Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: Black Wolf on August 30, 2007, 03:10:52 pm
-
If you’ve read the “Introductory Thread” You might understand the gist of this project. If not, I’ll summarize it very briefly here. What I want to try is a co-operative approach to FS modding, to see what happens if a whole lot of people contribute just a small part to a single project. Will it turn out to be a mess of different styles and ideas, or will people complement eachother, smooth over mistakes, fix errors and generally produce something half way decent. I honestly don’t know. That’s why we’re experimenting.
The process is like this. I’ve attached a very small fragment of a model. And I do mean very small. It’s 140 polies. I don’t want to overly influence the design of the ship. I want it to grow, organically, and see what we produce. As such, my piece can go on almost any part of a ship – it can be a big, major detail or it can be a small greeble. That’ll be mostly up to the first few designers.
This is how it’s going to work. I’ve posted the first piece. Whoever wants to claim the next stage does so by posting his intent on this thread. You then have two hours to post your modifications. No more. If two hours have past and there’s no new submission, whoever wants to claim it can have it from the last properly submitted piece. I know this is a short amount of time, but that’s deliberate and there are a lot of advantages. Principally, it keeps the process from getting bogged down with one person holding onto the model for hours, or even days, without needing someone to decide how long is too long. This way the forum clock regulates everything. Also, this way people from different timezones will get a chance to access the model, since there’ll be nobody holding it overnight. Moreover, it means that no one individual will have much of a chance to do too much to the model – it keeps it a group project, with no one individuals vision having too much bearing.
Anyway, once you’ve volunteered and completed your modifications, upload the model using the forums attachment system, post your edit number (the last number plus one) and if possible put up a pic somewhere as well. This isn’t absolutely essential for every little modification, but it’d be nice to keep people appraised. Please, only upload in a widely recognized format - 3ds or cob are good examples of such, and please, zip files only. I know other programs have better compression, but I don't want to have to hunt down some obscure program just to open someone's archive. Anyway, the next person to volunteer starts the cycle over again, following the same rules (first in best dressed, two hour limit etc. etc.).
Some Guidelines:
Please, only volunteer if you’re at least somewhat experienced with 3d modelling. I’m not trying to be elitist here – it’s just new modellers tend to make serious mesh errors, and fixing errors isn’t going to be on anybody’s priority list when they’re on such a strict time budget. As such, errors are inevitably going to end up piling up and up, leaving us with a final mesh that’s so full of bugs that fixing it would take more time than building it took. The only way to prevent this is to not make the mistakes in the first place, and the only way to do that is to be experienced. I’m not saying you have to be at Aldo or Nico’s level, but you will need to be competent. I’m sorry if that restricts people, but that’s the way it has to be. Practice up, and if things go well, maybe you can get involved in the next one :).
Secondly, be aware that you’re involved in a cooperative process. Editing people’s work is fine – tweak away until your heart’s content (of course, this also means you have to be willing to have your work tweaked) but try not to completely eliminate someone’s contributions (although I expect the early stuff to be severley morphed by the time the final product rolls off the line). Also, try not to overdominate the design – some modellers (I’m looking at you, tempest :p) can do a lot in two hours, but that doesn’t neccesarily mean that you should. Try to let everyone contribute without your vision dominating too much. The point of the project is cooperation and experimentation – we can always model a ship entirely to our own satisfaction at a later date. At the same time, sometimes people are going to have to take bold steps and really do large scale work. It’s a matter, I suppose, of striking a happy medium and editing other peoples stuff if you don’t like it.
Thirdly, we are building a HTL ship here, so don’t feel overly constrained by polycount. That’s not a license to waste polies, but nobody’s going to snap at you for greebling here and there, so don’t worry.
Finally, I’ve deliberately defined the species, class and name of the ship. The ship is terran because Terran ships are the easiest to make, it’s a corvette because that puts it square in the middle of the combat food chain, and it’s been pre named something fairly neutral to head off inevitable arguments down the line. These aren’t going to change, so please don’t try. Otherwise, go nuts :). The project will end when people lose interest, or after an arbitrary number of edits. At the moment, I’m setting that at 50, but that will be reviewed as we approach it.
One note before we start – I suspect I’m going to cop a little flak from the non modellers around here. Initially, I was going to go for two threads, one for modelling and one for FREDding, but I’ve decided to see how this one goes before tackling FREDding, which is going to be a very much more complex, given the difficulty of understanding someone else’s sexp tree. But I have high hopes :).
Anyway, Edit Number = 0. Let’s go :D
//
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
all my exports will be .obj or .x because my .3ds export is buggy. is this okay?
edit: a samll update too the model. part 0 is now part is the top! the sides move outward, and there are many good places for turrets on this one piece. remember, im nothing close to a detail-lord. i just added more shape.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Here, these quite possibly could be the main guns on the ship.
EDIT: They still need some work, but I think that they'd work out fine.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
awesome turrets! now can someone do more work on the body?
-
Dude. Zip.
-
Ok in zip.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Rar is one thing, but what's 7z?
-
7-zip
heres a zip
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Too bad this project moves so quickly--I do internet stuff on one computer and 3D modeling on another. Maybe I'll claim 2 hours tomorrow to put out a rough idea of what I want to do, then bring it back. Of course that reduces my editing time by ~5-10 minutes, but that's the cost to contribute! Anyways--I'll see back on this tomorrow and see what I can do with it. I'm not a perfect modeler, but adding in basics shouldn't be a problem.
-
I'm looking at 272 errors in STL check, for the 1st edit.
We want to look at that, before it goes farther?
Hades' checks out fine, though.
I looked at it, but I stopped, after seeing the errorfest :/
-
it must have been blenders .3ds import. i've seen it screw up geometry before.
-
OW! 1776 polys in Moscow1?!
Already reduced this down to 488 polys, so now I'll check it out and see about adding some stuff.
This is a really cool idea btw. I'm very interested to see where it ends up. :)
-
Looks interesting, I might have a twiddle myself.
What are you planning to do about the textures?
-
cool idea and all but there is the problem of too many cooks in the kitchen.
I'm looking at 272 errors in STL check, for the 1st edit.
We want to look at that, before it goes farther?
Hades' checks out fine, though.
I looked at it, but I stopped, after seeing the errorfest :/
let me set the record straight about that stl check modifyer in max. its useless for determining if a model is buggy for rendering!!!
the stl format is a format designed to store information for stereolithography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereolithography), which is a rapid prototyping technique which builds a physical model one cross-section at a time in a tank of photopolymer resin. this cures instantly when in contact with a uv laser beam. ime sure you seen this on the discovery channel or durning the intro to 'small soldiers'. the reason this check exists is to determine if a model can undergo this process successfully. problems can occure on any free-floating part of the model. sence the model is drawn bottom to top, you cant create anything thats not connected to something else and support structures need to be added to those parts to hold them up while the rest of the model is being created (theese are also shown in the 'small soldiers' intro). that modifyer exists to help the modeler determine where supports must go. sence 3d models for a game will never be physically need to be helt up while theyre rendered, stl check is useless.
-
Gah! I'm burning out my creativity drives trying to work out what to do with this peculiar shape. :\
I think I'm gonna ditch the hollow-ness it has and turn it into a more substantial piece of hull. At this stage heavy greebling is a bad idea.
And Nuke - yeah the cooking analogy is right, but it's still an interesting concept that should be given a try I reckon. :D
-
Yeah, I know. There's more to a model than just rendering, however.
It does do a good job of checking to see whether something has open faces, multiple edges, or the like.
Which, obviously, will be bad for collision detection, no? Sure seemed to, when I was testing those busted-up max4 Tachyon models :D
-
actually the engine was long ago made capable of running open meshes. sure in the days of retail it was practically a death sentance to make a model with open anything. but ive actually gotten into the practice of using open sub-meshes (not a sub model but an attached unsealed mesh) for things like attaching wings to fuselage. this saves on your poly count and generally makes attaching stuff alot easyer/faster. ive yet to see any colision failures from using such a model.
-
Gah! I'm burning out my creativity drives trying to work out what to do with this peculiar shape. :\
I think I'm gonna ditch the hollow-ness it has and turn it into a more substantial piece of hull. At this stage heavy greebling is a bad idea.
Don't be afraid to edit other people's stuff. That's vital to making this work.
-
It looked like it might have worked, but everything I tried failed, so it's not hollow anymore.
Nearly out of time now. I'll complete the segment I'm working on and upload it.
-
somebody anybody post a pic.
please ;7
-
Old version:
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Moscow/Moscow1.jpg)
New version:
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Moscow/Moscow2_2.jpg)
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Moscow/Moscow2_1.jpg)
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Moscow/Moscow2_3.jpg)
In the zip I've attached the .blend file as well as a COB and 3DS, to make it easier for anyone else to have a go. (The COB and 3DS are not mirrored though - do that in whatever program you use.)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
my little tube thing...oh how its grown :(
im so proud :p
-
Beautiful VA as always. :yes:
-
we are dwarfed by his greatness.
he ruined the concept of this project by doing too good. we cant continue without making the model ugly.
-
This is getting very intresting.. :yes:
-
:yes: Thanks Vasudan Admiral
whatever it turns out to be, I say it should be yellow, with a racing stripe...
I wish I had the time/knew how to mod stuff
-
Looks awesome. I am a very good modeler but I fear that my ambition will do more harm than good though :doubt:
-
Try it, this is a community project, after all.
-
starting to look like a mini-colossus instead of any type of corvette
-
Might this become the first non-hideously-expensive Terran fighterbay corvette? ;7
-
starting to look like a mini-colossus instead of any type of corvette
Well, fix it. :D
Don't be afraid to edit VA's mesh, even if it is a lot more... advanced than I was expecting for this stage of the project. Things should keep moving.
-
starting to look like a mini-colossus instead of any type of corvette
thats fine - as long as it doesent have the ugly desing elements of the original collossus.
ps: i see places for 24 multipart turrets and 25 singleparts!
maybe it would make a better destroyer?
"GTD/SOD/NTD/GTVA Jormungandr"?
-
Ok then, I'll give it a try. When can I start?
-
Any time dude.
-
maybe when I am not about to sleep...
-
I would mess with it some, but I am about to fall asleep.When I am about to fall asleep, it's like I am drunk.
-
I could see a ship like that in Derelict (was it that mod?) as the Gorgon Cannon... only with three beam cannons up front ala StratComm's Terran fleetpack... :)
-
Any progress Vengence?
-
ships actually turning out pretty good, i just hope you can get it to compile :D
-
can you try re-exporting? for some reason i can't get max to open any of these.
-
Hey Black Wolf, can I do the POF stuff like engines, glow points and turrets stats?
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Tf_shockwave2.jpg)
Seriously, am I the only one who instantly thought of this when looking at the model? :nervous:
-
can you try re-exporting? for some reason i can't get max to open any of these.
I checked the COB and the 3DS in 3d exploration and they both worked, so you could try saving it from there?
