Oh and the Chaffee Shuttle is the size of a Car, you could park 2 of them inside the Defiants Bridge, i don't see where the problem is supposed to be there.
Except the only references to the size of the Chaffee that I know of is the DS9 Technical Manual, which puts it at 9 m, an author saying it was 7.6 m, and Doug Drexler's measurements of the CGI model putting it at7.9 m...either way, that's one helluva car!
...talking to players is like being a mall Santa. Everyone immediately wants to tell you all of the things they want, and you are absolutely powerless to deliver 99% of them.
So no plate, but an inscription on a foam test model.
That counts as...what?
Considering tests are done to...well test whether something is good or bad and the intact JH fighter in "The Ship" was embedded into 90 meters of rock and there were no 60 meters hanging out of the ground seems the test result was "too big".
...talking to players is like being a mall Santa. Everyone immediately wants to tell you all of the things they want, and you are absolutely powerless to deliver 99% of them.
Would this be so bad? Would the player helming said spec sized ships not have the correct view point on their screen? Or is there an already existing limitation in the coding for camera scroll in/out view?
If shuttles were to scale they would be a pain in the TRIBBLE to see. They would be too small. The size they are has to do with gameplay reasons.
Also I believe they also stated it had to do with Camera limitations as well.
No, I'm too lazy to go look it up, I just retype it. Feel free to bookmark that post and propagate it in any such future discussions. You'll save me some time.
It might be cool to get a correctly-sized DS9 as a Foundry map, maybe.
Yes, DS9 is considerably larger than was shown in the show.*
This is because when it was playtested at "real" scale, it felt very small. Designers wanted you to be able to fly around the station, in and out of the rings, through the upper docking arms, etc. If it were proper scale, only something the size of the Defiant or smaller would be capable of that, and even that would be a tight fit.
Why would that be a bad thing? I'm not sure why a cruiser of all things should be able to do that, nor should it be a priority for design.
I mean if one is that easily amused they could get the same level of entertainment from a piece of string or perhaps a ball in a cup.
Shuttles are too large in comparison with regular ships. This is mostly so they are visible at all. If they were proper size, they would be specs on screen. They are, however, largely in scale to each other.
Again, so what? The hud can let you know if a shuttle is buzzing around you.. if you really need to know, and last I checked nobody in EVE has ever minded that the smallest ships are mere specs to the gigantic capital ships, and that's a game where small ships can be a huge danger to you.
Would this be so bad? Would the player helming said spec sized ships not have the correct view point on their screen? Or is there an already existing limitation in the coding for camera scroll in/out view?
I really would not complain as long as my vantage point was not compromised, and to be selfish about it, I really couldn't care less that another person feels "small" in their escort or shuttle. They are supposed to be small. I really hope this decision was because there was an outcry early on about size, or a limitation in camera view points, and not a presumed future complaint by players.
I want to feel large in a cruiser, and I want to feel small in an escort. Without these factors it's very hard to feel immersed in the gameplay when all you ever do is notice how small/how big you are depending on the ship. Not that I expect the scales to ever change at this point, but it needs to be said. I don't want to be one of THOSE people that likes to state things like they know it's a fact, but uh, I guarantee that most people paying up for this game would have the same opinion as I in regards to the scaling issue because we're all ST nerds, so if there isn't any limits in the way, I say make the paying playerbase happy if it's not too much trouble. At the very least, if it's easy enough, give us a testing run of new scales on tribble for awhile and see how it goes there.
I wasn't on the project at the start, so I don't know specifics for how shuttle scale was determined.
I will say that what I have found to make the most drastic impact on how big your ship feels, is what zoom level you're at while you play. The vast majority of players that I watch playing (notably, some who complained about how small their ship felt), play with their cameras zoomed all the way out (or nearly so). Personally, I feel that ships feel much better, and space combat is much cooler/more intense, when you zoom your camera closer to your ship. My personal belief is that we let players zoom too far out already, and that it would have been better to have the zoom limits much closer to the ship, but move them upward, so when you are zoomed in on the ship, you can still see what you're doing. That's all just my opinion, and nothing is going to change in game based off of it.
