Oolite ships dimensions... feet or meters?

aceshigh · Post by **aceshigh** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:55 pm

I was planning on recreating some models for Oolite. For that, I needed the original ships dimensions.

Reading Oolite Wiki, they measured the dimensions in meters. Thus the Coriolis Space station was 1kmx1kmx1km.

And the Cobra MK3 was 65x30x130 meters wide. These are some relatively big ship sizes, but not so much when you consider they must have a lot of systems, space for cargo and for lots of fuel.

To my surprise, when I downloaded some Elite ship models from 3Dwarehouse, they were much smaller... almost the size of fighters... or no more than the size of ships in Wing Commander Privateer.

Now I searched for another source for Elite ships sizes... and came with this
http://amigareviews.classicgaming.gamespy.com/elite.htm

All the ships statistics are in FEET that (thus, they the metric measurements in Oolite Wiki and divide by 3 to get the real metric measures)

Did I read wrong the Oolite wiki? Is Oolite Wiki wrong? Or is the website I linked above and the 3Dwarehouse models wrong?

Thanks

aceshigh · Post by **aceshigh** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:01 pm

just confirmed on the Oolite Wiki (which was offline this afternoon)

Oolite Wiki depicts ships sizes in metres ("Size (metres, W×H×L)" )

But apparently, the original sizes are in feet!

Thus a Viper is not 50 × 16 × 55 meters, but 16 x 5,3 x 18,3 meters.

This is more important than it seems. While models may not change very much, texturing may be important. If you do a DOOR on the side of the ship, depending on the measurement system, the door may be HUGE or TOO SMALL. Or the windows on the side of a space station...

Really, I dont mind the bigger ship sizes. I preffer them in fact, since the small ships sizes are the sizes of small fighters, not cargo ships.

But I hope the community can discuss it, or if it was already discussed, point me on the right direction before I start doing models and textures.

Post by **Micha** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:05 am

The definitive resource has the original ship sizes in feet:
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/manual.htm#A47

aceshigh · Post by **aceshigh** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:08 am

Micha wrote:
The definitive resource has the original ship sizes in feet:
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/manual.htm#A47

hmmm... so the ships are indeed quite small...

Screet · Post by **Screet** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:15 am

aceshigh wrote:
Micha wrote:
The definitive resource has the original ship sizes in feet:
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/manual.htm#A47
hmmm... so the ships are indeed quite small...

The strange thing is, that the ships in Oolite appear to me to be the size they were in Elite. Maybe we should tell Ian Bell to switch the size unit to meters

Screet, always confused with feet/inch systems...

aceshigh · Post by **aceshigh** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:20 am

Screet wrote:
aceshigh wrote:
Micha wrote:
The definitive resource has the original ship sizes in feet:
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/manual.htm#A47
hmmm... so the ships are indeed quite small...
The strange thing is, that the ships in Oolite appear to me to be the size they were in Elite. Maybe we should tell Ian Bell to switch the size unit to meters

Screet, always confused with feet/inch systems...

well, since, but everything scaled up hehehe.

as I said, the only way to notice a difference in size would be the textures for example, which give finer details like doors, windows, etc. Of course, the measurement system also changes the speed.

for example, if we wanted we could say each ship is 500 meters in size. Textures would be scaled to fit such big sizes (doors would be SMALL on the textures).

On the other hand, when you accelerate a ship 500 meters long and it approaches a station that is 5000 meters wide, at the same in-game speed as before, the "number" of that speed in the game will be much higher... instead of 200km/h it would be 600 km/h!

Or something like that. I am not making myself clear. Damnit...

Dr Beeb · Post by **Dr Beeb** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:08 am

yep I have wondered the same thing in the past. It would also explain why ships fly around ~ 3 times slower than the original BBC game. The only question left is whether a space station is supposed to be 1km in size, I think it is, but then that makes docking too easy?

tomsk · Post by **tomsk** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:55 am

If the oolite ships are measure in metres, then they are huge!

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 1&t=h&z=18

This is where I work. If you use the satellite imagery, the large green building is 30m x 60m. You can also see an 40 tonne articulated truck, a 18 tonne rigid truck and several cars. Cars are typically 4.0 to 5.0m x 1.5 to 1.8m in size.

Having the ship sizes in feet would make for a better scale. As for engines and ancillarys needing to fit in, consider that the engine in a car takes up about as much space a 2 or 3 large suitcaes. Or consider the 40t truck - the tractor unit at the front has the engine, cab and a bunk.

However, having sizes in metres does seem correct when seen on the oolite viewscreen. I've seen the Jodrell bank (Lovell) radio telescope from a distance of ~20km and the dish is 74m across. If it were only74ft (22.5m) I don't think I could shoot it with laser!

Selezen · Post by **Selezen** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:01 am

There were loads of discussions aboutthis ages ago, iirc. The decision was eventually made to make it metres despite the original manual stating feet since the metric scale seemed to work better. It was difficult to fit 100 tons of cargo into an anaconda if its measurements were in feet. Or something.

Post by **Eric Walch** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:27 am

Anaconda is even 700 ton. If you would store gold it would only be 35 cubic meter, but transporting something as coffee cups or computers would probably need around 7000 cubic meter storage room inside that ship.

Post by **Micha** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:48 am

I always took the Elite "Gal Tonne" to be a measure of volume rather than mass, similar to current-day containers or the olden-day barrels. They're a universal size, but depending on what's loaded into them they have different mass.

aceshigh · Post by **aceshigh** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:11 am

tomsk wrote:
If the oolite ships are measure in metres, then they are huge!
This is where I work. If you use the satellite imagery, the large green building is 30m x 60m. You can also see an 40 tonne articulated truck, a 18 tonne rigid truck and several cars. Cars are typically 4.0 to 5.0m x 1.5 to 1.8m in size.

Having the ship sizes in feet would make for a better scale. As for engines and ancillarys needing to fit in, consider that the engine in a car takes up about as much space a 2 or 3 large suitcaes. Or consider the 40t truck - the tractor unit at the front has the engine, cab and a bunk.

you cant compare a SPACESHIP to a truck!

- Oolite Ships have "flames" behind. That means they carry reaction mass to expell. Well, its true, its much more efficient than anything in existance today. But still, you need BIG fuel tanks. (considering they carry lots of cargo)

- They carry guns and missiles

- They have shiels and reinforced hulls for space combat

- They must have crew quarters. After all, you NEED to buy beds if you want to carry passengers around. That means your pilot also needs to sleep in beds (if I am not mistaken, you can even see the bed in Frontier). If you have beds, we can also consider there are some entertainment room, some bathroom and kitchen. Think MILLENIUM FALCON. With the difference that the Millenium Falcon was smaller because it had a reactionless drive (only "glow" behind, besides Star Wars is like the year 70 thousand of their own civilization. Elite is year 3000 something). Also, the Millenium Falcon only SMUGGLED stuff. Its cargy bay is pitiful. It surely wasnt meant to carry tons of "textiles" or "minerals" or "grains" around. It was meant to smuggle high valuable items on its small cargo hold (not forgetting the hidden scanner proof compartiments). Now, we must think that if the Millenium Falcon is 34(L)x25(W)x8 (H). Now, add fuel mass for a reaction engine as seen on Oolite, and add cargo compartments for carrying TONS of textiles around...

aceshigh · Post by **aceshigh** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:26 am

Eric Walch wrote:
Anaconda is even 700 ton. If you would store gold it would only be 35 cubic meter, but transporting something as coffee cups or computers would probably need around 7000 cubic meter storage room inside that ship.

thats why when I make my own Perfect Space Game (tm) ships cargo will be measured both in containers (volume) and tonnage (weight). And each ship model will be built having in mind everything inside them (even if most of the interior wont show ingame).

ClymAngus · Post by **ClymAngus** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:41 am

.We hold these truths to be self-evident;

The distance between planets is hosed realistically but it works for game play.
Feet vs meters only exasperates this problem.

The size of objects are hosed mainly planets.
Feet vs meters only exasperates this problem.

Newtonian physics was thrown out the window so people could have a dog fighty feel to space travel.

There is an unfeasably large jump in cargo space between the top 2 in game haulers.

OK repeat after me; “although in many ways the original elite was a mile stone in computing, as a game it does have some significant issues that may never be fully resolved. The makers themselves admit errors were made.”

The question is where to draw the line, is it a fix or is it detraction from the loveable flaws of the original in all its fudged glory? To be honest all oxp's are optional so if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la then you can.

Everyone has his own opinion, yes there will always be ships out there that appear to be piloted by giants, Yes if someone actually made a proper solar system up with these dimensions the sun wouldn't even have the mass to fire. Yes its all wrong, but its our all wrong a lovely bit of nostalgic abandon ware we can buff up and tweak to our hearts content.

So feet or meters: who cares? I think its kingly thumb lengths actually. It doesn't matter. Just get out there and shoot something hostile.

aceshigh · Post by **aceshigh** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:52 am

ClymAngus wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident;

The distance between planets is hosed realistically but it works for game play.
Feet vs meters only exasperates this problem.

The size of objects are hosed mainly planets.
Feet vs meters only exasperates this problem.

Newtonian physics was thrown out the window so people could have a dog fighty feel to space travel.

There is an unfeasably large jump in cargo space between the top 2 in game haulers.

OK repeat after me; “although in many ways the original elite was a mile stone in computing, as a game it does have some significant issues that may never be fully resolved. The makers themselves admit errors were made.”

The question is where to draw the line, is it a fix or is it detraction from the loveable flaws of the original in all its fudged glory? To be honest all oxp's are optional so if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la then you can.

Everyone has his own opinion, yes there will always be ships out there that appear to be piloted by giants, Yes if someone actually made a proper solar system up with these dimensions the sun wouldn't even have the mass to fire. Yes its all wrong, but its our all wrong a lovely bit of nostalgic abandon ware we can buff up and tweak to our hearts content.

So feet or meters: who cares? I think its kingly thumb lengths actually. It doesn't matter. Just get out there and shoot something hostile.

I just want to know the scale I should draw the textures for the ships!