378 replies to this topic

[LordBraxton]

hunch\cent\treb\cicada all look good side by side, but all 4 need to be shrunk down about 20-30%

[General Taskeen]

Height really should just be equalized by tonnage. Forget density, forget Volume. All 20 tons, same height. All 35 tons, same height, etc.

Just comparing the Hunchback vs. the Centurion and Trebuchet, for instance kind of shows the discrepancy. The Centurion and Trebuchet should be MUCH shorter, less wide, and nearly the same overall height as a Hunchback.

Side by side, there are just too many discrepancies for height between same weight class and even other weight classes. The heavy weights would seem "about" right if all Mediums were shorter, and used the Hunchback as the overall template for Medium Height.

The Assault then could be made just a smidge taller OR the Heavies slightly shorter, while adjusting hitboxes as appropriate (like the Awesome and Dragon).

[Straften]

Henchman 24, on 30 April 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

Why do people continually equate height with weight?

Seriously, it's like parking a lifted F450 4x4 next to an Abrams would somehow make it weigh more because it's taller.

Get a grip.

QFT

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

ForestGnome, on 30 April 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Yeah you basically have to just make a new one. It would probably be easier then trying to re-scale the geometry, the texture, and the mesh, hoping that they all go back together seamlessly.

+$60,000 yeah that aint happening O.o

[Banditman]

Dennis de Koning, on 29 April 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

Wow!
This topic has really grown legs hasn't it?
There were a lot of factors that went into deciding the relative scale of the 'Mechs.
I see quite a few side-by-side silhouette comparisons, most of which are front view only.
There are a few misinterpretations of weight derived from this type of comparison such as the fact that some 'Mechs have a pronounced profile that is not evident in a front view pose.
A better representation would be front and side views simultaneously and in silhouette.
Also, keep in mind that the bulk of the weight should be assumed to be carried in the torso, where the engine is, and not dispersed evenly throughout the chassis.
Another point to note is missile boxes such as on the Catapult are mostly empty space and therefore can't be given much credit for mass despite their relatively large scale.
Also, the 'Mechs were (are) designed individually as opposed to all at once; the more we create, the more difficult it is to fit them into the scale chart without some discrepancy.

All of those difficulties can be overcome by using density. It may not be "perfect", but I bet it would "feel" right . . .

[DaZur]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 30 April 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

+$60,000 yeah that aint happening O.o

That's likely an understatement...

Build new model, build the recursive LODS, texture and create environmental maps, create collision points, create hit box / mesh, rig the animation, test fit any part swaps, map weapon effect coordinates, and import into game + ancillary QA and play-testing...

I'd double that number just to meet operational costs.

Lastly, Project Managers are not real keen on re-making game assets (doubling their production costs) which obviously eats into their production budget.

Edited by DaZur, 01 May 2013 - 07:36 AM.

[Flying Blind]

PGI has done a wonderful job of making the mechs look good. many mechs that were just horrible looking are now pretty darned cool. however, I do agree that many mechs are sizes that do not work well for their class.

I hope PGI will consider re-evaluating the sizes of mechs in general

Edited by Flying Blind, 01 May 2013 - 07:45 AM.

[Khanahar]

ForestGnome, on 30 April 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

GENTLEMEN, I HAVE FOUND MY MW4 TECHNICAL READOUT (AKA GAME MANUAL)

PREPARE FOR THE FOLLOWING DECLARATIONS OF MECH HEIGHT:

• Flea: 6.1m
  
• Raven: 6.5m
  
• Hunchback: 9.1m
  
• Catapult: 10.0m
  
• Dragon: 10.2m
  
• Awesome: 11.0m
  
• Atlas: 13.0m

I think were PGI messed up, was taking measurements from armor height, when all mech's are recorded from antennae height. The antennae on a Trebiet should only go up to the jager's head. Instead the head of the trebie goes unrealistically up to the jagers head, which just the tip of the antennae should be there.

Serious amateur moves, that i REALLY hope PGI fixes in the near future. It is so stupid that Centurions stand TALLER than jagermechs, when they should be the exact same size.

Someone just quoted the MW4 manual for information on canon. I should check to see if hell froze over or we closed Guantanamo yet.

Also, incidentally, for folks quoting the MC1 manual (with the HBK, HBK-IIC, and CN9) it's important to remember that the variants of the Hollander, Centurion, and Jagermech used in the game were all larger than standard (10,5,5 tons, respectively). Thought that actually makes the point stronger, not weaker, as regards the CN9.

[MasterBLB]

I voted no.
Guys,against common feeling the weight is not scaled to sizes so much.As example,see tanks amrican Sherman M4 and german Tiger 1.The 1st one weight 30t the other 57t while having practically the same size.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/M4_Sherman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I

[Keifomofutu]

MasterBLB, on 04 May 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

I voted no.
Guys,against common feeling the weight is not scaled to sizes so much.As example,see tanks amrican Sherman M4 and german Tiger 1.The 1st one weight 30t the other 57t while having practically the same size.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/M4_Sherman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I

And did that make the Sherman a much easier target than its equivalent in the T34 or harder? I know what I'd rather drive(assuming no breakdowns).

Tiger was longer and wider. In profile terms the Sherman would be a narrower target from the front.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 04 May 2013 - 01:47 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

As I said in the other Resize Thread:

Quote

It's their job to make this game.

In my job, if I don't do it right the first time. I go back and redo it. Part of the job. It sucks, but it's made me do it right the first time.

[redlance]

they will never do this, since they live in a world where re-sizing these mech's models will most likely take 500 years and cost $60,000. also it will be hard work.

[MasterBLB]

Keifomofutu, on 04 May 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

And did that make the Sherman a much easier target than its equivalent in the T34 or harder? I know what I'd rather drive(assuming no breakdowns).

Tiger was longer and wider. In profile terms the Sherman would be a narrower target from the front.

Yes,but according to the sources not so much longer and wider.It's armor plates which makes so much weight difference - and the same is true for mechs.
Ex centurion and stalker:
height - practically the same
length - stalker is much longer
width - practically the same
so assuming thicker armor for stalker and it is much longer than centurion it is pretty reasonable it weights 85t while centrurion 50t.Ah,and stalker is at least visually much bulker than centurion.

[Noesis]

[Kamies]

C'mon guys! In my experience jump jetting Treb with 96 km/h speed and medium range weaponry is way harder to kill than slower moving close range Hunchie, and the Trebuchet has a xl-engine! Hunchback is slow, like 70-85 km/h, so it should be smaller than faster moving skinny Cent and Treb and not the same size. That is game balance. No for re-sizing!

Edited by Kamies, 05 May 2013 - 05:36 AM.

[Waking One]

So game balance is a dragon, the worst out of all the heavies, also effectively being the biggest and easiest to hit?

It's easy to hit mechs in the game (if not lights), especially now with host rewind for stuff, so some really need shrinkage for game balance, not 'realism'.

Treb, dragon, awesome need some shrinkage, in some way.

[Tennex]

Noesis, on 05 May 2013 - 05:04 AM, said:

thanks for that. i would make the cicada a bit smaller. the cicada is only 5 tons heavier than the jenner.

but even if PGI did what you suggested. i would be so happy.

Edited by Tennex, 05 May 2013 - 08:27 AM.

[Tennex]

Dennis de Koning, on 29 April 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

Wow!
designed individually as opposed to all at once; the more we create, the more difficult it is to fit them into the scale chart without some discrepancy.

Its a good thing there are only 3 messed up mechs right now. hope the trend doesn't continue to produce more misscaled mechs. that would mean adding to the work load of going back and resizing

[EvilCow]

Before planning changes, I would calculate the volume of the (non intersecting) hit boxes not the mech model itself, hit boxes have usually a less complex shape and it is what you actually have to hit.

Edited by EvilCow, 06 May 2013 - 01:55 PM.

[Tennex]

Their banner agrees