[qwadtep]

Assuming that "kilotons of plasma" means, specifically 2 kilotons, or 2,000 long tons then the BFRed will have a yield of  21,817 gigatons, very roughly, better just to call it 22,000.

I think, though I could be wrong, that this is more than enough to totally vape a planet.

Nope, the Chicxulub impact that likely killed the dinosaurs was 80-120 teratons.

[LordPomposity]

Show me your math! I want to make sure the relativity all worked out.

Taking your number as gospel though let's do some math:

5 gigatons on the Harbinger = 3200 damage.

22000 on the BFRed = 80850 damage

There seems to be a slight disparity here wherein each gigaton on the Harbinger gets you 640 points of damage but each gigaton of yield on the BFRed gets you 3 

Might be a good place to pull a bit of the ol' retcon, these crazy yield numbers were always a bit goofy.

Maybe the Harbinger is 5gt vs. shields?

[Mars]

I thought to find p. . . nevermind XD

I haven't taken a math class since high school.

And teratons O_O

[BritishShivans]

Upon some further checking and such, my calcs for the BFRed seem to indicate a yield of 560 gigatons per second. the beam lasts for 7 seconds so this results in 3 teratons, 960 gigatons. Since the Sathanas has four BFReds, this results in a total firepower of 15680 gigatons, or 15.680 teratons.

When I think about it, it's not really a wonder that I think a Sathanas might be able to fight a Star Destroyer. Ignoring the stupid KLUNE WARRS crap and the positively, absolutely HORRID EU, evidence from the movies seems to suggest that warsie ships typically give out single digit teraton yields for their shields and their guns.

Oh and Mars? You want to utterly vape a planet to the point of utter annihilation? Think yottatons. Death Star level.

That kind of firepower is sufficient to destroy a large portion of the planet's mass and scatter the rest.

[pecenipicek]

Upon some further checking and such, my calcs for the BFRed seem to indicate a yield of 560 gigatons per second. the beam lasts for 7 seconds so this results in 3 teratons, 960 gigatons. Since the Sathanas has four BFReds, this results in a total firepower of 15680 gigatons, or 15.680 teratons.

When I think about it, it's not really a wonder that I think a Sathanas might be able to fight a Star Destroyer. Ignoring the stupid KLUNE WARRS crap and the positively, absolutely HORRID EU, evidence from the movies seems to suggest that warsie ships typically give out single digit teraton yields for their shields and their guns.

you havent been to spacebattles.com 's "VS Debates" section. in short, no. thanks to their lovely "ICS", we cant do ****, because its canon.

[Buckshee Rounds]

EU is f*cked up. If the pea shooters on a tie fighter have megaton yields then why the f*ck do they need to build a death star in the first place? The longer you avoid mentioning specific stats in sci-fi the less f*cked up things will be.

[LordPomposity]

Of all the reasons to build a death star, "because I need to" is probably among the worst.

[Klaustrophobia]

why are we talking about death stars and star wars?

and what the hell is EU?

 

[General Battuta]

why are we talking about death stars and star wars?

see the last page

[-Norbert-]

Or to cut it short:
BFRed damage in gigatonns-> mention of a site where the same was done for Star Wars ships-> current state.

And EU, in regard to Star Wars, means Extended Universe, which includes pretty much every commercial product beyond the six actual films and probably the crappy Clone Wars animation series, though I'm not sure about that one. In other words Star Wars EU is all those games, books and comics that don't just recount the films.

[pecenipicek]

i've actually made some calcs for the bfred's damage output, based off of the harb's 5GT statement... if i can be arsed i might give it a shot again. in short, bfred's are scary powerful. no need to fluff it up even more.

[Hades]

Also, the FS1 intro cutscene was on 7 January 2335, and "Good Luck" was on 29 March 2335. During that time, the GTA went from unshielded Apollos armed with ML-16s to Ursas with shields, intersystem jump capability, and the Harbinger torpedo. That said, capital ship development stayed completely stagnant during that time period.

Many of the new technologies and such introduced had been stated or implied as having already been in development, namely the Ursa and Harbinger.

EDIT: **** what, why did this thread not load onto the last page? :|

[Aesaar]

So the model is pretty much complete, LoDs, debris and all.  All that's left is finalising the location of the drone racks, and I'd like to get an opinion before I re-bake the AO.

Option 1: The issue is that the position near the bow doesn't work for 6 docks per side.  I can fit 4, but the other two would seriously screw with the #1 ventral turret's firing arc.  So I'd need to put them somewhere else.



Option 2: The alternative (and my preferred option) is this:



It looks better, and makes sense if you look at the racks as an "after market" addition, put where there's space.

And yes, those are Zeuses and Medusas.  I could space the racks out a little more and they'd even fit Ursas.

Thoughts?

[QuakeIV]

...
Thoughts?

The images 404 for me.

e: Now that I look back, the texture images and stuff that loaded before are dead too.  The hell?  I'm thinking this may be localized to myself at this point.

[Qent]

I can see the images just fine.

[Darius]

Christ that does look inspiring.

I'm happy with the alternative option, myself.

[crizza]

I realy like the position at the...wings, but is it possible to mount the drones at the sides of the prow, in front of the beam cannons?

[Aesaar]

Not all of them.  It's a possible location for option 1's missing two, but it honestly doesn't look very good.  It breaks up the clean lines in a way I really don't like.

[General Battuta]

I am on board with your preference

[Dragon]

One thing. Didn't these racks mount RBCs or docked bigger ships at some point? In the original models, they're fairly normal-looking docking rings.
Also, they're still a very big departure from the current Diomedes. I'm afraid it might not be good for a drop-in replacement in it's current state.
Maybe moving the racks to the front, to the bottom slope at the bow and making them look less like claws and more like docks would help.