| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Simpeman
Solar Fist
Sempiternus
   |
Posted - 2007.10.15 10:46:00 -
[1]
I guess this has probably been talked and discussed over and over and over again, though I couldn't find any real topic why this is the way it is and that's why I wanted to bring that up.
So I've just looked at something...
Stats:
The Maelstrom has:
850 000 m3 volume
A mass of:
115 000 000
Now, placing the maelstrom next to the Nidhoggur would display them nearly as big. The maelstrom is a little bit shorter while it is "taller" and not quite as "thick".
Though the stats are different:
The Nidhoggur has:
11 250 000 m3 in volume!
922 500 000 mass!
That means that the Maelstrom has 1/8th (roughly) the mass of the Nidhoggur, and like 1/13th (roughly) the volume. Still they are about equal in size. This does not make sense, the nidhoggur (and all cap ships I suppose) should be alot larger. In fact they should be nearly 10 times larger! Why is it like this?
----
I'm the slap in your face that awakens you from your hot sexy wet-dream. |
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr
Shadows of the Dead
Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 10:52:00 -
[2]
I agree. I want nothing more that to lord it over a battlefield going 'mwahahaha, look how small you are *squish*'.
They would certainly command alot more respect, awe and fear if they were larger.
-----------------------------
"Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow."
"Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?"
"..." |
Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 10:56:00 -
[3]
8 times mass and size = 2 times larger in every dimension, basically, they really should be 2 times longer then BSes
|
Simpeman
Solar Fist
Sempiternus
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 11:00:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Simpeman on 15/10/2007 11:00:29
That is indeed correct, but that means that they must be twice as long, deep and wide, which essentially is 8 times larger ;) But yeah, twice as big size in all the dimensions - I didn't really express what I meant with 8 times larger. Actually it should be roughly 2.35 times bigger in every dimension since the nidhoggur actually has 13 times as much volume. Mass only express density per volume, and since the size is just based on volume - that is the correct value that we should compare to.
(2.35*2.35*2.35 is roughly 13)
----
I'm the slap in your face that awakens you from your hot sexy wet-dream. |
Washell Olivaw
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 11:29:00 -
[5]
The graphics engine messes things up perspective wise, especially if you're in one of the ships you're comparing.
This chart has all the ship models side by side at their actual size. Size difference looks correct on their with your numbers. Especially if you don't count the big sails as part of the volume.
 Quote:
Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
|
Simpeman
Solar Fist
Sempiternus
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 11:55:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Washell Olivaw
The graphics engine messes things up perspective wise, especially if you're in one of the ships you're comparing.
This chart has all the ship models side by side at their actual size. Size difference looks correct on their with your numbers. Especially if you don't count the big sails as part of the volume.
I didn't take the sails as a part of my volume, but the maelstrom is not even on that chart. It is a lot bigger than the tempest, in model. So if you would put the maelstrom up on that chart, it would be roughly as big as the nidhoggur. I'm not sure on the actual volume on the typhoon, but if the typhoon has equal volume to the maelstrom (which it doesn't according to graphics), then it has the "correct" size compared to the nidhoggur.
And no, the graphics engine does not mess up things perspective wise if you're comparing ship sizes from equal angles and distances.
----
I'm the slap in your face that awakens you from your hot sexy wet-dream. |
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr
Shadows of the Dead
Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 11:58:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Washell Olivaw
The graphics engine messes things up perspective wise, especially if you're in one of the ships you're comparing.
This chart has all the ship models side by side at their actual size. Size difference looks correct on their with your numbers. Especially if you don't count the big sails as part of the volume.
Good point, I had forgotten about that.
-----------------------------
"Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow."
"Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?"
"..." |
Washell Olivaw
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 13:42:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Simpeman
I didn't take the sails as a part of my volume, but the maelstrom is not even on that chart.
