Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: TrashMan on December 25, 2004, 05:43:28 pm
-
I've been a busy little bee....
Presenting the Retribution Asault Frigate!
(http://img93.exs.cx/img93/9872/R9.jpg)
(http://img93.exs.cx/img93/3355/R10.jpg)
The Pretorian Gunboat!
(http://img93.exs.cx/img93/3976/gunboat.jpg)
The New and improved Columbus class colony Ship!
(http://img93.exs.cx/img93/3899/Colony.jpg)
And the most recent update on the Whitehall!
(http://img93.exs.cx/img93/7545/w22.jpg)
-
Wow, thats badass :)
-
It's weird. Most of the people I know would rather be able to do Fighter type maps than use tiling and here you are using tiles when you're mapping skills are much better. :doubt:
-
This one is not actually mine, but it was given to me by someone (got the name written in a faile somewhere...got to find it) to finish it for him.
http://img100.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img100&image=ShivDread.jpg
It's a bit low poly, but nothing I can fix (once I sit and actually finish those 2-3 starbases I have waiting)
@Roanoke - fighter maps and ship plates are not the same.
If you're refering to the gunboat, than know that it's 150m long. It's not a bomber, but a small escort warship.
-
To be perfectly honest, I'm not digging them. The first one, aside from the model which isn't all that great, suffers from extreme texture-tile problems. The second and third one are kind of basic and low poly, not really exciting to look at. And the last one, though rather nice, is also very tiled (I know, I know, the Orion textures aren't really the best, but nevertheless.)
I really like most of your stuff, but I've got to tell you when I like it and when I don't, and this time I don't.
-
I like them...
-
Whitehall eh? Still doesn't look big enough to fit in all those bloody bureaucrats
-
Originally posted by Rictor
To be perfectly honest, I'm not digging them. The first one, aside from the model which isn't all that great, suffers from extreme texture-tile problems. The second and third one are kind of basic and low poly, not really exciting to look at. And the last one, though rather nice, is also very tiled (I know, I know, the Orion textures aren't really the best, but nevertheless.)
I really like most of your stuff, but I've got to tell you when I like it and when I don't, and this time I don't.
the first one needs a bit darker texture. Other than that, they are not overtiles, the pic is just a bit bad.
The second one is a guinboat - you're going to ahev a lot of those ina a mission, and that model is still without turrets.
the third one is a large colony ship. Texturing isn't that great, and neither is the detail (10966 polys), but that ship is not htat important either.
The last one, the whitehall, is huge. I can have the feeling of size without wither increasing the polycount substantialy, or tiling textures. Now I reduced the tecture tiling as much as I could. When you fly in closer, you will see that I actualyl should have tiled more.
anyway, it's far less tiled than most other stations out there...
-
the first one looks kinda star warsish, i love the 2nd one, need some in gmae piccys though, and same with the colony ship, and where can i get whitehall?
-
Praetorian.
And seeing as there is no link to downloads, I'll not consider it a gift to the people and thus I shall criticize them.
Honestly, I've seen better from you, like those ships I saw that one time. You know. And that station looks lost in itself. Especially with the Orion textures with an Orion in it. :doubt:
-
the design is fantastic. but make it able to hold a hecate in there. otherwise itll look like a tumor or soemthing :)
-
i like those two:
Pretorian nice model mayby you should do some costum texsture for it and station..city in space:nod:
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Roanoke - fighter maps and ship plates are not the same.
If you're refering to the gunboat, than know that it's 150m long. It's not a bomber, but a small escort warship.
You mis-understand. When I post "Fighter maps" I mean when you unwrap the model (or parts) and paint in a graphics package. Why you use only tiles when you could use the unwrap method is what I don't understand.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
This one is not actually mine, but it was given to me by someone (got the name written in a faile somewhere...got to find it) to finish it for him.
http://img100.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img100&image=ShivDread.jpg
It's a bit low poly, but nothing I can fix (once I sit and actually finish those 2-3 starbases I have waiting)
I remember making that; I'd advise you restart it from scratch if you want to do a decent job, because I made it back when I was still learning max & it's almost certainly a very messy model as a result. Certainly the UV-mapping will need fixed......I actually uv-ed the 3ds file in TS, which was just stupid.
