[Dragon]

it makes it more than a lumpy, blocky mass of boxes;

That's my problem with it. A blocky mass of boxes is the quintessential character of the Ursa. I have a feeling that wanted it to be that way, too. The new model just looks too sleek. And it's not only about the pods (though they're the most visible part of this problem), I've found a lot more places which have more intricate shapes than they really need to.

Sherman tank design; which used shared parts, were very modular, and very easy to maintain. Was it thrown together with spare planks and duct tape found behind the designer's house? No, it used welding and metal like any 'special' or non-mass produced tank there was.

The thing here is that, simply put, curves are harder to make than cylinders, which are harder to make than straight pieces. That general rule applies everywhere, unless you're working with plastics (which you can thermally form into arbitrary shapes). The wiki page says, at least, that it was designed towards the end of the Great War, so it would be rushed, what with the future of the human race being at stake. At the very least, it would be designed for rapid manufacturing. Welding plates together at right angles is much easier than warping them into complex shapes. It should not look shoddy, but it should have a no-nonsense, no frills appearance.

Now, it's true that the airframe is the simplest part of making a new aircraft, but it's the only thing you have in FS. You can't show that avionics are off the shelf stuff (or adapted from earlier craft with little modification), or that the use of internal space is inefficient to allow for quicker manufacturing. The looks of the ship have to send the right message. IRL stuff doesn't often look rushed even if it is, but FS stuff has to, because we wouldn't be able to tell otherwise.

[Aesaar]

The thing here is that, simply put, curves are harder to make than cylinders, which are harder to make than straight pieces. That general rule applies everywhere, unless you're working with plastics (which you can thermally form into arbitrary shapes).

You're wrong.  The earlier models of Sherman used a cast hull that was extremely curvy because it was easier and faster to make than a welded one (and the terrible riveted hulls the M3 used).

[-Norbert-]

This might be a little oot, though still somewhat related: Have we ever gotten any bits of backstory about how hulls for fighter-/bomber-size ships are made in FS?

[The Dagger]

Considering that vasudans use their fighters as disposable, I guess producing curved shapes is not difficult. At least for them.
Also, the russian T26 pre-WWII tank, looked like this:

while the T34-85 dessigned in the middle of the war looked like this:

So don't tell me blocky equals mass production or desperate situation, cause if anyone has been in a rush to produce tanks with limited ressources, it was the russians circa 1943.

[FrikgFeek]

Didn't we split this thread into GD already? Also, Dragon, they're not making these things by hand(duh), they're most likely mass-produced in factories by machines which can bend a sheet of metal any way you want them to. Yes, the Ursa is really big, but it's not the actual steel construction of the ship that's limiting production. It's probably the complex fire control and other electrical systems, the engine needed to power something that heavy, etc.

Project Ursa is mentioned in act3-m4, and all that's said is that R&D has almost completed "project Ursa", an attempt to make a new type of bomber specifically designed to take down capital ships.
Nothing is said about when the project started(for all we know might've been a project from the T-V war) in that briefing or the techroom. Saying the Ursa had to be rushed because it was completed towards the end of the game is pure conjecture and there's really no evidence suggesting it was or wasn't rushed.

[Dragon]

No, we didn't. The discussion split was an offtopic debate somewhat related to Ursa, not an attempt to censor the dissenters. This is feedback on the model itself and very much not the same discussion.

You're wrong.  The earlier models of Sherman used a cast hull that was extremely curvy because it was easier and faster to make than a welded one (and the terrible riveted hulls the M3 used).

In a time before robotic assembly lines, yes. Casting was faster back then, when welding had to be done by hand, not with robotic arms. Welding is easier (and cheaper) than bending for machines. FS is not WWII, they're not making this stuff by hand. Mass producing plates and assembling them later is easier than making various single-purpose curved pieces.

guess what dargon

it's still boxy

while actually looking good

checkmate athetits

It's neither, really. It's much sleeker than the original, while not actually looking all that good (detailed=/=pretty, even though detail is generally a good thing to have). The latter is a subjective opinion, but the former is not.

What I am concerned about is that the shape sends the wrong message. The original Ursa looked and handled like a brick. It just seemed perfectly shaped for what it was. This upgrade adds a lot of smooth surfaces, ending up looking much faster and agile, as well as more "refined" than it should.

[Aesaar]

If only vehicle manufacturers knew that they could substantially cut down on their costs by building only straight lines with no curves.  You could have saved car companies so much money.

