Author Topic: Why ryders?  (Read 8499 times)

Offline Marx-93

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #45 on: August 03, 2014, 10:11:07 pm »
If the fighter changes its position with minor thrusters, then the orientation of the main thruster will change, which will further direct the fighter in another direction.
Why? It's not as if the fighter needs to actually lead evasive manoeuvres with its nose. If it simply fires up 4 ~ 6 thrusters (of the 16 ~ 24 in the ring configuration I spoke of earlier, with the thrusters at its tail end at slightly higher power) to either its top/bottom/sides, while still accelerating with its main thrusters, it would temporarily move diagonally from its previous position in space (enough to dodge out of the way of any detected incoming fire) without pointing its nose end away nor significantly changing its heading towards it target. Of course, turreted guns would give even more flexibility to pull this while still being able to fire on its target.

If anything, any mecha trying this kind of evasive manoeuvres would have a far harder time, simply because its navigational computers must keep track of and balance not only the vector of each thruster and their output like the fighter, but to constantly keep track of the positioning of its limbs and how that affects the thrusters on them, least the unit spins out of control.

Remember that in space, there is also conservation of the angular momentum. You say that its navigational computers will have trouble with a mech, but I think that they will have even more trouble trying to maintain the orientation and moving without creating momentum. The craft could only be circular (to evade creating angular momentum the strength applied by the thrusters must be parallel to the line connecting the center of mass and the thruster) or then it wouldn't be able to spread a thruster ring equally as you say. The computers then must be able to take that into consideration. In a mech because of the familiar form the pilot can intuitively regain some stability, but in a non circular craft the computer systems would have to do it everything. I personally see the possibility of positioning differently without losing stability as the main advantage of the mechs. Your idea would be that the fighter doesn't change its orientation while dodging. While in theory possible, I simply cannot see implemented, because a little degree of mistake of the collocation of a thruster already leads to create angular momentum (which starts to build up until you are spinning). It is very idealized (it remembers me of typical theoretical examples). In a mech you are changing your figure constantly, so you don't need to worry about that, and you can even use that in evasive manoeuvres. 
Why can only the evil have empires, power and majestic theme music? I reclaim the possibility of creating the Federal-democratic-free Empire! A (democratic) tyranny fueled by the Power of Love!

Started writing. You can check it out here: Home

Offline mikebrand83

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #46 on: August 04, 2014, 01:07:04 am »
Remember that in space, there is also conservation of the angular momentum. You say that its navigational computers will have trouble with a mech, but I think that they will have even more trouble trying to maintain the orientation and moving without creating momentum.
Again, I would argue that it's the complete opposite. The fighter can have its navigational computer pre-calibrated to account for all variations of its thrusters firing as known variables, and the navcomp would only need to make minute adjustments with its smaller thrusters on the fly to correct any variations. Meanwhile, every slightest form change of the mecha would shift its thrusters and their positions relative to the mecha's center of mass, exponentially increasing the corresponding adjustments required to balance out its thrusters' output.

Quote
In a mech because of the familiar form the pilot can intuitively regain some stability, but in a non circular craft the computer systems would have to do it everything. I personally see the possibility of positioning differently without losing stability as the main advantage of the mechs.
Except humans and human forms are fundamentally NOT built for 3D maneuvering. In fact, we're barely suited for 2D, which is part of the reason why there's so much difficulty making real life robot imitating the way we walk (which can often be best described as barely controlled falling). There's a reason why real life space suit and propulsion units are nothing like typical mecha configuration of thrusters on arms and legs.

