16 replies to this topic

[Xoco]

My Blackjack just dropped right next to a Jagermech. And I just came to realize--we're almost the same size.


I thought BJ is supposed to be like the Jager's little brother, being relatively smaller and carrying less heat into battle.

[El Bandito]

When you compare them side by side using a third mech, BJ is unmistakenly smaller than the Jager.

Reference: https://i.imgur.com/3e2gtgw.jpg

Edited by El Bandito, 27 October 2015 - 03:56 AM.

[Impyrium]

The Blackjack is tiny compared to the Jagermech...

[Cupid and Psyche _]

The Blackjack is much smaller. Size can be distorted from the cockpit at times depending on their placement.

[Paigan]

Xoco, on 27 October 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:

My Blackjack just dropped right next to a Jagermech. And I just came to realize--we're almost the same size.


I thought BJ is supposed to be like the Jager's little brother, being relatively smaller and carrying less heat into battle.

In the first few weeks of playing MWO (despite knowing BT for ... 25 years), I always thought I'd see a Jagermech when it actually was a BJ. Similar silhouette, similar height...

[Xoco]

Actually, I was in 3rd person view. The Jager was definitely taller--but not by nearly as much as I had initially expected.

[Tarogato]

They're reasonably different. I think they're both scaled well, actually.

[Paigan]

Tarogato, on 27 October 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

They're reasonably different. I think they're both scaled well, actually.

I think noone is actually saying "they are scaled wrong".
It's more like they look so similar that they easily get mixed up.

if you take that perfectly aligned static hangar impression and imagine a mid-combat situation, maybe at mid to long range, with only one visible, they look almost identical.

Edited by Paigan, 27 October 2015 - 07:45 AM.

[FupDup]

Tarogato, on 27 October 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

They're reasonably different. I think they're both scaled well, actually.

That picture actually makes them look very similar in size, especially considering the 20 ton difference between them...

[Mawai]

FupDup, on 27 October 2015 - 07:46 AM, said:

That picture actually makes them look very similar in size, especially considering the 20 ton difference between them...

Sure ... the blackjack looks to be about 80% of the height of the JM6 and about 80% of the width. If it is also 80% of the depth then that gives a total of 51% of the volume of the JM6 ... for constant density this would give a mass of 32.5 tons compared to the actual blackjack tonnage of 45 tons.

Assuming constant density, then the Blackjack needs to be about 89% of the width, height and depth of the Jager in order to get a tonnage around 45.

Based on that, the size of the Blackjack compared to the Jager is probably almost exactly right and it is the inability of folks to connect tonnage and volume to what folks see on the screen that is the big problem

Basically, the volume reduction goes as the cube of the percentage change in each dimension. A mech that is 1/2 the height, 1/2 the width and 1/2 the depth of an Atlas at 100 tons would have a volume 1/8 of the Atlas and a weight of 12.5 tons. This means that the smallest mechs in the game MUST be greater that 1/2 the size of an atlas. The actual number for a 20 ton mech is about 60% of the height, 60% of the width and 60% of the depth of the Atlas for a 20 ton mech.

This is why folks try to complain that mechs look too big ... the smallest 20 ton mech is still supposed to be 60% as tall as an Atlas as long as the other dimensions scale equally.

(Someone did a pixel count of each of the facings of the mech to try to calculate volume ... which I think is how PGI did the scaling at least for some of the initial mechs).

Edited by Mawai, 27 October 2015 - 08:05 AM.

[Clit Beastwood]

Xoco, on 27 October 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:

My Blackjack just dropped right next to a Jagermech. And I just came to realize--we're almost the same size.


I thought BJ is supposed to be like the Jager's little brother, being relatively smaller and carrying less heat into battle.

Well, two people can both be 6 feet tall while weighing in quite differently. Doesn't seem like something to spend much time on.
Even better - queen latifah and famke jenssen are both 5'10" - though latifah has more... armor.

[Obadiah333]

Wait wait wait. PGI might scale mechs "wrong"? Never happened.

[Clit Beastwood]

Fierostetz, on 27 October 2015 - 08:05 AM, said:

Well, two people can both be 6 feet tall while weighing in quite differently. Doesn't seem like something to spend much time on.
Even better - queen latifah and famke jenssen are both 5'10" - though latifah has more... armor.

Now I want to see famke fight the queen.

[FupDup]

Mawai, on 27 October 2015 - 08:00 AM, said:

-snip-

This here is the reason why medium mechs in MWO present a similar target profile as heavier mechs with dramatically more armor and firepower, yet similar mobility.

This is the reason why we can't have nice things.

[Juodas Varnas]

FupDup, on 27 October 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

This here is the reason why medium mechs in MWO present a similar target profile as heavier mechs with dramatically more armor and firepower, yet similar mobility.

This is the reason why we can't have nice things.

Alas, poor Treb and Cent.
You didn't even win the Re-scale popularity contest.

Treb didn't even make it through the first part.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 27 October 2015 - 10:16 AM.

[Roadkill]

Xoco, on 27 October 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:

My Blackjack just dropped right next to a Jagermech. And I just came to realize--we're almost the same size.

I thought BJ is supposed to be like the Jager's little brother, being relatively smaller and carrying less heat into battle.

The Blackjack weighs 45 tons while the Jager weighs 65 tons.

Using the cube rule for weight, that means the Blackjack should be ~88.5% as tall as the Jager.

Which means it's actually too small.

[zagibu]

Roadkill, on 27 October 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

The Blackjack weighs 45 tons while the Jager weighs 65 tons.

Using the cube rule for weight, that means the Blackjack should be ~88.5% as tall as the Jager.

Which means it's actually too small.

This guy is correct. The Blackjack is about 5% smaller than average for his tonnage. The Jagermech is almost right, a tiny bit too big. This was calculated using orthogonal front and side profiles, check it out here: http://mwomercs.com/...4-mech-profiles

Edited by zagibu, 27 October 2015 - 02:04 PM.