I've noticed something strange, a discrepancy in fighter-sizes in WC2.

In WC1 the fighters are between 20-36 meters long.

In WC2, the biggest fighter (the Sabre) is 24 meters, all the others are in the 10-19 meter range. The exception is the Broadsword, which is 36 meters.

Considering that WCP has small fighters too, I figured maybe it was a trend and stuff, but I ran into a problem...

Some WC2 fighters, are different sizes in other games!

The Wraith for example in WC2 is 16 meters, but in WCA (Armada) is 35 meters long. This is most unusual-- even when aircraft are enlarged in size, they are enlarged a few feet, not doubled in size. Plus if you're talking about an airliner, you'd have a long cylindrical fuselage you can add plugs to and stretch it out. You could even adjust the wings, but to scale it up to the exact same proportions is almost impossible unless you made a whole new machine which was simply a scaled-up version of the previous. A scaling up of the magnitude that occured in WCA would be tantamount to a total re-design.

In otherwords, the sizes are screwed up.

Even better yet, in WC3, while some of the fighters you see (the Hellcat for example) are older fighters, the Excal, which is brand new is also big (32 meters) suggesting more than just a trend.

To make it better, the maneuverability ratings on these mini-fighters (WC2 ones) and the WC1 and WC3/4 ones, are roughly the same. This means that despite being smaller, these mini-fighters can't outmaneuver their large counterparts. What the (rhymes with buck)???

If you have a small machine, it should be more maneuverable than a big one. And plus, if I had to choose between a small fighter and a big fighter and both had the same maneuverability, I'd take the big one in a heartbeat!

The only reason small fighters are made in favor of big ones is because they're more maneuverable. If you can make a big machine maneuver as well as a small one they're going to buy them like hotcakes. There is also no speed difference between the WC2 fighters and the WC3 ones.

The WC 3 fighters are heavily armored and shielded compared to their WC2 counterparts (that's another point I'd like to get to).

The reason WCP fighters are tiny has to do with the fact that technology has miniaturized in all those years and not to mention Chris Roberts didn't have a role in the game so everything came out a bit wonky.

I propose making more realistic sizes for the WC2 fighters to make them more compatible with WC1 and WC3/4.

-Concordia

1)I've noticed something strange, a discrepancy in fighter-sizes in WC2.
Some WC2 fighters, are different sizes in other games!
The Wraith for example in WC2 is 16 meters, but in WCA (Armada) is 35 meters long.
In otherwords, the sizes are screwed up.

2)To make it better, the maneuverability ratings on these mini-fighters (WC2 ones) and the WC1 and WC3/4 ones, are roughly the same.

3)If you have a small machine, it should be more maneuverable than a big one. And plus, if I had to choose between a small fighter and a big fighter and both had the same maneuverability, I'd take the big one in a heartbeat!
The only reason small fighters are made in favor of big ones is because they're more maneuverable. If you can make a big machine maneuver as well as a small one they're going to buy them like hotcakes. There is also no speed difference between the WC2 fighters and the WC3 ones.

4)The WC 3 fighters are heavily armored and shielded compared to their WC2 counterparts (that's another point I'd like to get to).

5)I propose making more realistic sizes for the WC2 fighters to make them more compatible with WC1 and WC3/4.

-Concordia

Your a misguided man...

1) The manuals are screwed up, those specs are a load of horse hokey. It seams as the manual specs changes acordingly with the staff involved in each game (other than Chris Roberts)
Even the weapons are screwed up specialy on WC2 manual.

Solution: Simply make fighter ship sizes accordingly to what you see on screen. Theres several reasons for this:

A) Real sizes makes fighters big for FS2 standards making it look like they're slower and more sluggish than reality
B) Models are off scale:The hellcat would be not much smaller than the thunderbolt, and this last 1 almost the size of a Longbow, I took the hangar cutcsenes as reference. The Broadsword is about 8 times as big as a ferret. The cramped Arrow is dwarfed by the Thuderbolt (look at the cockipt areas, the arrow is loke anf F-16 cocpit while the Thunderbolt is more like an apache, and its only a small part of it).

2) Again the manuals are wrong, and you didndnt take in count with the different game engines/Flight-models

3)What about technology evolution?
making analogy with the real world, you're saying the same as the F-22 should not exceed F-16's perfomance (it does), Every one would then buy and fly F-22 (expensive as ####, and hard to build), ask yourself why the US doesnt buy them like hotcakes to replace all its older planes.
The same goes for WC Universe, the ferret simply wont outfly a dragon and the dragon (or excalibur) wont be as avaiable as often as a hellcat. These are special items to pilots like special cards in the Magic: the gathering card game.

