test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

I'm disappointed by certain size differences

anyone#9933 anyone Member Posts: 24 Arc User
Standing next to a ship: It's not nearly as big as it should with in-game measurements. Best example is the mission where you get the Hargh'peng torpedo reward. The huge warbird likes like an oversized 2 man fighter but nothing more.

Planets.. Don't even get me started... The voth fortress is 135km or (might be off a few) and it takes forever to get around/through it. Size looks alright. But take a look at the Sol System when you are flying around Earth.. I did a check with someone who was at the station and me on the opposite side of the planet: 13km?! That's almost 10000 times too small!

Hallways/interiors of ships.. It feels like you're a 1.5m tall person in a 4m high corridor.. I know for sure that those sizes are plain wrong.

Dyson sphere interior ("space area").. It feels like the sphere is only approx 400km in diameter.


I know some things might be too hard to make realistic, but come on -.-"
Post edited by anyone#9933 on
«1

Comments

  • stoutesstoutes Member Posts: 4,219 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    It's a game.
    maxvitor wrote: »
    Nerf is OP, plz nerf
    That's quite the paradox, how could you nerf nerf when the nerf is nerfed. But how would the nerf be nerfed when the nerf is nerfed? This allows the nerf not to be nerfed since the nerf is nerfed? But if the nerf isn't nerfed, it could still nerf nerfs. But as soon as the nerf is nerfed, the nerf power is lost. So paradoxally it the nerf nerf lost its nerf, while it's still nerfed, which cannot be because the nerf was unable to nerf.

    I call it, the Stoutes paradox.
  • anyone#9933 anyone Member Posts: 24 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    I know, but those "minor" details make it feel fake.
  • thecosmic1thecosmic1 Member Posts: 9,365 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    Most ships are scaled in-size to each other in the game. The big exception being the Small Craft - because if they made them the correct size they would be too difficult to see by others in larger ships.

    Planets are not supposed to be real size. You need to understand that not everyone has a powerful computer and graphics card that can render something as large as a planet. The game has to deal with people in cheap $400.00 computers as well as people using $5,000.00 computers.

    As far as the interiors, they were originally made over-sized due to the camera issues. The camera would get locked behind you and you could not fight properly - plus you need room for 5 people to move without it seeming all cramped. Some of the newer interiors are smaller because they worked out the camera issue. They just have not had the time to go back and redo every interior in the game because it is not a priority.
    STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
  • anyone#9933 anyone Member Posts: 24 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    Planets don't have to be hard to render, on old computers they could just stretch the texture (they already do, it's so pixelated), while on new computers they could update it and increase the polygon count to make it "rounder". But it earth as it is isn't bigger as the average city.
  • fmgtorres1979fmgtorres1979 Member Posts: 1,327 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    Have you noticed how small space is in STO?.....
  • anyone#9933 anyone Member Posts: 24 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    Space has no mass, how is it small or big?
  • fmgtorres1979fmgtorres1979 Member Posts: 1,327 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    inmydot wrote: »
    Space has no mass, how is it small or big?

    ...


    By taking you a few minutes to go from here to there instead of the weeks, as it would for it to be "real"...



    BTW, big and small has nothing to do with mass
  • thecosmic1thecosmic1 Member Posts: 9,365 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    ...


    By taking you a few minutes to go from here to there instead of the weeks, as it would for it to be "real"...



    BTW, big and small has nothing to do with mass
    I would laugh so hard if the game added "real" time. You log in on Monday and set your course for Memory Alpha and then come back to the game on Wednesday and see that you are almost there. :)
    STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    A lot people are discouraged by size. Its ok. Turns out most people are average.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • fmgtorres1979fmgtorres1979 Member Posts: 1,327 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    thecosmic1 wrote: »
    I would laugh so hard if the game added "real" time. You log in on Monday and set your course for Memory Alpha and then come back to the game on Wednesday and see that you are almost there. :)

    Hey, whatever it takes to be real. Because that's what we want, right? Reality. That's why we are playing a game.
    Right?
    Right?


    :P
  • jeffel82jeffel82 Member Posts: 2,075 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    inmydot wrote: »
    Planets don't have to be hard to render, on old computers they could just stretch the texture (they already do, it's so pixelated), while on new computers they could update it and increase the polygon count to make it "rounder". But it earth as it is isn't bigger as the average city.

    It's not actually about the rendering of the planet, it's related to how the game calculates your position on the map.
    tacofangs wrote: »
    I agree with most of the above. Our planets ARE far too small. We are limited however, by math. We can't make objects much bigger than we do, without causing significant issues within our engine.
    tacofangs wrote: »
    All Engines have limitations. Our engine is actually very good overall, and we hear that everytime we hire someone from another company. Yes, there are limitations, but we are always adding to it, and improving on things. We will not be tossing it out and using something else.

    Many of the limitations we work with, are due to the types of games we make. MMOs have special limitations over most single player games. Turns out, having to render 100's of characters at once, and sync data between all of them is a bit of a hindrance.

    The way tacofangs has explained it (and the way I understood it), the accuracy of calculating your ship's position decreases the farther you get from the centre of the map.

    So if the planet was properly sized, and you could go all the way around it, the map would have to be so large that the game wouldn't be able to properly calculate your whereabouts, and the whole thing breaks down.
    You're right. The work here is very important.
    tacofangs wrote: »
    ...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.
  • vedauwoovedauwoo Member Posts: 215 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    inmydot wrote: »
    I know, but those "minor" details make it feel fake.

    that's because it IS fake.....you do realize this isn't real, right??
  • edgecrysgeredgecrysger Member Posts: 2,740 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    There is no point on making the planets in real size, specially because you are not going to reach em through the atmosphere and so on.. you just approach em and you beam to em. You will never see the atmosphere, the birds as you apporach the surface , etc. lol

    And i agree, it will be not so hard to render a planet in real size, but.. what will be the point??? you will be risking other players to not be able to render it as well as you do...

    But i must say, at least the should re-vamp the textures of some planets. Some of em are just, ridiculous.

    Some ships (for example the scimitar) have a little incorrect sizes, i agree, but that is impossible to fix right now. Once one ship is done.. it will be an odyssey to change its size (all the effects, and applications to that ship will need to be redesigned).
  • hyplhypl Member Posts: 3,719 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    stoutes wrote: »
    It's a game.

    NO! It's not a game! It's REAL LIFE. This is serious business, man!
  • tickletopstickletops Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    thecosmic1 wrote: »
    Most ships are scaled in-size to each other in the game. The big exception being the Small Craft - because if they made them the correct size they would be too difficult to see by others in larger ships.

    Planets are not supposed to be real size. You need to understand that not everyone has a powerful computer and graphics card that can render something as large as a planet. The game has to deal with people in cheap $400.00 computers as well as people using $5,000.00 computers.

    As far as the interiors, they were originally made over-sized due to the camera issues. The camera would get locked behind you and you could not fight properly - plus you need room for 5 people to move without it seeming all cramped. Some of the newer interiors are smaller because they worked out the camera issue. They just have not had the time to go back and redo every interior in the game because it is not a priority.

    scale for gameplay purposes versus scale for canon... there seems to be no consistency in scaling policy which is why i sympathise with the op.

    Good scaling creates immersion which is good for a game, bad scaling creates confusion and wtf moments, like when 10 scimitars fill your screen and block your ship at New Rom. (Dont get me wrong, apart from the size of it I like the scimi.)

    The scimitar is an excellent example of confused policy making. I have heard people arguing that it needs to be big because IT was BIG in the tv series. But if IT was big then, and a planet killer, and IT was only built once, why are there 10 of them blocking my view outside New Rom. And why by the way does it feel like it can outturn an escort/bop (ok i know i cannot, but it feels like it can). SO either we are canon and remove scimitar from game, remimbursing a lot of peoples zen, or we introduce it in game and adapt it suitably to the games needs (and not televisions).

    Really enjoy this game, except for awful and messy scaling. Size IS important, but so is using size appropriately, my GF says so all the time:P
  • edgecrysgeredgecrysger Member Posts: 2,740 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    What you talking about. The scimitar needs to be SMALLER, not bigger, that person who said that wanted just a monster of ship but the scimitar needs to be smaller. Just a couple of inches smaller.
  • tickletopstickletops Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    What you talking about. The scimitar needs to be SMALLER, not bigger, that person who said that wanted just a monster of ship but the scimitar needs to be smaller. Just a couple of inches smaller.

    did you read anything i said?:eek:
  • edgecrysgeredgecrysger Member Posts: 2,740 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    tickletops wrote: »
    did you read anything i said?:eek:

    Yeah i did, and i am telling to that person (not to you ;) ) that it needs to be smaller, not bigger.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,559 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    Reading the title of the thread, all I can think is, "That's what she said!"
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • tickletopstickletops Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    To go further with the issue of scaling, Cryptics model has not made einsteins connection between mass, velocity, energy required to accelerate... and a lot of other very BASIC physics. This is another reason the scimitar really annoys me (in spite of "owning" one myself :rolleyes:). Such a big craft should take several days to perform a turn in system space, just to avoid crushing wing based crew members through g forces as it wings spin at incredible speeds to allow the central bridge a gentle 0 g turnrate.

    whatever
  • organicmanfredorganicmanfred Member Posts: 3,236 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    Even the ships on TV weren't scaled right.

