I don't think arms with hands would be necessary since at that width of shoulders the arms would have to be very long to be able to touch each other, and that'd look a bit odd (like a dwarven mech).

actually that might look cool if you modeled it after a gorilla or something like that. (not making it look like an animal, just the arm/leg proportions)

Kinda like the Battletech Nova? 1 2

the nova was one of the bests in the right configuration; low profile and bristling with PPCs. If you do want this to be personal though you may want to avoid immatating something someone's already made.

Well, we're talking ideas here. I wouldn't copy the arm design; I've never used any references for my robots. Still not sure how either arms or guns would work on this guy; I'll probably just try out both in this sketch stage.

The Nova had a big drawback though: no torso pivot. ;)

Cool design!!!!

Could you draw a fat robot???
It would look fat because It has a giant powercell.
I just always wanted to see a cool fat Bobot design.

Wow, nice bot. I wish i could draw bots like that.
As for the propsed arms... I think, either short, thin arms with a rocket launcher (the round, single barrel, multi-hole ones) on each. Or long arms with structures similar to the legs.

i like it without arms, but if it had arms, make them like a simplistic, rail cannon. just my thought

definitely the crotch cannon.

Leave out the arms. I like it this way. Do something like......Guns, mini guns on the legs. Great defense for the legs and can shoot troops off the field. On second thought that might not be so good, the kick back might interfere with the movement. :}

Why is the panel with the 3 circles on the left a bit longer than the one on the right?

lol, he's right.

Ladies LOOOVE the crotch cannon....

uh don't listen to gigandas/hunterkiller, the panel was fine before, now it looks stupid. I'd be more concerned about the panels above those panels.

Um thanks Marcello, but I'd like to think I know these things, being an art major :P. In perspective, when you have two things of equal size, then the object further from the view should be smaller in proportion (angles also affect the overall size whether it be tilting the object side ways or tilt it up/downwards)). I think it'd look worse not to follow those principles. And how does it look stupid now? It definitely got better.

The far side's not so far away that it should be that much smaller. Keep in mind that both hulks are vertically tilted away from the center.

You don't have to be an art major to know about perspective. Marcello's parents are architects, so I think he has some idea of what he's talking about. You being an art major doesn't make you automatically right. It's not a trump card to overrule other people's opinions. :P

That said, there is something funky going on with that hulk. I'll think about it more before I decide what to do.

I didn't say that I'm "automatically" right. My point is, I'm not just b.s.ing what I'm saying. I think there's a difference there.

And even if the left hulk isn't too far away from the right, it still doesn't give it the right to be bigger than the right side. I think that in drawing, you should make things obvious instead of keep people guessing. If something is supposed to look shorter, emphasize it. You don't want the thing sitting on a string, up for interpretation.