Redesign 2: Siege Tank

see now that is a Fing siege tank. :good: i just can't understand why they can't stick to the gritty un cartoonish feel of the original, which you've captured so well. it's brilliant really.

my only comment as far as the animation might be that you retract the normal barrels to early. I'd have them retract while the siege barrels extend, as if they were all of one unit.

 

wow thats sick. i love how the tank "picks" up its second cannon in siege mode, the transformation is freakin creative and i love the gritty look. two thumbs up

 

Gooood morning everyone! Lovin' all the feedback. Okay, so lemme see if I can't try 'n tackle summa these:

@opm: Yes, I do remember that at least in SC1 the turrets retracted a lil later. I guess that can definitely be tweaked/changed. My note would be that the two turrets, siege and mobile mode, aren't one piece, as you can see, since the siege one is being attached after the fact. But anyway, good idea and thanks

@Ace_101, Slugonice, and a few other ppl: Here is the thread where I give out quite a chunk of information for those who are interested in what I do and what I use to do it. I even have a general tutorial/how-to thing in there but it is, indeed, very basic. It just gives you an idea. http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/index.php?topic=1989.15

@Paragon and Joneagle: I support the feedback from both you, and only request that my work isn't judged with bias (good or bad) and also not compared to other ppl's work in the forum. I do appreciate the intention of sticking up for me, Joneagle X. I think Paragon's very talented as well, and I also believe I had the chance to spend way more time on mine than he did his, and his came out well anyway. Again, as long as feedback is constructive, it can be negative and "picky" as it wants to be. One of my favorite dictum is my design professor saying, "There are no details." And Paragon, and I think Joneagle's point is just that since it's a siege tank that's ultimately futuristic and out of this world, we can always give the physics of it a benefit of the doubt and cut it a lil slack from reality. With the technology of Terrans, these things could be remote controlled for all we know. Heh... it's why artists stick with art, otherwise our beautifully designed cars won't even run, lol.

@Whut: VERY good points. I'm all for 'em. I dunno what else to say. But if I were to ever go back 'n modify it I would no doubt hit u'r suggestions. Thanks.

@Bnechbreaker: Here is the scale. I'm thinking that ingame proportions are usually quite different from real life proportions (a BC looks like it could hold about 8 marines, whereas in the cinematics it's like a floating city) and I'm not sure which one u'r requesting but here's one of each pic.

@everyone else: Thanks so much for all u'r support. I'm really glad y'all enjoy the work. Post Blizzcon few weeks have been a lil dry of information. So I think I hit some pretty good timing in terms of providing some entertainment, hehe. Look for my ultralisk "rampage" attack coming up. The idea was provided by fellow forum member "The Fearless."

 

hi

first of all thx everyone for the wellcomes hehe

ArchLimit u are a genius...my new idol !! Again, very nice model... I would be great if someone could link this and the cobra/colossus/reaper posts to blizzard forums so more ppl could see this (and blizzard employees)...
U seem to know exactly what ppl like/dont like about designs. Most ppl give a shit about things like if the X formation makes more sense for recoil and bla bla..
This is not a physics contest...it's a design one. Most ppl not liking X form despite knowing it's the "common sense" proves that.

Btw I think it would be more practical for you to to work (once u finish your projects) in things that need a change like zealot movement or nomad...

@paragon: No offence but seems like ur always unhappy with ppl work. Ehm u remind me of a childhood friend that seemed a lot like cartman..(he was fat too).. Seem you are too proud or too afraid to look like "licking ass" to say something nice of someones creation..
And pls dont reply with insults because I say it with my best intention...

 

Wow... the siege tnak really looks cool that way... It has many well designed details and the transformation sequence is well structured, so you can see tha changing-cannon. owerup: well done...

10 /10 for the design

 

Good job, but I don't really like the guns the tank has. It just feels kind of weird. I think it would look better if you just put one huge gun in seige mode instead of three linked together. I think it might be better for it to have bigger guns in tank mode as well.

 

@ Paragon , you will notice in the "self-propelled artillery" that you linked, the turret is fixed and forward-facing. It also requires the vehicle to be at a standstill, as you said.

What I meant by a tank being careful about being rolled over is that they often fire while moving and their turret is facing either side.

By firing straight forward the artillery piece you mentioned relies on its ballast to counteract the recoil.
Since the Seige Tank can fire in any direction, it requires feet to increase its "wheelbase" if you will.

As far as ArchLimit's actual design and you're constructive criticism. I'm simply saying that you are LOOKING for flaws. Pointing to the laws of physics and other status quo scientific theories clearly illustrates that you have no actually constructive ideas about the tank, simply that you don't like it.

Whether that's because it's not yours or not is your own determination.

You have no idea how armor works 200 or 300 years from now. Heck, you have no idea how it works 10 years from now!

If you could reinforce using sufficient plating that could actually ABSORB impact, for example, it might be BETTER to have open areas in the tank to allow for the expansion of the armor to absorb that impact. If the tank was completely solid (this is just an example) it might just crush it.

 

In the near future (next few years) armor will be made from nano-technology. This armor will be capable of a lot more stopping power than any other. It will replace ceramic plates in infantry armor and armor plates of vehicles.

So I assume it would be a lot better than that.

And I wasn't looking for problems, that was my first impression of it.
Also, I love how people don't mind if someone seems some flaws when they too see the flaws but if it's something that that person likes then suddenly its a bad thing to find any flaws.

 

Some people complain too much about the graphics. All of these things are very minor problems that don't even need to be fixed for SC2 to be a great game. A lot of you, over time, would even grow to like the designs of some of the units you dislike.

I thought the original Siege Tank that we saw in the first Gameplay Demo was the best design. It actually looked like a legitimate model. Yeah, it wasn't perfect and the "lips" were ugly, but overtime, you wouldn't even notice or care about the lips.

The current model, in Siege Mode, doesn't even look like a real tank. I think the "X-shaped" Siege Mode is great! It looks funny at first because you're used to the SC1 model, but when you think about it, it's very creative and original.

One more thing, the more people complain about little things, such as the graphics, the longer it will take for Blizzard to complete this project.

- Wuk

 

Nice stuff ArchLimit, you really have talent..

this reminds me that I actualy saw your animations on your website..

Colors and Virus were the 2 bests in my opinion.. and overall, Only 1 thing really annoyed me, the sounds effect and the music, they could be much better and that would truely enhance your stuff, being an electronic composer, I easily detect these lacks.. but I could also concentrate on the animations themself, because that's your part of the job.. I didn't like the content of "Virus" because that's not my genre of stuff.. but I did appreciate the work... It looks like a lot of work to make all these things move..

I did prefer "colors" even if it was simpler, the idea was great.

Anyway.. Good stuff, keep making more.. and I hope posting such a comment in a very popular thread will give you more visibility.

 

@ Paragon , so you're saying you've found an article on an armor that might not necessarily need to have such force behind it in order to stop an impact? Amazing that I said that in my post.

Also, when I see a suggestion that has flaws, I point them out. But I don't go digging in the sandbox to pull out random things that could be wrong with anything ANYONE ever designed.

Please link me to this article because it sounds like an amazing material and I'd like to read up on it.

@ wukwinn , I'd rather wait for a quality game that meets my standards for 10 years after the original so that I'm happy. I've waited 10 years, I can wait a couple extra months.

 

@joneagle, look in the title of the quote.
and dont bother arguing with paragon, you will lose.

Archlimit, very nice design! beats all designs ive seen recently! the only complaint i have for it has already been mentioned, the recoil on the gun in seige mode. i would owerup:, but have to wait for a few more hours.

