Thread 64214440

How practical would mechs be in real life? Is there a reason vehicles dont use bipedal locomtion instead of wheeled or tracked?

>>64214440 (OP)
not very
more mechanically complex for no real benefit over wheeled/tracked vehicles
we have these threads every week and the answer is always the same

>is coffee good for you
>lust provoking image

>>64214440 (OP)
>Last mech thread finally 404s after 300+ posts of calling op a fucking retard
>New thread posted, probably the same op pretending like the last never happened
>These threads continue until op stops getting called a retard
>These threads are eternal

>>64214457
OP gets off to being called a retard

>>64214440 (OP)
Not this guy with the same fucking thread again. The other one barely left the catalogue.

>>64214477
Dealing with them would require moderation staff that actually do their job.

>Make power armor using the same tech
>Let your side carry larger javelins
>Hide inside buildings and be dispersed
>Counter mechs and mechanized warfare

>>64214440 (OP)
These things are about as useful as you're ever going to get when it comes to functionality in mechs, and even then only for terrain where wheeled and tracked vehicles just can't do it, and aerial vehicles are unideal. So mountain recon, swamplands, etc.

>>64214522
>aerial vehicles are unideal
forgot to add that what I meant by this is where a helicopter flying around isn't ideal because you want to be unheard and unseen

>>64214522
Those would do very poorly in swamp

>>64214440 (OP)
>Is there a reason vehicles dont use bipedal locomtion instead of wheeled or tracked?
Yes, but it's so obvious that I don't feel the need to point it out.
If you are not able to see it on your own you're a legit 89IQ double nigger.

>>64214440 (OP)
OP, your threads are genuinely worse than zigger spam, because ziggers at least shit the board up intentionally and know what they're doing. You genuinely believe the retarded shit you post and probably won't ever get tired of it. I hate you and I hope you die of explosive diarrhea you stupid nigger

>>64214535
>Those would do very poorly in swamp

That is why they also have flying motorcycles, which do very well in swamps.

>>64214522
The mechanics in the legs would bet fucked up by swamps or mountains.

>>64214457
sounds like op is btfoing all of /k/

>>64214440 (OP)
Because real life is lame and gay. I know that's not the answer you want, but it's the only one we have to give. It is the final red pill you must take.

>>64214929
Nope, just being persistently retarded

I feel like Sisyphus right now

>>64214929
>everyone is making fun of me for my retarded opinions
>heh, they must be wrong
why do all midwits that think themselves ahead of the curve when they aren't think like this?

>>64214452
it's not all that mechanically complex, it's just inherently unstable and doesn't have the same load bearing capacity as a normal vehicle suspension
>>64214440 (OP)
historically, bipedal motion wasn't possible because it requires active control. currently, there is no use case where having a bipedal platform would be worth the additional cost and massively reduced payload mass

having a biped basically necessitates that the thing be electric, which also poses a limit on how big you can make it.

I don't think the traditional argument about muh increased height matters that much nowadays, with perfect battlefield coverage by drones 24/7 making low profiles meaningless.

>>64214848
>the mechanics in the legs
stfu retard you have no clue what you're talking about

>>64215592
>it's not all that mechanically complex
It's necessarily mechanically more complex than a treaded design, and therefore more fragile. There just is not a use case that justifies its existence versus current design philosophy

>>64214821
Why would they use walkers at all then?

>>64215617
Because they’re scary

>>64215746
But they're not scary

>>64215609
>It's necessarily mechanically more complex than a treaded design
Depends on what you mean by "mechanically complex". A leg requires three rotary actuators, which can be electric motors, hydraulic or whatever. They can be in any number of kinematic configurations. But fundamentally there's nothing very complicated about it. Just a motor with a stick on it, repeated in series or parallel 3 times.

Meanwhile a threaded suspension involves a sprocket, with a powertrain, as well as a number of bogies and the track itself. In terms of pure mechanical complexity, it's more a question of size rather than the inherent design.

The real drawback of a leg is that for any given size you need a much beefier, more expensive motor to handle the loads than with the thread suspension.

>>64214440 (OP)
it needs too much energy to be viable. there's a lot more you have to mechanically simulate and actuate in a leg than in a wheel or a tread. all those moving parts need maintenance and power, and that all adds weight you could have used for armor, guns, or anything else. building a modern mech would be 50% battery by weight, a M1 Abrams tank's engine is maybe 2-3% of the tank's total weight. if you look at the way an electric car is laid out you can see why there's a problem we can't fix currently before we can even get into the military practicality. you basically need to get to cold fusion or near-perfect RTG's before you can even think about this shit.

>>64215774
>A leg requires three rotary actuators
A leg that simple is useless. think about how many degrees of freedom human or animal legs have. The hip can move in two angular directions and it can rotate. The knee can bend and rotate slightly. The ankle can bend in all sorts of ways. The foot by itself is more complex than the entire rest of the leg. Nevermind all the various sensors that are necessary to make the whole thing work.

>>64214440 (OP)
Same thread, same response
"Anything that would make a mech practical would make a tank better" or something like that

>>64214440 (OP)
Not at all viable.
Unless their mobility is that of an infantry(actual full working legs with proper weight distribution) or that of a treaded vehicle.
Tires are ok, and work for some lightweight robots currently in R&D, but you're talking about full battle mechs I assume.

>>64215827
You don't need a human-like leg on a robot that's slogging through mud, dumbass. It's not doing karate it's walking. Robot dog legs have 3dof legs with a ball at the end, they work just fine.

You can add a 3dof foot plate on the end if you're feeling fancy and figure a ball would sink in the mud. But it's not strictly required.

>>64216070
It doesn't have to do Karate, but it needs far more than three degrees of freedom.

>Robot dog legs have 3dof legs with a ball at the end, they work just fine.
Robot dogs aren't bipedal.

>>64215774
Right, but when we're discussing legs, we are not discussing the most primitive, least complex configuration of something that satisfies the definition of the word. We're talking about a vehicle that would be used to navigate obstacles and accomplish complex maneuvers. That necessarily requires a range of motion to at the very least compete with a tracked design, if not to function effectively at all. This is also a vehicle that has to be heavy and armored. It's not going to be a motor with just a stick on it.

>>64216070
>>64215827
and before you go on a rant about
>muh biological legs
fuck off, they're massively overengineered.

evolution does not have access to rotary actuators or ball bearings, so it has to make do with delicate rube goldberg tensegrity structures that are always just barely not ripping themselves apart under their own tensile actuation, using delicate biological materials. you don't need any of that shit when you can work metal into any shape you want.

I remember installing a gungriffon mech mod for operation flashpoint as a kid and getting destroyed by tanks because I was a huge target and you can't dodge tank shells.

>>64216079
>Robot dogs aren't bipedal.
Robot dogs are bipedal if you program them to be. Fuck off, underage retard, you don't have any clue what you're talking about. I'm tired of speaking to faggots who never even took a calc 101 class let alone finished their basic bitch mech E undergrad degree that everyone on this website should have in order to post.

>>64216082
>we are not discussing the most primitive, least complex configuration of something that satisfies the definition of the word
Who's "we" you mouth breathing retard? A leg is whatever does the job of a leg. The job of an engineer is to make the thing no more complicated than it absolutely has to be, and a leg is 3dof at best 6dof at worst. Everything else is a software problem.

>>64216087
>they're massively overengineered.
Agreed. But there's an awful lot of middle ground between the three actuators that retard-kun thinks is sufficient and the massive number of bones, joints, and muscles in a biological one.

>evolution does not have access to rotary actuators or ball bearings
Yes, but we do. Which means we can make more efficient mechanisms than legs.

>>64216093
>Robot dogs are bipedal if you program them to be.
Yeah bro, a balancing toy dog is exactly what OP meant by "mechs".

>I'm tired of speaking to faggots who never even took a calc 101
And I'm tired of talking to faggots who have never tried to build anything more complex than a lego set.

>let alone finished their basic bitch mech E undergrad degree that everyone on this website should have in order to post.
I suspect I completed my Mech E degree before you were born.

>notices my comment was deleted
wtf? test...

Mechbros i'm too based for jannies
>>64215030
>>64215050
op is forcing himself onto you dorks and despite your kicking and screaming he persists. In what world is op not winning

>>64216093
these two have very different legs designs. a human hip and a dog hip are very different as well. no amount of programming is going to let the leg built for one move for the other.

>>64216101
>Who's "we" you mouth breathing retard?
Everybody living in reality.

>A leg is whatever does the job of a leg.
The job of a leg in combat is not the same as the job of a leg walking down the street. You are completely fucking delusional if you think the range of motion required by a leg walking through rocky terrain is at all similar to walking on a flat plane. Stop masturbating about your credentials if you're going to continue acting like a complete buffoon.