And Nuke; apart from the fairly obvious holes at either end, the mesh is 100% stable to the best of my ability to tell - it's a solid mesh (with a few small detail exceptions) rather than a collection of separate pieces.
That might make it a good deal more difficult to modify and shape, but I didn't think of that till I was pretty much done. ;)
-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Tf_shockwave2.jpg
Seriously, am I the only one who instantly thought of this when looking at the model? :nervous:
this is not the giant lasergun. this is the giant watergun - small version with 3 times the turrets.
-
Any progress Vengence?
I haven't even gotten it yet. I'll start right now.
EDIT: Bad news people, the 3ds doesn't work on my 3ds max 7. It says improper file format. Can someone get me an obj? And don't even ask me about Deep Exploration, mine expired. They all expire!
-
I resaved it via max, as a .3ds. It should be good now. Blender didn't like saving that particular one in .3ds, for some reason. Gave me the same issue as VA's did, when I tried. Should be good now, though.
Can't figure out what to do to VA's version now, though... lol.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
thanks RK!
time to play with this thing. you certainly have set a standard here VA
what do you guys think about fighter bays?
also, akenbosch, quiet about the damn turrets.
-
I'd say that it doesn't need fighter bays, seeing as how it's a corvette.
-
gotcha, adding engines now, then i'll try to design a good turret before handing it off to the next person.
-
Where's the latest version?
-
gotcha, adding engines now, then i'll try to design a good turret before handing it off to the next person.
Darn it, I got the model and your doing the engines too. Well I'll just model on and see what you got. Mine isn't that good anyways.
I can't do the engines but I expanded the rear module:
(http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/2236/modulezs3.jpg)
I don't like it. When Turambar finishes the engines I will do the front.
-
No fighter bays.It is a corvette, no need.
I disagree. There are currently no Terran corvettes with fighterbays save for the Oculus (which cannot possibly be anything but freakin' expensive with those massive AWACS panels) and the Ehreos (which is a buggy model).
A pocket warship is exactly what the Terrans need IMO.
-
Hmm... I might try to do something, but I take a while to think of something that would look good.
-
No fighter bays.It is a corvette, no need.
I disagree. There are currently no Terran corvettes with fighterbays save for the Oculus (which cannot possibly be anything but freakin' expensive with those massive AWACS panels) and the Ehreos (which is a buggy model).
A pocket warship is exactly what the Terrans need IMO.
I agree I think this ship should have fighterbays.
-
Why have fighter bays when it can kill more fighters/capships on its own?Besides, it will be in the same fleet as like 2/3 destroyers.Use your mind.It would have more guns without a fighter bay.
-
Besides, it will be in the same fleet as like 2/3 destroyers.
You say this as if this was an absolute certainty. What if those destroyers are destroyed? A well-coordinated Shivan attack (e.g. 2 Liliths and a Ravana ambushing a Hecate from the side) could probably destroy a GTVA destroyer before it had a chance to effectively respond. It's not necessarily the best idea to keep one's eggs all in one basket.
Besides which -- I'm keeping my vote on "give it fighterbays" because there are potential storylines and campaigns where a destroyer is either unavailable (e.g. heavy losses) or inappropriate (e.g. mercenaries).
Anywho. I think we've bogged down the thread enough with this. Let's let the modelers do their thing regardless of our input (or lack thereof). :)
-
This looks like a Deimos with the fore section replaced with the primary hull of a Daedalus class from SG-1.
Good stuff.
-
I vote for bays!
...
:nervous:
-
Besides, it will be in the same fleet as like 2/3 destroyers.
You say this as if this was an absolute certainty. What if those destroyers are destroyed? A well-coordinated Shivan attack (e.g. 2 Liliths and a Ravana ambushing a Hecate from the side) could probably destroy a GTVA destroyer before it had a chance to effectively respond. It's not necessarily the best idea to keep one's eggs all in one basket.
Besides which -- I'm keeping my vote on "give it fighterbays" because there are potential storylines and campaigns where a destroyer is either unavailable (e.g. heavy losses) or inappropriate (e.g. mercenaries).
Anywho. I think we've bogged down the thread enough with this. Let's let the modelers do their thing regardless of our input (or lack thereof). :)
A single Lilith can destroy a Hecate! I've tested this theory.
Looking good boys. :yes:
-
Moooore polys Igor!
Come on people - the whole idea is just to spend a short while modifying it in some way and then repost it. It's not like you're not making a major commitment to finish it. :p
I put no thought or any kind of plan into the overall design with the sections I added. The whole idea is to let it evolve with multiple changes of varying size, and I promise I won't fiddle again until at least two other people add/change something of their own to it, or the development has stagnated for like a week or so (which, considering the talent we've got around here would be a real shame).
-
Yeah but I am waiting for the next update and then take a go at it
-
Any updates?
-
Each update is supposed to only be 2 hours. Based on that rule, there is no 'current', in progress update because it's now been 2 or 3 days. ;)
-
sorry i took so long
(http://i17.tinypic.com/5zcmgzo.jpg)
(http://i10.tinypic.com/6bylq93.jpg)
this thing is in .3ds
request for other model formats. (not sure what else i can do)
also, let me know if its crap.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Looks cool - I like the engines. :)
The front strikes me as a bit odd though. The hole that was there was more meant for further hull expansion rather than to be filled in, since there's now almost nowhere that people can easily expand upon the overall hull shape. ;)
That whole section in I think looks more like a midship than a decent bow anyway, since it has windows and stuff.
-
Did you stretch this?It looks stretched by Z.
-
The filled-in back section looks like one big poly, too - I looked at it to possibly try to fix it (looks like it's intersecting quite a bit back there), but I couldn't make heads or tails of it in the 15 minutes I allotted myself, so I passed on it. Anyone else see that, right in the center of the larger "cluster" of cylinders, in the top rear?
-
Small tower + some changes to the front
(http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/pcantwel/images/MOSCOW4.JPG)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Same problem as the last blender .3ds format - re-exported via Max.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Looks nice so far! Keep up the good work guys. And since I can't contribute on the modeling part, I'll see if I can help with the tabling. :nervous: Is that allowed, or should I still leave that to the people with the modeling experience?
-
I've been watching this grow since the beginning and I must say *sniff sniff*:( they grow up so fAaAAaAaaAst!
Waterworks aside, sweet job guys! :yes:
-
yes, its looking very good. :yes:
good work on the bridge looking thing Water
-
Holy Crap. This moved quickly. Erm... to my mind, it looks like a ship. Unless anyone else wants a fiddle in the next few days, step two will have to be UV Mapping I guess.
-
What kind of turrets/weapon systems focus are you considering?
-
before you uv map what are your plans for texturing it. one supermap, or a bunch of tiles? i only ask because it would be somewhat important to how you go about uv mapping.
-
I think it would be cool if everyone that took part in this made a texture and then Black Wolf applied them all to the ship. :nod:
:pimp:
-
That one might cause problems if everyone made vibrantly different textures. A half-blue-half-Vasudan-tan ship wouldn't look good.
-
before you uv map what are your plans for texturing it. one supermap, or a bunch of tiles? i only ask because it would be somewhat important to how you go about uv mapping.
Probably one or two big supermaps (maybe 1x 2048^2, 1x 1024^2 - depends on how much I can compact the UV Map). I don't enjoy making big UVs, but really tile mapping should be a thing of the past these days on all but the very biggest ships IMO. The UV'd result is so much better in 90% of cases.
-
What kind of turrets/weapon systems focus are you considering?
Well, ultimately I was hoping that that'd not be my call. It's supposed to be a community project after all, not "Design Black Wolf's ship for him". So, err, does anyone have any suggestions? I mean, really, there's no reason not to give it a diversified, Deimosesque armament, just make it a deimos companion, in much the same way as we have the Leviathan, Fenris and Aeolus to choose from in the cruiser ranks. Personally, I like the idea of making it a sort of smaller, support vessel - say 500 odd m long, about half the anti cap firepower of the deimos and around the same AAAf range, perhaps with greater flak emphasis. But if there're better ideas out there, I'm certainly not going to stop anyone from suggesting them.
I think it would be cool if everyone that took part in this made a texture and then Black Wolf applied them all to the ship. :nod:
:pimp:
Err... well, the idea of everyone contributing is a good one anyway :D. Looking at the ship, it's fairly chunky. There're lots of little pieces where minor variations in texturing style can be accomodated on variations in the model itself. If I'm a little bit careful how I UV Map it (I very rarely am) I can probably group nearby polies together to make it easier. Of course, transferring ten layer psp or psd files around is a little harder than <100kb model files but I'm sure we'll find a way.
-
I always thought the GTVA needed a long range fire support vessel. I'd suggest maybe a single LRBGreen, treb turrets, and AAAs. Then maybe a few flak turrets for close-in defense. Then maybe some other laser turrets just to have. I mean, what ship doesn't have laser turrets?
EDIT: Like this:
Red is the LRBg
Blue is AAA
Green is Trebs
orange is flak
(http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1888/moscowrs4.png)
(http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/579/moscowtwh6.png)
-
A corvette does not have LRBgreens...
It has 3-4 Sgreens....
-
A corvette does not have LRBgreens...
It has 3-4 Sgreens....
I would say a corvette can possess whatever weapon systems the designer believes is necessary for the ship to perform in its assigned role. Limitations being play balance and design logic based on the amount of available space within the hull, available technology for the time period the designer has in mind, power generation capabilities, and crew size (which logically dictates space being reserved for the crew and supplies).
There certainly are not any posted caanon rules that I am aware of that prevent such a weapon from being mounted on this vessel, although logically speaking, the power requirements would probably prevent any other capship beam weapons to be mounted. Consider that the wee little Lilith (caanon) mounts a bloody LRed for much Terran slaughtering goodness, and it's a wee little CRUISER (barely). Personally I always replace that with a SRed in my campaigns, but that's beside the point.
My advice would be for a more balanced weapons battery though.
9 Multi-part Turrets: 2 at the bow, one each on the flat parts. Another 3 along the spine. Another 2 amidships, one each on the flat area just forward of the engines. One each on the two flat area underside. These can mount Heavy Flak, or Heavy Anti-ship Lasers or whatever heavy turret weapons the campaign designer prefers (I use Masers).
A SGreen mounted foward on the lower tower, and one each mounted on the sides, amidship. (Total of 3)
One AAA beam on each side, top, bottom for a total of 4.
Two small multi-part missile launcer turrets, one on top, one on bottom for a medium range AAA missiles.
4 gun ports on each side for standard flak or lasers (8 total)
-
My suggestion would be to have 3 beam turrets, either two Terslashes and one sgreen or three terslashes. But i guess it really is up to who ever adds the turrets on to the model.
-
I would say, who ever does tables for it decide...
-
I think whoever is going to turret it should decide. Nevertheless, I dibs the first go at tabling it.
Anyway, let's look at what the Deimos doesn't do, and then fill in that and some more. I personally feel that 4 slashers just don't cut it for anticap power. I'll admit that it suffices for defense, but more is needed to really do stuff. I'd say one to two LRBGreens (Corvettes don't have the thickest of armor, best to engage at range) along with a healthy amount of missiles. Preferably Trebs. Add in a little AAA and flak for defense
AND
2000th post.
