63 replies to this topic

[Navid A1]

Does anyone know any PGI modelers' name on the forums?

I want to send them some PMs.

Edited by Navid A1, 20 May 2015 - 08:39 PM.

[Odanan]

Navid A1, on 10 May 2015 - 06:14 PM, said:

The low torso launcher you did is very good, but wouldn't the upper missile box be smaller for SRMs?

[Christof Romulus]

Hey... isn't there a post like this or something for the catapult out there?

Hmm. How'd that one turn out?

[Navid A1]

Odanan, on 29 May 2015 - 04:46 AM, said:

The low torso launcher you did is very good, but wouldn't the upper missile box be smaller for SRMs?

maybe slightly smaller. Not like the current one which gives hitbox advantage. I think getting hitbox advantage using a specific (and effective) weapon is not good.
besides... that keeps the original shape of the most iconic machine in the whole BT lore.

Christof Romulus, on 29 May 2015 - 01:33 PM, said:

Hey... isn't there a post like this or something for the catapult out there?

Hmm. How'd that one turn out?

I'll keep on making image mock-ups no matter what. maybe one day PGI sees the light... one day...
Regarding the catapult...Up until this point at least:

Spoiler

Navid A1, on 02 May 2015 - 09:23 PM, said:

I got bored at tweeted this suggestion of mine to russ:




here was the response:... (the same response he gave n the town hall)

I know its nothing to latch on to... but its... something.

Edited by Navid A1, 29 May 2015 - 04:51 PM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Odanan, on 29 May 2015 - 04:46 AM, said:

The low torso launcher you did is very good, but wouldn't the upper missile box be smaller for SRMs?

It should be that size for twin SRMs, in fact, both SRMs could easily fit in the box. The Timber Wolf D in particular was described as having both launchers in the shoulder racks in an fore-aft configuration.

Quote

Though rarely seen, Configuration D of the Mad Cat carries an especially unusual array of weapons. Apparently designed to fight in the enemy's midst, this version has double Streak SRM-6 launchers mounted on each shoulder, one pointing forward and the other to the rear.

The expansion to lower racks should only be for when the tube count exceeds 20 for total LRMS or 16 for mixed LRMs and SRMs with the largest launcher going in the main racks.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 29 May 2015 - 06:06 PM.

[WazOfOz]

love the diagrams with arrows and circles

[Moldur]

It's Dynamic

[Navid A1]

We are near a town hall even again... how about a... BUMP.

[zudukai]

small boxes, yes. big boxes no.

i am ok with the current high mount for SRMs, but i simply cannot agree with the bigger top rack, if that is the only way, then fit both in the LRM10 box, in a tight cluster side by side like the crow equaling a tighter volley spread.

however i would actually prefer to have the boxes shrunk even more, with the side torso design you show here, and the top rack a straight line and small, akin to the size of the Cplt's VCRs (with out the tacky add-on factor).

i will draw up an example.
keep in mind i spent no time on this image.

Spoiler

Edited by zudukai, 13 January 2016 - 11:25 AM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Bumping this Ancient thread because if the Stalker needs redone missile pods on the torso, then so does this thing.

The Stalker could benefit from these ideas as well, where the missile pods hug the torso.

[CDLord HHGD]

PGI should define a set diameter for a LRM tube "hole" and SRM tube "hole" and use that to determine the size of the various racks. It is absolutely ludicrous the comparison between the Centurion, Raven, Catapult, and Stalker. Not to mention the Timber Wolf as well.

[MoonUnitBeta]

cdlord, on 23 February 2016 - 10:05 AM, said:

PGI should define a set diameter for a LRM tube "hole" and SRM tube "hole" and use that to determine the size of the various racks. It is absolutely ludicrous the comparison between the Centurion, Raven, Catapult, and Stalker. Not to mention the Timber Wolf as well.

Yeah, I was under the impression that the whole point for changing over to these "improved weapon visuals" was to standardize the look of the weapons across the mechs so they were identifiable... But even lazer's aren't standard size...

But I suppose all that means is that mechs will get some visual variation according to what's equipped, and not necessarily has anything to do with the looks being the same... which defeats the whole purpose in my opinion, because you have to get used to each and every different look for each and every mech.

[CDLord HHGD]

MoonUnitBeta, on 23 February 2016 - 11:09 AM, said:

Yeah, I was under the impression that the whole point for changing over to these "improved weapon visuals" was to standardize the look of the weapons across the mechs so they were identifiable... But even lazer's aren't standard size...

But I suppose all that means is that mechs will get some visual variation according to what's equipped, and not necessarily has anything to do with the looks being the same... which defeats the whole purpose in my opinion, because you have to get used to each and every different look for each and every mech.

