General scaling issue due to limited 3D modeling resources

[ZorinW]

@Nick Thomadis are there any plans for the foreseeable future to address the stop gap solution of up and downscaling 3D models to create content?

This is just a very simple example of the issue. We have here the Torpedo Boat Destroyer at 70,8 m length and the Torpedo Boat at 69,8 m length. Due to the malpractice of just upscaling the shortest Torpedo Boat model we end up with a VERY wierd looking boat where every single component and texture is of the wrong scale. The "life boats" being the most obvious elements. Same applies for all towers, funnels etc. There isn't a single ship in game that isn't a visual mess due to various different scales being present in a single design.

 

 

 

On an aside, this is what I think a game that is all about designing your own ships shouldn't look like in 2023. Especially with regards to the accuracy of the models. USS Smith in UAD and WOWS for comparison.

These models have supposedly the same size. Can you tell? No, cause the overall model quality paired with the scaling issue makes every ship in UAD look frumpy and strange.

Edited January 15, 2023 by ZorinW

[ZorinW]

I think this must be the worst offender in terms of mismatched scaling. No two components are of the same scale.

 

[admiralsnackbar]

I see no chance of that being changed this late in development. Doing scaling properly would likely require a special pipeline of model development. 

[anonusername]

2 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I see no chance of that being changed this late in development. Doing scaling properly would likely require a special pipeline of model development. 

A lot could probably be fixed by tweaking scale factors and improving model fidelity. I think it would need to be some sort of "HD Ship Models" DLC to make financial sense though.

[ZorinW]

On 1/28/2023 at 1:14 AM, anonusername said:

A lot could probably be fixed by tweaking scale factors and improving model fidelity. I think it would need to be some sort of "HD Ship Models" DLC to make financial sense though.

Why would anyone pay for something that should come for free though? It's 2023 and a company would be ill-advised to expect customers to pay extra money to get 2015 (WoWS release) model quality.

[ZorinW]

Just wanted to check further on the model quality and well, it doesn't look good... This is a comparison of the factory drawing by Krupp (publicly available on the net) for the 30,5 cm Drh-LC/1912 and what we have in game.

Edited January 31, 2023 by ZorinW

[admiralsnackbar]

On 1/30/2023 at 9:55 AM, ZorinW said:

Just wanted to check further on the model quality and well, it doesn't look good... This is a comparison of the factory drawing by Krupp (publicly available on the net) for the 30,5 cm Drh-LC/1912 and what we have in game.

Bear in mind that the models are designed to accommodate multiple gun sizes and quantities. 

The gun on the right, if you look at the asset in unity, is called vdt_gun_280_x2, i.e. it's an 11 inch gun [von der tan] . But for whatever reason in unity it's scaled to be the same size as the mark III 12" [generic dreadnought] gun at 1.0 scaling in unity. But the dreadnought 12" gun in is scaled up by a factor of 1.125 in game. (This is why you can't fit a 12 inch gun properly on the default dreadnought model) I've looked at these prefabs in unity and scaled them to compare gun barrel sizes. 

if you take the measurements you took on the right and multiplied them by 11/12 you would get numbers very close to what you see on the left. The VDT gun is fairly properly scaled all things considered. 

Also 2015 wows vs 2023 UAD is not a relevant comparison. WG can invest in drop dead gorgeous ship models because it milks whales and krakens for everything they're worth and has an art team several times larger than the entire UAD development team. 

AFAICT all 3d models in this game are made by a single person who may very well have other responsibilities. 

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by admiralsnackbar

[ZorinW]

1 hour ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Bear in mind that the models are designed to accommodate multiple gun sizes and quantities. 

The gun on the right, if you look at the asset in unity, is called vdt_gun_280_x2, i.e. it's an 11 inch gun [von der tan] . But for whatever reason in unity it's scaled to be the same size as the mark III 12" [generic dreadnought] gun at 1.0 scaling in unity. But the dreadnought 12" gun in is scaled up by a factor of 1.125 in game. (This is why you can't fit a 12 inch gun properly on the default dreadnought model) I've looked at these prefabs in unity and scaled them to compare gun barrel sizes. 

if you take the measurements you took on the right and multiplied them by 11/12 you would get numbers very close to what you see on the left. The VDT gun is fairly properly scaled all things considered. 

