Hard Light Productions Forums

Hosted Projects - FS2 Required => Inferno => Topic started by: DeepSpace9er on December 04, 2003, 10:53:08 pm

Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: DeepSpace9er on December 04, 2003, 10:53:08 pm
Been watching this forum for quite some time and not many new threads have been started. Is alot happening and its just underwraps, or has the project come to a temporary slowdown?
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 04, 2003, 11:16:19 pm
Dunno. I really, really need those EA briefing icons though.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: SadisticSid on December 05, 2003, 02:21:06 am
RL.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 05, 2003, 05:26:40 am
Modpack was completed this week except for weapons and was uploaded for testing. I'm waiting on the new weapon prototypes before we can start missions again.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: phreak on December 05, 2003, 08:45:19 am
and a new exe :nervous:
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 08, 2003, 05:45:27 pm
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/inferno/claymore3.jpg)

EAF Claymore Mk III that I'm currently toying with.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: GT-Keravnos on December 09, 2003, 11:31:22 am
OMG!!!!!!!!

:nod:
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 09, 2003, 11:33:25 am
:ick
It looks really screwed up.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 09, 2003, 11:52:28 am
:wtf: in what way?
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: SadisticSid on December 09, 2003, 11:53:37 am
You should know not to listen to him by now Woo. ^_^
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Blaise Russel on December 09, 2003, 11:59:20 am
Looks badass. Advanced superiority fighter? EA does need a superiority fighter...
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 09, 2003, 12:00:09 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
Looks badass. Advanced superiority fighter? EA does need a superiority fighter...


:nod:
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 09, 2003, 12:00:10 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Woomeister
:wtf: in what way?


The textures are messed up and distorted in the front half and something is seriously wrong with the geometry in the nose. I kind of like the way it's heading but it needs more work until it's good for public display. Anyway, this looks like it will be a lot better than the old Claymore II, which was somewhat ungainly.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 09, 2003, 12:02:16 pm
I don't see anything wrong with the front...

The mesh is nearly 500 poly, so it doesn't need anymore detail.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 09, 2003, 12:06:04 pm
Is the perspective view on the top left a top or bottom view? If it's the bottom of the ship, that can explain why it looks so weird.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 09, 2003, 12:09:33 pm
That's the top, you can tell by looking at the lower engine in the other views...
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 09, 2003, 12:10:21 pm
There's no cockpit on there. It's a definite WIP.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Ashrak on December 09, 2003, 12:26:02 pm
it looks great imho ... a different design from FS2 standard (read as OOOOOOLD!!!)
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 09, 2003, 01:05:24 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
There's no cockpit on there. It's a definite WIP.


There is one, and it's not a WIP, it was finnished this morning :p

I only have to add glowpoints and do the interface art.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 09, 2003, 01:13:03 pm
Maybe I'm not seeing the same picture you're seeing.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 09, 2003, 01:21:28 pm
Well I'm not looking at the picture, I'm looking at it in modelview :D
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: DeepSpace9er on December 09, 2003, 02:17:35 pm
Looks greaet woo... except it should be redesignated the Claymore Mk II and the old Mk II redesignated Claymore Mk 1/2. :nod:

EDIT: Actually that looks more like 3 distinct models... if so, I like the upper right one best.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: StratComm on December 09, 2003, 04:42:54 pm
The model's awesome, I just am a little concerned about the cockpit.  It looks, well, somewhat amiss.  Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to not have the cockpit go to the clear-cut extents of the cabin as this one appears to; it should be a little above and behind the tip of the nose.  Especially with the way Freespace AI flys, you'd have shattered cockpits left and right the way it is now.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 10, 2003, 08:26:06 am
Claymore Mark IV:
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/inferno/claymore4final.jpg)

