You'll note I referred to the design of the lights, not the scale.
Sense Of Scale
- Thread starter Old Duck
- Start date
You'll note I referred to the design of the lights, not the scale.
Correct as in the devs have stated numerous times that the radius of body's and distances are scaled correctly. Correct as in if I fly at a fixed speed I can calculate the time it will take to reach a body (taking into account the orbits)
The scale in VR & 2D is the same, the only difference is how we perceive it. Just like looking at an object on TV (2D gaming) or seeing that same object in reality (VR)
Last edited:
That an object of ten meters tall is ten times taller than an object that is one meter tall. As mentioned, you can check it by driving along a ship and see how long it takes to reach to travel the length of the ship, and see if that matches with the stated distance traveled in the speedometer.
The numbers are correct. That is a fact. Whether you feel the scale is correct is something else.
Indeed Sir - and there is no way around it. A 3D projection onto a 2D surface is never going to be "real" - only ever perceived, and that perception is going to be different for every setup and individual viewing it.
What I have found quite interesting - are the people saying that Item X in Elite Dangerous is tiny. They'll have a look at something on a 23" monitor and dismiss a star as something as big as a chickens egg. They'll then view the exact same star on a 65" 4k TV and dismiss the exact same star as something as big as a football.
Put them in VR - and watch them duck and lose grip on the HOTAS
Last edited:
![[VR] Goooost](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/111/111637.jpg?1589354934){kind=avatar}
Frontier needs to put more effort into putting in recognizable details in the cockpit and nose of the ship to add scale. Currently we can't even look all the way around the cockpit. We need swivel chairs.
I’m with the OP. I often wrote in these forums that everything appeared tiny. Coming in the dock into a miniature station with miniature yellow Tonka toys driving around the loop.
Potted plants sometimes line the 10m wide Landing pads and a 50cm high box with cutouts lines one edge of the pad.
Now, put on your VR helmet and besides having a body of a 12 year old, the scale is massive.
The fsct that almost everyone is blown away by VR scale the first time they experience it shows that something is off with the 2D rendering.
And again, as the OP stated, this never applies to Star Citizen which somehow feels vast on a regular monitor.
Potted plants sometimes line the 10m wide Landing pads and a 50cm high box with cutouts lines one edge of the pad.
Now, put on your VR helmet and besides having a body of a 12 year old, the scale is massive.
The fsct that almost everyone is blown away by VR scale the first time they experience it shows that something is off with the 2D rendering.
And again, as the OP stated, this never applies to Star Citizen which somehow feels vast on a regular monitor.
Last edited:
No. My body is about 150cm tall in VR and looks like it weighs about 30kg.
I honestly feel that designers were suddenly told to make all the ships bigger. Perhaps to match the 1984 Elite ship booklet scale or something.
The sizes are utterly ridiculous. Even the Eagle is monstrously huge.
Yeah the Avatar is quite small, but that is likely because they don't allow us to create an avatar with varying height etc. The avatar is just as small on a 2D screen, the chairs themselves are scaled correctly, I actually ordered a chair that is roughly the same height width as the ingame seat.
for me the sense of "hugeness" in vr weared off pretty quickly. once the impression fades, stuff looks still small. specially ships.
Can't really see how they could have made the Eagle smaller & keep the ability to walk around and have cabins. You still have to crouch in the Eagle, from a seated postion I can just about reach the top of the canopy with my hands. The handles on each side of the cockpit are at arms length. The design though makes it look like a fighter jet, I think that is what throws people off in 2D.
Yes. Probably the most torturous problem with elite because you can't fix it and it effects everyone not just gamer players.
- The larger ships, hundreds of meters long, handle at barely a multiple of fighter craft. Frontier said in the early days they chose "gameplay" over realism in a few key areas, and this was one of them. The best workaround is to use the smallest non engineered drive and only fly the cutter or the type-9, they are different enough to create the illusion. Possibly the anaconda.
- The depth of field is not being applied to ship hulls, when in real life 70-200 meters head of you is going to start looking blurry. Don't look too far into this because you can't unsee it and its terrible. Gameplay right.
- The cockpit field of view has been *&(*S& into gameplay. First, the capital ships make no sense. X-Rebirth with the capital ship mods are what the big ships should feel like. But combat gameplay of course. Second, its clamped around fitting in the hud. Only in VR can you achieve a fov that truncates the hud. Pitchforks. Third, the cockpit components seem to be scaled to fit the hud. Look at the radar plate. Looks fine right there on a cobra. Yet its exactly the same on a cutter / anaconda, which makes it 1-2 meters in diameter if you try and rationalize it.. the same? Fourth. A reddit user a few years back made these blueprints of the elite ships which has for reference dimensions. Try and verify lore to scale we see in game and its screwed. Fixes include:
- Change the lore to match the visual impression.
- Min max your FOV to be the highest (with tolerable fisheye) that makes sense for your aspect ratio. A high fov makes objects physically smaller on your screen, but they look larger and more convincing.
This is actually a deadly topic because there's no win for players here, trust me. Reshade only goes so far.
Question: Is this the reason why space legs is too hard? "Gameplay" needs all this which just wont work when you're on legs. Maybe space legs can only be third person... just like.... the ship interiors.........
- The larger ships, hundreds of meters long, handle at barely a multiple of fighter craft. Frontier said in the early days they chose "gameplay" over realism in a few key areas, and this was one of them. The best workaround is to use the smallest non engineered drive and only fly the cutter or the type-9, they are different enough to create the illusion. Possibly the anaconda.
- The depth of field is not being applied to ship hulls, when in real life 70-200 meters head of you is going to start looking blurry. Don't look too far into this because you can't unsee it and its terrible. Gameplay right.
- The cockpit field of view has been *&(*S& into gameplay. First, the capital ships make no sense. X-Rebirth with the capital ship mods are what the big ships should feel like. But combat gameplay of course. Second, its clamped around fitting in the hud. Only in VR can you achieve a fov that truncates the hud. Pitchforks. Third, the cockpit components seem to be scaled to fit the hud. Look at the radar plate. Looks fine right there on a cobra. Yet its exactly the same on a cutter / anaconda, which makes it 1-2 meters in diameter if you try and rationalize it.. the same? Fourth. A reddit user a few years back made these blueprints of the elite ships which has for reference dimensions. Try and verify lore to scale we see in game and its screwed. Fixes include:
- Change the lore to match the visual impression.
- Min max your FOV to be the highest (with tolerable fisheye) that makes sense for your aspect ratio. A high fov makes objects physically smaller on your screen, but they look larger and more convincing.
This is actually a deadly topic because there's no win for players here, trust me. Reshade only goes so far.
Question: Is this the reason why space legs is too hard? "Gameplay" needs all this which just wont work when you're on legs. Maybe space legs can only be third person... just like.... the ship interiors.........
Frankly, both of you have no idea whether the scale is correct, yet, you both want to defend any comment that suggests it is not. Great... The fact is you each have no idea. Fact is the scale could be off. So the fact is you both are both are NOT in a position to say yes or no.
One fact is clear is that many of us do not believe the scale is NOT correct and that things look too small.
Last edited:
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I've driven ~50mph in a VW off road rail, and that's about the *average speed* for the winning teams at the Baja 1000.
Heck, an Abrams tank does almost 50.
As already mentioned, this has been confirmed by the devs. You can also confirm this yourself using the methods we mentioned above. You could on the other hand act like a flat earther. Choice is yours.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The interior looks like it was modeled at an entirely different scale than the exterior.
I build a lot of plastic models for wargaming and it looks pretty much like a 1/72 interior inside a 1/35 or 1/24 airframe. I don't think the modern-Elite Eagle was originally intended to be a cabin-capacity vessel until after the exterior was made. Same with the Viper that looks like the canopy should just flip open.
That also explains why we have such gigantic and yet somehow sparse details on the pad decks. There has been a lot more greebling done to mitigate this effect on stations but back in 2014 it really really threw me on a consistent basis. I didn't feel that my distance perspectives were out, but certainly the detailing for the size the dudes were supposed to be.
Sounds awesome, I have only driven a 4x4 and some quads
I zipped off a ZSU-23-4 once, way back when I worked on telemetry modules.
Far scarier than any tank I had to stick my head and a multimeter in.
You seem very confused. Not sure you know the meaning of fact. The actual scale and how you perceive the scale are two different things but if you have not got that point yet im not sure i can add any more.
Height and weight in the context of the VR environment are currently mostly moot as the avatar is constantly seated. The proportions are about nominal for a human too thus unless you have arms that are relatively long or short for your height the VR avatar should feel nominal from the VR viewing position.
If you are having issues in VR with your viewing point being too high or too low then you need to reset the VR headset origin to match your natural seating position.
If I were to estimate the height of the avatar in VR, I would guess it at being around 5'6" give or take an inch perhaps or between 160cm and 170cm in new money terms. It is a bit difficult to tell with any degree of certainty as our Avatars are permanently seated.