OXM cover power armor not as it is ingame

[Angry Russian User]

out of all rumours i know the most correct looks like the armor to be T-45d

 

[Ausir]

They had to modify the T-51b for Van Buren because there was too much clipping when they recreated it faithfully.

 

[Series8217]

.
X-Com: Ufo Defence had the weirdest Power Armor ever XDDDDDDD .

Well, yeah, it was based on alien technology!

 

[Sorrow]

They had to modify the T-51b for Van Buren because there was too much clipping when they recreated it faithfully.

What is clipping?

 

[Wooz]

Clicky Here for a wikianswer.

 

[Tagaziel]

Uh, actually, I think they meant that segments of the armour were going inside one another.

Yup, 'twas T-Ray who said the armour render in Fallout 1 had parts clipping. It wasn't visible in the intro, though.

 

[Brother None]

Yup, 'twas T-Ray who said the armour render in Fallout 1 had parts clipping. It wasn't visible in the intro, though.

No it wasn't. J.E. Sawyer noted T-Ray, who did the Fallout 1 intro, could get away with clipping that wouldn't be possible for in-game 3D effects. Here you go:

J.E. Sawyer[/url]]We tried to model the power armor as T-Ray did in the opening movie and game, but he could get away with clipping that would look really bad at close distances or certain angles. Simply put, building the Fallout power armor as it originally looked would have resulted in a suit with a tiny range of motion or a hilarious amount of clipping. We changed as much as we needed to allow for more flexibility in movement, but tried to stay very close to the original design whenever possible

J.E. Sawyer[/url]]Hi, Sean. Better Crafting: March of 2011.

Anyways, can clipping be observed in the Fallout 1 intro?

Little, if any. The soldiers don't move much and when rendering for a movie or any series of 2D frames, the animator doesn't really have to worry about weighting everything on a character. That is, if T-Ray wanted, he could just have pulled the metal as needed to avoid visible clipping.

Though that design was intended for the "real" F3 power armor (T-51b), we wanted to have an alternate texture for the armor Armstrong describes, T-45d, which ran off small energy cells. It would only have appeared in the tutorial as a "back in the day" detail.

P.S.: We had to drop some of the wiring detail on the helmet for polycount reasons.

 

[Tagaziel]

Whopps, looks like my thought took a shortcut through the neurons.

*lashes himself with +9 Cat o' Nine Tails from the Rapax Castle*

 

[Section8]

That excuse makes me wonder. FOV trickery that results in big heads/tiny feet becomes more pronounced the higher the FOV angle. The higher the angle, the more depth seems biased. Since the player camera is typically mounted at eye level, the head is always a bit closer than the body, and significantly closer than the feet. The result being that the depth bias causes the head to always seem proportionally bigger than it ought to.

If you take a look at:

You can clearly see that the left arm and the gun in the foreground seem grossly over proportioned. This is with a 75 degree FOV in Half-Life 2, the same FOV used in Oblivion:

Note the massive, torso-sized hand in the foreground.

If you look at the OXM cover, you can see very little depth bias. The gun, in the extreme foreground doesn't taper toward the camera, as you'd expect with a high FOV. The right arm is significantly closer to the camera than the left, and both seem reasonably proportioned.

The moral to the story? Once this art asset gets thrown into an engine rendering with a 75 degree FOV, that big head is going to seem even more pronounced:

Of course, I may be reading too much into it, and they may be planning to mount the player camera at nipple height, so the chest is biased to seem larger, but that's going to make the player feel like a boob-ogling midget.