pretty...

On that second cityscape (the one with the funky camera angle) the lights look like their on a separate plane from the buildings, which brings out a really weird looking pic, almost as though you took that picture and poked holes in it. Other
than that, I like it a lot! ( I noticed this a lot in the bottom left hand corner.
Also, my main problem with greebling is that I can't figure out how to cut little rectangles out of a solid object in blender.

-K

I can kind of see that...

If you're looking to improve it, I would attempt to make some contrast between the lit and shaded side of buildings; presently they're both just as bright, and the lights on the "lit" side stand out more than they should. I guess they shouldn't "glow" as much. It's still an awesome pic, though.

There is a Python script available for greebling in Blender called the Discombobulator. It works pretty decently, depending on what you're looking for. As for cutting rectangular holes in Blender, I recommend using the Boolean operations for that. It takes some practice, and sometimes the results can be a little sketchy, but it can work very well. There is also a great tutorial under the "Links You Need" section about how to make easy pipes and panels in Blender. I've been using that technique for a while and it has really increased the realism with my ships and outfits. You can also check out a site called "sci-fi meshes," which has some great greeble packs. At the very least, import the greeble packs and see how the authors of those put things together. It can be a great learning tool.

You can even use heightmaps for greebling. Just use Photoshop or whatever and design some industrial-looking things (or organic, if that's your angle) and apply the image to a heightmap lattice, if the program supports it. Maneuver the heightmap piece into your model where needed and use booleans to subtract from the edges until it fits nicely. Bingo. I'm actually starting to use this myself to add some needed detail to some ships, especially the larger ones.

Okay, I need a little input from you guys. I've been spending a few weeks drafting up full weapon tables and charts of damage mitigation through protective gear, pretty much just trying to figure out how long a ship with X shields and armor will last against another with Y weapons.

Anyway, I had this little idea that most of the high-power artillery weapons like the Nichron guns would serve most effectively as secondary weapons, or "High-Energy Weapons" as the game's HUD now calls them with my modifications. I intend to mostly remove the need for fuel during voyages, by giving ships enough power regeneration to pretty well completely power up in normal space between jumps. However, this energy will be used for other purposes, namely the use of secondary weapons. For instance, the terrifying Nichron Annihilator, a 25 MT nuclear cannon, will use 1000 points of energy to fire. By only making limited energy upgrades available (max extra 200 energy for your ship), it means that there is no chance you could over-arm a little courier by stripping out every other system, simply because the ship would still not have the energy capacity to manage the big guns. It also means that you can't just go flying into a battle with all guns blazing; you'll actually have to pick and choose your assault weapons carefully and use the one most suited to the battle at hand. If the enemy has a carrier and several fighters, don't waste your big guns on the fighters.

I figure it'd put the impetus on strategy over raw firepower, and it'd also mean that the insane range of hull sizes in Delphi wouldn't lend itself to impossible weapon arrangements. This way you can convert your freighter into a weapons platform, but only up to a certain limit: that of what your capacitor can handle. For instance, the freighter may now have 400 tons of free weapon space, which you fill with a bunch of advanced Electromag Laser Turrets, but you wouldn't ever be able to fit an Annihilator cannon on it because the cannon requires 1000 units of energy and you only have 800, or whatever. However, a gigantic Gammadon-class heavy cruiser has a capacitor of maybe 2000, so it can handle the weapon and all others below it, but again, it can only fire so often before falling back on its regular weapons.

Regular weapons would not have energy requirements. After that, there's an advanced version of the same guns that do more damage but use charge packs, like the chaingun from EVN, and then there's the next weapon tier which use 25 energy per shot, and so on.

EDIT-WARNING!!!! POST MAY BE INCOHERENT AND ASK TOO MANY QUESTIONS!

Crap...
You killed my dream... I imagined squads (2-3) of artillery ships with maybe the equivalent of an anaconda escort or two, just hang back, barley out of range and SLAUGHTERING anything that they encountered with practically no losses.
Indefinitely.

BTW.
Great job...
You're just amazing...
Do you have any brochures for you cult?
Seriously, just take your time make this as awesome as this can possibly be.
Can you draw organics well in sketchup?
I'm new to modeling and seeing the stuff you posted is like showing a caveman who's discovered fire a napalm grenade launcher,
shock and awe.
Are the artillery going to have more of a rail gun range or medium blaster range do you think?

of-topic but has anyone played or heard of flash trek-broken mirror
It was the same way, amazing promise but that developer never finished.
Please finish. :unsure:

This post has been edited by Pyrophage : 22 November 2009 - 01:52 AM

My cult does not require brochures. I just beam the sense that I'm awesome into everybody's heads and it seems to work effectively. If you are interested, membership is free, though I may call upon you at some time in the future to deliver any and all cookies on the premises to the "church fund".