I stand corrected, not flying minmatar myself I confused the 2 ships. I have another picture on my computer, also from eve files but can't find it right now to link it, that does include the Maelstrom and it is indeed nearly as big.
The same goes for all tier 3 battleships and their racial carriers.
Anyway, if CCP actually bothers to correct this, they're more likely to mess with the volume than the actual ship models.
Quote:
Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
|
sg3s
Caldari
O.W.N. Corp
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 13:45:00 -
[9]
Well if we are talking about sizes and perspectives... lets start about stations and how they can fit an unlimited number of capital ship or anything for that matter, I'm not saying this should be limited but the size of stations should be like 50 to 75x bigger.
|
Simpeman
Solar Fist
Sempiternus
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 13:48:00 -
[10]
Originally by: sg3s
Well if we are talking about sizes and perspectives... lets start about stations and how they can fit an unlimited number of capital ship or anything for that matter, I'm not saying this should be limited but the size of stations should be like 50 to 75x bigger.
Please stick to the topic, we're talking carrier sizes here, not stations.
----
I'm the slap in your face that awakens you from your hot sexy wet-dream. |
sg3s
Caldari
O.W.N. Corp
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 14:14:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Simpeman
Originally by: sg3s
Well if we are talking about sizes and perspectives... lets start about stations and how they can fit an unlimited number of capital ship or anything for that matter, I'm not saying this should be limited but the size of stations should be like 50 to 75x bigger.
Please stick to the topic, we're talking carrier sizes here, not stations.
I was talking about carrier sizes compared to stations. Trying to point out that discussing perspectives should be done not only in the battleship/capital size, almost everything in eve misses these atributes.
|
Simpeman
Solar Fist
Sempiternus
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 14:20:00 -
[12]
Originally by: sg3s
I was talking about carrier sizes compared to stations. Trying to point out that discussing perspectives should be done not only in the battleship/capital size, almost everything in eve misses these atributes.
I'm sorry if I was somehow unclear with pointing out what this topic is about. It's about carriers vs battleships mostly, but also the size of carriers relative to other ships. Stations are not of the interest here. If you want to talk about station sizes please create a separate thread about that.
----
I'm the slap in your face that awakens you from your hot sexy wet-dream. |
sg3s
Caldari
O.W.N. Corp
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 14:37:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Simpeman
Originally by: sg3s
I was talking about carrier sizes compared to stations. Trying to point out that discussing perspectives should be done not only in the battleship/capital size, almost everything in eve misses these atributes.
I'm sorry if I was somehow unclear with pointing out what this topic is about. It's about carriers vs battleships mostly, but also the size of carriers relative to other ships. Stations are not of the interest here. If you want to talk about station sizes please create a separate thread about that.
uhm, yeah, well I don't want to turn this into a flame discussion and all but this forum is supposed to be a breeding ground for ideas and features, etc.
We all know the perspectives are off in many ways in this game, you pointed out how maybe some battleships vs carriers are somewhat off, I totally agree with that, and it should indeed be fixed.
Then I am saying how more stuff is out of perspective, like ships vs stations vs moons/planets, distances are pretty realistic though, but thats hard to confirm as traveling at warp speed makes it hard to imagine. It is not right to make a topic about battleships vs carrier sizes, and then not allowing anything new to be trown in, I know I might be a ***** now but you aren't less of a ***** than I am by stating the same twice. Everyone agrees sizes are off, you can discuss by how much they are off, a discussion ends there mostly. It wont matter until some really realistic measure is made to scale up/down everything.
And you will never have real correct stats with these ships as they would become unbalanced unless the models were made to fit exactly. And to make them fit with everything would be next to impossible.
Want to 'scale' it even more precise? Lets start about cargo space in ships vs cargospace in containers, now THATS something you can just cry by.
Conclusion: Not worth the discussion unless ccp starts trying to actually make them everything on a believable scale, I can hardly doubt they are trying hard at this time but they are making efforts obviously.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |