New Resource Tower Model
esseph
Join Date: 2009-01-23 Member: 66161Members
Join Date: 2009-01-23 Member: 66161Members
<div class="IPBDescription">New Resource Tower Model Suggestion</div>blame this thread on x5.
/me points finger at the instigator
Anyway, he was ###### to me on steam about the design for the new resource tower compared to the old one.
After comparing the two models, and having an in-dept discussion about the importance of this structure, I believe the new design (although well modeled and textured) simply doesn't have the... "weight" it should.
The following is the humble perspective of a SGT in the US Army who just got back from Iraqi about two months ago, so take that for what it's worth.
First let me say the current "new" model isn't bad, but it could use some refinement.
From a logistical perspective, it needs to be able to completely fold into itself into possible a rectangle shape.
For deployment and mobility, it needs to extend outward and provide a very stable base/footprint.
For the act of gathering resources, the structure needs to be able to deploy, solidify it's footprint, base, and center of gravity, and also protect itself.
My proposed suggestion, is keep the basic vertical rectangular shape. Give it six legs, two rows of 3 legs each. Each one nearly 1/6th of the total size of the structure. This would allow the design to have a "honeycomb" shape once deployed. One side, or two sides of the resource tower could push out (armored of course) for control and interaction with the structure. The other sides could have telescoping armored plating that comes out of the legs themselves, enclosing the final shape. Also, the upper section could lower itself along with the legs to lower it's center of gravity. Also, imagine something like tent spikes protruding from the "feet" of each leg, with each foot having an almost hoof-like shape.
The end result, is that you have a highly armored structure with a low center of gravity, a very sturdy honeycomb shape, and yet you still have interaction on one or two sides of the structure... and it can enclose upon itself for storage and logistics.
Just my humble 0.02.
- esseph
/me points finger at the instigator
Anyway, he was ###### to me on steam about the design for the new resource tower compared to the old one.
After comparing the two models, and having an in-dept discussion about the importance of this structure, I believe the new design (although well modeled and textured) simply doesn't have the... "weight" it should.
The following is the humble perspective of a SGT in the US Army who just got back from Iraqi about two months ago, so take that for what it's worth.
First let me say the current "new" model isn't bad, but it could use some refinement.
From a logistical perspective, it needs to be able to completely fold into itself into possible a rectangle shape.
For deployment and mobility, it needs to extend outward and provide a very stable base/footprint.
For the act of gathering resources, the structure needs to be able to deploy, solidify it's footprint, base, and center of gravity, and also protect itself.
My proposed suggestion, is keep the basic vertical rectangular shape. Give it six legs, two rows of 3 legs each. Each one nearly 1/6th of the total size of the structure. This would allow the design to have a "honeycomb" shape once deployed. One side, or two sides of the resource tower could push out (armored of course) for control and interaction with the structure. The other sides could have telescoping armored plating that comes out of the legs themselves, enclosing the final shape. Also, the upper section could lower itself along with the legs to lower it's center of gravity. Also, imagine something like tent spikes protruding from the "feet" of each leg, with each foot having an almost hoof-like shape.
The end result, is that you have a highly armored structure with a low center of gravity, a very sturdy honeycomb shape, and yet you still have interaction on one or two sides of the structure... and it can enclose upon itself for storage and logistics.
Just my humble 0.02.
- esseph
Comments
Indeed, and welcome to the community esseph.
I'm not sure, wether to say welcome to the community or welcome 2nd account of x5 or why the need for an extra thread, when your suggestions completely fit to the original thread's topic.
Indeed, and welcome to the community esseph.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks.
Yes, a triangle is fairly sturdy. However a triangle with a high center of gravity is not, it's like a suv going around a corner to fast.
Also, there are exposed joints on those legs. A small explosive... say, approx. 14 grams of semtex will take the linking mechanism out fairly quickly. Then all one has to do is hit near top of the structure on the opposite side. It would effectively be on two legs at that point, so a high perpendicular force would completely destabilize it.
I say this because I've been in a Real Life similar situation w/ a 4 legged structure.
I appreciate your criticism however, I just don't agree. Different strokes for different folks as they say.
