Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Retsof on February 07, 2008, 10:00:50 pm
-
Just something that I was wondering about. Do FS2 ships have landing gear? (Just fighters and such, landing a Feneris would be quite difficult.)
-
Just something that I was wondering about. Do FS2 ships have landing gear? (Just fighters and such, landing a Feneris would be quite difficult.)
It doesn't look like it. In the Bastion main hall, most of the ships are just sitting on the hangar deck or sitting on shelves, and it looks like they are moved around by big cranes. Anyway, a bunch of the ships have big fins jutting out from their bottom sides, and it would be difficult to make landing gear that was taller than those fins.
-
If you are referring to planetary landing gear, no, they are not capable of atmospheric flight. If you are referring to docking-bay landing gear... what he said.
-
You can see a Vasudan fighter landing in the Vasudan hall menu. The ships are probably just moved by platforms and cranes which would explain why it takes so friggin long for a single wing to launch from a destroyer. They really need somekind of fast deployment, like the Viper tubes on BSG. I suppose they could jump out from the Destroyer and into the combat zone, but I suppose there's also a minimum range for that because whenever a destroyer is nearby, fighters tend to launch from it rather than jump out from it.
-
If you are referring to planetary landing gear, no, they are not capable of atmospheric flight. If you are referring to docking-bay landing gear... what he said.
Actually I think some fighters are designed to operate in atmosphere. Why else would the Perseus and Valkyrie have wings?
-
Probably for aesthetic value, and the fact that wings always make such a nice way of providing somewhere to put the guns. Humans don't like to let go of an idea once it is ingrained, even now the B-Wing fighter looks a little bit 'odd' because it is asymmetrical and 'lop sided' to our perception, it's a perfectly functional shape for space-flight, but we tend to refer back to the concept that anything that flies should resemble a bird.
-
You can see a Vasudan fighter landing in the Vasudan hall menu.
Yes, and that ship didn't have landing gear!
-
(http://s2.directupload.net/images/080208/temp/xniv63en.jpg) (http://s2.directupload.net/file/d/1332/xniv63en_jpg.htm)
here you can see, that no ship has any landing gear. the big ones are just sitting on the ground and the fighters are set on some kind of variable mounts....
-
Probably for aesthetic value, and the fact that wings always make such a nice way of providing somewhere to put the guns. Humans don't like to let go of an idea once it is ingrained, even now the B-Wing fighter looks a little bit 'odd' because it is asymmetrical and 'lop sided' to our perception, it's a perfectly functional shape for space-flight, but we tend to refer back to the concept that anything that flies should resemble a bird.
It spaces out the manuvering thrusters pretty good too, provides better manuverablity. B5's StarFury is a fairly rational design.
But the Herc is capable of atmospheric flight if the FS2 intro is to be believed, and if it can fly, then I think you'll have a hard time saying most of them can't.
As for landing gear: It needs to be remembered that these are the ships which can get hit by tac nukes and laugh. The weakest missile we know of, the Fury, has a three kiloton yield. Landing gear would be a pointless addition to them, they're not going to get damaged by landing without gear. (I wouldn't put it past a Herc or anything tougher to be able to survive atmospheric reentry, and at a considerably steeper angle then anything we normally think of, for that matter.) Considering their size and probable weight, it might even be the case that they can't make landing gear strong enough to support them.
-
NASA actually asked JMS if they could use the Starfury Design for future Spacecraft. JMS (AKA God) agreed on the condition that they called them Starfuries
-
NASA actually asked JMS if they could use the Starfury Design for future Spacecraft. JMS (AKA God) agreed on the condition that they called them Starfuries
any link to this information?
-
They probably use either some form of antigrav field or small jets for self powered ground travel, and the cranes used to "file" the fighters back into their storage locations when they're powered down to allow for tighter packing. (i wouldn't let a noobie pilot try to slip a herc into that upper rack of ships...thats just trouble in the making!)
