63 replies to this topic

[Melissia]

MWO's is better. Yours would be fine on a lighter 'mech, or even a Liao 'mech, but the Dragon is a heavy DCMS 'mech, it shouldn't look skinny.

Edited by Melissia, 25 November 2011 - 01:06 PM.

[Longhaul]

Voted for MWO design. Why you ask? because the Dragon is squat and the original art for it has no elbow in the right arm.

[Zakatak]

I see some inconsistencies with the artwork.

Why is the Dragon's AC/5 nearly twice the size of the Hunchback's AC/20? The bore of the barrel is around the same on both, despite the AC/5 being in the 55mm range and the AC/20 in the 120mm range. The barrel length is understandably longer, but the rest of the weapon is bulkier then the Hunchy's AC/20. Also, the Dragons AC/5 is nearly twice the size of the Atlas hip gun.

F***ing autocannons, how do they work?

Edited by Zakatak, 25 November 2011 - 01:34 PM.

[Xhaleon]

Zakatak, on 25 November 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

I see some inconsistencies with the artwork.

Why is the Dragon's AC/5 nearly twice the size of the Hunchback's AC/20? The bore of the barrel is around the same on both, despite the AC/5 being in the 55mm range and the AC/20 in the 120mm range. The barrel length is understandably longer, but the rest of the weapon is bulkier then the Hunchy's AC/20. Also, the Dragons AC/5 is nearly twice the size of the Atlas hip gun.

F***ing autocannons, how do they work?

Wait a minute, that's a very interesting find, but I see something else instead.

You know how at first glance it looks like the AC is hot from recently firing? It cannot be currently firing, as the bullet would block burning powder.

Look closer. There is actually a lens reflection effect on the upper left, and there is no rifling; instead there is a round inner circle that is consistent with the medium lasers in all artworks.

It's not an AC/5, but a Large Laser!

In fact, there is no canon variant that sports this exact configuration. However, I just made a Dragon in SSW using a regular LLAS in place of the AC/5, and it fits in perfectly! The 5 extra single heat sinks gained means it can fire all lasers while walking and remain heat neutral. Although, knowing the Dracs love of sizzling mechwarrior butts, they'd probably use an ER Large instead...

Edited by Xhaleon, 25 November 2011 - 02:02 PM.

[Arnie1808]

Strayed, on 24 November 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

I think MWO version is good, wish it was a bit less fat, but to be honest I actually prefer Mechwarrior IV's design.

I prefer this design as well to be honest.

Edited by Arnie1808, 25 November 2011 - 04:08 PM.

[Melissia]

Wait, he complains taht the MWO one looks fat, then he shows us THAT chubby monstrosity?

[Kenyon Burguess]

MWO dragon is art. im sure the ingame wont be quite that way. maybe if you redraw your design in a artistic manner isntead of the block design look it would rate better

[Strayed]

Zakatak, on 25 November 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

I see some inconsistencies with the artwork.

Why is the Dragon's AC/5 nearly twice the size of the Hunchback's AC/20? The bore of the barrel is around the same on both, despite the AC/5 being in the 55mm range and the AC/20 in the 120mm range. The barrel length is understandably longer, but the rest of the weapon is bulkier then the Hunchy's AC/20. Also, the Dragons AC/5 is nearly twice the size of the Atlas hip gun.

F***ing autocannons, how do they work?

Which design? If its MW4 one its not an AC/5, its a Heavy Gauss Rifle.

[The1WithTheGun]

Zakatak, on 25 November 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

I see some inconsistencies with the artwork.

Why is the Dragon's AC/5 nearly twice the size of the Hunchback's AC/20? The bore of the barrel is around the same on both, despite the AC/5 being in the 55mm range and the AC/20 in the 120mm range. The barrel length is understandably longer, but the rest of the weapon is bulkier then the Hunchy's AC/20. Also, the Dragons AC/5 is nearly twice the size of the Atlas hip gun.

In battletech, the more powerful the AC - the shorter the range (and thus barrel). Yeah.

Quote

F***ing autocannons, how do they work?

F***ing miracles.

Edited by The1WithTheGun, 25 November 2011 - 04:34 PM.