Indeed. The LEAST they could have done was make IS square mounts and Clan more rounded.... Maybe even different colored glowy bits for the laser lenses (like the old Atlas eyes, just not so bright as to give away position).

[Chimera_]

So much yes. I've intentionally not tried some fun looking builds on my Mad Cats just because of how awful the missile racks look. Want to put an asym build with 2 missile racks on one side only? Well, you can but it'll look like a lopsided tumor. Quad SRM 6 looks the worst I think, as you showed it's simply ridiculous having such giant boxes duct taped to the Mad Cat's sides.

Edit: Didn't realize this was such an ancient thread, but I think the issue is still relevant.

Edited by Chimera11, 23 February 2016 - 11:39 AM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Chimera11, on 23 February 2016 - 11:36 AM, said:

Edit: Didn't realize this was such an ancient thread, but I think the issue is still relevant.

Yes, old but still relevant. The catapult thread, for example is older than this one, and now we're finally getting a revision...
According to the 3D modeler dev who posted in the Catapult thread, it seemed as though he was just given the task, and whatever he produced was put into the game. His lack of understand about the game was the reason he made it look the way it did.

But now you have to wonder:
Where was the person who checks their work? Lead Concept Design, Lead 3D Artist? Isn't there someone who knows more about the game that would check this kind of work?
What I also took from how he explained it, was that these dynamic weapon visuals don't go through concept first. It seems like the 3D modeler is just given the task and are allowed creative freedom on how these retrofits are going to look... Apparently, whether or not they understand the work or not.
It's not the Modeler's fault, it's whoever is overseeing the task in my opinion. PGI aims for high fidelity, apparently, but it doesn't seem like anyone is there to control that standard ahead of time.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 23 February 2016 - 12:37 PM.

[Thejuggla]

Why can't srms just both go in the ears instead of those stupid things next to the cockpit. Being said I don't want them to change because you all know what happens when they tweak missile visuals.

[FupDup]

Navid A1, on 23 February 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

You mean like this:

What the heck is with those missile formations, particularly the LRMs? Wouldn't it make more sense to cluster them in groups of 5 instead of weird diagonal "checkmarks?"

For all of the missiles, I really think that having such a large expanse of completely unused "gray space" on the hardpoint makes them look both generic and ugly. The whole "ear" should scale its size based on the tube count. 2 LRM20 should result in a very large ear, while packing only 2 SRM2 should be a very small ear.

Such an arrangement would make the geometry actually behave more "dynamically" than the current system of Empty Gray Boxes of Shame™.

Edited by FupDup, 23 February 2016 - 05:29 PM.

[Navid A1]

DAMN... you are a fast poster FupDup.
Accidentally deleted my post.

Thejuggla, on 23 February 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

Why can't srms just both go in the ears instead of those stupid things next to the cockpit. Being said I don't want them to change because you all know what happens when they tweak missile visuals.

You mean like this:

Spoiler

some examples:

Spoiler

FupDup, on 23 February 2016 - 05:27 PM, said:

What the heck is with those missile formations, particularly the LRMs? Wouldn't it make more sense to cluster them in groups of 5 instead of a diagonal "checkmark" of 4 tubes?

For all of the missiles, I really think that having such a large expanse of completely unused "gray space" on the hardpoint makes them look both generic and ugly. The whole "ear" should scale its size based on the tube count. 2 LRM20 should result in a very large ear, while packing only 2 SRM2 should be a very small ear.

Such an arrangement would make the geometry actually behave more "dynamically" than the current system of Empty Gray Boxes of Shame™.

Correct.

That is why they won't look good in a single box.

This was a very very old mock up i did prior to this thread.

Edited by Navid A1, 23 February 2016 - 05:31 PM.

[Chimera_]

On the larger side of things, I would suggest putting 12 SRMs in each "ear" when mounting 2 srm 6s, and putting any combination of lrms equaling less than 25 in the same sized ear box, as opposed to giving them separate hitboxes. This is mostly because I love the look of the large ears. 12 srms could probably fit comfortably in a smaller hitbox too, though.

In general, I think duct taping loads of separate hitboxes to a mech when mounting multiple launchers simply looks ridiculous. If a mount is x size and has up to x tubes, why would a pair of system fitting within those parameters not be able to be mounted together in that space?

Edit: Rewrote post to actually make sense and be readable.

Edited by Chimera11, 23 February 2016 - 05:43 PM.

[W31rdWarrior]

So, why we still have this


instead of this?


The Timby racks are the ugliest in the game, and ruins it's design.
Please PGI, please, change them!

Edited by W31rdWarrior, 10 April 2017 - 11:06 AM.