Discussion in 'Backers Lounge (Read-only)' started by garat, July 17, 2013.
Eh, I like it.
I say leave the shield on.I like how it adds a bit of bulk to the lathe.
It's more faithful a representation than the current official version.
So now... we just need someone important to come and talk to us. What's going on with Commanders Neutrino?
It's a more faithful representation to the concept art Uber came up with, than the model Uber did themselves.
You do realise they're allowed to make modifications based on how the unit is animated and works ingame?
You do realise that demanging develoepr interaction when all you're going to do is "why haven't you done this, do this now" isn't going to get you squat, right?
There is a difference between the ability to influence the game, and assuming that you can dictate changes on your terms.
Not addressed to Nanolathe in particular, more of a general view. I do note that it's always the same group of posters complaining about everything, mind.
Oh, sorry Gorbles, we thought this was the thread to discuss the Alpha Commander and for the community to give feedback in exactly the same way that we did for the Delta.
Apparently we were mistaken.
Knight's is a more faithful representation, yes. That doesn't mean squat however; it's just a model (no offence at all Knight, you're doing great work). What matters is are we to expect every bipedal Commander to share the same Rig and Animations? Even considering an even split, out of 100 you'd have 25 commanders who look almost exactly the same in their movement, stature and (largely) silhouette. What knock on effect does this have for those that have backed at the $1k level?
If you don't care what the Alpha Commander looks like, or the ramifications that having such a limited pool of skeletons to draw from means for the rest of the Commanders both standard and custom, then please let those that do care, continue to express an interest in further information on the subject.
We have not gotten clarification on the flexibility of the Rigging and Animation systems. Considering the last time a developer posted in this thread was over a month ago, I'd say that an update on the situation is not too much to be asking.
I would be very interested to hear Uber's take on all this as well.
I know a lot less about design and animation than a lot of the other commentators on this thread appear to know, but I do share the sentiment that the Alpha commander, as he currently appears, is a fair way removed from the concept art.
So I suppose mine's more a case of 'Why did you decide to do it differently?' than anything else.
Sure Nano, but the tone of discussion has gone around and around for the past gawd-knows how many pages.
Eh, I'm not a moderator.
Your opinion is not absolute, you know. I see nothing wrong with the current Alpha Commander, personally, though I'd have to study the mesh in more detail to compare it to the community-provided alternative (which is also nothing to sniff at).
We have mushroomars demanding the community member to remove the shield on the lathe.
We have you emphatically stating that it is more faithful than the current concept art. Concept art, by definition, being conceptual and thus subject to change. This is where the excuse that came out earlier in the thread gets tossed out of "but that's what we paid for" (lulz, if you paid $100 up for a cosmetic change and nothing else then you have more money than sense).
"Why did you do it differently", as asked above, is a great place to start. Demanding changes and wondering why Uber produced such an inferior model are not, in my humble opinion. I can post my opinion, right? That is allowed?
The discussion has gone round and round in circles for over a month because we've had no new information injected into the discussion pool. That's how discussions work. We have not enough information.
I have never made the assumption that uber is incapable of representing their own concept art accurately, and not many people here have posted anything along those lines. We are well aware that the team at Uber is talented. While there are a few that seek to change The Alpha Commander to something more closely resembling the concept art that was never the thrust of the conversation, at least not to my eyes. The issue is, and always has been the Rigging and Animation system and its flexibility (or apparent lack there of).
We only have what Uber has decided to give us... and what they've given us is reason enough to question.
Why did Garat start a thread start a thread and then offer not a word of followup for the same clarification request being asked for over and over again?
You bet your damn arse I'm getting emphatic with my tone Gorbles after dangling on the end of the line for a-hundred-and-fifty posts.
Mike managed to show the copied Rig on post #30.
This is post #188.
You can absolutely post your opinion by the way Gorbles. But that's a two way street you're driving on there. Some people are of the opinion that the Alpha Commander (as presented) represents enough of an issue to request clarification.
Most of us are not asking for change, just a SitRep on where Commanders stand with regards to the flexibility of the Rig and Animation systems.
I never implied that you said that Uber were incapable (etc, this is getting a tad ridiculous). However when you say the community model is more faithful to the concept art than the current implementation is, it means you would prefer the community model (or Uber's replica thereof) in place of the current model.
Does it not? Am I perceiving the statement incorrectly? Is Uber's model actually more faithful, despite you saying the exact opposite?
I'm not quite sure where this is going, you two. Can we agree that in order for this discussion to progress we need a little more developer input, and in the meantime stay away from each others' throats?
Of course I'd prefer the one that looks more like the thing they pitched originally... Because the concept art looked different and cool. The "New Alpha" looks like the Delta after he accidentally fell over in a factory that made boxes.
However the criticism of the model is of secondary concern. The Alpha sharing the same Rig and Animations is primarily important as it has further reaching implications... like having 25 Commanders all looking like the Delta after accidentally falling into variety of differently shaped boxes from the factory.
It doesn't matter HOW good the model looks, faithful to the concept or no, if they all share the same proportions, animations and similar silhouettes.
By making the Alpha, just the Delta dressing up as a cardboard robot for halloween, you lose the feeling that these Commanders are unique beings in a galaxy of recycled tech. You lose the feeling that each commander is an individual... because they're not. They're very clearly the Delta, wearing a different costume.
You lose much of the hope of people forming attachments to these characters, in terms of play or looks; because they are all carbon copies. Altering the abilities of the Alpha isn't going to do anything for how he looks. If we stay with the current implementation of One-Size-Fits-All rig design, you're just going to have 25 different bipedal Commanders who all look like the Delta with various types of box attached to him.
To me, that is a poor option, and I would like clarification as to whether this is true or not.
Is Uber going with One-Size-Fits-All rig design?
Is there any inbuilt flexibility to these rigs, and if so, why does the Alpha not take advantage of this?
That's fair enough Nano, I'd personally disagree, but I don't tend to get quite so attached to animation cycles for a unit that will be performing the same tasks over and over again.
I mean, it'd be cool, but you can animate different motions to two different models that have the same rig. So that's not necessarily a problem.
It can be a problem, but possibly not as dramatic as the way you've described it. I'd hope not at least, but I guess that's why you're waiting on an answer. I dislike hyperbole, as ever
We have seen no evidence to suggest that altering the animations is something Uber is going to do.
We have not had clarification on this statement over just how Commanders will be constrained.
"Certain constraints on the overall design"...
such as? Are we talking Animations? Proportions? Both?
Must the Commanders all share the same Lathe and Gun arms?
Exactly how flexible are your Rigs and Animation systems?
From what we have seen, and from what you have presented to us so far, it indicates practically zero flexibility. Is that accurate?
Nanolathe pretty much hit on everything important, but I'll just Sum up;
The Alpha's Design is only a symptom of a greater issue and while I do not like the 'official' design, and would like to see it more representative of the concept that Uber sold us(on merchandise no less) the Alpha design is far from the Main issue at hand. The real issue is what caused those changes and thier implications for future commander design.
One only needs to look at the Progenitor and wonder what will happen to it as it clearly doesn't doesn't fit the Delta Rig anymore than the Alpha did;
We've been over this time and again throughout the thread but we still have to expolain it every time it seems, don't people read the thread?
Damn the Progenitor is cool.
Armoured Loin Cloth; 'nuff said.
It's a bipedal robot. The rig will fit fine. The main issue is how the mesh is positioned, which in the Alpha's case ends up blocky (with regards to the shoulder positioning).
In any case, you've stated your position. I've stated another position. To claim a slippery slope fallacy as well as infer I'm not reading the thread is, well, moderately insulting.
Trust me, it won't fit well.
I think it's most unfortunate that they choose to create a new commander from scratch that is quite distant in terms of proportions compared to the already presented concepts and then use that as the 'standard' instead.
You're an artist, have you already mocked up the Progenitor and applied Uber's base rig (if we can pull that with the current community import/export tools) to it?
I only have a basic knowledge of the medium (well, amateur really), but I don't see how it won't fit given how a bipedal skeleton works for most humanoid body forms. This isn't strictly bipedal (flat shoulders, head embedded in top centre of body, trapeze/block hips), but all Commanders that I have seen (I admit, I haven't seen all hundred or w/e) appear to share these similar characteristics.
Why should he need to do a mock up? We've already seen the Alpha Commander and how it is but a vague facsimile of the original concept. The Progenitor will fare no better. The hips will be too slim, the legs will be spaced too close together, the shoulders will not be wide enough and he's going to be sharing the same, wooden-*** pose that the Delta is sporting and walk around like he's got an inanimate carbon rod up his ***, not to mention that we've seen no evidence that they'll even change the Lathe/Gun arms to something unique looking.
The shoulders on the Progenitor are too wide to fit the rig. Aside from that he wouldn't have those exhaust-thingies on the back because the torso is too short. I also think the forelegs are out of proportion to the thighs (in relation to other models).
Similarly to the Alpha, the Progenitor has ecksbawks hueg arms compared to the Delta, and as a result his forearms swing lower. This would require another change to the rig to keep the forearms from detaching from the elbows.
Also, Uber would HAVE to add an extra bone to make the loincloth swing as the Progenitor walked. They can ruin every other model, but if they didn't add that, I would never forgive them.
Separate names with a comma.