41 replies to this topic

[LordBraxton]

Why is it OK to make all the mechs fatter than their original designs, but make their weapons smaller? This started with the geometry passes, but now it's bleeding into the concept art. The mauler arms look tiny.... because PGI makes all the weapons tiny now... If only PGI's modelers hadn't totally f**ked up the centurion. If they had set a good precedent with that tall, sleek, sexy design alex created... maybe all the mechs since wouldn't have been so horribly scaled. At least the centurion originally had a huge gun to go with his huge torso. MWO mechs = all balls no shaft

Edited by LordBraxton, 01 May 2015 - 06:42 AM.

[Juodas Varnas]

[Joseph Mallan]

LordBraxton, on 01 May 2015 - 06:41 AM, said:

Why is it OK to make all the mechs fatter than their original designs, but make their weapons smaller? This started with the geometry passes, but now it's bleeding into the concept art. The mauler arms look tiny.... because PGI makes all the weapons tiny now... If only PGI's modelers hadn't totally f**ked up the centurion. If they had set a good precedent with that tall, sleek, sexy design alex created... maybe all the mechs since wouldn't have been so horribly scaled. At least the centurion originally had a huge gun to go with his huge torso. MWO mechs = all balls no shaft

The original art work looked like this...


Pretty thick Mech yes Long barrels but do Lasers need long barrels?

[Juodas Varnas]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 May 2015 - 06:45 AM, said:

The original art work looked like this...


Pretty thick Mech yes Long barrels but do Lasers need long barrels?

Yes. They do.

[AlexEss]

Well that is the price we pay.

Pick one... beautiful custom geometry.. or accurate weapon representation...

Can´t have both... For obvious reason.

[Juodas Varnas]

AlexEss, on 01 May 2015 - 06:48 AM, said:

Well that is the price we pay.

Pick one... beautiful custom geometry.. or accurate weapon representation...

Can´t have both... For obvious reason.

Beautiful custom geometry every time.

[LordBraxton]

AlexEss, on 01 May 2015 - 06:48 AM, said:

Well that is the price we pay.

Pick one... beautiful custom geometry.. or accurate weapon representation...

Can´t have both... For obvious reason.

Ask the centurions what they think about the matter. I agree with them.

[FupDup]

It's a 5 ton weapon on a 90 ton mech. Even with the current size it makes up a much more significant proportion of the mech's surface area than 5/90. How is that "small" or "tiny?"

The Mauler has the same tonnage as 18 of those lasers put together.

Edited by FupDup, 01 May 2015 - 07:27 AM.

[LordBraxton]

FupDup, on 01 May 2015 - 07:25 AM, said:

It's a 5 ton weapon on a 90 ton mech. Even with the current size it makes up a much more significant proportion of the mech's surface area than 5/90. How is that "small?" The Mauler has the same tonnage as 18 of those lasers put together.

A 90 ton mech would also be way smaller. A building sized mech like the ones in MWO would probably weigh more like 900 tons. Why are you discussing anything science\math\physics\mass related regarding battletech? ESPECIALLY battletech ART? It never makes sense and never will. This is about what looks cool, because that's the only thing we can go for. Baby arms look lame.

[FupDup]

LordBraxton, on 01 May 2015 - 07:28 AM, said:

A 90 ton mech would also be way smaller. A building sized mech like the ones in MWO would probably weigh more like 900 tons. Why are you discussing anything science\math\physics\mass related regarding battletech? ESPECIALLY battletech ART? It never makes sense and never will. This is about what looks cool, because that's the only thing we can go for. Baby arms look lame.

Those arms in the concept art don't really qualify as "baby" sized. Baby sized is a Thunderbolt's arm Gauss or Firestarter PPCs.

Those Mauler ER Larges, though...they're not baby sized. They're still reasonably big, and they appear to be actually bigger than the AC/20 on an Atlas or Hunchback...


My problem with the Mauler art is more about the torso/head shape, maybe the legs a bit, but not really the arms.

[Alistair Winter]

LordBraxton, on 01 May 2015 - 06:41 AM, said:

MWO

all balls no shaft

That's a great tagline. You should tweet it to Russ.

[AlexEss]

LordBraxton, on 01 May 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

Ask the centurions what they think about the matter. I agree with them.

Did i ever say i liked the solution... Yes i would like to have my old YLW beef-arm back. But i can understand the need to streamline things in order to be able to efficiently show of all the weird combos we can put on our mechs. After all the one time they tried to not change the original geo and just build upon it... People went ballistic. (Catapult missile pod with "VCR") So it is a loosing battle either way.

I guess the other option would have been to choke the living *bleeeep* out of how many hardpoints each mech have.

[LordBraxton]

AlexEss, on 01 May 2015 - 07:42 AM, said:

Did i ever say i liked the solution... Yes i would like to have my old YLW beef-arm back. But i can understand the need to streamline things in order to be able to efficiently show of all the weird combos we can put on our mechs. After all the one time they tried to not change the original geo and just build upon it... People went ballistic. (Catapult missile pod with "VCR") So it is a loosing battle either way.

I guess the other option would have been to choke the living *bleeeep* out of how many hardpoints each mech have.

(not trying to be a **** but the lose\loose thing is killing me. spread the word so people use them correctly, I don't blame you, it's an epidemic) PGI went about it th wrong way, so people went ballistic. As they should. You know, a competent games design company might have managed to create modular weapon space without ******* it up. Ever thought that maybe, just maybe, the catapult got VCRs because PGI is far too lazy to actually modify the model? all they can do is slap more (ugly) **** on, instead of changing the boxes based on what is inside.

[masCh]

Prefer accurate weapon representation than beautiful geometry which isn't logical.

[AlexEss]

LordBraxton, on 01 May 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

(not trying to be a **** but the lose\loose thing is killing me. spread the word so people use them correctly, I don't blame you, it's an epidemic) PGI went about it th wrong way, so people went ballistic. As they should. You know, a competent games design company might have managed to create modular weapon space without ******* it up. Ever thought that maybe, just maybe, the catapult got VCRs because PGI is far too lazy to actually modify the model? all they can do is slap more (ugly) **** on, instead of changing the boxes based on what is inside.

No... I pretty much use it the right way... Because there is no scenario where they would have come out on top...

In hindsight it would have been better to build it modular.. yes.. they did not... It is not about being lazy... it is about only having a set amount of hours each week that your artists work and a set amount you can pay them.

But i know you know this... you are a smart fella... You just choose to be abrasive because it tickles your happy spot.

Edited by AlexEss, 01 May 2015 - 08:14 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 May 2015 - 06:45 AM, said:

The original art work looked like this...


Pretty thick Mech yes Long barrels but do Lasers need long barrels?

Juodas Varnas, on 01 May 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

Yes. They do.

No, they actually don't.

Relatively long barrels are useful for conventional ballistic weapons because "the projectile spends more time in the barrel before it exits, and hence more time is available for expanding gas from the controlled burning of the propellant charge to smoothly accelerate the projectile, bringing about a higher velocity without placing undue strain on the gun", but making the barrel too long reduces the weapon's effectiveness because "pressure is reduced by the increasing barrel volume the gas has to fill, and in order to achieve maximum muzzle velocity with the shortest barrel length, the projectile should exit the barrel as the gas pressure reduces to a small fraction of the maximum". (Source)

EM accelerators (coilguns & railguns) might also benefit, as a function of longer barrels being able to accommodate more coils (for coilguns) or longer rails (for railguns), but they quickly become power-intensive & heavy as length increases.

Laser weapons have no use for long barrels, as the factors listed above are non-applicable.

[LordBraxton]

Sturm~~ Your post has 0 value. This is battletech, there is no room for science or logic. Big warhammer style gun arms look cool.

[Lightfoot]

Maulers arms are always small diameter. Longer though huh?

[Strum Wealh]

LordBraxton, on 01 May 2015 - 08:34 AM, said:

Sturm~~ Your post has 0 value. This is battletech, there is no room for science or logic. Big warhammer style gun arms look cool.

You have all of your post quite backwards, Braxton.

My post answers Joe's question, and provides context for why the answer is the way it is.

Part of BattleTech's appeal is that it is "harder science fiction", built on some foundation in logic and real science - thus, why it is not Escaflowne (mecha + dragons & sorcery) or Star Wars (telekinesis & "universal oneness" granted by souped-up mitochondria ) or WH40K (which should be largely self-explanatory), all of which are examples of "softer science fiction".

Realistically-scaled weaponry looks cool in large part because it makes sense for a harder SF setting (like BT/MW); dramatically overscaled weaponry (e.g. 16-inch (406mm) battleship guns to represent what should be 50-80mm (2-3 inch) cannons on a JagerMech) looks silly in the same context.

[Almond Brown]

masCh, on 01 May 2015 - 08:01 AM, said:

Prefer accurate weapon representation than beautiful geometry which isn't logical.

Well, you just have to set your Time Machine to Tukayyid, late April 3052 . There should be ample "accurate weapon representation" lying about the planet. Do take lots of Pics and post them for us to see when you get back. K?

Thanks.