93 replies to this topic

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Arms have only in Front /Rearview the Full Pixel, in the Sideview no Arms ,or Half Arms ..alone with this Error ,the Method is a Fail

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 24 June 2016 - 09:10 PM.

[Navid A1]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 24 June 2016 - 08:57 PM, said:

Arms have only in Front /Rearview the Full Pixel, in the Sideview no Arms ,or Half Arms ..alone with this Error ,the Method is a Fail

Arm profiles are not considered in torso comparison.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 27 June 2016 - 02:20 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Stefka Kerensky, on 19 June 2016 - 12:46 AM, said:

I'm speechless:

How many times does it need to be said...

QUIT COMPARING HUMANOID TORSO MECHS TO AIRCRAFT TORSO STYLE MECHS!!!!

For the love of christ lol.

One is tall and skinny, the other is short SHORT...SHORT and long. Of course a humanoid is going to be taller than a aircraft torso chicken walker. We go through this every time (with the Marauder, The Crab, The Catapult,etc...).

Just stop...STOP!

For the love of christ lol.

P.S. Actually, if you really want to be particular about that photo, the Catapult is about as tall as the Phoenix Hawk minus it's head (which an aircraft style torso mech wouldn't have) and the pilons. The Catapult's launchers come up the the shoulders of the Phoenix Hawk. And before you say...well it's the arms and not the Catapult's torso...look at that pic, the launchers are almost 50% of the mech's frontal profile.

*sigh*

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 27 June 2016 - 02:56 AM.

[STEF_]

MeiSooHaityu, on 27 June 2016 - 02:52 AM, said:

How many times does it need to be said...

QUIT COMPARING HUMANOID TORSO MECHS TO AIRCRAFT TORSO STYLE MECHS!!!!

For the love of christ lol.

One is tall and skinny, the other is short SHORT...SHORT and long. Of course a humanoid is going to be taller than a aircraft torso chicken walker. We go through this every time (with the Marauder, The Crab, The Catapult,etc...).

Just stop...STOP!

For the love of christ lol.

P.S. Actually, if you really want to be particular about that photo, the Catapult is about as tall as the Phoenix Hawk minus it's head (which an aircraft style torso mech wouldn't have) and the pilons. The Catapult's launchers come up the the shoulders of the Phoenix Hawk. And before you say...well it's the arms and not the Catapult's torso...look at that pic, the launchers are almost 50% of the mech's frontal profile.

*sigh*

Mei...u are a bit late about replying!


But NOPE, I don't stop: volumetric rescale is $h1t, and the PXH is uber tall with nearly no quirks.

Period.

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 27 June 2016 - 04:08 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Stefka Kerensky, on 27 June 2016 - 04:07 AM, said:

Mei...u are a bit late about replying!


But NOPE, I don't stop: volumetric rescale is $h1t, and the PXH is uber tall with nearly no quirks.

Period.

I know I'm late, but I tend not to visit the forums much on the weekend.

I understand you are frustrated, but making absurd comparisons (to me) doesn't make a point stronger, but weaker.

You are intentionally picking a chassis type that is going to be shorter by it's nature and yelling..."look how short it is!". It's just doesn't validate an argument much.

If you compared it to other Humanoids, then I could see the point. Compare it to an Enforcer or a Hunchback. Honestly, I think a Hunchback is a good example.

Or show it on scale of Humanoids from light to assault and see if it looks abnormally big.

When you pick differing torso types and compare just height only, it just looks like sensationalism and exaggeration, and to me, becomes far from credible.

Now I know the Catapult is an easy target. It is fairly small after the resize after all, but it is close to the EBJ (another aircraft torso 65 tonner) and although a bit smaller torso wise, more than makes up for it in the arm size combined with the majority of firepower in those arms. The K2/Jester benefits from this (with their smaller arms), but until the Catapult seems OP, I think we could hold off the upscale cries for now. That's a whole other topic of conversation though...

Point is, comparing different torso types and picking van outlier in size doesn't add to an argument, it only takes away from it. That's just my opinion anyway.

[STEF_]

MeiSooHaityu, on 27 June 2016 - 04:28 AM, said:

I know I'm late, but I tend not to visit the forums much on the weekend.

I understand you are frustrated, but making absurd comparisons (to me) doesn't make a point stronger, but weaker.

You are intentionally picking a chassis type that is going to be shorter by it's nature and yelling..."look how short it is!". It's just doesn't validate an argument much.

If you compared it to other Humanoids, then I could see the point. Compare it to an Enforcer or a Hunchback. Honestly, I think a Hunchback is a good example.

Or show it on scale of Humanoids from light to assault and see if it looks abnormally big.

When you pick differing torso types and compare just height only, it just looks like sensationalism and exaggeration, and to me, becomes far from credible.

Now I know the Catapult is an easy target. It is fairly small after the resize after all, but it is close to the EBJ (another aircraft torso 65 tonner) and although a bit smaller torso wise, more than makes up for it in the arm size combined with the majority of firepower in those arms. The K2/Jester benefits from this (with their smaller arms), but until the Catapult seems OP, I think we could hold off the upscale cries for now. That's a whole other topic of conversation though...

Point is, comparing different torso types and picking van outlier in size doesn't add to an argument, it only takes away from it. That's just my opinion anyway.

Point is 35 tonners are too much big, the size of a medium...and with medium archetype movement.
This is plain crap by pgi.

Then, skinny mechs become too way big thank to volumetric crap: bigger targets are easier to hit.
This made some chassis worse than before.
I don't care if "the are going to quirk them" (first because that should be done in the same time of volumetric rescale - and no, there is no need of data about that - ; second because quirk can do very little: see the orion, despite good quirk on structure, it's still sub par...because it's way easy to hit the boxes)

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 27 June 2016 - 05:11 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I'm not taking issue with how the resize went down as much. I do think that the lights growing in size as a whole might not have been the greatest idea (even if they are "technically" the right size). They have enough disadvantages as is in game where maybe they could have stayed as is (except the Locust) for the sake of balance. Heck, my Urbanmech grew in size...Really? Lol.

Still, my main issue is how this information is being conveyed, and not the message itself.

[Lily from animove]

interestign would be a possibility to se the min surface a mech cna show, btu not sure how hard it would be to take all angles (or 180 different degrees in steps into account.

Twising is quite a complex behavior with a load of varrying size being shown, And that would not even take twistspeed into account.

MeiSooHaityu, on 27 June 2016 - 05:26 AM, said:

I'm not taking issue with how the resize went down as much. I do think that the lights growing in size as a whole might not have been the greatest idea (even if they are "technically" the right size). They have enough disadvantages as is in game where maybe they could have stayed as is (except the Locust) for the sake of balance. Heck, my Urbanmech grew in size...Really? Lol.

Still, my main issue is how this information is being conveyed, and not the message itself.

the sake of balance demanded that a 40t mech and a 35t mech are close to eahc other, there is not such a thing asa "light" and a "medium" at all, a 25t emhc differs a lot less vs a 40t mech, than a 40t mech to a 55t mech.

Edited by Lily from animove, 28 June 2016 - 12:56 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Volumetric scaling was never going to work. :/

Vehicles aren't solid, symmetrically dense, structures.

They have hollow areas, layers of different materials, frames.

If volumetric scaling were legit the hindenberg would weigh near to the same as the titanic.

The hindenberg has a frame with a skin and lots of hollow space inside for hydrogen gas. The titanic is built differently. One achieves lighter than air status despite having similar volume--a good example of volume not being tightly bound to mass or weight.

I hate to say it but it might be true.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 28 June 2016 - 04:43 PM.

[Navid A1]

I Zeratul I, on 28 June 2016 - 04:41 PM, said:

Volumetric scaling was never going to work. :/

Vehicles aren't solid, symmetrically dense, structures.

They have hollow areas, layers of different materials, frames.

If volumetric scaling were legit the hindenberg would weigh near to the same as the titanic.

