31 replies to this topic

[Zaptruder]

So we're going off the heights and widths of these mechs as the approximation for their hit box?

[MoonUnitBeta]

lordkrike, on 14 January 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

I didn't actually measure the surface area of the 'mechs. I measured the surface area of their silhouettes. Another way to say it is that I measured their 2D projections and depth does not come into play there. So, when you are and an Atlas are having a squared-off staredown, you see a 'mech with 127 square meters of surface area since you're looking at a 2D projection of a 3D object. The 'mech's total surface area is actually much larger.

Agreed. But when you take the front silhouette and side silhouette (if you used the side silhouettes in your formula) then you could generate a 3D object from that data. However you're generating a 3D model from silhouettes only. So, yes, you're right, there will be more area and it would make for a very blocky 3D model (see my drawing).

In the concept art section of the website, there's some Ortho's of the dragon and catapault.
I don't know what you can do with python, but you might be able to use these to practice on generating a formula for, and then all you could go by is screenshots.
*shrug*! Haha, I've no clue if it'll work, or what works, but I like your work! Keep it up

[Deamhan]

It's simple. Given, a piece of paper, it's as close to a 2D object in a 3D world as possible but it is still 3D and has mass. If the paper is 11 inches by 8 inches (close to standard) then it is 88 inches squared per side for a total of 176 square inches. I can then fold that paper into a cube where each side is 4 square inches. 4 square inches per side times 6 sides = 24 square inches of surface area. A significant reduction to surface area while maintaining identical mass.

There is no direct relation between mass and surface area. Take that paper again but instead it is made out of plastic. Keeping everything else the same, you are now working with a different mass than the paper but all the same dimensions.

[Skylarr]

[lordkrike]

MoonUnitBeta, on 14 January 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Agreed. But when you take the front silhouette and side silhouette (if you used the side silhouettes in your formula) then you could generate a 3D object from that data. However you're generating a 3D model from silhouettes only. So, yes, you're right, there will be more area and it would make for a very blocky 3D model (see my drawing).

In the concept art section of the website, there's some Ortho's of the dragon and catapault.
I don't know what you can do with python, but you might be able to use these to practice on generating a formula for, and then all you could go by is screenshots.
*shrug*! Haha, I've no clue if it'll work, or what works, but I like your work! Keep it up

You misunderstand. I did nothing at all in 3D. You *could* make a very rough approximation of the 'mech's shape if you had a top down view, but that's not what I went for here.

This is what I'm going for: imagine you take a full-scale photograph of a 'mech standing square with and looking at you. How much area of the photograph does the image of the 'mech take up? That's essentially what the cross sectional area is. It's also basically a measure of how large your target is when you're shooting at it, which is why I was interested in computing this.

Dirk Le Daring, on 14 January 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

The Atlas is 18 metres high. Was stated some time ago by the Dev team. Unless they changed that height, you will need to recalculate. Someone correct me if I am wrong. Edit: Thanks for the alternate data.

If I scale the Atlas to 18m tall, then it implies that the Commando is 9.93m tall, which is in direct conflict with canon. The scaling on either the models or the images is wrong. Could be either.

[Dirk Le Daring]

lordkrike, on 14 January 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

If I scale the Atlas to 18m tall, then it implies that the Commando is 9.93m tall, which is in direct conflict with canon. The scaling on either the models or the images is wrong. Could be either.

Could be. I would like PGI to give us the mech heights at some stage. Now I am really curious as to the numbers they assigned to the in-game models regarding height.

[MoonUnitBeta]

lordkrike, on 14 January 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

You misunderstand. I did nothing at all in 3D. You *could* make a very rough approximation of the 'mech's shape if you had a top down view, but that's not what I went for here.

This is what I'm going for: imagine you take a full-scale photograph of a 'mech standing square with and looking at you. How much area of the photograph does the image of the 'mech take up? That's essentially what the cross sectional area is. It's also basically a measure of how large your target is when you're shooting at it, which is why I was interested in computing this.

Lol okay bear with me then. Because I'm confused. If you don't mind explaining in more detail what you do .

So my understanding now is : you take front view 2D area, and side view 2D area, and that gives you total 2D area (and mass and stuff).

And this is what I mean where the inaccuracy is: You have your X, your Y, But you're missing your Z, and that's why you have crazy jumps that some people are noting in this thread. Mech's biceps are huge, I know you're taking 2D planes, but then it depends on how your combining them. So I'm assuming you are keeping it all in 2D measurements? Side 2D area + front 2D area + some math = mass?
I'm not math person, I guess it's obvious. I'm just trying to understand how you're doing it

I guess you're saying you are taking 2D images to generate info, which is cool.
But my confusion is probably coming from that those 2D images are from 3D models, and so I'm just pointing out that that's the reason for the fluctuations. If you are wanting more accuracy to clear up the leaps between mechs, then that you'll need a top view as well. Sorry for being difficult haha. Didn't mean for it to get drawn out.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 14 January 2013 - 06:21 PM.

[lordkrike]

MoonUnitBeta, on 14 January 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

Lol okay bear with me then. Because I'm confused. If you don't mind explaining in more detail what you do .

So my understanding now is : you take front view 2D area, and side view 2D area, and that gives you total 2D area (and mass and stuff).

And this is what I mean where the inaccuracy is: You have your X, your Y, But you're missing your Z, and that's why you have crazy jumps that some people are noting in this thread. Mech's biceps are huge, I know you're taking 2D planes, but then it depends on how your combining them. So I'm assuming you are keeping it all in 2D measurements? Side 2D area + front 2D area + some math = mass?
I'm not math person, I guess it's obvious. I'm just trying to understand how you're doing it

No no no. I have front area. I have side area.

That's it. I did nothing else. I basically just calculated how big the 'mechs are as targets, relative to one another, when viewed from either the front or the side. I divided those values by the tonnage, since it makes sense for a heavier mech to be a larger target. The question is how much of a larger target is it, proportionally?

Edited by lordkrike, 14 January 2013 - 06:21 PM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

lordkrike, on 14 January 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

No no no. I have front area. I have side area.

That's it. I did nothing else. I basically just calculated how big the 'mechs are as targets, relative to one another, when viewed from either the front or the side. I divided those values by the tonnage, since it makes sense for a heavier mech to be a larger target. The question is how much of a larger target is it, proportionally?

ooooooh!
*lightbulb*
lol, thanks for explaining to me.

[lordkrike]

MoonUnitBeta, on 14 January 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

ooooooh!
*lightbulb*
lol, thanks for explaining to me.

No problem. If you didn't get it, some else didn't either.

[TB Freelancer]

Asmudius Heng, on 14 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

You may see me around - depending on how much having a child changes my gaming habits!

Yeah I kinda drifted away from gaming for a while when my son was really young, he's 9 now and kinda took over the wife's computer with minecraft, so I'm building her a new one LOL....

...and congrats on the kid!

[Asmudius Heng]

TB Freelancer, on 14 January 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

Yeah I kinda drifted away from gaming for a while when my son was really young, he's 9 now and kinda took over the wife's computer with minecraft, so I'm building her a new one LOL....

...and congrats on the kid!

Hah - minecrack - digital lego. I know kids love it - mine is a girl so we shall see if she is a geek like me or the opposite like my wife lol.