gametechmods
Robot Arena => Discussion => Topic started by: Clickbeetle on November 05, 2008, 07:33:50 PM
-
In this first installment of Mythbusters: RA2 Edition, we're testing the myth that a bigger chassis has more HP than a small chassis.
At first I thought this myth was true because of the stock AI. They all have a huge chassis, and they're surprisingly durable. Even the best popup is incapable of one-hit KOing Big Dog.
But then I found out that the stock AI are actually more durable because they all have double strength armor (even DS steel and titanium). Apparently, in an early version of the game all the armor was twice as strong. But when the developers cut the armor durability in half, they forgot to adjust the stock AI accordingly. (Incidentally, this is also why DS aluminum exists in the present game. The developers also forgot to edit the default chassis armor.) That evidence makes it look like Myth: Busted.
Now recently Naryar boldly claimed the myth is true, so I decided to find once and for all the truth.
In order to test this myth, I made a modified Omni AI routine that will do exactly 10 damage to itself at the beginning of the match. Then, it uses the getHealth command to find out the percentage of its HP remaining after the 10 damage, and from that, calculate total HP.
For anyone interested, you can download this AI >here.< (http://beetlebros.gametechmods.com/files/Omnihptest.zip)
You can just open Bindings.py and replace "Omni" with "Omnihptest" and then play RA2 to find out how much HP the bot has.
Now, on to the myth. I started testing with the smallest possible chassis with DS Aluminum armor.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/29178myth1.jpg)
So this chassis has 60 HP. To put things in perspective, extenders have 100 HP and most weapons have 1000. So 60 is like, nothing.
Now let's test the biggest possible chassis, with the same armor, and see if it has more than 60 HP.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/68720myth2.jpg)
0.0 4259 HP? That's no random variation. Looks like the bigger chassis actually has a lot more HP than the small one!
Of course, you're never going to use either of those test chassises on a serious bot, so let's see how much HP is on a more realistic design.
First, Tempus Fugit, a LW with as tight a chassis as you can get.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/1371myth3.jpg)
204 HP. Pretty crappy, actually. Good thing TF has that plow in front, because 204 HP will last only slightly longer than Frosty the Snowman on the Sun.
Next I checked Leprosy, a generic HW HS with a slightly larger chassis.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/76951myth4.jpg)
518 HP is better, but it's still not going to hold up long. That's about as much HP as a razor tip.
For a middling-sized chassis, I tested Hunter-Killer Tank.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/16969myth5.jpg)
1350 HP is actually pretty decent for stock RA2. It's more than any component, at least.
Finally, I tested the biggest chassis you're likely to use in a serious bot: Osiris and Epic.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/97372myth6.jpg)
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/27788myth7.jpg)
Now that's pretty good. You still don't want to leave your chassis overly exposed, but the difference is great enough that you might want to consider making room for your drive motors inside the chassis instead of stacking them on burst motors.
I think we can safely call this myth: CONFIRMED.
This also brings up another relevant myth, though: Is DS Aluminum REALLY stronger than steel? Chassis HP could either be calculated by surface area or by weight. If it's by weight, then steel will automatically be more durable than any type of aluminum.
This myth was easy to test. I just gave my first two test bots steel armor, and re-checked their HP.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/93716myth8.jpg)
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/56753myth9.jpg)
Remember, with DS Aluminum, the small chassis had 60 HP, and the big one had 4259 HP. So it looks like this myth, too, is CONFIRMED.
Got any more RA2 myths that need testing? Post them here!
-
What about burst enhancing wedges? Do the different burst motors/servos work better than the other ones?
-
This is great! If I think of any myths I will post them.
-
Nice work, CB. Now we know...
-
I've got one:
Can you break a robot in the test area?
-
easily.
-
Yes, and the game crashes if you do.
-
I destroyed Psyco Sweeper in the test arena once.
-
Which wedges are better? Burst, Hinge or stationary?
-
Weren't you the guy that asked for DIVERSITY?
It isn't just the type of wedge that is important. Wedge efficiency takes four things into account, only one being the type of wedge.
I've copied HazCon's wedges several times, but the copies are all inferior to the original.
-
Yeah, but I suck with wedges, and I know all have similer results, but I want to know what makes a good wedge.
-
Would a servo be a good motor for a robot like Stinger, or can you use a normal motor?
-
Yeah, but I suck with wedges, and I know all have similer results, but I want to know what makes a good wedge.
PROTIP:
You have plenty of wedges in the BBEANS4 AI pack.
-
Another tip: Most of the bots crash my game.
-
What? Maybe you didn't install it right. Works fine for me...
-
You possibly forgot to install Mad's smartzones.
-
IMO wedge effiency is based on many factors. Speed, angle of wedges, and weight distribution.
-
Time for another "episode". This time, I'm investigating what makes a good wedge. There are a lot of myths about wedges, and I'm pretty sure I didn't test all of them, but this should be useful information in any case.
First up: The myth that Emergency wedges are somehow worse than small wedges. To test this, I made two identical bots, except one has small wedges and the other has Emergency wedges. Since Emergency wedges are bigger and heavier than small wedges, though, I put the Emergency wedges on 20 cm extenders while the small wedges are on 60 cm extenders. This makes the Emergency wedges about the same length and exactly the same weight as the small wedges.
Here are the bots:
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/66014myth22.jpg)
To test which has the better wedge, I put them both in the Small Arena (to minimize the distance that one bot could drift off course) and drove them straight forward so they collided head-on, and recorded which bot got under first.
The small wedge got under the Emergency wedge for the first trial.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/41310myth21.jpg)
I'll spare you screenshots of the other trials, since they all look the same.
After 20 trials, the results are: The small wedge got under 16/20 times or 80%, while the Emergency wedge got under 4/20 times or 20%.
I think it's safe to say that this myth is CONFIRMED. Small wedges are better than Emergency wedges.
Next up: Weight distribution. The myth is that if your bot's weight is distributed more to the front, close to the wedges, you'll have better wedges. I tested this the same way as with the Emergency wedges. I used the same bots, but one has 80 kgs worth of ballast in the front, while the other has 80 kgs of ballast in the back.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/49107myth23.jpg)
The results: After 40 trials, the front-weighted bot got under 24/40 times or 60%. The rear-weighted bot got under 16/40 times or 40%.
I did more trials because I noticed that the bot in player slot 1 seemed to have an advantage for some reason (this didn't affect the Emergency wedge test because I alternated which spots the bots started in). While 60-40 isn't a really significant difference, I'm inclined to call this one CONFIRMED because of the way the bots behaved in different spots. When the front-weighted bot was in player slot 1, it got under the other bot 80% of the time, and there were almost no draws (where the bots bounce apart and neither gets under the other). But when the rear-weighted bot was in player slot 1, it only got under 40% of the time, and at least half of the matches I did ended in a draw, probably more. If I used a greater ballast, I predict the difference would be more pronounced.
So, long story short: Frontal weight distribution makes a better wedge=CONFIRMED.
The next myth I tested was ground clearance. A lot of people will swear by the rubber wheels, saying they're superior to shiny hubs because they give you lower ground clearance. Same testing method here: one bot with shiny hubs, the other with rubber wheels. I added a 10 kg ballast in the shiny hub bot to make up for the extra weight of the rubber wheels.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/28744myth24.jpg)
The rubber wheel bot got under 22/40 times, or 55%. The shiny hub bot got under 18/40 times, or 45%.
I'm inclined to call this one PLAUSIBLE. There might be a slight advantage to wedges with lower ground clearance. I don't think it's enough to justify the extra 5 kgs of the rubber wheels, though. If you have 10 leftover kgs and nothing to do with it, you might try rubber wheels, but I wouldn't sacrifice anything for a maybe 10% advantage.
Going back to the Emergency wedge myth, let's suppose you have some extra weight. Are Emergency wedges any good if you just replace small wedges, using the same extenders?
I used the same small wedge test bot as the first myth, and changed the other bot to this:
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/7676myth25.jpg)
The results: Emergency wedges are still inferior. The small wedge got under 14/20 times or 70%, while the Emergency wedge got under 6/20 times or 30%.
Last myth. Looking at the results for the Emergency wedge, I thought: "Hmm... if the small wedge is narrower than the Emergency wedge and it's better, then is an even narrower wedge better than the small wedge?" I used spike strip wedges to test this.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/13621myth26.jpg)
The results were overwhelming. The small wedge got under the spike strips 20/20 times or 100%. So, this myth is BUSTED. The reason for the small wedge's effectiveness shall remain a mystery...
To summarize: Factors that make a good wedge include using small wedges rather than some other component, distributing your weight close to the wedges, and possibly having low ground clearance.