Though we might use it as a replacement for the Mk II
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Gloriano on December 10, 2003, 10:14:32 am
me,likes:) :yes:
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Culando on December 10, 2003, 11:41:25 am
Aah, very cool. I hope you've got better gunpoints on these though and make them less unweildly. The Claymore is so meanuverable that it's hard to fly, and with all it's gunpoints all in one spot, it makes firing on small speedy targets difficult. And the Claymore MK2, you can barely hit the broad side of a Fenris sometimes. =P
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 10, 2003, 11:45:13 am
The new ones shoud be easier to hit things with as the guns are closer together, though the Mk I remains unchanged.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: mr.WHO on December 10, 2003, 11:52:31 am
MORE EA SHIPS MORE MORE MORE
EA needs a advance Destroyer like GTD Oberon , EAD Lindos is greate but it have a very thin armour when it figth with ancient or shivans
woomeister you are greate :D
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 10, 2003, 11:55:47 am
The only new EA capship is the Raiden. Now the EA need an Arcadia style station :nod:
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 10, 2003, 12:08:55 pm
I was going to use TrashMan's civilian station but it's too small.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: mr.WHO on December 10, 2003, 12:09:39 pm
And what about civilian ships like heavy freigther , AWACS, science cruiser?

in R1 there is a ancient ship AS Kamilari but when it put it in a mission with friendly ancients figthers and they call a rearm ship  game crash about 2 seconds later.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: SadisticSid on December 10, 2003, 12:47:42 pm
The Mark 1 Claymore was actually highly superior to the performance of the (now dropped) Vesuvius. We just limited how good it was by stripping it of its Trident missiles. :)

Light fighters (Mihos T, Mihos V, Acacia, Daedalus, Claymore Mk 1, Scorpion, Ashtur, etc) will have performance specs which will make them very difficult to hit in close combat. Players who prefer less touchy fighters will prefer flying a medium or heavy assault fighter, where you need to have something in your sights for less time to kill it. ;)
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 10, 2003, 12:51:09 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mr.WHO
And what about civilian ships like heavy freigther , AWACS, science cruiser?

(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/inferno/EAScience2.jpg)
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 10, 2003, 12:58:49 pm
That thing would make a good Q-ship, especially with that big opening in the front which I guess is for research pods. Just gut the interior of the ship and put in some beam cannons and you'll have a pretty dangerous but fragile warship.

GTC Whatever: "Command, this is the GTC Whatever. We've got a science cruiser approaching on an attack vector. What is it doing?"
"Science cruisers": *fires a BSilv beam from the opening in its bow*
GTC Whatever: "That's no sci---" *BOOM*
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 10, 2003, 01:02:41 pm
Nah only the Setekh gets beam cannons :D
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 10, 2003, 01:07:43 pm
No, I'm talking about modified science cruisers used as Q-ships. The regular ones wouldn't get beams.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Knight Templar on December 10, 2003, 05:33:26 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Woomeister
Claymore Mark IV:
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/inferno/claymore4final.jpg)

Though we might use it as a replacement for the Mk II


eww...you reversed the engine pods..

Woolie: Q-ship?
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: StratComm on December 10, 2003, 05:41:53 pm
You had to ask...

Best I can tell he means a standard (usually unarmed or poorly armed) vessel fitted with one powerful cannon.  I don't know where the term Q-ship comes from, but this isn't the only thread talking about it.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 10, 2003, 06:12:26 pm
A Q-ship refers to a merchant or other civilian ships that have been fitted with powerful, concealed weaponry. It looks like any other freighter--until it opens fire. Q-ships were widely used during World War I.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: StratComm on December 10, 2003, 07:12:39 pm
Ah yes, I do remember those, although the Q-ship designation is a bit misleading if not completely unrelated to the ship.  Those were freighters armed with deck guns or something that were used to bait and sink submarines.  They are only effective for so long before your enemy starts just blasting everything that could pose a threat, whether it in fact does or not.  And it would not work on the Shivans.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 10, 2003, 07:27:06 pm
It would work on the GTVA.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Knight Templar on December 10, 2003, 09:36:18 pm
... But it'd be stupid either way, because sooner or later, they'd just start killing everything indiscriminantly.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 10, 2003, 09:43:50 pm
Not unless they want to destroy parts of their constitution. BETAC is the cornerstone of the GTVA. That's like the US saying "since these guerrillas in Iraq are disguised as civilians, why not shoot everyone indiscriminately?"
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Knight Templar on December 11, 2003, 12:24:01 am
IIRC there were plenty of instances of that in the Korean and Vietnam wars, no?
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 11, 2003, 05:28:56 am
Quote
Originally posted by Knight Templar


eww...you reversed the engine pods..  


No I replaced the engine pods...
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: mr.WHO on December 11, 2003, 07:32:45 am
What file I need to have that engine trials?
can you post me a link?
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Deathstorm V2 on December 11, 2003, 07:47:19 am
On that note, isn't that science ship using an afterburner engine glow?  Is it just the texture, or is it actually using a burner?  I didn't think that worked for capships...
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 11, 2003, 08:22:59 am
All EA stuff is green so I changed around the glows.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 11, 2003, 09:35:16 am
Quote
Originally posted by Knight Templar
IIRC there were plenty of instances of that in the Korean and Vietnam wars, no?


That was Vietnam. This is now.

Ever heard of war crimes? The guy who led the My Lai massacre was charged and convicted of war crimes.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 11, 2003, 09:41:05 am
Could you put up a picture of the Terran Mihos and the Ashtur?
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Knight Templar on December 11, 2003, 08:54:38 pm
Ever heard of Governments not really caring because they are losing x amount of soldiers/money per day?

Or editing instead of double posting like a tard' all the time?
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: neo_hermes on December 12, 2003, 12:38:15 am
:yes:
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 12, 2003, 10:32:34 am
To commit such war crimes, the GTVA would have to rip apart BETAC. You don't understand. YOU JUST CAN'T KILL PEOPLE INDISCRIMINATELY. Hell, we're losing soldiers all the time to guerrilas disguised as civilians in Iraq. WE'RE NOT OPENING FIRE ON CIVILIANS AT RANDOM. In the GTVA, the officers responsible for atrocities like firing on civilian ships would be prosecuted for war crimes. If they didn't prosecute said officers a lot of people would be really pissed off at the GTVA government, and since the GTVA is (or part of it is) a democracy, the citizens would exact vengeance with their votes come election day (it doesn't take a sociologist to figure out that elected officials want to stay in office). The GTVA would care that EA science vessels modified to become warships were attacking their cruisers and convoy but they would be able to do **** all about it except impose a harsher peace treaty after the end of the EA war.

Sure, we shot up civilians during Vietnam. That was partly why the antiwar movement was so strong.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 12, 2003, 11:00:30 am
EA science vessels and freighters are valid targets since they aren't classed as civilian targets. Even if there are civilians operating the ships, you'd be expected to destroy them.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: SadisticSid on December 12, 2003, 04:48:05 pm
Quote
The GTVA would care that EA science vessels modified to become warships were attacking their cruisers and convoy but they would be able to do **** all about it except impose a harsher peace treaty after the end of the EA war.


What a load of rubbish. Civilians who fire on military forces are classified as combatants, and are subject to the same rules of engagement as opposing militaries or militia. And regarding BETAC, who says it still exists? I don't remember anyone mentioning it.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Zarax on December 12, 2003, 04:58:48 pm
EA recognizes BETAC... it's written somewhere in the techroom, just look at the Hippocrates description
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 12, 2003, 05:09:28 pm
Quote
Originally posted by SadisticSid


What a load of rubbish. Civilians who fire on military forces are classified as combatants, and are subject to the same rules of engagement as opposing militaries or militia. And regarding BETAC, who says it still exists? I don't remember anyone mentioning it.


I was talking about INDISCRIMINATE KILLING. That came from KT's suggestion that they kill everyone because they COULD be combatants. I guess it's just too bad for the family who entered the GTVA ships' crosshairs who was taking a trip to visit relatives in a colony installation orbiting Neptune. The US forces IIRC, AFAIK, never fire upon people unless the target(s) have been identified as combatants or are very likely to be combatants.

That's a lot different from destroying civilian ships on sight because a few days ago some civilian ships fitted with concealed weapons and being used by the EA navy attacked and destroyed a GTVA cruiser.

Also, abolishing BETAC would mean reincorporating the GTVA and creating a new government.

Quote
Originally posted by Zarax
EA recognizes BETAC... it's written somewhere in the techroom, just look at the Hippocrates description


Those are the EA's rules of engagement and are unrelated to BETAC except they might forbid the same thing. BETAC is the GTVA constitution.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Knight Templar on December 12, 2003, 11:02:32 pm
Weapons + Ships = Enemy during war. Civilian or not.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Liberator on December 12, 2003, 11:32:53 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Woolie Wool

Those are the EA's rules of engagement...


Given EA's lack of acknowledgement of the basic humanity of their enemy, one would expect that they wouldn't bat an eye at whackig a few dozen civilians.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Ypoknons on December 13, 2003, 02:52:37 am
You do realize that in the midst of war, individual, soldiers, fleets or even governments can freak out. It's not like the BETAC is anymore than a set of rules - and in war, rules are sometimes forgotten when you're fighting for your lives.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 13, 2003, 05:06:21 am
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator


Given EA's lack of acknowledgement of the basic humanity of their enemy, one would expect that they wouldn't bat an eye at whackig a few dozen civilians.

:wtf:
Just because the EA are the enemy, doesn't mean they are the bad guys ;7
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Deepblue on December 13, 2003, 02:06:10 pm
There is only 1 true claymore (and its frikin awesome)
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 13, 2003, 02:27:45 pm
If you mean the new Claymore Mk I, then yeah. Though the Mk I we use doesn't look as good as these new ones I've made.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Deepblue on December 14, 2003, 10:55:37 pm
I mean THE Claymore. Not mk. 1 not mk. 2 just the Claymore (The one for reci & scroll)
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: SadisticSid on December 15, 2003, 03:10:33 am
The EA doesn't recognise BETAC. They simply exclude Hippocrates class ships from their target lists, as the GTVA isn't stupid enough to use them in combat.

BETAC was a relic of the pre-Capella era that forged the GTVA out of the GTA and PVE. As relations between the two races deteriorated in the years following the destruction of Capella and their agendas became divergent, the role of BETAC in enforcing 'the Vasudans and the Terrans maintaining separate fleets under a single command structure' became incompatible.

Woolie Wool, you seem to have your wires severely crossed. If a 'civilian' ship fires on your forces it is hostile, regardless of how many civilians are on board. I did not say that all ships of that class would be treated as targets, but if said ships engage in hostilities they instantly become them.

Liberator, the EA isn't at war with the GTVA because they consider them inferior or inhuman or anything like that. They simply want to expand their 'empire' and enlarge. :)
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 15, 2003, 03:49:53 am
Quote
Originally posted by SadisticSid
The EA doesn't recognise BETAC.


Well yeah, BETAC gives all power in Terran and Vasudan space to the GTVA. If the EA had recognised it, they would have to instantly surrender Earth to the GTVA government as it is part of Terran space.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 15, 2003, 10:20:04 am
Quote
Originally posted by SadisticSid

Woolie Wool, you seem to have your wires severely crossed. If a 'civilian' ship fires on your forces it is hostile, regardless of how many civilians are on board. I did not say that all ships of that class would be treated as targets, but if said ships engage in hostilities they instantly become them.


KT was talking about killing everyone to make sure that the occasional threat doesn't pop up. If the ship fires on you, destroy it. If it doesn't, leave it alone.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Unknown Target on December 15, 2003, 12:08:12 pm
Please don't tell me it's the old "bad guys are really good guys" story :rolleyes: :p


Quote
Originally posted by Woomeister

:wtf:
Just because the EA are the enemy, doesn't mean they are the bad guys ;7
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 15, 2003, 12:35:51 pm
No, but it still doesn't mean the EA are bad.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 15, 2003, 12:57:25 pm
If YOU had been cooped up in a star system filled with rebellion and strife for decades while being sealed off from the rest of your species, I don't think you would feel too charitable towards an armed fleet that barges into your system either.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Goober5000 on December 15, 2003, 01:02:55 pm
Are the EA bad, though?  Blaise Russel did an interesting take on that. :drevil:
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: phreak on December 15, 2003, 01:11:29 pm
wait until chapter 2 to find out :D
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Goober5000 on December 15, 2003, 02:41:27 pm
How long will that be? ;7
Title: Honest Question...
Post by: Star Dragon on December 15, 2003, 02:43:57 pm
So what's the status of chapter 2 since you mentioned it? ;)
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 15, 2003, 02:51:43 pm
We have chapter 1 to do first...
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: SadisticSid on December 15, 2003, 03:06:57 pm
We have upwards of 200 weapons and ship statistic configurations to do before that, even. :p

Re-chapter 1 will involve at least 7 new missions (the first seven in R1 will be scrapped, certainly) and fewer capital ships per mission. Chapter 2 will follow that, and is already in the works.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Goober5000 on December 15, 2003, 03:35:22 pm
Sheesh. :eek2:

So does that mean missions 1-7 or 1-8 (since there's no mission 5 ;))?

I agree that most of the first half wasn't as good as the second half, except for INF-C1A-07... that was pretty cool. :yes:

EDIT: So you're scrapping the mission with the Het-Ka, as well as the ship itself.  Are you getting rid of the entire Het-Ka subplot?  If so, can you tell us the original plans for it? ;)
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: phreak on December 15, 2003, 03:39:29 pm
i just updated my inf build.  and to dispel and rumo(u)rs, i made bob's shots code work for turrets now. it also ups MAX_WEAPON_TYPES if INF_BUILD is defined.  That is all
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 15, 2003, 03:47:51 pm
There was about a years gap between the design of the first half of the chapter and the 2nd half, that's one of the reasons for the quality difference.

The new Inferno will have:

some new ships, some remade old ones

totally new weapons

new missions

cutscenes

new head anis for messages

a proper mainhall

and probably more stuff I've forgotten
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 15, 2003, 04:17:17 pm
D3D non HT&L
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/inferno/infbuild01.jpg)
OGL non HT&L
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/inferno/infbuild02.jpg)
D3D HT&L
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/inferno/infbuild03.jpg)
OGL HT&L doesn't work.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 15, 2003, 04:53:29 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Goober5000
EDIT: So you're scrapping the mission with the Het-Ka, as well as the ship itself.  Are you getting rid of the entire Het-Ka subplot?  If so, can you tell us the original plans for it? ;)

Yes we are.

The Het-Ka subplot leads into the original plan for INF2. Later you find out they where more than just a bunch of rogue Vasudans.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: phreak on December 15, 2003, 07:09:07 pm
ok we scrapped the vasudan subplot? kinda news to me

That makes the SOC mission i did slightly obsolete.  You can put that in the archives if you want
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Goober5000 on December 16, 2003, 12:47:57 am
Quote
Originally posted by Woomeister
The Het-Ka subplot leads into the original plan for INF2. Later you find out they where more than just a bunch of rogue Vasudans.


So they would be...?

No harm in telling us the original plot if it's no longer being used, is there?
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: neo_hermes on December 16, 2003, 12:51:13 am
meep...
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Triple Ace on December 16, 2003, 09:10:23 am
Finish soon, I'm bored.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: DeepSpace9er on December 16, 2003, 08:53:20 pm
Are you hoping to have this out by, say, March? February? or in July like R1?
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 17, 2003, 09:09:50 am
I want R2 or maybe even 3 by July.
Title: yet another claymore
Post by: Woomeister on December 20, 2003, 07:24:09 pm
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/inferno/3claymores.jpg)
I ripped apart the new MkII and made a new MkI from it. Haven't converted it yet.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 20, 2003, 07:46:50 pm
I don't like it.:ick
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Knight Templar on December 21, 2003, 01:15:41 am
First one: :yes:

Second one: :no:

Third one: :wtf:
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Trivial Psychic on December 21, 2003, 01:41:43 am
I just thought I'd mention this in this thread:

A few weeks ago, a new telescope recently orbited by NASA returned some of its first infrared images, and one shot was of Formalhaut (sp?), which is the newly discovered system the other side of Ross 128 for the Inferno campaign (R1 as it stands right now, if not for R2).  Those images show that Formalhaut is a star with a planetary formation disk around it.  I'm not sure if you had any plans for or have completed any missions for Formalhaut for R2 (R1+R2), but if you haven't, would you plan on including this newly discovered data, by possibly having Formalhaut as a nebulous and asteroid-filled region?  The images also suggest the presence of a planet, but considering what the visual range is in an FS nebula, even using the planet pof would be useless unless you are effectively right on top of the planet, which would be dangerous (as far as the mission goes) and require extremely detailed textures (at least in one section).  Perhaps having some larger, hi-poly asteroids created that are more cap-ship sized would be a cool feature... possibly for even some SW:ESB style persuit!

Later!
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: SadisticSid on December 21, 2003, 09:03:57 am
All three look pretty good! Doesn't really fit the EA 'look' though, however, they're definite improvements on the originals. :)
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 21, 2003, 03:08:23 pm
Gets rid of a lot of maps too :)
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Corsair114 on December 22, 2003, 04:38:42 am
Claymore 1&3 are beauties in that pic, Woo. Not too sure about that remade Mk. II, though. The engine/weapon pods seem too far from the main fuselage. Perhaps if you made them each gulll wings(the top pair wings come up a bit then come back down at an angle, and vice-versa for the lower pair of wings).
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 22, 2003, 05:23:33 am
The guns aren't on those pods, so no more modifications to it should be needed.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Setekh on December 22, 2003, 07:23:03 am
Those Claymore remakes are fine, Woomeister. Love it. :yes:
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 22, 2003, 11:22:24 am
The first of your modified Claymores (the one with two wings) is the only good one, but the delta-shaped winglike projections ahead of the main wings need to be shrunk considerably. The other new Claymores look horrible.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 22, 2003, 01:58:40 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
The other new Claymores look horrible.

Why?
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Goober5000 on December 22, 2003, 02:14:27 pm
I don't really like them either.  I'm not sure why, but I think they look kind of crumpled.  I prefer the crisp look of the originals.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 22, 2003, 04:09:27 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Woomeister

Why?


Just look at them! They're weird and ugly and nothing like a FreeSpace fighter. I miss the old ones.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Knight Templar on December 22, 2003, 07:18:39 pm
Well, they also aren't very EA, at all.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: DeepSpace9er on December 22, 2003, 07:56:45 pm
Id say that the Mk2 should be the Mk1, the Mk 1 be the Mk 2, and leave the Mk 3 as the Mk 3. Other option is to fry the Mk 2 option and make the Mk 3 the Mk 2. I never liked the Mk 2 design anyway.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Mr. Vega on December 22, 2003, 08:53:39 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Woomeister

Why?


Look at Claymore 1, the left wing. Notice the squiggly lines.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 23, 2003, 04:06:09 am
Quote
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Id say that the Mk2 should be the Mk1, the Mk 1 be the Mk 2, and leave the Mk 3 as the Mk 3. Other option is to fry the Mk 2 option and make the Mk 3 the Mk 2. I never liked the Mk 2 design anyway.

The Mk II would make a lousy recon craft since it's too large to be one.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woolie Wool on December 23, 2003, 11:00:46 am
Not if you can kick the enemy ships' asses before they can do any damage.:p

The Claymore 2 may be ugly (both the new one and the old one), but it's one hell of a fighter. It could pretty much own any GTVA fighter bar the Keres, never mind the puny Hercs, Ulysses, and Ursas deployed by the colonial powers in Blaise Russel's campaign.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Knight Templar on December 23, 2003, 12:35:32 pm
IMHO the only thing it suffers from is the wide spread of fire points... I could usually only hit something with half my shots. :blah:
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 23, 2003, 05:27:42 pm
Well none of the new ones should have that problem.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: T-Man on December 27, 2003, 07:30:33 am
The first ship looks good, but the other two are really odd shapes, and don't rally go with the texture.

I agree with Knight Templar, the texture does not look very EA'ish, but i reckon the EA ships could do with a little darkning. All the bright textures made them look to basic, especially when put against ships like the Icleus and warlock.
Title: Havent Seen Much Activity
Post by: Woomeister on December 27, 2003, 01:53:14 pm
Quote
Originally posted by T-Man
I agree with Knight Templar, the texture does not look very EA'ish,

Well all the EA fighters use the exact same texture, only the bombers are different.