[diamondgeezer]

K, here's a question for those with a bit of experience in such matters:

I'm thinking about uberising another SAAB warship (don't ask where I got it) but should I try to keep the turrets and such similar to what I've put on previous ships or go for something a bit different? I don't want to make the resulting fleet look overly rag-tag, but at the same time I want to reflect evolving technologies and of course try out some self-declared cool ideas... place your bets


Oo, check it out, I posted my sig. Mark it on your calenders folks...

[J3Vr6]

Well, If it's evolving technology then I don't see why the ship can't be different.  Granted, that doesn't mean you would put a ship like a stealth fighter in the immediate timeline as the generation of the wright brothers.  

But if you can explain it well enough in a tech description or briefing, then why not?

[TheCelestialOne]

I think the looks of a fleet IN A GAME are very important. Thats the reason I don't like the diversity in FS too much. I mean the Collosus is just out of place with those textures and even the general look.

[Fineus]

A balance - especially if it can reflect evolution of design. But if you're talking something like the difference between the Hecate and the Ravana class of destroyers then forget it - the design is way to alien to itself. If it's the same race - try to reflect that similar design throughout the fleet - but evolve it where you have to.

Come to think of it - I call on Starship Troopers for an example (of all things). Think of the Roger Young, it was blocky but had tonnes of charachter. At the end of the film there's a (very) brief shot of some new line ships cruising along - the design is very similar - a long stretched out look with engine pods at the rear, bridge at the top front and so on... but they're much much sleeker and overly cool - they've evolved.

You get the idea

[Beowulf]

Consistancy is very important. Think for example, of the US navy... everything pretty much looks the same. Big ships, boxy, grey, same white lettering in front.

Think of it this way, everything is consistant, because the same basic problems need to be mastered. All ships need a hull,  powerplants, a method of navigation, weaponry. Due to the ocean and materials at hand, all ships have a basic prinicple behind them, and hardly varies from ship to ship.

Look, for instance at nuclear subs versus conventional subs. Why the difference in design? Different theory and principles, mashed together with better technology. Why should this be any different in space? Why would there be a long flat fighter next to a short stubby one? Why would one be almost completely vertical as compared to a horizontally orientated fighter? There is no orientation in space except when given a reference point.

Speaking of reference points, wouldn't it make sense if a navy had a particular method of docking, so that all fighters did so in the same manner? That way all docks would be universal. This would filter into the general design of the ship.

Space will have its own priorites, just like air and water do. For this reason all jets have wings, all helicopters rotors. These are like boomers compared to hunter-killer subs, different missions to accomplish. Same with the destroyer versus the aircraft carrier. Vastly different purposes, different designs, many recognizable features shared between them, the same basic principle.

It will be true for space when we finally get there.

I like what Kalfireth said about evolution. That is the difference between designs in the same class of ships.

[Star Dragon]

In general the fleet should be recognizable at a glance, but you have to make allowances for mission specific craft as well as break though technology prototypes, and eventual fleet evolutions... (like stated earlier).

     Oh and I can explain the collossus,   Human designers introduced crack to their Vasudan counterparts on the project team (being the future this was really good ****!). Hence the ship was created by a design team who was totally stoned and being who they were, their blueprints were not questioned when they arrived at the shipyards. Imagine the shock of the admiralty at the christening?

    "My God! What were they on CRACK?"

(faint voice in the distance) 'yeah man, it was really good stuff! best 8 months of ship design I ever had!'

[Black Wolf]

Continuity > Evolution/Diversity IMO, especially in a game. However, as has been said, smoothing and sleekifying is a good way to balance the two out, as is using similar turrets and suchlike as you mentioned.

NB - even significantly different designs can be unified with similar textures. Look at the Sobek and the Aten - very different models, similar textures, both look Vasudan.

[Lynx]

Don't make such a jump in designs like [V] did between Fs1 and Fs2. Most Fs2 ships look like the designers were smoking their own socks while creating them.

Smoothing stuff can work, but I generally think thats a bad idea in some cases [See above]. New designs can differ very much from the old ones but should keep characteristic stuff. Check the SAAB ships for things they all have in common, and keep it for you future models and you can cahnge some stuff in the model, but always keep some characteristic things.
See the Concordia fleet carriers and the Midway mega carriers from WC, for example: Both designs look totally different, but share some similarities. they aren't that obvious like parts of the ships look exactly the same, but for example, they both have visible bridge towers(though their design differs, the engine nozzles look the same, their bussard collectors are similar. The similarities are not 'in your face' style. Try to be subtle. The player should get the feeling 'Hey that's familiar' but shouldn't immeadiatly know why.

Just my two cents.

[Flipside]

Theres nothing worse than having mental vision of 'Modder number 1', 'Modder number 2' etc, and being able to put numbers to ships

Flipside