Take DS9 for example, shrink the ends of the docking arms down to where they actually look like a galaxy class ship could pull up and dock with one, but keep the length. Take the outer docking ring and make it thinner, but keep the same size, and as far as the docking bays on the outer ring go, just scale them down to their proper size. Basically, just put certain parts of the station on a diet, but maintain the same length and overall size.
Your solution would make the whole station not look like what it looked like on the show (scale ignored). I feel that would enrage most fans (myself included) far more than it being out of scale as a whole.
Psst, you looked at the parking lot outside the Shipyard Window? Just saying. :P
SPOILER: *Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a lot of smoke & mirrors outside the shipyard window. We're doing some tricky stuff with forced perspective, and scaling ships down as they get farther from that window. Don't believe everything you see. The actual ESD model (which, as I mentioned, is modeled to canon dimensions), would have trouble fitting a couple of nova classes inside. People have asked for a while to be able to fly in there and hang out. You couldn't navigate it if you wanted to.
ETA: I just did a quick test. Yes, you could fit 8 Galaxy's in the Dome of the properly scaled ESD. However, they have to be flipped over, and crammed together is such a tight configuration, it would be logistically impossible.*
Well that was only true when they were filming with the studio models and having to guestimate sizes. But once they started using the CGI models, pretty much the issue with different scales stopped.
That's a nice idea, but I don't buy it. . . production needs dictate a lot of things that you or I wouldn't be naturally inclined to do. (Note First Contact, and the Defiant/Ent E scaling issues)
Have you guys thought about contacting Doug Drexler to get a copy of the actual Star Trek CGI Models to use for measurements or to help increase modeling accuracy with the low poly models? I know they used 3D Max for those models, because I got my hands on a copy of the Enterprise-Refit Model they used in the remastery of TMP.
I don't think anyone has done this, but I'm not on the ship team. However, what exactly would this get us? So we find out the scale of the model used? We have canon dimensions already. The models wouldn't be usable in game.
Not true, because re-scaling models takes significant amounts of time. If you had to mess with size, you do that in the planning and prototype modeling stages when creating the models.
The simple thing to do is either change a model's position or change camera positions.
You're kidding right? Max has a "scale" controller. It takes two seconds to change the defiant from 170m to 120m long. . .
There are plenty of size discrepancies just look at the transporter pads they are GINORMOUS it's like all of the ships are equipped with cargo bay size transporters.
It would be nice if they went thru and fixed them all but imo i would rather they spend that time fixing load screens and things like imbalance in the skillsets (like removing the nerfs from science abilities and splitting the attack patterns and evasive patterns into separate skills).
You're kidding right? Max has a "scale" controller. It takes two seconds to change the defiant from 170m to 120m long. . .
While that is -technically- true, one also must consider the impact that changing a ship models size might have on the texturing. You can reduce a Galaxy Class from 640 meters down to 50 meters, and it would still look proportionally correct on it's own. But put that Galaxy Class up next to a shuttle, and you realize the ridiculousness of the scaling (windows, lifepods, various other details, completely out of whack)
Minor scaling changes such as 170 m to 160 m may go unnoticed, but if you do any major rescaling, there is likely to be some re-texturing required as well.
According to Memory Alpha, the size of the Defiant according to the CGI model used in the show was 170.7 m...very close to the 164.5 m the devs settled on.
Ex Astris Scientia has the most comprehensive analysis of the Defiant situation that I've ever seen. In short, there are so many problems, either because the Defiant was resized for an episode, or because Deep Space Nine was, or because some ship appearing on-screen with the Defiant was, I think it's pretty fair to pick just about any size within the wide range provided by the visual evidence as the "correct" one. Picking the most commonly depicted size is a logical way to do it, but it's not necessarily the only way to do it.
On the topic of the CGI models being superior, the Defiant's appearance in First Contact is extremely problematic...it depicts the ship as being in the 50 m range!
Naturally, I don't think this is the same CGI model used in the series, but...well, there it is.
No offense, but you're having the same problem Logical had, that you are confusing the CGI models with the Studio models. That scene in First Contact with the Enterprise-E and the Defiant were both studio models, not CGI (the Background ships were CGI). Only CGI scene the Enterprise-E had was when it was going through the temporal vortex.