I'm not sure, wether to say welcome to the community or welcome 2nd account of x5 or why the need for an extra thread, when your suggestions completely fit to the original thread's topic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're absolutely right, and hopefully a decent forum admin will move this onto the correct thread.
- And when exactly did you get back/what unit were you with? I'm also a sergeant that just got back in Oct - but I'll be out of the army come Feb.
I'm not sure what you guys are talking about triangles being stable when you apply them to SUVs. The reason "triangles are stable" is because a) "they" are talking about equilateral triangles, and b) "they" are talking about uniformly distributed weight.
In reference to the SUV, thats actually a 'rectangle' with most of the weight in the bottom.. but for arguements sake lets say its a triangle (or better yet a 3 sided cylinder laying on one of the 3 sides). So two corners of this cylinder triangle are at the bottom of each side of wheels, and the third corner is a line which goes down the middle of the roof. The big problem as this triangular SUV rounds the corner is that the weight is not evenly distributed, most of the weight (the engine) is 4 feet off the ground. Which is either at or above the center of this triangle, so the triangle corrects this by pointing the "heaviest" side down and flips the vehicle.
...at least thats a really basic way of looking at it. Its actually a really wierd shape so all thats bull****.
Now, apply this same reference to the new res tower concept and you meet something similar, except with the SUV there is a frame and tires and other heavy things to consider. With the res tower, <u>all</u> the weight appears to be in the large 'box' like top - which would make it even more top heavy than the SUV.
To confuse anyone who is still reading even further, I would suggest instead to think of the res tower as a sphere - a ball which would surround the entire structure. Looking at it this way, you can easily see almost all the mass of this ball is in the top half as the bottom half is mostly air. So almost all the weight in the top half is being supported by the bottom half's structure. This is why taking out one leg (as esseph suggests) would be enough to tip the entire structure over with a push from the opposite side -> even with the "fifth leg" in the middle. Because by removing one leg of the square, you are actually taking nearly 50% of the bottom half of the structure away. The 'sphere' wants to have its heaviest end closest to gravity, and with nothing blocking the fall of the piece.. it will fall.
I don't hate this model or concept - I think they look great. But esseph is right about the poor structure. An easy way to fix it would be to replace each one leg with two, each pointing out at 45 degrees from the current legs. Thereby having 8 at the end of it (really 9 with the one in the middle). And lowering the body couldn't hurt in any case...
Not sure if anyone is gonna read that all the way through, but if you did, hope you enjoyed it. Unless I'm wrong.. and in that case feel free to correct me.
/End architect opinion.
First off, I said "A triangle is surprisingly sturdy if it has <u>a large enough base</u>," which was another way of saying that the center of gravity is lower than the midpoint. There's two parts to the triangle discussion, and this first one is when you look at the triangle from the side view (like a pyramid from the side). If this triangle is standing up and you push it from either side, it will pretty much never tip over if the base is wider than either adjacent side. If you can form this triangle in the structure, it's fine.
The second part of this triangle thing is looking at the triangle from the top view (like... a triangle coffee table?); a triangle of legs would be fine here. It's not as good as 4 legs (square, like this model), but it is infinitely more stable than two legs (which wouldn't hold up since it forms a line). I'm just bringing this up to make sure there's no ambiguity, and also show that your argument about how 6 legs would be more stable is a bit silly. Those are hydraulically powered steel girder legs. They'll hold it laterally no problem.
You're saying an SUV is not top-heavy? (you said its center of gravity is low). Their centers of gravity are significantly higher than most vehicles because of a lot of things, like higher ground clearance and far more size and material in the upper section of the car (seats and such). Even worse, the looser suspension makes SUVs even easier to tip during a turn; it'd be like cutting little triangles into the bottom corners of a box you're pushing.
Then add in that it the rt is actually suspended (even better) and sits on a sturdy metallic nozzle.
Anyways. That may all be hard to take in without images. But, like I said before and like battlearmour (the architect, above) said, this structure would be more than enough to be feasibly sturdy.
"I said "A triangle is surprisingly sturdy if it has a large enough base," which was another way of saying that the center of gravity is lower than the midpoint."
-I have to disagree with you here though. These are not the same thing.. it seems like you're saying that the heavier something is, the wider the base should be. And while thats true, my arguement was to give the RT more legs and to lower the center - which would in effect widen the base comparatively (even though the legs aren't really widening).
But going back to how you're saying the two statements are the same.. say you put a bowling ball on a string (or rope or whatever.. a heavy weight dangling from a rope), and you take 3 6 foot poles tied together on one end to make a pyramid shape with a good distance between the legs. Now, if you dangle the weight from the center of the tie so that the ball is an inch off the ground, and then try to lift one of the poles - you're going to get a lot of resistance. Instead lets say you dangle the weight one inch from the tie at the top, and again try to lift one of the poles, it will be (compartively) much easier, and you should be able to flip the poles no problem.
If you're saying that when the weight is tied an inch from the tie at the top that the legs should be wider than the weight at the bottom example.. I'll agree with you - but thats one of the problems with the RT the way it is - its not wide enough for its height.
I also have to disagree with you here: "your argument about how 6 legs would be more stable is a bit silly. Those are hydraulically powered steel girder legs. They'll hold it laterally no problem."
-What I think esseph was talking about, and what I definately was, was how the structure would hold up should one of the legs fail. I completely agree with battlearmor that the legs it has could hold it up on their own, but what if there were a strong wind.. or a rampaging onos.. or a skulk who bit on the same spot for an hour to bite the leg off.. what happens then?
The reason for esseph's 6 legs (or for my 8) suggestion is just for 'back up' support. The only reason I suggest going with 8 legs is because you wouldn't have to completely replace the model, just do a slight revamp with the four sides with legs.
And while I did say that the suspension above the nozzle would be like a 9th leg.. it really wouldn't. The nozzle attachment would probably support almost no weight because (unless I'm wrong) its a hollow tube. In fact I'd be a little suprised if the nozzle attachment weren't supposed to be loosely connected to the rest of the structure to save it from damage.
As battlearmor said: "(moving pieces, things or people that may climb ontop of it though that doesn't really matter in a game, right?)"
-In the end, it doesn't really matter.. its just what the devs want it to look like. This is all just my personal opinion.
to be able to destroy a single leg but if you really wanted then you could just do a bit of modelling and replace the model that is the
resource tower and also if you think that aliens that can evolve in minutes is realistic then you have a very bleak future
to be able to destroy a single leg but if you really wanted then you could just do a bit of modelling and replace the model that is the
resource tower and also if you think that aliens that can evolve in minutes is realistic then you have a very bleak future<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed.
The model looks functional for the game play that UW is attempting to create.
By it's size/shape it may encourage Aliens to bite it while hiding on the side away from incoming marines. This could encourage team play of paired/grouped Marines to cover both sides of a resource tower under attack, while also offering the Aliens a bit of cover to do their job.
Rather than argue issues of practicality from reality in a game where matter "warps in" from "thin air" after being "created from collected nanites", perhaps it would be more constructive to argue potential model configuration and damaged models for intermediary stages of Resource Tower Destruction?
Except an onos will likely be ramming the RT at 50MPH... with the way it looks now, it would look highly immersion-breaking if the onos <i>didn't</i> topple it.
This isn't so much a matter of realism as it immersion. It would be cartoon-like to see a skulk pick up the command chair and shake it around like a dog toy. It's funny at first sure, but then it just looks stupid and sticks out like a eye-sore compare to the level of immersion in the rest of the game. Artistic consistency I believe is the term used in the industry. TF2 for example, as the same level of cartoony-ness in throughout the game; or for another example, the original Ghost Recon was suprisingly realistic and kept it at that same calber throughout the design (which actually attracted many people who didn't enjoy how most FPS were too unrealistic). Both of these example did an excellent job of keeping the immersion of the game consistent and the art style consistent.
The current resource tower breaks the consistency, and considering how important it is to the game, it needs to be fixed.
The current resource tower breaks the consistency, and considering how important it is to the game, it needs to be fixed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Solution:
Add 4 leg-locks to the ground node area to which the tank attaches with its feet.
Legs act as a frame for the tank. The central tank moves up and down while the legs hold stance.
The legs could still have their bellowing action, but that action would be an extension in the frame, rather then being the frame.
Fades move faster than Onos.
A leaping skulk almost out leaps a charging Onos.
Onos do not move at 50 MPH. 15, maybe 17, but surely not 50.
If they move faster in NS2, fine.
Again we are discussing attributes of an item that has not been beta tested for look and feel yet.
By it's size/shape it may encourage Aliens to bite it while hiding on the side away from incoming marines. This could encourage team play of paired/grouped Marines to cover both sides of a resource tower under attack, while also offering the Aliens a bit of cover to do their job.
Rather than argue issues of practicality from reality in a game where matter "warps in" from "thin air" after being "created from collected nanites", perhaps it would be more constructive to argue potential model configuration and damaged models for intermediary stages of Resource Tower Destruction?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is another arguement which I would love to see come true (damaged models that is), but thats not the issue here. The issue is that these new models are supposed to represent what has happened in the world of Natural Selection after a few years at war with the kharaa. As the_x5 said, its about immersion - of the players into the game world. So why would humans 'progress' to a weaker res tower?
"Solution:
Add 4 leg-locks to the ground node area to which the tank attaches with its feet."
That has actually been suggested a couple times.. and I think its a good idea. I think the over-all look is also a bit off, but I'm not as strongly against it as the_x5 is.
I'll try my best to explain it, and won't bother getting into the complex equations. We need to take into account a few things here. First, there's the fact that the Onos doesn't travel at 50MPH, probably about 15-20. Although they may do so in NS2, as MaximumGrule already mentioned. Although the strength is up for debate. (Would have to place it as N, since I do not know the actual weight of a typical Onos.)
Next, take into account the four points where the weight is distributed and their composition (what they're made of, how they're made, are they composite, etc, and the maximum amount of weigh they can take.)
A visual example: (I couldn't find the exact imagine I was looking for, so this would have to do.)
<img src="http://physicslearning.colorado.edu/PiraHome/ResourceCD/ResourceImages/PhysicsDrawings/Static_Torque_Beam.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
M which is the mass, (calculated into weight by multiplying by the force of gravity which is about 9.81m/s, (actually, it could possibly differentiate between planets, but lets ignore that.) would be for this case the static resource tower and would be attached to the beam, or the beam itself in a sense. So you can for the most part ignore the distance x weight equation, and simpyl consider it as the deadweight of the beam. And each pivot is equally spread out across it, which would share the stress of it. (Decide the length between the center of gravity and the pivot, then x4 to get the overall.)
Now, depening on the materials, how they're composed and how they're made, (if any heat treatment, etc, are used to strengthen it further,) they should theoretically be able to support the strucutre, even if one of the struts go down. (That is the reason there is a safety factor. To compensate for the immense stress, and to avoid going beyond its maximum bening point so it doesn't go into a state of elasticity and break.) So if they are manufactured in a certain way, they could be able to support the beam even if one of the struts go down. And perhaps even the adjacent strut aswell. (Two opposite one another.) Although if two on connecting sides went down it's a good possibility the entire structure will topple over if the center of gravity is disturbed and unable to be supported properly / compensated by the remaining pivots.
There's a number of variables to take into consideration here, the speed and weight of the Onos, the stationary resource tower, its height, weight etc, the point and angle of which it is struck, its safety factor and elasticity (how much it can bend before losing its shape permanently and breaking.) And I won't bother going into foundations, ground conditions or changes in atmosphere, since that seems kind of irrelevant for a computer game. Hell, half of this is me probably taking this too seriously. So ignore this if you want.
Also, nasty skulks hastling your resource towers? Too tall to shoot through? Just toss a few grenades over it and there goes your pest control problem.
-battlearmour
- And when exactly did you get back/what unit were you with? I'm also a sergeant that just got back in Oct - but I'll be out of the army come Feb.
I'm not sure what you guys are talking about triangles being stable when you apply them to SUVs. The reason "triangles are stable" is because a) "they" are talking about equilateral triangles, and b) "they" are talking about uniformly distributed weight.
In reference to the SUV, thats actually a 'rectangle' with most of the weight in the bottom.. but for arguements sake lets say its a triangle (or better yet a 3 sided cylinder laying on one of the 3 sides). So two corners of this cylinder triangle are at the bottom of each side of wheels, and the third corner is a line which goes down the middle of the roof. The big problem as this triangular SUV rounds the corner is that the weight is not evenly distributed, most of the weight (the engine) is 4 feet off the ground. Which is either at or above the center of this triangle, so the triangle corrects this by pointing the "heaviest" side down and flips the vehicle.
...at least thats a really basic way of looking at it. Its actually a really wierd shape so all thats bull****.
Now, apply this same reference to the new res tower concept and you meet something similar, except with the SUV there is a frame and tires and other heavy things to consider. With the res tower, <u>all</u> the weight appears to be in the large 'box' like top - which would make it even more top heavy than the SUV.
To confuse anyone who is still reading even further, I would suggest instead to think of the res tower as a sphere - a ball which would surround the entire structure. Looking at it this way, you can easily see almost all the mass of this ball is in the top half as the bottom half is mostly air. So almost all the weight in the top half is being supported by the bottom half's structure. This is why taking out one leg (as esseph suggests) would be enough to tip the entire structure over with a push from the opposite side -> even with the "fifth leg" in the middle. Because by removing one leg of the square, you are actually taking nearly 50% of the bottom half of the structure away. The 'sphere' wants to have its heaviest end closest to gravity, and with nothing blocking the fall of the piece.. it will fall.
I don't hate this model or concept - I think they look great. But esseph is right about the poor structure. An easy way to fix it would be to replace each one leg with two, each pointing out at 45 degrees from the current legs. Thereby having 8 at the end of it (really 9 with the one in the middle). And lowering the body couldn't hurt in any case...
Not sure if anyone is gonna read that all the way through, but if you did, hope you enjoyed it. Unless I'm wrong.. and in that case feel free to correct me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was the 76th Light Infantry Brigade, C Co 1-293 Infantry Fire Support NCO / Joint Fires Observer and also "acting" as a 25U. I got back in the states on the 25th of November. I'm with a different unit now though; the newly formed 1-219 Battlefield Surveillance (sp?)Brigade (Airborne/Ranger), HHD Fire Support NCO / Joint Fires Observer.
As far as the SUV analogy, you're correct, it was highly flawed and a bad example. What I was trying to point out is when an SUV goes around a corner (and suspension and vehicle weight start to roll to frame) there are actually 3 wheels that have contact on the ground (for the most part), with one of them bearing the brunt of the weight... it's also not an equalateral triangle anyway.
So like I said, that was a very poor analogy. I was pretty tired when i wrote that however, so that's my defense (heh).
I think what this all comes down to is a couple of things we've all touched on.
[1] The importance of consistency in relation to immersion. IE: Keeping things "realistic" in terms of the fictional setting, as to not "break character".
[2] The importance of "over-engineering" a structure without making it some mechanically complex that it becomes a hazard to itself.
[3] The importance of intelligent benign discussion from the community you are targeting and trying to please.
-
It would be a shame to see this thread die and not have any changes to the resource tower. There have been some very good suggestions to far, with hopefully more to follow.
*hint, hint*
its a game, realize that please. the devs res tower looks good and realistic for that genre NS2 will place in.
it has to look good, not be rebuildable in reality.
I think what this all comes down to is a couple of things we've all touched on.
[1] The importance of consistency in relation to immersion. IE: Keeping things "realistic" in terms of the fictional setting, as to not "break character".
[2] The importance of "over-engineering" a structure without making it some mechanically complex that it becomes a hazard to itself.
[3] The importance of intelligent benign discussion from the community you are targeting and trying to please.
-
It would be a shame to see this thread die and not have any changes to the resource tower. There have been some very good suggestions to far, with hopefully more to follow.
*hint, hint*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Couldn't have said it better. I'm hoping to see a least a little change in the RT, but theres a long time 'til release, so plenty of time for adjustments.
<!--quoteo(post=1698542:date=Jan 26 2009, 03:35 PM:name=darktimes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darktimes @ Jan 26 2009, 03:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698542"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i cant believe you actually discuss such an unimportant, and useless thing here.
its a game, realize that please. the devs res tower looks good and realistic for that genre NS2 will place in.
it has to look good, not be rebuildable in reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you serious?
You're going to flame people who are having a discussion about the physics behind a piece of game art when other posts are about having fluffy marines or begging the devs for a trailer? Common man, give us a break. Yeah, its game <i>art</i>, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about how we'd think it'd be better.
We may not be the majority, and if the dev's don't want to waste time on a finished product then thats their right, and I won't complaign. Each of us were just making suggestions on how to change something we thought was off about the design. And while you may be right that we all don't have the same suggestions, we do generally address the same issue -> the new RT looks top heavy and the legs look feeble. Many of us have made suggestions, many of which I think would fix it, its just up to the devs to decide if they want to do something, and what they want to do.
It looks like that because this is one of the first models they released everybody needs to talk about it, if you look closely at the old RT it isn't that good too if you chop away one of its legs it will also fail ...
What I'm trying to say is that on the one hand you really shouldn't take too much time for discussing such "minor" things <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> ... but on the other hand it's really nice that you do care about everything the devs are doing ... pick one <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I think the new RT is nice the way it is, but I also would accept one that has some minor details changed as you mentioned them ... I'm just happy to have a new RT thats all <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
"Tower"
This implies, to me, that these things are to be as towers; tall and with capacity to hold objects/tanks.
If that is the case, perhaps the height of the tower should not be in question so much as the structural supports of the tower?
(as has been hinted before)
Thus, an iteration of the tower that in tall, able to store large capacity and yet also stand strong, may be in order.
One more thought about a skulk "biting through the pipe"... if we have metals strong enough to withstand all the crazy pressures of oil wells in today's world, do you really think that base will be made of a material weak enough to be turned to tinfoil by one angry skulk bite? (it strikes me that the tank sides would be the most vulnerable parts)
I wouldn't want to have a logic fight with yall, it'd take too long for one of us to quit.
I like the honeycomb designing of the legs as yes, repeated many, many times, one leg of the four goes, BOOM, the top goes with the gravity. Idk about the tent spikes though since the floor is all metal and ######, but heh, makes it look cool xD. Really, 8 sounds alittle much, keeping to six legs, each forming 2 crossing equilateral triangles should give enough support to prevent that, as the legs look like twigs to me xD
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The following is the humble perspective of a SGT in the US Army who just got back from Iraqi about two months ago, so take that for what it's worth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice, all yall. I'm heading to army soon <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Going for Blackhawk.
Hope you didn't lose anything over there, that'd really suck ass. What was your job? xD im a chatter box
I wouldn't want to have a logic fight with yall, it'd take too long for one of us to quit.
I like the honeycomb designing of the legs as yes, repeated many, many times, one leg of the four goes, BOOM, the top goes with the gravity. Idk about the tent spikes though since the floor is all metal and ######, but heh, makes it look cool xD. Really, 8 sounds alittle much, keeping to six legs, each forming 2 crossing equilateral triangles should give enough support to prevent that, as the legs look like twigs to me xD
Nice, all yall. I'm heading to army soon <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Going for Blackhawk.
Hope you didn't lose anything over there, that'd really suck ass. What was your job? xD im a chatter box<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
haha, Well, I only suggested 8 because you wouldn't have to scrap the entire model, you could just adjust less than half to give it more legs - and 6 legs wouldn't fit very easily on the body now. But I do think 6 would look better.
I was a ground pounder - Infantry. For your stint in the army, I suggest taking as few years as you can - or as few years as Blackwater requires. And just a tip, I know a few guys that went Blackwater, and the money isn't in being Infantry, its MI - Military Intelligence. I know one MI guy that signed on for 120k salary and a 100k signing bonus. That was about 3 years ago, but I don't think the market has changed all that much. Good luck!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Blackwater requires.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
srry for asking, xD, but what's Blackwater?