183 replies to this topic

[Asmosis]

If it wasnt for the TV antenna i'd get it confused with highlanders, I still do sometimes depending on the backdrop.

[Tie Ma]

Ghogiel, on 20 June 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Or the catapult is the size of an 80 ton mech.

if the stalker is the right size at 80 tons. then the catapult at its current size 74 tons.
if the catapult is the right size at 65 tons. then the stalker at its current size is 80 tons.

Regardless of which is used as reference point,

the volume difference is only 5 tons worth. and not 15 tons like its supposed to be.

[Tennex]

DaZur, on 19 June 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

Truth is no matter how much math you present... This group dismisses the volume argument with a wave of their hand like some sort of Jedi mind-trick... Volume is the answer to all this but the con side of the isle is hell-bent to forward the premise that scale / size is the only viable answer.

Ghogiel, on 20 June 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

DaZur, on 20 June 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

Geez... I'm a dork. I never thought to Dynamesh them... good on ya!

Actually... and I hope I'm not imposing and if I am...tell me (No one else around here has a problem doing so) can you side-by-side that reduced Cat with the stalker?

This would ultimately help my detractors or prove my hypothesis...

just wanted these side by side..

i want to note that in the first place we did not "dismiss" the volume argument. we took it into consideration. and even with it in account, it still looked wrong. (i mean just look* at it! stalker clearly not big enough, the quickdraw clearly too big by all dimentions)
now we had no numbers at that point.

it was you guys, who was dismissing our arguments that PGI did not take volume into consideration, they did it randomly. it was you guys who clung to the volume argument. Even though by eyeing it was obviously wrong.

and now there are numbers to say that.


The mech scaling in this game is wrong by lore, wrong by precedence, it is wrong by volume, and it is wrong by tonnage.

Edited by Tennex, 20 June 2013 - 10:28 PM.

[Adridos]

Ghogiel, on 20 June 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Or the catapult is the size of an 80 ton mech.

Nope.

Catapult is more or less a benchmark of mech height from what I know for them, so it's the last one you'd want to be remade.

Also, Stalker kinda has to be small from the front, being a frontline machine with effective quirk being "small front/rear profile" (from TRO:3025).

[Ralgas]

All i take away from the profiles is both it and the treb need leg shrinks, the treb needs huncback sized legs and the QD needs jagger length

[Ghogiel]

Adridos, on 20 June 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

Nope.

It's relative. If you knew how big all the heavies and assaults are you could say either way.

You can't know which one is 'wrong' unless you checked all the mechs so they can be compared.

[Fate 6]

What makes me really sad is that the Catapult has these GIANT launchers for LRM15s, while other mechs have itsy bitsy launchers for their LRM 10s and 20s. That's just the nature of the original designs, so I won't argue that needs a change.

Reducing the Cat size by 10% really makes a big difference. I feel we should get the same change with the mediums that are overly large, the Stalker should be enlarged, and the Awesome squished inwards a bit. The Victor is either going to be way too big or seem tiny. My money is on it being the size of a Highlander

[King Arthur IV]

Morang, on 19 June 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

really wish we could see some of these dropships in game in the map, like some broken down ones. A landscape full of battle wreckage, it really would help me have a better sense of scale in the game. Currently nothing looks right to me. if you have played warthunder you will know that the maps and landscape look great and give a really good sense of scale. the shapes of the mountains and the patteren rendering does not ever seem to be a copy and paste job (just look at the floor at caustic)

and yes the mech tons and size dont seem to feel right either.

[One Medic Army]

King Arthur IV, on 20 June 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

really wish we could see some of these dropships in game in the map, like some broken down ones. A landscape full of battle wreckage, it really would help me have a better sense of scale in the game. Currently nothing looks right to me. if you have played warthunder you will know that the maps and landscape look great and give a really good sense of scale. the shapes of the mountains and the patteren rendering does not ever seem to be a copy and paste job (just look at the floor at caustic)

and yes the mech tons and size dont seem to feel right either.

There's a few broken up dropships around.
The ridge in Frozen City is a small one, there's even dead mechs inside.
I think there's one or two on Tourmaline as well.

[King Arthur IV]

One Medic Army, on 20 June 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

There's a few broken up dropships around.
The ridge in Frozen City is a small one, there's even dead mechs inside.
I think there's one or two on Tourmaline as well.

i talking about more .
a landscape that is dictated by wreckage. so much wreckage you cant see the ground beneath you. hills of broken mechs, caves and tunnels made from large dropships, canyons of a broken city, a baron waste land destroyed but formed by the remains of destruction.

all for some oil b!tche5.

[DaZur]

Tennex, on 20 June 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

just wanted these side by side..

i want to note that in the first place we did not "dismiss" the volume argument. we took it into consideration. and even with it in account, it still looked wrong. (i mean just look* at it! stalker clearly not big enough, the quickdraw clearly too big by all dimentions)
now we had no numbers at that point.

it was you guys, who was dismissing our arguments that PGI did not take volume into consideration, they did it randomly. it was you guys who clung to the volume argument. Even though by eyeing it was obviously wrong.

and now there are numbers to say that.

The mech scaling in this game is wrong by lore, wrong by precedence, it is wrong by volume, and it is wrong by tonnage.

In fairness... You guys have long clung to the "height /width" argument which is just as tenuous as our volume argument so we're even.

I've long offered that the only true way to project usable size comparison data would be to simulate fluid displacement. (essentially drop them into a simulated body of water and measure / contrast the amount of water each mech displaced). The wide variance in shapes, asymmetry and and embossed / extruded surfaces makes it virtually impossible to simply mark-1 eyeball these mechs and form a definitive conclusion.

Lastly... I waved the white flag. You really going to bust my chops over a comment I made earlier that I've since rescinded? Mechwarrior honor indeed!

[MeiSooHaityu]

thatrobotguy, on 18 June 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

Here's what it looks like compared to other heavies

Although I don't entirely disagree with the idea that the QUickdraw is a bit tall, this screen shot needs to have some context. The screen shots are of two mech (Catapault and Cataphract) that have low mounted cockpits (especially the Catapult). Both mechs have cockpits in the center of the CT. The Quickdraw has a head and therefore the cockpit is mounted at the absolute top of the mech.

Again, I have seen the scaling and I do think it is a bit big, but then again, when comparing the Quickdraw to other mechs, it should look over their cockpit due to the position of it's cockpit.

[General Taskeen]

^ I think King is talking about the Egg shaped Class Dropships, like the ones also shown landing in the background forum art.

Anyways, Mech sizes are whack yo. Fix em PGI.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Ghogiel, on 20 June 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Here are 2 mechs, that aren't the same weight class, but are whacky in size, that were assembled from the in game geometry (not the fat torso catapult model that is never used in game you see often).




These numbers should be fairly accurately measured. It's not completely 100% exact, as making the enclosed model in the space of 5mins instead of possible hours brings in a small inaccuracy of the surface, this is the level of inaccuracy >

Going to go off topic here a bit but isn't it amazing that in just 5 mins you drew up a model that once textured would probably look ok in game where as PGI takes an entire month to get a mech in game.

Don't get me wrong, I know that they still have to animate the model but other than animation and balancing hardpoints and such, it doesn't take long to build a model. Heck how fast they swtiched gears from the announced Orion, to the unannounced QD should be an indication if nothing else.

Back on topic. Yeah the more I look at some of the mechs the more I think they need to do a scaling pass. Seems like it would be pretty easy to just take the model and change it from 100% to 90% of current scale and drop it back in the game. The QD does seem a bit too large for a 60 ton mech considering it is just 5 tons larger than a medium and the Stalker is just insanely small, no way in hell a 80 ton mech should have that small a profile.

[Sephlock]

Quote

Going to go off topic here a bit but isn't it amazing that in just 5 mins you drew up a model that once textured would probably look ok in game where as PGI takes an entire month to get a mech in game.

It's more a matter of not wanting to burn out cranking out new models constantly, since they'd have to tweak stuff (see: the Raven hitbox).

[DaZur]

Viktor Drake, on 21 June 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

Going to go off topic here a bit but isn't it amazing that in just 5 mins you drew up a model that once textured would probably look ok in game where as PGI takes an entire month to get a mech in game.

Don't get me wrong, I know that they still have to animate the model but other than animation and balancing hardpoints and such, it doesn't take long to build a model. Heck how fast they switched gears from the announced Orion, to the unannounced QD should be an indication if nothing else.

In fairness this is essentially a seamless shrink-wrap of the actual in-game model (think molded wax statue) so in no way is relevant to a ground-up mech development.

In regards to "Just scaling the model and dropping it back into the game"...

It's a little more than that.
- Scale model
- Re-scale swap-objects (different weapon objects bits)
- Recreate / resize hit-boxes.
- Re-locate particle origins (where the lasers and missiles emit from)
- Lastly, depending upon how they animate and or rig bones for IK, Kinematics... that might also have to be re-done from scratch.

Wondering out loud... I wonder if the relative scale of our mech models might not have something to do with our mechs sharing weapon model assets?

[InRev]

I would give you (Ghogiel) my first born child if you could compile the volumes of "oversized" mechs such as the Cicada, Trebuchet, Awesome and Quickdraw along with that of an Atlas for a base-line. I tried doing the same thing using Blender's 3d Printing addon but I was in waaaaaay over my head with the wacky geometry of the models.

[Tennex]

Thontor, on 21 June 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

I think the problem here is people have a misconstrued impression of how much of a size difference weight makes.

A 60 ton Atlas would still be 84.3% as tall as a 100 ton Atlas.

A 60 ton Highlander would still be 87.4% as tall as a 90 ton Highlander.

A 60 ton Awesome would still be 90.9% as tall as an 80 ton Awesome

A 60 ton Cataphract would still be 95% as tall as a 75 ton Cataphract.

A 60 ton Jagermech would still be 97.4% as tall as a 65 ton Jagermech.

Large differences of mass make for relatively small differences in dimensions.

Looking at the Jagermech vs the Quickdraw. And considering how small a difference there would be in height if you shrunk the Jagermech down to be 60 tons, its pretty easy to see where the Jagermech is larger than the Quickdraw in some areas, and that is where the extra 5 tons would be.

I haven't measured anything. I'm just going by how things appear, how they feel, and the sizes look reasonable to me from a realism perspective.

Ghogiel, on 20 June 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

I didn't do any manually poly modelling... for what would probably be days worth, I ain't that stupid, bored or crazy. I just dynameshed it in zbrush and decimated that. Which is why there is some minor inaccuracy, looking at it though it's pretty ******* close though. No way anyone is going to faf about to do it exactly via regular poly modelling, so it's the best we are likely going to get.

Anyway scaling the cat down 10% for the volume readout.... makes it 245.73*

It is fairly noticeable visually imo too>


DAT TOPOLOGY

this was a 25% shrink in volume for the catapult. that is a 15 ton difference.

Which if the stalker were 80 tons at that size. the shrink would make the catapult a 55 tonner.

using stalker as a reference (80(tonage/359.2(volume) = 0.22228 density) the relative tonnage per volume going left to right would be
74, 55, 80

Edited by Tennex, 21 June 2013 - 08:47 AM.

[Tennex]

Thontor, on 21 June 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

And it's flat out wrong. Math tells us that it's dimensions would still be 97.4% at 60 tons.

yeah i corrected it it is a 25% shrink. go back and read it again. that sets the smaller catapult at 55 tons size relative to the stalker.

[Tennex]

Thontor, on 21 June 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

I think the problem here is people have a misconstrued impression of how much of a size difference weight makes.

A 60 ton Atlas would still be 84.3% as tall as a 100 ton Atlas.

A 60 ton Highlander would still be 87.4% as tall as a 90 ton Highlander.

A 60 ton Awesome would still be 90.9% as tall as an 80 ton Awesome

A 60 ton Cataphract would still be 95% as tall as a 75 ton Cataphract.

A 60 ton Jagermech would still be 97.4% as tall as a 65 ton Jagermech.

Large differences of mass make for relatively small differences in dimensions.

Looking at the Jagermech vs the Quickdraw. And considering how small a difference there would be in height if you shrunk the Jagermech down to be 60 tons, its pretty easy to see where the Jagermech is larger than the Quickdraw in some areas, and that is where the extra 5 tons would be.

I haven't measured anything. I'm just going by how things appear, how they feel, and the sizes look reasonable to me from a realism perspective.

a 60 ton atlas would be 60% the size of a 100ton atlas.

not sure how you are getting that math.

Edited by Tennex, 21 June 2013 - 08:42 AM.