There is a widespread complain about most mecha technical data (like weights, power outputs and the like) that it doesn't give a clear idea about what an imaginary war machine can do.
In your opinion what is the best way to convey a mecha power through statistics? And wich parameters should it include?
Convincing mecha technical data
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
Dealing a lot with fictional statistics and trivia for Macross, I can say a few words about what I like and don't like.
Consistency is one of the most important aspects of worthwhile mecha statistics. In the case of Macross, Masahiro Chiba has been involved in building the technical trivia for all the Macross stories since the original show was made back in 1982. As a result, all the mecha have a remarkable level of consistency from one generation to the next over the 30 years of Macross production. Learn from that example.
Use as many real world scientific units to describe your mecha and minimize fluff writing. Every work of science fiction will need SOME fluff writing and magic to be workable fiction, but beyond those minimum requirements, try to present everything using real science and real mathematics, using real units for weight, distance, dimensions, and energy. Most important of all, ensure these units remain consistent across all mecha; if you use metric, keep using metric. If you use meters, keep using meters. Don't change systems of measurement halfway through.
Avoid the tenedency to build mecha that are overpowered to the extreme. Just because you are now the writer of your fiction, doesn't mean you should create city/world/universe destroying mecha becuase you want the biggest and baddest mecha for YOUR story. Unless city/world/universe destroying mecha fits the world you're creating (like Five Star Stories). At least for me, the most interesting mecha were relatively low-tech, near-future mecha. This has the added benefit of allowing fans to compare your mecha against real world military machines to understand how far advanced they are.
Not every successive mecha needs to have a linear progression as far as size, weight, power, etc. Yes, consistency is important, but remember successive mecha can be designed with new technology or new roles that can change the figures around a bit. To use Macross as an example, the original VF-1 Valkyrie was the main line variable fighter, weighing about 14 metric tons. However, when the later generations came along, technology reduced weight to the point where most main line variable fighters weighed 8-9 metric tons; from that point on, the 12-14 ton mecha were considered "heavy" mecha.
Once you introduce a statistic, ALWAYS include that statistic in other mecha profiles. Nothing enrages me more than to read about mecha with all these great statistics for power generations, weapon caliber or speed rating only for those statistics to be absent in successive mecha profiles. If you introduce a mecha with a reactor generating 10 MW of power, make damned sure every other mecha you create has a reactor power rating, whether it's similar, less powerful or more powerful. If you decide to include weapon calibers, make damned sure every weapon for every successive mecha you design has a weapon caliber.
Consistency is one of the most important aspects of worthwhile mecha statistics. In the case of Macross, Masahiro Chiba has been involved in building the technical trivia for all the Macross stories since the original show was made back in 1982. As a result, all the mecha have a remarkable level of consistency from one generation to the next over the 30 years of Macross production. Learn from that example.
Use as many real world scientific units to describe your mecha and minimize fluff writing. Every work of science fiction will need SOME fluff writing and magic to be workable fiction, but beyond those minimum requirements, try to present everything using real science and real mathematics, using real units for weight, distance, dimensions, and energy. Most important of all, ensure these units remain consistent across all mecha; if you use metric, keep using metric. If you use meters, keep using meters. Don't change systems of measurement halfway through.
Avoid the tenedency to build mecha that are overpowered to the extreme. Just because you are now the writer of your fiction, doesn't mean you should create city/world/universe destroying mecha becuase you want the biggest and baddest mecha for YOUR story. Unless city/world/universe destroying mecha fits the world you're creating (like Five Star Stories). At least for me, the most interesting mecha were relatively low-tech, near-future mecha. This has the added benefit of allowing fans to compare your mecha against real world military machines to understand how far advanced they are.
Not every successive mecha needs to have a linear progression as far as size, weight, power, etc. Yes, consistency is important, but remember successive mecha can be designed with new technology or new roles that can change the figures around a bit. To use Macross as an example, the original VF-1 Valkyrie was the main line variable fighter, weighing about 14 metric tons. However, when the later generations came along, technology reduced weight to the point where most main line variable fighters weighed 8-9 metric tons; from that point on, the 12-14 ton mecha were considered "heavy" mecha.
Once you introduce a statistic, ALWAYS include that statistic in other mecha profiles. Nothing enrages me more than to read about mecha with all these great statistics for power generations, weapon caliber or speed rating only for those statistics to be absent in successive mecha profiles. If you introduce a mecha with a reactor generating 10 MW of power, make damned sure every other mecha you create has a reactor power rating, whether it's similar, less powerful or more powerful. If you decide to include weapon calibers, make damned sure every weapon for every successive mecha you design has a weapon caliber.
-
MythSearcher
- Posts: 1846
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
Look into real life military data, you don't even have enough on those.
So you can never have enough data to get all people happy.
If you really want to have the basis, thrust-to-weight/mass ratio(or give thrust&mass&fuel/propellant mass&thrust time/fuel efficiency, etc. More preferred if you can give engine thrust with starting, max, min and most efficient), actual generator output, energy stored, energy output of beam weapons(not power output like Gundam ones), energy in different forms given by a chemical/nuclear round, armour ratings(in mmRHA and at least a given resistivity to energy weapons in terms of energy vs time, in all directions), turning gs(better if you have max, starting and avg), actual magazine quantity, weapon CEP, weapon effective range(required)&max range(preferred) in ideal conditions, weapon firing rate, weapon projectile speed, weapon projectile mass, weapon projectile acceleration in barrel, ammo types of weapon, weapon system targeting speed, target lock quantity(say, 26 in F-14, 100 in F-22, 128 in Aapache and can filter out 16 prioritised targets, etc.), targeting distance, radar/sensor ranges(active&passive), RCS(radar cross section), heat signal size(detailed in all directions), you get the idea why most people writing stories don't bother.
So you can never have enough data to get all people happy.
If you really want to have the basis, thrust-to-weight/mass ratio(or give thrust&mass&fuel/propellant mass&thrust time/fuel efficiency, etc. More preferred if you can give engine thrust with starting, max, min and most efficient), actual generator output, energy stored, energy output of beam weapons(not power output like Gundam ones), energy in different forms given by a chemical/nuclear round, armour ratings(in mmRHA and at least a given resistivity to energy weapons in terms of energy vs time, in all directions), turning gs(better if you have max, starting and avg), actual magazine quantity, weapon CEP, weapon effective range(required)&max range(preferred) in ideal conditions, weapon firing rate, weapon projectile speed, weapon projectile mass, weapon projectile acceleration in barrel, ammo types of weapon, weapon system targeting speed, target lock quantity(say, 26 in F-14, 100 in F-22, 128 in Aapache and can filter out 16 prioritised targets, etc.), targeting distance, radar/sensor ranges(active&passive), RCS(radar cross section), heat signal size(detailed in all directions), you get the idea why most people writing stories don't bother.
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
I don't think the problem is that the categories of data are poor - most of them are based on real-world vehicle specs. (I loved it when Gundam specs included mass ratios, sigh.) It's more that people have nitpicks with the actual numbers, whether because they're off by orders of magnitude from anything plausible, or because they're not internally consistent, as MrMarch notes.
-- Mark
-- Mark
-
Massignifico
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:51 pm
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
It's true that people nitpick with numbers but it's not like the official specs are that clarifying so I tought there must be alternative ways.
Maybe to convey a mech power one could use an extendend set of parameters plus a set of points (like the Ability points in G or Performance ability levels in Wing)?
One could justify that saying that is simulator data and so could be applied even to unbuilt machines (like Delta Gundam).
One last question: what could be a good way to convey a barrier's strenght?
Maybe to convey a mech power one could use an extendend set of parameters plus a set of points (like the Ability points in G or Performance ability levels in Wing)?
One could justify that saying that is simulator data and so could be applied even to unbuilt machines (like Delta Gundam).
One last question: what could be a good way to convey a barrier's strenght?
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
One thing I always wonder about is, why do they like to use weight over mass in Gundam?
I know that they pretty much mean the same thing when you assume the weight to be under 1G Gravity. It just seems strange for a series that takes place a lot in space and occasionally other planets to use the term weight over mass since the latter would always be constant regardless of the location. In a sense, mass is really what the term is going for anyways (not to mention that the units are in metric tons rather than newtons).
I can sort of understand it a little in Gundam 00 since the GNMS weight stats actually take into account the weight reduction effect of GN Particles (when compared to non GN suits, so you can get seemingly impressive stats like the Virtue being lighter than the Flag) but most series usually don't have weight nullification effect technology like 00 does.
I know that they pretty much mean the same thing when you assume the weight to be under 1G Gravity. It just seems strange for a series that takes place a lot in space and occasionally other planets to use the term weight over mass since the latter would always be constant regardless of the location. In a sense, mass is really what the term is going for anyways (not to mention that the units are in metric tons rather than newtons).
I can sort of understand it a little in Gundam 00 since the GNMS weight stats actually take into account the weight reduction effect of GN Particles (when compared to non GN suits, so you can get seemingly impressive stats like the Virtue being lighter than the Flag) but most series usually don't have weight nullification effect technology like 00 does.
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
Although the specs are labeled as "weight", probably they should be considered "mass" because I'm pretty sure they're measuring in metric tons (1000 kg), which are a unit of mass.
Conversely, mecha thrust specs are often listed in kilograms, which isn't really the right unit for measuring force. (A figure of "50,000 kg" is really "50,000 kg x 1G", i.e. about 490,000 newtons.) Dragonar is one of the few cases I can think of where they actually listed thruster outputs in pounds, which is a more appropriate unit.
-- Mark
Conversely, mecha thrust specs are often listed in kilograms, which isn't really the right unit for measuring force. (A figure of "50,000 kg" is really "50,000 kg x 1G", i.e. about 490,000 newtons.) Dragonar is one of the few cases I can think of where they actually listed thruster outputs in pounds, which is a more appropriate unit.
-- Mark
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
I agree mass is more appropriate and that I too believe that despite the "weight" moniker, the Gundam stats ARE mass because the SI units are all metric (which is correct for Japan).
However, the proper metric measurement for thrust is newtons per kilogram. I'm not sure why there was such an obsession among writers to use kilograms to rate thrust in the early 1980s anime like Gundam and Macross statistics. In the case of Gundam, the more correct metric unit to describe thrust would be kilonewtons since the figures tend to be rather large. Using kilonewtons also has the advantage such that you could compare mobile suit thrust ratings to real vehicles like the space shuttle and fighter jet aircraft. Here's a quick and dirty conversion from the Gundam statistics:
RX- 78NT-1 G-4 Gundam Alex
35,000 kg x 2
8,000 kg x 6
7,000 kg x 2
132,000 total thrust x 0.00981 (gravity) = 1,294.92 kN
However, the proper metric measurement for thrust is newtons per kilogram. I'm not sure why there was such an obsession among writers to use kilograms to rate thrust in the early 1980s anime like Gundam and Macross statistics. In the case of Gundam, the more correct metric unit to describe thrust would be kilonewtons since the figures tend to be rather large. Using kilonewtons also has the advantage such that you could compare mobile suit thrust ratings to real vehicles like the space shuttle and fighter jet aircraft. Here's a quick and dirty conversion from the Gundam statistics:
RX- 78NT-1 G-4 Gundam Alex
35,000 kg x 2
8,000 kg x 6
7,000 kg x 2
132,000 total thrust x 0.00981 (gravity) = 1,294.92 kN
-
MythSearcher
- Posts: 1846
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
One simple reason that they used kg in thrust is because most people without any scientific knowledge will understand kg but not N.
A 1,000 kg thrust can lift 1 ton(to an unknown height, doesn't matter, it's layman terms, they don't know what they are talking about, not really about accuracy or even correctness but understandability without further exploration in the subject) is what most layman can still comprehend.
Another thing about the specs being inconsistent or implausible, is because most people do not understand why an increase from 10,000kN to 12,000kN is such an improvement to cry over, but an increase from 100kN to 180kN or 200kN is significantly obvious. After a few generation of blindly increasing numbers, you get implausibly large numbers for thrust, implausibly small numbers for weight/mass, etc.
For Force Shields, depends on which type of field you want.
If you don't know anything about physics,(which most of your readers/viewers don't) give actual numbers in what it can block, like "can block a direct hit from a 155mm cannon/beam rifle for X number of hits". Anything more powerful can have a reduced effect.
If you want to have more technobabble, spreading a regular beam to say, double its diameter, in the given thickness of field; deflecting a regular beam for, say, 45 degrees; absorb a certain amount of energy, say, 15TJ, etc.
After all, we don't really have theories in Force Shields, and real life force field calculations is way above what regular people can understand.
Giving you an idea of a real life laser blocking plasma shield numbers: a 5T(tesla) EM field can basically deflect incoming laser.
http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/pres ... or-shields
A 1,000 kg thrust can lift 1 ton(to an unknown height, doesn't matter, it's layman terms, they don't know what they are talking about, not really about accuracy or even correctness but understandability without further exploration in the subject) is what most layman can still comprehend.
Another thing about the specs being inconsistent or implausible, is because most people do not understand why an increase from 10,000kN to 12,000kN is such an improvement to cry over, but an increase from 100kN to 180kN or 200kN is significantly obvious. After a few generation of blindly increasing numbers, you get implausibly large numbers for thrust, implausibly small numbers for weight/mass, etc.
For Force Shields, depends on which type of field you want.
If you don't know anything about physics,(which most of your readers/viewers don't) give actual numbers in what it can block, like "can block a direct hit from a 155mm cannon/beam rifle for X number of hits". Anything more powerful can have a reduced effect.
If you want to have more technobabble, spreading a regular beam to say, double its diameter, in the given thickness of field; deflecting a regular beam for, say, 45 degrees; absorb a certain amount of energy, say, 15TJ, etc.
After all, we don't really have theories in Force Shields, and real life force field calculations is way above what regular people can understand.
Giving you an idea of a real life laser blocking plasma shield numbers: a 5T(tesla) EM field can basically deflect incoming laser.
http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/pres ... or-shields
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
I think the assumption is that, when they say "1 kg of thrust," it means "enough thrust to accelerate 1 kg at one gee" - in other words, 9.8 newtons. According to Wikipedia, this "fake unit" is also known as kilogram-force.
-- Mark
-- Mark
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
I think it's possible the unit was adopted for purposes of style. Especially since the unit was used in Germany, given that Japanese anime creators love a broad diversity of influences from German, British, American and other such cultures and history. I can't say for Gundam, but on the Macross side there is a tendency by the creators to adopt all kinds of influences and styles from German, Russian, British and American military aviation.
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
People nitpicking made-up numbers of a work of fiction. That's the part that makes me wonder about people.Massignifico wrote:It's true that people nitpick with numbers but it's not like the official specs are that clarifying so I tought there must be alternative ways.
"I dislike death indeed, but there is that which I dislike more than death, and therefore there are occasions when I will not avoid danger."
-
Massignifico
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:51 pm
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
Well I could say that is stranger that there are people who nitpick about people who nitpick about made-up numbers of a work of fiction.
We are in a forum about mecha, it would be strange without nitpicking on mecha, wouldn't it?
We are in a forum about mecha, it would be strange without nitpicking on mecha, wouldn't it?
-
MythSearcher
- Posts: 1846
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
azrael wrote:People nitpicking made-up numbers of a work of fiction. That's the part that makes me wonder about people.
People nitpick about male mosquitoes don't suck blood in a story with talking mosquitoes in business suits, while not nitpicking on them wearing suits and talking. Cheers.
Making up numbers is not really a problem, people nitpick about them when those are supposed to be realistic but failed to attain what they want to achieve.
Usually people don't nitpick on the 1 Million horse power output of atom boy or 1 million horse power of Mazinger Z, since those are not really intended to be realistic, but just large numbers to show their impressiveness.
(Unless you are that guy who failed to obtain a Physics degree and made up numbers and unscientifical methods and even ignore settings just to write Kūsō Kagaku Dokuhon and put it as dramatically as possible, admitting putting drama before science and accuracy, while still claiming to be really scientific)
However, if you put up more or less realistic numbers for the sake of making your show look more realistic, people will nitpick on it.
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
Oh come on, this complaining about scrutinizing tech trivia in the tech section on an anime message board for mecha shows just lacks for self-awareness and is a flippant disregard for fans that actually enjoy reading the official trivia. It's funny there's never any debate about the 18.5 meter height of the RX-78-2 Gundam, but once thrust performance or power ratings come into the discussion, suddenly every stat hater is crying like a crusader; "DEATH TO ALL OFFICIAL STATISTICS!!!"
Let's be fair and accept no one is advocating a religious debate on "technical trivia scripture" or criticizing the animated episdoes for failing to "follow the official stats". The written trivia is there for fun, for fans to enjoy comparisons of their favorite mecha and more importantly, to immerse one's self in the detailed world building that anime is known for. Let's lay off the stat hate and accept the trivia for what it is; a flawed but useful mecha guide presented with real SI units that make the mobile suits feel like...REAL ROBOTS.
Let's be fair and accept no one is advocating a religious debate on "technical trivia scripture" or criticizing the animated episdoes for failing to "follow the official stats". The written trivia is there for fun, for fans to enjoy comparisons of their favorite mecha and more importantly, to immerse one's self in the detailed world building that anime is known for. Let's lay off the stat hate and accept the trivia for what it is; a flawed but useful mecha guide presented with real SI units that make the mobile suits feel like...REAL ROBOTS.
Last edited by MrMarch on Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
But... but the Gundam is 18.0 meters tall! Don't shake my world view!
-- Mark
-- Mark
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
I don't really see much stat hating in this thread. It's mostly been pretty good discussion from what I can tell.
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
Well, they tried to be realistic about minovsky particles being a catalyst in helium-3 fusion. So I don't see why they shouldn't try to be realistic about statistics across the board. And what is the issue with the RX-78-2's 18.5 meter height?
-
MythSearcher
- Posts: 1846
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm
Re: Convincing mecha technical data
It is because the spec numbers are not written in the age of enlightenment, but in the dark ages of super robots, and they build up on those numbers.Hitiro wrote:Well, they tried to be realistic about minovsky particles being a catalyst in helium-3 fusion. So I don't see why they shouldn't try to be realistic about statistics across the board. And what is the issue with the RX-78-2's 18.5 meter height?
I must say that it is pretty hard to make up numbers that are realistic without proper training in certain(and multiple) engineering fields, but it is much easier to read an article or two in nuclear fusion and make up a theory that sounds realistic with the addition of a fictional catalyst.
The key words here are probably "add" & "fictional".
It is quite easy to replace muon in the muon catalyzed fusion with a fictional particle that have a much longer life span without writing out the detail physics of the fictional particle itself(especially when the particle is said to have been revolutionizing the Physics world and likely carrier of a 5th fundamental force, Tau force.)
Yet it is very hard to do calculations of what height, mass, thrust, etc. is realistic in space if you do not have a complete NASA or JAXA engineering team. We have no actual experience in building any manned space combat vehicles. Especially any experience in spacecraft design and development is relatively primitive in the 70's(And likely top secret), although I must admit that the 65000HP output in RX-78 in an early source(with the latest corresponding 12000HP of the core fighter seen in the MG manual of RX-78-2 1.0 version) is much more realistic than the 1380kW we have nowadays.(Which is way too low for the Thermonuclear rocket)
What they did with the current(1380kW series of numbers, which is the official spec used now) is fairly obvious, they took numbers from WWII machines, likely planes, for the generators of MSs. Since the power increase during and after the war is also quite fast, they don't see a problem in modifying the number greatly.
The weight/mass number they simply used a 1000X of human(humanoid with 10 times the height will have 1000 times the volume, given similar density, you have 1000 times weight). And they did not have the expertise in knowing that the weight should not decrease by that much since they did not even think of adding density for metal machines.
They did not spend a whole lot of time in making up the numbers and even the theories, most of what sounded realistic are likely being supplemented by fans and slowly adopted into official materials.(well, most of the writings in Gundam Century are done in pretty much the free time of the writers for a magazine)
When they eventually decided to write lengthy stuff for the settings, they usually hire writers instead of engineers or scientists(usually, with maybe the exception of the PG model manuals of RX-78, MS-06 and MSZ-006, those graphs and words can almost fool engineering professors at first glance, starting from WZC, they toned down the graphs by an order of magnitude, the graphs in Mk-II and GP01 represents more made up statistical values than technical calculations, and can be done by anyone with enough time and not much background in the field.)
The 18.5 and 18.0 height of RX-78 is likely a joke, don't take it too seriously.(referring to the overall height and the head height difference)