86 replies to this topic

[Solahma]

nvm you saw it.

Edited by Solahma, 01 July 2015 - 09:55 AM.

[Dr Hobo]

Hunchback. They are short. They are stout. They are built like a midget line backer. At least,from the art that I have always seen of them. They have always seemed on the smaller side of the 50 tonners.

Urbanmech. The leg's just need a rescale. They are too large for the torso(in fact,in game, they appear to be the same size as the torso.)

Centurion. I want to love it. But that barn sized chest just lets it go zombie all day when you are stripped of everything.

Awesome. Yeah.

Catapult. The old CRT launch tubes that don't rescale due to launchers sucks. The launchers don't need to be outside the bays.

Orion. I feel bad when I leg them.

On the clan side

Adder/Kit Fox both are slightly too wide for their size/speed.

War Hawk. I get the feeling it's just too tall/big. I have always gotten the impression it's supposed to be same size/smaller than the DW.

Mad Dog(to a lesser extent,the Timbie suffers this but less so due to superior boxes) it's way way too tall. They are known for their squat walk.

But yeah,those are the ones I noticed.

[Tordin]

Great thread! PGI, take notice please

[Tennex]

WM Quicksilver, on 01 July 2015 - 09:46 AM, said:

Volume isn't your solution because of profiles, best example would be the Victor vs Awesome which both probably have similar volumes, but one has much better profile because of how the volume is stretched. Surface Area may be better, but again, that doesn't necessarily mean it is the best way because much like volume, some areas are more equal than others.

That said, there is a problem in trying to test volume cubic parameters as the models are now, I "exploded" the Nova's torso in Wings to show you something that is problematic, both because you would need to close ALL pieces like this to get a good estimate, and because you would have overlapping volumes, leading to higher numbers than what it should be.

Theres no easy way or a program to merge the pieces?

[Wildstreak]

5 choices?

Quickdraw, both height and width.
Nova, shrink height, width may be good.
Awesome, shrink width
Trebuchet, the beefiest and tallest of the IS 50 tonners.
Can't decide between Victor and Catapult.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Tennex, on 01 July 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

Theres no easy way or a program to merge the pieces?

You could do a boolean operation after thinking about it, but they aren't perfect.

I suppose it is possible, but it would be a really large undertaking.

[Burktross]

Queek Head Taker, on 30 June 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:

this is why we can't have nice things... cause people cant be happy with what they got. So instead of making new cool content maybe finish destructable crap lets resize mechs!

"b/c fixing broken things is bad for games"

[Solahma]

Tennex, on 01 July 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

Theres no easy way or a program to merge the pieces?

More technical design programs have options for merging, mostly boolean operations. Blender I'm not familiar with enough to know what options it may have, but my initial impressions is that it's more difficult than something like AutoCAD, Solid Works, Catia, Rhino, etc.

Edit: Quicksilver ninja

Edited by Solahma, 01 July 2015 - 11:37 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Side profiles have been added.

[UrsusMorologus]

Tennex, on 01 July 2015 - 04:46 AM, said:

Here are some heavies lined up in game.





But there are instances where the T pose will be different from the ingame pose. Like the adder and Kit fox, which they actually raised for some reason. So keep that in mind too when using these as scaling references.

I think the mechbay uses different scaling. In the lineup the Adder and Jenner are similar, but in the mechbay the Adder is significantly larger.

[UrsusMorologus]

Solahma, on 01 July 2015 - 05:32 AM, said:

I would advise a side profile comparison as well to get a better understanding of the scaling. 3D combat isn't based only on frontal height/width

For example: the DWF and Stalker are smaller frontal profile, but have A LOT of depth (side profile) compared to an Atlas or a Banshee.

Would also be interesting to partition each silhouette into individual hitboxes and do a surface area metric comparison from the front, side, and rear (less important) of each mech (perhaps even a 45 deg from the front as well). I've always wanted to do this, but haven't found the time.

If someone did this, I could do a quick import into my CAD software and very fast and extremely accurate surface area dimension.

I feel this value has more value than a flat surface area from a 3D model which has already been done. A total Surface area and/or volume doesn't tell you what percentage of the total VISIBLE surface area will be for say... a Side Torso. If the distribution, from the front, was 15% arms, 30% legs, 40% CT, and 15% ST, THAT would be good and useful information for balancing hitboxes or at least a value for comparison.

Scale is one thing, but our eyes can easily deceive us, it would be nice to have surface area values to justify and/or dismiss claims.

EDIT: if no one does this, i'll make it a priority project for myself.

Side profile only matters if you are flanking them, eg a light. If you are heavy or assault you can only shoot the front which is shooting back at you

[Quicksilver Aberration]

UrsusMorologus, on 01 July 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

I think the mechbay uses different scaling. In the lineup the Adder and Jenner are similar, but in the mechbay the Adder is significantly larger.

It is probably simply due to how they rest chicken walkers. If you notice the torso's aren't bigger, they are simply higher placed. You can check this by looking at where the crotch is in the mechbay versus in my screenshots.

In this particular instance you can see the Adder's crotch is raised in the mechbay because it lines up with the Jenner's head in the mechbay vs near the Jenner's crotch in my comparisons. Yet the size doesn't seem to be significantly different, just the height. Thus it is simply a raised stance from having a different resting state than when it was modeled.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 01 July 2015 - 01:25 PM.

[Moldur]

The Jenner is tiny for a 35 ton mech. It's just waay smaller than the raven. I know it's already an ugly duckling with its hitbox, but geez.

[Solahma]

UrsusMorologus, on 01 July 2015 - 12:59 PM, said:

Side profile only matters if you are flanking them, eg a light. If you are heavy or assault you can only shoot the front which is shooting back at you

This is not true at all. Sure, from a distance in a 1v1 situation you are partially correct. However, Mechs torso twist to spread damage, you can be caught in a cross fire. There can be a mech that is not currently engaged shooting you from the side of the enemy firing line. More often than not, you are not facing your target dead-on, full frontal profile. The side profile of a mech is as much if not MORE important than the frontal profile.

Example: Frozen City
There are many opportunities to get side-shots on mechs while still being mostly infront of the enemy. You don't have to be on some wild and wide flank to get a side shot on a mech. Like I said before, generally your opponent it going to be torso twisting to spread damage even if you are standing right infront of him. Side profiles are VERY important.

Situation 1


Situation 2

Edited by Solahma, 01 July 2015 - 01:53 PM.

[TexAce]

Are the 3D models somewhere uploaded as fbx or obj files? I would love to download them.

As an VFX artist I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with those

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Big Black Wolf, on 01 July 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

Are the 3D models somewhere uploaded as fbx or obj files? I would love to download them.

As an VFX artist I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with those

Heffay's Tutorial is probably the best way to get the obj files. Unfortunately there is a process to extracting them into a more useful format and because of how many mechs there are and due to all of the dynamic geometry, all the obj files amount to around 1.5gb worth of files which means uploading would be a pain and that isn't even including the texture files.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

WM Quicksilver, on 01 July 2015 - 09:46 AM, said:

Volume isn't your solution because of profiles, best example would be the Victor vs Awesome which both probably have similar volumes, but one has much better profile because of how the volume is stretched. Surface Area may be better, but again, that doesn't necessarily mean it is the best way because much like volume, some areas are more equal than others.

That said, there is a problem in trying to test volume cubic parameters as the models are now, I "exploded" the Nova's torso in Wings to show you something that is problematic, both because you would need to close ALL pieces like this to get a good estimate, and because you would have overlapping volumes, leading to higher numbers than what it should be.

Measure elements and add together? But yeah you would probably need to close all pieces. Someone who did figures from MWO on 3D printer would have this done already. I know many did this.

But even measure 2D surfaces and [front x side] I bet would tell us more about it.


And I don`t agree that side profiles do not matter. They do.
Some meks are just not noob friendly I would say, but one can take advantage for they low profile.
You can matrix dodge in those.

[UrsusMorologus]

Strikers can turn during CD, not many Dires do it

[Solahma]

WM Quicksilver, on 01 July 2015 - 12:14 PM, said:

Side profiles have been added.

you da man!

[Wronka]

Though I have nothing useful to contribute, I just wanted to say this is an amazing thread that I hope gets attention. Love the work by everyone so far. I hope some of the worse offenders get a re-scaling of some kind.