These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Why aren't ships in game depicted with proper proportions?

Author
Svarek
#21 - 2012-06-05 04:06:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Svarek
nat longshot wrote:
machariel is 1,936 m long axis Thanatos 2,276 m long axis Raven 806m long axis.

park a mach along a thanatos the carrier just a hair longer to the size is right park a raven next to a mach the raven is less then half the size of the mach so size in game is right.

Read the stats of the before post something like this know your facts.


Nat, we're not talking about the model-to-model proportions.
They're correct, as far as I can tell.

What everybody is talking about is, essentially, the texture scaling - if you look at a frigate while you're flying it, and then look at a capital when you're flying it, chances are that they're going to look around the same size, simply by merit of the texture (window size, greebles, etc...).

Larger ships kind of need larger-res textures and smaller details to make them actually seem big, while shuttles don't really need lines of lights along the side that make them look a couple hundred meters long.


Hermia wrote:
For me its just general ship design (art direction) that is wrong.

Ships where the basic hull is not symmetrical = Ugly to humans
Ships with weird thruster placements = Mechanically incorrect, ugly
Ship skins with too many windows = Scale problem as previously mentioned
Ship spot lights = Constantly beam with inconsistent directions

Most of the unfortunates are legacy designs from 2003. Funny how designs after launch tend to follow the rules better. So yeah, would be nice to have the old hulls updated, the MOA (an extraordinarily ugly ship) should be first in line.

I agree with most of this as well.
I'm still flip-flopping on which ship line to fly this time around, as most of them really annoy me, and I don't know which I can see myself flying without going insane (though, to be honest, this game has helped me take steps away from my love of symmetry... Mechwarrior helped previously).

Whoops.

nat longshot
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-06-05 04:14:50 UTC
Hermia wrote:
For me its just general ship design (art direction) that is wrong.


Ships where the basic hull is not symmetrical = Ugly to humans

Ships with weird thruster placements = Mechanically incorrect, ugly

Ship skins with too many windows = Scale problem as previously mentioned

Ship spot lights = Constantly beam with inconsistent directions


Most of the unfortunates are legacy designs from 2003. Funny how designs after launch tend to follow the rules better. So yeah, would be nice to have the old hulls updated, the MOA (an extraordinarily ugly ship) should be first in line.




first off you dont need symmetrical ships in space no air to change the way they handle. Cal ship know this use that fact yes to the eye there ulgy but work quite will in space given there no air to change the way they handle.

As for the windows really who cares have you seen amarr ships have alot less windows then say cal ships for the fact amarr ships have thicker armor witch in turn mean they have less windows to see out of were cal ship are shield tankers with less armor and more windows.

Thruster placement do you now the weight of each part of the ship and the pounds of thrust the thruster gives? 2nd are you someone with the know how to give the statement "mechanically incorrect," your thruster placment can be and will be diffent given your in space and no air.

spotlight really do you really care about that?

 [13:12:18] CCP Punkturis nat longshot you're a cutie.. OH YAH I WIN!!

Svarek
#23 - 2012-06-05 04:24:19 UTC
Actually, ships would have to be symmetrical in some respects in space.
You would have to take centers of mass and engine placement or strength into account.
You can estimate the latter. if appearances aren't deceiving (low thrust - low glow, high thrust - high glow, etc).

It's perfectly plausible that you could have an asymmetric - structurally speaking - ship in space... and you seem to be alluding to this, Nat. But, in my opinion, many of the ships in Eve go beyond this to the point of making you wonder if there's any way they could ever buzz about as they do, being as unbalanced as they are.

Whoops.

Hermia
HIVE
Picture No Point
#24 - 2012-06-05 04:33:38 UTC
Yeah that's really the point, a lot of ships are asymmetric for the sake of being asymmetric or art direction they call it. Most people swoon over the symmetrical ones, its just telling.

Obviously not not calling out every ship on bad thruster placements, just a few that i can think of would spin in circles if eve had real physics. The frig hull type of stilleto would spin in circles.
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
#25 - 2012-06-05 04:37:51 UTC
Well for the way an Orca looks I see no way for it to hold a hulk. Unless it is using some sort of quantum physics to shrink the ship three is no place it can physically fit in an Orca. Maybe CCP needs to makethe ORca model a bit bigger and the Hulk a bit smaller.
Culmen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-06-05 04:39:01 UTC
Hermia wrote:


Obviously not not calling out every ship on bad thruster placements, just a few that i can think of would spin in circles if eve had real physics. The frig hull type of stilleto would spin in circles.


The Stilleto is at least moderately symmetrical.
If you want a ship that should spin, look at the Crow.

That thing should constantly be spinning left and up.

There is a fine line between a post and a signature.

Johnny Augustus
Doomheim
#27 - 2012-06-05 04:51:07 UTC
Hermia wrote:
Ships where the basic hull is not symmetrical = Ugly to humans

Hey now, speak for yourself. I think those asymmetrical ships look awesome, and I like to think of myself as human...
Hermia
HIVE
Picture No Point
#28 - 2012-06-05 04:57:56 UTC
Smile i usually talk in averages.

Fact is this stuff has been mentioned for years. I thought i would sound up today since the CSM managed to pressure the devs into redesigning the silly starter ships. So you never know!

