ship to ship intial distance vs ship scale

[thunderchero]

Hi Everyone,

I have been looking more at ship scale while working on UCW. I started using the scale method I used converting models for MPR++. The MPR method scaled models in meters very precisely. so ship to ship scale looks perfect now.
But, I noticed the initial combat distance was no where close to the "900 unit" if the units is meters

so my question. In ship to ship intial distance and cloak approach it states default value of 450.0 (*2) and 300.0 (*1.5) for distance

What type of unit is this? meters? yards? or just a random/unknown "unit" value?

here is a few examples of my tests

both ships 100 meters, 100% scale in trek.exe and vanilla initial combat distance of 900 units (450 * 2)

100_1.0_900.png (193.65 KiB) Viewed 3612 times

both ships 100 meters, 750% scale in trek.exe and vanilla initial combat distance of 900 units (450 * 2)

100_7.5_900.png (199.83 KiB) Viewed 3612 times

the next image is how I went with 750% scale in trek.exe
both ships 100 meters, 750% scale in trek.exe and initial combat distance of 200 units (100 * 2)

100_7.5_200.png (242.88 KiB) Viewed 3612 times

So should we consider the initial combat distance as meters? or as some other type of unit?

thunderchero

[Flocke]

that's interesting cause in mpr++ I'm reading the ship positions and only transform it by screen aspect and ship scale given by botf but don't apply an extra factor like 750%.
Meaning the distance I get out by mpr++ is same scale as the ships, except there could be a factor internally applied by botf scaling the ships + the scale you set in mpr++ ship mappings ofc.

Anyhow I'd use meters for ship scale saved to the model and not care too much on the other scale. May it be a random one.

[thunderchero]

both MPR++ and non MPR++ both display the same if set the same.

So I agree it is more of a random "unit"

But I would like to give this unit a name.

This "unit" has a lot of effect on combat calculation, (min - max phaser and torpedo distance, accuracy, ect)

But need to test if ship scale has any effect. If it has no effect it would be best to adjust trek.exe scale to get the look in combat that modder/mod creator desires.

thunderchero

[adi]

About the third picture:

the next image is how I went with 750% scale in trek.exe
both ships 100 meters, 750% scale in trek.exe and initial combat distance of 200 units (100 * 2)

So should we consider the initial combat distance as meters? or as some other type of unit?

thunderchero

from this picture it looks like the ship distance distance of 200 units is equivalent to 750m (one ship lenght of 100m *750%); that is if the ship distance is measured from the ships bow.
I would guess the ship distance could be measured from the middle of the ships; then 200 units would be equivalent to 1500m;
If you can take those picture like above it is easy to test if ship distance is bow to bow or center to center;
maybe it is just a point to a point and then the ships in a fleet are arranged around those points according to the fleet arrangement.

@Floke: you said the ship scale can be changed from one of the mpr++ xmls? because in my UDML game the klingon destroyer looks larger than the Negh'Var; and the Scimitar (Reman warbird is rather flimsy; smaller than the Valdore; i woulld have expected it to be kind of like the D'Deridex); if i can change the scale from your xml files, would that impact something esencial?

[thunderchero]

If you can take those picture like above it is easy to test if ship distance is bow to bow or center to center;

sorry I should have stated initial combat distance is measured from center point of ship to center point of ship of the front center ship group
The group changes depending on type of ships in combat. Group order is fast attack, cruiser, strike then support.

Also it is measured from center ship, when more than 1 ship of the same group is in combat it starts placing ship in a circle around the ship initial combat distance is measured from. so the ships in front of center will be closer than initial combat distance.

@Floke: you said the ship scale can be changed from one of the mpr++ xmls? because in my UDML game the klingon destroyer looks larger than the Negh'Var; and the Scimitar (Reman warbird is rather flimsy; smaller than the Valdore; i woulld have expected it to be kind of like the D'Deridex); if i can change the scale from your xml files, would that impact something esencial?

if you change the scale in MPR++/packages/demo_ship_pack/package.xml you also need to create a new placeholder hob for that ship or the firing points will not line up in combat.

thunderchero

[adi]

if you change the scale in MPR++/packages/demo_ship_pack/package.xml you also need to create a new placeholder hob for that ship or the firing points will not line up in combat.
thunderchero

So it's not gonna crash;

I have phaser shots going at 90deg. angle anyway sometime so that would be fine.
For the Reman warbird, since i intend to make it bigger, it might fire from the middle of the wing instead of firing from the wing tip for instance.
But making the K'vort smaller might make it fire from the edge of the shield bubble (150m away from the outer hull); i can leave with that since creating "new placeholder hob" is not something i know how to do.
I guess you guys made the K'vort so big because in other mods it is used as a cruiser;
Also if the size came from http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/K'vort_class i think they had some typo there; it's way too big:
Length: 678m
Width: 780m
Height: 423m

even as a cruiser i would put it maybe at:
Length: 278m
Width: 380m
Height: 50m (with flat wings like the game model)

who knows, maybe in the next MPR++ release;

[thunderchero]

So it's not gonna crash;

correct it will not cause crash. just be sure to edit all 3 values equally x, y, z

But need to test if ship scale has any effect. If it has no effect it would be best to adjust trek.exe scale to get the look in combat that modder/mod creator desires.

I was able to run the tests on different scale of ships with same initial combat distance.

I was surprised to find ship scale made a big difference In out come of combat.

example
out come of first image above no damage ship retreated

out come of second image shields down hull to 39% and ship retreated

so ship scale is part of calculation. interesting....

thunderchero

[adi]

So, maybe ship scale also increases weapon range (twice the ship size, twice the weapon range) while the initial combat distance remains the same? in the first one they were too far apart so both retreated because of no chance of damage;
did you run the scenarios more than once to be sure the code logic makes the same decisions?

[thunderchero]

So, maybe ship scale also increases weapon range (twice the ship size, twice the weapon range) while the initial combat distance remains the same?

the tevent log said range of 900 in both tests.

did you run the scenarios more than once to be sure the code logic makes the same decisions?

I ran each combat 5 times with same damage % every time.

I also did third test, both ships 750 meters, 100% scale in trek.exe and vanilla initial combat distance of 900 units (450 * 2)

and got slightly different results, shields down to 17% and ship retreated (no hull damage)
I double checked this and I got same damage with;
both ships 750 meters, 100% scale in trek.exe and vanilla initial combat distance of 900 units (450 * 2)
as
both ships 100 meters, 750% scale in trek.exe and vanilla initial combat distance of 900 units (450 * 2)

thunderchero