96 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

Cathy, on 26 June 2016 - 02:24 PM, said:

I doubt very much that game play and pragmatism had any effect on the lights, i'm not a big light pilot ,but wow they seem rather massive.

I think someone put the decimal point in the wrong place

Most lights fit spot-on where they should if you look at the full spectrum of mechs. Problem is... we need something more accurate than what PGI gave us for orthographics. I pointed out the other day that the ortho of the Catapult in the full spectrum view couldn't be the new catapult. I'm not sure those views can be trusted.

Plus, I simply want to know how close PGI stuck to their guns. How many mechs are sized the way they are because math says they should be that big, and how many mechs are sized the way they are becuase PGI decided to fudge the numbers.

5 Locusts do not make an Atlas, according to the orthos. So pure volume doesn't seem to be the rule of the land.

[Dudeman3k]

Lol, The moment I saw a 35 tonner as wide/tall as a 65 tonner. I realized Paul was in charge of this re-scale... adn we all know he is F**King ******** with numbers.

hes the kind of guy who says 2+2 = 3 becuase i said so.

they must have forgotten that volume is D (dimensions) ^3... so a 4x4x4 box = 64 = A metal ball 1cm is more dense than a paper wad at 8 inches, but the volume of the wad is much greater, at a fraction of the weight. "volume" they said.... volume..... dear god PGI sucks at math... or engineering... good lord.

density would have been a better calculation for a giant mass of area.

Edited by Dudeman3k, 26 June 2016 - 03:27 PM.

[C E Dwyer]

ScarecrowES, on 26 June 2016 - 03:07 PM, said:

Most lights fit spot-on where they should if you look at the full spectrum of mechs. Problem is... we need something more accurate than what PGI gave us for orthographics. I pointed out the other day that the ortho of the Catapult in the full spectrum view couldn't be the new catapult. I'm not sure those views can be trusted.

Plus, I simply want to know how close PGI stuck to their guns. How many mechs are sized the way they are because math says they should be that big, and how many mechs are sized the way they are becuase PGI decided to fudge the numbers.

5 Locusts do not make an Atlas, according to the orthos. So pure volume doesn't seem to be the rule of the land.

I've no proof of this, and its just a feeling but I think the mech that has been screwed over the most is the Grasshopper.

I always liked it tall and lanky, many thought it was to big, but I felt its skinny legs and gangly look more than made up for it, I look at it's extra height its chunky legs now and i'm thinking they made a big mistake seeing it next to a catapult, i'm thinking that surely is the size a 75 ton mech should be not one only 5 tones heavier.

I'd like to see some clearer methodology, but I doubt we'll get it.

[Darian DelFord]

Poor McGral, he might as well just do them all.... I do not think he knows what he just offered.

[Hit the Deck]

I think PGI might not take into account some of the dynamic geo weapons into the volume calculation, like the Griffin's dual missile pods for example.

[Trauglodyte]

Darian DelFord, on 26 June 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

Poor McGral, he might as well just do them all.... I do not think he knows what he just offered.

If I knew how to do it, I'd do it myself. Maybe that is what McGral needs to do. Impart your wisdom upon us (seriously)!

[Wintersdark]

Also, I notice you're using the K2 for the catapult. That seems a bit off, as the K2 is undersized: the catapult was scaled by volume based on the regular catapult models with "proper" ears. There is a substantial volume difference there.

[Mcgral18]

Trauglodyte, on 26 June 2016 - 05:00 PM, said:

If I knew how to do it, I'd do it myself. Maybe that is what McGral needs to do. Impart your wisdom upon us (seriously)!

Heffay's method
http://mwomercs.com/...ing-pgis-mechs/

Extract

Remove-item *_lod*
click and drag all parts in Body to the converter
cd .. back into main mech dir
mech-importer.ps1 *mechName*.cdf (run the mech importer for appropriate mech)

Then, copy paste the import.txt into the Blender python script section
Bam, robot full of guns


Then, I save, make a new one, and Shift+F1 all the main body parts without guns, giving me easy access to empty models

Then, save, open my camera scene (now with 3 cameras) and take the pics
Full ones would be accurate in all cases, but I am cropping them

Wintersdark, on 26 June 2016 - 05:01 PM, said:

Also, I notice you're using the K2 for the catapult. That seems a bit off, as the K2 is undersized: the catapult was scaled by volume based on the regular catapult models with "proper" ears. There is a substantial volume difference there.

