Messages

1

Artwork / Re: Need a modeler?

« on: August 08, 2008, 10:49:36 pm »

and my last 2 cents worth....
for an open source project, it is pretty closed minded.

Regards...

2

Artwork / Re: Need a modeler?

« on: August 08, 2008, 08:12:42 pm »

1. The Blackbird is 6-7 times as large as this proposed fighter. The 'thinnest' part of the SR-71 is about as thick as the entire fuselage on this craft. It's also a hell of a lot more aerodynamic, and even with that ultra-aerodynamic design, the sharp edges of the Blackbird (tail, leading edge of wing, etc.) reach temperatures upwards of 1000 Fahrenheit. This is just an indication of the forces you have to deal with at hypersonic speeds.

So, based on your response, what size aircraft are you looking for?  Single seat? Dual seat....in tandem or abreast?  What are the necessary speed requirements that you are wanting?  Altitude requirements?  Armament requirements? Other abilities that need to be designed into the aircraft itself?  Once again, you are spitting out all these requirements but you aren't putting anything specific out there for designers to build upon.  You are just ripping apart others work when they submit something because it doesn't fit "your" design facts which you have not clearly or effectively conveyed to the ones who want to try and add.
And to correct your information.....the aircraft normally came back from missions with an average ambient temperature of 300

3

Artwork / Re: Need a modeler?

« on: August 07, 2008, 10:50:26 pm »

Winter, you are so wrong about the aircraft proposed.
The design of the aircraft is completely feasible.  Your idea of 'the engines are on the weakest part of the wings' will not hold up to squat as well as the flat boxed nose of the model.

and here is my proof...
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/recon/sr71/sr71_schem_01.gif

The main wings has a reinforced titanium boxframe spar in the wing that holds those two huge engines to the main body.  And they are on the 'thinnest' part of aircraft  Oh, and did I mention that the aircraft has an unclassified speed of MACH 3+.  And it is still considered one of the most advanced designed aircraft of this century.

As for your boxed nose idea.... all you have to do is look at the F-117.  It is a faceted aircraft.  There are no 'soft edges' on that aircraft anywhere.

So, before you start denying the idea of 'futuristic' designs, take a look at modern and development aircraft before judging what is feasible and isn't.

I can tell you all the things that your Stilleto class interceptor is incapable of doing in real life which would render it a useless interceptor of anything over MACH 0.9

Regards....

4

Artwork / Re: Armour types and their models - PHALANX

« on: June 13, 2008, 10:30:43 pm »

How about this as a suggestion for the Devs....
Lets treat the design and creation of Personal Body armor like the real military does.
It puts out a spec listing of what the end product must have and must do.
As an example:
Light Personal Body Armor:
- Must weigh less than 10 pounds unloaded
- Must have front and back protection from standard small and medium caliber rounds
- Must have attach points for pouches and accessories
- etc, etc, etc.

I think these more specific design criterias will be better suited to designing an end product than just saying, nano-composite armor derived from alien acquired technology. 

Just an idea.

5

Artwork / Re: Armour types and their models - PHALANX

« on: May 06, 2008, 04:27:36 pm »

I agree with you Psawhn.  They are flirting with the line of mechanized armor.
From a historical technology advancement standpoint, humans would not try to duplicate the capabilities of the alien armor but counteract the munitions used in their weaponry.
Current Tactical armor is based on stopping extreme kinetic energy weapons with minimal damage.
The alien technology is based more on energy and thermic technology.  So, humans would develop armor that dissipates this energy and/or thermic shock.

Another point on the 'mechanized' armor would be, why are we using servos 80 years in the future?  Why aren't we using electro-stimulus fibers?  It is the way current technology is currently going.  The creation of a fiber that when stimulated by an electrical current, contracts like muscle fibers.
It isn't bio-technology, so it is still in the essence of the core game.

6

Artwork / Re: MIMIR Telescope/Carrier Animation

« on: May 06, 2008, 04:15:30 pm »

In the end, Psawhn is correct.  Image focusing would be a secondary issue with the shear velocity of the object entering orbit being the first.

7

Artwork / Re: Armour types and their models - PHALANX

« on: May 05, 2008, 05:01:24 pm »

Ever since I read the description on your PHALANX armor classifications, it has been bugging me.  Here is my take on the issue:

* Combat Armour
Pretty obvious.  Basic Tactical armor consisting of vest and helmet.  Using advanced composite materials for stronger and lighter armor protection.