Offline AkioKlaus

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #47 on: August 04, 2014, 01:22:19 am »
Im probobally saying no sense, but

if computer can balance for us,
why not let it? pilot doesn't need a burden to stabilize itself after moving.
If ECM happens, then you can manually do it.
Currently- No good college game design student, too much anime in life
-Ai,doru Daisuki!-

Offline green goo

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #48 on: August 04, 2014, 05:42:59 am »
humans rely heavily on automatic systems and sub systems. to fly.

 the best and most agile craft are basically flown by computers and the pilot just tells the computer where to fly next.

human cant make that many calculations that instinctively. we just lack this as we have never needed to bread for it.

so unless you can plug your nerves system into a mech there not much hope.

yet, it could be done. but why? women would have to radically change who and why they pick the partners and or why. so that the best flyer team up and so forth. possible. but civerlisation would have to change are social order so that folks think fliers are super sexy and so forth.

any how most SIMULATED space combat, is done at speed in fly by's, that are so fast only computers can fire at the correct instant.

 this means that  humans will have to rely heavily on computers to fly and to run combat.

so all the human is left with is where to fly, and what broad side or aspect of the ship to show to the foe to the next round of fire.

 but hay. sooner or later that would posalby be true. as the best pilots will have made the most proffits and so at some level influence such things.

Offline Deathwatch

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #49 on: August 04, 2014, 04:52:04 pm »
I see the Ryder's are far more efficient for standard combat, if you run out of ammo you can get another gun deployed onto the field for pick up where as a fighter would have to dock most likely for more ammo.

Fighters being smaller would be better in hit and run as well as harder to hit targets, Fighters could also be more suitable for atmospheric re-entry in the case of an emergency or to engage aircraft in the atmosphere, where as a ryder would most likely tear up from the forces, a aircraft being more streamlined should be ok in my understanding.

Ryder's and Fighter's have there different area's in my opinion

Offline Alpha The Final

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #50 on: August 04, 2014, 05:15:15 pm »
Why ryders, why not ryders they are fast agile and can possibly carry weapons cruisers have + they move around fast and can get ammunition easy as short as having a weapon warped into the battlefield to be changed and they can lash out lots of damage to cruisers and they are portable inside 1 single ship. So as random as this may seem, why ryders, cause yolo~

Also they get this wargods approval for massive war usage
~Flies over with my Blue Doom~ Bow down to the wargod AlphaTheFinal, or Else ....

*Triggers Armageddon Lock-down pointing everything at you*

Now do you understand mortal?

Offline green goo

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #51 on: August 04, 2014, 05:38:48 pm »
I see the Ryder's are far more efficient for standard combat, if you run out of ammo you can get another gun deployed onto the field for pick up where as a fighter would have to dock most likely for more ammo.

Fighters being smaller would be better in hit and run as well as harder to hit targets, Fighters could also be more suitable for atmospheric re-entry in the case of an emergency or to engage aircraft in the atmosphere, where as a ryder would most likely tear up from the forces, a aircraft being more streamlined should be ok in my understanding.

Ryder's and Fighter's have there different area's in my opinion

 in this game reality they may be weak in a gravity well but... if human made the in this are current one they would not be due to the simple fact we would have made them to do jobs that we need  all terrain vehicles to do. such as logging and or mining as well as fire and rescue missions.

 as such having leg in space is rather redundant as they are not requited. so apart from retrieval legs offer no add. hands do for the reasons you mentioned. so you could have for instance a torso with arms and that all.

Offline AkioKlaus

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #52 on: August 04, 2014, 06:19:12 pm »
I see the Ryder's are far more efficient for standard combat, if you run out of ammo you can get another gun deployed onto the field for pick up where as a fighter would have to dock most likely for more ammo.

Fighters being smaller would be better in hit and run as well as harder to hit targets, Fighters could also be more suitable for atmospheric re-entry in the case of an emergency or to engage aircraft in the atmosphere, where as a ryder would most likely tear up from the forces, a aircraft being more streamlined should be ok in my understanding.