I'm avoiding weapon geometry for the most part (Griffin VS Warhammer was a specific request with appropriate typical guns)
Most are naked, which also isn't always accurate (IE, Panther right arm)

Edited by Mcgral18, 26 June 2016 - 05:30 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Dudeman3k, on 26 June 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

Lol, The moment I saw a 35 tonner as wide/tall as a 65 tonner. I realized Paul was in charge of this re-scale... adn we all know he is F**King ******** with numbers.

hes the kind of guy who says 2+2 = 3 becuase i said so.

they must have forgotten that volume is D (dimensions) ^3... so a 4x4x4 box = 64 = A metal ball 1cm is more dense than a paper wad at 8 inches, but the volume of the wad is much greater, at a fraction of the weight. "volume" they said.... volume..... dear god PGI sucks at math... or engineering... good lord.

density would have been a better calculation for a giant mass of area.

They (theoretically) used density. Density, mass, and volume are all interlinked.

Volumetric scaling is done in our case (having known mass and unknown volume) by setting a target average density and scaling to that, so if they did scale to have consistent volume:mass, then they scaled by density.


Assuming all mechs have a consistent average density is a very reasonable way to go, because anywhere else lies madness: how could you possibly arrive at good density values for mechs? What would you base that on?

But did they? 3DSMax can calculate volume of 3D models, so there's that. I'd like to see

[Wintersdark]

Mcgral18, on 26 June 2016 - 05:08 PM, said:

I'm avoiding weapon geometry for the most part (Griffin VS Warhammer was a specific request with appropriate typical guns)
Most are naked, which also isn't always accurate (IE, Panther right arm)

I'm pretty sure they scaled based on stock load outs of a single variant. Eg: hunchback 4g with hunch, catapult with ears.

Certainly, for the catapult scale to make sense, it has to have ears.

With ears, the catapult scale works out very well.

[Kangarad]

I'd like to get a Kodiak vs King Crab one. should reflect the width vs heigh quite nicely.

[Mcgral18]

Darian DelFord, on 26 June 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

Old Jenner vs New Jenner?

Please

90% transparency should work

Sigilum Sanctum, on 26 June 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

McGral can you show the New Blacknight to the New Thunderbolt?

Spoiler

Forgot the Transparency

ScarecrowES, on 26 June 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

If you're able to import these into a 3D modeling program, you should be able to get a volume measurement out of it.

I'm much more interested how closely they stuck to the volumetric approach, and how much was fudged with "gameplay" and "pragmatism."

The models are ~20 individual pieces (CT, arm, shoulder, sometimes individual toes) so you'd need to do some work to simply fill the whole model in, in order to get the volume


Some people do that work and 3D print them in this method (opens up water displacement), but I'm not terribly interested in that.
I just make comparison pictures


Following quotes, Soon™

Agent1190, on 26 June 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

Great post McGral.

Was wondering - anything with the Dragon (someone mentioned bulky man-walkers, and the dragon is the best example of a bulky man-walker I can think of). Wouldn't mind seeing it along side the Mad Dog. Also, Ebon Jag and Catapult (Ebon Jag with and without the top pod mounts if possible).

Accused, on 26 June 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

Locus and Atlas, because reasons.

Alistair Winter, on 26 June 2016 - 02:30 PM, said:

Locust vs vs Mist Lynx vs Spider plz?

Procurator Derek, on 26 June 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

Highlander IIC Pre Patch model vs New Model.

Trauglodyte, on 26 June 2016 - 02:38 PM, said:

McGral, you're missing the top down view. Remember, this is a 3d game. Part of the reason that everyone is up in arms about the new Catapult is that they forget how much surface area that top of that mech has. While I hate that it is brought into the equation, because we don't shoot top down, it is part of it all.

cazidin, on 26 June 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

Black Knight New vs Old

Black Knight vs Grasshopper

Crab vs King Crab (Just for namesake, tbh.)

Jenner New vs Old

Locust vs Kodiak (Atlas is already done)

Atlas vs Kodiak (Seems fair?)

I don't ask for much, do I?

Trauglodyte, on 26 June 2016 - 02:53 PM, said:

You and I know the shapes. People that are level headed about this know the shapes and understand it. What % of the community does that make up? I'm ok with the resizing of everything. Though, I'll admit that some of them, like the Jenner, has been hard to accept. That isn't because I think that it is too big because it isn't. It is just 4 years of seeing it as how it used to be.

PS> McGral, do the Jenner vs Cicada and any of the humanoid 35 ton mechs vs. the BJ/Phawk. I think that both of those will go a long way to helping some stubborn folks.

