Ships Has Anyone Considered the Scale of These Ships?

[Darth Wonko]

Of course you have. Right?

But are these ships really as big as we think they are? Do they need to be?

I've had a tough time with this, quite frankly. I'd like some actual real feedback, so please let me know your thoughts.

The primary reason why I struggle with this is because of my Vulture. More on that in a bit...

Cargo Racks
This seems a useful baseline to determine the size of components, so let's start here:

• Every item placed in cargo comes in a cylinder of uniform size
• Every cylinder is a uniform weight - 1 metric ton (I assume metric, since the abbreviation is a 'T' an not a 't')
• Each cargo rack can hold 2^x tons of cargo where x = the size of the compartment. So, a size 3 compartment can hold 2^3 tons of cargo, or 8 tons.

So, how big are these cylinders?

If we compare them to an SRV, which can hold two, they look to be maybe 2m long by 1m diameter - and I think that's on the large side. If so, this gives each cylinder a volume of 1.57 cubic meters, not including the walls of the cylinder.

1.57 cubic meters of gold weighs 30.3T
1.57 cubic meters of water weighs 1.57T
1.57 cubic meters of coffee weighs 0.68T

So, we are already running into problems here, as I'll need larger cylinders for coffee. And, if I want 1T of hydrogen, assuming liquid, I'll need 16 cubic meters, or about 10 of these cylinders.

Glossing over that, here's the graphic from in-game when it comes to cargo space:

That's a 4E cargo space, and based on the cylinder sizes the dimensions are approximately 4m x 4m x 2m. A 2E cargo space would be 2m x 2m x 2m. A 1E would be 1m x 1m x 2m. So, I'm going to use the formula (2^x) x 2m for all class sizes where x is the class designation.

Here are a couple of issues I have:

1. Why does a Supercruise Assist or Advanced Docking Computer take up 2 cubic meters of space? I can go buy a car today that will automagically maintain space between me and the car in front of me, put me back in my correct lane and parallel park. My phone has more computing power than the computer in the Space Shuttles. The ships have Flight Assist, which takes up zero space and the ability to compute FTL travel. Shouldn't these other things just be computer upgrades?
2. What is up with sensors taking up so much space? A 1A sensor weighs 1.3T and takes up 2 cubic meters of space with range of 6km. An 8C sensor weighs 160T and takes up 512 cubic meters with a range of 6.4 km. Sure, the integrity is 150 vs 44... but, still... an additional 158.7T and 510 cubic meters seems like an awful lot. Given the math, it'd be more reasonable for 3x the integrity to take up an additional 3T and 4 cubic meters.
3. Why does life support take up so much space? Think about the International Space Station. It's about the size of the Type-9 Heavy. For the entire crew of six, the life support system takes up three racks which are each about 2m x 1m x 1m. (See the Wikipedia article, which has a picture). On the Type-9, it's a size 5 compartment, or 64 cubic meters. Of course, the inhabited space of the ISS is much smaller, but that doesn't really matter that much... 2/3 of the system is for water reclamation for six people. Type-9 has one pilot and (optionally) another pilot for the fighter bay.
4. Fuel makes no sense. An F-22 raptor holds 8T of fuel, which is about 2 cubic meters. An Eagle holds 4T of fuel in a class 2 compartment, which is 8 cubic meters. The problem is, 1L of liquid hydrogen weighs .07kg. 1 cubic meter is 1000L. 8 cubic meters of liquid hydrogen would weigh 56okg. To get 4T of fuel, you'd need 64 cubic meters. Looking at the class 7 compartment, which would be 256 cubic meters. It holds 128T of fuel. That would require 8960 cubic meters.

Cockpit Scale
This is where my Eagle and my Vulture come into play. When I sit in those things and look around, they feel like fighter jets. However, looking at the artwork or looking at it in hangar, the scale seems off. (Also, why in the hell would we need multi-crew in a Vulture?)

Anyway, I'm a bajillion light years from where my Vulture is, so I'm going to use my Asp Ex as an example.