This means that using heavier burst motors (DDT's instead of Snapper II's) will also improve your wedges, as more weight will be distributed over the wedges.
-
do the test with different burst motors.
but really cool.
-
Wow.... That is cool.
-
I have an Idea!!!
If using the weird mesh of the skirt hinge as a wedge is better than using a normal wedge. (My Gumba LW uses it)
-
Hey, try them upside down. I think an upside down EMERGANCY wedge gets under a normal one more than a normal EMERGANCY wedge.
-
Personally, I used plus.getHitpoints(ID,0) to figure out the difference of hitpoints between two differently sized bots but your way worked too.
Cool thread BTW
-
Awesome idea :D.
Does anyone else think Adam and Jamie call too many myths "plausible" when they should be confirmed? It only really makes sense why they would with a few myths, like legends and stuff...
-
Confirmed seems to mean it did happen, and plausible means it could have happened, but there is no proof it actually did.
-
Cool.
<3 this thread!
-
This is by far the coolest thread ever made... you took my favorite game in the world and my favorite show in the world and turned it into RA2 Mythubusting madness!
-
Today we have a few myths suggested to me by Trovaner.
The first one is the myth that your bot is destroyed when the chassis reaches 0 HP. Trovaner thinks that this is not true, that the chassis has a certain fracture value and can go below 0 HP if the fracture damage is not exceeded. I happened to agree with him, but nothing wrong with finding out exactly what that fracture value is and proving it, right?
I had all the necessary tools for this left over from the chassis HP myth, so it wasn't much work to set up. I just used my chassis HP Test bots, and used the F9 Python window to do fixed amounts of damage to them. I started with 50 damage, and kept applying it until the chassis reached 0 HP.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/90110myth31.jpg)
Even though 50 damage meets or exceeds the chassis fracture point and ended up destroying the bot, the chassis clearly went well below 0 HP, confirming that there is a fracture point and that 0 HP does not mean death.
So, this myth is CONFIRMED.
But we're not done yet--now I wanted to know just what that magical fracture value is. So I re-did the test, this time applying only 40 damage.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/24015myth32.jpg)
No matter how many times I hit Enter, the control board didn't spark. So the fracture is somewhere between 40 and 50.
After a few random trials and errors, I discovered it was 41.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/16803myth33.jpg)
As long as your chassis gets hit for 40 or less damage, you won't die. But if it's 41, you're in trouble.
So what about different bots? Since I already proved that a bigger chassis has more HP, might it have a higher fracture as well? I did the same test on a big chassis to find out.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/53388myth34.jpg)
41 damage is still enough to damage the control board, even with the maximum size chassis. So while size affects HP, it doesn't affect fracture.
The last test I did was with a steel-armored chassis. If size doesn't affect fracture, armor still might.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/51593myth35.jpg)
Nope. 40 damage still doesn't touch the control board, as shown in the picture, and 41 damage was still enough to kill the bot (I'll spare you the screenshot). So neither size nor armor affect the chassis fracture point--it's always 41.
The next myth is a bit more interesting. Trovaner thinks that caster armor does not, in fact, block all damage. I have personal experience in this regard with my Sacrifice popup bots, and know for a fact that casters aren't impenetrable. What intrigued me is the reason Trovaner suggested for this--that damage is calculated for components based on the distance from the point of impact. It seems this is what the instruction booklet says. If it's true, then RA2 is a lot more realistic than I thought. I've also noticed that the 15cm casters work a lot better at blocking damage than the 10cm ones, and the titanium half sheets in DSL never work perfectly at preventing damage, so there seems to be support for this myth. However, it might also be due to weapons slipping between cracks or temporarily overlapping and penetrating the mesh of such armors. This explanation also seems plausible, as I've never seen anything penetrate caster/half sheet armor unless it was moving very fast.
Time to find out the truth. I made a test bot with cinder blocks from Firebeetle's component pack as front armor, which form a solid wall with no cracks for weapons to slip through. Then I used a slow bot with Firebeetle's energy spike weapons, which do high damage with frequency, so they will keep doing damage even when they're not moving. This eliminates both movement and cracks from the equation, so if damage is indeed calculated based on distance from point of impact, then we should see the test bot's chassis get damaged as I hold the energy spikes against the cinder blocks. If not, then nothing should happen.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/80882myth44.jpg)
No matter how long I stay in this position, the test bot's chassis remains at full health. I even backed up for a few rams, and still nothing.
I'm not quite ready to call it busted, though the myth is definitely on thin ice. Next I tried using the plus.damage command in the Python window to directly damage the cinder blocks. Since they are attached right to the chassis, I should see a decrease in armor integrity as the cinder blocks are damaged.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/78694myth41.jpg)
100 damage yields nothing. Let's bump it up a notch.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/59547myth42.jpg)
10000 damage exceeds the cinder blocks' total hitpoints of 5000. And still, the chassis is at full health. But we're not quite done... time to overdo it just to make sure! This time I targeted the control board instead of the cinder blocks, since apparently it has infinite HP. It's still attached right to the chassis, so if damage is based on distance from point of impact, the chassis should still get hurt.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/13532myth43.jpg)
If several billion damage to the control board won't scratch the chassis, nothing will. This myth is BUSTED. "Invincible" armor may not be impenetrable, but, regrettably, it's not because of any advanced damage calculation.
-
Woah, that is so cool. Keep them coming Clickbeetle! Great job!
-
Another great myth. This is so cool
-
I have another myth:
Is that true that piercing weapons do more damage to the chassis and concussive ones more damage to a component?
-
what's that bot in the pictures? looks like a disc VS?
-
I was wondering; how aligned do motors have to be for a Robot to drive perfectly straight?
-
Very.
-
Here some myth created by me in some old post :
If you have time Clickb. test it please.
"Now something new. I was interested how much weight can "lift" any of the motors, so i decided to build one special bot and test it. I need someone like Mad to check my results.
Here is what i find but it need more research :
Those are approximate values in kilograms.
blue snapper : ~ max 160 kg
snapper2 : ~ max 290 kg
DDT : ~ max 340 kg
Rupt glitched DDT : ~ max 520 kg
If those are correct this bring some very interesting questions... :
302 servo : ~ max 85 kg
502 servo : ~ max 85 kg
702 servo : ~ max 85 kg
60 cm piston : ~ max 70 kg
HP Z-Tek : ~ max 150 kg
Let me see what you think..."
Sounds interesting to me, hope you test it.
10x
-
MYTH......goose is gonna finish the bot exchange!
-
So you want somebody to test something you have already tested?
EDIT
ACAMS: Ooooh. You're treading dangerous water.
-
MYTH......goose is gonna finish the bot exchange!
God I hope that this is confirmed. I think that it is past summer.
-
Hey, for all we know he could be working on it very hard and has just run into problems. We CANNOT rush him.
-
As long as it is coming I don't care how long it takes.
-
As long as it is coming I don't care how long it takes.
Very True.
-
Y'all is spamming this thread...
-
You are!
-
Your right, sorry.
-
Y'all spammed it up so bad goose won't see, get pissssed and prove me wrong.
-
Goose needs a fire lit under his tailfeathers ........
-
Just make sure that it doesn't catch his computer.
-
How much damage does Non weapon pomponents cause?
-
This is an excellent Thread Clickbeetle!
Keep up the great work!
-
How much damage does Non weapon pomponents cause?
not a myth, its a question.
MYTH: Non-weapon components do damage, and some more than others.
-
How dp you Rupt!?!?!
-
http://beetlebros.gametechmods.com/ra2techs.htm
look here
-
Theirs something I want to ask Click. I want to know is, why did you list the eFFe glitch as expert? Its so easy!
Also: Myth- Upside down EWs do better than ones that are the right way up.
-
EWs?
-
Emergency wedges.
-
Theirs something I want to ask Click. I want to know is, why did you list the eFFe glitch as expert? Its so easy!
Also: Myth- Upside down EWs do better than ones that are the right way up.
it was an expert technique. if you learn it, of course it is easy.
-
MYTH- Which burst is best for wedges. Snapper 2, II, DDT, servo
-
MYTH- Which burst is best for wedges. Snapper 2, II, DDT, servo
not a myth, thats a question.
MYTH- a DTT is the better wedge because it is more powerful.
-
It seems like this should more be answering complicated questions that take a lot of testing than actual myths. Any question can be made into a "myth", so I really don't see the difference.
-
While my investigation into what makes a good wedge confirmed some important things contributing to wedginess, there were still a few variables left untested. I test them now.
But first, another myth that got me thinking. Somebody (not proper-noun Somebody) said that either piercing or concussion does more damage than the other depending on whether it hits the chassis or a component.
