Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: TrashMan on February 21, 2004, 01:47:55 pm
-
Galactic Terran Strike Carrier Lancer is back!
gevatter_lars original mesh had many intersection and other flaws which I couldn't fix, so I sat and made a whole new ship from scratch!
(http://www.swooh.com/peon/Trashman/Pics/Lancer1.JPG) The Old lancer and the new version
(http://www.swooh.com/peon/Trashman/Pics/Lancer2.JPG) The new Lancer...
-
Uh.. well.. they look the same. Good job to you. :yes:
So I guess this thread will have to be reserved , yet again, for making fun of your taste in music.
-
ship is to flat. As basic model is good:yes:
-
I will take any suggestions you might have before I covert it and post it...
The reason I kept the same basic shape (there are difference...lot's of them...) is that I can easily stick the turrets on it from a previous model and import PCS data...
Naturally, there are plenty areas in which I can still change stuff.
The basic idea of this SOC Carrier is to move quicky and strike fast and hard.. It alone can take on a destroyer (alltough it's 1.5km long)..
-
What do you mean with flat...its build out of lego and was one of my very first models ^_^
Well surly not the very best design I have ever made....I wonder that someone still got it and is working on it.
For the rework...it looks still the same..thats good and bad...maybe it could need some details and stuff.
But since I have more then enough real work to do, don't ask me to do that..hope you understand that.
Beside that...you placed windows in the front nose-parts....I have though of them as some kind of Animelike overbeamcannons...well that was when I was younger...now I would give them more details ^_^
-
Add a Vorlon like bridge on it.
-
It allready has a bridge...and you can fly under it...re-live the SW Death Star flying_trough_trench experence...
I did use your basic model...but it's more detailed and smoother on some parts...still not done..that's why I'm posting this..
To tell the truth, I allso tought of putting cannons there, but they would be too much restricted... Don't worry, I destributed the firepower very good...
Against a Hecate they usualy end up destroying eachother...:D
Adn..what does a Vorlon Bridge look like?
EDIT: I allso made a higher poly version of the Paladin and gave it to the Freelancer modders. ...2142 polys (no turrets) so far...Once I texture it I'll post.
-
What do you mean with ristricted...when this ship comes out from far away it just points it cannons in the right direction an boom ^_^
Something like:
"What is our target Sir?"
"What do you mean with target...just fire in the direction of the enemy"
-
Lar's is suffering from Macross cannon/Wave Motion syndrome. The urge to arm a ship with an uber beam weapon capable of disintergrating whole fleets that happen to be in its way...
Here here! Bring on the pain... ;7
"SDF-1 Destroy that Borg cube!"
http://photo.starblvd.net/Star_Dragon/3-4-3-1035083320?m=0&pg=2&ro=3&co=2
"Good news sir, we just nicked the edge but becuase of our uber damage it was enough to destroy it first time!"
http://photo.starblvd.net/Star_Dragon/3-3-4-1068922199?m=0&pg=2&ro=2&co=3
"Sir multiple trans-warp signatures forming, orders?"
"Fire Ludicrous Beams, Fire Ridiculous Beams, Hell Fire PLAID Beams, FiRE ALL BEAMS!" :lol:
Didn't someone make a plaid beam already???
Anyway I remember the Lancer.. It was the first cap ship I ever converted thanks to Lar's model dump. Remember the horrible textures I slapped on it (it could only take 3 at that time) It looked like the bridge had eyes and it was string at you! :lol: Very disturbing...
-
Restricted...as In.. it can't fire up or down, only forward and a little to the left and right..
And StarDragon...I just remebered that SDF-1 I have...I'll patch it up and send it to you...See if you can make use of it..
B.t.w. - want the normal, or the transformed version?
-
How about rows and rows of turrets and missile launchers and call it an "artillery" cruiser, or a "missileer" I always thought that was missing from FS. A dedicated standoff platform, throwing big huge missiles from afar. That is what this ship is telling me
;)
-
ARe you kidding? BOTH of course...
I'm still planning on making a mission where you see the SDF-1 trash Boldoza's base! From the inside! I got some ideas.. Right now I'm messing with something and won't say public yet. Remember the shots I posted last year of being inside the SDF-1 fighting a squad of zentreadi? Kinda like that...
-
I allready have a Missile Frgate (the Excalibur...which reminds me...as long as I'm at it..I might as well re-do it allso..)
I'll see what can be done..
