26 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

So there have been many jokes about 55 ton size and the Wave I clan lights being giant, so I decided to actually go ahead and use the game models to create a more appropriate scale to the mechs just for SCIENCE, you know, the usual stuff. What I found was actually somewhat surprising to me. I'll breakdown the overview by class since that is what I was really looking at.

• Lights: Probably the best scaled class in relation to itself, the Kit Fox is probably the biggest offender here, being larger than the Adder is pretty impressive. The Raven is slightly larger than it probably should be given its large beak. One of the interesting issues is when I compared the lights as a whole to other classes even after my adjustments, there is a massive jump in size from light to medium, and is the only one that I let slide for simplicity.
  
• Mediums: Trenchbucket is the largest offender here imo, even trumping the Nova with the amount of adjustments. The Blackjack, Cicada, Hunchback, and Ice Ferret were the only mechs that seemed appropriately sized within the context of mediums with the Enforcer and Vindicator being close.
  
• Heavies: Quickdraw is the obvious one, as it is the Trenchbucket of the heavies. The Dragon and Mad Dog are weird as they have odd profiles when out of the front view. Cataphract, Catapult, and Orion were the next biggest offenders. No mech escaped adjustment here, not even the Timby.
  
• Assaults: This was by far the most surprising, with all 80 tonners being almost 100 tonner size. The heavier humanoid mechs got smaller adjustments (Battlemaster, Highlander, Banshee, Atlas). Of course, the notorious Stalker is the only mech that needed to be adjusted upward, anyone who has seen the Stalker next to any assault could probably have predicted that one.

With out further ado, here is the comparison (current = first, adjusted = middle, numbers = last):




Unfortunately the size of these pictures isn't the greatest when embedded, so I suggest looking at the originals for a better look.

For a larger version:https://www.dropbox....arison.png?dl=0

For a larger version:https://www.dropbox....arison.png?dl=0

Kit Fox: 90%
Adder: 95%
Raven: 95%
 
Vindicator: 95%
Nova: 90%
Centurion: 90%
Trebuchet: 85%
Enforcer: 95%
Stormcrow: 90%
Griffin: 90%
Shadow Hawk: 90%
Wolverine: 90%
Kintaro: 90%
 
Mad Dog: 90%
Dragon: 90%
Quickdraw: 85%
Hellbringer: 95%
Catapult: 90%
Jagermech: 95%
Thunderbolt: 95%
Summoner: 95%
Cataphract: 90%
Timber Wolf: 95%
Orion: 90%
 
Gargoyle: 90%
Awesome: 90%
Victor: 90%
Stalker: 105%
Battlemaser: 95%
Highlander: 95%
Banshee: 95%
Atlas: 95%

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 03 March 2015 - 01:15 PM.

[Ursh]

This is an issue that continues to mystify me more than a little bit. 2015 and they still release mechs that are inappropriately sized to fit MWO. We all understand that in BT lore mechs have their dimensions specified, but for the sake of ppfld fps games, mechs should absolutely be scaled based on their weight category, not BT lore.

Ex: a Kit Fox should not be significantly bigger than a spider from the front, back, and sides when it's the same height. Mechs can get away with being a bit tall as long as they're skinny, particularly since skinny mechs tend to have wonkier hitboxes, but when they're tall and fat, they are absolute bullet magnets.

[Brody319]

once again, Mass does not equate to Size!

just because the Spider and Kit Fox are the same tonnage, that doesn't mean they have to be the same size!

Yes some mediums, heavies, and assaults need to be rescaled but to me Lights are perfect in almost every case. I think they need hitbox touch ups, not rescaling.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Off-hand, one pet peeve is the Commando's Head and Cockpit could use a bit of tweak so that it's cockpit is centered and scaled in the head properly, it's currently off-center a bit and wouldn't work too well with the size of the cockpit when in a match.

As seen here.

---

Edit: Here's the idea of what can be done to tweak the Commando (there's a few more posts in that thread):

Spoiler

Edited by Praetor Knight, 03 March 2015 - 01:34 AM.

[wolf74]

The Problem with those Side by Side Graphs is that it's a 2D picture of a 3D Model. The ONLY way to Scale the Mech would be by Volume.

I would Pick the Atlas in what Ever Program you using to get the Images from for scaling if it give you a Volume amount for the Model Scale all the other Model up and down until they Match the the Atlas Tonnage to Volume Ratio.

AKA if the Atlas Volume was (Made up Number here) 408,769 Volume pixels (VP)
It Ratio is 1 ton equals 408.769 VP
Now you Scale all the other Mechs to match that Ratio.

[Lulz Kev]

It surprises me that PGI still drops the ball on scaling and in game models yet we still buy mech packs.

At least they revisit mechs periodically. You know, to make them even more hideous with their sad excuse of weapon geometry.

[Ursh]

Brody319, on 03 March 2015 - 12:27 AM, said:

once again, Mass does not equate to Size!

just because the Spider and Kit Fox are the same tonnage, that doesn't mean they have to be the same size!

Yes some mediums, heavies, and assaults need to be rescaled but to me Lights are perfect in almost every case. I think they need hitbox touch ups, not rescaling.

You're right, since the IS materials like endo steel, ferro fibrous, and xl engines are bulkier than their clan counterparts, the kit fox should be smaller than the spider. Still not sure how it fits any of those bulky materials in its pencil thin limbs and skinny and shallow torso.

[MATRAKA14]

Catapults are enormous, bigger than stalkers.
55 toners are giants.

[Darlith]

Ursh, on 03 March 2015 - 01:58 AM, said:

You're right, since the IS materials like endo steel, ferro fibrous, and xl engines are bulkier than their clan counterparts, the kit fox should be smaller than the spider. Still not sure how it fits any of those bulky materials in its pencil thin limbs and skinny and shallow torso.

No no that's why they take more crit slots, each of the slots is technically smaller because of those pencil thin limbs and skinny torso.

[FupDup]

Brody319, on 03 March 2015 - 12:27 AM, said:

once again, Mass does not equate to Size!

just because the Spider and Kit Fox are the same tonnage, that doesn't mean they have to be the same size!

Yes some mediums, heavies, and assaults need to be rescaled but to me Lights are perfect in almost every case. I think they need hitbox touch ups, not rescaling.

What you're forgetting is that tonnage directly determines a mech's effectiveness, so making two mechs of the same tonnage be drastically different in size can end up with one being much stronger than the other. As you get smaller, you lose guns and armor, so it's only fair that you also get a bit smaller in the process as compensation.

This isn't about "fisicks," because we'd have to give up our giant stompy robbits if it was.

[dimachaerus]

Yeah, This has been a huge sore point for me too. Good to see someone put the work in to have graphics backing it up. Unfortunately though, PGI will probably do nothing at all to rectify the situation. they'd have to refactor the animations, as well as almost re-do the models to accomplish this.

I doubt they have the stomach for it.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

wolf74, on 03 March 2015 - 01:10 AM, said:

The Problem with those Side by Side Graphs is that it's a 2D picture of a 3D Model. The ONLY way to Scale the Mech would be by Volume.

I would Pick the Atlas in what Ever Program you using to get the Images from for scaling if it give you a Volume amount for the Model Scale all the other Model up and down until they Match the the Atlas Tonnage to Volume Ratio.

AKA if the Atlas Volume was (Made up Number here) 408,769 Volume pixels (VP)
It Ratio is 1 ton equals 408.769 VP
Now you Scale all the other Mechs to match that Ratio.

Volume isn't any better than Surface Area, some mechs will still get shafted or overboosted. It is something you can use math as a guideline but not as a rule. Mechs like the Raven and Stalker would be smaller than they are due to having their large 'beaks' and the Warhawk would be even smaller. There in lies the problem with going by volume, it still does not balance the mechs that simply have better profiles aka better use of volume.

[Ragtag soldier]

'mechs were never intended to scale smoothly according to size. the commando is frequently referenced as being abnormally short for even a light 'mech, and the thunderbolt is supposed to the the same height as a medium 'mech (but much thicker) while the stalker and jagermech apparantly tower over the battlefield.

if anything, i'd want their scale to be even more widely varied.

[Deathlike]

Scaling is Lostech. You know better.

[wolf74]

WM Quicksilver, on 03 March 2015 - 09:28 AM, said:

Volume isn't any better than Surface Area, some mechs will still get shafted or overboosted. It is something you can use math as a guideline but not as a rule. Mechs like the Raven and Stalker would be smaller than they are due to having their large 'beaks' and the Warhawk would be even smaller. There in lies the problem with going by volume, it still does not balance the mechs that simply have better profiles aka better use of volume.

So the Stalker should be as Wide as an Awesome and the Awesome Should be a Deep as a Stalker is what I am reading from your text. Stalker, Rave, King Crab, Dishie, Warhawk, Shadow Cat, & the Cauldron-Born are all going to have a Higher Chance of getting hit from Arty/Air strikes do to their Large Top areas was well at being shot from above/below.

[sarcasm] Welcome to Blockwarrior online where Everything is the SAME! [/sarcasm]

The Raven and Stalker are Deep as a Draw back where the Awesome is Wide. Aka it ALL depends on which why your looking at the Mech, Which is Why the Volume Method remove ALL Personal Views out of it and does a Tonnage/Volume ratio so All Mech of the Same weight have the Same targeting from all Angles average together.

As for those Side by Side Image from the OP. If he would have use Side By Side from Front, Side & Top Views I would feel better about this thread. I don't have the tools or Time to due so.

Edited by wolf74, 03 March 2015 - 10:52 AM.

[Anyone00]

At least PGI made potential scaling much easier by having the interior cockpits being client side camera overlays.

Praetor Knight, on 03 March 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

---

Edit: Here's the idea of what can be done to tweak the Commando (there's a few more posts in that thread):

Spoiler

Oh, hi, Chihaya Kisaragi. Once again showing The iDolm@ster girls being BattleTech fans:
http://www.nicovideo...watch/sm8747151

[Strum Wealh]

WM Quicksilver, on 03 March 2015 - 09:28 AM, said:

Volume isn't any better than Surface Area, some mechs will still get shafted or overboosted. It is something you can use math as a guideline but not as a rule. Mechs like the Raven and Stalker would be smaller than they are due to having their large 'beaks' and the Warhawk would be even smaller. There in lies the problem with going by volume, it still does not balance the mechs that simply have better profiles aka better use of volume.

Actually, volume is the best way to go about it.

Having a hunched-over body design (e.g. Raven, Stalker, etc) versus an upright body design (e.g. Firestarter, BattleMaster) with consistent volume (e.g. such that the Raven & Firestarter have roughly (within ±5%) the same overall volume, and the Stalker & BattleMaster have roughly (within ±5%) the same overall volume) would just mean that the hunched-over 'Mechs would be generally longer (front-to-back), generally shorter (height-wise), and generally close in width (side-to-side) relative to the upright 'Mechs, while still being "the same size" (that is, roughly (within ±5%) the same overall volume & roughly (within ±5%) the same volume-to-tonnage ratio).

Likewise, the Masakari would be overall taller (height-wise) than the Stalker but overall shorter (height-wise) than the BattleMaster, overall longer (front-to-back) than the BattleMaster but overall shorter (front-to-back) than the Stalker, similar in overall width (side-to-side) to both the BattleMaster & Stalker, and still be overall "the same size" (that is, roughly (within ±5%) the same overall volume & roughly (within ±5%) the same volume-to-tonnage ratio) as the other 85-ton 'Mechs (namely, the BattleMaster & the Stalker).

[Almond Brown]

I just wish you folks had done all the Scaling and Modelling and In-Game Movement stuff for MWO. Leaving it to PGI to do was a mistake the Community should never have let happen. You all have let everyone else down. Shame on you all. Shame.

[Alistair Winter]

Can you please upload a larger version of the images in the OP? Something like 1600 or 2000 pixels wide, or more? I recommend using imgur.com, it's a lot better than photobucket.

Maybe I can finally get around to drawing the last pixel art mechs

[Strum Wealh]

Almond Brown, on 03 March 2015 - 12:08 PM, said:

I just wish you folks had done all the Scaling and Modelling and In-Game Movement stuff for MWO. Leaving it to PGI to do was a mistake the Community should never have let happen. You all have let everyone else down. Shame on you all. Shame.

To be fair, evidence suggests that PGI seems to have the right idea & has applied it more-or-less correctly with regard to the Medium, Heavy, and Assault 'Mechs.

The problem is that the Light 'Mechs are generally & significantly underscaled relative to the other weight classes, with some being arguably out-of-whack relative to even other Light 'Mechs.



(courtesy of Ovion)


(also courtesy of Ovion; source)