But yes, you probably are human and covet your asymmetry as much as CCP Sad.
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
#29 - 2012-06-05 05:06:37 UTC
Want to talk fugly ships, look at the Crucifier. That is a fugly ship.
Ituhata Saken
Killboard Padding Services
#30 - 2012-06-05 05:16:32 UTC
I haven't checked in a while, but I remember I used to get really annoyed by the ship sizes. I can't remember which way it goes, but if you move from a frigate to say, a battlecruiser, when you were in one the size looked fine by reference. But when you hopped in the other, the ships were nearly the same size by reference.

So close...

Nazowa
Resilience.
Initiative Mercenaries
#31 - 2012-06-05 05:36:26 UTC
Start with the stations first. Try and calculate how big Jita 4-4 needs to be Big smile
Minimal Charisma
Padded Sell
#32 - 2012-06-05 05:39:55 UTC
Nazowa wrote:
Start with the stations first. Try and calculate how big Jita 4-4 needs to be Big smile


+1
Just scale x10 and re-skin at higher res would be better than existing.
Ling Ding Poi
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2012-06-05 06:34:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Ling Ding Poi
Most have probably seen this but for those that haven't... EVE Ship Comparison (Amarr)

and the Gallente edition.
No More Heroes
Sanctuary of Shadows
Dock Workers
#34 - 2012-06-05 06:56:48 UTC
Ginseng Jita wrote:
Will this ever be rectified?


Have you ever sat on a Titan in a Rifter surrounded by Maelstroms? It's plenty proportional.

.

Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
Somethin Awfull Forums
#35 - 2012-06-05 07:32:11 UTC
It all went out the window when they made the Zephyr. There is honest and truly no place to even link in a capsule.

R.I.P. Vile Rat

Kerist Lafayette
The Lafayette Family
#36 - 2012-06-05 08:00:07 UTC
nat longshot wrote:
machariel is 1,936 m long axis Thanatos 2,276 m long axis Raven 806m long axis.

park a mach along a thanatos the carrier just a hair longer to the size is right park a raven next to a mach the raven is less then half the size of the mach so size in game is right.

Read the stats of the before post something like this know your facts.

The Machariel is the longest bs in the game but its also the fasted bs in game why is that i dont know ask the angel cartel that built it but from what i have read in game Angel ships are built useing joven plains the angels found in old jove systems they now hold. but that what the back story to the angels said.


This is a comma:

,

The comma is your friend. Use it.



This was a message from the Campaign For Not Running Out Of Breath In Your Mind While Reading Forum Posts
Rico Minali
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-06-05 08:23:21 UTC
Selinate wrote:
what are you talking about? I'm pretty sure they are, perspective is just hard to gain in a game like this...



Park a Megathron next to a Thanatos, then tell me you can fit two of those Megathrons INSIDE the Thanatos.

No, ship sizes are totally borked.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.

Anya Ohaya
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-06-05 09:09:28 UTC
The lengths of the ships are about right. The Orca is 1451m long, the Hulk only 509m.

it's the volumes the are odd. The Orca's volume is listed at over 10,000,000m3, but the hulk is a mere 200,000m3. Now with three times the length I'd expect the Orca to be maybe 10 times the Hulks volume, not 50 times.

Also, why does the Orca have a ship maintenance bay that's a mere 1/25th (4%) of it's total volume???
Rushnik
Qubit Boundaries
#39 - 2012-06-05 11:43:06 UTC
Barbelo Valentinian wrote:
Ginseng Jita wrote:
Will this ever be rectified?


One thing that particularly bugs me is that sometimes you get small ships with tons of windows giving an impression of large size, then you get large ships with fewer windows but they're bigger, making the ship look relatively smaller.

But then again, using windows to indicate scale is itself a bit of a fail (see virtually all the space stations).


They can't make smaller windows on bigger hulls because the resolution of the texture is on all ships the same.
Make them smaller on bigger ships -> you can't really see them anymore.
Make them bigger on smaller ships -> not with the current texture resolution, you'd expect detail that isn't there.

Svarek wrote:
Actually, ships would have to be symmetrical in some respects in space.
You would have to take centers of mass and engine placement or strength into account.
You can estimate the latter. if appearances aren't deceiving (low thrust - low glow, high thrust - high glow, etc).

It's perfectly plausible that you could have an asymmetric - structurally speaking - ship in space... and you seem to be alluding to this, Nat. But, in my opinion, many of the ships in Eve go beyond this to the point of making you wonder if there's any way they could ever buzz about as they do, being as unbalanced as they are.


This is absolutely correct. And I want to add another thought: How do some ships magically turn in EVE?

You'd need side thrusters for a 90° turn.
I have nothing against asymmetry but some ships just don't look believable.


Anyway, what bothers me the most is the proportions of the turret size to the ship and the wacky turret placement.
It looks like the design of the ship is done before you'd even know its stats and exact turret amount, with margins for navy and T2 versions.

I adress this here.
Its not exactly a new idea, but as they are reworking some models right now I figured to propose the idea of a complete overhaul over the years, because as it is now they are only fixing it up. Maybe they will consider changing some 'odd' ship designs to a bit less odd ones. With some ideas I could improve my proposal.




Oraac Ensor
#40 - 2012-06-05 13:30:52 UTC
I've never been bothered about ship proportions apart from those 'Ships of EVE' posters you can get, where the Thrasher is four times the size of a cruiser.

What gets to me is that a jetcan has more than 7 times the capacity of a GSC, but when you see them together in belts the GSC is 4 times the size of the jetcan.
Previous page123Next page