-
Erm, the Colossus melted its heat sinks with cannons like that. Unless you want to model some heat dispersal arrays (which, in my imagination, sort of look like giant feathers).
...Actually, that would look kinda cool.
But in that situation, tho, you probably wouldn't want armed secondary ordnance onboard (the trebuchets, or flak for that matter) that could blow up from the excessive heat. Twould reduce the need for resupply as well.
-
The Colossus used BFGreens, not LRBgreens. BFGreens are the most powerful Terran beam, IIRC. And the BFGreens were all being overused, according to the comm messages during High Noon. I'm confident that GTVA heat sinks could handle an LRBGreen firing at a standard pace on a corvette. Also, assuming that the GTCv Moscow would be commissioned after Cappella, the GTVA might have better heat sink tech by then.
-
Well, this is not like 5 years after Capella, this is like 1/2-1 year after or however the person who uses it wants.A corvette with BFgreens?
Listen, the BF/LRBgreens take alot of space.At least 50 meters.
This a a corvette, you need to balance it, not overpower it.
-
Tell me where in the canon game that LRBGreens take at least 50 meters of space.
EDIT: And just for your information, if LRBGreens were 50m long, there would be plenty of room for it where I suggested it to go, with the corvette at 500m long as BW suggested. And if you think a corvette is overpowered for having a BGreen on it, then look at the Lilith. A cruiser with an LRed on it.
EDIT2: Is it LRBFGreen or LRBGreen?
-
Look at the size of the Colossus' beams. Larger than Ursas. It probably goes at least as deep as a Satis freighter is long, and there's probably heat sinks in addition to that.
I'm not saying that a corvette couldn't realistically have one as a main gun, I'm just saying that power requirements and heat dispersal requirements (to say nothing of game balance) ought to leave it less well defended on its other flanks. Particularly from fighters. Hence, personally I would give thumbs down on the trebuchets.
-
Look at it this way: If the Moscow had a long range beam and Trebs, what makes you think that it would be engaging fighters? And the Trebs will not only help against cap ships, but will kill bombers, too. Plus you would have an escort wing or two.
Actually, before we decide on this aspect of the Moscow, I suggest we decide what role it should fill within the fleet. It will be a lot easier to decide the turrets once that has been decided
As you already know, I suggested long range fire support or just plain long range combat. Anti-fighter is already taken up by the Deimos and Aeolus. General combat can easily be filled by the Deimos or Sobek, to. Really, fire support seems like one of the only roles that is not filled in the fleet.
You might be getting into a bit more BOE engagements thinking like this, but just having two or three of these vessels hanging on the fringe of a battle could turn the tide easily. And if your too worried about balance, it's not like fighters can't warp in and disable the gun. Thats why you have an escort wing of Myrms or Perseus something for the Moscow.
-
Perhaps you have a few points, but your points are made with the assumption that the fleet will always have the resources available to defend this thing from close attack by strike craft and other nastiness. That just is not sound military thinking, or planning, from a designers perspective.
While long range fire-support is indeed a desirable commodity, I find that I simply cannot argue against Mad Bomber's logic, and not because it goes along with what I said earlier, but because his statements reflect a designer's logic that I find to be concrete. If you want to plead your case for LR Beams, you should try presenting arguements of an alternative logic that is at least believable and truely addresses that arguements currently on the table. So far, your remarks seem to merely treat those arguements of balance and logic as though they simply do not matter or are completely irrevelant.
Does the ship really have to have a specialized role? No, it does not. Various corporations create weapon systems that are designed to compete with existing systems all the time. You have any idea how many differant companies have tried to convince the US military to replace the M-16A2/M-4A1 with their new, fancy battle rifle? Tons. The Royal Army has had to put up with the same stuff, as have many others. How many different classes of Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers are there in the US and Royal Navies that perform the same mission? Quite a few. For that matter, does not the Aeolus perform the same role as the Leviathan? Yup. Of course the Aeolus is a bad example since so few were produced, but whatever.
As far as the Trebs, I again agree with MB that they would be a bad idea. Although I doubt heat would be an issue (surely modern cooling devices would prevent problems), in the interest of balance I would re-state my suggestion for a smaller, medium range system. In addition to that, Trebs are quite large as far as missiles go. Logic dictates that the designer must consider space for reloads, as well as the mechanics of actually reloading the weapon system. A significant amount of space on a hull that we are cramming alot of other stuff into already.
In the end it does not really matter how you choose to table it anyway. I tend to change tables to my own whims and needs so it does not really matter much to me. My only concern at this point is the actual sub-models used for the turrets and how they are placed. In the end it those decisions that open up the true possibilities.
-
If you want firepower why not use say 3 Bgreens? you don't need LBgreens on a corvette unless there is just one(like the GTCv Nike). Otherwise its over kill. I'm not sure why i said 3 terslashes, that is weak. But 3 or maybe four Bgreens would be strong along with a few banks of trebs and a some flak and aaa.
-
Heh.. 3-4 BGreens would not be overkill on a Corvette? The Hectate only has two......
ONE would be plenty, IMO, if any. Personally, I like my cap-ship battles to last awhile. A multi-billion credit ship, that took months (or years) to construct, being cut apart in 3 seconds or less just does not make sense to me.
-
well first the hecate is meant as more of a fighter carrier then a anti-cap destroyer. Second 3 Bgreens would be less over kill then two LBgreens one a corvette. and third the hecate sucks at anti-cap.
-
Perhaps you have a few points, but your points are made with the assumption that the fleet will always have the resources available to defend this thing from close attack by strike craft and other nastiness. That just is not sound military thinking, or planning, from a designers perspective.
According to the Wiki, an orion has anywhere from 96 to 120 fighters on board. When this corvette is deployed, it's not going to be sent off on it's own to do whatever. It would be either held back at base and sent in to back up cap ship engagements, or attached to destroyer groups. Out of that 96 fighter compliment, It's reasonable to assume that 8 fighters could be specifically sent to guard a single Moscow during a battle
While long range fire-support is indeed a desirable commodity, I find that I simply cannot argue against Mad Bomber's logic, and not because it goes along with what I said earlier, but because his statements reflect a designer's logic that I find to be concrete. If you want to plead your case for LR Beams, you should try presenting arguements of an alternative logic that is at least believable and truely addresses that arguements currently on the table. So far, your remarks seem to merely treat those arguements of balance and logic as though they simply do not matter or are completely irrevelant.
This is a discussion about the turrets of the Moscow, not how I debate.
Does the ship really have to have a specialized role? No, it does not. Various corporations create weapon systems that are designed to compete with existing systems all the time. You have any idea how many differant companies have tried to convince the US military to replace the M-16A2/M-4A1 with their new, fancy battle rifle? Tons. The Royal Army has had to put up with the same stuff, as have many others. How many different classes of Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers are there in the US and Royal Navies that perform the same mission? Quite a few. For that matter, does not the Aeolus perform the same role as the Leviathan? Yup. Of course the Aeolus is a bad example since so few were produced, but whatever.
You see, the M-16 is a rifle, not a warship. And I'm sure that there are plenty of multi-role vessels in today's relatively peaceful navies. Except GTVA fleets operate in space and function almost entirely different from today's naval fleets. And no, the Aeolus does not fill the same role as the Leviathan. The leviathan is a bit more of a general purpose ship (plus it's a retrofit), and the Aeolus is more of an anti-fighter escort ship (hence why it's faster).
As far as the Trebs, I again agree with MB that they would be a bad idea. Although I doubt heat would be an issue (surely modern cooling devices would prevent problems), in the interest of balance I would re-state my suggestion for a smaller, medium range system. In addition to that, Trebs are quite large as far as missiles go. Logic dictates that the designer must consider space for reloads, as well as the mechanics of actually reloading the weapon system. A significant amount of space on a hull that we are cramming alot of other stuff into already.
You have a point here, and I won't deny it. Could the amount of Treb turrets be limited to say, two, and be restricted for purely anti-bomber use? Balance is the main issue, but it's not like the Fusion Mortar on the Fenris/Leviathan cruiser takes up less room, and you see how liberal they are with the firing of those...
In the end it does not really matter how you choose to table it anyway. I tend to change tables to my own whims and needs so it does not really matter much to me. My only concern at this point is the actual sub-models used for the turrets and how they are placed. In the end it those decisions that open up the true possibilities.
I'll table it the way the community wants it, maybe with a little input by me, but it's not my project. And nothing is preventing anyone from tinkering with the loadouts to use it in their campaigns, as the ship will belong to the entire community.
And why does it seem like people thought I wanted to put multiple LRBGreens on it? All I ever stated was a single one for fire support purposes, and the only person who even bothered to mention that purpose at all was Eviscerator.
EDIT: What we really need is some kind of LRMGreen with a range of like 5500-6500m. That would eliminate the balancing issues with the power very nicely, IMHO.
-
Sorry i thougt you said two LRBGreen. But i think that is a good idea to have LRMgreens. That would solve a lot of issues.
-
According to the Wiki, an orion has anywhere from 96 to 120 fighters on board. When this corvette is deployed, it's not going to be sent off on it's own to do whatever. It would be either held back at base and sent in to back up cap ship engagements, or attached to destroyer groups. Out of that 96 fighter compliment, It's reasonable to assume that 8 fighters could be specifically sent to guard a single Moscow during a battle.
That's funny. My FS:GW manual says 72, but that's irrelevant. Consider these simple points: 1) Attrition, and Shivans and other enemies are excellent at causing it. 2) Half of that number will be bomber and strike craft, leaving 36 actual fighters. At least that is how it's done in a contemporary navy, and we have no reason to believe that the GTVA (or whoever) would do anything different. 3) Space is VAST. Our own little solar system is considered to contain a few hundred TRILLION cubic miles of space within what NASA calls Sol's "immediate range of influence." That's a lot of space where anything can happen to turn up, which means your limited assets just got more limited.
I am certainly not suggesting that this ship should be armed such a way as to be invulnerable, quite the opposite, but I stand by my point that relying 90-100% on fighter protection is just poor planning.
This is a discussion about the turrets of the Moscow, not how I debate.
How you present your arguments is at least as important as the argument itself. Anyone trained and skilled in presentation will tell you that. You may have the most airtight argument in the world, but presented poorly, it loses at least 80% of it's effectiveness. Notice how you adjusted your approach and received a more favorable response.
You see, the M-16 is a rifle, not a warship.
I am well aware of what an M-16 is. I carried one for many years. The analogy still stands.
And I'm sure that there are plenty of multi-role vessels in today's relatively peaceful navies. Except GTVA fleets operate in space and function almost entirely different from today's naval fleets.
First, you missed the point. Second, peaceful or not is completely irrelevant. As a veteran I can tell you that when you build an armed force, you always do so with the mind that it could, and most likely will, go to war. But you should not need to be a veteran to know this. It should be screamingly obvious. Third, why shouldn't the GTVA Navy function like a wet water navy? How are they different? With the exception of operating in three-dimensional space, jumping to distant star systems via a fictional subspace, and the completely screwed up class names for their ships, they operate and function pretty much the same way. I will not waste your time with a endless string of examples.
And no, the Aeolus does not fill the same role as the Leviathan. The leviathan is a bit more of a general purpose ship (plus it's a retrofit),
Certainly it fullfills generally the same role in fleet combat. How do they not? The Leviathan being a refit is completely irrelevant. It is still doing the same job it did previously. I could see the refit being revelant if it's role completely changed.
and the Aeolus is more of an anti-fighter escort ship (hence why it's faster).
Faster is a good point, but that statement is really just an opinion. Considering that she's packing more beams than any other Terran canon ship of her class, I would disagree. IIRC it was built to possibly replace the Levvy. IOW it was in direct competition with her. This perfectly illustrates my point about what the Moscow could be. A new, more advanced competitor to the Deimos.
You have a point here, and I won't deny it. Could the amount of Treb turrets be limited to say, two, and be restricted for purely anti-bomber use? Balance is the main issue, but it's not like the Fusion Mortar on the Fenris/Leviathan cruiser takes up less room, and you see how liberal they are with the firing of those...
I'll buy that for a dollar. I would still like to see multi-part turrets for the system though. It looks so much nicer, don't you agree?
I once saw an illustration that Dark did a long time ago of the Fusion Motor system. The way he saw it, the system took up practically that entire lower spine of the ship. Makes a lot of sense to me, and goes along with my original point.
EDIT: What we really need is some kind of LRMGreen with a range of like 5500-6500m. That would eliminate the balancing issues with the power very nicely, IMHO.
That is a good idea. I think I will do that.
well first the hecate is meant as more of a fighter carrier then a anti-cap destroyer. .
It says this where? If you has said "Orion" I would agree.
and third the hecate sucks at anti-cap
That depends entirely on how you arm it. Those big turrets are great for mounting heavy rail guns. Why does everything have to be beam focused anyway??? A lot of you guys seem to be obsessed with them. Maybe you are compensating for something? :P
Personally, I nerf beams in my work. Little less power, longer cool-down time. More powerful battery weapons. Makes it so much more fun when cap-ships slug it out over time rather than vaporize each other in seconds.
-
well first the hecate is meant as more of a fighter carrier then a anti-cap destroyer. .
It says this where? If you has said "Orion" I would agree.
The Hecate carries more fighters and has relatively weak anti-capship weaponry.
-
More colors! Wee!
According to the Wiki, an orion has anywhere from 96 to 120 fighters on board. When this corvette is deployed, it's not going to be sent off on it's own to do whatever. It would be either held back at base and sent in to back up cap ship engagements, or attached to destroyer groups. Out of that 96 fighter compliment, It's reasonable to assume that 8 fighters could be specifically sent to guard a single Moscow during a battle.
That's funny. My FS:GW manual says 72, but that's irrelevant. Consider these simple points: 1) Attrition, and Shivans and other enemies are excellent at causing it. 2) Half of that number will be bomber and strike craft, leaving 36 actual fighters. At least that is how it's done in a contemporary navy, and we have no reason to believe that the GTVA (or whoever) would do anything different. 3) Space is VAST. Our own little solar system is considered to contain a few hundred TRILLION cubic miles of space within what NASA calls Sol's "immediate range of influence." That's a lot of space where anything can happen to turn up, which means your limited assets just got more limited.
I am certainly not suggesting that this ship should be armed such a way as to be invulnerable, quite the opposite, but I stand by my point that relying 90-100% on fighter protection is just poor planning.
Sorry about the mis-information; I didn't have the manual as a resource, just looked on the wiki. 1) As stated in the final cutscene, the GTVA is unsure whether they will ever see the Shivans again, but looked at what happened to them last time. 2) I always got the feeling that the ratio of fighters to bombers was about 3 to 2 in FS. Either way, AFAIK, there is no canon evidence that supports either side. 3)I am not sure what kind of point you are trying to make in response to my post, so I'm not gonna touch that one.
This is a discussion about the turrets of the Moscow, not how I debate.
How you present your arguments is at least as important as the argument itself. Anyone trained and skilled in presentation will tell you that. You may have the most airtight argument in the world, but presented poorly, it loses at least 80% of it's effectiveness. Notice how you adjusted your approach and received a more favorable response.
Watch this: Hey, I really don't like how you're detracting from the overall purpose of this thread. Sure I could stand the arguments elsewhere in this post, but this is off topic. Everything else in your post at least somewhat correlates to the discussion.
You see, the M-16 is a rifle, not a warship.
I am well aware of what an M-16 is. I carried one for many years. The analogy still stands.
I don't know what your trying to do with the m16 analogy, so I'm not gonna say anything.
And I'm sure that there are plenty of multi-role vessels in today's relatively peaceful navies. Except GTVA fleets operate in space and function almost entirely different from today's naval fleets.
First, you missed the point. Second, peaceful or not is completely irrelevant. As a veteran I can tell you that when you build an armed force, you always do so with the mind that it could, and most likely will, go to war. But you should not need to be a veteran to know this. It should be screamingly obvious. Third, why shouldn't the GTVA Navy function like a wet water navy? How are they different? With the exception of operating in three-dimensional space, jumping to distant star systems via a fictional subspace, and the completely screwed up class names for their ships, they operate and function pretty much the same way. I will not waste your time with a endless string of examples.
Those are some pretty big things your listing there. Whether you realize it or not, Freespace space combat is very different from water naval combat. Just compare how navies fight each other and how FS ships fight each other. I'll admit that they are slightly similar, but if water navy evolves into space navy, in 300 years, it will change more than all the other current forms of military.
And no, the Aeolus does not fill the same role as the Leviathan. The leviathan is a bit more of a general purpose ship (plus it's a retrofit),
Certainly it fullfills generally the same role in fleet combat. How do they not? The Leviathan being a refit is completely irrelevant. It is still doing the same job it did previously. I could see the refit being revelant if it's role completely changed.
Okay, I choose my words poorly: The Leviathan is an old ship, and is more and more losing it's relative effectiveness compared to newer vessels. If they toned down the Aeolus a bit with all the flak, maybe change those turrets to Large laser turrets, it would probably be cheaper (flak uses a lot of expensive ammunition, or at least the kind that are in FS looks like) and more producible.
and the Aeolus is more of an anti-fighter escort ship (hence why it's faster).
Faster is a good point, but that statement is really just an opinion. Considering that she's packing more beams than any other Terran canon ship of her class, I would disagree. IIRC it was built to possibly replace the Levvy. IOW it was in direct competition with her. This perfectly illustrates my point about what the Moscow could be. A new, more advanced competitor to the Deimos.
Let me rephrase again: the armament of the Aeolus leans towards the anti-fighter role. Sure, it's got two SGreens, but they are really not all that effective. And I see your point with the Deimos, and wish you could have said it earlier. I just think the Deimos is a bit to new and is efficient enough to need a replacement or "better" version of for that matter, unlike the Leviathan, which has been in use since IIRC the early Great War.
You have a point here, and I won't deny it. Could the amount of Treb turrets be limited to say, two, and be restricted for purely anti-bomber use? Balance is the main issue, but it's not like the Fusion Mortar on the Fenris/Leviathan cruiser takes up less room, and you see how liberal they are with the firing of those...
I'll buy that for a dollar. I would still like to see multi-part turrets for the system though. It looks so much nicer, don't you agree?
I once saw an illustration that Dark did a long time ago of the Fusion Motor system. The way he saw it, the system took up practically that entire lower spine of the ship. Makes a lot of sense to me, and goes along with my original point.
I must see this picture. And are you referring to "side" multi-part turrets? The ones that IIRC only work in FSO, or don't work in FSO yet?
EDIT: What we really need is some kind of LRMGreen with a range of like 5500-6500m. That would eliminate the balancing issues with the power very nicely, IMHO.
That is a good idea. I think I will do that.
Ok.
well first the hecate is meant as more of a fighter carrier then a anti-cap destroyer. .
It says this where? If you has said "Orion" I would agree.
and third the hecate sucks at anti-cap
That depends entirely on how you arm it. Those big turrets are great for mounting heavy rail guns. Why does everything have to be beam focused anyway??? A lot of you guys seem to be obsessed with them. Maybe you are compensating for something? :P
Personally, I nerf beams in my work. Little less power, longer cool-down time. More powerful battery weapons. Makes it so much more fun when cap-ships slug it out over time rather than vaporize each other in seconds.
[/quote]
Ammunition takes up a lot of room, and you need much larger caliber slugs to deal as much damage as a beam, and larger slugs are more expensive and bigger. And anyway, the weapons of the Hecate implies it's role. It canonically has few BGreens and a large fighter capacity.
-
More colors! Wee!
I'll stay with purple if that's ok.
Sorry about the mis-information; I didn't have the manual as a resource, just looked on the wiki. 1) As stated in the final cutscene, the GTVA is unsure whether they will ever see the Shivans again, but looked at what happened to them last time.
Is that relevant? My point was that any enemy can inflict attrition. Does it matter if it is Shivans, or someone else? Besides, lots of campaigns have come out that revisit the Shivans as the prime menace.
2) I always got the feeling that the ratio of fighters to bombers was about 3 to 2 in FS. Either way, AFAIK, there is no canon evidence that supports either side.
Semantics. Let's call it a dead issue. The exact ratio does not contribute that much to the discussion.
3)I am not sure what kind of point you are trying to make in response to my post, so I'm not gonna touch that one.
I was reinforcing my argument that you cannot depend on fighter protection, and doing so is foolish.
Watch this: Hey, I really don't like how you're detracting from the overall purpose of this thread. Sure I could stand the arguments elsewhere in this post, but this is off topic. Everything else in your post at least somewhat correlates to the discussion.
I'm terribly sorry I hurt your feelings, but that point was made in response to how you treated mine and Mad Bomber's arguments as though they were completely a non-factor. Considering that those arguments were quite sound, I did not appreciate it in the slightest.
In addition, everything in my post directly correlates to the discussion. "Somewhat" indeed!
I don't know what your trying to do with the m16 analogy, so I'm not gonna say anything.
The analogy was simple: Rival corporations will always try to convince governments that their current weapons technology is not up to par, and will not be unless they purchase said corporation's gee-cool-whiz-bang-new-product. Refer to the Moscow vs. Deimos analogy.
Those are some pretty big things your listing there. Whether you realize it or not, Freespace space combat is very different from water naval combat. Just compare how navies fight each other and how FS ships fight each other. I'll admit that they are slightly similar,
What I realize is that maneuver is very different. Terrain conditions are very different. Weather is very different. Space is a hostile environment where instead of hurricanes and rain squalls, it will be radiation storms, etc. that will interfere with naval operation. In addition, space combat would take place in 360 degrees, but I already said that. Since you have the subject pegged perhaps you could enlighten us?
I see great similarities within this context:
Water navies form battle groups with large combat ships such as battleships or carriers at the fore, escorted by smaller combat ships. The large ships provide the punch, the smaller ones protect them from counterattack. Space navies in FS: Same thing.
Water navies use fighters to protect their airspace from attack, and strike craft to provide punch at a distance. Space navies in FS: Same thing.
Water navies in pre WWII, and yet also in many battles during WW2, said fleets and battlegroups would pound each other senseless with very large guns. Space navies in FS: Same thing.
Water navies during and post WW2 leave it to their fighters and strike craft to do most of the work. Space Navies in FS: OMG same thing x10. Unless you are playing one of many beam obsessed mod campaigns. In which case a couple a "capship" no larger than two buses welded together will do all the work with 12 BFGreens while you sit back and watch. OK, that's an exaggeration, but not by much.
I think that is enough examples. I'm getting bored... and I am starting to use contractions. Sure sign of boredom.
but if water navy evolves into space navy, in 300 years, it will change more than all the other current forms of military.
Now that I will agree with. Although.... if my great-great-great-great-grandson follows my footsteps and becomes an Airborne Rang------- uhhh........ Space Ranger... he will probally be using a jet-pack and a death-ray instead of a '203 and parachute.....in space even! That could be different.
Okay, I choose my words poorly: The Leviathan is an old ship, and is more and more losing it's relative effectiveness compared to newer vessels. If they toned down the Aeolus a bit with all the flak, maybe change those turrets to Large laser turrets, it would probably be cheaper (flak uses a lot of expensive ammunition, or at least the kind that are in FS looks like) and more producible.
That is a good point, although you would be surprised how cheap ammunition can be..... of course, they use a lot so...... nevermind. Another point to consider is that lasers are not "magic". They take quite a bit of power to do damage. Power generation takes up space. Capacitors to store it do also. And we have no idea how much maintenance on that equipment will cost 300 years in the future. Still, I see your point, and it is a good one. No question laser weaponry is more efficient. But they don't make those pretty explosions!
Let me rephrase again: the armament of the Aeolus leans towards the anti-fighter role. Sure, it's got two SGreens, but they are really not all that effective. And I see your point with the Deimos, and wish you could have said it earlier. I just think the Deimos is a bit to new and is efficient enough to need a replacement or "better" version of for that matter, unlike the Leviathan, which has been in use since IIRC the early Great War.
Good points, but for the Deimos: What is the time-period focus for the Moscow? We may decide that it is a ship constructed 60 years after the close of the 2nd war. In which case......
I must see this picture. And are you referring to "side" multi-part turrets? The ones that IIRC only work in FSO, or don't work in FSO yet?
I'll look for it. And no. If you check out my earlier post I said multi-part launcher turrets, one on top, one on bottom. Check out some of the terran ships up at HC and you will see some with box launcher missile turrets.
Ammunition takes up a lot of room, and you need much larger caliber slugs to deal as much damage as a beam, and larger slugs are more expensive and bigger. And anyway, the weapons of the Hecate implies it's role. It canonically has few BGreens and a large fighter capacity.
Beam weaponry takes enormous power to generate, and the damage done by FS energy weaponry is immeasurably greater than that done by current-gen weapons, thus the power requirements will be immeasurably greater as well. A current gen laser system, with power generation equipment, capacitors, etc is so large that it takes up three 58 foot semitrailers. And after all of that, it only produces the damage potential to destroy a missile or aircraft. A 20mm Phalanx CIWS about the size of a walk-in closet can do the same job. Granted, in 300 years power generation and the equipment needed to produce an energy based weapon will be greatly advanced, but the requirements to do the kind of damage we see in FS will greatly offset this.
I would not be concerned about the cost of ammunition for a rail gun system. While the power requirements for the system will also be enormous, the ammo is just a solid slug propelled down rails mounting electromagnets. There is no propellant and casings. Ammo can easily and cheaply be cast. The Army is testing a 120mm rail system that is using tungsten-tipped slugs. Each slug only costs 12 USD to produce.
Anyway, this conversation is getting extremely boorish. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and lay it to rest.
-
Anyway, this conversation is getting extremely boorish. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and lay it to rest.
Just a couple more things, okay? :nervous:
More colors! Wee!
I'll stay with purple if that's ok.
Sorry about the mis-information; I didn't have the manual as a resource, just looked on the wiki. 1) As stated in the final cutscene, the GTVA is unsure whether they will ever see the Shivans again, but looked at what happened to them last time.
Is that relevant? My point was that any enemy can inflict attrition. Does it matter if it is Shivans, or someone else? Besides, lots of campaigns have come out that revisit the Shivans as the prime menace.
Remember, the Shivans would be pretty much the only race capable of even thinking about a war of attrition; the GTVA fleet and economy is decimated and most likely decimated respectivly.
3)I am not sure what kind of point you are trying to make in response to my post, so I'm not gonna touch that one.
I was reinforcing my argument that you cannot depend on fighter protection, and doing so is foolish.
I never said that the Moscow couldn't decent anti-fighter defenses, but just like every other capitol ship, it operates much more effectively with a fighter escort. Even I agree that depending solely on fighters for defense is stupid. Maybe if it was just some cheap gun on an engine, you could get away with it, but not a corvette.
In addition, everything in my post directly correlates to the discussion. "Somewhat" indeed!
By disscussion, I meant the Moscow, and I'm sure you'll admit that both of us got a bit off topic at one point or another.
I don't know what your trying to do with the m16 analogy, so I'm not gonna say anything.
The analogy was simple: Rival corporations will always try to convince governments that their current weapons technology is not up to par, and will not be unless they purchase said corporation's gee-cool-whiz-bang-new-product. Refer to the Moscow vs. Deimos analogy.
:( I always over think analogies.
Those are some pretty big things your listing there. Whether you realize it or not, Freespace space combat is very different from water naval combat. Just compare how navies fight each other and how FS ships fight each other. I'll admit that they are slightly similar,
What I realize is that maneuver is very different. Terrain conditions are very different. Weather is very different. Space is a hostile environment where instead of hurricanes and rain squalls, it will be radiation storms, etc. that will interfere with naval operation. In addition, space combat would take place in 360 degrees, but I already said that. Since you have the subject pegged perhaps you could enlighten us?
I see great similarities within this context:
Water navies form battle groups with large combat ships such as battleships or carriers at the fore, escorted by smaller combat ships. The large ships provide the punch, the smaller ones protect them from counterattack. Space navies in FS: Same thing.
Water navies use fighters to protect their airspace from attack, and strike craft to provide punch at a distance. Space navies in FS: Same thing.
Water navies in pre WWII, and yet also in many battles during WW2, said fleets and battlegroups would pound each other senseless with very large guns. Space navies in FS: Same thing.
Water navies during and post WW2 leave it to their fighters and strike craft to do most of the work. Space Navies in FS: OMG same thing x10. Unless you are playing one of many beam obsessed mod campaigns. In which case a couple a "capship" no larger than two buses welded together will do all the work with 12 BFGreens while you sit back and watch. OK, that's an exaggeration, but not by much.
I think that is enough examples. I'm getting bored... and I am starting to use contractions. Sure sign of boredom.
From what it sounds like, your thinking in the big picture maybe a bit logistical, while I am taking in a more small scale sense, too. Ex. lasers are more powerful and fire slower than WWII MGs, there is less of a requirement for fighter/fighter missiles than in current modern combat. Fighters are larger, have sheilds. All ships have different modes of propulsion than back then, etc.
Let me rephrase again: the armament of the Aeolus leans towards the anti-fighter role. Sure, it's got two SGreens, but they are really not all that effective. And I see your point with the Deimos, and wish you could have said it earlier. I just think the Deimos is a bit to new and is efficient enough to need a replacement or "better" version of for that matter, unlike the Leviathan, which has been in use since IIRC the early Great War.
Good points, but for the Deimos: What is the time-period focus for the Moscow? We may decide that it is a ship constructed 60 years after the close of the 2nd war. In which case......
I envisioned it as something with it's maiden "flight" anywhere from 3 to 10 years after Cappella
I must see this picture. And are you referring to "side" multi-part turrets? The ones that IIRC only work in FSO, or don't work in FSO yet?
I'll look for it. And no. If you check out my earlier post I said multi-part launcher turrets, one on top, one on bottom. Check out some of the terran ships up at HC and you will see some with box launcher missile turrets.
Oh! Those! I get what you're talking about now!
Ok. I'm done :nervous:.
-
AGH!
my eyes hurt from reading all of that :ick:
On topic: couldnt you just set up turrets and let whoever makes a campaign decide how its armed?
or, since this is a group thing, everyone arms one then everyone votes on what one fits the best?
But why not keep it going? let the next person arm it....
-
Yar, Lets stop all this arguing and somebody make this ship!
-
AGH!
me eyes hurt from readin' all o' wot :ick:
I share ye pain ;)
On topic: couldnt ye just set up turrets an' let whoever makes a campaign decide how its armed?
And have tiny flak come out of massive beam cannon turrets or massive beams out of tiny little lazer turrets?
or, since this 'ere is a group thin', everyone arms one then everyone votes on what one fits th' best?
But why not keep it goin'? let th' next person arm it....
that might be the best solution...or utter Doom(TM)
-
On topic: couldnt ye just set up turrets an' let whoever makes a campaign decide how its armed?
That were bein' goin' t' be me final suggestion on this 'ere topic. I think it is a good idea. Granted Trashman's scenario is a possibility, but someone who knows what their doin' should not make wot mistake.
Fire the cannons, and a bottle of rum!
Now on with th' pirate-speak!
-
:shaking:
I fear this thread is dieing.
-
Who had the potato last?
I started on some new scratch-built textures, but they are really just an experiment until it is turreted.
-
Please not let die this do.
-
Dead it not is. And crikey - enough with the boring armaments talk you lot. Two and a half pages or so with no updates! :p
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Moscow/Moscow5_1.jpg)
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Moscow/Moscow5_2.jpg)
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Moscow/Moscow5_3.jpg)
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Moscow/Moscow5_4.jpg)
As you can see, fairly big changes to the engines and topside front. As cool as Turambar's engines were, they didn't quite seem to fit too well with the ship width wise - I remember Bobboau saying at one point that a ships front should never be bigger than it's rear, and I've found that is usually quite correct. So I gave it a bigger butt. :)
I also modified Water's bridge - the straight up and down tower didn't fit the rest of the ships profile.
There is still a lot of room for development - tons of space for more detail, and a front underside that I reckon really needs a revamp.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
;) :yes:
nice!
But there was a while between the last two posts.
:EDIT:
Maybe there is a way to combine the issue of weapons with this...
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,45239.0/topicseen.html
;7
-
VA, your modeling skills, KILL!
-
Very nice! I'm concened that there many not be enough top-side flat areas for turrets, however. Thoughts?
VA: The weapons issue is important, though! Without effective weaponry, you've only created a new ship Carnival Cruises! Trip to the rings of Saturn anyone? :P ;)
-
I am a temping to turret this as we speak.7 so far.
Oh and :bump:
-
LoL, we need more tourist ships!
Anyways... looks like an oversized assault rifle to me with some hangar launch bay up front ala INFR1 Segomo. Bound to ramble on and on, so I might as well be brief on what I think of it.
Yep, my thoughts. (I still can't believe that's Blender. :lol:)
:)
-
Oh I agree that we need more civilian ships. Nothing dresses up the immersive quality of a campaign better than than the tiny components that actually make a player feel like they a small part of a much larger stage production.
BUT: What I have been more concerned with is logistics. You've probably noticed the insane number of different freighters and containers available, both canon and community, and most are not capatible with one another thus creating a logistics nightmare! How do you get supplies to a warship out in the field? How do you get this container from here to there when there is only one type of freighter that is capatible with it and none are available? So me and Mr. Notebook have been trying to figure this out for a couple weeks. The only real answer to the problem is redoing those objects catagorized with logistics.
Of course, I realize that some people are going to believe that this is an absurb and completely un-important detail, but you have to consider what makes campaigns successful, and games in a much wider scale of the games market for that matter: Immersion. Games with a high quantity of immersion are not only the most successful games, but are the ones that have players coming back to them again and again, even years later. And immersion requires paying attention to details. Details, details details. Promoting attention to these details as modders not only improves FS as a whole, but gives campaign builders the tools needed to build even better campaigns, which again improves FS as a whole. Of course, a lot of what the SCP does is making improvements to details and tools for campaigns, but things like improving the quality of civilian shipping seems to go unoticed.
I realize this is sort of off topic, I only mention it here because that conversation was kinda going that direction anyway. The Moscow is a community project that the whole community has gotten behind, and I think improving the details behind FS as a whole should be one too. Perhaps a new, dedicated thread should be started where these matters can be discussed in detail. I think it's worth our time.
-
Well said. I have been thinking the same thing. I mean, there have to be more civvy transports than the Elysium. Likewise with freighters, all of them are military.
-
I am a temping to turret this as we speak.7 so far.
Oh and :bump:
Err, don't actually place the turrets on it yet, since I don't think the modelling needs to end here. Besides, turreting something up before it's textured (or even UVmapped) just makes the texturers job much harder. ;)
-
I have no idea about texturing, so this is new to me.
-
Well, no updates in nearly two weeks, I guess it's safe to call it finished? I've been away for awhile recently, but I should have a little time coming up - if nobody wants to make any changes, I'll at least start UVMapping VA's version.
-
As said before, I dibs the first go at tabling.
-
Well, no updates in nearly two weeks, I guess it's safe to call it finished? I've been away for awhile recently, but I should have a little time coming up - if nobody wants to make any changes, I'll at least start UVMapping VA's version.
I was going to do it, and even started on some ideas for custom textures, but my time in the near future is going to be too limited. So I guess I'm saying.... please do?
-
This is starting to look more like a destroyer than a corvette. Its not persay the size, but its you know, the configuration.
-
And its dead. :(
-
I read all the posts from # 1 to the death....
I honestly didn't think that the idea would last, but I thought at least they would finish one corvette... I was rooting for it.
Videogames are created using this kind of process, you know? Except that the whole team is paid to work on it 24/7... so, right idea, not enough motivation for people to get past the hardest point: discussions. After the discussions I am sure people would have finished it :) But who wants to discuss over something they do as a hobby?
So, what happened to this? Really dead? I think it is great for ppl to support a game and make mods... I hate how the industry just forgets about all the games and just goes for the new thing. Creativity dries up when you don't have to work our problems like these discussions :(
-
Well said Pilgirm :nod:
:welcomeblue:
-
Yeah um, it's not dead. You can put away the funeral outfits and stuff. ;)
Myself and BW are rather busy at this point in time, and before I make any further progress I'd like to know what he's done/plans to do with it.
I would also greatly prefer it if someone else made _some_ kind of edit between my edits - I've been rather dissappointed with the amount of actual community modelling that has happened with this community project. We have a lot of modellers here, and I know they all have their own plans, but spending an hour or so making small changes to something like this really isn't much trouble. Not counting mine, there have been just 2 other significant edits. :(
If anyone wants to fiddle with it, you're more than welcome. I don't think this is finished as is. I see lots of potential for better shapes and more greebles all over. Heck - Hades, you've done some modelling. If you don't want it to be dead, then just edit it somehow! :p
Pilgrim (Welcome to HLP by the way!), if you like this kinda thing and can model (or would even would just like to be able to model) then don't be afraid to have a go!
The thing will need some nice guns on it, so if new modellers don't feel they can tackle the full thing, then put some cool looking turrets together, or even just doodle ideas on paper for guns/shape changes to the model/whatever.
As added motivation; if no-one else makes any kind of effort towards this in the future, me and BW may just pinch it for eventual use in TI. So there. :p
-
Thanks for the welcome guys!
Hmm I knew this would come up. My modeling experience is almost nil. :nervous: My sister is an interior designer, so I have watched her do a couple of things and sometimes I have had to help her a bit. I have more computer sense than she does...
I got here after downloading the game, liking it a lot and thinking more missions would somehow be available... read about mods and decided to try one. So far I have tried only Derelict. :D
But, not to let anyone down, I will attempt a turret! :) I will attempt to do something tonight. First I will have to look at some examples, but I was thinking of WWII... B17 bubble turrets... maybe go from there... or aircraft carrier turrets. I don't want to try and touch the main model until I can get a turret approved for use!
I have Autodesk's Autocad 2006 and 3ds Max 8. I am guessing those are OK to work with?
-
I don't know about AutoCAD, but MAX is the program of choice for many modelers here (including me, even though I've just barely started). Styxx, a member of the community, has created a plugin for MAX which enables you to output .POF files, which are the model files that FS uses.
WELCOME TO THE HLPBB!
-
Styxx, a member of the community, has created a plugin for MAX which enables you to output .POF files, which are the model files that FS uses.
it's not as good as pcs2 though.
I use Blender.
-
Well, yeah. You need to add dock points/firing points with PCS2.
-
and pcs2's stuff is more optimised, or so I've heard.
-
w00t thanks for the info, comments and welcomes.
I couldn't do crap yesterday since my sister was on the PC... trying now... hmm this sounds all complicated so I will just dive in one step at a time. First... the model.
At least I got the POF exporter. (Styxx's)
-
you can use that for now but like I said, PCS2 is better. It makes faster bounding boxes so the game runs smoother with models created by it.
-
i like the look of 3 and 5
-
Hey guys I think the main mesh is done, all it needs is UVmapping and texturing.
Hades has spoken! :lol:
-
Are there any pics of the final design? :D
-
There is no final design, look through the thread.
-
you know an antenna/sensor cluster under the forward bow would look pretty cool. sorta orion style.
-
yes YES!
Final product!!
-
Welllll. I put my oar in too. ;) Some of the greebles in the .cob needed their normals fixed, they're in red. The three red ribs along the bottom also had geometry errors. The red face on the upper port nose had a "loose" vertex which I corrected. I couldn't slice it in half until I fixed it. Fortunately it was a fairly easy fix. I selected the loose vertex, then used the add edges tool to join it to another edge, then welded those two points and finished by moving the now connected vertex to a position mirroring the same vertex on the other side. A couple of faces on the front, above those curving pipe-ish lumps, had gone missing. Those I fixed by hitting them with the Add Face tool.
I find it much easier to work on a symmetrical model by slicing it in half, doing the point editing, then mirroring and welding, then doing a boolean subtract to remove the edges along the seam that bisect flat faces which cross the seam.
I also eliminated some redundant edges and vertexes in the big notch in the nose on the horizontal flat things. When it's re-triangulated there should be several less polies. The last things I did were cleaning up the small bumps at the top and bottom of the notch in the nose, especially the top one. I made the front face on each vertical because they looked like good spots for small weapon mounts. The final thing I did was removing some redundant geometry on a couple of faces on the bottom of that bit on the very bottom that looks like an aux. bridge.
So here's just the .cob version (Well, it would be here if the upload folder wasn't full, and if my ISP hadn't suddenly decided all the local dialup numbers should quit responding and disconnect me just as I clicked the Post button, and if their FTP server would allow me to upload when connected to the net through a different ISP!)
Were it all my own creation, there's some other parts I'd simplify a bit, mainly because there's fiddly small polies you'll never really see in-game.
I'll put it up later, probably this evening of December 10th, 2007.
-
the public awaits with anticipation :P
-
I can't wait to see how this project is advancing.
-
OK, here it is. http://members.aceweb.com/gregg1/Moscow6.zip
I did a bit more tweaking, and even more on the port half I've included. You'll notice the pipe-ish things on the front straightened up. I should've done that first and re-mirrored to replace the main body on the whole ship.
I also found another geometry error, but it's only fixed on the half ship. It's not so much an error as it's a face that's co-planar with another face, right at the rear of the big lumps on the sides of the nose.
The other change on the half ship is I took out the step on the inboard sides of the engine nozzles, where the only way to see it is if you're looking straight at the ship from above or below or zoomed in tight on the back end.
There's a few other little spots I changed a tiny bit to lose a small poly or two without doing major changes to the shape.
-
so...
somebody post a picture :D
-
Here's the end of my fiddling with it. http://members.aceweb.com/gregg1/Moscow7b.zip
The GTCv(g) Moscow. The item that most quickly identifies the g variant is the replacement of the tertiary ventral bridge with a dual step mount for a pair of small turrets and above the turrets a powerful forward radar.
The other major change is the deletion of the upper forward blob turret mount, enlarged lower forward blob turret mount and extention of the middle cross-deck to fit a decent sized turret for forward defense.
Just in case the enemy might confuse this Moscow with previous versions, there's an extra vertical thingy added on each side of those recesses in the sides of the nose. I'm sure there's some technical reason for it, other than just to make it look different. ;)
-
I fight to save this from a fate of TI Exclusiveness!
(http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v109/NarfPics/th_moscow7.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/NarfPics/moscow7.jpg)
Also the latest in Giant Robot Mechology...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/NarfPics/mechamoscow.jpg
-
Also the latest in Giant Robot Mechology...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/NarfPics/mechamoscow.jpg
It kinda reminds me of Megamaid from spaceballs :D
-
Also the latest in Giant Robot Mechology...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/NarfPics/mechamoscow.jpg
JAD?
-
Nah, just a conversation between me and VA going terribly wrong.
-
I fight to save this from a fate of TI Exclusiveness!
Huh? What's Texas Instruments got to do with this? ;)
-
As added motivation; if no-one else makes any kind of effort towards this in the future, me and BW may just pinch it for eventual use in TI. So there. :p
| See siggy. :p
V
-
I fight to save this from a fate of TI Exclusiveness!
(http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v109/NarfPics/th_moscow7.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/NarfPics/moscow7.jpg)
Also the latest in Giant Robot Mechology...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/NarfPics/mechamoscow.jpg
Go, Go, Gogotron! :lol:
-
:bump:
Looks like this has died off. Anyone make any progress texturing the beast?
-
(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7819/indexyc1.png)
How's UVing going, assuming the model is ready to be UVed?
