Author Topic: Apollo derivatives (Read 6871 times)

Woolie Wool · **Reply #20 on:** June 24, 2003, 02:03:44 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Turnsky
well, there ya go then;)

"It is capable of many roles, including space superiority, intercept, and assault"

Sounds like a multirole fighter to me.

As for Dark's model, It's nice, but not what I wanted. I wanted either a reskin, or a very subtly different model.

Knight Templar · **Reply #21 on:** June 24, 2003, 02:07:05 pm

The Apollo always reminded me of the F-14 Tomcat for some reason. Only FS ship that really reminded me of a fighter too.

TrashMan · **Reply #22 on:** June 24, 2003, 02:11:11 pm

* I'm going to make a heavy version of tha apollo..Have a pic somewhere...

**F-14...LUUUUUUV IT!

SadisticSid · **Reply #23 on:** June 24, 2003, 05:30:47 pm

Inferno has two Apollo derivatives; one, a bomber, the other, a medium fighter. Both of them are SOC ships. They won't be released with chapter 1.

Sid.

Galemp · **Reply #24 on:** June 24, 2003, 08:36:31 pm

Woo already released them, the Orpheus and the Lyre. I recall thinking their textures needed redoing.

ShadowWolf_IH · **Reply #25 on:** June 24, 2003, 10:44:40 pm

The Apollo MK II. Just as in today's society, i can see companies competing for defense contracts. There will be some fighters which never get sold. The Mig 28 from Top Gun is actually a Gruman (iirc) design called the F-20 Tigershark(not a military designation). This plane was based heavily on the F-5, had the landing gear of an F-16, and they practically stole the cockpit from an F/A-18. The moral of the story? It was and still is one hell of an aircraft, but is arguably the best fighter never sold. The United states and the rest of the world never purchsed any of em.

If there was an Apollo MK II, it lost out to the Ulysses in official GTVA military contract competition. However, mayhaps some small government within the GTVA ordered some. Something along the lines of a regional government.......they do have their own militaries. This would explain why they are scarce, but also why they exist.

Just a thought.

Petrarch of the VBB · **Reply #26 on:** June 25, 2003, 03:05:12 am

That sounds reasonable to me. I suppose they'd be found in planetary defence forces, and reserve fleets, then?

SadisticSid · **Reply #27 on:** June 25, 2003, 04:23:23 am

I don't think the Ulysees fared that well, actually. The NTF had a few in some missions, but it was declared a "Great War relic" in 'A Game of Tag'. By comparison, the Zeus, which was introduced at around the same time, is still fairly ubiquitous. There can't have been many Ulysees produced, or maybe a great proportion were scrapped...

Sid.

Knight Templar · **Reply #28 on:** June 25, 2003, 04:33:12 am

The NTF never flew ulysses. It would be against their "Vasudans are gay" policy.

you know, because it was a joint race design and all.

TopAce · **Reply #29 on:** June 25, 2003, 08:35:30 am

They rather used the Loki. More maneuverable, faster(surely a bit weaker, too.). It's warhead capacity is adequte to 'shoot a few and die, or kill the player'.

But the Ulysses is a bit harder to hit than the Loki.

karajorma · **Reply #30 on:** June 25, 2003, 09:22:19 am

Quote

Originally posted by Knight Templar
The NTF never flew ulysses. It would be against their "Vasudans are gay" policy.

TREASON! I was shot at by GTVA ships in King's Gambit then!

Or you could just be wrong

TopAce · **Reply #31 on:** June 25, 2003, 09:27:00 am

Have a look at the posts above, you will discover a sentence somewhere: only in a few missions. The King's Gambit is one of those few missions.

Knight Templar · **Reply #32 on:** June 25, 2003, 01:21:29 pm

odd... hey, it's not my fault V fuct their own story

on a side note, none of the ships in that mission are marked as hostile, rather just neutral. I always wondered why they have hostile and neutral as bassically the same thing. Shouldn't neutral make a ship... neutral?

