From:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4181633
MoonUnitBeta, on 09 February 2015 - 10:18 PM, said:
yeah that too! I made this up quick. Didn't bother going into the head much. Someone covered that already with a good edit.
Edit: updated.
Edit: changed what I said, it sounded weird, like i was claiming your thoughts lol.
Its obvious that 2 different 3D modelers worked on the Panther and Enforcer respectively, the Panther is very well done and tailors closely to the concept art, meanwhile the Enforcer looks sloppy and as if it had shortcuts taken to reduce its poly count not to make it more streamlined but to make the job easier/quicker.
Overall I can deal with the rest of the mech if the head/face gets corrected, something not pointed out here is that the front of the head/face ends up much further down the chest area than the concept (look at where the front plate of the hexagon ends on the Concept compared to the model).
Quote
#1. Agreed
#2. Agreed (changing #3 could negate this change, as the ST isn't much wider than the Concept and between that and the change in #1 could alleviate this issue visually while keep the STs as are and reducing the work
#3. Agreed, from the center of the hexagon the shape needs to not change, but it need to be 'shortened' slightly moving each side inward as a whole, ultimately reducing the length of the top and bottom of the hexagon while not changing the angle of the hexagon itself. This only needs ever so slight of a reduction, not too much.
#4a/b. Top needs to be slanted slightly inward more, bottom needs to be moved back just a little to be inline with the flat face of the hexagon (if it isn't already).
#5. I'm not quite sure which piece you're talking about. However I'd like to point out here the pelvic area is much blockier in the model than the art and also hangs lower in the concept, an illusionary part that is causing visual 'strangeness' with the legs.
#6. Agreed, assuming the bottom is toward the inside of the mech and the top is toward the outside (facing us), the bottom piece tapers into the top face, while in the concept the piece had a 90 degree edge between the top and bottom.
#7. I'm assuming you mean the piece under #6, it could have to be changed to match the new angle of #6, and yes there was a bit more mech there in the concept than in the model.
#8. Upper legs need to be a bit deeper (front to back) than they are now and slants exaggerated from the current model, which would fit the concept.
#9/#10. The overall thickness needs to be reduced slightly, while providing a 70/30% (roughly) plit between the back and front division of the sections. Both pieces at the top have a slant, while only the front section has a slant on the side into the flat faces of the back piece.
#11. Possibly needs to be thinner, but I also don't see the slant of the side on the front piece of the shin guard. Shin guard is also actually TOO TALL, and the whole lower leg armor housing on that 'shin guard' piece in the front need to be thinned, downscaled slighty, and shortened to accomodate the upper stems from #9/10/11.
#12. No, this is a visual illusion due to the overly elongated kneepads, If you look the thighs are actually proportionally correct...possibly even too long, they may need to be shortened a tad after the lower leg armor housing in the front is corrected.
#13. The top flat face is actually so small it could possibly be removed for simplicity, leaving only the top angled face and the side flat face which would emulate the concept closely enough. Also, that entire piece is angled farther backward toward the bottom in the concept.
#14. Not half, maybe 60-70% as wide.
#15. Again, along with the #9-12, that entire armor housing in the front there is too large and needs to be reduced. Its too 'meaty' compared to the concept.
#16. Hopefully just a graphical issue...I hope. On the side toes, the shape is wrong. It should be flat bottom, with a 90 degree dace on its side, and then a top that slants up into that 'ring' housing, which is far too inflated/floating looking. The ring needs to not be so far angled outward on the outside and a bit thinner (75-80% of current thickness I'd say). Also notice that the inside side toe has a heavier flant (ring included) than the outside toe which is a bit flatter.
#17. The top of that piece needs to be angle more steeply toward the mech's leg, which will help with that Armor Housing in the front too. That piece (along with the rest of the lower leg its seeming) also needs to be made a bit thinner.
#18. Toe height looks like it may be okay, however, the bottom should again be flat, no double angle faces between the bottom and top flat faces. The front of the toe should be flat between the bottom and top, maybe a 'slight' angle tapering up to the top, but only slight.
#19. This is actually not so, as the foot depth actually looks about right from toe to heel. (See #18 for the 'side' issue) The sides, along with the rest of the leg armor housing, actually need to be thinner, closer to that little anchor connecting the 'shoe pad' to the leg assembly on the side there. The Toe overall needs to be about the length/width (in relation to the leg assembly as seen on the concept art) about where to top flat edge is. (overall thinner due to the reduced size of the leg thinning as a whole)
#20. With the other changes, the arms should actually be about the right width, no need to change it unless its still disproportionate after.
#21. This should be included with the thinning of the torso as a whole, top to bottom (shoulder to pelvis in other words).
#22. (same as #25) Warped due to the angle/geometry of the lower legs themselves being off.
#23. (See #5 below.) Adding: The top slanted area also has that inner section depressed and a higher ridge at the outside.
#24. Stabilizing fin...meant for the JJs? I feel that this could be skipped as it doesn't really provide any real aesthetic (it wasn't very noticeable in the concept) and would increase the leg hitboxes.
#25. (same as #22) Warped due to the angle/geometry of the lower legs themselves being off.
Some things I'm seeing that I may or may not have mentioned above, but are not part of the numbered problems. Numbers do not tie in to the above picture or numbered comments on that picture which I have stated prior, they're just to keep this an organized list too.
Quote
#1. The center torso overall is much deeper in the concept (front to back) which is seen when look at the distance between the front of the hexagon and the upper arm actuator (connection between ST and Arm). The angles are also much steeper, which would be corrected by making the torso thinner. The CT are, with the hexagon seems to be the major culprit as the sides are roughly even on the concept but the top/bottom of the hexagon are longer than the other 4 sides in the model.
#2. This actually rlates to #2 on the image, The ST piece highlighted by number by #2 is actually both too wide and too tall (I rescind my earlier statement that it wasn't) and reducing their height would make the angle for the piece above it more like the concept, and thinning it would provide the room for the head after the overall torso thinning.
#3. The right arm need to be a little bit shorter, and I believe cutting out about the amount of that flat piece between the laser and angled face (right in the middle of the front of the arm) would be just right.
#4. The pelvic area need to be more rounded like the concept and not so flat. It also hangs lower providing more space to correct the shape/angle of that small side piece on the pelvis. The leg actuators also look a big bigger in the concept (not by much, but noticeable) but that could be illusionary due to the incorrect shape of the piece on the side of the pelvis.
#5. With the increase of the upper leg (thigh) depth, the knee joint should be more forward, while the ankle will adjust angle to compensate slightly. This will also help adjust the angle of those boxes (JJs I'm assuming) on the sides of the lower legs. However, the adjustment of the lower leg armor housing in the front may help adjust the angle of the legs as a whole and not require the lower leg to be angle at all, just the rear JJ husing and the piece indicated by #22/25 to be adjusted.
#6. The third section (the one right before the barrel) on the ballistic arm should be slightly longer and the whole ballistic arm looks like it should be slightly taller, and a bit thicker. (Looks like a 4/3 ratio for width vs height.)
#7. The angle of the piece between the hexagon and head is steeper in the concept, reducing the height between the top of the hexagon and the top of the torso (keeping proportions correct) should both correct the angle and give the effect of sinking the head into the shoulder without having to move the arms. #2 from the image would need the side of the top piece on the STs thinned (less material between the arms and top).
Edited by MauttyKoray, 10 February 2015 - 12:27 AM.
17