Here are pictures of the inside of the cockpit:

When looking down, it is clear my feet are under or touching the base of the dash and the dash is less than a meter from me:

When looking straight ahead, the dashboard is about a 1.5m wide. Looking at each side, the edge of the dash is about a foot or so away from the canopy. Now, take a look at this external shot (I've added white lines to try to make the dash easier to see):

Internationally, the average male is 175cm tall and I'll use that since the math is easy. The ratio of leg to torso would put torso height at 75cm and leg length at 1m (again, just making the math easy). Then, those dimensions would be:
A - 1.5m (figuring in that area above the top of the head rest and the seat is on a pedestal base)
B - 1m (adding in headrest)
C - 50cm
D - 50cm

Figuring the base of the seat as about the same as the height (since it looks about that way), dimension E is something like 2.25-2.5m. This would mean in order to have a pilot's feet where they appear to be when looking down, the pilot's shins would have to be about 2m long. Also, the dashboard would be about 3m wide.

To make the external shot look more like what we see from the inside, I think it would have to be more like this:

Yes... I know. It's called "art".

I've put a 2E cargo space for scale, too.

Weapons
This idea of scale holds up with weapons, too - as far as I can tell. We have no idea how big a burst laser would be, or whatever, but take a look at the A-10's GAU-8 which has a max range of 3.6km, a barrel length of 2.3m, total length of 5.9m and weighs 1.8T fully loaded. It shoots 70 rounds per second and holds 1174 rounds. A 1F multi-cannon has a range of 4km, weighs 2T, shoots 7.7rps and holds 2100 rounds. I think it's a reasonable comparison. If you look at the Asp Explorer with the weapons deployed, it looks to be about the right size, if the cockpit scale was adjusted as above.

Anyway, it just seems to me the ships aren't nearly as big as published. Either that, or the cockpits are just WAY off on what size they actually are based on what you see from the inside as the pilot.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[MK Regular]

From what I have heard, the cockpits of our ships appear much bigger in VR (or rather they seem much smaller outside of VR). If you don't have VR, everything that you can see from the pilot's seat is a fixed position relative to the camera, which makes it very easy to think that parts of the cockpit are smaller and closer than they actually are. The fact that the you have no depth perception outside of VR does not help with this.

With respect to cargo, the cargo canisters are exactly 2m long and 1m wide, iirc. However, when sizing the optional internal slots, you cannot use cargo racks because they are optional internal type that takes up the least amount of room. The size 4 cargo rack that you show would be able to fit through the cargo hatch on a ship, the same cargo hatch that is nearly filled by the SRV. Given that 2G SRV bays are a thing, it would seem that the optional internal slot that is about 4m x 4m x 2m would be the size 2 slot rather than the size 4 slot (also, for that matter, a size 1 slot CANNOT be 1m x 1m x 2m as it would only be able to fit a single cargo canister when we know that it can actually fit two). This video explains module sizing a lot better than I can, although Neb does make a few small mistakes with regards to the size of cargo canisters.

As for the weapons, the comparison with the GAU-8 with a size 1 multi works perfectly fine at the current scale, but does not work for a size 1 multi at the scale you suggest (it would work for a size 2 multi though).

 

[Maolagin]

From what I have heard, the cockpits of our ships appear much bigger in VR (or rather they seem much smaller outside of VR). If you don't have VR, everything that you can see from the pilot's seat is a fixed position relative to the camera, which makes it very easy to think that parts of the cockpit are smaller and closer than they actually are. The fact that the you have no depth perception outside of VR does not help with this.

Not just VR, if you don't have a headset you can get a feel for this just poking around with the various vanity cameras. The 2D view from the pilot's seat doesn't really make it clear that the dashboard is quite large and several meters in front of the pilot.

In fact, we currently have a 33-page thread specifically about the issue of cockpits being so large that they throw off the sense of scale! Lots of good pictures and measurements and debate in there.

Ships with proper ship bridges, not upscaled cockpits

I think we need ships with proper bridges, not just upscaled cockpits. At a certain point a ship becomes too large for a cockpit and it throws the sense of scale off. They are ships when they are large, not aircraft. See this ship? Cockpit looks like it can seat two pilots comfortably. You can...

forums.frontier.co.uk

We've also had some lively debates about the size and density of cargo racks and modules this year. All in all, it's an evergreen topic.

Cargo size and shape

I found myself wondering, if each cargo rack is twice the size of the previous one, then is there a shape that maintains the same aspect ratio and can be stacked efficiently. It's not obvious, because when you chop something in half, you usually change its shape. You have to chose the relative...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Bigger On The Inside

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...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You're confusing mass with volume in part. A docking computer that weighs 2t does not necessarily take the same room as 2 tons of cargo. Also use of tons for cargo was always troublesome, since 2t of iron doesn't necessitate the same volume as 2t of cheese.

