Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: boewolf on January 18, 2006, 09:54:49 pm
-
Got realy bord recently so I started a little corvettee for the fs port. I've been working on it for a while. I have been trying to add detail without going overbord with the poly count.
(http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/pics/corvettee/GTICv1.jpg)
(http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/pics/corvettee/GTICv2.jpg)
(http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/pics/corvettee/GTICv3.jpg)
(http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/pics/corvettee/GTICv4.jpg)
comments, sujestions, critasizum.
-
Interesting...I really like the design, I dunno if it really likes like an FS1 era corvette tho. Looks like more of a gunship.
-
It's a shiny design, but it doesn't really fit into FS1-era Terran design aesthetics. Don't get me wrong, it's good, but I would have thought a 'Corvette' from the FS1 era would be more like a bulked-up Fenris design, or a thinned-down Orion design. As it stands, it kinda looks like... a Daedalus...
Could you put a Fenris next to it so we can see how big it is? As it stands, the actual size is somewhat ambiguous...
-
I only wish I could put a fenris next to it. But I can't get freespace to install. The computer I am using is having some issues. But it could be a top secret GTI design with one perpose in mind. Taking on Shivan warships on in a head to head fight and win. But for a size comparision I was planing on about the leighth of a Dimose and about twice as wide, if not a little more. If I ever get it finished I intent to use it in an olk GTI based port campain.
-
/me really hopes that those individual parts are actually modelled on rather than placed and glued.
-
Here's my suggestions to make it look less like a gunship, and more like an FS1 corvette.
1, detatch both wing and engine nacelle sections from the main body.
2, detatch the wing extentions outboard of each engine nacelle, from the engine nacelle
3, reattatch the engine nacelles side by side and at their same distance back on the ship, but slung underneath, possibly adjusting the front end of each nacelle so they contine to slope upwards towards the main ship body.
4, reattatch one of the outboard wing segments, underneath the engine nacelles, aiming downlards like a fin
5, extend the main engine block (the widest area of the main body) back by about 50%, possibly adding a slight indentation where it ends right now.
6, turn the raised dorsal section (currently sitting on top of the main engine block, and which appears to have 3 small engines on the back) into a superstructure, possibly topped by a radar dish (a la Fenris) and have a few single-part anti-fighter turrets mounted on the sides of the superstructure. The 3 mini-engines currently on the back of this section would likely be deleted.
7, add additional details to the currently-flat pannel sections, drawing insporiration from the Fenris and Orion designs. Be sure to add some flank single-part turrets and missile batteries.
-
It's a shiny design, but it doesn't really fit into FS1-era Terran design aesthetics. Don't get me wrong, it's good, but I would have thought a 'Corvette' from the FS1 era would be more like a bulked-up Fenris design, or a thinned-down Orion design. As it stands, it kinda looks like... a Daedalus...
Could you put a Fenris next to it so we can see how big it is? As it stands, the actual size is somewhat ambiguous...
Is this something like what you are thinking of.
(http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/pics/corvettee/GTCV%20fs1%2001.jpg)
Just note that this is an half hour wip.
EDIT
The bottom and back end.
(http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/pics/corvettee/GTCV%20fs1%2002.jpg)
(http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/pics/corvettee/GTCV%20fs1%2003.jpg)
-
Do you still ahve your original? If so I would like to acquire it.. True while the second one looks more FS'ish, I think the first one is a way superior design.
-
(http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/pics/corvettee/GTCV%20fs1%2001.jpg)
That definitely looks more FS1-ish, however the nose is a bit too Orion-ish. How about taking the narrow nose segment (basivally, everything ahead of that section with an octabonal cross-section) and replace it with the same nose segment from your earlier design, though perhaps not as long as the one on this design... say, 1/3 shorter (the nose, not the overall model).
Also, could we get some underneath shots of this one?
-
Do you still ahve your original? If so I would like to acquire it.. True while the second one looks more FS'ish, I think the first one is a way superior design.
Of course I still have the original. I am still planing to use it, but I am also curiouse as to see what you do with it. Ill pm you with a dl link in the next day or so, when I have more time to upload it.
Ill have a bit of a play with the nose of the new one as well and see what I come up with. Ill post some more shots of the underside also in the next day or so, when i have more time.
EDIT
That definitely looks more FS1-ish, however the nose is a bit too Orion-ish. How about taking the narrow nose segment (basivally, everything ahead of that section with an octabonal cross-section) and replace it with the same nose segment from your earlier design, though perhaps not as long as the one on this design... say, 1/3 shorter (the nose, not the overall model).
Also, could we get some underneath shots of this one?
After trying to mold the nose segment of my origional design and finding it not to fit well enough to use, I made a new nose section using both the old and new design. I think it works quite well.
(http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/pics/corvettee/GTCV%20fs1%20V2%2001.jpg)
-
Seeing the tail end, those ventral things finally make sense. Are you gonna add a Fusion Mortar turret on the bottom of each of them, like on the Fenris-Leviathan? Are you gonna add any dorsal superstructure? If you do, I'd suggest you add it between those things that look like clamps from the size.
-
Seeing the tail end, those ventral things finally make sense. Are you gonna add a Fusion Mortar turret on the bottom of each of them, like on the Fenris-Leviathan? Are you gonna add any dorsal superstructure? If you do, I'd suggest you add it between those things that look like clamps from the size.
I am planing on having normal turrets on the ventral things. It was the only thing i don't like about the Fenris - Leviathan design. I think they could be much better placed. I am going to have two fusion mortars in the nose and two on the flanks. Apart from those four turrets Iam planing 16 other turrets spread accross the hull.
-
Now we're getting somewhere :yes:
Engine nacelles could use some work, but it's definitely starting to fit in with FS1 era ships.
-
I've got it to a point where I am happy with a main level of detail. Its got 30 turrets, at the moment. 4 fusion mortars, 10 huge turrets and 16 normat turrets.
(http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/pics/corvettee/GTCV%20fs1%2004.jpg)
-
Orion has only total of 16 turrets (5 triple huge and 11 normals)... dont you think that 30 might be just a bit too much for smaller ship from the same era?
-
Orion has only total of 16 turrets (5 triple huge and 11 normals)... dont you think that 30 might be just a bit too much for smaller ship from the same era?
Except the Orion was/is terribly underguned...
"It's a 2km long warship man! It should have AT THE VERY LEAST 4 dozen turrets!" (<- Raptor's personal view)
You can't have too many turrets... just as long as their combine power output is not OTT when compared to ship.
-
Orion has only total of 16 turrets (5 triple huge and 11 normals)... dont you think that 30 might be just a bit too much for smaller ship from the same era?
Except the Orion was/is terribly underguned...
"It's a 2km long warship man! It should have AT THE VERY LEAST 4 dozen turrets!" (<- Raptor's personal view)
You can't have too many turrets... just as long as their combine power output is not OTT when compared to ship.
Ok. Let me give a briefe and very rough tech description that I have been thinking about.
Designed roughly 2 years before the end of the VT war, Terrin command desided that a new bread of corvettee was needed to combat the overpowering firepower of the Typhoon destroyers. Thus the powercore of an Orion was inserted into a frame about two thirds the size to supply enough power to charge many extra turrets without sacrificing speed or hull strength. With the arrival of the Shievens the design was modified to allow her to stand toe to toe with a wing of Liliths and win.
-
Ok. Let me give a briefe and very rough tech description that I have been thinking about.
Designed roughly 2 years before the end of the VT war, Terrin command desided that a new bread of corvettee was needed to combat the overpowering firepower of the Typhoon destroyers. Thus the powercore of an Orion was inserted into a frame about two thirds the size to supply enough power to charge many extra turrets without sacrificing speed or hull strength. With the arrival of the Shievens the design was modified to allow her to stand toe to toe with a wing of Liliths and win.
although that design is sexy...
In freespace 1 everything was a fighter and bomber fight. Really, cap ships could hang out all day and shoot eachother and not blow up. It was the bomber wings that took them down. Also, unless its a "way-to-expensive-prototype-that-was-never-produced-in-quantity-because-new-planets-are-cheaper-to-make" ship, it should probably suck more than a deimos.
As an idea, a corvette like that could have a massive concentration of terran/terranhuge turrets in the front of the ship as a precursor to beam technology. Kind of the first stage in the evolution of the capital ship design where the strategists realize that the ships should be more than a fighter launching platform.
A second idea I have that seems more FS1 era would be coating the thing with 30-40 gun and missle turrets but keep them smaller. The role of the ship would then be to park next to an orion and shoot down bombs and bombers. Basically make something that acts like an aeolus. A swarm of turrets gets really scary when you think about not having forward shields on your bombers. The strength of the typhon was that it had a bucket of hitpoints and held a bazillion fighter-bomber wings. Its guns were as big of a joke as the orion otherwise.
-
Actually if this corvette was built before the start of the Great War I doubt it would be designed to shoot down bombs at all.
In the FS1 era ships had no shields and bombers were designed to denude capships of their turrets. They didn't even really have bombs. It was the capship that was meant to deliver the coup de grace
-
Tsunami bombs were brought in to action after the start of the Great war. Before that it was pretty much cap versus cap, with fighters trying to tip the balance. Capships didn't have to fear that a single bomber wings comes by and *puf*, another 5000 lives lost. Remember that Vasudan cargo depot in the beginning of FS1? After its "liberation", the GTC Orf stayed to guard it alone. Because if attacked, it had every chance of holding the fort until friendly fightersupport could be deployed.
During the T-V war fleet battles were careful powerstruggles, like the FS2 intro. As in FS2 its more like "Full speed ahead! *beam* *beam* *beam* Whew, we won!" In FS1 fighters really had the time to make a difference, and since the battles lasted longer, outmanouvering your opponent was more important
-
Tsunami bombs were brought in to action after the start of the Great war. Before that it was pretty much cap versus cap, with fighters trying to tip the balance. Capships didn't have to fear that a single bomber wings comes by and *puf*, another 5000 lives lost. Remember that Vasudan cargo depot in the beginning of FS1? After its "liberation", the GTC Orf stayed to guard it alone. Because if attacked, it had every chance of holding the fort until friendly fightersupport could be deployed.
During the T-V war fleet battles were careful powerstruggles, like the FS2 intro. As in FS2 its more like "Full speed ahead! *beam* *beam* *beam* Whew, we won!" In FS1 fighters really had the time to make a difference, and since the battles lasted longer, outmanouvering your opponent was more important
Hence the ability to fire at least two heavy and two normal turrets in any direction. Whilst a bomber wing right behind the engines would be a major pain. A cap ship right behind would be nothing too much of a worry. (Based of the Fenris ability to fire its rear turrets backwards).
EDIT
Oh and by the way I have finished the levels of detail and almost finished the debrees. As I can't install freespace at the moment would someone like to finish this one?
-
I think bombers and bombs were present at the FS1 era or rather long before FS1 era.. Just read FS1 tech descriptions of for example PVB Amun and Osiris. So bombs or atleast very capable bombers were available long before Shivans arrived and they were able to destroy Orion class vessels.
-
They were but noth with those bombs we know as Helios etc ^^
My 2 cents on the pic. It almost looks exactly like an Orion. Can you put an Orion next to it to see the size difference?
-
Tsunami bombs were brought in to action after the start of the Great war. Before that it was pretty much cap versus cap, with fighters trying to tip the balance. Capships didn't have to fear that a single bomber wings comes by and *puf*, another 5000 lives lost. Remember that Vasudan cargo depot in the beginning of FS1? After its "liberation", the GTC Orf stayed to guard it alone. Because if attacked, it had every chance of holding the fort until friendly fightersupport could be deployed.
During the T-V war fleet battles were careful powerstruggles, like the FS2 intro. As in FS2 its more like "Full speed ahead! *beam* *beam* *beam* Whew, we won!" In FS1 fighters really had the time to make a difference, and since the battles lasted longer, outmanouvering your opponent was more important
The tsunami had to have precursurs. With no shields though, the tactics would have to be send in 1 wave of light bomber ro strips off some turrets so the second wave of heavy bomber can release big bombs with a reasonable chance of hitting. shields give bomber pilots the option to charge in and drop at point blank. pre shields, they must drop smaller ordinance further back, but im sure we can assume that the GTA and PVN at least had fusion bombs in the megaton range.
-
Remember, at the beginning of FS1 you didn't even have lock-on missiles. You only had tempests and rockeyes.
-
With same logic we could say that there can be no bombs or any aspect seeking missiles existing in GTVAs arsenal at the beginning of the FS2 as player has nothing else than tempests and rockeyes at his disposal and even in the techroom you have only those two secondaries listed. Clearly it means that all the tech from FS1 era was lost...
I hope you dont mind a little sarcasm
And btw FS1 had furies and MX-50s...
-
Well there must have been heavy weapons against big targets. And you might call them bombs. I admit that. But they must have been considerably weaker than tsunami (or powerful but very large). Anywy, bombers were not capshipkillers as they are in FS2. They were totally in support role (important role I might add). I'd imagine the maina armament against caps was heavy dumbfire rockets.
There alse must have been aspect seekers during T-V war. But were porpably considered to be luxury. Most ordanance was propably heat seekers and dumbfires.
-
Okay this dicussion should be split off really cause it's distracting from boewolf's work.
That said.
The Ursa is the first bomber designed specifically for the purpose of annihilating capital ships. It carries a massive payload and is the only bomber in the GTA which can equip the Harbinger Bomb. Strong shielding and hull make the Ursa very difficult to destroy.
and
The Medusa is the standard attack bomber in the GTA. Its strong shielding and large secondary capacity make it the favored attack craft against cruiser class targets. As the first bomber to carry the Tsunami bomb, the Medusa is considered the staple of any bomber pilots career.
Notice when these two ships come into service? Seems to me that before shielding appeared it was capital ships that killed other caps and not bombers. The low number of losses of capships seems to agree with this.
-
Notice when these two ships come into service? Seems to me that before shielding appeared it was capital ships that killed other caps and not bombers. The low number of losses of capships seems to agree with this.
That's a very good point I didn't thought of. Without shields, flying a bombercraft near capships is quite risky. This explains why early vasudan bombers are huge and heavily armoured, likely making them expensive, and therefore rarely deployed. But fighters on the other hand are able to make strikes agoinst capships due to their superior speed...
-
Agreed, but if you read this
The Orion is the capital ship of the GTA. Measuring a frightening 2.1 kilometers in length, the cost to build one of these far outweighs the cost of paying the crew of this ship for 3 years. There is no more important symbol of Terran Pride than a ship like the Galatea or the Intrepid cruising past a colonized planet, patrolling the system and ensuring safety. In the course of the 14 year war, very few of these have ever been lost, making the destruction of an Orion a truly horrible defeat.
and this
The Amun is the Vasudans heaviest bomber class ship. It carries a massive payload and has been responsible for the destruction of at least 3 Orion class destroyers in the past 2 years. Fortunately, it is slow and has low maneuverability, making it an easy target for our fighters. Fighter pilots should be wary of the two turrets on this ship: they are not to be ignored.
Very few have ever been lost and then a single bomber class is responsible of the destruction of three of these vessels within 2 years? IMHO there isnt much in the 'very few' left for the capships even if the into account the GTD Eisenhower (lost against the first PVD Typhon) which IIRC can not be verified as being an Orion class vessel.
Those would lead me to believe that bombers were a major anticapship asset long before shields or Shivans. Perhaps they used warheads like modern HEAT that have relatively small shockwave but immense penetration instead of HE or nukes like the bombs in FS. Perhaps the tactics were completely different than the bomber tactics in FS1. Perhaps... (ad infinitum)
-
Or perhaps they simply disabled and disarmed the Orions. That would still make them responsible for the destruction without them having to blow them up themselves. For further proof.
The destruction of the GTS Asimov has struck a major blow to our attempts to preserve this sector. Due to the loss of the Asimov's data, Project Tsunami is no more.
The prospect of destroying Shivan cruisers without the Tsunami bomb is daunting, to say the least.
That sort of suggests that neither race had anything capable of taking down Shivan cruisers till the Tsunami came along. If they can't take out cruisers I very much doubt that they could take out capships like the Orion.
-
I dont remember ever seeing that debriefing part... But still the same if a single bomber class was capable of destrying at least (= perhaps even more than) three Orions, even if only as disabling and disarmed them, the bombers would have surely been able to destroy any cruiser (again by same criteria 'disarming and disabling').
The prospect of destroying Shivan cruisers without the Tsunami bomb is daunting, to say the least.
So according to this even Terran or Vasudan cruisers would have been unable to take down Shivan cruisers?
-
The Amun is the Vasudans heaviest bomber class ship. It carries a massive payload and has been responsible for the destruction of at least 3 Orion class destroyers in the past 2 years. Fortunately, it is slow and has low maneuverability, making it an easy target for our fighters. Fighter pilots should be wary of the two turrets on this ship: they are not to be ignored.
Which means the bombers had considerable amount of fighter escorts. That means it has been a large engagement. And that suggests considerable capitalship support. Hence it was likely that the Orions defensive abilites were diminished by fighter strikes.
Besides. Filling Amun with Furies is sufficent to seriously cripple an Orion, IF given time to deliver that payload on critical systems in peace . The "massive payload" propably means heavy rockets and perhaps space bombs (bombs with no quidance systems). Tsunami being the first "next generation" anti-cap torpedo.
So according to this even Terran or Vasudan cruisers would have been unable to take down Shivan cruisers?
They couldn't on one-on-one... Two-on-one should be possible if the one is Cain. Lilith is just a monster... But with the help from a wing of Medusas armed with Tsunami, thats another matter...
-
Assumptions, assumptions... Didnt nearly all bomber wings had atleast some fighter protection? Again assuming such an attack was a major engagement involving multiple capships and loads of small craft sqauadrons is IMHO bit too much...
I am not claiming to know that bombers were the primary anti-capship asset in use in pre-FS1 time but i do know that they were a major anti-capship asset according to canon sources. Again I'm not saying that capships were equally worthless as during the Great War era but rather that they are not the only solution especially as conflicting evidence can be found. Just leave open mind for the bombers too.
I think that we can agree that bombers were a major factor in pre-FS1 battles.. Major enough that ships designed at the later stages of that war would have been designed and armed accordingly. Loss of major combatants due bomber actions surely would have had influence on ship designs. Though fact is that we do not know if there were torpedoes, bombs or rockets in use before FS1. We do not know if they were unguided, heat seeking or aspect seeking. Then again we dont know if the capships were the primary anti-capship asset. I just wouldnt go too far with my assumptions
So according to this even Terran or Vasudan cruisers would have been unable to take down Shivan cruisers?
They couldn't on one-on-one... Two-on-one should be possible if the one is Cain. Lilith is just a monster... But with the help from a wing of Medusas armed with Tsunami, thats another matter...
What i was after was that the wording was such that it indicated that none of the allied vessels, Orions and Typhons included, apart from the bombers armed with Tsunamis would have had any chance against a single Shivan cruiser.
-
So according to this even Terran or Vasudan cruisers would have been unable to take down Shivan cruisers?
The quote doesn't say unable. Just that it would be very hard to take down cruisers without bombers carrying the Tsunami.
I'm not saying that bombers were worthless in the T-V war. Far from it. The point I'm making is that bombers didn't kill capships back then. The bombers job was to disarm and disable the enemy capship enough that a capship could close and kill it. Now that would be a long drawn out process so it fits with the fact that capships didn't get killed that often. More often than not the cap would probably figure out how to repair an engine and jump out (without subspace tracking this would make it very hard to find it again).
Bombers were an important part of the war effort but their role was more comparable to that of a WWII bomber attacking the Bismark than it is to the role of a FS2 bomber.
-
FS1 capships weren't completely lame in capital ship combat. The fusion mortar was actually a fairly decent weapon against cruiser sized and smaller targets, due to it's high rate of fire. There's still the matter of bringing the enemy into it's firing arc though.
-
Thats why I have placed four mortar turrets on this thing. Two of them are on the sides so that given the usual capship style of attack they will have at least one mortar turret to attackwith.
-
but im sure we can assume that the GTA and PVN at least had fusion bombs in the megaton range.
Actually their lightest ordance was already in the kiloton range. (The MX-50 was rated at 1.5 megatons IIRC.)
-
The main issue that troubles me in this is that you are saying very clearly that bombers didnt destroy capships before FS1 era. And you seem to leave no possibilities for pure small craft assaults (bombers and their escort fighters) being able to destroy any capships in pre-FS1 era. Even though we know practically nothing about the pre-FS1 era equipment, weapons, bombers, or fighters. Im not sure if you meant it in that way but it sounds awfully lot like it.
Oh and another GTD destroyed by small crafts, just check the PVF Anubis tech description.. That is 'at least 4' GTDs (of which 3+ are Orions) destroyed by small craft actions (bombers and kamikaze bombers) and a single GTD lost to capships (Eisenhower). And i do believe that 'responsible for destruction' is essentially the same as 'destroyed'. Quite like in WW2 era battles where in some occasions bombers have been (at least later on) credited for destroying their targets even though the target ships actually stayed afloat and were later on sunk by ship escorting it (US: Lexington, Japan: Hiryu). Quite like GTD Legion.. It wasnt destroyed - as in blown to bits - by Lucifer but rather left as a derelict hulk floating in space.
I just wouldnt like to see anyone using absolute definitions like 'The point I'm making is that bombers didn't kill capships back then.' as we do not know if this is a fact. Rather it is a possibility that bombers didnt kill capships at that time but as far as we know (or at least as far as i know) it is most certainly not the only possibility and we should be able and willing to accept also the possibility that bombers could have been able to blast capships into pieces too.
And MX-50 has 'medium payload (16.5 kt)', but that is just the explosive power of the warhead compared against TNT and has nothing to do with nuclear explosions.
-
I get the feeling that my point was bit clouded.
Since bombers have been credited for the destruction of many capitalships they have been in use, and have been effective. But they couldn't have been as effective and quick to destroy them as in FS2, at least without lots of support. But in FS2 we see bomber wings with only minor fighter support pose a serious threat to even destroyers. But in the T-V war they had no such firepower or durability. That is my point.
I think so because: At the strat of FS1 we do not see much bomber action and bombs in the Terran side. We know that the war was hard on economy, so perhaps they simply didn't have that much bomber assets and focused more on heavy fighters like Apollo. Fighters could make an attack against hostile capships without being hit thanks to their speed. But bombers were more voulnerable (remember, no shields). Considering the weaponry of that age, capships were also more voulerable to fast moving fighters.
After project tsunami and the discovery of shield technology, bombers became viable assets again because of the added firepower and the ability to survive trought enemy fire.
Anyone who disagrres with me is as wrong as I am. Because we really don't know too much about those times. But that is my view of things.
-
So.... back on topic, any new detailed shots of this Corvette? The ventral looked a little bland in those images.
-
So.... back on topic, any new detailed shots of this Corvette? The ventral looked a little bland in those images.
This is as it stands at the moment. I have all the Lods done with only a few more debrees to go. However I can try a fre things with the veltral sections.
(http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/pics/corvettee/GTCV%20fs1%2007.jpg)
-
Is that a radar dish between the engines?
-
Is that a radar dish between the engines?
yes.
-
Have you given any thought to what texture layout you're gonna use on this baby?
-
Have you given any thought to what texture layout you're gonna use on this baby?
I was thinking about trying a couple of the Orion and Instalation textures in more of a grey scale. But I won't garentee that I will do a good job of it. Ill also try and get freespace working so I can scale and test it myself.
-
FS Textures will kill this model.
-
Do something now and save yourself much pain later. All of those faces with convex edges (basically all the big, flat ones) need to be split up into smaller faces sooner rather than later. If the edges stay like that, you'll get all sorts of unpredictable results when you convert it.
I also agree with Raa on this one. This thing is begging for custom maps.
-
The main issue that troubles me in this is that you are saying very clearly that bombers didnt destroy capships before FS1 era.
I think that's pretty likely to be the case. There's certainly very little evidence that a bomber wing on its own ever destroyed a capship. It's like saying that bombers sunk the Bismark. They didn't they put it out of commission, yes but the Bismark only sank cause the crew skuttled it.
And you seem to leave no possibilities for pure small craft assaults (bombers and their escort fighters) being able to destroy any capships in pre-FS1 era.
I don't doubt that they killed cruisers now and again. Maybe even quite often. They may have killed capships at the start of the war too but I simply don't see it as very likely that any bomber could take out an Orion.
Even though we know practically nothing about the pre-FS1 era equipment, weapons, bombers, or fighters. Im not sure if you meant it in that way but it sounds awfully lot like it.
I'm not stating it as fact but I am saying that it fits the evidence better than having bombers able to kill capships. If bombers could kill caps why was the Taranis seen as a threat? Couple of wings of vasudan bombers could have dealt with it surely? In addition to that it also makes a nice progression. You can see why the GTA built great big destroyers in the first place (only things that could kill other ships their size) instead of going down other routes. Furthermore if you have to park up next to an enemy destroyer and bombard it with your guns for such a long time to kill it, it explains why the war was such a stalemate.
-
I never got that. The Terrans and Vasudans were at war for 10 years and never thought of lock-on missiles?
-
I think that's pretty likely to be the case. There's certainly very little evidence that a bomber wing on its own ever destroyed a capship. It's like saying that bombers sunk the Bismark. They didn't they put it out of commission, yes but the Bismark only sank cause the crew skuttled it.
Bombers did sink the Tirpitz however. Allthough it did take many, many tries.
12 November 1944: Attacked by 32 Lancaster. Shortly after 0940, the Tirpitz is hit by two "Tallboy" bombs on the port side amidships. Four other bombs near-miss the battleship. At 0952 the ship capsizes at 69º 36' north, 18º 59' east. 971 dead.
-
Perhaps:
Destroyers would have been needed to carry the fighters and bombers from system to system.. And to carry large numbers of small crafts and to proveide quaters for all the required crew it had to big. Big ships is a valuable target and had to be protected against any kinda of an assault...
On the other hand cruisers make long duration patrols or escort missions possible unlike with fighters where the crew and the ship actually have to be docked, repaired or given some maintenance from time to time... So there is a place for those too even if they need fighter escorts to assist them.
And the lenght of the war can not be explained by prolonged gunfights (14 years). Im guessing that as there were no good and viable ways of destroying hostile capship with a single attack (no beams and fragile bombers) the direct and all out shooting war degenerated into a different war.. Deep strikes against enemy supplies.. Protection of friendly convoys.. And suprise assaults against capships after long 'antifighter' campaings used to reduce the number of escorting fighters... But i dont know.. I just dont wont to say yes or no in any absolute manner,
IMHO there are many places where the canon material is full of contradictions. I too have wondered that Taranis thing. Especially when there are also data that bombers were capable of taking dwon destroyers.
WeatherOp:
Japanese didnt need many attempts to sink the Prince of Wales (by then a modern battleship with improved AA guns) and Repulse...
