Halo 3 armour
- Thread starter Deadguy
- Start date
- Status
Twisting Neather
Active Member
The armor seems different, but other then the gloves I can't say what about it has changed.... :shock:
Maybe it’s the lighting, but then again... maybe it isn't.
Maybe it’s the lighting, but then again... maybe it isn't.
Deadguy
Well-Known Member
There's also two deep scars on the chest/upper abdomen plates. The upper side arm is flatter, the chest is more rounded than it was.
The colarbone chest-to-shoulder attachment is now like part of a Nascar 5-point buckle harness.
There's additional plate layers added to the thighs and groin. The ankle "buckle plate" has no central dot anymore. The feet aren't as "segmented" anymore.
The black section visible at the knee now looks like segmented rubber.
That's just looking at the front of the suit from a lower angle.. there's other changes when you rotate the suit.
The colarbone chest-to-shoulder attachment is now like part of a Nascar 5-point buckle harness.
There's additional plate layers added to the thighs and groin. The ankle "buckle plate" has no central dot anymore. The feet aren't as "segmented" anymore.
The black section visible at the knee now looks like segmented rubber.
That's just looking at the front of the suit from a lower angle.. there's other changes when you rotate the suit.
Twisting Neather
Active Member
Now I feel like I'm blind... 
Deadguy
Well-Known Member
Heh heh..
Naw, I'm an experienced armourer that normally makes armour based on old paintings, or photographs of authenthic period armour.
When you do that kinda' stuff for a few years, you develop an eye for it. You can see where stuff is even slightly dished (bent like a bowl) or curled (bent like a "C" shape), and know what the armour plates look like before they're formed (the flat shapes), and why. You also look at a suit of armour "per plate" instead of losing detail in an overall view.
It develops an eye for detail that helps you determine if a suit of armour is accurate, authentic, or a reproduction, at a glance. In this case, I can clearly see that there are differences, but I don't think they're dramatic enough to call the suit a Mark VII. The chest plate has additional details, including a rectangular hole add right in the center of it, the hand and ankle plates have changed, the inner thigh connections have changed, and the plate layout on the sides of the helmet have changed a bit.
However, the changes don't seem very dramatic... they're subtle, except for the hand change that everyone noticed. It seems like an artistic improvement overall , and I suspect it's going to be Mark 6.5 or something.. a Mark 6 with minor upgrade, replacement plates, or whatever.
Naw, I'm an experienced armourer that normally makes armour based on old paintings, or photographs of authenthic period armour.
When you do that kinda' stuff for a few years, you develop an eye for it. You can see where stuff is even slightly dished (bent like a bowl) or curled (bent like a "C" shape), and know what the armour plates look like before they're formed (the flat shapes), and why. You also look at a suit of armour "per plate" instead of losing detail in an overall view.
It develops an eye for detail that helps you determine if a suit of armour is accurate, authentic, or a reproduction, at a glance. In this case, I can clearly see that there are differences, but I don't think they're dramatic enough to call the suit a Mark VII. The chest plate has additional details, including a rectangular hole add right in the center of it, the hand and ankle plates have changed, the inner thigh connections have changed, and the plate layout on the sides of the helmet have changed a bit.
However, the changes don't seem very dramatic... they're subtle, except for the hand change that everyone noticed. It seems like an artistic improvement overall , and I suspect it's going to be Mark 6.5 or something.. a Mark 6 with minor upgrade, replacement plates, or whatever.
Twisting Neather
Active Member
Thanks I feel a bit better now.
- Status
Similar threads
