|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-08-2015, 04:45 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Dec 2012
|
What are Issues of Transforming Robots or Robots that Combine into Bigger Mechs?
I know in general a Mech is a bad idea on many levels, cost, engineering, it's effectiveness versus other more conventional war vehicles. I also know that making a robot like a transformer that turns from a car to a robot, or something like a megazord where a bunch of Vehicles turn into one giant robot are also even more unrealistic ideas. But I don't know why in specific it is a really bad idea, the transformer and the make a bunch of vehicles turn into giant robots I mean.
Is it completely impossible for even like a realistic higher tl level beyond our own (not super-science) or is it just too much of a engineering nightmare for anyone to even seriously consider (and fund) such a thing? More or less just setting brainstorming in case I ever do get to set up a mech campaign. Last edited by Disliker of the mary sue; 11-08-2015 at 06:05 PM. |
11-08-2015, 06:39 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: What areIssues of Transforming Robots or Robots that Combine into Bigger Mechs?
The fundamental problem with a transforming robot is that a lack of specialization is going to have inherent costs. You see this with their real life counterparts. Whether you regard an "amphibious tank" as a tank that can go in the water or a submarine that can go on land, the result is always something that is inferior in effectiveness to real tanks and submarines. When you look at those cars that you can turn into flying machines, they are bad cars that turn into bad small planes. The transforming robot is going to have to spend internal space on machinery that does nothing for it except let it transform and it's going to have to be designed in such a way that nothing sticks out where it will get in the way of the rearrangement of components. That means it's not designed to be the best robot it can be with the available technology. It'll be expensive, delicate and ineffective.
As for combining robots, there's a similar problem. If you have five robots that fit together to make Quinbot, then you've got a problem with Quinbot's functioning in that you're going to have to power it with five separate power plants. This is a sub-optimal approach. It won't be any harder to damage than any of its components but it will be an easier target. |
11-08-2015, 10:43 PM | #3 | |||
Join Date: Feb 2007
|
Re: What are Issues of Transforming Robots or Robots that Combine into Bigger Mechs?
Quote:
But it's very hard to imagine a situation where that vehicle would be shaped like a humanoid, or much like an animal. It wouldn't look like a mechanical living creature, it would look like a vehicle with legs, if you see what I mean. You could call that a mecha, but it's not what is usually meant by that word. Quote:
Let's take a fictional example: the Shogun Warrior Combatra. Combatra in humanoid mode is a human-shaped mecha several stories tall. It is made up of five subvehicles that can merge back into a giant humanoid robotic mecha. Besides the issues of physics involved (the square-cube law applies to machines as well as living things), there are various practical considerations. Quote:
Same deal with combining Transformers like, say, Devastator. If something damages one of the five robots that make up the combination, it's hard for Devastator to come together at all. To go back to Combatra...why would you want to combine the vehicles at all, other than Coolness? If the pilot can control the other vehicles/components by remote control from the head module, (IIRC in the comic AI was involved as well), there's no obvious reason to bring the swarm together at all, they're much more effective in their own specialized roles, working as a team. It might make sense to link them together for transport...but the humanoid shape makes no sense then, it's aerodynamically lousy and forces weird design constraints on the individual components. You might want to link them together when not in battle to reduce data load and simply controlling the whole thing...but again, the humanoid shape is pure nonsense for that. Now, just as legs on a vehicle can make sense in certain situations, combining vehicles can be plausible for certain uses, too. But they won't be like combining mecha. For ex, I could imagine an aircraft, at a high tech level, designed to be combined with a booster stage able to get it into orbit or enable it to reenter safely, but which could be left off for ordinary use. The control system for both elements could be in the aircraft, the cockpit of the aircraft would also control the booster section. That would be a 'combining vehicle', but not