Sense Of Scale

So, did you actually measure this in game? And also measure the projected viewpoint - what were your results? BTW no anger here Sleu boy. If there's any emotion to this forum it's with humor! But nice try to take the discussion into something personal. That's a standard white knight technique right there where one avoids the topic and simply starts to attack the poster. Not saying you meant this on purpose but it certainly fits a pattern.




And did you also measure things and confirm the scale being "correct"? What were your results?




Wait, didn't you already reply to my posts? Anyway, the stars look way too small. The OP is correct that the sense of scale is wrong. FDev messed up if players feel this way. That's a fact.

Yes, people did measure these things and it turned out that everything is scaled correctly. This discussion exists since release and people made many tests, all turned out that scaling is not off. We even had some FDEV folks providing proof via screenshots.
 
We need ground crew, they don't have to be functional, just loiter and look nice.

In all the air travels that I’ve ever done; fixed wing and helicopters, I have always noticed that they fulfil the first two functions very well and never the third. 2/3 aint bad as Meatloaf would say.

no disrespect to ground crews, it’s just an observation that sprang to mind.
 
You're travelling at high speed in an environment with few visual reference points to give your brain a clue as to scales and distances. It's like when you drive on the motorway: it feels slower than travelling at a slower speed down a country lane. Or when you stand on top of a tall building and you swear you could jump to the roof of the building across the street.
 
Last edited:
Your reasons don't make much sense. Let met see to them.
"Or they could have done as they did. Either works"
Either works, but thats pointless. Why use 20 squaremeters of glass 5 meters away from the pilot instead of 2 squaremeters of it but close as possible to the pilots face to increase integrity of the vessel in question without loosing field of view? You want combat, you want max fov with less glass because glass = fragile.

"And remember that the cockpit of a modern fighter, despite being a LOT less inhibited by the engine of the plane in the nose, still has a problem with visibilty outside the 10-degree down and 20 degree back limit of such a cockpit. Moreover you don't get out of the seat in a fighter jet. And when you do, gravity keeps you constrained to "the floor", meaning you can traverse a cramped area better because you can pus against your own weight and use gravity to recover downward. Not so much in zero g.
And in your design, you are stuck in the bubble until landing."

If your vessel is focused on combat, there is zero reason to allow pilot to get off it's seat. You get in at the station or your squadron ship, get scrambled, do your thing and come back to get out thus the fighter aircraft is designed, or crampled cockpit of F1 racing cars, or you can add examples. Now If you want to allow the pilot to get off your seat for some reason, you can do it without growing the said cockpit into the size of a mess hall. Keeping the room as tight as possible you gain lots of benefits (mass, integrity, etc.). In example, here:

Couldn't they expand that cockpit and allow some more space for the pilots to move themselves? Ofcourse they could but why they should?
About moving in zero gravity, well, when your way of travel involves grabbing something and pulling yourself in zero g, size of your corridor doesnt matter. You could even slide yourself through a tube which you can't go through in g through your constant vector. It's possibly even easier to find something to grab and stabilise yourself when you're in a tight place instead of floating around in a big hall.

"with a massive blind spot for a full hemisphere below you. At least with the glass shed on the front idea you can see everywhere your weapons can point plus more, and the visibility is where your head points naturally. "

You imply that I wish to use a tight windowed cockpit like the airlines above. I did not. My point is, there is a lot of useless space in cockpits for no reason. If the design we had kept as little empty space as possible, the same cockpit and same fov would stay but with the benefit of smaller frames of glass. Which actually looks like that from 1st person view but on the outside camera view, things get awkward on most ships. TLDR; No need for space next and front of the seat that can allow you to dance, you can pull the glass that much closer to the chair to have the same field of view but can reduce the size of the required glass to achieve the same fov
.

