project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: UGV weaponry  (Read 27762 times)

Offline Winter

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
    • Street of Eyes: The Writing of Ryan A. Span
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2010, 03:00:40 pm »
We got only 1 UGV model right now, right? Any images of it?

We have two armed UGVs, the Ares and the (flying) Phoenix. I don't know if any screenshots are still up but they should be in SVN somewhere.

Regards,
Winter

Offline MCR

  • PHALANX veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 1244
    • View Profile
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2010, 03:32:05 pm »
You can even ground those two in Skirmish current trunk version.

There are even some additional UGVs in trunk (see base/models/soldiers) like ugv_heli (missing anim, just .obj & texture) or ugv_robot.

Also it seems that there are several versions of the Ares, which just seem to lack definitions in team_humans.ufo.

Here some screens of the mentioned UGVs Ares & Phoenix:

Offline Winter

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
    • Street of Eyes: The Writing of Ryan A. Span
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2010, 03:38:55 pm »
There are even some additional UGVs in trunk (see base/models/soldiers) like ugv_heli (missing anim, just .obj & texture) or ugv_robot.

They're the 1x1 unarmed reconnaissance UGVs. We don't need guns for them.


Quote
Also it seems that there are several versions of the Ares, which just seem to lack definitions in team_humans.ufo.

We have a wheeled version, a tracked version and (I think) a hover version, but they all have the same turret mount.

Regards,
Winter

Offline Flying Steel

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2010, 07:54:21 pm »
They're the 1x1 unarmed reconnaissance UGVs. We don't need guns for them.

The near future will bring in a big way roughly man-sized armed UGVs that can follow soldiers wherever they go, be it through cramped urban environments, or terrain impassible to larger machines.

TALON SWORDS, MAARS and 'BigDog' are strong examples of this direction.

Similar such UGVs could make a good compliment to and fill a role between the backpack recon and 'tankette' UGVs. I could model a couple 1x1 combat UGVs for UFOAI if you'd like. ;)

Quote
We have a wheeled version, a tracked version and (I think) a hover version, but they all have the same turret mount.

It looks like you only have a wheeled and hover version, the ares and phoenix, respectively. At least that's all that seems to be in your svn data sources directory, unless I missed it.

If the the phoenix was a UCAV, it would need to have its turret on the bottom, like a gunship, to engage targets on the ground, rather than on the top like a hovercraft.

Offline Winter

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
    • Street of Eyes: The Writing of Ryan A. Span
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2010, 11:07:51 pm »
The near future will bring in a big way roughly man-sized armed UGVs that can follow soldiers wherever they go, be it through cramped urban environments, or terrain impassible to larger machines.

TALON SWORDS, MAARS and 'BigDog' are strong examples of this direction.

Similar such UGVs could make a good compliment to and fill a role between the backpack recon and 'tankette' UGVs. I could model a couple 1x1 combat UGVs for UFOAI if you'd like. ;)

Honestly, that sort of thing might (emphasis might) be realistic for future combat, but I can't see it being appropriate for UFO:AI. It would detract from gameplay by either reducing the importance of human soldiers or cluttering up the battlescape with 8-10 of the little bastards. It won't get my vote.


Quote
It looks like you only have a wheeled and hover version, the ares and phoenix, respectively. At least that's all that seems to be in your svn data sources directory, unless I missed it.

I don't know what's in SVN, but I know for a fact that Sitters modelled  wheeled, tracked and hover versions of the Ares specifically. If I'd meant the Phoenix I would've said so.  :P


Quote
If the the phoenix was a UCAV, it would need to have its turret on the bottom, like a gunship, to engage targets on the ground, rather than on the top like a hovercraft.

Yes, that is how the Phoenix was planned.

Regards,
Winter

Offline Flying Steel

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2010, 01:44:01 am »
Honestly, that sort of thing might (emphasis might) be realistic for future combat, but I can't see it being appropriate for UFO:AI. It would detract from gameplay by either reducing the importance of human soldiers or cluttering up the battlescape with 8-10 of the little bastards. It won't get my vote.