Ryder's and Fighter's have there different area's in my opinion

Does mechas use triggers as well? I thought it was like integrated in to the system? like if mech A grabs weapon A1 A2 A3 it recognizes it and allows fire, since pilot inside the cockpit would be pulling the trigger, not mecha outside. So I thought weapon looting would be difficult.
Mecha pulling the trigger sounds bit too complex for me to make. But then, idk how much of difference it makes on a gun, a gun with trigger and gun without trigger.
Currently- No good college game design student, too much anime in life
-Ai,doru Daisuki!-

Offline Deathwatch

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #53 on: August 04, 2014, 07:20:35 pm »
I see the Ryder's are far more efficient for standard combat, if you run out of ammo you can get another gun deployed onto the field for pick up where as a fighter would have to dock most likely for more ammo.

Fighters being smaller would be better in hit and run as well as harder to hit targets, Fighters could also be more suitable for atmospheric re-entry in the case of an emergency or to engage aircraft in the atmosphere, where as a ryder would most likely tear up from the forces, a aircraft being more streamlined should be ok in my understanding.

Ryder's and Fighter's have there different area's in my opinion

Does mechas use triggers as well? I thought it was like integrated in to the system? like if mech A grabs weapon A1 A2 A3 it recognizes it and allows fire, since pilot inside the cockpit would be pulling the trigger, not mecha outside. So I thought weapon looting would be difficult.
Mecha pulling the trigger sounds bit too complex for me to make. But then, idk how much of difference it makes on a gun, a gun with trigger and gun without trigger.

I mean in terms of unmounted weapons that aren't customs look at Aldnoah Zero as an example what makes there mecha's more effective than say a tank is the ability to change weapons like an infantry man just carrying larger rounds etc.

Offline mikebrand83

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #54 on: August 05, 2014, 01:35:28 am »
I see the Ryder's are far more efficient for standard combat, if you run out of ammo you can get another gun deployed onto the field for pick up where as a fighter would have to dock most likely for more ammo.
That depends on whether the weapons' ammo are stored in the gun, or loaded/charged from within the unit.

If a mecha's projectile weapons are mainly loaded from an armoured case within the unit itself, picking up a new weapon will only give them the ammo already loaded in that particular weapon at best. BTW, if the ammo for the weapon is volatile (as in, shoot it and it goes BOOM), then trying to pick up gun/ammo in mid-battle will also be like trying to pick up a landmine - Somebody is bound to try to shoot it to catch the unit in the explosion. And if it's not volatile? What's to stop the fighter from doing a drive-by pickup of an armoured ammo case (eject old case, match speed for a second to launch magnetic grappling hook, fly away while reeling case in)?

And as previously mentioned, what weapons mecha can hold and use are fundamentally limited by the strength of their joints from fingers to shoulder to cope with the recoil. Meanwhile a "fighter" of similar mass can mount comparatively much more powerful weaponry on turrets.

Offline Marx-93

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #55 on: August 05, 2014, 05:46:30 am »
Remember that in space, there is also conservation of the angular momentum. You say that its navigational computers will have trouble with a mech, but I think that they will have even more trouble trying to maintain the orientation and moving without creating momentum.
Again, I would argue that it's the complete opposite. The fighter can have its navigational computer pre-calibrated to account for all variations of its thrusters firing as known variables, and the navcomp would only need to make minute adjustments with its smaller thrusters on the fly to correct any variations. Meanwhile, every slightest form change of the mecha would shift its thrusters and their positions relative to the mecha's center of mass, exponentially increasing the corresponding adjustments required to balance out its thrusters' output.

Quote
In a mech because of the familiar form the pilot can intuitively regain some stability, but in a non circular craft the computer systems would have to do it everything. I personally see the possibility of positioning differently without losing stability as the main advantage of the mechs.
Except humans and human forms are fundamentally NOT built for 3D maneuvering. In fact, we're barely suited for 2D, which is part of the reason why there's so much difficulty making real life robot imitating the way we walk (which can often be best described as barely controlled falling). There's a reason why real life space suit and propulsion units are nothing like typical mecha configuration of thrusters on arms and legs.

Are you realizing what would mean for a nav computer to account for all the variation to its momentum its thrusters can have? Even if you're talking about 32 thrusters, you're talking about more than 1048 possible permutations with only another 32 grades of acceleration (even if you put only 10 possible grades, it is still more than 1015 ). And this without taking into account possible changes into its position (so no thrust vectoring). That's absolutely and totally insane if you take into account jamming (which wouldn't let you use a connexion with a central server). Possible in a theoretical standpoint but impossible in a practical one. The human body is not created to manoeuvre in 3D, but that is applicable for any other geometric form in existence except the sphere, and even the sphere tends to stay in a plane of rotation. What is important however is that a Ryder uses the familiarity of the form so that the pilot can better use it knowing that it will have no stable position. While it is true that anything made until now has a distribution of thrusters remotely similar to a mech, that is because the stability is prioritized over everything. Once staying alive is more important than stability, then the familiarity with human form becomes a lot more important (because if your vehicle is not stable you don't got any reference except your own mental ones).


I see the Ryder's are far more efficient for standard combat, if you run out of ammo you can get another gun deployed onto the field for pick up where as a fighter would have to dock most likely for more ammo.
That depends on whether the weapons' ammo are stored in the gun, or loaded/charged from within the unit.

If a mecha's projectile weapons are mainly loaded from an armoured case within the unit itself, picking up a new weapon will only give them the ammo already loaded in that particular weapon at best. BTW, if the ammo for the weapon is volatile (as in, shoot it and it goes BOOM), then trying to pick up gun/ammo in mid-battle will also be like trying to pick up a landmine - Somebody is bound to try to shoot it to catch the unit in the explosion. And if it's not volatile? What's to stop the fighter from doing a drive-by pickup of an armoured ammo case (eject old case, match speed for a second to launch magnetic grappling hook, fly away while reeling case in)?

And as previously mentioned, what weapons mech can hold and use are fundamentally limited by the strength of their joints from fingers to shoulder to cope with the recoil. Meanwhile a "fighter" of similar mass can mount comparatively much more powerful weaponry on turrets.


Recoil is absurd with any advanced technology: Lasers have no recoil, and railguns haven't either. The only thing could be missiles, but if they accelerate just after being launched (so that most of the force is applied after being fired) then it is also solved. I agree however that the idea of reusing weapon from the battlefield is a little silly. The ones of your allies could work (though I think that i would be more for an electronic connection more Akin to an USB than because using the same triggers), but using the ones of your enemies is silly, because they could simply change the size of the trigger putting smaller fingers on their mech, or increasing it's pull force so that only their own can use it without breaking, etc. The munitions should be in the weapon, though possibly reloading wouldn't be a bad idea (it still would have the problems you mentioned, and only your own especially created ammunition).

PS: Restored with original calculations after my new Post (my mistakes should be recorded in Mikebrand posts when he quotes me, if you are so curious).
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 09:14:59 am by Marx-93 »
Why can only the evil have empires, power and majestic theme music? I reclaim the possibility of creating the Federal-democratic-free Empire! A (democratic) tyranny fueled by the Power of Love!

Started writing. You can check it out here: Home

Offline mikebrand83

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #56 on: August 05, 2014, 11:09:58 am »
Are you realizing what would mean for a nav computer to account for all the variation to its momentum its thrusters can have? Even if you're talking about 32 thrusters, you're talking about more than 1010 possible permutations with only another 32 grades of acceleration (even if you put only 10 possible grades, it is still more than 109 ). And this without taking into account possible changes into its position (so no thrust vectoring). That's absolutely and totally insane if you take into account jamming (which wouldn't let you use a connexion with a central server). Possible in a theoretical standpoint but impossible in a practical one.
Sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to actually provide your calculations... As well as why you think that kind of calculation is "absolutely and totally insane", especially given a setting where ships can accurately track and hit targets 10s- to 100s-thousands of kilometers away. Better yet, where some can travel faster-than-light across that kind of distances with accuracy within meters (e.g. the Sunrider's mini-warp).