like Voltron. Likewise, something a little like the Fantasticar, with its detachable side-pods, might be buildable and might even have some use. But note the lack of a humanoid shape. The same general deal applies to 'transforming' vehicles. There might be some situations where a transformable vehicle could be useful. But it would be heavier than an ordinary vehicle, and the engineering necessities of building a machine able to work in multiple shapes or multiple environments would make the vehicle heavier and more expensive than one specialized for a given use. What would such a vehicle be used for? Well, if you're mass-limited, it might be better to carry one transforming vehicle than an airplane, a car, and a submarine, assuming you could build the transforming machine. A spaceship going might carry one transforming shuttle rather three separate specialty vehicles, to save on total weight. The transforming vehicle would be heavier than any one specialized vehicle but lighter than three of them. Or if you don't know where you might need to go, the versatility might be worth the performance penalty. But for a given tech level the specialized vehicle is likely to outperform the transforming machine in its environment. The airplane will outperform the T-machine in the air, the car on the ground, and the submarine in the water. If you want a transforming vehicle that outperforms a specialized one in a given environment, you need to assume that the T-machine is several tech levels more advanced than the specialized one. But the transformer also has a weakness in common with the combiner. Let's say my T-machine is underwater in sub mode, and takes some minor bit of damage, that just happens to be in a component that has to move around or change shape to change over to air mode. All of a sudden my expensive and heavy air mode systems are dead weight. Plus, the extra complexity of all these systems and their tranformations adds to cost and weight and things that can go wrong. And it still pretty much never makes sense for one of the transformation modes to be human-shaped. So legged machines are a valid design choice for certain situations, and combining machines, and transforming machines, can make sense under certain circumstances, but have downsides. Humanoid transforming and combining mecha make no sense for any purpose other than Coolness, and like most Cool things, they make no sense when looked at coldly. |
|||
11-09-2015, 04:06 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: near London, UK
|
Re: What areIssues of Transforming Robots or Robots that Combine into Bigger Mechs?
Some examples of combining vehicles in the real world: FICON project, Tip Tow, Tom-Tom. It didn't go well. Docking aircraft turns out to be really hard.
There's been some progress recently on modular electric vehicles, a chassis with batteries and drivetrain combined with a variety of body shells with different configurations of seats, driving positions, and so on, but in those cases neither part can be used independently.
__________________
Podcast: Improvised Radio Theatre - With Dice Gaming stuff here: Tekeli-li! Blog; Webcomic Laager and Limehouse Buy things by me on Warehouse 23 |
11-09-2015, 11:18 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Re: What areIssues of Transforming Robots or Robots that Combine into Bigger Mechs?
There's also issues like the requirement for massive engineering redundancy in any single transforming vehicle as mechanical loads change between forms. This goes up by another exponent if you then assemble the vehicle into a load bearing part of something else.
Also, the most important part of most vehicles is the pilot - if you assemble five vehicles into one, you've got four guys sat their like drunken monkeys whilst the fifth does all the work. |
11-09-2015, 05:04 PM | #6 | |
Join Date: Dec 2012
|
Re: What are Issues of Transforming Robots or Robots that Combine into Bigger Mechs?
Quote:
Hm interesting, The only justification for human like giant robots I found I liked is that in systems like in pacfic rim where you control the robot with your body/mind, that it easier for the human mind to grasp the idea to walk like a human rather then having to learn an entirely different method of walking. But brain controlled machinery seems to be a thing that won't be a thing before at least tl 9 to above if it even a thing that is possible. |
|
11-09-2015, 06:45 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: What are Issues of Transforming Robots or Robots that Combine into Bigger Mechs?
Quote:
__________________
Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more. |
|
11-09-2015, 11:24 PM | #8 | ||
Join Date: Feb 2007
|
Re: What areIssues of Transforming Robots or Robots that Combine into Bigger Mechs?
