86 replies to this topic

[Tennex]

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.

Edited by Tennex, 01 July 2015 - 05:02 AM.

[Sjorpha]

I think a fair volume comparison between catapults and other mechs should preferably be done using the k2 model.

Those missile boxes add a lot of volume that thematically would just be low density storage for tubes, treating them as equally important volume could result in excessive downscaling of the whole mech. That's not to say the catapult isn't a bit too large though, it might be, but I also feel like some types of special geometry should be treated as lower density in regards to scaling. As an other example of the same logic I think the Timberwolf and Ebon Jag should be scaled based on builds without "ears".

Edited by Sjorpha, 01 July 2015 - 04:51 AM.

[Tennex]

Sjorpha, on 01 July 2015 - 04:47 AM, said:

I think a fair volume comparison between catapults and other mechs should preferably be done using the k2 model.

Those missile boxes add a lot of volume that thematically would just be low density storage for tubes, treating them as equally important volume could result in excessive downscaling of the whole mech. That's not to say the catapult isn't a bit too large though, it might be, but I also feel like some types of special geometry should be treated as lower density in regards to scaling. As an other example of the same logic I think the Timberwolf and Ebon Jag should be scaled based on builds without "ears".

I don't see whats wrong with that. The stalker got to keep its ears when doing the comparison.
And many people want the timbmerwolf to have its ears when doing scale comparisons, b/c otherwise it'd be smaller than the cataphract.

besides even with the K2 barrels the difference in volume would go up to 15% max. Its a fundamental scaling issue between the two

Edited by Tennex, 01 July 2015 - 04:59 AM.

[Solahma]

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.

Edited by Solahma, 01 July 2015 - 05:39 AM.

[Talorien]

Volume isn't actually what counts for gameplay, it's profile surface area.

Front profile surface area should be quite easy to calculate?

There has to be a program that does that based on OP's fantastic pics. It just needs to count the black pixels vs the white ones.

(Front + side profile) surface area would be the true test of "ease of hitting"?

[Solahma]

Talorien, on 01 July 2015 - 05:36 AM, said:

Volume isn't actually what counts for gameplay, it's profile surface area.

Front profile surface area should be quite easy to calculate?

There has to be a program that does that based on OP's fantastic pics. It just needs to count the black pixels vs the white ones.

(Front + side profile) surface area would be the true test of "ease of hitting"?

Yes, like I said, Surface area from different perspectives. Not only the overal surface area, but individual components. I can easily import a silhouette of a mech as lines in my software, clean it up a little (if needed), turn each area into a surface, then attach a surface area dimension. BAM. I'll make an example.

Edited by Solahma, 01 July 2015 - 05:42 AM.

[Felis]

Thanks for the work! I made good use of it

[Tennex]

Felis, on 01 July 2015 - 06:20 AM, said:

Thanks for the work! I made good use of it

Nice.

Can you share the actual image?

Edited by Tennex, 01 July 2015 - 06:31 AM.

[Solahma]

Here is a quick example of what I mean. Doing this for at least the Front and Side view with a more detailed trace would be ideal.

[LordBraxton]

Quickdraw and Victor fighting... from Alex's deviantart... WHY DONT THEY LOOK LIKE THIS?!?!

[FupDup]

LordBraxton, on 01 July 2015 - 07:06 AM, said:

Quickdraw and Victor fighting... from Alex's deviantart... WHY DONT THEY LOOK LIKE THIS?!?!

That Quickdraw is still the size of an assault mech.

[Saiphas Cain]

As long as they're quirked properly I don't see the issue. Larger chassis on a lighter mech should be housing more advanced hardware accounting for the increased size. Catapult is huge, sure, but you have to put those advanced targeting and tracking systems somewhere.

[Y E O N N E]

I really don't care what else gets re-sized as long as the Catapult is included. The CPLT should be roughly the same size as the EBJ. Do that, and it becomes a very good competitor to the EBJ, as good as it gets without Clan tech.

[mogs01gt]

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!

ummm you dont play much do you.....The size of mechs is one of the biggest balance issues in this game..

[Juodas Varnas]

LordBraxton, on 01 July 2015 - 07:06 AM, said:

Quickdraw and Victor fighting... from Alex's deviantart... WHY DONT THEY LOOK LIKE THIS?!?!
-snip-

I'm inclined to agree that the MWO design of the Quickdraw might be the worst of the Quickdraws Alex has drawn.
However, the concept isn't bad, but the model is pretty...uhm... terrible.

I for one, a huge fan of this Alex's interpretation of Quickdraw

This one is EXTREMELY faithful to the original TRO artwork and looks absolutely awesome, and if we slapped the MWO's Quickdraw's head instead of the bubble head it has, it'd be perfect.

But you know, the mech is already in the game and done, so there's nothing we can do about it.

FupDup, on 01 July 2015 - 07:23 AM, said:

That Quickdraw is still the size of an assault mech.

At least it's not as fat as an Assault mech. (like it is now)

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 01 July 2015 - 08:40 AM.

[Tennex]

LordBraxton, on 01 July 2015 - 07:06 AM, said:

Quickdraw and Victor fighting... from Alex's deviantart... WHY DONT THEY LOOK LIKE THIS?!?!

The Panther and the Grasshopper do tho

[Jaeger Gonzo]

LordBraxton, on 01 July 2015 - 07:06 AM, said:

Quickdraw and Victor fighting... from Alex's deviantart... WHY DONT THEY LOOK LIKE THIS?!?!

Notice the proper PPC instalmen on side of arm on Panther, not this BS that we got MWO.
In every Art and figure I have seen Panther have PPC on side, yet MWO have it under. FFS.

WM Quicksilver, on 30 June 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

Since the Town Hall, I planned to redo these but they took longer than I would have liked. Either way, here are some updated front profile comparisons for mechs to better judge which 5 may need resizing. I know there was another thread, but it didn't start with this sort of profile comparison, so I figured it would be best to get a fresh start and maybe a way to compare these a little better.

Lights


Mediums


Heavies


Assaults


All


My Vote based on the severity of some of these: Kit Fox, Nova, Catapult, Awesome, and Victor

Nice and all.
But MWO is not 2D game.
Now, can we have some volumn cubic parameters from 3DMAX here? Please.

[Solahma]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 01 July 2015 - 09:14 AM, said:

Nice and all.
But MWO is not 2D game.
Now, can we have some volumn cubic parameters from 3DMAX here? Please.

See my previous post about surface area up above. I'll try to find time in the next few weeks to do this for all mechs according to their hit box localization thread.

This will most likely include a break down of each component visible from the front(0deg), side(90deg), and an in-between angle (45deg). These will give us a better understanding of how much overall surface area is VISIBLE during primary engagements (forward facing) as well as the proportions from the front compared to the side and what components are most visible.

I'll be using CATIA from Dassault Systemes as it is available to me, however basic surface area can be done with pretty much any other program.

Although the game itself is not 2D, what you see in any given frame IS 2D. Understanding what is visible at any given time is more important than a sum or volume size of a mech.

Edited by Solahma, 01 July 2015 - 09:47 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 01 July 2015 - 09:14 AM, said:

Nice and all.
But MWO is not 2D game.
Now, can we have some volumn cubic parameters from 3DMAX here? Please.

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.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

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

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.

You would've been better comparing the Warhawk and the Stalker and the DIre with the Crab. Only then do you realize both are actually smaller than they should be. The Crab and Warhawk have a larger profile in the front, side, and above than the Dire and the Stalker respectively.

I may just very well post side views as well, probably later today.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 01 July 2015 - 09:51 AM.