21 replies to this topic

[Tarogato]

Procurator Derek, on 19 June 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

And the fact that the Patch notes say the Mechlab camera is not a valid comparison tool, and the Orthos as well.

By that logic, putting two mechs side by side in game is not a valid comparison tool either. What the patch notes actually said was, "please note that these silhouettes are captured using an orthographic camera, whereas the Re-Scale comparison images in the above links are taken with the standard MechLab perspective camera. As a result of that difference, scales may appear slightly different if comparing 'Mechs between the two images."

The reason they say this is because the mechlab camera, being a PoV somewhere in the middle (like chest level with most mediums and heavies) could make shorter mechs appear even shorter and larger mechs appear even larger. Or it could make wide arms (and torsos) look like they have a larger cross-section than they actually do. But the difference would probably be a matter of mere pixels.

[kapusta11]

Made a small update: Added Kodiak, Banshee, Mauler, Battlemaster, Vindicator, Nova, Crab, Adder, Marauder and Stalker.

W E N D I G O, on 19 June 2016 - 10:10 PM, said:

Nah, it's the fov that can distort the 3d model depending on it's wideness and height.

I'm not with the people who think that will make a huge difference but you have to admit that it indeed does affect perception in a way, that these mechs seem wider and taller unless the camera distance matches the fov. Since the camera is that close in the mlab that simply isn't the case so it shouldn't be ignored.

Well, in a way it's the same thing, one is caused by the other. So long as mechs in the mechlab are within 60 degree field of vision, which is normal for human eye, they apear without noticeable distortion.

Edited by kapusta11, 26 July 2016 - 12:49 PM.