Commander McLane wrote:Redspear wrote:My impression is that Paradox was coming at it from more of a modeller's perspective.
Yes, that's my impression as well. And there is nothing wrong with coming from a (ship) modeller's perspective...
...Giving the player the best possible game experience is also the reason why the ships are as big as they are. Again a small experiment: Look at a ship 10.000 metres ahead of you. Now imagine it to be only one third of its size. Repeat with other distances, if you like. Is this the experience you want to have as a player? Flying in a hoard of other ships and practically not seeing anything of them, except when you get
really close? Again, as a player I wouldn't want to have that in my game.
So, this is in a nutshell why the ships are too big and everything else is too small in the game.
Redspear wrote:Thus his argument (if I understand it correctly) is that metres in a modelling program should match metres in the game.
I understand it the same way, but I think that this argument is invalid. As I wrote above, the ship models are as big as they are for a very good reason. Giving the players the best possible game experience
by far outweighs giving ship modellers what is merely a convenience, namely being able to translate human meters to game units 1 = 1. And at the end of the day, the only inconvenience that ship modellers have to go through is to multiply all lengths by a factor of 3, if their measure is the size of an average contemporary human. That's
literally all they have to do to make everything right. I believe that this can be asked of them.
Absolutely hilarious that every one of your quotes here was aimed directly at me...
Why do you people feel the need to keep bringing planet/sun/moon/distances/etc. sizes and scales into this discussion? No one, not even
I, have suggested they be made "real" size. This is about the
ships only. As you have stated, they have their
own scale.
I asked you four simple questions McLane... you haven't answered a single one...
And as for that statement about seeing a ship over 6 miles away blah blah blah?! Ok, now imagine it also 2/3rds closer at 3,333meters (a.k.a over
2 miles), which, in my opinion, is FAR more realistic that your 10,000 meters... Guess what, it looks
identical. It's called physics... pretty cool, might want to check it out...
Too many things here I am so tempted to respond to, but I have to keep telling myself that it's just not worth it. I will, instead, ask just one more question...
Since this is a topic that started as a means to discuss an experiment in re-scaling, and since no one is saying that you or anyone else
has to participate or take part in this project in any way... Why are you here? You , and others seem to think that coming here and telling us that we are wasting our time, and that
you like things just the way they are etc. etc. etc. is in some way contributing to this project...? Why even
CIM, who obviously doesn't think this is a good idea, is at least willing to offer
constructive criticism and even thoughts and suggestions!!! What have you done McLane except to take shots at all of
my reasons for being here? Readspear thanks you for your constructive criticisms, however, I don't see a single thing you have yet said that qualifies... Only comments on why
you think this is a waste of time/unnecessary/etc... That is criticism.. where is the constructive part? You sound like:
Capt. Reynolds wrote: Wow.
You know what? I play Oolite. It works.
I don't care if thing X is eleventy-three times bigger/smaller/more purple than it "should" be or not. I don't care if things from fictional universe A don't match up with things in fictional universe B without having to adjust their scale or specifications. The game works...
You're a little longer winded perhaps, an a little better spoken, but the meaning is the same... And just as "constructive...