Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: boewolf on April 08, 2004, 02:42:26 am
-
Does anyone have a good looking GTVA turret that i might be able to use to put on a defence platform?
I am making my own but so far they have looked realy bad.
-
High poly or low?
-
Will this do?
(http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/t-01.jpg)
(http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/t-02.jpg)
-
Now that's interesting. :yes: If only I could think up different turret designs, I'd be making some too. :sigh: I wind up with strange, over exaggerated designs...
-
The thing people (including Volition) forgot is that this is not Battleships in space. Sure the design of a battleship is cool, but the big turrets sticking out from ships are just easy targets and cheap ways of making ships look cool. Mikhaels design is far better, more compact and functional.
-
Yeah but the point may be that big turrets were the only (or easiest) way to have a cannon that can rotate 360 degrees.
Besides I like big turrets. :)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Will this do?
http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/t-01.jpg
http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/t-02.jpg
Looks like you took some ideas from Games Workshop there...
As for barrels, well, it's a matter of personal taste really. Depends on what the weapon mounted in said turrets is sometimes as well.
-
Nice mikhael, looks proper sci-fi like
Raptor, hows that gw? I'm actually working on some gw stuff and it doesnt look too familiar.
-
I don't think that turret will track correctly if you stick it in game. As I recall, having the firing point offset along the forward axis (in default "up" position) firepoint works in somewhat unexpected ways when you get it in game. It may not be noticable, but the only way turrets actually point directly at their target is if the barrels are lined up horizontally. I really wish there was a way to completely overhaul the turret code, because there are a lot of issues that make the appropriate turret shape (like that) unworkable in the current engine.
-
Raptor: Games Workshop?
karajorma: That turret has 360deg rotation and aobut 110deg elevation (though you'd only want to take it through 90deg of that).
Thunder: I'm actually thinking that the smartest two part turret design is the most boring: A simple hemisphere, with the entire barrel assembly in between the two halves. That'd give you 360deg rotation and 180deg elevation and keep it as small a target as possible.
-
Here's an illustration of what I was talking about a moment ago (the hemisphere turret). It could probably use larger barrels, but it'll do. This one will lose polys (they're both about 450polys) better than the other one will, as well.
(http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/t-03.jpg)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
karajorma: That turret has 360deg rotation and aobut 110deg elevation (though you'd only want to take it through 90deg of that).
I was on about the way the FS2 science works. Perhaps the turrets need to have long barrels to get the plasma up to a high enough speed or somethink of the like.
-
Ah...
More likely the barrels would be needed to focus the plasma through the use of circumferential electromagnetic lenses. ;)
-
...Meh! I need concept art! *has designers block*
On a side note, it's funny how 'B-u-s-h' is a word filtered out...
-
these turrets are great. may i plz use them?? They would look great on a ship that is giving me major greaff over not converting when i added the turrets.
-
mik's sphere turret could be a flak turret. That would rock.
-
boewolf, you wouldn't want them as they are right now. ~400 polys is too high for a turret, even with HTL.
That said, neither of those turrets took longer than about ten minutes to put together. I'm willing to bet, just looking at the pictures, you could whip them up super fast in your favorite modelling program.
-
"~400 polys is too high for a turret, even with HTL."
not realy, it's on the high side, yess, but not absurd, given that we have such low poly ships as of now, so long as only one texture is used it should be ok.
-
(http://hades-combine.com/img/turret.jpg)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Raptor: Games Workshop?
The base of the turret reminded me of the hatches on the new Space Marine tanks...
I'll get a pic if you want...
-
I think what would help him is to say that Games Workshop are the people who make Warhammer 40k ;)
-
^
What he said:nod:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"~400 polys is too high for a turret, even with HTL."
not realy, it's on the high side, yess, but not absurd, given that we have such low poly ships as of now, so long as only one texture is used it should be ok.
come on, 3 of them, and you have 1200 polys, just for turrets? 400 is way too much, even for HT&L.
-
Originally posted by Nico
come on, 3 of them, and you have 1200 polys, just for turrets? 400 is way too much, even for HT&L.
Depends on what sort of turrets they are. If they are big 50m across turrets it would look rather silly to have the rest of the ship detailed and the turrets looking bland and ordinary.
-
Agreed, Kara. But turrets like that are kind of a primary design feature, not a secondary design feature like most turrets are. Also, they tend to be pretty much ship specific.
-
Personally, I like THIS one the best:
It's so much more revolutionary and cool!
(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6796/turret.JPG)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Depends on what sort of turrets they are. If they are big 50m across turrets it would look rather silly to have the rest of the ship detailed and the turrets looking bland and ordinary.
of course, but 200 polys is way enough to make a turret that doesn't look bland and ordinary ;)
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
The thing people (including Volition) forgot is that this is not Battleships in space. Sure the design of a battleship is cool, but the big turrets sticking out from ships are just easy targets and cheap ways of making ships look cool. Mikhaels design is far better, more compact and functional.
:nod: I'm nodding over here. I'd love to see those turrets on all our ships, in fact. :)
-
Blah. Here's (http://home.nc.rr.com/mikhael/turret/) those two turrets in LWO format, lower. About 200polys each.
-
well as it stands right now the platform isn't very high count. but it is still in early stages. its current cound is about 296 \ 212. Their are more details yet to come. I only ask for a good turret because mine don't like to be converted after they are on a modle.
anyway this is the platform.
(http://users.ncable.com.au/gtbernaldo/pics/devourer/dev-basic.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nico
of course, but 200 polys is way enough to make a turret that doesn't look bland and ordinary ;)
I agree with you there. Even Karma's HTL Fenris uses very simple turrets for the small unimportant ones and only spends any large amount of polys on the fusion mortar.
But if you're spending 10,000 polys on a ship (like some of the trek ships omni converted) I see no harm is spending a fair bit on the turrets. Especially since they are a part of the ship that the player will be taking notice of :D
-
Actually, I never gave any consideration to turrets when playing Freespace--unless I needed to take them out as part of a mission goal. Even then, I didn't really LOOK at them.
In fact, Starlancer is the only game where I ever gave turrets more than a moment's consideration: the last mission encourages rather up close and personal examination of turrets. ;)
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
The thing people (including Volition) forgot is that this is not Battleships in space. Sure the design of a battleship is cool, but the big turrets sticking out from ships are just easy targets and cheap ways of making ships look cool. Mikhaels design is far better, more compact and functional.
LOL...You forget, the people who designed those battleship knew what they were doing... those turrets were the most heavily armoured part of the ship. You could (literary) drop a 500kg bomb on it and the crew inside would go: "Huh? did you hear something?" they had a mean punch, long range and a wide FOV...
I'll take such turrets anyday before some other i-wanna-look-cool design that has no funcionality whatsoever...
-
Actually, Trashman, you're wrong. I know this from direct, personal experience checking out the turrets on the USS North Carolina and a Destroyer whose name I can't recall right now.
The armor is nice, but its certainly not even close to the heaviest on the ship. They were fighting several concerns there, not the least of which was the mechanical power required to turn something as massive as those turrets.
All of that, however, is of absolutely no concern as it is not relevant. You can 'take such turrets anyday', but Thunder is absolutely right: they don't make sense on warships in space. Consider the purpose of the long barrels of a battleships 11" and 13" guns: stabilisation of the projectile to achieve maximal range. On a vacuum navy ship, this is a moot point for both projectile and plasma/energy weapons: there's no atmospheric drag or (significant) gravitational force to bend projectile trajectories into a parabola. That obviates the need for the barrels. The giant overarmored blocks that you seem to like are likewise rendered silly. On a vacuum navy ship, the most sensible design for a turrets is a hemisphere, simply because it requires the least material to achieve the thickest, strongest possible coverage at all points on the surface of the turret.
In short, whilst your blocky, long barreled turrets make sense for wet navy ships, they are ridiculous and silly on vacuum navy ships.
To be shorter, and more blunt: Thunder is right and you, sir, are wrong.
-
I would think that long barrels in space would be of use, they'd give you longer to stableize and accelerate your projectile, and you can never have a projectile that is too acurate/fast, even if the projectile is pure plasma and has a mass of .1 grams getting it just that much of a bigger fraction of the speed of light would give it more distructive power, although, it wouldn't be _needed_ and would likely only be on the largest of turrets, most anti-fighter turrets would be as you describe more emfisis would be on being able to rotate as quickly and precisely and effortlessly as posable, and laser weapons would need vertualy no barrel of any kind, just a mirror, or maybe some sort of optical fiber thingy.
you know I think I'm going to make some hemispherical turrets now.
-
How does a barrel 'accelerate' anything?
Stabilisation isn't an issue in space: there's no air resistance or gravity to bend the trajectory. IE: long barrels aren't necessary.
I've got a hemispherical turret up there already, Bob. There's a link and a pic posted too. :)
-
A long barrel allows us to cause a solid projectile to spin. This is useful in an atmosphere since shells tend to tumble otherwise and you'd lose accuracy and power.
In space there's no atmosphere.
Therefore the spin is useless for projectiles.
Plasmas and lasers don't need a long barrel for any conceivable reason.
Therefore unless the weapon requires a long cylinder for it to work, a long barrel is not useful.
That said, I like Mikhael's compact turret (not the hemisphere one) the best but there's a part of me that finds appeal in a hemisphere turret.
-
Longer barrels mean longer ranges, especially with modern powder loads. There is an upper maximum length but it's beyond the physical limitations of the construction material.
In a weapon that uses magnetic acceleration instead of explosive powder, it becomes even more true as the longer barrel allows for more acceleration coils.
-
a longer barrel means you can pack more accelerator magnets in, I made a bit of speculation on my own without thinking no one else would have thought about it, and stabliseation I supose wasn't the right word, a longer barrel is, to me, just a longer amount of time that your technology (housed in the barrel) has a chance to manipulate the tragectory of the projectile
-
yeah, I mentioned "the use of circumferential electromagnetic lenses" earlier. Sure, I was talking about plasma, but it works out the same for rail guns. The problem with rail guns is that you've got to overcome inertia even with a rail gun, which means you have to have longer and longer tracks for more and more massive payloads.
The problem merely gets worse when you consider that there's only so much accelleration you can impart due to the structural integrity of the projectiles. If you try to impart too much dV too fast, You'll end up with too many magnets acting on the payload at once, and you'll rip the projectile apart, effectively "jamming" the weapon.
All in all, you're looking at rail accellerated weaponry only showing up in spinal/keel mounts or maybe broadsides, not turrets.
-
why do people always assume that mass drivers/rail guns _have_ to shoot stuff near the speed of light? couldn't you have a magnetic mass driver, say, 10 feet long that accelerates a projectile to a mear million miles per hour, a pound of matter flying that fast is still going to cause quite a deal of damage.
-
I'm not assuming lightspeed. I'm assuming a reasonable velocity. There's this whole "basic physics" thing that pretty much guarantees that there's a limit to how fast you can accelerate anything in a small distance.
I know, who cares about physics, right?
-
well given about 10 feet how fast would you be able to accelerate a 1 pound mass?
~
-
Better go with a kilo. A pound is subjective, but a kilo is objective.
What kind of mass are we talking? A simple sphere of solid mass? what's the mass? Iron? Aluminum? Nickel?
Apparently, the Army's "Miramar Gun B" rail gun fired a one kilo projectile at 11kf/s (about 7500mph). That'd hit pretty damned hard and have one hell of a recoil (Newton lives). I can't find any info on the accellerator length, however. I figure any ship that could throw a kilo of mass at 7500mph could probably take a hit from it too. Obviously, modern battleships can trade punches for at least a little while, so I figure their future couterparts could too.
