Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,607
# 11
03-13-2013, 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tacofangs View Post
Yes, DS9 is considerably larger than was shown in the show.*

This is because when it was playtested at "real" scale, it felt very small. Designers wanted you to be able to fly around the station, in and out of the rings, through the upper docking arms, etc. If it were proper scale, only something the size of the Defiant or smaller would be capable of that, and even that would be a tight fit.

ESD is actually not too small. Well, it is, if you're going by the bs that it can fit 8 galaxy's inside. ESD in game has roughly the measurements of it's canonical size. If you want to claim 8 galaxy's fit in there, then it must be some kind of Tardis.

K-7 is ridiculous, no doubt.

Shuttles are too large in comparison with regular ships. This is mostly so they are visible at all. If they were proper size, they would be specs on screen. They are, however, largely in scale to each other.

As for the ships themselves, I've posted a couple of these comparison shots over the years:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8324/8...3a1beb19_z.jpg
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6043/7...cf6ea7c9_z.jpg
Each of these is a screenshot taken within 3D Studio Max, of the actual in game models of the ships you fly around, all stacked, side by side. Measurements have to be converted since all of our ships are roughly person sized in game. The final measurements of each ship is within a few meters of the canonical size of each. (Noted exception for the Defiant which actually has a pretty wide range of canon sizes between 120-180m. 164 falls within that obviously)




* Though all of those shots of the Ent D, and Defiant are out of scale with each other as well. When filming the show, a ship was whatever size they needed it to be for the shot. The only reason it's more apparent with STO, is that you can spend time comparing them, flying around, and looking at them in much more detail than the fixed shot you saw on the shows.
I feel bad for you, do you copy and paste this because i think i've seen you explain this like more than 20 times already, and it wont be the last.
Cryptic Studios Team
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,723
# 12
03-13-2013, 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalspock View Post
The Cryptic artists decided that DS9 needed to be much larger than it actually was presented on the show in order to make it "feel" correct to players.

They actually scaled it down a bit from when it was first created, but the Defiant is still not much larger than a runabout in the current DS9.
No, I'm too lazy to go look it up, I just retype it. Feel free to bookmark that post and propagate it in any such future discussions. You'll save me some time.
-The Artist formerly known as Tumerboy



Quote:
Originally Posted by mightybobcnc View Post
Tacofangs, what is your beef with where's Sulu?
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,984
# 13
03-13-2013, 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by centersolace View Post
7. The B'rel, and Jem'hadar bugship are supposed to be smaller than the Defiant.
Then explain the fact the Bug Ship model had a plate saying the length was 150 meters and also why Martok's BoP was 158 meters?

DS9 is a pile of VF shoots absurdities, the station itself was grown from 1,100 meters to 1,609 meters! the absurdity never ever ends because your 120 meters Defiant makes NO SENSE with the Chaffee shuttlepod.

It appears they hated to be consistent, as much I like to say "the idiocy that is Voyager" at least they had some consistence, sure Voyager had a "Shuttlebay of Holding +3" and there are many absurdities like the Delta Flyer and Voyager Hangar doors (and Neelix ship) but still at least they put down the abilities of Voyager, not "well 120 doesnt work, lets put it at 170" ... granted the Klingon Bird-of-Prey will ALWAYS have size problems because it was shown at different sizes and this is why I dont like when someone tries to bring about a ship that was never consistent in size as "supposedly be" anything because if anything it was not consistence before and guess what? its not going to be consistent with anything you say unless you are saying its size is inconsistent.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 255
# 14
03-13-2013, 10:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tacofangs View Post
Shuttles are too large in comparison with regular ships. This is mostly so they are visible at all. If they were proper size, they would be specs on screen.
Would this be so bad? Would the player helming said spec sized ships not have the correct view point on their screen? Or is there an already existing limitation in the coding for camera scroll in/out view?

I really would not complain as long as my vantage point was not compromised, and to be selfish about it, I really couldn't care less that another person feels "small" in their escort or shuttle. They are supposed to be small. I really hope this decision was because there was an outcry early on about size, or a limitation in camera view points, and not a presumed future complaint by players.

I want to feel large in a cruiser, and I want to feel small in an escort. Without these factors it's very hard to feel immersed in the gameplay when all you ever do is notice how small/how big you are depending on the ship. Not that I expect the scales to ever change at this point, but it needs to be said. I don't want to be one of THOSE people that likes to state things like they know it's a fact, but uh, I guarantee that most people paying up for this game would have the same opinion as I in regards to the scaling issue because we're all ST nerds, so if there isn't any limits in the way, I say make the paying playerbase happy if it's not too much trouble. At the very least, if it's easy enough, give us a testing run of new scales on tribble for awhile and see how it goes there.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 220
# 15
03-13-2013, 11:16 PM
I'm okay with the ship/station sizes as they are. What still bugs me a lot is the interior scaling... ESD is fine now thankfully, as is stuff like the Belfast bridge set and the fleet starbase, but most of the other stations still feel absolutely cavernous.

DS9 is probably the worst for this. For all the continued discussion about how DS9 feels in space, it's really the station's interior that needs love the most. I feel positively ant-like sometimes walking down those halls.