And why would ECM even be a factor? It's not like the fighter would need to connect to a GPS network of some sort that ECM could interfer with. All the navcomp has to keep track of is its own thrusters, and orientation can easily be constantly updated using optical data of both nearby and distant interstellar bodies, that again ECM can't interfere with.

Quote
The human body is not created to manoeuvre in 3D, but that is applicable for any other geometric form in existence except the sphere, and even the sphere tends to stay in a plane of rotation. What is important however is that a Ryder uses the familiarity of the form so that the pilot can better use it knowing that it will have no stable position. While it is true that anything made until now has a distribution of thrusters remotely similar to a mech, that is because the stability is prioritized over everything. Once staying alive is more important than stability, then the familiarity with human form becomes a lot more important (because if your vehicle is not stable you don't got any reference except your own mental ones).
So a navcomp being able to account for all of a fighter's thrusters firing and orientation (based on both close and distant stellar bodies) is "absolutely and totally insane"... But pilots flailing around based on biological instincts that doesn't apply in space (not to mention the even more variations of its thrusters its navcomp has to keep track of, due to movements of the mecha's limbs changing the physical position of its thrusters), itself victim of the very angular momentum that you brought up as a potential issue for the fighter, isn't?

Quote
Recoil is absurd with any advanced technology: Lasers have no recoil, and railguns haven't either. The only thing could be missiles, but if they accelerate just after being launched (so that most of the force is applied after being fired) then it is also solved.
Lasers have no mass as such, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have momentum, as a powerful enough laser will generate recoil.

And railguns having "no recoil" are the stuff of pseudo-scientific sci-fi that magically violates Newton's Third Law. You can cancel out recoil by applying equal force in the opposite direction of your railgun projectile, but you can do that just as easily with conventional projectiles.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 11:46:51 am by mikebrand83 »

Offline Deathwatch

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #57 on: August 05, 2014, 11:53:07 am »
I prefer Coil Guns over Rail Guns, as rail guns have more than one magnet, if one of those number of magnets in a rail gun fails it can tear itself asunder as the projectile loses stability from a magnet failure.

Coil guns being a single magnet in a coil are far safer in my opinion.

Offline Marx-93

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #58 on: August 06, 2014, 09:11:24 am »
Sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to actually provide your calculations... As well as why you think that kind of calculation is "absolutely and totally insane", especially given a setting where ships can accurately track and hit targets 10s- to 100s-thousands of kilometers away. Better yet, where some can travel faster-than-light across that kind of distances with accuracy within meters (e.g. the Sunrider's mini-warp).

And why would ECM even be a factor? It's not like the fighter would need to connect to a GPS network of some sort that ECM could interfer with. All the navcomp has to keep track of is its own thrusters, and orientation can easily be constantly updated using optical data of both nearby and distant interstellar bodies, that again ECM can't interfere with.


Lasers have no mass as such, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have momentum, as a powerful enough laser will generate recoil.

And railguns having "no recoil" are the stuff of pseudo-scientific sci-fi that magically violates Newton's Third Law. You can cancel out recoil by applying equal force in the opposite direction of your railgun projectile, but you can do that just as easily with conventional projectiles.

First let me admit a shameful mistake. The railgun has a recoil. Searching a little I realized that is actually totally unavoidable. Let me tell you however that Newton's 3d law is a loose guideline by anything that is not totally mechanic: its application is very ambiguous in electromagnetism and general relativity directly rescinds of it. Conservation of momentum however is mostly absolute (it can be argued that the 3d law is simply a postulate so that momentum conservation is maintained always in any kind of mechanical situation). However, in any kind of railgun or coilgun (the basics are the same) the recoil is the least of the problems: The heating of the rails or the barrel, and the Forces that are pushing apart the rails or coils would be a lot more dangerous. If you manage to create a material that can resist both, an armoured section to protect from the recoil is laughably easy. For example, lets make a little calculation. Suppose a shell of 10 Kg (3 times heavier than a normal tank round, and probably heavier than anything a mech could fire), and fire it at a speed of at least 3*105 m/s (that's 30 times more speed that the biggest managed by the most powerful experimental railgun constructed, which used a lighter shell, to boot). If the arm of the mech weights at least 100 tones (for reference only 3 times more than a common earth fighter, and Ryder measure more than 15 meters in height at least), we are talking about 30 m/s. In only the arm. An armoured joint would be enough, and I'm a proponent of armoured mechs. About lasers, the momentum of a photon is it's energy divided by the speed of light. It would generate at maximum half the momentum of a shell with the same energy, and that's supposing relativistic speeds, which are laughable for a lot of reasons (if you want me to explain I'll do, the only possible exception is Ryuvian technology, but due to surpassing the speed of light is whole different matter). The momentum generated by a laser is negligible in comparison to everything else, and with the energy of shells around 105m/s it would have 1/3000 of its recoil (furthermore, lasers tend to be generated by using a gas, and so, the cylinder containing that gas will suffer many times more pressure than the recoil, so if a laser weapon is feasible, its recoil shouldn't be a problem by any standard).

My calculation for thrusters were actually wrong, as the number was so big that I changed to combinations without repetition, when it truly is a permutation with repetition. The reasoning is the next: You have 32 thrusters, each with 10 grades of acceleration. The momentum that needs to be compensated varies depending on the which thrusters are at what level of power. So since order matters (the direction of each thruster affects the momentum generated) and each thruster can have any of 10 levels of acceleration without depending on the others, we have 3210 possibilities, approximately 1015 possibilities. In my first calculation I thought of it as a barbarity, so I thought that I was mistaken and were combinations without repetition, which make a more reasonable number. After careful thinking however the idea of a combination without repetition was absurd, so I returned to my old idea. I nevertheless admit that I precipitated qualifying it as "absolutely and totally insane", but the scale of the numbers is enormous. While computers seem advanced, it is not to the point of quantum computers: targeting and tracking are incredibly simple (very low number of variables), both were already being done at the 50s, even at long distances, and the warp drive of the Sunrider was explicitly told to be because they copied the technology from the Seraphim; the fact that other ships can't do it is the reason why the surprise attacks at the wedding worked (in fact, if you took Cullens cruisers warping very far away  at Far Port as a technical limitation, the accuracy of warp is dangerously low). 1015 possibilities would require either a supercomputer or at least 1000 processors in a fighter. My precipitations is that the last one could be done, at least if miniaturization is still moderately advanced, but I think that such a heavy burden in the computers would lower its capacity for everything else, aside from probably conditioning the space and weight (I admit however that this two would barely be a annoyance).

My reference to jamming was that it nulls the possibility of relying on a big central computer to do the thing for them. Like you I didn't consider the possibility of interfering in the fighters internal components as possible.

So a navcomp being able to account for all of a fighter's thrusters firing and orientation (based on both close and distant stellar bodies) is "absolutely and totally insane"... But pilots flailing around based on biological instincts that doesn't apply in space (not to mention the even more variations of its thrusters its navcomp has to keep track of, due to movements of the mecha's limbs changing the physical position of its thrusters), itself victim of the very angular momentum that you brought up as a potential issue for the fighter, isn't?

My point was that a mech resigns itself to an unstable space combat. When you launch a human being in the water without him knowing how to swim, it will certainly flail around, but it will do so in a manner as to approach the surface while trying to evade anything else, all without thinking. If you put a human being in a barrel and launch it to the water, even if it has some mechanism by which to move, the human will flail around doing useless and absurd movements until the barrel is stable, even if he knows how to use it. A mech does not need the nav computers because it relies on being unstable, doing movements that are unpredictable while still managing some control. This is what I think; you believe stability a must, I believe that lack of stability can be used by mechs.
Why can only the evil have empires, power and majestic theme music? I reclaim the possibility of creating the Federal-democratic-free Empire! A (democratic) tyranny fueled by the Power of Love!

Started writing. You can check it out here: Home

Offline mikebrand83

Re: Why ryders?
« Reply #59 on: August 06, 2014, 12:29:13 pm »
However, in any kind of railgun or coilgun (the basics are the same) the recoil is the least of the problems: The heating of the rails or the barrel, and the Forces that are pushing apart the rails or coils would be a lot more dangerous. If you manage to create a material that can resist both, an armoured section to protect from the recoil is laughably easy.
Except it's not just a single joint. Depending on how the weapons are mounted (in the case of Sunrider, I've already applauded ryders as among examples of Doing It Right), the recoil would affect everything from the fingers, to the hands, to the wrist, to the elbow, to the shoulder. And of course, the advantage of a turret in terms of recoil mitigation is not just being able to mount bigger guns, but also faster firing guns.

Quote
If the arm of the mech weights at least 100 tones (for reference only 3 times more than a common earth fighter, and Ryder measure more than 15 meters in height at least), we are talking about 30 m/s. In only the arm. An armoured joint would be enough, and I'm a proponent of armoured mechs.
And typical modern fighters are 15 ~ 20 meters in length, with wingspan not far behind.

Quote
The momentum generated by a laser is negligible in comparison to everything else, and with the energy of shells around 105m/s it would have 1/3000 of its recoil (furthermore, lasers tend to be generated by using a gas, and so, the cylinder containing that gas will suffer many times more pressure than the recoil, so if a laser weapon is feasible, its recoil shouldn't be a problem by any standard).
Not arguing that lasers (actual ones, as opposed to various forms sci-fi lasers that are only "laser" in name only) would have significant recoil, just that it's a mistake to say that they have no recoil (especially if they're powerful enough).

Quote
While computers seem advanced, it is not to the point of quantum computers: targeting and tracking are incredibly simple (very low number of variables), both were already being done at the 50s, even at long distances, and the warp drive of the Sunrider was explicitly told to be because they copied the technology from the Seraphim; the fact that other ships can't do it is the reason why the surprise attacks at the wedding worked (in fact, if you took Cullens cruisers warping very far away  at Far Port as a technical limitation, the accuracy of warp is dangerously low).
Except the complexity for the Sunrider's mini-warp is for accuracy in a short FTL jump, while for normal warp is about avoiding collisions with countless bodies of mass across interstellar distances. The characters on both sides also act as if how Cullens' cruisers warped in was his mistake, rather than an unavoidable result of technical limitations.

As for targeting and tracking being simple: For objects that are too far away for visual feedback until long after the fact, some which can move in ways you've just been arguing as requiring 1000 processors calculate?

Quote
My point was that a mech resigns itself to an unstable space combat. When you launch a human being in the water without him knowing how to swim, it will certainly flail around, but it will do so in a manner as to approach the surface while trying to evade anything else, all without thinking. If you put a human being in a barrel and launch it to the water, even if it has some mechanism by which to move, the human will flail around doing useless and absurd movements until the barrel is stable, even if he knows how to use it.
Again, I would argue that the reality is somewhat the reverse. Dump a person with an neutral buoyancy belt locked around their waist deep enough into a huge, unlit water tank (where they can't even see which direction the air bubbles they breath out goes) while spinning them around a couple of times, and they're just as liable to uselessly flail around trying to swim down or to the sides, as they are upwards by chance.

Meanwhile, someone in that hypothetical "barrel" can ignore their irrelevant biological instincts and rely on their instruments and training to immediately start taking control. Similar to how pilots can falsely feel that they are climbing as a result of the combination of gravity and G-forces of accelerating, but can rely on their instruments to tell them that they are actually level and that nosing down would be disastrous. Or otherwise flying/landing in conditions where they can't use on what they see outside as reference, and can only trust their instruments.