And, presumably, used tools to export the models into a 3d modelling package which can simply tell you the volume of a rendered object.
Bigger On The Inside
- Thread starter Old Duck
- Start date
And, presumably, used tools to export the models into a 3d modelling package which can simply tell you the volume of a rendered object.
YepAnd, presumably, used tools to export the models into a 3d modelling package which can simply tell you the volume of a rendered object.
...and then observe (...well, if you're playing in VR, at least) how the ceiling rails of the one-size-fits-all SRV hangar module clips right through the recessed part of the cockpit floor. :7
I am sure this could be solved with a tailored module for the Sidewinder, which has less space above the SRV driver capsule, and less service space (EDIT: ...and equipment - e.g. no need for gantries and such, in a small ship with a single SRV) in general, but at the moment it looks kind of silly.
Have to say I'm one of those who practically gets an an aneurysm over the matters of whether physical compartments really can puzzle together sensibly, or at all, in the ships, and why what-would-logically-be-software-features takes up oodles of physical space.
I'm thinking about it a lot silly rabbit, but from a different angle than you all are (I'm not doing math right now).
See, THIS is how I'm thinking about it! Praise the Lord, somebody can finally confirm what I've been saying all along!
You are confirming what I've been saying, right?
They've been extracted from the game assets.
I use the volume of a wedge (triangular prism) or cone for my rough guestimations, but all the ship models have been measured in software.
Usually yes, but that's easy to correct for.
The Sidewinder has none of that and all the bigger ships increase in volume so much faster than they do in mass or module space that you can get really sloppy with the calcuations, in a conservative way, and still wind up with an order of magnitude more volume than you need.
It's like Frontier scaled everything for the smallest ships in the game, and then completely forgot about the cube-square law. Even my D&D stats take into account the cube square law.
He's confirming that some of the ship models are assembled pretty sloppily, and the current assets would not suffice for walking around our ships, yes.
However, that doesn't mean they are lacking the internal room to do so, just the design work.
FWIW, I think that the Sidey would probably be the "worst case scenario" for this since all the other small ships have their "bay doors" a fair distance from the cockpit.
Bear in mind that the space directly inboard of the "bay doors" probably wouldn't be the SRV bay, itself, since those doors get used for a variety or purposes.
Instead, that'd probably be an open area and cargo, SRVs and SLFs would be moved between their own areas and the "loading bay" as they enter/exit the ship.
On the down side, that means the "loading bay" would take up it's own area of a ship's volume (probably around 50m³, assuming the doors are 5m x 5m and headroom of 2m) but, on the up side, that'd mean modules such as the SRV bay wouldn't have to be positioned somewhere that might interfere with the cockpit.
From a modelling POV, it'd also mean that the "loading bay" could be designed to suit each individual ship (in the case of the sidey, it might have a dip in the roof at one end to accomodate the floor of the cockpit) and wouldn't have to be a regular shape, as long as it provided access to the 5m x 5m bay doors.
I think so, yes. It is a tight fit. Exiting through the low cockpit hatch, I expect you'd either be floating on your belly through a low access passage, with a floor hatch to the bay below (connected enclosed spaces with life support design), or enter straight into it (generally only safe in the cockpit and sleeping bunks)...
There are also plenty of landing gear pistons that stick right up through the floor (possibly a side effect of how they were extended, to make room for driving under the ships, when Horizons came along), and staircases that would leave you having to retract part of the floor, unless you are particularly fond of dancing the limbo, as well as using the entire cockpit as an airlock when disembarking. :7
When I read about the two new slots, something groaned inside of me.
Last edited:
See, that's the thing.
Back when passenger missions were a big thing, I wondered about the logistics of physically fitting passenger cabins into various ships.
I had a bit of a play around, seeing if they could be fitted into things like a Sidey and Cobra and it seemed plausible and then, when I looked at bigger ships, it became apparent that there'd easily be enough space for chandeliers and tennis courts.
I wouldn't be surprised if FDev's attempts at "modelling" ship interiors only got as far as doodling various ships on sheets of squared paper but that's fine because it immediately becomes apparent that internal space is never going to be an issue in any of the current ships.
I wonder if the SRV is actually big enough to pick up a couple of cannisters, though, if we assume they are roughly 2m x 1m as they're graphically depicted?
Pretty sure every slave from every can a Cutter can carry could have their own condo and there would still be room for the golf course.
I wonder if the SRV is actually big enough to pick up a couple of cannisters, though, if we assume they are roughly 2m x 1m as they're graphically depicted?