-
NASA actually asked JMS if they could use the Starfury Design for future Spacecraft. JMS (AKA God) agreed on the condition that they called them Starfuries
any link to this information?
He metions it in one of the Babylon 5 comentry tracks - cant remember the episode though. I think he also mentions somewhere on "The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5".
Also here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfury)
-
But the Herc is capable of atmospheric flight if the FS2 intro is to be believed, and if it can fly, then I think you'll have a hard time saying most of them can't.
1. The FS2 intro is full of inconsistencies, as mentioned on the wiki (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/FreeSpace_Trivia#Cutscene_quirks) and in this thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,51898.0.html).
2. Where exactly does the Herc fly in an atmosphere? I only saw it crash into an atmosphere.
-
Not only that, but it was pure chance that the Herc Crashed at all. I mean, what are the chances of an out of control Herc suviving re-entry long enough to crash.
Oh I prepared a while back a time table for how i thought the Battle of Deneb occured - it takes into account the missions in the game, and the FS2 intro.
For Example the Legion was using Testbed Ursas, Ie they were at their earliest flyable stage - like the Mercury stage craft to Apollo craft.
Similarly, the Minticores? were a modified varient being tried out.
I'll see if i can find it and post it.
-
Maybe FS fighters have vectorable thrust like the Harrier or something that allows them to handle like VTOLs, eliminating the need for a landing gear. Since bombers are "sitting" on the floor, and their shape allows them to do so, they probably use a similar method.
Now, let's get to fighters with ventral fins like the Herc II. The most obvious way of landing would be landing like a VTOL retracting that long fin. However, that fin does not look like it's retractable. The other way would be to hover without landing, and let the fighter be "captured" by a crane, that puts it on its platform.
Or you could use the same method used to land F9C Sparrowhawk fighters on the US Navy airships USS Akron and USS Macon: you mount an hook on the top of the fighter, and you must catch a trapeze with that (if you played Crimson Skies, you know what I mean).
-
NASA actually asked JMS if they could use the Starfury Design for future Spacecraft. JMS (AKA God) agreed on the condition that they called them Starfuries
I would totally vouch for that.
Where did you manage to get a kick ass Bastion image?
-
Where did you manage to get a kick ass Bastion image?
Over here (http://web.archive.org/web/20050329054804/www.descent-freespace.com/goodies/gallery/). Loads of FS1 images, art and renderings. Even more unaccessible images, too... :(
EDIT: In the Aquitaine's main hall, it looks like the Herc II's platform has a hole in it to put the fin through. The myrmidon is carried away by a crane. So...- We know how Terran fighters are stored, but not how they are launched.
- We know how Vasudan fighters are launched, but not how they are stored.
I guess there is a certain degree of similarity, since we are in the GTVA together? Or maybe not. The Vasudan launch system doesn't seem very (cost-)effective to me, so us Terrans probably launch fighters in another way.
-
(http://s2.directupload.net/images/080208/temp/xniv63en.jpg) (http://s2.directupload.net/file/d/1332/xniv63en_jpg.htm)
here you can see, that no ship has any landing gear. the big ones are just sitting on the ground and the fighters are set on some kind of variable mounts....
Is there an actual mainhall at that resolution, or just a still image?
-
Just this still render.
-
Yeah, the fin is not retractable. In the Bastion Mainhall IceyJones posted, you can see the fin o that Herc sticking down through the platform.
-
NASA actually asked JMS if they could use the Starfury Design for future Spacecraft. JMS (AKA God) agreed on the condition that they called them Starfuries
any link to this information?
He metions it in one of the Babylon 5 comentry tracks - cant remember the episode though. I think he also mentions somewhere on "The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5".
Also here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfury)
There could, quite possibly, be nothing cooler in the world than being able to say 'This is Starfury One, launching from station now...' and be telling the truth. :)
-
But the Herc is capable of atmospheric flight if the FS2 intro is to be believed, and if it can fly, then I think you'll have a hard time saying most of them can't.