-
The Whitehall can hold a Hecate with ease... the dock only looks a bit small coause the Orion is leaving - it's not fuly inside. And it's not fully textured yet either...most of hte bluish orion panells will go away...
As for the Gunboat - it's not a fighter, so I'll not waste my time making maps for it. I'm on a very tight schedule as it is...
Oh yeah - Presenting the GVI Abthys
(http://img151.exs.cx/img151/3173/Vsb1.jpg)
(http://img95.exs.cx/img95/1059/vsb2.jpg)
Has two lods, fully turreted nad has subsystems. Needs only two more LOD's and debris. and paths of course...
That one was totaly messd up, since I did it in 3DMax originally. It had tons of geometry errors. I spent hours removing and adding polygons/vertex/edges by hand...
and yes..the Retribution..
I don't get it.. the cannon barrels won't rotate alltough I set them up exactly as I did radar dishes on my other ships (which worked).
Allso, the Assault Cannon does 500 damage and has a fire rate of 0.2, but in-game, it hardly fires..even tough I set the weapon AI to general, it barely uses the weapon!
(http://img95.exs.cx/img95/681/R4.jpg)
-
abythis=starfish
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Oh yeah - Presenting the GVI Abthys
[snip]
Does that Sath have an extra arm?
-
i was thinking same but look closer 5th arm is olny aft top engen
-
Well, those pics weren't exactly good..you could only see a part of the station...
(http://img96.exs.cx/img96/1690/Vsb3.jpg)
And the Pretorian is finished:
Aremed with 6 Subach Hl-7 lasers, 2 flak guns and 2 cyclops launchers. 5000 hull, 8000 shields, max speed 50. Has a cruiser flag, so capships can shoot at it with beams.
Excellent support unit and convoy escort ship tough...
(http://img96.exs.cx/img96/7762/Preat1.jpg)
(http://img96.exs.cx/img96/9782/Preat2.jpg)
-
That Shivan ship looks like you could break an arm off by crashing into it with a fighter! It looks like a big insect. The other models are good though.
Release?
-
I would, but for some reason I cannot acess my swooh account.
Untill I fins some webspace to store this stuff, you will have to wait.
-
Eh, they look ok. Really basic though, not as good as your other work.
-
Geez..why is allmost everyone going into the high-poly stratosphere..
Take the high-poly fighters? What good can they do? In FS2 you se a fighter up-close how often? And when you do, it zippes past with full speed. When you do get close, you're looking at it's engine glows and emptying your missiles into it's tailpipe.
I understand that you know it could look better. Of course it could. I could go and make a map for it, but I don't have the time now, and this setup works well in game.
Oh..don't forget - you can ALLWAYS do better..
-
I like high poly ships for renderring.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
and yes..the Retribution..
I don't get it.. the cannon barrels won't rotate alltough I set them up exactly as I did radar dishes on my other ships (which worked).
Allso, the Assault Cannon does 500 damage and has a fire rate of 0.2, but in-game, it hardly fires..even tough I set the weapon AI to general, it barely uses the weapon!
It probably didn't work because radar dishes are not turrets. Turrets are AI aimed and rotate to face a target. Since the firepoints are directly along the turret's Y-axis (as far as the turret is concerned), and you probably severly limited the field of fire so they shoot straight ahead, then the barrels don't need to rotate in order to aim at their intended target. What you may want to do is create a turret that's just a base. Then put your rotating barrel in front of the turret as a non-targettable and non destroyable-subsystem, then possibly using Bob's subobject animation, key its rotation to the firing of the turret its in front of. Then add a single firepoint to the turret and place it in front of the top barrel of the gattling gun. Then time the fire rate of its weapon with the rotation rate of the barrel. You want the turret barrel to be non-targettable and non-destroyable, because if it were destroyed but the actual turret wasn't, it'd continue to fire without the barrel. You might even be able to cue the barrel's destruction to the destruction of the turret, using the similar procedure as that which makes it rotate with the turret firing. It may not work, but then again, it may.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Geez..why is allmost everyone going into the high-poly stratosphere..
Take the high-poly fighters? What good can they do? In FS2 you se a fighter up-close how often? And when you do, it zippes past with full speed. When you do get close, you're looking at it's engine glows and emptying your missiles into it's tailpipe.
I understand that you know it could look better. Of course it could. I could go and make a map for it, but I don't have the time now, and this setup works well in game.
Oh..don't forget - you can ALLWAYS do better..
Trashman...what we're, or at least I'm saying, is that your ships, at least the ones in this thread, are about maybe five or six blocks.
By your logic we could just put a tube with engine glows and it'll be fine, cause we never get close enough to see them anyway.
-
I think you'll find hi-poly (well, high by FS terms....5000 isn't that much in real terms, after all......) fighters work quite well ingame ;7
-
WHoaaaw, Excellent modelling. But the first one, looks weird
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Trashman...what we're, or at least I'm saying, is that your ships, at least the ones in this thread, are about maybe five or six blocks.
By your logic we could just put a tube with engine glows and it'll be fine, cause we never get close enough to see them anyway.
I'm advocating normal ships. Not low-poly models, nor resource hogs. For capships 5000 is not that much at all. For fighters? I say that's a overkill. 1000 is good enough for a fighter in my oppinion.
My ships having 5-6 blocks?
Whitehall is 8000 polys WITHOUT turrets.
The Retribution is 1200 without turrets.
Anyway, the latest addition:
(http://img59.exs.cx/img59/6678/MiningS1.jpg)
(http://img75.exs.cx/img75/6457/MiningS2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I'm advocating normal ships. Not low-poly models, nor resource hogs. For capships 5000 is not that much at all. For fighters? I say that's a overkill. 1000 is good enough for a fighter in my oppinion.
If you compare a 1000 poly fighter and a 5000 poly one, you'll find there is a marked difference in quality. It all depends how you define 'good enough'.
-
And having n number of polys doesn't really count for anything.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
And the most recent update on the Whitehall!
(http://img93.exs.cx/img93/7545/w22.jpg)
Holy. Living. ****.
What the HELL is that?
(Whatever it is, I want it, especially if it has turrets to accomodate huge beam cannons. It would make a wonderful Starforce battlecruiser)
-
Dude, that's a starbase.... Well, if you fit engines onto it it might pass as a warship, but that would be an ovekill....
@Ranroke - having and n number of polys really doesn't mean much if they are not adequately spent. And I do take great care of every single poly on my models...
Bad texturing can sometimes really hide those details well.. I smply gotta do something about the Retribution texture job...
Aldo - good enough = for a ship to look good depending on his size. You can make a excellent fighter with 1000 poyls. A capship however, requires more.
Look, it's not like I'm saying that high-poly fighters are bad. Quite the contrary, they are brilliant works. However, I do feel that more polys are being spent there than necessary, since texturing will do wonders on fighters.
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
And having n number of polys doesn't really count for anything.
Lemme put it this way.... it's shocking how bad my 1000 poly LOD1 models are in comparison to the 4000 poly LOD0 models I'm using. And it's nothing to do with wasting polys.
-
Originally posted by Me!!
And having n number of polys doesn't really count for anything.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Lemme put it this way.... it's shocking how bad my 1000 poly LOD1 models are in comparison to the 4000 poly LOD0 models I'm using. And it's nothing to do with wasting polys.
that comment wasn't directed at you :)
I hated doing LODs, I have to say.
-
THIS IS STILL AN EARLY WIP (only one LOD, has only the main turrets and the texturing ain't fully done)
(http://img157.exs.cx/img157/356/IGArchangel1.jpg)
(http://img157.exs.cx/img157/2120/IGArchangel2.jpg)
(http://img157.exs.cx/img157/4884/IGArchangel3.jpg)
(http://img157.exs.cx/img157/4305/IGArchangel4.jpg)
-
jeli to Đ u imenu broda :lol:?
