If they were going to do a scaling sweep, wouldn't it make sense to scale this according to how much the base chassis weighed sans weapons and equipment? But maybe including armor?
According to smurfy, a Shadowhawk with max armor and no equipment weighs 17.1 tons and a Catapult C1 with max armor and no equipment weighs 19.7 tons, and an Atlas is 29.2 tons. Then, if you take into account individual volume, you should be able to get a reasonable sense of what size each mech should be, no?
6
My Experience With Mech Scaling
Started by Robomomo2000, Oct 14 2014 04:40 PM
109 replies to this topic
#62
-
-
- The Raider
- 5,025 posts
Member
- LocationPittsburgh, PA
Posted 16 October 2014 - 02:07 PM
Dock Steward, on 16 October 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:
If they were going to do a scaling sweep, wouldn't it make sense to scale this according to how much the base chassis weighed sans weapons and equipment? But maybe including armor?
According to smurfy, a Shadowhawk with max armor and no equipment weighs 17.1 tons and a Catapult C1 with max armor and no equipment weighs 19.7 tons, and an Atlas is 29.2 tons. Then, if you take into account individual volume, you should be able to get a reasonable sense of what size each mech should be, no?
According to smurfy, a Shadowhawk with max armor and no equipment weighs 17.1 tons and a Catapult C1 with max armor and no equipment weighs 19.7 tons, and an Atlas is 29.2 tons. Then, if you take into account individual volume, you should be able to get a reasonable sense of what size each mech should be, no?
Though, part of the problem is still that too many people incorrectly correlate height (the foot-to-head dimension) with "size"/"scale", while largely ignoring the fact that the 'Mechs are three dimensional objects with width (the shoulder-to-shoulder dimension), depth (the front-to-back dimension), and volume.
As such, the 'Mechs (like all three-dimensional objects) are necessarily bound by the Square-Cube Law - where linear changes in overall size result in quadratic changes to overall surface area and, more importantly, cubic changes to overall volume.
Quote
Let us take the most obvious of possible cases, and consider a giant man sixty feet high — about the height of Giant Pope and Giant Pagan in the illustrated Pilgrim’s Progress of my childhood. These monsters were not only ten times as high as Christian, but ten times as wide and ten times as thick, so that their total weight was a thousand times his, or about eighty to ninety tons. Unfortunately the cross sections of their bones were only a hundred times those of Christian, so that every square inch of giant bone had to support ten times the weight borne by a square inch of human bone. As the human thigh-bone breaks under about ten times the human weight, Pope and Pagan would have broken their thighs every time they took a step. This was doubtless why they were sitting down in the picture I remember. But it lessens one’s respect for Christian and Jack the Giant Killer.
- excerpt from On Being the Right Size by J. B. S. Haldane, March 1926
- excerpt from On Being the Right Size by J. B. S. Haldane, March 1926
In other words, doubling a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 2x) results in the new model having four times the surface area (2^2 = 4) and eight times the volume (2^3 = 8), despite only being twice as tall (and twice as wide, and twice as deep/thick).
Conversely, halving a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.50x) results in the new model having one-fourth of the original's surface area (0.50^2 = 0.25) and one-eighth of the original's volume (0.50^3 = 0.125), despite still being half as tall (and half as wide, and half as deep/thick).
Even small changes to size/scale produce large changes in overall surface area & overall volume; reducing a 'Mech's size by only 10% (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.90x) results in the new model losing roughly 20% of the original's the surface area (0.90^2 = 0.81) and losing almost 30% of the original's volume (0.90^3 = 0.729), despite still being 90% as tall (and 90% as wide, and 90% as deep/thick) as the original.
From the models we have, we can see that the MWO 'Mechs seem to be scaled by volume relative to their tonnage difference versus the MWO Atlas, taken together with the assumption that volume and mass would be correlated (e.g. X.xx tons translates into Y.yy cubic meters).
For example: the height of the MWO Centurion is very close (e.g. within 5.23%) to what the height of the MWO Atlas would be if one scaled the latter down so as to halve its volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~20% decrease in size/scale); the MWO Hunchback is also very close (e.g. within 3.36%) of the height of the scaled-down MWO Atlas.
Likewise, the height of the MWO Cataphract is almost-exactly (e.g. within 0.17%) equal to the height of a MWO Atlas scaled down so as to 70% of its original volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~11% decrease in size/scale).
(If you're interested in the maths, see here & here.)
