[Resource & progress]my ship showcase room(07/02/12)

monk124us · Post by **monk124us** » Tue, 21. Feb 12, 23:22

Great looking ships, how can I install them to my game?

Shimrod · Post by **Shimrod** » Tue, 21. Feb 12, 23:32

I've always found M1 ships useless, and even more so now that they gimped the laser recharge, and added more nimble M7 carrier ships that fulfil the role better.

It'd be great to get internal docking for M6 and M8 on an M1 to give them some unique carrier ability and make them desirable. I've experimented with every ship in XRM but found nothing with internal M6 docking. I'd love to fly such a mothership, if its possible to add one at some point.

deca.death · Post by **deca.death** » Tue, 21. Feb 12, 23:33

monk124us wrote:Great looking ships, how can I install them to my game?

'm afraid it's not that easy, son :) there is plenty of work to do before raw model could be imported in game and judging by your question, that task is currently waaay out of your league. sorry, I'm not trying to be negative, it's just facts. btw many of those models were incorporated in xrm, game overhaul, so when you get tired of playing vanilla, that would be probably easiest way to see some of them in action.

Shimrod wrote: It'd be great to get internal docking for M6 and M8 on an M1. I've experimented with every ship in XRM but found nothing with M6 docking. I'd love to fly such a mothership, it'd lend some usefulness to the M1 class.

This question is primarily game design issue, and has less to do with ship design by itself. It's major change that requires tons of work and usually upsets the balance, so, good luck with paul on that one, you'll need it ;) Another thing - most of M1s can dock 2 M6es externally afaik. Tern can dock 6 of them and he's unofficial vette carrier champion :)

Shimrod · Post by **Shimrod** » Tue, 21. Feb 12, 23:54

I know its feasible, I've seen it done. Perhaps it was XRM, or maybe even the TC aran, memory fails me.

I do recall problems though trying to get them all to dock with a big swarm of M6 doing collision avoidance at the back of the ship. Would need addressed somehow.

It has to be said that M1 are total gimps with no reason for a player to choose one over an M2 or M7. I'm simply offering up a reason to make them desirable.

deca.death · Post by **deca.death** » Wed, 22. Feb 12, 00:14

Shimrod wrote: It has to be said that M1 are total gimps with no reason for a player to choose one over an M2 or M7. I'm simply offering up a reason to make them desirable.

M1 was always very powerful /but barely necessary and it required tons of painful ship/wing/logistic micromanagement which some mods like CODEA addressed more or less successfully. They are specific weapon platform, as you have noted maybe not as efficient as M2 but if we go that path then nothing beats wing of bombers. Or M7Ms. There are plenty of reasons to choose carrier. They are fun to use. They project power very quickly. And they are devastating. You can issue 50 weapon platforms as perverse as you see fit. Fenrirs with full belly of swarm/retarget zetas? Experimental shuttles with 400Mj of shielding? PBG armed Keas? M3 fuc*kin bombers? And you can carry two sentinel corvettes for personal AA defense, just in case.

And you really think that kind of ship NEEDS another several corvettes in internal hangar to be interesting? C'mon ;)

BTW it can be done. Aran can carry 36 M6es. A bit slowish but if you desperately need M6 carrier ...

Shimrod · Post by **Shimrod** » Wed, 22. Feb 12, 00:26

Sure, it beats flying a TM, however an M7 can equally unload Fenrir while having superior speed, manoeuvrability, laser generator, price, perhaps even cargo space while having a smaller size footprint. In AP even the M6 have better laser generators than M1.

There needs to be some reason to want an M1, and ability to dock bombers and corvettes would make that happen, in a way that says 'Carrier'.

deca.death · Post by **deca.death** » Wed, 22. Feb 12, 01:05

Shimrod wrote:Sure, it beats flying a TM, however an M7 can equally unload Fenrir while having superior speed, manoeuvrability, laser generator, price, perhaps even cargo space while having a smaller size footprint. In AP even the M6 have better laser generators than M1.

Well M7Cs are smaller, more multi role oriented ships. They have certain advantages, yes, but they are usually only half as big in ship capacity. This is not vanilla, time of powerful hunter-frigate-carrier like panther is no more. Now M7C can defend itself and that's it.

And lack of w.generator on M1 is there because of intended doctrine of usage. M1 is not designed to enter battle directly, he should stay behind and use it's fighter wings like whip. And his numerous gunpoints help it not to become cannon fodder OOS. If you use them as intended, all of their "drawbacks" become irrelevant really.

Requiemfang · Post by **Requiemfang** » Wed, 22. Feb 12, 04:16

deca.death wrote:
Shimrod wrote:Sure, it beats flying a TM, however an M7 can equally unload Fenrir while having superior speed, manoeuvrability, laser generator, price, perhaps even cargo space while having a smaller size footprint. In AP even the M6 have better laser generators than M1.
Well M7Cs are smaller, more multi role oriented ships. They have certain advantages, yes, but they are usually only half as big in ship capacity. This is not vanilla, time of powerful hunter-frigate-carrier like panther is no more. Now M7C can defend itself and that's it.

