Part ID Price Weight EN Drain Unlocked Part Description GAN01-SS-LL: 200000c: 5474: 4778: Shop: An SS-L variant which retains the stability of the original.

A bit of nitpicking.You know, if we have mechs, I'd like to think we've passed the point when we have gynormous gears.Those are not gears, but spools for the cables pulling the machine up. Besides, the alternative to gears would be to have an electric motor on each moving part, which makes sense for cars, but not too many other applications.Now, I'm just spit-balling here, but why don't we try armouring everything, instead of just the core?Because armour weights a lot - quite important for air drops.So, actual battle-ready mechs is not something we are going to be able to achieve for a long time, but tanks with jets? We could do that now!Could we? F-35 Raptor produces up to 186 kN of thrust, which is enough to lift about 19 tons. An Abrams tank weights over 60 tons - it would need the thrust of 3 bombers just for rocket-assisted descent. This, not even counting the weight of additional fuel or engines themselves.

A bit of nitpicking.So, actual battle-ready mechs is not something we are going to be able to achieve for a long time, but tanks with jets? We could do that now!Could we? F-35 Raptor produces up to 186 kN of thrust, which is enough to lift about 19 tons.

An Abrams tank weights over 60 tons - it would need the thrust of 3 bombers just for rocket-assisted descent.A bit of nitpicking on the nitpicking.;)You only need a lot of thrust for a very short time. Also, you don't need to be able to lift the mass of the whole tank, just slow it down enough to stop it from damaging itself when it hits the tarmac.Both are possible with solid state rocket engines.

You could easily eject those once you hit the ground (as you wouldn't need them after that), and solid rockets generate a TON of thrust for their size and mass.It wouldn't be the most pleasant of landings for the crew, and there would be risks (trigger them to early and you plummet the last bit, trigger them to late and you won't slow down enough to not destroy your tanks suspension on impact), but it could work. A bit of nitpicking.So, actual battle-ready mechs is not something we are going to be able to achieve for a long time, but tanks with jets? We could do that now!Could we? F-35 Raptor produces up to 186 kN of thrust, which is enough to lift about 19 tons. An Abrams tank weights over 60 tons - it would need the thrust of 3 bombers just for rocket-assisted descent. This, not even counting the weight of additional fuel or engines themselves.Counter-nitpick - 186kN would balance 182.28 metric tons.Lets run the numbers:1kg applies a downwards force of 0.98N.

0.98 is annoying, and I don't anticipate doing anything accurate, so lets equate 1kg to 1N. 1000kg in a ton, so 1 ton applies approximately 1kN of force downwards.The F-35 Lightning II has a loaded weight of 22.47 tons.Its powerplant, the PW F135, produces 125kN of thrust, going up to 191kN when afterburning.So it has over 100kN of thrust left over to actually fly on.The powerplant on its own weighs 1.7 tons.Just one of them could potentially make your Abrams fly - it produces 2x the thrust required to lift the Abrams' mass (125kN vs 60 tons, that's 125kN force up, 60kN force down.

Without afterburning). Certainly it would be enough to let it gently air drop:)Sources. A serious discussion about flying tanks.Counter-nitpick - 186kN would balance 182.28 metric tons.A metric ton is 1000 kg. Force, measured in Newtons, is mass, measured in kilograms, times acceleration. Graviational acceleration is 9.81 m/s 2, so 186 kN would balance 186,000/9.81 kg or about 19 tons.The F-35 Lightning II has a loaded weight of 22.47 tons.Its powerplant, the PW F135, produces 125kN of thrust, going up to 191kN when afterburning.So it has over 100kN of thrust left over to actually fly on.F-35 has a thrust to weight ratio of 0.87, which means that it cannot accelerate directly upwards (F-22 can). For a plane, this is ok due to its aerodynamic properties, but a tank has no lift at all and therefore requires a more powerful engine to stay in the air.

Wow you guys, you really have a blind spot for helicopters. Jets and flying objectsTLDR:Fran is in the mech (AC)Rosary is in the helicopterNot the case, actually.First though, let me try to work out how your context example helps this make sense.it's pretty easy to figure out, just observe the context;Fran: there's no point staying back here let's go ( wants a ride )Rosary: i'll attach MY chopper to the AC ( the mech ) you go on aheadFran: I'm coming with you!Rosary: it's ok we'll meet up laterYou are saying:-Fran in the mech says they should go. Rosy in the chopper then attaches to Fran's mech, but tells Fran to go on ahead? What, without her mech?-Fran says 'I'm coming with you', okay so that means she's staying IN the mech.-Rosy says 'it's okay, we'll meet up later', oh, no, they ARE going separately. But, no they're not, because the mech IS with the helicopter. What!?The silent player character is in the AC.

