Author Topic: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??) (Read 6606 times)

TrashMan · **on:** March 14, 2009, 06:49:11 am

http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=75&topic=10589.0

Thoughts?

SPECTRE87 · **Reply #1 on:** March 14, 2009, 07:17:18 am

Looks too much like a WWII battleship with that turret configuration.

TrashMan · **Reply #2 on:** March 14, 2009, 07:21:16 am

WW2 battleships look mighty.

Commander Zane · **Reply #3 on:** March 14, 2009, 08:47:13 am

Looking fierce.

Rodo · **Reply #4 on:** March 14, 2009, 08:51:51 am

uhhh niiice

SPECTRE87 · **Reply #5 on:** March 14, 2009, 10:13:22 am

Quote from: TrashMan on March 14, 2009, 07:21:16 am

WW2 battleships look mighty.

No doubt. They just fit badly as space-based warships...

Rearrange the weapon mount layout and turret models and you'll have a much, much, much better ship to present.

Jadehawk · **Reply #6 on:** March 14, 2009, 10:25:50 am

I beg to differ. He's got turrets on the bottom too which WWII ships did not have. Dam good coverage and I even had his current version go up against a Dante which was able to knock out 1/2 the main batteries on it's own.

Placing huge turrets on the sides or rather off center for this type of design is rather...weird and I would not recommend it. Plus you lose maximum range of effectiveness of the main guns in such a configuration and would end up compensating that with additional turrets which is a waste.

I like the new configuration of the turrets as it appears to eliminate the problem I saw in the current version which showed the rear turret's guns meshing with the hull when the turret faced in a forward arc after combat.

General Battuta · **Reply #7 on:** March 14, 2009, 10:27:04 am

I like the WWII-in-space look. It's part of what the Archangel's always gone for.

Worked great in Homeworld 2, after all!

SPECTRE87 · **Reply #8 on:** March 14, 2009, 01:11:47 pm

Except that the turrets would, at best, be able to aim their barrels in a 60degree curve. I'm just tired with how everybody makes spaceships that looks like WWII battleship... It's so.. Manga-like...

General Battuta · **Reply #9 on:** March 14, 2009, 01:12:35 pm

We've got a lot of other styles here on HLP -- including your own. Diversity is healthy!

Commander Zane · **Reply #10 on:** March 14, 2009, 01:20:04 pm

Quote from: SPECTRE87 on March 14, 2009, 01:11:47 pm

Except that the turrets would, at best, be able to aim their barrels in a 60degree curve. I'm just tired with how everybody makes spaceships that looks like WWII battleship... It's so.. Manga-like...

Other than Space Battleship Yamato / Space Blazers and what was it called, The Irresponsible Captain Taylor? Which even then imitates the style of SBY, I can't think of another Japanese cartoon that does WWII Battleships in space.

SPECTRE87 · **Reply #11 on:** March 14, 2009, 01:27:40 pm

Well those two are more than enough if you ask me... Oh and Battlefleet Gothica?

Anyway we clearly have radically different opinions here, and for what it's worth I do like the overall shape of the hull, but the rest really ruins it for me...

TrashMan · **Reply #12 on:** March 14, 2009, 03:17:10 pm

Quote from: SPECTRE87 on March 14, 2009, 10:13:22 am

Quote from: TrashMan on March 14, 2009, 07:21:16 am
WW2 battleships look mighty.

No doubt. They just fit badly as space-based warships...

Rearrange the weapon mount layout and turret models and you'll have a much, much, much better ship to present.

No.
The weapon configuration as is is far more efficient than practicely any ship made for FS I've seen, canon or non-canon. I've did tests and calculations with fire arcs, and the ship can focus 50-95% of it's total firepower at any point in space (rear being the lowest, broadsides the most effective).
You should try to do the same for some of the many ships considered to be awesome by you. I wonder how they would do in such a test.
I did use a different turret model before, but I fojnd I like this one better. It has to be big since the turrets themselves are supposed to uses ultra-thick armor.

Anyway, help me pick the front section layout guys. I'm kinda partial to the second one, as it follows the form of the hull more.

Commander Zane · **Reply #13 on:** March 14, 2009, 03:18:29 pm

I agree with the second layout as well.

blowfish · **Reply #14 on:** March 14, 2009, 03:24:12 pm

I like it

One thing that always bothered me, though, was the placement of the fighterbays. IMO they would be better moved to a cross section sort of configuration, though that's just my opinion. Also, I think it would look cool with a bunch of smaller multipart turrets (for ... um ... smaller weapons) positioned throughout the ship.

Regarding the texturing, you might want to consider uvmapped textures, particularly for the turrets. IMO it would really benefit from that

EDIT: And yeah, second one for me too

Jadehawk · **Reply #15 on:** March 14, 2009, 03:30:20 pm

I like the second one.

JGZinv · **Reply #16 on:** March 14, 2009, 05:11:47 pm

One of FringeSpace's mod members is also on Infinity...

Small world

Titan · **Reply #17 on:** March 14, 2009, 05:34:17 pm

Heh... Neat avatar, Trashman.

Roanoke · **Reply #18 on:** March 15, 2009, 06:32:58 am

Quote

The whole thing still has a redicolously low amount of polygons - less that 9000 including the hangarbay

TrashMan · **Reply #19 on:** March 15, 2009, 06:50:54 am

What is that supposed to mean?

B.t.w. - methinks it's over 10000 now..prolly 11000.

F'course, the Infinity engine has issues with Z-axis sorting and drawing, so my standard method of separating most of the greeble into subobjects doesn't work. Once I fuse them with the hull I expect the polycount to go up significantly (but that "fused" version will never appear in FS anyway)

News:

Author Topic: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??) (Read 6606 times)

Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)

Re: Return of the Archangel (Mk3??)