That's why its best to think of cargo in terms of units rather than tons, despite the game treating 1 unit as 1t reardless.

For all we know, docking computers are tiny but contain a microscoping amount of white dwarf matter

Its best just to handwave it away and not think about it.

 

[CMDR GRAEME COWELL]

Also just to add more monkey to the works cheese as an example would need refrigeration and protection from radiation, iron not so much.. so your 'standard cargo unit' would be like a 1T fridge with some cheese in it. The cost to ship based on a standard unit to simplify galactic trade... but I agree about the interior of the cockpits I could have a foosball table in there so me and Ali could chill while waiting for dock space to become available

 

[CMDR GRAEME COWELL]

Pretty much it is just a game mechanic to make ppl agonize over ship loadouts instead of just maxing everything out and having '1 of everything' plus a spare fsd just in case

 

[Darth Wonko]

From what I have heard, the cockpits of our ships appear much bigger in VR (or rather they seem much smaller outside of VR). If you don't have VR, everything that you can see from the pilot's seat is a fixed position relative to the camera, which makes it very easy to think that parts of the cockpit are smaller and closer than they actually are. The fact that the you have no depth perception outside of VR does not help with this.

I've actually been looking around at VR headsets specifically because of this game. I'm not sure I'm ready to plunk down the money yet, but I am considering it. From what I understand, it's absolutely spectacular.

With respect to cargo, the cargo canisters are exactly 2m long and 1m wide, iirc. However, when sizing the optional internal slots, you cannot use cargo racks because they are optional internal type that takes up the least amount of room. The size 4 cargo rack that you show would be able to fit through the cargo hatch on a ship, the same cargo hatch that is nearly filled by the SRV. Given that 2G SRV bays are a thing, it would seem that the optional internal slot that is about 4m x 4m x 2m would be the size 2 slot rather than the size 4 slot (also, for that matter, a size 1 slot CANNOT be 1m x 1m x 2m as it would only be able to fit a single cargo canister when we know that it can actually fit two). This video explains module sizing a lot better than I can, although Neb does make a few small mistakes with regards to the size of cargo canisters.

Yep, I got the math wrong on the class 1 cargo hold. However, I'm not sure about the rest. The Scarab is 4.8m x 4m x 2.5m. Considering they fold up when they are stowed (at least, in the animation), I think it's reasonable to think it will fit in the class 2 compartment, if it's 2 x 2 x 2m; but maybe not?

I'll definitely check out that video, though.

Not just VR, if you don't have a headset you can get a feel for this just poking around with the various vanity cameras. The 2D view from the pilot's seat doesn't really make it clear that the dashboard is quite large and several meters in front of the pilot.

In fact, we currently have a 33-page thread specifically about the issue of cockpits being so large that they throw off the sense of scale! Lots of good pictures and measurements and debate in there.

I've spent some time going through those today, and they've created more questions than they've answered, of course. LOL

Good stuff, though. I'm going to put some more thought into it.

You're confusing mass with volume in part. A docking computer that weighs 2t does not necessarily take the same room as 2 tons of cargo. Also use of tons for cargo was always troublesome, since 2t of iron doesn't necessitate the same volume as 2t of cheese.

That's why its best to think of cargo in terms of units rather than tons, despite the game treating 1 unit as 1t reardless.

For all we know, docking computers are tiny but contain a microscoping amount of white dwarf matter

Its best just to handwave it away and not think about it.

If I'm confusing mass with volume, then that's the game's fault... for saying we have 24T of fuel and then saying it's hydrogen which has a mass so tiny, the volume required to hold 24T would be larger than the ship. LOL

Those 2m x 1m containers hold 1.57 m^3 of whatever. So, while we could fill them with gold or water (as in my posting), we could not fit a tonne of coffee into them, even though we can pick up 1T of coffee = 1 cargo container.

Also just to add more monkey to the works cheese as an example would need refrigeration and protection from radiation, iron not so much.. so your 'standard cargo unit' would be like a 1T fridge with some cheese in it. The cost to ship based on a standard unit to simplify galactic trade... but I agree about the interior of the cockpits I could have a foosball table in there so me and Ali could chill while waiting for dock space to become available

Pretty much it is just a game mechanic to make ppl agonize over ship loadouts instead of just maxing everything out and having '1 of everything' plus a spare fsd just in case

You're probably right... but, it's still something they should take into account.

One of the things about the game which is so great is its immersion factor. Once you start trying to picture things, though, it starts to break down.

Maybe this is why they talked about Space Legs in 2014 (

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yd-m9AR7mY
) and still haven't been able to make it a reality. Once we start walking around ships like the Anaconda, we'll realize that a ship that is over 307,000 m^3 is a bit empty, even when it's "full" of stuff.

 

[Maolagin]

If I'm confusing mass with volume, then that's the game's fault... for saying we have 24T of fuel and then saying it's hydrogen which has a mass so tiny, the volume required to hold 24T would be larger than the ship. LOL

Those 2m x 1m containers hold 1.57 m^3 of whatever. So, while we could fill them with gold or water (as in my posting), we could not fit a tonne of coffee into them, even though we can pick up 1T of coffee = 1 cargo container.

You can get hydrogen densities in the same ballpark as water if you assume the cargo canisters store hydrogen either as a solid like Lithium hydride or in an exotic form like metallic hydrogen. Both these possibilities create conceptual problems of course - either where does the lithium come from/go to, or why don't hydrogen canisters violently explode when damaged?

As for the general framework of 1 unit = 1T, I suspect it derives from (a possible misunderstanding of) maritime shipping terminology. Cargo ships measure their capacity in "tonnage" but that is actually a measure of available cargo volume. Since the 1970s, gross/net tonnage has been a nonlinear formula based on ship volume, but prior to that capacity was expressed in "register tons" where 1 "register ton" = 100 cubic feet (about 2.8 m³). But you can imagine something like, interstellar shipping standards require (for predictable planning of jumps, thruster sizing, etc) that all cargo canisters weigh exactly one ton, whether that means they hold mostly empty space and some gold nuggets, or a few hundred kg of tea and some dense ballast to make up the weight. Given that our ships are pretty large for the cargo capacities they support, it seems like mass would have been a more important variable than volume for the engineers designing them.

 

[Darth Wonko]

You can get hydrogen densities in the same ballpark as water if you assume the cargo canisters store hydrogen either as a solid like Lithium hydride or in an exotic form like metallic hydrogen. Both these possibilities create conceptual problems of course - either where does the lithium come from/go to, or why don't hydrogen canisters violently explode when damaged?

As for the general framework of 1 unit = 1T, I suspect it derives from (a possible misunderstanding of) maritime shipping terminology. Cargo ships measure their capacity in "tonnage" but that is actually a measure of available cargo volume. Since the 1970s, gross/net tonnage has been a nonlinear formula based on ship volume, but prior to that capacity was expressed in "register tons" where 1 "register ton" = 100 cubic feet (about 2.8 m³). But you can imagine something like, interstellar shipping standards require (for predictable planning of jumps, thruster sizing, etc) that all cargo canisters weigh exactly one ton, whether that means they hold mostly empty space and some gold nuggets, or a few hundred kg of tea and some dense ballast to make up the weight. Given that our ships are pretty large for the cargo capacities they support, it seems like mass would have been a more important variable than volume for the engineers designing them.

I did read up on that - regarding the 'tonnage' terminology used for cargo in shipping - when I was typing up my original post. I had no idea that it had to do with volume rather than mass... I simply assumed it meant 'how many tons (mass) can this hold?', so I found that interesting.

I didn't at all think about extremely dense ballast making up for lost weight when transporting a less dense material, like tea or coffee. That seems pretty obvious, once you mentioned it, so I feel silly having not considered it.

Regarding Hydrogen storage, it could definitely be stored in some sort of exotic way. However, how does our fuel scoop have zero mass if it has to take gasses from a star and convert them into whatever usable form of hydrogen the ship is using as fuel?

At the end of the day, as one poster said in a different thread that was linked above, these numbers are just D&D stats for ships. They actually don't mean anything.

 

[Maolagin]

At the end of the day, as one poster said in a different thread that was linked above, these numbers are just D&D stats for ships. They actually don't mean anything.

Sure. And any good D&D GM would encourage the players to use their imaginations to flesh out those stats into a coherent character. It's fun to imagine how our ships work too, if you're into that sort of thing.

Regarding Hydrogen storage, it could definitely be stored in some sort of exotic way. However, how does our fuel scoop have zero mass if it has to take gasses from a star and convert them into whatever usable form of hydrogen the ship is using as fuel?

The zero-mass modules only make sense if they represent using internal space to reconfigure systems that are already onboard the ship. Somehow. The way I imagine it, the ship's fuel handling systems already handle converting fuel between its dense storage form and the plasma used by the reactors. Given more space to work, those same systems can compress hydrogen from stellar corona plasma. And the higher cost for better scoops is due to upgrading the coils that generate the compression fields. It's kinda weird that this can be done without adding an additional opening to the ship, but mumble mumble FSD I guess.

 

[Darth Wonko]

Sure. And any good D&D GM would encourage the players to use their imaginations to flesh out those stats into a coherent character. It's fun to imagine how our ships work too, if you're into that sort of thing.

If I could do multiple likes on that comment, I would. This is EXACTLY what sent me down this stupid rabbit hole. (And, I also play D&D)

When I get into my Eagle, it feels, acts and performs .. is 'snug' the right word?

I feel the same in my Vulture. It just flies like a fighter. So, when I picture it in my mind it looks like it feels - like a fighter aircraft. Then, I see the external view and it totally blows up that mental image.

I think I'm trying to figure out a way to make these ships smaller.

 

[Dr_VFX]

Of course you have. Right?

But are these ships really as big as we think they are? Do they need to be?

I've had a tough time with this, quite frankly. I'd like some actual real feedback, so please let me know your thoughts.

The primary reason why I struggle with this is because of my Vulture. More on that in a bit...

Cargo Racks
This seems a useful baseline to determine the size of components, so let's start here:

• Every item placed in cargo comes in a cylinder of uniform size
• Every cylinder is a uniform weight - 1 metric ton (I assume metric, since the abbreviation is a 'T' an not a 't')
• Each cargo rack can hold 2^x tons of cargo where x = the size of the compartment. So, a size 3 compartment can hold 2^3 tons of cargo, or 8 tons.

So, how big are these cylinders?

If we compare them to an SRV, which can hold two, they look to be maybe 2m long by 1m diameter - and I think that's on the large side. If so, this gives each cylinder a volume of 1.57 cubic meters, not including the walls of the cylinder.

1.57 cubic meters of gold weighs 30.3T
1.57 cubic meters of water weighs 1.57T
1.57 cubic meters of coffee weighs 0.68T

So, we are already running into problems here, as I'll need larger cylinders for coffee. And, if I want 1T of hydrogen, assuming liquid, I'll need 16 cubic meters, or about 10 of these cylinders.

Glossing over that, here's the graphic from in-game when it comes to cargo space:

View attachment 153896

That's a 4E cargo space, and based on the cylinder sizes the dimensions are approximately 4m x 4m x 2m. A 2E cargo space would be 2m x 2m x 2m. A 1E would be 1m x 1m x 2m. So, I'm going to use the formula (2^x) x 2m for all class sizes where x is the class designation.

Here are a couple of issues I have:

1. Why does a Supercruise Assist or Advanced Docking Computer take up 2 cubic meters of space? I can go buy a car today that will automagically maintain space between me and the car in front of me, put me back in my correct lane and parallel park. My phone has more computing power than the computer in the Space Shuttles. The ships have Flight Assist, which takes up zero space and the ability to compute FTL travel. Shouldn't these other things just be computer upgrades?
2. What is up with sensors taking up so much space? A 1A sensor weighs 1.3T and takes up 2 cubic meters of space with range of 6km. An 8C sensor weighs 160T and takes up 512 cubic meters with a range of 6.4 km. Sure, the integrity is 150 vs 44... but, still... an additional 158.7T and 510 cubic meters seems like an awful lot. Given the math, it'd be more reasonable for 3x the integrity to take up an additional 3T and 4 cubic meters.
3. Why does life support take up so much space? Think about the International Space Station. It's about the size of the Type-9 Heavy. For the entire crew of six, the life support system takes up three racks which are each about 2m x 1m x 1m. (See the Wikipedia article, which has a picture). On the Type-9, it's a size 5 compartment, or 64 cubic meters. Of course, the inhabited space of the ISS is much smaller, but that doesn't really matter that much... 2/3 of the system is for water reclamation for six people. Type-9 has one pilot and (optionally) another pilot for the fighter bay.
4. Fuel makes no sense. An F-22 raptor holds 8T of fuel, which is about 2 cubic meters. An Eagle holds 4T of fuel in a class 2 compartment, which is 8 cubic meters. The problem is, 1L of liquid hydrogen weighs .07kg. 1 cubic meter is 1000L. 8 cubic meters of liquid hydrogen would weigh 56okg. To get 4T of fuel, you'd need 64 cubic meters. Looking at the class 7 compartment, which would be 256 cubic meters. It holds 128T of fuel. That would require 8960 cubic meters.

Cockpit Scale
This is where my Eagle and my Vulture come into play. When I sit in those things and look around, they feel like fighter jets. However, looking at the artwork or looking at it in hangar, the scale seems off. (Also, why in the hell would we need multi-crew in a Vulture?)

Anyway, I'm a bajillion light years from where my Vulture is, so I'm going to use my Asp Ex as an example.

Here are pictures of the inside of the cockpit:

When looking down, it is clear my feet are under or touching the base of the dash and the dash is less than a meter from me:
View attachment 153907

When looking straight ahead, the dashboard is about a 1.5m wide. Looking at each side, the edge of the dash is about a foot or so away from the canopy. Now, take a look at this external shot (I've added white lines to try to make the dash easier to see):
View attachment 153916

Internationally, the average male is 175cm tall and I'll use that since the math is easy. The ratio of leg to torso would put torso height at 75cm and leg length at 1m (again, just making the math easy). Then, those dimensions would be:
A - 1.5m (figuring in that area above the top of the head rest and the seat is on a pedestal base)
B - 1m (adding in headrest)
C - 50cm
D - 50cm

Figuring the base of the seat as about the same as the height (since it looks about that way), dimension E is something like 2.25-2.5m. This would mean in order to have a pilot's feet where they appear to be when looking down, the pilot's shins would have to be about 2m long. Also, the dashboard would be about 3m wide.

To make the external shot look more like what we see from the inside, I think it would have to be more like this:

View attachment 153923

Yes... I know. It's called "art".

I've put a 2E cargo space for scale, too.

Weapons
This idea of scale holds up with weapons, too - as far as I can tell. We have no idea how big a burst laser would be, or whatever, but take a look at the A-10's GAU-8 which has a max range of 3.6km, a barrel length of 2.3m, total length of 5.9m and weighs 1.8T fully loaded. It shoots 70 rounds per second and holds 1174 rounds. A 1F multi-cannon has a range of 4km, weighs 2T, shoots 7.7rps and holds 2100 rounds. I think it's a reasonable comparison. If you look at the Asp Explorer with the weapons deployed, it looks to be about the right size, if the cockpit scale was adjusted as above.

Anyway, it just seems to me the ships aren't nearly as big as published. Either that, or the cockpits are just WAY off on what size they actually are based on what you see from the inside as the pilot.

Thoughts, anyone?

PLS BY GOD !!!
BRO CONTACT ME !!!
Actually im tryin 2 create an Interior for a Cutter...and yeah...what should i say...u talkin straight out of heart ^^
After making a raw model to get the rest of measurements i needed, i found the same problem. The whole Scale is way out of Range...
I think time pressure is the reason for this. BUT.
Our Chance 2 help Frontier creating something awesome...
I found blueprints on the Internet which allowd me to create that raw model. If u sit inside that Cutter and take look around, u can clearly see the Cockpit has an estimated wide of approx 5 - 6m...
But according 2 the Blueprints, thats not Correct. According 2 BP it should have an estimated wide of approx 11m (!!!)...
Also the main Entrance Airlock which is located on/inside the front Gear. According 2 the Plans that Stairway alone has a wide of 11m...and the Door itself ~18mX11m....
Thats not an Airlock Door....thats a frickin GATE !
Also the Platforms for SRV and Fighter are way out of Scale...Cargo hatch is in Comparsion to SRV Hatch only half as big...and Fighter hatch has a measurement of 32x14m !
Im tryin now to work around that huge problems. But it would be very cool if u could Contact me, maybe we can find a good way together.


o7 CMDR

 

[Maolagin]

That probably could have been a DM instead of resorting to necromancy.