object scale in FE1 and FE2

[+mue 715]

To clear things up regarding stock object scale in FE1/FE2 I measured exemplarely the length of the BeutepanzerIVF from FE2 with the lodviewer:

In the node list window you can see that the selected node "RightSide" has an extension along the y-axis from -3.942 m to 3.973 m. That yields a length of 7.915 m. (One can also move the mouse cursor over the object to get the coordinates in the status bar.)
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_IV_tank  specifies a length for the tank mark iv (in game the beuterpanzerIVF) of 8.05 m. Therefore I assume the stock objects in FE2 have real life size and are not scaled down.

Since I don't own FE1: Can someone please measure the BeutepanzerIVF from FE1. Thanks!

[+Geezer 3,569]

A very good test, but it may not be representative?  Gterl, the FE map maestro, has said that he has a problem with FE ground objects because they vary in size.  Some are 100% and some are smaller, probably 63%.  Consequently, he has to carefully control his object placement so large objects are not placed beside small objects, causing a visual mismatch.

I do not know how this size mixture happened.  I'm guessing that many original FE objects were 63% but many modders were unaware of this and made new objects at 100%.

One thing is certain: SF map tiles are 2Km x 2Km, while FE map tiles are 500m x 500m and it appears that TK altered SOME ground object sizes to match the smaller tiles.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Geezer

[+baffmeister 1,205]

I just did a similar test to what Mue did but using the stock ThirdWire SE-5 aircraft. My not very exact measurement using the lod viewer cursor gave a wingspan of 7.8 meters for the SE-5 model compared to a wingspan of 8.11 meters from Wikipedia. That's very close so I wonder, if the tank and the plane are more or less the correct size, then what objects are at 63%?

[Gatling20 753]

All of the FE1 objects are 100% of actual size, as far as I can see. Here are some examples, from the LOD Viewer:

FT-17 tank      5.0m long (actual 5.0m)

Fokker D.VII   6.94m long  (actual 6.95m)

Mk IV tank    7.915m long (actual 8.05m)

SE.5A             6.38m long  (actual 6.38m)

SPAD XIII      6.29m long (actual 6.25m)

The only real discrepancy I could find is the Liberty truck, which is 7.25m long in FE1, which Wikipedia lists as 6.706m long  (108% of actual size).

I don't know where this idea about 63% comes from, but it isn't from FE1 as far as I can see.

 

[+mue 715]

I also checked some terrain lods: buildings. The measured average floor height is around 2.5m. Seems it's real life scale.

[+Menrva 4,200]

31 minutes ago, mue said:

I also checked some terrain lods: buildings. The measured average floor height is around 2.5m. Seems it's real life scale.

Not meant to hijack the thread, but can you also confirm that SF buildings are real scale, too? The GermanyCE terrain has got some landmarks, for instance. I would like to know, because I have heard somewhere that buildings were sort of 60% of real life scale.

[Wrench 9,848]

the 63% comes from the size of the TERRAIN **. Not the objects. In SF1/SF2 the objects, be a plane, truck, tank, or ship are 100% (or close enough) Real Life (tm).

In the early 2000s TK said the map was 63% (iirc) for aircraft range issues. It's also the difference of a mile & kilometer (but you all knew that already!).

in the image below, stock SF1 "Desert" items, showing the footprints, IIRC, the square are 1 square meter. But memory fades with age.....

 

 

** the stock terrains. Also, most the the add-ons, unless specified in their read-mes are also 63%, due to how the TE handles converting DEMs to HFDs.

[Gatling20 753]

Just checked the Berlin cathedral from the GermanyCE terrain with the LOD Viewer.

The LOD is 73.2m wide and 114.2m high (actual cathedral: 74m wide and 115m high, according to Wikipedia), so it looks like the SF terrain objects are 100% of scale too.

[+Geezer 3,569]

From another thread that MUE chose to ignore:

As I have said before, the 63% figure is per Wrench.  I suggest you ask him.

 Wrench
Known As Bob.
Wrench
ADMINISTRATOR

 4,164
23,709 posts

https://combatace.com/forums/topic/90118-european-ground-objects/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-752863

Gender:Male
Location:Los Angeles, California
Report post 
Posted September 11, 2016
now, with the visuals, its MUCH more clear. the 63% object just seem to "look right" against the ground.

There's always been a scaling problem in the 3w games. But, there always seems to be a work around! 

Like
 Quote
 
Terraformer Extraordinaire
Making the Game Look Like the Real World Since 2007
"We are the Princes of the Ini-verse"
"A little bit of something, is better than a whole lot of nothing"

Wrench also said :

"also, not to be forgetting that map is "3rd wire world size", 63% of reality"  http://combatace.com/topic/84865-first-eagles-ww2/page-2

** the stock terrains. Also, most the the add-ons, unless specified in their read-mes are also 63%, due to how the TE handles converting DEMs to HFDs.