-
Last time I checked it didn't have turrets
-
I would be willing to do some work on this but the problem is i'm a Maya and Mudbox user at the moment. Are there any good cob to obj converters out there or would one of you be willing to export the mesh as an obj file? Or does freespace only use Truespace?
I've done much googling to try and find a decent cob to obj converter or a cob plugin for maya but no luck. :<
-
:welcome:
Hmm, Axem didn't actually post his changes, and the older ones have been deleted. :\
Anyway, to the best of my knowledge Axem has the latest version and hasn't started UV mapping it yet, but until he posts it here, I've attached the latest (OBJ) version I have, so have at it! :D
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
IT LIVES!!!!!
-
If Axem can post an obj version of his mesh I wouldnt mind UVing it either. I have a nifty little program here called Unfold3D (And Roadkill) which excels at UVing and then I can do any little tweaking in Maya's UV editor. As from what I can tell after eight pages of reading (My eyes are a bit blurry now :P), his is the latest model. Either way, let me see what I can add to Vasudan's mesh.
-
I dunno if you would want my model. There's a few parts that changed for the better, but I don't think it matches well with the rest of the ship. A lot of the Moscow has large exaggerated detail sections, while I was trying to put in finer detail. I'm that finding a waste of time since you won't notice it 99% of the time.
-
well, 99% of the time people dont was "WOW" and pass out from the awesomeness of a ship. And I think that is what we are going for, the best everyone has to offer. Trust me Axem, they want
you your model :nod:
-
I'll do some work on it. You want it triangulated or no?
-
What's the progress on the modelling now? I cant model to save my life, but am interested in how it may turn out
Azhren
-
Have you had a :welcome: yet?
If so disregard,
Are there restrictions on the model? Any rules and regs, like each person has a poly cap to what they can add for instance?
Because i'd quite like to add to it, but i can't UV map to save my life.............literally.
-
No restrictions, except that you shouldn't change the whole model to suit your tastes. Add your own style, don't take other's away.
That's pretty much it.
-
Calling Anita Blake! Anita Blake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Blake:_Vampire_Hunter) to the forum! We have a thread that needs raised!
*bump*
Did anyone ever finish this ship?
-
:necro:
No, I don't think so.
-
I'd forgotten about this ;)
I might add some bits and bobs.
-
I think its already got enough greebles. It needs some turrets now.
-
A turret you say? I'll see what i have knocking about. I need to dl it first.
-
I bet this thing will never be uv'ed. nobody likes to uv map.
-
There's no such thing as bad practice. .
I'll attempt it at the weekend in fact :p
McEdit with Chips---
Can't fins a working link so someone has to tell me where it is..
-
Heh, my former ISP still hasn't deleted my web-stuff. http://members.aceweb.com/gregg1/Moscow6.zip and http://members.aceweb.com/gregg1/Moscow7b.zip
-
Heh, my former ISP still hasn't deleted my web-stuff. http://members.aceweb.com/gregg1/Moscow6.zip and http://members.aceweb.com/gregg1/Moscow7b.zip
Could you check your 7b version. It sorta looks like you were going to do some boolian stuff and then didn't.(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee67/waternz/mesh/moscow.jpg)
Ignore the red plane, was just checking for lost faces.
-
What'd you load that into? It looks and works fine in trueSpace 6.6. There aren't any missing faces, I fixed some and an unconnected vertex or two on the version I first downloaded. (Read up-thread a ways.)
One issue I have noticed with other apps importing .cob format is recessed areas where the edge is perfectly co-planar with a face and the vertexes aren't connected by edges. Then you get the recessed areas treated as a sub-object *inside* another object. LithUnwrap and Ultimate Unwrap will booger things up with such models. The fix is simply to add some edges in the right places then scoot the verts .001 one way or another so any further boolean operations won't remove those edges.
I can't upload to where those zips are because I canceled that ISP account in February, they just haven't got 'round to deleting my site yet.
-
What'd you load that into? It looks and works fine in trueSpace 6.6. There aren't any missing faces, I fixed some and an unconnected vertex or two on the version I first downloaded. (Read up-thread a ways.)
One issue I have noticed with other apps importing .cob format is recessed areas where the edge is perfectly co-planar with a face and the vertexes aren't connected by edges. Then you get the recessed areas treated as a sub-object *inside* another object. LithUnwrap and Ultimate Unwrap will booger things up with such models. The fix is simply to add some edges in the right places then scoot the verts .001 one way or another so any further boolean operations won't remove those edges.
Well both Blender and AccuTrans have the same problem. Add LithUnwrap and Ultimate Unwrap and you have four pieces of software in agreement. Unfortunately Truespace 3.2 didn't agree, and since it's a Truespace format it wins.
Thanks for the info and we have a solution.
In Truespace hit the triangulate button then save. Blender and AccuTrans are happy again.
-
Well both Blender and AccuTrans have the same problem. Add LithUnwrap and Ultimate Unwrap and you have four pieces of software in agreement. Unfortunately Truespace 3.2 didn't agree, and since it's a Truespace format it wins.
Actually this is just TS being retarded once again. It's not got anything to do with the format, and it's just that TS can't figure out what to do with untriangulated ring shaped faces that it hasn't just created itself. All it involves is TS giving the ring shaped face a 'secret' triangulation so the renderer can draw it - where the edges aren't visible in edit mode or anywhere else.
If TS first creates the ring face it gives it a good guess as to how to 'secretly' triangulate it which usually means you won't see the effect, but when you import a model with a ring face it probably just picks where to do the edges based on vertex order, giving no regard to the actual shape of the face. When you triangulate, TS actually thinks about it a bit and tends to get it right. ish.
-
Can Blender not triangulate the model before export? I know it doesn't look as 'clean' but I always tend to create the mesh using non-tri's, create the UVMap, then triangulate the model before export (though, admittedly, that is in Lightwave, not Blender). Seems to work pretty well for me.
-
If it's been built well, there should be very little to no difference in the surfaces of a terran ship like this triangulated or not, which is probably why I didn't last time I exported. :)
Triangulating is just select all, ctrl+t though.
-
Gotcha, I always triangulate anyway because some programs can be stroppy about symmetry when triangulating, so you have to 'intervene' a little bit. For example, Lightwave works by vertex, it always triangulates clockwise, regardless of what side of the axis it is on. This means that on a model that is symmetrical if you have a 4-sided non-flat poly, on both sides, they will both be divided diagonally left-right, which means they are no longer symmetrical, and look rather odd.
-
Ok - so how long is this ship supposed to be?
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee67/waternz/mesh/cap-moscow.jpg)
-
Hmm, good question. From those pics I would say the 1000m one, but I usually base the specific length on window features if I can. IIRC, the bridge has a window recess that you could use, or maybe the rounded front 'observation deck' kinda thing. The Fenris windows are a good reference size - I'd consider them to be about 2m or so high.
I still don't much like the front TBH. It feels....out of sync with the overall shape somehow. I can't think of any shape that would work better though. :\
-
I think that it looks awesome in its 1km state.
-
definately go with 1km
-
Definitely 1km, I can't wait to see this thing in game.
-
1000m frigate, totally.
-
Looks like 1000m it is.
The model has been stable for six months, and with the exception of turrets I think the modeling part is complete.
On to Stage 2 - UV mapping. I've started the basic unwrap. Aiming for 2x20482
-
Is all of the geometry stable?
EDIT: And don't forget about turrets!
-
Is all of the geometry stable?
EDIT: And don't forget about turrets!
The geometry of ver7b was pretty good. Very little needed to be fixed. I think someone may be working on some turrets.
-
K. Just wanted to make sure ;)
-
Make it GTFf Moscow then: it would be larger than the Iceni.
-
Why GTFf?
-
That's the fanon designation for a frigate IIRC.
-
Only in Derelict.
-
Fg sounds better.
But Ff is the military designation.
I personally like the 500m version, but that's probably cause it looks sorta like a fighter from that angle. Or something from B5.
-
1000m and somebody uv it.
-
Looks like 1000m it is.
The model has been stable for six months, and with the exception of turrets I think the modeling part is complete.
On to Stage 2 - UV mapping. I've started the basic unwrap. Aiming for 2x20482
-
I would use Fg for frigate still...can't wait to see this thing done and ready to kick ass.
-
I hope its textured similar to the Colossus and Sirona, the GTVA 'hybrid' vessels :drevil:, damn beautiful model tho ;7
-
I think that grey would be good, with some lights and some red and black.
-
Red...black...grey? Shivan?
Deimos-style would be my vote. Shades of grey and dark green seems to work well.
-
Red...black...grey? Shivan?
Deimos-style would be my vote. Shades of grey and dark green seems to work well.
Red-black-grey can be InfernoR1 SOC.
-
Red...black...grey? Shivan?
Deimos-style would be my vote. Shades of grey and dark green seems to work well.
Sort of what I meantRed...black...grey? Shivan?
Deimos-style would be my vote. Shades of grey and dark green seems to work well.
Red-black-grey can be InfernoR1 SOC.
Sort of what I meant.
-
IMHO maybe a combination of Deimos and Fenris shades of textures.
-
IMHO maybe a combination of Deimos and Fenris shades of textures.
That would work too.
I'm very much against any red being in there though. Red/Black/Grey just feels...wrong on a non-shivan ship. (Yes, I dislike the INFR1 SOC). Mainly because I'm sick to the death of seeing that colour combination doing my own campaign...
-
Yeah, no red.
-
The original Raynor colour scheme was just Deimos wasn't it? I get the feeling that it'd work on this vessel.
-
Not IIRC. Look at the first page of Celeb of FS. It has a lot of brown and yellow, and some red.
I think that this would fit the Raynor color scheme.
-
If by brown and red you mean the red rim of the colossus-tiled turrets...then yes, it has brown and red. Its still mostly Deimos.
I would stay away from those turrets though (they look fugly, IMO).
-
I think that sort of an Aeolus-Deimos cross would look cool.
-
I think that sort of an Aeolus-Deimos cross would look cool.
:nod: I agree.
-
Sorry for bumping a now-one-month old thread, but has anyone attempted to UV map it? I don't think this phase was planned out like the others, assuming an individual can't share 2 hours for UV mapping. I like how it ended up, but if it can't continue, should someone just upload the model?
-
Sorry for bumping a now-one-month old thread, but has anyone attempted to UV map it? I don't think this phase was planned out like the others, assuming an individual can't share 2 hours for UV mapping. I like how it ended up, but if it can't continue, should someone just upload the model?
The basic uv was done a month ago. All I need to do is sort out the uv layout. RL has kept me busy for the month so far.
-
:o That's better than what I thought happened.
-
Took another look at it. VA had a problem with the front and some people including me thought it looked too much like a gun. Made the "pistol grip" smaller, increased the engine size and reduced the front.
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee67/waternz/mesh/moscow76.jpg)
Opinions ;)
-
:nod: she does look less like a pistol :yes: but i thought we were to the point of painting it?
-
:nod: she does look less like a pistol :yes: but i thought we were to the point of painting it?