4) We can always make up a credible excuse for this.
Have you read the Wc3 manuals war history?
There a particular period of the war that caused major changes on how it was fought:
The kilrathi were badly beaten on a terran counter-offensive and offered an unexpected armistice. Both sides had theyr fleeds very much depleeted, so when the kilrathi decided break the treaty and return back to the war (were buying time), Both sides could have got newer designs, based on past (Bad) experiences and different filosophies. In this pause of the war, replenishment of both fleets were stimulated by privateers who by investing on the old design stocks helped the military get resourses faster for the new ones. (there was a mix of older and new designs on armada and privateer 1)
After that the tide of the war changed radicaly.

5) NEVER Change ship models themselves, only scaling is to be considered. And that is being donne. Or else we risk getting different designs than those we want.



Edited By haderak on Oct. 28 2002 at 05:18

I agree with haderak, the manuals (at this point) should probably be thrown out the window, as they appear to only create more problems than solve them. Then again, it could be said that the measurements you are describing are talking about Wingspan, and not length. This WOULD make the WC2 fighters much smaller (like the ferret and epee, which had very little wingspan) but rescaling should be an issue here. Look at the Concordia in WC2 for example. When inflight, it hardly looks like a ferret could even fit inside the launch bays.

Originally posted by haderak
1) The manuals are screwed up, those specs are a load of horse hokey. It seams as the manual specs changes acordingly with the staff involved in each game (other than Chris Roberts)
Even the weapons are screwed up specialy on WC2 manual.

Actually, WC3's specs and WC4's seem to be accurate.

Solution: Simply make fighter ship sizes accordingly to what you see on screen. Theres several reasons for this:

Yeah, but that would make the fighters either disproportionately small or large

A) Real sizes makes fighters big for FS2 standards making it look like they're slower and more sluggish than reality

Don't know about slow looking, as for sluggish I'm not certain what you mean?

B) Models are off scale:The hellcat would be not much smaller than the thunderbolt, and this last 1 almost the size of a Longbow, I took the hangar cutcsenes as reference. The Broadsword is about 8 times as big as a ferret. The cramped Arrow is dwarfed by the Thuderbolt (look at the cockipt areas, the arrow is loke anf F-16 cocpit while the Thunderbolt is more like an apache, and its only a small part of it).

Yeah, but I don't really wish to fudge with the stats too much, I just want to keep the stats that work, and change the ones that don't.

2) Again the manuals are wrong, and you didndnt take in count with the different game engines/Flight-models

The WC1, WC3 and WC4 fighters all are on the same scale, just WC2 and WCP, WCP is somewhat justified by the large technological advancements in the time.

3)What about technology evolution?
making analogy with the real world, you're saying the same as the F-22 should not exceed F-16's perfomance (it does),

I never said that a new fighter should not exceed the performance of an old one. In fact, they definetly should.

But, even though the Excalibur (WC3) is a new fighter, it still is large like the other fighters in the game despite the fact that the other fighters are comparitively old. Considering that WC1 ALSO has the same size scaling, it would appear to suggest that WC fighters are of a larger scale than suggested in WC2.

Every one would then buy and fly F-22 (expensive as ####, and hard to build), ask yourself why the US doesnt buy them like hotcakes to replace all its older planes.

Price-tag.

The same goes for WC Universe, the ferret simply wont outfly a dragon and the dragon (or excalibur) wont be as avaiable as often as a hellcat. These are special items to pilots like special cards in the Magic: the gathering card game.

But the Dragon is state of the art, and it's a special covert ops fighter! Of course it's gonna outperform a ferret.

4) We can always make up a credible excuse for this.
Have you read the Wc3 manuals war history?
There a particular period of the war that caused major changes on how it was fought:
The kilrathi were badly beaten on a terran counter-offensive and offered an unexpected armistice. Both sides had theyr fleeds very much depleeted, so when the kilrathi decided break the treaty and return back to the war (were buying time), Both sides could have got newer designs, based on past (Bad) experiences and different filosophies. In this pause of the war, replenishment of both fleets were stimulated by privateers who by investing on the old design stocks helped the military get resourses faster for the new ones. (there was a mix of older and new designs on armada and privateer 1)
After that the tide of the war changed radicaly.

Yes, there is something you're forgetting though.

WC1
Hornet - date of flight 2634
Scimitar - date of flight 2527 (ancient sucker)
Raptor - date of flight 2639 (at least)
Rapier - date of flight 2654 (WC1)

WC2
Ferret - date of flight 2638
Epee - about 2654
Rapier - 2654
Sabre - 2650's
Broadsword - 2648

WC3
Arrow - date of flight 2650's
Hellcat - date of flight 2650's (maybe earlier)
Thunderbolt - No idea
Longbow - 2664
Excalibur - 2669

I wrote in all these dates for a reason.