You need to get it into your head that your notion that curves are hard to produce is nothing but your imagination.  Stamping and casting are really easy ways of producing curved metal plates, and also probably the cheapest ways to make a 3d metal shape.  This was true 70 years ago, and it's still true today.  Robots or no, welding tends to require more metal and more time.  If anything, robots make curves easier to produce.  Stamping is pretty much the easiest and cheapest way to get a metal plate into a desired shape, especially when mass-producing. 

And what The Dagger said.  If making curves was an issue, why would the Vasudans make their cheap, disposable fighters all curvy?

Oh, BTW, if Volition had wanted the Ursa to be cheap and easy to make, why is it that the Freespace Reference Bible says "These ships cost more to make than it takes to buy a small moon."?  Unless you're going to start saying that small moons are really, really cheap in the GTA, seems to me the Ursa isn't meant to be a cheap ship at all.

It also says the Harbinger was designed specifically for the Ursa, and there's nothing to indicate the Harbinger is a new weapon.  Actually "3 salted fission bombs" and "most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations." makes me think it's a dirty bomb designed more for orbital bombardment.  Not terribly necessary against Shivans.

All this points to a design cycle a fair bit longer than the few months the Great War lasted.  It probably started a few years before FS1, and only finished recently.

[Dragon]

Oh, BTW, if Volition had wanted the Ursa to be cheap and easy to make, why is it that the Freespace Reference Bible says "These ships cost more to make than it takes to buy a small moon."?  Unless you're going to start saying that small moons are really, really cheap in the GTA, seems to me the Ursa isn't meant to be a cheap ship at all.

Not cheap, quick to produce. It might cost, the idea is that it's quick to make. The idea with angular shapes is that the hull can consist of many similar pieces, which are then welded into shape. So you can have one line cranking out pieces which can be used multiple times in a single spaceframe, instead of multiple separate lines for each individual piece. Curves make that hard to achieve. And even if curves were cheaper IRL, they don't look like they are. Realism isn't the goal here. The goal here is to make Ursa "send the right message". It doesn't matter if it makes sense after you think about it and do some research later. This is not a realistic game, so what matter is what people "intuitively" think.

Oh, and there are different considerations to designing cars than just manufacturing the body. Aerodynamics and aesthetics bring in much more money than cheaper techniques for making the body would save. Cars are not space bombers, different criteria apply there (indeed, they're very heavy aesthetic features, something Ursa should be completely devoid of).

And what The Dagger said.  If making curves was an issue, why would the Vasudans make their cheap, disposable fighters all curvy?

Because they use different manufacturing techniques (and likely materials, for that matter) than humans. We don't know what their ships are made of, but it doesn't look like metal. Also, again, aesthetics. Vasudan fighters are fast and nimble compared to Terran ones. So they have to look fast, nimble and Vasudan. They do a fairly good job at that, too.

[BirdofPrey]

Why are we even discussing this?

[Phantom Hoover]

Because dragon

[Aesaar]

Oh, BTW, if Volition had wanted the Ursa to be cheap and easy to make, why is it that the Freespace Reference Bible says "These ships cost more to make than it takes to buy a small moon."?  Unless you're going to start saying that small moons are really, really cheap in the GTA, seems to me the Ursa isn't meant to be a cheap ship at all.

Not cheap, quick to produce. It might cost, the idea is that it's quick to make. The idea with angular shapes is that the hull can consist of many similar pieces, which are then welded into shape. So you can have one line cranking out pieces which can be used multiple times in a single spaceframe, instead of multiple separate lines for each individual piece. Curves make that hard to achieve. And even if curves were cheaper IRL, they don't look like they are. Realism isn't the goal here. The goal here is to make Ursa "send the right message". It doesn't matter if it makes sense after you think about it and do some research later. This is not a realistic game, so what matter is what people "intuitively" think.

The Ursa is an expensive, very modern heavy bomber.  Making the Ursa look like a ramshackle mess of boxes produced in the designer's shed does not send the right message.  It makes it look cheap and generally pretty ****ty.  By FS1 standards, that's the exact opposite of what it is.

Believe it or not, some people think "advanced super-heavy bomber" is a more defining feature of the Ursa than "designed at the end of the Great War according to this blurb that isn't even in either of its tech descriptions".

[Axem]

Gentlemen, please keep your discussion focused on your critique of the Ursa, not the people posting in the thread.

[-Norbert-]

@Aesar: I could be wrong, but wasn't it mentioned in one of the FS1 Command Briefs that the Harbinger was originally built as a warhead for planetary assaults (which I interpreted as meaning Orbital Bombardment) and because it was too big to launch by established bombers they had to build the Ursa so they could use it in space too?

If so, the Harbinger did indeed predate the Ursa... unless I'm misremembering here.

[Dragon]

Because dragon

I thought you were on my side this time! Didn't you disagree with the design as well, for the same reasons, even?

The Ursa is an expensive, very modern heavy bomber.  Making the Ursa look like a ramshackle mess of boxes produced in the designer's shed does not send the right message.  It makes it look cheap and generally pretty ****ty.  By FS1 standards, that's the exact opposite of what it is.

Believe it or not, some people think "advanced super-heavy bomber" is a more defining feature of the Ursa than "designed at the end of the Great War according to this blurb that isn't even in either of its tech descriptions".

How many times I have to remind you of this? There's nothing "ramshackle" about being boxy. It is rugged, quick to make and packs a lot of armor, at the expense of maneuverability. It has also been designed and produced in a desperate situation. It is not fast, it is not maneuverable, nor does it have any fancy super high-tech stuff. This thing made tradeoffs to get its firepower. The "super-heavy" part needs to be emphasized here, not the "advanced" part. From the gameplay standpoint, it is the heaviest thing you can fly, and it is as far from a sleek interceptor as possible. It should look like it. That you can't imagine an angular design looking like anything but ramshackle doesn't mean it's impossible to make it something else. Ursa is though, heavy, utilitarian, rugged, slow and inagile. The design should reflect those qualities. That means the "rock tumbler" approach does not work well here (and certainly not something that reduces internal volume of the torpedo pods, the very thing the design should maximize).

I know I opposed bringing in Vasudans into the discussion, but now I remember they do actually have one craft that could be compared here: Oddgrim's Amun. It is the Vasudan Ursa equivalent and shares many of its characteristics. IMO, that one is done perfectly. It still looks like a box, but it's a pretty box. It keeps the original outline in its entirety, with only slight smoothing out to get rid of perfect sharp angles. That's not to say it doesn't have curves, but they follow the lines of the original model and make it look distinctively Vasudan (quite important with that particular model, and even then, it still looks a lot like a Terran ship when untextured).

[castor]

Anyway, Ursa has it's exceptional looks that makes it immediately recognizable even from distance - the design is spiced up with a pinch of wtf.
As long as that aspect is conserved there should be no problems.

[Aesaar]

@Aesar: I could be wrong, but wasn't it mentioned in one of the FS1 Command Briefs that the Harbinger was originally built as a warhead for planetary assaults (which I interpreted as meaning Orbital Bombardment) and because it was too big to launch by established bombers they had to build the Ursa so they could use it in space too?

If so, the Harbinger did indeed predate the Ursa... unless I'm misremembering here.

The FS Reference Bible explicitly says that the Harbinger was designed with the Ursa in mind.  I can't check FS1 briefings because doing so would require me to play FS1 again, and **** that ****.

Anyway, the conclusion I draw from this is that the Ursa is a ship that's been in the pipe for a long time.

How many times I have to remind you of this? There's nothing "ramshackle" about being boxy. It is rugged, quick to make and packs a lot of armor, at the expense of maneuverability. It has also been designed and produced in a desperate situation. It is not fast, it is not maneuverable, nor does it have any fancy super high-tech stuff. This thing made tradeoffs to get its firepower. The "super-heavy" part needs to be emphasized here, not the "advanced" part. From the gameplay standpoint, it is the heaviest thing you can fly, and it is as far from a sleek interceptor as possible. It should look like it. That you can't imagine an angular design looking like anything but ramshackle doesn't mean it's impossible to make it something else. Ursa is though, heavy, utilitarian, rugged, slow and inagile. The design should reflect those qualities. That means the "rock tumbler" approach does not work well here (and certainly not something that reduces internal volume of the torpedo pods, the very thing the design should maximize).

Uh, yeah, it probably does have a fair amount of fancy high-tech stuff compared to the other FS1 bombers.  I still have no idea why you'd think it wouldn't.  It's the GTA's newest, strongest heavy bomber, and you think it'll be packing less advanced systems than a Medusa?  Volition says it costs more than a small moon.  What do you think makes it so expensive?  The paint?