And all the scenes that people question that had size discrepencies, was when studio models were involved. Because they guessed the scale for those scenes. But with CGI it's not different that what we have in STO, it's all about position relative to objects and the camera position. So if someone took a screenshot and people said it one ship was larger, then it boils down to your eyes fooling you (where you think it's wrong, but actually right).
The point is, like this and you talking about the exterior model used for the outdoor shot with the Jem'Hadar Fighter, they are guessing with the scaling. But with CGI, it's an absolute.
Well when it comes to STO, they do guess. I mean that crashed BoP in Alpha and in the Final 2800 mission are WAY too small. :P
SPOILER: *Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a lot of smoke & mirrors outside the shipyard window. We're doing some tricky stuff with forced perspective, and scaling ships down as they get farther from that window. Don't believe everything you see. The actual ESD model (which, as I mentioned, is modeled to canon dimensions), would have trouble fitting a couple of nova classes inside. People have asked for a while to be able to fly in there and hang out. You couldn't navigate it if you wanted to.
ETA: I just did a quick test. Yes, you could fit 8 Galaxy's in the Dome of the properly scaled ESD. However, they have to be flipped over, and crammed together is such a tight configuration, it would be logistically impossible.*
That's a nice idea, but I don't buy it. . . production needs dictate a lot of things that you or I wouldn't be naturally inclined to do. (Note First Contact, and the Defiant/Ent E scaling issues)
I don't think anyone has done this, but I'm not on the ship team. However, what exactly would this get us? So we find out the scale of the model used? We have canon dimensions already. The models wouldn't be usable in game.
I didn't say use the models in-game, I said for you guys to study.
Wouldn't you rather have the real models to examine than looking at pictures off the internet that sometimes isn't all that clear?
10. The Odyssey is an interesting case. Due to it having no canon size, it's tricky trying to figure out how big it's really supposed to be. But the more you look at it currently, the weirder it looks. Going from the number of floors, it's only about the size of the Sovy. However, it looks really stupid at that size. So based on it's crew capacity and description, that makes it wider than a Galaxy class.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
No offense, but you're having the same problem Logical had, that you are confusing the CGI models with the Studio models. That scene in First Contact with the Enterprise-E and the Defiant were both studio models, not CGI (the Background ships were CGI). Only CGI scene the Enterprise-E had was when it was going through the temporal vortex.
Certainly no offense taken - I'm no expert, and don't mind being corrected.
Memory Alpha does say that a CGI Defiant was used in First Contact, though. It was a different CGI model than the one used in later series, no less! I can imagine that if we're now comparing a CGI model Defiant to a physical model Sovereign, it's a whole 'nother can of worms...
...talking to players is like being a mall Santa. Everyone immediately wants to tell you all of the things they want, and you are absolutely powerless to deliver 99% of them.
Certainly no offense taken - I'm no expert, and don't mind being corrected.
Memory Alpha does say that a CGI Defiant was used in First Contact, though. It was a different CGI model than the one used in later series, no less! I can imagine that if we're now comparing a CGI model Defiant to a physical model Sovereign, it's a whole 'nother can of worms...
Was sure I saw a behind the scenes they used the Defiant Model, oh well, can't argue with Memory Alpha. :P
But yes, everytime studio models are used either with another studio model or a CGI model, scales are based off perception than accuracy. CGI is always accurate, unless the director has the scale purposely changed for some odd reason. Like in STO, DS9 is larger to make it more grand as a HUB and shuttles are larger so we can see them.
I am sure that J. J. Abrams will fix the size problem in Star Trek in future
No not really. The production crew of ST:2009 continues to grand tradition of having screwed up size scales. FWIW, the CGI model in the model is roughly the side of the Enterprise Refit from the Star Trek:TMP. You get that size by comparing the size of features on the ship. The model is not scaled any where the arbitrarily increased "official" size.
They didnt' start using CGI until Season 5 of DS9 / Season 3 of Voyager.
I know. I was simply stating that, had they used CGI models from the beginning, you would likely still have the same issue, because just like the Cryptic artists wanted to make DS9 look "too big" due to gameplay reasons, the artists who worked on DS9 often want edto make ships appear different sizes for screenplay reasons. Whether you are using a CGI model or a real model, you run into the exact same issue of size inconsistencies.
I wasn't on the project at the start, so I don't know specifics for how shuttle scale was determined.
I will say that what I have found to make the most drastic impact on how big your ship feels, is what zoom level you're at while you play. The vast majority of players that I watch playing (notably, some who complained about how small their ship felt), play with their cameras zoomed all the way out (or nearly so). Personally, I feel that ships feel much better, and space combat is much cooler/more intense, when you zoom your camera closer to your ship. My personal belief is that we let players zoom too far out already, and that it would have been better to have the zoom limits much closer to the ship, but move them upward, so when you are zoomed in on the ship, you can still see what you're doing. That's all just my opinion, and nothing is going to change in game based off of it.
AWWWW!! But you should! Playing with the game zoomed in is the best way, and I don't know a single person who plays the game super zoomed out like that. I don't know why you would do that either. I mean, this isn't an RTS.
I wasn't on the project at the start, so I don't know specifics for how shuttle scale was determined.
I will say that what I have found to make the most drastic impact on how big your ship feels, is what zoom level you're at while you play. The vast majority of players that I watch playing (notably, some who complained about how small their ship felt), play with their cameras zoomed all the way out (or nearly so). Personally, I feel that ships feel much better, and space combat is much cooler/more intense, when you zoom your camera closer to your ship. My personal belief is that we let players zoom too far out already, and that it would have been better to have the zoom limits much closer to the ship, but move them upward, so when you are zoomed in on the ship, you can still see what you're doing. That's all just my opinion, and nothing is going to change in game based off of it.
I find this to be true in ground and space. The funny thing is, PvPers and epic PvP videos generally do have the camera zoomed out.
I play with it zoomed in. When I'm feeling adventurous or making trailers, I disable the UI too. I feel considerably more engaged. I have the most fun when I play with the camera and imagine I'm directing a scene as I play.
Now... I think a certain other game has fixed camera distance, doesn't it? And so does shooter mode in STO? I think you can press a button to look around.
guys, sto is not nor will it ever be true to canon or will it ever be the future source of canon. the devs have obviously gone out of their way to bang on a keyboard for a couple of hours, go "I MAKE STAR TREK MAAAA!" and give themselves large pats on the back for totally bastardizing what a lot of sci fi fans consider to be a pretty good, if not a great source of entertainment.
Certainly no offense taken - I'm no expert, and don't mind being corrected.
Memory Alpha does say that a CGI Defiant was used in First Contact, though. It was a different CGI model than the one used in later series, no less! I can imagine that if we're now comparing a CGI model Defiant to a physical model Sovereign, it's a whole 'nother can of worms...
DS9 episodes deliberately made important ships bigger whenever they had a fleet shot so it would look prettier from a composition perspective. The Defiant was whatever size fit the camera.
The movies are interesting. The whole reason they blew up the galaxy and introduced the Sovereign had nothing to do with warp theory. That was all rationalizing. The reality is that the Galaxy was sized in a way that made it a good fit for filling up the screen in television aspect ratio but on a wide screen, you'd always have black space. So the creative folks blew it up and created the Sovvie to have a ship whose dimensions fit a theater widescreen frame better.
If movie theater screens were shorter width and taller lengthwise than TV screens, they'd have made the 1701-E fatter and taller.
It's okay Taco. I like the stuff you do! And I get the feeling the game would look much different if you were in charge of the visuals. It's just weird that a ship that carries 50 people, a ship that carries 100 people, an asteroid, and a moon are all the same size.
not saying you can't draw, but come on, what about this game even makes a lick of sense in the trek universe?
You know, you're tight. Compared to stuff like TNG's 'Samaritan Snare' or YOY's 'Threshold' -- STO makes the Star Trek universe look downright silly....oh, wait...
Do me a favor and get off that high horse because as someone who's been watching Star trek first run since 1969; every Star Trek series had had it's share of ridiculous TRIBBLE; and overall, the stories and structure of STO aren't that bad (and some are actually quite good.)
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Comments
Except the only references to the size of the Chaffee that I know of is the DS9 Technical Manual, which puts it at 9 m, an author saying it was 7.6 m, and Doug Drexler's measurements of the CGI model putting it at7.9 m...either way, that's one helluva car!
Eh. Vulcan Tal'Kyr Support Craft is already huge compared to other shuttles. :eek:
So no plate, but an inscription on a foam test model.
That counts as...what?
