Ship Scale Problem

[ocer]

in Ant's video it shows the lenght of a 747SP which is the short version. A 747-4 is more like 75 meters in length. Further if you compare the flight decks of the Anaconda with a 747 it might actually be quite correct. Not sure if anyone here has ever been to a 747 flight deck - well anyway it's hard to stand upright whereas the Anaconda's bridge is more like a penthouse apartment.

 

[Juanxlink]

in Ant's video it show's the lenght of an 747SP which is the short version. A 747-4 is more like 75 meters in length. Further if you compare the flight decks of the Anaconda with a 747 it might actually be quite correct. Not sure if anyone here has ever been to a 747 flight deck - well anyway it's hard to stand upright whereas the Anaconda's bridge is more like a penthouse apartment.

But since OA made that video, and its OA, it must be!!!
I LOLed watching the video at those comparisons too.

 

[Melanthes]

And a typical human loses consciousness in few seconds at around 5G of force.

Nice to see the actual numbers, so the tonnage is only relevant in regard to the ship breaking in two or more parts. But then the letality of these manoeuvres hinges on the question, if the typical CMDR is still human in our sense. As @Morbad already mentioned, there's probably not a 20th century human sitting in that chair. Add in the Remlock Suite and things look different. Especially given more than 1000 years of development, which include as of the lore cybernetics and genetic engineering. That timespan alone could probably explain how all these engineering feats are possible, given the changes of the last thousand years and the massive acceleration of scientific knowledge within the last 200 years.

 

[ebbrell]

ED ships are massive, its amazing how something so large can turn to well etc.

things like this make you realise how large things are compared to what we have in real life

 

[ebbrell]

and this one which I gues most people have seen already

 

[Northpin]

Now check the Anaconda's bridge size. You can park 2 Sea Kings in there

 

[dm06]

The math gives the deadly:
452 G !!! ☠

This just proves that we play not pilots. We play piloting modules which think they are real people. You can't walk, you sit still. Cockpit projects real body to your camera making you think you are real person.

 

[Stealthie]

ED ships are massive, its amazing how something so large can turn to well etc.

As others have said, though, it's a game.

Try playing something like Kerbal Space Program without any kind of time acceleration and see how much fun it is.

Okay, so ED has ships the size of a house moving around like hummingbirds and ships the size of an aircraft carrier moving around like trucks.

So what?

There's still a differential between small ships and big ships.
Would it make things more enjoyable or less enjoyable if a Hauler moved like a tortoise and a Cutter moved like a glacier?

 

[GJ51]

I refuse to weigh in on the scale problem...

 

[Morbad]

Sure, Coriolis stations might simulate a 1g environment centrifugally (I'm surprised nobody's done the maths)

I'm positive multiple people have.

I distinctly recall running the figures through https://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/

Or FDev should just retcon AG into the game - which they're probably going to have to do for space-legs anyhow.

I don't agree on either point, as I see people who can do jumping jacks at 7g, remain conscious through 45g maneuvering, and suffer no atrophy or degradation through protracted periods of microgravity, as a vastly less fantastical approach, more in keeping with the Elite setting, than artificial gravity.

Space legs doesn't imply the need for AG in anyway. I've played plenty of first person games that, either by design, or due to modifications, had microgravity scenarios that were perfectly playable...Crysis is probably the most notable example. As has been mentioned before, magnetic boots and suits with microthrusters can go a long way. More substantial gravity is easy.

Looking back to the old promotional videos, Anacondas seemed more static with other ships buzzing round them.

This was evident as late as the beta I started playing in. It also made these ships sitting ducks.

I'd have preferred single-pilot player ships remain both smaller and less agile at the high-end, but that would have mandated vastly different gameplay mechanisms.

And that's one of the reason why big ships don't feel like they're big: they're way too agile for their size.

They're way to agile for early 21st century materials and people.

and this one which I gues most people have seen already

View attachment 135156

It's also worth pointing out that, with both fully loaded, the ship on the bottom is about seventy times the mass of the ship on top.

There's still a differential between small ships and big ships.

It's pretty sparse in many cases...small enough of a differential that my CMDR's time on target with a Federal Corvette using fixed beams is significant vs. even well flown Vipers, Eagle, and Vultures.

Would it make things more enjoyable or less enjoyable if a Hauler moved like a tortoise and a Cutter moved like a glacier?

That depends on how it was done. Without completely reworking the game, such ships would indeed feel quite boring to me.

 

[VR SenseiMatty]

img

img

And we also want fleet carriers now... OMG! FDEV must have small size issues?

 

[ebbrell]

it may not be an issue, the carrier will just need to be larg to cater for the ships.

 

[Helvellyn]

Would it make things more enjoyable or less enjoyable if a Hauler moved like a tortoise and a Cutter moved like a glacier?

Depends on what you want from it, what other mechanics are changed, and how far you can go with willing suspension of disbelief and verisimilitude.

I'm always of the opinion that "more realistic" is always a good thing and "it's a game, it doesn't have to be" is a bad one (and don't get me started on "some things have to be (e.g. FTL) for it to work so I'm find with anything goes). Being a game good gameplay is also necessary. That often runs into conflicts with realism, the best games (which isn't always the same as the most fun ones) are the ones that manage those conflicts the best with the fewest compromises.

 

[ocer]

Guys it is a sci-fi game. You cannot come up with G-Forces while not having any explanation how this physics problem is solved in the future. In the real world these ships would require something like a g-force absorbing damper field. Otherwise the crew of all these ships would be nothing more than a squish anyway...even if just flying straight at close or over the speed of light. There is simply no sense in discussing G-Forces.

 

[ocer]

Now check the Anaconda's bridge size. You can park 2 Sea Kings in there

compare the people on the deck of the carrier. They fit into a seat on the anacondas bridge pretty properly. The bridge of the anaconda is huge. I don't think there really is that much of a scale problem.

 

[Arioch]

...This was evident as late as the beta I started playing in. It also made these ships sitting ducks.

I'd have preferred single-pilot player ships remain both smaller and less agile at the high-end, but that would have mandated vastly different gameplay mechanisms.


...That depends on how it was done. Without completely reworking the game, such ships would indeed feel quite boring to me.

Yes, I remember being able to stay on the aft-end of a Type 9 in the demo mission, happily chipping away at the shields without it being able to get away from me.

ED went for WW2 dogfights in space, I think engagements with the big ships should’ve been like bombers & escorts under fighter attack. It would have needed SLF from the get-go as well as other stuff, like you said.

If we’d got the multiple shields for the big ships as originally intended, slow movement could’ve been really tense as you tried to keep your strong shields towards the enemy, or you had to do some Star Wars-ing angling the deflector shields.

compare the people on the deck of the carrier. They fit into a seat on the anacondas bridge pretty properly. The bridge of the anaconda is huge. I don't think there really is that much of a scale problem.

The bonnet ornament on the ‘conda always looks small to me, and it’s taller than a person.

 

[Northpin]

... The bridge of the anaconda is huge...

My point exactly.
Why the ball room?

 

[Nutter]

Anaconda pre-flight briefing on the Anacondas Bridge....

 

[Morbad]

compare the people on the deck of the carrier. They fit into a seat on the anacondas bridge pretty properly. The bridge of the anaconda is huge. I don't think there really is that much of a scale problem.

That's part of the scale problem.

The design of many vessels makes me feel that they were originally intended to be much smaller, but were scaled up after the fact, perhaps to make them more substantial targets at several km on displays of middling resolution.

Additionally, the densities of our vessels, especially the larger ones, are incredibly low. A stripped down Anaconda isn't terribly far off a ridgid airship in overall density...it would blow away in a gentle breeze on Earth and if we get atmospheric landing, will probably melt itself from overworking it's thrusters trying to counter the boyancy of even modestly thick atmosphere, especially at more mild gravity levels. Also, despite complaints regarding cargo volume, there is no ship in the game that couldn't credibly contain a volume in canisters far in excess of the cargo mass it's actually capable of carrying.

You could make a plausible, ~1600 metric ton anaconda, that could fit everything it needed to fit, including a fairly spacious bridge, if you took the current ship and reduced all it's linear dimensions by half of more (an eight-fold or greater reduction in volume).

Compare that carrier to the Anaconda. That carrier is ~100k metric tons, has a crew complement of over six thousand, and a potential cargo capacity (difference between light and full loads) of thirty thousand tons.

 

[VR SenseiMatty]

Coming back to the comparison of an Anaconda and a 747 cockpit, the B747 cockpit size is almost like the single place of the Anaconda. It is more accurate to compare the Anaconda with a ship deck rather than an airplane deck. That was the main idea from frontier.