Star Citizen Megathread - Fly FREE thru Dec 14th! Link in OP
5,006 replies, posted
[QUOTE=krail9;48295734]I'd do something like this (shitty photoshop warning)
[t]http://puu.sh/jd2j1.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
While we're doing shops, here's what it looks like if you put the bigger engine on the bottom.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/GiobHXM.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Why485;48295903]While we're doing shops, here's what it looks like if you put the bigger engine on the bottom.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/GiobHXM.png[/t][/QUOTE]
I'd prefer this with a smoothed-out "hump" now that it's not a hatch for antennas (unless it still is).
I'm interested in seeing what's delivered when it's in the hangar, finished and instrumented.
i fucked around with some GAU-8 soundbytes to make this sort of SFX pre-vis. it's supposed to be firing a round that's twice as big, so it's gotta sound big and mean.
[media]https://soundcloud.com/cis_scum_boys/star-citizen-herald-based-cantor-twin-rotary-cannons-sfx[/media]
does that sound scary enough? first sounds are from firing in the cockpit, the rest is receiving end (on the ground when the rounds hit, or in space near a ship being hit). yeah, no sound in space, but you gotta have that BRRT. this video shows the impact damage and has the sound a 30mm rotary cannon makes, this thing is 60mm. it'll probably go just as far as the 30mm because in space things are bigger, far away, and made of durable future materials, but i want to convey the sheer fuck-you power of a 30mm.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An0KoWhhU5Y[/media]
[sp]i would've just edited my first post but we're on a new page now so i don't think it'd be seen nearly as much[/sp]
[editline]25th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Why485;48295903]While we're doing shops, here's what it looks like if you put the bigger engine on the bottom.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/GiobHXM.png[/t][/QUOTE]
that looks really good to me. i'd like the cockpit a bit higher though, not for weight distribution but just to look cooler and so it keeps the high landing gear.
[QUOTE=Saber15;48295749]Yeah. Visibility would be worse but it would look so much better. The cabin could be accessed via ladder or some sort of elevator chair.
Doesn't the Gladius or one of the newer ships have the pilot enter the ship via elevator instead of just opening the canopy? Give the Herald that, but for transitioning between the cockpit and cabin.
[editline]25th July 2015[/editline]
Stowing the ladder would be the least of the Herald's issues when it would immediately topple end-over-end in atmosphere and then plummet because it has neither lift surfaces nor - as far as I can tell - any meaningful ventral thrusters. You could land vertically like those old 1950s scifi rockets, but then the ladder problem would be ten times worse. :v:[/QUOTE]
A ship that lands on its tail would actually be kinda cool. Like the Lockheed XFV. Just give it a rope ladder to get down and call it a day.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48295975]I'd prefer this with a smoothed-out "hump" now that it's not a hatch for antennas (unless it still is).
I'm interested in seeing what's delivered when it's in the hangar, finished and instrumented.[/QUOTE]
Krail's simple redesign is perfect:
[t]http://puu.sh/jd2j1.jpg[/t]
Why? Because it gives you the sense that there are two massive engines strapped to a lightweight (more like [I]under[/I]weight), sleek, and barebones cockpit, and that's the entire ship. That's the feel we want. That's all the aesthetic of this ship concept needs. The issue with merely moving the big engine to the bottom is that it doesn't solve the mound. That mound makes it look like a blob, and blobs don't go fast.
I don't think Why485 was trying to solve anything though. It's just interesting to see some of the forced asymmetry removed.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;48296142]This redesign is perfect:
[t]http://puu.sh/jd2j1.jpg[/t]
Why? Because it gives you the sense that there are two massive engines strapped to a lightweight (more like [I]under[/I]weight), sleek, and barebones cockpit, and that's the entire ship. That's the feel we want. That's all the aesthetic of this ship concept needs. The issue with merely moving the big engine to the bottom is that it doesn't solve the mound. That mound makes it look like a blob, and blobs don't go fast.
I don't think Why485 was trying to solve anything though. It's just interested to see some of the forced asymmetry removed.[/QUOTE]
I like this one, it looks [I]fast
[/I]Maybe to solve the 15 foot ladder problem there could be rungs on the hull near the back leading to a door
[QUOTE=krail9;48295734]I'd do something like this (shitty photoshop warning)
[t]http://puu.sh/jd2j1.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
i actually really like this layout. the engines remind me of the durandal-class from halo. mind if i use this profile shot as a basis for a more detailed, less shitty version of my [url=http://i.imgur.com/XX6oAYx.jpg]herald twin-GAU ship[/url]? i'd use it to pitch the CFS-based variant of the herald in whatever board RSI has for that shit.
The Herald reminds me of some crazy crossbreed of the Humpback and Dromedary, but with the monstrously oversized engines of the Pillar of Autumn.
