Raptor Model
- Thread starter JasonRocZ
- Start date
Toast
Space Marshal
Oh, dear... not this again...
Sorry. Long story short: Raptor is properly scaled in the Vision engine according to its statistics in Claw Marks. WC1 manual states that the Raptor is 36 meters long. That makes it the same length as a Broadsword. Eder scaled the model of the Raptor to match. While this makes the Raptor play very badly in the Standoff simulator, it's not integral to the story and period that Standoff portrays so it's not a big deal. This was not a big deal in WC1 due to the rather fast and loose way that the sprite engine portrays scale. (The Claw, for example - far too small to internally house its 104-fighter complement.)
Similar with the Hornet. Hornet's a tad large for a light fighter, but the Hornet model's length was held to canon. Other light fighters are much smaller because their WC2 lengths were published as smaller. Eder chose to be faithful to the published specifications as much as possible, and while I'm totally bummed about the Raptor and Hornet, ultimately it's his choice, he has reasons for his decision, and I respect them even though I think a little artistic license would have been totally acceptable and would have given us two more really good ships to play with.
Sorry. Long story short: Raptor is properly scaled in the Vision engine according to its statistics in Claw Marks. WC1 manual states that the Raptor is 36 meters long. That makes it the same length as a Broadsword. Eder scaled the model of the Raptor to match. While this makes the Raptor play very badly in the Standoff simulator, it's not integral to the story and period that Standoff portrays so it's not a big deal. This was not a big deal in WC1 due to the rather fast and loose way that the sprite engine portrays scale. (The Claw, for example - far too small to internally house its 104-fighter complement.)
Similar with the Hornet. Hornet's a tad large for a light fighter, but the Hornet model's length was held to canon. Other light fighters are much smaller because their WC2 lengths were published as smaller. Eder chose to be faithful to the published specifications as much as possible, and while I'm totally bummed about the Raptor and Hornet, ultimately it's his choice, he has reasons for his decision, and I respect them even though I think a little artistic license would have been totally acceptable and would have given us two more really good ships to play with.
Wedge009
Rogue Leader
I never realised the implications of adding sprite-era ships into the Vision engine in relation model sizes and gun alignments. Thanks for that, that explains why the WC1 fighters are what they are in Standoff.
By comparison, the WC2 fighters play really well. Or maybe I'm just used to them from playing the main Standoff campaign.
By comparison, the WC2 fighters play really well. Or maybe I'm just used to them from playing the main Standoff campaign.
Toast
Space Marshal
Even the WC2 fighters were affected by the conversion. There's the Epee Gripes thread, for instance. The Epee fared very well from the conversion - now it's a tiny target and hardly gets hit. Even when it gets hit, it usually doesn't get hit with full guns unless you're doing a head-on pass with a Drakhri. Having half the shields mostly evens out when you only get hit with half the salvo.
The Sabre didn't scale so well - it's become big and ungainly and gun convergence is a problem (though to be fair, the Sabre's gun convergence in WC2 wasn't so hot, either).
The Sabre didn't scale so well - it's become big and ungainly and gun convergence is a problem (though to be fair, the Sabre's gun convergence in WC2 wasn't so hot, either).
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
The Raptor complaint continues to bug me - I just can't buy the frequent explanation for it. Making the guns awkward isn't a tribute to Wing Commander I... it's undeservedly highlighting a flaw in the designers' thinking (as evidenced by how many times we've seen people complain about it).
It's not 'true' to the original game... since you can launch a Raptor in Wing Commander I and see exactly how that team wanted the guns to fire. 'Haha, those fools gave it the wrong length, just look what happened when we put into a type of physics engine more complex than anything they could have imagined at the time!' rubs me the wrong way every time the issue comes up.
It's not 'true' to the original game... since you can launch a Raptor in Wing Commander I and see exactly how that team wanted the guns to fire. 'Haha, those fools gave it the wrong length, just look what happened when we put into a type of physics engine more complex than anything they could have imagined at the time!' rubs me the wrong way every time the issue comes up.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Well, it's simply a matter of choosing one of two bad (but not equally bad) options. We could either keep all the ships to scale, and cop flak for ruining the Raptor and the Hornet, or we could rescale all the ships and cop flak for needlessly altering the WC universe. Given that neither the Raptor nor the Hornet play a big role in Standoff (we could easily cut both out without having to make any alterations at all in the story), we felt that keeping the ships to scale would be the less controversial option. We certainly don't claim that this is being 'true' to WC1, we just claim that not making alterations to something that doesn't need to be altered gets us into less trouble with the rest of the community than making such changes left, right and centre would .
If I was ever to make a WC1-only mod, I'd certainly re-scale all the fighters to make them play more like WC1. And I'd probably get yelled at, but in that case, it would be worth it. Here, it wasn't.
.If I was ever to make a WC1-only mod, I'd certainly re-scale all the fighters to make them play more like WC1. And I'd probably get yelled at, but in that case, it would be worth it
. Here, it wasn't.
