Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: karajorma on December 06, 2002, 02:11:06 pm
-
Okay. Here's a little carrier I`ve been working on for the last few days. It's about 1km in length (maybe smaller)
The Textures are temporary of course as it fairly obviously needs a better UV map.
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/freespace/images/Charon-Perspectiive.jpg)
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/freespace/images/Charon-Front.jpg)
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/freespace/images/Charon-Side.jpg)
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/freespace/images/Charon-Top.jpg)
It still needs turrets etc but I wanted opinons on the general shape first.
EDIT: BTW what designation would be suitable for a small carrier?
-
Nice, I especially like the long launch deck, kinda reminds me of the Taiidan carrier (no disrespect to your originality:D )
Very sweet, any ideas on armament?
-
Reminds me of the Taiidan carier in Homeworld..but I really, really like this. :D
Excellent shape. The final texturing, if done right, would make it perfect.
-
Originally posted by Alikchi
Reminds me of the Taiidan carier in Homeworld
LOL!
-
*decides to continue the spam*
Wow, reminds me of the Taiidan carrier from Homeworld! :D
*ducks to avoid the admins and runs*
-
The funny thing is I haven`t played Homeworld much so I haven`t seen the taidan carrier but after I had the runway done I spent ages trying to figure out what the ship reminded me of. It took me ages before I noticed the resemblence to the Tiger's Claw from the original Wing Commander.
(http://www.uni-magdeburg.de/kempa/gfx/ray/claw.gif)
So I guess the taiidan carrier was already a copy of something else too. Makes me feel better about people thinking I might be plagerising it :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
EDIT: BTW what designation would be suitable for a small carrier?
I'd make it a Support Carrier.
GTSc *******
I wouldnt go turret crazy on it though. Maybe some forward turrets, few on the side. If you are going to make it a support carrier, keep in mind that its turrets would be almost purly for defense (but it would have 2-3 small anti-cap beams) A support carriers job is to resupply the battle with additional bombers and fighters.
(*isnt that also what the Taiidan carrier did\does in HW\HWC?)
-
I was thinking Light Carrier (GTLC) because although the carrier can be used for the role you suggest in my campaign the carrier will be used more often to deliver fighters to a situation which doesn`t yet warrent the use of a destroyer.
As for the turrets I won`t be putting anything too impresive on it in the way of anti-cap (my original idea was that the ship should be barely able to stand up to a cruiser in a fair fight) but should have decent anti-fighter protection (to prevent the enemy following crippled fighters back to the carrier and taking it out).
-
Never seen the Taiidan carrier before?
(http://dynamic4.gamespy.com/%7Efreespace/hosted/tap/pictures/screen01.jpg)
Well now you have ;) (and yes, TAP. this is YOUR pic)
-
Its a great mesh :nod: , but the texturing could use a little help. There is way too much of the blue Orion texture. You need to add some texture contrast in certain points and clean up the VUMapping.
-
Reminds me of Aldo's Rosmerta. Quite a lot, actually :)
Still, this is how I like my carriers, with uber run ways rather than just bays. Might not be practical in space, but looks 1337 :nod:
-
I like it a lot, but shouldn't it have some sort of Hangerbay at the beggining of the runway? unless you house the fighters on the runway itself.
-
:eek2: Dang. Scary how much that thing looks like the carrier I've been working on at first glance. (the Damocles class.) :)
(http://members.aol.com/huntercomputers/FS2/Damocles.jpg)
No runway on mine, but it has a large hanger with 2 entrances (one shown and one right below it) and the "guideway" booms in front would carry anti-fighter turrets on the tops and bottoms. (To protect returning fighters.) The turret on top would be the biggest turret it has and equipped with the most powerful anti-fighter weapon, compared to it's other turrets. My engines are a bit different (It's got a top engine set and a bottom engine set) and it doesn't have a fin on the bottom. (It does have a groove put in the middle of the bottom that I liked, since it needed something.)
-
First: Nice Carrier!
Second: I personally feel that It should be a GTCa ****** - a standard carrier. To me carriers would be about the size of frigates, with the armaments of cruisers.
Light Cruisers: ~100 < length < 250
Cruisers: ~ 250 < length < 500
Corvettes: ~ 600 < length < 900
Frigates: ~ 900 < length < 1250
Carriers: ~ 900 < length < 1250
Destroyers: ~ 1900 < length < 2500
Super Destroyers: 3000+
But as I said, this is my opinon.
-
Nah, carriers need to be huge, like modern day carriers. Well, U.S ones, anyway.
FS2 carriers should be destroyer sized or a bit bigger, but only armed with defensive weaponry. Booyah!
-
Thats the thing, isn't it? It all depends on which scale and model your looking at.
If we use the US Navy as a model, then yes, Carriers are massive great things, as large (if not larger) than battleships, the centre of any force.
Where as if we look at the Royal Navy, Carriers are much smaller, roughly the size of cruisers (naval cruisers).
-
That's thanks to the uber-sexy Harrier, o' course :cool:
-
Here's a prelininary version of the tech room entry
The Second Great war cause a lot of problems for the GTVA military. After the end of the war the military budget was slashed in an attempt to prevent economic disaster caused byt the devestation of Capella and the effects of the NTF Rebellion. They could no longer afford to build the numbers of destroyers required. Instead the GTVA came up with the idea of replacing them with small carriers capable of carrying 50 or 60 fighters to any small trouble spots and thereby freeing up the few remaining destroyers for real problems.
So as you can see these carriers are more like the Royal Navy ones than the American kind. I suppose I could get away with just calling it a GTCa but somehow I also feel that carriers should be huge things too (at least in FS2) since destroyers can carry far more fighters than my little carrier can. So it needs some sort of designation to denote that it is smaller than a standard carrier would be (even though the GTVA has none at the moment) :)
-
cool...has that ugly-heavy-industrial style to it. Me likes...
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
I like it a lot, but shouldn't it have some sort of Hangerbay at the beggining of the runway? unless you house the fighters on the runway itself.
Actually that brings me round to a gap in my truespace knowledge. Just exactly how do you make a fighter bay and still manage to leave a face at the front that you can paint with the invisible texture?
I just can`t figure out how to do it. I can`t simply extrude into the ship as that doesn`t leave me with a face I can paint just an open hole which ships can fly into (which isn`t the effect I want on this particular ship).
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
That's thanks to the uber-sexy Harrier, o' course :cool:
Ahem, SEA Harriers. :p but yes, I prefer the idea of carriers being smaller - mainly because large carriers are like giant target-signs for bombers!
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Actually that brings me round to a gap in my truespace knowledge. Just exactly how do you make a fighter bay and still manage to leave a face at the front that you can paint with the invisible texture?
I just can`t figure out how to do it. I can`t simply extrude into the ship as that doesn`t leave me with a face I can paint just an open hole which ships can fly into (which isn`t the effect I want on this particular ship).
just create a plane, and move it till its in the right spot, and then glue as sibling to the carrier
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Actually that brings me round to a gap in my truespace knowledge. Just exactly how do you make a fighter bay and still manage to leave a face at the front that you can paint with the invisible texture?
I just can`t figure out how to do it. I can`t simply extrude into the ship as that doesn`t leave me with a face I can paint just an open hole which ships can fly into (which isn`t the effect I want on this particular ship).
FYI, you don't have to block the hanger off at all. (And I wouldn't.)
-
I know I don`t have to but I want to :)
Some ships look good with flythrough hangers but I don`t particularly want them on this one.
Originally posted by Analazon
just create a plane, and move it till its in the right spot, and then glue as sibling to the carrier
I never thought of that :) I spent ages looking at the orion in Truespace and was still none the wiser about how they did it :)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
BTW what designation would be suitable for a small carrier?
I agree that it needs some kind of special name. Give it a dangerous-sounding prefix. Call it a "Strike Carrier" or an "Attack Carrier" - the smallness will come to be accepted as part of the designation.
-
To determine what type of carrier it should be, I would consider what kind of job you expect it to do. Consider these US Navy WW2 era standards:
Fleet Carriers were the largest carriers that served as the flagships of entire carrier battlegroups or fleets. They carried a large number of craft allowing them to fill almost any role. Most of today's carriers fit this catagory.
Light Carriers were basically the same thing but much smaller, cheaper, and easier to produce. In the sudden naval buildup of WW2, it was easier for the US to field 3 of these carriers than one Fleet Carrier.
Strike Carriers were medium sized carriers designed to carry naval attack and bombing craft almost exclusively. They were assigned the task of destroying enemy shipping, important land targets, and supporting ground troops in the US' island hopping campaigns. They carried few dedicated fighter craft.
Attack Carriers were a smaller very fast type of carrier designed to get into and out of operational areas quickly and hopefully before enemy forces could respond. They acted very much like small, fast Strike Carriers.
Escort Carriers were numerous in US Naval campaigns and carried fightercraft exclusively. They were built on fast Attack Carrier hulls and their sole purpose was to defend other warships and convoys from air attack.
Consider these and you may find your answer.
As for a class name, what about Midway or Essex?
-
Thanks for the post Eviscerator. Based on the info you gave Attack/Light Carrier sounds most like the design purpose of this ship so I think I`ll go with Attack cause it sounds better :)
As for names I`m probably going to stick to the classics and call it the Charon considering the original was also a ferryman :)
-
Good work !
I like to see functionality on space ships, and this one definitely has it.
It's not a bad idea to keep fighters on the open runway at all.
Only the ones under repair should be moved into the hangar by lift.
What about putting some decoy fighters of simple shape on the runway ?
I mean by extruding for example.
I was thinking on it myself, cos it would make a carrier more realistic.
Just to increase the poly count. :D
-
Nice work! What kind of armament is she expected to carry?:D
-
Originally posted by Grunt
Good work !
I like to see functionality on space ships, and this one definitely has it.
It's not a bad idea to keep fighters on the open runway at all.
Only the ones under repair should be moved into the hangar by lift.
What about putting some decoy fighters of simple shape on the runway ?
I mean by extruding for example.
I was thinking on it myself, cos it would make a carrier more realistic.
Just to increase the poly count. :D
If a fighter was sitting on an external runway, you'd have to wear a full space suit to get into it (unless it was docked to the cockpit somehow) and it would be vulnerable to enemy fire even while not in use.
-
i'm not sure keeping the fighters would be good in space, granted, the piolts seem to wear space suits, but wouldn't it be safer (from meteors and the like) to keep the fighters in a bay, as well as more convienient
-
I`ve built a fighter bay on the ship now. As for armament I`m thinking a couple of small anti-cap weapons but a bit more in the way of anti-fighter defenses especially on the top side of the craft protecting the runway and fighter bay.
-
Originally posted by Av0uu
...the piolts seem to wear space suits...
What? The pilots don't wear space suits, you monkey - they're flight suits. Modern day fast jet pilots wear something similar, it helps the body cope with high-G manouvers.
There is no way in hell that fighters would be kept out on the hull of the ship. How would the ground crews and loaders get to them? Don't tell me they'd all be in space suits.
I can't believe I'm even having this disucussion. Keeping fighters out on the 'runway' is officially the daftest thing I've heard all week...
-
Gee, they look like hard-shell EVA suits to me. Which would make sense. Even though they never encoded "ejecting" into the game, would you really expect your pilots to go into combat with no way to get out a wounded bird?
I sure as heck would'nt.
Would seem to require some kinda EVA suit so they can survive long enough for pick-up.
-
Dude, if you eject from an exploding space craft, a space suit is not going to protect you from the ship blowing up or the guy that killed you comming around to finish you off. And if you hada rocket blast you clear of the explosion? Then you'd just be shot off in to space.
Solution? Don't get hit :)
-
The Geeza' has a point. Ejecting without escape pods never made much sense to me in Space sims.. the nearest explosion would nuke you alive or some small piece of shrap would punture your suit and you would implode/freeze.
