Mech stuff

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by SbOlly

True, everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Even those with RETARDED opinions. Opinions never the less.

this isn't really a matter of opinion though, it is the absolute fact that mechs are a bit poitless really. I reckon they wouyld be quite good for crowd control though sine I would suggest that a 10m tall mech would worry people more than a man in a rank. (and it would look cool)

[Crackmonkey]

Originally Posted by Mad cat

you ppl obviously think that the entire concept is ****ed up and impossible but iv heard several theories that are even worse, that you people would probably defend.

now, tell me just how impossible this thing would be
http://www.kent.net/robotech/mecha/rdf/macii.gif
when you look at it for about three seconds you realise that this thing is impossible to knock over and that it must have incredible firepower

"If you want to cut through anything more substantial than paper, at any range over a few feet, you're really wanting the output of a large nuclear power station. These tend to be about 20 stories high and weigh quite a bit" MrL you are a DUMBSOD co2 lasers are used for chopping up very large sections of metal, cutting diamons although that has little or no relavance, and to have one you must first have an industrial licence, so i really really do not believe that it couldnt cut paper, and i didnt say that someone HAD cut a builing in half i said that it could be done easily. and no you do NOT need to devote an entire nuclear powerplant to powering one of these things, where the **** did you get that idea?!? plus mass drivers and railguns are two very different things that simply follow the same basic principal of propelling a slug with a powerfull magnetic field a mass driver aka coilgun uses the same electro magnets that we all made in elementary school, just larger more powerful and without the nail. a railgun like the name implies uses two rails the slug and a fair bit of power to create the feild

That thing is far from impossible to knock over. For one, do you have any idea what kind of recoil those huge cannons would have? The second they fire that thing is going to be on it's back, of not doing some serious backpedaling. As for your laser idea, you completely missed his point. Yes, lasers are powerful, but to get any usefullnes at a large range, you need a lot more power. To get the sort of power to cut through a building you would need a sizeable reactor. Also railguns are not very different at all from mass drivers, it's just two different ways of using the same method and acheiving the same goal.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

he might be wrong.

he might be shit.

but at least he is an interesting wrong shit.

I'm an RPer. Understand that RPing in the same thread as mad cat is much like someone saying 'Happy Birthday! As a present, I'm giving you AIDS!'

Plus also he really IS shit.


sword was banned for less

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Proteus

This thread should be destroyed and all evidence of its existence permanently erased.

This statement still stands.

[Luckeh!!!!]

battletech mechs carried fusion reactors btw.

and yes it is fairly risky to carry one in a warmachine, and has exploded a fair number of times (intentionally or not) in the books that i read.

There are certain fail-safes involved though.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Phang

I'm an RPer. Understand that RPing in the same thread as mad cat is much like someone saying 'Happy Birthday! As a present, I'm giving you AIDS!'

Plus also he really IS shit.


sword was banned for less

well the good thing about shit people I find, is that they are usually wrong, and so arguing with them is like light relief. some of their ideas are also a bit more interesting too. reasonable people usually aren't as fun - for example, I could never have a conversation with vermillion or w about the merits and demerits of using a battle mech in a combat zone.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Luckeh!!!!

battletech mechs carried fusion reactors btw.

and yes it is fairly risky to carry one in a warmachine, and has exploded a fair number of times (intentionally or not) in the books that i read.

There are certain fail-safes involved though.

the neutron flux would be quite devastating and would kill the pilot for one thing. if it exploded though it probablt wouldn't be too bad, that depends on how dense the gas is, though JET was picked up (complete with concrete base weighting hundreds of tons) and moved a couple of centimetres when the field collapsed once.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Mad cat

you ppl obviously think that the entire concept is ****ed up and impossible but iv heard several theories that are even worse,

Now there is a solid counter argument. "You think my theory is stupid? Oh yeah? Well I bet there are other theories that are even stupider!"

when you look at it for about three seconds you realise that this thing is impossible to knock over and that it must have incredible firepower

Absolutely, impossible to tip over. Unless, you know, you pushed it, or it fired those guns of its and knocked itself over instantly...

you are a DUMBSOD co2 lasers are used for chopping up very large sections of metal, cutting diamons although that has little or no relavance, and to have one you must first have an industrial licence, so i really really do not believe that it couldnt cut paper, and i didnt say that someone HAD cut a builing in half i said that it could be done easily. and no you do NOT need to devote an entire nuclear powerplant to powering one of these things, where the **** did you get that idea?!?

The most powerful laser ever built is the Mid Infrared Advanced Chemical Lasers (MIRACL), capable of unleashing a 2 million watt laser for over 5 seconds. At the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico they fired on thick slabs of sandstone and shale, punching 6-centimeter holes through them within a few seconds. That took 2 megawatts of power for one shot. Now true, a good sized nuclear power facility can produce 2500 megawats of power in a day, but then again, they tend to be significantly larger than a football stadium, and so difficult to mount on 2 legs.

Further, this laser was able to cut through soft stone (not metal) that was stationary after constant exposure for several seconds, and thats the absolute best we can do.

So yes, in theory, at close range, given enormous time and a stupendous amount of power and an immobile target, such a laser MIGHT be able to cut through a building. Not that we could mount it or its power system on any kind of walker of course...

Of course. a modern tank with HE shells could also knocks that same building down for a fraction of the cost, energy and effort, and is useful in combat!

So, for the third time, can anyone give me any reason why we would build such a stupid thing?


plus mass drivers and railguns are two very different things that simply follow the same basic principal of propelling a slug with a powerfull magnetic field a mass driver aka coilgun uses the same electro magnets that we all made in elementary school, just larger more powerful and without the nail. a railgun like the name implies uses two rails the slug and a fair bit of power to create the feild[/quote]

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Mad cat

you ppl obviously think that the entire concept is ****ed up and impossible but iv heard several theories that are even worse, that you people would probably defend.

Quantum theory tends to be regarded as implausable by the layman. Unfortunately, that's what the evidence points to.

Originally Posted by Mad cat

now, tell me just how impossible this thing would be

VERY.

Originally Posted by Mad cat

where the **** did you get that idea?!?

From being a physicist.

Originally Posted by Mad cat

plus mass drivers and railguns are two very different things that simply follow the same basic principal of propelling a slug with a powerfull magnetic field a mass driver aka coilgun uses the same electro magnets that we all made in elementary school, just larger more powerful and without the nail. a railgun like the name implies uses two rails the slug and a fair bit of power to create the feild

Yes, they're SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT! For instance, there is a reasonable amount of difference between a rifle and a submachine gun, however for a discussion like this where possibilities are being discussed, rather than implications, they're effectively the same.

There's no need to distinguish between railguns and mass drivers (our engineering department has a nice railgun that it drags out for open days ) as neither are viable weapons.

Originally Posted by Vermillion

That took 2 megawatts of power for one shot. Now true, a good sized nuclear power facility can produce 2500 megawats of power in a day, but then again, they tend to be significantly larger than a football stadium, and so difficult to mount on 2 legs.

I think you mean megajoules, megawatts are a measure of power (energy/time), not energy.

The output of an average PWR (such as the one (well, two) down the road from me in Hartlepool) is 900MW, if memory serves.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

So yes, in theory, at close range, given enormous time and a stupendous amount of power and an immobile target, such a laser MIGHT be able to cut through a building.

Wouldn't a building be the quintessential immobile target?

This whole thread is silly. Star Wars proved that walkers were all but useless in combat. Everyone from lone Rebel scum with light sabres to Ewoks with neolithic weapons were bringing them down.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Wouldn't a building be the quintessential immobile target?

yeah but "It's not moving, so combat it with a ten billion dollar walking robot with a C02 Laser and a nuclear power plant strapped to it's back rather than a five hundred dollar tank round, seems a tad excessive

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

yeah but "It's not moving, so combat it with a ten billion dollar walking robot with a C02 Laser and a nuclear power plant strapped to it's back rather than a five hundred dollar tank round, seems a tad excessive

Or just buy a box of matches!

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Or just buy a box of matches!

well getting the enemy to stay put and not shoot at you while you burn the building might be hard.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

well getting the enemy to stay put and not shoot at you while you burn the building might be hard.

I suppose some sort of bow and arrow arrangement might come in handy, although you can make one out of whatever beech trees you find.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

So, for the third time, can anyone give me any reason why we would build such a stupid thing?

Read my post please! (its on page 2 about the dogs)

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I suppose some sort of bow and arrow arrangement might come in handy, although you can make one out of whatever beech trees you find.

yeap. you should also keep some thread and a needle handy to sew up your own wounds, while single handedly taking on an army which has defeated your entire nation (i.e. the viet cong) only then would your matchstick tied to a hastily constructed beech arrow work. oh, it would also somehow explode like several hundredwight of TNT.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

yeap. you should also keep some thread and a needle handy to sew up your own wounds, while single handedly taking on an army which has defeated your entire nation (i.e. the viet cong) only then would your matchstick tied to a hastily constructed beech arrow work. oh, it would also somehow explode like several hundredwight of TNT.

Needed: One Superhuman. GSOH, no shirt required.

[Radical Edward]

limited punch drunk vocabulary preferable.

[Deepflow]

lotf and totc

and for gods sake the last few posts are pointless

[Scoot951]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Read my post please! (its on page 2 about the dogs)

The only reason I didn't comment on that earlier was because you were saved by mad cat posting an even stupider post. But the dogs are silly too. More possible than a giant robot, maybe, but still not good enough to be put into combat. Robots like that might be used for situations like going thru minefields or other hazardous areas, but if you really wanted to put a remote-controlled robot in combat you'd want it to have things like hands, and the ability to see over obstacles that are 2 feet high, ie. a humanoid robot. And for the cost it'd be more efficient to just have an actual human there.



As to Ver's point about SW proving walkers suck, the ones in Episode II actually didn't do too bad (the ones that looked like rhinos). Probably because of their low center of gravity and the fact that they had weapons bigger than machine guns. Although there probably wouldn't have been much difference if they'd had tracks/wheels instead of legs. And of course we don't have to worry about laser physics in SW.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Scoot951

but if you really wanted to put a remote-controlled robot in combat you'd want it to have things like hands, and the ability to see over obstacles that are 2 feet high, ie. a humanoid robot. And for the cost it'd be more efficient to just have an actual human there.

Says who?
Who needs to look over obstacles when you have sattelites covering every milimeter of the battlefield?. Infact You can build similar bots for recon.
You see people are refusing to have casualities today. People just dont like having countrymen dying in some stupid war. I think that politically, it outweights any infantry.
Yes you can have bots to interact with the enviorement. They would be 5% of the fighting force, and ordered to stay behind the lines most of the time.

As to Ver's point about SW proving walkers suck, the ones in Episode II actually didn't do too bad (the ones that looked like rhinos). Probably because of their low center of gravity and the fact that they had weapons bigger than machine guns. Although there probably wouldn't have been much difference if they'd had tracks/wheels instead of legs. And of course we don't have to worry about laser physics in SW.

Walkers dont suck i just explained why
One thing is having a huge stupid walker. Now that does not work. Now how can you "tie the legs" of a 4 feet tall dog that runs ridicously fast and has a rifle with autoaim in its back?
It is faster more mauverable than any similar thing and its good for any terrain.

[Radical Edward]

has someone been fiddling with this thread?

[Dead_Meat]

Have you been posting massively off-topic?

[Radical Edward]

we already owned this topic. the opposition has been trodden into dust. They have had their leg actuators and vulnerable joints destroyed with small amounts of explosives. the partially reflecting mirrors of their laser cells have been cracked. Their nuclear reactors have suffered a catastrophic failure and their ten billion dollar fighting machines are slowly rusting in the dewy dawn of a new era.

besides, all you had to do was just tell us, rather than deleting posts. that is kind of annoying.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Says who?
Who needs to look over obstacles when you have sattelites covering every milimeter of the battlefield?.

