Sense Of Scale

[lenna]

My assumption is that the firstgen ships and pads were built for waay larger doods, and enshrankenated on the interiors to fit much smaller doods and their space cabins, without properly re-greebling the outsides. That's my issue with scale, stuff being built in two different ones. Nothing to do with actual spatial awareness and everything to do with the model making processes.

If you look at the ship scale video that I referenced earlier the nominal height of our avatars in-game would seem to be around 5ft 11in, which would seem to be not unreasonable given current apparent statistics (available online) for 75th percentile male height (5ft 9in) and 95th percentile main height (6ft 1in). This places our avatar height squarely in the middle of these values and I would not be surprised if the designs were done so that the taller people could work and operate comfortably with-in the spaces.

It would not be an unreasonable design decision for ships to be designed to accommodate a variety of sizes of avatars and for the basic nominal avatar to fit around the mid-range of the nominal avatar size. That may give the impression to some that there is too much room inside the ships but it would be unreasonable to expect the ships to be either intentionally cramped or for ships to be tailored to specific avatar sizes.

I certainly do not get the same impression as you wrt ship and cabin sizes and how they are designed, I do however expect most of the ships (from the meagre sidewinder upwards) to basically be sized appropriately so that they can seemingly operate not just as vehicles of travel or combat but also as living spaces of at least a sort. That means that unlike with combat aircraft of the current day, there would need to be space to safely and comfortably move around in, that runs counter to the apparent proclaimed expectations of at least some of those that are complaining about the sense of scale.

I am personally a fan of sci-fi movies and fully expect in a game like ED for mainstream ship designs to be in-line with the mainstream craft intended for extended or exploratory operation. The sidewinder and bigger craft do seem to follow that basic principle whether we use the Runabout in Star Trek, the Diligent in Wing Commander, or the likes of the shuttle craft in Babylon 5 or Star Wars. We are not talking about pop-canopy craft like the X-Wing in Star Wars, the Starfury in Babylon 5, or the Rapier in Wing Commander. I would personally find it strange if we were.

When/if FD ever introduce space legs and/or avatar height parameters things might feel different to some but that does not change the simple fact that it seems clear that the main problem is certain individuals assumptions about how the scale should be.

 

[lenna]

Like I said, I'm pretty sure that Frontier, when they designed the ship's cockpits, have used a bit of false perspective to make the cockpits look good when used the default, fixed position camera, while still allowing for future features like space legs in VR. If a player never uses any of the 2DoF headlook options available in the game, let alone 6DoF head tracking options like track IR (or VR), I do think it's possible to make incorrect assumptions about the layout of your cockpit.

But I've been playing since Alpha, and I've only had VR for a little over a year now, and what blew me away when I first stepped into Elite VR wasn't a sense of scale, but a sense of presence. It is the difference between looking at a photo of your ship's bridge, and being physically present in the world itself. Certain things did surprise me. I didn't think the canopy was so low in the Sidewinder, for example, and I was startled to discover that escape pods were the size and shape of coffins​. But for the most part, things were about the size I expected them to be, at least when it comes to a ship's bridge.

Escape pods being about the size and shape of coffins seems to be about right to me if we are talking about individual escape pods (c/f Babylon 5 and possibly Star Trek) rather than life raft type pods (c/f Star Wars).

As for the presence/immersion factor being the main perception change factor with ED in VR, I would tend to agree. The initial wow factor of the novelty of it wore off quite quickly for me though, the only thing that really stops me from not using VR is that I have customised my control usage around it now and would find it awkward (but not impossible) to adapt away from it - Track IR and similar would not provide the same control experience due to the display positioning being fixed.

 

[Tarman]

If you look at the ship scale video that I referenced earlier the nominal height of our avatars in-game would seem to be around 5ft 11in, which would seem to be not unreasonable given current apparent statistics (available online) for 75th percentile male height (5ft 9in) and 95th percentile main height (6ft 1in). This places our avatar height squarely in the middle of these values and I would not be surprised if the designs were done so that the taller people could work and operate comfortably with-in the spaces.

It would not be an unreasonable design decision for ships to be designed to accommodate a variety of sizes of avatars and for the basic nominal avatar to fit around the mid-range of the nominal avatar size. That may give the impression to some that there is too much room inside the ships but it would be unreasonable to expect the ships to be either intentionally cramped or for ships to be tailored to specific avatar sizes.

I certainly do not get the same impression as you wrt ship and cabin sizes and how they are designed, I do however expect most of the ships (from the meagre sidewinder upwards) to basically be sized appropriately so that they can seemingly operate not just as vehicles of travel or combat but also as living spaces of at least a sort. That means that unlike with combat aircraft of the current day, there would need to be space to safely and comfortably move around in, that runs counter to the apparent proclaimed expectations of at least some of those that are complaining about the sense of scale.

