What I would do for a WC1 and WC2 Mod

[Concordia]

How I would do a WC1 and WC2 Mod

Okay, here are my ideas.

Okay first of all, the WC2 fighters would have to be resized... They're insanely small for WC Standards and don't fit in against the rest of the WC Universe.

The Excalibur, for example was brand-new and 32-meters long.

Not to mention the Wraith was 35 meters long in WCArmada, and only 16 in WC Academy.

I've devised scaling systems to equalize the fighters up with one another (WC2)...

Ferret: 16.26 meters
Epee: 19.76 meters
Rapier: 24 meters (same as WC1)
and of course the Wraith: 25.5 meters
Sabre: 27 meters
Broadsword: 36 meters

I'm still working on the Kilrathi Fighters...

The bulk of the work would be basically to re-work the WC2 Capships to make them look respectable.

The Gilgamesh would look basically the same. Except thicker (top to bottom). I would also remove the fins, and add vents to the top and bottom. I would designate the cones on the front and back of the wing-like structures thrust reversers for slowing down, and auxiliary-engines in the rear. The conning-tower would extend through the bottom of the ship also. Just like on the Talahassee.

The AMG on the ship would be shaped more like the WC4 one. The ship would have a WC3-paint-job. The flanks of the ships would be blue, with the tops of the ships gray. The sides of the intakes would be blue. The Auxiliary engines would be silver at their nozzles. The intakes' face would be dark red.

The AMG's arrangement would be the same... one on the top front, the other on the bottom-front.


The Waterloo-class would be a scaled-up WC1-Exeter with Gilgamesh-Class characteristics. The wings would be narrower at the ends than at the root, but would still be thick at their tips. The two rectangle-blocks would be the ships twin-flight-decks...

The area in between the two blocks would be the main engines... all eight of them. They would be round and cylindrical like the Vesuvius' engines. (What's the texture for the Vesuvius' nozzles... I don't have that round-engine texture)

The area just behind the leading edges of each of the wings would house several intakes along the span.

About 2/3 of the way back (behind the middle of the ship) would lie the main intakes for the ship, and a small one in the front. In the middle of the ship would be a series of reverse engines (the blue-things)... except they wouldn't be blue, they'd be gray (they're off-line most of the time).

The bridge would be right behind the intakes, and would be shaped similar to those found on the Talahassee-Class.

The AMG's (4-in total) would be arranged 2 on the top front, and two on the bottom front... or perhaps they'd be arranged in a different fasion depending on the way they're arranged on the WC2-Waterloo-Class...

The Confederation-Class would keep it's octogonal-shaped bow-and prong, and vertical-fins. The thing that would be different would be that it's lateral-fins... the ones on either side of the vertical-ones, would be reversed in direction, moved to the middle of the ship, and turned into a trapezoidal shape, which would be more highly-swept in the back then in the front.

The ship would have wings like the Bracher from WCM, except they would be larger, and thicker. The sides of the ship wouldn't be so squarish like in WC2, but would be somewhat tapered like the WC3 Victory's sides...

The ship would be somewhat thicker in the mid-section from top-to-bottom, and would shorten up by the time they reach the bow. They would also narrow-down right behind the wings and reach the same width as the bow by the time they reach the position of the vertical-fins, and then narrow down to nothing as they reach the backs of the fins (right before they reach the engines.)

The flight-decks would run straight through either wing, entering at the rear, and exiting at the front, with a connecting area between the two bays. The conning-tower would be located at the thickest area of the fueslage (from top-to-bottom), the tower would run straight through the ship (not really, but there would be a tower on the top, and one at the bottom, like most WC3 ships).

The fins, ventral... the two that are on the underside of the ship: would be removed. They serve no purpose...

The Vertical fins which carry the engines would stay, and would remain unchanged, except a slight-sleekening for asthetics purposes, would contain their original engine arrangement (three top, small, 1 in the middle, large, and 2 medium sized engines bottom).
The nozzles would instead of being round, would be squarish, with rounded edges to make the fin look "fuller" and thicker.

The reversers would be located on the middle of the ship, just forward of the bridge where the fuselage shortens down in a set of 3 (like on all confed-capships) on the top. On the bottom they would be in the same spot, but would be split into two... two on either side (they would be slightly smaller), and would be split to accomodate the phase-transit cannon. To avoid-frying it when during the reverse-thruster firings.

The vents would be located on the leading edges of the fins, just like on the WC2 Concordia, and another just ahead of the turret, on the first 1/4 of the ships length, or 1/3rd. There would be six vents in two rows (3 across, in front of another 3). On the bottom, there would be two on each side to accomodate the phase-transit-cannon.

The prongs would be right where they are supposed to be... On the front of the ship.

The Confederation's Colors would be as follows...
Blue on the sides, the tops of the prongs would be yellow and red diagonal-lines. The sides and base of them would be silver gray.

The vents would be dark-gray but vent like... the ones on the front would be reddish like the dragon's intakes... except darker, more like a dimmer glow.

The guns would be like the WC4 ones, and they would be arranged as follows (AMG's). The first one on either side of the prongs... the second one would be on either side of the wings... and the other at the rear.

One would be at the front top (where that large gunning thingie is), and the other would be on the underside, just in between the main-vertical-fins.

-Concordia

 

[Eder]

Re: How I would do a WC1 and WC2 Mod

Originally posted by Concordia
Okay first of all, the WC2 fighters would have to be resized... They're insanely small for WC Standards and don't fit in against the rest of the WC Universe.

I hope you do realize, however, that "the rest of the WC Universe" is just too freaking big (with a few exceptions of course). WC2 gave far more reasonable length measurements for its ships, if you take into consideration what the ships looked like.

For example, a 16 meter long Ferret would probably have a 5 meter long cockpit. So you have to either:
a) assume that Blair is 4 meters tall;
b) assume that WC2's sprites weren't really the actual WC2 ships Origin fooled us into believing they were (Bastards! I wonder what the real WC2 ships look like? ) or;
c) assume that the measurements for the rest of the WC Universe came from the head of someone who didn't know the first thing about the metric system.

--Eder

 

[Concordia]

Re: Re: How I would do a WC1 and WC2 Mod

Originally posted by Eder
I hope you do realize, however, that "the rest of the WC Universe" is just too freaking big (with a few exceptions of course). WC2 gave far more reasonable length measurements for its ships, if you take into consideration what the ships looked like.

For example, a 16 meter long Ferret would probably have a 5 meter long cockpit. So you have to either:
a) assume that Blair is 4 meters tall;
b) assume that WC2's sprites weren't really the actual WC2 ships Origin fooled us into believing they were (Bastards! I wonder what the real WC2 ships look like? ) or;
c) assume that the measurements for the rest of the WC Universe came from the head of someone who didn't know the first thing about the metric system.

