Scale: Why do players look so tiny on the field?

[phd_angel]

Players on the pitch look so tiny, that, at a glance, it looks like my field is 1km long!  This looks like an egregious design problem... Or, is it just my eyes?...

PS: I added a real match image (from a Premier League) for comparison.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by phd_angel

[FrazT]

Do you not think that player size in relation to camera angle would have been discussed at the design stage?

[phd_angel]

9 minutes ago, FrazT said:

Do you not think that player size in relation to camera angle would have been discussed at the design stage?

If they discussed, they apparently took no visible action. Lest I'm being a bit picky, there is a big difference between the two images above...

[Gramm0]

I don't really see a difference in the sizes in the two images.... Could you expand?

I do remember the first 3d engine where the players were thin sticks This looks like a big improvement.

[phnompenhandy]

40 minutes ago, Gramm0 said:

I don't really see a difference in the sizes in the two images.... Could you expand?

 

Thought it must be me! I didn't like to say! 

[Marko1989]

Let's say that the average human is about 465mm wide in shoulders:


The ref back is not looking straight into the camera so let's reduce his width to 400mm.

Which means, 5 refs is 2 meters. 2 meters is 50px on this image.



The red line is 1130px.

If we divide 1130px with 50px we get 22.6px. We must multiply that with 2, because 50px are 2 meters and then we get 45.2 meters

45.2 meters should be the half length of the pitch.

I have no idea what am I doing.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Marko1989

[Sweed]

I'm not seeing much difference either.  If there is any difference to my eye the FM players are larger than the players in the photo. :shrug:

[cris182]

Add me to the list of people who doesn't see any difference between the two images

[MrPompey]

3 hours ago, Marko1989 said:

Let's say that the average human is about 465cm wide in shoulders:


The ref back is not looking straight into the camera so let's reduce his width to 400cm.

Which means, 5 refs is 2 meters. 2 meters is 50px on this image.



The red line is 1130px.

If we divide 1130px with 50px we get 22.6px. We must multiply that with 2, because 50px are 2 meters and then we get 45.2 meters

45.2 meters should be the half length of the pitch.

I have no idea what am I doing.

465 cm wide  - thats 4.65 metres, 2.5 times wider than you are tall. A mistake I think

[fc.cadoni]

Am I blind or I have a general problem which I can't found so much difference between 2 images?

[gunner86]

26 minutes ago, MrPompey said:

465 cm wide  - thats 4.65 metres, 2.5 times wider than you are tall. A mistake I think

I imagine he meant mm. I must admit I laughed at 465cm though

[Marko1989]

33 minutes ago, MrPompey said:

465 cm wide  - thats 4.65 metres, 2.5 times wider than you are tall. A mistake I think

 

6 minutes ago, gunner86 said:

I imagine he meant mm. I must admit I laughed at 465cm though

hahahah yes, I meant mm. 

[phd_angel]

Maybe some folks missed that Geometry class or fall for optical illusions, but there is a big difference between the images featured in the first image.

For the same player size…

The FM image covers only half of the width of the field. (Down to the midfield center circle). Roughly a quarter of the entire field.

The real life photo covers nearly the full width of the pitch. (Midfield center circle is entirely at the center). Roughly a third of the entire field.

Relatively then, this means that real players would be 4 meter tall giants playing in a 500 meter long field.

Quite an absurdity…

PS: Fifa 21 scale also looks a bit off, but not as bad as FM apparently:

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by phd_angel

[KOSGS1]

25 minutes ago, phd_angel said:

Maybe some folks missed that Geometry class or fall for optical illusions, but there is a big difference between the images.

For the same player size…

The FM image covers only half of the width of the field. (Down to the midfield circle). Roughly a quarter of the entire field.

The actual photo covers nearly the full width of the pitch. (Midfield circle is entirely at the center). Roughly a third of the entire field.

Relatively then, this means that real players would be 4 meter tall giants playing in a 500 meter long field.

Quite an absurdity…

PS: Fifa 21 scale is also inaccurate, though not as bad as FM apparently:

 

 

Bit of a stretch to say there's a big difference. Important to note, camera angles in your chosen examples are not identical, and it's interesting to see how much slight change in camera angle can dramatically alter the appearance of player size.

[KOSGS1]

Just now, phd_angel said:

Compare the center circle. The real one is twice the size. The FM one looks like it’s on an airport tarmac. 

Lowering the camera angle is huge factor for making players appear bigger. Appreciate my examples are not perfect and one of my examples may be shot from further away from the other but if you were told one was a game, and one was from TV you'd think developers have made a massive scaling error. Looks like the game at Stamford Bridge is being played on a tennis court!

[enigmatic]

The funny thing is, I think "difference between appearance of players at a live game" and "difference between appearance of players on TV from typical elevated TV camera angles" is much more noticeable, and they're definitely the same match

[enigmatic]

14 hours ago, FrazT said:

Do you not think that player size in relation to camera angle would have been discussed at the design stage?

Come to think of it, if you're going to model something in 3D where players, frames of goals and pitches have quite definite sizes, wouldn't you just use those dimensions for your model...

[TheArsenal63]

This is a camera issue. The players are actually the correct size but the camera can make them look smaller in relation because of distance, lense (well the code that replicates the lense) and direction the camera is being pointed.

PES has the best default camera of any football game i've seen.

In FM, if you switch to Director, players look alot larger but even then I dislike it because it's way too close to the action.

It would be nice if the camera was mod-able, we could get modders giving us broadcast camera's that mimic Sky or BT.

[phd_angel]

6 hours ago, Marko1989 said:

Let's say that the average human is about 465mm wide in shoulders:


The ref back is not looking straight into the camera so let's reduce his width to 400mm.

Which means, 5 refs is 2 meters. 2 meters is 50px on this image.



The red line is 1130px.

If we divide 1130px with 50px we get 22.6px. We must multiply that with 2, because 50px are 2 meters and then we get 45.2 meters

45.2 meters should be the half length of the pitch.

I have no idea what am I doing.

I like the intention, but the math is wrong unfortunately. If we assume that a player is 2 meter tall, then 23 players lying head to toe would suffice to cover the 45 meters you estimated for half of the field.  Just by eyeballing, you can see that we need many more than 23 players to cover half of the field...

 

[Prepper_Jack]

Bear in mind there are different sizes of fields. Length can be anywhere between 90 to 120 meters, and width can be anywhere from 45 to 90 meters. That's a difference between 4050 minimum and 10800 maximum square meters. It obviously stands to reason a person would look smaller on a larger pitch. There is, as already stated, differences in perspective and angle to consider.

It is worth noting that one thing that does not change is the radius of the central circle. If you wish to make comparisons, start there.

It hasn't particularly stood out to me that the scale was off for players, other than in previous versions where I noted a 5'5" player looked like an absolute toddler in comparison to a 6'2" player, but I haven't really noticed that in version (though I haven't been looking, either).

[FrazT]

I have hidden a few posts that are unnecessary so lets get back on topic please.

[Dagenham_Dave]

5 hours ago, TheArsenal63 said:

It would be nice if the camera was mod-able, we could get modders giving us broadcast camera's that mimic Sky or BT.

The 'TV' camera, like every camera outwith the director one IS moddable, you can control both height and zoom. 

[RobTheRed]

Maybe the pitches have got bigger!

[Matt_1979]

I’ve always thought that players are smaller on FM than they appear in real life, however, I always assumed it was for aesthetics and to make it easier for animations to run etc….

[Marko1989]

23 hours ago, phd_angel said:

I like the intention, but the math is wrong unfortunately. If we assume that a player is 2 meter tall, then 23 players lying head to toe would suffice to cover the 45 meters you estimated for half of the field.  Just by eyeballing, you can see that we need many more than 23 players to cover half of the field...

 

My post was a joke, I have always been bad at math

But someone really can measure the field here in meters, I am curious to know how far from the correct result I was

[HUNT3R]

On 06/11/2021 at 18:49, phd_angel said:

PS: Fifa 21 scale also looks a bit off, but not as bad as FM apparently:

It isn't a good idea to compare FIFA with real life or FM. Their games have always had models that are far bigger than what they should be.

Compare FM to real life instead.

[kevhamster]

On 06/11/2021 at 15:05, cris182 said:

Add me to the list of people who doesn't see any difference between the two images

And me, or if there is, it's not enough for me to care.

And with how the animations have improved and made the matches so much more fun to watch, I'm happy with the match visuals as they are.