Looks better than a F/A-18!

But wouldn't improving a class of ship not only take a huge amount of time, but also mean they tag a affix/prefix to the class name?
 
Not necessarily, and it would be a lot faster and cheaper than designing and building a whole new type of ship.
 
Not necessarily. Upgrades to a ship can be implemented in the construction phase. Also prefixes don't necessarily need to be added. For example the Russians produced 4 Kirov class battlecruisers. Each ship differs to the other in various ways but they're all still Kirov class. Same goes for the LA subs. With or without the Tomahawks they're still LA class.
 
@Eder:

Sure there is a link. At least we're reporting about mods and not about models :).
So the News is linked with the Mod news :).
 
*grin* I imagine all the variants of the Bengal class wreak havoc on civilian reporting - in my ships list (unpublished), I commented that some civilian reporting agencies reported the Bengals as follows (in that list, I placed Beacontree prior to Tiger's Claw):

Bengal and Beacontree: Bengal-class
Tiger's Claw: Tiger's Claw-class
Kipling and later Bengals: Kipling-class

And then to add to the confusion, other agencies report the Bengal and Beacontree as Bengal Class and the Tiger's Claw and all later Bengals as Tiger's Claw class.

And why not... Some groups list the three subclasses of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers as the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51/Arleigh Burke Flight I), Mahan (DDG 72/Arleigh Burke Flight II) and Oscar Austin (DDG 79/Arleigh Burke Flight IIA) classes. Additionally, some groups split the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers into the Nimitz (CVN 68-70) and Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71-77) classes.

Naval reporting is complicated...
 
I doubt civilians care enough about military classifications. They care about how much its costing them as taxpayers.
 
We've never seen a distinction made... even those in the navy just refer to them as Bengal class.

TC
 
Originally posted by TC
We've never seen a distinction made... even those in the navy just refer to them as Bengal class.
Click to expand...

Well, those in the navy probably call them what their superiors call them. :)

And just because Joan's calls them a certain class is no guarantee that other civilian reporting agencies call them the same thing. As I said, different civilian reporting agencies have different criteria to determine just what constitutes a separate class.

Penguin:

A civilian reporting agency, like Joan's or their real-world counterpart, would care - it's their job to care.

Look at all the subtypes of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, or the two subtypes of the Ticonderoga-class cruisers.
 
Except we have no basis to decide that they do that. From what we've seen people refer to all Bengal class vessels as Bengal class...

TC
 
The original shots are 1024x768, but most of them have little ugly details such part of a ship on the edge of the screen, or a ship with targeting brackets around it in the background, or a SW ship in the background, so I edited out all these little things and sized the images down for anti-aliasing to finish the job.

I never really liked them anyway, my desktop is at 800x600, and they were 1024x768 :p

However once I move on to making the rendered scenes like the bar, barracks, landing sequences, and etc. I'll probably make a nice hi-res render of each ship from an isometric view, and put these up instead of the in-flight screenshots.

--Eder
 
I see. Lucky I still have the large Rapier pic then, that one is the smoothest so far, I think.

It's just that I can't get much out from your most recent shots 'cause the JPEG compression is on the high side. Small file size = blocky pic.

Though I suppose I should be grateful, I'm only complaining 'cause I'm at uni at the moment.
 
Dang, hadn't noticed that myself. Well, I have all the BMP originals, so I'll save them with a lower compression and upload them again later today.

--Eder
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top