    Example: the Voyager underwent some repairs and Driver Coil changes in a planet. You could see the crew on the hull. How could 150 people fit in there?

    Or whenever they showed someone standing on the Enterprise-d hull. And just think about the human size Torpedo coming out of her neck? Not even 2 people could stand side by side in this thin front neck.
  • dongemaharudongemaharu Member Posts: 544 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    Yeah, some of those planet textures are embarrassingly bad. Some updates would be nice.

    Better scale would be nice of course, but the technical issues are tricky. There are some great instances in the game that demonstrate scale beautifully though, like space walking on the surface of DS9 in Boldly They Rode.
  • tickletopstickletops Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    Even the ships on TV weren't scaled right.

    Example: the Voyager underwent some repairs and Driver Coil changes in a planet. You could see the crew on the hull. How could 150 people fit in there?

    Or whenever they showed someone standing on the Enterprise-d hull. And just think about the human size Torpedo coming out of her neck? Not even 2 people could stand side by side in this thin front neck.

    you dare question CANON ?! summon the execution squad...
  • tickletopstickletops Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    Yeah, some of those planet textures are embarrassingly bad. Some updates would be nice.

    Better scale would be nice of course, but the technical issues are tricky. ...



    really?
    how so?

    every other space sim manages them...
  • organicmanfredorganicmanfred Member Posts: 3,236 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    tickletops wrote: »
    you dare question CANON ?! summon the execution squad...

    Well I have no problem with the STO scaling. It's a game and you have to bite into the sour apple because of all the limitations.

    But I don't understand some people asking for a playable Borg Cube. in the game, the Cube would have half the screen size for the other ships to be seen. They would look like ants otherwise.
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    stoutes wrote: »
    It's a game.
    Irrelevant.
    jeffel82 wrote: »
    The way tacofangs has explained it (and the way I understood it), the accuracy of calculating your ship's position decreases the farther you get from the centre of the map.

    So if the planet was properly sized, and you could go all the way around it, the map would have to be so large that the game wouldn't be able to properly calculate your whereabouts, and the whole thing breaks down.
    Is there any reason not to just put the planets in the "background", where the stars and such are, so they can't literally be "in" the map?
    vedauwoo wrote: »
    that's because it IS fake.....you do realize this isn't real, right??
    ...really?
  • phoeniciusphoenicius Member Posts: 762 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    the planet thing could be fixed by turning into part of the "sky" like earth was on tribble before S9, but yeah i agree, some of the ships on STO feel small, i mean the sovereign is supposed to be nearly 700m long, but feels like its less than that, for instance.
    What you talking about. The scimitar needs to be SMALLER, not bigger, that person who said that wanted just a monster of ship but the scimitar needs to be smaller. Just a couple of inches smaller.

    the scimitar is indeed too big, the jem dread is supposed to be longer than it, being around 1.3km long, while the scimitar is 850m long, but its wings are 1.35km wide, but this isn't true ingame where the scimitar is as long as the jem'hadar dread(when it should have 2/3 of the length and at least 30% less wide as well).

    http://i.imgur.com/DEmNj9m.jpg

    http://i.imgur.com/xMr6RxC.jpg

    still i think it would be best to increase the size of everything else by 30%, rather than making the scimitar smaller :x but thats just me, since the scimitar at least feels huge like it should be.
  • sonnikkusonnikku Member Posts: 77 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    thecosmic1 wrote: »
    I would laugh so hard if the game added "real" time. You log in on Monday and set your course for Memory Alpha and then come back to the game on Wednesday and see that you are almost there. :)

    Yet another reason to get an Excel. It's the ship that always comes out on top. :D
  • jeffel82jeffel82 Member Posts: 2,075 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    orangeitis wrote: »
    Is there any reason not to just put the planets in the "background", where the stars and such are, so they can't literally be "in" the map?

    Nope...in fact, that has been done in a few cases - most notably the planet in the KDF mission "Alpha."

    Earth was briefly like that on Tribble while the ESD revamp was in progress, but obviously the decision was made to go with a smaller, out-of-scale Earth which players can fly around. It's a trade-off.
    You're right. The work here is very important.
    tacofangs wrote: »
    ...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.
  • tickletopstickletops Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2014
    phoenicius wrote: »
    still i think it would be best to increase the size of everything else by 30%, rather than making the scimitar smaller :x but thats just me, since the scimitar at least feels huge like it should be.

    bigger means more polygons, more lag, but also more detail possible. inversely smaller means less polygons but less detail too.
Sign In or Register to comment.