GTVĐS Archangel....
-
The ship design is excellent but the turret looks ugly.
-
The ship design is excellent but the turret looks ugly.
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
that comment wasn't directed at you :)
I hated doing LODs, I have to say.
I was really just making a general point that polys = model quality anyway ;)
I can't make a Terran model with less than 2500 or so polys nowadays, I'm never happy with the result
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I was really just making a general point that polys = model quality anyway ;)
I can't make a Terran model with less than 2500 or so polys nowadays, I'm never happy with the result
Yerh, but whenever someone complains about the detail on T-Man's models his usual reaction is to point out how many polys it uses. Which, to me, doesn't really prove anything. :doubt:
-
Well, one of the dangers of HTL modelling is reusing the same little details over & over again... you have a nice extruded 'hullplate' bit, so you reuse it 10 times. And your model looks underdetailed, despite the polys, because there's only one really original bit in it.
I've found it's often more effective to have fairly 'simple' models (i.e. 2 wings, cockpit, guns, 2 engines), and use the polys to make those parts more rounded, rather than to say 'hey, I can add another 8 wings here!'
-
Yeah, without textures or something to go off it's easy to use the same idea over and over.
-
Originally posted by pecenipicek
jeli to Đ u imenu broda :lol:?
GTVĐS Archangel....
TRANSLATION: is that a Ð in the ship name?
RESPONSE: No, it's GTVBS.
Anway, almost done texturing and turreting. 8 main turrets + 1 huge missile launcher + 4 beam cannons + 58 normal turrets so far. Gonna add a few more and make a LOD1, convert and test again.
And about the turrets...hmm... I'll try making the ma bit flatter and looking for antoher texture to use hten...
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
Yerh, but whenever someone complains about the detail on T-Man's models his usual reaction is to point out how many polys it uses. Which, to me, doesn't really prove anything. :doubt:
Of course that's my reaction.
How can you judge model quality without knowing the polycount? You can have a kick-ass ship made with only 2000 polys and you can have a faceless blob make out of 10000....
-
If it looks underdetailed, it'll still look underdetailed regardless of whether the polycount is 100 or 100,000.
-
If anything, an under-detailed looking ship with a high polycount shows a lack of modeling skill.
Be more efficient with your polies.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Of course that's my reaction.
How can you judge model quality without knowing the polycount? You can have a kick-ass ship made with only 2000 polys and you can have a faceless blob make out of 10000....
um, by looking at the piccys ? :doubt:
Don't get me wrong, i'm not having a pop at you, I just think some of your models would benefit with some more thought.
-
I'm very efficient with my polys...
Blame the ****ty texture job (and textures). I know the Retribution still looks bad, but I will see what can be done about it....
anyway:
(http://img100.exs.cx/img100/1243/Archy.jpg)
75 turrets, with all LOD data except for paths and docks.
Now all I need to do is add 3 more LOD's and debris...
And coause I was bored (and could use this for scenery in a mission taking place in Deneb):
(http://img100.exs.cx/img100/8302/OrionHulk.jpg)
Will allso prolly re-convert the Typhoon and a Orion with more turrets. 15 is WAY to little...
-
Not to drop a fly in your ointment or anything, but you do know Venom also make a destroyed Orion model (i.e. FS2 intro)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Not to drop a fly in your ointment or anything, but you do know Venom also make a destroyed Orion model (i.e. FS2 intro)
*has had an idea*
-
you know what'd be cool?
Since alpha mapping now works properly, there could be a bunch of alpha-mapped polys inside the hole that look like bits of rubbish (burnt out decks, etc...) that would make it a lot more detailed and/or cool looking
-
TM: Me likes your archangel, sans the big long nose.
-
Those main turrets on the Archangel...just...no...they're horrible three-box ugly things.
-
Alas, I have spent most of today studying, so I have only these to show:
(http://img136.exs.cx/img136/8176/Shrike1.jpg)
Teh new and improved Shrike...
