AATA Scale Discussion

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 03 Mar 2006, 18:10

And more importantly velocities increased. I once tried out realsitic smallarms velocities with TACW (which is in the old AATA scale) and things were fairly useless.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 04 Mar 2006, 05:28

Nemo wrote: maps will be bigger soon anyways.

The problem is while the maps may be larger the mods will look odd if the map is not made for their scale. This is the reason I am fighting tooth and nail with the mod makers about scale. If we cannot get a single solid scale many maps will look bad for one mod while other maps will look good for JUST that mod.

I do not want to see this reality come to pass. I hope that this is sinking in with people just how weird it could be.

in OTA scale was no big deal but in spring it will be a HUGE deal.

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 04 Mar 2006, 05:32

Unless you increase ota based mods unit size by 10x or more then theres no way other mods can get their scale right.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 04 Mar 2006, 07:21

? can you clarify that?

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 04 Mar 2006, 08:50

Scale is relative primarily to map scale. In OTA people were limited by needing tilesets to make maps, and those tilesets were relatively all similarly scaled. Features, too. But in Spring, i could make a road 500 miles wide or a couple of feet wide. Making people submit to one scale isn't going to do much. The only thing that WILL do much is if Spring "hires" a feature-making "team" to make features for them, of a certain scale. Seeing as how there is a distinct LACK of features atm, except for those silly trees, people would use them, and scale would fall into place.

Scale to me is a silly perplexity. Spring maps need to be bigger. 'nuff said.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 04 Mar 2006, 08:58

SpikedHelmet wrote:Scale is relative primarily to map scale. In OTA people were limited by needing tilesets to make maps, and those tilesets were relatively all similarly scaled. Features, too. But in Spring, i could make a road 500 miles wide or a couple of feet wide. Making people submit to one scale isn't going to do much. The only thing that WILL do much is if Spring "hires" a feature-making "team" to make features for them, of a certain scale. Seeing as how there is a distinct LACK of features atm, except for those silly trees, people would use them, and scale would fall into place.

Scale to me is a silly perplexity. Spring maps need to be bigger. 'nuff said.

http://taspring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4047

yeah, where the hell have you been. we are already doing that. so you are a bit late.

bruce's model btw...

"that model is 2X the size it could be"
footprint: 2X2

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 04 Mar 2006, 12:55

smoth wrote:
SpikedHelmet wrote:Scale is relative primarily to map scale. In OTA people were limited by needing tilesets to make maps, and those tilesets were relatively all similarly scaled. Features, too. But in Spring, i could make a road 500 miles wide or a couple of feet wide. Making people submit to one scale isn't going to do much. The only thing that WILL do much is if Spring "hires" a feature-making "team" to make features for them, of a certain scale. Seeing as how there is a distinct LACK of features atm, except for those silly trees, people would use them, and scale would fall into place.

Scale to me is a silly perplexity. Spring maps need to be bigger. 'nuff said.
http://taspring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4047

yeah, where the hell have you been. we are already doing that. so you are a bit late.

bruce's model btw...

"that model is 2X the size it could be"
footprint: 2X2

Is that model in your scale? Show me an infantry that is at all possible to hit in your scale.

and Guess... hmmmmmmmm. Sadly atm there isn't actually much work to do on that front.

new models are a far flung thing atm.

EDIT: you could have a crack at this, perhaps?

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 04 Mar 2006, 19:51

FLOZi wrote: Is that model in your scale? Show me an infantry that is at all possible to hit in your scale.

can you give it to me in a .3ds or obj.

BTW S3o files do not work off of a footprint. I will look at doing it as an s3o to help you.

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 04 Mar 2006, 20:35

Wha???

The model was for Guessmyname.

I suppose you are suggesting giving the teenie-smoth-scale-sized infantry an overly large collision sphere to make up for their diminutive size. Hmmmmmmmmm.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 04 Mar 2006, 22:05

It is not a teeny smoth scale thing.

It is trying to see if it will fit correctly or not in the current system. you can be beligerent if you want but I am offering help.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 05 Mar 2006, 02:53

This is aimed at flozi from smoth as he can't be here and asked me to post this for him.

BTW the units displayed here will still work even if they are 1/3 of the current size.

http://www.savefile.com/files/8648154 <-- link to mod file so that you can try it for yourselves. It's quite funny :D

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 05 Mar 2006, 02:59

You are wasting your collected effort, and before you say it i am not being unreasonable, I have tested and Gnome has tested with SWTA and we have perfectly valid reasons for rejecting this scale.

Das Bruce · Post by **Das Bruce** » 05 Mar 2006, 03:42

And they are?

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 05 Mar 2006, 03:53

Weapons move in discrete positions.
Weapons fired that low to the terrain will be useless.
There is nothing wrong with our current scale.
Why exactly is Smoths scale so 'official' when it is, correct me if I'm wrong, based on an arbitrary estimation of Commander height?

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 05 Mar 2006, 05:02

HOLY CRAP. Wow, dude, you completely ignored that it worked right. Then hell.

Ok, first no it was based on more then just some arbitrary estimate of the commander's height.

Second, did you even try the mod? then units HAVE NO ISSUE hitting one another. What the hell, you are just outright ignoring it.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 05 Mar 2006, 05:17

FLOZi wrote:I have tested and Gnome has tested with SWTA and we have perfectly valid reasons for rejecting this scale.

YOU have tested with 3do files. I used s3o files. your arguement holds no water. I cannot believe you after I went through all that trouble.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 05 Mar 2006, 08:05

he posted a pic of 6 foot tall humans next to a comm. There is your scale right there.

ffs just give it up

YOU ARE WRONG, suck it up and deal with it. I agree with smoth 100%

for those that missed the point

WE NEED A STANDARDIZED SCALE IN SPRING FOR FEATURES. THIS IS A VERY GOOD SCALE, IF YOU ARE WRONG THEN DEAL WITH IT FFS!

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 05 Mar 2006, 13:07

No I am not wrong. This is not a black and white issue. Modders have a right to self determionation.

Please, take this discussion out of this thread.

Go pick on G_Z (WD), Gnome (SW), Guessmyname (CZ) and SpikedHelmet (CNC) if you must!

Nemo · Post by **Nemo** » 05 Mar 2006, 14:53

Forboding Angel wrote:he posted a pic of 6 foot tall humans next to a comm. There is your scale right there.

The arbitrary part is just how many 6 foot men fit into a single comm.

ffs just give it up

YOU ARE WRONG, suck it up and deal with it. I agree with smoth 100%

Productive. You need to relax, and realize just how infeasible converting entire mods to .s3o is. What smoth (and earlier, Argh) have found is that with the ability to set the hit sphere in .s3o models, you have more flexility in their size, without getting bizzare looking weapon impacts.

However, those mods still working in .3do don't have this option. Let me explain what converting from .3do to .s3o involves.

First, you open the model in upspring, and save as .obj (or .3ds, whatever, anything that supports uvmaps). Then you make a completely new texture for the model, since face by face texturing is completely incompatible and unable to be converted to a UVmap with any kind of ease. So, brand spankin' new texture, uvmapped onto a .3ds or .obj model. Then you open 'er up in upspring, make any changes you want, and save as .s3o, then redirect the .fbi file to the new .s3o model.

Now do that about two hundred times, depending on the mod (closer to 300 for AA). You see how large of a task that is? I largely skipped over the hardest part - making a completely new texture for every single unit. For AATA, with roughly 190 units, this is at least 70+ hours of solid work, if you can do each unit in about 20 minutes, which is absurdly fast for a decent texture job.

for those that missed the point

WE NEED A STANDARDIZED SCALE IN SPRING FOR FEATURES. THIS IS A VERY GOOD SCALE, IF YOU ARE WRONG THEN DEAL WITH IT FFS!

(aside) Little known secret. Angel is actually being a good world citizen, since using all caps saves starving children in Africa. Really.

More on topic, this wastes everyone's time. You're not adding to smoth's arguement by shouting your support for it, and you're just making the other side want to ignore you, and deservedly so. This scale is infeasible for .3do mods, and converting entire .3do mods to .s3o is mindbogglingly huge job.

My proposal is that urban feature sets are made with a peewee as a normal person's height, so you can get what is important in an urban map - that confined, close quarters, limited information game, where around each corner could be another enemy squad. This is more important (to me, at least) than mini-sized urban features thrown in for looks that just get in my units' collective way.

Spring RTS Engine

AATA Scale Discussion