In general, the heights of most of the generally-upright (as opposed to "hunched over", like the Catapult, Mad Cat, and Stalker) Medium, Heavy, and Assault 'Mechs are quite close to where they should be with regard to a constant-density volume vs scale relationship.
The Light 'Mechs, on the other hand, are mostly out-of-whack (e.g. the MWO Commando is 12% too short, which is far more egregious than the MWO Centurion being 5% too tall... or like the overall size difference between the 35-ton MWO Jenner and the 40-ton MWO Cicada), and the Light 'Mechs generally need to be scaled up (that is, made bigger) in order to bring them into line with the other three weight classes.
#63
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 1
- 285 posts
Member
Posted 16 October 2014 - 02:11 PM
Strum Wealh, on 16 October 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:
Though, part of the problem is still that too many people incorrectly correlate height (the foot-to-head dimension) with "size"/"scale", while largely ignoring the fact that the 'Mechs are three dimensional objects with width (the shoulder-to-shoulder dimension), depth (the front-to-back dimension), and volume.
As such, the 'Mechs (like all three-dimensional objects) are necessarily bound by the Square-Cube Law - where linear changes in overall size result in quadratic changes to overall surface area and, more importantly, cubic changes to overall volume.
In other words, doubling a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 2x) results in the new model having four times the surface area (2^2 = 4) and eight times the volume (2^3 = 8), despite only being twice as tall (and twice as wide, and twice as deep/thick).
Conversely, halving a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.50x) results in the new model having one-fourth of the original's surface area (0.50^2 = 0.25) and one-eighth of the original's volume (0.50^3 = 0.125), despite still being half as tall (and half as wide, and half as deep/thick).
Even small changes to size/scale produce large changes in overall surface area & overall volume; reducing a 'Mech's size by only 10% (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.90x) results in the new model losing roughly 20% of the original's the surface area (0.90^2 = 0.81) and losing almost 30% of the original's volume (0.90^3 = 0.729), despite still being 90% as tall (and 90% as wide, and 90% as deep/thick) as the original.
From the models we have, we can see that the MWO 'Mechs seem to be scaled by volume relative to their tonnage difference versus the MWO Atlas, taken together with the assumption that volume and mass would be correlated (e.g. X.xx tons translates into Y.yy cubic meters).
For example: the height of the MWO Centurion is very close (e.g. within 5.23%) to what the height of the MWO Atlas would be if one scaled the latter down so as to halve its volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~20% decrease in size/scale); the MWO Hunchback is also very close (e.g. within 3.36%) of the height of the scaled-down MWO Atlas.
Likewise, the height of the MWO Cataphract is almost-exactly (e.g. within 0.17%) equal to the height of a MWO Atlas scaled down so as to 70% of its original volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~11% decrease in size/scale).
(If you're interested in the maths, see here & here.)
In general, the heights of most of the generally-upright (as opposed to "hunched over", like the Catapult, Mad Cat, and Stalker) Medium, Heavy, and Assault 'Mechs are quite close to where they should be with regard to a constant-density volume vs scale relationship.
The Light 'Mechs, on the other hand, are mostly out-of-whack (e.g. the MWO Commando is 12% too short, which is far more egregious than the MWO Centurion being 5% too tall... or like the overall size difference between the 35-ton MWO Jenner and the 40-ton MWO Cicada), and the Light 'Mechs generally need to be scaled up (that is, made bigger) in order to bring them into line with the other three weight classes.
As such, the 'Mechs (like all three-dimensional objects) are necessarily bound by the Square-Cube Law - where linear changes in overall size result in quadratic changes to overall surface area and, more importantly, cubic changes to overall volume.
In other words, doubling a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 2x) results in the new model having four times the surface area (2^2 = 4) and eight times the volume (2^3 = 8), despite only being twice as tall (and twice as wide, and twice as deep/thick).
Conversely, halving a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.50x) results in the new model having one-fourth of the original's surface area (0.50^2 = 0.25) and one-eighth of the original's volume (0.50^3 = 0.125), despite still being half as tall (and half as wide, and half as deep/thick).
Even small changes to size/scale produce large changes in overall surface area & overall volume; reducing a 'Mech's size by only 10% (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.90x) results in the new model losing roughly 20% of the original's the surface area (0.90^2 = 0.81) and losing almost 30% of the original's volume (0.90^3 = 0.729), despite still being 90% as tall (and 90% as wide, and 90% as deep/thick) as the original.