NOTE: I will NOT texture the SDF-1, and I will not over-do it with details..
-
Yes I have these kind of Macross overpowerd beam syndrom ^_^
Well lets so what kind of details you will add to the model, cause it needs some.
The Idea of having a missile cruiser thing is quite old..made my very first model a missile corvette/cruiser whatever was smaller in FS..mix the sizes allways up with Wing Commander.
Here a pic of the very very old moving missile-luncher-ship
(http://www.scifi-3d.de/wcsaga/Lars/Garag.jpg)
you can clearly see the missiletubes at the side.
and speaking about beams....
(http://www.scifi-3d.de/wcsaga/Lars/MinoFIRE.jpg)
-
Interesting. There's only one problem.
In game, GTSC means Galactic Terran Science Crusier. That's one hell of a science ship.
-
Wasn't Voyager a "Science Ship"?
Doesn't matter what universe. Some science ships are destined to KICK ASS!
"We are the GTVA, your Techlnological and Biological distinctiveness will be catalogued and exploited by our scientists or we will sick our Uber-Science Ships(R) (TM) on you!"
*Uber-Science Ships is a trademark of GTVA. Go ahead, PISS US OFF and USE IT!*
:lol:
-
I agree that it's quite flat, but I still quite like it. Got some pretty nice lines; I think the texture job is good, but it could do with some more variation, like making some side lines or panels highlighted, or something to that effect around the mesh. Well done. :):yes:
-
pretty neat model, perhaps a few more "towers" (like flight control towers) to give it a more "interesting" look.
but even if you won't do that, it's pretty neat already
-
Originally posted by GT-Keravnos
How about rows and rows of turrets and missile launchers and call it an "artillery" cruiser, or a "missileer" I always thought that was missing from FS. A dedicated standoff platform, throwing big huge missiles from afar. That is what this ship is telling me
;)
Um.... I did one of those ages ago
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/reciprocity/images/dl/njord.jpg) (http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/reciprocity/mods_rec.html)
Bobs rather spiffy subspace 'submarine' cruiser (Neptune, i think it was) probably also fits under the description.
;)
-
Ahhh... the beautiful Njord :)
-
Shame about the mapping mistakes, natch. I notice one there in the front, immediately. Although it was only about my 3rd or 4th 3ds max built ship, IIRC.
-
HEAR YE, HEAR YE!!!!!!!
I've been working like crazy, re-doing some of my older ships and making new ones..
Expect at least 6 ships for download within a few days!
- the new Lancer Assault Carrier
- the new Excalibur Missile Frigate
- the new Shrike vasudan heavy fighter
- still unnamed pirate bomber/fighter
- Splendid calss Medium Liner
- still unnamed Pirate Carrier
- new Sizifus calss Super-Freighter
- Eagle calss Dropship
MABY MORE...
-
Just because its flat doesn't mean its ugly. The Narn Cruiser and the Centauri Cruiser from B5 are both flat like pancakes and they both kickass. The Narn ship is the best looking one in the show.
-
Originally posted by c914
[The] ship is too flat.
-
The proper designation for a carrier (of any classification) in FreeSpace is GTCa. I ran in to the same problem with my Phoenix carrier model.
-
Actually, the proper designation for a carrier should be Cv. Ca, or CA means Heavy Cruiser not CArrier. As all 'carriers' in FS are 3rd party additions, I don't believe that there is any 'proper' designation that must neccesarily be followed unless the designer wishes to keep the model inline with existing MODs.
-
How does CA mean Heavy Cruiser? :wtf:
-
Hmmm,..having problems with my Pc....That might postpone my plans a tad...
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
How does CA mean Heavy Cruiser? :wtf:
Well, BB is battleship.. ;) They're quite weird nominations.
-
Actually BB is a simple one. Basically each designation is started with a first letter denoting its class, F for Frigate, D for Destroyer, C for Cruiser, B for Battleship etcetera. And then a second letter follows to further define its role. If the letter repeats itself it means that its just a normal ship. so BB is battleship, CC is cruiser, and DD is destroyer.
But the extensions are stuff like
H for Heavy, L for Light, A for attack, assault , E for escort, G for guided missile etcetera.
So DH is heavy destroyer, CL is light Cruiser, FEG is an escort frigate with guided munitions, CVH is a heavy carrier, etcetera. Looking at my reference it seems that CA is infact Attack Cruiser, but in my experience CA usually means Heavy Cruiser as I don't recall ever seeing a CH. There's also a few exceptions to the rule like:
DN - Dreadnought
BC - Battlecruiser (under normal schemes BC would be a mean a cargo-carrying Battleship)
If you check out this page: http://www.datasync.com/~mtg02/ you can find all of the ship designation crap. On the left hand bar go to "Procedures" (second from the bottom) and then in the frame click on "Ship Designations"
Note - if the guy really wants "strike carrier" the proper designation would be CVA it seems. Though if I were him I'd just do CV as from experience, 'strike' always seems silly. If he wants something imposing, CVH (Heavy Carrier) sounds more brutish.
Further Note - Interestingly enough, under 'special' designations J is added for command or flagships, so CCJ is a command Cruiser. Given Freespace's shorter code (GTC instead of GTCC) Volition may have unintentionally given the Sathanas a Command ship code if you look at it as a designation rather than an abbreviation (SJ could be Shivan Command ship instead of Shivan Juggernaut).
-
But because Volition diverges from current Naval designations with a) their shortened designations, b) the altered relative sizes of cruisers and destroyers, and c) the fact that Corvettes are already using the Cv designation, the proper designation for Freespace-era Carriers would be "GTCa". So :p
-
the proper designation for Freespace-era Carriers would be "GTCa". So
Actually I think the proper designation in Freespace for a carrier is GTD, GVD, or SD, but a lot of 3rd party mods (Inferno comes to mind) have taken the term 'carrier' to basically be the equivelant of a super destroyer with even more fighters and even more guns.
A carrier, in my way of thinking, is a ship designed to carry lots of fightercraft, not to engage enemy warships, but rather to have a ton of little escorts around it at all times to protect it from bad guys.
The GTCa designation, as its used now, is simply redundant. The GTCa Warlock from Inferno really doesn't have a role different from the Lucifer, it really should be the GTSD Warlock or the GTVA Warlock to follow the Colossus' trend (though its not unique).
Btw, I had forgotten about the Cv designation used for Corvettes, though I'd noticed it before. A Corvette should actually be FL (light frigate).
Speaking of which, is the NTF Iceni the Neo-Terran Front Iceni or the Neo Terran Frigate Iceni. I'd guess that its the former, though the text describes it as a frigate there's really no other evidence for a new class of warship. Though I do like the resulting GTFf Saphah idea in Derelict. Where I'd envision the Frigate designation to mean a Corvette-sized vessel with Destroyer-sized anti-ship weaponry (and no fighters).
-
My carriers are the smaller variety, less heavily armed than the destroyers but with more fighters. I too think Inferno misused the designation.
-
Good point Akalabeth Angel...Like the way you're thinking...
Well..the Lancer can't be a heavy carrier, since it's relativly small in size (1.5km) compared to the real heavy carrier (Galaxy, 3km).
However, it has 4 fighterbays + 1 hangarbay and very powerfull weaponry, but weak hull.
So it's basicly a hit&run vesse...an Assault Carrier....
So GTACar...or GTCarA...or GTACV?...
-
One of the upcoming ships..once I finish texturing it, of course..
(http://www.swooh.com/peon/Trashman/Pics/pirateBomber.JPG)
-
Well it sounds like GTCa is the common carrier name as GTCv is already used for Corvettes. From the sounds of things, it sounds like your ship is basically a freespace-style destroyer. If you really want to distinguish it you could call it GTDL or GTDA (light or strike destroyer respectively) but I wouldn't go more than five letters, or else it gets silly.
-
Duh...well the naming convention isn't quite the most important part (Since it can be altered in 5 secons tops)
Wel..normaly a strike/assault carrier would be weaker, but this is a SOC assault/strike carrier.
And against a Hecate it loses more often than not...
-
Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel
the proper designation for Freespace-era Carriers would be "GTCa". So
Actually I think the proper designation in Freespace for a carrier is GTD, GVD, or SD, but a lot of 3rd party mods (Inferno comes to mind) have taken the term 'carrier' to basically be the equivelant of a super destroyer with even more fighters and even more guns.
A carrier, in my way of thinking, is a ship designed to carry lots of fightercraft, not to engage enemy warships, but rather to have a ton of little escorts around it at all times to protect it from bad guys.
Exactly, but I would change the lots of little escorts to a few big ones, preferably corvettes and destroyers. A Deimos or Moloch will rip through cruisers with ease.