75 replies to this topic

[Juodas Varnas]

Greetings everyone!

As you probably know, PGI has been retro-actively implementing full camo support for many of the mechs (they seem to be going from oldest to newest, so the next mechs to get such a treatment are presumably the rest of the miscellaneous mechs like the Kintaro, Quickdraw, Jagermech and Orion, followed by the Phoenix pack mechs, which then again will be followed by the first Invasion mechs) and it's highly appreciated. The camo patterns look well done and are as high quality as the newest mechs (i believe we should thank Lauren for that!).
However, i do think that the high quality of these camo retrofits (and the, in my opinion, reasonably well done Weapon Geometries for the newer mechs) makes the previous Dynamic Weapon Geometry passes for the old mechs rather painfully awful looking. I don't want to offend or insult the person behind them, but they look REALLY bad. From the horrible unpainted metal slabs with pathetic looking barrels like the Centurion or the Dragon to the dreadfully convoluted MESS of plugged holes and empty boxes of the Commando.

Basically, i'd like to know, if there are any plans of doing secondary geometry passes for the mechs with exceptionally offensive hack-jobs and also create a discussion of sorts. I'd like to know more about other peoples' thoughts about the worst examples of Dynamic geometry and possibly share ideas on how to improve on them.

Anyway, i'll just start off with the Dragon and its CT mounted SRM-6 and 2xSRM-4s

How to fix it? SIMPLE. Just ditch the idea of splitting the launchers and go for a more traditional missile port pattern. Since it's CT mounted (so it'd have a maximum of 10 tubes) and has a maximum of 2 hardpoints, it wouldn't be hard to do the more traditional look of just having the tubes in the center.


So anyway, what do you guys think? What mechs would need a second go-over for their weapon geometry the most? How would YOU do it?
Who knows? Maybe PGI will even consider doing it, instead of leaving those mechs a mangled messes of horrible.

[El Bandito]

I want that high mounted Dragon ballistic arm in this game. That's what I want.

[Juodas Varnas]

El Bandito, on 24 September 2016 - 04:06 AM, said:

I want that high mounted Dragon ballistic arm in this game. That's what I want.

Aye.


Pity they went with giving it the lower actuator... It'd not only be high mounted instead of dragging along the ground, but could also have an AC20 in it.

[El Bandito]

Juodas Varnas, on 24 September 2016 - 04:15 AM, said:

Pity they went with giving it the lower actuator... It'd not only be high mounted instead of dragging along the ground, but could also have an AC20 in it.

Yep, or dual UAC5s. Either way it can be a game changer.

[Alistair Winter]

Commando, Dragon, Trebuchet and Centurion are bad. Very bad.

But what about the ballistics? Gauss rifles in this game look like snub-nose shotguns, not sniper weapons.

http://mwomercs.com/...hract-geometry/

[Milocinia]

Banshee with AC2s. Go on, try it.

[Bud Crue]

The stupid LT missile box that gets slapped on the side of a Quickdraw H if you mount any thing bigger than a SRM-4 in the second mount. This happens despite there being plenty of visual space in the existing geometry. Fix this please.

Commando arm mounts are ridiculous.

Centurion torso missile mounts...they're like those skinny legos that my kids never seem to use except to scatter all over the house

Probably not an error, but the Panther arm weapons. Four 1 ton medium lasers look to be as large as the mech's torsos. Two 7 ton PPCs...nearly half the weight of the mech...not nearly as bulky.

Edit...just tried SRMs on my Grey Death. Why are there 6 missiles showing when an SRM-4 is mounted on the left torso?

Edited by Bud Crue, 24 September 2016 - 07:05 AM.

[GreenHell]

Honestly, I kinda wish they'd do away with the "dynamic geometry". Especially when it comes to things like the Timber Wolf "boxes". It's just not a TB without them, but I digress...

There should really only NEED to be two versions of missile pods. One with 6 holes, and one with 20 holes. That's all you need and it covers all your bases. If you've got an SRM2-6 or an LRM5, you get the 6 hole. LRM10 and above, you get the 20 hole. That's it man... done.

Gun models need to be sort of... normalized across the mechs I think. Yeah, you can sink the barrel into the arm/torso but if it's a small mech/mounting point, you've gotta have something stick out the back to show it's still "all there".

Same goes for lasers. Normalize the size of them across mechs. I don't wanna see small lasers that are xx% bigger on an assault, just because they're on an assault... Or, PPC's that are xx% smaller, just because you put them on a blackjack. (btw, check out the toothpick barrels for PPC's on the blackjack. ******* cringeworthy.)

[FupDup]

GreenHell, on 24 September 2016 - 07:51 AM, said:

There should really only NEED to be two versions of missile pods. One with 6 holes, and one with 20 holes. That's all you need and it covers all your bases. If you've got an SRM2-6 or an LRM5, you get the 6 hole. LRM10 and above, you get the 20 hole. That's it man... done.

Having a gigantic missile pod with unused tubes is ugly though. Open, unused space in general is one of the biggest problems caused by our current version of Dynamic Geometry™.

