[Raven2001]

I see people are not liking it, nothing that I wasn't expecting, after all it's not exactly "canon" and anything that deviates from "canon" is always problematic.

The orb idea came from ragingloli's Hatshepsut, yes, but also from a tautology: the beam seems as if created by a point in space, not a conventional turret.

Yeah but the reason it works in the Hatshepsut is because it fits with Vasudan aesthetics. An orb is definetly not Shivan. Also, as Galemp said, the execution is kinda wrong, because right now it looks like more of a Palantir for druids () rather than a spaceship turret.

But again, look at the shivan's designs, you'll definetly not see spheres there, it just doesnt fit

[Luis Dias]

I got it I got it. Just because I'ven't posted anything more yet, doesn't mean I'll stick with that turret! 

It simply means I've no time to spare right now. I've increased some detail on some claws of the Rakshasa to answer Raven's criticism (albeit a change in smooth groups deals with most of it), and I've thought of other concepts for the turrets. I admit you guys are right in pointing out that the orb is not shivan, and I'll probably let it to the trash, unless something amazing comes to mind. I also like the claw idea, I was making exactly those kinds of sketches myself today. And it is more canon, the original ones seem almost a miniature of the death star concave beam turret. In a way.

[Narvi]

If you're interested in finishing it, you might want to supply it to the community turret collection.

[High Max]

;-)

[Galemp]

If you're interested in finishing it, you might want to supply it to the community turret collection.

No, no, no. It will not work as a turret, not because it doesn't match, but because there are too many polies in there for such a small object. As I said, the concept is neat, but the execution will never work.

[Kolgena]

You could try to ditch the wires and go for some sort of claw or column support. That way, it doesn't look as flimsy, and should cut down on polies.
Also, the upper panel on the engine section looks painfully bare. It's doubtful that any amount of UVMapping could fix that... (needs greebling)

Rest of the ship looks gorgeous

[Commander Zane]

Reduce the poly-count, it might not be good for Shivans, but there's other non-Canon races that might make use of it.

[High Max]

;-)

[Thaeris]

As promised, I cranked out some new concept art. The quality of the work is definately not my best... and the lack of a scanner at hand resulted in me having to use a camera again. Regardless, a bit of analysis will reveal the features of the turret. I included turret examples as seen on the Ravana as well for additional comparison - those might be useful in coming to a general decision on the appearance of the Rakshasa's button turrets. All additional explanations of the drawing are found on the drawing! 

-Thaeris

[attachment deleted by Tolwyn]

[High Max]

;-)

[Black Wolf]

Claws > Orbs in Shivan circles.

Actually, If C914 is agreeable, maybe you should consider taking advantage of the fact that 2 Shivan HTL cruisers are being made simultaneously and think about a joint effort on the turrets with the Rak and the Cain?

[Rodo]

Claws > Orbs in Shivan circles.

Actually, If C914 is agreeable, maybe you should consider taking advantage of the fact that 2 Shivan HTL cruisers are being made simultaneously and think about a joint effort on the turrets with the Rak and the Cain?

nice idea

[Titan]

Meh, I think FS1 and FS2 shivans should be kept as two design families.

[Snail]

Meh, I think FS1 and FS2 shivans should be kept as two design families.

Since someone saw it as appropriate to split my post, I'll say it again: I agree with this sentiment.

[Droid803]

FS1-izing FS2 ships...ok.
FS2-izing FS1 ships...no.

[Zacam]

Actually, neither is okay. FS1 ships = FS1 Ships and should be detailed as such. FS2 Ships = FS2 Ships, and should be detailed as such.

For those ships which are in both FS1 and FS2, the FS1 versions should look cleaner and newer than their FS2 counterparts, but that's relating to texturing, not modeling.

As far as model detailing goes, anything originally seen is FS1 that is in FS2 should remain with FS1 concepts or have two seperate models to fit their repective universes usage. Because who's to say that between FS1 and FS2 that the Shivans didn't do modifications just like the Terrans and Vasudans did? Gotta stay with the times.

[High Max]

;-)

[Thaeris]

I prefer the "there's only ever been one" approach. FSO uses one Herc Mk. I model, one Ursa model, etc., whether it's FSO or FSU. The universe is coherent. Same with the Vasudans and Shivans... Unless I misunderstand your sentiments.

Textures, though. Paint changes much more so than the way metal is cut, so-to-say.

[Droid803]

The Nahema can't be a new construction.

The Sekhmet is based off of the Nahema and designed by HoL. This is stated in its tech description.
HoL was wiped out in Operation Templar before FS2.  This is based off Operation Templar, which is canon.
Therefore, Nahemas must have been around before FS2.

The only time Shivans ever entered GTVA space before FS2 was during the Great War.
Nahemas were sighted before FS2.
Therefore, Nahemas must have appeared, perhaps very very rarely, in the Great War so that the HoL would have had a chance to see it, and then design a bomber based off of it.

Since one FS2 Shivan craft has technically been around since FS1 (just not sighted by the player), it is possible that the FS2 Shivan craft such as the Rakshasa would have been around at that time too. They probably weren't part of the Lucifer fleet though.

[High Max]

;-)