1. The FS2 intro is full of inconsistencies, as mentioned on the wiki (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/FreeSpace_Trivia#Cutscene_quirks) and in this thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,51898.0.html).
2. Where exactly does the Herc fly in an atmosphere? I only saw it crash into an atmosphere.
It takes off.
And inconsistancies or not, it's in the game, it's as canon as it gets. You can't pick and chose your canon.
-
I'll give you a scenario. Say that you are separated from your fleet, the node back is collapsed, and you only have your wingmates for company. So what do you do? You can't survive long in your fighter. So you find a nice cozy planet to resupply on, or, if you've given up on getting home, to settle on. Right?
-
How often has the node back collapsed?
Anyway I doubt landing gear was something [V] took into consideration when designing the ships.
-
It collapsed in Homesick...(I hated the ending, by the way). And I guess it makes sense for :v: not to consider landing gear in a game with no planetary battles.
-
Well since the fighters can slow down and maintain 0 forward velocity very quickly I don't think they would need landing gear.
-
one thing is we still dont know how the artificial gravity on freespace ships works. it may only be effective for a few feet above the floor. and the gravity on the platforms can be switched on and off at will. the jacks and clamps on the platforms look adjustable enough to accommodate many fighters. it might just be switch off the gravity, retract the clamps and light the engines.
the cranes look like they were designed to move cargo and ordinance around. notice how shiny the floor is under the bombers, yet then closer to the screen its rougher and less polished. the floor might be glossy to reduce friction and the gravity on that section might be reduced, so that the bombers may just slide across the floor.
thing is though freespace didnt put much thought on how a launch bay should work. its not as thought out as galactica's launch tubes or b5's cobra bays (though i always questioned how they got them back in). in a fully zero g environment id personally want to capture ships in robotic clamps and keep em suspended that way. with non-rotating artificial gravity, id probibly want a runway and gear/skids.
-
But the Herc is capable of atmospheric flight if the FS2 intro is to be believed, and if it can fly, then I think you'll have a hard time saying most of them can't.
1. The FS2 intro is full of inconsistencies, as mentioned on the wiki (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/FreeSpace_Trivia#Cutscene_quirks) and in this thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,51898.0.html).
2. Where exactly does the Herc fly in an atmosphere? I only saw it crash into an atmosphere.
It takes off.
And inconsistancies or not, it's in the game, it's as canon as it gets. You can't pick and chose your canon.
It does? Where? I only see it appear. It doesn't take off just because there is a planet in the background, you know. It could have been launched by the Orion or by another destroyer in-system as well.
-
(though i always questioned how they got them back in)
So have I...especially with the Victory destroyers and those emergency launchers they have for the Thunderbolts. :confused:
-
I'm with FreespaceFreak here, I don't remember seeing a Herc taking off in the introduction at all, the chances that it launched from the Orion that was destroyed are far higher than the possibility that it launched from the planet itself.
-
But the Herc is capable of atmospheric flight if the FS2 intro is to be believed, and if it can fly, then I think you'll have a hard time saying most of them can't.
1. The FS2 intro is full of inconsistencies, as mentioned on the wiki (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/FreeSpace_Trivia#Cutscene_quirks) and in this thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,51898.0.html).
2. Where exactly does the Herc fly in an atmosphere? I only saw it crash into an atmosphere.
It takes off.
And inconsistancies or not, it's in the game, it's as canon as it gets. You can't pick and chose your canon.
What the hell are you going on about? Crashlanding on a planet is hardly 'atmospheric flight'. And just because a Herc appears on-screen during the intro accompanied by some heroic music doesn't necessarily mean it 'took off'. Where are you saying it even 'took off' in the first place?
And, if crashlanding on a planet equals atmospheric flight, we might then just as well say that the Hades is capable of atmospheric flight; after all, we can see it crashed on the very same planet as the Herc.