--Eder

Quite simply, I'd simply shrink the cockpit...

-Concordia

 

[Quarto]

I'm not going to bother responding to the particular points of this post - I'm very much opposed to the idea in general. If you did all that, it wouldn't be WC2 any more.

And what makes you think there's something wrong with WC2 fighter sizes anyway? I think WC2 is actually the only one (apart from WCP, possibly) where the manual sizes actually match up with visuals.

 

[Concordia]

Originally posted by Quarto
I'm not going to bother responding to the particular points of this post - I'm very much opposed to the idea in general. If you did all that, it wouldn't be WC2 any more.

Yeah it would... it still would have the same plot; it would just have better graphics...

SWC had radically different graphics from the rest of WC1...

And what makes you think there's something wrong with WC2 fighter sizes anyway? I think WC2 is actually the only one (apart from WCP, possibly) where the manual sizes actually match up with visuals.

That's just because they draw the cockpit too large...

I said if I made a WC2 mod, I would make the cockpit the right size, and simply scale the fighter around it...

-Concordia

 

[Eder]

Originally posted by Concordia
That's just because they draw the cockpit too large...

I said if I made a WC2 mod, I would make the cockpit the right size, and simply scale the fighter around it...

Uh, I think you're missing the point that me (and Q?) are trying to make... the WC2 cockpits *are* the right size. OTOH, the canon length data for WC3 and WC4 ships - the data which I presume you used to rescale the WC2 ships - leads to some really suspicious conclusions:

- the Banshee's canopy is 2.75m tall, 3.5m wide, and about 3.5m long
- the Raptor's canopy is 1m tall, 2.5m wide, and 6.5m long
- the Vindicator's canopy is 2m tall, 2m wide, and 2.5m long
- the Bearcat's and the Hellcat's canopies are almost 1m tall, 1m wide, and over 4m long
etc.

Do you really think that redesigning almost all WC ships (by giving them smaller cockpits and then rescaling some of them) makes more sense than assuming WC2 and WCP are the only games in which nobody screwed up some values in the manual?

That's changing the way the whole series looks so that you only have to disregard info from two manuals instead of four.

Short version: does an Epee look like it's 12 meters long? Yes. Does a Banshee look like it's 23.5 meters long? No. So, if for some reason you simply *have* to make them look proportional to each other, why would you change the Epee?

--Eder

 

[dreddnott]

Amen, Eder!

When I set up the scaling system for the XWA mod, I shrank the WC1 fighters by about half overall, and generally kept the WC2 lengths and they came out exactly matching the scale of the existing Star Wars fighters (but don't get me started on Star Wars capship lengths...!).

Seriously, the length of 36 meters for the WC1 Raptor is completely ridiculous when the WC1 Rapier is 24 meters long and the cockpit on both ships is to the exact same scale! The trick here is that the WC1 Raptor is exactly twice too long, and the WC1 Rapier problem is solved by scaling to the 19-meter WC2 Rapier. Ta da.

I had many other similar problems with other ships but you'll find that the still-primitive WCTC for XWA has reasonable ship scaling throughout.

 

[Concordia]

Originally posted by Eder
Uh, I think you're missing the point that me (and Q?) are trying to make... the WC2 cockpits *are* the right size. OTOH, the canon length data for WC3 and WC4 ships - the data which I presume you used to rescale the WC2 ships - leads to some really suspicious conclusions:

- the Banshee's canopy is 2.75m tall, 3.5m wide, and about 3.5m long
- the Raptor's canopy is 1m tall, 2.5m wide, and 6.5m long
- the Vindicator's canopy is 2m tall, 2m wide, and 2.5m long
- the Bearcat's and the Hellcat's canopies are almost 1m tall, 1m wide, and over 4m long
etc.

First of all, do you realize what a WC fighter carries onboard?

-A fusion reactor: For powering the ship and all it's systems
-Fuel-tanks: Nobody knows how much fuel those ships carry
-Inertial-damping system: Protects the pilot, and or crew (in the case of the Broadsword) from getting squished.
-Thrusters: to make the ship roll, pitch and yaw...
-Thruster's Tanks: They probably have their own fuel supply...
-Shield Generators: To protect the ship from attack... They regenerate when shields cannot.
-Large Weapons: I remember them saying a WC2 Torpedo was some 10 meters long!!! I don't remember them saying how long a missile was (either 2 or 5 meters long)...
-Guns: Powerful blasters and such. They're at least as long as a human being, and probably much more like several-meters.
-Capacitors: For powering the guns...
-Engines: You realize how much power is required to make an armor-laden fighter accelerate at 225 k/s per second? (Hellcat V)
-Bussard-Ramscoops: To keep the fighter from running out of fuel in a matter of minutes, and to enable the fighter to turn sharply as if it was in an atmosphere.
-Auxiliary Tank: For the afterburners...
-Pilot: Pilots are usually between 5'3" (about 1.61m) to 6'4" (1.91 meters) these days...
-Ejection capsule: For ejecting the pilot and keeping him alive...
-Life-Support Systems: Which are far more advanced than most life-support system kept aboard any aircraft.
-Jump Drive: If Applicable: Enables the ship to traverse hyperspace via jump-nodes.
-Jump-Drive Tank: Some jump-drives keep their own supply of anti-protons onboard for reserve, or in fighters since they don't have their supply of anti-matter. (They don't use matter/anti-matter-reactors)

This stuff takes up space! I'm truly amazed they can even wedge it INTO a fighter that's only 20 meters long, but they can... The fact that they can wedge it into a 10 meter fighter is just downright insane...

Sure there are exceptions like the Razor, but that's a pirate ship, which is significantly stripped-down, not a mil-spec fighter.

Do you really think that redesigning almost all WC ships (by giving them smaller cockpits and then rescaling some of them) makes more sense than assuming WC2 and WCP are the only games in which nobody screwed up some values in the manual?

Actually, you did that with the Raptor... I see no difference. Or maybe that was somebody else.

That's changing the way the whole series looks so that you only have to disregard info from two manuals instead of four.

WC1 and 2 were created when graphic's technology was just in its infancy. It now has advanced and it would be an insult to create a WC mod with a 256 color pallette, and cartoony graphics... If they had the resourses they had now, they would have made the graphics far more advanced. They were EXCELLENT for 1990-1991 (I forgot to mention that!-- sorry)... but in 1994(1997 if you start with WCP)-2003, there have been some major advantages...

Short version: does an Epee look like it's 12 meters long? Yes. Does a Banshee look like it's 23.5 meters long? No. So, if for some reason you simply *have* to make them look proportional to each other, why would you change the Epee?[/B]

Yes, but the Ranger (Victory) also looks more like 720 feet instead of 720 meters, but they're supposed to be 720 meters. So I'm simply sticking to the specs. That's my argument...

I simply wish to keep all the ships to their correct scales...

WC1's fighters are huge
WC2 fighters are small
WC3 fighters are big again
WC4 fighters are big again
WCP's fighters are small

This is majority rules... WC2 and WCP are small, WC1, WC3, and WC4 are big. Additionally, it should also be known that the new Excalibur, which is 32-meters fits well-within the size range for WC3 fighters, and WC1 for that matter also. But not within WC2, but are admitted into WCP at their current size...

I count WCP's smaller fighters as a matter of size diminishing with technology.

-Concordia

 

[Eder]

Originally posted by Concordia
First of all, do you realize what a WC fighter carries onboard?

(a bunch of nonsense, etc.)

Bah. Okay, this is my last reply to this thread, because you seem too dense to realize my point, so let me try to make myself perfectly clear one last time.

Do YOU realize how much space all that stuff takes? No, you don't, and neither do I. Do you know why? Because neither I nor you have the slightest clue how big a "fusion reactor" or an electric toothbrush will be 600 years from now. Stuff that was invented 50 years ago has probably been sized down a hundred times by today. You can't base your argument on that. You see, the reason nobody ever agrees with you is the fact that you take random facts and assume them to apply to WC instead of realizing that only WC facts apply to WC.

What I DO know, however, and I hope that you know, too, is that WC was programmed by people who don't know how the fuck long a meter is. I also do know that it takes more than 600 years for an evolutionary mutation of the human species to make humans become 4 meters tall - so that 6 meter long cockpits all of a sudden make sense just because the ship has to carry a "fusion reactor" (Which will be how big in 2668, again? Refresh my memory).

THAT is my point. I don't know how big every WC ship is, I don't care how big a present day airplane or fusion reactor is (because, let me remind you - this is a totally unrelated fact!), but I DO know that when I see the launch sequence in WC2, a Ferret looks 10 meters long, whereas a Raptor in WC1 does NOT look 36 meters long, and an Excalibur in WC3 does NOT look 32 meters long. So THAT's where I come from when I say that if (for some twisted reason) I had to choose between scaling systems, I'd choose that of WC2.

IF you simply feel some unjustifiable need to make all the ships in the WC universe look proportional to each other, please find a better hypothesis to work with.

The majority (WC1/3/4, versus WC2/P) doesn't need to be right, and you don't know how big a Bussard-ramscoop is, so I am yet to be convinced that I should consider the ship lengths from WC1/3/4 the not-screwed-up ones (again, assuming that any of them even are screwed-up), even when I'm SEEING - as in, pictures, not speculation on machine part sizes - that the cockpit of a Vindicator is NOT taller than a human being.

I presume you see the same thing, but your logical conclusion seems to be something along the lines of "Gee, human beings must have evolved into 4 meter tall creatures, but someone forgot to take that into consideration when they wrote the WC2 manual! Idiots!"

Originally posted by Concordia
WC1 and 2 were created when graphic's technology was just in its infancy. It now has advanced and it would be an insult to create a WC mod with a 256 color pallette, and cartoony graphics... If they had the resourses they had now, they would have made the graphics far more advanced. They were EXCELLENT for 1990-1991 (I forgot to mention that!-- sorry)... but in 1994(1997 if you start with WCP)-2003, there have been some major advantages...

I'm pretty sure that if WC2 was being developed today, the ships would still look like they did, except more detailed. You see, those sprites were rendered from actual models. The models didn't have a restriction on their poly count or texture color depth. Artists could do anything, and we've both seen what they did. There's no reason to assume ship designs would be different due to technology changes. If anything, the ships would be less detailed, blockier, and with duller textures (WC3, anyone?) due to polycount and texture restrictions that are present in real time 3d engines today, but have never been present in pre-rendered-sprite-based games.

Originally posted by Concordia
Actually, you did that with the Raptor... I see no difference. Or maybe that was somebody else.

Yes, that was me. In order to keep the Raptor 36 meters long, I sized down the cockpit so that it would actually look proportional to the cockpits of other ships. I chose to disregard the launch graphics from WC1 instead of disregarding the manual info from WC1 (because if I took both into consideration, the cockpit would look half as big as a Ferret - and I'd end up contradicting the launch graphics all the same, since comparing Blair with the WC1 Raptor and the WC2 Ferret from launch scenes, you see that the Raptor's cockpit is NOT half the size of a Ferret unless Blair has shrunk between 2654 and 2664).

If you don't see any difference, you probably haven't spent as much time as I have looking at those blasted bitmaps... or maybe I simply have kept the resizing to a reasonable factor.

--Eder

 

[Hornet]

Hmmmm, this looks a big issue.

Ok for my two cents worth, don't do a thing to it, you don't need to, ok the cockpits look big!? So what?! This is all fiction, but heres a bit of info.

Look at the WC1 blueprints, the generators aren't all that big, its mostly engines and fuel that take up room (over 60% of the crafts length), and in All the WCs (I think) they don't use bulky pods for ejections just the pilot his flight suit and a comfy chair.

Like Eder said the designers just went "Yeah 34 metres sounds pretty good to me, lets go with that!" they weren't worried by exact one hundred percent accurate schematics, they were making a fictional setting and just went with what sounded good. Though I imagine that Roberts would have a bit to say about the 'blueprint' size of the fighters.

I just noticed that scaling would be incorrent anyway as on the blueprints no two ships are to the same scale anyway. The Hornet is 20m long or 8squares long (on the prints) so average per square is 1 square = 2.5m. So the cockpit is only 3.75m long (minus overall room for lifesupport controls etc) its nice and comfy, just like in the game graphics.

However the Rapier is 24m long or 11.2 squares, so 1 square = 2.15m, here the cockpit is about 3.76m long, 1cm longer.

So I fail to the issue with size at all (except ingame when you approach capships).

I could go one like this but I think the point is made, if you are going to scale things the way its been done in the XWATC works really well for me.

PS. I don't know if theres a difference but WC1 (at least) use ion drives not fusion reactors (is the power plant fusion?) anyway it takes up buckets of room in WC1 so thats another reason for big fighters.

 

[Concordia]

Originally posted by Eder
Bah. Okay, this is my last reply to this thread, because you seem too dense to realize my point, so let me try to make myself perfectly clear one last time.

I understand your point. I'm not dense, well maybe literally since I do contain some lean-muscle mass, but that's not the point...

Do YOU realize how much space all that stuff takes? No, you don't, and neither do I. Do you know why? Because neither I nor you have the slightest clue how big a "fusion reactor" or an electric toothbrush will be 600 years from now. Stuff that was invented 50 years ago has probably been sized down a hundred times by today. You can't base your argument on that. You see, the reason nobody ever agrees with you is the fact that you take random facts and assume them to apply to WC instead of realizing that only WC facts apply to WC.

Uh, there are some rules of thumb for physics.

What I DO know, however, and I hope that you know, too, is that WC was programmed by people who don't know how the fuck long a meter is. I also do know that it takes more than 600 years for an evolutionary mutation of the human species to make humans become 4 meters tall - so that 6 meter long cockpits all of a sudden make sense just because the ship has to carry a "fusion reactor" (Which will be how big in 2668, again? Refresh my memory).

Still the ship has a lot of stuff a current fighter doesn't have. That would increase it's size...

THAT is my point. I don't know how big every WC ship is, I don't care how big a present day airplane or fusion reactor is (because, let me remind you - this is a totally unrelated fact!), but I DO know that when I see the launch sequence in WC2, a Ferret looks 10 meters long, whereas a Raptor in WC1 does NOT look 36 meters long, and an Excalibur in WC3 does NOT look 32 meters long. So THAT's where I come from when I say that if (for some twisted reason) I had to choose between scaling systems, I'd choose that of WC2.

But the Raptor-Model you built was scaled up to 36-meters in size...

IF you simply feel some unjustifiable need to make all the ships in the WC universe look proportional to each other, please find a better hypothesis to work with.

Okay...

1.) WC1 fighters are large
2.) WC2 fighters are small - They look silly and cartoonish
3.) WC3 fighters are large - They are roughly the same size as WC1 fighters and do not look silly and cartoonish.

Plus I'm happy with WC3 and WC4 designs, but not with WC2 so therefore, I'm more inclined to use the designs I like more.

The majority (WC1/3/4, versus WC2/P) doesn't need to be right, and you don't know how big a Bussard-ramscoop is, so I am yet to be convinced that I should consider the ship lengths from WC1/3/4 the not-screwed-up ones (again, assuming that any of them even are screwed-up), even when I'm SEEING - as in, pictures, not speculation on machine part sizes - that the cockpit of a Vindicator is NOT taller than a human being.

First of all, I don't know why the Border-Worlds had their own fighters. They were supposed to (at least in the novel,) use all WC2-era designs...

I presume you see the same thing, but your logical conclusion seems to be something along the lines of "Gee, human beings must have evolved into 4 meter tall creatures, but someone forgot to take that into consideration when they wrote the WC2 manual! Idiots!"

No, I say the WC1 larger designs seem better than the smaller WC2 designs. The WC3 designs follow along the same one as the WC1 ones, and they have better graphics, and WC4 does the same.

But I like WC3 and WC4 more than WC2, so basically I'd be trying to make WC2 more like WC3 and WC4 in graphics only...

They made an error, yes, making the cockpits too big... but that can be corrected.

Plus, I'd much rather shrink the cockpit of a WC3 or WC4 fighter, than shrink the whole fighter down to WC2-scale.

I'm pretty sure that if WC2 was being developed today, the ships would still look like they did, except more detailed. You see, those sprites were rendered from actual models. The models didn't have a restriction on their poly count or texture color depth. Artists could do anything, and we've both seen what they did. There's no reason to assume ship designs would be different due to technology changes. If anything, the ships would be less detailed, blockier, and with duller textures (WC3, anyone?) due to polycount and texture restrictions that are present in real time 3d engines today, but have never been present in pre-rendered-sprite-based games.

Yes, but even then, they'd probably be in better colors... at least, not primary colors. The ships would also probably be gray.

Yes, that was me. In order to keep the Raptor 36 meters long, I sized down the cockpit so that it would actually look proportional to the cockpits of other ships. I chose to disregard the launch graphics from WC1 instead of disregarding the manual info from WC1 (because if I took both into consideration, the cockpit would look half as big as a Ferret - and I'd end up contradicting the launch graphics all the same, since comparing Blair with the WC1 Raptor and the WC2 Ferret from launch scenes, you see that the Raptor's cockpit is NOT half the size of a Ferret unless Blair has shrunk between 2654 and 2664).

If you don't see any difference, you probably haven't spent as much time as I have looking at those blasted bitmaps... or maybe I simply have kept the resizing to a reasonable factor.

I haven't spent as much time as you, no

-Concordia

 

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by Concordia
Uh, there are some rules of thumb for physics.

And note that physics right now says nothing about using anti-gravitons to open up holes at weak points in space that happen to be almost contiguous to shove fighters and capships through, and it also suggests (from our real-life experience) that generating antimatter would probably cost more energy than powering the ship with some other technology... yet capital ships use antimatter engines for 'effectively unlimited range'.

WC facts are still WC facts, and your shoving real facts into the matter doesn't really apply - when it's apparent that there have been SOME changes to their understanding of physics (or else they've discarded them for game-physics) 600 years after your time.

Originally posted by Concordia
Still the ship has a lot of stuff a current fighter doesn't have. That would increase it's size...

And while the F/A-22 has a lot more equipment than an F-4 Phantom does, they're both about the same size: around 62 feet long, 16 or so feet high, and 38 feet wide in the wings for the F-4 while the F/A-22 has a 44-foot wingspan...

So, where did the size increase go, eh? It's like how those pundits back at the start of the age of electronic computers said that real computers would have to be the size of a house... and right now they come on microchips smaller than my pinky finger, with more capabilities and transistors than ENIAC ever had in vacuum tubes.

Hell, the video card I have in my PC has more transitors in its graphics processing unit than a Pentium did just five years ago.. and that's what I was playing Wing Commander on.

Originally posted by Concordia
Okay...

1.) WC1 fighters are large
2.) WC2 fighters are small - They look silly and cartoonish
3.) WC3 fighters are large - They are roughly the same size as WC1 fighters and do not look silly and cartoonish.

Plus I'm happy with WC3 and WC4 designs, but not with WC2 so therefore, I'm more inclined to use the designs I like more.

So you're saying here that, because the facts disagree with your prejudices, you're ignoring the facts that you don't like? Lovely scientific method you've got.

Originally posted by Concordia
First of all, I don't know why the Border-Worlds had their own fighters. They were supposed to (at least in the novel,) use all WC2-era designs...

Notice that the Border Worlds also had the capability to refit discarded Confederation capital ships, like the Durango-class destroyers... and that the PIRATES had their own bloody craft. If pirates could manufacture fighters of some sort, why couldn't the Border Worlds? Yes, they're probably not as state of the art as something coming out of Confed R&D labs, though they may come up with some neat ideas as well, or at least steal them (Leech guns, Stormfire Mk I).

Originally posted by Concordia
No, I say the WC1 larger designs seem better than the smaller WC2 designs. The WC3 designs follow along the same one as the WC1 ones, and they have better graphics, and WC4 does the same.

But I like WC3 and WC4 more than WC2, so basically I'd be trying to make WC2 more like WC3 and WC4 in graphics only...

They made an error, yes, making the cockpits too big... but that can be corrected.

Plus, I'd much rather shrink the cockpit of a WC3 or WC4 fighter, than shrink the whole fighter down to WC2-scale.

Again with ignoring the facts which disagree with your preconceptions? When it comes down to it, the people who did some of the schematics mixed up 'meter' with 'foot', which explains some of the odd sizes... they should've thought 'yard' as the equivalent, which would've saved them some headaches.

This doesn't mean, however, that because this mistake was made, that everything else is suspect to being rewritten as according to your preconceptions since you're 'right and they're wrong'.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Concordia
Plus I'm happy with WC3 and WC4 designs, but not with WC2 so therefore, I'm more inclined to use the designs I like more.

And that's the crux of it. In your infinite arrogance you've decided that because *you* dislike something, it must be wrong and everybody else should agree with you. Everything else - all this silly bullshit about physics and fighters having to be bigger - that's all just fluff that you throw at us to conceal the truth. Which is simply that you're so arrogant that you actually believe that anything you don't like in WC must be a mistake.

Eder's right. There's just no point continuing this.

 

[Concordia]

Originally posted by Haesslich
And note that physics right now says nothing about using anti-gravitons to open up holes at weak points in space that happen to be almost contiguous to shove fighters and capships through, and it also suggests (from our real-life experience) that generating antimatter would probably cost more energy than powering the ship with some other technology... yet capital ships use antimatter engines for 'effectively unlimited range'.

We don't know enough about "anti-gravitons" to be certain about it. I don't know if anti-gravitons even exist.

In fact, I don't think they even do. But, without them, the game would be useless.

WC facts are still WC facts, and your shoving real facts into the matter doesn't really apply - when it's apparent that there have been SOME changes to their understanding of physics (or else they've discarded them for game-physics) 600 years after your time.

I'm simply trying to make the timeline make more sense. All the fighters suddenly shrink in size, then suddenly get larger again.

I'm not advocating the thought of re-sizing all the fighters in all the series. Just one, to match the others.

And while the F/A-22 has a lot more equipment than an F-4 Phantom does, they're both about the same size: around 62 feet long, 16 or so feet high, and 38 feet wide in the wings for the F-4 while the F/A-22 has a 44-foot wingspan...

The F-22 is far more advanced than the F-4... not to mention, they both are twin-engined aircraft which carry 8-missiles. That in itself would give it some commonality in terms of size, considering that missiles themselves have not changed size since they were conceived.

The WC fighters, are not airplanes though. You are comparing apples, and not-apples. They are not the same thing. The WC-fighters are able to fight within an atmosphere, but they are not designed to solely fight in an atmosphere, they are designed to do the majority of their fighting in space.

Spacecraft inherantly have more complexity to them than do aircraft, and thus would be significantly larger.

Not to mention, aircraft have gotten bigger over the years.

The F-14 example is way larger than a WW2 Naval-Fighter... And the F-22 is longer than the F-14... Either case, fighters seem to be growing if anything.

An F-15 for example, is as large if not larger than some WW2-era Bombers...

Using your logic and reasoning, they should be the size of a pea.

In reality, fighters will become unmanned, and eventually, probably all of aviation. When that happens fighters will shrink, simply due to the virtue that they will be required to carry a human being inside them, and thus will not require the complex life-support systems needed to sustain a human-being.

They also will be lighter due to their resultant lack of human pilots, and will require smaller engines to power them.

They also will not need a canopy since they don't need a pilot, and will be more streamlined, and probably smaller.

But WC fighters are manned, and so the trend would probably continue. Faster fighters tend to be larger than smaller ones... look at a jet-fighter compared to a piston-engined aircraft.

The YF-12A, for example was to be developed as a high-altitude interceptor, was over 100 feet long (about 102-feet)... and could travel at Mach 3.2.

The extra size was simply fuel and engines...

Longer range missiles are also larger as well. Look at the Phoenix... they're over 1,000 pounds.

With longer range missiles that will be required in the day of space-flight, larger missile-bays will be required and thus larger engines, and fuel tanks, and eventually, fighters.

So, where did the size increase go, eh? It's like how those pundits back at the start of the age of electronic computers said that real computers would have to be the size of a house... and right now they come on microchips smaller than my pinky finger, with more capabilities and transistors than ENIAC ever had in vacuum tubes.

Computers are a unique example. They have increased in capability and potential far more rapidly than we ever could possibly have imagined.

But most things do not shrink like that. After all, our washing machines at home are still roughly the same size as they were 20-years ago.

TV-sets are also roughly the same size as they were back then. In fact, they've enlarged slightly.

So you're saying here that, because the facts disagree with your prejudices, you're ignoring the facts that you don't like? Lovely scientific method you've got.

I'm just not saying what I need to say articulately enough...

Notice that the Border Worlds also had the capability to refit discarded Confederation capital ships, like the Durango-class destroyers... and that the PIRATES had their own bloody craft. If pirates could manufacture fighters of some sort, why couldn't the Border Worlds? Yes, they're probably not as state of the art as something coming out of Confed R&D labs, though they may come up with some neat ideas as well, or at least steal them (Leech guns, Stormfire Mk I).

Actually, the Pirate's razor fighters were probably modified-civilian craft.

After all, look at the Orion, Tarsus, Galaxy, and Centurion. All of which are capable of carrying weapons, are built by Civilians, for civilians.

The Razor was probably designed initially as an aerobatic-craft. For performing complex, precise, rapid maneuvers. It's use, when fitted with weapons, makes it an excellent platform for it's use as a pirate fighter.

Again with ignoring the facts which disagree with your preconceptions? When it comes down to it, the people who did some of the schematics mixed up 'meter' with 'foot', which explains some of the odd sizes... they should've thought 'yard' as the equivalent, which would've saved them some headaches.

To do so would require me to scale every single ship around... Instead, I would only scale one series (WC2) to match the others. Nothing rash like what you're proposing...

This doesn't mean, however, that because this mistake was made, that everything else is suspect to being rewritten as according to your preconceptions since you're 'right and they're wrong'.

The point is that I feel it would be more realistic to make the fighters larger, that's just how I feel.

-Concordia

 

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by Concordia
We don't know enough about "anti-gravitons" to be certain about it. I don't know if anti-gravitons even exist.

In fact, I don't think they even do. But, without them, the game would be useless.

Which comes back to the original point - WC facts are WC facts, and they make the game possible. Just because WE don't know something doesn't mean it isn't there, nor does it mean that we have to be bound by the same damned paradigma.

Hellfire, it was assumed that going faster than 30 miles per hour would kill you for decades, and that you couldn't break the speed of sound, and now we're flying fighters which go Mach 2 to Mach 3, and have intercontinental ballistic missiles which go well past Mach 10....

Originally posted by Concordia

I'm simply trying to make the timeline make more sense. All the fighters suddenly shrink in size, then suddenly get larger again.

I'm not advocating the thought of re-sizing all the fighters in all the series. Just one, to match the others.

Again, the games show one thing, the manuals show another... and the game engine's limitations come into play. WCP does scale them almost properly, unlike WC3 or WC4... but WC1 didn't too too shabbily in that regard, even for an early game. At least, when I flew at the Claw, it looked quite a bit bigger than my fighter, and then the ALS kicked in and I saw a fighter close enough to scale as I got the cinematic of me being dragged in.

Originally posted by Concordia

The F-22 is far more advanced than the F-4... not to mention, they both are twin-engined aircraft which carry 8-missiles. That in itself would give it some commonality in terms of size, considering that missiles themselves have not changed size since they were conceived.

Your original statement was that because the ship had more systems than an older ship, the size would HAVE to go up... the F/A-22 example was not brought out to be compared to spacefighters at all, the way you do in other posts. It was used to illustrate a point - that more systems does not automatically equal a larger craft.

And while we're on the point of systems which either shrink or provide more capability for the same size... the General Electric J-79s that powered the F-4 Phantom were 17 feet long, over three feet wide, and 3600 pounds in mass while providing almost 19000 pounds of thrust.

The F100-PW220/229 engines which power the F-15s and F-16s are 4100 pounds and a tad smaller at 15.9 feet long and 3 feet wide... but at the same time, provide up to 32000 pounds of thrust each.

The Thunderbolt VI in WC4 and the Raptor in WC1 share similar missions and descriptions - heavy fighters which are meant to work well in a scrap and do some minor anti-capship work on the side. They're both 20 metric tonnes in mass, are similar in size (34 meters for the Tbolt VI, 36 meters for the Raptor), have roughly the same cruising speed (400 for the Raptor, 380 for the Tbolt), similar afterburner velocities (1200 for the Raptor, 1000 for the Tbolt), almost the same number of hardpoints (5+mine for the Raptor, 6 medium hardpoints for the Tbolt) and roughly equivalent gun loadouts for their time periods.

Gee, what a size difference...

Originally posted by Concordia

The WC fighters, are not airplanes though. You are comparing apples, and not-apples. They are not the same thing. The WC-fighters are able to fight within an atmosphere, but they are not designed to solely fight in an atmosphere, they are designed to do the majority of their fighting in space.

Spacecraft inherantly have more complexity to them than do aircraft, and thus would be significantly larger.

Not to mention, aircraft have gotten bigger over the years.

The F-14 example is way larger than a WW2 Naval-Fighter... And the F-22 is longer than the F-14... Either case, fighters seem to be growing if anything.

An F-15 for example, is as large if not larger than some WW2-era Bombers...

Using your logic and reasoning, they should be the size of a pea.

In reality, fighters will become unmanned, and eventually, probably all of aviation. When that happens fighters will shrink, simply due to the virtue that they will be required to carry a human being inside them, and thus will not require the complex life-support systems needed to sustain a human-being.

They also will be lighter due to their resultant lack of human pilots, and will require smaller engines to power them.

They also will not need a canopy since they don't need a pilot, and will be more streamlined, and probably smaller.

But WC fighters are manned, and so the trend would probably continue. Faster fighters tend to be larger than smaller ones... look at a jet-fighter compared to a piston-engined aircraft.

The YF-12A, for example was to be developed as a high-altitude interceptor, was over 100 feet long (about 102-feet)... and could travel at Mach 3.2.

The extra size was simply fuel and engines...

Longer range missiles are also larger as well. Look at the Phoenix... they're over 1,000 pounds.

With longer range missiles that will be required in the day of space-flight, larger missile-bays will be required and thus larger engines, and fuel tanks, and eventually, fighters.

On one hand, you're talking about not comparing aircraft to WC spacecraft... and yet you're, in the same post, comparing them to show why they'd be much, much bigger than equivalent aircraft of the present time period, and why they couldn't be smaller than what you say they HAVE to be, because you're Concordia, the all-infallible WC God, who knows more than the Creator, Chris Roberts, or his disciples, the Baron LOAF, and Chris Reid, who have corresponded with people who worked on the damned games and with the people who wrote the bloody books.

Size limitations for WWII era fighters are due to the power of the engines - the reason that they came up with the four-to-six engine bombers was because they needed them to carry their heavy payloads across long distances. Jets provide a lot more thrust than an equivalent turboprop engine... which in turn lets them carry more armament, as the F-15 and F-14 each carry their own weight in bombs and missiles.

My original statement on the matter, with regards to miniaturization, applies to equipment. That stuff, especially the electronics, tends to shrink as more and more of the system can be replaced by one part.

If you look at the C-5 Galaxy series of transport aircraft, current C-5s have a data bus which replaces several hundred pounds of wiring. This wiring was part of the original design, yet replaced by newer electronics and computers for the most recent models... and they found that unbalanced the plane. In the end, they armored the cockpit area where all that wiring was, improving protection for the pilots... and this was all a result of miniaturization in systems.

You said, in a blanket statement, that more systems = larger craft. Miniaturization of electronics does not mean this is so - as your ignoring your own assertion when you implictly accepted that fact when stating that they shared some commonality in their design which dictated their size.

Here, we also see assumptions about the size of various system, based on your notions of how things HAVE to be, based on present understandings and technology. The WC1 blueprints show the relative size of the systems as compared to the whole craft. We have canon sources to show these sizes, versus your assumptions.

Originally posted by Concordia

Computers are a unique example. They have increased in capability and potential far more rapidly than we ever could possibly have imagined.

But most things do not shrink like that. After all, our washing machines at home are still roughly the same size as they were 20-years ago.

TV-sets are also roughly the same size as they were back then. In fact, they've enlarged slightly.

Odd... my mother has a washer-dryer system which is half the size of a fridge and replaces the two older appliances which took about three times the space between them. Appliances have shrunk to some extent, due to increasing use of sophisticated electronics.

Most TV sets are roughly the same size because they, for the most part, use the same technology to display the image; cathode ray tubes. Even then, they've shrunk somewhat - we can use shorter CRTs, for example, which means you've got a TV which is half the thickness of the old one. Also, the newest plasma and LCD screens have made them literally an inch or two thick... so yes, miniaturization of electronics has happened here too.

And with the computer example, I was illustrating the fallacy of assuming that current understandings dictated what future systems would be like. They didn't have integrated circuits back then - just vacuum tubes. So to have the few thousand gates they needed to have a real electronic computer function required several rooms to make the dang thing function.

These days, we can fit 30+ million transistors on a 5mm square of silicon.

Originally posted by Concordia

I'm just not saying what I need to say articulately enough...

You need to think your arguments through a lot more before posting them, yes.

Originally posted by Concordia

Actually, the Pirate's razor fighters were probably modified-civilian craft.

After all, look at the Orion, Tarsus, Galaxy, and Centurion. All of which are capable of carrying weapons, are built by Civilians, for civilians.

The Razor was probably designed initially as an aerobatic-craft. For performing complex, precise, rapid maneuvers. It's use, when fitted with weapons, makes it an excellent platform for it's use as a pirate fighter.

Because the facts disagree with your preconceptions, you alter the facts or create things on the spot to make them fit?

The Razor is a pirate fighter. The WC4 Official Guide, authorized by Origin and written by Chris McCubbin, stated that the manufacturer was Martina Nostra, but didn't go into detail as to whether this is a civilian operation, or a black-market one.

The Border Worlds have industrial capability. At the very least, they could modify civilian craft designs as you yourself suggested above. Better yet, they've been involved in the war against the Kilrathi for over forty years - they've probably grown their own talent, or ship designers and engineers settled in the Border Worlds to retire. Remember Pliers - he worked on Confed craft for decades, and knew enough to juryrig new systems like our cloaking device...

Hell of an engineer. Apparently he's not the only one in the Border Worlds, to judge by their Banshee and Vindicator craft.

Originally posted by Concordia

To do so would require me to scale every single ship around... Instead, I would only scale one series (WC2) to match the others. Nothing rash like what you're proposing...

The point is that I feel it would be more realistic to make the fighters larger, that's just how I feel.

-Concordia

Again, 'because I said so, it must be so'. Ignoring facts present in game and given to you by others because they clash with your preconceptions. Quarto and Eder are right - it IS worthless trying to debate with you. You aren't listening, and you don't care.

I've had more intelligent debates with the mentally challenged... they had some nice ideas too, ones which I didn't consider, and listened.

Maybe I'll just post the 'Special Olympics' picture again.

 

[Concordia]

Originally posted by Haesslich
Again, the games show one thing, the manuals show another... and the game engine's limitations come into play. WCP does scale them almost properly, unlike WC3 or WC4... but WC1 didn't too too shabbily in that regard, even for an early game. At least, when I flew at the Claw, it looked quite a bit bigger than my fighter, and then the ALS kicked in and I saw a fighter close enough to scale as I got the cinematic of me being dragged in.

Actually, the problem in WC3 was that the capships appeared too SMALL compared to the fighters... Not too big...

SNIP
The Thunderbolt VI in WC4 and the Raptor in WC1 share similar missions and descriptions - heavy fighters which are meant to work well in a scrap and do some minor anti-capship work on the side. They're both 20 metric tonnes in mass, are similar in size (34 meters for the Tbolt VI, 36 meters for the Raptor), have roughly the same cruising speed (400 for the Raptor, 380 for the Tbolt), similar afterburner velocities (1200 for the Raptor, 1000 for the Tbolt), almost the same number of hardpoints (5+mine for the Raptor, 6 medium hardpoints for the Tbolt) and roughly equivalent gun loadouts for their time periods.

Gee, what a size difference...

Yes, but you're skipping the whole issue... the Raptor is a WC1 fighter, the Thunderbolt VII is a WC3/4 fighter.

Of COURSE they fit the same size-range!!!

Now let's look at the Sabre shall we? She's 23.6 meters long, versus the Raptor's 36, and the Thud's 34. She masses in at 22 metric tonnes, versus both the Raptor's and Thunderbolt's lithe 20, She can carry 8 missiles, or 6 missiles and 2 torpedoes, vs the Thud's 6 missiles and one torpedo, and the Raptor's 5 missiles, and Eder's version which also carries 2-torpedoes.

The Raptor and Thunderbolt are okay, it's the Sabre...

Congratulation's Haesslich, you just made my argument .

[BMy original statement on the matter, with regards to miniaturization, applies to equipment. That stuff, especially the electronics, tends to shrink as more and more of the system can be replaced by one part.[/B]

Okay...

If you look at the C-5 Galaxy series of transport aircraft, current C-5s have a data bus which replaces several hundred pounds of wiring. This wiring was part of the original design, yet replaced by newer electronics and computers for the most recent models... and they found that unbalanced the plane. In the end, they armored the cockpit area where all that wiring was, improving protection for the pilots... and this was all a result of miniaturization in systems.

Yes, but the aircraft remained 247-feet in length, and 222-feet in span .

Here, we also see assumptions about the size of various system, based on your notions of how things HAVE to be, based on present understandings and technology. The WC1 blueprints show the relative size of the systems as compared to the whole craft. We have canon sources to show these sizes, versus your assumptions.

Okay, lemme see the sizes.

Most TV sets are roughly the same size because they, for the most part, use the same technology to display the image; cathode ray tubes. Even then, they've shrunk somewhat - we can use shorter CRTs, for example, which means you've got a TV which is half the thickness of the old one. Also, the newest plasma and LCD screens have made them literally an inch or two thick... so yes, miniaturization of electronics has happened here too.

Yes, but they're the same width if not wider... ever seen a 50" -wide-screen?

And with the computer example, I was illustrating the fallacy of assuming that current understandings dictated what future systems would be like. They didn't have integrated circuits back then - just vacuum tubes. So to have the few thousand gates they needed to have a real electronic computer function required several rooms to make the dang thing function.

Yes, I know

These days, we can fit 30+ million transistors on a 5mm square of silicon.

Yes, I know that too.

You need to think your arguments through a lot more before posting them, yes.

Yes, but I'm a compulsive talker, and think of stuff on the fly

Because the facts disagree with your preconceptions, you alter the facts or create things on the spot to make them fit?

Well if in doubt, make it up.

The Razor is a pirate fighter. The WC4 Official Guide, authorized by Origin and written by Chris McCubbin, stated that the manufacturer was Martina Nostra, but didn't go into detail as to whether this is a civilian operation, or a black-market one.

Yes, but so is the Hellcat, but she was once a Confederation Trainer... so was the Ferret If I recall correctly...

Maybe I'll just post the 'Special Olympics' picture again.

Uh, why would I need to be in the Special Olympics?

-Concordia

 

[Delance]

All that would be really important if there was no sound in space on WC.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Concordia
Yes, but so is the Hellcat, but she was once a Confederation Trainer... so was the Ferret If I recall correctly...

Very nice use of delusions to support your argument. The Hellcat was not a Confed trainer (as far as we know). Neither was the Ferret (as far as we know).

At any rate, your attempts to ignore facts are getting increasingly pathetic. You keep saying that the Razor can be so small because it doesn't have military systems onboard. Ok, let's have a look at the oh-so-limited Razor. It's got better engines than the Ferret - better speed and better acceleration. It's got the same manoeuvrability as the Ferret. It's got four guns compared to the Ferret's two. It's got EIGHT missiles compared to the Ferret's two. It's got 16 missile decoys, compared to the Ferret's... uh, zero. It's got a shield generator capable of putting out 100/100 cm of shields, compared to the Ferret's 6 cm. It's got 40/40/40 cm of armour compared to the Ferret's 6.5/6.5/4.5 cm. How about size? The Razor is 12 metres long and weighs 13 tonnes, while Ferret is 10.2 metres long and weighs 10.5 tonnes. Seems like they're pretty much in the same ballpark.

What does the Ferret have that the Razor doesn't? Can't think of anything. And yet, get this - I've been told that the Ferret is too small. That it has to be 16 metres. Isn't that incredibly stupid? How could anyone in their right mind claim that the Ferret is too small but the Razor is acceptable - simply because one comes from WC2 and the other comes from WC4?

It gets stupider still. Because this person also claims that there's really no problem with WCP's fighters. This person must have some sort of incredible magical insight into the future - she informs us, with absolute certainty, that it is impossible for top-of-the-line fighter in 2665 to be 23.6 metres long. She claims that this is impossible because there's simply too much stuff to fit onboard. But she also tells us that that's not the case in 2681. Because a 2681 top-of-the-line fighter can be 18.33 metres long, and that's fine because... uhh... oh, right, because it's not WC2. That's just incredible, isn't it? Fifteen years have passed, and then in 2681, it's suddenly possible to do something that was supposed to never be possible. But if it's possible in 2681, why not in 2665? Well... uhhh... because it can't be! Because Concordia hates WC2, and so WC2 MUST BE WRONG!

Way to go, Concordia. If you wanted to prove your arrogance and inability to accept simple facts, you've certainly succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.

 

[Concordia]

Okay, back to business...

For WC1 Capships...

Exeter
Physical: I would basically thicken the ship in the front so it wouldn't be so flat in the front... the wings would be thinner at the tips, and slightly thicker in the main body...

-The rear-area would be turned into a receiving bay like the midway...

Then either of two things...
1.) The two tubes would be used as launch tubes or runways...
2.) The ship would have a single or double launch-tube down the centerline... and the two V-shaped tubes would be a torpedo launch-system with 4-8 torpedo-launchers per tube.

The hangar-bays would be like on the carriers. 3 across... (3 on either sides, front to back...)
Each hangar bay has an elevator... under-decks repairs are made, plus there are two shuttles there for rescues and such...

The conning tower would also cover the bottom too (it would kind of be on the bottom of the ship and top)... whether the dome will be on the top AND bottom, or just the top in the re-design I'm not decided on...

As for her capabilities...
Fighter Capacity: 8-10... remember, these aren't 9 meter Rapiers, these are 24 meter-ones...

It carries either Hornets, Scimitars, or Rapiers or Hellcats at biggest... nothing bigger.

Whatever it carried in WC1 the game, it would carry. I think it was 9.

Weapons:
Turrets: 4 laser turrets (2-top, 2-bottom)
Launchers: 1-missile launcher (top, on the dome at the back of the bridge)
Point-Defenses: 6-PD turrets (lasers)
Torpedoes: 6 at least (if the split-tube is a launcher, 8-16).

Miscellaneous-Systems...
-It would be nice if there were some windows around the conning towers, and particularly the bulge, most notably the bottom...
-Should definetly be a window around the bridge...
-Intakes should be on the tops of the wings... on the tops of the square-rectangle-blocks...
-Reverse engines would be placed in a double-cluster on the leading edge of the wing... or a single-cluster with a double-engine made out of a bulge formed on the leading-edge bow...

Paint-job...
-blue on either side of the bow, gray on top... a darker gray on the top of the rectangle-squares and the area in between...
-Wings are gray, but the lighter shade...
-Leading edges of wings are light-blue.
-Sides of the rectangular-areas are blue or dark-gray...

Armor: I'd increasing the armor ratings by 10 so...
Fore: 220 cm...
Side: 200 cm
Rear: 200 cm

Shields: 250 cm (all sides)
non-phase shields...

Maneuverability: 15/15/15 DPS
Max Speed: 160 kps
Cruise Speed: 100 kps
Acceleration: Poor (whatever that is... any guestimates?)


GETTYSBURG: This ship was also known as the TCS-Austin. She was obviously destroyed before 2667 because the TCS-Gettysburg, in WC2, was a Waterloo-Class vessel.

Appearance will cosmetically look like a scaled-up Exeter...

Length: 855 meters (I'm basing it on the Concordia-Supercruiser from WCM)
Mass: Unknown...
Maximum Speed: 100-130 kps
Cruise Speed: 50-70 kps.
Maximum YPR: 7/7/7 DPS...

Weapons: 4 AMG's, 20 point-defense weapons, 8-torpedo tubes...
Fighter Compliment: Either 1 squadron of 18 fighters, and a couple of shuttles (any ideas)... and some room for a few others. About a total of 35 aircraft max...

I don't have the energy to explain the changes I'd plan to do to the Bengal-Class so I'll save my energy for tomorrow

-Concordia

 

[dreddnott]

I think the rest of us are tired of your endlessly self-indulgent masturbation. None of what you've said has any meaning or impact lest you form your own mod group or miraculously get hired as their one-man focus group.

The Exeter's fighter complement is classified as "light", and the only clue you get is in Jotunheim 3, where you fight four or five Rapier As launched from the Gwenhyvar in your Raptor.

They wouldn't be 9-meter Rapiers, in any case, they would be at a minimum of 19 meters in length.