

Mech's movement animation concern
#141
Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:55 AM
in MW4 the mech's legs and feet would adjust to incline
#142
Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:57 AM
Tennex, on 25 July 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:
in MW4 the mech's legs and feet would adjust to incline
...and they weigh nothing the same time. Like floating.
Yup, that's pretty much how it feels.
#143
Posted 25 July 2012 - 12:00 PM
#144
Posted 25 July 2012 - 12:19 PM
The other thing: Walking is controlled falling, and falling on your leg while running means it has to catch a lot more weight than walking. So on each step the knees should bend down to dampen the fall. The faster and heavier the mech, the more "oomph"
#145
Posted 25 July 2012 - 01:33 PM
Komb, on 25 July 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:
The other thing: Walking is controlled falling, and falling on your leg while running means it has to catch a lot more weight than walking. So on each step the knees should bend down to dampen the fall. The faster and heavier the mech, the more "oomph"
Yup, exactly what i described in the first post!
Sway may be minimezed, if legs with each step are moved towards the center, however this is a "model walk" and is unlikely suitable for a mech, as it decreases stability a lot.
And right now mechs are bicycling =(
#146
Posted 25 July 2012 - 02:14 PM
It's only my opinion, sorry for my english. Regards
#147
Posted 25 July 2012 - 03:29 PM
This are all beta shots, not final, please keep that in mind...
.... but... just to be sure.... MW4 like animaions please...
#148
Posted 25 July 2012 - 03:37 PM
CloneWarrior85, on 25 July 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:
This are all beta shots, not final, please keep that in mind...
.... but... just to be sure.... MW4 like animaions please...
Well, that's the only hope I have now.
#149
Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:33 AM
Undead Bane, on 25 July 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:
Yup, that's pretty much how it feels.
tbh I get the opposite impression - when I see a cat or a hunchie in a video take a step, it looks really... solid! I like it =) But I understand the concerns, and to each their own right? I don't mind if they do make it more like in MW4, mind you - I just like it as is too =P
EDIT: Though I *do* think the Jenner looks like it's floating, and the Atlas too to some extent. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Edited by Scytale, 26 July 2012 - 12:34 AM.
#150
Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:55 AM
donkeybas, on 27 June 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:
That's what I thought, the sway would be canceled out by stabilizers. It would be kinda idiotic to have a weapon platform NOT stabilized when movement was initiated. Hence why tanks, (that have no legs but still move across rough ground) generally do not fire on the move, still have a stab system that allows them to.
Again, modern tanks and aircraft have stab systems that allow them to stabilize the weapon platform to allow fire on the move. A mechs platform would be the torso.
Sorry, I had to weigh in on this one. I spent 10 years on M1A1 tanks, so I can say with the authority of experience that there are at least 2 major differences between tanks and mechs:
1. Tanks do not walk. (on a side note I have to correct you on the fact that unless they are in a static defense or have a problem with their track, they fire on the move more often than not. Mobility=Life.)
2. Tanks are real and mechs are not.
in light of item 2, why worry about this? just strap in and have fun playing the game that some of us have been waiting ten years for.
#152
Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:59 AM
Low speed animation is articulated quite well on the catapault as well.as it begins to move. Mainly the legs and hips twist and move which is how I would expect a military walking robot to be designed. You want the cockpit and weapons to sway as little as possible so all the movement and twisting needs to.be in the lower end.
I just think high speed animation needs work.
I know what you are saying unread bane, but I think I know what the devs are going for and that is in mechwarrior 4 style animations there is a ridiculous amount of upper body/cockpit movement, Being inside would be worse than a roller coaster. So they are trying to do their own take on it.
#153
Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:28 AM
l33tworks, on 26 July 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:
Low speed animation is articulated quite well on the catapault as well.as it begins to move. Mainly the legs and hips twist and move which is how I would expect a military walking robot to be designed. You want the cockpit and weapons to sway as little as possible so all the movement and twisting needs to.be in the lower end.
I just think high speed animation needs work.
I know what you are saying unread bane, but I think I know what the devs are going for and that is in mechwarrior 4 style animations there is a ridiculous amount of upper body/cockpit movement, Being inside would be worse than a roller coaster. So they are trying to do their own take on it.
Well, cockpit swaying can be minimized of course, the movement just must have a little sway. Just lower the amplitude of hip/torso sway. But it must be present at least a bit.
E.g. look at MW3, not 4. There animation is frame-based, but still, legs there do have some sway. The mech's walk looks quite solid, quite realistic (though, not completely, but quite enough not to be super noticable) and sway is minimized. And all that with old frame-based animation technology. Being honest, not all mechs in MW3 had adequate animation.
To save you some time, here is a short video:
Look at how annihilators move.
Edited by Undead Bane, 26 July 2012 - 03:32 AM.
#154
Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:42 AM
check out this video, the army is working on it!
Edited by PlagueChampion, 26 July 2012 - 03:44 AM.
#155
Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:44 AM
Would give the Devs a better chance at seeing it.
#156
Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:47 AM
#157
Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:51 AM
Looks like the torso is floating in the air independenty from the rest of the mech.
The torso travels through the air and legs just flap separately just to make the animation complete.
Looks awful.
#158
Posted 26 July 2012 - 05:38 AM
As far as the mechanics of the Mechs and how they walk, I don't know. You're already suspending a lot of disbelief by entering a world where 100ton fighting vehicles with legs would be the superior or more practical choice to a 100ton rolling gun platform with tracks. That asside, you also can't assume that the anatomy of these machines is in any way like ours. The shape and distribution of mass in the upper torso would be completely off. Also, think of top half of your mech as the turret on a tank. Other than the foward locomotion provided from the legs, the two halves of the mech would be completely independantly from one another, and I don't think it would be out of the question that the top half is heavily stabilized to some extent. Another problem with this bipedal gait system is that, given the current geometry of the mechs, I don't think standing on one leg for any period of time would be possible. The bulk of the armored legs, and the wide seperation between them for stability means that the center of gravity would have to shift >very< far over one leg to facilitate a slow gait, so I'd imagine mechs of this size would be very limited to certain speeds and be force to take full, large steps, one at a time, in a slower frequency, rather than being able to take slow, small steps. The former just seems like an awkward and unintuitive way to move slowly around the battlefield when necessary. My point being that, if you want them to move super-relisticly or human-like, then that would just be impractical in any realistic sense. You'd be better of removing leggs all together in favor of tracks, or rationalizing that the only thing these things have in comon with humans is arms and legs, but their system of locomotion would be completely different.
#160
Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:06 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users