On the other hand, 7500mph is something like getting hit by a 10 ton truck moving at 80mph. That's enough to knock down an earthquake hardened highway overpass. You might be right.
I still say long arms on high tech turrets is silly. ;)
-
If you had a long barrel _turret_then doesn't that turret suddenly become extremely vulnerable?
ESPECIALLY if it was a railgun of some sort since those things are designed to take the force of firing the shot and not much room for anything else (heck, modern railguns can't even be fired to many times without destroying themselves).
In the light of that, why would a rail gun be mounted on a turret? It seems rather like a one-hit kill type of weapon in which case, it would be more useful to have a ship length acceleration barrel deep inside a ship to be used to blast strategic targets (i.e. large capital ships).
I dunno, it just makes more sense that way.
Now, I'm always for the look cool and look good factor and if a long-barreled turret is made so that it looks good and reasonable (in terms of functionality, that is, it would be properly reinforced) then it'd be great too.
-
I always wanted to make a rediculusy long turret and give it some small useless weapon that only served to get the thng to swing around and smack thingsa
-
Hmm, now that's an interesting idea. Maybe something the size of a fenris swinging a colossus sized barrel...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I always wanted to make a rediculusy long turret and give it some small useless weapon that only served to get the thng to swing around and smack thingsa
A genuine steel-beam ship, eh?
-
You people should watch Gunbuster (another title from the creators of the "feared Evangelion"), the show made quite sensible laser turrets if you're willing to forgive the "visible laser/sound in space thing."
-
I have the second and third parts of gunbuster (and they are decaying as they are original VHS copies) I never found the first part (overall it sucks that is is only like 45 mins per tape). It truly is a classic for space combat (in large numbers)
I'm glad people spoke up. I was screaming RAILGUNS NEED BARRELS as soon as I saw that post about them being useless in space. BTW for you SHORT minded people doesn't the NEW mini-series Galactica use railguns now instead of lasers??? they are group in turrets of 4 barrels I think and look very .50 caliburish type barrels, I estimate their length to be around 10 ft...
:D
-
But you also forget that Railguns on Turrets (tm) are easily rendered useless by a few stray shots =/
Oh well.
I still maintain that railguns would be better embedded inside a capital ship rather than sitting out in the open where any of the numerous critical acceleration units are much more vulnerable.
-
Absolutely, Chronoreverse.
Besides, you want to get the maximum you can out of any weapon system. For the size of a turret, rail guns don't make sense. Plasma, particle or beam weapons make sense. Missile weapons make sense. Railguns just don't.
For stationary weapons systems, railguns make great sense, as do capship sized missiles (torps and the like), or broadside engagement systems.
Put weapons where they belong, not where you think they'd be "cool", I guess I'm trying to say.
-
...
You can all do whatever you want, my turrets have to look cool, any other consideration to me is jiberish, since laser/railgun/whatever turrets are scifi stuff, don't exist and nobody knows **** about it. For what I know, laser barrels may be alive a eat capship hulls every two hours :p
And to me, usually, big barels=looking cool. At least, they sure look cool on ships like the Arcadia.
-
Originally posted by Nico
...
You can all do whatever you want, my turrets have to look cool, any other consideration to me is jiberish, since laser/railgun/whatever turrets are scifi stuff, don't exist and nobody knows **** about it. For what I know, laser barrels may be alive a eat capship hulls every two hours :p
And to me, usually, big barels=looking cool. At least, they sure look cool on ships like the Arcadia.
:yes:
Agree with you 100% there Nico. The main consideration I make when making a ship is what looks good. If I was modding for I-war I might care a bit more about realism but since FS2 is so obviously nonsense when it comes to reality why not just have fun with it.
-
maybe the turrets are so big cause they have to make targets? I mean, whos going to after that almost flat and innocous beam turret when you have such an big gun with ub3r barrels pointing at you and going ack-ack-ack