Many of the WC3 fighters were around for awhile actually, you simply didn't see them much until WC3. Apparently they could be produced faster than WC2 fighters or something. That would suggest technical inferiority. You could suggest that WC2 fighters are miniaturized compared to WC3 ones, but then there's the Excalibur-- and she's state of the art. She's also 32 meters as well.

Despite the large size differences in WC2 to WC3, the maneuverability ratings are about the same. You could argue improved maneuvering technology (after all look at the Vesuvius), but the WC1 fighters, which were around earlier but had rivalable maneuverability. The Rapier for example had a rating of 10/10/10 in WC1 and WC2, despite the fact that the WC2 Rapier was 5 meters shorter (in comparison I'm about 1.82-- yes I'm pretty tall).

5) NEVER Change ship models themselves, only scaling is to be considered. And that is being donne. Or else we risk getting different designs than those we want.

Well my idea was to make the models look more realistic and make them WC3-like.

I'm making some loose sketches and there's one drawing I got of the Epee, which I'm particularly fond of.

Originally posted by Pulmonox
I agree with haderak, the manuals (at this point) should probably be thrown out the window, as they appear to only create more problems than solve them.

Well, I have some ideas about making the size more like the WC3 game. I have some ideas and such, if you guys'd like to hear.

Then again, it could be said that the measurements you are describing are talking about Wingspan, and not length.

Won't work, the Sabre has a large span, it would be tiny if it's span was only 24 meters.

This WOULD make the WC2 fighters much smaller (like the ferret and epee, which had very little wingspan) but rescaling should be an issue here.

Exactly, I have some ideas.

Look at the Concordia in WC2 for example. When inflight, it hardly looks like a ferret could even fit inside the launch bays.

I'd prefer to avoid resizing the capships.

The one exception is the WC3 Talahassee-Cruiser, and I have a logical reason for it.

-Concordia

not sure about wc3 beign more up to date fighter design, art wise.

the high rez versions of the models in the fold-out poster suggest that the models in game DO follow the intended models (assuming the intended models are the rendered ones on the poster, where polycount was not a worry).

wc models were very round like in all wc's, except the ones where it was 3d. this is of course a polycoutn decision.

so it can be assumed that the artistic versions of the models (non game) were done in a way to retain character with the in-game versions (so there is no descrepancy).

though, i believe that the wc3 dralthi, to be made more like the vast majority of WC games, should have rounded wings on the sides and aft parts, instead of straight lines. same goes for the strakha and vaktoth... if they were to be more ing-commander like, more to the roots.

wc3 models were made choppy for computer reasons, and i believe they are less representative of wc than wc1, wc1so1, sc1so2, wc2, wc2so1, wc2so2, wcp, wcrf, wcacademy.
wc3, wc4, wcprop, wcpropso are slaves to poly count.

though all is not lost.
look here :
http://hellcat.zapto.org/centie/

low polycounts are of the past these days. high poly models run perfectly fine. so going back to the round styles is available as an option again. these are 25'000 faces about, and run without a hitch, around 160 fps the whole time.

-scheherazade

If I see that correct that are all screenshots from Vega Strike or just good made renders?
If this are screenshots and your PC can handel it, what kind of PC do you have? From what I have seen for the VS engine was quite...well not that good, but this is amasing.
How difficult is it to import models into the engine, how are missions made?
#### if they got the VS so good running it would be a thought to change to VS. It would be the best for WC, but I would loose my job here, because I can't make such good models. Well I can still write the story, but thats not very much.

hey, it MUST be a render. Or somebody is using UT2003 engine

In one of the pictures is an VS ship, so I think its possible that this is the VS engine.

Originally posted by scheherazade
not sure about wc3 beign more up to date fighter design, art wise.

The Excalibur was a brand-new fighter as of WC3. The bearcat as of WC4.

the high rez versions of the models in the fold-out poster suggest that the models in game DO follow the intended models (assuming the intended models are the rendered ones on the poster, where polycount was not a worry).

That's beside the point, it's what you're going to see in the game that counts most (I mean WCP:SO had no FMV scenes...). The WC3 Excalibur was a brand new fighter in the game, despite this it did feature the larger size and WC3 design characteristics. Although I would like to see it a little sleeker, and I'm brainstorming on how to do this, but I'm happy with the WC3, WC4, WCP designs.

wc models were very round like in all wc's, except the ones where it was 3d. this is of course a polycoutn decision.

WC3's graphics are considered to be superior to WC1 and 2 despite their shortcomings. Plus the squarish look adds a degree of realism actually-- there's no drag in space, so curved surfaces would be largely superfluous with only a handful of exceptions.

so it can be assumed that the artistic versions of the models (non game) were done in a way to retain character with the in-game versions (so there is no descrepancy).

Of course the non-game models are going to look better than the in-game models. I was thinking of making newer in-game models, sort of revising WC2. If you wanted to make a non-game model for artistic flare, I'd love to see it. It would be a pretty cool project actually.

though, i believe that the wc3 dralthi, to be made more like the vast majority of WC games, should have rounded wings on the sides and aft parts, instead of straight lines. same goes for the strakha and vaktoth... if they were to be more ing-commander like, more to the roots.

I'm sorry, I LOVE that WC3 dralthi. The newer wing has that nice claw-shape. Really cool looking.

The Vaktoth was beautiful looking, and the Strakha looked pretty cool.. it at least looked better than it did with all those silly pods-hanging off of it (especially when the designer's notes listed them as "useless pods")

wc3 models were made choppy for computer reasons, and i believe they are less representative of wc than wc1, wc1so1, sc1so2, wc2, wc2so1, wc2so2, wcp, wcrf, wcacademy.

Choppy? WC1 and WC2 were outrageously choppy. I mean you're looking at it from the front, then suddenly you're aiming at it's side! No smooth motion whatsoever. WC3 had a pretty good degree of smooth motion.

Of course prophecy was better.

wc3, wc4, wcprop, wcpropso are slaves to poly count.

Prophecy has far less limits on count than the others...

though all is not lost.
look here :
http://hellcat.zapto.org/centie/

low polycounts are of the past these days. high poly models run perfectly fine. so going back to the round styles is available as an option again. these are 25'000 faces about, and run without a hitch, around 160 fps the whole time.

The Centurion model isn't bad... but I really don't like the Galaxy model.

Making the surfaces too round can be a bit difficult to pull off. Even with cars this applies-- there's this car called the Chrysler Concorde, and that car looks like a Giant Egg!

It's actually too sleek, too round. And when it comes to space science-fiction sometimes, excessive sleekness makes the ships look like almost cartoonish like. It takes away realism too-- spaceships are not aircraft.

I'm not saying make them look like big boxes, but some squarish or faceted edges makes them look sci-fi like.

It would more importantly than all this, take away from continuity-- the Bearcat was made AFTER WC3 even, and it has flat, faceted edges, it has some round surfaces too! But not too many.

It appears like WCP is the only 3D WC Game that has ships with curved edges.

I have some ideas which preserve the basic shape of the WC2 fighters, but give them a decidedly WC3+ feel to them.

-Concordia

you missed my point

choppy = low poly.
art quality models = high poly + not choppy
choppy as in 'hacked by an axe'

my point was that it is obvious that polyocunt was a sconsideration in the design of wc3 and wc4. especially without 3d accelleration.

so when starting the development, origin KNEW they would be limited to about 150 - 250 faces per model max.

that meant that they had to design vehicles that would fit in that poilycount in game and still maintain the same character as the art-render models.

this meant that the in-game models design came first priority, and the art render models were made to fir the design made for the game.

otherwise if they designed very round ships (as they had before in wc1 and 3 and p), they would not be able to represent them in the game (not enough polys).

so hardware dictated the character of the wc3 ships.

then looking back, the models used to render the art for wc1/2/p were very round. very few flat areas. that was the design followed, because the sprites were rendered, and the artistic-design is all that mattered, there was no need to technically-poly-craft the models to match hardware performance of the time.

this means that when polys are unlimited, the wc ships are round by character. only when limitations were applied were they 'choppy'.

this means that the true character of wc is in round ships.

-scheherazade

p.s. yes those screen shots are in VS.

Originally posted by scheherazade
you missed my point

choppy = low poly.
art quality models = high poly + not choppy
choppy as in 'hacked by an axe'

Okay, I understand now.

my point was that it is obvious that polyocunt was a sconsideration in the design of wc3 and wc4. especially without 3d accelleration.

Yeah, but the WC3 design actually looks more realistic than WC1 and WC2.

so when starting the development, origin KNEW they would be limited to about 150 - 250 faces per model max.

that meant that they had to design vehicles that would fit in that poilycount in game and still maintain the same character as the art-render models.

Sometimes intent is important, but in this case, I think the fact that they had those limitations actually helped. The new look of WC3 and WC4 is actually more preferred amongst a good number of Wing Commander fans. It may not have been intentional that the ships had the more faceted-look, but sometimes good things happen unintentionally.

this meant that the in-game models design came first priority, and the art render models were made to fir the design made for the game.