* Nano-composite Armour
This is advanced Tactical armor.  This consists of Combat armor that has been enhanced with nanocomposite technology (which we currently have in production by the way and not based on any alien technology). Armor pieces include vest and helmet.
I am still trying to figure out where we get the boots from and what purpose they yield???

* Power Armour
This one has always been a bee in my bonnet.  By your description, what you are wanting is a space suit.
I could spell out all sorts of problems with this, but I am not going to get into them.  But, I will say this.
It is very impractical and definitely not combat effective (at least by the description that is given)

* Advanced Combat Armour
This category should go after Combat Armor and before Nano-composite armor.  This would then make Nano-composite armor more inline with alien derived technology.

On another point of alien derived armor technology.  If the aliens are technologically more advanced then us, and we then derive our own versions of their technology, wouldn't it go to say that the aliens would be able to counter their own technology?  Even if it is slightly humanized?  Our own armed forces know the pros and cons of their own equipment.  So if it is ever duplicated, we know how to exploit the weaknesses.  So, if the aliens see a 'version' of their own armor on the field of battle, wouldn't they know how to exploit its weaknesses?

I am not trying to put 'reality' into an already good game.  I am just stating some obvious points that can go a long way of making the 2084 technology more advanced and feasible.

8

Artwork / Re: MIMIR Telescope/Carrier Animation

« on: May 05, 2008, 04:46:11 pm »

Lets put it into context of the human eye.
The eye has the ability to shift its focus very quickly on objects at various distances.  This is what gives us our telescopic vision.
Now, in terms of a space telescope, it is designed for one purpose...to focus on small points of light at an EXTREME distance based on different light wave frequencies. The Hubble Space telescope sees in Infrared, Gamma and UV light frequencies only.  It is only after computer analysis of these images and compositing do we get the full color images we all have known to enjoy viewing.

So, for a space telescope to 'suddenly' focus in on an object that is only a few hundred thousand miles away from it and moving close to MACH 10 in speed, is nearly if not impossible.  Thus blurred images, let alone images that aren't even in a visible light range to the human eye.

9

Artwork / Re: MIMIR Telescope/Carrier Animation

« on: May 02, 2008, 11:32:41 pm »

There is also the thought that the telescope was not designed to shoot objects so close to itself.
It was designed to focus on stars and objects light years away and that is based off of light waves entering the telescope lens.  Not a literal physical object in such close proximity to itself.

10

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 06, 2007, 11:10:14 pm »

Psawhn : The emission map works decently.  Here is a small test animation

http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/fast-rotate.avi

Would doing rotations like this be good for the UFOpedia?

Regards,
Sean E.

11

Artwork / Ingame Animations

« on: December 06, 2007, 08:41:59 pm »

I thought a new thread dedicated to ingame animations would be in order as we have just determined that animations are doable in the UFOpedia.
Right now, we have the Opening Animation pretty well fleshed out and ongoing.
This thread can be used as a place to put short story arcs for all other wanted animations and wish-list animations.

So let the list begin......

12

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 06, 2007, 07:16:01 pm »

<raising hand>.....ummmm

What happens to the 3 kiloton shells that miss the UFO?  That's a lot of explosive power coming back down to earth?   

Regards,
Sean E

13

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 06, 2007, 05:21:24 pm »

Sitters:  I did make a render with the engines facing camera, but it felt so.... blah

As for animation pieces.  Since you and I (and anyone else) are using different design and rendering engines, it would make sense to only have one person do the animation for consistency purposes.  So, I leave it up to the powers that be to make that decision.  Of course we can work on separate sequences, but I don't think working on the same would be a good idea.

What rendering engine does C4D use by the way?

Regards,
Sean E

14

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 06, 2007, 01:33:41 am »

Okay, got home and got on a color balanced system. Here is a new render with a dulled down sun without all the flares and rays.
I think this one works better:



Critiques and opinions?  If this is looking decent I planned on using these settings for animation purposes.

Regards,
Sean E

15

Artwork / Re: Renders

« on: December 05, 2007, 11:57:27 pm »

Okay, this is me goofing with some new lens effect settings.....opinions:



Regards,
Sean E