This topic was discussed some time ago, but MUE ignores facts and keeps coming back.  To summarize from before, in the original game most trucks etc are 100% so they won't look odd placed next to 100% size aircraft on an airfield.  But stuff like buildings were smaller - roughly half size so the 63% looks possible.  That would explain MUE's tank measurements.

Also, several photos of Stephen1918's vehicles in front of a stock building and next to a tree showed the vehicle appeared too large.  Again, the buildings and tree seemed roughly half size compared to the vehicle.

Another argument is Gterl's problems matching 63% objects with 100% objects.

Finally, using SF buildings to measure dimensions invalidates the entire exercise because the issue is NOT SF buildings, but FE buildings.  You guys are dragging a lot of SF assumptions into this FE thread without first verifying they are valid.  Laughable fanboy BS.

 

[+mue 715]

23 minutes ago, Geezer said:

This topic was discussed some time ago, but MUE ignores facts and keeps coming back.  To summarize from before, in the original game most trucks etc are 100% so they won't look odd placed next to 100% size aircraft on an airfield.  But stuff like buildings were smaller - roughly half size so the 63% looks possible.  That would explain MUE's tank measurements.

Also, several photos of Stephen1918's vehicles in front of a stock building and next to a tree showed the vehicle appeared too large.  Again, the buildings and tree seemed roughly half size compared to the vehicle.

Another argument is Gterl's problems matching 63% objects with 100% objects.

Finally, using SF buildings to measure dimensions invalidates the entire exercise because the issue is NOT SF buildings, but FE buildings.  You guys are dragging a lot of SF assumptions into this FE thread without first verifying they are valid.  Laughable fanboy BS.

I don't ignore facts. I only want to clarify once and for all the scaling in the thirdwire games. Myself I could only test SF2, FE2 and WOV stock objects (aircraft, ground objects and buildings). And they all (including buildings in FE2) are full size.

 

12 hours ago, mue said:

I also checked some terrain lods: buildings. The measured average floor height is around 2.5m. Seems it's real life scale.

Sorry, I forgot to mention here that the measurements were made for  FE2 buildings, not SF2.

So again, since I don't own FE1: Can please someone measure floor height  of FE1 buildings. Thanks!

[Wilches 1,172]

By the way the overall speed seems to be at least half from the real thing.

[+Gepard 11,296]

1 hour ago, Wilches said:

By the way the overall speed seems to be at least half from the real thing.

I think your statement is true. If you use the tower look (F11) when planes are landing, the landing speed seems to be to slow. If you accelerate the game to 2x the landing speed looks like in real life.

[+mue 715]

1 hour ago, Gepard said:

I think your statement is true. If you use the tower look (F11) when planes are landing, the landing speed seems to be to slow. If you accelerate the game to 2x the landing speed looks like in real life.

Do you mean the subjective perception of velocity or do you think the aircraft is really moving with 50% of the real life velocity?

[Wilches 1,172]

I feel it's both. In high speeds such 400mph in zero alt. you are able to see only a tunnell in front of you. This not happens in game. If anyone could measure the game's real speed then we should know if it's right or wrong.

[Gatling20 753]

I have FE1, and the buildings are to the same scale as SF1 and FE2, 100%. The height to the first floor/roofline level in (for example) the FE1  FRSmallVillageBlock.LOD and FrTownBuilding1 (also 2 thru 4).LOD is real-life scale, 2.5m, the same as in SF1 and SF2.

Some of the stock FE1 buildings are in fact exactly the same objects which TK first used in SF1 (Tent1.LOD, Windsock.LOD and Church_Small_LOD), and they are all 100% scale.

I have always thought that the 63% buildings look too small.

[+Geezer 3,569]

17 hours ago, Gatling20 said:

I have FE1, and the buildings are to the same scale as SF1 and FE2, 100%. The height to the first floor/roofline level in (for example) the FE1  FRSmallVillageBlock.LOD and FrTownBuilding1 (also 2 thru 4).LOD is real-life scale, 2.5m, the same as in SF1 and SF2.

Some of the stock FE1 buildings are in fact exactly the same objects which TK first used in SF1 (Tent1.LOD, Windsock.LOD and Church_Small_LOD), and they are all 100% scale.

I have always thought that the 63% buildings look too small.

Interesting.  Now that I have thought about it, I recall someone requesting 63% vehicles to place next to buildings so the vehicles did not look too large.  Perhaps there was a mixture of 100% and 63% objects in the early releases?  Gterl has the most experience with placing buildings on an FE map - perhaps he could comment?

I no longer have those building LODs on my computer.  Perhaps someone could sweet talk Baffmeister into sharing the stuff I sent him, so some comparative testing could be done?

[+mue 715]

19 hours ago, Wilches said:

I feel it's both. In high speeds such 400mph in zero alt. you are able to see only a tunnell in front of you. This not happens in game. If anyone could measure the game's real speed then we should know if it's right or wrong.

My measurements in SF2: flying over a 3000m runway with 200 KTAS takes around 30 seconds, with 400 KTAS around 15 seconds. That means the velocity in game is 100%.

[Wilches 1,172]

1 minute ago, mue said:

My measurements in SF2: flying over a 3000m runway with 200 KTAS takes around 30 seconds, with 400 KTAS around 15 seconds. That means the velocity in game is 100%.

Well, it sounds good to me. 

[+baffmeister 1,205]

On 3/16/2019 at 10:56 AM, Geezer said:

I no longer have those building LODs on my computer.  Perhaps someone could sweet talk Baffmeister into sharing the stuff I sent him, so some comparative testing could be done?

The building objects you made for the Battle of the Bulge terrain looked good to my eye. I did run them through the lod viewer and didn't see any issues. Some 63% sized objects got used for other purposes, I think an old hangar used as a shed or whatever.  I will package those objects eventually.

[+Geezer 3,569]

Found my early notes, and reviewed the comments above.  The facts say you guys are full of it.  Typical SF fanboyz.

For starters, not one of you have built maps in FE/FE2 so you only have uninformed opinions.  You literally don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Wrench pointed out that FE objects vary wildly but you ignored that and instead pursued your fanboy preconceptions.  Measurements will vary depending on which object is selected, so naturally you went with what confirmed your prejudices. 

Third, and most telling, Gterl is the expert on FE map making, not some overly opinionated but under informed SF fanboyz.  Several times over the last couple of years he and I have worked together making some custom models.  He never had any problems with 63% models; his only problem - which I mentioned before - is having to mix 63% and 100% models together in such a way there were no visual conflicts.  You clowns ignored that because it did not fit your prejudices.

So, your methodology was flawed and your fanboy motivations questionable.  I will continue to build 63% models for FE and if you guys don't like it, tough shit.

[+gterl 1,212]

Well my lads...there's nothing to add here. Geezer's final words and my thoughts on this boring subject.

I don't give a ... about the size. It all comes down to choose wisely on what to take and how to mix. Therefore stock objects can be mixed with 3rd party objects and placed near the gamers narrow 'point of view' , e.g. airfields and such...as long as the scale is the same.

But otoh you can choose whatever you like and place it on the map, just mind the mix if the objects are near to each other.

Now this thread leads to nowhere and instead of hairsplitting why don't you guys use your time and start making FE mods?

[+mue 715]

10 hours ago, Geezer said:

Found my early notes, and reviewed the comments above.  The facts say you guys are full of it.  Typical SF fanboyz.

For starters, not one of you have built maps in FE/FE2 so you only have uninformed opinions.  You literally don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Wrench pointed out that FE objects vary wildly but you ignored that and instead pursued your fanboy preconceptions.  Measurements will vary depending on which object is selected, so naturally you went with what confirmed your prejudices. 

Third, and most telling, Gterl is the expert on FE map making, not some overly opinionated but under informed SF fanboyz.  Several times over the last couple of years he and I have worked together making some custom models.  He never had any problems with 63% models; his only problem - which I mentioned before - is having to mix 63% and 100% models together in such a way there were no visual conflicts.  You clowns ignored that because it did not fit your prejudices.

So, your methodology was flawed and your fanboy motivations questionable.  I will continue to build 63% models for FE and if you guys don't like it, tough shit.

I don't understand why you are so offensive. The thread subject is "scale of stock objects". All measurements (I took measurements in SF1/SF2 and FE2, others took measurements in FE1) indicate that stock objects in all TW games (SF1, SF2, FE1 and FE2) are of 100% size. Instead of calling us "fanboyz" and "clowns", why do you not show us at least one stock object in FE1 with a size of 63% to prove your statement that some stock objects are scaled 63%.

Of course you are free to scale your objects the size you like. Really nobody is hindering you. Do what you like.
I only still don't see the advantage of scaling objects down, if all other (stock) objects are 100% size. That's all.

[+mue 715]

1 hour ago, gterl said:

It all comes down to choose wisely on what to take and how to mix. Therefore stock objects can be mixed with 3rd party objects and placed near the gamers narrow 'point of view' , e.g. airfields and such...as long as the scale is the same.

But otoh you can choose whatever you like and place it on the map, just mind the mix if the objects are near to each other.

My point is, if all objects are of the same size (e.g. 100%) then no extra consideration is needed what objects can be placed near the other. I assume that would made map making easier.
So why scaling objects down, if you only get the disadvantage that you can not place those objects near 100% (stock) objects?

Edited April 16, 2019 by mue
added question

[Gatling20 753]

All objects in FE1, FE2, SF1 and SF2 are 100% of actual size. There are no 63% objects.

And Wrench did not "point out that FE objects vary wildly". What he correctly said was: "the 63% comes from the size of the TERRAIN. Not the objects."

[+Geezer 3,569]

2 hours ago, Gatling20 said:

All objects in FE1, FE2, SF1 and SF2 are 100% of actual size. There are no 63% objects.

And Wrench did not "point out that FE objects vary wildly". What he correctly said was: "the 63% comes from the size of the TERRAIN. Not the objects."

What is it about "tough shit" that you don't understand?