From the models we have, we can see that the MWO 'Mechs seem to be scaled by volume relative to their tonnage difference versus the MWO Atlas, taken together with the assumption that volume and mass would be correlated (e.g. X.xx tons translates into Y.yy cubic meters).
For example: the height of the MWO Centurion is very close (e.g. within 5.23%) to what the height of the MWO Atlas would be if one scaled the latter down so as to halve its volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~20% decrease in size/scale); the MWO Hunchback is also very close (e.g. within 3.36%) of the height of the scaled-down MWO Atlas.
Likewise, the height of the MWO Cataphract is almost-exactly (e.g. within 0.17%) equal to the height of a MWO Atlas scaled down so as to 70% of its original volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~11% decrease in size/scale).
(If you're interested in the maths, see here & here.)
In general, the heights of most of the generally-upright (as opposed to "hunched over", like the Catapult, Mad Cat, and Stalker) Medium, Heavy, and Assault 'Mechs are quite close to where they should be with regard to a constant-density volume vs scale relationship.
The Light 'Mechs, on the other hand, are mostly out-of-whack (e.g. the MWO Commando is 12% too short, which is far more egregious than the MWO Centurion being 5% too tall... or like the overall size difference between the 35-ton MWO Jenner and the 40-ton MWO Cicada), and the Light 'Mechs generally need to be scaled up (that is, made bigger) in order to bring them into line with the other three weight classes.
In other words, actually, lights need to be slightly bigger because math! Hooray, math!
#64
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 138 posts
Member
- LocationInvader class warship
Posted 16 October 2014 - 03:03 PM
Strum Wealh, on 16 October 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:
Though, part of the problem is still that too many people incorrectly correlate height (the foot-to-head dimension) with "size"/"scale", while largely ignoring the fact that the 'Mechs are three dimensional objects with width (the shoulder-to-shoulder dimension), depth (the front-to-back dimension), and volume.
As such, the 'Mechs (like all three-dimensional objects) are necessarily bound by the Square-Cube Law - where linear changes in overall size result in quadratic changes to overall surface area and, more importantly, cubic changes to overall volume.
In other words, doubling a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 2x) results in the new model having four times the surface area (2^2 = 4) and eight times the volume (2^3 = 8), despite only being twice as tall (and twice as wide, and twice as deep/thick).
Conversely, halving a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.50x) results in the new model having one-fourth of the original's surface area (0.50^2 = 0.25) and one-eighth of the original's volume (0.50^3 = 0.125), despite still being half as tall (and half as wide, and half as deep/thick).
Even small changes to size/scale produce large changes in overall surface area & overall volume; reducing a 'Mech's size by only 10% (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.90x) results in the new model losing roughly 20% of the original's the surface area (0.90^2 = 0.81) and losing almost 30% of the original's volume (0.90^3 = 0.729), despite still being 90% as tall (and 90% as wide, and 90% as deep/thick) as the original.
From the models we have, we can see that the MWO 'Mechs seem to be scaled by volume relative to their tonnage difference versus the MWO Atlas, taken together with the assumption that volume and mass would be correlated (e.g. X.xx tons translates into Y.yy cubic meters).
For example: the height of the MWO Centurion is very close (e.g. within 5.23%) to what the height of the MWO Atlas would be if one scaled the latter down so as to halve its volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~20% decrease in size/scale); the MWO Hunchback is also very close (e.g. within 3.36%) of the height of the scaled-down MWO Atlas.
Likewise, the height of the MWO Cataphract is almost-exactly (e.g. within 0.17%) equal to the height of a MWO Atlas scaled down so as to 70% of its original volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~11% decrease in size/scale).
(If you're interested in the maths, see here & here.)
In general, the heights of most of the generally-upright (as opposed to "hunched over", like the Catapult, Mad Cat, and Stalker) Medium, Heavy, and Assault 'Mechs are quite close to where they should be with regard to a constant-density volume vs scale relationship.
The Light 'Mechs, on the other hand, are mostly out-of-whack (e.g. the MWO Commando is 12% too short, which is far more egregious than the MWO Centurion being 5% too tall... or like the overall size difference between the 35-ton MWO Jenner and the 40-ton MWO Cicada), and the Light 'Mechs generally need to be scaled up (that is, made bigger) in order to bring them into line with the other three weight classes.
As such, the 'Mechs (like all three-dimensional objects) are necessarily bound by the Square-Cube Law - where linear changes in overall size result in quadratic changes to overall surface area and, more importantly, cubic changes to overall volume.
In other words, doubling a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 2x) results in the new model having four times the surface area (2^2 = 4) and eight times the volume (2^3 = 8), despite only being twice as tall (and twice as wide, and twice as deep/thick).
Conversely, halving a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.50x) results in the new model having one-fourth of the original's surface area (0.50^2 = 0.25) and one-eighth of the original's volume (0.50^3 = 0.125), despite still being half as tall (and half as wide, and half as deep/thick).
Even small changes to size/scale produce large changes in overall surface area & overall volume; reducing a 'Mech's size by only 10% (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.90x) results in the new model losing roughly 20% of the original's the surface area (0.90^2 = 0.81) and losing almost 30% of the original's volume (0.90^3 = 0.729), despite still being 90% as tall (and 90% as wide, and 90% as deep/thick) as the original.
From the models we have, we can see that the MWO 'Mechs seem to be scaled by volume relative to their tonnage difference versus the MWO Atlas, taken together with the assumption that volume and mass would be correlated (e.g. X.xx tons translates into Y.yy cubic meters).
For example: the height of the MWO Centurion is very close (e.g. within 5.23%) to what the height of the MWO Atlas would be if one scaled the latter down so as to halve its volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~20% decrease in size/scale); the MWO Hunchback is also very close (e.g. within 3.36%) of the height of the scaled-down MWO Atlas.
Likewise, the height of the MWO Cataphract is almost-exactly (e.g. within 0.17%) equal to the height of a MWO Atlas scaled down so as to 70% of its original volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~11% decrease in size/scale).
(If you're interested in the maths, see here & here.)
In general, the heights of most of the generally-upright (as opposed to "hunched over", like the Catapult, Mad Cat, and Stalker) Medium, Heavy, and Assault 'Mechs are quite close to where they should be with regard to a constant-density volume vs scale relationship.
The Light 'Mechs, on the other hand, are mostly out-of-whack (e.g. the MWO Commando is 12% too short, which is far more egregious than the MWO Centurion being 5% too tall... or like the overall size difference between the 35-ton MWO Jenner and the 40-ton MWO Cicada), and the Light 'Mechs generally need to be scaled up (that is, made bigger) in order to bring them into line with the other three weight classes.
Wow... probably the best response yet, and I award you for that.
Even though I love when games are realistic I would rather feel the sheer size of an atlas compared to a classically tiny medium or small. This being so it makes the game more dynamic and immersive, makes the atlas more terrifying then if I came up to his chest in a 50t Trebuchet.
Edited by Robomomo2000, 16 October 2014 - 03:06 PM.
#65
-
-
- Veteran Founder
- 627 posts
Member
- LocationW-SEA, Cascadia
Posted 16 October 2014 - 03:07 PM
Strum Wealh, on 16 October 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:
Though, part of the problem is still that too many people incorrectly correlate height (the foot-to-head dimension) with "size"/"scale", while largely ignoring the fact that the 'Mechs are three dimensional objects with width (the shoulder-to-shoulder dimension), depth (the front-to-back dimension), and volume.
As such, the 'Mechs (like all three-dimensional objects) are necessarily bound by the Square-Cube Law - where linear changes in overall size result in quadratic changes to overall surface area and, more importantly, cubic changes to overall volume.
In other words, doubling a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 2x) results in the new model having four times the surface area (2^2 = 4) and eight times the volume (2^3 = 8), despite only being twice as tall (and twice as wide, and twice as deep/thick).
Conversely, halving a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.50x) results in the new model having one-fourth of the original's surface area (0.50^2 = 0.25) and one-eighth of the original's volume (0.50^3 = 0.125), despite still being half as tall (and half as wide, and half as deep/thick).
Even small changes to size/scale produce large changes in overall surface area & overall volume; reducing a 'Mech's size by only 10% (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.90x) results in the new model losing roughly 20% of the original's the surface area (0.90^2 = 0.81) and losing almost 30% of the original's volume (0.90^3 = 0.729), despite still being 90% as tall (and 90% as wide, and 90% as deep/thick) as the original.
From the models we have, we can see that the MWO 'Mechs seem to be scaled by volume relative to their tonnage difference versus the MWO Atlas, taken together with the assumption that volume and mass would be correlated (e.g. X.xx tons translates into Y.yy cubic meters).
For example: the height of the MWO Centurion is very close (e.g. within 5.23%) to what the height of the MWO Atlas would be if one scaled the latter down so as to halve its volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~20% decrease in size/scale); the MWO Hunchback is also very close (e.g. within 3.36%) of the height of the scaled-down MWO Atlas.
Likewise, the height of the MWO Cataphract is almost-exactly (e.g. within 0.17%) equal to the height of a MWO Atlas scaled down so as to 70% of its original volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~11% decrease in size/scale).
(If you're interested in the maths, see here & here.)
In general, the heights of most of the generally-upright (as opposed to "hunched over", like the Catapult, Mad Cat, and Stalker) Medium, Heavy, and Assault 'Mechs are quite close to where they should be with regard to a constant-density volume vs scale relationship.
The Light 'Mechs, on the other hand, are mostly out-of-whack (e.g. the MWO Commando is 12% too short, which is far more egregious than the MWO Centurion being 5% too tall... or like the overall size difference between the 35-ton MWO Jenner and the 40-ton MWO Cicada), and the Light 'Mechs generally need to be scaled up (that is, made bigger) in order to bring them into line with the other three weight classes.
As such, the 'Mechs (like all three-dimensional objects) are necessarily bound by the Square-Cube Law - where linear changes in overall size result in quadratic changes to overall surface area and, more importantly, cubic changes to overall volume.
In other words, doubling a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 2x) results in the new model having four times the surface area (2^2 = 4) and eight times the volume (2^3 = 8), despite only being twice as tall (and twice as wide, and twice as deep/thick).
Conversely, halving a 'Mech's size (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.50x) results in the new model having one-fourth of the original's surface area (0.50^2 = 0.25) and one-eighth of the original's volume (0.50^3 = 0.125), despite still being half as tall (and half as wide, and half as deep/thick).
Even small changes to size/scale produce large changes in overall surface area & overall volume; reducing a 'Mech's size by only 10% (a linear increase in size/scale of 0.90x) results in the new model losing roughly 20% of the original's the surface area (0.90^2 = 0.81) and losing almost 30% of the original's volume (0.90^3 = 0.729), despite still being 90% as tall (and 90% as wide, and 90% as deep/thick) as the original.
From the models we have, we can see that the MWO 'Mechs seem to be scaled by volume relative to their tonnage difference versus the MWO Atlas, taken together with the assumption that volume and mass would be correlated (e.g. X.xx tons translates into Y.yy cubic meters).
For example: the height of the MWO Centurion is very close (e.g. within 5.23%) to what the height of the MWO Atlas would be if one scaled the latter down so as to halve its volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~20% decrease in size/scale); the MWO Hunchback is also very close (e.g. within 3.36%) of the height of the scaled-down MWO Atlas.
Likewise, the height of the MWO Cataphract is almost-exactly (e.g. within 0.17%) equal to the height of a MWO Atlas scaled down so as to 70% of its original volume (which, as it happens, would only result in a ~11% decrease in size/scale).
(If you're interested in the maths, see here & here.)
In general, the heights of most of the generally-upright (as opposed to "hunched over", like the Catapult, Mad Cat, and Stalker) Medium, Heavy, and Assault 'Mechs are quite close to where they should be with regard to a constant-density volume vs scale relationship.
The Light 'Mechs, on the other hand, are mostly out-of-whack (e.g. the MWO Commando is 12% too short, which is far more egregious than the MWO Centurion being 5% too tall... or like the overall size difference between the 35-ton MWO Jenner and the 40-ton MWO Cicada), and the Light 'Mechs generally need to be scaled up (that is, made bigger) in order to bring them into line with the other three weight classes.
You should look at this. by my calculations the Commando is 8.66% too big and the cent is a whopping 30.09% oversize. Of course that all depends on what you take the lore height to be. Keep in mind the volume and surface area calculations are not hard numbers since the models are not all solid and sometimes have holes but it gives you a ballpark.
#66
-
-
- Bad Company
- 2,611 posts
Member
- LocationBay Area, California
Posted 16 October 2014 - 03:28 PM
Owning all IS Medium Mechs... the ones I would like to see resized (not holding my breath here) are: Centurion, Shadowhawk, Griffin, Kintaro, Trebuchet, and definitely the Vindicator (plz fix the hitboxes on this joke of a Mech)... and maybe the Cicada just a tad.
The Kintaro, Shadowhawk and Griffin are nearly identical in height... albeit slim. I truly like the modeling done, but a 4-6% size reduction would help getting it closer in height to the Hunchbacks, Centurions, Blackjacks (I love my Blackjacks btw!), and Wolverines.
Now... the Vindicator... it needs something done to it... worst grind of all Medium Mechs so far... the damn head encompassing most of the CT hitbox (Awesome syndrome?)... and that left arm deviating so much from the concept art just hurts my pride as a Medium pilot. I truly wanted to like the Vindi... even bought the Hero SIB... probably a mistake and waste of MCs in my opinion.
Primarily being a Medium Mech fan... I find these workhorses to be the skirmishers and flankers needed for a balanced unit. But... to look like the size of a larger Heavy or lighter Assault Mech is rather odd from a tactical, and artistic perspective. Lights are practically all scaled in size to their right proportions... but as someone else stated... when a Light runs up to me asking for a hug and I can't look down and see it... there's an issue... cause that **** only happens to Assaults.
The Kintaro, Shadowhawk and Griffin are nearly identical in height... albeit slim. I truly like the modeling done, but a 4-6% size reduction would help getting it closer in height to the Hunchbacks, Centurions, Blackjacks (I love my Blackjacks btw!), and Wolverines.
Now... the Vindicator... it needs something done to it... worst grind of all Medium Mechs so far... the damn head encompassing most of the CT hitbox (Awesome syndrome?)... and that left arm deviating so much from the concept art just hurts my pride as a Medium pilot. I truly wanted to like the Vindi... even bought the Hero SIB... probably a mistake and waste of MCs in my opinion.
Primarily being a Medium Mech fan... I find these workhorses to be the skirmishers and flankers needed for a balanced unit. But... to look like the size of a larger Heavy or lighter Assault Mech is rather odd from a tactical, and artistic perspective. Lights are practically all scaled in size to their right proportions... but as someone else stated... when a Light runs up to me asking for a hug and I can't look down and see it... there's an issue... cause that **** only happens to Assaults.
#67
-
-
- 1,323 posts
Member
Posted 16 October 2014 - 03:29 PM
we've only been telling them since open beta about how terrible their scaling is
#68
-
-
- Bad Company
- 1,601 posts
Member
- LocationGermany
Posted 16 October 2014 - 03:40 PM
Funniest of all is the Vindicator. Uninformed as I was I allways thought the Vindicator was at least a 65T heavy until I looked it up in the mechlab and was like: WTF.
What I wonder about: Is this inconsistent mech scaling deliberate or a result of missing design directives in the art production process?
What I wonder about: Is this inconsistent mech scaling deliberate or a result of missing design directives in the art production process?
#69
-
-
- Bad Company
- 2,611 posts
Member
- LocationBay Area, California
Posted 16 October 2014 - 03:45 PM
I'm just gonna blame IGP for everything up until two patches ago... maybe three patches ago 
You're being let off the hook this time, PGI 
You're being let off the hook this time, PGI
#70
-
-
- The Raider
- 5,025 posts
Member
- LocationPittsburgh, PA
Posted 16 October 2014 - 05:58 PM
kuangmk11, on 16 October 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:
You should look at this. by my calculations the Commando is 8.66% too big and the cent is a whopping 30.09% oversize. Of course that all depends on what you take the lore height to be. Keep in mind the volume and surface area calculations are not hard numbers since the models are not all solid and sometimes have holes but it gives you a ballpark.
There is a direct statement from Bryan Ekman here that they had intentionally set the MWO atlas at approximately 18 meters in height, versus the canonical 13 meters (as stated in MechWarrior: Technology of Destruction, and listed here), so we already know that MWO 'Mechs will tend to be larger than their canonical counterparts.
For some others...
- Archer (70 tons): 12 meters tall (Tactics of Duty, prologue)
- Devastator (100 tons): 10 meters tall (Grave Covenant, ch. 31)
- Grasshopper (70 tons): 12 meters tall (Double Blind, ch. 43)
- Locust (20 tons): 8 meters tall (Tactics of Duty, ch. 27)
- Mad Cat (75 tons): 10 meters tall (Exodus Road, ch. 10)
- Naginata (95 tons): 12 meters tall (Black Dragon, ch. 04)
- Nova Cat (70 tons): 12 meters tall (Path of Glory, ch. 04)
- Phoenix Hawk (45 tons): 11 meters tall (Lethal Heritage, ch. 16)
- Victor (80 tons): 10 meters tall (The Sword and the Dagger, ch. 12)
The prologue of Flashpoint describes a Devastator as "a fixed weapons platform towering some ten meters over the hillock where it stood" (thus reinforcing the Devastator's height as 10 meters), and indicates that the Devastator's cockpit is "nine meters above the ground".
Chapter 29 of Tactics of Duty describes the Atlas as "nearly fifteen meters tall" and "among the very largest of all 'Mechs in the field, a powerhouse monster that could stand up to incredible punishment without folding"; depending on whether one considers "13 meters" to be the same as "nearly 15 meters", this may or may not contradict the height given in Technology of Destruction.
Page 06 of Trial Under Fire, the novelization of MechWarrior 3, describes the Bushwacker (55 tons) as "standing just shy of eight meters in height", "shorter than the average 'Mech", and "wider than it was tall".
------
EDIT: Removed links to sources, per moderator request.
Edited by Strum Wealh, 24 May 2015 - 04:12 AM.
#71
-
-
- Bridesmaid
- 80 posts
Member
Posted 04 December 2014 - 02:27 PM
I have been reading loads of posts like this after thinking myself that the medium mechs were too big in the game, so today I decided to make my own little webpage to compare them:
http://ecogamer.co.uk/MechComparison/
I think that once you see them side by side, they do look a fair bit smaller than the assaults, though now much smaller than the heavies really so maybe the scale is screwed.
http://ecogamer.co.uk/MechComparison/
I think that once you see them side by side, they do look a fair bit smaller than the assaults, though now much smaller than the heavies really so maybe the scale is screwed.
#72
-
-
- 1,598 posts
Member
Posted 04 December 2014 - 02:36 PM
Kiblams, on 04 December 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:
I have been reading loads of posts like this after thinking myself that the medium mechs were too big in the game, so today I decided to make my own little webpage to compare them:
http://ecogamer.co.uk/MechComparison/
I think that once you see them side by side, they do look a fair bit smaller than the assaults, though now much smaller than the heavies really so maybe the scale is screwed.
http://ecogamer.co.uk/MechComparison/
I think that once you see them side by side, they do look a fair bit smaller than the assaults, though now much smaller than the heavies really so maybe the scale is screwed.
Kintaro, Jagermech and Battlemaster side by side made me chuckle. I forgot how badly scaled Kintaro is since I so seldom see one.
#73
-
-
- Bridesmaid
- 80 posts
Member
Posted 04 December 2014 - 02:41 PM
Torgun, on 04 December 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:
Kintaro, Jagermech and Battlemaster side by side made me chuckle. I forgot how badly scaled Kintaro is since I so seldom see one.
Yeah it's actually the same size if not bigger then the Heavies!
#74
-
-
- Bad Company
- 3,403 posts
Member
Posted 04 December 2014 - 03:01 PM
Kiblams, on 04 December 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:
I have been reading loads of posts like this after thinking myself that the medium mechs were too big in the game, so today I decided to make my own little webpage to compare them:
http://ecogamer.co.uk/MechComparison/
I think that once you see them side by side, they do look a fair bit smaller than the assaults, though now much smaller than the heavies really so maybe the scale is screwed.
http://ecogamer.co.uk/MechComparison/
I think that once you see them side by side, they do look a fair bit smaller than the assaults, though now much smaller than the heavies really so maybe the scale is screwed.
It is weird putting the 65t Thunderbolt between two mediums, he is so tiny.
#75
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 9,190 posts
Member
- Location"You're not comp if you're not stock."
Posted 04 December 2014 - 03:15 PM
Late to the thread and not gonna read it all.
Commando bothers me the most.... You're in the left eye, like the atlas.... Only Clovis Holstein can pilot that thing...
Commando bothers me the most.... You're in the left eye, like the atlas.... Only Clovis Holstein can pilot that thing...
#76
-
-
- Survivor
- 3,542 posts
Member
Posted 04 December 2014 - 03:33 PM
im not to good on the math part, but an 18 meter Atlas should be insanely huge in MWO. if you look at the mech from the side it seems almost to thin for is size? or does the increase in size stretches the volume linearly.
#77
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 9,190 posts
Member
- Location"You're not comp if you're not stock."
