20517 replies to this topic

[Stingray Productions]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 October 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

Spider and Commando need slightly bigger. Cicada a touch smaller. Actually, all the Mediums but the Hunchback, smaller. Quickdraw smaller. Catapult smaller. Stalker bigger.

yes, quickdraw definitely needs to be smaller.

[FireSlade]

I actually do very well with the QKD-5K so maybe it is just me but the size does not really bother me.

[Strum Wealh]

FireSlade, on 13 October 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

True and that is why I would be ok with a small scale change to bring some mechs in line with the others; but that would be just the mediums. The lights have their speed to protect them and they might be a tad too small when you think of the pilot fitting in the cockpit and having a fusion reactor. Heavies have the speed and armor to take a few hits and they were always big (possibly the Quickdraw could be off). Assaults sit at the end on that lineup showing that they are in the right place.

Though, the questions to be asked become "what are our reference points?" and "how much variation from 'in-line' is acceptable?", especially when a number of 'Mechs are defined by their geometry (e.g. the Centurion & Trebuchet versus the Hunchback; the former are tall and lean while the latter is short and stout).

Which comes back to the point of density (that is, the ratio of the 'Mech's total mass to the total volume of the in-game model) as a factor in 'Mech scaling.
As Bishop pointed out, "Military hardware almost always is designed as compact as possible, to minimize target profile, and increase it's versatility. Just as one doesn't tend to see wildly disparate sizes amongst MBTs of today, you will see only minor fluctuations in density and such in military hardware".
Given this rationale, the fact that most 'Mechs are made of the same materials, the realities of the Square-Cube Law ("When an object undergoes a proportional increase in size, its new volume is proportional to the cube of the multiplier and its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier."), and the use of the MWO Atlas as a reference point, I created the following table:


At its most literal, the table shows that "a MWO Atlas, assuming the Square-Cube Law is held to be true and assuming that density is held constant would be of the height given in the table if its total mass (and, given constant density, its total volume) were reduced to that of any given weight bracket".
More broadly, the table shows what is arguably the appropriate approximate height of any upright humanoid MWO 'Mech of the same density as (and, ideally, approximately similar in build to) a MWO Atlas.

(Incidentally, it also generally works given TT values, as well; if a TT Atlas is ~14.00 meters tall, a 20-ton upright humanoid like the Thorn should be ~8.19 meters tall and a TT Commando (25 tons) or a Mongoose should be on the order of ~8.82 meters tall.)

Using the values from Adridos'/Bishop's chart (circa Jan. 2013) produces the following:

With the few numbers I do readily have, those 'Mechs that are relatively "upright" (as opposed to "hunched-over" like the Raven, Dragon, Catapult, and Stalker - where the torso/body is significantly "longer" than it is "tall") other than the Commando are less than one meter off of where they would be predicted to be (or, alternatively, they are within single-digit percentages (and generally close enough to fall within or below some of the common thresholds of statistical significance) of where they would be predicted to be).

Without knowing the actual height in meters, my model would predict the Quickdraw (as a 60-ton upright humanoid) to be on the order of ~14.84 meters tall, with a ~5% variation allowing for heights up to ~15.58 meters to still fall within the realm of "arguably acceptable".
Likewise, the Shadow Hawk (as a 55-ton upright humanoid) would be predicted to be on the order of ~14.42 meters tall (or up to ~15.14 meters, given a ~5% variation), the Thunderbolt (as a 65-ton upright humanoid) would be predicted to be on the order of ~15.25 meters tall (or up to ~16.01 meters, given a ~5% variation), and the BattleMaster (as an 85-ton upright humanoid) would be predicted to be on the order of ~16.67 meters tall (or up to ~17.50 meters, given a ~5% variation).
It would be interesting to see the actual heights of the models, to see how close the above actually gets...

(Then again, the second table also shows that the Commando is nearly twice as far off, in terms of actual measurement (that is, meters) as well as by percentage, than any of the listed Mediums, Heavies, and Assaults. I would be unsurprised to learn that the Spider is also off from where it "should be "by a rather large degree, nor would I be surprised to learn that the Lights were intentionally made to be "too small", making them into outliers in order to enhance their advantages versus the other classes... )

Thoughts?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 13 October 2013 - 02:13 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 13 October 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

brain pain stuff

Thoughts?

Um, yeah. My thoughts exactly.

But seriously; i think you nailed the basic stuff I have been trying to point out for months, just in a more concise manner. Almost enough to make me overlook your blind seething hatred of the King Crab.

[FireSlade]

Strum Wealh, on 13 October 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

Trimmed

My thoughts.... Um that would be wow that is really well thought out and seems to work pretty well. I wonder how all the mechs would work out with your math and to see how far off that they are from what PGI did. This might be something to pass on to the Devs to help them figure out scale for upcoming mechs and when they do a pass on the current mechs. You might be right that they made lights smaller than they should to make up for the lack of armor. Even though with the speed boost that they want to allow lights to have, I think that a meter for the Commando and any other light being too small is not too big a nerf.