GreenHell, on 24 September 2016 - 07:51 AM, said:

Gun models need to be sort of... normalized across the mechs I think. Yeah, you can sink the barrel into the arm/torso but if it's a small mech/mounting point, you've gotta have something stick out the back to show it's still "all there".

Same goes for lasers. Normalize the size of them across mechs. I don't wanna see small lasers that are xx% bigger on an assault, just because they're on an assault... Or, PPC's that are xx% smaller, just because you put them on a blackjack. (btw, check out the toothpick barrels for PPC's on the blackjack. ******* cringeworthy.)

Normalizing weapon sizes is one of the biggest reasons that Dynamic Geometry ends up looking derpy on so many mechs.

For example, the laser cube model looks alright on many mechs, but it completely ruins the aesthetic of the Raven. The Raven should have completely different, barrel-shaped lasers rather than the cube.

Dynamic Geometry is supposed to make mechs look DIFFERENT from each other, but it ended up making them all start looking the same. :\

Also, obligatory:

[Navid A1]

Dynamic geometry ruining classic mech looks?

look no further:

[GreenHell]

Just look at these derpy little PPC's... The ones that get me most are the ones in the side-torso...
WHY?!?!

Edited by GreenHell, 24 September 2016 - 08:17 AM.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

I've recently come to realize that the HBR's torso weapon ports look like fridge magnets.

Worst of the worst, though... has to be the good 'ol Catapult VCRs. Followed by the Cent's missile racks... I still have nightmares about the death screams of the missile doors.

[Juodas Varnas]

WrathOfDeadguy, on 24 September 2016 - 08:26 AM, said:

I've recently come to realize that the HBR's torso weapon ports look like fridge magnets.

Worst of the worst, though... has to be the good 'ol Catapult VCRs. Followed by the Cent's missile racks... I still have nightmares about the death screams of the missile doors.

Part of me wishes that they'd do the same thing they did for the Catapults to the Centurions and simply gave them missile doors back and just had them static, the same no matter how many missiles you had.

[FupDup]

GreenHell, on 24 September 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

Just look at these derpy little PPC's... The ones that get me most are the ones in the side-torso...
WHY?!?!

If I had to guess, PGI's art department copypasted the AC/2's barrel and just put a light blue dot in the middle.

There are so many mechs with better PPC models than that (i.e. literally every other mech), I have no idea why PGI couldn't just copypaste those instead...

Edited by FupDup, 24 September 2016 - 08:29 AM.

[GreenHell]

FupDup, on 24 September 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

If I had to guess, PGI's art department copypasted the AC/2's barrel and just put a light blue dot in the middle.

There are so many mechs with better PPC models than that (i.e. literally every other mech), I have no idea why PGI couldn't just copypaste those instead...

The worst part to me, is that if you look closely they really ARE the proper PPC models. They're just so squished and stretched and badly scaled that they look rediculous!

[Felbombling]

There have been some lazy missteps in the past, for sure. I hope PGI fixes them soon, because some have lingered for years now. These are examples of just getting it done, in my opinion, rather than really striving for the best possible outcome.



This Victor has 3x SRM6 racks. Count the missile tubes.



Three Machine Guns on the Hunchback. You gotta look close, but that third MG is mounted in the recoil gear under the massive Autocannon housing. I don't know... maybe a cluster, without the massive geometry would be called for here? Not like three .5 ton Machine Guns need all that space that normally fits a 14 ton weapon, right?

Pet peeve time... the Summoner has enough to deal with in life trying to keep up with the Timberwolf, but this seems a little lame to me...



Summoner with an LRM 20 rack. Ok, I like this, the weapon is a massive missile launcher.



Summoner with a little LRM 5 rack. Ok, a one-ton weapon gets a much smaller housing. Works for me.



[record scratch!] Summoner with an SRM 6 rack... a 1.5 ton weapon. They used the same mounting as the LRM 10-20 racks. The pictures are a little distorted due to my fail Photoshop skills, but you can see by the partial 4 in the background that they are the same size mounting.

Edited by StaggerCheck, 24 September 2016 - 09:08 AM.

[Requiemking]

You think those are bad? Look at the Mist Lynx. You mount any weapon on it at all, at you get a little box bolted to your mechs arm.

[FupDup]

Requiemking, on 24 September 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

You think those are bad? Look at the Mist Lynx. You mount any weapon on it at all, at you get a little box bolted to your mechs arm.

LosTech™.

Edited by FupDup, 24 September 2016 - 09:00 AM.

[Kasumi Sumika]

The double barrel gun geometry on Phoenix Hawk is really horrible. Why not just make both second and third gun geometry put on forearm.

[Juodas Varnas]

Kasumi Sumika, on 24 September 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

The double barrel gun geometry on Phoenix Hawk is really horrible. Why not just make both second and third gun geometry put on forearm.

Personally, i wouldn't mind it THAT much, if it didn't prioritize the bloody second barrel instead of the vambrace mount.