Author Topic: Home One  (Read 53120 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline swashmebuckle

  • 210
  • Das Lied von der Turd
    • The Perfect Band
Even though our ISD II has a ton of turrets (reflecting Brand's strict adherence to the movie model), most of them are nerfed in our tables so that the ship doesn't just annihilate everything immediately. I agree that around 70 turrets is a healthy number for Home One. For one thing, if we go overboard on the turrets, we'll end up paying for it in performance :)

If we go with a number like that, I imagine the individual guns will probably end up being more powerful than their counterparts on the ISD. A smallish (for the size of the ship) number of powerful turrets would fit with how the cruisers were treated in the BoE, where a lot of effort was expended in keeping the TIE Fighters off them, but they managed to hold their own when thrown against the big ships in the later stages.

 

Offline swashmebuckle

  • 210
  • Das Lied von der Turd
    • The Perfect Band
Home One is only 1300m
We're going with movie-only measurements wherever possible rather than relying on the various manuals and published statistics (which often contradict each other and the films). Home One is one of the ships that can be measured fairly accurately thanks to its docking bay and the long tracking shot that happens before the fleet jumps to hyperspace.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/mcc.html#dimensions

 
Home One is only 1300m
We're going with movie-only measurements wherever possible rather than relying on the various manuals and published statistics (which often contradict each other and the films). Home One is one of the ships that can be measured fairly accurately thanks to its docking bay and the long tracking shot that happens before the fleet jumps to hyperspace.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/mcc.html#dimensions

The movie Home One is quite a bit larger than 1300m. It's roughly 3.8 km long. Since the Lambda class shuttle lands in the hangar (and the hangar scales up with the length of the ship), any smaller than 3.8 km and the shuttle won't fit.

 
Here's a small, anti-fighter turret. I'll probably change the base. Right now it looks like a little person.

 
 

Offline zookeeper

  • *knock knock* Who's there? Poe. Poe who?
  • 210
Looks good to me. I wouldn't suggest mounting them on the big cannons though. :D It would be fun to do actually, but the last time I checked, the engine can't really handle subsystems mounted on destroyable subsystems.

 

Offline newman

  • 211
While I'm sure you guys have done your homework, I'd just like to warn against trusting on-screen measurements too much. People do invest a lot of time and effort into measuring space ships based on perspective shots from unknown camera distances, and sometimes the arguments can sounds convincing. However, the example of the Battlestar Valkyrie serves just how unreliable these methods can be; until they've shown more of the ship in "The Plan", fans used shots from Razor and Hero to measure the ship, using similar methods to the ones described with Home One. None of them got even close - some of the measurements were hilariously wrong. We're talking error margins over 100% here. Where am I going with this? Don't lose too much sleep over on-screen measurements and just go with what makes sense / works best in the game. Measuring screencaps is a notoriously unreliable method; the ship in the shot is typically compared against something else, and that something else just needs to be at a slightly different angle (to the point where it's not obvious on the shot) to the reference object to get the measurements wrong by a few hundred meters easily, when we're talking these kinds of scales. Similarly, you only need to get the X:Y:Z proportions of the ship off by 1-2% to get dramatic differences in ratios of hangar height / ship length.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2013, 10:33:26 am by newman »
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here! - Jayne Cobb

 

Offline zookeeper

  • *knock knock* Who's there? Poe. Poe who?
  • 210
Where am I going with this? Don't lose too much sleep over on-screen measurements and just go with what makes sense / works best in the game.

That's something I completely agree with. What works, feels and looks best in-game is always most important, and I'm sure sometimes accurate scale can even be detrimental in that regard because in the movies the feel of scale is created primarily by how shots are composited, not by the "real" difference between the scale of the models.

However, I think in this case the scale of 3000m was arrived at by measuring the hangar (which needs to be at least slightly higher than the Lambda) and just doing the calculation from a profile shot of the movie model, and when you got a hangar's dimension as the starting point, it's kind of hard to deviate from that a lot.

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Looks good to me. I wouldn't suggest mounting them on the big cannons though. :D It would be fun to do actually, but the last time I checked, the engine can't really handle subsystems mounted on destroyable subsystems.
I have an idea how to get around that one. Have both turrets rotate around the same axis, attach the little one to the main hull (though visually, it'd stand on the big one) then make sure that -destroyed version of the big turret has the means to support the little one.

 

Offline zookeeper

  • *knock knock* Who's there? Poe. Poe who?
  • 210
Looks good to me. I wouldn't suggest mounting them on the big cannons though. :D It would be fun to do actually, but the last time I checked, the engine can't really handle subsystems mounted on destroyable subsystems.
I have an idea how to get around that one. Have both turrets rotate around the same axis, attach the little one to the main hull (though visually, it'd stand on the big one) then make sure that -destroyed version of the big turret has the means to support the little one.

What I was referring to was actually that the last time I checked, funny stuff would happen to the child turret if the parent turret gets destroyed. That is, the child doesn't get destroyed but rather turns invisible but stays functional. Maybe that has changed since or maybe it'd be easy to fix or maybe one could workaround it, but still. Anyway, the child turret's targeting would probably get screwed up by the parent's rotation anyway.

If you'd have both turrets independent of each other, then the child wouldn't die when the parent does without extra trickery.

 
I also don't know if the small turret would be able to stay attached the barrel when it elevates.

Anyways, I've deleted that turret. This is the newest version of the anti-fighter turret:




 

Offline chief1983

  • Still lacks a custom title
  • Moderator
  • 212
  • ⬇️⬆️⬅️⬅️🅰➡️⬇️
    • Minecraft
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
    • Fate of the Galaxy
Home One is only 1300m

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Home_One

From the other Star Wars Mod:


The ISDII is a might warship. The rebel only a cruiser ;)

Even though 3.8km still just feels large to me, I have to admit, that Home One/ISD II ratio looks laughably wrong to me.  The Home One _is_ massive, at least of a scale somewhat larger than an ISD.
Fate of the Galaxy - Now Hiring!  Apply within | Diaspora | SCP Home | Collada Importer for PCS2
Karajorma's 'How to report bugs' | Mantis
#freespace | #scp-swc | #diaspora | #SCP | #hard-light on EsperNet

"You may not sell or otherwise commercially exploit the source or things you created based on the source." -- Excerpt from FSO license, for reference

Nuclear1:  Jesus Christ zack you're a little too hamyurger for HLP right now...
iamzack:  i dont have hamynerge i just want ptatoc hips D:
redsniper:  Platonic hips?!
iamzack:  lays

 

Offline zookeeper

  • *knock knock* Who's there? Poe. Poe who?
  • 210
Oh, 3.8km. Somehow when writing my previous post I thought it was 3km and didn't bother to check. Well, yeah, 3.8km starts to sound pretty massive, but it's still "only" ~2.4x longer than an ISD.

My main worry WRT the size would be that it'll take a really long time (>20s) to fly from one end to the other.

 

Offline swashmebuckle

  • 210
  • Das Lied von der Turd
    • The Perfect Band
IIRC back in the day Brand-X was thinking of giving the "reimagined" treatment to the larger Allegiance class star destroyer so that we would have something on the Imperial side that could take on Home One in a 1-on-1 engagement. We're probably not gonna be able to fudge with the size much given the hangar situation and our goal of film accuracy--the model is what it is. My only concern with these really big ships is that either the textures will get blurry or our performance will go in the can. I guess the latter would be my graphics card's fault though :)

 

Offline mandobardanjusik

  • impossible username
  • 28
  • maveric modeler, the sky is just the begining
honestly to me its looking great, now its making me wish I could get one of my fighters done :(

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
If you'd have both turrets independent of each other, then the child wouldn't die when the parent does without extra trickery.
That's what I meant. This "extra trickery" isn't really that complicated, though it may be tedious. Also, I think that if the destroyed subobject for the big turret looks intact enough (eg. only the barrel assembly badly damaged), then you could forgo disabling the small turret.

 

Offline CountBuggula

  • Moderator
  • 29
    • Fate of the Galaxy
Geez...I didn't mean to turn this into a massive debate about scale and ship size.  That said, I very much support the stated goal of making the mod as accurate as possible to the movies.  I'm pretty sure no work has been done on the other mon-cals, but do we have good references for their size as well?  It's possible my statement about Home One being much larger than the rest came from my reading at theforce.net, but I don't remember for sure.  I guess I should just go browse around that site some more again...

edit: read further down on that same page and it's got some good statistics from the various methods of measurement based on screen caps:

Home One:
        platform observations                     3.8±0.1 km
        absolute minimum for shuttle fit        > 2.5±0.2 km
        shuttle recessed                        > 3.1±0.2 km
        shuttle forward                         < 3.8±0.3 km
   corvette comparison         > 3.15±0.01 km
   width = 0.238±0.005 times length [model, SW2IJ]
   depth = 0.168±0.005 times length [model, SW2IJ]
   depth > 0.102±0.001 times length [from photomosaic]

Liberty:
   destroyer comparison         < 1.6 km
   model speculation #1           1.513 km
   model speculation #2           1.220 km
   Y-wing comparison         > 1.0±0.1 km
   roleplaying estimate           1.200 km
   depth = 0.117±0.001 times length
   wingspan = 0.398±0.003 times length [ILM model dimensions]
   wingspan = 0.390±0.004 times length [dorsal image]
            = 0.37±0.02 times length [bow image]

[anonymous wingless]:
   same length and depth as Liberty
   depth = 0.117±0.001 times length
   width = 0.200±0.006 times length [bow image]
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 08:30:49 pm by CountBuggula »

 
Whatever it may be, we can easily change the scale the ship, I'm sure. Here's a really big turret, if we want to have the big guns able to rotate. If we don't want the big ones to rotate, I'll just make forward facing barrels.

I'll begin UV mapping them, if no one has any problems with them.


 

Offline guitarfan01

  • 25
  • Longtime Lurker
That big ball turret reminds me of the ion cannon on Hoth, which makes sense.

 

Offline zookeeper

  • *knock knock* Who's there? Poe. Poe who?
  • 210
Looks good to me, but where are the really bigs one going to be placed? Would the big ball thing be included only if it needs to rotate? I'm assuming that it's meant to act as a kind of a ball joint, hidden for the most part underneath the hull with the gun sticking out of an opening?

I don't have a particular opinion on whether they should rotate or not. Allowing rotation allows for a bit more versatile FOV, but that's a choice mostly based on flavour reasons.