[Suggestion] Scythe should be 25% smaller

I think the Scythe has to be 25% smaller in size footprint.. it's not fair that the Mosquito is way slimmer.

In fact the Reaver could be made a bit smaller too or at least Make the Mosquito Larger.

Yes, because nerfing HA rockets, having the slimmest profile in the game when viewed from the front, the ability to fly backwards, and best infantry farming gun in the game for aircraft (light ppa), the nerfs to Valkyries so they cant repair midair, and the repeated nerfs to flak cannons just isn't enough....

Look, I'm going to try and be as respectful as possible when I say that we already have problems with scythes roadkilling AA Maxes that are shooting directly at them, and HA rocket launchers that have a lock on radius smaller than Wrel's tolerance for the TR. Scythes do not need any such changes, and even if they did, I think that the issues with infantry combat right now FAR outweigh it.

No. I enjoy shooting them down

I agree -- The Dervish as well (largest, least maneuverable of all the ESFs)

Doesn't scythe already have a major advantage in dogfights due to having a vastly smaller profile from the front?
(Literally half the size of reaver)
And now you want to make the esf with smallest dogfighting profile 25% smaller? Sure why not!
Might need to rename it 'the real mosquito' though when you're buzzing around in your miniscule esf.

Hitbox / Size comparison of all the ESF's and Galaxy. I just finished this post on choosing the Galaxy over the Dervish, but the image includes the hit box size comparisons.

Corrected: Scythe IS mostly the smallest -- almost tied w/mosquito

Summary:
HITBOX Comparison
Units are Meters Squared (Area)
_____________FRONT__TOP__R.SIDE__ISO
Scythe _______ 14.2_____ 43.35_ 17.42__ 28.5
Mosquito _____ 14.93____ 42.33__22.92__26.82
Reaver _______ 15.35___ 43.19___22.84__32.48
Dervish _______ 33.03___209.08__37.25__112.94
Galaxy _______ 82.59___306.39___163.97__274.71

https://ibb.co/FW7z1ZF

This calculation has been done before and unless the hitbox sizes has been altered at some point, you have done something wrong.
https://m.imgur.com/a/HFjYZ
https://m.imgur.com/a/GDIQap

Seems like he has just accounted for max height and max width without taking all of the empty space into account

You can clearly see the calculation areas. Please don't troll. Don't be lazy. Open the image. https://ibb.co/FW7z1ZF

This looks like a rendering mono-color, then pixel count of the colored pixels? I thought about that method, but realized that there was a greater margin of error due to the shade range and the potential for true black not being counted -- which is why I went with the outline method.

So... no... I did it correctly -- mostly. Aside from the manual area tracing, which does leave a margin of error, albeit small, one does exist.

Regardless the results are similar. How about you perform, share your results with the class. Would like to see you do your own work, not something from 2017 that does not explain how the results were obtained.

From the front the Reaver has about 40% extra surface area in the pixel count versus less than 10% in your calculation when compared to the scythe. This could in part be because of the position you put the wings in, but even then it seems off. So the results arent "similar".

My bad, I was on my tablet, external links don't work, but just seeing that your calculations made reaver only marginally bigger than scythe from the front made me know something was off, i've seen the pics now, you did the outlines! Thanks for the work and effort it must have taken!
but you didn't account for the giant thrusters and wings on mozzy and reaver which angle downwards in dogfights making them much larger targets from the front.

Reavers are twice the size of scythes when it comes to nosegun dogfights due to its already bulky frame combined with tilting it's wings and thrusters.

Not sure if these are accurate.

missing front view

What you're describing is to take nominal attack angle silhouettes which is inconsistent for each platform. The 3/4^ view is the representation of an assumed attack vector against the platform, while the three oblique views represent a normalized and consistent view angle. Platform surface area would be an incorrect method to calculate the hitbox of the platform due to geometric surfaces being present but not actual hit surfaces.

In my tracing, I rounded around tight spaces for all the platforms except the landing gear of the Dervish, that would add about another 10% attack surface, but I could not recall if they retract midflight or not. Since the other platforms had retracted landing gear, I made the general fair assumption so would the Dervish, and did not include that area.

Some of the deficiencies mentioned, such as missile pods etc... were not included due to the baseline model being used for each platform. This made the general assumption everything is stock, 1:1.

I feel like I've effectively demonstrated and explained my findings well enough -- any other "refutes" please come at me bro with actual calculations and an argument and not "nuh uh... 2017 image with no context or explanation..." There's nothing else I can do besides record a youtube video and go over this process step by step, have you sign a "hitbox training certificate", and acknowledge "this is the way." *plays Mando theme*

So, now that we've established the methodology and can agree mine seems fair, logical, and presents an accurate comparison of the ESF's and platforms (except liberator... since my labor was to compare the Galaxy more effective than the Dervish)

Back to the point of the discussion:

"The Scythe needs to be 25% smaller."

To revise my original statement. I agree with this statement mostly. The top attack surface is widely disproportionate, meanwhile the front attack surface is near the mosquito. Reference calculations. Why does the top attack surface (hitbox) matter so much? It's not so much the "top" in particular, just that the large delta affects more in combat due to the flying nature of the airframe. The platform innately flies with the fuselage parallel to the ground, making the attack surface the primary vector for anti air, air to air, and ground to air (dive bomb)...

The front view is in the suddenly defunct link.

I have no idea how you come to your conclusion.

Lets assume your numbers are correct for the moment. The Reaver is either the biggest or a close close second. The Scythe on the other hand has the smallest profile in two area's and is barely bigger in others.
The shots from the bottom is a mute point. The difference you name is tiny, and due to the way the surfacr area is spread out the Scythe is still better. Shoot center mass of the Mozzie or Reaver and you'll have a block of surface area to hit. Shoot center mass of the Scythe and there is actually just several thin bodyparts you are aiming at, meaning that even with good aim some shots will miss. So the Scythe, even with a marginally larger surface area (by your calculation), is actually better off.
As for the bottom/top area being the most important in combat, total bullcrap. The time an aircraft spends with just its bottom/top showing is tiny. Against G2A the surface area is closer to rear/side most of the time due to distance and angle they fly at. Against other aircraft the dominant combat style is hover combat, with most of the time showing front or slightly isometric (and the wings in downwards position with a larger hitbox showing for the Reaver).

Also comparing the in-game screenshot to the view you use, the Scythe "spikes" take up much more surface area in your view. Also the central box of the Reaver seems smaller in your comparison than the in-game screenshot.
Also despite being level on the ground compared to each other in the screenshot, the Reaver is significantly higher. In your analysis the Scythe is of equal height despite being on the same ground level.

So we can conclude: your Scythe surface area calculation has to be off, your scythe profile is too big.

So not only do you support a smaller scythe on some weird logic about its size (without an actual reason beyond that size as to why it should be smaller!), not only is your idea of bottom being the most important factor wrong, your actual calculation is based on an overlarge scythe!

Found a working one for you. But it shows the afterburners in flight mode so really the relative hitbox differences are even larger

This is a fantastic detail -- could you describe how the number at the bottom is actually being determined? Also, have one with the Dervish views?

Check.