Jump to content

Phoenix Hawk Is Doa (Size Comparison From Pgi Stream)


133 replies to this topic

#81 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 22 April 2016 - 11:30 AM

Ok... annoyed with the hip arguments again. On almost every mech in the game... every single one... the hips are intentionally placed so that the widest point of the hip is equal to the widest point of the side torso where the arm is attached.

There are very few mechs in the game that do no follow this rule, and the few that do only do so because the arms are positionied in in such a way on that chassis as they never come into the animation planes of the legs. The Stormcrow, for instance, has extremely high-mounted arms that do not extent below the torso space even when the arms are pointed down... thus the hips are actually able to be slightly wider than the torso.

Now, this is all done intentionally, so that the art can never interfere with movement codes and animation. AND so that all mechs have the same basic proportions. I am not sure if there is any mech model in the game where the hip-to-torso ratio has the torso WIDER than the hips.

If you look at the orthos of the Phoenix Hawk, it shows the hips as wide as the torso. The model... hips as wide as the torso. They're proportioned exactly the same.

The arms look like they're positioned funny compared to the orthos because they are. In the concept and orthos, the arms are very thin, with the energy point mounted on the side. On the game model, the forearm is very large, and extends inboard toward the hips in a way that doesn't exist in the orthos. Look at the ortho, from the elbow to the hand. Not a single surface on the arm in the concept is inboard of the elbow, and very little of the forearm hangs below the plane of the elbow. On the model, however, there is a lot of forearm both inboard and below the elbow. It has nothing to do with the hips, and everything to do with how the arm was modeled for modular hardpoints. If they had mounted hardpoints on the side, as in the concept, this would look different.

Now, in terms of scaling...

Volume don't care about your feelings on volume.

Who knows if their internal builds right now feature all mechs at their correct volumes. Since that work hasn't been done on every mech yet, I doubt their artists' builds have correct mech sizing for even a fraction of the models. So don't freak out yet about the size of the mech compared to others. However... since PGI has an easy system for setting volume, and because this needs to be done before doing texture work and hardpoints... expect that whatever size it is now is what it will be in the game.

Beyond that... be fully prepared for humanoid mechs to look massive compared to non-humanoid mechs. We already know mechs like the Shadowhawk and Centurion are correctly-sized in game. When you're shaped like a pancake, you're going to present a much larger target than an object of the same volume shaped like an egg. That's how volumetric rescaling is going to work.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 22 April 2016 - 11:35 AM.


#82 DAYLEET

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 4,316 posts
  • LocationLinoleum.

Posted 22 April 2016 - 11:40 AM

The hitbox of a Shadow Hawk and smaller than a Griffin.... You guys are hilarious with your doa claims.

And ofc everyone disregard the ears that could very well take out a st when shot off, the only concern, i love you guys.

#83 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,558 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 22 April 2016 - 11:42 AM

All of the people who are saying "But it's only 10 tons lighter than the Griffin!" ... are ignoring the fact that it's also only 10 tons more than a Panther and that the Griffin is humongous oversized.

#84 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,274 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 22 April 2016 - 12:06 PM

View PostLT. HARDCASE, on 21 April 2016 - 05:32 PM, said:

Posted Image

Why does every other 45 tonner have to be so much bigger than the Blackjack? Is this even bigger than the Vindicator?

Bonus maximum hardpoint pic:

Posted Image

Thoughts? Refund asap?

If it didn't have the pods on it's back I wouldn't recognise it as a Phoenix Hawk, need a major rework just to look like the art work, not bothered about the size to much just want it to not be the medium weights Battle master ..Le sigh

#85 Revis Volek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 7,247 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationBack in the Pilots chair

Posted 22 April 2016 - 12:40 PM

View PostGas Guzzler, on 22 April 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

Yeah the concept art hips look narrower to me.



Considerably, based of that one pic.

The lower arms joints seem about double wide that could change though if there isn't Gauss Rifles slapped on those arms. The thigh area seems about 1/3 wider then the Orthos...just basing it off eye view of course.

Edited by Revis Volek, 22 April 2016 - 12:40 PM.


#86 Cy Mitchell

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 2,688 posts

Posted 22 April 2016 - 01:06 PM

View Post0bsidion, on 22 April 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

No it isn't.
Posted Image

How can you say that^^ looks like this:
Posted Image
The bloody elbows are resting on its bloody hips. What happened between the orthos and the model PGI? Come on.

That is the angle of the camera. You are looking at the Mech at Face height whereas in the drawings you are looking at the Mech from Mid chest. It looks fine.

Also why is it that so many seem to equate height with size and ignore thickness and width. This Mech is a tall skinny Mech with a lot of open space a chest and waist level. It is also thin front to back. That means for proper volume it must be tall. It is just like looking at a 200LB running back that is 5'10" standing beside a 200 LB wide receiver that is 6'3". They are the same size (mass). The receiver is just taller.

#87 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,274 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 22 April 2016 - 01:10 PM

Art work a hand holding a gun, model I don't see any hand, the hand makes the P/Hawk, be one.

This is make or break for me more than anything else, no hands, no sale

Edited by Cathy, 22 April 2016 - 01:11 PM.


#88 Revis Volek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 7,247 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationBack in the Pilots chair

Posted 22 April 2016 - 01:13 PM

View PostCathy, on 22 April 2016 - 01:10 PM, said:

Art work a hand holding a gun, model I don't see any hand, the hand makes the P/Hawk, be one.

This is make or break for me more than anything else, no hands, no sale



oh yea!

WTF no gun hand?!?!



RIOT IN THE STREETS MECH BROS!

#89 Beartech

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 87 posts

Posted 22 April 2016 - 01:18 PM

View PostLT. HARDCASE, on 22 April 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

Shame?
Yes, how dare I bring to people's attention information about a product, on which they (myself included) have spent real world money.
What's left to cook? Are you saying that the presented model isn't how the Phoenix Hawk will appear in the game?


Actually yeah how dare you.

Having worked on 3d modeling (Novice Hobby) I know that when your in an editor it doesn't look the same as the final "In engine" product. Only way I can explain it is that it just looks off. To the people commenting about the hand held rifle? I completely agree, they need to get that worked out.

Give this a tick - Kneejerk is kneejerk - Im happy to see this early stuff and think its cool. If people dont stop acting like chicken little they may stop showing us these unfinished shots.

#90 Jackal Noble

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,863 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 22 April 2016 - 01:35 PM

I'm willing to bet the hand actuator is actually there when the right arm only has a laser equipped so ya.

#91 Steinar Bergstol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 1,622 posts
  • LocationNorway

Posted 22 April 2016 - 01:46 PM

View PostMalleus011, on 22 April 2016 - 11:04 AM, said:

I'd just like the head to be a skosh narrower; it looks kind of wide even compared to the ortho. The Phoenix Hawk shouldn't look like this:

Posted Image


You're right. It shouldn't, because that's a Crusader, not a Phoenix Hawk. You can tell by the shoulder missile pods. :D

#92 Axeface

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 655 posts

Posted 22 April 2016 - 01:48 PM

Grasshopper syndrome strikes again.

#93 LT. HARDCASE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 2,706 posts
  • LocationDark Space

Posted 22 April 2016 - 02:37 PM

View PostBeartech, on 22 April 2016 - 01:18 PM, said:


Actually yeah how dare you.

Having worked on 3d modeling (Novice Hobby) I know that when your in an editor it doesn't look the same as the final "In engine" product. Only way I can explain it is that it just looks off. To the people commenting about the hand held rifle? I completely agree, they need to get that worked out.

Give this a tick - Kneejerk is kneejerk - Im happy to see this early stuff and think its cool. If people dont stop acting like chicken little they may stop showing us these unfinished shots.

Serious question time.

Do you really expect the Phoenix Hawk to come out smaller than it currently is? Did they scale it that large, just to shrink it later?

There's nothing "kneejerk" about a picture which shows an objective size comparison. That is a Phoenix Hawk. That is a Griffin. I didn't even offer an opinion on the two, I simply presented the evidence.

#94 MauttyKoray

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,831 posts

Posted 22 April 2016 - 02:46 PM

Things about volume:

1. It is the entire mass to weight ratio.

2. Humanoids will almost always stand taller than non-humanoids.

3. Heavier doesn't mean taller. (There are 50-100 ton vehicles smaller than mechs.)

4. 100 tons isn't actually that big, an African elephant can weight between 2.5 an 7 TONS! Thinks of 20 elephants stacked in a 4x5 pattern, that's not very big at all. 50 tons? 10 Elephants... Yeah...

Volume is tricky, and this from what I've read of the books, actually falls in line with how mechs were. Just because its a 'light' doesn't mean its gonna be tiny, it means it weighs less. Less protection, probably a a bit smaller, faster, more agile, etc.

The point to lighter mechs is MANUEVERABILITY and SPEED. Which is why MWO pisses me off sometimes because all our mechs are so friggin agile that it makes no difference.

Edited by MauttyKoray, 22 April 2016 - 02:46 PM.


#95 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,274 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 22 April 2016 - 02:49 PM

View PostMalleus011, on 22 April 2016 - 11:04 AM, said:

I'd just like the head to be a skosh narrower; it looks kind of wide even compared to the ortho. The Phoenix Hawk shouldn't look like this:

Posted Image

Its a crusader so I'll throw cash at it :P

#96 DrxAbstract

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Butcher
  • The Butcher
  • 1,672 posts
  • LocationOutreach

Posted 22 April 2016 - 02:50 PM

Why are the weapons on the top of the wrists... WHY?! Why cant they give the Atlas uppies! Gaaaaaah!

