50 replies to this topic

[Juodas Varnas]

Now that it finally came out for Ceebs and i decided to pick it up, i can finally see the main issue with its running animation.

And it's THIS leg joint. It's completely immobile. It does not move at ANY point of its running or walking animations. As much as the animations are concerned the leg might as well be the exact same as any other chicken walker that lacks that second joint. So, i guess PGI lazied out just reused the animations/skeleton from any other chicken walker, which not only explains the immobile extra joint, but also the broken torso-twisting animation!

Stop being lazy, PGI! Oil up that joint! And fix that damn torso!

[Karl Streiger]

Juodas Varnas, on 04 October 2017 - 04:39 AM, said:

Now that it finally came out for Ceebs and i decided to pick it up, i can finally see the main issue with its running animation.

Given this stance - the Mech would indeed look better with a "Catapult - BSW - style leg.
This guy looks like its tripping over anymoment.

At least good work PGI you made the Uziel miniature look good in comparison

[Juodas Varnas]

I've also tested out power-up/down and JJ jump/land animations and even the limping animations after the leg was destroyed. At no points did that joint move an inch.

[Juodas Varnas]

I made a gif of the legs in motion, while "walking" and you can clearly see what i mean. The joint is completely immobilized.

In the gif you can also see the massive rocking motion of the torso that used to be a problem with mechs like the Direwolf before being fixed.

Like for real, this mech's animations are full-on whack.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 04 October 2017 - 08:59 AM.

[Paigan]

For me, the more important question is, why that Mech has/needs an additional joint in the first place.
A lot of Mechs walk just fine with 3 joints. Why add a fourth?
If some illustrator guy added a fourth visual for some weird reason, okay. But why should the animation use it?
You call it "lazy", I would call it not wasting resources.

Everyone interested in doing work efficiently (getting the most out of YOUR money) couldn't care less about if some funny guy introduced some superfluous joint somewhere.

So the actual question is: why does this Mech walk funny with 3 joints while other chicken walkers with 3 joints walk properly?
Is it an inevitable consequence of the indivodual lengths of the Uziel's limb members or is it laziness in the frame of doing a 3-joint-animation?

[Karl Streiger]

Paigan, on 04 October 2017 - 05:02 AM, said:

For me, the more important question is, why that Mech has/needs an additional joint in the first place.
A lot of Mechs walk just fine with 3 joints. Why add a fourth?
If some illustrator guy added a fourth visual for some weird reason, okay. But why should the animation use it?
You call it "lazy", I would call it not wasting resources.

Everyone interested in doing work efficiently (getting the most out of YOUR money) couldn't care less about if some funny guy introduced some superfluous joint somewhere.

So the actual question is: why does this Mech walk funny with 3 joints while other chicken walkers with 3 joints walk properly?
Is it an inevitable consequence of the indivodual lengths of the Uziel's limb members or is it laziness in the frame of doing a 3-joint-animation?

to walk with 3 joints you need to drop the non moving "knee leg" - and connect the moving "lower leg" and the "upper leg" (increasing the size of the lower leg, and maybe the length of the upper)

I would also say that the feet need to be in line with the torso not to hang back (maybe)

[Paigan]

Karl Streiger, on 04 October 2017 - 05:09 AM, said:

to walk with 3 joints you need to drop the non moving "knee leg" - and connect the moving "lower leg" and the "upper leg" (increasing the size of the lower leg, and maybe the length of the upper)

I would also say that the feet need to be in line with the torso not to hang back (maybe)

I don't understand what you are saying.
Maybe it depends on what you mean with "knee leg" and "lower leg" and "upper leg".

AFAIK, it's very simple: the fixed Uziel joint is already the best solution.
Look at the WHK, for example
(http://orig03.devian...y_punakettu.jpg)
It's thigh looks pretty similar to what the two fixed parts of the Uziel form. No need to drop anything, just making the additional joint fixed forms a composite thigh.
The shins look comparable.
The feet as well.
The WHK can walk fine.
So should the Uziel. No need for a fourth joint.

edit:
Maybe the Shadowcat or the Timberwolf would be even closer to the Uziel, but the point is the same: 3 joints. Walking just fine.

Edited by Paigan, 04 October 2017 - 05:20 AM.

[Verilligo]

Paigan, on 04 October 2017 - 05:02 AM, said:

For me, the more important question is, why that Mech has/needs an additional joint in the first place.
A lot of Mechs walk just fine with 3 joints. Why add a fourth?
If some illustrator guy added a fourth visual for some weird reason, okay. But why should the animation use it?
You call it "lazy", I would call it not wasting resources.

Everyone interested in doing work efficiently (getting the most out of YOUR money) couldn't care less about if some funny guy introduced some superfluous joint somewhere.

So the actual question is: why does this Mech walk funny with 3 joints while other chicken walkers with 3 joints walk properly?
Is it an inevitable consequence of the indivodual lengths of the Uziel's limb members or is it laziness in the frame of doing a 3-joint-animation?

The fourth joint, if it were used, would allow the mech to squat lower to the ground while keeping a more stable torso due to a vastly different mode of motion. Your standard chicken walker uses roughly the same mode of walking as any other mech, it plants a foot on the ground and uses it to push itself forward. The only difference between that and bipedal mechs is the torso of chicken walkers has an upwards and downwards parabola that it animates through.

