[vyper]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
That's thanks to the uber-sexy Harrier, o' course

Ahem, SEA Harriers. but yes,  I prefer the idea of carriers being smaller - mainly because large carriers are like giant target-signs for bombers!

[Anaz]

Originally posted by karajorma


Actually that brings me round to a gap in my truespace knowledge. Just exactly how do you make a fighter bay and still manage to leave a face at the front that you can paint with the invisible texture?
 I just can`t figure out how to do it. I can`t simply extrude into the ship as that doesn`t leave me with a face I can paint just an open hole which ships can fly into (which isn`t the effect I want on this particular ship).

just create a plane, and move it till its in the right spot, and then glue as sibling to the carrier

[EdrickV]

Originally posted by karajorma


Actually that brings me round to a gap in my truespace knowledge. Just exactly how do you make a fighter bay and still manage to leave a face at the front that you can paint with the invisible texture?
 I just can`t figure out how to do it. I can`t simply extrude into the ship as that doesn`t leave me with a face I can paint just an open hole which ships can fly into (which isn`t the effect I want on this particular ship).

FYI, you don't have to block the hanger off at all. (And I wouldn't.)

[karajorma]

I know I don`t have to but I want to

Some ships look good with flythrough hangers but I don`t particularly want them on this one.

Originally posted by Analazon


just create a plane, and move it till its in the right spot, and then glue as sibling to the carrier

I never thought of that I spent ages looking at the orion in Truespace and was still none the wiser about how they did it

[Geezer]

Originally posted by karajorma

BTW what designation would be suitable for a small carrier?

I agree that it needs some kind of special name.  Give it a dangerous-sounding prefix.   Call it a "Strike Carrier" or an "Attack Carrier" - the smallness will come to be accepted as part of the designation.

[Eviscerator]

To determine what type of carrier it should be, I would consider what kind of job you expect it to do. Consider these US Navy WW2 era standards:

Fleet Carriers were the largest carriers that served as the flagships of entire carrier battlegroups or fleets. They carried a large number of craft allowing them to fill almost any role. Most of today's carriers fit this catagory.

Light Carriers were basically the same thing but much smaller, cheaper, and easier to produce. In the sudden naval buildup of WW2, it was easier for the US to field 3 of these carriers than one Fleet Carrier.

Strike Carriers were medium sized carriers designed to carry naval attack and bombing craft almost exclusively. They were assigned the task of destroying enemy shipping, important land targets, and supporting ground troops in the US' island hopping campaigns. They carried few dedicated fighter craft.

Attack Carriers were a smaller very fast type of carrier designed to get into and out of operational areas quickly and hopefully before enemy forces could respond. They acted very much like small, fast Strike Carriers.

Escort Carriers were numerous in US Naval campaigns and carried fightercraft exclusively. They were built on fast Attack Carrier hulls and their sole purpose was to defend other warships and convoys from air attack.

Consider these and you may find your answer.

As for a class name, what about Midway or Essex?

[karajorma]

Thanks for the post Eviscerator. Based on the info you gave Attack/Light Carrier sounds most like the design purpose of this ship so I think I`ll go with Attack cause it sounds better

As for names I`m probably going to stick to the classics and call it the Charon considering the original was also a ferryman

[Grunt]

Good work !

I like to see functionality on space ships, and this one definitely has it.

It's not a bad idea to keep fighters on the open runway at all.
Only the ones under repair should be moved into the hangar by lift.
What about putting some decoy fighters of simple shape on the runway ?
I mean by extruding for example.
I was thinking on it myself, cos it would make a carrier more realistic.
Just to increase the poly count.

[Noise]

Nice work!  What kind of armament is she expected to carry?

[EdrickV]

Originally posted by Grunt
Good work !

I like to see functionality on space ships, and this one definitely has it.

It's not a bad idea to keep fighters on the open runway at all.
Only the ones under repair should be moved into the hangar by lift.
What about putting some decoy fighters of simple shape on the runway ?
I mean by extruding for example.
I was thinking on it myself, cos it would make a carrier more realistic.
Just to increase the poly count.

If a fighter was sitting on an external runway, you'd have to wear a full space suit to get into it (unless it was docked to the cockpit somehow) and it would be vulnerable to enemy fire even while not in use.

[Av0uu]

i'm not sure keeping the fighters would be good in space, granted, the piolts seem to wear space suits, but wouldn't it be safer (from meteors and the like) to keep the fighters in a bay, as well as more convienient

[karajorma]

I`ve built a fighter bay on the ship now. As for armament I`m thinking a couple of small anti-cap weapons but a bit more in the way of anti-fighter defenses especially on the top side of the craft protecting the runway and fighter bay.

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by Av0uu
...the piolts seem to wear space suits...

What? The pilots don't wear space suits, you monkey - they're flight suits. Modern day fast jet pilots wear something similar, it helps the body cope with high-G manouvers.

There is no way in hell that fighters would be kept out on the hull of the ship. How would the ground crews and loaders get to them? Don't tell me they'd all be in space suits.

I can't believe I'm even having this disucussion. Keeping fighters out on the 'runway' is officially the daftest thing I've heard all week...

[Eviscerator]

Gee, they look like hard-shell EVA suits to me. Which would make sense. Even though they never encoded "ejecting" into the game, would you really expect your pilots to go into combat with no way to get out a wounded bird?

I sure as heck would'nt.

Would seem to require some kinda EVA suit so they can survive long enough for pick-up.

[diamondgeezer]

Dude, if you eject from an exploding space craft, a space suit is not going to protect you from the ship blowing up or the guy that killed you comming around to finish you off. And if you hada rocket blast you clear of the explosion? Then you'd just be shot off in to space.

Solution? Don't get hit

[Knight Templar]

The Geeza' has a point. Ejecting without escape pods never made much sense to me in Space sims.. the nearest explosion would nuke you alive or some small piece of shrap would punture your suit and you would implode/freeze.

Besides.. thinki of how many times command would have to make recovery missions each time Alpha wing went into battle.

[Defconca]

Personally i think flak is the best way to go when arming the carrier (perhaps a anti-fighter beam or two). I just like the daunting effect of attacking ships with flack booming around the bombers as they make their run:D Not too much tho...bad memories of a mission with too much flak wing dissapeared too fast, lost all balance in mission...

[Tar-Palantir]

I prefer the idea of carriers being smaller - mainly because large carriers are like giant target-signs for bombers!

I always imagined that a FS carrier would be kept back from acually being in the main battle, ie the fighters would launch from the carrier and 'warp' to the battle area. The carrier would then remai within friendly space. After a battle the fighters would then warp back to the carrier.

As to armament I would personally avoid having anti-capship weapons and ahve only anti-fighter weapons (although some of these could be used against capships). My reasoning for this is that the ship is designed for carrying fighters - not battle. After all see's going to be presumably cheaper to build than an destroyer yet carry the same (or more) fighters therefore I could see the GTA/GTVA/whatever skimping on the hull armor.

Dude, if you eject from an exploding space craft, a space suit is not going to protect you from the ship blowing up or the guy that killed you comming around to finish you off

But it would increase your chances of survival - after all using an ejector seat in a modern day fighter doesn't automatically mean you'll survive. On the other hand, not all military fighter/bomber craft have ejector seats, many combat helicopters don't for instance.

[diamondgeezer]

Oh, suit your self (no pun intended), if you really think it'd increase your survival chances by more than a fraction of 1%...

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Tar-Palantir


I always imagined that a FS carrier would be kept back from acually being in the main battle, ie the fighters would launch from the carrier and 'warp' to the battle area. The carrier would then remai within friendly space. After a battle the fighters would then warp back to the carrier.

As to armament I would personally avoid having anti-capship weapons and ahve only anti-fighter weapons (although some of these could be used against capships). My reasoning for this is that the ship is designed for carrying fighters - not battle. After all see's going to be presumably cheaper to build than an destroyer yet carry the same (or more) fighters therefore I could see the GTA/GTVA/whatever skimping on the hull armor.

I`m giving it a couple of SGreens or LTerslashes just in case it gets jumped but I agree wholeheartedly about it not being sent into battle. I`ll probably balance it to just lose a fight with an aeolus regardless of how much bigger it is