I am personally a fan of sci-fi movies and fully expect in a game like ED for mainstream ship designs to be in-line with the mainstream craft intended for extended or exploratory operation. The sidewinder and bigger craft do seem to follow that basic principle whether we use the Runabout in Star Trek, the Diligent in Wing Commander, or the likes of the shuttle craft in Babylon 5 or Star Wars. We are not talking about pop-canopy craft like the X-Wing in Star Wars, the Starfury in Babylon 5, or the Rapier in Wing Commander. I would personally find it strange if we were.

When/if FD ever introduce space legs and/or avatar height parameters things might feel different to some but that does not change the simple fact that it seems clear that the main problem is certain individuals assumptions about how the scale should be.

We're not on the same page at all here. I've been building scale models for decades, and this isn't about how much room is actually there for our avatars. That's what would have fueled using differently-scaled interiors in the first place. It's about the outside details not correlating well to the interior details in terms of absolute scale in the build phase. Look at the below chart.

To my modeler's eye, in Elite I'm the 1:72 scale dood fourth from the right there. But the details and design cues on the exterior of my Eagle make it look scaled for the 1:43 dood, three over left from that. The level and sizes of the exterior detailing don't match up with the interior-scale detailing. The Eagle actually has grab-handles on the outside of the canopy area that are certainly too large for the current scale of pilot but would be perfect for a larger pilot climbing out of the canopy itself.

When you're cross-contaminating differently-scaled parts, the details make a gigantic difference. That huge hosething laying around on some of the flight decks makes more sense at a different scale; by what would have been a pop-canopy-sized Eagle, it's something a deck crew could move by hand, but compared to our current avatar size there should be a bunch of heavy machinery to move it around or it should be suspended from some kind of rig. It looks like a military-scale component used on an HO-scale trainset, more like a giant left it rather than an independently large thing that's supposed to be large.

 

[Good Death]

Do you have roomscale? You can do a trick to get closer to the canopy if you don't. Bottom line, walk right up to that canopy and then take a screen shot and post it here.

Edit - Just logged into the game to do it myself, no dropships for sale here. It's a Friday night, am heading out soon. Am not going to fly around looking for a dropship. Maybe later when I get home.

Completely understand what some of you are saying, at the same time I am blown away, purely because the above pic is distorted, and I want to use the old father ted, near.. Far away joke.

I'm not going do your detective work for you. I'm sure you can (or already have found) find a FDS rather quickly and see for yourself. The father ted joke can be ruled out by simply looking at the angle of the canopy supports of the FDS from the outside and then the inside. The distortion of these pictures is beyond me and I assure you that there is no trickery involved on my end.

The use of these terms may be incorrect (depending on ones point of view) but should help bring the issue to light. Providing one has a basic understanding of geometry.

Acute

Spoiler

[/IMG]

Obtuse

Spoiler

[/IMG]

Poor innocent mobile internet users.

I have no problem with the scale in Elite. In fact its great but I can see flaws and/or distortions in the cockpits of some of the ships. Having an eye for these types of inconsistencies happens to be part of the job I do in real life.

 

[lenna]

But the details and design cues on the exterior of my Eagle make it look scaled for the 1:43 dood

Only if you make certain incorrect assumptions about the craft in question mapping to a real world craft. If we were talking about modelling real world craft then your comparison may be accurate but the scale is 1:1 in ED craft terms with a fixed reference avatar height of 5ft 11in. Just see the scale video on YouTube to see what I mean.

[video=youtube;-nDYYYqrhp4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nDYYYqrhp4&feature=youtu.be[/video]

Just because the cockpit internals are bigger does not mean the cockpit visibility should be restricted unnecessarily. Certain ships like the Eagle and other craft have large areas of transparent glass like material, but that does not necessarily mean that it is glass as we know it nor that the same weight or material complications apply. Despite the relevant combat craft (Eagle/Courier/Viper/…) being much larger than real world air-superiority fight jets the level of visibility from the pilots chair is still on much the same kind of level given their intended role.

If you actually take two player controlled ships and fly up close enough to look through the windows at each other then you should note the scale is actually correct both from inside and from outside.

 

[Tarman]

Only if you make certain incorrect assumptions about the craft in question mapping to a real world craft. If we were talking about modelling real world craft then your comparison may be accurate but the scale is 1:1 in ED craft terms with a fixed reference avatar height of 5ft 11in. Just see the scale video on YouTube to see what I mean.



Just because the cockpit internals are bigger does not mean the cockpit visibility should be restricted unnecessarily. Certain ships like the Eagle and other craft have large areas of transparent glass like material, but that does not necessarily mean that it is glass as we know it nor that the same weight or material complications apply. Despite the relevant combat craft (Eagle/Courier/Viper/…) being much larger than real world air-superiority fight jets the level of visibility from the pilots chair is still on much the same kind of level given their intended role.

