UFO:Alien Invasion
Development => Artwork => Topic started by: icdeadpeople on July 30, 2016, 04:03:45 pm
-
Hi!
I did open 2 side door for Herakles(views are attached).
I have not unwrapped(didn't mapped for now).
If it's possible can we test it.
I did changed " the herakles_int.md2" , "seats.md2","herakles_pod_back.md2".
If you want i can upload them separately.
Sorry for asking questions, I'm good at 3d but not at integrating to game.
-
good start. but i think it needs complete redesign also making it smaller. for now it takes lots of space in map.
buy yes looking something like that would be great. i mean where those exits are.
-
I started to redesign herakles,
What do you think,
I have attached the size to compare with firebird.
for now it's 258 poly.should i go on?
note: its quite simple but making small (for players to move with less point )is more important.
-
More
-
Yes, those exits look pretty ideal for a ground battle, if the soldiers are still placed in the same way.
Since the Herakles carries 4 more troops it should be somewhat larger than Firefird, shouldn't it ?
A back/front exit is probably not needed. Having some cover inside of the dropship can be valuable too.
-
personally i think that when you redesign it you should design it in similar way like old one was. with separated cargo pod with inner size somewhere 4x8 or 4x10 tiles. so it can easily carry 12 troops and some UGVs when those will be added. outside dimensions should than be 6x12. but less or equal to 8x16.
my suggestion is that herahkles should work like thunderbird 2 or like thi MI-10
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Mil_Mi-10_CCCP-04102_Mick_LBG_19.06.65_edited-1.jpg/1024px-Mil_Mi-10_CCCP-04102_Mick_LBG_19.06.65_edited-1.jpg)
and so actual aircraft can be bigger. but you will never see it in map.or maybe in some special map. but most of the time you would only see its cargo pod like it is now.
-
If there is no problem i will edit the post article as Herakles resdesign.
i will try to redesign completly according to old one.(i mean as 2 seperate parts , one for pod one for carirer).
-
New tries!!
-
Looks as if the sides are completely open. Usually the first thing to do in a ground battle is provide cover by throwing a smoke grenade; however, doing so requires the thrower to be covered (or otherwise - reaction shot - thrower dead - one unit less and not achieved anything yet). The Firebird does it well. So some cover is useful.
I'm trying to throw in my battlescape experience here, as the current Herakles and Raptor don't seem to have been designed with that in mind.
-
I personally would have a mix between your two models (cargo pod and aerodynamic vehicle) : a modified container as told in the data sheet. Concern with current model is its aerodynamics, not far from that of a Mi-10 carrying a bus. But how so modified?
- perhaps, the lateral doors could be only one square wide (as currently in some Firebird maps);
- you could add 6 seats to make it for 12 (perhaps smaller seats?). Don't forget the 2x2 room for an UGV, at the rear of the pod.
- the external texture should be modified to make room for the lateral doors of course, and why not adding some anti-plasma active shielding (making it even more blocky and a makeshift like some nowadays battle tanks).
- why not changing the Heracles description a little, add a rear prop and a suction skirt? (your first model made me think about this). Thus, the tactical deployment of the Herakles would consist into bringing the pod as near to the foes as possible for the carrier, and then having its own engine pushing it even deeper into the operation theater, something, the Firebird would barely do (realistically), and the current Herakles carrier shouldn't even try. Then, the maps could be slightly modified by clearing the area behind the rear of the pod to simulate the end of its short trail through the vegetation and why not, small houses (Did you ever witness an Armored Troop Carrier messing in a curve in some tiny village?). This would help a little on some maps when the (as for now) only exit of the pod is a few squares only to a large and unsecured cover.
-
I don't like topic mixing like this... I'll move Herakles redesign to a new thread if you don't mind.
Please, don't forget the specs for Herakles (http://ufoai.org/wiki/Aircraft/Herakles-class_Heavy_Lifter)
Role: This craft is a large troop transport. It can carry more troops and is faster than the Firebird, but is poorly armed compared to most other PHALANX craft.
Tech: This craft makes use of alien technology.
Capacity: 12 soldiers, 2 UGVs (3 with hardpoint pod)
There should be sufficient space for 12 soldiers and 2 2x2 UGVs in it. Plus a hardpoint where it is possible to attach an UGV carrier pod.
-geever
-
I figure that the third UGV would spawn right on the rear boarding ramp, or just beyond it, so that no room for it has to be added to the pod?
Model wise, there's then a slight concern with the room left for this rear ramp to open and to close.
In a first configuration, the UGV would be attached to the rear of the carrier, either in a berth or inside a pod (themselves mounted on the rear hardpoint), far enough from the door, so that the team and other UGVs could enter and exit the pod already attached to the carrier. In this case there could be a full additional encasing (pod) for the UGV, with an access ramp.
The carrier has to be long enough but loading/unloading times are smaller.
Loading the carrier:
Both the cargo pod and the additional UGV pod may be entered and exited with both access ramp opened. The ramps would face together in order for the UGV to quickly screen the inside of cargo pod, if wished so.
Unloading the carrier (in battle situation):
It would be pretty the same procedure as currently: as soon as the carrier is on the spot, both pods take ground while their doors are opening, and then the carrier flies away the battle field with no additional move. However, because the UGV pod is not detached indeed, the UGV has to first move onto the cargo pod ramp in order for the UGV pod to start closing and the carrier to take off, and then fly away. If a berth, the UGV is hauled down while the cargo pod is landing and as soon as it takes ground and is released (as well as the cargo pod), the carrier may take off and fly away.
/
_O__________________OC
UUUUUU\_ _/UU
Model as shown in the UFOpaedia and on the geoscape:
/
_O__________________OC
UUUUUU
In the second configuration, once the third UGV is in place, the cargo pod 's door couldn't be operated if the additional pod (or a berth, rather) is mounted on the carrier, and loaded. It's the most compact configuration, but loading/unloading times are greater.
Loading the carrier:
The troopers and the UGVs would board in the pod, then the door is closed and the third UGV positions itself right behind the main pod. Electromagnetic hooks and winches are used to lift the UGV under the carrier's tail, then it's mechanically secured to the additional hauling module. Alternatively, to save carrier's fuel, a ground platform would be used to lift the UGV in place (only in a transport hangar). Another procedure would be that the carrier with the UGV already in berth moves on top of the already closed cargo pod and attaches to it, but this seems more risky in case it fails.
Unloading the carrier (in battle situation):
A soon as the carrier reaches the dropping zone, the third UGV is unberthed and hauled down to the ground as fast as possible by the winches. when it's released, the carrier moves forward a little and drop the cargo pod with just enough space for its rear door to open (the door starts opening before so that the load is ready to go as soon as the pod takes ground). Reversing this unloading procedure is possible: first the cargo pod, then the carrier moves backward a little to drop the UGV, but the pod's door wouldn't be opened when the pod takes ground.
/
_O______________OC
UUUUUU |__|
Model as shown in the UFOpaedia and on the geoscape:
/
_O______________OC
UUUUUU
In all these configurations, the third UGV may be assumed to start the first turn on the cargo pod's rear ramp or just next to it (then the dropping zone is greater), because nothing prevents it to move into position to screen the inside of the cargo pod from initial enemy fire.
-
Can we do something like attached file.(more specific)
I want to do something but there is some points that is not clear.
First we have to certain about the inner plan.
then we can specify what will be where(like exit door, cover, where the soldiers will be, where the UGV's will be and all what else will be inside the ship etc.),
modelling part come nearly the end of all of them.
About the ship(suggestion):
-if we doesn't see(need to see) the ship in the mission we can concern about the pod part.(we can show whole model in Base or preview and in the mission we can show only the pod)
-
i would go with wider cargo hold. 4 tiles wide would probably be optimal. and if its 6 or maybe 8 tiles long its enough. its not only 12 soliders you have to fit in but also some potential UGVs that will bu 2x2 units and you still need some space to move them aroun inside so you can choose who is the first to step out.
so 4 tiles inside. walls take another tile and one extra tile on outside for easier movement outside. in total 8 tiles wide. length should be no greater than 16. or 14 if you want to have some extra space outside. 16 outside 2 for walls on each side (since they have to be made a bit aerodinamical) so that is still 10 tiles of inner space. that should be enough space for all soliders and UGVs.
8x16 tiles is because maps are made out of 8x8 tiles squares. so cargo pod would only take 1x2 squares. the rest would be the map. cargo pod that its used no its much bigger 2x3 i think. its if you want to redesign you have make it much better. because its too much work to add just minor changes.
-
So it seems that hauling UGVs inside the pod doesn't prevent from transporting a full team, as opposed to other X-COM games where a 2x2 UGV takes room for 4 men.
For reference, the current design is:
2x3 map tiles, that is 16x24 squares.
The 16-square width is as follows: 5 sq. off, 1 sq. wall, 5 sq. inner space, 1 sq. wall, 5 sq. off.
The 24-square length is as follows (from fore to hind): 3 sq. off, 2 sq. wall, 14 sq. inner space, 3 sq. ramp, 3 sq. off.
In other words, ramp is 5x3, inner space is 5x14, fore systems and windscreen are 5x2, lateral walls are 1 sq. thick.
Inner space comes into three sections:
- hind section is 5x3, enough to park 2x2 UGVs;
- middle section is 5x8, of which 3x8 is walkable because of the 2x6 seats lying against the walls (c. 1x1 each);
- fore section is 5x2.
However, there are several questions to be answered.
- Will the UGVs really be 2x2, and nor 2x3 or 3x3? 2x2 looks quite small except if they are small turrets on wheels and not unmanned light (classical) vehicles. More like large demining robots, then.
- Would the UGVs be able to exit the pod by the lateral doors?
If so, they not only have to be 2-square wide (as in your sketch), but the exit ramps have to be as sturdy as the current rear ramp, and extend 2 sq. each side (the third sq. being the otherwise wall thickness. - If all the UGVs have to exit by the rear ramp, wouldn't it be a chance that they block this exit for one turn or two (given a third one is perhaps already dropped here) if the pod is not wide enough?
How about allowing soldiers to exit between the two inner UGVs? If not, wouldn't the UGV's feel quite "alone" and risk to be severely damaged if they keep moving to free the rear exit, before they can be supported by the soldiers (I know their purpose is to draw fire from the soldiers, but having one of them useless or destroyed at the beginning of turn 2 seems not wanted).
I would move one UGV forward, ready to go out by the lateral doors (if allowed to), or by the rear door (after a first batch of soldiers has exited by the rear too).
That would lead to a 2x6 crew section with 6 seats, a 2x2 bare section with the lateral doors, another 2x6 crew section with 6 seats, and the final 2x2 bare section with the rear door. - Could the pod be wider and the UGV placed along its axis, exactly as the containers/light vehicles inside an AN-72 "Coaler" cargo hold don't prevent 32 passengers to be lined up against the inner walls? That would need a 6-square wide hold (incl. 2sq. for the seats), instead of your 4-square wide one.
Then, we could have a 2x2 map tiles pod, if really wanted:
RR
RR S for seat, U for UGV, W for walls, and R for ramp
WWWWW RR WWWW R squares might be the starting position for one UGV
WW SSS SSS RRR inner space is 4x11 sq. minus 12 1x1 seats
WW UU UU RRR add 2 fore sq. (windscreen) and 3 hind sq. (ramp)
WW UU UU RRR plus 1 sq. thick walls and 2 more sq. each sides for
WW SSS SSS RRR the lateral ramps, and that makes a 10x16 footprint,
WWWWW RR WWWW no square off in the axis direction, 3 sq. off each side.
RR
RR
You could spare 1 or 2 squares in length perhaps, and you could abandon inner structures (seats).
Or else, given that it's only 2 tiles long, the UGV should be able to climb down/up the rear ramp by its sides, in order not to be blocked in some maps?
Spawning positions could be:
- first UGV (if any) in the rear section, second one (if any) next to the lateral doors, the one in berth (if any) on the rear ramp;
- 1°) 2x3 middle space for the first 4 soldiers;
- 2°) 2x4 fore space for the next 4 soldiers;
- 3°) each side of first UGV in the hind section for the next 2 soldiers (i.e. against the walls);
- 4°) in the middle space again for the last 2 soldiers (they will be crowded).
-
I'm still waiting.
-
Regarding the need to see the ship itself on the battlescape, the way it's right now most of our maps have only the drop pod on them with only a handful showing the actual ship
Also keep in mind that it will be the mapper who will ultimately place the spawn points according to what seems right for the map, so leave enough space but don't worry too much about where exactly they'll start the mission.
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that UGV pods will share the same mount points as weapons?
-
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that UGV pods will share the same mount points as weapons?
This can't be for the Heracles, which only weapon mount is a light one under the nose, and weapon mounts are rather on the front, or symetrical under the winglets, so that I'd think these pod mounts are special, super heavy mounts beside or behind the main cargo pod, and on top of any usual weapon/fuel tank mount. Heracles carrier would have only one such pod mount.
@icedeadpeople:
Imho, the only facts you really need before working on the pod alone without wasting your time nor skill, are the size of the doors and ramps: 4 or more for the rear one, 1 or 2 for the lateral ones. Ramps as current one or smaller. Overall form is that of a container; depending on wether the carrier encompasses the pod or not, an aerodynamic outframe should be added (see picture below, where it's not needed).
All the other facts are already in the Heracles spec. page, and in the current model:
- inner room for 12 soldiers and 2 UGVs: 20 squares.
- cockpit-like and controls texture on the fore;
- seats, as you wants;
For the rest, you're free. Even the current height above ground is not mandatory.
(http://modelstories.free.fr/analyses/avions/MS2004_9P/PEL_Eagle/PEL_Eagle_Left.JPG)
As for the carrier, Alien tech could be some horizontal thruster embedded the same way the current Dragon's are.
-
What do you think? should i do something similiar to this plan?
-
What do you think? should i do something similiar to this plan?
It should grant a chance of throwing smoke without immediate reaction fire, since not all of the doors will be looked at by some alien, usually. And surely grants quick dropship leaving. So ok for me.
I wonder, will all of the UGV be 2x2 ? I was hoping there would be some kind of reconnaissance drone (small, very fast, unarmed, invulnerable to suffocation and bleeding, cannot carry anything)
-
There are 1x1 UGVs planned too but it does not matter for the floorplan. The 2 + 1 UGV per Herakles capacity will stay. The only extra effort it will need is adding (overlapping) UGV1x1 and UGV2x2 type spawn points by mappers. But UGV support is yet unfinished/not working, you know.
-geever
-
Something like this?
-
Yes, that should work
-
I'm developing the ship. I added some texture to see with texture.
If it is ok with you , I'll work on texture and add more objects over the ship.
-
Updating!
-
update!
-
For now total polgon count is 372.Low.I tried to minimize.Old ones herakles without pod was 1668 polygon.
I'm doing the texturing but if there is a pro texturer, i can leave this part to him/her.
texture size is 2048x2048.
That's all for now.
Waiting your comments.
-
you could easily go to 1000 trits. cargo pod is interesting. seats could be textures only because a bit bigger cargo pod would mean you could do so maneuvering inside cargo pod in case you get injured soliders and to send the right soliders out in front line.
-
I did send the plan before, according to it, i did the model. Now you are saying it 's small.
Ok! then i'm waiting for the plan to be finalized.
-
Cargo pod:
Modeled or only textured, there should be 12 seats, but each one may be less wide than a square (as per current Heracles model?). 4 seats could be integrated to the doors, indeed, and not displayed on the Battlescape model).
I guess that the mappers would spwan 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.
Carrier:
Last model features a cargo pod beneath the carrier. If possible, I'd have the cargo better embedded under/inside the carrier, perhaps half its height. This would lower the drag during flight (even if alien propulsion provides the required power). What happens if you just shift the pod upwards when it's attached to the carrier? I guess that the carrier's model should then be adjusted to hide those cargo parts that would emerge through it.
Also, the carrier's model could display a kind of VTOL capability, perhaps conventional thrusters? Or should we say that the pod itself hides those thrusters (unlikely)?
By the way:
Additionnal hardpoint for external 2x2 UGV could be featured on the rear of the carrier (or only textured), but the loaded UGV doesn't need to be modeled on the cargo+carrier models (in base, UFOpaedia and Geoscape models), of course.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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?).
-
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.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/82nd_Airborne_paratroopers_in_a_C-17.jpg/640px-82nd_Airborne_paratroopers_in_a_C-17.jpg)
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 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.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/82nd_Airborne_paratroopers_in_a_C-17.jpg/640px-82nd_Airborne_paratroopers_in_a_C-17.jpg)
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.
-
Here i made a top view with the grid visible and a draft for the ship.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :P. Otherwise you just get a lot of opinions.
-
I am sorry. I wanted to demonstrate a floor layout and go carried away... way too much.
I am quitting this and letting you continue.
-
If I may give an opinion, I like first icdeadpeople's, and aa_'s, pod shape more because they look closer to modified containers.
Now, the two inner plans we have are:
Symetrical, longer:
XXSSSSSSXX
UUXXXXXXUU
UUXXXXXXUU
XXSSSSSSXX
and asymetrical, shorter:
SSSSSSSS
UUXXXXUU
UUXXXXUU
XXSSSSXX
Perhaps, a short, symetrical one could be:
XXSSSSXX
UUSXXSUU
UUSXXSUU
XXSSSSXX
that is, the four soldiers not spawned against the walls are screened by UGVs (if any), instead of being spawned at the doors.
-
aa_, I'm attaching the Model(incase somebody needs it), that i modeled till that time(3ds max file). In the scene there is herakles old and firebird too.(to compare and get the heights).
I'm leaving.
Making , being a part of this, is a heartfelt thing.if you loose your motivation everything comes meanless.
So,you can see threads in the forum that is started but not finished,
that is why, i suggest you to finish the model you started.
thanks for sharing time.
Best Regards.
-
I am sorry. I wanted to demonstrate a floor layout and go carried away... way too much.
I am quitting this and letting you continue.
hope you return. because model you made looked quite interesting.
-
Can't believe I missed this.
The pics in the op are sooo close to what I was always hoping for.
-
I see this thread has been inactive for a while, and I guess nobody is currently working on this.
I would like to show you a new attempt to redesign the Herakles dropship.
I took in consideration all the stuff written in this thread, plus some other details from my own wishes.
- The dropship is composed by a carrier + a pod.
- The overall footprint should be small enough to fit in 2x3 tiles in maps.
- It would be nice if the size allows to use the model in base attacks (inside the hangar), as requested in Feature request #5230 - Like X-COM should show aircraft in the hangar: http://ufoai.org/bugs/ufoalieninvasion/issues/5230 (http://ufoai.org/bugs/ufoalieninvasion/issues/5230)
- The inner space of the pod should have room enough for 12 soldiers + at least 2 big (2x2) units.
- The soldiers should get a fast way to exit, improving performance from current design of the Herakles, but also get some cover.
I will attach several images in following posts (max 4 per post).
In this post you can see:
- 3 views + perspective.
- 3d view in flying configuration (carrier + pod, doors closed, engines in horizontal).
- 3d view in take off configuration (engines under short wings in vertical).
- carrier alone, without the pod.
-
Attached images:
- Detail of engines in tail, podded (could rotate to aid for direction).
- Details of engines under small wings (can rotate for take off / landing).
- Pod with doors open.
- Pod without the ceiling, as it would be in battlescape when level 1 is selected.
-
Attached image:
- All 3 current dropships compared to this new design of the Heracles.
Attached file:
- New design for the Herakles in blender format.
The inner space for the pod is 320 x 128, allowing for 10x4 cells (the layout proposed by aa_ seems good to me).
The 4 doors open in 2 parts, to make shorter ramps.
All the walls (including ceiling and floor) of the pod are sized at least 6 units, to give some cover.
The bounding box of the model (608x256, height=128) allow it to pass through the upper cover of the hangar, and stay in the base with the doors open.
The total amount of triangles (with carrier + pod) is 2450 (Firebird is 778, Raptor is 2458, current Herakles is 1854). The actual amount used anywhere would be lower, as this amount counts for 2 sets of engines under the wings (vertical and horizontal) and 2 sets of doors (open and closed).
If you like it, and before I work in texturing, let me know if there are some modifications needed (for example, is it enough the flat base in both the carrier and the pod, or should I add some "legs"?).
-
If a new design is arrive into the game then I can imagine it as a new, 4th gen. dropship, which can hold 12 soliders and need 4 advanced ufo engines to build. Maybe slower than a Raptor but much more armored and capable to hold heavy weapons to be able to survive a sudden attack of a Gunship.
-
If a new design is arrive into the game then I can imagine it as a new, 4th gen. dropship, [with] 4 advanced ufo engines to build.
"4th gen" as in "makeshift", like the Dragon then. Heracles carrier could still be of Terran tech (derived from existing craft), with alien tech (engines) implants, rather than of a brand new design.
It's cargo is an armored (and profiled?) container, or at least inspired by what could be an armored, standard container.
Perhaps I read Geever (http://ufoai.org/forum/index.php/topic,9062.msg65222.html#msg65222) the wrong way.
- It would be nice if the size allows to use the model in base attacks (inside the hangar), as requested in Feature request #5230 - Like X-COM should show aircraft in the hangar[/url]
Well, on the middle path, the carrier could take off and flee, just as the fighter craft, thus letting the pod on the platform.
This could even be always the case when in current game, any craft can take off and take cover. Now, another base cell would be designed: "large hangar with Heracles at base", and when a base is attacked, the game would check if any Heracles is affected to a given large hangar and has returned to the base. If so, this new cell would be used instead of the default, empty "large hangar" one. Now... should we spawn soldiers in the pod?
-
We already have raptor using alien engines and since antimatter is only obtainable through intact UFOs I really don't want another transport using it.
Second option is new technology of a hybrid of earth and alien one with new engines like very advanced jet engines or something similar that would use alien materials or some alien parts like computers. But in this case craft should be more expensive and also better (more armour and weapons).
Keeping all human version is still good. Retractable wings like those on carrier based aircrafts is an option that doesn't need any special technology.
Or as mentioned above separate pod and carrier in hangar too. I don't think size of carrier should really be a priority over making it look good.
-
Whatever could improve the Herakles lifter, and its single and unconvenient exit, is welcomed :). Like said before, I also prefer that only human tech. is used to build it.