[Rayah]

I kind of like the new design though, might use the mech when the game comes out.

[Kyros von Richthofen]

I have no problem with the proportions of the MWO design; my only annoyance with it, however slight, is with its belly launching LRMs. Having them split between three different plates and not all grouped together is a strange break from the old design. Everything else about it looks fine to me.

[pcunite]

I like designs that stray as much as possible from the humanoid look.

[Saranpaa]

The MW:O version is far superior to the original. it looks tougher.

But on the downside the new looks of the mechs is going to the direction of the Armored core 4/Heavy gear style.

I wonder when they´ll be releasing the new-look miniatures for the TT?

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Never, most likely.
IWM would have to make new molds for them and such.

[ice trey]

Personally, I think the only problem I've got are the proportions of the legs.

The original, as well as the flavor text that MWO gives, talks about the dragon as being a fast design. However, the legs are short and stubby. Mind you, we haven't quite reached the stubbiness levels of a Warmachine Warjack or 40K Dreadnought, but it still has an aesthetic that doesn't match the listed traits.

Edited by ice trey, 26 November 2011 - 04:47 AM.

[ice trey]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 26 November 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

Never, most likely.
IWM would have to make new molds for them and such.

More likely than not, you're right. CGL would only do so if the game really takes off (I'm pretty sure that CGL is responsible for the plastics, while IWM only does the pewters.

But on the other hand, there's a potential for cost saving measures if CGL can gain access to the 3D models of the MWO mechs. While it costs something like $500 per sculpt if you're getting a new design made by IWM, it only costs something like $40 to use 3D printers, and I can't imagine perfect quality would be needed if they're just going to use the same low-cost plastic for the intro boxes.

I would suggest they go the cheap route over the high quality plastics route, if they did. HQ plastics might be nice, but they're big, bulky, and cost a lot more. A $50 boardgame for those people who've never gotten into the Tabletop Wargaming hobby is scary enough as it is; Bumping a box up to $100 for the sake of nicer minis I think is shooting ones' self in the foot.

[SJ SCP Wolf]

Zakatak, on 25 November 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

I see some inconsistencies with the artwork.

Why is the Dragon's AC/5 nearly twice the size of the Hunchback's AC/20? The bore of the barrel is around the same on both, despite the AC/5 being in the 55mm range and the AC/20 in the 120mm range. The barrel length is understandably longer, but the rest of the weapon is bulkier then the Hunchy's AC/20. Also, the Dragons AC/5 is nearly twice the size of the Atlas hip gun.

F***ing autocannons, how do they work?

Eh lets cut some slack here. Remember its concept artwork, not final models. Scale is also not present in these images.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

ice trey, on 26 November 2011 - 04:53 AM, said:

More likely than not, you're right. CGL would only do so if the game really takes off (I'm pretty sure that CGL is responsible for the plastics, while IWM only does the pewters.

But on the other hand, there's a potential for cost saving measures if CGL can gain access to the 3D models of the MWO mechs. While it costs something like $500 per sculpt if you're getting a new design made by IWM, it only costs something like $40 to use 3D printers, and I can't imagine perfect quality would be needed if they're just going to use the same low-cost plastic for the intro boxes.

3D printers aren't really used by such companies.
Injection molds are.
So imo, it is more likely that IWM would consider it, given the lower cost of making a mold of metal-alloy miniatures. Plastic/resin molds typically cost a bit more to make, so unless they're certain that the sales will outweigh the cost of making the molds (nevermind the other resources required), it won't happen.

[TheForce]

I like it, but would like it a lot more if it had an elbow on the right arm.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Zakatak, on 25 November 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

I see some inconsistencies with the artwork.

Why is the Dragon's AC/5 nearly twice the size of the Hunchback's AC/20? The bore of the barrel is around the same on both, despite the AC/5 being in the 55mm range and the AC/20 in the 120mm range. The barrel length is understandably longer, but the rest of the weapon is bulkier then the Hunchy's AC/20. Also, the Dragons AC/5 is nearly twice the size of the Atlas hip gun.

F***ing autocannons, how do they work?

When you find out please let me know - I've spent over 25 years trying to work it out.