Weird WC1 ship stats...

Eder

Eder

Mr. Standoff
I was going to render a scene using my Standoff models, but I noticed something weird: When I scaled them acccording to the stats in WC1 and WC2's manuals, things turned out pretty illogical, as you can see from the left half of the picture below:
compare.gif


I'm sure that if you look at the picture for a few seconds, you'll find other absurd things like these:
-The Hornet's guns are bigger than a Ferret, and the smaller ones on the Raptor are bigger than a Hornet's cockpit.
-A Rapier II-A's cockpit is twice as tall as a Hornet's, a Ferret's, or a Rapier II-G's, but it's smaller than a Raptor's.
-You can fit a dozen of the Ferret's mass drivers inside a Scimitar's cockpit.

All of the WC1 models match perfectly with the blueprints that come with WC1 - I actually scanned those and used them as background images in my modelling program. The Ferret and Rapier II-G were made with WC2's sprites as background images, so they are not as accurate... but they can't possibly be THAT inaccurate. Oh, and before someone tells me that it isn't absurd for a Raptor to have a cockpit that's half the size of a Ferret, and that the ship sizes are official stats, and blah, blah, blah, just go have a look at the launch scenes in WC1 and WC2, and notice Blair's size relative to each ship.

Now, look at the right half of the first picture, where I scaled the WC1 ships differently. I took the values listed as "mass" in Claw Marks and used them as length, even though it apparently doesn't make any sense. It still doesn't look perfect, as the Hornet's cockpit is a bit too small IMHO, and the Scimitar's is a bit too big (but then again, I'm not the one who made the Scimitar model, so I'm not sure it matches the WC1 blueprints), but it definately looks more reasonable than the "official" numbers.

So, my questions are...
1-Is there really a screw up in the Claw Marks's stats? I mean... besides the p/y/r values being way too small :D
2-And more importantly... Which scale should I use in my mod? The official one, the one I made up with the mass values...? A completely different one you made up yourself? ;)

--Eder
 
Compare the WC1 sizes to the WC3/4 sizes, though -- IIRC, WC2 is the one that's unusually small, not vice versa.
 
The scaling of same-game fighters (e.g. Raptor, Scimitar, Hornet) seems reasonable. The WC2 fighters seem to be inconsistently small, especially considering the Rapier shrinks from 24m to 19m.

I think your 'mass' scaling system is going to hit a major problem with the Broadsword, which for some god-knows-what reason has a mass of 4.5 times that of a Sabre. If you wanted to get technical, you could try a cube-root-mass scaling (since mass is proportional to length^3). However, I doubt this would work well. Personally, I would trust the mass to be about as consistent as the length (i.e. not at all).

I would try scaling the WC2 ships up by 24/19, using the Rapier as a constant (or possibly even more, considering that the Rapier tonnage increases from WC1 to WC2). This gives you 'new' Sabre and Broadsword lengths of 30m and 45.5m, which seem reasonably realistic compared to the Scimitar and Raptor of 25m and 36m. The Epee and Ferret lengths become 15.6m and 13m, which still seem a little small compared to the Hornet of 20m (although the Hornet does have those ridiculously long laser guns) and positively tiny compared to the Raptor. Still, considering the Ferret is basically just an engine and a pair of guns, while the Raptor is the heaviest thing available on the Tiger's claw, I guess its possible.

Remember, the most important thing is that it looks good. If that means fudging the scale a little, fine, who cares.


While I'm at it, the Raptors cockpit looks way too large. Considering the ship is 36m long, from your drawing the cockpit is over 6.5m long and 1.2m high.
 
I think we've agreed that we'll always have problems with scaling, especially with regards to cockpits (remember the problem with the Krant?). But I think the basic scaling up of WC2 ships using the 24/19 factor sounds like a good idea, even if it means you need to fudge the sizes of the odd ship or two. After all, didn't Porcupine work out that shield/armour and gun/missile values in Privateer were off by a factor of 1.6? (Must be a hex thing)
 
well, the mass scaling of the Broadsword could be attributed to the increase in armor and equipment on board... (3 turrets must require quite a bit of equipment to power them, especially manned turrets)
 
Ehh, my take is just that different generations of fighters are different sizes -- compare an F-14 to a Wildcat... Confed fighters seem to be small (WCM) big (WC1) small (WC2) big (WC3/4) small (WCP) <G>
 
Uhm.... I don't think I made myself clear as to why I think the WC1 sizes are wrong, instead of the WC2 ones. The problem is NOT the WC1 sizes when compared to the WC2 sizes... the problem is the sizes of the WC1 cockpits when compared to the ships' lenghts.

Look at the launch sequences from WC1. Unless the guy who stands besides Blair's ship is 3 meters tall, there's no damn way a Raptor is 36 meters long, or a Scimitar is 25.

LOAF... how can this be due to different generations of craft, when the Ferret entered service around the same time as some of the WC1 fighters?

Azrael... you said the Raptor's cockpit in my model is way too large, that is exactly my point. Here's something from Claw Marks:

http://www.blacklance.org/claw/15.html

So it's not only my model that has a big cockpit. The point here is that unless humans in the 2660's are 3 meters tall, the schematics from the manual conflict with the information from the manual.

You can see that either I A) go with what's written in Claw Marks and size down the cockpits themselves to something less ridiculous than 6.5m x 1.2m B) go with what's drawn in Claw Marks and with what's seen in the launch sequences, by making the ships smaller.

The reason I'm leaning towards B) option right now is because it has both the drawings in the manual and the in game launch sequences to back it up.
Also, A) has a little problem... Sizing down the cockpits may make them proportional to a person's average height alright, but it will mess up the proportions relative to the rest of the ship - thus, if I size the cockpits down, my models won't match the blueprints or the launch sequence pictures.

Oh, and when I mentioned using mass values as length, I was referring to WC1 craft only, since the WC2 ones are already a reasonable size when you analyze the launch sequences.

Damn, I hate serious posts. I miss using smileys :p

--Eder
 
I think you should take a second look at LOAF's post. Besides, we don't know much about the technology in those fighters, so saying something is right or wrong is kinda moot.
 
What LOAF said about different generations of fighters is correct. The WC2 fighters really are the ones who look out of place if you look at the WC1, WC3, and WC4 fighters.

However, that hasn't got anything to do with the fact that for a Raptor to be 36 meters long and look like it does look in every piece of WC1 art, be it in-game or not, the cockpit would be 6.5 meters long.

So, either A) humans from the 2660's are taller than humans from today B) the Raptor doesn't exactly look like what's shown in the game, in the Claw Marks or in the blueprints or C) the Raptor is not 36 meters long

--Eder
 
Ehh, but *all* the fighters have this problem -- compare Blair to his Thunderbolt in WC3.

Anyway, there's generally a pattern even if you look at the canon service entry dates...
(based on the first time we see a fighter).

Long, Long Ago
Scimitar - BIG

2634
Raptor - BIG
Hornet - BIG
Scimitar - BIG

2639
Ferret - SMALL
Broadsword - SMALL

2654
Arrow V - BIG
Hellcat V - BIG
Rapier II - BIG
Longbow - BIG
Avenger - BIG
Epee - SMALL
Sabre - SMALL

2667
Wraith - SMALL
Rapier II - SMALL
Morningstar - SMALL
Crossbow - SMALL

2669-2673
Thunderbolt VII - BIG
Excalibur - BIG
Lance - BIG
Bearcat - BIG
Banshee - BIG
Banshee - BIG
Gladius - BIG
Phantom - BIG
Wraith - BIG

2681
Piranha - SMALL
Tigershark - SMALL
Devestator - SMALL
Vampire - SMALL
Panther - SMALL
Wasp - SMALL
 
Eder, fudge it, make it look good and fairly realistic, just remember which ships are supposed to be big in comparison to the others and get some system sorted. And stick to it.
 
Hmmm, well thanks for the info everyone. I'll try both scaling up the WC2 fighters using a 25/19 factor, and scaling down the WC1 fighters using a 19/25 factor, and see how big each ship turns out.

Either way, I'm NOT going to both the official WC1 sizes along with the official WC2 sizes, since that would make the Rapier II-G and the Ferret way too small (or everything else way too big - take your pick :))

--Eder
 
The problem is, of course, that most of these statistics, pictures and schematics are drawn by people who have never been near a real fighter in their life. If you look at the Ferret, the 'glass' canopy is as thick as the cockpit below, with nowhere for the pilots legs. So either the pilot lies down flat with his feet sticking up into the nose, or the ship is piloted by amputees.

My advice is to simply fudge it so they look realistic. The same-game relative length statistics of the fighters look realistic (the Ferret is a Moped, the Broadsword is a Mack truck), so all you need to do is fudge the scaling between games.

Compared to 20m for the Hornet, 36m is not an unreasonable length for a flying tank like the Raptor. Looking at the Raptor cockpit from the schematic, there is a fair bit of bulk behind where the pilot sits (i.e. only the front part is glassed), which doesn't show too well on those all-white models you posted. If you assume that only the front half of the lumpy bit is true cockpit, and scale the Ferret model up by 25/19, the cockpit lengths are reasonable. (In my opinion, the Raptor cockpit could still be reduced a little). Still, all that matters is how it looks in-game. No-one's going to haul out a ruler and measure the damn things.
 
Ok, I'm going to scale the WC2 ships up by 25/19, then I'm going to scale them all down by whatever factor is necessary to make the Raptor fit through the doors of the Waterloo's hangar :) I don't want to have to mess with the capships sizes :D

--Eder
 
Remember that it wasn't until WCP that ships were truly scaled correctly, so even the WC3 dreadnought looks very small if it's supposed to be 22km long.

Also, the ships in WC1 were hand-drawn while the WC2 ships are CG. I know that has nothing to do with the official lengths given in the manuals, but it might explain the out-of-proportion sizes of the cockpits, etc.

I might check the Academy manual later, IIRC, some of the stats are different to the WC2 manual - and that might include lengths.
 
You must admit, scales were ALL screwed up in WC1. I was on approach in the final mission, not paying attention to the range, only going on vision... then BAM! I smack into the tiniest STATION I have ever seen! The Tiger's Claw was bigger than that station!
 
Originally posted by Manic
You must admit, scales were ALL screwed up in WC1. I was on approach in the final mission, not paying attention to the range, only going on vision... then BAM! I smack into the tiniest STATION I have ever seen! The Tiger's Claw was bigger than that station!
Click to expand...
In-game graphics always poorly represent scale. And in such an old game, the deficiency is far more pronounced. That doesn't mean that "scales were ALL screwed up," it just means that normal people go by documentation, and not sprite-size.
 
Another thing which always bothered me. Why is the Dorkathi sprite for the Grimalkin/Gamal Gan in SO2 so blasted small? Very easy to crash into that one. Although it does look better in terms of scale when you see it next to the Concordia at the end of SO2, how does it feel to 'dock' with a freighter that's the same size as your fighter? :)
 
Yes, that happened to me a couple of times too. I also had the impression that the Ralatha you escort is a bit smaller than usual, though that may be my imagination only...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top