[George] What is the new station artwork scale?

[SolarGalaxy]

Originally the scale was: Size(pixels) = 250 * Size(km)^(0.5)

Also originally Commonwealth Metropolises were 1km (I think diameter) and 256 pixel x 256 pixel.
Now the size documentation of a Commonwealth Metropolis is 670m (Probably diameter as well) and 480 px x 480 px.
Using the old calculation, a Commonwealth Metropolis would be 3.6 km, which is significantly wrong.

Below are some other new stations with size documentation.

For the APD, their stations are:
Tolou: 300m and 252 x 252
Constellation: 400m and 486 x 520 (This is probably an outlier as it has significantly more height/depth than most other stations)
Monastery: 350m and 274 x 274

For the ED, their stations are:
Commune: 372m and 276 x 254
Metropolis 1km and 464 x 430
Zamok: 450m and 300 x 300

For the NAU, their stations are:
Enclave: 345m and 274 x 274
Autofac: 400m and 260 x 260
Atlas Base: 200m and 220 x 220

For the UAS, their stations are:
Mining Colony: 300m and 274 x 274
Metropolis: 800m and 300 x 400
Fortress: 350m and 280 x 280

For the shipyards:
Also Polyarny shipyard is 2000m and 1520 by 1460
Kibo shipyards is 2000m and roughly 1620 by 1620 (Middle part is 540 x 540, the East and West arms are ~540 in length)

If we try: Size(pixels) = 480 * Size(km)^(0.5)
We would get 393 px for a Commonwealth metropolis (480 px - Somewhat Close)

262 px for APD Tolou (252 px -Very close)
304 px for APD Constellation (486 px - I did say that its likely an outlier.)
284 px for APD Monastery (274 px - Very close)

293 px for ED Commune (276 px - Very close)
480 px for ED Metropolis (464 px - Very close)
322 px for ED Zamok (300 px - Very close)

282 px for NAU Enclave (274 px - Very close)
304 px for NAU Autofac (260 px - Close)
215 px for NAU Atlas Base (220 px - Very close)

263 px for UAS Mining Colony (274 px - Very close)
429 px for UAS Metropolis (300 px x 400 px - Close if compared to height of image)
284 px for UAS Fortress (280 px - Very Close)

679 px for Polyarny and Kibo Shipyards.

So would [Size(pixels) = 480 * Size(km)^(0.5)] be the new station artwork scale?
I'm also guessing that Shipyards use their own scale?
Also is the size documentation in diameter or radius?

Something to note is that I only used the size documentations of the EP station with the same name as its graphic. As a NAU Metropolis uses the same graphic as the NAU Enclave but is 900m instead of 345m.
BTW if anyone wants to see the stations I'm talking about looks like, they can be found here: https://forums.kronosaur.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6891

[Aury]

The station scale is now the same as the ship scale, which is pixels = 5*meters^.68 or something like that (I have it written down somewhere)

[SolarGalaxy]

So Size(pixels) = 5 * Size(meters)^(0.7)?
It definitely works better for the CW Metropolis at 476 px.
The shipyards are still significantly out of scale at 1023 px, so they may use their own scale?

[pixelfck]

Also interesting to know:

How is the artwork-scale related to the size= xml attribute on ships?
The values in the xml don't match the size of the ship sprites and, if I calculate them, the scale of the sprite images suggests varying scales for each of the standard player ships.

~Pixelfck

[george moromisato]

I've changed the scale since the post on the wiki (though I haven't updated every single ship).

For ships and stations the scale is:

size(pixels) = 5 * size(meters)^(0.68)
size(meters) = [size(pixels)/5]^(1/0.68)

For worlds, the scale is the same as what's on the wiki:

size(pixels) = 22 * size(kilometers)^(0.25)
size(kilometers) = [size(pixels)/22]^4

For ships and stations, the size= should be the size of the object in meters. For worlds, it is the size of the object in kilometers.

There are lots of inconsistencies, particularly for stations, and I've been slowly re-rendering both ships and stations to adhere to the new scale (and also to improve the textures).

Where the size attribute is present, it should be treated as the canonical size, regardless of the image size. In most cases where the physical size doesn't match the image size, the image will ultimately be changed.

Note, however, that it is hard to reverse engineer the physical size from the image for a few reasons:

1. For small images, being off by a pixel can be a big error. For example, the difference between 30 and 31 pixels is 14 vs 15 meters, which is 7% of the size. Thus depending on exactly where you measure from, you could get different meter sizes.

2. Because of the 3D projection, the length of a ship at 0 degrees is different from that at 90 degrees. I generally make measurements at 0 degrees (when the ship is facing to the right).

3. Do antennae and other minor elements count towards the physical size? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. For ships, mostly yes, but sometimes for stations it doesn't make sense to count them (especially if they are long). [This is the same as present-day buildings--there is much controversy about what counts as the height of a building.]

The following are some well-known objects at the ship/station scale: