This made me laugh when some one above said its just a little larger.....
I now second the above calls for this sub in the game, scale of the white sub is pure speculation as there is no visible human in a window to judge it from, and I altered the scale of the cyclops from the original picture based on the actual size we are when we stand in the cockpit the concept implies the clops is a little bigger than it actually is..
Something this size would rock in the game but its something you would probably never have any where near the middle of the map or any shallow water, who knows they might give us content out in the vast endless deep ocean where this sub would be perfect.
This made me laugh when some one above said its just a little larger.....
I now second the above calls for this sub in the game, scale of the white sub is pure speculation as there is no visible human in a window to judge it from, and I altered the scale of the cyclops from the original picture based on the actual size we are when we stand in the cockpit the concept implies the clops is a little bigger than it actually is..
Something this size would rock in the game but its something you would probably never have any where near the middle of the map or any shallow water, who knows they might give us content out in the vast endless deep ocean where this sub would be perfect.
The Cyclops is bigger than that. The size of the man in the Cyclops almost comes up to the lights on the dome while you show him being taller than that. The other sub will still be larger, but not as much as you depicted it.
Also, it is unknown if the designer wanted to make those areas that you depicted as docking areas for the Cyclops and Seamoth. The top 4 black areas on the Draconis could be Seamoth docking areas for all we know.
The shark was the better choice IMHO. It seems inspired by nature by those fins and lots of glass for observation (something i wish the cyclops had, specifically when i'm about to jump down the hatch).
This made me laugh when some one above said its just a little larger.....
I now second the above calls for this sub in the game, scale of the white sub is pure speculation as there is no visible human in a window to judge it from, and I altered the scale of the cyclops from the original picture based on the actual size we are when we stand in the cockpit the concept implies the clops is a little bigger than it actually is..
Something this size would rock in the game but its something you would probably never have any where near the middle of the map or any shallow water, who knows they might give us content out in the vast endless deep ocean where this sub would be perfect.
The Cyclops is WAY too small in this picture, and the Draconis was going to be a medium sized sub, so it would likely be smaller than the Cyclops. A more accurate size chart would probably look like this:
This made me laugh when some one above said its just a little larger.....
I now second the above calls for this sub in the game, scale of the white sub is pure speculation as there is no visible human in a window to judge it from, and I altered the scale of the cyclops from the original picture based on the actual size we are when we stand in the cockpit the concept implies the clops is a little bigger than it actually is..
Something this size would rock in the game but its something you would probably never have any where near the middle of the map or any shallow water, who knows they might give us content out in the vast endless deep ocean where this sub would be perfect.
The Cyclops is WAY too small in this picture, and the Draconis was going to be a medium sized sub, so it would likely be smaller than the Cyclops. A more accurate size chart would probably look like this:
Not sure about the Draconis, but the Cyclops looks the right size in relation to the Shark. The Draconis doesn't have any context for its size. It could be a starship for all we know.
The Cyclops is WAY too small in this picture, and the Draconis was going to be a medium sized sub, so it would likely be smaller than the Cyclops. A more accurate size chart would probably look like this:
Hate to burst your bubble but can you even see the human in the concept image your linking, your cyclops human done by the artist is double the size of the human, AGAIN done by the artist on the bridge of the top sub, so if your scale down the cyclops so that both humans are the same size your gona shit your pants at how small it actually is.
However since I was able to go in game, assess the rough size of my character as i looked out the window of the sub standing on the floor not the wheel, and then scaling the resulting image I think you will find my depiction of the difference in size is accurate, or as accurate as we can get, the sea moths coming out the side and my suggesting the cyclops could fit in the hold of the super sub are just pure speculation tho..
Feel free to offer up some reasoning behind your theory on why you think its larger than it is, correct me if I'm wrong please dev's but is'nt the cyclops a mid sized sub? people assume its a large sub but in reality it was initially designed as a mid sized sub was it not ?
There is a possible size comparison if you look at the sub antennas. Especially at those 2 round attachments near the antenna that you find at all 3 subs. According to those structures it's clear that the Cyclops is the smallest and the Shark and Draconis are supersized subs almost equal in size, but different to tell because the draconis has a thin and long shape. If you compare the antenna structures you get to the conclusion that neither the Draconis nor the Shark are big enough to dock a Cyclops, even if they are considerably larger. None of the comparison pictures so far are realistic as the antenna sizes don't match.