I have tried to make this point before.
The sense of scale is wrong when you look at the ships, especially the cockpits. As an example, the Courier. I did a pic comparing it to the Harrier (similar shaped cockpits):-

FEI5pUY.jpg

From the outside, the courier looks about the same size as the Harrier, but actually it is several times bigger. Intellectually we know this, but it still sometimes confuses us subconsciously.

Likewise the Clipper, it looks from the outside like a small business jet:

YnOYGGM.jpg

Even though we know it is a lot bigger.

Then you go into VR and stand at the bottom of the steps into the Cutter - the first step is above waist height! Oh well, no problem, just get the servants to haul me up on a rope...
 
Yes, people did measure these things and it turned out that everything is scaled correctly. This discussion exists since release and people made many tests, all turned out that scaling is not off. We even had some FDEV folks providing proof via screenshots.

Then you go into VR and stand at the bottom of the steps into the Cutter - the first step is above waist height! Oh well, no problem, just get the servants to haul me up on a rope...

The plot thickens!
 
I have tried to make this point before.
The sense of scale is wrong when you look at the ships, especially the cockpits. As an example, the Courier. I did a pic comparing it to the Harrier (similar shaped cockpits):-

From the outside, the courier looks about the same size as the Harrier, but actually it is several times bigger. Intellectually we know this, but it still sometimes confuses us subconsciously.

Likewise the Clipper, it looks from the outside like a small business jet:

Even though we know it is a lot bigger.

Then you go into VR and stand at the bottom of the steps into the Cutter - the first step is above waist height! Oh well, no problem, just get the servants to haul me up on a rope...

This is such a good post.
 
[read the first 3 pages and then skipped to the end]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but also depth of vision could play a part in this. Not having been in VR ED yet, is there a depth of field focus imposed on the player? I Know that some of the screen shots from people who have installed and tweaked a reshader, there looks to be more of a scale to everything. In real life, your eyes do not have everything in focus, just what you're looking (focused) on. The transition from near to far is nearly instant so not perceived by your brain. But still when looking at large objects, the far end will be out of focus.

I suspect that this "optical illusion" or lack thereof coupled with a combination of the aforementioned reasons could explain our observations for a lack of "sense of scale"
 
r.

Then you go into VR and stand at the bottom of the steps into the Cutter - the first step is above waist height! Oh well, no problem, just get the servants to haul me up on a rope...

Just recalled my Cutter in VR, the first step is waist height if you are a 2yr old. Are you sure you setup the HMD with your actual real world height?

The floor lighting is only a couple of inches tall when next to it. Look at the clearance between the light by the first step in the second pic. Not sure where you are getting waist height? First step is below my knee in VR.

219ozo1.jpg


2886wc0.jpg


Edit - found this a good read https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3778099/
 
Last edited:
I have tried to make this point before.
The sense of scale is wrong when you look at the ships, especially the cockpits. As an example, the Courier. I did a pic comparing it to the Harrier (similar shaped cockpits):-


From the outside, the courier looks about the same size as the Harrier, but actually it is several times bigger. Intellectually we know this, but it still sometimes confuses us subconsciously.

Likewise the Clipper, it looks from the outside like a small business jet:


Even though we know it is a lot bigger.

Then you go into VR and stand at the bottom of the steps into the Cutter - the first step is above waist height! Oh well, no problem, just get the servants to haul me up on a rope...

Good post!
 
I suppose Elite Feet, should they ever arrive, will give us an immediate sense of hugeness for our ships, but to be honest, the SRV does a half decent job.

I play in 2D but with EDTracker, and this gives me a nice feel for the size of my cockpit, but much like any vehicle it's tough to appreciate how huge they are from the inside. How large did your last 747 taxi feel from the inside?

Of all my the issues with ED, this one is so low on the list as to be invisible.
 
Not sure if this has been mentioned but also depth of vision could play a part in this. Not having been in VR ED yet, is there a depth of field focus imposed on the player?
None that I have especially noticed, it all feels natural in VR (with the VIVE) and on a nominal 3D monitor (with nVidia 3D Vision).

Any lack of sense of scale in the 2D environment v. the 3D environment is natural rendering differences. There is no magic bullet distorting perception in the 3D display environment, it is all standard OpenGL/DirectX rendering kind of stuff.

It is worth bearing in mind that ALL 3D computer rendering is a form of optical illusion, the only thing the 3D display does is put the 3D environment into it's actual correct 3D context. In the 2D display context, the 3D environment is essentially the projection that only one eye might be presented in the stereoscopic 3D display context (positioning of the viewing frustum is likely to be more central though).
 
Last edited:
I have always noticed that they fulfil the first two functions very well and never the third. 2/3 aint bad as Meatloaf would say.

no disrespect to ground crews, it’s just an observation that sprang to mind.

On my last flight to Greece there were two really cute girls as ground crew handling luggage and "loitering around" communicating via radio so maybe things change ;-)
 
So bobbleheads, are they the size of small children? I don't own any myself, but videos I've watched makes the ship consoles look like my car dashboard when bobbles are on them, when in "reality" these consoles are likely bigger than my kitchen counter top.

female-pilotsilhouette.jpg
 
So bobbleheads, are they the size of small children? I don't own any myself, but videos I've watched makes the ship consoles look like my car dashboard when bobbles are on them, when in "reality" these consoles are likely bigger than my kitchen counter top.

About the height of a Barbie doll. Not big at all.
 
You are visiting Greece often? [smile]

Not so often I would like, we have been there two times with wife, and we love it, the people, the visuals, the food ;-) but that's way off-topic for the sense of scale of things in Elite ;-) <self-moderating>

Been in Greece once too, and can confirm that perception of scale is totally off even there. The Parthenon appeared huge through my Real Reality goggles, but it looks tiiiny whenever I see pictures of it on a 2D screen. :p

As for Elite, as has already been noted multiple times the relative scale of things is totally correct, and it couldn't be otherwise since any competent studio usually sets up a pipeline for assets developing using a pre-determined reference for sizes and measurements (meaning that every asset is modeled in the same workplace setup, so that "one meter" defines the same relative length for any asset produced. Not sure I clarified more than what's outside these brackets, sorry. Language barrier. [where is it])

Again as already noted, it's exclusively a perception issue depending from a number of factors. 3D in itself doesn't automagically make everything huge, what it does is "only" adding perception of depth. When I play in side-by-side 3D I can appreciate the "popping out" of cockpit elements, how far my legs go in the flight chair or roughly how far is the glass, but stuff still appear tiny and if possible even more toy-ish than in 2D due to that. VR, in addition to the projection tricks necessary for experiencing it without becoming a vomit comet, gives a far larger area of view and removes any real word frame of reference, allowing the brain to give the "correct" scale to things rendered.

Add to this (as already mentioned, again) the fact that ships in game move around at ludicrous speeds and acceleration, and the player point of view in the cockpit puts him/her several meters away from everything outside, preventing the player from appreciating details "at arms length" and walking speed. This is were space legs can do the most to give the best impression of actual scale of things in the limited experience possible in a 2D representation.
For how shoddy its implementation could have been in X-Rebirth, it really did miracles to appreciate the gargantuan proportions of ships and stations. You fly around in your small ship zipping around capital ships and structures that look "big", then set foot on one of those small open platforms scattered around stations and suddenly, while walking under your "small" ship that's actually the size of a T-6, you appreciate the truly humongous proportions of the station structure looming all over and around you. I'm confident the experience in ED will be no different once it gets implemented.
 
So bobbleheads, are they the size of small children? I don't own any myself, but videos I've watched makes the ship consoles look like my car dashboard when bobbles are on them, when in "reality" these consoles are likely bigger than my kitchen counter top.

The consoles are vast - far larger than most entire kitchens in some cases :D

Yet - the projections are also huge, but at varying distances from you. They are in front of each other, and the more urgent ones are closer.

Hard to describe in 2d :D
 
Back
Top Bottom