ChrisReid
Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Well, it's simply a matter of choosing one of two bad (but not equally bad) options. We could either keep all the ships to scale, and cop flak for ruining the Raptor and the Hornet, or we could rescale all the ships and cop flak for needlessly altering the WC universe. Given that neither the Raptor nor the Hornet play a big role in Standoff (we could easily cut both out without having to make any alterations at all in the story), we felt that keeping the ships to scale would be the less controversial option. We certainly don't claim that this is being 'true' to WC1, we just claim that not making alterations to something that doesn't need to be altered gets us into less trouble with the rest of the community than making such changes left, right and centre would
I really don't think you'd have gotten any flak choosing the other option. Who would have noticed? I would think everyone would understand that the Claw Marks numbers weren't made with gameplay in mind. People notice how odd the Raptor scaling is all the time though. It's the exact same thing as not giving the Raptor 6 dps maneuverability.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
I don't know... while I suspect we wouldn't have gotten away as lightly as you suggest, it doesn't really matter. What it comes down to is that when we made this decision, we were convinced that to rescale the ships was a can of worms not worth opening. I don't know if we were right or wrong, I'm just explaining our reasoning.
Toast
Space Marshal
It's quite possible that if you originally rescaled those ships, you'd have gotten some complaints. Someone *always* complains.
But if you took a poll of the only people who would notice or care today (read: active WingNuts), it looks like there would be at least a majority in favor of rescaling
When it comes to WC, I think most of us would on balance prefer to play more and nitpick less. Even the nitpickers. Yes, this is hindsight. But we're hoping it's not too late!
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
It's very, very hard to measure the size of fighters in the engine - as far as I know, no one has even bothered to do it for the 'official' 3D games...
JasonRocZ
Vice Admiral
So like If I sent you a rescaled model, would you consider replacement for the final episode? Since I've downloaded Standoff I thought it was probably one of the best Wing Commander Games I've played, But as I'm sure with other WC fans the WC1 Raptor was the Excalibur of the WC1 series 
Without a doubt I mean Kudos for your guys for making such a great game I mean I'm pretty good at Flight sim type games and I have to admit Standoff is a challenge for sure! But if I could help in anyway I will. I currently run Architectural Desktop 2006 and 2005and can edit 3ds files. I'm a novice @ texturing but doing the models should be fairly easy. But as a fan.... for the fans, I'd love to actually edit something that is excellent for the WC Community. I mean I was even thinking on distributing some type of FPS Wing Commander type style game...even tho not a flight sim maybe we could get a grunts point of view. I just have to find the right source file/game to do so.. but anyways I didn't mean to grovel on the Raptor just wanted to really see what everyone thought and what could be done. Let me know if anything can be done I would gladly help. 
Without a doubt I mean Kudos for your guys for making such a great game I mean I'm pretty good at Flight sim type games and I have to admit Standoff is a challenge for sure! But if I could help in anyway I will. I currently run Architectural Desktop 2006 and 2005and can edit 3ds files. I'm a novice @ texturing but doing the models should be fairly easy. But as a fan.... for the fans, I'd love to actually edit something that is excellent for the WC Community. I mean I was even thinking on distributing some type of FPS Wing Commander type style game...even tho not a flight sim maybe we could get a grunts point of view. I just have to find the right source file/game to do so.. but anyways I didn't mean to grovel on the Raptor just wanted to really see what everyone thought and what could be done. Let me know if anything can be done I would gladly help.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
No, we would not. It's not a problem for Eder himself to rescale the model, it would take him about three minutes
. We are not, however, touching this issue. Do understand, it's not just about the Raptor. If we were to rescale the Raptor, we'd immediately be asked to rescale the Hornet, too. And that would be ok... but then we'd hear the exact same arguments in favour of rescaling the Gladius, Sabre, Crossbow, Broadsword, and probably a half-dozen other ships. The same arguments would apply - the guns on the Sabre in WC2 were clearly much closer together than they are in Standoff, after all. But then, the same thing also applies to the Rapier - after all, even if it flies perfectly right now, why shouldn't it be treated the same way as the other ships? Next thing you know, even the Ferret would shrink - heck, I'm sure it's no bigger than five-six metres in those WC2 cutscenes, so halving its size would make sense......Then, of course, there are the Kilrathi. Even if we were just to shrink the WC1 ships, we'd still have to give the WC1 Kilrathi ships the same favour.
And it absolutely does not stop at models. Any time we rescale a model, we affect gameplay. We change the Raptor, and not only will the Raptor be easier to fly with, it's also gonna be harder to hit. So then, if we change the Raptor's Kilrathi equivalent, the Gratha, suddenly a bunch of missions become significantly harder. Of course, a bunch of missions would also become significantly easier were we to rescale other Confed ships like the Gladius and the Sabre, but this would not be a 1:1 difficulty change - that is to say, rescaling the Kilrathi ships and rescaling the Confed ships equally does not mean the difficulty overall will remain equal. Next thing you know, we have to start changing the actual missions, adjusting ship numbers and such.
And yes, I'm sure somebody will respond that really, it's just the Raptor you want. And we're not falling for it - today somebody wants the Raptor, a month from now somebody will want the Hornet. Then we'll have the same discussion again, we'll hear the same arguments... plus the additional argument that we already did it for the Raptor.
So, sooner or later, it will come down to us saying "no". Well, we're gonna skip all those intermediary steps and just say "no" right now. I'm sorry to disappoint all the Raptor lovers out there (really, I am - I understand the frustration of flying your favourite ship again only to find that somebody made it suck), but it's just not happening. No matter how much you guys assure us that it's just the Raptor, and really, nobody will mind at all, we are not touching this can of worms.
(also, for the record, the Raptor was the Thunderbolt of WC1... it was the Rapier that was the Excalibur
)
Toast
Space Marshal
And it absolutely does not stop at models. Any time we rescale a model, we affect gameplay. We change the Raptor, and not only will the Raptor be easier to fly with, it's also gonna be harder to hit. So then, if we change the Raptor's Kilrathi equivalent, the Gratha, suddenly a bunch of missions become significantly harder. Of course, a bunch of missions would also become significantly easier were we to rescale other Confed ships like the Gladius and the Sabre, but this would not be a 1:1 difficulty change - that is to say, rescaling the Kilrathi ships and rescaling the Confed ships equally does not mean the difficulty overall will remain equal. Next thing you know, we have to start changing the actual missions, adjusting ship numbers and such.
And yes, I'm sure somebody will respond that really, it's just the Raptor you want. And we're not falling for it - today somebody wants the Raptor, a month from now somebody will want the Hornet. Then we'll have the same discussion again, we'll hear the same arguments... plus the additional argument that we already did it for the Raptor.
So, sooner or later, it will come down to us saying "no". Well, we're gonna skip all those intermediary steps and just say "no" right now. I'm sorry to disappoint all the Raptor lovers out there (really, I am - I understand the frustration of flying your favourite ship again only to find that somebody made it suck), but it's just not happening. No matter how much you guys assure us that it's just the Raptor, and really, nobody will mind at all, we are not touching this can of worms.
(also, for the record, the Raptor was the Thunderbolt of WC1... it was the Rapier that was the Excalibur
Slippery slope, huh. sigh...
Yeah, the Raptor was the Thunderbolt of WC1, no question. But although storyline-wise, the Rapier is the Excalibur of WC1, I'd say the closer performance comparison for the Rapier is the Arrow. Nothing in WC1 is as overwhelmingly broken - I mean, dominating - as the Excalibur was in WC3... I would have said that there is no equivalent for the Hornet in WC3, as even your most lightly-armed fighter carried four guns and eight missiles. The Arrow had "less" firepower than the other fighters, maybe roughly on a par with the Hellcat, but all the Confed fighters on board the Victory carried murderous firepower.
U
Unregistered
Guest
The Hornet seems to be well-followed by the Arrow in WC3. While the performance and loadout is (compared to the Hornet) quite murderous, for the time it's adequate to slaughter light and medium fighters, but takes a bit of skill on the heavies and not quite there for assaulting capitals on a regular basis.
Eder
Mr. Standoff
It would take someone with modelC and the Prophecy manual a grand total of about 15 minutes to measure the size of all fighters in the Vision engine.
(Capships are a bit trickier because they are split into different chunks)
I've done that before... All WCP/SO fighter-type ships are approximately to scale with one another, though one in-game unit of measure doesn't equal 1 meter. IIRC, when I first did these measurements to find out how big (in game units) Standoff models should be (to preserve the same feeling of speed and et cetera), 1 meter was equal to 0.94 WCP units... or maybe the other way around.
Toast
Space Marshal
The Arrow's armament takes a little skill to use well against the heavies, yes, but it's more than adequate for any target. The Rapier lags far behind the Raptor in damage capacity because on full guns, the refire rate is very slow compared to the Raptor's. I see the spread between the Arrow's cannon firepower and Thunderbolt's gun array as being closer to the dynamic between the Rapier and Raptor than between the Hornet and Raptor. The Arrow's armor is, of course, very weak compared to the Thunderbolt's, but the Arrow's shields are pretty strong (except, curiously, against the Kamekh's rear super-turret.)
My opinion is based mostly on similarities in performance and effectiveness. The Arrow and Thunderbolt both deal good damage and can be used aggressively. As much as I like the Hornet, it dealt out damage far too slowly for me to really think of an Arrow the way I would think about a Hornet, whereas I could fly the Arrow pretty much the same way I flew a Rapier, that's all. The Rapier had good firepower and excellent maneuverability. The Raptor was more of a blunt instrument - firepower, lots of it, all at once. I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just explaining where I'm coming from, since it's not a natural inclination to compare a medium fighter with light fighter.
The Excalibur, on the other hand, practically has no weaknesses, which to me, somewhat deprived it of character. You didn't even have to aim anymore!
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
It's something like that - one of the Prophecy programmers used to hang out in #WingNut and talked about that years ago. We used it for properly measuring the capital ships in-flight at some point...