43 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Asmosis, on 18 April 2015 - 06:42 PM, said:

It probably needs a particular leg height so its doesn't look ridiculous when moving at full tilt. I would say make the upper torso/arms etc bigger, but then it would probably end up in assault class size which is what led to the compromise. we're going for human run rather than duck waddle after all.

It is essentially something like this.

In reality, the "classic" mostly-crouching reverse-joint design (see old BT/MW art) is actually an unwise design choice from a robotics design standpoint; for it to actually work well, the weight bearing servos to be aligned such that the weight of the finished unit in a standing position is directed vertically through them (see here, here, and here).

Quote

Reverse knee is fine; it doesn't really matter which way the knee bends, it's mostly just aesthetics. What does matter is how the legs are aligned when weight is placed on them, and this is the problem that most people building 'reverse knee walkers' run into. Think about it, walking around with your knees bent is harder than walking with them mostly straight.

Mechwarrior and other mecha genres have polluted our minds with reverse knee walkers. Sure it looks pretty cool for them to have a huge angle in the knee bend, but it's far from efficient. The only bonus to it is that it lowers your COG. Ideally, you want all of your weight bearing servos to be aligned somewhat like this:

In other words: for the Cauldron-Born (and others) to actually work, they would necessarily have to have the more upright posture that PGI gave them in MWO (rather than the crouched stance often seen in classic BattleTech artwork), and all of the calls from some players to have the MWO reverse-joint 'Mechs be have a more crouched/squatting stance (which puts the joints & servos out of alignment) actually represents the "wrong" way to do it.

Between needing the legs to be more straight/upright & needing to add a torso joint, there was no realistic hope of the MWO Cauldron-Born being anywhere near as (height-wise) short as the original artwork & minis would have suggested.

It is actually far more important that the MWO Cauldron-Born is scaled appropriately (in terms of overall volume, surface area, and linear dimensions) relative to the other 'Mechs.

[DrSlamastika]

Odanan, on 18 April 2015 - 04:40 PM, said:

The Ebon Jaguar body is perfect, but the legs... too big, too tall.
Could you make the mech shorter by compressing the legs down?

EDIT: Suggestion:

Adjustments done: lower legs shortened and bent; upper leg slightly narrowed; arms' pods moved up and inward a little (better shield, better convergence and less shooting the ground); reduced the telescoped upper arms (for aesthetics) and a little more long-nosed.

PS: I guess I could get used to the current model, but the concept art looks so much better...

Spoiler

YES PLEASE, or just make that legs in sharper angle (in the knee ) It will be shorter a bit in that case.

But anyway, I like it. my new miny timber . . but I hope it will be really shorter then full size Timber

[KuroNyra]

Ebon Jaguar is too hight!
It was a low level mech!
Not a sky scrapper!

[Zordicron]

2 things with the Jaguar-

One, please remove the little pig nose dots on the front of the CT. If you want a detail there to avoid just a bland flat area, put some lines or a vent or something else.

Second, while I agree with the "proposed" model submitted in this thread looking closer to cannon, I understand if the legs need to be "stretched" to make the run animation not look like MW2 era.

One thing I feel MUST be looked at, regardless of model tweaks, hitbox wise: legs and torso. If the current model is close to final, hitbox MUST be assigned for that MASSIVE CUBE for the leg mount to be 50/50 split on legs. If there is any chance for this mech to be able to twist to spread dmg, the hitbox must be split legs and almost no, or completely no, CT involved. Otherwise it will be like ye olde days where you could run around crotch shotting anything and get CT hits twisted or not. And that cube is significant, so it will present a target from any angle. I can see the mech losing arms too. HOWEVER, that is also good, it means the mech should spread dmg.

The mech is supposed to be tough as nails, and if the cube gets split to legs, and the arms are "vulnerable"(read: easier to hit then ST) I think the mech would spread dmg like a champ and that fits the bill.


My personal model tweak suggestions: shorten the shins, I feel like they should at least be close to the same length as upper legs. Also, shave the top of the cube off, which would bring the torso down, making the mech look more compact that way also. The arms look plenty wide enough to avoid clipping issues.

[Bloodweaver]

Tidy, on 19 April 2015 - 03:35 AM, said:

Edit: the more I look at it the more I hate it, all they did was telescope the arms out more than the concept art, SHORTEN the damn arms it looks bloody stupid!

That's not all they did. In fact, it's not the main change to the arms at all. The biggest change is that the upper arm telescoping struts are set to a sharper downard angle in the model than in the concept art. Concept art has a shallower angle, model has them bent down much more drastically. No matter how short you made the struts, it would look off with that angle. Change the struts' angle, and the model's arms improve 90% with that alone.

Túatha Dé Danann, on 19 April 2015 - 05:56 AM, said:

I have to agree to several points said above. While the Cauldron Born may be a beast towards its loadout and has many hardpoints, it is already outbalanced by the fact, that it cannot mount JJ or ECM - so it NEEDS to be pretty straight forward in terms of firepower, esp looking left and right towards the Hellbringer and the Mad Cat. So nerfing the mech by giving it a bad geometry is not a good choice. The arms stick out too wide to the sides and heightwise cannot shield the side-torsos, the legs look much too high and need to be compressed (see first post), the side-torso weapon mounts look good and could be dropped down a little bit, esp. regarding using the arms as shields. Other than that, the center "nose" could be made a little bit more awesome looking like in the concept art, but its looking "okay" for now.

All in all, make a new geometry pass. This mech is the newest in the Clan lineup and should look badass.

Spot-on, pretty much. Wide arms are OK, but they shouldn't be angled so low. Also, nice username - I can see why you in particular would be invested in this 'Mech

Strum Wealh, on 19 April 2015 - 06:24 AM, said:

...the weight bearing servos [need] to be aligned such that the weight of the finished unit in a standing position is directed vertically through them...

In other words: for the Cauldron-Born (and others) to actually work, they would necessarily have to have the more upright posture that PGI gave them in MWO...

Between needing the legs to be more straight/upright & needing to add a torso joint, there was no realistic hope of the MWO Cauldron-Born being anywhere near as (height-wise) short as the original artwork & minis would have suggested.

...Are you being serious? First of all, IT DOESN'T MATTER. This is a game, not real life, and we can make a 'Mech look however we want. You might as well start talking about how AC/20s should be the highest ranged ballistic weapon in the game outside of Gauss, weapon ranges overall should be four or more times higher than they are, lasers shouldn't be visible on HPG Manifold, and 'Mechs shouldn't even exist in the first place because they offer no real benefit over tanks. Who cares? Rule of cool.

Second, you can start talking about realistic design decisions in MWO (as if that matters, which it clearly doesn't) when PGI starts actually using that as a basis for their game design. So long as we have 'Mechs whose feet slide over the terrain when running, the idea that PGI is modifying 'Mech models' legs due to "realism" is a gross misdirection.

And third, what you're saying is not even true in an absolute sense. A straight-leg stance may usually be the easiest way to make a robot move efficiently, with current technology and knowledge. In no way does that imply that this is absolutely true, not even with current tech:



And it only becomes less "necessarily true" once the possibility of further technological advancements in the future come into play.

TL;DR - it doesn't matter if it makes sense. What matters is what looks good, because the appeal of 'Mechs lies in that, not in their realism. Keeping things in line with the source material is a big part of making things look good when it comes to a successful and well-known intellectual property like Battletech.

Edited by Bloodweaver, 19 April 2015 - 07:35 AM.

[Magitek]

I like the look. True to the art.

[Strum Wealh]

Bloodweaver, on 19 April 2015 - 07:33 AM, said:

...Are you being serious? First of all, IT DOESN'T MATTER. This is a game, not real life, and we can make a 'Mech look however we want. You might as well start talking about how AC/20s should be the highest ranged ballistic weapon in the game outside of Gauss, weapon ranges overall should be four or more times higher than they are, lasers shouldn't be visible on HPG Manifold, and 'Mechs shouldn't even exist in the first place because they offer no real benefit over tanks. Who cares? Rule of cool.

Second, you can start talking about realistic design decisions in MWO (as if that matters, which it clearly doesn't) when PGI starts actually using that as a basis for their game design. So long as we have 'Mechs whose feet slide over the terrain when running, the idea that PGI is modifying 'Mech models' legs due to "realism" is a gross misdirection.

And third, what you're saying is not even true in an absolute sense. A straight-leg stance may usually be the easiest way to make a robot move efficiently, with current technology and knowledge. In no way does that imply that this is absolutely true, not even with current tech:



And it only becomes less "necessarily true" once the possibility of further technological advancements in the future come into play.

TL;DR - it doesn't matter if it makes sense. What matters is what looks good, because the appeal of 'Mechs lies in that, not in their realism. Keeping things in line with the source material is a big part of making things look good when it comes to a successful and well-known intellectual property like Battletech.

I am being serious, and it does matter.

Here is the MW3 animation for both the Cauldron-Born (which much more closely follows the artwork/miniature design) and the Puma (which follows the same design philosophy):


The MW3 Cauldron-Born leg movement is ungainly & awkward (notice how far it must thrust its legs forward relative to leg length, and how far upward the knee has to go in the rear in order to accommodate the stride (including, notably, how the Puma's thigh must through its body in order to do so at the end of the video)), and makes the 'Mech appear cumbersome and poorly-balanced, especially when compared to a more realistic RJ-biped gait (like that demonstrated by the Toyota I-Foot).




Particularly noticeable when the 'Mech would be running at top speed, the more-crouched stance will look less like some sort of "sleek predator" and more like either a QRIO-style "gotta-go-potty" trot or a "doesn't fall backward 'because magic'" gallop.

The model presented by PGI, by contrast, is appealing specifically because it looks like a machine that could actually walk & run and be well-balanced while doing both, which in turn is because it actually follows realistic design principles with regard to how a mechanical bipedal leg assembly would be set-up and aligned versus the (presumed) location of the torso's center-of-mass - which is something that has been present in the other 'Mechs that PGI has modeled & fits with their overall "make the 'Mechs look realistic & believable" aesthetic.
In this case, the 'Mechs obey the Rule of Cool BECAUSE they are being more realistic in their design and implementation rather than being cartoony caricatures.

And when a significant part of the game's overall aesthetic relies on a certain degree of realism, your falling back to the (blatantly obvious ) "But MWO is a video game!" statement as an argument to dismiss the overall aesthetic is quite silly & doesn't do anything to actually support your argument.

And, as an aside, using WildCat - which is quadrupedal (rather than bipedal) AND doesn't bend its knees (to any significant degree) when moving (the knees lock at ~90° & (nearly) all movement comes from the hip joint) does not provide any meaningful support to your argument, as it is about as different as one can get from a useful example of how a mechanical RJ biped should look & move.

[Strum Wealh]

Tidy, on 19 April 2015 - 03:35 AM, said:

Why is no one talking about the arms of the Ebon?
Concept art = gun placement just under cockpit
3D model = Nearer the hips

I'm pissed tbh dual gauss will be pointless on this model.

Why does pgi make all clan mechs knuckle draggers?

Edit: the more I look at it the more I hate it, all they did was telescope the arms out more than the concept art, SHORTEN the damn arms it looks bloody stupid!

Which concept art are you looking at where the arms are "just under cockpit"?

This is the concept art for the MWO Cauldron-Born, directly from the Wave Three page:


The concept art is shown from the perspective of the 'Mech's hip level (that is, at the level of the hip joint), and it rather clearly shows the level of the arm-mounted weapons (a Gauss Rifle in the Right Arm & a LB 5-X AC in the Left Arm) as being well-below the cockpit (and even below the ERML mounted in the Left Torso).

The level of the arm-mounted weapons in the concept art is clearly at (or slightly above) the level of the torso joint, and the 3D model shown in the sneak-peak video replicates this.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 19 April 2015 - 12:37 PM.

[Tidy]

Strum Wealh, on 19 April 2015 - 11:35 AM, said:

****

Thanks for the link you *****, didn't see you could get the concept art from anywhere else.

Draw a line, concept hits the flat spot under cockpit, 3D art is below the over inflated third chin.

[Team Imp]

Tidy, on 19 April 2015 - 03:35 AM, said:

Why is no one talking about the arms of the Ebon?
Concept art = gun placement just under cockpit
3D model = Nearer the hips

I'm pissed tbh dual gauss will be pointless on this model.

Why does pgi make all clan mechs knuckle draggers?

Edit: the more I look at it the more I hate it, all they did was telescope the arms out more than the concept art, SHORTEN the damn arms it looks bloody stupid!

Do you Monkey Mech bro?

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 19 April 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

I am being serious, and it does matter.

Here is the MW3 animation for both the Cauldron-Born (which much more closely follows the artwork/miniature design) and the Puma (which follows the same design philosophy):
(...)

Sure, Strum, but the legs don't need to be that tall.

Don't you think my suggestion would be both aesthetically and physically better? (because shorter legs are better for balance - because of the lower center of gravity)

[Tarl Cabot]

Tennex, on 18 April 2015 - 04:10 PM, said:

That Ebon Jaguar's lower body is way too big and calves are too long

True, after the Grasshopper issues, it appears people are paying more attention to it. How does it look staying against others in the pack and some mechs already in game?

[Navid A1]

Strum Wealh, on 19 April 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

I am being serious, and it does matter.

Here is the MW3 animation for both the Cauldron-Born (which much more closely follows the artwork/miniature design) and the Puma (which follows the same design philosophy):

Spoiler

The MW3 Cauldron-Born leg movement is ungainly & awkward (notice how far it must thrust its legs forward relative to leg length, and how far upward the knee has to go in the rear in order to accommodate the stride (including, notably, how the Puma's thigh must through its body in order to do so at the end of the video)), and makes the 'Mech appear cumbersome and poorly-balanced, especially when compared to a more realistic RJ-biped gait (like that demonstrated by the Toyota I-Foot).

Spoiler

Spoiler

Particularly noticeable when the 'Mech would be running at top speed, the more-crouched stance will look less like some sort of "sleek predator" and more like either a QRIO-style "gotta-go-potty" trot or a "doesn't fall backward 'because magic'" gallop.

The model presented by PGI, by contrast, is appealing specifically because it looks like a machine that could actually walk & run and be well-balanced while doing both, which in turn is because it actually follows realistic design principles with regard to how a mechanical bipedal leg assembly would be set-up and aligned versus the (presumed) location of the torso's center-of-mass - which is something that has been present in the other 'Mechs that PGI has modeled & fits with their overall "make the 'Mechs look realistic & believable" aesthetic.
In this case, the 'Mechs obey the Rule of Cool BECAUSE they are being more realistic in their design and implementation rather than being cartoony caricatures.

And when a significant part of the game's overall aesthetic relies on a certain degree of realism, your falling back to the (blatantly obvious ) "But MWO is a video game!" statement as an argument to dismiss the overall aesthetic is quite silly & doesn't do anything to actually support your argument.

And, as an aside, using WildCat - which is quadrupedal (rather than bipedal) AND doesn't bend its knees (to any significant degree) when moving (the knees lock at ~90° & (nearly) all movement comes from the hip joint) does not provide any meaningful support to your argument, as it is about as different as one can get from a useful example of how a mechanical RJ biped should look & move.

Spoiler

Seems like you are over-simplifying your model.

• - In real lif, using a more straight up stance puts less pressure on the joint servos in the idle stance (assuming we are talking about spherical motors, linear PM motors and/or conventional round rotor servos)... you are right in this regard. You will need less torque in an idle stance...so less electric power consumption.
  
• However... There is always a trade-off... always. Assuming electromechanical joints... you will achieve your goal of maintaining a stable stance with low strain and power consumption (the easiest way by the way). However, you will have less stability region... in other words, your dynamic model will have more sensitivity to noise. To say it simple, you will need stiffer control to maintain that low power stability and your mech will be more likely to fall under disturbances. Actually, in an environment with more mechanical noise (like a battlefield) you are putting MORE strain on the joints if you choose higher stance meaning that a shell impact will knock you down quite easily.
  