What matters most is the shape and not the size though. The Cyclops is a pure civil underwater exploration sub that has no chance to avoid any moving targets and zero maneuverability but a big glass eye. The Shark looks like it could kick azz with other creatures and drive like the Seamoth while still being able to have a big glass window and thus probably is the coolest sub of all. The Draconis looks like a full war sub that can fire all kind of weapons, like nuclear missiles and war torpedos, and with a high speed underwater drive, but with the disadvantage of no glass window.
For a non lethal approach the Cyclops and Shark would both be proper, but the Cyclops even more. So it's really no wonder we got the Cyclops, as the head dev had made big statements about the strength of the game being absolutely non lethal. But like the OP, I think the Shark would have done far better. If there would have been a poll on the 3 subs not on the size, but their shape, I'm sure the Shark would be 1st, the Draconis 2nd and the Cylops 3rd. Hence the thread asking the Art Director. Of course it's too late to change anything now.
But I'd be really interested in a poll regarding the 3 shapes, how would the community vote?
Why the hell would you compare the antena when you have humans standing in the bridge's clearly visible, some people just don't like to accept their sub is small <hahah see what I did there>
Why the hell would you compare the antena when you have humans standing in the bridge's clearly visible, some people just don't like to accept their sub is small <hahah see what I did there>
There are no humans for comparing the size of the Draconis, only the 2 round antenna attachments of all 3 subs are the same. But you're right with the humans with the Cyclops and the Shark.
There cant make it any clearer than that, @Morph_Guy and anyone else who thinks its larger than it is
I like your comparisons, but please look at the human in the Cyclops. Your lines aren't exact and don't match! The human in the Cyclops is less than half the Cyclops window height if you are exact:
So you could stack 3 humans atop each other to get the full Cyclops window height! Very important when comparing to the Shark. There you did the exact lines. I agree on that.
I think @Taiphoz has it closest. As he said (and people apparently did not read) the human in the cyclops concept art is a midget (or the ingame model is a giant). Either way, assuming that the human in the shark concept is accurate, he has the scale of the cyclops and shark about right. The draconis is just pure speculation.
The human in the Cyclops in your picture is too tall, In the ful res Cyclops concept art you clearly see he only comes up to here : http://imgur.com/uQMJhLt
So I re-checked my size chart, and the humansin it are both the same size:
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited May 2016
I find it kinda ironic we'd need subs as huge as these, I mean we are just one guy on a waterball. Well, these designs were probably intended for more crewmembers from the Aurora, although they operate perfectly fine with a one man crew... And I'm pretty sure crashing that thing wasn't part of the plan
Just checked in-game and the cyclops looks to be about the same size as it is in the concept art, the onlt big difference being that the floor is raised higher in the final design than the concept.
As in this comparison the antenna with the 2 round attachments is about equal size too, we could use this as a measure for the Draconis. Of course only roughly. And I'd say the Draconis is nearly as big as the Shark.
The human in the Cyclops in your picture is too tall, In the ful res Cyclops concept art you clearly see he only comes up to here : http://imgur.com/uQMJhLt
So I re-checked my size chart, and the humansin it are both the same size:
lol all this turned into a size comparison. My original point was about the looks and not size, since the shark could have been scaled down to the needed size. Just because the artist made it big, that doesn't mean it has to be implemented with that size.
OK, Hand's Up, the thing I thought was the Human I guess was a graphical articaft in the image, that in game shot made it clear where the actual human is so yeah my lines are off, how did you do that camera view it would have helped no end.
OK, Hand's Up, the thing I thought was the Human I guess was a graphical articaft in the image, that in game shot made it clear where the actual human is so yeah my lines are off, how did you do that camera view it would have helped no end.
lol such a dumby..
Open console and use "freecam". Look for console commands at wiki.
lol all this turned into a size comparison. My original point was about the looks and not size, since the shark could have been scaled down to the needed size. Just because the artist made it big, that doesn't mean it has to be implemented with that size.
Personal voting: 1-Shark, 2-Draconis, 3-Cyclops from the looks. Why don't you try voting? What does the community think?
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited May 2016
Hehe, yeah I'm just looking at it purely from a gameplay perspective. Not having straight upgrades, just additions.
For pure and fast exploration (and some hauling capabilities), drive around in the Draconis with a stored Cyclops/Seamoth/EXO for more detailed exploration from that Draconis as a base of operations. Pure raw speed, lacking a power generator. So this one still has to be recharged at a base or at your Shark.
