Herakles-class Heavy Lifter Redesign

[hwoarangmy]

Nice work!

Note that the required model format is described here:
http://ufoai.org/wiki/Modelling#Modelformat

Aircrafts are not in the list but since cars are around 700 polys, we can assume that 372 is low. According to Noordung, you can go for a bit more than 1000 polys.

[DarkRain]

Cargo pod doesn't need to be huge IMO, that will only delay the deployment of the troops even more, which nobody likes (why do you think many maps have the spawn points out of the dropship in the first place).

If you really are that worried about manoeuvring inside the pod, let's say that the seats fold against the wall, and voila lots of space to manoeuvre with no need to change the floor plan (except for UGVs, but that would require a ridiculous size, don't even think about that).


Also we haven't discussed all the different models that are needed to add a single aircraft to the game (geoscape model, UI models, several battlescape models...), which we probably should do soon.

[Rodmar]

Cargo pod:
I guess that the mappers would spawn each inner UGV facing forwards at each front door.
As for the circulation inside the landed pod, it is currently possible with your (thin) model, but only at the rear doors (provided all the UGVs are spawned in the front half of the pod). It's better than with the Firebird anyways, and could be enough? It's true there are plenty of room inside the current in-game Heracles pod, but only one exit severely limits the tactical opportunities.

First sketch on picture is to illustrate what I meant, because I'm not sure where is the "front" of the pod!

What about an asymetrical pod? (second sketch figures a central,"rear" door, and the three claws of the carrier (in grey).

[icdeadpeople]

Is there any final desicion?
Any final plan or at least min.tiles (with seats), min.doors etc.
Cause we get stuck. We should agree about a final plan.
12 tiles for soldiers, 8 tiles for UGV's(2x2,2x2),8 tiles for seats(12 seats in 8 tiles),4 tiles empty, TOTAL 32 Tiles. (this tiles was in my plan) now as i understand we need add more tiles.
Do  UGV's need tiles for moving in the pod.If so how many tiles should we add. Is 4 doors too much, should we make it less?
At the picture attached, i added easily 8 tiles, that make our Total tiles 40 Tiles. (would it be enough?or do we need more?).

[aa_]

 I think that there is absolutely no need to include space for seats in the hold. First of all, the current Hercules seats are totally oversized, resembling thrones. Also, Firebird contains no evidence of seats. Here is an image of paratroopers housed inside a C-17 cargo hold. You can see them simply sitting on the floor, with basic backs near the floor level used for support.


 I am sure that Phalanx troops can easily survive a journey in similar conditions. So i think that the last picture presented shows the optional layout, with the 12 semi-seats mounted into the walls, and not being an actual part of the internal space. The two UGV's would be attacked to the floor in between the laterally-opposite pairs of doors.

[Noordung]

I think that there is absolutely no need to include space for seats in the hold. First of all, the current Hercules seats are totally oversized, resembling thrones. Also, Firebird contains no evidence of seats. Here is an image of paratroopers housed inside a C-17 cargo hold. You can see them simply sitting on the floor, with basic backs near the floor level used for support.


 I am sure that Phalanx troops can easily survive a journey in similar conditions. So i think that the last picture presented shows the optional layout, with the 12 semi-seats mounted into the walls, and not being an actual part of the internal space. The two UGV's would be attacked to the floor in between the laterally-opposite pairs of doors.

i think this is good suggestion. if somebody really need seats it could be something looking like a seat near wall sharing the same square with wall. because after all herakles is some sort of multi purpose aircraft just recently turned in military aircraft with minimal modification. or so does game tell us.

[aa_]

 Here i made a top view with the grid visible and a draft for the ship.

[Noordung]

i think this shape is good. there is enough room inside, enough cover and fast exits. also its compact enough so it can fit any map.

[Rodmar]

This shape is better imo than the more futuristic one on previous page.
You achieved a more compact frame with 30% less free inner space at max payload (12 soldiers and 2 UGVs), with only 20% less total walkable squares.
And yes, seats may be only textured, as could be done for the back supports visible against the C-17 walls.

Only questions for me are:

- the thickness of the walls. There are perfect for a container. Shall we have thicker walls? (given one square of pathgrid seems to be wasted anyways?) Double the thickness? Do we want a "bunkerized" container (with some explosive reactive plating)?

- the total height of the pod and the floor level above the ground. I don't know how many map height levels the pod should or shouldn't take. Given the actors' height, you should already take 3 level (or only 2?). In either case, do we want a slightly rised pod floor (perhaps not as much as with the current model), or go on with your horizontal ramps?

- the pathgrid around the exits. I believe it's related to the two preceding points. Can we leave the ramps laterally from the first two squares, or do we have to step once more if we want to leave them laterally? Indeed, what is the shortest path to turn around the pod?

[aa_]

The wall thickness is preliminary. I will make it more solid and add details if the design is given go ahead. I guess it will be similar to current Heracles thickness in places. I don't think there is any use in reactive armour.

 The height is similar to the firebird, takes 2 gave levels. I think the actor's scale is a bit off, that's why it appears to be higher. What is the point of raising it above ground? It will only make it take more vertical space and make it more difficult to match levels.

[Rodmar]

Actually, raising the platform above ground grants some kind of field awareness the moment your scout steps on the ramps (or before). They can sometimes spot on Aliens otherwise under cover (when cover is 1 map level high, I figure).
Due to the visibility system, and the turn based nature, they keep being targetable (e.g. by indirect fire weapons) when the scout moves further.
This could be one of the Heracles's assets. Or we say it's just a lame game exploit, not worth to be kept.

Another result I'd see of having ground level lower than platform level is that sometimes with non plane walls (such as the pod's "beak" frontal part?), a crouched soldier may find a "walkable" square to take cover (under the "beak"). Or we may say this is only marginally useful.

[anonymissimus]

i think this shape is good. there is enough room inside, enough cover and fast exits. also its compact enough so it can fit any map.

Agreed.
Not reserving space for seats is a good idea.

It's no use if we have lots of drafts in the end and nothing finished.

[aa_]

 I have made the first version of the carrier ship. I made it quite big, in relation to the other dropships, to account for the increased speed, with increased carry weight. The 4 engines are going to be mounted in the wings, capable of rotating downwards to provide lift.

[icdeadpeople]

Respect.Isn't it a important thing?All my plan's , work's washed out. No one cares who is doing,what is doing?.
Is it so simple?
I'm waiting to the plan,which will be the final version. Someone comes and takes all. is it so simple?
No respect?
Thank you then.

[anonymissimus]

Yes, this wasn't very kind of you aa_.

In my experience, things in open source dev most of the time work when somebody goes ahead and just does something and then forces the result upon everyone else because it's working . Otherwise you just get a lot of opinions.