Besides.. thinki of how many times command would have to make recovery missions each time Alpha wing went into battle. :)
-
Personally i think flak is the best way to go when arming the carrier (perhaps a anti-fighter beam or two). I just like the daunting effect of attacking ships with flack booming around the bombers as they make their run:D Not too much tho...bad memories of a mission with too much flak wing dissapeared too fast, lost all balance in mission...
-
I prefer the idea of carriers being smaller - mainly because large carriers are like giant target-signs for bombers!
I always imagined that a FS carrier would be kept back from acually being in the main battle, ie the fighters would launch from the carrier and 'warp' to the battle area. The carrier would then remai within friendly space. After a battle the fighters would then warp back to the carrier.
As to armament I would personally avoid having anti-capship weapons and ahve only anti-fighter weapons (although some of these could be used against capships). My reasoning for this is that the ship is designed for carrying fighters - not battle. After all see's going to be presumably cheaper to build than an destroyer yet carry the same (or more) fighters therefore I could see the GTA/GTVA/whatever skimping on the hull armor.
Dude, if you eject from an exploding space craft, a space suit is not going to protect you from the ship blowing up or the guy that killed you comming around to finish you off
But it would increase your chances of survival - after all using an ejector seat in a modern day fighter doesn't automatically mean you'll survive. On the other hand, not all military fighter/bomber craft have ejector seats, many combat helicopters don't for instance.
-
Oh, suit your self (no pun intended), if you really think it'd increase your survival chances by more than a fraction of 1%...
-
Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
I always imagined that a FS carrier would be kept back from acually being in the main battle, ie the fighters would launch from the carrier and 'warp' to the battle area. The carrier would then remai within friendly space. After a battle the fighters would then warp back to the carrier.
As to armament I would personally avoid having anti-capship weapons and ahve only anti-fighter weapons (although some of these could be used against capships). My reasoning for this is that the ship is designed for carrying fighters - not battle. After all see's going to be presumably cheaper to build than an destroyer yet carry the same (or more) fighters therefore I could see the GTA/GTVA/whatever skimping on the hull armor.
I`m giving it a couple of SGreens or LTerslashes just in case it gets jumped but I agree wholeheartedly about it not being sent into battle. I`ll probably balance it to just lose a fight with an aeolus regardless of how much bigger it is :)
-
I do not insist on defending this idea at all but ...:D
1) Keeping fighters outdoor and having only a limited hangar space would make the ships cheaper, just as it does today.
2) Vulnerability to enemy fighters would not be worse than it is today (most aircrafts are outside on carriers).
3) Leaving the damaged ship before explosion does make just as much sense as it does today. Even in battle you simply have more chance to survive.
3) Going out into space to meet rockets without a suitable suit is absolute crazy. You have only a thin layer of transparent plastic or whatever around your head. A piece of metal hits the cockpit and your body freezes and explodes in the same time (cca. zero pressure outside). No time to close the helmet. :)
Other than that I would prefer to serve on a Hecate. :D
-
Originally posted by Grunt
I do not insist on defending this idea at all but ...:D
1) Keeping fighters outdoor and having only a limited hangar space would make the ships cheaper, just as it does today.
2) Vulnerability to enemy fighters would not be worse than it is today (most aircrafts are outside on carriers).
1. I disagree. Space is not the atmosphere of a planet. You can't survive in space without a space suit, and space suits have limited abilities.
2. Again, this is space not atmosphere. The space shuttle doesn't carry it's cargo on the exterior of the hull, it's hidden in an internal cargobay. If fighters were stored outside, the first thing enemy fighters/bombers/etc. would do is try to destroy all those fighters, before they launch. And an unoccupied fighter would not be much of a target. (Attacking planes sitting on the ground around a military airport is a standard tactic you know. It would be harder to do if those planes were stored in a protected hangar at the end of the runway.) Not to mention the fact that the fighters would have routine maintence done on them after every single game mission. (After all, how often does hull damage carry over from one mission to another when they are not red alert missions?) Would you want to be standing on the outside of a carrier, in the middle of battle, preparing a reinforcement ship for launch with only a space suit between you and death? One bit of stray fire and you'd be less one crewman. The pilots would also be very vulnerable when they tried to get into their ships. It's not exactly easy to run in space and space suits are notoriously clumsy to work in. Hangars are contained areas that are used for launching ships. The ships might not even be stored in the hangar itself, but in a room off of it that can be pressurized. (Since the hangars on FS2 ships don't have doors.)