To quote The Simpsons 'All we've ascertained from satellite photos is that it's not on the roof.'

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Walkers dont suck i just explained why
One thing is having a huge stupid walker. Now that does not work. Now how can you "tie the legs" of a 4 feet tall dog that runs ridicously fast and has a rifle with autoaim in its back?
It is faster more mauverable than any similar thing and its good for any terrain.

All fine and dandy if:

1. We could build a robot dog that could survive more than one hit from a rifle.

2. We could build a power source for a robot dog that could survive more than one hit from a rifle.

3. We could make a robot dog that could balance on uneven terrain.

4. We could make an autoaiming rifle.

Or, to quote red dwarf:

'A fine plan, with just two minor drawbacks.

One, we don't have a power source for the lasers.

Two, we don't have any lasers'

Admittedly, it's more plausable than Mat Cat, but it's not within the realms of current technology.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

4. We could make an autoaiming rifle.

my favourite bit is this one. If an autoaiming rifle were that good, that it would be a damn site simpler to build a nice stable autoaiming rifle that shot robot dogs.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

To quote The Simpsons 'All we've ascertained from satellite photos is that it's not on the roof.'

the simpsons is just genius in it's most pure form.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

my favourite bit is this one. If an autoaiming rifle were that good, that it would be a damn site simpler to build a nice stable autoaiming rifle that shot robot dogs.

Ok, now THAT was funny.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

To quote The Simpsons 'All we've ascertained from satellite photos is that it's not on the roof.'

Battlefields, MRL, not delicated anti terrorists action.
The centre of our discussion so far has been scenarios of total mayhem and total war, where the one who wins is the one to build the more bellic equipment the shorter. It means that no major battle would take place in confined spaces.
Yes you may say "stalingrad" os things like that, but as I said there will be sattelites AND scouts in the team.

All fine and dandy if:

1. We could build a robot dog that could survive more than one hit from a rifle.

As it is skeletal, it should evade most of the hits. Much like the T-34 Tank from the ruskies that won the war for them. Round pipes to serve as bones would benefit imensily from being very hard to hit and if hit, chances are that the bullet will just dodge.

2. We could build a power source for a robot dog that could survive more than one hit from a rifle.

Hidrogen cells.
We are all presuming that this sort of thing will only happen in the future. H cells are the future, as a reliable and abundant source of power. Even a fossil fueled engine, like the ones that power the new R-1, could power it. It combines imense power in confined space.

3. We could make a robot dog that could balance on uneven terrain.

"six legs" for the 3rd time.
It isnt all that hard. There are one-legged robots in MIT that work fine. They can even do tricks and shit.

4. We could make an autoaiming rifle.

Thats the hard bit. I agree that we are very far from it. I assume, though, that it could work with other bots and metal stuff, much like in the same way aircrafts target other aircrafts. There is this one robot, though, that if you throw a ball at him (under certain conditions) it will grab the ball with a mechanical hand. the bot is just the hand, actually. but it does work.
It might take decades to improve that into autoaim things? Yes.
Stationary defenses with auto aim to kill the bots? Well, thats how any battle starts. The defenders will just hang in there and kill the ones that try to enter. Numbers and strategy will define the survivors.

Or, to quote red dwarf:

'A fine plan, with just two minor drawbacks.

One, we don't have a power source for the lasers.

Two, we don't have any lasers'

Admittedly, it's more plausable than Mat Cat, but it's not within the realms of current technology.

Red dwarf is funny

[hyfe]

Why do you need robotics for autoaim?

A camera, a movable turret and some electronics is pretty much all you need for a minimal implementation.. As long as you don't mind the dog shooting at friendlies, its even pretty damn doable today..

[Scoot951]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Battlefields, MRL, not delicated anti terrorists action.
The centre of our discussion so far has been scenarios of total mayhem and total war, where the one who wins is the one to build the more bellic equipment the shorter. It means that no major battle would take place in confined spaces.
Yes you may say "stalingrad" os things like that, but as I said there will be sattelites AND scouts in the team.

I don't think we've made any distinction, what we're trying to discuss here is robotics as it would apply to real-world combat. And I don't see why a major war neccesarily means there wouldn't be much fighting in confined spaces, seeing as it gives a natural advantage to the defenders.

As it is skeletal, it should evade most of the hits. Much like the T-34 Tank from the ruskies that won the war for them. Round pipes to serve as bones would benefit imensily from being very hard to hit and if hit, chances are that the bullet will just dodge.

Unless it's literally just a few sticks stuck together (which it wouldn't be after adding in power source, ammo, 'brain' etc) that wouldn't make enough difference. If you can get a bullet in the general vicinity odds are it'll hit something solid, unless there's really some major holes in it already, and it'll be a long while before we can get fast 'muscles' that skinny. And, er...the T-34 was a skeleton?

"six legs" for the 3rd time.
It isnt all that hard. There are one-legged robots in MIT that work fine. They can even do tricks and shit.

Yey, 2 more legs to trip over themselves or get stuck on something or get broken. Six legs might keep it from falling over while standing still, helping it move at speed is another matter entirely. To get it at the speeds you'd want it'd have to run like a cheetah, and it can't do that with six legs.

[Crackmonkey]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

As it is skeletal, it should evade most of the hits. Much like the T-34 Tank from the ruskies that won the war for them. Round pipes to serve as bones would benefit imensily from being very hard to hit and if hit, chances are that the bullet will just dodge.

The T-34 was not skeletal, nor have I heard of a skeletal tank. If you're talking about a metal frame covered in armor, that's another story.

"six legs" for the 3rd time.
It isnt all that hard.

Like Scoot951 said, the two extra legs would get in the way, they need a wide range of motion in order to move quickly.

There are one-legged robots in MIT that work fine. They can even do tricks and shit.

One legged robots work on a different principle than walkers. The weight is centered over the one leg, and is basically a self balancing pogo stick.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Crackmonkey

One legged robots work on a different principle than walkers. The weight is centered over the one leg, and is basically a self balancing pogo stick.

exactly. now get the pogo stick robot and put it in a soft field, or sand. watch millions of pounds of investment fall over and lie patheitcally in the dust.

[NEWSBOT3]

this thread has made me laugh in ways i never thought possible.

[I am Idler]

your new modern american tank with re-active shields and various new implentations is the ultimate fighting machine.

robots is just for futurama :/

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Battlefields, MRL, not delicated anti terrorists action.
The centre of our discussion so far has been scenarios of total mayhem and total war, where the one who wins is the one to build the more bellic equipment the shorter. It means that no major battle would take place in confined spaces.
Yes you may say "stalingrad" os things like that, but as I said there will be sattelites AND scouts in the team.

I don't know how many warzones are pancake flat, if that's what you mean. I don't know how many FIELDS are flat, let alone after you bomb the crap out of them.

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

As it is skeletal, it should evade most of the hits. Much like the T-34 Tank from the ruskies that won the war for them. Round pipes to serve as bones would benefit imensily from being very hard to hit and if hit, chances are that the bullet will just dodge.

Not much storage space there; you couldn't use the interior of the limbs because when you used fuel/ammo up you'd change the balance significantly.

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Hidrogen cells.
We are all presuming that this sort of thing will only happen in the future. H cells are the future, as a reliable and abundant source of power. Even a fossil fueled engine, like the ones that power the new R-1, could power it. It combines imense power in confined space.

You know what the main problem with Hydrogen cells is?

They have to have a hydrogen fuel source.

Hydrogen is highly explosive.

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

"six legs" for the 3rd time.
It isnt all that hard. There are one-legged robots in MIT that work fine. They can even do tricks and shit.

Yes, on EVEN, PREDICTABLE terrain!

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Thats the hard bit. I agree that we are very far from it. I assume, though, that it could work with other bots and metal stuff, much like in the same way aircrafts target other aircrafts. There is this one robot, though, that if you throw a ball at him (under certain conditions) it will grab the ball with a mechanical hand. the bot is just the hand, actually. but it does work.
It might take decades to improve that into autoaim things? Yes.
Stationary defenses with auto aim to kill the bots? Well, thats how any battle starts. The defenders will just hang in there and kill the ones that try to enter. Numbers and strategy will define the survivors.

I was thinking about ways of doing this. There are basically two methods. One is motion tracking, the other is heat sensing.

Either can be distracted exceptionally easily.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

exactly. now get the pogo stick robot and put it in a soft field, or sand. watch millions of pounds of investment fall over and lie patheitcally in the dust.

How about a robotic pogo samurai?

[I am Idler]

when we developed a robot with the same brainpower as a human, wouldnt the robot be able to walk for himself, regardless of weight here and there?

or how would that work

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by hyfe

Why do you need robotics for autoaim?

A camera, a movable turret and some electronics is pretty much all you need for a minimal implementation.. As long as you don't mind the dog shooting at friendlies, its even pretty damn doable today..

Yep. But unreliable. Especially as this dog thing will have exceptionally limited ammo, and can't go firing at every piece of falling masonry.

Damn illuminati.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

when we developed a robot with the same brainpower as a human, wouldnt the robot be able to walk for himself, regardless of weight here and there?

or how would that work

Depends if it has the capacity to walk.

[I am Idler]

well, amusing it is equiped with two legs and the proper equipment to use them, would the robot by itself make up with balance is ?

Sending a robot out on a battlefield with be more or less useless if it didnt have the capability to think like a human and recognise dangers, etcetera²¹.

Sooooo, wouldnt it be better just to develop a computer with the same brainpower as a human, chuck it into a robot and voilà!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

Sooooo, wouldnt it be better just to develop a computer with the same brainpower as a human, chuck it into a robot and voilà!

If by better you mean 'nigh on impossible', then yes!

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

If by better you mean 'nigh on impossible', then yes!

yes!

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

How about a robotic pogo samurai?

eeek! no more robot pogo samurai! i beg of you! (i still think i can beat him now)

also: has anyone looked on RP too see if there is a massive thread of them all laughing at us for being so pwned by one of their trolls???

[Radical Edward]

so now we need to develop human like intelligence i n a robot, a portable fusion reactor, Lasers of immense power and so on, in order to build something that, at the end of the day, will still be shit.

[I am Idler]

I just realised we are bulding a terminator here.

Call the guvernor!

[Luckeh!!!!]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

so now we need to develop human like intelligence i n a robot, a portable fusion reactor, Lasers of immense power and so on, in order to build something that, at the end of the day, will still be shit.

Armoured Technic Lego!!!

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

exactly. now get the pogo stick robot and put it in a soft field, or sand. watch millions of pounds of investment fall over and lie patheitcally in the dust.

Put a snow shoe on the end!

[Nusselt]

what was that cartoon called that had battle mechs in it and when it went to battle mode you had this cool 3D effect scene with the mechs battling in this computer squary environment?

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't know how many warzones are pancake flat, if that's what you mean. I don't know how many FIELDS are flat, let alone after you bomb the crap out of them.

They arent. But that doesnt mean you cant scout them.

Not much storage space there; you couldn't use the interior of the limbs because when you used fuel/ammo up you'd change the balance significantly.

"feedback"

You know what the main problem with Hydrogen cells is?

They have to have a hydrogen fuel source.

Hydrogen is highly explosive.

Water.

Yes, on EVEN, PREDICTABLE terrain!

A few decades of research in leg labs and some development on the microprocessors area would be more than enough to produce robots with a far more acute stabilization system. With the benefits of extra legs.

I was thinking about ways of doing this. There are basically two methods. One is motion tracking, the other is heat sensing.

Either can be distracted exceptionally easily.

in short, only time can make autoaim things work.