-
I've always wondered why the Orion has a runway, or something that looks a lot like one in front of the hangar bay. Maybe the Herc in the intro cutscene took off from that? I can't see how though. Maybe it's just there to help pilots on finals.
In the FS2 mainhall there's a Myrmidon that gets picked up by a crane and taken off-screen to the left, perhaps to some launching mechanism we don't see. The FS1 mainhall (the Bastion's one) has a crane and a Star Wars-like hanger opening (iirc), or what looks like one. Maybe craft just hover their way out of the hanger.
Can't say I'm an aeronautical genius but to me the Herc looks like it would fly like a brick in an atmosphere. Still, that pilot in the intro seemed to survive the crash for a while so maybe he had some control, like in the form of an anti-gravity device... or maybe ships like the Herc (that have no wings/control surfaces) have, I dunno, an 'emergency atmospheric entry thruster system' that, rather than letting the pilot fly properly in an atmosphere, allows him to use vertical thrust (?) to cushion the impact of a crash landing. I can of course only speculate about such stuff. :D
-
Or maybe he just lost his nav system but still had shields when he hit the planet.
-
Or maybe he just lost his nav system but still had shields when he hit the planet.
He wouldn't have needed shields to survive reentry. His hull's enough. :P We know the GTVA has antigrav technology, Volition's even said as much (Aldo wrote a whole damn thread about it, I think).
-
The FS1 mainhall (the Bastion's one) has a crane and a Star Wars-like hanger opening (iirc), or what looks like one.
I wonder how that works. Take a look at the technicians under the first Herc, and the guy behind the desk. They're not wearing any protective clothing. So something must be in that opening. A shield is very Star Wars, but I'm afraid that it's the best bet we have.
Maybe craft just hover their way out of the hanger.
Possible, or they're picked up by the crane-like thing above the Ursa and dropped near the opening.
-
If there's a shield covering the hanger opening.... how could the GTA have that kind of thing on an Orion prior to the Shivans appearing (which the GTA reverse-engineered shielding tech from)?
Or perhaps it's not a defensive shield, it's just for holding the air in... and maybe that type of shielding, for screening off a vacuum, was available to humans prior to the Great War. Hmm.
-
Exactly. I suspect the GTVA had shields before they met the Shivans but they weren't capable of warding off even laser fire let alone missiles or bombs.
-
Sounds plausible. It would explain how the GTA was able to reverse-engineer the Shivan shield technology so fast. They already had some basic ideas about force fields, so studying Shivan tech merely gave them some additional information, that helped them to develop defensive shields in addition to the hangar fields.
-
The Terrans certainly had some kind of prototype shield array which was used for testing at Outpost Riviera in Ross 128. The capture of the Shivan shield prototypes seemed to helped them refine the technology and made it possible to be carried by fightercraft.
-
A low-tech explanation could be that instead of there being a shield across the opening, there's a big hanger door made out of something very strong and transparent which opens and closes, and personnel need to vacate the area when it's open.
EDIT: Actually maybe that isn't quite so low-tech.
-
That sounds horrible. With such a lack of tech, I think we would be using giant airlocks instead.
-
A low-tech explanation could be that instead of there being a shield across the opening, there's a big hanger door made out of something very strong and transparent which opens and closes, and personnel need to vacate the area when it's open.
EDIT: Actually maybe that isn't quite so low-tech.
Someone has seen the film War Commander then!
-
My theory
In the Bastion, we see both a Medusa and an Ursa on the deck. The Ursa is supported by both it's missle banks and it's engines, however the Medusa is only sitting on it's ordanance banks, with no support towards its rear. Unless it is an incredibally balanced bomber, I suspect it has a retractable support for when it is docked.
Additionally, who says that the exit is also the entrance? How do we not know that the Orion has an airlock where craft ENTER the hanger? This could explain how the Hercules appear racked on shelves high up on the Bastion's hanger, (and to a lesser extend, MY Orion, look top left...).
-
it might me a plasma or electro-static shield. something capable of repelling atmosphere only. we currently have such barriers working small scale in the lab now. by the time fs rolls around they might have bigger ones. or perhaps thats some kind of transparent metal that their using for a door (also currently available).
-
or perhaps thats some kind of transparent metal that their using for a door (also currently available).
I don't see the point of using transparent metal though.
-
Cause it would be really funny when pilots forget to ask the Orion to open it? :p
-
(http://photo.gangus.com/d/26788-2/ackbar.jpg)
-
In the Bastion, we see both a Medusa and an Ursa on the deck. The Ursa is supported by both it's missile banks and it's engines, however the Medusa is only sitting on it's ordnance banks, with no support towards its rear. Unless it is an incredibly balanced bomber, I suspect it has a retractable support for when it is docked.
Possible.
Additionally, who says that the exit is also the entrance? How do we not know that the Orion has an airlock where craft ENTER the hanger? This could explain how the Hercules appear racked on shelves high up on the Bastion's hanger, (and to a lesser extend, MY Orion, look top left...).
The Orion has one fighterbay, so only one opening.
-
Insert Quote
Quote from: lostllama on February 10, 2008, 10:59:05 AM
A low-tech explanation could be that instead of there being a shield across the opening, there's a big hanger door made out of something very strong and transparent which opens and closes, and personnel need to vacate the area when it's open.
EDIT: Actually maybe that isn't quite so low-tech.
Someone has seen the film War Commander then!
:confused:
It just dawned on me that it could be a big window.
-
That is a good point. That may not be the fighterbay at all. After all one of the main doors does lead to the flight deck. That could just be a storage and maintenance area.
-
From the angle of that mainhall screenshot, wouldn't you expect to see a section of an Orion's starboard side through the opening? If so then those Hercs look like they're about to crash...
EDIT: If you assume that it's the main fighterbay hanger, that is. And even then you'd probably expect to see some of that big runway in front of it. In game, you don't see any other means of entering the Orion (except for docking points but of course that's a different matter). It might just be a huge window for a maintenance and storage area though... but then I don't recall seeing one that big on the model.
-
Damn. I should have thought of that myself. May the Great Ones :warp: me away into the Eternal Nebulas of Doom (formerly known as Capella).
But wait... A huge (glass?) window in the hull of a warship? Wouldn't that be a vulnerable spot?
Perhaps it's a big screen with images from the outside of the Orion. However, don't ask me why they would put something like that in a hangar.
-
Glass doesn't show on the side of the Orion, so I think the canon answer would have to be that is is a hanger or "the" hanger. Just a little inconsistent with the model
-
Perhaps it's a big screen with images from the outside of the Orion. However, don't ask me why they would put something like that in a hangar.
Atmosphere? As in, metaphorically speaking. Not for maintaining oxygen levels and such but just so that it'd be a bit prettier in a hangar.
-
It seems silly to me to waste military funds on a mega-screen tv :P
-
What doesn't seem silly, when talking about any military.
-
One way transparent aluminum. :D
-
It seems silly to me to waste military funds on a mega-screen tv :P
That's what I thought. Then, I realised that all you need is a beamer. It could be a multi-functional screen, with the images of outer space just being a screensaver...
-
But wait... A huge (glass?) window in the hull of a warship? Wouldn't that be a vulnerable spot?
They'd need blast shutters like in the original BSG series (no shields on FS capital vessels right?).
It seems silly to me to waste military funds on a mega-screen tv :P
Maybe it's a hanger-cum-observation deck type thing. The Orion is an expensive ship and is probably a c'n'c vessel some of the time.
It seems silly to me to waste military funds on a mega-screen tv :P
That's what I thought. Then, I realised that all you need is a beamer. It could be a multi-functional screen, with the images of outer space just being a screensaver...
Yeah or that.
EDIT: Or... [V] made a mistake. :nervous:
-
My theory is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_window
-
It allows for radiation to pass through it, from space isn't that dangerous?
-
Only slightly off-topic :nervous:: the Aquitaine has this observation-deck-like window at the top of the main screen. Has anyone ever found that on the outside of the ship? Otherwise, it could be FUBAR's one-way transparent aluminum which is used on the Bastion as well as on other Terran capships.
-
There are lots of windows on the Aquitaine. It could be anywhere.
-
*checks thread title*
Have we gone off-topic?
Just to steer it back on course, well sort of... any ideas about what the keel or fin-like thing underneath most terran fighters is for? Is that an aid for docking with those platforms, or something housing sensors? Or does it make a ship more stable in atmospheric flight? It's a common thing seen on the terran designs.
Come to think of it, the Ulysses doesn't have one, nor the Apollo or most of the bombers. How does a Ulysses "land"? On it's wingtips I suppose, but it could have retractable skids or an undercarriage.
-
Wings. And. Stabilizers. Are. ONLY. FOR. AESTHETIC. REASONS. BTW, I haven't ever seen or heard of a atmospheric operation (Except various evacuations).
-
*checks thread title*
Have we gone off-topic?
Just to steer it back on course, well sort of... any ideas about what the keel or fin-like thing underneath most terran fighters is for? Is that an aid for docking with those platforms, or something housing sensors? Or does it make a ship more stable in atmospheric flight? It's a common thing seen on the terran designs.
Come to think of it, the Ulysses doesn't have one, nor the Apollo or most of the bombers. How does a Ulysses "land"? On it's wingtips I suppose, but it could have retractable skids or an undercarriage.
The ships of Fs1 are boxy design until freeSpace 2 comes around. They are more sleek and the little fins come after the study of Shivan tech. Don't remember where I got that last part from. I think wiki or tech room
-
Wings. And. Stabilizers. Are. ONLY. FOR. AESTHETIC. REASONS. BTW, I haven't ever seen or heard of a atmospheric operation (Except various evacuations).
Yeah, FS has always been more style over substance when it comes to spacecraft design.
I remember someone here posting a thread about a technical manual for the Herc mk2 and the Ares, but it's mostly in Japanese and I don't know if it could shed any light as to the question of atmospheric flight capability of the terran craft. Besides as far as I can tell it's totally not "canon" material. Managed to find the link to it, here it is for those interested.
http://www3.osk.3web.ne.jp/~yonehara/gtva1.zip (http://www3.osk.3web.ne.jp/~yonehara/gtva1.zip)
Anyone know any kanji/Japanese script? I tried running it through a translation website but didn't get very far as it didn't seem to handle differences in syntax that well.
Oh and I found this on the Ulysses, might make a nice wallpaper: http://www3.osk.3web.ne.jp/~yonehara/exp/exp2.htm (http://www3.osk.3web.ne.jp/~yonehara/exp/exp2.htm)
I wonder if the author of this stuff hangs out here.
-
Something about the general shape of that Ulysses doesn't look ... quite right.
-
*checks thread title*
Have we gone off-topic?
Just to steer it back on course, well sort of... any ideas about what the keel or fin-like thing underneath most terran fighters is for? Is that an aid for docking with those platforms, or something housing sensors? Or does it make a ship more stable in atmospheric flight? It's a common thing seen on the terran designs.
Come to think of it, the Ulysses doesn't have one, nor the Apollo or most of the bombers. How does a Ulysses "land"? On it's wingtips I suppose, but it could have retractable skids or an undercarriage.
The ships of Fs1 are boxy design until freeSpace 2 comes around. They are more sleek and the little fins come after the study of Shivan tech. Don't remember where I got that last part from. I think wiki or tech room
its only fair to note that at the time of fs1, boxy models were common in games, mainly because the speed wasnt there to render more curvy designs (not to mention 3d acceleration back then was not standard equipment). had the graphics technology been available, then the ships would have been much more sleek in nature, more akin to what fs2 had.
another analogy was between ww1 and ww2. fs1 was more like ww1, planes were boxy, underpowered, not so well armed, and very fragile and not much of a defense existed on the ground or aboard ships. fs2 is like ww2, not only are the ships faster, better armed, armored, and much more durable (due to improved shields). also the defense against fighters and bombers increased (beams, flak).
you can either use the analogy to explain the differences in fs1 and fs2, or you can use the hard fact that the 3d technology wasn't yet capable and that streamlined ships weren't yet possible.
-
Not to mention 'boxy' ships are industrially seen much easier to produce. Sleek ships are maybe also a product of increased industrial capabilities.
-
Probably for aesthetic value, and the fact that wings always make such a nice way of providing somewhere to put the guns. Humans don't like to let go of an idea once it is ingrained, even now the B-Wing fighter looks a little bit 'odd' because it is asymmetrical and 'lop sided' to our perception, it's a perfectly functional shape for space-flight, but we tend to refer back to the concept that anything that flies should resemble a bird.
If you think in Newtonian terms, wings provide a very nice place to put RCS thrusters because the wings provide additional leverage to turn the ship faster.
As for asymmetrical designs, they have huge problems in Newtonian physics for the most part. For a ship to really fly straight, the thrust must be lined up with the center of mass.
-
i was messing around with that torque idea in space combat, trying to find an optimal thruster configuration. i found that stubby wings made the best thruster mounts. a starfury type configuration worked the best. other configs i tested included various 2, 3 and 4 winged designs as well as a couple wingless ones. the wingless designs (like the default hornet ship that comes with space combat) seemed more sluggish on axes where the trusters were clustered twards the center. extremely long wings seem to also be an impediment (mainly because of added wing mass). at some point along the wing there will just be more leverage than is needed, where you just end up wasting more rcs fuel. there seems to be an optimal point where the torque is just right. figure out the width of 75% of the ships mass on each plane (the area where the bulk of the ship is laied out). then put your thrusters about at 1.5-2 times that diameter. thats a rough approximation of the best place to mount the thrusters. though there is probibly some more accurate calculation on the subject.
-
Well, if you look at the Starfury, of course you have a maneuverable design, but it's ugly as hell.
For me, still Design > Utility.
-
Just remembered something. Anyone recall the start of that first nebula mission in FS2 where you kind of lift off from the upper hull of the Aquitaine? Anyone got any ideas why that would be? Seems at odds with launching from the fighterbay underneath the destroyer, maybe it was just an assembly point, or rapid deployment point on the ships exterior. Not sure the Hercs were in contact with the Hecate's hull at the start though.
Personally I like the way the Starfury (and the Thunderbolt) looks.
-
It's probably an assembly point. Launching 16 fighters at once isn't easy, so I guess we are launched by two or three (or even one by one, if they aren't in a hurry) and gather there to leave on patrol.
-
they might have been strapped to the hull before the Aquitaine jumped into the nebula, so that in the event of being surrounded by shivans upon coming out of subspace, they would be ready.
-
they might have been strapped to the hull before the Aquitaine jumped into the nebula, so that in the event of being surrounded by shivans upon coming out of subspace, they would be ready.
I doubt it. It just doesn't seem like something they would do.
-
It's something I would do...
-
It's something Command would do...
-
You get a normal briefing before the mission. Normal briefings take place in the briefing room. And it was said there that We have entered a nebula. So I'm very sure that you are launched normally.
-
My theory is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_window
:eek2: :eek2:
We already got shield technology!
-
You get a normal briefing before the mission. Normal briefings take place in the briefing room. And it was said there that We have entered a nebula. So I'm very sure that you are launched normally.
So I guess it really was just a rallying point for the fighters.
-
Or you had to EVA to get to your fighter.
-
No, what I would do when exploring an unknown system, is send a Deimos through with fighter escort, have it secure the area (calling in reinforcements or pulling back as needed) and send in the destroyer(s) afterwards. I don't think that the Hecate is suitable for exploration of unknown systems, since it is poorly armoured and strategically viable.
Or you had to EVA to get to your fighter.
:lol:
-
Actually, I think the Hecate is the perfect class to send in. Since you're charting unknown territories, the more wings you can put out, the more grounds you can cover.
-
Actually, I think the Hecate is the perfect class to send in. Since you're charting unknown territories, the more wings you can put out, the more grounds you can cover.
Yes indeed, but only AFTER you have secured an area for it, so it can operate safely.
And if you really want to take the risk of sending in a destroyer first, then use a Hattie. A Hecate is useless against capships and an Orion can be bombed to death easily, whereas the Hattie is more of a jack-of-all-trades. Therefore, it has the best chances of survival in unknown systems. But as I said, sending in a destroyer first is ridiculous. Imagine what would have happened with in Into the Lion's Den...
-
Perhaps everyone getting launched from the hecate hull was due to magnetizing that area of the ship to make the herc 2's stick until they are released. As for the long sensor booms on ships such as the herc 2 and perseus, those are most likely retractable. The fact that we see something like a perseus inside the main hall with it's sensor boom sticking out and jutting into the floor is probably on account of V thinking that most people won't notice and they didn't want to remodel the ship to have a retracted sensor boom.
Another thing is that V stated that the ships in fs are anti-gravity capable (they can hover around like a herrier if they want to). This obviously puts a different spin on how the ships can take off. But from what we see in the psamtik main hall is that the vasudans seem to have a system like bsg has for launching ships. Except for the vasudans it works for both taking off and landing, and taking off happens from the ship firing up it's engines. In bsg when the fighters get launched, it's not based on their engines getting up to speed. And landing the craft takes place in a whole different area of the ship.
-
The Vasudan system is different, they don't seem to use cranes. They need a floating platform/ferry-like craft with thrusters to deliver the launching ship to the hanger opening... which to me seems a bit OTT, but they're aliens so they would be different.
-
Perhaps everyone getting launched from the hecate hull was due to magnetizing that area of the ship to make the herc 2's stick until they are released. As for the long sensor booms on ships such as the herc 2 and perseus, those are most likely retractable. The fact that we see something like a perseus inside the main hall with it's sensor boom sticking out and jutting into the floor is probably on account of V thinking that most people won't notice and they didn't want to remodel the ship to have a retracted sensor boom.
Look at the Galatea main hall. You can clearly see a gap in the platform where the Herc's fin can go through.
-
Look at the Galatea main hall. You can clearly see a gap in the platform where the Herc's fin can go through.
I just looked at the main hall, but i didn't see any hole for the sensor boom on it's little landing pad thing at all. Then again the fs main hall is not really known for it's high visual quality either. I could not make out any sensor boom hole on the herc 2's landing pad thing. I especially could not see any sensor boom sticking out from the bottom of the landing pad thing when the herc 2 was on it. Of course all this time i am talking about that herc 2 that get's picked up by the crane and even put back by the crane.
-
Look at the Galatea main hall. You can clearly see a gap in the platform where the Herc's fin can go through.
I just looked at the main hall, but i didn't see any hole for the sensor boom on it's little landing pad thing at all. Then again the fs main hall is not really known for it's high visual quality either. I could not make out any sensor boom hole on the herc 2's landing pad thing. I especially could not see any sensor boom sticking out from the bottom of the landing pad thing when the herc 2 was on it. Of course all this time i am talking about that herc 2 that get's picked up by the crane and even put back by the crane.
Which main hall are you talking about. It sounds like the Bastion main hall. If you want to see what I'm talking about look here (http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj251/blowfishpro/obvious.jpg).
-
I was talking about the aquitaine main hall. Thx for showing something that's a little more obvious for what you're talking about (the fs1 main hall has it shown nice and close up :)). I wasn't even thinking about looking at the fs1 main halls....probably my lack of fs1 at the moment.