Spring RTS Engine

My only dislike is that he's butchered the front suspension i modelled for a few measly tris.

Hehe, I love flamethrowers... These guys use a primitive sort of flamer, so I won't even go into why it doesn't look like a standard flamer IRL. Chris was complaining about giving away too much by showing the unit (lol) so I cut it, merely for his sake.

wip ak remodel. just working out the basic shape, havent started on the 'head' part of it yet

Hrmm. Now, this is just my opinion, of course... but I think that that AK design might be improved if it had something on the back, to act as a realistic counterweight. It'd look "different", and people would get their bowels in an uproar, but that's what good art is for

The design at present isn't a whole lot different than the OTA AK, other than the head, which I'm sure a lot of people will whine about... but the thing that really strikes me is how off-balance it looks. It'd fall on its face, if it was real. I think a lot of it, for me, is the perceived "weight" of those guns.

Also, I think that squared-off guns are sexier than round ones, and you might even save on polycount, although this isn't terribly inefficient overall. But that's just a style quibble, pay no mind if ya don't wanna.

Argh wrote:good stuff about design

the head/camera arrangement is purely functional. (people who know about photography will understand what im on about) each of the facial cameral barrels serves a particular purpose.

the upper barrel (long thin) one houses a telephoto type lens, good for seeing things far away (imo a very important thing for a scout) but not all that great at seeing things in the middle distance and awful for close range.

the camera below that houses a lens with a focal length similar to the human eye, great for middle distance viewing, but not too bad at long/short range either. this is the camera it mainly uses for selecting targets and aiming at its usual combat range.

the third, shortest camera is a wide angle lens, for better vision in wreckage/smoke choked battlefields.

the AK, vision wise has to be a very versatile all-in-one unit. whereas something like a Sumo has no need for long or middle distance vision, all it cares about is things it can currently shoot at and whats in its way, so the vision cluster for that is going to be completely different, to both the AK and something like a Morty or Pillager. the mobile artillery units have very different vision needs to a Sumo/Can, they need to be able to accurately target an enemy unit from quite a distance away, but can make do with limited middle distance vision and realisticaly require only rudimentary short range vision to enable them to steer around obstacles and trees.

Argh wrote:but the thing that really strikes me is how off-balance it looks. It'd fall on its face, if it was real. I think a lot of it, for me, is the perceived "weight" of those guns.

i agree totally. although the point of such a unit isnt 'stand ground and fight' its 'im covering as much ground as possible looking for enemy emplacement, if i see something lightly armed and armoured i will kill it as i pass, but anything else is not my concern' In theory an ak should never actually be stopped, it should either be running, or dead.

with that all in mind, watch this space for changes to the units perceved centre of gravity

Heh.. trust me, I'm the last guy on Earth who's going to say, "but it doesn't look like an AK, wah, boo hoo". By all means, re-imagine it, give it a better design.

I don't mind a reimagining either, but I think to an extent that is missing the original flavour of the AK. The AK was made up primarily of triangles, was very angular, and looked very quick.

Yours looks nice, but doesn't strike me as 'quick' but more 'slow and plodding'. It also looks unbalanced, as argh said. I think this is mostly to do with the lean of the upper body, as well as the positioning of the legs/feet relative to the centre of gravity.

i think that looks a lot more balanced

Warlord Zsinj wrote:Yours looks nice, but doesn't strike me as 'quick' but more 'slow and plodding'. It also looks unbalanced, as argh said. I think this is mostly to do with the lean of the upper body, as well as the positioning of the legs/feet relative to the centre of gravity.

ahh, well, the positioning of the feet was an accident of angles that i have now rectified.

and as far as the 'looking quick' bit goes... the legs on my ak should be about 2x the length of anything else i have planned for the revised Core arsenal, ive also kept the legs thin (while avoiding spiderleg-syndrome)

imo, it looks like what it is... a light raider/scout unit

The proportions still feel a little awkward; I don't think You've quite got how an inversed-knee mechanism works, specifically with carrying balance and while walking.

http://www.anzovin.com/TSM2manual/image ... seknee.jpg
http://places.mongabay.com/south_america/flamingo.jpg
http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts ... rt_772.jpg
http://www.starwarsgalaxiesonline.com/c ... s/12_G.jpg
http://www.freakygaming.com/gallery/act ... ch_808.jpg

Note the distribution of joints (an extra joint is helpful), the position, length of members and relative proportion, as well as where they are positioned relative to the body.

Also, long legs does not necessarily correlate with quick. Shorter legs that take shorter steps (obviously not stumpy legs) are often more commonly found in animals that have to be quick, particularly over short distances. Your legs might not be super long, but compared to the body, they are massive, and I'd imagine very hard to ensure stability at high speeds.

It might soudn nit-pickish, but the mind picks up these little things pretty quickly and says 'hang on, something's not quite right'.

Snipawolf wrote:Hehe, I love flamethrowers... These guys use a primitive sort of flamer, so I won't even go into why it doesn't look like a standard flamer IRL. Chris was complaining about giving away too much by showing the unit (lol) so I cut it, merely for his sake.

Ah, now THAT looks like a flamethrower.

Warlord Zsinj wrote:The proportions still feel a little awkward; I don't think You've quite got how an inversed-knee mechanism works, specifically with carrying balance and while walking.

http://www.anzovin.com/TSM2manual/image ... seknee.jpg
http://places.mongabay.com/south_america/flamingo.jpg
http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts ... rt_772.jpg
http://www.starwarsgalaxiesonline.com/c ... s/12_G.jpg
http://www.freakygaming.com/gallery/act ... ch_808.jpg

Note the distribution of joints (an extra joint is helpful), the position, length of members and relative proportion, as well as where they are positioned relative to the body.

Also, long legs does not necessarily correlate with quick. Shorter legs that take shorter steps (obviously not stumpy legs) are often more commonly found in animals that have to be quick, particularly over short distances. Your legs might not be super long, but compared to the body, they are massive, and I'd imagine very hard to ensure stability at high speeds.

It might soudn nit-pickish, but the mind picks up these little things pretty quickly and says 'hang on, something's not quite right'.

the leg proportions are directly copied from the original AK. i think my ak is about 1 unit (in wings) taller than the original.

Warlord Zsinj wrote:The AK was made up primarily of triangles, was very angular, and looked very quick.

hate to correct, but the original AK was made primarily of hidden faces.

I meant the geometric concept of a triangle, smarty pants



Also, your proportions don't at all look the same. Proportions are relative. Your legs, compared to your body, are not the same as the AK.

I'm not trying to bully you into 'it should look like this', because I understand that you don't want a carbon-copy AK. But there are certain logical proportions which the AK has followed, which makes it look more balanced and appropriate for a light-attack role. Note that the upper leg is not quite as long as the lower leg (the actual piece might be a similar leg, but it doesn't rotate on the end, as yours does).

Part of the problem might be that if this thing was to stand straight, the legs would probably be a lot more straight, occupying the current bent pose only in the middle of a step...

Warlord Zsinj wrote:I meant the geometric concept of a triangle, smarty pants

I'm not trying to bully you into 'it should look like this', because I understand that you don't want a carbon-copy AK.

i knew exactly what you meant, thus my comment

and indeed, im not trying to 'poly-up' the ota units, and imo the ak looks too *human* for the purposes of what im doing. im trying to make the Core forces look inhuman, more cold and machinelike.

Yeah, I know - but machines still follow basic laws of physics.

Also, it is quite common as to why most machine designs are loosely based on those of animals; partially because nature has a way of getting things perfect (or they die), but also because it is instantly familiar to a human onlooker as being 'correct'.

My problem with most of the 'out there' reworkings of TA ideas is that they feel the need to be different for the sake of being different. This usually means that they abandon many things that made a lot of sense, and were much of the reason that TA was good in the first place. This doesn't just apply to unit designs, it applies to balance and a host of other things too.

It's important to move beyond 'different' and arrive at 'better', which I don't think has happened just yet, though I think you're capable of it.

anyway. not sure what to do with the shoulder connections

Hmm. Starting to look more functional, and is less-obviously unbalanced, but it's not quite doing it for me. Which is ok, because nobody here's opinions should really matter that much anyhow, it's your art. Just bear in mind that plenty of people will try to pressure you anyhow which is, in my opinion, the main reason why nobody has gotten serious about making a new, coherent art set- nobody wants to listen to the whining.

If I were your art director, though, I'd probably say this (bear in mind, I'm fricking tiiiiired):

As a point of pure style, as opposed to function, I think that the body is too small. It doesn't feel right- it's not obvious where the source of power is, and unless you're invoking some very odd science for your fiction, the power is usually in the body of a mecha. However, most real-world robots, as opposed to fantasy robots, feel odd, so I have to cut you some slack there.

However, as a point of engineering concern, it appears that the legs, especially the lower sections, are probably over-sized for the amount of weight they're bearing, even assuming that they're armored. Cutting their width, and the width of the actuators, would probably cure it, although the hip-mounted actuators need to stay pretty wide, so that the final neutral stance makes sense. But that's just me.

Let's look at the Cavedog art a little more critically (bearing in mind that the OTA team was running out've time and money, and this stuff was done dead last in their production, IIRC):



IRL, unless the guns and the body are made of something very light, then this design would fall flat on its face. Even then, it would have extreme problems if it ever needed to stop moving, because momentum would not be in its favor. It might, maybe sort've work, if it moved all the time, but tbh, I don't think so.

Now, does any of this blarney actually matter? No! Get it done, get it painted, get it animated. Don't worry about us, we can make art of our own

It's fantasy! Invoke anti-gravity devices, computer-assisted mass-control via hydraulics, miniature jets that counteract momentum, or anything that you think will cancel out the problems, or just build what looks cool. I think that most of the "engineering" commentary we get around here is entirely beside the point, frankly, and I'm sorry I started another round, when my critique was mainly intended to help you get a better handle on your aesthetic, and make something kewl. Sorry