The Carbon Comrade
14th July 2004
A generalised question here.. For those of you that play Armada II still, be it the stock game, a modified version of the stock game, or a total conversion, how important is the scaling of ships for you in any given situation? I was had some free time earlier, and as many of the ships I am using in Zero Hour haven't yet been scaled, I figured I'd get to work on them. Instead of scaling them in game, I decided to scale them using Milkshape 3D. This way, if I need to edit the scale of one when in game, I can edit the scale of all the ships, to the same setting, thus saving a lot of time. Anyway:
The Dominion Dreadnought, and Cardassian Hideki. These two ships will both be in Zero Hour (the Dominion for map usage only). Anyway, after having gone through various sources, I've scaled every ship I currently have as close to canon as possible. I've also had to take account for the window sizes on the various ships I've had, but that hasn't caused me too much of a problem. The Dominion Dreadnought though, measures up as about 1500 metres. - There was a much bigger one orbiting Cardassia in the DS9 finale, but I have chosen to ignore that size. The Cardassian Hideki measures up as about 100 metres. As demonstrated by this picture, there is a significant size difference. Overall, I am concerned about how these two ships (at their current size) would preform in game. If I have the Dreadnought large, then I'll have trouble with Asteroids and such. If I have the Hideki very small, then I wont be able to see her. The question I ask, is what to do, and how important is the scaling when playing for the individual? This issue is one of the many reasons that I didn't include the Borg in Zero Hour. Comparing Cubes to Hideki Class would have been a joke. Also, for notice, the Hideki is the smallest ship in Zero Hour, and the Dreadnought is the largest.
6th February 2005
If you go with realism then your going to have problems with planets, stars and asteroid belts.
At the end of the day, most people aren't going to care. Just do it so that things don't look "wrong" (ie, bigger ship classes are larger than smaller ones)
Well, my other mod had some serious scaling issues that pretty much narfed any chance of making it work properly. However in KA2, I work on a system whereby the "centre" (i.e neither tiny or huge) ships all scale to one another, but the larger ships are slightly underscale and the smaller ships are slightly overscaled. For example, the Oberth and Bird of Prey are slightly too big, compared to the Okinawa or pIH (the next ships up in both fleets), and the Missouri/Yamato and the qeyLIS bet'LetH are slightly undersized. (quality is awful as I forgot to turn on AA beforehand but) The largest and smallest in KA2 (the Alpha Class is technically the largest but for gameplay purposes is scaled down to Yamato size)
Yamato Class Experimental Battleship - 2800 ft (854m) Oberth Class Escort - 328 ft (100m according to KA) Infact, by this the Yamato is probably oversized. I am not a stickler for scale in A2 though, (other games I am, alteast to a certain degree, its retarded having AT-ATs that are only marginally bigger than snowspeeders in SWGB). I may rescale KA2s models a little but, a lot of ships in KA2 are non-canon and have no visible scale reference (particularly a problem with Tholian and Hydran ships as neither seem to have visible windows)
As Freyr says, tis all about comparative size rather than actual size. As long as the Yamato looks like its a far larger, far more powerful battleship, its actual scale compared to an Oberth doesn't matter.
I agree with Freyr. I would love to have Cubes and StarBases that were accurately scaled. The game engine makes this difficult at best. I use your Galaxy and Nebula in my game and the ScaleSod settings I use for them are 0.4 for the Galaxy and 0.37 for the Nebula. No specific reason for these settings. They just look right with the rest of the eclectic combination of ships I have installed. I like the idea of you trying to get the sizes just right and thank you for the extra effort and attention to detail. Use what looks right to you. I am guessing it will be pretty good.
I stole fire from the lighter!
13th January 2003
this is the scaling I use in Art of War, using rough math I put the hideki at 125 meters but it looks fine, conveys a weak ship and is easily visible.
Adopt, adapt, improve
24th February 2007
I find it easier to scale the smallest ship I have untill it can be easily seen, and then scale the larger ships up from there. That way your ships will be accuratly scaled to one another and the smallest of them will be easy to see ingame.
Majestic is thy Name!
2nd April 2006
I agree with what the others have said, all one can do is approximate as what I am doing in Yesteryears. I still want to see the smaller ships but don't want the larger ships so big that they will have pathing issues. It's one of the flaws with the game and really no one can successfully have a correct/canon scale unless they removed all stellar bodies like planets and the like that Freyr mentioned. Take your best guess, it's all we can really do.
The Real Awesome
20th April 2007
Scaling ships can be very difficult at times. Remember the problem when ships change size at strategic and tactical view? That problem seriously wrecked scaling on some ships on my personal mod, so instead of being 100% canon in sizes, I took some compromises and exceptions.
Something else to consider is dividing thing into catagories and only scaling the objects in that catagory to each other. Example would be all planets are scaled to each other, all stations are scale to each other all ships above 100 meters are scale to each other, and all small craft are scale to each other.
1st October 2007
I'm also trying to scale all ships to each other in my Evolution mod. But an NX and an Excalibur give the similar problem you have. I've decided that I will ignore the canonic scales a the smallest ships like NX, Oberth, Talon etc.