A question of functionality in sci fi designs

[Black Spot]

That so makes my weapon of choice itching powder.

[JeffX99]

BigDog has been succeeded by the LS3 "AlphaDog," the field testing of which began this year. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...oor-assessment

OMG...poor things, it makes me want to shoot them to put them out of their misery.

Also...this is the kind of problem you get when you let Bill Carman do industrial design.

[bcarman]

Everything I do is perfectly functional Jeff. And it looks bitchin'.

[JFierce]

Fictional worlds still function according to our reality though...so they need to look like they work. Your car example for instance...at its core it is still a car...and better function as such.

Been awhile since I've been to this thread a bit late.
But yes things work in the realms of reality. Except one technological breakthrough can break plenty of the bindings of that reality. In the same way people never thought flight was possible, or even something like electricity was remotely feasible. Suddenly a new material is created and it changes the very laws of nature as we know them, or a metal that is as thin as a straw is developed that can hold tons.

Things should feel fairly functional enough to believe it's possible since with any concept it needs to feel real enough. But when people compare too much to our reality it bugs me with things like "That wouldn't be able to support that structure, or that little thing could never power something that large". Since our reality is ever expanding and the impossible becomes possible all the time.

[Velocity Kendall]

"Black Spot
Quote:
But will it also scratch your itchy balls?"

Doing that with a giant metal claw is a nerve-wracking prospect.

"Things should feel fairly functional enough to believe it's possible since with any concept it needs to feel real enough. But when people compare too much to our reality it bugs me with things like "That wouldn't be able to support that structure, or that little thing could never power something that large". Since our reality is ever expanding and the impossible becomes possible all the time."

I agree. I think when characters in movies treat what we think as crazy technological miracles with a sort of everyday meh-ness, like the Mr Fusion or the Bladerunner Spinner or the Starship Enterprise, that adds a lot of believablility to it. Like, theyre reaction shows that to them this is nothing special, just as we do with giant skyscrapers or the Panama canal or the moon landings. Miracles become commonplace quickly.

[Thoolhoo]

Black Spot, that's the million dollar question. But Starcraft marines are totally realistic, just look at this detailed video of how they suit up...

I watched that trailer as well, hence I mentioned it in the original post. I even did a helpful diagram for it. The trailer in itself is pretty good, and at first glance I even liked it. And it is nitpicking, I know, but I have some problems with it. Like for example how you never see how his shoulders are built up. And what is all this metal doing on top of his naked skin? Or his feet. How long do they have to be to fit the proportion of the final suit? And so on.

I mean, don't get me wrong, that trailer looks awesome, and I'm aware that my criticisms of it are going into the realms of pettiness.

As for itching powder. That would be an unfortunate case of psychological warfare. Especially if you do end up snipping your balls off with your force in the power of ten... I would make sure to install something to counter it. Like tiny tasers to remove the itchiness with minuscule electrical shocks.

[zx52hg]

Well, seeing as we're on the topic... I've never quite been able to make sense of power armour.

It's like, if I take one of countless stereotypical designs of power armour as an example, it lacks the agility of an infantryman and the speed of a tank. It can't get in small places or hide in foxholes, so it's a very big target. It can't carry enough supplies to remain self-sufficient for a few days without resupply, or carry the firepower of a tank. Even the heaviest tanks of today are very vulnerable to man-portable weapons. Imagine what it'd be like with much lighter protection to enable a man to move inside it. A lot of tanks have low turret profiles precisely to avoid the problem of silhouetting themselves on the horizon and all that, so what do all those mech designers do? Make them so tall that you can see them from miles away and shoot them dead before they even realise you're there.

It's all good fun, though, and I've been a fan of giant robots smashing each other to pieces since I first found out about Battletech and Mechwarrior. As petty as it probably appears, it is very interesting to me analysing some of these designs. My opinion is that if you can make a cool and visually interesting design for a film or something, then the audience will probably think, "hey, that looks cool," for a few minutes, then promptly forget about it when the next piece of flashy FX comes up. If you can make one that also looks like it could really work and function in reality, then people will remember it for a long time.

As for toilet needs in an armoured suit, I guess they'd do what they do in tanks or aircraft in battle, which is just wet yourself.

[Velocity Kendall]

Because a tank or a helicopter gunship would almost always batter a mech suit, some series build in ways to rationalise their use. Like say radar has become terminally jammed preventing accurate ballistic or guided missile strikes, and so hand to hand combat mechs are sort of believable.
Or like in Evangelion, where really theyre part of a complex conspiracy and not really giant robots at all.

There are loads of reasons why mechas dont work.

Theyre too tall, theyre easy to disable with a single shot, theyre very easy to hit with bullets or missiles, they consume too much energy, the bearings in their legs need to be made of impossible strong materials, their waste heat would melt them and anyhthing near them, theyre not as useful as tanks in battle, theyre too complex, theyd find it difficult to shoot heavily recoiling ballistic guns while moving, or at all,
BUT THEY LOOK AWESOME!

Mecha as practical war machines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tr...l_War_Machines

Too many words about why mechas are stupid
http://www.denbeste.nu/Chizumatic/tmw/mechas.shtml

Other applications i can think armoured suits are or might be useful might be in bomb disposal, deep sea operations, dangerous animal husbandry, metal smelting, space industry.

[JFierce]

The above why mechas are stupid is what bugs me. Why are people talking about cooling, power, supporting weight, the bearings. Once again. Future/different universe/planet sometimes. Different new metal or power source suddenly changes all the possibilities. The size and being a target could be an issue, I agree. I always viewed a mech as an all around vehicle in design, many utilities. Why give something hands? Because look at all the shit a human hand can do. Then it's designed in a humanoid form for familiarity and simplicity.


Also disagree a bit with why a mecha would carry a rifle or such instead of attaching it to the suit directly. If a robot has everything directly attached to the suit then you can't change weapons on the fly, you have to customize every weapon to match the robot while if it has a trigger and a handle the mech can use it. You run out of ammo with your big shoulder cannons that are mounted to your suit? Eject it but good luck getting another one on in the heat of a battle. Run out of ammo with your rifle? Go grab another one in a few seconds off a fallen ally or even enemy. The hand getting chopped off makes it useless in that arm, but it's the same as if any robot had it's gun hit/chopped of. You could always do what something like Gundam does and do both. Have mounted and unmounted weapons.


Mechs aren't remotely feasible for us. We have nowhere near the tech or even environment to ever need it. Ever. If we're doing mechs it's going to be tiny mech suits to help soldiers wield weapons they normally couldn't carry across terrain something like a tank or something with wheels might not go.

[Velocity Kendall]

Aaron Beck does some of the most believable, frankly frightening battle mechs Ive seen.

Think Big Dog plus 25 years of technical development...



















stuff like the spider silk armour, missle pods, sensor systems and whisker sensors is bang on.

[Raoul Duke]

Mechs are pretty played out as far as I'm concerned. The stories were like Soap Operas with killer robots. Nobody was ever concerned about the populated cities that constantly got leveled in the crossfire either. But I gotta admit they did make some bad ass dog fights.

[Hai]

Just as an apropos to the big dog: here's a "bipedal version", the petman

http://youtu.be/mclbVTIYG8E

edit: i seem to have forgotten the youtube link coding thing

[JFierce]

I like mech series that are political like the older gundams. Occasionally like the over the top series for the fun of it.

[arenhaus]

robots really robotic (as opposed to sleek, bafflingly complex biologically sophisticated ur-machines, for example)

... and then the Mass Effect team comes up with Geth.

[arenhaus]

If a robot has everything directly attached to the suit then you can't change weapons on the fly, you have to customize every weapon to match the robot while if it has a trigger and a handle the mech can use it.

Which is why the aviation weapon hardpoints are shaped like human hands and the weapons have handles... right?

[JFierce]

Still have limited shots and once your out your out. Though the argument is for a hit and run vehicle like a plane and not a mech.
Though there's no way to defend hypotheticals.
We don't even have the tech for sophisticated hands for people yet (as far as I know) that reacts the same as a human hand.
We don't have the tech or the need for the tech.


But yeah not going much further in this topic lol

[Thoolhoo]

This thread grew a bit more than I had anticipated. It's really interesting to hear everyone's opinions.

I contacted my lecturer and I think I have a green light to explore "functionality in concept design" for my Honours year come autumn

[Velocity Kendall]

as always, form follows function.
only in this instance the function is to communicate, rather to perform physical operations.

re. Mass Effect, ive not played but people do say its the best science fiction entertainment around. the concept art for that android isnt particularly interesting though; it looks like a scaled down Mass Production Evangelion.

i had in mind bushrobots or utility fog.

Geth

MP Eva

coffee table resembling a bush robot

[Izikisikil]

The need for realism goes out the window when you realize:

a. The general public either doesn't care or doesn't realize. It's also not a medical diagram so doesn't need to be real.
b. Space-marines/Mechs are not real either, but that is irrelevant - it's entertainment, not NASA.

A design does not need to be realistic or functional. You just need to sell that it is.

[Black Spot]

The need for realism goes out the window when you realize:

a. The general public either doesn't care or doesn't realize.

Not the general public, just guys.

[Raoul Duke]

b. Space-marines/Mechs are not real either, but that is irrelevant - it's entertainment, not NASA.

It's not entertaining either, when it's the same thing as the last thing and the thing before that thing.

[TinyBird]

The need for realism goes out the window when you realize:
a. The general public either doesn't care or doesn't realize.