(http://img136.exs.cx/img136/6343/Shrike2.jpg)
And do you find this version of the Retribution better?
(http://img136.exs.cx/img136/6909/RetributionN.jpg)
I allso did some work on some other models, but nothing worth showing yet...
-
Allmost forgot - to whomever is in charge of that swooh acount (Styxx? Shrike? forgot...)
I can't acess it. Don't know why. Maby I screwed up something or I simply forgot the right adress or something.
I dunno.
Anway, if you could PM me all the important stuff about the account?
-
Swooh is dead. I know one of the admins at second hand, DCster. It's dead.
-
I've said it before Trashman. I don't know why you spend so much time on capships when it's plainly obvious that you know how to make great fighters :D
-
The Shrike is great, but the Vasudan textures are just wrong. It's clearly not a Vasudan fighter, I'd stay scrap the brownie texes and go for Terran look. Or make it more curvy and smooth, and it looks like a top replacement for Horus.
-
Terran ships=Big Ugly Bricks(B.U.B.)
Vasudan ships=Nice Smooth Thigies(N.S.T.)
Shivan ships=Carl
-
Been out of town today.. Got backa few hours ago nad just started doing something in turespace without any general goal or purpose...
And this came out:
(http://img70.exs.cx/img70/3752/TJG1.jpg)
(http://img70.exs.cx/img70/1174/TJG2.jpg)
A Alliance Jump Gate (complete with 4 beam cannons, 10 defense turrets and 2 big assault plasam cannons + 2 backup generators)
Allso, which of these turrets do you liek the best?
First, second or third?
(http://img70.exs.cx/img70/7116/Turrets.jpg)
-
nifty knossos mabob, I made something kinda like that a while back...
One thing I don't particularly like about it is that you comand center thing has too many 90 degree angles. At least use a few angly bits.
As far as the turrets go, I don't like any of them. Since you seem to be going for the old style BB turrets, I'd suggest segmenting your turrets a bit so that your barrel has a "step" in it
Crude ascii art:
______
|______
______|
______|
of course there'd still be a little bit of an angle on them, but ASCII doesn't quite allow for that...
-
Mah...I prolly won't be changing the portal. Work in the game, everything is fine.. I really see no need to waste time on that.
Better I focus on other models and FREDing...
Which reminds me - I re-converted the Archangel with no2 turret (alltough just a tad more angled and thinner at the top)
The next in-line is the Retribution and then the LODs..
After that? Hmm... Prolly another starbase or another fighter...
If anything else, I'll post art or screenies from my campaign missions....
I still have 3 days left before collauge starts again..
-
should a knossos have beam cannons ?
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
should a knossos have beam cannons ?
Well, how likely are you to build one in a warzone?
-
How do you what won't potentially become a warzone?
-
Turrets are still one big box:ick: Change they dessing or if you dont want to please reduce size of barels:nod:
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
should a knossos have beam cannons ?
Have you ever played Inferno?
-
Hey, I modeled those turrets after a REAL WW2 battleship turrets.
The are barrels are somewhat narrower at the top, but that's nothing I can't fix..
anyway, I re-converted the Retribution and it finally looks good.
(http://img131.exs.cx/img131/8913/screen00.jpg)
Allso, the Orion(16 turrets) and Typhon(15 turrets) had way too little turrets, so I fixed that.
Darn PCS screwed up the lights on ALL subobjects during the
pof->cob conversion, so I had to make all the turrets and subobjects anew...
So the "new" Orion now has 23 and the Typhon 24 turrets respectivly, and they work OK...
Something is wrong with hy FS2 tough. Only the stock nebulas show up in the selection list in FRED and none on the actuall screen (alltough they do show up in missions).
And I can't load my campaign missions I was doing!!!!!!ARGH!
-
Noise convinced me to post this - a Shotgun laser...
; ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
; Shotgun
;
$Name: Shotgun
+Title: XSTR("GTW-9b Shotgun Cannon", 3270)
+Description:
XSTR(
"Medium Energy Usage
Level 4 Hull Damage
Level 1 Shield Damage", 3271)
$end_multi_text
+Tech Title: XSTR("GTW-5a Prometheus R", 3272)
+Tech Anim: Tech_GTW-5a_Prometheus_R
+Tech Description:
XSTR(
".", 3273)
$end_multi_text
$Model File: none
@Laser Bitmap: laserglow03
@Laser Glow: 2_laserglow03
@Laser Color: 20, 150, 20
@Laser Color2: 20, 150, 20
@Laser Length: 10.0
@Laser Head Radius: 1.0
@Laser Tail Radius: 1.0
$Mass: 0.2
$Velocity: 450.0
$Fire Wait: 1.2
$Damage: 4
$Armor Factor: 1.1
$Shield Factor: 0.8
$Subsystem Factor: 0.35
$Lifetime: 1.2
$Energy Consumed: 3.0
$Cargo Size: 0.0
$Homing: NO
$LaunchSnd: 79
$ImpactSnd: 85 ;
$Flags: ( "player allowed")
$Icon: iconPromR
$Anim: PromR
$Impact Explosion: none
$FOF: 1.8
$Shots: 30
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Something is wrong with hy FS2 tough. Only the stock nebulas show up in the selection list in FRED and none on the actuall screen (alltough they do show up in missions).
And I can't load my campaign missions I was doing!!!!!!ARGH!
That's normaly apparently. Something about FRED Open not being able to read the 32-bit nebulas to put on the list, I think. Or maybe it was that FRED Open can't display them on the background. I think that's it, because suns work fine.
Nice Knossos, by the way,, although the armament annoys me.
-
I figure, with Earth narrowly escaping anihhilation the first time, the humans would defened their only way in and out of SOL....
-
That's what Mjolnirs are for.
-
they cant rotate
-
Neither can gate mounted-beam cannon, really; my instinct is that such as gate simply wouldn't have the power to spare for weaponry.
-
That's what those two powers generatos are for....
-
How about a subspace disrtuption device that colapses the knosos'es node then reforms it.
-
whats good that for?
-
Instant node blockade, one you absolutely can't get through.
Actually, that would be why one would arm the Knossos as well. Easier then parking several destroyers around it.
-
point.
-
Crap...tomorrow I have to leave my PC and trot to Split (a town 65km away, were I go to colluege). Won't be back for a few days....
-
OMG beam kannons are so kool let's put them on EVERYTHING!!!!1121oneone:rolleyes:
-
jadni čovjek :D
-
Okay, a Knossos device or Terran Equivalent of a doorway. Say it's an important doorway, strategically, like, to your house. Now, the main purpose of the door is to allow folks and yourself in and out of the house. If you have any enemies, naturally, you wouldn't want them to come in. That's why you lock the door.
Similarly, if they insist upon comming in, you usually do not have guns rigged into your doorway. If the King of England is trying to break into your house, your doorway does not shoot him. You usually carry a firearm of some sort yourself, and either intercept said evil king inside or outside of your door.
-
Yeah, but normally, there aren't doors as big and as important as this ne. And military likes to put guns on everything.....
-
It doesn't matter how important it is. Putting spikes on the edges just looks dumb. I'm betting the Knossos portals were of some degree of importance when they were built, but you don't see them with Beam Cannons.
This is what weapons platforms are for.
-
Well the guns are staying!
In my campaign the gateway was designen by a drunken Admiral, member of the Gun Lovers Assotiation. Satisfied?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Similarly, if they insist upon comming in, you usually do not have guns rigged into your doorway. If the King of England is trying to break into your house, your doorway does not shoot him. You usually carry a firearm of some sort yourself, and either intercept said evil king inside or outside of your door.
No, you don't. But the military might. Faulty example.
-
No it's not.
Go watch SG-1. They don't have lasers and explosives and trip-mines and machine guns mounted on the gate. They have the iris, which effectively closes the door and locks it. If that's not enough, or they want more security, they have soldiers with guns come in.
-
I'm with KT on this one. The energy required to produce a knossos portal rules out the possability of mounting any significant weaponry.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
No it's not.
Go watch SG-1. They don't have lasers and explosives and trip-mines and machine guns mounted on the gate. They have the iris, which effectively closes the door and locks it. If that's not enough, or they want more security, they have soldiers with guns come in.
I recall several episodes where they had missile launchers pointed at the gate, ready to fire, as well, but it's still a faulty example.
We are, after all, talking about a giant, manned, space-based construct. The proper analogy here wouldn't be a door, but rather something like a narrow straight. That matches both the scale and the usage of a Knossos much more closely.
They already have crew onboard, which will require some kind of defenses. Otherwise the crew is not going to work on the thing. Stationing ships there permanently to defend it is a waste, both tactically and logistically. A seperate defense platform is also logistically wasteful. Post-Capella, the GTVA can't afford that waste.
By contrast, having the gate able to defend itself increases the tactical problems a force trying to seize it faces. They have to somehow deal with those weapons, without damaging the gate enough to render it non-functional. It decreases logistics problems, as all the parts and supplies are going to just one place. It obviates the need to place a destroyer on permanent guard duty, a waste of the offensive, and much of the defensive, potentional of a destroyer.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
I recall several episodes where they had missile launchers pointed at the gate, ready to fire, as well, but it's still a faulty example.
We are, after all, talking about a giant, manned, space-based construct. The proper analogy here wouldn't be a door, but rather something like a narrow straight. That matches both the scale and the usage of a Knossos much more closely.
They already have crew onboard, which will require some kind of defenses. Otherwise the crew is not going to work on the thing. Stationing ships there permanently to defend it is a waste, both tactically and logistically. A seperate defense platform is also logistically wasteful. Post-Capella, the GTVA can't afford that waste.
By contrast, having the gate able to defend itself increases the tactical problems a force trying to seize it faces. They have to somehow deal with those weapons, without damaging the gate enough to render it non-functional. It decreases logistics problems, as all the parts and supplies are going to just one place. It obviates the need to place a destroyer on permanent guard duty, a waste of the offensive, and much of the defensive, potentional of a destroyer.
And rocket launchers = Mjolnirs
Weapons platforms aren't "logistically wasteful". They are semi-mobile, and would be more or less permanently in place around the device. You wouldn't need destroyers. What's logistically stupid is putting 25 beam cannons on a station should be concerned with making a stable jump-node.
And if it came to the point where a few wings of patrol fighters and a plethora of weapons platforms and such weren't enough to defend it from whatever stupidly high number of Sathanii you want to through at it in your campaign, then the odds are you're going to have to have a fleet there anyway.
-
You're joking, right? Mjolnirs are the epitomy of suck. They are also fragile, and easy to target for capships. The same can't be said of weaponry built into a massive station.
And why are we all assuming the gateway automatically knows the exact details of everything that comes through it? IIRC, it only stabilizes the node (remember the knossos, people?). It would be mighty handy having the potential to carve up unwanted guests as they appear AND be able to serve as an overall defense against attacks, something the mjolnir is almost incapable of (doesn't have a very large firing arc, and is slow as **** when turning, IIRC).
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
And rocket launchers = Mjolnirs
Weapons platforms aren't "logistically wasteful". They are semi-mobile, and would be more or less permanently in place around the device. You wouldn't need destroyers. What's logistically stupid is putting 25 beam cannons on a station should be concerned with making a stable jump-node.
And if it came to the point where a few wings of patrol fighters and a plethora of weapons platforms and such weren't enough to defend it from whatever stupidly high number of Sathanii you want to through at it in your campaign, then the odds are you're going to have to have a fleet there anyway.
And we all know how well an Arcadia survives against a determined destroyer, or a serious bomber strike, even when defended by a small horde of advanced sentry platforms like the GTI Acheron. It doesn't. What you are advocating is essentially an Arcadia with a Knossos tacked onto it.
Weapons onboard the station present greater tactical problems to an enemy and are inherently more efficent from a logistics standpoint. It's just that simple.
