19 replies to this topic

[DEVASTATOR]

I dunno about you but I always preferred the MW3 animations over all the games. They seemed more realistic to me and gave you the feeling that you were truly piloting 100 tons of lumbering steel. Its probably not fair to include MW2 in here only because the graphics capabilities were limited then. But, I never really liked the MW4 animaitons.

Whenever I think of MW4 animations I recall watching a NovaCat running along and thinking that it looked more like a man in an armored suit or a linebacker as opposed to a mech. The excessive bouncing up and down when they walked (which never showed up in the display which was always steady) also seemd a bit silly as i figured with that much jarring you'd probbaly be puking all over your controls. They also seemed a bit fluid and quick moving to me for something so large and with so much inertia to deal with.

Any preferences? What should MW:O 's animations be most like?

[tony katdander]

it should be code based,like mechwarrior 4 mercs ,where the legs arent a fixed animation but can be at an angle and stuff.and if you lose an arm you should sway farther to the right or left.(based on code-not fixed animation)

[Kodiak Jorgensson]

iam not 100% sure on this but i belive that the MW2 engine used a set of rotation calcualtions for individual joints for there animations, which was limited.

anyway MW3 no doubt, first mechwarrior game to incorprate IK i belive, which allowed for more dynamic poses of the mechs when standing on un-even terrain and animation blendiong.MW4 also has IK based animations, but i personaly prefer the MW3 IK psyhics over MW4.

[tony katdander]

i cant wait for any future ik animations mechwarrior online will make.probably will be really advanced.

[tony katdander]

whats IK?,something kinetic?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think given the capabilities of the new engine PGI have the chance to make mechs look like they have never done before. Motion capture won't help as it would make them look too human. They need to look stiff and "clunky" to an extent. If they do bob up and down when walking then it out to show in the cockpit view, unless it makes people sick.

[DEVASTATOR]

I have to say, the animations I saw in the trailer didn't impress me that much. Maybe I'm just being a cranky old man but I thought he Atlas moved a bit too quickly. The Jenner (from what little we saw) seemed ok jumping and the Warhammer looked good backing up. Don't know if that's how they're going to look or if that was just for the trailer.

[DarkTreader]

tony katdander, on 20 January 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

whats IK?,something kinetic?

Inverse Kinematics. It's a particular way to handle animations with regard to bone rigging. There are generally two kinds of rrigging, Forward Kinematics and Inverse Kinematics.

Someone else might have to check me on these, as it's been a while since I've studied the technical side of animation, but here goes:

Forward Kinematics is handled by manipulation of the major joints - you move the shoulder and the bones of the arm, then the bones of the hands, move with it. This is good as far as large movements go, but you do tend to lose a bit of realism as far as it goes. This is the easiest and most cost effective way to handle animations. Called Forward Kinematics because when you grab a joint, it manipulates all of the joints that are forward from it on the rigging list.

Inverse Kinematics are the opposite - you manipulate the smaller, end joints, and the larger joints automatically move to compensate. This tends to lend a bit more realism to characters, but takes more time (and thus, money) and processor power to render. Called Inverse because when you grab a small joint, everything behind it moves to accomodate the joint in question.

[Listless Nomad]

Well if I recall correctly - that trailer was from 2009 - for a cancelled game - running a different engine. So I wouldn't take the mechanics you see in that game as what MWO will look like. That being said, as an example of what NOT to do in MWO, your comments are spot on.

[DEVASTATOR]

Listless Nomad, on 20 January 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Well if I recall correctly - that trailer was from 2009 - for a cancelled game - running a different engine.

Really? I always got the impression it was the trailer they were using for this game. Of course, it was just a trailer and a long time has passed since then so even if it was for this game it could bear little resemblance to what we end up seeing on screen.

[Listless Nomad]

Well technically we are both correct. It is the official trailer they are using for the game - just to say HEY WE'RE ALIVE! However, im pretty sure it was for the cancelled Mechwarrior 3015 game. Notice that the year the trailer takes place (3015) is 34 years before this game is supposed to take place.

[DEVASTATOR]

Good point about the date. I never realized it until i just looked at the trailer again.


(I didn't even know there WAS a cancelled mech game )

[Listless Nomad]

Just think we could have had that game two years ago if it wasnt for money grubbing Golden Harmony.....

[Zakatak]

MW2/MWLL are a limited by technology and game engine, respectively. I didn't like the animations.

MW4 takes everything way too far. A mech needs to be a stable weapons platform when on the move, but MW4 mechs certainly didn't look that way. They bobbed, sashayed, and never kept the center of gravity where it needed to be (increasing workload on the gyroscope).

MW3 was definetly the best. My only complaint is how the mechs just froze still when in midair, when they should be placing their feet forward to brace for landing, and how the center of gravity always seemed to be right on the heel of the mech (look at Blackhawk, srsly). Other then that, they moved like 75 ton futuristic robots.

[MonkeyDCecil]

I would like a mix of MW3 and MW4 not just animations. I loved the way MW3 did things. But the one thing I want from MW4 is the weapon boxes. You know green for missiles, yellow for cannons, red for energy, and then the omine boxes. I would love to see that.

[Zervziel]

As far as animation I think MW4 did quite admirably.

[DEVASTATOR]

MonkeyDCecil, on 20 January 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

I would like a mix of MW3 and MW4 not just animations. I loved the way MW3 did things. But the one thing I want from MW4 is the weapon boxes. You know green for missiles, yellow for cannons, red for energy, and then the omine boxes. I would love to see that.

That would be the love it or hate it hardpoint system. Which I think worked pretty well as a counter to boating as well as giving mechs back their "character".

Edited by DEVASTATOR, 20 January 2012 - 04:35 PM.

[Datum]

Most of MW2 was kinda bad, but there was a feel to it that I really liked, especially with the Mad Dog and Timberwolf. In MW2 they seemed majestic, sort of beastlike. The way they hop from foot to foot was a nice touch, and was really the only running animation I liked. Every other iteration showed them clomping along far too slowly.

[DSADragoon]

DarkTreader, on 20 January 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Inverse Kinematics. It's a particular way to handle animations with regard to bone rigging. There are generally two kinds of rrigging, Forward Kinematics and Inverse Kinematics.

Someone else might have to check me on these, as it's been a while since I've studied the technical side of animation, but here goes:

Forward Kinematics is handled by manipulation of the major joints - you move the shoulder and the bones of the arm, then the bones of the hands, move with it. This is good as far as large movements go, but you do tend to lose a bit of realism as far as it goes. This is the easiest and most cost effective way to handle animations. Called Forward Kinematics because when you grab a joint, it manipulates all of the joints that are forward from it on the rigging list.

Inverse Kinematics are the opposite - you manipulate the smaller, end joints, and the larger joints automatically move to compensate. This tends to lend a bit more realism to characters, but takes more time (and thus, money) and processor power to render. Called Inverse because when you grab a small joint, everything behind it moves to accomodate the joint in question.

Fairly spot on, but the difference between IK and FK are mostly for what you're actually doing with the arms/legs action wise... not for realism or lack there of. The gist:

You actually get more "realistic" animation with FK, seeing as how you are animating how real limbs work. You take the roots of your limbs/joints and rotate those to get your motion. You rotate your shoulder, your arm follows, you rotate your wrist and your hand moves. You work strictly in rotations and in the "correct" manner that your limbs/bones work. This gives you nice "real" curves for your movement. The drawback to this is that you do not have an anchor to your limbs. You can't "place" a hand on a table, or a foot to the floor. Your hands and feet are dictated by your knee/elbow, which are then by your shoulder/hip and then ultimately the body. You rotate your back, the shoulder, elbow, hand all follows, as it does in real life. You're dependent on those, and can't do anything about it. IK fixes this making the driving factor that endpoint handle that you spoke of. You loose your nice, "true" curves in place of total control of a limb and where it moves and doesn't. If you put your arm handle on the table, then move and rotate the body all you want, but the hand will stay put. As does your feet, put your handle on the floor, and your character is now "rooted" to the floor...move the body, and they stay put. Without the IK method then your hands/feet are quite difficult to truely plant, and can result in floatiness.

Most rigs come with an actual IK/FK switch. It lets you animate any movements in it's FK form, getting nice fluid curves...but when it comes time to plant your feet while walking/running/jumping/etc or for your hands to hold onto a ledge, for example, you can switch it over to IK and get that anchor that is needed.

Edit: And of course...the "realism" of IK vs FK is purely up the animator... you can be just as realistic with IK if you know what you're doing. So it's really not an issue, just saying that for the convo of ik/fk

Edited by DSADragoon, 20 January 2012 - 11:29 PM.

[Ravn]

MW4 was almost too refined... too smooth. I need my mech to act like it weighs 75 tons.