 

I found that article a long time ago. And no, it does not justify your post. It would still be used just like any other armor.

the article's website is in the "quote from" part

 

@ burkid , thanks for the heads up on the link, but I think I can handle myself quite well in an argument, thank you. Why would you say that I "will lose"? Has Paragon like pwned me before or something? Just because he uses words like "stupid," "illogical," and "irrelevant" doesn't mean he effectively wins arguments.....

@ Paragon , how does that not justify my post? You're talking about a stronger armor that is more solid, therefore POSSIBLY needing less reinforcement than traditional armor. Yes, it may be more costly or harder to build, but who is to say that production costs won't be lowered in the future, etc.? Your post simply reinforces *pun* my suggestion that armor is continually being improved upon.

There is no way to tell if the Terrans have simply developed some kind of armor that does BETTER when the inner shell of the tank is only reinforced at key points. Whereas the armor acts as a kind of "shock absorber" to dissipate the force, and if it is reinforced too much, that effect is lost. It would actually be a revolutionary way of looking at armored vehicles. Traditionally we throw weight behind an impenetrable material and call it armor. This would be more like a spring that "catches" projectiles.

EDIT: @ Paragon, did you even read the entire article? I don't think you did. I think you selected pieces of it that might support what you say but avoids anything that might support my argument. That's not a good practice. In fact, it severely cripples your credibility. They call that "picking and choosing" sources.

Now, shock absorbtion can only occur when there is space BEHIND whatever material is being used. You can't absorb shock unless one of two things occurs:

1) The material is crushed, either momentarily or permanently.
2) There is space behind the material and it gives ground, momentarily or permanently.

Your own article has refuted your point and supported mine.

 

No, my point was that having the amount of empty space that that design had (a few feet) makes it structurally weaker. For something to be shock absorbing in this type of application you would need a few inches at most. Anything more and you risk compromising the structural integrity. A few inches empty space with lots of armor and braces is a lot better than lots of empty space and less armor. Thats a fact.

Oh noez my soresez n crediblizity r criptled!!!@!2!@!$!@%!%^ wait no...

Anyways, this thread should be about ArchLimit's tank not some discussion about armor.

 

The siege tank has a crew of 3 a gunner, driver, and commander/navigator.
http://battle.net/scc/terran/ut.shtml
Its in the first paragraph sorry but it was just bothering me.

 

Actually its usually a crew of 4. Leopard 2, Challenger 2, and M1A1 Abrams all have 4. A commander, gunner, loader/operator, and driver. I'm sure in the future the loader/operator role will be replaced by computers in main battle tanks. I think one of the newer self-propelled artillery has automated loading.

 

I'm not saying it's wrong to have Blizzard fix some of it's problems to make the game better, but is it really worth having them fix something minor, that won't really affect the game much, delaying the game even more?

 

@ wukwinn , no, but I would approve of them taking the time to consider all options before releasing the game and then realizing it was a mistake.

@ brc , thanks for the correction. I was mistaken. I had assume from the avatar of the unit and the number of supplies taken up by the unit that there was only one driver/commander/gunner.

@ Paragon , once again you've taken a childish approach to a post. And yes, in today's terms of technology a few inches would better serve a tank than a lot of space would. Especially if the first layer was both armor and a shock absorber, and then the second layer was another layer of armor. That would further reinforce it. But wouldn't it be cheaper to produce these tanks if the outer shell was deemed to take enough damage to be worth the cost of losing the tank slightly sooner? It could also make the tank a lot lighter if it wasn't reinforced as much. That could greatly increase its speed without increasing the capacity and size of the engines. Smaller engine, more room for the crew.

Your problem is you seem to be limited by current technology. The Terrans, since they're in a make-believe and futuristic world, are not limited by this technology.

 

And you're under the assumption that they want a cheap and light tank instead of the strongest motherf**ker they can get.
Besides, a zergling can destroy a siege tank. They have claws. I doubt they can apply 250 tons per square centimeter of force. So maybe in the future the terrans there have ****ty armor because they had to start almost from scratch and build back up over only a few hundred years.