HOME | DD
jeffmcdowalldesign — Mass Effect Andromeda - Tempest Size Comparison
#chart #game #infographic #normandy #scifi #sizecomparison #starship #tempest #masseffect #sizechart #masseffectfanart #normandysr1 #normandysr2 #masseffectandromeda
Published: 2016-12-03 04:55:24 +0000 UTC; Views: 43751; Favourites: 168; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Size comparison of the Normandy ships in the Mass Effect Trilogy to the Tempest in Mass Effect Andromeda.Lengths are approximate based on trailers, gameplay footage (Ryder and crew walking down the ramp), and behind-the-scences information. Reference images from Troodon80. Bioware should reveal the actual details about the Tempest sometime in January during one of the "briefing" videos, at which time this chart will be updated.
Update (Jan 11, 2017) - Tempest length updated from 100m to 95m (actual: 95.4m), according to briefing video.
Other charts and graphics:
Related content
Comments: 14
Hey Jeff, just wondering where you got the figure for the Tempest. Before looking the measurement up, I did a rough estimate by multiplying the length of a biotic dash (8 meters) by the number of dashes it took to go from the edge of an outboard nacelle to the nose (16 dashes), which is 128 meters. Granted, that's the landed model, but it seems like a big discrepancy.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Hi FirstOfTheFallen,
The original length I posted of 100 meters I got from comparing the size of the Nomad to the width of the Tempest ramp in trailers and other early info. Bioware then released the official length of 95.2 meters from their Tempest blueprint that came with the "Art of" book and briefing video. I rounded it down to 95m just to have a round number.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It just seems odd to me that they would post something that's A, so easily verifiable, and B, so glaringly off from their stated measurement. Unless, as I said, the "landed" model is for some reason different. *shrugs*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, Bioware is known for doing this in the Mass Effect universe. Their interiors aren't to scale with exteriors, and the cinematics throw scale out the window at times. Not much we can do about it after all these years.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wow the Tempest has nothing on the Normandy (Other than no loading screens xD). It's kind of a shame, bigger is always better and the Tempest feels a lot less powerful, but then it doesn't have any weapon systems and the Normandy was built as a military vehicle. Anyway, awesome comparison! You did a great job
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I actually really disagree that bigger is better. Bigger is potentially wasted space. Bigger means more disparity between inside and outside. You can explore less than a third the volume of the SR-2 yet they'd have you believe you have full access to the interior. So much wasted space.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Huh. I've always been annoyed by small ships zipping across the galaxy in scifi. Takes away the epic feel of space travel. You'd think an explorer of an entirely new galaxy would have a bigger, more powerful ship but instead they went even smaller than the original Normandy. Which is kind of stupid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It seems they went with more of a Millennium Falcon or Firefly type ship that can more easily land on a planet than a larger Enterprise-type. By doing so they cut out the middle-man of using a shuttle or transporter. Plus Bioware was sensitive to all the loading-screen complaints and decided a smaller ship won't have as much, if any.
I imagine that once the Initiative managed to begin constructing cruisers in the cluster that each capital ship would carry their own scouts, using the wheel-and-spokes method of exploring. Right now their immediate mission is quickly securing a home base and resources in the current cluster (which I doubt is more than 50 light years across, easily traveled in three or four days).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's another to take into account. The trip to Andromeda will be long. Even with the crew asleep they will need supplies to get started. Having equipment and ships as small as possible makes room for more supplies to get started with. Plus, smaller ships fly faster.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry, I usually don't comment but I have to here. "Smaller ships fly faster" only applies to in-atmo where wind resistance and gravity are factors. In space where there is no wind resistance or gravity a capital vessel is capable of the same speeds as a scout ship, it simply takes more thrust and acceleration time to happen.
TL;DR a capital ship can reach scout ship speeds with enough thrust/acceleration in space.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I'm talking about mass effect logic with space ships.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A larger ship requires more force for the same acceleration even in space. That's Newton's second law. It means that it's more efficient and much easier to control a smaller ship than a larger one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's basically what I said. I said it needs more thrust. My point still stands that smaller ships are not faster than larger ones in space. Both are capable of the same speeds. You're points about efficiency and ease of control are true but I did not dispute those points.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0