Its unbelievable that light interceptors are sized at 10-12 m and medium cargo vessels such as marauders, atlases and centaurs are sized at 12-16m.

Do they have magic cargo holds that compacts cargo and wraps the space?

Either make light interceptors smaller: 7-8 m or make the medium cargo ships bigger: 18-26 m.

You mean size, not length I hope (that's what she said, btw).

+1 to larger (smaller would make them too tiny to hit), assuming they can still fit in a dock when expanded?

Are you talking about adjusting the useless text stat or about changing the size of the ship models themselves? or both?

Size of ship models is now, I presume, proportional to their length in 'useless text stats'.

Centaur weighting 15000 kg with a 48cu cargo space is just 4 m longer then a valkyrie weighting 3000 kg and 2cu cargo space.

In reality valkyrie should be at least 4x smaller then a centaur.

I think it's ok the way they are, the example you gave is missing the fact that fighters don't utilize larger cargo holds because of how much cargo would affect the handling and extra gear meant for combat (if we wanna get RP with it). Ships like the centaur are meant for cargo, so more of the ship is utilized for cargo, making it handle a lot less effectively than light fighters.

So that's -1 from me, in general at least. Some ships could use an adjustment of cargo space or handling though. Seems easier than changing the models.

[Edit]Adding to Greenwalls point, making heavy ships larger would make them easier to hit, while making smaller ships would make them harder to hit, it would affect the balance a lot more negatively than the glass of realism in VO.

Size of ship models is now, I presume, proportional to their length in 'useless text stats'.

That doesn't answer my question.

In reality valkyrie should be at least 4x smaller then a centaur.

Why? Length is not the same as volume. Here is some real-world context...

The F/A-18 Hornet is 17.1m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet#Specifications_.28F.2FA-18C.2FD.29

Standard lengths for semi-truck trailers in North America range from 8.53 to 17.37m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-trailer#Types

Novascotia maximum semi-truck dimensions:
https://www.novascotia.ca/just/regulations/regs/mvwd.htm#TOC4_23

The maximum allowable overall length is 23m with a max trailer length of 16.2m.

Given the range of trailer lengths above, that would make the overall length of semi-trucks something like 15.33m to 23m based on the Novascotia regulations.

F/A-18 Hornet: Length 17.1m
Semi-Truck: 15.33m to 23m

I don't think that the dimensions of 1 cu are officially defined, but I'm pretty sure that a semi-truck can carry a whole lot more cargo than an F/A-18, and their lengths aren't that much different.

I don't think your comparison of a fighter jet and a truck holds any water but just to make a point here is a sample ships scale comparison from Star Citizen where they actually did a good job in sizing them properly.

We already dealt with this years ago: the centurion models were deemed too fucking small to hit, and were sized up to where they are now. No change necessary.

Imagine a valk being 4x smaller than it is now. Retarded. Imagine a taur being 4x larger than it is now. Equally retarded.

It's a fucking game, get over your whole "zomg, it's bigger on the inside!?!" issues.

Lecter go eat a liver and let people who actually play the game talk about it.

If nobody cares about proper ship sizes then we might as well all fly 12m sized pacman orbs with guns and say 'who cares about different ship classes, this is a pacman arcade game anyway'.

I've been in-game quite a bit. Where have you been?

The problem isn't that nobody cares about "proper" ship sizes: indeed, that exact concern lead to the cents' current sizing. It's that you think "proper" is determined by 'gee, does it make sense that two ships of similar length have wildly different cargo capacities', while the adults in the room realize that in the context of a combat game like VO, "proper" means 'do the sizes/impact meshes of these things in which we're fighting each other work in game-balance terms'.

The idea that the valk could shrink 4x, or a taur grow 4x, is retarded from the latter point of view.

Equal opportunity for everyone then. Equal size/impact mesh pacman orbs, same stats for all and may the best pacman win.

Assuming you meant that all stats would be identical among those equally-sized pacman orbs, that'd at least be an internally-coherent suggestion.

We'd all still laugh at you, of course, but it would be less mindless than your current 'it doesn't matter that sized alters combat ability and I'm not addressing why/whether changes to combat ability are needed here' approach.

@Bojan: What is this, Fox News? Just because two things aren't maximally different doesn't mean they are or must be identical. There is such a thing as middle-ground, moderation, etc; not everything is polarized extremes.

Also, the difference between a 12m ship and a 16m ship is a lot bigger than you're making it out to be. According to their stats, the Centaur is 33% longer than the Valk, and if we assume their shapes are roughly similar, that means it takes up about 137% more space (i.e. it is 2.37 times as large). It's also got a profile that is 70% larger.

But as meridian was hinting at, there's also the question of whether we can trust the length stat being reported by the game. The game doesn't actually use it for anything, so it could be off and people would never really notice. Has anybody ever tried verifying that stat to see if it's accurate?

Anyway, we clearly have FTL technology as well as gravitic drives, so I wouldn't find it odd if our cargo holds are bigger on the inside. After all, gravitic drives imply the ability to warp space (that's what gravity is).

@Rin: I am all for middle ground, that is the reason I posted this suggestion. I believe that there needs to be more visible difference between actual in-game scale of various ships.
Posting my preferred length values does not mean they are given - the suggestion, as any other suggestion, is open to debate so we can find if there is any interest and will to even discuss this.
So far it seems nobody gives a damn so I was going to drop it anyway.

Aside from 'dur, I think they should be more diverse in size!', did you have a gameplay related reason the valk should be 4x smaller/the taur 4x bigger than it is now?

Because ship size sure as hell alters how easily (or not) a ship model takes hits. See, e.g., cent size change because they were WAY too goddamn small/hard to hit. So, DOES the valk need to be harder to hit? Why? Why 4x? DOES the taur need to become a bigger fucking target than a moth? Why? Why 4x??

I was going to drop it anyway

Yeah, when you throw mindless shit against a wall just hoping something sticks, that's usually the best course of action when called out on it.

*gasps* suddenly gameplay importance matters to Lecter!

It always has. For example, I'm still waiting for a gameplay-related justification for adding additional sensors to tridents. So far, lots of crickets (and some but we just want it to be better at X, Y, and Z!, which is exactly like crickets except louder and less intelligent).

Centaur weighting 15000 kg with a 48cu cargo space is just 4 m longer then a valkyrie weighting 3000 kg and 2cu cargo space.

In reality valkyrie should be at least 4x smaller then a centaur.

I don't see any actual arguments that support your thesis. Basically, you seem to have an idea that things "should be" bigger, but then zero data to support or justify that at all.

In reality, there are a ton of different types of, say, aircraft, which are similar sizes and serve vastly different functions. To go back to Meridian's example, an F18 is 17.1m long, and a DeHavilland Twin Otter is 15.7m long. The latter is often used as a small-scale transport workhorse. It is definitely a lot more useful in that role than an F-18 would be.

Everything in the game (aside from capships), at present, is supposed to be roughly "fighter" scale. We were limited for a long time by docking bays and stations and other assumptions, but only recently have we gained the ability to park "larger" ships anywhere.

So, if you want to make an argument for how we should add new ships which are larger than the classic set, and provide some "in-between" sizes that are smaller than tridents, but bigger than fighters.. hey, I agree. I've wanted that for ages.

But, if you tell me the current ships are "sized wrongly" because of some theoretical idea of how big a "medium" ship should be in your head.. no, I don't agree.

(Also, the length stat in the game is really just a defined value as a ballpark, it is not done by any kind of automated measurement of the game, has not been updated much, and has no impact on.. anything).

[EDIT: Slightly off topic.. but Bojan posted/deleted something saying I rescaled Centurion collision hulls without changing the size of the ship. I'm not sure why he deleted it, but for the record, that is not true. I rescaled the entire ship, both visual mesh and collision hull]

Everything in the game (aside from capships), at present, is supposed to be roughly "fighter" scale. We were limited for a long time by docking bays and stations and other assumptions, but only recently have we gained the ability to park "larger" ships anywhere.

Thanks for providing this explanation.
I retract my suggestion - current ships are not sized wrongly, they are all scaled as fighters intentionally and my 'theoretical idea' that medium/heavy classes of ships should be bigger is completely wrong.

@Inc. That twin Otter is pretty cool. Never seen a prop plane with reverse before. The pilot or co-pilot has a hatch on the top of the cockpit and he opens it up directing the plane while backing up. heh