Jump to content

Mechwarrior 5: Volumetric Scaling Done Right?!?


55 replies to this topic

#1 razenWing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 06 April 2018 - 07:15 AM

The Biome Trailer was dropped about a month ago, but I just notice this detail...

At around the 1:09 mark of the video, there is a shot of an Atlas with a Shadowhawk side by side on a dropship. And regarding a recent thread on volumetric scaling, (if you haven't seen that one, please go see it, it's one of the best threads in the past few months) it would appear that PGI has gotten the scale to conform with the rule of volumetric scaling.

Mainly... Assaults are not ginormously bigger than a medium, despite almost twice the weight. (Which according to volumetric scaling, the size would not be as drastic as they are now in MWO)

So it seems like the new design team at least took that to heart, and really stick in the correct scaling, mech to mech wise.

I still think Mechs are too big compared to the environment (aka vs size of tanks and jeeps and cars... which mind you, is quite big IRL), but at the very least, they seem to have gotten the mech to mech size relativity correct.

As for mech vs environment, well... I have discussed before in topics that I started that a more realistic mech vs environment scaling would drastically alter the tone and feel of the franchise, and reinvent into something with more grit. But I do understand why they went the route they went, it's to put the focus on mechs and mech pilots as opposed to the larger universe, like previous mechwarrior games. I don't necessary agree with sticking to the old path, but at least it's nice to see PGI carving out consistency in a direction that they chose.

All in all, my hype sense is growing. I think MW5 might be a boost in the niche genre, and might actually grow the franchise beyond how much MW4 grew from MW3. Which, is quite a lofty goal, but if the epicness can continue to grow and the gameplay/storyline live up to the hype? I am going to call that MW5 will be even bigger than MWO.

(which may be a good jumping point to MWO2, with more resources this time to put together a real time elapse player controlled destiny like in EVE)

#2 Stridercal

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 260 posts
  • LocationSoCal

Posted 06 April 2018 - 08:18 AM

Scaling is one of those things that bothers me like mad. You see so many pictures of mechs in the TROs stepping on cars that fit under a single giant mech foot. DUDE, that would make the mech 2-3 times larger that it should be, damn you!

At least the good artists tend to get this right. But nit-picking CBT artwork (and PGI, too) is more than a full-time job.

#3 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 25,847 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 06 April 2018 - 11:09 AM

That Shadow Hawk looked not just as tall as the Atlas, but also as thick as it in some dimensions. No it's absolutely not scaling "done right."

MW5 can only get away with that level of insanity because it's going to be heavily based on logistics such that assault mechs are objectively superior units but you can't afford to run them very often (thus you use inferior mechs like the Shadow Hawk, because you're too poor to use anything else). Maybe they even made the SHK that large on purpose just to emphasize the intended inferiority of the mech.

#4 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 5,312 posts

Posted 06 April 2018 - 11:12 AM

Yep, they did volumetric right.. at least with regard to the collectables. I did a scale comparison in my volumetric thread.

#5 Dogstar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 1,392 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationLondon

Posted 06 April 2018 - 11:20 AM

Not sure if this actually applies here but should suffice as a warning:

Posted Image

Edited by Dogstar, 06 April 2018 - 11:21 AM.


#6 Metus regem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 10,282 posts
  • LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses

Posted 06 April 2018 - 11:47 AM

I want to like what Dogstar posted, but I can't bring myself to do it...

That being said, there is some truth to it, a lot of people that complain about the scaling on some of the mechs only look at it from one angle, not front and side to get an idea of depth...

For example the Phoenix Hawk is very, very tall, but she is also very, very narrow from the side, with huge gaps between the limbs and the torso, not to mention a thigh gap that one could drive a mack truck through....

#7 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,373 posts

Posted 06 April 2018 - 12:22 PM

View Postgh0s7m3rc, on 06 April 2018 - 08:13 AM, said:

I'm not completely sure since the mech is facing the exit but still attached to the Leopard, but the legs seem to be slightly flexed (both to below and to sides), which are quite easy to distinguish at that same vid at the 00:10 mark. I recall that part (of the Atlas crouching when being shut down inside the hangar) being noted (at some thread here) with the first videos of the game, so the Atlas is, while not taller than the Leopard itself, is still tall enough to nearly bump (or close to it anyway) the top of the mech hangar.

Too early to be expecting these models to be final, anyway. I'm expecting everything to be subject to change until about 4-to-2 weeks off from official launch date.