#97 Beartech

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 87 posts

Posted 22 April 2016 - 03:06 PM

View PostLT. HARDCASE, on 22 April 2016 - 02:37 PM, said:

Serious question time.

Do you really expect the Phoenix Hawk to come out smaller than it currently is? Did they scale it that large, just to shrink it later?

Maybe? - Again they are in the process of texturing the mech - Do to manipulation to create and apply we will not really know until they do the first "In Engine" tease video of it moving in a map

There's nothing "kneejerk" about a picture which shows an objective size comparison. That is a Phoenix Hawk. That is a Griffin. I didn't even offer an opinion on the two, I simply presented the evidence.

"Phoenix Hawk Is Doa" - The title of the post, that is the definition of kneejerk. You are stating that it is DOA or are you baiting. Guess only you know.



Edited by Beartech, 22 April 2016 - 03:06 PM.


#98 Malleus011

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 22 April 2016 - 03:08 PM

Fine, fine, here.

Posted Image

Ya'll brought this on yourselves.

#99 Damocles

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 1,527 posts
  • LocationOakland, CA

Posted 22 April 2016 - 03:09 PM

View PostScarecrowES, on 22 April 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:

On almost every mech in the game... every single one... the hips are intentionally placed so that the widest point of the hip is equal to the widest point of the side torso where the arm is attached.

There are very few mechs in the game that do no follow this rule, and the few that do only do so because the arms are positionied in in such a way on that chassis as they never come into the animation planes of the legs. The Stormcrow, for instance, has extremely high-mounted arms that do not extent below the torso space even when the arms are pointed down... thus the hips are actually able to be slightly wider than the torso.

Now, this is all done intentionally, so that the art can never interfere with movement codes and animation. AND so that all mechs have the same basic proportions.



Now this is gonna be slitting my own throat with most fans of this game but: Maybe we need a different artist.

This "rule" that you outline is real, but that doesn't make it right, and as stated earlier in this thread; these 'mechs are made hundreds of years and lightyears apart by completely different manufacturers with their own histories and stories.

But ALL MECHS SHOULD BASICALLY BE THE SAME?
NO.

#100 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 22 April 2016 - 04:35 PM

View PostDamocles, on 22 April 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:



Now this is gonna be slitting my own throat with most fans of this game but: Maybe we need a different artist.

This "rule" that you outline is real, but that doesn't make it right, and as stated earlier in this thread; these 'mechs are made hundreds of years and lightyears apart by completely different manufacturers with their own histories and stories.

But ALL MECHS SHOULD BASICALLY BE THE SAME?
NO.


It's less about the aesthetics of the art, and more about movement code, animation, model clipping, hitboxes, etc.

For a decent example of how the aesthetic of models interferes with function, look at MW4. In that game, you have legs and arms/torso interfering with each other all over the place. Lots of clipping issues. And in that game, geometry was fixed no matter how you loaded the mech. In MWO you really don't have any clipping issues, despite the many different body plans, animation types, and dynamic geo. Just having a model clip through itself causes all sorts of issues in a game like this.

Rigid control over how mechs are arrainged is, unfortunately, necessary. Certain things can be changed on a model to model basis. It's not always necessary that the outer bounds of the hip are exactly aligned with the armpit on humanoid mechs. Sometimes, on especially wide mechs, it's possible to have narrower hips. But this will also make the mech look stupid. Unfortunately, it can't go the other way... you can't often have hips wider than the armpit.

Beyond that, arms can't interfere with the legs in any walking animation, so you have to take into account the angle you can raise or lower the arms and swing them to the side, as well as the twist potential of the torso. So this defines how wide the arms can be set, and how close the elbow can side to the hip. The arms will have to be able to swing through the entire movement arc without contacting the torso at any point.

It's a lot to consider, beyond aesthetics.

View PostLT. HARDCASE, on 22 April 2016 - 02:37 PM, said:

Serious question time.

Do you really expect the Phoenix Hawk to come out smaller than it currently is? Did they scale it that large, just to shrink it later?

There's nothing "kneejerk" about a picture which shows an objective size comparison. That is a Phoenix Hawk. That is a Griffin. I didn't even offer an opinion on the two, I simply presented the evidence.


You're making the assumption that the comparison models in the pics have already been rescaled and are representative of the scale they'll be at when the rescales are released in June.

We know the remodeling is not complete for most mechs. And it's unlikely the various tools the artists are using are representative of a state of the game which isn't even remotely active yet.

So, chances are, the volume of that model represents the actual tonnage of the Phoenix Hawk. It will not get bigger or smaller than it is now, unless the base model is changed. However, we can not say the same about the two reference mechs. We don't know if they've already been rescaled, and have every reason to believe that they don't represent the final size of those mechs.

Regardless, volumetric scaling will not be favorable to humanoid mechs. All of them will appear larger than a more compact mech of equal tonnage.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users