173 replies to this topic

[Bloodweaver]

Axeface, on 09 February 2015 - 09:28 AM, said:

I thought i'de also do an image edit to show the general changes that I think should be done to the enforcer cockpit. Obviously this is just a hack, the panels would need to be reshaped properly, but i think the smaller features look more like the concept.

Nice. Fix the shoulders a bit too (higher set, further back, slimmer) and it'd be gold. That's also a lot what causes similarity to the Firestarter, is the linebacker-style ultra-shoulders. Feet, legs, hip section, and arms could use love too, but 90% of the badness is in the head and shoulders.

[zagibu]

Trashhead, on 09 February 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

I can name ONE case: Raven.

On the Concept Raven, the Laser Arm was rather low, lower then on the final In game Model.
I - personally - like the in game model more, due to that.

However, PGi ruined that by replacing the Laser-Barrels with the standardized Laser Cubes™
(which sometimes ARE better, see Quickdraw, Chest-Lasers; they would look... odd, if they would have barrels).

Is the HBK the only post-dynamics mech that still has laser barrels? I'm talking about arm and head lasers, not hunch lasers, btw.

[Bloodweaver]

Greenjulius, on 09 February 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

I still don't understand all the hate for the Enforcer. We haven't even seen the unique geometry variant and people are out with pitchforks and torches, crying for blood.

I think if you simply change the colors (which you can) on the Enforcer, it will look better.

Sorry, but colors have absolutely nothing to do with it. If you really don't understand what it is we don't like about it, I went into each problem area of the model in detail in this post:

Bloodweaver, on 07 February 2015 - 08:33 AM, said:

Enforcer is... plain, and ugly. And not an A-10 Warthog "ugly," either. Just boring and plain and not at all in line with the concept art....

I'd say the issues making it looks so ugly are, in order of how strong they affect the model: head, shoulders, arms, and legs. The head and shoulders each diverge pretty significantly from the concept art. I wouldn't care so much if the arms and legs stayed the same, but the head and shoulders are honestly pretty dopey-looking. To start off, the head is just plain too big. It needs to be smaller and set further back on the torso, which will also allow the chest to jut out a bit more. And its "mandibles" that straddle the lowest cockpit window should be significantly reduced.

The shoulders are in two sections, each with their own problems. The jointed section that the arms attach to, is too bulky, and more to the point, needs to be set higher and further back on the torso. The concept art shows it pretty much at cockpit-level. The second section of the shoulders is that ring/bulwark/plate/spacer/whatever that sits between the shoulder proper and the CT. This is too bulky, and also shouldn't be so strongly attached to the head.

Fix those three sections (head, shoulder joint, shoulder spacer) and the 'mech will already be pretty close to ideal. To make it actually ideal, a couple more things would need to be done, but they're not nearly as vital. These are: the right arm needs to be more threatening(bigger). Left arm probably needs to be smaller. Feet should be smaller too, but also note that the center portion of the legs, particularly from the knee down, the part between the 'mechs calves, is too thick. And the central hip section between the legs is too big as well, almost looks like a diaper.

Hopefully that explains it all for you. Of course, if you said "I don't understand the hate" but actually meant "I don't agree," this won't do anything for you. Also, pitchforks and torches? Crying for blood? Exaggerate much? People paid money for something, they're allowed to criticize it when it fails to meet expectations. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

[Trashhead]

zagibu, on 09 February 2015 - 01:50 PM, said:

Is the HBK the only post-dynamics mech that still has laser barrels? I'm talking about arm and head lasers, not hunch lasers, btw.

TBH, i have no idea.

[Bishop Steiner]

zagibu, on 09 February 2015 - 01:50 PM, said:

Is the HBK the only post-dynamics mech that still has laser barrels? I'm talking about arm and head lasers, not hunch lasers, btw.

Catapults still have the odd shaped torso lasers on them, though they were never barrels. And ...the VND has a non stock laser on the head, doesn't it?

[MauttyKoray]

MoonUnitBeta, on 08 February 2015 - 04:50 PM, said:

I blame the feet and leg. They're a lot wider. Even the toes are wider, the shin, etc. I think that's the only thing that wrong with it really. I blame the better lighting on the concept for that intimidating look. the cockpit didn't need those huge thick black support bars though. The concept looked more tactile and refined.

Actually the problem there is the upper legs are thinner, and the lower legs aren't as deep. Plus the pelvic area has different angles to it.

[MoonUnitBeta]

MauttyKoray, on 09 February 2015 - 09:06 PM, said:

Actually the problem there is the upper legs are thinner, and the lower legs aren't as deep. Plus the pelvic area has different angles to it.

yeah that too! I made this up quick. Didn't bother going into the head much. Someone covered that already with a good edit.

Edit: updated.
Edit: changed what I said, it sounded weird, like i was claiming your thoughts lol.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 09 February 2015 - 10:35 PM.

[Dauntless Blint]

Axeface, on 07 February 2015 - 09:21 AM, said:

Thats the kind of thing I was thinking yeh, looks much better and more like the concept imho, good job.
The 'mouth thing' should be shrunk down too though.

Yea like this but not squashed like a Victor head.Just lower the entire head into the shoulders buy roughtly one sixth it's height from it's chin/neck/throat to the top of it's silhouette easy fix!

Edit: oh in a later post you fixed everything perfectly

Edited by CorditeJunkie, 09 February 2015 - 10:39 PM.

[MauttyKoray]

MoonUnitBeta, on 09 February 2015 - 10:18 PM, said:

yeah that too! I made this up quick. Didn't bother going into the head much. Someone covered that already with a good edit.

Edit: updated.
Edit: changed what I said, it sounded weird, like i was claiming your thoughts lol.

Its obvious that 2 different 3D modelers worked on the Panther and Enforcer respectively, the Panther is very well done and tailors closely to the concept art, meanwhile the Enforcer looks sloppy and as if it had shortcuts taken to reduce its poly count not to make it more streamlined but to make the job easier/quicker.

Overall I can deal with the rest of the mech if the head/face gets corrected, something not pointed out here is that the front of the head/face ends up much further down the chest area than the concept (look at where the front plate of the hexagon ends on the Concept compared to the model).

Quote

#1. Agreed

#2. Agreed (changing #3 could negate this change, as the ST isn't much wider than the Concept and between that and the change in #1 could alleviate this issue visually while keep the STs as are and reducing the work

#3. Agreed, from the center of the hexagon the shape needs to not change, but it need to be 'shortened' slightly moving each side inward as a whole, ultimately reducing the length of the top and bottom of the hexagon while not changing the angle of the hexagon itself. This only needs ever so slight of a reduction, not too much.

#4a/b. Top needs to be slanted slightly inward more, bottom needs to be moved back just a little to be inline with the flat face of the hexagon (if it isn't already).

#5. I'm not quite sure which piece you're talking about. However I'd like to point out here the pelvic area is much blockier in the model than the art and also hangs lower in the concept, an illusionary part that is causing visual 'strangeness' with the legs.

#6. Agreed, assuming the bottom is toward the inside of the mech and the top is toward the outside (facing us), the bottom piece tapers into the top face, while in the concept the piece had a 90 degree edge between the top and bottom.

#7. I'm assuming you mean the piece under #6, it could have to be changed to match the new angle of #6, and yes there was a bit more mech there in the concept than in the model.

#8. Upper legs need to be a bit deeper (front to back) than they are now and slants exaggerated from the current model, which would fit the concept.

#9/#10. The overall thickness needs to be reduced slightly, while providing a 70/30% (roughly) plit between the back and front division of the sections. Both pieces at the top have a slant, while only the front section has a slant on the side into the flat faces of the back piece.

#11. Possibly needs to be thinner, but I also don't see the slant of the side on the front piece of the shin guard. Shin guard is also actually TOO TALL, and the whole lower leg armor housing on that 'shin guard' piece in the front need to be thinned, downscaled slighty, and shortened to accomodate the upper stems from #9/10/11.

#12. No, this is a visual illusion due to the overly elongated kneepads, If you look the thighs are actually proportionally correct...possibly even too long, they may need to be shortened a tad after the lower leg armor housing in the front is corrected.

#13. The top flat face is actually so small it could possibly be removed for simplicity, leaving only the top angled face and the side flat face which would emulate the concept closely enough. Also, that entire piece is angled farther backward toward the bottom in the concept.

#14. Not half, maybe 60-70% as wide.

#15. Again, along with the #9-12, that entire armor housing in the front there is too large and needs to be reduced. Its too 'meaty' compared to the concept.

#16. Hopefully just a graphical issue...I hope. On the side toes, the shape is wrong. It should be flat bottom, with a 90 degree dace on its side, and then a top that slants up into that 'ring' housing, which is far too inflated/floating looking. The ring needs to not be so far angled outward on the outside and a bit thinner (75-80% of current thickness I'd say). Also notice that the inside side toe has a heavier flant (ring included) than the outside toe which is a bit flatter.

#17. The top of that piece needs to be angle more steeply toward the mech's leg, which will help with that Armor Housing in the front too. That piece (along with the rest of the lower leg its seeming) also needs to be made a bit thinner.

#18. Toe height looks like it may be okay, however, the bottom should again be flat, no double angle faces between the bottom and top flat faces. The front of the toe should be flat between the bottom and top, maybe a 'slight' angle tapering up to the top, but only slight.

#19. This is actually not so, as the foot depth actually looks about right from toe to heel. (See #18 for the 'side' issue) The sides, along with the rest of the leg armor housing, actually need to be thinner, closer to that little anchor connecting the 'shoe pad' to the leg assembly on the side there. The Toe overall needs to be about the length/width (in relation to the leg assembly as seen on the concept art) about where to top flat edge is. (overall thinner due to the reduced size of the leg thinning as a whole)

#20. With the other changes, the arms should actually be about the right width, no need to change it unless its still disproportionate after.

#21. This should be included with the thinning of the torso as a whole, top to bottom (shoulder to pelvis in other words).

#22. (same as #25) Warped due to the angle/geometry of the lower legs themselves being off.

#23. (See #5 below.) Adding: The top slanted area also has that inner section depressed and a higher ridge at the outside.

#24. Stabilizing fin...meant for the JJs? I feel that this could be skipped as it doesn't really provide any real aesthetic (it wasn't very noticeable in the concept) and would increase the leg hitboxes.

#25. (same as #22) Warped due to the angle/geometry of the lower legs themselves being off.

Some things I'm seeing that I may or may not have mentioned above, but are not part of the numbered problems. Numbers do not tie in to the above picture or numbered comments on that picture which I have stated prior, they're just to keep this an organized list too.

Quote

#1. The center torso overall is much deeper in the concept (front to back) which is seen when look at the distance between the front of the hexagon and the upper arm actuator (connection between ST and Arm). The angles are also much steeper, which would be corrected by making the torso thinner. The CT are, with the hexagon seems to be the major culprit as the sides are roughly even on the concept but the top/bottom of the hexagon are longer than the other 4 sides in the model.

#2. This actually rlates to #2 on the image, The ST piece highlighted by number by #2 is actually both too wide and too tall (I rescind my earlier statement that it wasn't) and reducing their height would make the angle for the piece above it more like the concept, and thinning it would provide the room for the head after the overall torso thinning.

#3. The right arm need to be a little bit shorter, and I believe cutting out about the amount of that flat piece between the laser and angled face (right in the middle of the front of the arm) would be just right.

#4. The pelvic area need to be more rounded like the concept and not so flat. It also hangs lower providing more space to correct the shape/angle of that small side piece on the pelvis. The leg actuators also look a big bigger in the concept (not by much, but noticeable) but that could be illusionary due to the incorrect shape of the piece on the side of the pelvis.

#5. With the increase of the upper leg (thigh) depth, the knee joint should be more forward, while the ankle will adjust angle to compensate slightly. This will also help adjust the angle of those boxes (JJs I'm assuming) on the sides of the lower legs. However, the adjustment of the lower leg armor housing in the front may help adjust the angle of the legs as a whole and not require the lower leg to be angle at all, just the rear JJ husing and the piece indicated by #22/25 to be adjusted.

#6. The third section (the one right before the barrel) on the ballistic arm should be slightly longer and the whole ballistic arm looks like it should be slightly taller, and a bit thicker. (Looks like a 4/3 ratio for width vs height.)

#7. The angle of the piece between the hexagon and head is steeper in the concept, reducing the height between the top of the hexagon and the top of the torso (keeping proportions correct) should both correct the angle and give the effect of sinking the head into the shoulder without having to move the arms. #2 from the image would need the side of the top piece on the STs thinned (less material between the arms and top).

Edited by MauttyKoray, 09 February 2015 - 11:33 PM.

[uebersoldat]

I like Axeface's edit, but I don't mind the way it is now either. Do you guys really think they are going to go in and modify the design this late in the game? Hell it releases in 1 week. That's not enough time to go through a revamp is it?

I don't know :\

[Bishop Steiner]

uebersoldat, on 10 February 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

I like Axeface's edit, but I don't mind the way it is now either. Do you guys really think they are going to go in and modify the design this late in the game? Hell it releases in 1 week. That's not enough time to go through a revamp is it?

I don't know :\

A comment I posted elsewhere:
"I think people think 3D modeling is like using the deform tool in Photoshop?

It's one reason I really am so hard on Russ about the art department QA, because once something slips thru, as usual, with some rough or shoddy designs, or badly offscale, and especially once it's been mapped for Camo, it's a pretty intensive undertaking.


Getting it right BEFORE it gets there, is the key, and why I make so much noise.....in the vain hope that eventually they'll figure that out. IDK.... maybe Alex is just happy with the paycheck, but I have to admit, as an artist, there is no way I would have signed off on that model as being "correct".

But I am admittedly temperamental about that stuff. (probably why I am so happy that Kiriage and Joe and AusWarriror24 have done such good jobs, that I really didn't need to speak up, and the things I did, they were real cool about.) "

[Axeface]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 February 2015 - 07:53 AM, said:

"I think people think 3D modeling is like using the deform tool in Photoshop?

Obviously the edit I did took 2 minutes yes, but like I said in another thread, from my modeling experience (I do have some) I can't see any technical reason why the mesh can't be changed, and changed very quickly. As for the hitboxes I have no idea how that is done in mwo, but I also doubt it's that difficult to adjust it, it can't be, can it? Perhaps that design has been chosen for other non technical reasons, The size of the cockpit for headshots perhaps? Or perhaps an overbearing quality control department don't let things change quickly so it's out of the artists hands.
Or perhaps the artist simply doesnt like the concept and they think their changes are better, which is possible.

Or, perhaps they have simply finished the model and been told move onto other things - and this case would lead me to ask for changes more than any other reason for it.

The other animation someone made on the main announcement thread further shows the inconsistencies much better than my image anyway, especially the posture of the mech.

Edited by Axeface, 10 February 2015 - 08:07 AM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

uebersoldat, on 10 February 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

I like Axeface's edit, but I don't mind the way it is now either. Do you guys really think they are going to go in and modify the design this late in the game? Hell it releases in 1 week. That's not enough time to go through a revamp is it?

I don't know :\

They never do. Ever. The urban mech might be an exception.
Unless it's remodeling a piece to host the visual customisation of weapons. Little nit picks like what you see in this thread go ignored.

I think it's a long stretch to even think we'll get a decent walking animation for the direwolf. looks like it's slippin on banans all the time, and not to mention the rocking back and forth on uneven terrain that plagues most of the other chicken walkers.
And then not to mention all the wacky foot/toe joints that are missing on the kitfox,adder, nova, stormcrow, etc etc etc etc... Clans were a rush job.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 10 February 2015 - 08:09 AM.

[MauttyKoray]

uebersoldat, on 10 February 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

I like Axeface's edit, but I don't mind the way it is now either. Do you guys really think they are going to go in and modify the design this late in the game? Hell it releases in 1 week. That's not enough time to go through a revamp is it?

I don't know :\

As I've stated before the head/cockpit needs to be fixed, its so hideous especially compared to the concept, but even without comparison its still horrid.

The rest of the changes are minor and could be lived with, but that head...its a NO GO.

My biggest concern comes from the difference in quality of the Panther and Enforcer...