Not to steal the spotlight and leave other people ''tied' up

[chuck_starchaser]

That's why, when I first saw it I was convinced it was a space station. I don't think any amount of extra jets could help, because trying to tilt the axis of such large rotating disks would result in huge structural stresses around the axels. But far be it for me to discourage the prcious first attempt at justifying gravity in a ship in VS; I would definitely keep this ship for its stated purpose and simply relinquish maneuverability off axis. The ship as is would have no problem turning to the left or right (yaw), though it might take many hours to pitch or roll by as much as a few degrees, so it just doesn't, unless it does so deliberately and with a plan (in which case it would probably stop the weels rotation, turn, then start them again). And why would it need to pitch or roll anyways, when it relies on turrets and scrambable escort for defense? What it could use a couple of jets for is for linear propulsion up or down, since it cannot easily pitch down, I'd add swiveling engines near the middle part, that's all it needs, IMHO.
(WRT polygon count: I never doubted the benefit of smooth shading. The only reason I suggested more wedgies is that when I was working with my Earth prototype using shaders, smoothing was helping with the surfaces, but I could still see the polygons in the outline. They went away when I increased the number of wedges to 256 and of rings to 128; but I realize this would add a lot of geometry. On the other hand, even at 32K polygons the geometry accounted for far less memory footprint than the textures. Anyways, my comment was not intended as "criticism"; quite the opposite: I was in essence saying "this looks very cool, it deserves more polys.")

[MamiyaOtaru]

Well, i may have gone overboard, i just got quite annoyed when it seemed like everyone could find something wrong with my ship, and most of the posts in that other topic that i read seemed quite fond of it, ( but i haven't checked it lately anyway so i really shouldn't talk, (56K has been very uncorporative on message boards lately) there have been other low-poly ships too that people seemed quite fond of, but i dunno, ignore my angry ramblings...

If it makes you feel better, no one ever criticizes the crayon drawings a five your old tapes to the fridge. You are good enough with your modelling skills to be comfortable with them, and not need any coddling. There seems to be a feeling your ship should actually go in, so people are actually bothering to say what they think could be different. Don't sweat it

[Accu-Accelerated]

The rotating rings remind me of the Discovery from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Bascially, the ship would probably move slowly, staying in the same place/system for quite a while. Maybe they could be scripted to hang out around nebulae and asteroid fields, gas giants, and other phenomena, and small scout craft like Schroedingers and heavy escort ships would guard it. Since it would probably depend on faster cargo shuttles for supplies, these ships would make great trading oppritunities.

There could also be exploration missions that use these ships as a base of command.

[chuck_starchaser]

I don't think it would have to move slowly. As ares would have it could move fast but accelerate slowly. The rings' axels and bushings would put a limit on acceleration, not on speed.
Even turning is ok on the same plane as the rings. The primary limitation would be with pitch and roll. The ship would remain parallel to itself like a gyroscope. If you hold a fast spinning bicycle wheel with both hands from the axle, and then you push with one hand and pull with the other, instead of turning left or right, the wheel surprises you by trying to tilt to the left or right, and if you try to compensate this tendency you might get a wobble. That's the main issue. Solution: When it really needs to pitch or roll, it stops the rotation of the wheels, then pitches or rolls, then starts them turning again. And if the engines are mounted near the middle part, and can turn, the ship can move in any direction regardless of whether it can pitch or roll. IOW it doesn't have to face in the direction it travels, so one might as well not think of it having a front or back, top or bottom.
I think this is a fine ship. More than that: I think it's a model for what many non-combat ships should be like. It has this turning restriction to the plane of the rings, but turning isn't important at all if you rely on turret mounted guns (and escort) for defense.

There's another application I see for this very ship design: Long distance civilian transport, for travelers not used to microgravity.
And certainly for space stations we should have more designs with spinning parts...

[pifactorial]

JackS? Are you there?
All this spinning and accelerating begs a question that's probably been asked a hundred times - if artificial gravity exists, can we also take inertial compensation for granted?
Come to think of it, isn't gyroscopy just a form of intertia?

[chuck_starchaser]

It is, and you're right, the spec drive does something with inertial mass. Note however there's at least a way to mathematically justify the spec engine without violating the laws of conservation: If you somehow reduce the mass of an object traveling at a given speed, its speed would automatically get multiplied in order to conserve momentum. So the spec engine has this this hidden gem of plausibility in it. But if you apply the same principle to a spinning disk, namely reduce its mass, its rotating speed would increase, and you'd therefore get little or no results in terms of gyroscopic effect.
Besides, to see some huge ship with enormous spinning disks turn in any direction would *look* arcadish and ignorant, even if we tried to explain it somehow, IMO.

