Post by: Starwing on December 27, 2001, 11:59:00 am
Designation: SA-110 Thunderbolt VI heavy strike fighter
Armament: 06* Warhammer Mk.1 Muon cannon
08* wing pylons
Armoring: reinforced Titanium, depleted Uranium, Duraflex
Shielding: class III barrier shield
Max. velocity: Sol 470 Hyperspace- Equivalent- Speed
Description: A rather slow but heavy armed and armoured attack craft that can carry every Terran fighter based secondary weapon. Its main roles are planetary assaults, light bombing and close support duties.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics (without missiles):
Faces: 2149
Texture maps: 36
Bump maps: 13
Transparency maps: 1
And here are some weapons it can carry:
Front (left to right):
Spear - short range, heat seeking missile
Raptor - anti- capship missile
Hercules - medium range anti fighter missile
Rear (left to right):
Pandora's Box - 4 armor piecing cluster missiles
Safecracker - a single shot mass driver cannon, that can pierce even the most heavy armor.
Inferno - unguided rockets
[edit: changed the ship model slightly, new images]
------------------
You guys are still strange...
[This message has been edited by Starwing (edited 12-27-2001).]
Post by: an0n on December 27, 2001, 01:41:00 pm
Post by: Night Hammer on December 27, 2001, 01:48:00 pm
Post by: Nico on December 27, 2001, 03:12:00 pm
Post by: Starwing on December 27, 2001, 03:19:00 pm
Post by: Nico on December 27, 2001, 03:34:00 pm
from side and top, it's good, but the front view is terrible if you ask me.
I think the wings are too wide, the model itself is too short. adding some fins could also make it look better.
try to make the hull more elaborate (sp?), for now it's just three box put the one next to the other.
There's definitively a good start here, i think it just deserves more work (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
Post by: Starwing on December 27, 2001, 05:10:00 pm
I'm goint to upload updated shots soon.
Post by: Setekh on December 27, 2001, 09:37:00 pm
Post by: mikhael on December 27, 2001, 09:54:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Starwing:
.... But IMO the wings are the major issue there...I wanted it to look sturdy, probably a little bit heavy, just like a ship that's designed to survive heavy fire and not to do acrobatic maneuvers...
I agree with you that the wings are the major issue. They make the whole thing look fragile, almost like a U2 spyplane. If I were going to make this thing look 'heavy', I'd bunch things up more, maybe make the wings stubby and mount the weapons above and below, or even do away with the wings altogether (wasn't it the Herc that did this?). You might also want to move some weaponry to the dorsal surface, aft of the cockpit. This would help give the craft more 'shoulders', make it look more blocky. That might help convey the sense of 'heavy' better than the long wingspan.
------------------
--Mik http://www.404error.com ("http://www.404error.com")
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
[This message has been edited by mikhael (edited 12-27-2001).]
Post by: Alikchi on December 27, 2001, 09:55:00 pm
Post by: Starwing on December 28, 2001, 03:43:00 am
The Herc was never really my favourite fighter design. I think it looks to compact for a heavy fighter.
You have to put this into the same line of craft as the A-10, almost unuseable in dogfight, but deadly against armored targets and ground based installations. That would probably make it rather comparable with FS light bombers than the Herc.
Post by: NeoHunter on December 28, 2001, 06:09:00 am
------------------
GTD Excellence ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/excellence") Webmaster
< [b][email protected][/b] >
"Be flakked or be square!"
Post by: Nico on December 28, 2001, 07:18:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by Starwing:
Hmmm... I'm a little bit conservative on this issue... I like it when starfighters look like modern jets. The wings are there for two reasons: for atmospheric flight and as missile carriers (It's not Freespace, in my universe there are no pocket- missiles, and the designers didn't want to waste power by lifting the ship with anti-g devices only)
The Herc was never really my favourite fighter design. I think it looks to compact for a heavy fighter.
You have to put this into the same line of craft as the A-10, almost unuseable in dogfight, but deadly against armored targets and ground based installations. That would probably make it rather comparable with FS light bombers than the Herc.
such wings won't make your ship atmosphere flyable (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
Post by: Starwing on December 28, 2001, 09:21:00 am
Post by: Starwing on December 28, 2001, 09:32:00 am
[This message has been edited by Starwing (edited 12-28-2001).]
Post by: mikhael on December 28, 2001, 09:39:00 am
Also, take a look at your side profile. You might want to include a vertical fin of some sort, or give the engines a little more vertical rise (hey, they have to push it up out of atmosphere, right?).
Other than that, it looks pretty good.
------------------
--Mik http://www.404error.com ("http://www.404error.com")
ruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
[This message has been edited by mikhael (edited 12-28-2001).]
Post by: Starwing on December 28, 2001, 09:59:00 am
And it's a starfighter, it has maneuvring trusters (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif) I don't even know why I included those landing flaps into the wing textures...
As for the wings, I think large wings give a ship a special kind of elegance, like an eagle floating high above the land, and this is a slow craft, it's engines may look big and powerful, but those are fusion turbines, which are usually used on capships, not the boosters that are normally mounted on fighters.
Post by: aldo_14 on December 28, 2001, 11:29:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by Starwing:
Naahh, not on top... I've seen that only once on a jetfighter (BAC Lightning, IIRC), and it looked just plain UGLY. Besides that would the hanger crew really be pleased if they had to lift those nice warheads through the air to mount them on the ship.
And it's a starfighter, it has maneuvring trusters (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif) I don't even know why I included those landing flaps into the wing textures...
Maybe have missile racks mounted on a 'thing' that can raise them to vertical for in flight.
Post by: Nico on December 28, 2001, 11:47:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by Starwing:
Naahh, not on top... I've seen that only once on a jetfighter (BAC Lightning, IIRC), and it looked just plain UGLY.
it's like everything: if it's done right, it will look cool
Post by: Thorn on December 28, 2001, 11:51:00 am
Kinda blocky..
Isnt the SA prefix usually used for SAMs though?
ie. SA-6, SA-4
Post by: Starwing on December 28, 2001, 02:45:00 pm
And I don'T think at this time SAMs would still be used that much,if you can surround your base with a barrage of Gatling turrets and ion beams (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
Post by: Nico on December 28, 2001, 03:17:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Starwing:
Space: Above and Beyond also used SA- for their Hammerhead fighters. It's simply an A for Assault craft with an S for "Star-"
And I don'T think at this time SAMs would still be used that much,if you can surround your base with a barrage of Gatling turrets and ion beams (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
sams would still have a better range (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
Post by: Starwing on December 28, 2001, 03:28:00 pm
Post by: Nico on December 29, 2001, 07:08:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by Starwing:
Probably. Or probably not. What do you know about the range of my beam cannons? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
well, if your beams cannons can deal with the curved ground of a planet, sure, SAMs are owned (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Post by: Starwing on December 29, 2001, 07:16:00 am
------------------
You guys are still strange...
Post by: Nico on December 29, 2001, 07:41:00 am