It makes sense, too. There should be some difference between piercing and concussion, right? Otherwise why not just use a single damage stat?
Fortunately, I still had the original test bot that I used when I came up with the current damage potential formula (DP = 183.9P + 100C). So it was a simple matter to make some adjustments to the Test Spike (the iron spike component on the bot) and test this myth.
First I did two tests on a bare chassis, both with a 100-DP weapon, but one had all piercing damage and the other had all concussion damage. According to the formula, 0.5438 piercing gives you 100 DP. If the formula is correct, 0.5438 piercing and 0 concussion should do the same damage as 0 piercing and 1 concussion.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/4144myth51.jpg)
The results: taking the average of 5 trials, the piercing weapon did 95.4 damage, and the concussion weapon did 88.6 damage. It would appear there is a slight bias towards piercing, but no conclusions can be made just yet.
Next, I put a component over the top of the target bot (named Buster, appropriately). I used Lu-Tze's kevlar sheet because it's big and flat.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/88639myth52.jpg)
The results: taking the average of 5 trials, the piercing weapon did 130 damage, and the concussion weapon did 124.8 damage.
There was a clear overall increase in damage, but there is no significant difference between piercing and concussion against either the chassis or a component. By all indications, piercing and concussion are interchangeable. And, this myth is BUSTED.
Moving on to more wedge myths. The first one is that putting pressure on the wedge (which is done by lowering the angle of the burst motor below the wheels, so the bot's weight forces the wedge up) makes it better. This is something I think we all just take for granted, but does anyone really KNOW whether it's true? I certainly didn't before I tested it.
Fortunately, I still had the original test bots I used for the first wedge tests. This time I made them both exactly the same, except with Subject A, the wedge was lowered only far enough to touch the ground, while on Subject B, the wedge was lowered as far as it would go without propping up the chassis.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/47355myth53.jpg)
I tested the bots the same way as the first time. Put both bots in the Small Arena, drive them straight forward, and tally who gets under first.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/55273myth54.jpg)
I did 20 trials, switching the bots' positions after number 10 to ensure that starting position had no effect. The results: Subject B got under Subject A 15 out of 20 times, or 75%.
It appears that putting pressure on the wedge does indeed make it better. But, in true Mythbusters fashion, "If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing." For the next test, I moved the wedge well below the wheels so that it propped up the chassis while keeping the bot driveable, and pitted it against Subject A.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/93482myth55.jpg)
The results: Subject A got under Subject C 10/20 times, or 50%, and vice versa. The wedges are exactly the same amount good, meaning that Subject C is also worse than Subject B.
So putting pressure on your wedge does make it better, but only to a point. You don't want to overdo it or your wedge will be no better than one with no pressure at all. The trick is probably in finding each bot's "sweet spot".
So this myth is CONFIRMED... to a point.
The last myth I'm testing is that a wedge with a steep angle is worse than a low wedge. You know those vertical Snapper 2's you can either mount with the axle up high or down low? Everyone uses the low axle for wedges, and when someone uses the high axle everyone tells them to flip it. But is it really necessary? Since when have you actually tried a bot with a steep wedge?
For this, I used the same procedure again.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/76745myth56.jpg)
And the results: Subject D got under Subject E 13 out of 20 times, or 65%.
It's not as huge as the pressure test, but angle definitely does make a difference. And this myth is safe to call CONFIRMED.
-
Thank you CB. This has now justified hours of work tweaking my wedges ever so slightly.
-
Thanks, CB. Cool tests. Don't know where you find the time.
-
Nice CB, Thank's
-
Nice stuff again CB, but one thing you have forgot to test with the wedges is: Is it better to have the wedge upside down than the way you have used them so far?
-
Yeah, that was kinda steep.
-
<3 Thanks CB.
-
id like to see if a chained red bird and reversable angle moter are really faster than a high powered z tek
-
Why don't you try seeing that by yourself ?
-
they are. I cloned Redbird of Unhappiness and it is faster than a hpz that is not snapper enhanced.
-
I think that concussion one isn't really done good. What about speed? or against rubber and metal components?
-
I decided to do some necromancy and bring the thread from the grave. And for one of the most discussed topics in RA2, what makes a good wedge? Clicks tested for pressure, but I want to test this, does wedges extenders as a anchor for armor make it more wedgey? To test this, I made two identical bots:
Bot A has its snow plows on base plate anchors.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/89177Test A.PNG)
Bot B has its snow plows on its wedge extenders.
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/63784Test B.PNG)
Like Click, I used the Small arena for testing, this is how the first match went:
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/14168screenshot_305.JPG)
The results were overwhelming. Bot A got under Bot B 100% of the time. There is some cases were its uncertain who got under who, Bot A clearly got under bot B a majority of the matches.
The lesson is clear, use wedge extenders as armor mounts, and your wedges will suffer.
Myth Busted.
-
Not necessarily. I mean bot B's plows are higher and farther back than A's.
-
This is because of my showcase isn't it?
-
Yes in fact.
-
I decided to do some necromancy and bring the thread from the grave. And for one of the most discussed topics in RA2, what makes a good wedge? Clicks tested for pressure, but I want to test this, does wedges extenders as a anchor for armor make it more wedgey? To test this, I made to identical bots:
Bot A has its snow plows on base plate anchors.
Bot B has its snow plows on its wedge extenders.
Like Click, I used the Small arena for testing, this is how the first match went:
The results were overwhelming. Bot A got under Bot B 100% of the time. There is some cases were its uncertain who got under who, Bot A clearly got under bot B a majority of the matches.
The lesson is clear, use wedge extenders as armor mounts, and your wedges will suffer.
Myth Busted.
Sorry mate, but there are some variables you didn't take into account. For one, having two baseplate anchors in the front of your chassis with plows attached to them adds (in this case) 44 kgs. Weight attached to the chassis will dramatically increase wedge effectiveness... which is why bots with castor fronts have such good wedges most of the time.
The second thing is that the plows are not exactly in the same place.
What you really tested was:
"Will a bot with 44kgs on the front end of the chassis get under a bot with 40kgs on the wedge, and with the weight shifted farther back?"
Perhaps try a test with weight on the wedges and no weight on the wedges, see what gets under what. even then, it might not be fair.
-
For one, having two baseplate anchors in the front of your chassis with plows attached to them adds (in this case) 44 kgs. Weight attached to the chassis will dramatically increase wedge effectiveness... which is why bots with castor fronts have such good wedges most of the time.
I took that into account, and left the baseplate anchors on Bot B. Both bots weigh the same in the front.
The second thing is that the plows are not exactly in the same place.
I'm not sure if it matters.
Perhaps try a test with weight on the wedges and no weight on the wedges, see what gets under what. even then, it might not be fair.
I might do that.
-
Something else. Are the meshes lined up on both?
-
you also mislabeled the test bots
-
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/59989YES.JPG)
you also mislabeled the test bots
?
-
my mistake, I was looking at them the wrong way.
-
I'm not sure if it matters.
Then I'm not sure if I can give this test credibility.
-
Personally, I don't like that your using plows for testing because they are extending past the pivot of the snappers and they are positioned farther out on the wedges compared to the chassis version (this causes the pivots to vibrate more because the weight is making them go out of alignment more often).
In my experience, the more static weight (motors cause to much jumping) attached to the wedge setup, the better the wedges to a point. Shadow Tyrant's wedges got better until I started going really overboard on things (in fact, my wedges are worse than a version with less ramplates but they were still good enough to get under most designs).
-
With the plows in the wedges I'm pretty sure the plows collision hits the ground.
-
Just a little reinfocement on the ballast idea that Insult to Injury has brought up. This is with 6 40kg ballasts in the front of the bot, wedges mounted on green snappers, Hp drive:
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/20263superwedge.JPG)
Not 100% consistent, but pretty dang close.
-
Dang nice combat arena.
-
You should see the pillars... I messed up seriously on the skin. It looks like a laser show, and not in a good way.
-
REVIVAL! I've got 2 DSL myths for you, Mr.Beetle. 1.is the metal hinge better than burst motors for wedges? 2.are the angled skirts wedgier than the small wedges?
-
REVIVAL! I've got 2 DSL myths for you, Mr.Beetle. 1.is the metal hinge better than burst motors for wedges? 2.is the angled skirts wore wedgier than the small wedges?
1-Yes and 2-we're not sure.
-
REVIVAL! I've got 2 DSL myths for you, Mr.Beetle. 1.is the metal hinge better than burst motors for wedges? 2.are the angled skirts wedgier than the small wedges?
1-Yes
what about HnM 4?(who's wedges are near unbeatable).
-
One lone example doesn't make empirical truth.
-
Is it true that you can't knock off another bot's parts are the end of a match (after it shows the results screen)?
-
Is it true that you can't knock off another bot's parts are the end of a match (after it shows the results screen)?
Yep. You can't break off your own weapons either, nor reshape the opponents' chassis. Try it out against some LW with a HW HS. :P
-
what about HnM 4?(who's wedges are near unbeatable).
Lol what, I find HnM 4 one of the lesser wedges in NAR AI :L
-
what about HnM 4?(who's wedges are near unbeatable).
Lol what, I find HnM 4 one of the lesser wedges in NAR AI :L
le gasp! I can never get under HnM 4!(so, what do you think is the better wedge in NARAI?)
-
Hinge wedges are generally better, but well tuned burst wedges can be comparable if not better.
-
Is it true that you can't knock off another bot's parts are the end of a match (after it shows the results screen)?
Yep. You can't break off your own weapons either, nor reshape the opponents' chassis. Try it out against some LW with a HW HS. :P
I've been trying to figure that out for a while :P
-
You could save 0.4 kg on your first bot by using a chassis with 6 points on the baseplate instead of 8. It wouldn't make it any more original, though.
I actually don't think this is true. Sure you are removing surface area on the sides, but you are also adding surface area on the top and bottom.
MYTHBUSTERS TIME
So going off the rule that RA2 uses surface area instead of volume to calculate weight, here's the equation for a right angle or a single side:
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/56756DSC_0132.jpg)
So, mathematically, there IS a point where changing it to a single surface instead of a right angle actually costs more weight.
This is more to start a discussion than to actually break a myth, so if anyone has any input let me know. I'm thinking that the actual most efficient way to do corners like that is somewhere between the right angle and the flat surface.
-
idk
-
Isn't the point of mythbusters to ask a question then answer it? That's not a question.
-
Isn't the point of mythbusters to ask a question then answer it? That's not a question.
the myth is that it's ALWAYS better to use a flat surface instead of a right angle.
-
I thought a right angle was flat in the case of 3d objects.
-
I thought a right angle was flat in the case of 3d objects.
let me restate:
its always better to use a diagonal side to connect to points instead of a right angle to connect 2 points because RA2 calculates weight by surface area.
-
What? You mean people actually believed in that kinna nonsense? I been sinking in my chassis to save weight for ages.
Rather or not sinking in can save weight will depend on the height of the chassis relative to the distance between the 2 points. The lower the chassis and the further the 2 points are, the more likely you are to save weight. I sink my chassis all the time to save KG.
If you want to be really anal about that you can calculate the first derivative of the surface area equation between 2 points, and find the instance where it is == 0. You can probably write an excel spreadsheet to do just that.
-
MYTH: a chassis with more corners is heavier than a chassis with less corners when they have the same surface area.
I cannot test it right now because i'm travelling to another city i'm posting from my phone.
-
What? You mean people actually believed in that kinna nonsense? I been sinking in my chassis to save weight for ages.
Rather or not sinking in can save weight will depend on the height of the chassis relative to the distance between the 2 points. The lower the chassis and the further the 2 points are, the more likely you are to save weight. I sink my chassis all the time to save KG.
If you want to be really anal about that you can calculate the first derivative of the surface area equation between 2 points, and find the instance where it is == 0. You can probably write an excel spreadsheet to do just that.
what do you mean sinking? i'm unfamiliar with the term
-
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/73579screenshot_89.jpg)
This
I never knew anyone would think a triangle (a strait line through all 3 points) could save me weight.
-
Didn't even know this was a myth.
Without calculation, if you are reducing the surface area of the top and bottom plates, it's usually more significant than the area increased by the slightly longer side panels.
I tend to just guess, hardly worth being to crazy about it until you need to shave off some extra 0.1kg somewhere.
-
I think it's a stock thing, since the bots are so tall and they always try to trim those little corners.
Still, the only relevant application I see are for IRL. I think for both stock and DSL the focus should be on reducing effective hitbox, even if said chassis end up a few kg more.
-
I think it's a stock thing, since the bots are so tall and they always try to trim those little corners.
Still, the only relevant application I see are for IRL. I think for both stock and DSL the focus should be on reducing effective hitbox, even if said chassis end up a few kg more.
Really? I think a few kg here and there is much more important in stock than anywhere else.
-
Wow, very useful information there. Thanks guys!