Shepard Quest Mk VI, Technological Revolution

No, we only sell arc-reactors, per agreement with citadel - it's not even to them directly. IRRC we even get away with minimal number - or at least did at the begging. I'm not sure we fine-control what of the free production goes to which market, but it seems to me that our sales representative in centered on Alliance.

It's Geth, they have weird fetishes. Plus they don't seem to understand how wheels work. Also their design philosophy is "if it worked during morning war, it will now". Have you seen their fighters?

It's like "what are half of the parts for?".
And yet they have the only good mech in ME 1 and 2. Every other mech, many of which Aren't Geth, is massively worse. (also, the hovertank in ME2 is aweful, for entirely different reasons. just saying.)

But yeah, Geth ship design is Weird. Like... who designs a ship around the idea that it might, someday, maybe have reason to cling to the side of a very tall building not at all designed to accomodate it? (see ME1, where a large chunk of one planet is breaking said ship so it falls off. While there are things that imply an answer, you're never actually told why it falls rather than flying.)
 
Keep in mind that organics work under the same constraints as mechs do and work fine...
Huh, instead of servos and hydraulics, fibres and cords attached to a durable rigid-but-articulated frame?
Androids and power armor don't operate on anywhere near the same scale as a 5 meter mech. And the way humans move isn't that great for something that weighs at least a few thousand pounds.
biggest problem would be the the structural integrity of what they're standing on, and 5 Metre's is tiny we're talking sizes that animals have reached on earth, hell there have been ape's that are 3 metres high and they're using mundane bones and muscle.
We're also delicate, and require extensive maintenance and supplies to continue operating when we don't break.
depends on the lifespan you want, humans can last on average about 15 years (which iirc includes high infant mortality) in tribal settings with very little medical care and whatever's on hand for food.
And elephants are actually a great example of the perils of size: tripping will cause serious damage to an elephant from its own bulk.
elephants are also built out of dust and water.
That is a hilarious comparison, like if hotwheels make it work, it should work fine on a sedan
Are you implying wheels don't scale? since that's about the only common technical figure between a sedan and hotwheels, besides a metal frame that is.
Somehow I don't think we're in a position to make a mech's joints out of self replicating microscopic pieces
MIT's self-healing metal fixes tiny flaws before they can create massive problems | ExtremeTech
These are crazy ass ceramic/polymers/sophisticated Revy just invented I'm talking about. These are advanced hard to produce materials, with a formula/production process patented by PI, if they're capable of making it on site I'm calling bullshit. Add that on to working with harder materials, and then it gets expensive. For example, titanium is much harder to work with than steel, and that's realitively mundane even by today's standards. Yes, my logic was predicated on the fact the colonists don't have a high tech foundry or matter converters, sue me.
Err aren't those polymer's created by lathe sized machine that's fully programmable?
a) a mech isn't going to have anywhere near the flexibility or range of motion a human has to adjust its center of gravity, and humans are shit at getting hit by something and not being knocked off balance by it.
these are assertions we already have computers that can react faster and finer than a human it stands to reason that a mech would be capable of doing both of these.
It doesn't work that way! The smaller the surface are you are putting your weight on, the smaller your traction. If you disturb/alter that surface area than shit happens. None of this "I'm so weighted down in this one spot, I have extra double plus good footing!", there's a reason shoes have treads on them, for traction. If you take a 5 meter mech on ice, gravel or a steep enough incline, it's going to fall. Compare that to much steeper climbing angles for caterpillar treads, gravel being a non-issue, and ice being fine so long as it can bear the ice. Never mind the fact that like all bipedal locomotion, in order to move you have to put all the weight on one of your feet... I shouldn't have to explain why the hell that's a bad idea with a heavy ass mech.


i thought we were building an articulated biped, not a tank on stilts, when finished i fully expect this mech to be able to stand on one leg, run, and jump.
Don't be silly, the geth's design teams are clearly led by art majors who only afterwards try to figure out how things work...
seems like they use artificial muscle fibres.
http://masseffected.pbworks.com/f/1199995215/mass-effect-20060510040225800.jpg
 
Last edited:
Legionaries are stupid. There are too many moving parts on it.

What we need is a mini-tank that one dude can pilot. Once we roll one of those out, the Legionary is obsolete.
 
Well, yes that's true. But that's not my point; human scale mechs may not be as good at fighting as a human scale purpose designed combat vehicle, but humans are basically sturdy, fairly swift moving all terrain vehicles that can adjust its mission package to whatever situation it's faced with.

Does it have flaws? Why certainly, many of them, but for something that's meant to face an amazing range of physical challenges it's a pretty good design. The design of homo sapiens may not necessarily excel at one or two jobs, but it can do a vast range of them modestly well and get the needed addons for anything it'd be faced with anything it's terrible at or incapable off, all without major modifications of the frame.

There's not a lot out there that can boast the same, especially once you consider it's got a pretty damn functional damage control and repair suite integrated in the design.

Huh, instead of servos and hydraulics, fibres and cords attached to a durable rigid-but-articulated frame?

biggest problem would be the the structural integrity of what they're standing on, and 5 Metre's is tiny we're talking sizes that animals have reached on earth, hell there have been ape's that are 3 metres high and they're using mundane bones and muscle.

depends on the lifespan you want, humans can last on average about 15 years (which iirc includes high infant mortality) in tribal settings with very little medical care and whatever's on hand for food.

elephants are also built out of dust and water.

Are you implying wheels don't scale? since that's about the only common technical figure between a sedan and hotwheels, besides a metal frame that is.

MIT's self-healing metal fixes tiny flaws before they can create massive problems | ExtremeTech

Err aren't those polymer's created by lathe sized machine that's fully programmable?

these are assertions we already have computers that can react faster and finer than a human it stands to reason that a mech would be capable of doing both of these.



i thought we were building an articulated biped, not a tank on stilts, when finished i fully expect this mech to be able to stand on one leg, run, and jump.

seems like they use artificial muscle fibres.
http://masseffected.pbworks.com/f/1199995215/mass-effect-20060510040225800.jpg
Okay, fine, mechs can work, but how is it better then a repulser tank in combat? Why would we build them instead of tanks?

And for civilian applications, why would anyone use a combat, expensive, mech for construction and stuff? If we want something for construction, why not just build something for construction? "It could be used for civilian applications" is not a good argument for a military weapon, because the vast majority of sales will be to the military, who aren't using for civilian applications. And no civilian, if they aren't being ridiculous inefficient, is going to buy a combat machine to do construction or some such. It just isn't cost efficient to buy a complex piece of military hardware, and then use it for a civy application instead of buying something designed for that purpose.
 
Last edited:
Legionaries are stupid. There are too many moving parts on it.

What we need is a mini-tank that one dude can pilot. Once we roll one of those out, the Legionary is obsolete.
Legionaries are useful for urban combat because you can pretty much get them into any space a regular human can get into. If it wasn't for that critical advantage--for example, if your powered armor was 15 feet tall--then the added complexities associated with a power armor become too great to bother with.
 
Problem with flying/hovering tanks: recoil, and the effects of being hit on your location. You can, of course, compensate with More Power, but... that's power you're not using for, say, shields. (gunships have the same issue, but, generally, more mobility and less armour...)
 
Problem with flying/hovering tanks: recoil, and the effects of being hit on your location. You can, of course, compensate with More Power, but... that's power you're not using for, say, shields. (gunships have the same issue, but, generally, more mobility and less armour...)
also too much power to compensate with nearby friendlies and they could get hit by the exhaust.
 


so we build/design it with construction in mind.
First, how exactly is that relevant? That is a military construction vehicale, designed for construction and combat, being used by the military. Not the same as taking something designed solely for combat, and buying it in order to make it a construction machine.

Second, why? Why build a piloted mach instead of, I don't know, a remote controlled construction drone? Why is an expensive, complicated mach nessacart for the job of construction?
Problem with flying/hovering tanks: recoil, and the effects of being hit on your location. You can, of course, compensate with More Power, but... that's power you're not using for, say, shields. (gunships have the same issue, but, generally, more mobility and less armour...)
And that isn't a problem with Mechs? They have to deal with recoil and being hit as well.
 
First, how exactly is that relevant? That is a military construction vehicale, designed for construction and combat, being used by the military. Not the same as taking something designed solely for combat, and buying it in order to make it a construction machine.
...so we write up another variant, we are talking about researching vehicle types not designed a single variant.
Second, why? Why build a piloted mach instead of, I don't know, a remote controlled construction drone? Why is an expensive, complicated mach nessacart for the job of construction?
Who said we wouldn't build unmanned variants?
And that isn't a problem with Mechs? They have to deal with recoil and being hit as well.
depends on their stance.
 
depends on their stance.
...

No. Recoil is a thing always, and so is enemy fire of you are in combat. Maybe a stance could reduce recoil and impact, but it still needs to be compensated for, which requires power. Just like a tank

What I want to know is, why build mechs instead of tanks? What can a mecha do that a tank can't, for cheaper?
 
No. Recoil is a thing always, and so is enemy fire of you are in combat. Maybe a stance could reduce recoil and impact, but it still needs to be compensated for, which requires power. Just like a tank
except different stances distribute the force in different ways you can see this in humans.

What I want to know is, why build mechs instead of tanks? What can a mecha do that a tank can't, for cheaper?
 
then what's the problem with mechas then?
They add a bunch of points of failure to machinery intended to be rugged, which offends my design sensibilities. There's no way for them to match the claims you've made while reducing the points of failure, except to basically make other vehicles and tack extra limbs on to make it a mecha.
Even the "large shovel" you mentioned a mecha using for construction would be an engineering project on its own to be something that can just be "picked up".
Well, unless you meant something like giving it a backhoe for an arm, in which case we're better off just attaching the same thing to a better chassis - which is basically the general problem with all your examples. We can do the same thing better if we just drop the mecha aspect.

There is no point, they aren't pratical. Just about everything they can do, a tank can do just as well, or better.
Or a different vehicle designed for the purpose of construction.
 
then what's the problem with mechas then?
Because mechas are 20% awesome and 80% impractical and useless. Consider all the moving parts in a mech:
  • Hands and arms - basically the only awesome parts of a mech, this is where all of the versatility comes from. We can duplicate all of this functionality by designing an articulating arm that can mount to a UHP.
  • Head and neck - Why? Why would you ever need a head or neck on a mech? They're important on biological organisms because complex sensory organs like eyes and ears need to be close to the CPU to aid in processing, but in a mech it's just one giant single point of failure.
  • Counter-rotating shoulders and hips - Again, why? The kinds of linkages you need to set up counter-rotating shoulders and hips are fairly straightforward and very useful for biological organisms, but for mechanical organisms it's both impractical and overly complex.
  • Legs - An incredibly dumb thing to put on a vehicle, the only reason you see these in biology is because biology can't make treads and wheels. Legs raise your center of gravity far more than necessary for the amount of locomotion they provide, making your mech a bigger target than necessary.
  • Feet - Another horrible idea that only works for biology because it's never figured out anything better. Horrible contact patch size, wear out quickly, poorly balanced.
Mechs give you one killer app, one that can easily be used in vehicles instead, and saddles you with four stupid and dangerous design compromises.
 
They add a bunch of points of failure to machinery intended to be rugged, which offends my design sensibilities. There's no way for them to match the claims you've made while reducing the points of failure, except to basically make other vehicles and tack extra limbs on to make it a mecha.
Err i was planning on mecha's being humanoids maybe other forms of bipeds as well.
Even the "large shovel" you mentioned a mecha using for construction would be an engineering project on its own to be something that can just be "picked up".
err i never mentioned a shovel it should be able to use it's arms pretty effectively.
Well, unless you meant something like giving it a backhoe for an arm, in which case we're better off just attaching the same thing to a better chassis - which is basically the general problem with all your examples. We can do the same thing better if we just drop the mecha aspect.
I haven't seen any working bulldozer/cranes/diggers.
Or a different vehicle designed for the purpose of construction.
vehicles.
Because mechas are 20% awesome and 80% impractical and useless. Consider all the moving parts in a mech:
  • Hands and arms - basically the only awesome parts of a mech, this is where all of the versatility comes from. We can duplicate all of this functionality by designing an articulating arm that can mount to a UHP.
  • Counter-rotating shoulders and hips - Again, why? The kinds of linkages you need to set up counter-rotating shoulders and hips are fairly straightforward and very useful for biological organisms, but for mechanical organisms it's both impractical and overly complex.
err you're operating on the assumption of servos and hydraulics.
Artificial muscle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Legs - An incredibly dumb thing to put on a vehicle, the only reason you see these in biology is because biology can't make treads and wheels.
actually flagella is a biological wheel.
Legs raise your center of gravity far more than necessary for the amount of locomotion they provide, making your mech a bigger target than necessary.
they also allow you to shift your centre of gravity on demand and play with inertia more.
  • Head and neck - Why? Why would you ever need a head or neck on a mech? They're important on biological organisms because complex sensory organs like eyes and ears need to be close to the CPU to aid in processing, but in a mech it's just one giant single point of failure.

head would probably have the sensor package but what makes you think that the CPU wouldn't be part of the cockpit?

  • Feet - Another horrible idea that only works for biology because it's never figured out anything better. Horrible contact patch size, wear out quickly, poorly balanced.
we could probably change the designs of feet to something better, current human feet haven't completely adapted for bipedal life IIRC.
 
Back
Top