SCP update!

karajorma · **Reply #33 on:** June 25, 2003, 01:37:22 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Knight Templar
odd... hey, it's not my fault V fuct their own story

on a side note, none of the ships in that mission are marked as hostile, rather just neutral. I always wondered why they have hostile and neutral as bassically the same thing. Shouldn't neutral make a ship... neutral?

SCP update!

Neutral is the HOL setting from FS1. A hostile ship will fire on both friendly and neutral ships. Neutral ones only fire at friendly ships.

When they upgraded the engine to FS2 they left that in so that we could make HOL missions

As for the NTF, they may have hated the Vasudans but that doesn't mean they renounced everything that had any vasudan taint to it.

I couldn't see the Nazis not using nukes had Einstein stayed around to help them build them.

Corsair114 · **Reply #34 on:** June 25, 2003, 08:07:49 pm

Quote

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
The Apollo MK II. Just as in today's society, i can see companies competing for defense contracts. There will be some fighters which never get sold. The Mig 28 from Top Gun is actually a Gruman (iirc) design called the F-20 Tigershark(not a military designation). This plane was based heavily on the F-5, had the landing gear of an F-16, and they practically stole the cockpit from an F/A-18. The moral of the story? It was and still is one hell of an aircraft, but is arguably the best fighter never sold. The United states and the rest of the world never purchsed any of em.

The F-20 Tigershark was a single engine aircraft that was designed by Northrop(same makers of the F-5 Freedom Fighter) as a possible replacement to the F-16. It managed to match and/or excell in just about every category of performance than the F-16 save one... cost. The F-16 was designed as an inexpensive multirole fighter, and with the upgrades it continued(and continues, JSF be damned) to receive, have kept it a top-of-the-line fighter that is also(relatively, compared to the F-15) inexpensive to maintain and operate.

Oh, and those were F-5's in Top Gun, take a good look at the exaust pipes.

Galemp · **Reply #35 on:** June 26, 2003, 10:09:09 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Knight Templar
on a side note, none of the ships in that mission are marked as hostile, rather just neutral. I always wondered why they have hostile and neutral as bassically the same thing. Shouldn't neutral make a ship... neutral?

The 'Unknown' IFF is actually neutral. They won't fire on anyone, and no-one will fire on them, unless directly ordered or in self-defense. Neutral IFF is good for the HOL and also the NTF, since they won't fire on Shivans unless they absolutely have to. (Remember ETAK?) The 'All teams at war' mission flag will toss out all the IFF stuff and set each IFF to go nuts on every other one.

Woolie Wool · **Reply #36 on:** June 27, 2003, 10:12:45 pm

Quote

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
If there was an Apollo MK II, it lost out to the Ulysses in official GTVA military contract competition. However, mayhaps some small government within the GTVA ordered some. Something along the lines of a regional government.......they do have their own militaries. This would explain why they are scarce, but also why they exist.

Just a thought.

In my campaign, the TSA's Apollo II ships are basically composed of an Apollo spaceframe with Shivan internals. The GTVA has NOTHING to do with them (it just sold the Apollo design to them and the Shivan corporation Makion builds them). It easily outperforms the Ulysses and Myrmidon, and is equal to the Vesuvius.

J.F.K. · **Reply #37 on:** June 27, 2003, 10:24:38 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Turnsky

like the model, the skin's good, my only gripe is the choice of color..
the brownish color could be replaced by a blueish color

Woolie Wool · **Reply #38 on:** June 27, 2003, 10:36:19 pm

None of these new models is doing it for me...

Solatar · **Reply #39 on:** June 27, 2003, 11:04:19 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
None of these new models is doing it for me...

We don't care, we still like to look at Dark's models. They kickarse:D

News:

Author Topic: Apollo derivatives (Read 6871 times)

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives

Apollo derivatives