Well at this stage changing bits doesn't affect the current unwrap, but as soon as the uv is finalized properly then the model stays as is.
I think it is worth the extra effort :nervous:
-
Either looks good, but I liked the old one.
-
Took another look at it. VA had a problem with the front and some people including me thought it looked too much like a gun. Made the "pistol grip" smaller, increased the engine size and reduced the front.
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee67/waternz/mesh/moscow76.jpg)
Opinions ;)
I like the top one better
-
Ditto. I like the top one. The proportions just seem...off for the bottom one.
-
the bottom one looks faster and sleeker but the top looks kick-butt.
-
Keep it original :yes: Top all the way.
-
I call the original one
-
Do both and make them sister ships...
:D
-
Do both and make them sister ships...
:D
Genius
Wow, this is really shaping up nicely
-
Took another look at it. VA had a problem with the front and some people including me thought it looked too much like a gun. Made the "pistol grip" smaller, increased the engine size and reduced the front.
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee67/waternz/mesh/moscow76.jpg)
Opinions ;)
I actually prefer the bottom one, but I like the forward section of the top one better. Specifically just the double barrel sorta bow sections. I like the curvy part above that for the bottom but I prefer the barrels themselves of the top version. The problem for me with the top one is that the bridge is just a pimple on the ship. It doesn't really look like anything. But it's more prominent on the bottom, the bottom ship is more recognizable in its components. Though maybe that's because the bow section is smaller. Damn who knows. Yeah maybe that's the thing for me, the bottom one is more recognizable in terms of what is the front, what is the back and what is the bridge. The top one doesn't have any focus I think. That's the problem.
-
Really? I thought the ass looked too big on the bottom one.
-
Really? I thought the ass looked too big on the bottom one.
Well here is the profile view
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee67/waternz/mesh/m-profile.jpg)
-
Still top, although the details on the handle-area of the bottom one are cool.
-
Really? I thought the ass looked too big on the bottom one.
Well here is the profile view
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee67/waternz/mesh/m-profile.jpg)
i still like the top better
the bottom design looks like it has a continuous slope down from the aft to the bow on the upper surface
-
I like the top one too. Reminds me mildly of a Nebula frigate.
-
i just realized what it reminded me of; a Tartan cruiser form EAW
-
No it doesn't. The Tartan is roundish. And gets chewed up and spat out by my Keldabes pop sweet fast.
-
your... what? :wtf:
-
Keldabe battlecruiser. Mandalorian designed BC. The Zann Consortium's equivalent of an ISD or Mon Calamari. But we're off topic.
-
your... what? :wtf:
This (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Keldabe-class_battleship).
That thing doesn't much look like a Tartan.
-
Ok, the top one it is.
-
you guys can keep working on the top one. but I am going to begin work one water's version. that way we can have both!
-
Name it after another Russian capital :yes:
-
How about Pripyat? Or Chernobyl? Or Tbilisi, just for fun?
-
Tbilisi plzkthx
-
XD Russia's not really sisterly to Georgia, though. :(
-
Lower one.. the angled and smaller lower tower/fin looks much better.
-
Call it the GTCv Volga. :nod:
Looking good, i might just go in and add a blatantly huge radio mast and make it into a c&c ship.. :drevil:
-
Call it the GTCv Volga. :nod:
Looking good, i might just go in and add a blatantly huge radio mast and make it into a c&c ship.. :drevil:
Blah, Russian cities . . meh, call it the GTCv Kursk.
-
Volga is the River running through Stalingrad.
-
Volgograd now. Stalingrad was during the Soviet days.
And if you'd name it Volga, I'd always think of that old Soviet car called 'Volga' ( either this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Gaz-24-side-view.jpg/800px-Gaz-24-side-view.jpg), or this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Volga_GAZ-21.jpg/800px-Volga_GAZ-21.jpg) ), and that's not good!
-
Volga is the River running through Stalingrad.
Yeah, but Kursk is the battle where the Soviets handed the Germans thier asses.
But anyway, guy can name it whatever sounds best to him.
-
I have some questions about the design, like, where is the bridge?
-
Deep inside the ship where it belongs?
-
well, I would have made it like that but, there is this thing on the top of the ship that looks like it might be the bridge. is it?
-
That's a sensor tower :P
-
That's a sensor tower :P
I'd say that's the bridge. Come one, Freespace isn't realistic. Have big exposed bridges like everything else!
-
I'd say it's a viewport. Where people go to view things. But not where all the controls preventing our ship from plummeting to its doom are. Too late.
-
I'd say it's a viewport. Where people go to view things. But not where all the controls preventing our ship from plummeting to its doom are. Too late.
I might go with that.
-
Anybody noticed this?
(Freespacemods, has no textures)
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Anybody noticed this?
(Freespacemods, has no textures)
Most of its textures appear if you select BluePlanet as a mod ... the mapping isn't great though.
-
Is this in blueplanet :confused:
-
Is this in blueplanet :confused:
No. But it uses a bunch of textures that are...
-
Thanks :)
-
Someone should finish a version with -proper- texturing. That one has horrid stretching.
-
Someone should finish a version with -proper- texturing. That one has horrid stretching.
Agreed. This is a great model, we can't afford to leave it like this.
-
I kept going back to this, thinking there's something wrong with the model other than the textures.
The moscow is a 3.5 kilometres battleship.
Since when did the Moscow get from 1km to 3.5?
-
Yeah, that's kind of weird.
I prefer it being a corvette (anywhere from 500 to 1000 meters works for me).
-
That's a sensor tower :P
I'd say that's the bridge. Come one, Freespace isn't realistic. Have big exposed bridges like everything else!
Actually bridges are more often than not exposed, or at least in modern warships. The main battle control stuff isn't on the bridge, AFAIK only the driving type stuff is usually on the bridge. The real combat stuff is in the heart of the ship. Or at least it was for all I know about modern carriers.
-
Where's the latest version of this model then?
-
So, Water, how's your version going?
-
So, Water, how's your version going?
I haven't spent any more time on it :(
Since I am going to uv it on a single map, I sorta figured that texturing would be my problem as well.
-
why would ye be doing that? high rez! By Davy Jones!
-
why would ye be doing that? high rez! By Davy Jones!
Yeah I'm hoping the rez won't get too low.
-
By Jack Sparrows thong! I meant where's the link to the latest .cob. . .
-
By Jack Sparrows thong! I meant where's the link to the latest .cob. . .
If you want to do more to the model - use this one
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Cheers, you left me loads of UV space lol...
*srsly, much appreciated
-
Cheers, you left me loads of UV space lol...
*srsly, much appreciated
Heh - auto arrange for uv's isn't quite useful yet. Blenders other uv tools are good, just not that one :p
-
Actually bridges are more often than not exposed, or at least in modern warships. The main battle control stuff isn't on the bridge, AFAIK only the driving type stuff is usually on the bridge. The real combat stuff is in the heart of the ship. Or at least it was for all I know about modern carriers.
That would be the CIC or Combat Information Center.
-
I hope Water's spent some more time one it XD
-
Actually bridges are more often than not exposed, or at least in modern warships. The main battle control stuff isn't on the bridge, AFAIK only the driving type stuff is usually on the bridge. The real combat stuff is in the heart of the ship. Or at least it was for all I know about modern carriers.
That would be the CIC or Combat Information Center.
Thank you for your specification. The CIC definitely has everything to do with the location and function of the Bridge. Why I didn't further correct people on what they're ignorant of, I don't know.
-
Isn't that kind of a cruel way to respond to bizzybody's remark? He was just trying to be helpful.
-
Black Wolf
It keeps falling down my list of things to do.
Currently the model has 2 uv sets. One for layout the other for final bake. The final uv map is dividable by two. eg a 4096x2048 can be turned into 2x 2048 maps without much trouble. The reason for the two uv sets was to allow different versions to be created easily.
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee67/waternz/mesh/mos-b01.jpg)
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee67/waternz/mesh/mos-b02.jpg)
Layout UV. The image gets filled with suitable textures.
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee67/waternz/mesh/mos-b03.jpg)
Bake UV. This is the final uv map. It works with AO maps and also with normal maps created in PS/Gimp
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee67/waternz/mesh/mos-b04.jpg)
It is in Blend format. I haven't looked into a way to export the model and retain the two uv sets.
-
Yay! Sweet. Texture's not how I envisioned it, but I like it, regardless. :)
-
http://www.filefront.com/14103797/Moscow.zip
Model - Blend and Obj. Occ texture only.
Single UV layer, as it is fairly easy to add another if needed.
Yay! Sweet. Texture's not how I envisioned it, but I like it, regardless. :)
Heh, I'm not too happy with the textures.
-
Yeah I don't much like the textures there either sorry - they just eat up 90% of the detail that's modelled in.
I tried the same thing with the Iceni textures (heh, I remember sending that to you when you asked actually), and I feel the technique degrades the overall quality a lot by combining the worst of both worlds: the general crappy looks of tiled textures with the larger time, memory and complexity demands of a UV map. :(
-
Yeah I don't much like the textures there either sorry - they just eat up 90% of the detail that's modelled in.
I tried the same thing with the Iceni textures (heh, I remember sending that to you when you asked actually), and I feel the technique degrades the overall quality a lot by combining the worst of both worlds: the general crappy looks of tiled textures with the larger time, memory and complexity demands of a UV map. :(
Most of it was just blocked in for colour, but I hadn't yet figured how to solve the tile problem. Although it looks like a mess something tells me I'm close, and that really bugs me.
-
This thing looks amazing! I greatly impressed with it and how far it has come :yes:
-
Also, the download link seems to be broken.
-
http://www.filefront.com/14243127/Moscow.zip (http://www.filefront.com/14243127/Moscow.zip)
The link will probably disappear in a week or two. Filefront seems to be for shorter storage periods now.
-
Champion. That's a really solid UV map BTW :nod:. So, what does everyone think of cumulative texturing? I will start a new thread if there's a decent amount of support for the idea, although I can see massive potential problems, most significantly getting even a semblance of continuity across the thing. Anyopinions? Yea or Nay?
-
Why the hell not :)
Edit- i'd wager more people are likely to have image editing software than modelling software. So you might get a greater response.
-
Yeah, but that's half the problem - if everyone who has Photoshop or GIMP jumps on board and does a panel here or a doodad there we're going to have a mishmash of both styles and quality levels that'll be much harder to repair and make consistent than geometry. Consider how it would look if, at one end we had the one of Diaspora's texture guys working, while at the other end we have someone who's just figured out how the fill button works in GIMP?
On the other hand, spreading the load would speed the process up considerably, as well as ensuring nobody gets bored and forgets about it for six months at a time (something I'm guilty of with texture jobs :nervous: )
TBH, I'm tempted to give it a go as a pure experiment, but I want to hear from a few other people first. Hell, realistically, the files are freely available. There's nothing I can do to stop anyone who wants to try texturing it, be it an individual effort by themselves or a cumulative system.
-
There we go, a verbal/written endorsement. Request split please ;7