jabrevno
First time out of the vault
Logo-free high resolution version can be found at Andree's DeviantArt.
Wasteland 2 Scorpitron 2.0 concept art
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
First time out of the vault
jabrevno said:
Saved and desktop-bound.
Well. Still. Wheels are the choice then. Not "legs". But as said. That is if one would use the rules of the real world. Not what ever they have in wasteland. I have the feeling we will still see even in the future for quite some time either designs with wheels or chains in use with military vehicles. What they will use in large numbers eventually soon are the airless honeycomb tiresNexuiz said:
If you really want to "argue" about the design then lets use a realistic scenario where either one or even two legs of the scorpitron are damage by enemy fire. suddenly you face a situation where the robot is not functional anymore since the rotation on the tail would require to rotate the whole body for a 360° rotation otherwise the tail would be in the way (cant shot to the back). The main gun what ever it is is also "fixed" in to the structure.
Now lets take a military vehicle with 6wheels and a turret as design and things are suddenly different. Even if 1 or 2 of the wheels are damaged many designs are still able to "drive" away. The turret can rotate 360° and thus shoot in all directions regardless if the wheels work or not. And it could carry the same amount of weapons in a much more compact and practical design. Again those designs have proven them self to be "good" in countless situations and most important "in battle".
And here I dont even mention all the electronics and hydraulics needed for a design with legs where it is much much easier to maintain a design with chains or wheels.
Again. Nothing speaks against legs in a world like Wasteland. But legs are at the moment not suited for use on any vehicle that is bigger then a "dog".
Does not mean they are not testing "leg" designs. But it is still a very very long route till they will come up with something that is practical. Particularly when talking about armored vehicles. Regardless if tanks or APCs
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3W8dm5JxFc[/youtube]
Nice art, very nice art.
Being a huge Metal Gear fan, I like omni/bi-ped tanks that look like lizards and bugs.
For a wheeled/tracked vehicle, you need something like a road to travel. Many a tree-stump has been the Achilles Heel to 4x4 Jeep Wranglers. Post apocalypse blown up concrete everywhere and overgrown forested areas need to be stepped over.
HippoGearSolid?
For a wheeled/tracked vehicle, you need something like a road to travel. Many a tree-stump has been the Achilles Heel to 4x4 Jeep Wranglers. Post apocalypse blown up concrete everywhere and overgrown forested areas need to be stepped over.
Crni Vuk said:
The problem here is that you *are* comparing apples (tanks) with oranges (walkers). Quite obviously, a walker isn't going to match a tank in terms of raw firepower, speed and carried protection. They aren't in the same category. A walker boasts superior maneuverability and can negotiate highly irregular, destroyed terrain (such as nuked cities) easier and faster than a tank. If anything, it's going to be intended for scouting and scouring, rather than open combat.
Then again, you're ignoring the entire scenario. Even in the original Wasteland, the Scorpitron wasn't deployed as a lone wolf, it was a part of a combined robotic force representing a mixture of conventional tracked/wheeled designs and walkers. So any walker would be deployed with ample support to compensate its shortcomings.
That and your argument "wouldn't they be doing it already?" is a classic strawman. If humanity went by that logic, we'd still be clubbing each other with bones because if it would be REALLY practical to make swords and firearms in the stone age, they'd do it.
The art is awesome.
As for the argument going on, legs have obvious advantages over wheels in an environment where roads are scarce or non-existent and debris is commonplace... such as a decaying post-apocalyptic urban area ala the concept art. Also, the scorpitron 2.0 can obviously articulate it's tail in such a way as to aim the tail-mounted gun probably in any direction. Just whatever is directly in front would have triple the firepower coming its way. And it's not a tank.
As for the argument going on, legs have obvious advantages over wheels in an environment where roads are scarce or non-existent and debris is commonplace... such as a decaying post-apocalyptic urban area ala the concept art. Also, the scorpitron 2.0 can obviously articulate it's tail in such a way as to aim the tail-mounted gun probably in any direction. Just whatever is directly in front would have triple the firepower coming its way. And it's not a tank.
a robotic-leg design is _only_ efficient if it actually is capable of behaving like actual organic living legs.
as a solely design feature it is very wasteful, and would be much better replaced with tracks or wheels - simply because we arent capable of fitting a huge machine with legs that behave in a truly organic way.
obviously, the most efficient mechanics would be exact copies of living animals. the best tank wouldnt even look like a scorpion, it would look like a flying velociraptor, but we simply arent capable of building that.
so within terms of reason, walking-legs on a huge machine is unrealistic, unless we establish that we have invented for ourselves the technology to exactly copy the efficiency of actual insect legs for this tons-of-tonnes huge machine (and thats where science fiction is perfectly capable of establishing just that). i still find it unrealistic - cus frankly - it is
as a solely design feature it is very wasteful, and would be much better replaced with tracks or wheels - simply because we arent capable of fitting a huge machine with legs that behave in a truly organic way.
obviously, the most efficient mechanics would be exact copies of living animals. the best tank wouldnt even look like a scorpion, it would look like a flying velociraptor, but we simply arent capable of building that.
so within terms of reason, walking-legs on a huge machine is unrealistic, unless we establish that we have invented for ourselves the technology to exactly copy the efficiency of actual insect legs for this tons-of-tonnes huge machine (and thats where science fiction is perfectly capable of establishing just that). i still find it unrealistic - cus frankly - it is
Stanislao Moulinsky
Vault Fossil
Well...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww[/youtube]
I never said wheels or chains don't have their "limits". But when you compare the ground pressure of a 70 ton main battle tank to legs then its easy to see why they prefer tracks over legs. You have a much higher distribution with tracks then with legs. It does not mean that you can suddenly do EVERYTHING with it.mobucks said:
No clue why you people argue so much in favour of such a design when the CURRENT designs used in the military have proven them self to be reliable under most combat situations. This is not only about mobility. Its the sum of all parts. Also tanks and APCs are not only limited to streets. Granted they need some surface suitable for the weight. But they have today quite some impressive quality when it comes to crossing terrains. You will reach a pont where neither legs nor wheels nor tracks can pass some area.
You understand what I am saying. Why do you still disagree then? This is what I mean when I say its "impractical" for "military" vehicles.Tagaziel said:
Why is it a straw men? Again. Those are ideas based on concept that have been in existence for almost 100 years since the first tanks crossed a battlefield. And the evolution had a long way here. Tracks have proven them self to be reliable for even the biggest of "structures".Tagaziel said:
Why is it so hard to accept that it is the more practical design? its not like I am saying legs are not a "useful" design in general. They are just not really useful today in any military vehicle because the existing designs have proven to be more useful from an engineering point of view when we think about what characteristics a VEHICLE needs on the battlefield. And that for the last 60 years. It IS logic to use that with the current needs in armored warfare. Because I am sure with our current technology it would be somehow possible to get a tank or APC (with wheels) on "legs". But the question is does it work on the battlefield "better" then conventional designs?
Maybe things will change at one point where the research in new technology is so far that designs like we see them in "Metal Gear" will be possible AND practical for military vehicles. But so far there is no sign for that. Simply because the situation on the battlefield has shown a different evolution.
If they could come up with armor that has the same protection today but only 1/10 of the weight, it might be practical. But then they would come up with new weapons to penetrate the armor and they would simply use 10 times more and you would be again using the same weight. This is what happened for the lats 100 years in armored warfare. The Tiger 2 was a heavy tank of the German Panzerarmy with a weight of approx. 79 tons armed with a 88mm high velocity anti tank gun. The Leopard 2 is a main battle tank in the range of 70 tons armed with a 120mm smoothbore high velocity gun firing sub caliber ammunition. As long the rules of protection, firepower and mobility still apply to a military vehicle then I don't see how "legs" will replace here the current designs.
Though it might be possible after all that we will see legs with lighter units one day. - But I would not classify the Scorpitron as "light" unit after all. Legs in Sci fiction and Art are many times used because they are so alien to the designs we know. Just as how moon landings have been used in the the stories of the early 30s. It might be possible one day. But we might still have to go a long way till then.
Stanislao Moulinsky said:
i am being 100% pragmatic.
as impressive as that robo-dog is, ive seen real dogs. and real dogs are a million times more nimble than that thing :I
so, for now, that robo-dog is _not_ very efficient.
compare a scenario, that robo-dog attacking me, and me having the oportunity to walk over, and kick it through the air
and a real german shepherd attacking me, and me screaming like a girl
if the robo-dog could behave like an actual german shepherd, then i will be truly impressed, and admit that it finally has actual battlefield potential.