So thank god that people in here at least care a bit. Seriously, if everyone went "yeah, no one will care anyway" and stopped at that, probably no one would try to innovate anything. Not to mention people's expectations change depending on what they see in media, something that the general public didn't care about ten years ago they might care today because people went on improving things (maybe like graphics, the more realistic and natural game/movie/etc graphics and effect become, the higher expectations people will have and they will care about it, as crappy CGI tends to disrupt the experience to many).
If I care and realize, then that's enough for me to try harder (ignoring my previous post about clueless bosses, sometimes you just can't win).

[dennis.k]

Just because something can't function in our world doesn't mean it can't function in the world the story is told. I mean it is sience fiction. You can make pretty much everything sound plausible and functional when you give it an somewhat scientific explanation.

The Spacesuit has ridiculous proportion? - Well, let's say only super humans with gen manipulated body structures wear them.

Can't go faster than light? - Well, Mass effect fields, or warp drive, or Planck energy propulsion in combination with wormholes make it possible.

I think in a science fiction world you can make everything sound plausible and functional with a scientific yada yada, even if it's just total BS.

[Raoul Duke]

It's not necessarily about real world functionality, it's the suspention of disbelief. Like checkout the series of sky boats ian mcque has been cranking out lately. There is no actual technology to back it up, but it's believable and most importantly I want to play with them.

Check out this Gavin Rothery piece. It looks like it will toppel over when the rockets fire, but it's forgivable, because most importantly it reads from an extreme distance. Aside from that it appears to be totally functional.

I love this one because it's the worst design in the best possible way. I'd love to see something like this in a game. It would be a challenge on it's own.

[manlybrian]

Here is a page from Doug Chiang's "Mechanika" book, which I certainly recommend.

THE KEYS TO GOOD DESIGNS
-----------------------------------
Since design can be subjective, it is hard to know whether a design is strong and successful. Over the years I have come up with some simple tests to help me determine this. Keep in mind these aren't strict rules; they're merely guidelines. There will be exceptions.

1. A STRONG SILHOUETTE
Design for iconic shapes. Always think in terms of strong silhouettes before focusing on the fine details. Squinting your eyes occasionally will help you concentrate on this. Remember, details embellish the overall design but don't determine it.

2. THE THREE-SECOND RULE
With iconic shapes in mind, create designs that can be understood in three seconds or less. The three-second rule evolved out of my film experience. Often audiences have less than three seconds to understand what they are viewing before the shot changes, so it is essential to keep the design clear. For example, if it's a vehicle, the viewer must be able to determine quickly where the pilot sits, in which direction the vehicle is going, its purpose, etc. These things may sound simple, but they are often neglected. Always strive to keep the overall form easy to understand.

3. PERSONALITY
Ask yourself: Is the design powerful? Weak? Menacing? Are those traits reflected in the design? When personality is infused into your designs, the end result is more effective.

4. FUNCTIONALITY
Would the design work? You must have an idea how your design would function. Confirm functionality before moving on to the next question.

5. BELIEVABILITY
Is it plausible? Does it look as if it can perform the function that you designed it to? Ths is the believability test. This doesn't mean that every joint and hinge needs to be figured out in great detail, but a basic appearance of practical function is essential.

6. COOL FACTOR
This one is very subjective and a bonus if it can be achieved. This is the emotional difference between a sports car and a commuter car. Both vehicles are made for transport and both have the same basic configuration, but one addresses its purpose with much greater flair. Do the same in your designs.

Lastly, just for fun, I want to post this gun from the final episode of ReBoot Season 1. Even when I was about ten years old, I thought, "What an absurd gun! How could she hold that up!?" But at the same time I took that imaginary gun and used it whenever my friends and I were playing in the backyard pretending to be GI Joes or whatever, because giant guns = awesome.

[Velocity Kendall]

it looks like she has a massive machine cock and loves it

[manlybrian]

Yeeeaaaah, that one didn't occur to me until I was older..... >_>

Speaking of absurdly huge and impractical guns, here's another one wielded by Cable in one of the X-Men comics I have. This thing was so freaking front heavy that it needed that uber shoulder pad. Made me laugh when I first saw it. Even if the shoulder pad acted as a counter-weight, there's no way a person could hold that thing up. ...but then--it is Cable.

[Raoul Duke]

I gotta admit when I was Cable and the x-force was the raddest thing ever. Those Leifeild character designs had the "cool factor" in the early nineties. Guns with guns on the guns and swords with swords on them and pouches on spikes. I was like "why can't everybody be this bad ass all the time?"



Now is that stuff anymore distasteful than this Blizzard stuff.




The difference being Blizzard is the model of success in this trend cycle and dictates standards. Leifeld's work has a zeitgeist hangover and we only have to look at it for chuckles.