46 replies to this topic

[Attalward]

I have as well noticed scale weirdness sometimes. But mostly between different mechs and their cokpits they just look strange, sometimes too big and others too small.

[Hikaru Shizuka]

Well, as described in the lore, your view would look like this:

http://blogs.elphel..../2010/07/8h.jpg
http://steveschwarz....0Panorama_p.jpg

I don't think I could stand that for very long...

Those images are rather large, btw.

[SmoothCriminal]

Hikaru Shizuka, on 29 December 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Well, as described in the lore, your view would look like this:

http://blogs.elphel..../2010/07/8h.jpg
http://steveschwarz....0Panorama_p.jpg

I don't think I could stand that for very long...

Those images are rather large, btw.

I think 360 views would literally be mind blowing. Literally. Mind blowing. Roadhouse.

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 December 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Actually, 10 meters is the average. Humanoid mechs in that group are listed as ranging from 8-14 meters, according to Herbert Beas, Battletech Line Developer, Catalyst Game Labs, current holder of the License. "Hunched" walker designs, and Quads can be considerably shorter.
http://bg.battletech...hp?topic=6374.0

I stand corrected. 8-14 meters it is then, and the MWO 'mechs are a bit on the big side.

Not that it matters that much to me, I'm fine with them being 10-20 meters, but I'm not going to gainsay Herbert Beas

Edited by stjobe, 29 December 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[Mathmatics]

Hikaru Shizuka, on 29 December 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Well, as described in the lore, your view would look like this:

http://blogs.elphel..../2010/07/8h.jpg
http://steveschwarz....0Panorama_p.jpg

I don't think I could stand that for very long...

Those images are rather large, btw.

I hear ya man. I don't know, as a sim player I was definitely hoping for a better hud out of a next gen mechwarrior sim. Maybe not the full neurohelm emulation but the hud and cockpit are where my scale problems from in. I also expected a next gen mech sim to support things like hotas and track IR so what do I know.

[Cache]

Hikaru Shizuka, on 29 December 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Well, as described in the lore, your view would look like this:

...

I don't think I could stand that for very long...

I picture the computer removing a good deal of warpage, making it more tolerable.

[GuardDogg]

SwanseaAxeman, on 29 December 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

I know this is BETA and everything is subject to change, but when I was playing last night a thought occurred to me; not once since playing have I ever got a feeling of scale within the maps.

I don't know if it is just me but when I play I don't feel like I am in a 50ft tall robot. I can see the buildings, the small vehicles and mini street lights but it never feels right.

I think the main thing that gets me is the texture scale on the scenery, like rocks and hills. I know the problems with making textures too small reveals the repetition pattern of the texture, but I think that the way they are makes everything feel kind of 'normal' scale.

I could just be overcritical, but I really don't get the sense of towering over buildings when piloting a mech in river city for example. From the cockpit of an Atlas I can get the kind of scale of the mech because of the size of the window, but it never seems to feel right in the environment. Perhaps it is the building architecture or the lack of anything that is readily recognisable as being 'human' scale, I can't put my finger on it.

Btw, how tall is an atlas supposed to be anyway?

Damm.....I feel the same. I do not feel I am in something tall, or way up there or any fear of heights. Thinking the buildings, cars must of shrunk, and I am in a terminator Robot. Furthermore the hud doesn't have bounce either, like if I am floating, and cockpit bounces. And we have never falled face first (faceplant) onto the ground. It is when we are destroyed, we see our mechs in 3rd person blowing up.

Edited by VeeDog, 29 December 2012 - 06:03 PM.

[JPsi]

I look at the scale-weight ratio and feel put off.

Why? Look at a tank. Call one in at about 70 tons. (could be wrong feel free to correct me)
Now look at a mech. For their height, they feel like they should be a lot heavier. Materials science can only go so far to suspend disbelief in this regard. Every time I look at an atlas I feel it looks like it weighs 150 or more.

Edited by JPsi, 29 December 2012 - 06:32 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

JPsi, on 29 December 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

I look at the scale-weight ratio and feel put off.

Why? Look at a tank. Call one in at about 70 tons. (could be wrong feel free to correct me)
Now look at a mech. For their height, they feel like they should be a lot heavier. Materials science can only go so far to suspend disbelief in this regard. Every time I look at an atlas I feel it looks like it weighs 150 or more.

You are actually quite right. Actually, the current Catapult would mass close to 150 tons, unless it's bloody hollow.
Also disagree about the
"canon" viewscreens. They have been described throughout the books and novels in multiple conflicting manners, and the artwork has been pretty inconsistent too, but almost every mech in the game is depicted with some sort of canopy (not saying it is a particularly GOOD idea, but there it is.

And the 360 view is actually described as a 270 degree strip across the top of the displays. None of the feed is into some sort of neuro helmet hud.

[stjobe]

JPsi, on 29 December 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

I look at the scale-weight ratio and feel put off.

Why? Look at a tank. Call one in at about 70 tons. (could be wrong feel free to correct me)
Now look at a mech. For their height, they feel like they should be a lot heavier. Materials science can only go so far to suspend disbelief in this regard. Every time I look at an atlas I feel it looks like it weighs 150 or more.

