16 replies to this topic

[Featherwood]

Hola!
If anybody from PGI's art department reads this, please make a note about sufferings of an esthete
Visual customization added for missile weaponry on Catapult model is good thing, but it's done quite slovenly, IMO. Can we hope for some kind of attention from your team on that?

• Catapults A1 and C4 have HUGE arm boxes with maximum 20 missile tubes in each - why do you insist on adding (ugly looking) side launchers when number of tubes used by installed missile weapons is less than 20? It's especially irritating to see when you install SSRMs on A1. Instead, you could add different textures for tubes inside arm box or even different arm boxes! I know it would take time and resources to redo, but I don't understand why in first place it has been done so slovenly, without love to details and without technical logic used.
  
• When installing 2nd and, in A1 case, 3rd missile launcher we have no choice, but to follow imagination of your 3D artist , which definitely lacked, well, some measure of taste. Could we actually choose which additional set of tubes will be used on our 'Mechs 3D model? I'll show on pictures.

This is what really dislike in my CPLT-C4 3D model:


If a choice would be given, I would take lower additional tubes position any day:
Why? Lower tube sets add massive look and birdy aggressiveness to Catapult profile, while side tubes look just like quickie from 3D modeler which don't like MWO or his/her job.

I ask for your attention to this small detail, it won't take many time to fix: just change order of appearance of additional LRM tubes sets. It's just few elements of array to swap. Please.

[Edustaja]

Yeah, and the C4 ears make my C1 look ugly

[Scott Decoy Stone]

please fix the catapult!

[Featherwood]

Edustaja, on 05 April 2014 - 01:56 AM, said:

Yeah, and the C4 ears make my C1 look ugly

Yeah, I agree with Edustaja. Early version of Catapult CPLT-C1 and CPLT-A1 3D models with arm box for LRM15 was looking much more elegantly than current one. I would even prefer to have it on CPLT-C4 with additional lower 5 tubes launcher.
Ahh, I can dream and forget about it - I really doubt we'll see cyan reply some day

Edited by Featherwood, 05 April 2014 - 06:33 AM.

[Ovion]

I don't see why they can't all fit in the one box to be honest.

I can put to 4 SRM6s', or LRM5's on my Locust, and all 4 launchers are smaller than 1 Catapult box. (Probably half the size).
That massive box is quite capable of fitting 40 tubes.

[Monkeystador]

It is a way pgi nerfed the streak and splash cat. Make the ears eisier to shoot off. Thats all.

[Spiketheaardvark]

I was flabbergasted when I saw the weapon customization. I agree it's ugly and doesn't make any sense. What is in those huge boxes if you have to slap the tubes onto the side? As far as nerfing the slpat and streak cat, I've seem 1 or 2 in the past 3 months. I don't think they need to be dealt with.

[tangles 253]

yep, i agree. Slapping boxes on the outside is less than ideal, it increases the silhouette, more to shoot at/hit, and just looks dumb.

any other chassis' missile hardpoints just get more tubes to a certian number, a catapult can hace an lrm 20 fit under the hood just fine but 3 lrm 5's or 2 streaks and a lrm 15 not??? the real estate inside those boxes is MASSIVE compared to any other mech lugging missile hardpoints around and yet they dont get bits tacked on the sides now do they...

it is interesting, im yet to see (or aware of for that matter) a feature/quirk/whoseywhatsit implemented be taken down...

[Cest7]

Really they never fixed this...?

[Daak Gelrin]

I wish they would fix the Cats. I miss the smaller "ears", and detest the strap-on external launchers (all types) too.

EDIT: I miss the smaller missile boxes on my C1(F) especially. The big ones just don't "fit", in my opinion.

Edited by Daak Gelrin, 10 April 2014 - 03:57 AM.

[Burke IV]

Pls forgive the OT but that first picture looks fantastic. Whats your setup?

The missile boxes are silly and should have been rolled back. The HBK-4j has problems with its tubes aswell, after it was "fixed"

[Featherwood]

Burke IV, on 10 April 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

Pls forgive the OT but that first picture looks fantastic. Whats your setup?

The missile boxes are silly and should have been rolled back. The HBK-4j has problems with its tubes aswell, after it was "fixed"

I just noted your question. I don't use 2 lrm launchers in the arm (because the look eternally irritates me), so I use this, though I'd prefer to run this as it's more effective on the battlefield (I wish its look would be with old 'narrow' LRM15 box-arm + lower tubes with small weapon door). I've created the topic in hope to get attention from PGI, but looks like it was hopeless. I want my 'Mech to look like I desire it and not like stupid array elements coded by lazy intern order it. Anyone from PGI, do you read this?

[Ironwithin]

I think he wanted to know your PC-specs because your picture "is so pretty".

Also: having CASE in an XL-engine built is completely pointless. CASE only prevents ammo explosions from spreading to other components, your side torso gets destroyed anyway. Not your fault though, just one of those "things" one should know but PGI documents nowhere.
Having weird stock-builds with the same "mistake" doesn't help it either.

Edited by Ironwithin, 14 April 2014 - 01:44 PM.

[Featherwood]

Ironwithin, on 14 April 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

I think he wanted to know your PC-specs because your picture "is so pretty".
Also: having CASE in an XL-engine built is completely pointless. CASE only prevents ammo explosions from spreading to other components, your side torso gets destroyed anyway. Not your fault though, just one of those "things" one should know but PGI documents nowhere.
Having weird stock-builds with the same "mistake" doesn't help it either.

Maybe you are right about Burke's question, he may approve it if still interested.
As for C.A.S.E. - I use it to prevent ammo detonation when armour is gone, but side torso isn't destroyed yet. Situation is quite common (arty and airstrikes), plus nowadays there are plenty of MGs around, so these 0.5 tons are not a waste from my experience.

[Ironwithin]

CASE does not prevent ammo explosions, it only prevents ammo explosions in your legs, arms or side torsi from spreading to the center torso, your side torso will still be destroyed.
As I said, not your fault for not knowing.

[M T]

Yeh i really dispise the look as well, its just disgusting.

I have a few questions though, does shooting at those components actually damage the extra missle launchers i.e.?

Secondly, anyone noticed the Catapult with 4 missle and 2 energy ahrdpoints have wider ears then the 6 missle hardpoint one. Does it make sense? Lol

I think that shulve been the other way around.

Edited by Marctraider, 15 April 2014 - 08:14 AM.

[Featherwood]

Ironwithin, on 15 April 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

CASE does not prevent ammo explosions, it only prevents ammo explosions in your legs, arms or side torsi from spreading to the center torso, your side torso will still be destroyed.
As I said, not your fault for not knowing.

I used bad wording, meant to prevent one ammo unit explosion from damaging adjacent components, but still... Hmm, do you have any confirmation on that? Sounds quite opposite to what C.A.S.E. is in the lore.