183 replies to this topic

[Adridos]

soapyfrog, on 19 June 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

Tells us what the relative volumes of the models are?

... Whateves.

Quickdraw: 683.433888

Awesome: 417.46408

Dragon (for the sake of comparison to another 60 tonner): 237.582921


EDIT: Bishop, the mailing system is broken for me, so whatever you sent to me in the "?" letter is unknown to me... possibly you got some broken message as well and that's why you sent the letter to me in the first place.

Edited by Adridos, 19 June 2013 - 08:34 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Adridos, on 19 June 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

Actually, they do. If you ask 999 canon sources, you'll get 999 different answers on the height of the mechs.

It is one of the things that was actually never defined in Battletech at all.




Yeah, I agree with such argument on something like Centurion, but Quickdraw is taller, wider AND "fatter" than Awesome which is 20 tons heavier and weapon weight difference is only 5.5 ton in favor of the Awesome, not even considering the armor on it, which is much more of on the Awesome.

It simply doesn't add up no matter the way you look at it....

not 100% true........

Line Director for Battletech at CGL said mechs range from 8-14 meters. I don't feel like hunting down the quote, but it is out there.

And for a few things, with that as a basic guideline, we can discern other things, like an ATLAS is not the tallest mech, despite being the heaviest, because of how broad and bulky it is.

That said, you are 99% right in that we don't have any canon stuff I have ever seen with actual heights.

[Mechteric]

I really do hope they'll address the scale of these mechs, since we're always going to have pinpoint accuracy these lighter mechs absolutely need the help!

[Tennex]

Adridos, on 19 June 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

... Whateves.

Quickdraw: 683.433888

Awesome: 417.46408

Dragon (for the sake of comparison to another 60 tonner): 237.582921


EDIT: Bishop, the mailing system is broken for me, so whatever you sent to me in the "?" letter is unknown to me... possibly you got some broken message as well and that's why you sent the letter to me in the first place.

i dunno if its how you do it. but you can get a very very rough estimate of volume by using the side, top and front profiles. by multiplying them together

[Adridos]

Tennex, on 19 June 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

i dunno if its how you do it. but you can get a very very rough estimate of volume by using the side, top and front profiles. by multiplying them together

I just use the script included in Maya.... inaccurate, but every method that doesn't require up to a few days of work is, so yeah...

[soapyfrog]

Just eyeballing it its hard to credit those numbers but if they are in the right ballpark then yeah something is off.

[One Medic Army]

After playing a Quickdraw, I find it to actually be quite robust.
Damage is dealt to the various torsos more or less equally, arms can be used to block damage fairly well, legs are large enough to absorb fire even when they're not being aimed for, and the legs carry enough armor that killing a quickdraw via legging is difficult and time consuming if said quickdraw has maxed armor and is using cover.

It's not so much about the absolute size of the mech in this case, since even if it was smaller it'd still be easy to hit. It's the relative sizes of the hitboxes which affect how much damage is spread around.

Quickdraws are a bit like Centurions, they take damage all over and if used properly will only die after losing both arms and armor on a couple of torsos.

[Ghogiel]

soapyfrog, on 19 June 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

If they get the volume (assuming all mechs are made of the same material and do not have large empty internal spaces) more or less correct that is all that matters.

I have accurately checked surface area and volume of several mech models. Most comparisons are probably within 10%. For example, the Hunch model compared to the Cent is only about 15% smaller in volume.

Also anyone who is producing volumes of the models without using a solid enclosed mesh is doing it wrong and their numbers can only be used to confuse people.

Edited by Ghogiel, 19 June 2013 - 10:58 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

So... I have seen a billion of the Mech Size threads, and about 1% or less discuss side-profiles.

Do we have any images directly comparing the side profiles of the Quickdraw and the Dragon? Can you CT the Quickdraw from the 3 o'clock position?

[Tennex]

Here it is by weight

[Tie Ma]

Prosperity Park, on 19 June 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

So... I have seen a billion of the Mech Size threads, and about 1% or less discuss side-profiles.

Do we have any images directly comparing the side profiles of the Quickdraw and the Dragon? Can you CT the Quickdraw from the 3 o'clock position?

volume isn't really a valid argument.

you can compare it to the dragon which is 60 tons, and the dragon may have the same volume as the quickdraw although shorter.

but if you compare it to the 65 ton jagermech. the jagermech is both heavier. and has less volume.

theres no logic in the way they scale the mechs. its not according to lore, its not according to volume they just do it however they want to.

how they should be doing it is purely by tonnage for balance

[EyeOne]

Tie Ma, on 19 June 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

volume isn't really a valid argument.

you can compare it to the dragon which is 60 tons, and the dragon may have the same volume as the quickdraw although shorter.

but if you compare it to the 65 ton jagermech. the jagermech is both heavier. and has less volume.

Probably should stay away from: looks like it has less volume = it has less volume. Without careful calculation it's all meaningless. Shapes and spaces can look deceiving without calculations.

[armyof1]

I can't wait for Victor, I hope it'll be 20% taller than the Atlas since it's the lightest Assault after all.

[Adridos]

Prosperity Park, on 19 June 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Do we have any images directly comparing the side profiles of the Quickdraw and the Dragon? Can you CT the Quickdraw from the 3 o'clock position?

As far as Dragon vs Quickdraw CT goes, the Dragon is the easier to hoit from the two, since Quickdraw has almost perfectly covered CT by his sides, however, it's head also counts ad CT and sticks out quite a lot... so both can be easily cored provided a decent shooter, but even a blindfolded person can hit the Dragon's.

Edited by Adridos, 19 June 2013 - 11:50 AM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

PGI hates fast nonlight mechs. That's why the Cent, Treb, Dragon, Awesome and QD all have oversized bodies.

[Morang]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

That said, you are 99% right in that we don't have any canon stuff I have ever seen with actual heights.

We have, indeed.


This one is from TRO3039 by Catalyst (product 35121).

If we consider human 1.8 meters tall, it gives us 9.0 - 11.9 - 13.7 - 14.9 height for the mechs.

If we consider Banshee 14.9 meters tall in the lower picture, then Leopard is 62 m long (nozzles to nose cone) and 19.5 m high (hull only, wings and wheels and bridge protrusion excluded), Union is 73 by 74 meters (less gun blisters and landing gear), Overlord is 125 tall by 92 wide (as Union).

[Bishop Steiner]

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

We have, indeed.


This one is from TRO3039 by Catalyst (product 35121).

If we consider human 1.8 meters tall, it gives us 9.0 - 11.9 - 13.7 - 14.9 height for the mechs.

If we consider Banshee 14.9 meters tall in the lower picture, then Leopard is 62 m long (nozzles to nose cone) and 19.5 m high (hull only, wings and wheels and bridge protrusion excluded), Union is 73 by 74 meters (less gun blisters and landing gear), Overlord is 125 tall by 92 wide (as Union).

that's still extrapolating, vs being given hard numbers. Also, where does 1.8 meter in height come in? That is the average today, perhaps, but in 1000 years? In the last 150 years the human average height in industrialized nations has increased by 10cm (4 inches). Although to be fair, I am sorta just being picky there (and semi-bashing another thing FASA overlooked)

[Devil Fox]

Tennex, on 19 June 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

Here it is by weight

Looks more like they scaled a QD height by a factor from the Treb. But being as tall and wide as the Highlander really makes this heavy one of the worst size to tonnage ratio ingame to date. Here's hoping a change to it's actual mesh is implemented... otherwise long term it'll become a relegated mech like the Awesome in Comps.

[Tennex]

Apostal, on 19 June 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

Looks more like they scaled a QD height by a factor from the Treb. But being as tall and wide as the Highlander really makes this heavy one of the worst size to tonnage ratio ingame to date. Here's hoping a change to it's actual mesh is implemented... otherwise long term it'll become a relegated mech like the Awesome in Comps.

not only did they not fix the older mechs with the sizing issue. they've created another mech in the wrong scale.

clearly we can see 2 scales being used to make mechs.

Edited by Tennex, 19 June 2013 - 04:51 PM.

[Ghogiel]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

that's still extrapolating, vs being given hard numbers. Also, where does 1.8 meter in height come in? That is the average today, perhaps, but in 1000 years? In the last 150 years the human average height in industrialized nations has increased by 10cm (4 inches). Although to be fair, I am sorta just being picky there (and semi-bashing another thing FASA overlooked)

The whole point of those drawings is to satisfy the nerdom with answers to these questions of mech scale.

I would it assume it follows standard protocol of this age as well unless specifically stated otherwise humans average height is something else.