Rosy is in the chopper, and Fran is off-site somewhere. It is woefully unclear. Things established in the intro:There's war in this world.There's mechs in this world.There's big guns in this world.There's at least 3 women and 1 man in this world, names of Rossary, Fran, Carol and RD. The former two and latter two do not like each other.And that's about it.MGS4's cutscene may have gone on forever, but they at least contained some information.EDIT: If memory serves, RD actually starts out with Rosary and Fran.That would be a spoiler except the intro CLEARLY SHOWS that he eventually betrays / shoots you.

My roommate recently bought Armored Core 5 and we got in this huge debate. I told him I perfer the MechWarrior series over Armored Core. He backed up his arguement and said that Armored Core has way more Customization.

Customizing Mechs is great and all but I don't really like the 3rd person view of Armored Core and personally I like MechWarrior more because of its simplicity. So what do you think DoomWorld Armored Core or MechWarrior? Cast your vote.Edit: If you have only played MechAssault and perfer it.Cast your vote for MechWarrior.MechAssault is a sub-genre of MechWarrior.Edit: Meant to put MechWarrior Series in the poll.oops. I like both games, but if your going to mention Armored Core to me, then I might end up writing a huge novel on what's good and what's not so good about it. I've been a huge AC fan since the first game and I've followed and totally cleared all of the games up to Armored Core 5.

I'm not going to say one game is better than the other though because that all boils down to personal preference and the fact that both games actually play completely different on a game mechanics level.No no.must.not.go.crazy D. Ok I'll try not to get too nuts with my reply:PFirst though, let me address Armored Core 5. Armored Core 5 is actually a pretty big departure from the rest of the series as far as how the game plays. Actually since the series was introduced to this generation of consoles, the series has made some pretty fundamental gameplay alterations. With Armored Core 4 and For Answer, the movement speed was increased to ridiculous levels.

There were changes to the lock mechanics and designing your AC was a pretty deep experience. It was different but there were still some similarities between it and the previous games in the series on the PS2/PS1.

Armored Core 5, on the other hand, was slowed way down and added more focus on tactical play. That's why it's so important to make use of those Recon Units, because there is no longer a radar function like in the past games.

It's interesting that you bring up this debate because Armored Core 5 is probably the closest thing to Mechwarrior in terms of gameplay in the entire series.In contrast, some of the previous games (Last Raven, Ninebreaker, Nexus, Silent Line, AC3, Another Age, AC2, Master of Arena, Project Phantasma, and AC1.whew) were less about these connections to reality and game mechanics and more about just run n' gun, fly all over the place, destroy everything.I don't know, but the newer games seemed to have lost some of the charm of the older games. It feels like those games are less serious and more about over the top mech destruction.Anyways, before I really ramble on more than I should, there are fundamental differences between Mechwarrior and Armored Core. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about the former but I've played it enough to know that the games are nothing alike. Mechwarrior is more about strategic loadouts, tactical gameplay with elements of teamwork, and slower/more methodical gameplay. Armored Core is more about endlessly tweaking designs/weapon loadouts, fast-paced maneuvering, and timing.

The best way to know the differences is to see for yourself and play both games:)Armored Core 5 is a pretty good game. I haven't had a chance to jump into the multiplayer meta game since that's is where the meat of the game really is.

There was also the problem with Namco Bandai pretty much ignoring the game after release and not updating it like they should have been. And the increased multiplayer focus actually sort of turned me off (seriously, why can I only turn parts when playing multiplayer? That makes no sense at all). It makes sense that it's being compared to MW since it is, one some levels, a similar game. However I would recommened to anyone interested in the AC series to check out the previous games in the series.

My preferred iterations are Master of Arena (PS1), Another Age (PS2) and Silent Line (PS2). Pocky and rocky roms. Last Raven is also very good but is a bit more complex when it comes to designing your AC.So uh.yea, I guess I 'prefer' Armored Core:P. As a long time Battletech/Mechwarrior fan, it's pretty easy for me to pick my favorite. Of course, that's also including the extensive background and the themes that have had decades to mature. But even in terms of gameplay, I'm much more interested in a Mech sim than in a mech game, no matter the amount of customization involved.By the way, Mechwarrior 5 was going to be a singleplayer game, but it turned into Mechwarrior Online, which is multiplayer only. However, the devs are really dedicated to the series, and the gameplay looks like an evolution of Mechwarrior 3's control scheme. My votes goes to MechWarrior, especially 2 and 3.

I pretty much gave up on the series after 4 though, with it's awful laggy controls that made it feel like you were constantly underwater. Plus I didn't like that your Mech moved like some guy in an FPS, basically Japanese style. Mechs should be slow tank-like machines, although that idea likely comes from playing MW first.Will we ever see MechWarrior 5?pretty much is Mechwarrior 5. The original Mechwarrior 5 was canceled on account of Harmony Gold being total shit bags and getting their panties in a twist over them using an 'unseen' mech (I think it was the warhammer but I'm not completely sure).