And if I may ask again, why is it important that the ship be able to pitch and roll? I don't see the need. Most of the ships in VS so far look like fighter jets or racing cars. The only justification for aerodynamics is if the ships are designed for atmospheric flight, and many of them could not dream to accomplish that for various reasons.
Then there are ships that aren't aerodynamic-looking but still have definite fronts and backs. This is fine, IMO, from the point of view that most ships have a single cockpit for a pilot with limited FOV, so it makes sense the pilot would want to move in the direction viewed; but where the logic begins to break down is with guns: Compare the energy and time it takes to turn the whole ship, with the time it takes to turn just a gun, and you'll see most of the guns in VS should be replaced by turrets. And you might say "yeah, but then I have to switch to the turrets to fire" but I'd argue that in the absence of gunners the computer would show you your target on a screen from the most convenient turret's camera, and when you fire it would fire any turrets that can be fired at the target. Computer technology would do so right now, let alone in the 4th millenium.
And this is a lot truer of capships.
The only weapon I'd have mounted in forward aiming would be a long and powerful railgun along the center of the ship: a stand-off weapon you can take your sweet time aiming.
IOW, I see nothing wrong with ares' ship. It can travel at full speed in the up or down directions or in any direction, without having to turn into the direction of travel.

[pifactorial]

IOW, I see nothing wrong with ares' ship. It can travel at full speed in the up or down directions or in any direction, without having to turn into the direction of travel.

But how will you see where you're going ?

[smbarbour]

Even in regards to docking with bases, there is no rule that says that the ship must dock to the base. If the ship is near the base, shuttles can handle the transfer of whatever resources are needed. The only issue would be repairs and such. How would that be handled?

[chuck_starchaser]

@pifactorial: There are a couple of ships in VS already, I believe, that have no windows. You'd use cameras, both for navigation and for targeting. Not necessarily that you wouldn't have windows, but you primarily woud rely on what you see on the screens.

@smbarbour: Not sure what you mean. "Dry dock"? Like I said, when you need to maneuver off axis, you just stop the rotation of the rings, then maneuver any which way. The rotation of the rings is only a means of providing better conditions for the crew during extended exploration trips, I would think. They don't have to rotate at ALL times.

[pifactorial]

@pifactorial: There are a couple of ships in VS already, I believe, that have no windows. You'd use cameras, both for navigation and for targeting. Not necessarily that you wouldn't have windows, but you primarily woud rely on what you see on the screens.

What I meant is, is the use of cameras implemented in the engine, and would it be user-friendly?

[chuck_starchaser]

I suppose it could be and sould be if you could buy a ship that uses them.
Atm none is available to purchase, but that may change, of course.
Same as with space stations. If you could control a space station there would be interfaces to do so.
I'm not sure in VS you can switch to towers, but in Priv Remake you can; and mainly what would need to change from that would be to show the view from a gun turret on one of the screens, rather than full screen, and perhaps have automatic switching between turret views to pick the one best suited to view the bogie you have locked.

[jackS]

JackS? Are you there?
All this spinning and accelerating begs a question that's probably been asked a hundred times - if artificial gravity exists, can we also take inertial compensation for granted?
Come to think of it, isn't gyroscopy just a form of intertia?

An answer in 3 parts - (although I could swear this has been answered before)

Q:Does VS AG->IC?
A: Yes.

Q:Does IC-> we can safely ignore inertial effects?
A: No.

Q: ?
A: IC isn't ship-wide. It's strictly anti-raspberry-jam equipment. It's a developing technology (see related relative propulsion tech of Rlaan vs. Everyone Else). Efficacy&efficiency drop supralinearly with size of region covered. IC, not thrusters, are often the limiting factor in accel rates of manned craft. So, no - I wouldn't say you could take it for granted.

[BradMick]

well, i like the design. but that is probably the most horribly inneficient modeling job i've seen in a long time. you could get the exact same results with half the qauds/tris/whatever. the rings are way to high in polys used, the hull is pretty nasty. (this is strictly speaking geometry wise and not design wise, so don't get offended there. i like the design.)

but yeah, optimize that puppy some and clean up its geometry, and avoid mass smoothing at ALL costs. its meant to be used liberally and in moderation, not on a massive scale. and, when you run it...clean like a mofo.

[Ares]

well, i like the design. but that is probably the most horribly inneficient modeling job i've seen in a long time. you could get the exact same results with half the qauds/tris/whatever. the rings are way to high in polys used, the hull is pretty nasty. (this is strictly speaking geometry wise and not design wise, so don't get offended there. i like the design.)

but yeah, optimize that puppy some and clean up its geometry, and avoid mass smoothing at ALL costs. its meant to be used liberally and in moderation, not on a massive scale. and, when you run it...clean like a mofo.

This mesh is smoothed there captain obvious. wich i ALSO stated in my posts....

[BradMick]

and if you read there, i noted that i know this fact. what i was getting at...you need to optimize and clean that thing. smoothing tends to make your nice pretty geometry look like nine miles of bad road.

if you're going to smooth something, you have to clean it up. yes, its tedious, yes, its not fun, but yes...it is necessary.

also, when modeling, i tend to use smoothing at a (well, this is in LW) level 0 setting on something i need just a slight round on. that way it doesn't add any geometry, but organizes the existing geometry so that it will be nice and round when you turn the surface smoothing in your surfacing options on. thats actually why you can decrease the number of polys in the rings, if you setup your surface smoothing right (not geometry smoothing), you can make a 4 sided cylinder from any angle but the front look like its got 40 bazillion sides to it. i guess the point here would be, optimize, and dont do with geometry what you can do with smoothing. makes for better meshes, and allows you to add cooler detail other than having everything sunk into fairly bad places.

[Ares]

you need to optimize and clean that thing. smoothing tends to make your nice pretty geometry look like nine miles of bad road.

if you're going to smooth something, you have to clean it up. yes, its tedious, yes, its not fun, but yes...it is necessary.

also, when modeling, i tend to use smoothing at a (well, this is in LW) level 0 setting on something i need just a slight round on. that way it doesn't add any geometry, but organizes the existing geometry so that it will be nice and round when you turn the surface smoothing in your surfacing options on. thats actually why you can decrease the number of polys in the rings, if you setup your surface smoothing right (not geometry smoothing), you can make a 4 sided cylinder from any angle but the front look like its got 40 bazillion sides to it. i guess the point here would be, optimize, and dont do with geometry what you can do with smoothing. makes for better meshes, and allows you to add cooler detail other than having everything sunk into fairly bad places.

The mesh is not done, i simply did simple smoothing for the sake of showing 'roughly' what the finished product will look like.
I am not using lightwave, so you really can't criticize me for not using a feature wings 3D does not have. I am aware the mesh needs work alot of it was simple me bridging things i thought would look good together, i know it needs to be cleaned up a little, but even in current form i think it looks pretty decent smoothed.
I know you can 'cheat' to make a surface look much more round using mesh normal projection, i however don't wanna big glaring error when you fly around it or in close, i'm pretty sure a glaring shortcut like that would be obvious if you happen to fly by it close.
Alot of the locations of things are done more due to a lack of usefull space, then to any bad placement, as i tried to put things on it i thought would be usefull in a ship of this type, (the multipurpose laser in front, the launch tubes, the landing bay, and [small] ship storage [above], the rotating habitats, the tubes connecting them, most of wich are designed with a purpose, the sensor pods i was originally going to put nicely between the habitats instead of above, but i decided to move them upwards as that would create LARGE front and rear sensor blindspots.... Need i go on?

My mesh is not incredibly high-poly by current standards, hell, look at the clydesdale wich has 22,900 polygons, compared to mine when i'm done wich won't top 16K. With creativity, i might be able to get it down to 14K.
THat's what? 1/3 less(roughly)? If you can't run MY ship when it comes out, i can't imagine how you could play with a clydesdale on screen. If it's a issue, get a better computer.
(Don't say i'm running some monster either, cuz i have a lowly 2.7ghz celeron with 512ram and a slightly better 3D card. I get 30FPS average. drops to 10FPS are common.)

LASTLY, i don't feel you have a right to call the mesh i'm working with ineffecent, as i have NOT posted a picture of it, you have no refrence to back that up other than the imperfect smoothing, wich if you've ever worked with Wings 3D, you would be aware sometimes has unexpected results.....

[BradMick]

fair enough. and, with regards to the using normal surface projection (smoothing dealy for me)...no, you can't tell. if you do your job right, you can't. only on larger objects does it get a little dicey in that area. to be honest though (and i can speak from experience here) you rarely need more than a 12 sided cylinder, sometimes an 18 (depending on the scale of the object) combined with surface smoothing, and you can't tell, if setup right.

and to answer your question, i can easily call it inneficient by looking at the wireframe you posted. you can tell a lot from a wireframe shot. i don't have to see the model on my screen when i've got a wireframe picture to view.

i'm running a 3.4 gig p4 w/ a gig o' ram, 128mb ddr ati 9800 pro. i can run plenty.

[charlieg]

If you want help skinning this, it seems we have an enthusiastic new skinner:
http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/forum ... php?t=4362