-
And the lenght of the war can not be explained by prolonged gunfights (14 years). Im guessing that as there were no good and viable ways of destroying hostile capship with a single attack (no beams and fragile bombers) the direct and all out shooting war degenerated into a different war.
I wasn't saying that destroyers had to hammer away for 14 years to kill each other :p I was basically saying what you were. That because there was no easy way to kill an enemy destroyer one side or the other would usually jump away long before the battle was decided. With no subspace tracking either there wouldn't be any way to find them once they did escape so ships could spend days or months hunting each other only for one of them to escape if the battle went badly and begin the cycle again.
IMHO there are many places where the canon material is full of contradictions. I too have wondered that Taranis thing. Especially when there are also data that bombers were capable of taking dwon destroyers.
I suspect it was a mixture of their inability to do any serious damage to capship together with a fear of shivan fighters. They only really decided to do something about it once they had shielded fighters.
-
I wasn't saying that destroyers had to hammer away for 14 years to kill each other :p
Oops, my output didnt quite match the thought behind it.. :lol: Yeah, probably not 14 year gunfights.. :lol:
I suspect it was a mixture of their inability to do any serious damage to capship together with a fear of shivan fighters. They only really decided to do something about it once they had shielded fighters.
That is perhaps the best explanation i have heard for that incident.
-
More like they never thought that aspect seeking missile were necessary. After all, none of them had any kind of low observabilty tech, so fire and forget was fine, and also cheap.
-
I think most of the 14 year T-V war was mostly a Cold war. And not much real fighting was done, until around the time of Operation Thresher. I think that could have been the first big strike.
-
I don't think it was a cold war. They do talk about ships being destroyed after all. But much of the war consisted of skirmishes most likely.
-
Perhaps:
Destroyers would have been needed to carry the fighters and bombers from system to system.. And to carry large numbers of small crafts and to proveide quaters for all the required crew it had to big. Big ships is a valuable target and had to be protected against any kinda of an assault...
On the other hand cruisers make long duration patrols or escort missions possible unlike with fighters where the crew and the ship actually have to be docked, repaired or given some maintenance from time to time... So there is a place for those too even if they need fighter escorts to assist them.
And the lenght of the war can not be explained by prolonged gunfights (14 years). Im guessing that as there were no good and viable ways of destroying hostile capship with a single attack (no beams and fragile bombers) the direct and all out shooting war degenerated into a different war.. Deep strikes against enemy supplies.. Protection of friendly convoys.. And suprise assaults against capships after long 'antifighter' campaings used to reduce the number of escorting fighters... But i dont know.. I just dont wont to say yes or no in any absolute manner,
IMHO there are many places where the canon material is full of contradictions. I too have wondered that Taranis thing. Especially when there are also data that bombers were capable of taking dwon destroyers.
WeatherOp:
Japanese didnt need many attempts to sink the Prince of Wales (by then a modern battleship with improved AA guns) and Repulse...
there's one more reason why the war lasted 14 years - node blockades.
Remeber that tehre were probably along periods of waiting and scouting, of gathering forces to attempt a breaktrough.
If both sides are deeply entrenched then no wonder the war laster 14 years..even with beam cannons and the like it would have taken ages - jsut look at the NTF rebellion - the GTVA couldn't break trough into their systems.
EDIT:T hey might have sunk the prince of Whales, but they sent hunderds of airplanes and it still took them a long time.
-
I think most of the 14 year T-V war was mostly a Cold war. And not much real fighting was done, until around the time of Operation Thresher. I think that could have been the first big strike.
I always felt it had bogged down into a WW1 type scenario, with infrequent and usually suicidal assaults upon node blockades resembling trench warfare in effect. I'd also think that the loss of an Orion being a huge defeat reflects that; namely that an Orion would be either the primary defensive vessel or the leader of an attack, and it's destruction would spell doom for the rest of the attacking/defending force - especially the fighter and bomber pilots. I can imagine Thresher as an attack upon the Vasudan Anatres blockade, where the lead destroyer (or destroyers; there were 504 pilots killed) was either destroyed or forced to retreat. The 'missing, presumed dead' could refer to the possibility of pilots, now cut off from their fighterbays, being forced to try to surrender to the Vasudans or somehow ditch their craft on a planet (incredibly risky and also likely to lead to starvation or suffocaton in the long run).
-
...the loss of an Orion being a huge defeat...
Thats what I like in FS1. Every ship and crew is valued. And there aint many of them. But in FS2 there is just endless supply of cruisers, corvettes and even destroyers they bring out to be destroyed.
All hostile capships are destroyed with few exeptions. And I cant honestly tell if there are more destroyed terran warships than surviving ones in the missions. Actually, is there even one mission where something big doesn't blow up? I find that funny, in a sad way. That is one of the reasons why FS1 campaign has allways been better than FS2.
-
I like the 14 year war and to a certain degree the great war era because of the vast difference in capships and fighters. In fs2, you can easily destroy a Fenris class cruiser all by yourself with some tempests. Before shields, even an Aten could rip you to shreds (particularly those multi-part turrets armed with avengers or VLL-9's).
Also, you don't even THINK about sending a 'small strike force" of a few fighter and bomber wings to take out a destroyer. If you're in a skirmish and a destroyer shows up, you lose.
-
...the loss of an Orion being a huge defeat...
Thats what I like in FS1. Every ship and crew is valued. And there aint many of them. But in FS2 there is just endless supply of cruisers, corvettes and even destroyers they bring out to be destroyed.
