378 replies to this topic

[Keifomofutu]

Adridos, on 25 April 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Ok, here's the complete figure for all the cubic volume of mech models (the ones I've had to create myself are underlined, since they are not the model game uses and may contain inaccuracies):

Jenner = 87.442
Commando = 70.8
Spider = 117.391
Raven = 52.732
Cicada = 156.974
Hunchback = 167.772
Centurion = 168.691
Dragon = 237.584
Trebuchet = 254.322
Jagermech = 253.686
Cataphract = 584.564
Catapult = 522.007
Awesome = 417.463
Stalker = 484.584
Atlas = 445.107

They are sorted out by their height from the lowest to the highest.

A few of these don't make any sense. Is catapult the really more volume than atlas? Is spider really bigger than other lights? Does cataphract really have that much space? I never would have pegged it as the most volumous mech in the game. Although this would explain why raven was hard to hit seeing as its the smallest light.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 25 April 2013 - 08:03 AM.

[Tennex]

Keifomofutu, on 25 April 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

A few of these don't make any sense. Is catapult the really more volume than atlas? Is spider really bigger than other lights? Does cataphract really have that much space? I never would have pegged it as the most volumous mech in the game. Although this would explain why raven was hard to hit seeing as its the smallest light.

i think they're just rough mesurements of how much space eth emodels take up. though when makig the models some of the artists leave empty space in there or gaps inbetween pieces.

so its not really a good indication of actual volume.

Edited by Tennex, 25 April 2013 - 08:06 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Tennex, on 25 April 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

i think they're just rough mesurements of how much space eth emodels take up. though when makig the models some of the artists leave empty space in there or gaps inbetween pieces.

so its not really a good indication of actual volume.

Since polygon count also get dramatically higher, I assume (Since I don't know, this is a question) as the more details are added, I am going to guess a section like the back of a Spider, with all it's fins and JJ nozzles would have a higher count than let's say, the from torso of a Commando, that is relatively flat?

And similarly for volume, where again all those little things take up space, but not necessarily much mass?

[MadSavage]

where is your god now?

Mechs should scale linearly in height from light to assault regardless of volume. Obviously, some are going to be harder to hit. That's the way it is already. BT doesn't care about volume because every mech has relatively the same number if critical slots. So, the 85 ton stalker should not have a smaller profile than the 65 ton catapult.

[Chief 117]

Most Mechs deserve atleast a modest resize, some are in desperate need of a major resize

[Tennex]

MadSavage, on 25 April 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

where is your god now?

Mechs should scale linearly in height from light to assault regardless of volume. Obviously, some are going to be harder to hit. That's the way it is already. BT doesn't care about volume because every mech has relatively the same number if critical slots. So, the 85 ton stalker should not have a smaller profile than the 65 ton catapult.

i think most people (according to the poll) as well as a lot of past battletech games understand that

[Keifomofutu]

MadSavage, on 25 April 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

where is your god now?

Mechs should scale linearly in height from light to assault regardless of volume. Obviously, some are going to be harder to hit. That's the way it is already. BT doesn't care about volume because every mech has relatively the same number if critical slots. So, the 85 ton stalker should not have a smaller profile than the 65 ton catapult.

Exactly this. If a mech seems to be the right size for its weight and weight class then it is the right size. The opposite applies as well.

[Zakie Chan]

Look at that sexy nimble Centurion! Cmon PGI use your noodle!

[General Taskeen]

Look how skinny and that Awesome is. Its on a proper diet!

[General Taskeen]

Thontor, on 25 April 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

The MechCommander Centurion? Your kidding right?


Ew..

MWO one is so much better.

The current MWO Centurion is based on a combination of the 3025 and 3050 art, except the one we have is a lot bigger (and wider).

[Zakie Chan]

Looking at the overall profile not the mars bar and marshmallow body details

[Keifomofutu]

Thontor, on 25 April 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

The MechCommander Centurion? Your kidding right?


Ew..

MWO one is so much better.

Ours is better looking but I'd rather pilot the MechCommander one anyday. Might even be able to use an xl engine once in a while... I mean god forbid someone but heavies and lights use them right?

Edited by Keifomofutu, 25 April 2013 - 11:06 AM.

[Atheus]

Adridos, on 25 April 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Ok, here's the complete figure for all the cubic volume of mech models (the ones I've had to create myself are underlined, since they are not the model game uses and may contain inaccuracies):

Jenner = 87.442
Commando = 70.8
Spider = 117.391
Raven = 52.732
Cicada = 156.974
Hunchback = 167.772
Centurion = 168.691
Dragon = 237.584
Trebuchet = 254.322
Jagermech = 253.686
Cataphract = 584.564
Catapult = 522.007
Awesome = 417.463
Stalker = 484.584
Atlas = 445.107

They are sorted out by their height from the lowest to the highest.

Yikes - thanks for doing all that work, but these numbers are definitely suspicious. I'll have to see if I can simplify them and run some numbers. Maybe the collision models will work better.

[MasterErrant]

Tennex, on 23 April 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

since it doesn't have arm actuators. its energy weapons (lasers/ppcs) are mounted at top. so it only needs to expose 1/5 of its body to damage over a hill while dishing out full damage.

that is what it is designed to do...
it's not the same size as the other two it's just not taller...like the Catapult and the Cicada and jenner as well it size is in the side horizontal profile.
the stalker is and always has bneen a damage monster. even the atlas doesn't usually throw as much weight... and it pays for it.

as is uslauuly the case with these posts you are missing the real problem. the heat scale and convergence issues. fix those and everything will fall into line.

KinLuu, on 24 April 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

The lights are to small as well.

agreed the scale is way way off. the commando should be about 2/3 the height of the atlas...simple math.

[Tennex]

MasterErrant, on 25 April 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

that is what it is designed to do...
it's not the same size as the other two it's just not taller...like the Catapult and the Cicada and jenner as well it size is in the side horizontal profile.
the stalker is and always has bneen a damage monster. even the atlas doesn't usually throw as much weight... and it pays for it.

as is uslauuly the case with these posts you are missing the real problem. the heat scale and convergence issues. fix those and everything will fall into line.


agreed the scale is way way off. the commando should be about 2/3 the height of the atlas...simple math.

you dont see an advantage in only needing to expose1/5 of your body to deal full damage.

over iterations in tank design. they have been made to show as small of a profile as possible. the reason why they are so squat. clearly there is a big advantage in small exposure.

Edited by Tennex, 25 April 2013 - 01:06 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

apparently the ONLY problems and things wrong in MWO are heat and convergence?

[Raalic]

Centurion and Trebuchet are definitely too big. Need to be narrower, at least. Considerably.

Every light is too small. Should be closer in size to Cicada, which I feel is about right for a 40-ton 'mech.

[Khanahar]

Mech density is variable. That much we know for certain. I can put an AC/20 in the RA of the YLW, at 14 tons of 50, or 28% of the total mass. This is obviously far more than the component itself weighs. Even fudging things by saying that parts of it are actually in the shoulder doesn't get close to right (never mind the Raven AC/20, or pseudo-Hollander).

So, while I think it would be really cool to see accurate numbers for 'mech volume, they should be modelled based on balance, and should be tweaked along with how used they are. Catapults, for instance, don't need to be any bigger, because they're doing just fine. Stalkers, Ravens, could be larger. Dragons, and all mediums, should be smaller. It would be a good way of giving the medium more of a place.

[syngyne]

I'd be interested to see if the cockpits for all the models are proportional to each other. Whenever I see a Catapult on the field I keep thinking its cockpit interior must be the size of my living room.

Edited by syngyne, 25 April 2013 - 02:07 PM.

[Tie Ma]

Thontor, on 25 April 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

here's a pic from this great article: http://www.penny-arc...ricate-birth-of

it's clear from the notes that it's not the finished product... since they say to "reduce windshield size".. not sure if, or by how much, the windshield size was reduced for the final model

Im glad they put thought into that. But judging from the atlas cockpit outside and how it looks inside. I dont think cockpits and pilots are exactly to scale