But that robo dog is not made for attacking, but carrying your stuff over any terrain.
Vuk said:
It's not hard to accept. It's just completely irrelevant. The Scorpitron isn't designed for warfare, it's not a military vehicle.
It's designed to intimidate and to function well in the rough terrain of city ruins. For which legs are superior. And they look cool.
I know you're a tank geek, but this isn't a discussion about real-life applications of military technology. It's about what works in the Wasteland setting, and for the Scorpitron what works for its intended goal. Which isn't warfare, no more than Fallout's eyebots or Fallout 3's protectrons (which I still <3) are designed for warfare. Offensive capabilities? Yes. Warfare? Military use? No.
Compare it to the robodog above. That's where we're at now. Yet Fallout had robodogs that were essentially more effective versions of real-life dogs. It doesn't matter that there's no real-life equivalent or even a very practical function for them, it works in the settings.
hey I said several times that for wasteland the design is ok. Its just that one can not really see it as "practical" for a military vehicle if we use "realistic" rules. I was not talking about wasteland. But I tried to make the clear from the first moment I mentioned it. And yet ... some still want to explain how it would be practical in a "realistic" setting ... - wasteland is nothing I would call a realistic setting just like Fallout just saying. I am not watching Star Wars either and thinking "boy! Do lightsabers look unrealistic". But I would never start to argue with someone trying to convince them it would be "practical" outside of the setting.
Again. I love the design and I think it looks awesome. And I don't have a problem with it to be in wasteland. Who knows how it works there, what kind of special alloys and electronics it has, and as you say it correctly. It does not matter.
But it should be also not difficult to make a difference between "fiction" and "science" either
I mean some really interesting concepts talk about "force fields" for tanks, yes you read correctly "energy shields" which might be one day or not a reality. But its still in no way practical for now. And designs with legs are in a similar situation. Nice to think about the advantages. But not realistic for now. Who knows what will happen in the next 50 or 100 years. I am reading quite many journals which try to look at the near and not so distant future in armored warfare and while many concepts are really interesting which go from "energy rays" to "smart armor" most concepts are still centered around tracks and/or wheels.
[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AZe8jOuGpo[/youtube]
But yeah I will drop this topic. Even though It is an interesting discussion.
Again. I love the design and I think it looks awesome. And I don't have a problem with it to be in wasteland. Who knows how it works there, what kind of special alloys and electronics it has, and as you say it correctly. It does not matter.
But it should be also not difficult to make a difference between "fiction" and "science" either
I mean some really interesting concepts talk about "force fields" for tanks, yes you read correctly "energy shields" which might be one day or not a reality. But its still in no way practical for now. And designs with legs are in a similar situation. Nice to think about the advantages. But not realistic for now. Who knows what will happen in the next 50 or 100 years. I am reading quite many journals which try to look at the near and not so distant future in armored warfare and while many concepts are really interesting which go from "energy rays" to "smart armor" most concepts are still centered around tracks and/or wheels.
[Youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AZe8jOuGpo[/youtube]
But yeah I will drop this topic. Even though It is an interesting discussion.
*raises hands, looks down and to the side*
You Win!
You Win!
I think it would be practical for the Scorpitron to be tracked, and roll down the avenues shooting everything up, and then after people hide in the rubble and giggle and think it can't get to them, it releases a fuckton of Slicerdicers.
WorstUsernameEver
But best title ever!
On the other hand, opossumtrons and hippotrons are a must.
(And leatherjerktrons.)
(And leatherjerktrons.)
Funny, I was expecting something like CnC4 Nod Scorpion tank.
[spoiler:7409e6c122]
[/spoiler:7409e6c122]
But Andree really did a great job. I love it, and really hope that we'll see more of overgrown buildings, thriving plant life and some forest scenery in the game. Not many post-apocalyptic games with that.
Now, on a more nitpicky side, what's that symbol on Scorpitron's middle leg?
Nothing like that in the original game...
[spoiler:7409e6c122]
But Andree really did a great job. I love it, and really hope that we'll see more of overgrown buildings, thriving plant life and some forest scenery in the game. Not many post-apocalyptic games with that.
Now, on a more nitpicky side, what's that symbol on Scorpitron's middle leg?
Nothing like that in the original game...