The hindenberg has a frame with a skin and lots of hollow space inside for hydrogen gas. The titanic is built differently. One achieves lighter than air status despite having similar volume--a good example of volume not being tightly bound to mass or weight.

I hate to say it but it might be true.

But we are talking about mechs with similar structures and materials here.

Lily from animove, on 28 June 2016 - 12:54 PM, said:

interestign would be a possibility to se the min surface a mech cna show, btu not sure how hard it would be to take all angles (or 180 different degrees in steps into account.

Twising is quite a complex behavior with a load of varrying size being shown, And that would not even take twistspeed into account.

That is doable... but takes a very very long time (specialy if you want to do it for torso/legs separately)

[ScarecrowES]

Remarkably... for all the doom and gloom about lights being made "worthless" and "unplayable," the lights queue was at almost 30% tonight for a good solid hour, and didn't drop below 20% the entire time I was playing. Assaults, too, were around 30%. It's the most spread-out I've seen the queues in a long long time.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Navid A1, on 28 June 2016 - 05:53 PM, said:

But we are talking about mechs with similar structures and materials here.

There are issues with volumetric scaling.

Like say the catapult. Some say it should be small due to its arms housing so much volume. Most of the mass in the arms come from the LRM / SRM launchers equipped in them. Hardpoints are mostly hollow and empty weight until a component is equipped.

The dryweight chassis of a mech is mostly what is being scaled. The chassis by itself is extremely light in comparison to the engine, equipment and weapons installed in it. One issue is we don't know the volume of say an LRM-5 launcher versus an AC-5. If you look at weapons systems like PPC's there's no consistency in terms of volume in relation to mass/weight. A PPC weighing 7 tons in a jenner arm might occupy (throwing random number out thar) 10 cubic meters in a light mech. The same PPC weighing 7 tons might occupy 20 cubic meters in an awesome. There's no consistent standard between size of components/volume and weight. Sometimes a 7 ton PPC will requires a little space, other times a 7 ton PPC requires a lot of space with both weapons being identical.

We need to have some idea of the volume of components. They make up the majority of mass/weight in a mech. Back to catapult arms. Aside from the ablative armor stacked on the outside of the arm and the components mounted inside the arm, the boxes themsleves have almost no mass. This means that the size of a catapults arms are determined by the upper limit of mass/volume of the components that can be mounted in them.

Its pretty much impossible to scale mechs volumetrically if components like PPC's constantly change their volume(size) in relation to weight depending on what mech class they're equipped in.

In a perfect world, everything would be standardized. A mech would require a certain amount of cubic meters to support a single energy hardpoint with a specific size. A certain amount of cubic meters to support a single ballistic or missile hardpoint with some restrictions. Mech chassis sizes would be based on these numbers with some allowances made for what year a mech (what relative level of technology) was produced and other variables.

Some system of standardization might lead to mech designs where volume in terms of cubic meters could be used to determine how large a mech chassis should be in relative terms--with consistency. It might also lead to absolute crap. Who knows, I could easily see things going either way.

But yeah there is a chance something like that could lead to more realistic designs, the volume and size of a mech might be correlated with its number of hardpoints and functionality.

If you've ever seen the early drawings of mechs created by artists for BT, you know engineers didn't create those designs. The height, width and overall dimension specs for BT mechs weren't created to be consistent. There's no standardization or attempt to make everything fit in a way that is balanced in terms of surface area/hitbox size to functionality. BT mech designs weren't created for use in a 3d shooter game played on computers. That's something people don't seem to recognize at times when they cite "lore".

Apologies for this silly wannbe nerd post btw. Falling asleep and decided to ramble some nonsense in a half conscious alcohol fueled stupor. :T

Edited by I Zeratul I, 28 June 2016 - 09:42 PM.

[Navid A1]

I Zeratul I, on 28 June 2016 - 09:25 PM, said:

...

I know volumetric scaling is not really accurate... engines and structures all have different densities.

Yet it was the simplest approach PGI could take... granted... this kind of scaling is not flawless.