[img]http://discoverygc.com/wiki/images/thumb/3/32/Dromedary-s.png/254px-Dromedary-s.png[/img] [img]http://discoverygc.com/wiki/images/thumb/f/f0/Rh_freighter.png/254px-Rh_freighter.png[/img]
[t]http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bAgaOrvxcRc/maxresdefault.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Why485;48296369][img]http://discoverygc.com/wiki/images/thumb/f/f0/Rh_freighter.png/254px-Rh_freighter.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Good god I forgot how much that thing looks like a toaster.
Finally got my game updated cause Jono nagged me, but apparently CIG forgot to feed the hamsters that run the servers again.
[QUOTE=Why485;48294386]I think engine trails would go a long way in making the game not feel so... hunt the hypermaneuverable target box.
At least with trails you can visualize where the ships are and what they're doing. The combat distances are so large in this game because the guns are so accurate (with mouse+gimbal) and the speeds so high that you can't really close distance and keep it that way unless somebody is doing something very stupid.
The Hornet has an engine trail, but it's extremely faint and the only ship I can think of with one.[/QUOTE]
with the missiles getting some upgraded trails, I hope it means ships will too. It's slightly cheesy but really helps to give empty space some [i]depth[/i], given we're not always going to be in a compact and visually pleasing debris field.
I'd like to hope SC picks up the realistic side of everything that made project sylpheed [i]good[/i], which is really hard to explain because all the videos on youtube are rather bland. One thing SC already carries the torch on is my love of decoupled drifting. Cutting the engines and slowly drifting along the belly of a massive enemy ship, tearing into its systems was just so satisfying
So the M50 got its health tripled in this last patch.
Hmmm, might try renting it and see how it is now.
[t]https://i.imgur.com/vM6Gn7Z.jpg[/t]
Via Reddit. jfc CIG :v:
[QUOTE=Neat!;48295746]i really, REALLY want ... to ... fit two future equivalents of GAU-8s (but bigger, 30mm is so last millennium. 60mm self-propelled HESH rounds will do).
[img]http://i.imgur.com/XX6oAYx.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
BTW, paging Neat!, [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3eoktn/vanguards_main_gun_the_apocalypse_arms_death/"]the Vanguard is probably up your alley[/URL]. 6x70mm barrels on the Vanguard's main gun:
[t]https://cdn.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/000/957/544/large/omar-aweidah-apocolypsearms-death-profile-v3.jpg?1436980122[/t]
[QUOTE=dai;48298352]with the missiles getting some upgraded trails, I hope it means ships will too. It's slightly cheesy but really helps to give empty space some [i]depth[/i], given we're not always going to be in a compact and visually pleasing debris field.
I'd like to hope SC picks up the realistic side of everything that made project sylpheed [i]good[/i], which is really hard to explain because all the videos on youtube are rather bland. One thing SC already carries the torch on is my love of decoupled drifting. Cutting the engines and slowly drifting along the belly of a massive enemy ship, tearing into its systems was just so satisfying[/QUOTE]
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the world who played Project Sylpheed. I'm glad to know there is another. That game was so much fun.
Although "realistic" elements of it are pretty hard to come by. It was more or less a shmup, but in 3D.
my eyes weren't made for this
[img]http://xboxaddict.com/images/screenshots/18216.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Mbbird;48300245]my eyes weren't made for this
[img]http://xboxaddict.com/images/screenshots/18216.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
It makes a lot more sense in motion.
God that game was so good. I want to fish out my Xbox and boot it up now.
[editline]26th July 2015[/editline]
Something else Sylpheed did that I find very interesting, was that it merged yaw and roll onto the same control stick. When you move the stick slightly, it yaws, and then as you move it further, it transitions into roll. This way when you needed to fine tune your aim you could easily do it with pure yaw, but for big turns you just rolled into them and pitched up.
Elite Dangerous has something like this, but it's nowhere near as well implemented.
Another thing it did that I thought was really novel at the time, was the way it did the nose guns. Most nose guns were gimballed. The fighters in the game were so small and fast, it was pretty damn difficult to ever hit them, especially the higher level ones, with a fixed gun. Early in the game you get a gimballed nose gun, where you just had to get the crosshair close enough and then it would auto-aim the rest of the way. Basically what Elite does nowadays too I guess, but it was much faster because the game was faster. It didn't make it easy by any means, because you still had to track these super maneuverable targets well enough for the nose gun to lock on.
[editline]26th July 2015[/editline]
Fuck yeah. This game was awesome.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wLSQ7cwVWk[/media]
That looks pretty sick. I had never heard of it before these last few pages though.
