Time to mark it up

[Knight26]

Ok now we have the long range strategic bomber, main line medium/superiority fighter and the fleet defense interceptor. What's next you ask, how about the light assault bomber, basically it's a cross between the A-6 and A-10. Nothing on this one is sacred at this point, except making it a two seater (maybe three) and assymetric. The old design was a three seater and only slightly assymetric, the third person in the cockpit really served no usefulness so will likely be dropped. The weapons load for the current design is as follows: 2-Plasers, 2-Energy cannons, 2-Antimatter cannons, 30-missiles (in 2 rotary launchers), 20-bombs (dual internal bays), and 6-light torpedoes. Again this weapons mix is not sacred and can easily be changed. I look forward to input on this one because I am not quite sure what direction i want to take it yet, I only have a rough idea. Anyway here is the registry for the original:

[Knight26]

Here is the first shot of the new concept, I look forward to yout input.

[Wabbit]

Here is the first shot of the new concept, I look forward to yout input.

Hmm, does look familiar. Don't know it is from a game or movie... I guess the design should be a bit 'plumb' or fat in comparison of the Splicer 5000. Purpose-built, big missile-tubes with a cockpit and engines on them.

What is this craft going to be used for, do you have any idea? Medium capships? (and how big should the target be?)

[Lynx7725]

I dunno. I think you need to rethink your design philosophy -- all of your redesigns are starting to look the same (same narrow nose, for one).

That's fine if it's all by the same company.. but even common module requirements at government level (such as cockpit/ ejector seats etc.) don't result in craft design so similar to each other IMO.

[Southpaw Samurai]

Here is the first shot of the new concept, I look forward to yout input.

Hey! It sort of looks like a squared off version of my old 'F/A-59 Cavalier' design.

F/A-59 Cavalier

Very cool to possibly see a similar design done in 3-D (you would think I would've gotten around to trying to model it in the past decade or so since I drew that, but I just never got into 3-d modeling as a fun hobby). I think my original inspiration came from one of the old Transformer Targetmaster jets, except he was a dual-cockpit design and instead I went with an asymetrical one-side's the gun option.

I do have to agree a bit with Lynx. The stuff I've seen so far from you is great, but you do what to watch designing everything towards a similar point. Even in a short period of time a company will have different looks, even if minor. I know its difficult to do (besides the fact that they're all suffering from my poor rendition skills of the early nineties, my fighter doodles, although often different in design, do all appear like they came from the same mind).

I may have missed them, but have you done any renderings of your craft in fleshed out scenes (with lighting, background, etc)? I think all I've seen is sort of 'civilian book on military vessel' type of art against white backgrounds. It would be interesting to see a rendering in their 'native habitat' so to speak.

[Knight26]

Ok, small update, reshaped the nose and antimatter cannon pod, that thing will take some major rework soon. I also added preliminary engine pods (not attached yet) and torpedo launcher, these may or may not stay, man this thing is being a pain.

Wabbit: Primary purpose of this craft is to be used against light captial ships, Corvette-Cruiser in size. Also interdiction strikes, precision strike, and limited close air support of ground troops.

Lynx: I kind of see where you are going, this one along with the last two are designed by the same company are designed to be highly modular, hence the similar configurations. Right now though the only common componets are the cockpit, guns, torpedo packs (though modified on this one). I admit I have a bad habit of sometimes making craft look too similar to one another, but if I do I try to make sure that they are either all made by the same rave, or in this case the same company, kind of like the Solaar fighters of the GF as well.

SS: Funny it does look really similar and that gives me some ideas on how to proceed, if you don't mind that is, i don't want to be accused to stealing your design. As for any in environment renders, the last render or two of each thread is usually an in environ render, just take a quick search and look.

[MSW]

I agree with Southpaw Samurai - your design skills are very nice, but I think you need to experiment a little more...worry about details later, nail down the shape first.

This is a little 520 polygon model I did for a game, seen here with just a simple guide texture:

[Lynx7725]

Lynx: I kind of see where you are going, this one along with the last two are designed by the same company are designed to be highly modular, hence the similar configurations. Right now though the only common componets are the cockpit, guns, torpedo packs (though modified on this one). I admit I have a bad habit of sometimes making craft look too similar to one another, but if I do I try to make sure that they are either all made by the same rave, or in this case the same company, kind of like the Solaar fighters of the GF as well.

I figured you would go for the "same company" defense..

Thing is, it looks very similar to your "Chopping Block" thread (sorry, can't keep the designations straight anymore). Same nose, canopy and general delta wing design.

If your ship background is that it is an upgrade to the "Chopping Block" craft, then I think it's good -- after all, in RL we do have planes upgraded beyond their original specs (think F14, A10, C130 (!), etc. etc). Having a massdriver (or what looks to be a massdriver) grafted to a small craft sorts of appeal to me.

Have Gun, Will Travel.. but I digress. As a long time sci-fi wargamer... the fluff justifies everything.

But it seems to be a totally different design.. sharing common components, sure, but still a different design. If we compare the original designs from your "Chopping Block" and this, there are marked differences.. but much less so in the redesigns.

As a side-track, do you intend to have squadron and pilot nose arts? would be interesting to see.

[Knight26]

Not sure how to take the comment about the "same company" defense, these craft were always intended to be designed by the same company, I'm working under more of an design bereu style, with multiple manufacturers building a single companies design. And yes, I will eventually texture them with individual sqauadron and to a lesser degree nose art.

Now onto the update, i decided to start fresh again, going back to the three seat config, but that will definitely change, i rationalized a reason for the third crewman but decided against it later. I'm considering side by side seating now instead of tandem in order to make it look more unique. Anyway here is what I came up with more working out loud then anything else at this point, I really need to sketch this out before I start putting into 3-D, will do that on the plane tomorrow. BTW I will be on travel this week so don't expect any updates before saturday, by which time I will hopefully have a design locked in.

[Knight26]

Well I didn't get much progress done this week, will get back to it tommorrow, the onyl thing I did get done was a couple development sketches I did on the plane rides to and from Norfolk, and some work on the new cockpit. I went with something look much more like the initial redesign concept, mixed a little more with a bit of the original. Right now it will be a two seater, but I am looking at making a four seat varient for EW and shuttle duties. The other concept I came up with I may develop into some kind of small shuttlecraft, but that is up in the air right now. Hopefully I will have some more progress for you tomorrow, at least a basic layout design up. Well first here is the sketch.

[Knight26]

and a quick shot of the cockpit will need to add more detail later.

[Knight26]

Quick update, I've added on the basic hull and major weapon's packs, still need to add the lighter fighter scale guns, engines, docking mounts, wings etc... I am actually going to put on the docking mounts next before the engines so that I can better position them, thought I am considering leaving the docking mounts off if I have to. I may shorten the overall length, but am definitely considering an internal weapons bay forward of the ventral torpedo pack, there is more then enough room. Right now the left hand weapon's pack is the missile launcher, carries 34 missiles, the right pack is the antimatter cannon, it opens before it fires. I look forward to your comments. This first shot shows the craft with the cannon closed.

[Knight26]

Second shot, with the A/M Cannon opened, still need to build up the interior and I may make the arms smaller so that it can open up more, still working on that.

[Knight26]

small update, the docking mounts and engines have been added, still need to hollow out the engines and give them exhaust nozzle but that will come later, now I am going to start experimenting with the wings, decide if I will even have them.

Edited October 18, 2004 by Knight26

[Knight26]

Ok, major update this time, all the major components are added including the wings. Thing is I am not feeling the wings and think I may drop them entirely, maybe just put on a small set of stub wings for weapon's mounting and additional external weapons hardpoints. Any thoughts? This is probably the most critical time to get in comments becuase after this the detailing work begins. If I keep the wings they will ahve to fold two ways, up for landing on a flight deck and down for using the docking points. I look forward to your comments.

[Knight26]

A quick shot of the registry, shows all the views, hope it helps give comments.

[Lynx7725]

Looks good 'cept for the wings.. doesn't look like they belong, too blockly/ rectangular where they are currently.

Maybe can even ditch the wings entirely?

[Knight26]

Well currently the wings will go either one of two directions:

1) go to a narrower chord design (shorten the distance between the leading and trailing edges) or

2) be replaced by much smaller, but longer in chord stub designs, which be used only for mounting weapons and for thruster emplacements. Hmm, I'm seeing a possible part reuse there off another design now, just have to modify it accordingly.

I'm also considering adding a couple small turrets to the craft, something like pop out chin guns for use in defending it while on an attack run, or for strafing attacks against large capital ships/installations or ground targets. Thoughts?

[Lynx7725]

I dunno. One common thread that bothers me for practically all your designs is the sheer amount of ordnance/ weaponry that your "small crafts" are packing.

IIRC, you were saying that these were roughly on par with current airframe sizes, and taken relative to the pilots you've provided that's about right. But at the same time, they are carrying a lot more internal armaments than current aircraft -- a lot of your weaponry are built-in as opposed to pod-mounted.

I mean, we all seen the A-10 loaded for bear.. but it's only got one internal 30mm Gatling, the rest are all "disposable" ordnance.

I'm just wondering about the feasibility of it is all. After all, miniaturization can go only so far.. some systems, like fuel tanks or main thrusters, still need to be relatively large (and thus space-consuming).

EDIT: As for the wings, I think it actually looks okay without any wings.. maybe resize the weapon "pods" a bit, but I think it may look okay.

However, if you need the wings to hang stuff from, I don't see why not, just that the current wing shape doesn't really fit asethetically. Given your expertise, I assume it works well enough aerodynamically though.

Edited October 18, 2004 by Lynx7725

[Zentrandude]

I dunno. One common thread that bothers me for practically all your designs is the sheer amount of ordnance/ weaponry that your "small crafts" are packing.

i know what your thinking, every design he posted i had that thought. some games would class all his small craft as light destroyers/ heavy gunboats.

[Lynx7725]

i know what your thinking, every design he posted i had that thought. some games would class all his small craft as light destroyers/ heavy gunboats.

Brr. Now that you mentioned it, imagine what Knight26 would call a light destroyer or heavy gunboat.

[Knight26]

I'm really not seeing what you mean with the overarmament, the last four redesigns had the following loadouts:

Feral-F: 3-forward MDCS, 4-defensive turrets, 60 standard missiles, and 12 large scale torpedoes

Untamed: design has been nixed as being impractical

Splicer 5000: six forward guns, ten standard missiles, two light torpedoes

Splicer 2000: four forward guns, 18 standard missiles, six long range missiles, two light torpedoes

Splicer 3000: four forward guns, light Antimatter Cannon, 34 standard missiles, six light torpedoes.

The weapon's loads do not seem that unrealistic true the feral and 3000 might be a little overboard on the missiles but when you figure that a standard hornet can carry a mix of up to 12 AMRAAMs or sidewinders what I am calling for doesn't really seem that far out there. Now looking at the current design, the whole right side of the craft is the A/M cannon, that is a huge weapon, the missles are all in that launcher off to the left side and are fairly tightly packed. When you look at some ship based launchers though that tight packing is not so out of the question either, the current model RAM launcher carries up to 21 rounds in a launcher guide assemebly maybe half the size of the old NATO Sea-Sparrow launcher, which only carries up to eight rounds. Yes miniaturization goes a long way towards allowing these craft to carry the ordnance loads I have them carry and maybe I did go a little overboard on the 3000's weapons load, but that is compensated by its comparitively lower thrust and manueverability. Also the original had internal bomb bays that will likely not make it into the redesign, unless they are a module that I swap out with the missile pod, missiles or bombs in that case.

Edit: And for good measure since this is a macross board the VF-1S goes out with with a weapons load of: one gunpod, four lasers, and up to 40 missiles and thats without the FAST Packs.

Edited October 18, 2004 by Knight26

[Lynx7725]

I think don't worry about it. So long both sides are balanced off in terms of amount of armaments per craft, it's okay.. (come to think of it, I don't think we've seen many "bad guys" crafts, have we?)

I think it's just that Zentrandude and me, we are used to games that showcase air/ space craft with limited number of armaments. (e.g. X-wings -- effectively 4 las and what, 6 Torps? F-14s -- after the missiles are gone it's done to one gun with less than a minute's ammo load..).

We're just not used to seeing crafts that seem to have a lot of combat endurance... for example, the Hornet (1 gun(?), 12 AARAAMs) vs your Splicer 5000 (6 guns, 10 missiles and 2 anti-ship torps). Not too sure whether it's comparing apples with apples, but man, it sure seems a lot more, especially the gun load.

[Knight26]

It really comes down to a question of operational doctrines and speeds. Modern combat doctrine calls for engaging at range for the most part, using the missiles as the primary weapon and the gun as secondary. In my books space combat is realitively low speed, similar to B-5, you have to fight off any momentum you build up while accelerating. So dogfighters typically have great manueverability and acceleration with a heavy emphasis on guns for use close in. Interceptors or slash attackers rely more on missile armament, engaging targets while they are still in the attack phase, before they decelerate and engage close in, this is when missiles are most effective. I hope th at make sense will explain more later but I have to run to a doctor's appointment. Also I did showcase the enemy fighters a while back and after this one is done I'll do a couple line up shots of all the different fighters together.

[Knight26]

Ok, update time, I nixed the wings replacing them with a set of stubbies that I stole off the S-5000 and lengthened, may change that and give it unique stub wings, probably the best idea, but this is for figuring what to to do right now. Anyway with the stub wings on I moved around the cannons, I wanted to keep the fixed guns close to centerline to allow for better aiming, and put the manuering cannons out on the stubs. I'm not sure about the locations I moved the PLASERs to, i may pit them back where they were or go to a different mounting point entirely, thoughts?

[Knight26]

And the five view registry

[renegadeleader1]

Why does everyone insist in putting all the weaponry on the outside of a ship where flak and debris can damage it?

[Knight26]

Uh the only externally mounted weaponary are the guns, in this case, two of which are on flex mounts so that is required for their use. Also the A/M cannon is for the most part internal to itself, openning the forward mandibles only to fire. The Plasers are just external for ease of maintenance/replacement since in space you don't have to worry about drag. Also the missiles are internal they just fire out of the front of the craft, but the missiles themselves are not explosed, and are infact inside the armored skin of the craft.

[Lynx7725]

Looks good; I'm still getting used to the assymetrical design, but looks good.

Two things. First, looking at the top-down view, it seems to me that you have a tendency to have very squared-off rear ends on your crafts. Somehow, straight lines there bothers me.

Second, why hand a gatling on the stubs? I was thinking, have a pair of guns near the canards, one shooting over and one under. Then we can mount REALLY BIG ORDNANCE on the stubs.. say, 3 torps. On each stub. For a total of 6 torps.. Hmm, so much for "light" assault craft.

[Knight26]

Looks good; I'm still getting used to the assymetrical design, but looks good.

Well I said before it is suppossed to be "ugly sister" of the group, plus the assymetric design kind of makes sense in its case.

Two things. First, looking at the top-down view, it seems to me that you have a tendency to have very squared-off rear ends on your crafts. Somehow, straight lines there bothers me.

Yeah that is a bad habit of mine sometimes, though I am getting better about it, and the rear end will change somewhat before the design is finished.

Second, why hand a gatling on the stubs? I was thinking, have a pair of guns near the canards, one shooting over and one under. Then we can mount REALLY BIG ORDNANCE on the stubs.. say, 3 torps. On each stub. For a total of 6 torps.. Hmm, so much for "light" assault craft.

Damn man, three torps on the stubs, that would definitely take it beyond the light classification, besides it would not be able to mount full scale torps there. And those are not gatling guns, they are flex mounted energy cannon, primary usage is to disable other craft. I actually was considering the over and under canard mounting option but decided against it, not enough room to do it. I am however thinking of moving Plaser cannons into a chin mount, recessing them under the nose. If I do that I may move the energy cannons back under the canards, I will redesigning the sub wings no matter what though possibly adding some cruciform winglets as well. I should hopefully have these in by tomorrow.

[Zentrandude]

I think don't worry about it. So long both sides are balanced off in terms of amount of armaments per craft, it's okay.. (come to think of it, I don't think we've seen many "bad guys" crafts, have we?)

I think it's just that Zentrandude and me, we are used to games that showcase air/ space craft with limited number of armaments. (e.g. X-wings -- effectively 4 las and what, 6 Torps? F-14s -- after the missiles are gone it's done to one gun with less than a minute's ammo load..).

We're just not used to seeing crafts that seem to have a lot of combat endurance... for example, the Hornet (1 gun(?), 12 AARAAMs) vs your Splicer 5000 (6 guns, 10 missiles and 2 anti-ship torps). Not too sure whether it's comparing apples with apples, but man, it sure seems a lot more, especially the gun load.

yah plus all my small craft designs usualy have 1 primary and 1 secondary like those games.

in this case 2 guns and 6 missiles.

[Lynx7725]

Damn man, three torps on the stubs, that would definitely take it beyond the light classification, besides it would not be able to mount full scale torps there.

Hey, what can I say? I like to make things go boom.

Depending on the size of your torps, they might fit on a stub.. one below, one alongside, one above; nothing says I have to hang all my ordnance BENEATH a stub in space.

Yeah, the chin guns might be good. The nose looks a bit squarish now, and can stand a bit of embellishment.

[Knight26]

I think don't worry about it. So long both sides are balanced off in terms of amount of armaments per craft, it's okay.. (come to think of it, I don't think we've seen many "bad guys" crafts, have we?)

I think it's just that Zentrandude and me, we are used to games that showcase air/ space craft with limited number of armaments. (e.g. X-wings -- effectively 4 las and what, 6 Torps? F-14s -- after the missiles are gone it's done to one gun with less than a minute's ammo load..).

We're just not used to seeing crafts that seem to have a lot of combat endurance... for example, the Hornet (1 gun(?), 12 AARAAMs) vs your Splicer 5000 (6 guns, 10 missiles and 2 anti-ship torps). Not too sure whether it's comparing apples with apples, but man, it sure seems a lot more, especially the gun load.

yah plus all my small craft designs usualy have 1 primary and 1 secondary like those games.

in this case 2 guns and 6 missiles.

Yeah but then look at the size of yours compared to mine, yours is a very small single seater. I have an older (universewise) design that is a single seater with only four guns and six missiles, it may or may not get a redesign treatment.

[Zentrandude]

edit: thought you said yours was older in tech design.

im not sure if my little defence ship is small enough though it measures 30 feet in length and 16 feet width.

Edited October 19, 2004 by Zentrandude

[Knight26]

When did I say that the tech level was low? I don't remember ever saying that. And what do you mean you don't know if yours is small enough, how small do you want it to be? Figure my original Splicer 5000 design started out at roughly 25-30 feet in length and span, the latest redesign is now 36x32 (length-span) this happened for a variety of reasons but mostly because I realized with all the stuff crammed into this thing it would have to grow, also aerodynamic concerns added to its length.