121 replies to this topic

[Ngamok]

#4

#5 I like the legs better.

Edited by Ngamok, 24 January 2015 - 09:05 AM.

[Odanan]

Saobh, on 24 January 2015 - 07:38 AM, said:

added my variation (#5) to the line up to see how it fit (would prbly be better a tad smaller in general yet keeping a bulkier upper torso)

Your version looks very good and it is the closest one to the original design. the problem is: I think there will clipping issues with the waist. (they had to fix that in the Stalker, for instance)

Edited by Odanan, 24 January 2015 - 08:09 AM.

[HammerMaster]

2

[HammerMaster]

maybe 5 its it's considered

[STEF_]

Esthetically speaking, the n°4.
Functionally speaking, the n°2.

So, here it is: I would like the n° 2, but the cockpit of n°4... .

edit: the worse: n°1..... :\

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 24 January 2015 - 08:20 AM.

[Lord Perversor]

The biggest issue it's the upper torso design wich makes it sligthy ugly.

Odanan fix proves all it needs it's a rounded dome head ( also variant 5 does) and it wins a hell lot more aesthetically.

This said i would put my vote as 2 ( Bishops's size) with 4 torso ( Odanan's domehead) as the ultimate underdog trashcan killer of doom.

Edited by Lord Perversor, 24 January 2015 - 08:22 AM.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

4 or 5 if its added

[GreyNovember]

5 Looks brilliant. 2 For the practicality.

[Lily from animove]

i would actually preffer saobh version

[Funky Bacon]

Slim frame = Harder to hit during horizontal movement.

[Triordinant]

2

[Koniving]

Saobh, on 24 January 2015 - 07:38 AM, said:

compared to the base miniature

Much as I love it... You do realize the issue with the original Urbanmech, right?
Zero torso twist; it is a twist-less mech. This is why it had so many viewports for situational awareness, it couldn't twist at all. (The reason we're getting 360 degree torso twist is to make up for not being able to shoot behind ourselves by flipping the arms). Thus using that design would lead to the clipping issues.

(Trust me, I'd love to have twist-less mechs; the Jenner would be such a harder target to hit if it wasn't forcefully given a torso. The Blackhawk would be a fair bit better in my opinion too given how much smaller the side torsos would be if the legs were hooked to the shoulders as they should have been... But sadly, yeah.)

I like 5 and 4's width. Bit partial on 2 because I believe an Urbanmech should be around 6 to 8 meters tall.
Of course, in this game 8 meters tall would make it shorter than the Locust...due to the exaggerated heights (why is a 13-ish meter tall Atlas 17 meters tall? The Hunchback in MWO is literally the height an Atlas is supposed to be in BT, and the Hunchback is meant to be about the size of the Commando in MWO, with the Commando being roughly the same height [and center mounted in the head rather than off to the side). o.O; But I don't think we'll have rescales of all the mechs.

Edited by Koniving, 24 January 2015 - 08:52 AM.

[Cementi]

#2 , honestly they all look good but if your going to make it any wider it must be as short as possible to be viable, otherwise it will be as easy to hit as clan lights.

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 24 January 2015 - 05:09 AM, said:

So the UrbanMech Orthos was released and we are all thrilled with the Urbie finally showing up in the game.



But as some of us pointed out, the official UrbanMech looks too slim and tall.

Here are some suggestions for making it more "Urbie-like":



Vote which one you think is best:

1- Official art.
2- Bishop Steiner's suggestion.
3- Spades Kincaid's suggestion.
4- Odanan's suggestion.
EDIT:
5- Merged the #4 with the design proposed by SAOBH.

Might also suggest, on your poll, make it something like ; "which version is your favorite? Second Favorite, third? etc. With each being assigned a value of 1-4.

Then which ever gets highest total number of points, would reasonably, be the "most popular" or , more to point, most agreed upon.

Also, scrap this, and redo it in feature suggestions. You can add a poll there.

On this thread though, for me I rank them:

2, 4, 5, 3, 1

[Bloodweaver]

FIVE! Fivefivefivefivefive!!! It's perfect. Just fix the uppermost part of the legs so they don't clip into the torso and you're golden...

Koniving, on 24 January 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

I like 5 and 4's width. Bit partial on 2 because I believe an Urbanmech should be around 6 to 8 meters tall.

Cementi, on 24 January 2015 - 08:58 AM, said:

#2 , honestly they all look good but if your going to make it any wider it must be as short as possible to be viable, otherwise it will be as easy to hit as clan lights.

Any of the models can be scaled to any height. Only the relative proportions matter.

Koniving, on 24 January 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

...the Commando being roughly the same height [and center mounted in the head rather than off to the side)

I've read that the Commando's original art was not, in fact, meant to show an off-set cockpit. It's simply supposed to be showing the Commando's head being turned to the side, looking over its left shoulder. Over time, the misunderstanding that it had a weird off-set cockpit with a tilted-helmet-like dome on the other side became such a common assumption that it simply became official.

Edited by Bloodweaver, 24 January 2015 - 09:12 AM.

[DEN_Ninja]

Five is pretty nice tbh

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

5, but glad we are getting it no matter what.

[Koniving]

Bloodweaver, on 24 January 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

I've read that the Commando's original art was not, in fact, meant to show an off-set cockpit. It's simply supposed to be showing the Commando's head being turned to the side, looking over its left shoulder. Over time, the misunderstanding that it had a weird off-set cockpit with a tilted-helmet-like dome on the other side became such a common assumption that it simply became official.

I'm aware.
In Mechwarrior 2 Mercs, the cockpit is shown correctly in the opening cinematic.

Specifically it is supposed to be a Commando 1-C but is sporting twin AC/2s for some reason (so they did something right and something wrong, go figure!)

[Lily from animove]

vote for number 5

Funky Bacon, on 24 January 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

Slim frame = Harder to hit during horizontal movement.

people didn't wanted an urban mech for being awesome meta pro's we wanted the urbie for being an urbie, making it slim and making it less looking like an urbie is not what people wanted. If we want this we play firestarter or commando

Edited by Lily from animove, 24 January 2015 - 09:39 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Funky Bacon, on 24 January 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

Slim frame = Harder to hit during horizontal movement.

which is why #2 never adjusted the width. It's just as wide as the original, but 25% (approximately) shorter. Less target area, period.