| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yggdrassilt
   |
Posted - 2010.05.21 02:28:00 -
[1]
Today checking i noticed a BIG FAIL in terms of size comparison. Just see by yourselves:
http://s189.photobucket.com/albums/z311/lordfede/?action=view¤t=metres.png
A battlecruiser just CANT be only 2 metres longer than destroyer xD
|
Rixiu
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 03:44:00 -
[2]
The harb is 120m longer than the coercer. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DavikRendar/EVE_Shipchart_Apocrypha_Edition.jpg
On related note: http://www.wanoah.co.uk/Rifter_vs_747.png
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 07:49:00 -
[3]
still, destroyers are oversized, even by EVE size progression. if frigates are 50-60m, and cruisers are 200-300m, destroyers should be 100-150m, about half their current length.
________________________________
: Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel |
israus
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 08:54:00 -
[4]
not really currently
Arleigh Burke class destroyer 155 m
Ticonderoga class cruiser 173 m
there current US destroyer and cruiser classes with the US navy. by example the frigates aren't much shorter then that as well. but I don't think that's a fair comparison in eve frigates in eve are 1 man ships the destroyers and and cruisers all have crews in theory at-least anyway so there sizes would be very much similar in overall length.
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 10:36:00 -
[5]
RL ships are not comparable to EVE's.
EVE ship size is purely visual, and follows "Rule of Cool" and "Bigger is Better" (visually, not in performance). each next class (except destroyer and super carrier) is about twice as long as previous: frigate 50-60, destroyer 100-150* (actually 200-300), cruiser 200-300, BC 400-600, BS 800-1600, dread/carrier ~3km, super carrier ~6km (actual 4-5km), titan 12km+.
for some reason destroyer models are as big as cruisers, while all other data (number of module slot, cargo, volume, EHP) puts them between frigate and cruiser. battlecruisers on other side conform to this, and are sized between cruisers and BS.
________________________________
: Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel |
israus
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 11:26:00 -
[6]
Edited by: israus on 21/05/2010 11:27:04
real life ships are comparable to ships in eve and your mistake is in believe double the length is double the size thats not the case. lets take a cube for example by the size of 2mx2mx2m that gives it a volume of 8m3 now lets double it so its 4mx4mx4m that gives that cube a volume of 64m3. thats 8 times the size from simply doubling the length.
the size of ships in eve can't be just put down to the length of them take the moa and the caracal by your reckoning the caracal is the bigging ship given its 385m compared to the moa's 289m yet the moa has a volume of 101000 m3 to the caracals 92000 m3.
so stop thinking of ships as 2d objects comparable by length when in fact the true measure of the ship is mass and volume.
|
Von Kapiche
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 11:30:00 -
[7]
Cap ships need to be way bigger, at least carrier types. How the hell do you get a Mach into a Nid :p
If that makes Titans insecure, then just make those bigger too. Not like model size has any relevance to fighting.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 11:31:00 -
[8]
That's because the preview screen does not tell you the size of the ship ù it tells you the "long axis" of whatever is being displayed, which, as far as anyone has been able to determine, is the size of the simulation collision bubble that surrounds the ship in question.
It's almost entirely useless for comparative purposes.
———
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡…
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”
— Karath Piki |
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 11:39:00 -
[9]
i'm fully aware of length-volume relation. look at davik's ship charts. those lengths are in-game correct. my size progression theory does stand.
the underlying issue is: ship data is inconsistent. ship models were built at arbitrary size, regardless of physical properties. rifter model IS 50 meter long. megathron model IS 1000 meter long. yet, rifter volume IS 27.3k m3. megathorn volume IS 486k m3. both ships have comparable shape. only way i can wrap math around this is: game design decision. therefore, "Rule of Cool" and "Bigger is Better".
and that's why RL ships are not comparable to EVE.
________________________________
: Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel |
Kyo Haku
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 12:07:00 -
[10]
Very good point, but I do have one question.
Why does it matter?
--
"Far be it from me to stand in judgment. I prefer to sit." -Stephen Colbert |
|
|
israus
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 12:53:00 -
[11]
 Originally by: Jagga Spikes
i'm fully aware of length-volume relation. look at davik's ship charts. those lengths are in-game correct. my size progression theory does stand.
the underlying issue is: ship data is inconsistent. ship models were built at arbitrary size, regardless of physical properties. rifter model IS 50 meter long. megathron model IS 1000 meter long. yet, rifter volume IS 27.3k m3. megathorn volume IS 486k m3. both ships have comparable shape. only way i can wrap math around this is: game design decision. therefore, "Rule of Cool" and "Bigger is Better".
and that's why RL ships are not comparable to EVE.
never said the volumes are right in game just said they where a better comparison of ship size then length
your notion that each size of ship should be twice the length of the previous type and ignoring the fact that these ships are 3d models and 1 length doesn't make up the ship size
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 13:20:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 21/05/2010 13:20:52
Originally by: israus
...
never said the volumes are right in game just said they where a better comparison of ship size then length
your notion that each size of ship should be twice the length of the previous type and ignoring the fact that these ships are 3d models and 1 length doesn't make up the ship size
heh, considering i'm making a living creating 3d models, and am quite anal on drawing accuracy, i find your statement amusing. did you look at Davik's chart? did you compare numbers? i never said each next size class should be twice the length of previous. but they are built this way by CCP. i just state the obvious.
edit: typo
________________________________
: Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel |
israus
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 15:02:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 21/05/2010 13:20:52
heh, considering i'm making a living creating 3d models, and am quite anal on drawing accuracy, i find your statement amusing. did you look at Davik's chart? did you compare numbers? i never said each next size class should be twice the length of previous. but they are built this way by CCP. i just state the obvious.
edit: typo
no you don't state the obvious you make up facts to suit you opinion.
Quote:
if frigates are 50-60
frigats infact range from 24m to 112
Quote:
cruisers are 200-300m
cruisers range from 124m to 412m
dessy range from 87m to 300m so why from your logic are dessy oversized for what they are?.
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 17:42:00 -
[14]
you are getting closer. try average of longest dimension. tip: catalyst is 284m wide
________________________________
: Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel |
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 18:23:00 -
[15]
the preview is clearly bugged.
all the BS look 500m long, while some BC are over the 500m
|
israus
|
Posted - 2010.05.21 19:52:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
you are getting closer. try average of longest dimension. tip: catalyst is 284m wide
still not explaining why the dessys are over sized.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |