[Raven2001]

Marvelous stuff!

[terran_emperor]

Awsome please finish this...

[SypheDMar]

I don't really like the girders, either.

[Black Wolf]

Now that's  the point! Personal i don't think that one turret would dealt that amount of damage to mission balance. Let the FREDers speak up.

OK. The mission balance would remain almost completely unchanged. You're right that moving such an insignificant turret to a different location is unlikely in the extreme to affect the way the mission plays by any discernable amount. But, regardess of that, I'd still support keeping any turret modified version out of the Media VPs. It's a slippery slope situation. One tiny turret here opens up all sorts of situations where people who might want to make other changes can point to this and ask why the rules didn't apply in this case. Then you've got the FSU people either forced to be hypocrits or let almost any changes into the media VPs that one individual modder thinks will make the game "better".

Also, this might apply more severly to the plan to make the arms destroyable subobjects. While cool in theory, this will almost definitely lead to situations in which the arms get destroyed before the turret, and since the arms are much bigger targets, this will make disarming the cain a much easier prospect. So maybe just the front of the top arm should be destroyable? Same effect in concept, but will less potential for balance issues that might make it incompatible with the MediaVPs.

The two versions idea is a good one, though, so do that. So is the two models plan for the Lillith - it deserves it.

As for the model itself, I'm liking most of what I see. I think the girders will be pretty cool, as a sort of mesh over the mechanical textures that are on the retail model. I also quite like the rear end and the antenna. I'm not crazy about the tear-drop shaped missile launcher recess - I think that this is one situation where the Low-polyness of the original model actually helped - that pentagon looks just right where it sits when you see the ship in profile. Perhaps a pentagonal turret model could be placed into the teardrop? Or something that retains that shape.

And I know the nose isn't done yet, but I'd strongly suggest you take a look at what VA did with the Lucifer and blatantly copy his three dots thing . Also, make the spider fangs look cool

[Luis Dias]

Great model, man! Keep it up!!

[Raven2001]

On a second look, gotta agree with the teardrop shape. Just doesnt fit the overall feel of the Cain.

As for the girders I like them, but perhaps if you do them a bit less regular, it will help sell the model

[c914]

While cool in theory, this will almost definitely lead to situations in which the arms get destroyed before the turret, and since the arms are much bigger targets, this will make disarming the cain a much easier prospect. So maybe just the front of the top arm should be destroyable?

In my plan arms are destroyable objects but it debris is quite solid where it should be (parts where are turrets) and places where explosion rip whole hull a parts leaving scratch of metal and some kind of pipes. There is no worry that turrets wont work or be just object in empty space. Also hit points of arm will be much more larger than turrets, i'm thinking about 1/5 original Cain HP for each arm.

[Rodo]

As for the girders I like them, but perhaps if you do them a bit less regular, it will help sell the model

yeah like the rakshasa's ribs, something more "exoskeleton" or biomechanical like.

[Ziame]

Cool, dude! Looking forward to it!

[Droid803]

Just a note: You people do know that the GTCv Deimos has two of its broadside turrets moved further back compared to the retail model right?

As long as the turrets are still there (as in, same turret count), and the position isn't too far off, it should be fine.

[Thaeris]

About making a different model for the Lilith... I suppose that's understandable, as the Lilith is about 4x tougher than the joke... Cain, yes. However, the model is rather similar to the Fenris/Leviathan in the sense that it's a much tougher frame built upon a similar planform.

This said, the textures should be brought to bear next. All FSU VP models I've seen to date most certainly enhance the detail of the model, but also remain quite true to the designs presented on the original texture (or, at least in spirit). I've never seen any exception to this released in the FS2 MediaVPs.

I like the details (especially what you've done with the "arms"), but the original model/texture/additional appearances in game, etc., factor(s) must not be omitted from consideration. The Cain (or Lilith) is just not the same when it's too different.

-Thaeris

[TrashMan]

Because if you place the turrets elsewhere or add more turrets, the MediaVP people won't use it as it breaks mission balance.

I've set to see the day when a single blob turret breaks a mission.

[General Battuta]

Because if you place the turrets elsewhere or add more turrets, the MediaVP people won't use it as it breaks mission balance.

I've set to see the day when a single blob turret breaks a mission.

As has been said, it's a slippery slope. And it's definitely going to change the way the model behaves, which could break backwards compatibility with very tightly designed missions.

[Droid803]

Well, in that case we should get rid of the HTL Deimos.
The turrets aren't in the exact same place.

Maintain number of turrets, general position, and firing arc, and it should be fine.

[TrashMan]

As has been said, it's a slippery slope. And it's definitely going to change the way the model behaves, which could break backwards compatibility with very tightly designed missions.

Meh...I play stock and other user-made campaigns with my Orion and Typhon, that have +10 turrets, and haven't really noticed any change in difficulty or breaking of missions.
You'd have to severely change the positioning and loadout for it to have any larger impact. (like adding 4 aaaf's)

[General Battuta]

As has been said, it's a slippery slope. And it's definitely going to change the way the model behaves, which could break backwards compatibility with very tightly designed missions.

Meh...I play stock and other user-made campaigns with my Orion and Typhon, that have +10 turrets, and haven't really noticed any change in difficulty or breaking of missions.
You'd have to severely change the positioning and loadout for it to have any larger impact. (like adding 4 aaaf's)

I'm talking about a very tightly designed mission. Say, one in which every individual turret on the Cain was locked (for some absurd reason, I don't know why, it's a thought experiment) rather than using turret-lock-all. You'd now have a loose turret floating about, correct?

[Droid803]

Are you people failing to realize that if a turret isn't tabled in, it won't do anything and it'd just be decoration (like the SD Lucifer's side things), and that if worse comes to worse and it looks strange, just CHOP IT OFF IN PCS2 WHICH TAKES A MIND BLOWING ONE FULL SECOND?

Just as long as the ORIGINAL turrets are in (about) the same place and all there, we're good.


Edit: Excuse the rage...

[Commander Zane]

Any more screenies?

[High Max]

;-)

[Droid803]

I was raging at how some people don't seem to get that having extra turrets in addition to the original is not an issue because you can remove them in PCS2 with a click of a button, hence turning an up-turreted model into one that is functionally identical to the original.