[Odanan]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 October 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

But seriously; i think you nailed the basic stuff I have been trying to point out for months, just in a more concise manner.

More concise? o.O

Strum Wealh, on 13 October 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

Thoughts?

[Colddawg]

About Sturm Wealh's post.
Assuming there's no voids and symmetrical density across all areas of the object. You're not going to have that in the 'Mech. Center of mass, balance, and cavities are all part of anything designed/biological. Engines is a great example of this. The mass changes with different sizes of engines, but the overall outer dimensions don't change. I agree about the "compactness" argument and the example of current MBTs. It just feels like PGI is adding more space in the design than is needed.

Speaking of the Timberwolf's ears, I wouldn't be surprised if PGI took a minimalist approach to these. Take a look at the Orion's lrm 20 launcher. It's tight and compact and about the same size as the head (cockpit, ferroglass, and internals that are a part of the "head") bulge and collar. Also the fact that the Orion shares similar weight and scale to the Timberwolf I think we can guess that the Timberwolf ears will be about the same size as the shoulder launcher on the Orion.

EDIT: Looking at Sarna.net did PGI screw up the Orion variants? None of the depictions of the Orion in the GAME section of this website seem to visually match Sarna's description except for the V and VA.

Edited by Colddawg, 14 October 2013 - 11:23 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Colddawg, on 14 October 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

About Sturm Wealh's post.
Assuming there's no voids and symmetrical density across all areas of the object. You're not going to have that in the 'Mech. Center of mass, balance, and cavities are all part of anything designed/biological. Engines is a great example of this. The mass changes with different sizes of engines, but the overall outer dimensions don't change. I agree about the "compactness" argument and the example of current MBTs. It just feels like PGI is adding more space in the design than is needed.

Speaking of the Timberwolf's ears, I wouldn't be surprised if PGI took a minimalist approach to these. Take a look at the Orion's lrm 20 launcher. It's tight and compact and about the same size as the head (cockpit, ferroglass, and internals that are a part of the "head") bulge and collar. Also the fact that the Orion shares similar weight and scale to the Timberwolf I think we can guess that the Timberwolf ears will be about the same size as the shoulder launcher on the Orion.

EDIT: Looking at Sarna.net did PGI screw up the Orion variants? None of the depictions of the Orion in the GAME section of this website seem to visually match Sarna's description except for the V and VA.

eh, a better place to check is on Solaris7, as they have the actual record sheets for pretty much everything there. But the ON1-K at least at a glance appears to be a misnomer, unless they just felt like giving it extra energy slots.

The Kerensky, or ON1-P is a unique mech and I am assuming they follow their own naming protocols for Heroes in house.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 14 October 2013 - 11:30 AM.

[FireSlade]

Colddawg, on 14 October 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

About Sturm Wealh's post.
Assuming there's no voids and symmetrical density across all areas of the object. You're not going to have that in the 'Mech. Center of mass, balance, and cavities are all part of anything designed/biological. Engines is a great example of this. The mass changes with different sizes of engines, but the overall outer dimensions don't change. I agree about the "compactness" argument and the example of current MBTs. It just feels like PGI is adding more space in the design than is needed.

Speaking of the Timberwolf's ears, I wouldn't be surprised if PGI took a minimalist approach to these. Take a look at the Orion's lrm 20 launcher. It's tight and compact and about the same size as the head (cockpit, ferroglass, and internals that are a part of the "head") bulge and collar. Also the fact that the Orion shares similar weight and scale to the Timberwolf I think we can guess that the Timberwolf ears will be about the same size as the shoulder launcher on the Orion.

EDIT: Looking at Sarna.net did PGI screw up the Orion variants? None of the depictions of the Orion in the GAME section of this website seem to visually match Sarna's description.

I was thinking that the Timber Wolf would have similar style launchers as the Catapult C4. The ears would not be so bad but they are going to take armor away from the rest of the mech since you cannot add more armor to the total just for those. This and coupled with the fact that big squares are easy to hit will make the Timber Wolf an easy kill. As for the sizing, while I do like Strum's math for determining mech size I think PGI's sizing is good. The only mech that is really off in Strum's math is the Commando and it almost needs the smaller size to be viable. I also could be biased in that I have not used all of the mechs like the Awesome so I do not necessarily know how much size is a factor. I agree that in the real world, things would be kept smaller in size for a variety of reasons, but in Battletech aesthetics have to be taken into consideration too. Also to possibly to spite Bishop, I like where the Catapult and Stalker where they are .

[FireSlade]

On a side note, Bishop was right in calling the missile launcher dynamic.



At about 50 seconds in you will see a variant TDR missing the right side missile launcher but instead has a left side SRM launcher.