Slightly flexed? The images I've seen, including these, show that the poor thing is crunched up.



Furthermore... while this has nothing to do with volumetric scaling, it does have to do with source scaling and I thought it interesting.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Purple center (the height of the dropship, the mini image is not scaled perfectly but approximately using a uniform shrink to 25% and is a little bigger than the actual sizes so instead compare the human figures side by side).
Left, the tallest classic battletech mech of the invasion era, 14.4 meters tall (Executioner, 95 tons). Right, 18.8 meters Atlas from MWO.

So, uh, yeah. Interesting, no?

#8 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 06 April 2018 - 01:03 PM

It is a PvE game, so they can scale however they want.

#9 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 5,312 posts

Posted 06 April 2018 - 01:07 PM

View PostEl Bandito, on 06 April 2018 - 01:03 PM, said:

It is a PvE game, so they can scale however they want.


Credit where credit is due... shows love for the mechs IMHO

#10 Angel of Annihilation

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Infernal
  • The Infernal
  • 8,870 posts

Posted 06 April 2018 - 07:23 PM

When people talk about scaling, they should go look at a picture of a Bradley IFV and compare it to a M1 Abrams tank. Compare the two and they aren't that much different in actual size. Compare tonnage though and you find the Bradley is only 27.6 tons vs the M1 Abrams weighing in at a hefty 68 tons. The point is that Battlemechs shouldn't be massively different in size just based on weight. Realistically, I am sure the same thing would apply to battlemechs if they existed and 20 ton mechs wouldn't only come to the knees of 100 ton mechs so I kind of feel scaling is way off in MWO.

Also you might say, "If a Shadow Hawk is going to almost be as large as an Altas, why not just use an Altas?", well the reason for that is simple. You could build and maintain 4 Shadow Hawks for the same cost as that Atlas. Additionally 4 Shadow Hawks would be tactically much more effective than a single Atlas as well. See what people forget is that from a lore perspective anyway, the reason medium mechs were the most numerous weight class used on the battle field was because of cost. If your Star Nations economy is trying to support 100 mech regiments, then you had bettered keep your costs in check and you don't do that by trying to field all Assault mechs in every lance (unless your insanely wealthy like the Lyran Commonwealth).

#11 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 25,847 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 06 April 2018 - 07:27 PM

View PostViktor Drake, on 06 April 2018 - 07:23 PM, said:

When people talk about scaling, they should go look at a picture of a Bradley IFV and compare it to a M1 Abrams tank. Compare the two and they aren't that much different in actual size. Compare tonnage though and you find the Bradley is only 27.6 tons vs the M1 Abrams weighing in at a hefty 68 tons.

That's not a good comparison because the Bradley needs to have open space to transport troops. The Abrams does not.

#12 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 5,312 posts

Posted 06 April 2018 - 07:27 PM

View PostViktor Drake, on 06 April 2018 - 07:23 PM, said:

...


https://mwomercs.com...metric-scaling/

View PostFupDup, on 06 April 2018 - 07:27 PM, said:

That's not a good comparison because the Bradley needs to have open space to transport troops. The Abrams does not.


Yep, you should assume the mechs have no cargo capacity, also the density of materials is the same. The depleted uranium armor of the Abrams is much heavier than the aluminum armor the Bradley uses. (Probably the difference between hardened armor versus ferro armor in battletech)

Edited by Nightbird, 06 April 2018 - 07:34 PM.


#13 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 8,607 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 07 April 2018 - 11:36 PM

Posted Image

amor make a Vehicle not really bigger ...here the armored Mercedes Limosine..and each Mech has empty places ..a Atlas for a AC20 ...when you put now a AC5 in this room ? all filled or empty space .? ...we reading to abstract Parts with unrealistic Fantasy Sizes and Weights ...Weapons thats not having Loading Mechanism and Mechs thats carrys 1000 LRM Missles

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 07 April 2018 - 11:36 PM.


