223 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Start with the Annihilator



Will add more as I can





and I got bored so that is it

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 28 April 2017 - 12:41 PM.

[Valdarion Silarius]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 April 2017 - 12:24 PM, said:

Start with the Annihilator


Will add more as I can

I already like the look of it. Ironically the lower half looks almost exactly like my 3D printed Rifleman IIC sitting on my desk. Kinda glad they didn't overdue it with the beer belly syndrome the original design had.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 April 2017 - 12:24 PM, said:

I really don't like the way the Gauss mounts turned out. They should first of all have their triangular prism flipped so the flat side is facing upwards so that it looks more natural with that type of arm. Secondly it should have a much greater width and maybe a slightly shorter length (optionally).

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 28 April 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

I really don't like the way the Gauss mounts turned out. They should first of all have their triangular prism flipped so the flat side is facing upwards so that it looks more natural with that type of arm. Secondly it should have a much greater width and maybe a slightly shorter length (optionally).

That said, I am liking the overall style. I wanna see this in a relaxed pose instead of the T-pose though since part of the intimidating look of the TRO version compared to the MW4 version was due to that squatter pose.

As much as people thought it would have high mounts though, it does look like it will have to pretty much all of the torso to clear any terrain, especially if the PPCs are mounted where the lasers currently are.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 April 2017 - 12:38 PM.

[Lorian Sunrider]

FupDup, on 28 April 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

I really don't like the way the Gauss mounts turned out. They should first of all have their triangular prism flipped so the flat side is facing upwards so that it looks more natural with that type of arm. Secondly it should have a much greater width and maybe a slightly shorter length (optionally).

They remind me of the top half of something I can't place.

[FupDup]

FupDup, on 28 April 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

I really don't like the way the Gauss mounts turned out. They should first of all have their triangular prism flipped so the flat side is facing upwards so that it looks more natural with that type of arm. Secondly it should have a much greater width and maybe a slightly shorter length (optionally).

Here is my incredibly mediocre attempt in GIMP to illustrate what I was getting at:

Edited by FupDup, 28 April 2017 - 12:43 PM.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

I really dislike how the Annihilator turned out, something about it feels wrong compared to the concept art, the arms are missing geometry from the concept art (behind the elbows mainly) the ST ballistics pop out too far from the slot in the mech's chest for the guns. I loved the concept art but this feels really rough compared to the other three mechs shown off which is a shame to me. Waist down is spot on to the concept art, arms feel too gangly? Spindly? IDK, it bugs me.

Uziel was amazing, Cougar made me happy, glad I bought both already, on the fence still about pre-ordering the Annihilator or Mad Kitty 2, as it is... I kind of don't want the Annihilator and rather sit out on either Assault option and wait to see what else PGI offers this year.

[Metus regem]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 April 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

That said, I am liking the overall style. I wanna see this in a relaxed pose instead of the T-pose though since part of the intimidating look of the TRO version compared to the MW4 version was due to that squatter pose.

As much as people thought it would have high mounts though, it does look like it will have to pretty much all of the torso to clear any terrain, especially if the PPCs are mounted where the lasers currently are.

Funny, it looks exactly like I expected it to look, with the non missile weapons just below the cockpit, but close enough I'd still consider them to be high mounted on the Mk. II. About the only one that looks a little off in the weapon mounts and model to me is the Cougar, everything else is looking exactly like I expected it to, with the weapons in the spots I expected them to be in....

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Metus regem, on 28 April 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

Funny, it looks exactly like I expected it to look, with the non missile weapons just below the cockpit

Oh, it's how I expected it to be, but not some of the people that thought the MCII would be the second coming of jesus KDK-3.

It may be bad, but I am still really liking how the Uzi is turning out.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 April 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

That said, I am liking the overall style. I wanna see this in a relaxed pose instead of the T-pose though since part of the intimidating look of the TRO version compared to the MW4 version was due to that squatter pose.

As much as people thought it would have high mounts though, it does look like it will have to pretty much all of the torso to clear any terrain, especially if the PPCs are mounted where the lasers currently are.

Dem cockpit high mounts. The unspoken 'gotta have' now. I get why, oddly I approve of PGI accepting the reality of the games design.

Just a bit irked that, once again, the IS version doesn't get the high mounts but nipples. The Anni hitboxes and mounts are, literally, inferior in all ways to the MC2. The MC2s arms are perfect torso shields, the torso is slightly longer but much sleeker and the legs a much harder target.

Ah well. The Roughneck is awesome.

[Metus regem]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Oh, it's how I expected it to be, but not some of the people that thought the MCII would be the second coming of jesus KDK-3.

It may be bad, but I am still really liking how the Uzi is turning out.

Don't get me wrong, it looks okay, but I think the hit boxes and low cockpit are going to be biting a lot of people in the *** when they expect it to perform like it did in MW4....

[Metus regem]

MischiefSC, on 28 April 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

Dem cockpit high mounts. The unspoken 'gotta have' now. I get why, oddly I approve of PGI accepting the reality of the games design.

Just a bit irked that, once again, the IS version doesn't get the high mounts but nipples. The Anni hitboxes and mounts are, literally, inferior in all ways to the MC2. The MC2s arms are perfect torso shields, the torso is slightly longer but much sleeker and the legs a much harder target.

Ah well. The Roughneck is awesome.

To be fair, several fourmites were very open about the fact that it is not going to have great weapon mounts and hit boxes... in fact I'm on record as saying that the Annihilator is going to have the a reverse of the problem faced by the Archer, high cockpit, low weapons. While the Uzile is going to see the same issues as the Archer, high weapons, lock cockpit.

[MischiefSC]

Metus regem, on 28 April 2017 - 12:55 PM, said:

To be fair, several fourmites were very open about the fact that it is not going to have great weapon mounts and hit boxes... in fact I'm on record as saying that the Annihilator is going to have the a reverse of the problem faced by the Archer, high cockpit, low weapons. While the Uzile is going to see the same issues as the Archer, high weapons, lock cockpit.

I'm buying the Anni because IS Dire Wolf with RACs.

That's it. yes, it'll have a lot of big flaws but in pug queue? Imma pick a lane, camp it and fill it with lead. That's worth $20 to me. I'll get $20 in giggles out of it.

[Metus regem]

MischiefSC, on 28 April 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

I'm buying the Anni because IS Dire Wolf with RACs.

That's it. yes, it'll have a lot of big flaws but in pug queue? Imma pick a lane, camp it and fill it with lead. That's worth $20 to me. I'll get $20 in giggles out of it.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do with their $, I just want people to make informed decisions. That should give us less bitching and moaning on the boards, at least that is my intent behind helping with information.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 April 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

That said, I am liking the overall style. I wanna see this in a relaxed pose instead of the T-pose though since part of the intimidating look of the TRO version compared to the MW4 version was due to that squatter pose.

As much as people thought it would have high mounts though, it does look like it will have to pretty much all of the torso to clear any terrain, especially if the PPCs are mounted where the lasers currently are.

I gotta say, "intimidating" i snot the first thing the TRO art brings to mind... honestly, the TRO version looks like fat crap, IMO.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 April 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Oh, it's how I expected it to be, but not some of the people that thought the MCII would be the second coming of jesus KDK-3.

It may be bad, but I am still really liking how the Uzi is turning out.

Well those people were always smoking something and in reality denial to begin with

MischiefSC, on 28 April 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

I'm buying the Anni because IS Dire Wolf with RACs.

That's it. yes, it'll have a lot of big flaws but in pug queue? Imma pick a lane, camp it and fill it with lead. That's worth $20 to me. I'll get $20 in giggles out of it.

I chose it as a prize pack, because the Anni looks cool, even if no tthe same as the concept art

[Humpday]

What am i looking at here? Seems like everyone has the idea that these are the actual dimensions and geometry of the upcoming mechs?

Were these released somewhere?

Those are legitimate questions btw, I'm not being a smart ***.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Metus regem, on 28 April 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong, it looks okay, but I think the hit boxes and low cockpit are going to be biting a lot of people in the *** when they expect it to perform like it did in MW4....

The Uziel really wasn't that great in MW4 either so they are looking at something with rose-tinted glasses.

Like I said though, I think it looks cool and will try and play it despite all it has going against it.

[PhantomDust]

FupDup, on 28 April 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

Here is my incredibly mediocre attempt in GIMP to illustrate what I was getting at:

Hey FupDup!

Thanks for the comment, really appreciate your input. All weapons are going to be the same size in there respective weight classes for all mechs.

I will see if we can flip those gauss guns around to fit closer to the concept (no promises here). but we cannot make the weapons themselves bigger, the only thing we can do to make it appear bigger is making bigger weapon holders.

Cheers!

Arman

[Humpday]

Never mind...ignore me...just saw the main page.

[Bishop Steiner]

PhantomDust, on 28 April 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

Hey FupDup!

Thanks for the comment, really appreciate your input. All weapons are going to be the same size in there respective weight classes for all mechs.

I will see if we can flip those gauss guns around to fit closer to the concept (no promises here). but we cannot make the weapons themselves bigger, the only thing we can do to make it appear bigger is making bigger weapon holders.

Cheers!

Arman

Thanks for the input.