Edit: cannot embed the damn player probably due to stupidity. Never mind I figured out what I messed up on.

Edited by FireSlade, 14 October 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

FireSlade, on 14 October 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

On a side note, Bishop was right in calling the missile launcher dynamic.



At about 50 seconds in you will see a variant TDR missing the right side missile launcher but instead has a left side SRM launcher.

Edit: cannot embed the damn player probably due to stupidity. Never mind I figured out what I messed up on.

really? I have no idea how to do it. Sometimes I post the url and bang it works, other times, nada. and seems no matter what embed code I use sometimes it don´t cooperate. What´s the secret?

FireSlade, on 14 October 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

On a side note, Bishop was right in calling the missile launcher dynamic.



At about 50 seconds in you will see a variant TDR missing the right side missile launcher but instead has a left side SRM launcher.

Edit: cannot embed the damn player probably due to stupidity. Never mind I figured out what I messed up on.

also, can´t say I like the flap sitting in the back without the launcher, but still gotta be better than the beer keg launcher for survivability. Wonder if that was the Eridani Light Horse version, with JJs.......

[FireSlade]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 October 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

really? I have no idea how to do it. Sometimes I post the url and bang it works, other times, nada. and seems no matter what embed code I use sometimes it don´t cooperate. What´s the secret?


also, can´t say I like the flap sitting in the back without the launcher, but still gotta be better than the beer keg launcher for survivability. Wonder if that was the Eridani Light Horse version, with JJs.......

What I would not do for that version, I could have myself an early Summoner as for the code I was missing the http:// and it will not work if it is the embed code for some messed up reason. This is what the link should look like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tty2qIczfC8 with the bolded area being the most important. Then the "[media ] [/media ]" works just fine though I had to quote others to get the code. PGI should include instructions for their forum lol.

Edited by FireSlade, 14 October 2013 - 02:29 PM.

[SgtMagor]

next mech

[Colddawg]

more likely,

next mech



I wonder if it will be balanced for having a larger cockpit but the LRM racks will have massive armor values?

Edited by Colddawg, 15 October 2013 - 04:29 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Merry Patchmas everyone!

[Karl Streiger]

Sorry for trolling - but I'm really curious for the Marodeur II - mainly the 5H with the CASE in the right and the ammunition in the left torso.
Just to see - if PGI will make the same mistake - only because it is cannon...(I'm little disapointed after I've seen the Thunderbolt 5SE or 5SS in the phoenix vid - (second 50) -> the missiles have to be in the right torso -

[Colddawg]

Karl Streiger, on 15 October 2013 - 04:46 AM, said:

Sorry for trolling - but I'm really curious for the Marodeur II - mainly the 5H with the CASE in the right and the ammunition in the left torso.
Just to see - if PGI will make the same mistake - only because it is cannon...(I'm little disapointed after I've seen the Thunderbolt 5SE or 5SS in the phoenix vid - (second 50) -> the missiles have to be in the right torso -

We'll probably never see the Marauder nor the Marauder II.

[CDLord HHGD]

Colddawg, on 15 October 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

We'll probably never see the Marauder nor the Marauder II.

I kinda hope not.... Never did like the Marauder II, just never seemed right... As for the Marauder, well, of course I'd like to see it, but until Hasbro squashes HG, we are kinda stuck.

[Bishop Steiner]

Karl Streiger, on 15 October 2013 - 04:46 AM, said:

Sorry for trolling - but I'm really curious for the Marodeur II - mainly the 5H with the CASE in the right and the ammunition in the left torso.
Just to see - if PGI will make the same mistake - only because it is cannon...(I'm little disapointed after I've seen the Thunderbolt 5SE or 5SS in the phoenix vid - (second 50) -> the missiles have to be in the right torso -

Eh, sorry Karl, but for one thing, the TDR is the 9SE, not the 5SE, and the Mech always had it's launcher in the LT.
http://www.solaris7....nfo.asp?ID=3854
whereas the TRO art and the Record Sheets were always at odds with the "base" TDR-5S
http://www.solaris7....Info.asp?ID=570
Listing the LRMs in the RT, hence giving rise to the Project Phoenix (3067) version with the swapped cockpit/missiles from the old art, which they followed with the MWO Project Phoenix art.

[Karl Streiger]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 October 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

Eh, sorry Karl, but for one thing, the TDR is the 9SE

Oh? Kind of nerd rage - but thats nice - that means i can save the money for buying Double Heatsinks

However - I don't give much about the old Record Sheets - the LB 10-X, the ER-Large Laser and the Gauss are a perfect example how borked FASA nomics were at this time.
I always thought that the missiles for the thunderbolt have to sit at the oposite shoulder.

Although they repeat that mistake even with the Reseens.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Thunderbolt
9 NAIS and 10SE versions