-
Originally posted by EdrickV
The ships might not even be stored in the hangar itself, but in a room off of it that can be pressurized. (Since the hangars on FS2 ships don't have doors.)
Certain Star Wars ships don't either. It's done by some electro-something-or-other. So :ha: :p
-
Mag shields... good point.
Oh, and I was not thinking of "ejection seat", I was thinking of "ejection pod", whereas the entire cockpit becomes a lifeboat of sorts, the EVA suit being the back-up of this system. :nod:
Consider for a moment the immense amount of time and investment needed to train a competant pilot. Surely the powers that be would not send them out without some sort of escape system. In a war of attrition, craft are relatively easy to replace, trained crew is... well, not.
Consider the air war over Europe in WW2. The Luftwaffe did not lose due to lack of birds. They still had plenty. However, they had few pilots to fly them. All other pilots were lost in combat.
-
Originally posted by Eviscerator
Oh, and I was not thinking of "ejection seat", I was thinking of "ejection pod", whereas the entire cockpit becomes a lifeboat of sorts...
Can you say SA-43 Hammerhead?
If people are going to insist on some sort of ejection system, then a S:AAB-style cockpit-jettison affair is the choice of the professional. But note that the guys in S:AAB didn't wear full pressure suits. For one thing, you can barely move whilst wearing one.
-
Originally posted by Eviscerator
Consider for a moment the immense amount of time and investment needed to train a competant pilot. Surely the powers that be would not send them out without some sort of escape system. In a war of attrition, craft are relatively easy to replace, trained crew is... well, not.
:lol: Good one, Visc. I almost believed you. Then I played through Silent Threat...
Competent pilots... *snicker*
-
:lol: You certainly have a point there. The term "competant" most certainly cannot be applied to any AI pilot in any FS game.
I would concede, but that isn't the point.
BTW, I would not see an EVA suit actually pressurizing unless the life pod was breached, so your point is pretty much moot DG. :wink:
-
But note that the guys in S:AAB didn't wear full pressure suits. For one thing, you can barely move whilst wearing one.
That's true for modern day EVA suits - but in two hundred years time whos to say that we wouldn't have EVA suits which are as flexable as normal day clothing?
By the way, would BETAC prohibit the shooting of ejected fighter lifeboats if they existed? Probaly not since BETAC prohibits the destruction of capital ship lifepods but who knows.
-
I think it would most certainly prohibit it, just as the Geneva Convention and Laws of War do now, but the NTF don't recognize BETAC and you can bet the Shivans don't even know what BETAC is.
-
Originally posted by Eviscerator
BTW, I would not see an EVA suit actually pressurizing unless the life pod was breached, so your point is pretty much moot DG. :wink:
*pokes Evis in the eye with a rusty fork*
-
...getting back the Karo's Carrier, the fighter beams are a good way to go, I mean it's a carrier... being a logistical command hub, providing air support and a mobile base of operations is what they do. You thought about using missiles to a larger extent (compared to other FS cap-ships)? You know several hardpoints like making it a mofo to try sortie against in fighters?
That leads to another Q, can you arm capships with torpedoes to use in capship combat or will the ships just target fighters?
-
Yes, torpedo weapons do target capships. There is a cruiser torpedo mod out there somewhere (basically a modified cyclops) that should give you a good idea about the usefulness of such weapons.
-
I like Kazan's Exocets missiles. Cool looking .pof and range of 15KM... :yes:
-
One point, modern carriers are escorted by effective fleet defence which means your unlikely to have missiles or planes coming close enough to shoot at the carrier let alone the planes on deck.
In FS the high survivability of fighters negates this so your better off keeping the fighters inside.
-
Carrier look's good.
I like!:nod: :yes: