[NGTM-1R]

71-series CVN, a.k.a. the Nimitz-class.

[Ghostavo]

Er... FS Destroyers carry about double the people than a real carrier?

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_super.htm#nim-cl

[NGTM-1R]

Advanced technology=fewer necessary crew.

[FireCrack]

spacefighters are bigger and need more equipment than groundfighters

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
71-series CVN, a.k.a. the Nimitz-class.

and this is capable of interstellar travel, is it?

[Pnakotus]

Dammit, the internet ate my post.

I made a cogent, well-argued series of statements about FS2 game elements, and the space combat dichotomy of WW2 fighters and highly advanced guided missiles coexisting.  I referenced the difficulty of assaulting a modern carrier group, the complex planning involved and the largely boring 'lob Harpoon 30nm' nature of the attack.  I asked rhetorical questions about WW2 naval battles refought with planes carrying Harpoons, to illustrate my point on the problems with FS2 space combat and capship design.

I mentioned my own modifications to the turrets, making the damage higher and the bolts travel faster, and demonstrated that even such small changes make the battles significantly harder.

I closed with a short rant about the nerfed-ness of caps and shivans, and how such things have no place in 'hard' or 'very hard' difficulty, because real men can handle AAA.

And the internet ate it!

[NGTM-1R]

Does it need to be? Most of the fighters aren't all that much larger.

[Pnakotus]

And guys, we should shy away from commenting on the requirements for fictional technology, because we don't know what they are.  Sure, Orions fighterbay area is about Nimitiz-size, but we don't know anything about her design.  Talking about FTL travel just makes it worse.  Stick to asking 'why isn't the Orion armoured properaly' instead of 'spacefighters require more maintenance.... uhm... because!'.  We've seen it, and they sit on racks and a dude welds them

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
Does it need to be? Most of the fighters aren't all that much larger.

Life support, reactor/s for turrets (with widespread coverage), no big-arse flight deck on top, subspace drive & sublight engines, extremely long range sensor arrays (system wide rather than local area), possibly larger supply storage requirements (not sure on a naval carriers deployment time, but an Orion crew serves 3 years and it's unclear how frequently it resupplies), anti-gravity equipment,  leisure facilities (probaly a long deployment with less R&R opportunities),  emergency repair equipment (logistical issues of getting repair vessels across space), escape pods (which are larger than naval life raft for obvious reasons), transport vessels....

Etc.

[TrashMan]

Stil...2100m long and a boxy dsign - that's a LOT of volume..

[aldo_14]

So long as you don't justify it with a modern day naval carrier, I have no quiblles with the 120-ship figure for the Orion, etc.  If you had been referring to an FS2 340m long ship having 80 fighters, that would be complete and utter bollocks, of course.

(But that doesn't imply it is possible to simply strip down a ships turrets in order to fit more fighters in)

Actually, if you look at the length, it gets interesting

120 25m long ships (minimal size, really too small for a good estimate) would require 3000m length of ship.  Far too big, especially if you look at where the Aquitane fighterbay is (it's likely to be the same area where the bulk of supplies and fighters are kept, for logistical reasons).

In a 1000m space, assuming 20m wide vessels (ignoring spaces), you could fit  50.  With seperation, and structure, you;re probably looking at 20-25.  Which means, in reality, you could proably stack, pack & rack 'em in the space the Hecate has in its front nose

So.... if you look at it, it actually fits in quite well in terms of fighter volume.

[karajorma]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. An Orion compared against 25 Ursas



Remember that the Ursa is huge and that you could fit at least 50 fighters into the same space those 25 take up.

[NGTM-1R]

The Ursa's what...45m? Apollo is like 15m?

[karajorma]

The Ursa is 54m long. The Apollo is 28m. It's also thinner.

Modelview is useful for getting the length of a ship as you can look through an entire vp file with it.

[FireCrack]

still you can see in the FS2 main hall the ships are stored on platforms a large distance apart.

[Blitzerland]

Originally posted by FireCrack
still you can see in the FS2 main hall the ships are stored on platforms a large distance apart.

I doubt that is the main hanger. Probably just a storage facility elsewhere in the ship. Besides, we're talking about the Orion here.

[Kosh]

The Cain and Lilith are difficult to attack in FS1 for two different reasons. The Cain is difficult because it uses higher velocity fighter weapons which will hit the player a lot. And the Lilith is difficult because it has cluster bombs (though the Clusterbomb is a hell of a lot more dangerous in FS2).

I thought that the Lilith was challanging because of its incredibly thick armor and the clusterbomb. I thought the Cain was just fighterbait (except for the Taranis). It's turrets are easily disabled and it has relativly thin armor. A Wing of Hercs or Athenas can take one down without much trouble, even without the Pheonix 5 or Trebuchet.
[

[Alan Bolte]

I need to check this forum more often.

[Night Hammer]

Originally posted by Kosh


I thought that the Lilith was challanging because of its incredibly thick armor and the clusterbomb. I thought the Cain was just fighterbait (except for the Taranis). It's turrets are easily disabled and it has relativly thin armor. A Wing of Hercs or Athenas can take one down without much trouble, even without the Pheonix 5 or Trebuchet.
[

Liliths are the bain of my existance:shaking:

[FireCrack]

liliths are hard to attack from the front becasue the rear anti fighter beam has an uncanny habbit of hitting you at the precisse right angle to land you between the lilith and it's intended target....





...while the main beam is firing.