>>64214440 (OP)
For the ten-thousandth time, we are not getting mechs until we have better batteries/power plants.
Everything else is doable right now.

And they won't be 50 feet tall. They'll be tank-sized at most.

>>64216231
this just makes me think of blacklight retribution. the hardsuits in that game actually seem fairly reasonable looking back. slightly larger than infantry, primarily a heavy support thing, but with weird weaknesses, like being able to use a flamethrower to cook the pilot inside of the suit.

feel like a mech could be pretty cool in a more complex urban warfare situation, having hands and being able to swap out equipment as simply as picking up a different tool sounds potentially handy

but for actual direct armored combat idk if anything can beat being a low-profile super dense brick with a giant gun on it

>>64214457
These threads have been a constant nuisance since I started posting here in 2009. There's literally an entire mecha board on this indonesian rice washing forum

>>64214440 (OP)
Mech sissies get killed

Bipedal locomotion works because tendons and shit make it efficient.
The best we can conjure up today is a bunch of servos and pistons, so it's trash.

Once technology reaches the point of hybrid synthetic organic/mechanical systems or pure synthetic organic systems I am convinced they will be common.

>answer this thinly veiled fetish thread question, which has been asked and answered hundreds of times on /k/, and can even be answered by AIs and Google.
Tactical implication?

>>64216419
This is just an argument against walker mechs because they're way worse at melee with BA than designs with hands.

In fact most flaws attributed to mechs mostly apply to walkers. They kind of suck and I don't know why they've become the image of hardcore gritty realism.

>>64216389
/m/ is just 90% people posting about women from mech anime's, there's hardly any actual discussion about mechs.
This board will keep getting the same mech threads until the first somewhat practical construction mech is built in like 30 years.

>>64217266
Fair, I'd fuck the shit out of Noriko from Gunbuster.

>>64217276
Yup thats a truth nuke

>>64214440 (OP)
Watch the Star Wars scene where the ewoks fuck up all those mechs.

>>64214440 (OP)
>mecha thread 2,703,852
kill yourself

>>64214535
>>64214848
What I mostly mean is the concept of a mech like the AT-RT makes far more sense than something like battletech and 100% more sense than something like gundam. Basically a robot horse you can ride for difficult terrain solely for recon missions, and that's even IF you send a guy on it riding it. If the robo horse is already going out that way, may as well make it a remote controlled recon mech.

>>64218434
> Basically a robot horse you can ride for difficult terrain solely for recon missions
ATVs and dirt bikes exist.

>+1 to bump limit
+1 to bump limit

>>64214440 (OP)
Bipedalism is very inefficient. You use energy just to stand still. Humans evolved bipedalism to free up our front limbs and to increase our line of sight. Machines have no need for that. The square cube law applies to giant mechs. 2 legged mechs will sink into the ground. At best, a mech should be 4-8 legged if at all. Tracks are just feet merged into one long strip.

>>64214440 (OP)
Well, time will tell...

>>64214440 (OP)
A Battlemech has the pilot experiencing upwards of 80 g’s. There is absolutely no way you’re making one work out.

>>64218434
Lmao, just have them walk there. Just make them walk, lol. Like walk on their legs, without mechs or anything. Lol, they can just walk.
t. Senior command

>>64219618
The question isn't about whether it's possible. Of course it's possible, no one is denying that.

>>64217143
He's some autist who reflexively posts game mod that doesn't accurately reflect how PA functions in the setting.

>>64214440 (OP)
gotta invent those sick fucking artificial muscles first.

>>64223239
See >>64220691

obligatory mech thread post

>>64216231
>For the ten-thousandth time, we are not getting mechs until we have better batteries/power plants and some how break the laws of physics.
ftfy

>>64219453
>2 legged mechs will sink into the ground
>>64220691
>A Battlemech has the pilot experiencing upwards of 80 g’s
>>64223533
>some how break the laws of physics
People will see a 6 meter robot walking and think that instead every joint should instantly explode, the pilot should bleed out from all his holes, and the whole thing would crumple like it was at the bottom of the mariana trench and sink straight to the center of the earth.

You can just say it's not a very effective form for combat, you don't need to act like archimedes himself would have a stroke if he saw big robot walking.

>>64214440 (OP)
We haven't really tried giving it an organic brain though, some machines are starting to use human brain cells effectively.