Making the Ursa less boxy and squarish does not make it seem lighter and more agile.  That isn't something tied to how many sharp lines a ship has.  Boxy has nothing to do with rugged, tough, or slow, and you need to look at more military hardware if you think it does.  Especially Soviet tanks.

[Raven2001]

Making the Ursa less boxy and squarish does not make it seem lighter and more agile.

Actually, in this case it does. Those diagonals in the pods *do* make it look more nimble and less resistant.  You may say that as the pods are now, make it look "cooler" or "more beautiful", and that's fair (although I disagree). But you can certainly notice that it looses it's "hulk" feel, with trapezoid pods. The message that comes across in the original is certainly different from this one's.
I know that's not the way physics and\or engineering work in real life, but I can't really take realism into account when it comes to Freespace, since Freespace is everything but realistic. And also keep in mind that I'm making this comment completely detached from any FS lore, too. All I'm talking about is the visual read.

[Dragon]

Pretty much it. The curves and tapering might look "cooler" (though they don't, IMO), but the message it sends does come across as very different from the original.

Making the Ursa less boxy and squarish does not make it seem lighter and more agile.  That isn't something tied to how many sharp lines a ship has.  Boxy has nothing to do with rugged, tough, or slow, and you need to look at more military hardware if you think it does.  Especially Soviet tanks.

Looks like everyone needs to look at more military hardware, then. Sorry, but realism does not apply here. Just because a WWII tank geek would not consider straight, sharp lines though and rugged doesn't mean everyone wouldn't. In fact, I think most people would. Just look at SUV designs, which are meant to evoke similar qualities. They also tend to have curves, but that's because they want to come across as modern as well (actual sharp angles were a staple of the '70s cars and look very outdated today), which you can try to do with Ursa, just with relative moderation. Remember that it's not actually a SUV, so it shouldn't look like the designer was actually trying to make it pretty (even though the actual designer very much did... ).

Ursa never resembled "actual military hardware" of any sort, so things that might have been true about WWII tanks do not apply. And people (aside from you, it'd seem) don't usually compare futuristic space fighters to WWII tanks, either. Space fighters have little to do with cars in universe (about as much as with tanks, really), but out of it, it turns out many things about car design do apply. The model needs to send the right message because in the end, the shape is all you will ever have in game. It should imply things that were explicitly said in fluff.

[Col.Hornet]

Maybe it would be better if Hades makes 2 versions? These missile pods don't look like they are gonna be detailed more so it may be a good thing to make the curvy and rectangular versions. Seems like a simple solution which would satisfy everyone. Of course if Hades doesn't, I will do it ASAP when the model is released.

[Aesaar]

Looks like everyone needs to look at more military hardware, then. Sorry, but realism does not apply here. Just because a WWII tank geek would not consider straight, sharp lines though and rugged doesn't mean everyone wouldn't. In fact, I think most people would. Just look at SUV designs, which are meant to evoke similar qualities. They also tend to have curves, but that's because they want to come across as modern as well (actual sharp angles were a staple of the '70s cars and look very outdated today), which you can try to do with Ursa, just with relative moderation. Remember that it's not actually a SUV, so it shouldn't look like the designer was actually trying to make it pretty (even though the actual designer very much did... ).

Ursa never resembled "actual military hardware" of any sort, so things that might have been true about WWII tanks do not apply. And people (aside from you, it'd seem) don't usually compare futuristic space fighters to WWII tanks, either. Space fighters have little to do with cars in universe (about as much as with tanks, really), but out of it, it turns out many things about car design do apply. The model needs to send the right message because in the end, the shape is all you will ever have in game. It should imply things that were explicitly said in fluff.

Ah, so looking at real life things that actually were bulky, rugged, and tough, like tanks, in an effort to make a ship carry those qualities is somehow a negative and doesn't apply.  Ok, well, that's an... er, interesting opinion, but it explains a great deal about your approach to visual design.

You and I are never going to see eye-to-eye on this, so I'm calling it here.  I no longer have the patience to deal with this ****.

Maybe it would be better if Hades makes 2 versions? These missile pods don't look like they are gonna be detailed more so it may be a good thing to make the curvy and rectangular versions. Seems like a simple solution which would satisfy everyone. Of course if Hades doesn't, I will do it ASAP when the model is released.

I see no reason why Hades should increase his workload taking the model in a direction he doesn't like.  You can do it though.