Edited by Mcgral18, 26 June 2016 - 07:23 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Mcgral18, on 26 June 2016 - 05:45 PM, said:

I have to seriously question this one. Comparable width and depth, but massive height difference with comparable other dimensions.

Unlike people's moronic "wolfhound vs Catapult" complaints, this is a very good comparison.

On the other hand, that's roughly 1/6 again heavier, is it 1/6 taller? Hmm.



Hmm. I don't think so.


The top down view really shows how important that is to include here, As otherwise I'd have assumed the Black Knight was thinner.

[Mcgral18]

Wintersdark, on 26 June 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

The top down view really shows how important that is to include here, As otherwise I'd have assumed the Black Knight was thinner.

The BK did annoy me...it's taller than my Camera (which I don't want to move, keeping all things equal)

The Antenna is taller. Also, the PHawk's feet poke below the camera/zero plane. Only mech to do that thus far.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

Yep. Stripping and shelving my Black Knights. Looks like I'll be drawing my Thunderbolts from storage.

[Mcgral18]

I don't think enough people appreciate the Hexa cannon LOLcust


Four high mounted Meta Cannons, and all six roughly cockpit or higher

Edited by Mcgral18, 26 June 2016 - 06:49 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

Wintersdark, on 26 June 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

I have to seriously question this one. Comparable width and depth, but massive height difference with comparable other dimensions.

Unlike people's moronic "wolfhound vs Catapult" complaints, this is a very good comparison.

On the other hand, that's roughly 1/6 again heavier, is it 1/6 taller? Hmm.



Hmm. I don't think so.


The top down view really shows how important that is to include here, As otherwise I'd have assumed the Black Knight was thinner.

The only way to really know would be to take the Tbolt pics and actually increase them by +15% to see how it would look, then. I'm with you on this one. That comparison looks awfully odd.

Ironically, the Jenner still looks ok to me. I know that a lot of people are asking McGral to do things but I think that it is really more important to really look at how things changed versus those that didn't. Off of the top of my head, the mechs that didn't shift were:

• Mando
  
• Cicada
  
• Phawk - just got released
  
• Trenchbucket
  
• Kintaro? I don't remember but then again I don't consider it a real mech
  
• Ebonjag
  
• Summoner
  
• Victor

Did I miss any? I think that gives us enough mechs to where you could reasonably compare them. It isn't much of a stretch to put the Victor up against an Atlas or a Jenner vs. Cicada. You could just as easily do a Mando vs. Spider/Firestarter/Wolfhound or a Firestarter/Wolfhound vs. Phawk.



It is asking a lot of McGral so just don't push it. I think, though, there is something here to prove to the community and, in the case of any errors - mistakes happen to the best of us, to prove to PGI. In the case of chicken legs, height isn't necessarily an issue because you've got to take into account the angle of the legs. But, it would be nice to see how things really are.

Mcgral18, on 26 June 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

I don't think enough people appreciate the Hexa cannon LOLcust


Four high mounted Meta Cannons, and all six roughly cockpit or higher

<insert movie trailer voice here>

Just when you thought it was safe to go out into Grim Plexus, the dreaded Six Auto Cannon Locust strikes!!!

I swear, if that were possible, it would be the most beautiful mech ever. It is really too bad that you can't get a 6x MG Locust and that MGs are just terrible to an extreme.



PS> Have you seen how HUGE the MG is on a Rifleman and then compared it to the MGs on the Lolcust? Laughable, I tell you.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 26 June 2016 - 06:53 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Again... frustrating as it is, it's hard to know where PGI used "pragmatism" to override the math. Looking at the Black Knight vs Thunderbolt, I imagine what you don't get a good sense of in profile is just how much more dense the Thunderbolt is compared to the Black Knight.

Would that geometry density be enough to make up the weight deficit given the size discrepancies we're seeing, or was some pragmatism thrown in there too?

I really would rather they not fudge the numbers for the sake of pragmatism... or at least Id prefer if they had a good reason to deviate from a mech's volumetric scaling, they come clean and say why. I'm not sure I care about the specific results, mind you. Overall I think the rescale was a success, despite any outliers.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

ScarecrowES, on 26 June 2016 - 08:56 PM, said:

Overall I think the rescale was a success, despite any outliers.

Oh thats rich.

[Mcgral18]

Agent1190, on 26 June 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

Also, Ebon Jag and Catapult (Ebon Jag with and without the top pod mounts if possible).

Best I can do


They are both 65 tons, and seem fairly similar

Edited by Mcgral18, 26 June 2016 - 09:02 PM.