367 replies to this topic

[shortpainter]

Stinger

[Bishop Steiner]

shortpainter, on 30 July 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

Stinger

Very much awesomeness. About the only "critique" I could make is one that is pretty much for ALL BAttletech designs... just wonder if the head could be made a little bigger (probably would ruin it's lines, unfortunately) so that a person could believably fit inside?

Of course, since the basic dimensions have to resemble the Macross Valkyrie, that could be tough, since that design was around 42 ft tall (vs 30ish) and had a torso cockpit, vs the head ones in Btech. *sighs* Oh well, I think I'll shut up and just enjoy awesome picture for it's awesomeness.

[HanaYuriko]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 July 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Very much awesomeness. About the only "critique" I could make is one that is pretty much for ALL BAttletech designs... just wonder if the head could be made a little bigger (probably would ruin it's lines, unfortunately) so that a person could believably fit inside?

Of course, since the basic dimensions have to resemble the Macross Valkyrie, that could be tough, since that design was around 42 ft tall (vs 30ish) and had a torso cockpit, vs the head ones in Btech. *sighs* Oh well, I think I'll shut up and just enjoy awesome picture for it's awesomeness.

Looking at the details and panel lines, I think the cockpit might be below the "head." Where the head itself is mostly a housing for sensors and stuff. With an enclosed cockpit in the chest area, the cameras and stuff could be behind the visor.

[Bishop Steiner]

HanaYuriko, on 30 July 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Looking at the details and panel lines, I think the cockpit might be below the "head." Where the head itself is mostly a housing for sensors and stuff. With an enclosed cockpit in the chest area, the cameras and stuff could be behind the visor.

Well, if this is a Jihad era rebuild, then yeah. But if it's a level 1 tech Stinger "re-seen" then the cockpit is in the head. The torso clameshell would make a cool cockpit, I could easily see a version with that, though, where the Fusion reactor would go, is anyones question.

[Sean Lang]

Bishop, looks to me that Shortpainter moved away from the macross theme and created his own version. I think this needed to be done a long time ago, this isn't Robotech, its battletech!

Love the design, another great re-design by Shortpainter!

[Feign death]

I have to say i like your them great drawings

[Bishop Steiner]

Sean Lang, on 30 July 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

Bishop, looks to me that Shortpainter moved away from the macross theme and created his own version. I think this needed to be done a long time ago, this isn't Robotech, its battletech!

Love the design, another great re-design by Shortpainter!

I am aware of that. All I said was that there is essentially a silhouette that one kind has to maintain, some features,, like the slim cockpit, that are needed to make it work, and work it does. Shortpainter did a wonderful job creating a brand new look, yet keep the "feel" of the original.

I think I'm allowed to critique it, though, or why else post it on a public forum? (heck, I put up with plenty on my posts) All I said is that the head was small (just like the original) and it looks great. Just wish there was a way to merge the aesthetic with a believably sized cockpit. Unfortunately, I don't think it will work without ruining the look.

[HanaYuriko]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 July 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Well, if this is a Jihad era rebuild, then yeah. But if it's a level 1 tech Stinger "re-seen" then the cockpit is in the head. The torso clameshell would make a cool cockpit, I could easily see a version with that, though, where the Fusion reactor would go, is anyones question.

Torso cockpits predate Jihad era. Ya gotta stop thinking that all of the cool stuff was designed post 3070 game materials. I made some revised designs for the Phoenix Hawk, Stinger, and Wasp back in the mid 90s using the MaxTech rules that gave them torso cockpits and hand-held weapons.

Right then! Apart from the cockpit placement I do like this revision.

[Bishop Steiner]

HanaYuriko, on 30 July 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

Torso cockpits predate Jihad era. Ya gotta stop thinking that all of the cool stuff was designed post 3070 game materials. I made some revised designs for the Phoenix Hawk, Stinger, and Wasp back in the mid 90s using the MaxTech rules that gave them torso cockpits and hand-held weapons.

Right then! Apart from the cockpit placement I do like this revision.

Yeah, I also had the old Solaris 7 unbound or unleashed or whatever module with the tech in it. But if I recall correctly, it was all level 3 tech... aka, not tournament legal (kinda like where my BFG has landed), until they decided that the WOBBIES needed too have all that tech in their mechs. When I say Jihad, it is because it was never considered "mainstream" tech until then. (and don't get me started on XXL engines, superchargers, enhanced J.Jets and other extremely broken tech that we were "gifted" with after the 3067 era......)

[Steinar Bergstol]

Well, if memory serves the Stinger _was_ known for having a _very_ cramped and tiny cockpit according to the TR. So cramped, in fact, that often all but the smallest mechwarriors needed help to get out of it after a battle.

[HanaYuriko]

Steinar Bergstol, on 31 July 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

Well, if memory serves the Stinger _was_ known for having a _very_ cramped and tiny cockpit according to the TR. So cramped, in fact, that often all but the smallest mechwarriors needed help to get out of it after a battle.

Sounds like they were wedged in like a Formula One racer.

[Brenden]

I didn't make this, but do you think they could use instead of the original Archer Image?

[BJJKempoMan]

Really awesome work!

[Bishop Steiner]

HanaYuriko, on 31 July 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

Sounds like they were wedged in like a Formula One racer.

Oh they certainly were. But a horse jockey would not fit in there (kinda the same issue I am having with my QTZ-2L... unfortunatley changing it loses all the "cool" fACTOR. *sigh*

[Bishop Steiner]

Brenden, on 31 July 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

I didn't make this, but do you think they could use instead of the original Archer Image?

really cool, but too far away from the archer for me stylistically. I'm a snot though, who wants to maintain as much of the feel of the originals as possible. There are mechs though, like the Bombadier (which just looked like a 5 year olds attempt at an archer) which I don't feel as strongly about. And this would certainly fel more "Star League"ish than it does "Age of War" which is where the Archer was born.

though why no one ****** and moans about the "Gundam" legs, IDK. I know if I did them, that's what every post would be about!
(How dare you try to design mechs! Only Shortpainter, Flying Debris, Shimmering Sword and David White are allowed too! RAWR!!!!!!)

R

[Lyon]

Rudy's sketches, like FD's, are usually directly related 1:1 to his models, and since his models are fully animatable, they have to be mechanically correct. The armor appliques on the legs are protection mounted after the structure has been made articulatable, so the appearance follows function. As such, I don't see the "Gundam" in the legs. He doesn't do the art this way just for giggles, he's out to make the original TRO art work in a more sound manner, in terms of engineering.

I still think that the Mongoose cockpit is utter heresy, Rudy.....but it WORKS!

Edited by Lyon, 03 August 2012 - 08:01 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lyon, on 03 August 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Rudy's sketches, like FD's, are usually directly related 1:1 to his models, and since his models are fully animatable, they have to be mechanically correct. The armor appliques on the legs are protection mounted after the structure has been made articulatable, so the appearance follows function. As such, I don't see the "Gundam" in the legs. He doesn't do the art this way just for giggles, he's out to make the original TRO art work in a more sound manner, in terms of engineering.

I still think that the Mongoose cockpit is utter heresy, Rudy.....but it WORKS!

Look at the unseens from the 3055 TRO, legs are very similar to the PHX-IIC. All those designs were VERY anime-ish.

As for the engineering and quality of Rudy's work, it's top notch, though I suppose as someone who draws "just for giggles" I would not be qualified to comment. But in my ignorant opinion, while it looks great, it doesn't evoke the Archer in any way shape or form. Now excuse me while I go slop the hogs with the rest of us rubes.

[Sean Lang]

@Bishop, I don't think he set out to create a re-seen version of the original. He took what he liked, incorporated his style and made something new. I think that is a good thing, the original's in my opinion are not set in stone, it was created by an artist for a tabletop game on a limited budget. And your a good artist yourself, don't sell yourself short, opinions do matter!

[Bishop Steiner]

Sean Lang, on 04 August 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

@Bishop, I don't think he set out to create a re-seen version of the original. He took what he liked, incorporated his style and made something new. I think that is a good thing, the original's in my opinion are not set in stone, it was created by an artist for a tabletop game on a limited budget. And your a good artist yourself, don't sell yourself short, opinions do matter!

Yeah, I get that part, but I am one of the old guard. For me the Unseen/Reseen has and always will be about more than coming up with a cool new design to slap the name on. One of the biggest problems, is that a lot of Battletech fans are like me in that regard, and if it doesn't evoke our old favorites, it doesn't do anything for us. I guess it's kinda like slapping the "Dodge Charger" name tag onto a 4 door... it just ain't a Charger, no matter what Fiat...er... Chrysler says.

To me, that design is very cool, and unique, and it's not an Archer. In fact it shouldn't even try to be, because it doesn't evoke the original, but has it's own vibe, and to me, should be it's own original mech. Of course, no 2 Classic Battletech nazi can even remotely agree on what they DO want the Unseen to look like, just that we want them to look like the Unseen (not literally, but in the "know what it is at a glance" sort of way)

[Regal]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 August 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

really cool, but too far away from the archer for me stylistically. I'm a snot though, who wants to maintain as much of the feel of the originals as possible. There are mechs though, like the Bombadier (which just looked like a 5 year olds attempt at an archer) which I don't feel as strongly about. And this would certainly fel more "Star League"ish than it does "Age of War" which is where the Archer was born.

though why no one ****** and moans about the "Gundam" legs, IDK. I know if I did them, that's what every post would be about!
(How dare you try to design mechs! Only Shortpainter, Flying Debris, Shimmering Sword and David White are allowed too! RAWR!!!!!!)

R

I do hope you aren't lumping me into this category, as I can't stand putting Gundam parts on my mechs! Granted I've only shared my Supernova on the forums (a rough cut of it anyway) but yeah.

Anyway, SP, nice work!