The art-render models did have more curves to them, but they still kept the faceted look of the game.

otherwise if they designed very round ships (as they had before in wc1 and 3 and p), they would not be able to represent them in the game (not enough polys).

I think the art-renderings show how they're "supposed" to look. The art-renderings preserve the same shape basically, but add a little bit of extra curvature to it.

so hardware dictated the character of the wc3 ships.

But despite whether it was intent or character, it actually made the game look better and more realistic.

The WC1 and WC2 Kilrathi ships looked quite silly. Particularly WC2, as gevattar Lars (I think) said, the Fralthra's pods looked almost like warp-engines. The rough-faceted edges made the Kilrathi look good.

The Confed capships, with the exception of the Waterloo-Class, did not have much round-surfaces. The fighters in WC1 did have faceted surfaces on at least some of them. At least the line-drawings did.

The WC2 fighters look cartoony in appearance.

It actually is the faceted edges that made WC3's fighters look good. Plus designing a faceted edge-design is easier than designing a rounded design-- which is important as you can get lots of them online fast-- they still need to be sleek otherwise they'd be ugly, but there is no drag in space, so the only sleekness done is to basically serve as eye-candy. But making them look just like sooped up (enhanced) modern-day aircraft, takes away from realism (that there's no drag in space).

then looking back, the models used to render the art for wc1/2/p were very round. very few flat areas. that was the design followed, because the sprites were rendered, and the artistic-design is all that mattered, there was no need to technically-poly-craft the models to match hardware performance of the time.

this means that when polys are unlimited, the wc ships are round by character. only when limitations were applied were they 'choppy'.

The WC3 non-game photos of the fighters do possess a far greater degree of sleekness than do the in-game ones-- they still preserve the same shape however.

this means that the true character of wc is in round ships.

Not so... the Tigershark, which is a WCP fighter, has some flat edges on them and some facets. The Vampire also has some rough edges on it (the thrust-pods).

ALL the capships in one way or another have faceted edges (Confed), the Midway, the Plunkett, the Hades, and the Murphy (in order of size). This is of course probably related to the fact that the WC3/WC4 style became popular-- which should tell you something (WC2 style capships had lots of sleek-lines-- look at the Waterloo for comparison; and WCP definetly had the capacity to produce a capship with that level of curves).

It may have been an "accident" that WC3/WC4 fighters developed their edgy look, but it was definetly a fortunate accident to say the least!

-scheherazade

How do you pronounce that? Is that pronounced She-her-ah-zah-day?

-Concordia



Edited By Concordia on Oct. 30 2002 at 15:41

i like wc3 ships the most. but think that wc3/4 was a departure from the original spirit of wc.

ya, wcprop is a little more curvy. they can afford it these days

cant tell you how to pronounce it you'd have to hear it.

-scheherazade

But, even though the Excalibur (WC3) is a new fighter, it still is large like the other fighters in the game despite the fact that the other fighters are comparitively old. Considering that WC1 ALSO has the same size scaling, it would appear to suggest that WC fighters are of a larger scale than suggested in WC2.

What in the #### are you babbling about?

The Rapier for example had a rating of 10/10/10 in WC1 and WC2, despite the fact that the WC2 Rapier was 5 meters shorter

Those aren't real stats - they're just there for comparison. You could get better numbers by loading up WC2 and timing a full 180 . . .

Well my idea was to make the models look more realistic and make them WC3-like.

My idea was to make the models look more WCII-like! Or Star Trek! Or SeaQuest!

The one exception is the WC3 Talahassee-Cruiser, and I have a logical reason for it.

Frigates are larger than cruisers because they need to carry tons of missile caches and the like. If you look at the ship, it's just a big box.

WC3's graphics are considered to be superior to WC1 and 2 despite their shortcomings.

Says you.

The rough-faceted edges made the Kilrathi look good.

It also made them stupid. Who the #### makes a ship where sharp anges take away 80% of the usable space?

It also made them stupid. Who the #### makes a ship where sharp anges take away 80% of the usable space?

Well, think of it instead as attaching additional modules to small cores and thus increasing the available space .

For the fighter sizes: We might either use the cockpits as reference (humans as well as Kilrathi are about 2m, Nephilim maybe 3 or 4; the cockpits' lengths will be around these numbers I think) or use 2/3 of the lengths from manual in case of WC1 (did I get it right that the others mostly fit together ?).

there IS another option... look at the manuals, work out a mathematical formula that makes the bombers look right, makes the fighters look right etc, we did that for WC:U as a result there are no scaling problems.