used,  shields are probably going to represent something metaphorically.  How those shields work won't matter unless its a narrative device.   I guess my point is that id personally rather be talking philosophy then the specifics of technology.  I think this is why a lot of science fiction fails and why the classic science fiction stories are classics.  it doesn't matter how the frankenstein monster came to life,  what matters are the implications.

But if we must talk specifics, then a plasma shield is silly.  In terms of energy required to produce it and energy required to control it.  Any electricmagnetic field outside the system would disrupt it.  Anything from a weapon to a refridgerator magnet.  Powerful electric fields would probably be used in real life but they are uninteresting to watch because they are invisible.  Plus because all energy that exists is really electromagnetic in nature, even mass, the conversation becomes more about who's got the bigger gun or thicker armor versus tactics and strategy.

[Matti]

Plus because all energy that exists is really electromagnetic in nature, even mass, the conversation becomes more about who's got the bigger gun or thicker armor versus tactics and strategy.

Walking tanks would be interesting part in that conversation: "They're more expensive, more difficult to maintain, can topple over... Why we have these again?" Then someone else explains their tactical superiority. For BattleMechs: read the game rules in Total Warfare and Tactical Operations.

[Diablo48]

I think it is a little silly to talk about science fiction in terms of what can and can't be done.  I'm a firm believer of anything is possible and I'm a physics major with a focus in practical application versus theoretical.  Also I think focusing on the technology that we choose to portray is secondary to the philosophical messages.   Technology won't be chosen arbitrarily,  its going to further those points.   So if shields are used,  shields are probably going to represent something metaphorically.  How those shields work won't matter unless its a narrative device.   I guess my point is that id personally rather be talking philosophy then the specifics of technology.  I think this is why a lot of science fiction fails and why the classic science fiction stories are classics.  it doesn't matter how the frankenstein monster came to life,  what matters are the implications.

That is a very important point and is what really drives any story.  I was just pointing out the physical problems behind the generic shield which are only really insurmountable if you want to make hard science fiction.  I tend to favor hard material because my background in engineering and physics makes it obvious when there are faults which can be jarring and break my willing suspension of disbelief if done poorly, but I have no problem with other material so long as it does not pretend to be something it is not.

My own personal philosophy is admittedly very OCD because I will beat the technology to death internally before going anywhere and only show what I did as needed by the story, although it does insure that continuity is maintained as I create whatever other stuff I want to insert into the universe.

But if we must talk specifics, then a plasma shield is silly.  In terms of energy required to produce it and energy required to control it.  Any electricmagnetic field outside the system would disrupt it.  Anything from a weapon to a refridgerator magnet.  Powerful electric fields would probably be used in real life but they are uninteresting to watch because they are invisible.  Plus because all energy that exists is really electromagnetic in nature, even mass, the conversation becomes more about who's got the bigger gun or thicker armor versus tactics and strategy.

All true, but with a nuclear reactor you could generate the power needed to make the plasma and create strong enough fields that it will be impractical to disrupt from a distance.  An onboard computer could then dynamically compensate for any smaller fields as needed to make a functional but limited shield.  The practicality of the resulting system is very much up for debate because it would impose a lot of severe limitations when in use, but it is most certainly possible.

[Mastergunz]

That was very cool, cant wait for more. :)

-Gunz

[Sabelkatten]

A honest question (really!):

When is "handwave technology" (or "handwave science", or handwave anything)  ever really needed to make a point in a movie?

I mean, there can be a good point for a few things (FTL if you want more than a half-dozen planets in your movie being obvious, or magic if you want the "mystics vs. science" angle of Star Wars), but things like force fields, artificial gravity, spaceship combat ranges counted in meters? Or mechs, for the matter - but if that's the point of the movie it might come in under "good point".

It's just that IMHO lots of those far-out things are usually just lazy writing or uneducated and conservative financiers. Try to keep things down to earth as far as possible, and only add fantasy pieces where they absolutely have to be. That gives them a lot more impact!

[Matti]

It's just that IMHO lots of those far-out things are usually just lazy writing or uneducated and conservative financiers. Try to keep things down to earth as far as possible, and only add fantasy pieces where they absolutely have to be. That gives them a lot more impact!

Excellent argument. Best Star Trek episodes are like that.

[Ephisus]

Consistency is more important than being "down to earth". 

It doesn't matter what kind of crazy mojo happens in a given setting; as long as there are rules for the mojo that the audience can grasp the consequences of.

As far as such fantastic things being necessary, well, that's completely dependent on if the piece in question is a fantasy.

[Sabelkatten]

Well, it's usually a lot easier to be consistent if you try to stick to Einstein & Co as far as possible. Consider how messed up Star Trek has gotten, or all the "but why don't they...?" in Star Wars.

To take the example in this thread (force fields of some sort). It might look like neat, and maybe even logical, when you write it - but chances are someone will later point out some gaping logical hole you've overlooked and the whole thing will just look stupid. #P

Of course people tend to find all kinds of flaws even when you stay realistic, so maybe it doesn't help much... ::)

[Ephisus]

Consider, how easy "rock, paper, scissors" is, yet, there is nothing, per se, physically true about paper beating rock, or scissors losing to rock, or in extreme examples, rock besting paper.  These sorts of questions don't come into play during the exposition of the simple "rock, paper, scissors" fiction, except maybe farcically.

The logic just needs to be consistent, not real, in order for the objective, conflict, and resolution to be communicated and understood.

It's okay for it to be grounded in "real".  It's also okay for it to be grounded on "unreal".  It just needs to be grounded on something. 

Where fiction fails, like star wars or star trek, or what have you-- is in deviations from their grounding, not from grounding on the wrong things.