Also 2015 wows vs 2023 UAD is not a relevant comparison. WG can invest in drop dead gorgeous ship models because it milks whales and krakens for everything they're worth and has an art team several times larger than the entire UAD development team. 

AFAICT all 3d models in this game are made by a single person who may very well have other responsibilities. 

 

Well, just by looking at the models in game we know that at least 75% of them are made by simply scaling existing models. That practice in itself, for a game that has the focal point of building ships, is disgraceful. Apart from that, the gun model is still not particularly accurate.

As for WoWS, in 2015 it was a far cry from what it is today in terms of employees.

I just spent a quick hour as a none-3D artist building the 30,5 cm (not finished and NOT setting up the plans properly just looking at them) and the result is already closer to reality. So the argument of the poor guy who has to build it all (it's his job) doesn't cut it with me, sorry. Thought it would also be nice to show the actual angle possible for the gun to fire from. Good luck getting that result in game with guns that close to eachother.

The lower guns also always sat on a barbette to allow crew to pass underneath the barrels and for the guns to clear the railing and all other elements that sat on deck. 

 

[kjg000]

11 hours ago, ZorinW said:

Well, just by looking at the models in game we know that at least 75% of them are made by simply scaling existing models. That practice in itself, for a game that has the focal point of building ships, is disgraceful. Apart from that, the gun model is still not particularly accurate.

As for WoWS, in 2015 it was a far cry from what it is today in terms of employees.

I just spent a quick hour as a none-3D artist building the 30,5 cm (not finished and NOT setting up the plans properly just looking at them) and the result is already closer to reality. So the argument of the poor guy who has to build it all (it's his job) doesn't cut it with me, sorry. Thought it would also be nice to show the actual angle possible for the gun to fire from. Good luck getting that result in game with guns that close to eachother.

The lower guns also always sat on a barbette to allow crew to pass underneath the barrels and for the guns to clear the railing and all other elements that sat on deck. 

 

Agreed although I do wonder if it is this simple for a functional in-game model. I get the impression the Devs are clearly rushing things, possibly for good reasons not obvious to us. It is a great pity they won't or can't throw some of this design load out to the community.

[kjg000]

On 1/30/2023 at 9:30 PM, ZorinW said:

Why would anyone pay for something that should come for free though? It's 2023 and a company would be ill-advised to expect customers to pay extra money to get 2015 (WoWS release) model quality.

I think the Devs went "A bridge too far". Hindsight is great but I would have loved them to have consolidated with the full Mediterranean map, possibly adding a Pacific map and then added the rest of the world later, as a DLC if necessary. Same with Defects, Mines and Subs (and airpower). I think this would have resulted in a much more robust game with at least two different campaigns, three if they included a limited "World" campaign (Med + Pacific). They would then have been in a much stronger position now and with less damage to, possibly even enhancing, the companies reputation.

If handled well there would have been more than enough content to justify the full cost of the game and even the cost of a DLC and I hate DLC's unless they really do add value. There is enough value there now except it is swamped by bugs and frustrating gameplay.

[ZorinW]

23 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Bear in mind that the models are designed to accommodate multiple gun sizes and quantities. 

The gun on the right, if you look at the asset in unity, is called vdt_gun_280_x2, i.e. it's an 11 inch gun [von der tan] . But for whatever reason in unity it's scaled to be the same size as the mark III 12" [generic dreadnought] gun at 1.0 scaling in unity. But the dreadnought 12" gun in is scaled up by a factor of 1.125 in game. (This is why you can't fit a 12 inch gun properly on the default dreadnought model) I've looked at these prefabs in unity and scaled them to compare gun barrel sizes. 

if you take the measurements you took on the right and multiplied them by 11/12 you would get numbers very close to what you see on the left. The VDT gun is fairly properly scaled all things considered. 

Also 2015 wows vs 2023 UAD is not a relevant comparison. WG can invest in drop dead gorgeous ship models because it milks whales and krakens for everything they're worth and has an art team several times larger than the entire UAD development team. 

AFAICT all 3d models in this game are made by a single person who may very well have other responsibilities. 

 

Took the actual measurements for the 28 cm von der Tann gun. So the vdT gun in game is also too big, which doesn't surprise me at all.

Edited February 1, 2023 by ZorinW

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

Well, here is something else to consider if you really want to compare WoWs to UAD (which I don't think is a fair comparison in any stretch of the imagination):

With World of Warships...you basically have what I am going to call a "static" model, or a model that you can't change in any way/shape/form. The only way the model changes is if you unlock/mount/demount modules (i.e. swap out guns, torpedo launchers, a new hull design). That's a simple "on/off" scenario. Whether you use the 406mm or the 420mm guns on the Friedrich der Grosse...you get that respective model: you can't change anything about it. Not barrel length, not diameter, no anything else (hence why I'm calling it a "static" model). It's like that with all models in that game: module X is being used, so model X is displayed. If module Y is being used, then model Y will be displayed. Not to mention, since the player can't change anything about said models...they only have to make one of each, and can achieve "rivet counting" accuracy by simply going to a museum or museum ship and taking as many pictures as they want or 3D scans of said ship/gun/superstructure/etc.

With UAD...it's not so "simple." Since each player is given the ability to change most things about any given model, they can't take the approach Wargaming can. Will there be scaling issues and things that aren't 1:1 scale? Yes. Why? Because why make 10 unique models for every single mark and size of gun? That would be 50 models for a single gun: 5 marks x 10 possible gun sizes (from X.0 inch to X.9 inch) = 50 models per gun. Then...multiply that by 20 since you can go up to 20 inch guns...and you arrive at 1000 models just for the generic gun models. And that is before you factor in any special/unique models that each nation might get, any barrel length changes (though if you did...that would be 10 models of any mark gun x 40 different lengths (from +/- 20%) to give you 400 different models for a single gun), and the fact that you can downscale 2 inch guns to 1.1 inch guns...so now think about how many models somebody would have to make or you would have to search through just because you want a 16.7 inch 59 caliber gun that matches the look of Bismarck's turrets...but is still "correctly sized," even though no such weapon likely existed so nobody knows what the "correct size" of such a weapon would be. (I would like to point out that I'm not saying any of this to try and make an excuse for being lazy or not putting in a lot of effort...but why make/search through hundreds of different 16 inch guns when I can just place one down and then manually enter +15% barrel length and +0.5 inch size?)

Hulls are in the same boat (no pun intended). While the hulls have 3 default sizes (based around the displacement you choose for that specific hull and whether or not it is in the lower, mid or upper range of the available tonnage), each hull can (at most) go to +/- 10% on beam and draught in both directions. Now, if you'll think and remember: each one of those percentage marks is broken up into an additional 10 marks (which is why you can set your beam to something like 3.2% or -8.1%) and iirc, at each X.X% mark...your hull gets wider/narrower or taller/shorter depending on what you are changing. That would be 4800 possible widths and heights (40 possible values x 2 directions x 3 hull lengths) for a single hull...now think about how many hulls there are in the game and how many different models that would be--assuming everything I just said was correct about when/where/what percentage your hull size changes/the model updates, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Torpedo launchers would probably be the easiest to "remodel" if the devs really wanted to, since they would have the smallest number of models (8 torp sizes x 5 marks of launchers = 40 models).

The approach the devs are taking of scaling models based on how we change gun size/barrel length makes it much easier/simple for them so they don't have to have thousands of different models because us players want a "correctly sized" or "historically recreated" ship that never existed, with guns that never existed unless on paper. Just take a single starting model, and then scale it up as we increase barrel length or gun size. Then, once you hit the next uniform gun size, swap to a new model and repeat the process. I'm fairly certain this game was never marketed as, nor was it ever meant to be, "World of Warships but you get to build the ships." From day one, and going by all the "advertisements" and promotional material I've seen...this was marketed as more of a sandbox type naval combat game where you could design ships the way you wanted (for the most part), whether you wanted to try and recreate your favorite historical ships or go for completely original designs of your own.

Here is an attempt to clarify/show how I got some of those numbers and my math above;
5 marks of guns (Mk 1, Mk 2, Mk 3, Mk 4, Mk 5)
10 different gun sizes (10.0", 10.1", 10.2", 10.3", 10.4", 10.5", 10.6", 10.7", 10.8", 10.9")
At max, 40 different barrel lengths (-20% shorter, 20% longer....20 short options + 20 long options = 40 length options)

Now, using a 10" gun as an example:
5 marks (Mk1-Mk5) multiplied by 10 gun sizes (10.0" to 10.9") multiplied by 40 barrel lengths (-20% to +20%) results in a staggering 2000 gun models just for the entire 10 inch gun family of a SINGLE nation. That number drops to 400 models if you only look at a single mark of gun (i.e. you only look at 10" Mark 3s).

Now, take that 2000 models per gun, per nation, and multiply it by the number of default gun sizes...which is 19 (2 inch through 20 inch, excluding downsized 2 inchers). 2000 X 19 = 38000 gun models for every gun, for a SINGLE nation.

Finally, multiply that 38000 gun models by 11 playable nations...and you get a whopping 418,000 gun models just so every nation can have a unique, "correctly scaled/sized" gun model for every possible combination of gun diameter and barrel length.

For the Hull Section's numbers:
3 different lengths (depending on deplacement)
40 different beams (-10% to +10%, divided into smaller 0.1% increments)
40 different draughts (-10% to +10%, divided into smaller 0.1% increments)

3 X 40 X 40 = 4800 different hull models for a single hull...now think about how many hulls are in the game.

So no....I didn't just pull those numbers out of my ass. They are based on, or taken directly from, what we already have available in-game. They might be a little off due to whether or not the models update at every X.X% or every X.5%, but they are close. But...you get the point: if the devs made a model for every possible combination of beam, draught, displacement or gun diameter and barrel length...that would be a LOT of damn models.

TL;DR   Since this game is FAR from "rivet counting" levels of accuracy and the fact that this wasn't supposed to be a WoWs clone...the scaling issue, to me anyways, is a moot point. If you want a highly detailed, historically accurate, "that gun is the correct size" naval combat game...you would probably be better off playing WoWs or War Thunder Naval Forces. It makes no sense for the devs to try and create an individual/unique model for every possible combination we can think of. If you want to see what I attempted to explain for yourself...load up the ship designer in a custom battle and just play around with beam, draught, displacement, gun diameter and barrel length and watch where the models change/update.
 

[ZorinW]

41 minutes ago, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:

Well, here is something else to consider if you really want to compare WoWs to UAD (which I don't think is a fair comparison in any stretch of the imagination):

With World of Warships...you basically have what I am going to call a "static" model, or a model that you can't change in any way/shape/form. The only way the model changes is if you unlock/mount/demount modules (i.e. swap out guns, torpedo launchers, a new hull design). That's a simple "on/off" scenario. Whether you use the 406mm or the 420mm guns on the Friedrich der Grosse...you get that respective model: you can't change anything about it. Not barrel length, not diameter, no anything else (hence why I'm calling it a "static" model). It's like that with all models in that game: module X is being used, so model X is displayed. If module Y is being used, then model Y will be displayed. Not to mention, since the player can't change anything about said models...they only have to make one of each, and can achieve "rivet counting" accuracy by simply going to a museum or museum ship and taking as many pictures as they want or 3D scans of said ship/gun/superstructure/etc.

With UAD...it's not so "simple." Since each player is given the ability to change most things about any given model, they can't take the approach Wargaming can. Will there be scaling issues and things that aren't 1:1 scale? Yes. Why? Because why make 10 unique models for every single mark and size of gun? That would be 50 models for a single gun: 5 marks x 10 possible gun sizes (from X.0 inch to X.9 inch) = 50 models per gun. Then...multiply that by 20 since you can go up to 20 inch guns...and you arrive at 1000 models just for the generic gun models. And that is before you factor in any special/unique models that each nation might get, any barrel length changes (though if you did...that would be 10 models of any mark gun x 40 different lengths (from +/- 20%) to give you 400 different models for a single gun), and the fact that you can downscale 2 inch guns to 1.1 inch guns...so now think about how many models somebody would have to make or you would have to search through just because you want a 16.7 inch 59 caliber gun that matches the look of Bismarck's turrets...but is still "correctly sized," even though no such weapon likely existed so nobody knows what the "correct size" of such a weapon would be. (I would like to point out that I'm not saying any of this to try and make an excuse for being lazy or not putting in a lot of effort...but why make/search through hundreds of different 16 inch guns when I can just place one down and then manually enter +15% barrel length and +0.5 inch size?)

Hulls are in the same boat (no pun intended). While the hulls have 3 default sizes (based around the displacement you choose for that specific hull and whether or not it is in the lower, mid or upper range of the available tonnage), each hull can (at most) go to +/- 10% on beam and draught in both directions. Now, if you'll think and remember: each one of those percentage marks is broken up into an additional 10 marks (which is why you can set your beam to something like 3.2% or -8.1%) and iirc, at each X.X% mark...your hull gets wider/narrower or taller/shorter depending on what you are changing. That would be 4800 possible widths and heights (40 possible values x 2 directions x 3 hull lengths) for a single hull...now think about how many hulls there are in the game and how many different models that would be--assuming everything I just said was correct about when/where/what percentage your hull size changes/the model updates, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Torpedo launchers would probably be the easiest to "remodel" if the devs really wanted to, since they would have the smallest number of models (8 torp sizes x 5 marks of launchers = 40 models).

The approach the devs are taking of scaling models based on how we change gun size/barrel length makes it much easier/simple for them so they don't have to have thousands of different models because us players want a "correctly sized" or "historically recreated" ship that never existed, with guns that never existed unless on paper. Just take a single starting model, and then scale it up as we increase barrel length or gun size. Then, once you hit the next uniform gun size, swap to a new model and repeat the process. I'm fairly certain this game was never marketed as, nor was it ever meant to be, "World of Warships but you get to build the ships." From day one, and going by all the "advertisements" and promotional material I've seen...this was marketed as more of a sandbox type naval combat game where you could design ships the way you wanted (for the most part), whether you wanted to try and recreate your favorite historical ships or go for completely original designs of your own.

Here is an attempt to clarify/show how I got some of those numbers and my math above;
5 marks of guns (Mk 1, Mk 2, Mk 3, Mk 4, Mk 5)
10 different gun sizes (10.0", 10.1", 10.2", 10.3", 10.4", 10.5", 10.6", 10.7", 10.8", 10.9")
At max, 40 different barrel lengths (-20% shorter, 20% longer....20 short options + 20 long options = 40 length options)

Now, using a 10" gun as an example:
5 marks (Mk1-Mk5) multiplied by 10 gun sizes (10.0" to 10.9") multiplied by 40 barrel lengths (-20% to +20%) results in a staggering 2000 gun models just for the entire 10 inch gun family of a SINGLE nation. That number drops to 400 models if you only look at a single mark of gun (i.e. you only look at 10" Mark 3s).

Now, take that 2000 models per gun, per nation, and multiply it by the number of default gun sizes...which is 19 (2 inch through 20 inch, excluding downsized 2 inchers). 2000 X 19 = 38000 gun models for every gun, for a SINGLE nation.

Finally, multiply that 38000 gun models by 11 playable nations...and you get a whopping 418,000 gun models just so every nation can have a unique, "correctly scaled/sized" gun model for every possible combination of gun diameter and barrel length.

For the Hull Section's numbers:
3 different lengths (depending on deplacement)
40 different beams (-10% to +10%, divided into smaller 0.1% increments)
40 different draughts (-10% to +10%, divided into smaller 0.1% increments)

3 X 40 X 40 = 4800 different hull models for a single hull...now think about how many hulls are in the game.

So no....I didn't just pull those numbers out of my ass. They are based on, or taken directly from, what we already have available in-game. They might be a little off due to whether or not the models update at every X.X% or every X.5%, but they are close. But...you get the point: if the devs made a model for every possible combination of beam, draught, displacement or gun diameter and barrel length...that would be a LOT of damn models.

TL;DR   Since this game is FAR from "rivet counting" levels of accuracy and the fact that this wasn't supposed to be a WoWs clone...the scaling issue, to me anyways, is a moot point. If you want a highly detailed, historically accurate, "that gun is the correct size" naval combat game...you would probably be better off playing WoWs or War Thunder Naval Forces. It makes no sense for the devs to try and create an individual/unique model for every possible combination we can think of. If you want to see what I attempted to explain for yourself...load up the ship designer in a custom battle and just play around with beam, draught, displacement, gun diameter and barrel length and watch where the models change/update.
 

Thank you for your extensive reply. Though I am surprised that you didn't realize halfway through that you are highlighting why the approach taken by the devs is wrong. 

No one will ever make use of 418.000 different gun models or 4800 different hull models. What players actually do 99% of the time is stick with the base models and design their ships around them. Only the AI is frankly stupid enough to alter each possible slider for a given model and we all know what good that does to them...

So I sternly believe that the devs should have provided 100% accurate models for all historical guns, towers and funnels. Those alone can provide enough variety for thousands of different ships.

After that they should have invested in LOGICAL non-historical content. Like what WoWS did with the German Battlecruiser line, for example.

Additionally, the way the game is right now, there is zero point to having different nations as anyting that is specific to them is mostly negated by the modifier sliders. 

As for the hulls, we can all agree that the beam and draught (which doesn't actually effect the draught...) sliders are again a cheap way to add variety. All the while screwing up the scaling of every component hardfixed to the hull. What would have been the proper approach is what was shown in the promo video. Building hulls out of prefab sections. That would have provided a ton of actual variety (hull height, superstructure, casemate placement, bow and stern designs, etc.)

 

Don't you agree?

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

1 hour ago, ZorinW said:

So I sternly believe that the devs should have provided 100% accurate models for all historical guns, towers and funnels. Those alone can provide enough variety for thousands of different ships

Ok, let me sum up what I posted in a different way: anything that is advocating for "100% accurate models" (or what I call "rivet counting") at this point in UAD's lifetime is, in my opinion, wasted breath. It is obvious that UAD won't ever get there. I would almost bet that nothing going forward--as far as hulls, towers, funnels and guns are concerned--will be the "correct historical size." And while I can appreciate the fact that people are willing to go down to the literal mm just to show that UAD's scaling on some things is wack...honestly, what point does it make now? No sense debating about what the devs should've/shouldn't've done.

Yes, I realize that 418000 gun models is completely ridiculous and that nobody would use that many...what I was getting at with that point was that if the devs, moving forward, decided to go back and rescale the models to "correct" size or "100% historically accurate" size, they would then have to model each variation of diameter and length. Unless they just resized the base gun model to "100% historically accurate size," but then you are still left with the issue of "what do we do about bore increases or barrel length? Just stretch the model? Go back to the scaling idea? Should we only give them a small list of historical options to choose from...which then takes away from the 'free form' intentions of the ship designer?"

While I agree that some models should be more historically accurate, as I tend to get obsessed over details myself, and that there should be more models in-game that are historical designs (particularly cruisers), I don't see how "100% accurate models for all historical guns, towers and funnels" from the start would have resulted in thousands of different ships. There's only so many ways/so many ships you can build with those parts before it just becomes "That's an Iowa, that's a Montana, that's a Georgia--which is basically just an Iowa with twin 18" guns, and that's an Ohio--which is basically just a Montana with twin 18" guns." Or how about "That's a Bismarck, that's a Bismarck with torpedoes, and that's an H-39...which is basically just a Bismarck with guns that are 1 inch bigger." Then we get into the whole situation of "this nation never used 11 inch guns...what's the 'accurate size' for this thing that never existed? Should we just guess, use other nations as a basis, or go back to the oh-so-dreaded scaling method?" What then, when/if you have no historical basis to go off of?
 

This is all just a long-winded way of saying: the scaling issue will (likely) never get fixed, because this is supposed to be a "sandbox" or "free form designer" style of game...not a "historical simulation" or "realism simulator." Unless the player in question is somebody who is willing to pull out a ruler or the equivalent of Drachinifel from YouTube...most players are going to just build a ship that resembles or looks like what they know/like/recognize/want and be happy. They aren't going to care that the barbettes aren't as wide as the should be, or that the barrels are only X inches apart when they should be Y inches apart.

You bring up good/valid points, some I even agree with, and I am not trying to prove you wrong on any of them or "win an internet argument." I just still don't understand why some people are still getting upset with/hung up on the scaling. If it was something like a Bismarck 15" turret being the size of HMS Dreadnought's 12" turrets I could see people's gripe, and I'd be right there with them. But the models aren't wildly out of proportion and they aren't "un-believable" either.

[ZorinW]

12 minutes ago, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:

Ok, let me sum up what I posted in a different way: anything that is advocating for "100% accurate models" (or what I call "rivet counting") at this point in UAD's lifetime is, in my opinion, wasted breath. It is obvious that UAD won't ever get there. I would almost bet that nothing going forward--as far as hulls, towers, funnels and guns are concerned--will be the "correct historical size." And while I can appreciate the fact that people are willing to go down to the literal mm just to show that UAD's scaling on some things is wack...honestly, what point does it make now? No sense debating about what the devs should've/shouldn't've done.

Yes, I realize that 418000 gun models is completely ridiculous and that nobody would use that many...what I was getting at with that point was that if the devs, moving forward, decided to go back and rescale the models to "correct" size or "100% historically accurate" size, they would then have to model each variation of diameter and length. Unless they just resized the base gun model to "100% historically accurate size," but then you are still left with the issue of "what do we do about bore increases or barrel length? Just stretch the model? Go back to the scaling idea? Should we only give them a small list of historical options to choose from...which then takes away from the 'free form' intentions of the ship designer?"

While I agree that some models should be more historically accurate, as I tend to get obsessed over details myself, and that there should be more models in-game that are historical designs (particularly cruisers), I don't see how "100% accurate models for all historical guns, towers and funnels" from the start would have resulted in thousands of different ships. There's only so many ways/so many ships you can build with those parts before it just becomes "That's an Iowa, that's a Montana, that's a Georgia--which is basically just an Iowa with twin 18" guns, and that's an Ohio--which is basically just a Montana with twin 18" guns." Or how about "That's a Bismarck, that's a Bismarck with torpedoes, and that's an H-39...which is basically just a Bismarck with guns that are 1 inch bigger." Then we get into the whole situation of "this nation never used 11 inch guns...what's the 'accurate size' for this thing that never existed? Should we just guess, use other nations as a basis, or go back to the oh-so-dreaded scaling method?" What then, when/if you have no historical basis to go off of?
 

This is all just a long-winded way of saying: the scaling issue will (likely) never get fixed, because this is supposed to be a "sandbox" or "free form designer" style of game...not a "historical simulation" or "realism simulator." Unless the player in question is somebody who is willing to pull out a ruler or the equivalent of Drachinifel from YouTube...most players are going to just build a ship that resembles or looks like what they know/like/recognize/want and be happy. They aren't going to care that the barbettes aren't as wide as the should be, or that the barrels are only X inches apart when they should be Y inches apart.

You bring up good/valid points, some I even agree with, and I am not trying to prove you wrong on any of them or "win an internet argument." I just still don't understand why some people are still getting upset with/hung up on the scaling. If it was something like a Bismarck 15" turret being the size of HMS Dreadnought's 12" turrets I could see people's gripe, and I'd be right there with them. But the models aren't wildly out of proportion and they aren't "un-believable" either.

I 100% agree with you that this is whole debate is superfluous as nothing is going to fundamentally change to rectify what has been done wrong up to this point. 

It's just a personal gripe of mine (trained architect) that I can't look at anything in this game and not notice how bad the accuracy and scaling of pretty much every component is. I mean look at this thing?!