How much volume does one ton of ablative armour take up?
How much volume does a ton of myomer muscles take up?

The internal structure is supposedly "multi-part structures with a core of ultra-light foamed aluminum, shrouded in directionally oriented stressed sheets of silicon carbide mono-filament fibers. The fiber layer is also rigged with structural sensors and data lines. This core is then clad with titanium-alloyed steel". How large do those get?

The Rule of Cool trumps any disbelief you might have in the advance of materials science in the next 1000 years.

[Kaspirikay]

The river in forest colony irks me. Tress do too.

[JPsi]

stjobe, on 29 December 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

How much volume does one ton of ablative armour take up?
How much volume does a ton of myomer muscles take up?

The internal structure is supposedly "multi-part structures with a core of ultra-light foamed aluminum, shrouded in directionally oriented stressed sheets of silicon carbide mono-filament fibers. The fiber layer is also rigged with structural sensors and data lines. This core is then clad with titanium-alloyed steel". How large do those get?

The Rule of Cool trumps any disbelief you might have in the advance of materials science in the next 1000 years.

Considering even a mech using carbon-nanotubes as a material would have insane difficulty in getting that light whilst maintaining any kind of strength yeah. For info they are stronger than any titanium alloy or silicon carbide composition.
For all your examples the answer is.. less than currently stated unless you want all the integrity of cardboard.

Considering this is a discussion on scale and it not feeling right. Its not about whats "Cool". I don't mind having giant battlemechs that run around stomping buildings even, as long as you don't try tell me they weigh 30kg while doing so.

Edited by JPsi, 29 December 2012 - 08:11 PM.

[Tennex]

the environment isnt very detailed. I think isthe problem how often do you see foliage or grass. But with the way this game runs currently, i think we should just settle for the flaw.

[Raalic]

When I sit on the balcony of my 6th floor apartment, I sometimes imagine an Atlas' head just skimming below my line of sight, and I think yeah, that's pretty big. Sometimes you have to put these things into a real context to get a good feel for their size. There is a limit to what can be brought from fiction into reality, and 30-55ft is bigger than you may realize.

They're big, but I do agree the game could do a better job getting it across. I sometimes get the feel for it in River City.

[Kristov Kerensky]

The Atlas is 15m tall, built that height specifically so it would be the tallest Mech on the field when it was designed.

As for the sense of scale..it's there, but you do actually have to look for it currently. Trees, if you'll notice was you walk through them, the tops hit you in the face usually. Street lights on certain maps definately give you a great sense of scale. Caustic Valley has the catwalks and stairs on the various pieces of equipment around the map. River City and Frozen City buildings tend to mess up the sense of scale, not sure what is up with the buildings but the lack of windows and doors really makes it impossible to get a sense of their size and that makes the Mech feel..human sized.

[xRaeder]

I think the more important thing as it relates to scale is the fact that this game has no sense of it as far as gameplay is concerned.

There are no large battles... large maps... there is no large anything... including the vision put forth by PGI.

Before you go quoting PGI and their vaunted Community Warfare I'll stop you right here. We haven't heard anything about it since August... so as far as you and I are concerned it is not going to be added to the game or at the very least we have another year. I for one will not be playing this a year from now as far better games are coming out.

[SwanseaAxeman]

Kristov Kerensky, on 29 December 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

not sure what is up with the buildings but the lack of windows and doors really makes it impossible to get a sense of their size and that makes the Mech feel..human sized.

Yea, that's what gets me on those maps with buildings; they just seem to be doorless and windowless shells that don't give you a sense of scale. I am sure that if a few more recognisable objects in the world it would help covey the size of the mechs. Perhaps an 'old 20th century ghost town' in the desert or something with old style buildings, silos, barns and stuff would be a good one.

[Taizan]

I feel that the scale between the mechs is off. Some mechs have "stubby legs" like the Stalker & Awesome, then the thing with the cockpit windows / cockpit size seems weird as well - no matter how large or small the mech and its "head", the cockpit doesn't reflect this properly imo.

The scale in the world is a tricky thing. The boat on forest colony helps a bit, but elsewise the buildings and the rest of the map do not offer too much in comparison. From Shogo MAD I had a much better feeling for scale, possibly because there were other animated units running or driving around.

[SwanseaAxeman]

Yea I know what you mean. Scale is really tricky to get in computer games unless there is some kind of reference and seeing as this game is set in 30xx none of the buildings would be recognisable.

Edited by SwanseaAxeman, 30 December 2012 - 03:01 AM.

[Oppi]

Mathmatics, on 29 December 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

Interesting topic. I do not mind the scale, personally. I only wish we had our neuro helmets on not looking through canon breaking giant view ports.

Viewports are true to canon. It's not glass, it's transparent armor.

And yes, MWO has the scales all wrong. It's not only the mech's size compared to buildings, which could be suffered for the sake of the fun factor, but also their size compared to other mechs. An Atlas just isn't twice as tall as a commando. A Commando is about 9 meters tall in the lore, while an Atlas is about 12-14 meters (depending on your source) which is only about 1.3 to 1.5 times the size of the Commando. So the light mech would definitely have to reach the assaults breast height.

Edited by Oppi, 30 December 2012 - 03:57 AM.