[Ryan]

I was in science class yesterday and we were learning about the titanic, it was over 200 meters long apparently. Pictures of it really show that the ship is HUGE.

But the titanic is not 1/10th the size of the 6-kilometer long collosus. In the game, i should be TINY. I already am, but i tihnk i still look to big for that to really house 60 fighter/bomber wings, or around 180 fighters around the entire ship, let alone just the hanger.

Also, the guns. How many does it have? 60? 70? if all were broad side weapons, that would be 200-500 meters of space between each gun. And it has MANY other arcs to fill. And it has those slow fireing, wimpy laser cannons. a ship of this scale needs HUNDREDS of guns, with dozens of beams.

anybody else agree?

[Hippo]

game balance and capabilities. the end.

[blowfish]

This is purely speculation, but I think that freespace weapons that we think of as "weak" like blob turrets might actually be pretty powerful, eg one or two blob turrets could sink a present-day ship, but compared to the armor and shields they have in FS, they are weak.

[Herra Tohtori]

Lack of size reference, mostly because the detail on the ships is limited. High poly models do look bigger to me, as well as those enhanced with normal/height maps.

Another thing is the choice of static field of view that is, IMHO a bit too wide... 0.75 radians (~43 degrees) horizontally, while in reality - if your monitor is 40 cm wide and you're looking at it from 60 cm distance, the monitor's apparent size is 37 degrees. Granted, six degrees of separation isn't too much on paper, but it's still 16% bigger than the "should-be" field of view, and it affects the perspective accordingly, which means that things pretty much look by default approximately 16% smaller than you'd normally interpret them.

Thus, -fov 0.65 looks better in my opinion as far as ship sizes are concerned.

EDIT: Actually, this issue is even bigger than I thought, since it appears that the angle given in radians is actually just half of the field of view, which means the default field of view is horizontally about 86 degrees wide, and thus -fov 0.35 may be more accurate in terms of using the monitor as a "window" to the FreeSpace simulation, but obviously this will stretch the backgrounds BADLY (especially DDS textures) and will reduce situational awareness pretty badly, so perhaps a compromise would be somewhere between -fov 0.45 and 0.65... dpending on your monitor size and viewing distance, obviously.

Also, FS2 playable ships are huge, especially the bombers, but the fighters aren't midgets either.

[Depth_Charge]

The ship is too big, if i walk the movie would be over.       anyways the Collosus is about 3 miles long and bout what a mile wide at least.  To see it for real, yeah thats a big ship.

[Dark Hunter]

Credit for the image goes to IceyJones (copied it from a scale comparision thread).

[blowfish]

And just think - the Lucifer is less than half the length of the Colossus.

[Kie99]

Credit for the image goes to IceyJones (copied it from a scale comparision thread).

Awesome picture.

[FSW]

Even those space cruisers look gigantic next to that aircraft carrier!

[Jeff Vader]

I know I'd crap my pants if there was such a fleet approaching our coast.

[Herra Tohtori]

...things really look different with -fov 0.35. Even the fighters feel big... capital ships are massive... and the Colossus feels like a frakking mountain.

[Titan]

that deimos is sweeeeeeet...

lol @ the lucifer picture. 

[Man-Whore]

Credit for the image goes to IceyJones (copied it from a scale comparision thread).

Metal-Lobster!

[Ryan]

...things really look different with -fov 0.35. Even the fighters feel big... capital ships are massive... and the Colossus feels like a frakking mountain.

Can you please tell me how to change the -fov?

Oh, and i would be scared to see a sath in that picture...

[Jeff Vader]

-fov 0.35

Inserted into the Custom flags field under the Features tab in the Launcher. Though from personal experience I must say that with a 1280x800 laptop screen 0.45 is a bit nicer, since 0.35 caused the planets to go somewhat oval.

And a picture of a Sath is nothing. Play Bearbaiting with a lower fov. The Sath is huuge.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

I have seen a picture somewhere comparing an Orion to some Ursas, but I can't find it anymore.
I do think that the Colossus is big enough. Because we look at it on a computer screen, I bet there's a lot of optical illusion involved, which makes it seem smaller.

Great pic, BTW. I don't know if the sizes are correct (American aircraft carriers are twice as long as the Fenris), but that's probably because it's taken from the front. It looks kewl anyway.

[karajorma]

This one?

[Roanoke]

And just think - the Lucifer is less than half the length of the Colossus.

Twelve Lucifier-class destroyers can fit within it's massive hull!

I think that's how it went anyway.....

[Colonol Dekker]

Maybe it meant that the collie was equal to the mass of twelve lucys?

[Jeff Vader]

And just think - the Lucifer is less than half the length of the Colossus.

Twelve Lucifier-class destroyers can fit within it's massive hull!

I think that's how it went anyway.....

Well, doesn't that equal to "less than half"?