After hitting a wall on the LE version of the H.ARM suit, I decided to take the elements that I like from it and instead use them in the MK2. Being a very early prototype I envisioned the creators and engineers struggling to find the balance between protection vs. mobility. To solve this their answer was to experiment with both soft and hard armor plating. I've ruffed in my first thoughts... will refine and clean up as I go.
What is that frame over the top, above the head?
ReplyDeletepsssh. U know what that is. I put it in there just for you. :P
ReplyDeleteThat's really cool. Personally, and I say this as someone who really is in no position to make any suggestions or criticisms of your frankly awesome work, I think you should change the gun out for something larger. As it is in the pre-vis, it looks about the size of an M-90 anti-material rifle, and I would have thought having a weapons platform for a rifle that is capable of being operated by a normal soldier would maybe be a little bit overkill. what I loved about the other HARM suits was that they enabled a soldier to carry an ordnance they they would have no other way of carrying, making them a highly mobile heavy weapons platform. Perhaps somethign like a miniaturised rail gun for anti-material?
ReplyDeleteDamn you Eliott, stop doing such amazing work.
ReplyDeleteYou make my work pale by comparison ;)
Seriously though... amazing stuff! you are an inspiration.
Hey Tom-
ReplyDeleteI debated on the size of the weapon as well, but ended up with a smaller gun in an attempt to better show the H.ARM suits' progression and evolution. ( As the technology improves, so does the payload and armor capabilities of the suit. Thus, the MK4 can carry more than the MK3, and offers better protection to the operator, etc.). As I see it, even if its only a .50 cal gun on the Mk2, the fact that it can be one-handed, is the benefit of the suit.
However, you bring up a very good point and I've always had the itch to draw a bad ass gun and kinda throw my logic out the window. Is it better to have a bad ass robot that breaks the fiction? or a sensible robot that's not quite as bad ass? I dunno. You pointing this out may be the final straw on the camels back. lol. I will do both and see which I like better. Thanks.
Mark-
Glad you are liking the work. Thanks for the comments. :D
Hi Eliott,
ReplyDeleteFunnily enough, I was having a conversation to that effect yesterday, about whetehr it's better to ground your designs in reality, but then run the risk of being "unoriginal", or to just create whatever the hell you can dream of, but then run the risk of it being unbelievable.
I think the conclusion we came to is that there really isn't a conclusive answer to that. I think providing the concept fits into the world you create, you can do whatever you please. I mean, look at Star Trek and beaming people up. That has no grounding in reality, yet it works within the universe they create.
But similarly, if your game/film/graphic novel was set against a gritty, real world setting, it might seem strange to bring in fantastical designs that test people suspension of disbelief, and suspension of disbelief is everything when you are creating a work of fiction.
Elliot, there should be a balance. District 9 robot became iconic just because it was easy to accept, it had a lot of bridges to real world things, but it was mindblowing as design thing. If it's too much - it's too much :)
ReplyDeleteYeh, you guys both have very valid points. Personally I have come to the conclusion that the answer is not set in stone because each idea presented to the public is judged on a case-by-case basis. Such that if your idea can excite and win over the imagination of the audience, they will be more forgiving of the logistics if you support your claim with a hand full of elements which they can understand. However, an idea that is not supported by familiar elements can easily be dismissed as "impossible" or "unbelievable". At the end of the day i believe it rests on your execution and how well you tie your ideas in to the fiction/ environment, etc. that will determine if the viewer is accepting of your vision or not.
ReplyDelete