All hostile capships are destroyed with few exeptions. And I cant honestly tell if there are more destroyed terran warships than surviving ones in the missions. Actually, is there even one mission where something big doesn't blow up? I find that funny, in a sad way. That is one of the reasons why FS1 campaign has allways been better than FS2.
Well, the end cutscene does describe the fleet as 'decimated', so it seems clear FS2 saw the GTVA take an utter hammering. But there's always a consequence of the bigger, better, more epic sequel syndrome, I suppose, so it is numbed. I think both campaigns have different strengths, to be honest.
-
Thats what I like in FS1. Every ship and crew is valued. And there aint many of them. But in FS2 there is just endless supply of cruisers, corvettes and even destroyers they bring out to be destroyed.
All hostile capships are destroyed with few exeptions. And I cant honestly tell if there are more destroyed terran warships than surviving ones in the missions. Actually, is there even one mission where something big doesn't blow up? I find that funny, in a sad way. That is one of the reasons why FS1 campaign has allways been better than FS2.
Which is allso quite funny. A space-fearing race that contrlos dozens of star system has only several capships?
Considering that one COUTRY like the US now has hoards of ship of all sizes and types, huge fleets seem logical, even if destroyers are big and expensive...
-
You cant be serious when you compare US navy to a Galactic power :lol:
You cant be serious when you compare sea vessel to a space vessel :rolleyes:
Space ship is not just a ship. It is a space ship. Being exposed to space is a different thing than being exposed to water. Aircraft carrier is a simple toy, when compared to designing, building and running and Orion. And I easily belive that one Orion costs more than that US navy of yours.
And controlling space doesn't mean that you are constantly pulling resources and personnel from it. I think GTA needed more than few months to build a new space ship. For FS2, both Vasudans and Terrans had over 30 years to colonize and to build up their fleets. So I guess they had lots of them to waste.
-
I never got that. The Terrans and Vasudans were at war for 10 years and never thought of lock-on missiles?
Just because something is feasible now and has been for as long as there have been missiles, doesn't mean it's feasible when those missiles would be completely lethal to your adversary! Especially when knowledge of them pretty clearly exists! WE WON'T HAVE YOUR LOGIC HERE
It's called a plot hole, and it allows us to get the classic "first you have pea shooters and finally you have a BFG 3000" story. In FS1 it seems like Terrans lack bombers, interceptors and pretty much everything and then just develope and product them in a pace that would make the Japanese pale. FS2 is certainly a bit more beliavable in that regard.
-
And I easily belive that one Orion costs more than that US navy of yours
And the GTA has the resources of entire WORLDS, plus spaceborne habitats, to build them with. The comparison is more apt then one might think.
However the FS1 conditions are still easily enough explained. It has, after all, been 14 years of war, with attendant attrition.
-
Just letting you all know that I have done as much as I can on this for the forseable feuture. This is due to not being able to install FS2 or any of the tools. So here is a download link if someone would please be nice enough to finish it for me I would be greatly appreciatve. http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/download/corvettee/GTCV Gladiator.zip
I have chosen the name Gladiator on the grounds that it is intended to face of with large warships and deliver a large whallep.
-
What's wrong with your FS2 installation?
-
It just locks up. nothing more nothing less. but there are a lot of problems with this pc at the moment. i'm working on getting my own so i don't have all these problems.
-
And I easily belive that one Orion costs more than that US navy of yours
And the GTA has the resources of entire WORLDS, plus spaceborne habitats, to build them with. The comparison is more apt then one might think.
However the FS1 conditions are still easily enough explained. It has, after all, been 14 years of war, with attendant attrition.
Plus they didn't need to patrol entire star-systems (in general), just the chokepoints presented by subspace nodes.
-
Some good news. after much tinkering i have managed to get fs2 to install, as well as the modding tools. so i will try and get a stable mesh imported and then go crap i still can't texture. but i will try anyway.
-
Good to hear. I'm interested in this design.
-
Anything in the Freespace 1 era interests me. Another ship to stick blobs on? cool.
-
*thinks about a massive number of blobs assaulting a Demon* :D
-
Well I am still woking on getting the main lod working ingame. Well technicly I am still trying to convert it to a pof.
I am trying to seperate the faces up a bit without splurging on the poly count. Am I going in the right direction?
-
For some variety I have here a little pre FS1 Shivan destroyer that has been downgraded to a corvettee by Demon and Lucy standards, but it for size it fits the role.
(http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/pics/corvettee/SCv1.jpg)
-
Good concept. It obviously needs more details (and will recieve them), but its head looks decidedly FS2 Vasudan. Start by giving it the required triangle nose. You may also want to draw on the Cain/Lilith features and add a dorsal arm (forward aiming) on top of the aft section, and possibly a couple of smaller ones flanking the nose. Just make sure they aren't the sharp-ended FS2 variant. You may also want to revise the engine emplacement, as the current one looks destinctively Ravana-esque. You may also want to arm it with 2 or 3 of the turrets found as the chin turret for the Cain/Lilith, and perhaps one that's more like the Demon's twin-barrel design.
-
Is this a more Shivan front end for you?
With the back end I ended up going to the Cain \ Lucy look.
(http://glenton.customer.netspace.net.au/pics/corvettee/SCv2.jpg)
-
If definitely doesn't look Vasudan anymore, but what's with the nose (with the 2 mini-prongs)? Did you have anything special planned for that? Otherwise, I'd advise you to cut that section down a bit and give it a slanted, triangular nose. BTW, I've noticed that you're using 4-sided polygons. You know, FS only uses tri-angular polygons. It will convert them all to triangles, which could increase your polycount somewhat in-game. Perhaps you should break up those faces and triangularize them yourself. It'd probably make it much more efficient.
-
I like it. Makes me wish I could figure out how to do anything in Truespace.
-
I'd guess those prongs are part of the forward beam cannon assembly, but I could be wrong.
-
Won't be beams if it's FS1-era.
-
It's Shivan. It can have beams.
-
Hmm, i'd personaly say that the arrangement at the front makes it looks terran, try giving it some stranger angles.
-
If definitely doesn't look Vasudan anymore, but what's with the nose (with the 2 mini-prongs)? Did you have anything special planned for that? Otherwise, I'd advise you to cut that section down a bit and give it a slanted, triangular nose. BTW, I've noticed that you're using 4-sided polygons. You know, FS only uses tri-angular polygons. It will convert them all to triangles, which could increase your polycount somewhat in-game. Perhaps you should break up those faces and triangularize them yourself. It'd probably make it much more efficient.
Four sided polygons??? The front prongs are going to have small turrets on the end of them. However I could devise a small slash version of the Lucy beam for the nose...
-
Actually, I was refurring to that little 2-armed deal on the tip of the nose. I can understand adding beam weapons or the like, on the front of the outer arms, but the way you have the nose thing set up, almost looks like you're planning on making it a multi-part turret facing forwards. If you are doing this, be advised that you can't (yet) make multi-part turrets where the barrel's (coded) default position is anything but either pointing straight up or straight down. In order to ensure that it can point down as well as up, you'd need to give it a 360 degree fof, which has some weird results.
As for the 4-sided-polygon thing, I was refuring to places like the aft dorsal, where there's clearly a square surface. FS will triangularize this when loaing, which will inflate the polycount. There are other 4-sided polygons on the model, but most are not square, being some weird trapezoid shape. These too get triangularized.
For your main arm prongs (that will mount the beam guns), you may want to give them the triangle front as well, see Lucy's arms for reference. Also, I still think that there needs to be something on top of the aft area.
-
hi,
mhh the shivan doesnt look bad.
i have any suggestions :).
on the top, of the rear end, where the quarder is. i suggest make there a other warm which point in the front.
and maybe remove the middle arm in the front and replace it with an arm comming from the under side up.
Mehrpack
-
Trivial, if that's so, what the devil happened to the turret angle fix?
-
If you're refurring to the way the MV packs have ship turrets facing other directions than straight up or straight down, that is using animation code and is an after-the-fact change. Look at a ship such as this in-game, then in the techroom. The later will still show the vertically placed turret barrels. Assuming that thing is a multi-part on the front, idealy Boewolf would want both the barrels and the normals pointing forward, so that its coverage sweep would include anything directly in front of the craft, but that can't be done right now. WMC has been attempting to overcome this, but with no success as of yet.
-
Is this one of the things that needs fixed before side multi-part turrets are viable?
-
Of course your assuming that it is a multi part turret to begin with. I thought i might make that nose tip a very bit single part turret. That is if I make a cut down Lucy beam for it.
-
I assumed you would put something like pair of slash variants of the LRed, on the end of the main booms. As for the nose and the mini-booms, I thought THAT was an attempted forward-facing multi-part turret. By your reaction, it appears I was wrong. You gonna add a dorsal boom/claw to the aft section?
-
I once made a mission where the player had to protect a modified Leviathin, as it tested out its missle launcher that launched harbringers. First mission I ever made. The general story was Cruisers\Destroyers do not have enough firepower, and this was one of the expirements. It was going to be a campaign, but I am way too lazy.
-
Gee, Looks good. Just a suggestion though, mabye have the back a bit flater, and it going down a bit more. otherwise, great!
-
About Terran corvette.
Good way would be giving it 20 turrets: 4 Harbinger launchers, 6 MX missile launchers and 10 small triple turrets with Fails (like Orion turrets). It would be FS1-era standards, but much more powerfull.
-
The last pic of the terran corvette, What can i say except, Verry Confed, Very cool.
:pimp:
-
Japanese didnt need many attempts to sink the Prince of Wales (by then a modern battleship with improved AA guns) and Repulse...
True...but they did send S***LOADS of fighters and bombers.
ON TOPIC:
I don't belive in FS1 both sides were unable to deal damage to capships. They did have bombs and missiles after all. Maby not as strong as the Tsunami or Harbringer, but they did have them.. Of course, that gave the destroyer time to escape...not that they didn't have enough time to escape in FS2 - it just wasn't scripted that way.
time it if you want.. Look at how long it takes for an average Terran or Vasudan warship to escape when there's trouble..
Nice ships..
and I have to agree with Ower about the loadout..nice pick.
-
Only destroying 2 Typhons in 2 years does imply a certain lack of...penetration to GTA bombs. Particularly when said warships' debut describes it decimating an entire fleet.
-
In FS1 terms a "Fleet" from my FS1 experience, constitutes a pair of cruisers, One TC1 cargo box, a lone watchdog turret and a destroyer. (if you're lucky :lol:)
You guys remember FS1 mission 1 or two i cant rmember when 2 wings of apoolos whooped a cargo depot in about forty seconds. Those were the days :D :shaking:
-
Deploying over 500 fighters in Operation Thresher entails considerably stronger forces and numbers than FS1 or 2 shown.
-
Make an operation thresher mod...
-
That's only slightly over 5 Orion class destroyer compliments
-
That's only slightly over 5 Orion class destroyer compliments
Assuming 100% attrition, of course.
-
Boewolf's models give me wood.... they rock! :yes: