Ship Interiors..... Physical Accuracy.... Do You Care
- Thread starter Mav359
- Start date
Took my quote out of what are you doing for T:NE, using a different metric.
I am fairly certain you are referring to the older Displacement Tons, in which case, yes, although the 14m^3 is a round up of 13.5m^3.
I think that a large part of the problem is that the current design metric is a haphazard mixture of both metrics, which just emphasizes that it is hopeless. Every ship has it's own physics because of the mandated compartments.
I sum up this entire thread as it occurs in my mind...
13.5m3 displacement tons takes me back to the megaTraveller days of the 1980's - great days!
I'd love it if Elite had a build your own ship from scratch system like Traveller, or even buy an empty hull and full it with your own choice of components. That would be awesome.
Agreed, but it would make the animations problematic. (Flashback to programming a ship builder in Lotus 123 (shudder))
My compromise would be to leave in the existing hardpoint configurations on specific hulls (with a one way option to drop them since hardpoints are structural), then build ships according to your specifications. An up or down check would be built into the system, telling you if the design worked (enough LS, thrust, etc) and there you go.
No hand holding to tell you whether it is Good, just whether it works.
(fantasy of a Viper 4 frame built with AspX volume, yay!)
Actually I got a video from CMDR Thrust from Bradford which documents imperial power plants and more imperial decor:
IDK about you, but Orokin should be next Imperial ;-)
It's kind of odd that we have so many folks under the impression that E: D ships are too small for the claimed capacity. They're actually implausibly large for their advertised capacities. As the posted videos have shown, you can easily fit all the modules in a Sidewinder with fairly conservative assumptions about how large standard module bays would have to be. As E: D ships get larger, the ratio of stated capacity to ship volume only goes down, such that all the large ships are pretty much required to be mostly empty space inside. (As Ian noted, a Class 8 cargo bay worth of cargo pods takes up about as much volume as a Sidewinder. You could pack literally dozens of them into a Cutter hull. If we got interiors, the modules would be tucked away in the equivalent of a maintenance closet and the body of the ship would be taken up with the Olympic size zero-gee soccer field.)
There's nods in this direction here and there in the art design. A lot of ships have a bunch of greebling along the spine that suggest maintenance hatches or removable panels - probably not coincidentally this is where the subtarget reticle says those ships' core modules are located.
On the other hand, I remember the Discovery Scanner video about the process of designing the Krait mk II. There was absolutely no indication that they considered the internal layout of the ship beyond making sure they could fit the models (cockpit, landing gear, cargo and fighter bays, etc) fully inside the hull.
Let’s waste time on completely useless details.
Then we can complain about the lack of new ships and content.
Then we can complain about the lack of new ships and content.
So, my non-official v your non-official, I'll take mine, thanks. Mine at least gives an illusion that it follows consistent physics other than, Ooooh, animations! Oh, and Lore...
Yes but the problem is if all what you have are bricks, ship will look... phony. Like they do in Space Engineers. They aren't the prettiest in the lot, because they're built from a set of Space DuplosI care, OP, I really do. I've brought up many an inconsistency and the problematic module system over the years, only to get flamed by the typical naysayers.
Come to Space Engineers, we have cookies and physically accurate interiors!
TL; DR: I don't care as long as they're believable and actually work - If I exit the ship I want to see what I saw through the window, not randomised instance.
As for "physically accurate" - who's stopping them from redoing the ship dimensions. Also we have stupid things like larger size sensors whose "unit dimensions" sound like something taken out of Steampunk, not 3307. I mean 64 for sensors? We're tagging along a carrier-sized antenna?
If I were to add such DLC, I'd remodel the ships and then sold the DLC for appropriate price ;-) It's not unmanageable tbh, how many ships is there? 30? 40? Push the ship upgrade on everyone so they're consistent between DLC and non-dlc modes and weather the inevitable nerdrage. After nerdrage dies out, we will have ships that actually make sense (ps: nerf unobtanium Anaconda in the process pls).
The "camera tricks" would probably be obvious in VR, too. And I'm no game dev, but wouldn't it be easier to code if it didn't require loading screens or scale shifts? And a "seamless" transition which is pretty standard in open world games nowadays?
Star Wars does that kind of shenanigans (canon changing) quite often... All great sci-fi series also are full of "artistic licences", and physical innacuracies, so what. As long as I can a) watch the game play from the observation deck of an Anaconda and b) it works - so if I see someone dropping a rifle, I can go out and take it, and not be taken into another instance where this rifle drop didn't happen.
I think this dev should be more bold with their decisions. Haters gonna hate, always. But I'm afraid being publicly traded also ties their hands as the board might not want to take risks etc. etc.
Last edited:
The sizes of the E: D ships are known, and can easily be confirmed in-game. So unless the length of a meter has been significantly redefined in the intervening 1300 years...
We can't do both?
Like a large portion of the Elite Dangerous community, I would love to see ship interiors added sooner rather than later. Accuracy is a bit difficult because we have nothing to gauge accuracy against.
Yeah, I doubt it's as much of a quality concern as it is a priorities one. Ship interiors would be great to help flesh out the game, and could even add some great "game-play" beyond foundations and immersion with things like boarding and salvaging ships and whatnot. I'm not sure how much people would pay for it though, bearing in mind that I have already paid for it. I guess the sale of cosmetic customization options could be a more short-term incentive for Frontier though.
This gives me some hope that they'll at least add them in sooner or later, beyond them saying it's been their plan to early on, of course.
I want all of muh immersionnnn!
That means... pressing a button on the airlock to go eva. Watching it open. Mashing X like a damn God of War game to climb out only to get a 1 out of 100 chance animation of my spacesuit getting snagged. Sound file goes “FFFFUUUUUUU!!!!” rip!!! fade to rebuy screen. Make it so!
That means... pressing a button on the airlock to go eva. Watching it open. Mashing X like a damn God of War game to climb out only to get a 1 out of 100 chance animation of my spacesuit getting snagged. Sound file goes “FFFFUUUUUUU!!!!” rip!!! fade to rebuy screen. Make it so!
The problem is that with highly detailed accurate interiors you are multiplying the complexity on every upcoming ship.
Speaking of which... it’s a shame that only the anaconda has a damage model.
Oh dude I agree with you - ship interiors are just what the "community" has decided is the thing that'll make alllll the problems with the game go away. Just like before when it was fleet carriers. And before that when it was planetary landings.
The game's main problem is that it's an ocean as deep as a puddle - giving the T7 a rec room or the Python an on-suite crapper isn't going to change that.
DOUBLE agree with you on the anny's damage model though...the fact that hasn't/isn't being added to all ships is enough to make me mildly miffed.
What boils my pee occasionally is the fact that I can get some impressive scars on my hull in a res or combat zone but it all disappears when I FSD out.
No OP. I care about this often forgotten thing called game playability.