And lack of w.generator on M1 is there because of intended doctrine of usage. M1 is not designed to enter battle directly, he should stay behind and use it's fighter wings like whip. And his numerous gunpoints help it not to become cannon fodder OOS. If you use them as intended, all of their "drawbacks" become irrelevant really.

and yet the AI doesn't follow this doctrine of keep the carrier away from enemy ships... it charges it in there like it's a battering ram

Mizuchi · Post by **Mizuchi** » Wed, 22. Feb 12, 09:58

Requiemfang wrote:...it charges it in there like it's a battering ram

Sometimes literally so, rather than just figuratively.

mr.WHO · Post by **mr.WHO** » Wed, 22. Feb 12, 22:42

deca.death wrote:
Shimrod wrote: It has to be said that M1 are total gimps with no reason for a player to choose one over an M2 or M7. I'm simply offering up a reason to make them desirable.
M1 was always very powerful /but barely necessary and it required tons of painful ship/wing/logistic micromanagement which some mods like CODEA addressed more or less successfully. They are specific weapon platform, as you have noted maybe not as efficient as M2 but if we go that path then nothing beats wing of bombers. Or M7Ms. There are plenty of reasons to choose carrier. They are fun to use. They project power very quickly. And they are devastating. You can issue 50 weapon platforms as perverse as you see fit. Fenrirs with full belly of swarm/retarget zetas? Experimental shuttles with 400Mj of shielding? PBG armed Keas? M3 fuc*kin bombers? And you can carry two sentinel corvettes for personal AA defense, just in case.

And you really think that kind of ship NEEDS another several corvettes in internal hangar to be interesting? C'mon

BTW it can be done. Aran can carry 36 M6es. A bit slowish but if you desperately need M6 carrier ...

Actually AP provides tons of stuff that makes M1 what they supose to be in the beginning:
AP 2.0 will introduce HQ customizable ship config templates that will allow you to fast equip fighters.
Additionally AP fleet script handle M1+fighters very good (I mean VERY GOOD - fighter pilots now aren't suicidal, so fighters stay way from hostile capships and hunt for hostile fighters, bombers, transports and M6).

CODEA is nice in theory, but the fact is that even reading the manual for it is long and complicated process so there is no need for it with AP.

Shimrod · Post by **Shimrod** » Wed, 22. Feb 12, 23:24

Aha, I've not tried an M1 with the AP fleet commands. Only with wings or via 'launch fighter attack'. I'll be sure to try that. Movie tonight though!

expnobody · Post by **expnobody** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 23:55

http://bbs.deeptimes.org/data/attachmen ... 9dskzx.jpg

.......i think it should look alot better ingame..i am wondering should i sent this thing to paul at all regarding to poly issue, the last version is 250K poly, this is 260K (dont ask me why, ask egosoft why deca's model cost 13K poly each even after i strip all the antennas and other stuff off)

Zaknafein · Post by **Zaknafein** » Sun, 26. Feb 12, 00:22

imho i dont want this model ingame.
not that it looks bad but the polycount is ridiculously high. i alrdy got problems with an argon atlas or deadalus in sector, with this thing it will get to a dia-show.
i dont think im the only one here (especially considered by my strong graphics-card which is also OCed)

greetings

nap_rz · Post by **nap_rz** » Sun, 26. Feb 12, 06:15

hmm no offense but it reminds me of a tripod or lamp or something, like this

[ external image ]

Requiemfang · Post by **Requiemfang** » Sun, 26. Feb 12, 07:12

higher the poly count the more impact it has on the game... soooo... there will need to be a way to reduce the polys.

XSI does this pretty well as it has extra options that allow you to preserve the model shape even when reducing the polys in a model. But honestly no idea what would happen with these kit-bashed models if they were opened up in that program. ANd I mean that in a good sense of kit-base because the models look pretty good to decent.

mr.WHO · Post by **mr.WHO** » Sun, 26. Feb 12, 09:51

Hey Expnoby,
while you struggle with polycount problem, maybe you could make ATF M8 so we could have full set of M8 in XRM?

dougeye · Post by **dougeye** » Sun, 26. Feb 12, 10:08

Its a new Xenon super weapon that cripples any and all computer systems that dare to load it! lol

mr.WHO · Post by **mr.WHO** » Sun, 26. Feb 12, 10:32

Also your first version of Xenon M0 might be good M1+:
http://bbs.deeptimes.org/data/attachmen ... 0lghud.jpg

deca.death · Post by **deca.death** » Sun, 26. Feb 12, 14:18

expnobody wrote: .......i think it should look alot better ingame..i am wondering should i sent this thing to paul at all regarding to poly issue, the last version is 250K poly, this is 260K (dont ask me why, ask egosoft why deca's model cost 13K poly each even after i strip all the antennas and other stuff off)

As I've heard from him, he's reluctant to put high poly models in game (I believe you've send him another one, some USC M0 or something, before) so I don't think sending him this would be a good idea.

We must consider high-poly problems; tc is basically terribly optimized game, I have i5 on 3.6Ghz and I still have performance issues on the game that's now.. how much, 6 yrs old? It's an real issue. You love making high poly monster ships. Maybe it would be a good idea to learn to use some of the mentioned tools who rectify those issues. Model which isn't used ingame somehow hasn't achieved it's true purpose.

Ship does look impressive, looks better in different angles we've seen it last time, and it's definitely one of your more original creations. It would be too bad to go to waste. In meantime, you could make or send more of youm smaller ships. What about that awesome xenon M8? I hope that's sent already.

nap_rz · Post by **nap_rz** » Sun, 26. Feb 12, 15:09

has anyone actually test the game framerate compared to the number of polygons/ship? I have suspicions that the poly count is actually does not matter much in this game because the problem is on the CPU side of things.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

[Resource & progress]my ship showcase room(07/02/12)