Vulture
Moderator: pyramid
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:35 pm
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Vulture
I've been working on this medium sized vessel when inspiration for the yacht has been low. It's supposed to be a large assault vessel, capital escort or the like.
As it stands now, I frankly don't know if I like it or not - so I'm putting it up for public display and review.
TEXTURES ARE NOT FINAL, AT ALL! I didn't even UV-map it properly. I just needed to get an idea of what it'd look like with textures.
It's basically "do or die" depending on what you lot think (and whether or not it'd fit in... but I'll look into that later).
Comments and suggestions are very welcome!
As it stands now, I frankly don't know if I like it or not - so I'm putting it up for public display and review.
TEXTURES ARE NOT FINAL, AT ALL! I didn't even UV-map it properly. I just needed to get an idea of what it'd look like with textures.
It's basically "do or die" depending on what you lot think (and whether or not it'd fit in... but I'll look into that later).
Comments and suggestions are very welcome!
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:35 pm
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Needless to say I was inspired by naval designs of today...crouton wrote:Very interesting! - it looks very cruiser-ish. I'm guessing the bulbous end is the engine area? Alternately, I can see it as a civilian ship - intrasystem pleasure liner or the like?
The bulbous end is actually the front. It is not obvious from so far away but it is built from a base hull with added heavy shielding (or more like an extra hull) on the entire top and at the bottom front. There's a hollow passage between the main hull and the secondary hull, you can see the trench between them quite clearly in the middle of the front.
The trench is intended to host an array of turrets, and possibly a few large mounts at the front.
You can spot the main thrusters on the top right shot if you look closely. Just slightly behind the turnable thrusters. There are also retro-thrusters in front of the "sensory array tower" on the underside.
-
- Intrepid Venturer
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:25 am
- Location: On the counter by the toaster
- Contact:
-
- Elite
- Posts: 1832
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:21 pm
- Location: State of Denial
- Contact:
-
- Privateer
- Posts: 729
- Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:32 am
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:35 pm
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Whoa! Hadn't seen that one, but they are very much alike, in a certain way. I suspect me and whoever made that ship had the same influences.
OT: Did you try out the turret I sent you? /OT
@Guest:
Luddities could fit IMO, since it does have a rather old/non-futuristic look. However I'm not sure the luddities would posses vessels of that size (It's currently scaled to be about 380 meters long, see the dostoevsky for reference).
@jackS:
I'd appreciate if it was kept in the ~300-600 m range, if possible. I don't really know how to make it look its size if it was made huge.
I'm not the expert on this matter, but what about the Forsaken? With its retro-naval feel I think it could fit them. What do you think?
Regarding engines:
They are there. They are just not huge (as oppossed to my previous creation ). I'd estimate the main thrusters to about 10x15 meters in size. Seems sufficient to me but I could add more thrust if they are desired.
Last edited by tiny paintings on Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- ISO Party Member
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 9:55 pm
- Location: Big, flat Kansas
- Contact:
Um...so sum of moments about center of mass = 0. As long as we're using reaction drives of some sort (and probably even if we're not) this must be true. Otherwise maneuvering becomes a real pain in the @$$.CoffeeBot wrote:...Who says engines need to be in an obvious place?
Anyway, rocks so far.
Conquer space!
-pincushionman
---------------------------------------
Kansas really is flatter than a pancake!
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/pap ... ansas.html
-pincushionman
---------------------------------------
Kansas really is flatter than a pancake!
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/pap ... ansas.html
It looks almost clinical to me with the current texture, as would befit the mechanists. But why the crater?
The luddites wouldn't like vessels of that size (they don't even like Redeemers), but they would realize that they need them, as they do need a weapon against capital ships, and a carrier-class vessel to transport the redeemers. This ship does have a semicircular hole in the front of it, which could serve as a fighter bay. However, a Mule could be a carrier in a pinch, and redeemers could suicide bomb or use nuclear weapons.
Or how about some futuristic version of thermite (which burns at half the temperature of the surface of the sun), which would burn a hole through the spacecraft and breach its atmosphere?
But I'm getting off topic. I think the mechanists need a capital ship more.
The Forsaken wouldn't even have their own designs.
The luddites wouldn't like vessels of that size (they don't even like Redeemers), but they would realize that they need them, as they do need a weapon against capital ships, and a carrier-class vessel to transport the redeemers. This ship does have a semicircular hole in the front of it, which could serve as a fighter bay. However, a Mule could be a carrier in a pinch, and redeemers could suicide bomb or use nuclear weapons.
Or how about some futuristic version of thermite (which burns at half the temperature of the surface of the sun), which would burn a hole through the spacecraft and breach its atmosphere?
But I'm getting off topic. I think the mechanists need a capital ship more.
The Forsaken wouldn't even have their own designs.
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:35 pm
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
I was excercising my texturing skills (and they still suck ) and doing battle scars, thus the crater.Guest wrote:It looks almost clinical to me with the current texture, as would befit the mechanists. But why the crater?
The luddites wouldn't like vessels of that size (they don't even like Redeemers), but they would realize that they need them, as they do need a weapon against capital ships, and a carrier-class vessel to transport the redeemers. This ship does have a semicircular hole in the front of it, which could serve as a fighter bay. However, a Mule could be a carrier in a pinch, and redeemers could suicide bomb or use nuclear weapons.
The Forsaken wouldn't even have their own designs.
I agree the luddities wouldn't do their own design - they would probably use existing craft or convert them to fit their purposes.
If you look in the vessels & installations page the Forsaken appears to have their own designs - and even if they don't have their own designs (which I think do they) they would probably have old ships that no one else is still utilizing.
Based on the descriptions of the mechanist interceptors (which I must admit I only skimmed through) I don't think the ship will fit them, but I'll leave that up to jackS.
@pincushionman:
Manuevering wouldn't be hard - the computer would adjust auxillary thrusters as needed to compensate - but it would be wasteful.
The main thrusters are almost aligned with the ships axis at the moment but I'll try to get them into an even better location. I don't know where I'll put the retro-thrusters but I'll look into it.
-
- Intrepid Venturer
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:25 am
- Location: On the counter by the toaster
- Contact:
Sorry, I misworded that. I realize they need to be pointed in the direction the ship needs to go ^_^pincushionman wrote:Um...so sum of moments about center of mass = 0. As long as we're using reaction drives of some sort (and probably even if we're not) this must be true. Otherwise maneuvering becomes a real pain in the @$$.CoffeeBot wrote:...Who says engines need to be in an obvious place?
Anyway, rocks so far.
What I meant to say was, "why do engines always have to be immediately obvious?" Starships have always had blatantly obvious engines. Look at the two most influential Sci-Fi series, star wars and trek. Star Destroyers -- three massive engines. Corellian Corvette (Leia's ship) -- Six or Eight (can't remember) very long engines. Any Federation ship -- Two nacelles.
Why couldn't the engines be concealed, if only by a little plating hiding them from any view other than aft?
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:04 am
- Location: Pomona College
- Contact:
IIRC, the Mon Calamari Cruisers from Star Wars had their engines in grooves on the underside of the ship. In the lower-right image in the first post, it looks like that's what you've done as well.
-
- Developer
- Posts: 1831
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:33 pm
- Contact:
HOORAY FOR SPACE SUBMARINE! Very cool. Please paint a hammer and sickle on it sometime.
seriously, great job!
seriously, great job!
My Moral Code:
- The only sin is to treat people as if they were things.
- Rules were made for people, not the other way around.
- Don't deceive. Real life is complicated enough.
- If all else fails, smash stuff.
- The only sin is to treat people as if they were things.
- Rules were made for people, not the other way around.
- Don't deceive. Real life is complicated enough.
- If all else fails, smash stuff.
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:35 pm
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
I did mess around with placing the sensor array tower in the back but I just didn't get it right.Nózmájner wrote:It looks very nice! Maybe you should add something to the stern, where it is a bit empty. It looks a bit unbalanced. A huge sensor array or turret maybe?
And some detail to the very nose.
Perhaps you like this better:
It'd be nice if I (or you ) could come up with something big and bulky the added rear portion could be - like a removable cargo compartment or such. I guess that will be given more thought after jackS makes up his mind, though.
I'm partial against adding (geometry) detail to the nose, and to the extra hull in general - as it was designed to take massive damage. But I'll keep it in mind. I appreciate the suggestions!
@pifactorial: Yeah, you're right.
@spiritplumber:
Thanks! Hope you like the new picture
Looks like the soviet teamed up with the klk'k, the aera won't stand a chance now! hehe. Maybe I should nickname this ship Red october?
-
- Developer
- Posts: 1831
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:33 pm
- Contact:
Well.... you built the quintessential space sub love the look. Maybe the ISO flagship....
My Moral Code:
- The only sin is to treat people as if they were things.
- Rules were made for people, not the other way around.
- Don't deceive. Real life is complicated enough.
- If all else fails, smash stuff.
- The only sin is to treat people as if they were things.
- Rules were made for people, not the other way around.
- Don't deceive. Real life is complicated enough.
- If all else fails, smash stuff.
-
- Merchant
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:54 am
Name it "Krasny Oktyabr" class
Name it "Krasny Oktyabr" class
of course, give it built in 'steathiness' like the sub in the movie...
of course, give it built in 'steathiness' like the sub in the movie...
OH NO! I have been wacked in the head by a Perfectly Normal Beast!
All mighty Odin, I pray to thy holiness...
Anubus! Nut! Ra!
All mighty Odin, I pray to thy holiness...
Anubus! Nut! Ra!
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 7:16 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
I can actually see here an option for a nice little ad-hoc ship evolution. Here's my basic idea atm....
Type 1:
Start off with a model without the extra hull. Say as a medium power cruiser. This may have suited tectics at the time - faster, not incredibly powerful, but most importantly: CHEAP.
Type 2 (your current design):
Then, after a while, the role of a bombardment or anti-capital ship ship was needed (a half-battleship?). Since they had produced so many of type 1 (due to cheapness), they decided to retrofit a number of them with the extra hull on the top, and then placed a number of heavy batteries on that hull. This would mean that one of these ships could come up underneath another ship and fire away. The attacking ship would be protected on this side by the extra hull plating, and so would have better odds against the defending capital ship which lacked the speed or maneuverability to get around the attacking ship to it's less reinfoced underside. Escorts of some type would protect the underside from bombers and smalled cap ships.
Type 3:
At first this tactic worked, but after a time, escorts became fewer, and/or battles got bigger (i.e. attacks from both sides), and/or weapons/ships were developed to out maneuver type 2. Being heavier than type 1, it was also significantly less maneuverable. In anycase, it was decided that the role of the ship was changing to a full-fledged battleship, defendable from most angles without the need for a fighter screen or smaller escort cap ships. The ship would be designed to muscle its way into the heat of battle and let loose. Type 2 was retrofitted with yet another extra hull, and a couple of batteries on the left and right sides so that ships attacking from beneath could be kept at bay until the ship could be rolled and the full power come to bare. It could maintain the role of type 2, without the achiles heel, whilst at the same time usable as a command ship or similar due to it's defense capabilities and also usable as a spearhead. Of course, the extra weight and power needs would significantly hinder the maneuverability, so inertia would need to be managed very carefully whilst in battle when most of the energy is directed to the batteries.
Thoughts?
Type 1:
Start off with a model without the extra hull. Say as a medium power cruiser. This may have suited tectics at the time - faster, not incredibly powerful, but most importantly: CHEAP.
Type 2 (your current design):
Then, after a while, the role of a bombardment or anti-capital ship ship was needed (a half-battleship?). Since they had produced so many of type 1 (due to cheapness), they decided to retrofit a number of them with the extra hull on the top, and then placed a number of heavy batteries on that hull. This would mean that one of these ships could come up underneath another ship and fire away. The attacking ship would be protected on this side by the extra hull plating, and so would have better odds against the defending capital ship which lacked the speed or maneuverability to get around the attacking ship to it's less reinfoced underside. Escorts of some type would protect the underside from bombers and smalled cap ships.
Type 3:
At first this tactic worked, but after a time, escorts became fewer, and/or battles got bigger (i.e. attacks from both sides), and/or weapons/ships were developed to out maneuver type 2. Being heavier than type 1, it was also significantly less maneuverable. In anycase, it was decided that the role of the ship was changing to a full-fledged battleship, defendable from most angles without the need for a fighter screen or smaller escort cap ships. The ship would be designed to muscle its way into the heat of battle and let loose. Type 2 was retrofitted with yet another extra hull, and a couple of batteries on the left and right sides so that ships attacking from beneath could be kept at bay until the ship could be rolled and the full power come to bare. It could maintain the role of type 2, without the achiles heel, whilst at the same time usable as a command ship or similar due to it's defense capabilities and also usable as a spearhead. Of course, the extra weight and power needs would significantly hinder the maneuverability, so inertia would need to be managed very carefully whilst in battle when most of the energy is directed to the batteries.
Thoughts?
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:35 pm
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
It's a nice idea, Anax.
The question is whether it is worth doing the actual models - will any two types still be seen in use?
Secondly I'm not sure you would retrofit a ship so heavily (i.e. with two new hulls) instead of doing a new design. I can see two of the three types existing, but not really all three.
Third... I don't know if I can do it (good). Such an elaborate line of ships should be designed and sketched out prior to modelling, IMO.
To sum up, I'm not going to make three ships out of this - no way. Two, yes, that's okay.
It could be a retrofitted cargohauler or the like I guess, but no...
The question is whether it is worth doing the actual models - will any two types still be seen in use?
Secondly I'm not sure you would retrofit a ship so heavily (i.e. with two new hulls) instead of doing a new design. I can see two of the three types existing, but not really all three.
Third... I don't know if I can do it (good). Such an elaborate line of ships should be designed and sketched out prior to modelling, IMO.
To sum up, I'm not going to make three ships out of this - no way. Two, yes, that's okay.
It could be a retrofitted cargohauler or the like I guess, but no...
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 7:16 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
Ok, a few ideas here...
Actually, that made me think of a better idea for type 1. In SW, Mon Calimari Cruisers used to be passenger liners that got heavily modified when the S*** hit the fan. You could use the same concept and say that no Type 1's are left - they all got modified.
Or you could stay with the original idea and build type one and say yours is type 3 (it looks bulky enough to say those are two hulls, maybe?)
In anycase, i would say that type 2's would still be around as
a) it takes time to modify
b) may still be usable in large fleets
c) still has particular advantages over the type 3
I guess there's a difference between saying a ship exists and actually showing it at any point in game, particularly old models. Often space combat sequels will give you the optiion of a buch of different craft that were "designed to replace the old <insert craft name here>", but they never actually include the old model. kinda daft if you ask me.
You could also ask - over what period of time has this evolution taken place? if it was over 50 years, then chances are there aren't many, if any, type 1's left.
As for feasibility of heavy modification, i would propose that modifying the previous ship would be cheaper than building and designing a new one, especially for an organisation who lacks the funds to pay builders and designers and maybe cannot risk having permanent shipyards. For the penny pincher and minority group, adding on stuff would make a lot more sense. You could even create the hull and batteries in different places, and attach it quickly either by bring the addon to the ship, or the ship the the addon manufacture point. That said, this would probably not be without inherent issues or risks - maybe there is a risk of overloading the reactor during large barrages? maybe electrical faults are common? Maybe some extra hulls have not been attached as well and have been known to be party torn away during a large inpact? Maybe there are specific weakspots, such as the seam between the hulls, which would not be very strong in comparison with the rest.
Anyway, those are just a bunch of my thoughts. I think it would be interesting to see a few different evolutive designs, especially if inherent weaknesses could be developed into the damage model.
Does VS use multiple damage boxes?
Actually, that made me think of a better idea for type 1. In SW, Mon Calimari Cruisers used to be passenger liners that got heavily modified when the S*** hit the fan. You could use the same concept and say that no Type 1's are left - they all got modified.
Or you could stay with the original idea and build type one and say yours is type 3 (it looks bulky enough to say those are two hulls, maybe?)
In anycase, i would say that type 2's would still be around as
a) it takes time to modify
b) may still be usable in large fleets
c) still has particular advantages over the type 3
I guess there's a difference between saying a ship exists and actually showing it at any point in game, particularly old models. Often space combat sequels will give you the optiion of a buch of different craft that were "designed to replace the old <insert craft name here>", but they never actually include the old model. kinda daft if you ask me.
You could also ask - over what period of time has this evolution taken place? if it was over 50 years, then chances are there aren't many, if any, type 1's left.
As for feasibility of heavy modification, i would propose that modifying the previous ship would be cheaper than building and designing a new one, especially for an organisation who lacks the funds to pay builders and designers and maybe cannot risk having permanent shipyards. For the penny pincher and minority group, adding on stuff would make a lot more sense. You could even create the hull and batteries in different places, and attach it quickly either by bring the addon to the ship, or the ship the the addon manufacture point. That said, this would probably not be without inherent issues or risks - maybe there is a risk of overloading the reactor during large barrages? maybe electrical faults are common? Maybe some extra hulls have not been attached as well and have been known to be party torn away during a large inpact? Maybe there are specific weakspots, such as the seam between the hulls, which would not be very strong in comparison with the rest.
Anyway, those are just a bunch of my thoughts. I think it would be interesting to see a few different evolutive designs, especially if inherent weaknesses could be developed into the damage model.
Does VS use multiple damage boxes?
-
- Minister of Information
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 9:40 pm
- Location: The land of tenure (and diaper changes)