Considering tests are done to...well test whether something is good or bad and the intact JH fighter in "The Ship" was embedded into 90 meters of rock and there were no 60 meters hanging out of the ground seems the test result was "too big".
Thank you I appreciate that.
And (since I forgot that im my previous post) thanks for the link.:)
If shuttles were to scale they would be a pain in the TRIBBLE to see. They would be too small. The size they are has to do with gameplay reasons.
Also I believe they also stated it had to do with Camera limitations as well.
It might be cool to get a correctly-sized DS9 as a Foundry map, maybe.
Why would that be a bad thing? I'm not sure why a cruiser of all things should be able to do that, nor should it be a priority for design.
I mean if one is that easily amused they could get the same level of entertainment from a piece of string or perhaps a ball in a cup.
Again, so what? The hud can let you know if a shuttle is buzzing around you.. if you really need to know, and last I checked nobody in EVE has ever minded that the smallest ships are mere specs to the gigantic capital ships, and that's a game where small ships can be a huge danger to you.
I wasn't on the project at the start, so I don't know specifics for how shuttle scale was determined.
I will say that what I have found to make the most drastic impact on how big your ship feels, is what zoom level you're at while you play. The vast majority of players that I watch playing (notably, some who complained about how small their ship felt), play with their cameras zoomed all the way out (or nearly so). Personally, I feel that ships feel much better, and space combat is much cooler/more intense, when you zoom your camera closer to your ship. My personal belief is that we let players zoom too far out already, and that it would have been better to have the zoom limits much closer to the ship, but move them upward, so when you are zoomed in on the ship, you can still see what you're doing. That's all just my opinion, and nothing is going to change in game based off of it.
Your solution would make the whole station not look like what it looked like on the show (scale ignored). I feel that would enrage most fans (myself included) far more than it being out of scale as a whole.
SPOILER: *Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a lot of smoke & mirrors outside the shipyard window. We're doing some tricky stuff with forced perspective, and scaling ships down as they get farther from that window. Don't believe everything you see. The actual ESD model (which, as I mentioned, is modeled to canon dimensions), would have trouble fitting a couple of nova classes inside. People have asked for a while to be able to fly in there and hang out. You couldn't navigate it if you wanted to.
ETA: I just did a quick test. Yes, you could fit 8 Galaxy's in the Dome of the properly scaled ESD. However, they have to be flipped over, and crammed together is such a tight configuration, it would be logistically impossible.*
That's a nice idea, but I don't buy it. . . production needs dictate a lot of things that you or I wouldn't be naturally inclined to do. (Note First Contact, and the Defiant/Ent E scaling issues)
I don't think anyone has done this, but I'm not on the ship team. However, what exactly would this get us? So we find out the scale of the model used? We have canon dimensions already. The models wouldn't be usable in game.
You're kidding right? Max has a "scale" controller. It takes two seconds to change the defiant from 170m to 120m long. . .
It would be nice if they went thru and fixed them all but imo i would rather they spend that time fixing load screens and things like imbalance in the skillsets (like removing the nerfs from science abilities and splitting the attack patterns and evasive patterns into separate skills).
While that is -technically- true, one also must consider the impact that changing a ship models size might have on the texturing. You can reduce a Galaxy Class from 640 meters down to 50 meters, and it would still look proportionally correct on it's own. But put that Galaxy Class up next to a shuttle, and you realize the ridiculousness of the scaling (windows, lifepods, various other details, completely out of whack)
Minor scaling changes such as 170 m to 160 m may go unnoticed, but if you do any major rescaling, there is likely to be some re-texturing required as well.
No offense, but you're having the same problem Logical had, that you are confusing the CGI models with the Studio models. That scene in First Contact with the Enterprise-E and the Defiant were both studio models, not CGI (the Background ships were CGI). Only CGI scene the Enterprise-E had was when it was going through the temporal vortex.
And all the scenes that people question that had size discrepencies, was when studio models were involved. Because they guessed the scale for those scenes. But with CGI it's not different that what we have in STO, it's all about position relative to objects and the camera position. So if someone took a screenshot and people said it one ship was larger, then it boils down to your eyes fooling you (where you think it's wrong, but actually right).
The point is, like this and you talking about the exterior model used for the outdoor shot with the Jem'Hadar Fighter, they are guessing with the scaling. But with CGI, it's an absolute.
Well when it comes to STO, they do guess. I mean that crashed BoP in Alpha and in the Final 2800 mission are WAY too small. :P
Well duh, thats what I was pointing at. :P
See Above. They weren't CGI.
I didn't say use the models in-game, I said for you guys to study.
Wouldn't you rather have the real models to examine than looking at pictures off the internet that sometimes isn't all that clear?
I never said MAX didn't have a scaling function. :rolleyes:
I said it took time to change scales. While the function is relatively fast and easy, you have to re-render the scene for the final production run.
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6043/7006085291_49cf6ea7c9_z.jpg
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Memory Alpha does say that a CGI Defiant was used in First Contact, though. It was a different CGI model than the one used in later series, no less! I can imagine that if we're now comparing a CGI model Defiant to a physical model Sovereign, it's a whole 'nother can of worms...
Was sure I saw a behind the scenes they used the Defiant Model, oh well, can't argue with Memory Alpha. :P
But yes, everytime studio models are used either with another studio model or a CGI model, scales are based off perception than accuracy. CGI is always accurate, unless the director has the scale purposely changed for some odd reason. Like in STO, DS9 is larger to make it more grand as a HUB and shuttles are larger so we can see them.
No not really. The production crew of ST:2009 continues to grand tradition of having screwed up size scales. FWIW, the CGI model in the model is roughly the side of the Enterprise Refit from the Star Trek:TMP. You get that size by comparing the size of features on the ship. The model is not scaled any where the arbitrarily increased "official" size.
The Type F shuttle is almost too small as it is. If I zoom out to maximum camera distance, I barely see it in Sector Space.
I know. I was simply stating that, had they used CGI models from the beginning, you would likely still have the same issue, because just like the Cryptic artists wanted to make DS9 look "too big" due to gameplay reasons, the artists who worked on DS9 often want edto make ships appear different sizes for screenplay reasons. Whether you are using a CGI model or a real model, you run into the exact same issue of size inconsistencies.
AWWWW!! But you should! Playing with the game zoomed in is the best way, and I don't know a single person who plays the game super zoomed out like that. I don't know why you would do that either. I mean, this isn't an RTS.
I find this to be true in ground and space. The funny thing is, PvPers and epic PvP videos generally do have the camera zoomed out.
I play with it zoomed in. When I'm feeling adventurous or making trailers, I disable the UI too. I feel considerably more engaged. I have the most fun when I play with the camera and imagine I'm directing a scene as I play.
Now... I think a certain other game has fixed camera distance, doesn't it? And so does shooter mode in STO? I think you can press a button to look around.
OH NO!!!!! Come back to us Fuzun!
:::grumbles to himself:::
not saying you can't draw, but come on, what about this game even makes a lick of sense in the trek universe?
STO to me is like a mcdonalds advertisement. It looks great on the pictures, but what you really get in your meal shouldn't be fed to prisoners.
DS9 episodes deliberately made important ships bigger whenever they had a fleet shot so it would look prettier from a composition perspective. The Defiant was whatever size fit the camera.
The movies are interesting. The whole reason they blew up the galaxy and introduced the Sovereign had nothing to do with warp theory. That was all rationalizing. The reality is that the Galaxy was sized in a way that made it a good fit for filling up the screen in television aspect ratio but on a wide screen, you'd always have black space. So the creative folks blew it up and created the Sovvie to have a ship whose dimensions fit a theater widescreen frame better.
If movie theater screens were shorter width and taller lengthwise than TV screens, they'd have made the 1701-E fatter and taller.
It's okay Taco. I like the stuff you do! And I get the feeling the game would look much different if you were in charge of the visuals. It's just weird that a ship that carries 50 people, a ship that carries 100 people, an asteroid, and a moon are all the same size.
The Enterprise-E would have been Olympic-class. :P
You know, you're tight. Compared to stuff like TNG's 'Samaritan Snare' or YOY's 'Threshold' -- STO makes the Star Trek universe look downright silly....oh, wait...
Do me a favor and get off that high horse because as someone who's been watching Star trek first run since 1969; every Star Trek series had had it's share of ridiculous TRIBBLE; and overall, the stories and structure of STO aren't that bad (and some are actually quite good.)
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."