The back is large enough to hold them, but the mechanisms around how they get there are very unclear.
cough
My house compared to a Sidewinder Minecraft style. Just because I got bored waiting for the Alpha.
cough
My house compared to a Sidewinder Minecraft style. Just because I got bored waiting for the Alpha.
Heh, does anybody not do this?
I still have a minecraft map with a heap of ED ships in it.
Haven't looked at it for ages 'cos it's also got a half-finished "USS Voyager" ship in it, which always depresses me.
They've chosen light colours to make it look bigger.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFSwYtEDX24
Is it my imagination, or will some ships literally be "bigger on the inside" with the next update that gives us two additional module slots in small ships? If nothing else, this proves my theory that modules in ED are nothing but numerical attributes, not actual volumetric space inside our ships that we'll be able to one day walk around in and see. Think about it, where does one find this extra room (the equivalent of 4 tons of cargo) inside a Sidewinder or an Eagle?
Well at least my Livery is already accurate for the new update
View attachment 127348
I agree with you, realisticly speaking the Sidewinder would need a trailer to haul so much stuff.
I can live with it though, ED is not a realistic sim and I accept the unrealistic parts.
Those two extra slots for small ships definitely make them a lot more interesting to fly imho.
Fdev is just thinking outside the box....... literally.
I've totally accepted that modules are spreadsheet stats, and it rarely causes problems with my personal builds. I do limit myself to "realistic" feeling builds, so I've stopped carrying SRVs on small ships like the Sidewinder, Viper, etc. These new slots will likely be used for small computers, a tiny fuel scoop (which I imagine connecting to the already-existing intakes), or HRPs, which I imagine as titanium plates welded to the interior of my hull. I like configuring ships so Ican personally visualize how they look inside.
Last edited:
Based on past concept paintings. It can be seen that assuming a type 1 module takes the space of 2 cargo cannisters, there's plenty of room for two more type 1 modules.
From the "Art of Elite Dangerous" booklet of conceptual paintings:
elitedangerous2016.wordpress.com
From the "Art of Elite Dangerous" booklet of conceptual paintings:
Elite Dangerous: Artwork Book
Today Frontier released (to the backers that were promised a copy) their Digital Art book. This has been a long time coming, but was well worth the wait. It features some superb artwork stretching …
elitedangerous2016.wordpress.com
Last edited:
Gotta say, I've always been a bit dubious of the way things like fuel scoops, MRPs and HRPs (and probably some other things) are dealt with.
I mean, those things are, apparently, regular internal modules.
You can remove one and replace it with a cargo rack or a passenger cabin so they're, presumably, just sitting in a vacant area of the ship's superstructure, somehow reinforcing the hull or scooping fuel or whatever and taking up as much space as an equivalent passenger cabin, cargo rack or SLF bay etc.
Haven't thought it through properly but it seems like it might be better if some kind of "structural modification" slots were added to the core modules for things like HRPs, MRPs, fuel scoops and various Guardian doodads.
That way, it'd be reasonable to assume those things were integrated into the ship's superstructure rather than just getting plonked into a vacant space, and when/if it ever came to modelling them, it wouldn't be an issue cos players wouldn't expect to be able to go and look at them.
In general, I'm not keen on arbitrarily defining roles for specific ships via specialised slots but it seems like giving various ships different amounts of "structural modification" slots would be better than what we currently have and it'd definitely make things more sensible with regard to modelling ship interiors.
HRPs, MRPs, and the like take internal module slots simply so various mass/structural limitations are not exceeded. They don't actually sit in one of the modular hold areas, but that hold may need to be reconfigured to account for new structural supports and mass distribution, and an abstract module slot checked off the list so the ship cannot be overloaded.
I think this one was not addressed yet. And while i don't -know- why FD did it like this, i remember when the people from wing commander saga explained why their ships were so unreasonably large. (Not that they feel too large in game. But people who extracted the models realized that they were much bigger than they would be to be expected. ) They first tried to use normal scale, but combat was basically just shooting at pixels, without ever having good visuals on the target. Only when they made ships much larger (up to 16 times larger!), combat turned out the way they wanted it to be.
So while i have no hard evidence to confirm that things happened the same way in ED, I very much think that ED would have the very same problem if ships would be scaled matching to their mass. Also i think if this happened, in terms of gameplay FD did the right thing by scaling them up without adjusting mass. Would the ships have mass according to their size, people would be all the rage about "unrealistically high" mass numbers. People have expectations how heavy a "fighter spaceship" should be and they have expectations on how it should look on the screen. They have no feeling that their expectations can't possibly match up. (At least i don't. Without the maths being done, i would have no chance to tell that something would be odd here. )