Urjaks Old and Masterful Showcase

[Urjak]

The wheels are not touching the ground. Therefore, it shouldn't move.

Your right, it shouldn't move. A rammer with a large weapon rack causes tons of damage, it shouldn't, but it does. Please show me the realistic rule I broke.

[NFX]

The wheels are not touching the ground. Therefore, it shouldn't move.

Your right, it shouldn't move. A rammer with a large weapon rack causes tons of damage, it shouldn't, but it does. Please show me the realistic rule I broke.

It's sort of a variation of Narmour, is it not? If the invisible traction mesh touches the ground, but the visible display/collision mesh doesn't?

[G.K.]

That happens with all wheels to an extent though...

[Mecha]

i like how it's armored against popups. Cool bot.

[Urjak]

That happens with all wheels to an extent though...

Exactly. On my bot the wheel only barely doesn't touch the ground, so its not like I am abusing the collision mesh like Narmor does.

[System32]

Unrealistic. IRL this robot would be unable to move as the wheel is rubbing against a part of the bot and not the floor. The rubber would wear away and the bot would reman stationary (Assuming the weapon is not active.).

[infiniteinertia]

Not real.

[Urjak]

Well it turns out we can all just relax (even though no one pointed out the realistic rule I broke), because I found out that on perfectly flat arenas the wheel has no traction, so I will be re-positioning it.

[R0B0SH4RK]

The wheels are not touching the ground. Therefore, it shouldn't move.

Your right, it shouldn't move. A rammer with a large weapon rack causes tons of damage, it shouldn't, but it does. Please show me the realistic rule I broke.

If "moves even though nothing that drives the robot is actually in contact with the ground" is covered and allowed by a rule that was intended to permit only designs that would work in real life, then your application of the rule isn't broken, but clearly the rule itself is.


If DSL 3 comes out, we really need to take a breather and re-define what "realism" is. The standards we hold right now are obviously garbage if bots like this are allowed.

[Urjak]

The standards we hold right now are obviously garbage if bots like this are allowed.

What, you mean a bot who's wheel just barely doesn't contact the ground is totally out of line? In my opinion, this bot is within the breathing room that realistic rules should always give.

[R0B0SH4RK]

What, you mean a bot who's wheel just barely doesn't contact the ground is totally out of line?

Yes.

In my opinion, this bot is within the breathing room that realistic rules should always give.

Then your opinion is that we ignore physics and call it realistic.

[Urjak]

Then your opinion is that we ignore physics and call it realistic.

We can ignore physics, yes. This is RA2, a game. In real life, there is absolutely no leeway with the laws of physics. However, like I said before, we are playing a game for our own enjoyment; we can have a little give in our rules if some components just barely intersect, or a wheel just barely doesn't touch the ground.

[123savethewhales]

If you can "subtract" so much, like in some popups the entire second wedge, why can't you "add" a little bit and just assume the collision mesh is the actual mass rather than the visual mesh?  I for one think the collision mesh should be respected far more than the visual mesh because the collision is what really affects the outcome.

Besides, this wheel is very unlike NARMOUR because it isn't indestructible.  Even NARMOUR the problem isn't because of it's big collision mesh, it's because it is directly connected to the chassis.  Like seriously who gives a rat about NARMOUR if it just has standard 400 HP/kg and you can break it like everything else?

[System32]

Honestly I agree with Urjak, we should do away with the realistic rule entirely.

[ty4er]

I say we keep the realism but make it a lot looser, allowing things like narmour and what urjak posted.

[System32]

lol DerpSL is a glorified version of stock anyway 

[R0B0SH4RK]

We can ignore physics, yes. This is RA2, a game. In real life, there is absolutely no leeway with the laws of physics. However, like I said before, we are playing a game for our own enjoyment; we can have a little give in our rules if some components just barely intersect, or a wheel just barely doesn't touch the ground.

First of all, the "RA2 is a game for our enjoyment" argument is completely invalid in this case, since it's exactly the same reason why the pioneers of DSL decided to create the realistic rule in the first place.


And no, in no universe can we ever, ever, ever ignore physics and call it "realistic" in the same breath. Because it isn't. I really hope you can agree with this.


The problem I have here isn't with you or your bot or your building, it's with calling something that clearly isn't realistic at all a realistic bot. This most recent Bane is so incongruent with the concept of "realism" that I see no way how it could be built and work in real life, yet it technically follows all of our "realistic rules." The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the realistic rule, which was postulated in order to make builders emulate real life closer than with Stock, is quite simply broken. The real question is: how do we fix it?


The simplest way at this point in DSL's life is to just scrap the realistic title and call it the "no stacking rule" instead, and then revisit the "realistic" rule when DSL 3 comes out. This is what we as a community should do anyways.


But we can't continue to call bots like Bane "realistic," nor can we call DSL popups and whatever the 123STW builds "realistic" either. Either the realism tag has to go, or our collective styles of building have to change. We can't continue to have it both ways.

[123savethewhales]

The funniest thing is that all the guys screaming for "realistic" don't even play DSL 2.1 anymore.  If you don't like DSL realism, then go play IRL realism.  There's a whole movement for IRL realism, with it's own tournaments and fan base and everything.  Recent showcases reveals that IRL realism are already more popular than DSL realism.

Nothing needs to be fix because no problem exist, at least for the people who still plays.  A dead end has been reach for DSL realism, and many are already turning away.

[Scorpion]

What happened to the simple case of if it can be THEORETICALLY done in real life, it is allowed in DSL?

[G.K.]

What happened to the simple case of if it can be THEORETICALLY done in real life, it is allowed in DSL?

Agreed

I don't see anything stopping me making that bot or something very similar IRL.