Quote:
As I noted, using that set of assumptions, I could imagine that the pilot might link the vehicles up physically when not in battle or just in transit from point A to point B, just to simplify operating the whole thing. But why does the assembly need to be humanoid? Quote:
But here's another subtle point about giant mecha that is often overlooked. The 'human shape controlled by a human brain' idea is often used as a justification, but physics says no. It's the square-cube law again, that same old rule that messes the giant ants from the 50s SF movies. Any object, when you increase its size by a factor of 'x', but keep the shape the same, increases its area by a factor of x squared, but it's volume by a factor of x cubed. If you have a cubical box 1 foot on a side, its surface area is 6 square feet and its volume is 1 cubic foot. If we double it to 2 feet on a side, now its surface area is 24 square feet, and its volume is eight cubic feet. If we go to 3 feet on a side, now the surface area is 54 square feet and the volume is 27 cubic feet. At 4 feet on a side, the area is 96 square feet and the volume is up to 64 cubic feet. See how the ratio changes? We go from 6-1, to 24-8, to 54-27, to 96-64. At 5 on a side, now the ratio is 150-125, a 6 on a side it's 216-216, at 7 it's 294-343... What that means is that mass is going to rise way faster than linear size. A humanoid shape twice as tall masses 8 times as much, so it needs a power source 8 times as large to get the same basic performance. But its ratio of surface-area to volume is only a fraction of that difference, so it has a harder time getting rid of excess heat.* Structural strength rises as the square of the area of a supporting member, but mass rises as the cube, so a leg twice as big as a normal man's is only 4 times stronger, but supports a mass 8 times as great. A leg 3 times the size of a normal human leg is 9 times as strong (for a given material) but now has to support 27 times the weight. What all this means is that a human-shaped mecha 30 feet high, or 50 feet high, won't move like a human, even if it's shaped like one. A human brain trying to apply human-scale motive instincts to a machine 50 feet tall will get...weird...results, at best, because it's as if he suddenly weighs 578 times as much but is only 40 times as strong. Leverage will be different, response time will be different, too. My arm is a tad over 2 feet long. If I swing it in a round circle, my fingertip describes a circle roughly 14 feet in circumference. Let's say I take 1 second to do that, which is easily done. That means my fingertip is moving at about 14 feet per second or roughly 10 miles/hour. Now let's say I'm piloting a 50 foot humanoid mecha and execute that same maneuver. My mecha-arm is now almost 18 feet long, it describes a circle not quite 56 feet in circumference. So in that 1-second circle, my mecha-fingertip is moving at 38 miles/hour instead of ten. So the kinetic energy is out of scale with my human form, the reaction time is off, the leverage is different because my 'body' is relatively massive compared to my strength, etc. A human would have to relearn every motion to operate a 50 foot mecha. Nothing would come easily or naturally, even if the shape was exactly proportional. *Remember that excess heat from the power plant? The bigger the human-shaped mecha, the worse that issue becomes, because that energy has to be radiated from the surface of the mecha, but every time the size doubles, the area increases by 4 and the volume (and heat) by 8, so the surface temperature to get rid of that heat has rise and rise and rise... Last edited by Johnny1A.2; 11-09-2015 at 11:31 PM. |
||
11-16-2015, 09:08 AM | #9 |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: What are Issues of Transforming Robots or Robots that Combine into Bigger Mechs?
The short version: each form of a transforming vehicle is going to have different requirements, so it's always going to have to be burdened with equipment that is useless in its current form.
Sometimes you hear the argument that higher technology will relieve this problem. The same argument against mechs (versus tanks) applies: Nearly anything that improves the inferior design could be applied instead to the already superior one. If A>B, A+N>B+N.
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
11-16-2015, 12:24 PM | #10 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: What areIssues of Transforming Robots or Robots that Combine into Bigger Mechs?
Quote:
However, the human shape controlled by a human brain model still doesn't work, because the speeds are wrong. A human at a brisk walk takes about 0.5s per step, and each step is a bit under a yard. A 60' giant would take about 1.6s per step and each step would be ten yards. Reflexes that are suited to 0.5s steps aren't really very good for 1.6s steps. |
|
Tags |
mechs, megazord, transformers |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|