Page 4 of 4

Re: Powered Armour

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:01 am
by Monroe
would red and black look better for Magmatic? Red and yellow works but its uglier than sulfur :P (Sulfur should be ugly, its an ugly element)

Re: Powered Armour

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:05 am
by Graham Kennedy
Maybe... red and black is kinda hard to do though. Anything and black is hard to do, the way I am doing these!

Re: Powered Armour

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:29 pm
by Mikey
GrahamKennedy wrote:
Mikey wrote:Um... I like all the camo variations, but didn't you mention the fact that the Coalition has variable appearance or chameleon tech? If so, this would be the ideal candidate.
Yes, absolutely. These aren't paint jobs; these are examples of the different appearances it could assume.
Ah. Very cool, then. But wouldn't the ball joints assume the scheme along with all the sheet metal?

Re: Powered Armour

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:37 pm
by Graham Kennedy
I'm thinking that the ball joints don't get the surface coat because they have surfaces scraping over them. Kinda like how you don't paint over the moving parts of a hinge.

Re: Powered Armour

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:50 am
by shran
Would it be beneficial for the central hull to have a hinge in the middle as well, so that it can face the enemy easier when suddenly attacked from behind?

Re: Powered Armour

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:40 am
by Graham Kennedy
shran wrote:Would it be beneficial for the central hull to have a hinge in the middle as well, so that it can face the enemy easier when suddenly attacked from behind?
It's an idea, but the only way to do it would be to have the whole body section on a ring that could rotate independently of the legs. I don't think it's that practical when the whole thing can just turn around if needed.

Re: Powered Armour

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:17 pm
by Mikey
True, and joints are inherently weak spots in the design. The less, the better.