BF2 metre size

Post by **Rhino** » 2007-10-25 17:57

ye this is an issue we have talked about in the past, and we cant "rescale" any of the stock models, and to rescale some of our own would also take some work. Only way to rescale the vBF2 models would be just to make them from scratch again, which we dont plan on doing any time soon as there are more important things to do. We have also had to scale down some of our models like our CR2 to match the same size as the stock tanks, otherwise it would just tower them if it was to 1:1 scale and wouldn't fit into alot of areas of the maps where other tanks can. So for now we are just going to have to stay with the super small tanks etc....

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-10-25 17:59

What's the equation between r/l meter and BF2 meter anyway?

By that I mean 1 r/l m = #.## BF2 m or something like that

Post by **Rhino** » 2007-10-25 18:15

Outlawz wrote:What's the equation between r/l meter and BF2 meter anyway?

By that I mean 1 r/l m = #.## BF2 m or something like that

terrain wise 1m ingame = 1m in r/l, near enough but its more to do with the model scale.

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-10-25 18:17

Yeah, but what about the speeds? Wasn't that the one, where BF2 meters are off?

Post by **Rhino** » 2007-10-25 18:22

Outlawz wrote:Yeah, but what about the speeds? Wasn't that the one, where BF2 meters are off?

ehhhh the speed meter on jets and choppers etc I dont have a clue what drugs thats on.

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-10-25 18:23

Post by **fuzzhead** » 2007-10-25 22:59

iirc the height of a BF2 character is 2 meters which along with the in game statics/vehicles means that BF2 world is out of whack scale wise and would take a massive amount of effort to re-do with a small amount of gain...

Clypp · Post by **Clypp** » 2007-10-25 23:59

Unfortunate. I would love to see bigger tanks, planes and automobiles.

I wonder if FH has a more realistic scale since they are redoing everything...

nedlands1 · Post by **nedlands1** » 2007-10-26 02:12

So in effect what you Devs are saying is that measurements in-game are all equal to their real life counterparts (ie. 1m BF2 = 1m IRL, 1s BF2 = 1s IRL, 1m/s BF2 = 1m/s IRL, 1m/s^2 BF2 = 1m/s^2 IRL etc)? The difference is in the statics' size in comparison to their real life counterparts and in what the acceleration due to gravity is(g=~12.65m/s^2 IG from my calculations)?

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-10-26 03:30

Clypp wrote: I wonder if FH has a more realistic scale since they are redoing everything...

yeah , they have

Teek · Post by **Teek** » 2007-10-26 04:30

nedlands1 wrote:So in effect what you Devs are saying is that measurements in-game are all equal to their real life counterparts (ie. 1m BF2 = 1m IRL, 1s BF2 = 1s IRL, 1m/s BF2 = 1m/s IRL, 1m/s^2 BF2 = 1m/s^2 IRL etc)? The difference is in the statics' size in comparison to their real life counterparts and in what the acceleration due to gravity is(g=~12.65m/s^2 IG from my calculations)?

are you a physics professor who enjoys FPS?

nedlands1 · Post by **nedlands1** » 2007-10-26 05:07

Teek wrote:are you a physics professor who enjoys FPS?

A bored engineering student.

Post by **KingofCamelot** » 2007-10-26 08:40

nedlands1 wrote:in what the acceleration due to gravity is(g=~12.65m/s^2 IG from my calculations)?

I hate to tell you, but your calculations are off.

The gravity in BF2 is 14.73 m/s^2. You were fairly close though.

nedlands1 · Post by **nedlands1** » 2007-10-26 10:21

[R-DEV]KingofCamelot wrote:I hate to tell you, but your calculations are off.

The gravity in BF2 is 14.73 m/s^2. You were fairly close though.

Yeah all I had was a box which I guessed was 1m in height. Hence the "~" sign. My calculation were actually perfect as I could precisely assess where the next shot would land (eg calculated drop = 0.53m with an actual drop of "half a box" when aimed at the top of the box). It would appear that my assumptions were not precise(box height =/ 1m). I originally tried to climb to the top of a tower and use the markers to determine the time a round would take to drop(ObjectTemplate.velocity 0) but that went up in smoke as it seems the markers measure horizontal distance

.

nedlands1 · Post by **nedlands1** » 2007-10-26 11:32

Jonny wrote:What kind of engineering, what uni?
I'm in the middle of applying for civil/structural now.

And perhaps if we found an object the same height as a soldier, or used the soldier as a kind of ruler by finding how many soldiers high a structure is?

EDIT:
just which models are custom made, and what groups would have to be changed in size to approximate reality?

EDIT2:
How can you quote 4dp when you assume a height for something?

I was thinking if I could figure out how to model an object which is actually 1m in height then I could make some worthwhile measurements.

I have in fact quoted 2dp. I think you mean 4 significant figures. I can quote as many significant figures as I please, but as I said it doesn't change the fact that it is an approximate solution to a problem which is approximated in itself. (ie g = "~" 12.65 m/s^2 and I "think" the box is 1m).

nedlands1 · Post by **nedlands1** » 2007-10-26 12:09

Jonny wrote:Yeah, I meant 4sf, not dp. But the number of significant figures is an indicator of the accuracy of the measurement, so if you have a box of about 1m, +/- .25m, 2sf would have been more appropriate.

If you get somewhere a good distance from the structure you are measuring then have someone stand just in front of it you can take a screenshot and ignore any apparent difference in height caused by the objects (structure and person) being at different distances. You can then use the person as a ruler, to get an accurate height for the object as each person is 2m tall. Walking off this can then give you a time, so the acceleration can be measured.

I would use s = ut + 1/2at^2, which rearranges to a = 2s/t^2, both of the variable having been found like in the above paragraph.

I'm sorry for not conforming to your ideals regarding significant figures! I thought saying and indicating that it was approximate would suffice. It is not like I said that g = 12.65342332465 or anything silly like that.

If the Dev's have already figured out what the acceleration due to gravity is in the reality which is Project Reality then it is rather pointless for me to do the same. If I had known this I wouldn't have bothered. With my measurements I was using the attack markers to gauge horizontal distance and my phone's stopwatch to measure time(not the best setup but hey). I reduced the velocity of each weapon to increase the measurable effects (greater time for bullet to reach target => more precision in timing) and changed the gravity modifier to 1.

Those are the constant acceleration formulas I used in my initial tests(far easier than the calculus needed for variable acceleration like in my dynamics unit this year).