[QUOTE=Hammernipples;48300376]That looks pretty sick. I had never heard of it before these last few pages though.[/QUOTE]
I think we brought it up a long time ago in this thread, but yeah. It [i]released[/i] at $40 and felt way more worth the money than many full priced 360 games at the time
you can still pick it up for $3 at gamestop (probably need to place an order from other stores to get one to your local one) and the XBO should have backwards compatibility set by christmas
Maybe its just me, but I like the idea of the Herald looking ugly, real life has ugly cars, why not Star Citizen?
cheap cars are often ugly. the more expensive the car, the more aggressive/masculine/sporty the look. that's always one of the main price points of a vehicle. why wouldn't space ships be the same
[QUOTE=69105;48305028]cheap cars are often ugly. the more expensive the car, the more aggressive/masculine/sporty the look. that's always one of the main price points of a vehicle. why wouldn't space ships be the same[/QUOTE]
that's not a terribly good comparison for stuff like the Herald though, or most of the ships currently in game, because most of them are utilitarian vehicles with a specific purpose.
to stick with the car analogy, that'd be like trying to market a good looking semi truck or school bus. while you certainly [I]could[/I] do it, aesthetics probably aren't very high on the list of priorities for someone looking to haul cargo/schoolchildren long distances
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;48303513]Maybe its just me, but I like the idea of the Herald looking ugly, real life has ugly cars, why not Star Citizen?[/QUOTE]
The problem is that it was [I]designed[/I] to be hideous. Nobody designs a car to be ugly. Even the worst looking production cars (like boring obvious choices like the Pontiac Aztek and Fiat Multipla) have reasons for the way they look. There's no reason why the Herald has one engine twice the size of the other, why the pilot [I]is[/I] the [url=http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Mk1_Lander_Can#Product_description]crumple zone[/url], why there's random bends in the bodywork.
The Herald should look [I]utilitarian[/I]; lines that are purposeful but not really designed for anything beyond that.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/ZClL088.jpg[/t]
Teladi small craft from X3 are pretty good examples of utilitarian design; aside from often goofy looking wings/weapon mounts surrounding their engines, they have clean profiles that look designed to cut production costs.
I like the Herald. But I always liked the bulky looking ships anyways.
It helps to think of the Herald as a space dragster with a couple of solid state drives duct taped to it
[img]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/12/12/dixon.jpg[/img]
it looks goofy as shit, goes really really fast in a straight line, cant turn very well, and consists of an engine, a seat, and a computer
I actually wonder how fast it will be, given that the fluff basically has it as nigh-uncatchable
i just can't take any real life analogues seriously because, again, the Herald is ugly because someone wanted it to be, not to facilitate any particular function.
To me it looks like it'll have excellent forward thrust, but not be particularly maneuverable.
[QUOTE=Alsojames;48306341]To me it looks like it'll have excellent forward thrust, but not be particularly maneuverable.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure that's intended.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;48306199]the Herald is ugly because someone wanted it to be, not to facilitate any particular function.[/QUOTE]
why does this statement even have weight to it
that is [I]literally everything[/I] about Drake ship manufacturing. drake is distinguishable from anvil, as origin from consolidated outland, banu from vanduul, and so on. Big ugly utilitarian things make for great pirate ships because they're not something you want to see while tooling around in your beautiful space yacht. The designers designed it on the premise that it was utilitarian and [i]had functions to facilitate[/i]
They build shit that's just supposed to get it done. I don't care if [i]we, the humans designing the game world[/i] can make it pretty, it's supposed to sell solely on function over form and by all means none of the technology comprising these ships exists. The idea is that each manufacturer has a lore-guided purpose, and that drives the overall style of ships. We can, will, and [i]have been[/i] totally just saying "yeah it's this shape because the superflux conductrometer is super heavy and way up here so a bunch of lightweight stuff is jammed toward the bottom to balance it out" for a long time to make sense and enhance the flavor of ridiculous sci fi stylization
[t]http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101002211110/starwars/images/f/fa/JangoSlave1cleaned.jpg[/t]
The Herald is said to be as fast as the racing ships...in a straight line. Its lack of maneuverability once it's going really fast in a straight line is why it's not being described as a racer.
[URL="https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/274439/dev-tracker/p1"]1.1.5a has been pushed as a hotfix[/URL], developed over the weekend, to try and fix some of the fuckups in the patch, like people getting black screens instead of loading in -- especially important when they pushed this patch over top of their Quakecon free-fly promo until August 1st. Typical CIG.
[URL="https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/274420/dev-tracker/p1"]This week's schedule is about what you'd expect[/URL], Merlin Q&A and Bugsmashers on Wednesday. Next Friday is Gamescom, so everyone's in crunch mode for that or the usual crunch on fps/multicrew/etc. 10FTC in a few hours.
Also, enjoy a random piece of Cat concept art from the Vault, covering how the command module engages "fuck everything about this" mode.
[t]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/media/ilrx8sapvu94qr/source/Caterpillar-Separated-Command-Module03.jpg[/t]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
