Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
AdmiralDing3Ling

Something that has been bothering me

5 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
246 posts
3,688 battles

Some people might sigh at this post but there is something that has been bothering me for a long time, and its starting to bother me even more now that I know about it.

To put it shortly, a lot of ships, and especially the early made shipmodels like in the US techtree look strange. They are too short and some sit too high in the water.

Examples of this is Arizona, Colorado, the newly added West Virginia (which Im sure is a remodeled Colorado), New Mexico. But also destroyers like Farragut, Mahan and Benson. Also Queen Elizabeth and Warspite also look too tall and too short compared to reallife pictures of these ships.

A very good example of this is the space between the rearmost funnel of the Mahan and the rear superstructure. That space is supposed to be a lot wider than it is in the game. It makes the whole ship look weird and squished.

 

Also while were on the subject of updating shipmodels. I wouldnt mind giving Friedrich der Grosse and Grosser Kurfurst a bit of love. Those models are very undetailed and dated. They look very bland and boring compared to for example Bismarck.

 

Aaaand last but not least, windows. A lot of ships and usually also early modeled ships like for example a lot of japanese DDs have none seethrou windows on the bridge. Where as all newly added ships have clear windows. A good example of this is if you compare Iowa to Missouri. Iowa has none seethrou windows while Missouri has clear windows. 

 

Yepp I care

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
592 posts
2,686 battles

The issue is, that by changing the 3d models, or placing them lower in the water, you have to rebalance the ship accordingly, its more than just a textures rework, its balance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,481 posts
7,976 battles
2 hours ago, AdmiralDing3Ling said:

Examples of this is Arizona, Colorado, the newly added West Virginia (which Im sure is a remodeled Colorado), New Mexico. But also destroyers like Farragut, Mahan and Benson. Also Queen Elizabeth and Warspite also look too tall and too short compared to reallife pictures of these ships.

A very good example of this is the space between the rearmost funnel of the Mahan and the rear superstructure. That space is supposed to be a lot wider than it is in the game. It makes the whole ship look weird and squished.

Unless WG was working from incorrect blueprints/diagrams, I find it hard to believe they would make mistakes such as those on basic measurements and proportions. In some cases when they lack reliable data, sure. But not for well documented ships.

 

2 hours ago, AdmiralDing3Ling said:

Also while were on the subject of updating shipmodels. I wouldnt mind giving Friedrich der Grosse and Grosser Kurfurst a bit of love. Those models are very undetailed and dated. They look very bland and boring compared to for example Bismarck.

Those are "undetailed" because the ship designers at WG are very conservative when they make predictions for "could have been"-ships. Which means they don't add nearly enough clutter and equipment which you see on an actual real life ship when they make unbuilt ones.

 

2 hours ago, AdmiralDing3Ling said:

Aaaand last but not least, windows. A lot of ships and usually also early modeled ships like for example a lot of japanese DDs have none seethrou windows on the bridge. Where as all newly added ships have clear windows. A good example of this is if you compare Iowa to Missouri. Iowa has none seethrou windows while Missouri has clear windows. 

Yup, especially the IJN DDs are overall extremely varied in detail and resolution, or lack thereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
246 posts
3,688 battles
8 hours ago, Nechrom said:

Unless WG was working from incorrect blueprints/diagrams, I find it hard to believe they would make mistakes such as those on basic measurements and proportions. In some cases when they lack reliable data, sure. But not for well documented ships.

 

Those are "undetailed" because the ship designers at WG are very conservative when they make predictions for "could have been"-ships. Which means they don't add nearly enough clutter and equipment which you see on an actual real life ship when they make unbuilt ones.

 

Yup, especially the IJN DDs are overall extremely varied in detail and resolution, or lack thereof.

 

You would think so wouldnt you. But look at these pictures, compare them and tell me that something isnt off. Its even more clear on the USS Mahan.

 

Also I dont quiet agree on "could have been" ships being less detailed. Plenty of fictional ships have a lot of detail. Such as the RN BBs, Monarch, Lion and Conqueror. Same with some german cruisers, Yorck and Roon for instance, even Hindenburg.

 

 

 

 

shot-18.12.15_07.09.07-0869.jpg

gettyimages-486059881-612x612.jpg

shot-18.12.15_07.12.55-0958.jpg

364C.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
961 posts
7,749 battles

Yeah the models are not exactly accurate because of the fact that ships are 4x the size that they were irl and 4x the speed etc. too (for game purposes naturally.) 

It was very obvious to me that some things were wrong when I visited the USS Cassin Young (Fletcher class DD) in Boston a few months ago, looking at the real ship she was far more slender and hydrodynamic looking than the in game model. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×