Herakles-class Heavy Lifter Redesign

[icdeadpeople]

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.

[Noordung]

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.

[icdeadpeople]

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.

[icdeadpeople]

More

[anonymissimus]

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.

[Noordung]

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

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.

[icdeadpeople]

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).

[icdeadpeople]

New tries!!

[anonymissimus]

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.

[Rodmar]

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.

[geever]

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

Code: [Select]

    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

[Rodmar]

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.

[icdeadpeople]

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)

[Noordung]

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.

[Rodmar]

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).