Well the smaller size just means they could fit through doorways, not that you should be able to spam them. Like any UGV, there's only so many that you should be allowed to fit in the UGV pods on the dropship.

As for competing with soldiers, that seems like an issue already on the table, since the Ares and Phoenix (and later, more advanced versions) already compete with snipers and support infantry that fight in the open. Smaller armed UGVs would simply compete with (or complement, depending on balance) CQC focused soldiers. So it seems like the differences between human and machine combatants would have to lie elsewhere of a size difference.

This would just buy you the ability to have something more expendable to spearhead CQ raids on buildings and UFOs, plus something to do with your UGV pod space if your current mission is in a cramped, urban situation.

Quote
I don't know what's in SVN, but I know for a fact that Sitters modelled  wheeled, tracked and hover versions of the Ares specifically. If I'd meant the Phoenix I would've said so.  :P

Yes, that is how the Phoenix was planned.

Do you folks have a wishlist of all the UGV's you'd eventually like to have, plus any descriptions of them?

For example I heard at some point that you had plans for advanced UGVs, partially based on alien technology, for the mid to late game.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2010, 01:47:42 am by Flying Steel »

Offline Winter

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
    • Street of Eyes: The Writing of Ryan A. Span
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2010, 02:37:56 am »
Well the smaller size just means they could fit through doorways, not that you should be able to spam them. Like any UGV, there's only so many that you should be allowed to fit in the UGV pods on the dropship.

As for competing with soldiers, that seems like an issue already on the table, since the Ares and Phoenix (and later, more advanced versions) already compete with snipers and support infantry that fight in the open.

Not so. You'll never be able to bring more than a handful of big UGVs to the battlefield due to dropship size restrictions.


Quote
Do you folks have a wishlist of all the UGV's you'd eventually like to have, plus any descriptions of them?

For example I heard at some point that you had plans for advanced UGVs, partially based on alien technology, for the mid to late game.

No wishlist at the moment. We have plans for one more UGV, based on alien tech as you said, but that's pretty much it. I can't imagine we'd want more UGVs than that.

Regards,
Winter

Offline Flying Steel

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2010, 07:08:01 am »
Not so. You'll never be able to bring more than a handful of big UGVs to the battlefield due to dropship size restrictions.

But the same restriction would apply to smaller UGVs, if for no other reason than because they aren't that much smaller really. Just enough to get through a doorway. If the firebird dropship will be able to carry 2 ares and/or phoenix max, then it'd be able to carry 4 or even just 2 of these max. The choice for the player here isn't meant to be between more powerful and more numerous, but between more powerful and more mobile.

The way things are currently balanced, that's where you need it anyway. Lasers, the missile launcher, health packs (rebalanced or no) and even bolter and sniper rifles give phalanx the edge on open maps and standoff fighting, versus what the aliens have. The aliens are stronger in close quarters, so that's where you'd often prefer having the help.

And then you have maps where 2x2 combatants won't be that useful, but you can't put soldiers in your UGV pods, so you're otherwise forced to use space slots on things you won't really be using on those missions.

Quote
No wishlist at the moment. We have plans for one more UGV, based on alien tech as you said, but that's pretty much it. I can't imagine we'd want more UGVs than that.

So will you be using all 3 versions of the Ares then? And do you have any design details on the Phoenix and this alien tech model?

Offline TrashMan

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
    • View Profile
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2010, 01:05:53 pm »
Someone correct me here, but heh description of the UVG chaingun specificly mentions it's NOT multi-barreled.
 ???
I'll make several different UVG weapons, just to be sure. A granade laucnher, regular gun, laser gun, and whatever else I can think of.

Offline Winter

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
    • Street of Eyes: The Writing of Ryan A. Span
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2010, 02:25:07 pm »
Someone correct me here, but heh description of the UVG chaingun specificly mentions it's NOT multi-barreled.
 ???
I'll make several different UVG weapons, just to be sure. A granade laucnher, regular gun, laser gun, and whatever else I can think of.

I've just checked my files, and it does no such thing, especially since it was written for the multi-barreled autocannon Sitters made with the Ares.

Regards,
Winter

Offline Voller

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #25 on: July 04, 2010, 02:41:05 pm »
@Trash Man: I've actually already started doing some work on the laser weapon myself. Still work in progress and going slowly because the weather is awesome at the moment. But if you could concentrate on the other weapons first, then we're not doing any double work.

Offline TrashMan

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
    • View Profile
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2010, 11:39:32 am »
Quote
The Autocannon Module is our first-level UGV weapon. Simple, effective, and designed to minimise the collateral damage usually associated with multi-barreled guns, it fires standard 12mm MMG (Medium Machine Gun) rounds from an internal feed that links up to the UGV's own magazine cavity. It is capable of holding up to 6000 bullets. These rounds come in AP (Armour-Piercing) and FP (Frangible Penetrator) mods to satisfy the needs of particular missions.

At its full rate of fire the autocannon module can empty its magazine in twenty seconds.


These two lines caught my attention. For multiple reasons.

1. muti-barreled machine guns are actually MORE accurate than single barreled ones. I admit, I mis-read it initially.

2. 6000 bullets in 20 seconds implies a rate of fire of 18000 bullets per minutes. That is simply way too excessive. While gattling guns are capable of great speeds (the highest known RoF is 12000), it's just too wasteful, so the usual rate of fire is 3000-4000 rpm's. More is simply not needed, especially in support role.

Offline Winter

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
    • Street of Eyes: The Writing of Ryan A. Span
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2010, 01:19:31 pm »
These two lines caught my attention. For multiple reasons.

1. muti-barreled machine guns are actually MORE accurate than single barreled ones. I admit, I mis-read it initially.

Source? I can't imagine a computer-operated rotary gun on the same mount to be more accurate than a single-barrel one, since you have either recoil and torque working against accuracy or just recoil. And you'll have to show me figures that aren't set by human gunners.


Quote
2. 6000 bullets in 20 seconds implies a rate of fire of 18000 bullets per minutes. That is simply way too excessive. While gattling guns are capable of great speeds (the highest known RoF is 12000), it's just too wasteful, so the usual rate of fire is 3000-4000 rpm's. More is simply not needed, especially in support role.

Which is why it's rarely run at the full rate of fire, as mentioned in the article.

Regards,
Winter

Offline TrashMan

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
    • View Profile
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2010, 03:15:11 pm »
Source? I can't imagine a computer-operated rotary gun on the same mount to be more accurate than a single-barrel one, since you have either recoil and torque working against accuracy or just recoil. And you'll have to show me figures that aren't set by human gunners.

When you go above 2000 rpms, with rotating barrels, you get increased stability and accuracy. There's even a test video on you tube comparing the m240 to the m134. The m134 turns out to be roughly 9 times more accurate!
Strange, but true....

Aha..found it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiry7ysVA9Y&feature=related

Quote
Which is why it's rarely run at the full rate of fire, as mentioned in the article.

What I mean to say is that they aren't even produced to go higher than needed. They are "capped" at 3000-4000 (with 6000 for a few) even if they actually rarely fired at full speed.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 03:25:14 pm by TrashMan »

Offline Winter

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
    • Street of Eyes: The Writing of Ryan A. Span
Re: UGV weaponry
« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2010, 08:16:38 pm »
When you go above 2000 rpms, with rotating barrels, you get increased stability and accuracy. There's even a test video on you tube comparing the m240 to the m134. The m134 turns out to be roughly 9 times more accurate!
Strange, but true....

Aha..found it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiry7ysVA9Y&feature=related

What I mean to say is that they aren't even produced to go higher than needed. They are "capped" at 3000-4000 (with 6000 for a few) even if they actually rarely fired at full speed.

Hrm. I can't watch the video, since the connection I'm on now can barely handle streaming radio. However, even if it is correct -- still not convinced at the moment -- we have to consider that changing a source article requires translation in every other language. I really don't think this is remotely significant enough to warrant that procedure just for some background figures.

Regards,
Winter