MICA, IRIS-T, ASRAAM, AIM-9 etc... counting rivets on missiles, a question of scale

[+Gunrunner 313]

Well, I was playing with various AA loadouts when something struck me as odd when loading some IRIS-T along with some MICA.

 

The IRIS-T appears as a rather heavy, long and large missile, while the MICA appear very small and short in comparison, I decided to perform a larger comparison and obtained some strange results.

 

I tested the following missiles :

AIM-120A

AIM-9J

IRIS-T

MICA IR/EM

AIM-7P

AIM-132 ASRAAM

 

I gathered the following data for these missiles, length and diameter, they roughly were the following (in mm, ordered by diameter, the most impressive visual clue) :

 

AIM-9

L = 2850

D = 127

Iris-T

L = 2900

D = 127

MICA

L = 3100

D = 160

AIM-132

L = 2900

D = 166

AIM-120

L = 3650

D = 178

AIM-7

L = 3600

D = 203

 

Meaning that the relation in diameter of the various missiles should be :

 

AIM-9 = IRIS-T < MICA = AIM-132 < AIM-120 < AIM-7

 

Now in game the relation in diameter between the missiles is roughly the following :

 

MICA < AIM-9 = AIM-132 < AIM-120 < AIM-7 = IRIS-T

 

So we end up with one the smallest missile ending as one of the largest, and a medium missile ending as the smallest one, even smaller than the supposedly smallest.

 

The problem seems to be mostly scale, but not only, the IRIS-T is the right length, but appears to be at least 50% too large.

The MICA also seems to be about the right length (maybe a tad short but who cares), but only half as wide as it should.

 

A quick .ini butchering of a poor Dhimari Hornet later, a look at the pictures should illustrate the problem more than words and figures :

 

From left to right, AIM-132, AIM-9X, IRIS-T, AIM-120C, AIM-7P, IRIS-T, AIM-9X, MICA IR

 

 

It's visually annoying and poses problems when trying to position them on models.

 

So, does anyone have a quick and dirty solution ?

Edited November 7, 2007 by Gunrunner

[+Viggen 516]

I though we all learned that River Countimg is BAD. And does it really matter?

[+ravenclaw_007 7,221]

if you dont like them , dont use them

[+Gunrunner 313]

Ahem, if you actually cared to read, the point is not merely rivet-counting (which mostly consist of belittling the work of others and demanding that others do something to get to the standard we don't care to work toward ourselves), but actually finding a solution to change that myself (and having not as much free time as I wished, asking the community for input is a more efficient solution than tinkering or assuming there is none).

 

So let's make the point of this thread clear for those so obsessed by useless whiners and rivet-counters that they can't even accept the notion of trying to better anything (sorry, you got me quite pissed).

 

Is there a way to play on LODs scales without having to basically redo the whole process ?

 

That is all I'm asking, the rest is merely a context so those with a potential answer could understand the answer I'm trying to find.

[+Dave 2,318]

Is there a way to play on LODs scales without having to basically redo the whole process ?

 

No there is not. Once it's exported its final.

[+Gunrunner 313]

No there is not. Once it's exported its final.

 

Thanks, I had little hope anyway.