If I had Q powers, going back and rescaling all the older interiors so they feel fit for humans and not the lonely god Apollo might be the first art-related change I would make to STO.
---
Relax.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 203
# 16
03-13-2013, 11:25 PM
Well, I definitely had no intentions of opening up a can of worms here. I can see the reasoning behind the upscaling of those stations, but perhaps there could be certain aspects that are more in line with ship scale. Take DS9 for example, shrink the ends of the docking arms down to where they actually look like a galaxy class ship could pull up and dock with one, but keep the length. Take the outer docking ring and make it thinner, but keep the same size, and as far as the docking bays on the outer ring go, just scale them down to their proper size. Basically, just put certain parts of the station on a diet, but maintain the same length and overall size. Just a suggestion really, I personally don't care, it was just something I was curious about. Thanks for answering my question.
SGT Milton Monzon, SGT Alexander Fuller, SGT Michael Bartley, SGT Martin LaMar
Rest in Peace Brothers
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,607
# 17
03-13-2013, 11:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by romuzarii View Post
Would this be so bad? Would the player helming said spec sized ships not have the correct view point on their screen? Or is there an already existing limitation in the coding for camera scroll in/out view?

I really would not complain as long as my vantage point was not compromised, and to be selfish about it, I really couldn't care less that another person feels "small" in their escort or shuttle. They are supposed to be small. I really hope this decision was because there was an outcry early on about size, or a limitation in camera view points, and not a presumed future complaint by players.

I want to feel large in a cruiser, and I want to feel small in an escort. Without these factors it's very hard to feel immersed in the gameplay when all you ever do is notice how small/how big you are depending on the ship. Not that I expect the scales to ever change at this point, but it needs to be said. I don't want to be one of THOSE people that likes to state things like they know it's a fact, but uh, I guarantee that most people paying up for this game would have the same opinion as I in regards to the scaling issue because we're all ST nerds, so if there isn't any limits in the way, I say make the paying playerbase happy if it's not too much trouble. At the very least, if it's easy enough, give us a testing run of new scales on tribble for awhile and see how it goes there.
ST nerds rarely agree on anything especially size....it's been 19 years and they still can't agree on how big the Defiant is.

Pretty sure the player care more about what the ship does in PVE and PVP than how big it is ....unless you're a star fleet captain going through a midlife crisis Ba dum tssshhh
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,236
# 18
03-13-2013, 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tacofangs View Post
ESD is actually not too small. Well, it is, if you're going by the bs that it can fit 8 galaxy's inside. ESD in game has roughly the measurements of it's canonical size. If you want to claim 8 galaxy's fit in there, then it must be some kind of Tardis.
Psst, you looked at the parking lot outside the Shipyard Window? Just saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tacofangs View Post
When filming the show, a ship was whatever size they needed it to be for the shot. The only reason it's more apparent with STO, is that you can spend time comparing them, flying around, and looking at them in much more detail than the fixed shot you saw on the shows.
Well that was only true when they were filming with the studio models and having to guestimate sizes. But once they started using the CGI models, pretty much the issue with different scales stopped.

Have you guys thought about contacting Doug Drexler to get a copy of the actual Star Trek CGI Models to use for measurements or to help increase modeling accuracy with the low poly models? I know they used 3D Max for those models, because I got my hands on a copy of the Enterprise-Refit Model they used in the remastery of TMP.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 867
# 19
03-14-2013, 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by azurianstar View Post
Psst, you looked at the parking lot outside the Shipyard Window? Just saying.



Well that was only true when they were filming with the studio models and having to guestimate sizes. But once they started using the CGI models, pretty much the issue with different scales stopped.

Have you guys thought about contacting Doug Drexler to get a copy of the actual Star Trek CGI Models to use for measurements or to help increase modeling accuracy with the low poly models? I know they used 3D Max for those models, because I got my hands on a copy of the Enterprise-Refit Model they used in the remastery of TMP.
Honestly, I do not believe switch to CGI models changed anything. For instance, if they did a shot in CGI and decided the ship looked too close, they could simply scale-down one of the ships. Just like real models, you pretty much never get a shot with CGI models where you know for certain what size a ship is in comparison to another ship.

Even when a ship passes another ship directly above/below or to the side, all you know is the minimum relative size, not the actual size. In my opinion, CGI does not change anything whatsoever because the artists are only using whatever size they think looks right for the shot. You can see this in play with the size inconsistencies of the Jem'Hadar battleship, which was entirely done in CGI.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,236
# 20
03-14-2013, 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalspock View Post
Honestly, I do not believe switch to CGI models changed anything. For instance, if they did a shot in CGI and decided the ship looked too close, they could simply scale-down one of the ships. Just like real models, you pretty much never get a shot with CGI models where you know for certain what size a ship is in comparison to another ship.

Even when a ship passes another ship directly above/below or to the side, all you know is the minimum relative size, not the actual size. In my opinion, CGI does not change anything whatsoever because the artists are only using whatever size they think looks right for the shot. You can see this in play with the size inconsistencies of the Jem'Hadar battleship, which was entirely done in CGI.
Not true, because re-scaling models takes significant amounts of time. If you had to mess with size, you do that in the planning and prototype modeling stages when creating the models.

The simple thing to do is either change a model's position or change camera positions.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 PM.