If you actually take two player controlled ships and fly up close enough to look through the windows at each other then you should note the scale is actually correct both from inside and from outside.

I don't think you get where I'm coming from on this at all.

 

[OnePercent]

Funny because skyrims actual scale is completely off (see mountains, only taking ~5 minutes to run up the highest mountain) and Elite dangerous has accurate scaling between the size of human and the plausible uses of their human constructs.

 

[babelfisch]

So you do want to fix the unfixable. What a brave choice, well then, teach me master, how should I see ED to get the sense of scale?



It might be your case but I've certainly heard VR users say the scale of ED looks much different than in 2D screens.

I think a huge problem in this discussion is that people don't clarify what they mean when they say the scale is wrong.

Is it that the displayed distances and sizes are wrong? It's not, people (including FDEV) have demonstrated that everything is scaled correctly several times.

Is it that you are lacking a point of reference like walking around or flying past trees?
Only way to fix this is waiting for space legs / atoms.

Is it that you believe ship models are twice the size they should be?
Well there is no reasonable way to fix it.

Or is it a general problem how 3D graphics are displayed on a 2D screen?
You could try to change your FOV settings.

 

[Darkfyre99]

To my modeler's eye, in Elite I'm the 1:72 scale dood fourth from the right there. But the details and design cues on the exterior of my Eagle make it look scaled for the 1:43 dood, three over left from that. The level and sizes of the exterior detailing don't match up with the interior-scale detailing. The Eagle actually has grab-handles on the outside of the canopy area that are certainly too large for the current scale of pilot but would be perfect for a larger pilot climbing out of the canopy itself.

When you're cross-contaminating differently-scaled parts, the details make a gigantic difference. That huge hosething laying around on some of the flight decks makes more sense at a different scale; by what would have been a pop-canopy-sized Eagle, it's something a deck crew could move by hand, but compared to our current avatar size there should be a bunch of heavy machinery to move it around or it should be suspended from some kind of rig. It looks like a military-scale component used on an HO-scale trainset, more like a giant left it rather than an independently large thing that's supposed to be large.

*looks up Eagle image online*

Ah... now I get what you're saying. You're making me wish I wasn't in the Pleiades, so I could take a look at that particular feature myself, in VR, both in the cockpit, an SRV, and in camera mode. As it is, I'm planning on making two more mining runs to secure the decal, and then head back to the Bubble.

edit: it occurred to me after I'd hit -post- to look up some images (scroll down about half way) for the exterior hand holds on the outside of the International Space Station. Not surprisingly, they're bigger and spaced rather oddly, compared to what you'd expect of a similar structure on Earth. After all, they're designed for the zero-G environment of space, not a terrestrial environment.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I think a huge problem in this discussion is that people don't clarify what they mean when they say the scale is wrong.

Is it that the displayed distances and sizes are wrong? It's not, people (including FDEV) have demonstrated that everything is scaled correctly several times.

Is it that you are lacking a point of reference like walking around or flying past trees?
Only way to fix this is waiting for space legs / atoms.

Is it that you believe ship models are twice the size they should be?
Well there is no reasonable way to fix it.

Or is it a general problem how 3D graphics are displayed on a 2D screen?
You could try to change your FOV settings.

I've said it a couple of times, I'm talking about perceived scale which is the capacity to convey the real scale (hard numbers) to the mind of the player, in other words, how big would you think ED ships are purely by looking at the game itself?

 

[Tarman]

*looks up Eagle image online*

Ah... now I get what you're saying. You're making me wish I wasn't in the Pleiades, so I could take a look at that particular feature myself, in VR, both in the cockpit, an SRV, and in camera mode. As it is, I'm planning on making two more mining runs to secure the decal, and then head back to the Bubble.

I'm just glad you get where I'm coming from. It's got nothing to do (for me at least) with spatial awareness or ship usage or VR vs 2D. It's the devil in the modelling details.

 

[lenna]

I've said it a couple of times, I'm talking about perceived scale which is the capacity to convey the real scale (hard numbers) to the mind of the player, in other words, how big would you think ED ships are purely by looking at the game itself?

Babelfisch has summarised most of the points I have already stated myself - scale is right, and the problems with perception of relative scale are based on false assumptions by the player which is largely the fault of the player. There are no realistic changes to ship designs that can correct that.

How the game is rendered is correct in a 1:1 engineering sense of the term, to do anything else would be wrong even for artistic reasons. On the PC at least, it is possible to frig the FoV to suit individual tastes but I would not complain if it still looks wrong due to visual rendering distortion. If anyone is unable to use the available reference points to establish scale the problem is totally with them.

 

[Speedcuffs]

Babelfisch has summarised most of the points I have already stated myself - scale is right, and the problems with perception of relative scale are based on false assumptions by the player which is largely the fault of the player. There are no realistic changes to ship designs that can correct that.

How the game is rendered is correct in a 1:1 engineering sense of the term, to do anything else would be wrong even for artistic reasons. On the PC at least, it is possible to frig the FoV to suit individual tastes but I would not complain if it still looks wrong due to visual rendering distortion. If anyone is unable to use the available reference points to establish scale the problem is totally with them.

Can't see it, won't see it.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Babelfisch has summarised most of the points I have already stated myself - scale is right, and the problems with perception of relative scale are based on false assumptions by the player which is largely the fault of the player. There are no realistic changes to ship designs that can correct that.

How the game is rendered is correct in a 1:1 engineering sense of the term, to do anything else would be wrong even for artistic reasons. On the PC at least, it is possible to frig the FoV to suit individual tastes but I would not complain if it still looks wrong due to visual rendering distortion. If anyone is unable to use the available reference points to establish scale the problem is totally with them.

Nothing new here.

Can't see it, won't see it.

Pretty much.

 

[lenna]

I'm just glad you get where I'm coming from. It's got nothing to do (for me at least) with spatial awareness or ship usage or VR vs 2D. It's the devil in the modelling details.

If you are talking about the external protrusions that in the context of a pop-canopy vehicle could perhaps be hand holds, I do not believe they are intended to be what you think they are intended to be especially given we KNOW the ships in question (Eagle/Imperial Eagle) are not pop-canopy craft (cockpit internal design is enough evidence of that). If I were to guess their intent other than purely artistic features then I would bet on external duct work for some reason or another, it is probably mere coincidence that they could be perceived as hand holds.

Again, it comes largely down to perceptions - keep in mind that no other ship seems to have external hand holds of any kind which makes the assumption that the relevant detailing on the Eagle is some form of hand-hold even less credible.

 

[Old Duck]

 

[Tarman]

If you are talking about the external protrusions that in the context of a pop-canopy vehicle could perhaps be hand holds, I do not believe they are intended to be what you think they are intended to be especially given we KNOW the ships in question (Eagle/Imperial Eagle) are not pop-canopy craft (cockpit internal design is enough evidence of that). If I were to guess their intent other than purely artistic features then I would bet on external duct work for some reason or another, it is probably mere coincidence that they could be perceived as hand holds.

Again, it comes largely down to perceptions - keep in mind that no other ship seems to have external hand holds of any kind which makes the assumption that the relevant detailing on the Eagle is some form of hand-hold even less credible.

Your allcaps KNOWING is based on the interior, which I already discussed as potentially being shrunk to fit in all that long-distance space travel stuff, without appropriately redoing the exteriors in terms of hull detail. That's my contention in the first place.

I'm not engaging further with you on this, because we're heading into a death-spiral.

 

[Speedcuffs]

Your allcaps KNOWING is based on the interior, which I already discussed as potentially being shrunk to fit in all that long-distance space travel stuff, without appropriately redoing the exteriors in terms of hull detail. That's my contention in the first place.

I'm not engaging further with you on this, because we're heading into a death-spiral.

How big is the death spiral?
Can I relate it's size to something human scale?
Help!:S

 

[Tarman]

How big is the death spiral?
Can I relate it's size to something human scale?
Help!:S

It starts with the curve of a standard banana.

 

[Schmack]

My VR experience with Rift suggests not that the scale is off, but that the forward view, from the 1st person, of the cockpit hints at a smaller canopy than seems to exist from a 3rd person view.

The ship feels large because it's empty. If there were crewmates standing at control stations you'd get a better sense of what you're actually flying. The ability to judge position in the slot by eyeball on a ship that large moving at that speed through a rotating orifice also makes the size feel smaller. Could you imagine trying to run an aircraft carrier through a rotating ship channel lock at high speed?

So like someone said, the smaller ships have flight characteristics of a much smaller jet aircraft, 2 seater at most (even a Leer has sloppier turns than an Eagle). The thrusters explain some of it, gameplay explains most of it, but pushing that much mass with enough force to turn it that fast seems like it would tear the thrusters out of the hull. However the only way we feel the difference between a Type 9 and a Chief is how it handles. If a Type 9 handled like a chief, only the station maneuvering would present any noticeable differences. This is why the T9 feels like a large ship and the fully engineered Anaconda feels only like a long ship once out of the slot.

I had no idea how large a Cobra was inside until I got the Rift. I also want to know who's responsible for the trip hazard cable on the Anaconda that runs from the Volkswagen van engine bay to wherever it goes.