#14 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 5,312 posts

Posted 08 April 2018 - 10:19 AM

View PostOld MW4 Ranger, on 07 April 2018 - 11:36 PM, said:

Posted Image

amor make a Vehicle not really bigger ...here the armored Mercedes Limosine..and each Mech has empty places ..a Atlas for a AC20 ...when you put now a AC5 in this room ? all filled or empty space .? ...we reading to abstract Parts with unrealistic Fantasy Sizes and Weights ...Weapons thats not having Loading Mechanism and Mechs thats carrys 1000 LRM Missles


Well, in non-armored cars, the doors are stuffed with foam insulating material and plastic. They replaced those with solid armor, and only the windows are noticeably thicker. There's also the question of how heavy the opposition it's designed for, being a what 4ton (8000 pounds) vehicle? Yes. it's only armored against weapons 200pound people can carry. 2.5% of it's own weight. Vehicles armored against it's own weight class will have a lot thicker armor, this wouldn't really count as an armored vehicle at in all in vehicle-to-vehicle combat.

#15 oldradagast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 08 April 2018 - 11:16 AM

Sorry, but it is safe to assume that all mechs would have the same density. So, comparing a 20-ton troop transport to a 65-ton armored battletank is not a valid comparison. If you want to compare a 40-ton armed tank to a 65-ton one of about the same time period, that is fair... but even then, this is a game vs. reality, so artificial balance is needed at times to make things work.

Long story short, I do get tired of claims that Locusts should be almost as big as the Atlas, or over-reliance on some of that goofy, old artwork where practically every mech was about the same size... I guess the lighter ones were full of air, or the heavier ones just violate the laws of physics... but it is annoying since huge lights simply will not work in a game where you can aim.

The only reason none of this mattered in table-top was that everything was done with dice rolls, so you had the same chance to hit every component (after hitting) regardless of mech size. In a game where you can actually AIM, huge lights would die in a heartbeat. Yeah, some people are fine with that, but it makes for bad mechanics and illogical game play... because why would lights exist in such a world?

#16 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 8,607 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 09 April 2018 - 02:25 AM

Ok ...have Lights Mechs thats role is the Fight against light armored Vehilcles and Infantry the same Armor as Heavy Mechs ? and what is the size of a Demolisher II Tank with a AC20 and a LBX20 +2 Mgs+not only a Pilot..Thats tank has 9! Crewmember (other Side-spare the Loading Mechanism for Ammunition rfom the left Feet in the Right Torso from a Mech) .thats Weapons who can carry a Hunchback only one...or all tanks used Miniaturized Weapons ? with same Damage...by This Weapons the Demo II more the Size like a Superheavy tank Baneblade and not the Dwarf like mW4

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 09 April 2018 - 02:28 AM.


#17 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,103 posts

Posted 09 April 2018 - 11:00 AM

It would have been extra work for them resize them to scale properly. I don't see them bothering

#18 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 8,607 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 09 April 2018 - 06:40 PM

we buy for this time ;) and play this game for this little Features ..its a important Part from the Product ...thats like Chevy say ...oh no ,we have not the time to make the Wheels all in the same size.

#19 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,558 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 10 April 2018 - 05:25 AM

MWO has volumetric scaling since the re-scale. However, there seems to have been a glitch with the Thanatos since it is bigger than an Awesome volumetrically, but weighs 5 tons less.

Then it gets you mechs like the 70 ton Grasshopper looking down on an Atlas. Grasshopper still manages to get a big Center Torso though. So Volumetric does not always jibe with mech design needs and weight class balancing. You need logic to be addressed as well. In this case, the Grasshopper should be smaller than the 100 ton Atlas.

As has been mentioned the mechs have empty space, they are not solid metal. If they were solid metal then volumetric scaling would be accurate, they are not, so you assume Mech CLASS has an affect on Mech SCALE. Someone tell PGI, but it is too late, we have goofy scale.

Edited by Lightfoot, 11 April 2018 - 12:06 PM.


#20 Adridos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 10,635 posts
  • LocationHiding in a cake, left in green city called New A... something.

Posted 10 April 2018 - 06:02 AM

View PostLightfoot, on 10 April 2018 - 05:25 AM, said:

MWO has volumetric scaling since the re-scale. However, there seems to have been a glitch with the Thanatos since it is bigger than an Awesome volumetrically, but weighs 5 tons less.


MWo does not have pure volumetric scaling. They also take the weapons into account. The weapons have consistent sizes, it's the rest of the mech which gets volumetrically scaled. Take awesome, remove PPCs (which weigh 21 tons in total) and you have the basis which then gets scaled up to the 59 tons.

Anyway, if they're going to allow you to enter the actual cockpit of the mech, then they will have to drastically scale up a lot of mechs, especially the lights which (following BT standard) could never fit an adult person inside unless we assumed all IS pilots had a prerequisite of being born with dwarfism.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users