• - A lower stance will give you wider stability region at the cost of higher zero speed torque (more power consumption). distance from the center of mass to the ground is smaller and therefor, mechanical noise (bullet impact) can create less destabilizing torque.
  
• - Lower stance results in quicker allowable acceleration, deceleration
  
• - And finally... Mechs use imaginary myomers... a fictional synthetic muscle. with unknown characteristics. But, if you are talking real world... using higher stance for a BATTLEmech means constant falling over on every hard impact.
  
• It should be noted though that lowering the stance too much can also lead to higher instability if the legs remain at the same length.

Edited by Navid A1, 20 April 2015 - 08:48 PM.

[PhoenixNMGLB]

The arms in the 3d model are in the same place as the concept art. They clip just under the torso and slightly below the side torso mounts.

The calves do look better slightly shortened though but this is a stationary model so I am not sure how it will look moving.

It does look awesome though

[Lily from animove]

th leg bend issue is happenign for a lot other emchs as well, TBR has similar issues, this comes form the drive tonot make the mech "longer" backwards, for whatever design choice this was made.

[White Bear 84]

Strum Wealh, on 19 April 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

And, as an aside, using WildCat - which is quadrupedal (rather than bipedal) AND doesn't bend its knees (to any significant degree) when moving (the knees lock at ~90° & (nearly) all movement comes from the hip joint) does not provide any meaningful support to your argument, as it is about as different as one can get from a useful example of how a mechanical RJ biped should look & move.

They are coming...

[Strum Wealh]

Tidy, on 19 April 2015 - 12:08 PM, said:

Thanks for the link you *****, didn't see you could get the concept art from anywhere else.

Draw a line, concept hits the flat spot under cockpit, 3D art is below the over inflated third chin.

On my screen, a horizontal line through the approximate center of the LB-X barrel passes under the lens of the ERML, and is inline with the lowest of the four corners of the ERML housing.

Bearing in mind, again, that the viewpoint of the illustration is looking up at the 'Mech from approximately the 'Mech's waist level (such that perspective must be taken into account), which means that the arms should/would actually be even lower than they appear in the concept art - at/just-above waist level, as shown by the head-on look we got from the video.

So, it seems that the 3D model shown is faithful in its reproduction of that aspect of the concept art.

[Jetfire]

You guys made the crabs legs so good, the Ebon Jag should really have a similar height. Not perched on top of a stalker.

[Strum Wealh]

Odanan, on 19 April 2015 - 01:31 PM, said:

Sure, Strum, but the legs don't need to be that tall.

Don't you think my suggestion would be both aesthetically and physically better? (because shorter legs are better for balance - because of the lower center of gravity)

For me, it depends heavily on how much shorter the lower leg is made & what the 'Mech's gait looks like in each rendition.

We know from actual research that "running cadence (a.k.a. stride frequency) should be inversely proportional the square root of leg length".
Thus, a 'Mech with shorter legs moving at speed X (81 kph, in the case of the Cauldron-Born) will have to take a larger number of steps than a longer-legged 'Mech moving at the same speed (e.g. have a higher walking/running cadence).

The counterpoint to this is that the Cauldron-Born is a 65-metric-ton (65,000 kg; 143,300 lbs), and should not only move well (which the significantly-more-crouched generally doesn't allow) but move like it has some significant weight to it.
If the legs are made too much shorter, the 'Mech ends up having to take a cartoonishly large number of small steps (e.g. have a very high walking/running cadence) and would look silly in motion (especially as the Cauldron-Born is supposed to be such a heavy machine).

And, as I plan to make the Cauldron-Born my first Clan 'Mech purchase, I would rather that it look good when in motion (which so many of the calls for a more-crouched default position not only won't do, but the more-crouched default position - and, more to the point, a more-crouched walk/run stance - will produce the completely opposite effect).

[Dawnstealer]

Personally, I disagree with everyone here:

I think it needs to be much larger. Also, the hitboxes should be laid out so that it is approximately 90-95% cockpit.