CAVSO True Scale

[Foxden Racing]

That's gorgeous!  I was looking at the Dictator/Despot CAD drawing when I came up with the list, so that's what was on the mind.

 

The idea was to get a general feeling for how big a TS plane was in comparison to a CAVbone and a tank.  Is it a perspective thing, or would that plane standing on end be just a shade taller than Tiamat?

[Cergorach]

The True Scale fighters clock in around 2" long, and TRUST ME, that is big enough!

 

Sorry, but no. I look at the infantry and I look at the Tsuiseki and my mind says "Something is off here!", it actually takes a bit of time to figure out what exactly, but that infantry figure is never going to fit into that cockpit.

 

It looks to big to be a drone and to small to be an actual plane to be flown by human sized beings.

 

@2" it's more 1/285 sized (aka. 6mm), fun if your primary goal is to sell to BT fans, not fun if you want your CAV fans to have a consistent scale...

 

As for looking huge, planes are huge, they just aren't massive like CAV's. Planes tend to be pretty thin, a problem if you only look straight from the top of the model, not a problem when you look at it from an angle as happens at the miniature wargame table.

[Girot]

I'll do a "top-down" shot of the Rach models, some infantry, and the aircraft.  BRB.

[Vytau]

In defense of the current true-scale aircraft and in particular Cergorach's note that two infantry fighters couldn't fit in the Tsuiseki cockpit, I'd only mention that aircraft cockpits are tiny.  If you ever get a chance to sit in one at an airshow, you'll probably feel claustrophobic (for the record, I am 6'1 and broad in the chest and shoulders).

 

Couple this with the idea that infantry troopers are maybe a little bigger, and the current true-scale models look a bit better.  Infantry couldn't fit in there?  Of course not!  Those guys are built - aircraft are for small, nimble guys who won't get cramped up and scared in a cockpit.  

Just a thought - current USAF regulations say something like up to 6'3" but I think you see what I'm driving at.  

 

This was a line of thinking in BT too, as I recall - clan pilots being bred and genetically engineered to be smaller & more agile?  Something like that?  
 

[Girot]

[Vil-hatarn]

It's a hard call--the small aircraft look ridiculous, but then so do some of the true scale models (the Baron is an absolute brick, yet has the same transport capacity as the Centipede). And then you've got oddballs, like the Dragonfly, which looks like it's out of scale but is actually barely more than a glider...in general, I think aircraft closer to the 2" mark will be easier to play with, though the lighter weight will definitely make them easier to base.

[Tiarnan]

I'm going to delurk to say that I prefer that everything is truescale.  The smaller aircraft look silly, and it bothers me when I see things that obviously don't fit.  If you're going to have a scale, use it. If we're going to abstract it, just go all the way and use counters instead of models.

[Cergorach]

Keep in mind that the Warthog wold be over 3.5" long, and that is indeed a tiny cramped cockpit, the Tsuiseki does have a comparatively longer cockpit, but the only way a pilot is going to fit in there is laying on his back or belly. Besides that position being horrible to fly a combat plane, what is the use of a canopy the pilot can't look out of? 50% bigger would fit and it would still be smaller then a Warthog...

 

 

 

Even the Despot is small at ~7m in length (hull). Sure in the future they make everything smaller, but even people?

[Doug Sundseth]

Keep in mind that the Warthog wold be over 3.5" long, and that is indeed a tiny cramped cockpit, the Tsuiseki does have a comparatively longer cockpit, but the only way a pilot is going to fit in there is laying on his back or belly. Besides that position being horrible to fly a combat plane, what is the use of a canopy the pilot can't look out of? 50% bigger would fit and it would still be smaller then a Warthog...

 

 

There's a pretty significant advantage to lying down when under high-G. Which is partly why the F-16 has a tilted pilot's seat (and a raised foot position). And if you're reclining, you'll need to have a canopy transparent down to, or at least near, your feet. (Always assuming that you're using the Eyeball Mk. 1 rather than some combination of electronics and screens.)

[Girot]

(Beware! Opinions! Look out!)

 

Projects like the Bones conversion are EXTREMELY important to product lines like CAV as the advent of plastic makes these models viable again.

 

I realize that there is a minority of us with an understanding of the business and developmental side of this genre/business so when it comes to these sorts of issues there is little sympathy. There is no single individual, even Ed himself, who is going to get their personal preference taken over what is financial responsible for the business AND fair to the CAV audience as a whole.

 

That being said? Please continue voicing your opinions. It is that feedback that helps provided the critical median around which the finalize specifications these new and reborn miniatures will be written around.

 

(not an employee, just a fanboy who works in the tabletop industry and understands)

Edited September 20, 2014 by Girot

[Foxden Racing]

The crux of the debate seems to be whether or not planes, a secondary figure, would dominate the tabletop visually if they were in-scale (and for the record, it's a shame that Merlin and Fenri have been redesignated dropships, I love the look of them].

 

I'm trying to look at it from a proportional point of view, rather than X is inspired by Y and Y is Z' long, as at the end of the day all it takes to be 'in scale' is for the number in the fluff to be translated into 1" = 15'.   Seeing that top-down pic leaves me really torn, though.  Tsui is one of the bigger wingspans (bumping Harpy up to the same length puts her wingspan at 2 1/2", give or take], so I've been trying to take that into account.  It didn't look bad at first, until I noticed that Dictator's highest point there are the backs of the guns, and the actual high point is in the 1.75" range [eyeballing it, too lazy to find the thread]...not the 2 1/4" the gun-backs put it at.

 

Full-scale Tsui looks great next to Despot, and Despot looks great next to Dictator...but yeah, I see what CAVBOSS is saying.  We've got 3 of the bigger figures from each category [i think only Dragoon is bigger, tank-wise], the plane is still a good clip bigger, and we have to keep that in mind.  Full-scale Tsui next to something like Razor, one of the smaller CAVs, is going to look really, really out of place, even if the math is accurate.

 

I did a quick photoshop hack-job, and (at least to my eyes), 2" for the smallest plane, and 2 1/4" for Tsui felt good...but assigning numbers to fluff based around the feelings of some arbitrary mook on the internet isn't sound engineering practice, let alone sound business practice for making and selling miniatures for wargaming.  Doubly so since personally, the minutae of wargaming has always struck me as overkill [consulting the chart of shrapnel spread based on the angle of the armor and the slope of the terrain and whatnot], so I'll be content as long as everything looks good next to one another.

 

No matter what, I can only imagine Bryan or Ed sitting there at dinner, heart skipping a beat for no discernable reason, as we sit here and discuss the possibility of a third mold master size...

[Girot]

@Cergorach: that is a great pic reference!! It's a blast seeing the inspiration for these kinds of things.

[Jeneki]

Whatever size we end up getting, I'm hoping to see a Kikyo in the same scale.  I have a huge preference for fielding models that look natural next to each other, and those matching duct fans are mighty sexy.

[Cergorach]

There's a pretty significant advantage to lying down when under high-G. Which is partly why the F-16 has a tilted pilot's seat (and a raised foot position). And if you're reclining, you'll need to have a canopy transparent down to, or at least near, your feet. (Always assuming that you're using the Eyeball Mk. 1 rather than some combination of electronics and screens.)

 

 

If you don't use Mk.1 you don't need a canopy. While lying down on your back, feet forward, might improve your tolerance to high G forces due to acceleration forward, it doesn't really help with High Gs due to maneuvering. You don't want to have a nasty kink in your neck while laying on your back and trying to look forward. Not to mention that controls will be a pain, because most of the time your arms would be fighting gravity and rudder pedals for the feet would be unpractical. I think that pilots would try to dive bomb who ever thought up such a design. Now, if it was some sort of Direct Neural Interface that would control the plane you could dump the pilot in some sort of fluid that would mitigate high G forces and lying down wouldn't be a problem, but again, you wouldn't need a canopy.

 

 

I realize that there is a minority of us with an understanding of the business and developmental side of this genre/business so when it comes to these sorts of issues there is little sympathy. There is no single individual, even Ed himself, who is going to get their personal preference taken over what is financial responsible for the business AND fair to the CAV audience as a whole.

 

If it's not feasible to produce models in 10mm (1:180) scale, then don't market them as such!!! That's what we call misleading the consumer... We have other companies that make 10mm (1:180/182/188*) scale models in hard plastic and in resin/metal, from infantry to pretty big dropships (4"+) and consistently scale their models, Hawk Games is doing pretty good and really young compared to Reaper miniatures and they didn't have to KS their hard plastic line of minis. Spartan Games is also getting into the 10mm market with Big tanks, huge walkers (4-8") and correctly proportioned aircraft. Should I be spending money there instead of this mishmash of oddly proportioned scaled minis?

 

I was under the impression that the vehicles would be correctly scaled for these new molds, now I hear that this is not the case? If it's a money issue, ask for more, if it's a packaging issue, buy bigger blisters! I'm really wondering if Reaper wants folks to play BT with a couple of CAV minis thrown in or folks to play CAV with all CAV models that don't look oddly out of place...

 

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't have to be correct to the mm, but a tank being 15%+ to small gets noticed, planes that are only 1/3rd the size are obvious.

 

@Girot, if your not an employee and just a fanboy, you might want to start with that info before folks start reading your take on the situation. Might keep peoples blood pressure at reasonable levels ;-)

 

@Foxden Racing, this Mook actually studied aeronautical engineering (you know, designing and building airplanes), didn't finish it, but enough has stuck with me to be a Mook+ regarding this kind of stuff... ;-)

 

*note: Different companies have different definitions of what 10mm scale entails, Reaper 1:180, Hawk Games 1:188, Spartan Games 1:182, the difference between these scales is so small that it's hardly noticeable. dp9 uses 1:144 for Heavy Gear and those models are almost 25% bigger then 1:180 scale models and that is very noticeable...

Edited September 20, 2014 by Cergorach

[CAVBOSS]

Not sure where the vehicle size came into the mix as I have already said...ALL VEHICLES, CAVS, AND INFANTRY WILL BE SCALED CORRECTLY TO EACH OTHER. The issue is the planes and it is not a cost issue, it is do I want to make 3"+ planes that will visually dominate a game as they fly 1" above the surface. I'm the one that makes that call. Ed and Bryan get to sleep easy on this one. I'm "listening" to all comments. I will say no matter what they wont be "little".