Quite busy these days but I've been able to make this one concept along.
It is energy equipment. No projectiles at all. Battery is socketed in rear sections behind grip. Body hides bunch of three barrels/emitters inside. Core of structure is chamber in the middle . Scope is linked to body and is displaying (beside other) actual status of battery and other information regarding internal parts. These information are available only in scope and not also on the body itself which has been found as limitation while operating. On the other hand new platform of battery provides enough energy for 94 rounds. Design office is still working on elimination flash effects while firing. Also tests uncover defects occuring while constant firing. In case of constant suppress fire of 3 and more battery packs in row, generated heat melts down front mask. Planned bigger cooler inside body will fix this problem soon.
I made this concept in 3ds max and render engine I used V-ray. Model is highpoly. Due lack of time I didnt make full textures but used shiny materials.
I did 2 big pictures:
1. Shoki main - peterku.deviantart.com/art/Sho…
2. Shoki secondary - peterku.deviantart.com/art/Sho…
So what? Do you like it or not? Tnx for comments if any and bye.
I did another model with similar style: SUIJIN (SUIJIN - Concept of sci fi pulse rifle.)
Great work man
Awesome design by the way.
Look at the Star Trek Phaser for example.
For me for example, nothing beats imagining what a future ability to manipulate a known principle could achieve. Take a look at plasma for example: Plasma is unable to move more than a few centimeters in the air on its own -it dissipates fast into the air. So if you want to have a ranged plasma-based weapon you have to find a way to deliver it to your target, probably hundreds of meters away. How do you do it without confining it into a solid projectile (it would turn into a ballistic weapon then)?
Obviously this question is an example of what you call "cornering in a set of real world physics", but I don't see this as a confinement but rather as an opportunity to imagine other things. For plasma for example, I have imagined that the weapon, a few milliseconds prior to shooting the plasma, projects a force-field in the shape of a tube, through which the plasma is "siphoned" towards the target.
Now the thing is that I can actually imagine that - I mean how it would look - the force field would be totally transparent or iridescent, and the plasma is bright purple - so hot that it melts everything, super-fast.
The "pulse" thing - I cannot even begin to imagine what this is - it doesn't give me a clue on where to begin.
See my point?
To me pulse would lean towards a Laser or similar weapon where the weapon fires a rapid stream of very short duration exposures rather than a continual beam as we see with say a laser pointer
How about a pulsating super-strong force field that focuses on the target? I would deal damage by severe concussion. Something like a pneumatic hammer. Crushes armor or just shatters the bones behind it.
Like we have both basically said on its own it is meaningless but it helps give the sense of meaning, of something more tangible than it is, it hints at a mechanic that we can conceive it helps us imagine without tying the creator down to something that a set of rules can be defined for so it gives flexibility in how the device can be operated in a later encounter.
The best argument for bull-pup over a front-heavy rifle is the fact that in weapons where a bull-pup configuration is a mechanical nightmare it is still winning contracts from European armies. Being less cumbersome and easier to bring on target are apparently worth a LOT of excess mechanical complexity.
Also energy weapon
More importantly, it doesn't provide the advantages of a bullpup. No reduction in overall length and/or protruding barrel. Presumably no improvement in balance either. So right now, it's as cumbersome as a sniper rifle -- slow to bring on target, more likely to get caught up in underbrush, etc. Moving the trigger assembly forward gets you the ease of use of a carbine or perhaps a submachinegun.
The fact that it's an energy weapon is implicit to my contrast to contemporary choices. Today many choose a bullpup over traditional rifle despite the mechanical challenges. I didn't mention that a trigger that closes a circuit presumably isn't going to present such design difficulties because I thought that was obvious.
Not looking for a pissing contest here. If you teach me something I'll consider it a win/win. Nor is it a zero sum game if you need to clarify/modify any prior statement.
In this case
The ammo loading would be represented by the battery
The breach is none existent
Ejection while not strictly speaking needed could be represented by that heatsink surrounding what from the description is the equivalent of the chamber
all of this to my eye is *just* behind the centerline of the grip.
As for the barrel length, it would certainly make the weapon at a minimum as long as say an M-16 and with the inherent problems you mention with longer weapons, though I suspect that was a more artistic than a technical decision as artistically speaking I find the weapon balanced and pleasing to the eye.
As a further technical issue that occured to me while writing this, that heatsink so near my face is probably going to get downright unpleasant after prolonged use
However, I'm responsible for that semantic red herring and I'm also a word guy, so I should probably try to tackle the issue on both technical semantics and functional use.
Your second definition still effectively defined a reservoir as part of the "action." That's not particularly useful. Function counts. For example, your definition of bullpup from your first post would have made one of the earliest repeaters a bullpup: the Spencer Rifle, which held "ammo" and thus had the "magazine" behind the trigger assembly. Thus it clearly didn't work for many historical chemical-propelled slug-throwers. That's a historical/present tense functional failure.
I'd contend we need a functional and clear definition for past, present, and future: a definition that best covers as many cases as possible (there are *always* exceptions).
To me, the action has to be the site of *action*. The storage for potential energy is not the action. I'd suggest that the locus where potential energy is released and converted into destructive energy is the point of the action.
Thus the battery (or transformer) on a laser (an existing energy weapon) would not be the "action" but rather the pump source would. The same applies to an electron gun, where I'd choose the hot cathode/filament and might include the anodes used to accelerate the electrons (but not anodes further down the line that adjust their target).
This definition can be used across both energy and chemically based kinetic weapons. Applying this concept to current weapons would intersect with current sense of the word while also applying intuitively to energy and particle weapons. I think it even makes intuitive sense with a flame thrower.
That is a functional definition of action worthy of the *word* action. Not an "A" but maybe at least a "B". We may still disagree on that one, but to me this was definitely worth the effort to work through for future use.
I'd say your observations regarding the heat sink are *very* functional ("A" material). In addition to your points, I'll volunteer that the ejector literally disposes of not just gas and cartridge but also a considerable amount of heat. If you apply the concept of ejector as the removal of leftover material *and* energy it's applicable to existing as well as future weapons. Then you threw the issue with location into the mix: outstanding. That's gritty technical detail. The kind that differentiates hard science fiction from space opera/science-fantasy. Sounds like something that Haldeman might have come up with for "The Forever War."
I think the toughest part of future science-fiction writing is applying/inventing terminology that's intuitive rather than obtuse technobable. I hope you don't mind if I steal some of that line of thinking for later use!
As for balance, we both know that artistic was not in any way the sense of the word as I applied it. In the artistic sense it's almost a given with peterku that it's pleasing to my eye. His stuff ALWAYS looks great as far as I'm concerned. I think -- or at least hope -- he already knows that. I wouldn't be commenting in the first place if I didn't hold him in high esteem.
Every so often, though, the look doesn't jive with utility. A better sense of what it's like to heft a rifle or carbine, draw and fire a sidearm, or fence with a saber seems the only possible area for improvement. He's pleaded artistic license before, but the fact is he's producing art already at the realistic end of the spectrum, not implausible fantasy.
Maybe it's not worth commenting. It's like giving suggestions that might turn a "A" product into an "A+".
Sorry for the long delay, I needed to find a time where I would be alert enough to understand your post and give it the attention it deserves, hopefully I have managed that.
On the first point, Yes typical case of typing before fact checking on my part.
As for the second definition you are right, I for some reason was not registering the fact that the Reservoir positioning on a ballistic weapon is as a result of the ramp placement not the other way round and I must apologise for that error
Also again I would agree that the Chamber/initiator/start point would make the best defining point as it is the one feature where majority of the time there is an equivalent, the only exception I can think of is a weapon where the initiator and the barrel are one and the same, for example a Laser could follow that mode of operation, but then you would be looking at a special set of form definitions/descriptors.
I think you summed the issue up brilliantly, from a words point of view in conveying meaning and imagery to an audience, when dealing with technology where there are few or no current example it is hard to convey an idea of what you see in your own mind's eye.
For example the the relatively uninitiated the distinctive thing when looking at a Styer Aug or a L85/86 is the mag behind the grip, the fact that that is a by-product of what actually makes a bullpup would probably be lost on them.
Also my first pov on a lot of things is the technical standpoint which probably didnt help matters, and yes you are certainly free to use any part of what we have said.
As for the utility/fantasy part combined with how realistic the renders are I would also agree that at this standard if a quick comment about the utility is the most reasonable suggestion then fair game, reading back, my reply was a bit smart ass for my own good, though I have enjoyed this discussion its gotten me thinking about things which is always a good thing.
You made me think *and* gave me a good technical idea to play with.
As far as I'm concerned, I owe you (at least) one.