Originally posted by Ace:
The original models (and the renders) are great! But I have some gripes on the in-game version.
1) Tile the main Vasudan texture by far less
I responded to this already by ICQ, but I'll post it here for the thread. I, and many other people, feel that the sense of scale is greatly enhanced by having textures repeat more. The individual generic hull plate is therefore made smaller, and the whole ship seems larger in comparison to a ship with less tiling.
I can certainly see the point you made on ICQ, how at a distance the textures seem to blend together and loose detail, but guess what: that's exactly what's
supposed to happen when you get farther away from something - even in Real Lifeā¢.
2) New texture for the fighterbay "landing area" don't just use the default Terran one. (now merging some Vasudan ones together for the same effect as the Terran one would be great though)
I'd love to do this, as it bothered me, too. But I insist on staying with the original FS2 textures and not creating any new ones for this ship. I have my reasons, which I can explain if anyone is curious, but it's not to go into here. Anyways, if you'd show me a texture or three that would make a nice Vasudan-looking
runway, I'd be happy to oblige.
3) The ship I thought was by far smaller in size, where only 1 Ursa could launch from the bay at a time... The current scale and texture tiling makes the ship seem too large for a lightly armed carrier...
Couple of points I want to make about this one.
1) The ship is 1.8km long (the Hatshepsut is 2.1km for comparison), and is meant to be a full-sized Vasudan carrier. I don't know what sense of scale you had of the ship before, but 1.8km is the size.
2)Hmmm... lightly armed carrier... as opposed to a heavily armed carrier? Also known as a destroyer/battlecruiser/take-your-pick?
Seriously, though - The carrier's
defenses are quite extensive, but it's offensive power is definitely no more than an Orion, say. It's not supposed to be. The whole carrier-concept revloves around the smaller, cheaper battle-units (planes, fighters or whatever) serving as the primary offensive force. Carriers do not need and should not have extensive offensive weaponry, otherwise they aren't carriers - they're battleships with big bays. And just because the carrier's weaponry is "weak" doesn't mean that the ship has to be small... that seems to be a silly assumption.
Ace, you know me - I mean no offense at any of this rebuttal, so don't take any, m'kay?

------------------
"He who laughs last thinks slowest."
"Just becase you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
"To err is human; to really screw up you need a computer."
Creator of the
Sandvich Bar, the CapShip Turret Upgrade, the Complete FS2 Ship List and the System Backgrounds List (all available from the site)