Thanks
gizmo wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 2:30 pm
Now that I have a working Linux build (thanks to Commander_X): I really like the way the game play / immersion changes.
Thanks again and thanks for your thoughts!
gizmo wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 2:30 pm
However, I'd rather don't reduce the reported distance from STE as, for me, the distances seem to be too small.
What I would change is the reported unit from km to gm (galacitc mile) or something like that.
This is one of those apparently contrary things. Why would I go to all that trouble of making space seem bigger and then reduce the reported distances from the STE?
The original Oolite scale is based around a coriolis station being the canonical 1km across. However, this resulted in ships being approximately 3 times 'too big' (canonically at least) when their sizes in ft were converted to m in order for docking to remain moderatly challenging. I seem to remember a picture somewhere on these boards showing a cobra 3 in oolite being about the size of a football field...
In the rescale plus version of the experiment, stations are 3 times bigger and almost all ships are 1.5 times bigger.
3 (approx factor by which ships were too large) x 1.5 (factor by which I have made them larger again) = 4.5
4.5 / 5 (factor by which I have reduced the STE reported measurements) = 0.9 or 90% of their canonical sizes.
Note that isn't true for all ships, for example the anaconda was scaled in that version to x 3 and so it's size relative to canonical value is approx (3 x 3 / 5) 1.8 or 180%. Stations may be 3 times bigger but they were already 'correct' and so that would be (3 / 5) = 0.6 or 60% canonical size. So the canonical sizes don't match with the game and they never did, even in elite, which is why aegidian picked one (the station) and scaled the ships up to it.
Bear in mind that a single km is quite a long way. If you're supposed to be engaing with a fighter at close to 15km, what do you expect to see? Try walking that distance and look back at where you came from. If your reference is distances as normally reported by the STE then of course the new measurements will appear wrong. When you're approaching something in the standard game however (and actualy have time to note the reading) big numbers tend to make everything on scanner seem similarly enormous. If you try that I suspect you'll see what I mean. Just how big is that cargo pod?
So in standard oolite, issues of scale are made all the more apparent by the fact entities that show up on scanner are typically too big (ships at 300%) and entities that don't are too small (planets at 1%).
So why didn't I divide km by 4.5 rather than 5? Then I could have ships at their canonical sizes.
Dividing by 5 means that each line on the scanner now marks 1km instaed of 5. If they marked 4.5km then I think that would seem rather strange.
The other obvious concern is that of making space seem smaller when it's already too small. The STE only reports distances within scanner range and with that distance being proportionally minute compared to WP-planet it's negligable.
Quick bit of maths to prove point:
Old scanner @ 25.6km to new scanner @ 5km = 19.5%
Old WP - planet at 1 to new distance @ x10 then x1.5 (increased lane) = 15
15 / 100 x 19.5 = 2.925
Therefore even if STE ranges could somehow acurately measure an entire system they would still report nearly 3 times as high a value as they do in the current game.
I've tried to move away from a canonical model and towards a visual one. So rather than one thing being 'right' (the station) and everything else 'wrong', I've employed a bit of smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that now nothing is 'right' but most things are no longer obviously wrong.
If you (or anyone else) still thinks that my reduction to STE distances is too severe or even unnecessary then please try to convince me. There must be ways to improve upon my thinking in all things 'rescaling'. I've already changed my mind numerous times on some of the values, so I'd have thought there's a good chance someone else can change it too
