How far could rail tech be taken?

[Brain_Dawgs]

I've noticed how people have been making robot hands and mechs using rail tech. I was wondering if such creations could be refined to create something like a semi-functional Gundam or a Machine Caliber?

Do you think this could be done, or is this something for the distant future?

 

[godmars]

Comr4de already made a notZaku here: http://starmadedock.net/content/ams-02-ezekiel.2694/
I made one myself but it's not quite of that caliber. It's tough but doable

 

[CyberTao]

Could it be done? Yes. Yes it could.
Could it be done well? I'm leaning more towards a 'No', simply because the angles we have to work with are less than perfect for mechs. I mean, it's doable, but being able to move in 15 degrees or even 22.5 degrees would add a whole new level of depth to it.

Other than that, you just need to be creative enough.

 

[Snk]

Also, planets are just too small for any sort of large mechs. Also, friction doesn't really exist, so land vehicles are basically impossible.

 

[CyberTao]

Also, planets are just too small for any sort of large mechs. Also, friction doesn't really exist, so land vehicles are basically impossible.

Mech battles are not limited to planets anyways. Spess mechs exist as well, and they have legs for reasons I never quite understood!

 

[Snk]

Mech battles are not limited to planets anyways. Spess mechs exist as well, and they have legs for reasons I never quite understood!

Stomping on people's dreams is my only talent. Space mechs are weird and unpractical and not fuel efficient!

 

[CyberTao]

not fuel efficient

Well it's a darn good thing we don't have fuel! /Kek

 

[Comr4de]

Damnit, now i want to make chamber. Look what you've done to me OP! I was going to make Tharsis after I finished the dom but it looks like that's going to have to wait

 

[Keptick]

Just look at CyberTao's mech, I'd say that it's pretty damn functional. Optimal? No, it'll still get clubbed by ships of similar mass, but it could still do some damage to smaller stuff (or other mechs).

And it's got the intimidation factor through the roof anyways :P

 

[Gamel]

Comr4de ,keptick please, please ask schine for 15 degree turning, default still 90, but one activation block is 15 degree

 

[CyberTao]

Comr4de ,keptick please, please ask schine for 15 degree turning, default still 90, but one activation block is 15 degree

That is actually a bad idea. Aside from breaking everyone's rotors, you'd need so many of them to get a 180 swing if each one was 15 it wouldn't even be funny. I'll all for finer controls, but most people would not need it and doing it like that would make it space intensive on smaller entities (Like an elbow).

 

[Megacrafter127]

Comr4de ,keptick please, please ask schine for 15 degree turning, default still 90, but one activation block is 15 degree

Why not have it like the rail-speed controller? Default is 90°, and with activators connected it is 180°*(activeActivators/totalActivators)

 

[Draeke_Forther]

Why not have it like the rail-speed controller? Default is 90°, and with activators connected it is 180°*(activeActivators/totalActivators)

What, so have it be that manually activated rotator rails only function for a set time, that way the rail speed determines how far they go?

 

[Megacrafter127]

What, so have it be that manually activated rotator rails only function for a set time, that way the rail speed determines how far they go?

No. The angle should be 180°*(activeActivators/totalActivators). Speed should not decide the angle.

 

[iceman6491]

No. The angle should be 180°*(activeActivators/totalActivators). Speed should not decide the angle.

although would it not make sense to make it 360°? then you could have obtuse angles as well. If i understand you correctly, the ratio can never exceed 1 so the max rotation in your equation tops out at 180°

 

[Megacrafter127]

If i understand you correctly, the ratio can never exceed 1 so the max rotation in your equation tops out at 180°

correct

 

[iceman6491]

Megacrafter127 Would you not want obtuse angles then?

 

[Megacrafter127]

Megacrafter127 Would you not want obtuse angles then?

No, but they can be made using 2 turns of an angle below 180°

 

[Trekkerjoe]

In response to OP: I have taken rail tech very far into the walker side, even to the point that they move under their own power. So I would say it would be certainly possible, but I would wait for some optimizations. For one thing, friction is not really a thing, so planetary battles don't work, so you have to fake friction by using plexdoors, at the expense of versatility. I have made full blown mech warriors, with a rail turret for the upper body, but a bug with turrets causes to snap back into the starting point while my turret-less prototypes can move around fine. I will probably cover the latter in it's own thread.

Still, rail tech is very well thought out, and if you set your mind to it, you could conceivably build giant robots, and just about any other thing you can think of.

In response to the current conversation: That is a cool concept. Hopefully something like this is implemented. Then our X-wings will look less derpy, and our robots will be more precise. As for obtuse angles... couldn't you just move the rotor twice?

 

[iceman6491]

Sure you could rotate the rotor twice, but I think the aesthetic value would be lost. Imagine Bench's Imperial Shuttle wings with a stutter in the middle... unless pulsing the rotate 'command' in quick succession provides one continues movement to the final angle? I've never pulsed the rotate 'command' quickly to test it tbh