The four-joint design is not designed to PUSH the mech forward, it's designed to PULL itself forward. It uses that extra joint to REACH forward with one foot, plant it, and pull the mech forwards while the other foot disconnects itself from the ground. This does lead to the mech going up and down a little more than most mechs, but the problem in the animation above is that the mech isn't just bobbing up and down, it's wobbling all over the place like a bobblehead. That is not efficient motion. In fact, that level of wobble would rapidly obliterate the ability of the chassis to torso twist as the upper torso would eventually tear completely free at the rotation point.

[Rovertoo]

Yeah, the things keeping me from buying the Uziel is A) the animations, they just arent low and striding like they should, especially given the joints that should allow it to keep that low profile while running and B) the legs are bowed in, which just looks stupid. I can deal with "bad" mechs (I do poorly in good mechs anyways) but funky looking mechs I just cant bring myself to get. I would rather the legs and animation be fixed, even if you catch feet on terrain a bit more than the average mech (which I assume is the reason for the bowed legs, considering that they werent like that in early renders).

Also, heres to hoping that the other new mechs are a bit better animated from the get go.

Edited by Rovertoo, 04 October 2017 - 06:55 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Juodas Varnas, on 04 October 2017 - 04:39 AM, said:

Now that it finally came out for Ceebs and i decided to pick it up, i can finally see the main issue with its running animation.

And it's THIS leg joint. It's completely immobile. It does not move at ANY point of its running or walking animations. As much as the animations are concerned the leg might as well be the exact same as any other chicken walker that lacks that second joint. So, i guess PGI lazied out just reused the animations/skeleton from any other chicken walker, which not only explains the immobile extra joint, but also the broken torso-twisting animation!

Stop being lazy, PGI! Oil up that joint! And fix that damn torso!

It's a bad stance all round. No engineer would ever make something bow legged as it puts the stresses all on one side of the joint. The model maker of the Uziel and the Madcat II clearly has no concept of Engineering

[Bombast]

Cathy, on 04 October 2017 - 07:34 AM, said:

It's a bad stance all round. No engineer would ever make something bow legged as it puts the stresses all on one side of the joint. The model maker of the Uziel and the Madcat II clearly has no concept of Engineering

Their degree was obviously in Swag-o-nomics.

[FupDup]

MW4 animation:



It's Lostech.

[Bud Crue]

Cathy, on 04 October 2017 - 07:34 AM, said:

It's a bad stance all round. No engineer would ever make something bow legged as it puts the stresses all on one side of the joint. The model maker of the Uziel and the Madcat II clearly has no concept of Engineering

No engineer worth his salt would use what appears to be a giant wood screw to hold a leg components of a 50 ton humanoid war machine together either. God damn I hate flat head screws. You just know that thing is going to get stripped the second or third time it has to come off.

[FupDup]

Bud Crue, on 04 October 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

No engineer worth his salt would use what appears to be a giant wood screw to hold a leg components of a 50 ton humanoid war machine together either. God damn I hate flat head screws. You just know that thing is going to get stripped the second or third time it has to come off.

Well, at least flatheads don't strip as fast as Phillips heads.

[Bud Crue]

FupDup, on 04 October 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

Well, at least flatheads don't strip as fast as Phillips heads.

either way, that's gonna need to be one hell of a screw driver.

[Bombast]

Bud Crue, on 04 October 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

No engineer worth his salt would use what appears to be a giant wood screw to hold a leg components of a 50 ton humanoid war machine together either. God damn I hate flat head screws.

I suspect no engineer worth his salt would, when confronted with the goal of making 'The Ultimate Weapon of Warfare,' come to the conclusion that legs would be the locomotive means of choice.

But that's none of my business...

[MechaBattler]

Bombast, does it matter that they're using myomer muscle to create motion?

[FupDup]

MechaBattler, on 04 October 2017 - 01:45 PM, said:

Bombast, does it matter that they're using myomer muscle to create motion?

Better than servo motors in many ways (such as crisp/realistic motion that can mimic the human pilot), but really there comes a point when a giant walking robbit becomes inefficient.

Walkers of small to mid size would be great in tight quarters like urban alleyways and thick jungles (because you don't have much horizontal space for traditional vehicles there yet vertical space is plenty), but that's about it.

Edited by FupDup, 04 October 2017 - 02:00 PM.

[Bombast]

MechaBattler, on 04 October 2017 - 01:45 PM, said:

Bombast, does it matter that they're using myomer muscle to create motion?

Legged locomotion is just an inherently inefficient, dangerous system, regardless of any tech advancement in 'muscles.' Small, compact, dense tanks are just a better options nearly across the board.

As FupDup said, there's maybe a niche for very small bipedal designs, maybe a couple meters tall, but a 12 meter tall robot is insane.

[Chados]

Bombast, on 04 October 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

Legged locomotion is just an inherently inefficient, dangerous system, regardless of any tech advancement in 'muscles.' Small, compact, dense tanks are just a better options nearly across the board.

As FupDup said, there's maybe a niche for very small bipedal designs, maybe a couple meters tall, but a 12 meter tall robot is insane.

But so are we. Especially if we qualified for the higher levels of any of the last three loyalty reward programs.