Want to start hauling loads of stuff, Shark it up with your big cargo hauler, maybe it can also have it's own power plant to charge other vehicles. A mobile base and cargo sub.
You know giving them specific roles so to speak and having a synergy between them. With the bigger subs functioning as a sort of mothership/carrier. I mean IRL, our deepsea explorers are also smaller vessels tied to a ship based mothership.
I definitely like your low profile/stealth element to the Draconis bit.
Just imagine taking it out into the depths and having to continue on deeper with your cyclops/EXO. Or having repair arms on your Seamoth to repair stuff on the outside of your sub and so on. This synergy is kinda coming from Natural Selection 2, trying to have every weapon still be useful during the entire game (early/mid/end). I just don't want to end up with useless stuff floating around...
my only problem with the cyclops is the terrible viewing from the front, I just drive using the cameras nowadays, and lack of space. Your adding so much stuff into the game and I cant fit it all onto my sub.
Heh, wow, you guys really are getting into this, especially with all that size comparison stuff. If it helps in any way, the Draconis was designed and intended as a medium sized sub. BUT the Cyclops was also considered a medium sized sub, with the shark like one a large sub. So, the Draconis would have been about the size of the Cyclops, but probably a bit longer.
Also, here's a sketch sheet showing some old designs for the small sized sub. Would have been something between a Seamoth and the Cyclops, with a cockpit and about 1 additional room https://www.dropbox.com/s/k2k2nkcun2cfvzo/SmallSub_NEW_Set01_highRes.jpg?dl=0
We were looking at #6 as a possibility for the small sub. Keep in mind, these were very early designs to start the initial sub visual exploration. The Cyclops and Shark / Draconis were more refined designs as part of the second phase of the sub concept pass.
While the shark sub is certainly cool, it is a bit hard to imagine it driving around the world without obnoxiously bumping into every bit of terrain around. But it would make for a great sub if we decided to add co-op, since the Cyclops might get a little tight for more then one player at a time.
my only problem with the cyclops is the terrible viewing from the front, I just drive using the cameras nowadays, and lack of space. Your adding so much stuff into the game and I cant fit it all onto my sub.
That's kind of the point. There should be a reason you need to establish bases, in addition to having a Cyclops. If it was big enough to fit everything AND had mobility, then why build a base?
Comments
We should have the second one for deep sea exploration like the lava zone becuase if you look a the scale of the guy inside....
I now second the above calls for this sub in the game, scale of the white sub is pure speculation as there is no visible human in a window to judge it from, and I altered the scale of the cyclops from the original picture based on the actual size we are when we stand in the cockpit the concept implies the clops is a little bigger than it actually is..
Something this size would rock in the game but its something you would probably never have any where near the middle of the map or any shallow water, who knows they might give us content out in the vast endless deep ocean where this sub would be perfect.
The Cyclops is bigger than that. The size of the man in the Cyclops almost comes up to the lights on the dome while you show him being taller than that. The other sub will still be larger, but not as much as you depicted it.
Also, it is unknown if the designer wanted to make those areas that you depicted as docking areas for the Cyclops and Seamoth. The top 4 black areas on the Draconis could be Seamoth docking areas for all we know.
The Cyclops is WAY too small in this picture, and the Draconis was going to be a medium sized sub, so it would likely be smaller than the Cyclops. A more accurate size chart would probably look like this:
Not sure about the Draconis, but the Cyclops looks the right size in relation to the Shark. The Draconis doesn't have any context for its size. It could be a starship for all we know.
Hate to burst your bubble but can you even see the human in the concept image your linking, your cyclops human done by the artist is double the size of the human, AGAIN done by the artist on the bridge of the top sub, so if your scale down the cyclops so that both humans are the same size your gona shit your pants at how small it actually is.
However since I was able to go in game, assess the rough size of my character as i looked out the window of the sub standing on the floor not the wheel, and then scaling the resulting image I think you will find my depiction of the difference in size is accurate, or as accurate as we can get, the sea moths coming out the side and my suggesting the cyclops could fit in the hold of the super sub are just pure speculation tho..
Feel free to offer up some reasoning behind your theory on why you think its larger than it is, correct me if I'm wrong please dev's but is'nt the cyclops a mid sized sub? people assume its a large sub but in reality it was initially designed as a mid sized sub was it not ?
What matters most is the shape and not the size though. The Cyclops is a pure civil underwater exploration sub that has no chance to avoid any moving targets and zero maneuverability but a big glass eye. The Shark looks like it could kick azz with other creatures and drive like the Seamoth while still being able to have a big glass window and thus probably is the coolest sub of all. The Draconis looks like a full war sub that can fire all kind of weapons, like nuclear missiles and war torpedos, and with a high speed underwater drive, but with the disadvantage of no glass window.
For a non lethal approach the Cyclops and Shark would both be proper, but the Cyclops even more. So it's really no wonder we got the Cyclops, as the head dev had made big statements about the strength of the game being absolutely non lethal. But like the OP, I think the Shark would have done far better. If there would have been a poll on the 3 subs not on the size, but their shape, I'm sure the Shark would be 1st, the Draconis 2nd and the Cylops 3rd. Hence the thread asking the Art Director. Of course it's too late to change anything now.
But I'd be really interested in a poll regarding the 3 shapes, how would the community vote?
There are no humans for comparing the size of the Draconis, only the 2 round antenna attachments of all 3 subs are the same. But you're right with the humans with the Cyclops and the Shark.
I like your comparisons, but please look at the human in the Cyclops. Your lines aren't exact and don't match! The human in the Cyclops is less than half the Cyclops window height if you are exact:
So you could stack 3 humans atop each other to get the full Cyclops window height! Very important when comparing to the Shark. There you did the exact lines. I agree on that.
So I re-checked my size chart, and the humansin it are both the same size:
<img width="640" height="360" src="http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/268340571055257972/965BDAD71DC428242344FF5B4365ABCCF4235961/"></img>
As we can see, the puzzle is solved: The ingame cyclops has the navigation platform a bit higher and less ceiling space, while in the art the platform is lower with a higher ceiling. Yet, in all 2 versions (art+ingame) the human is about 1/3 of the Cyclops window height.
So @Morph_Guy has the right comparison:
As in this comparison the antenna with the 2 round attachments is about equal size too, we could use this as a measure for the Draconis. Of course only roughly. And I'd say the Draconis is nearly as big as the Shark.
I'm guessing something like this?
lol such a dumby..
Open console and use "freecam". Look for console commands at wiki.
Personal voting: 1-Shark, 2-Draconis, 3-Cyclops from the looks. Why don't you try voting? What does the community think?
-cyclops: bloody useless.
-seamoth: very fast and nimble, presumably propelled, like an ork vehicle, to function well despite an awful design.
-shark: large, but fast and efficient, can go deep and store a lot of stuff. Pretty much just superior to the cyclops.
-draconis: fast, can dive deep, armored, a low sonar profile, and potentially weapons.
This is largely based off of my somewhat vauge engineering knowlege rather than what I think they might do ingame.
For pure and fast exploration (and some hauling capabilities), drive around in the Draconis with a stored Cyclops/Seamoth/EXO for more detailed exploration from that Draconis as a base of operations. Pure raw speed, lacking a power generator. So this one still has to be recharged at a base or at your Shark.
Want to start hauling loads of stuff, Shark it up with your big cargo hauler, maybe it can also have it's own power plant to charge other vehicles. A mobile base and cargo sub.
You know giving them specific roles so to speak and having a synergy between them. With the bigger subs functioning as a sort of mothership/carrier. I mean IRL, our deepsea explorers are also smaller vessels tied to a ship based mothership.
I definitely like your low profile/stealth element to the Draconis bit.
Just imagine taking it out into the depths and having to continue on deeper with your cyclops/EXO. Or having repair arms on your Seamoth to repair stuff on the outside of your sub and so on. This synergy is kinda coming from Natural Selection 2, trying to have every weapon still be useful during the entire game (early/mid/end). I just don't want to end up with useless stuff floating around...
Also, here's a sketch sheet showing some old designs for the small sized sub. Would have been something between a Seamoth and the Cyclops, with a cockpit and about 1 additional room https://www.dropbox.com/s/k2k2nkcun2cfvzo/SmallSub_NEW_Set01_highRes.jpg?dl=0
We were looking at #6 as a possibility for the small sub. Keep in mind, these were very early designs to start the initial sub visual exploration. The Cyclops and Shark / Draconis were more refined designs as part of the second phase of the sub concept pass.
While the shark sub is certainly cool, it is a bit hard to imagine it driving around the world without obnoxiously bumping into every bit of terrain around. But it would make for a great sub if we decided to add co-op, since the Cyclops might get a little tight for more then one player at a time.
That's kind of the point. There should be a reason you need to establish bases, in addition to having a Cyclops. If it was big enough to fit everything AND had mobility, then why build a base?