Seperate weapons platforms can be destroyed seperately. If they're manned, you have to spend time shipping the crews back and forth, along with supplies. If they're not manned, they're more difficult to fix then weapons integral to the station when they break. They are also more expensive to build then just adding a few beam cannon, flak guns, and missile launchers to an existing structure. In the case of flak or missiles, they are more difficult to reload when they run low on ammo. They must be transported to the site they are supposed to defend. And so long as they are semi-mobile, then there remains the temptation to move them...and then possibly not have them there when they're needed.
Your point is also somewhat academic, since as of this time I know of no seperate weapons platform mods filling the bill for what you describe save the Acheron, and the Acheron has problems defending itself against fighter strikes.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Weapons onboard the station present greater tactical problems to an enemy and are inherently more efficent from a logistics standpoint. It's just that simple.
Yeah, and to improve the tactical effectiveness of a Deimos, let's give it 20 BFREDs!! :blah:
-
Putting wepons on a knossos or any installation that's not meant for defense or security is stupid. In 99,99% of the cases those things are built at sevcure places in a secure area in peacetime. A knossos, for example is more of a scientific object. So putting weapons on it would be apointless waste of money and resources. If you have to secure it use turret mines.
Things like space stations and warp portals and the likes are strategic objects that the enemy will normally conquer with minimum damage rather than destroy them because by gaining them they get an advantage.
So putting weapons on an installation actually endangers it, since the attackers have to destroy those. If a station gets attacked and a few turret mines get destroyed it's usuall not as much of a loss as when they actually have to blow up chunks of the station to disable the weapons.
Giving it a small hangar and a squadron of fighters and a cover of a few sentries is far more effective since the fighters can engage a target further away from the station minimzing the risk for the installation and giving a time window to call for reinforcements while sentries can hold the enemy off when it gets attacked and the fighters can protect the sentries to maximize their effect.
Clear enough?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
And rocket launchers = Mjolnirs
Weapons platforms aren't "logistically wasteful". They are semi-mobile, and would be more or less permanently in place around the device. You wouldn't need destroyers. What's logistically stupid is putting 25 beam cannons on a station should be concerned with making a stable jump-node.
And if it came to the point where a few wings of patrol fighters and a plethora of weapons platforms and such weren't enough to defend it from whatever stupidly high number of Sathanii you want to through at it in your campaign, then the odds are you're going to have to have a fleet there anyway.
AHEM..
The gate has 4 (FOUR) BGreens. Two on the uppermost and two on the lowermost segment, facing in different directions.
On top of that, it has two Assault Cannon turrets, and 12 Laser/Flak turrets.
It has two massive generators to supply enough power forthe weapons AND the gate operations.
As you may recall, the Knosses portal had no large generators or reactors, but it still worked...
And you forget one more thing - this Jump Gate in built to establish contact with Earth. The GTVA doesn't know what ot expect.
Maby hte Earth has become hostile and militant?
Maby the Shivans are there?
And you forget one thing - if hte installation is so important, you wouldn't want it to fall into enemy hands - you would sooner destroy it. A even better option is to force the enemy to destroy it, while at the same time damageing his fleet.
-
The Knossos portal had the advantage of being built by people who knew what they were doing, though..... maybe there's a reason that it never had weapons?
and wouldn't the system closest to Sol be the most heavily populated and thus have the largest in-system defenses anyways?
Oh, and why aren't there IFF-tuned meson / anti-matter mines around it in that case?
-
Currently re-working some of my older ship...and finishing this one:
(http://img131.exs.cx/img131/337/Athena.jpg)
This is NOT the texture, but I'm rahter using this model to render it and make a texture out of it....
EDIT: - about the Archangels turrets - the ship is 3024 polys wihout turrets, 4880 polys with all turrets, 6844 with debris...
could add more detail to turrets I gues....
-
The point is moot. It's his model and campaign, plus I like the idea. I think the turrets need a bit more work but other than that nice design (and reasoning).
now stop screwing around and making all these wonderful things and get back to RT! :D (kidding)!