Posted 04 December 2014 - 03:38 PM
SgtMagor, on 04 December 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:
im not to good on the math part, but an 18 meter Atlas should be insanely huge in MWO. if you look at the mech from the side it seems almost to thin for is size? or does the increase in size stretches the volume linearly.
I think 10 meters is the average with the tallest mentioned in a novel being the Victor at 14m. Weight does not necessarily equate to height (living proof unfortunately). The lights need to be about 25% taller, the Mediums about 25% shorter, Heavies and Assaults, individual chassis need changed, but nothing overarching like with Lights and Mediums.
#78
-
-
- 373 posts
Member
Posted 04 December 2014 - 04:14 PM
Everyone bangs on about time to kill, and balance and the timber wolf and grinding, but honestly, the only thing that *really* gets under my skin about the game is mech scaling.
I'm totally cool with the mechs being bigger than canon. Big is cool. If you're going to disregard the inverse square law enough to have battlemechs, you might as well make them enormous. And if an Atlas cockpit only takes up half its head, it would *need* to be scaled to 18m to accommodate that.
As loads of people have pointed out, the mechs need to be in scale with each other. That is the most important thing for role warfare. But aesthetically I'm just as annoyed by the way some mechs seem to be out of scale with themselves.
The Direwolf has always been a cross between an airbus and a dump truck. That's what the mech looks like, but the MWO one's torso is so huge compared to its legs it looks like it can barely carry its own weight and is in constant danger of tipping over. It looks wobbly and precarious instead of the sleek behemoth it is in my mind.
The TW & Mad Dog by contrast are practically bootylicious. I'm quite happy for them to be bulkier than the originals, those matchstick legs were ridiculous, but the current ones are too far the other way. They need slimmer thighs and a posture adjustment. They want to be more hunched and bird like. The TW concept art seemed a good compromise.
The clan lights are *huge*. The Nova is *huge*. Cockpit size is way off too. If the Nova is the right size, the kit fox's cockpit is about the size of an A2 Poster. If the Fox's cockpit is right, the Nova's is like a greenhouse.
ALSO +1 to the person who linked the Locust cockpit. I don't understand the locust cockpit. I can never work out where the pilot sits when I look at the mech from the outside.
PHEW. Rant over.
I'm totally cool with the mechs being bigger than canon. Big is cool. If you're going to disregard the inverse square law enough to have battlemechs, you might as well make them enormous. And if an Atlas cockpit only takes up half its head, it would *need* to be scaled to 18m to accommodate that.
As loads of people have pointed out, the mechs need to be in scale with each other. That is the most important thing for role warfare. But aesthetically I'm just as annoyed by the way some mechs seem to be out of scale with themselves.
The Direwolf has always been a cross between an airbus and a dump truck. That's what the mech looks like, but the MWO one's torso is so huge compared to its legs it looks like it can barely carry its own weight and is in constant danger of tipping over. It looks wobbly and precarious instead of the sleek behemoth it is in my mind.
The TW & Mad Dog by contrast are practically bootylicious. I'm quite happy for them to be bulkier than the originals, those matchstick legs were ridiculous, but the current ones are too far the other way. They need slimmer thighs and a posture adjustment. They want to be more hunched and bird like. The TW concept art seemed a good compromise.
The clan lights are *huge*. The Nova is *huge*. Cockpit size is way off too. If the Nova is the right size, the kit fox's cockpit is about the size of an A2 Poster. If the Fox's cockpit is right, the Nova's is like a greenhouse.
ALSO +1 to the person who linked the Locust cockpit. I don't understand the locust cockpit. I can never work out where the pilot sits when I look at the mech from the outside.
PHEW. Rant over.
Edited by Senor Cataclysmo, 04 December 2014 - 04:14 PM.
#79
-
-
- 373 posts
Member
Posted 04 December 2014 - 04:21 PM
Kiblams, on 04 December 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:
I have been reading loads of posts like this after thinking myself that the medium mechs were too big in the game, so today I decided to make my own little webpage to compare them:
http://ecogamer.co.uk/MechComparison/
I think that once you see them side by side, they do look a fair bit smaller than the assaults, though now much smaller than the heavies really so maybe the scale is screwed.
http://ecogamer.co.uk/MechComparison/
I think that once you see them side by side, they do look a fair bit smaller than the assaults, though now much smaller than the heavies really so maybe the scale is screwed.
omg. I didnt realise it was this bad!
17 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 17 guests, 0 anonymous users