Anyway, don't worry about ships running out of ammo per se; the energy tanks recharge very fast, and I do put emphasis on VERY. Perhaps EXTREMELY would be a better way to put it. Perhaps 1000 energy in ten seconds would be the best way to put it. Perhaps I'm crazy. It's just that I'll be using the ship's energy primary as weapon ammo to limit the size of guns you can put on a ship, not to limit how long you can fire them. I would just go and make every ship recharge instantaneously (100000 energy per second), but I do want to force the player to choose between their afterburners or their artillery in a tight battle, so that there's still some strategy involved. Also, if you can either fire the 25 MT cannon once and then wait five seconds, or fire the smaller artillery guns three times, it makes you learn what strategies to use against different enemies, ultimately increasing the difficulty but also the reward when you find the quickest way to dispatch a difficult foe. Also, some baddies may have special properties on their ships, such as unbreakable low-yield shielding, meaning that even if you're hitting them with the biggest guns you have repeatedly, they only take ten percent of your damage or whatever, because their shields always absorb at least 45 out of your 50 damage points (instantly-recharging shields, but low total shield value). In this case, you'll want to use something like missiles, which pass right through shields, or a physical artillery weapon like the (REDACTED).

Oh hell, fine I'll tell you about it. Near the end of the NDC vs. Enclave storyline you'll get your hands on a special piece of military equipment called the Impeller Railgun. It basically lobs massive electromagnetically-accelerated shells equipped with faster-than-light engines, achieving relativistic speeds and dealing out IMMENSE damage on their targets. For the game's purposes they'll be a forward quadrant turret with a lightning-fast travel time to target (no weapon sprite, even) and gigantic armor damage. The only hitch is that they require a huge amount of time to reload, and the shells are exorbitantly expensive. Think of it as the EVN: Delphi "Forklift" Cannon. If you don't know what the Forklift is, then you haven't played enough EV.

Also, young padawan Pyrophage, the artillery weaponry of Delphi is extremely long-range, like the Auroran railguns from EVN, except the nuclear blasts from the Nichron cannon arrays travel much faster to their targets. The medium-range weapon of choice in the game will be either the 25-nanometer Electromag Laser (and turreted version), or the Type II Graviton Cannon, if you're playing with the Enclave.

Speaking of which, as mentioned before, I've begun to compile a weapon sheet. Here are some of the highlights.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Electromagnetic Photon Acceleration Weapons / "Electromag Lasers"

Electromag Laser (15 nm)
Shield Damage: 5
Armor Damage: 2

- A basic ship weapon, capable of fending off small attackers.
- Unlike the light blaster from EVN, this is not a complete throwaway weapon, because many can be fitted to a single ship for a "gatling laser" effect which is actually extremely useful against light enemies like fighters.

Electromag Laser (25 nm)
Shield Damage: 8
Armor Damage: 3

- Almost identical to the 15-nanometer version, although this one boasts slightly longer range and higher power output.
- Although only doing one more point of hull damage, the higher shield damage means that the quick-recharging shields on Delphi ships stay down longer, so more damage is actually delivered than may be expected.
- Less can be added to a ship, so the high rate of fire of the 15 nm version is not available.

Electromag Laser Turret (20 nm)
Shield Damage: 6
Armor Damage: 2

- Not quite as effective as the fixed gun variants; this turret has very low accuracy, but technically fires faster.
- Works as a turret pair. Purchasing outfit actually grants two weapons, the left and right barrels, but the engine describes them as "turret" and "control module", resulting in paired firing when used.
- Previous effect described is officially "very cool", and helps reduce accuracy problems by spreading the fire.

Electromag Laser (10 nm Continuous)
Shield Damage: 3
Armor Damage: 1

- Focused beam version of the electromag, reloads very quickly and has high accuracy.
- First ammo-using energy weapon in the game; uses "E-Mag Shells".
- Forward beam turret, mapped to secondary fire (High-Energy Weapon).
- Used on Scimitar heavy fighters. Very lethal if let within firing range.

E-Mag 89A Defensive Battery (5 nm)
Shield Damage: 2
Armor Damage: 1

- Fast reload beam turret with high accuracy.
- Same behavior as 10 nm continuous laser, but fires passively on fighters and missiles only.
- Uses E-Mag shells.

Nichron-Researched Nuclear Focusing and Delivery Chamber Weapons / "Nichron Cannons"

Note: "MT" denotes nuclear yield in megatons.

Nichron Cannon (5 MT)
Shield Damage: 20
Armor Damage: 10

- High-yield burst of directed thermonuclear energy.
- Very long range, a rather long reload time, and the shots decay over distance.
- Uses ship energy (though I haven't decided how much yet).
- High-Energy Weapon (Secondary fire)

Nichron Turret (3 MT)
Shield Damage: 12
Armor Damage: 8

- Moderate reload time, long-range fast bolts, and shots decay over distance.
- Works without using energy reserves.

Nichron Cannon (8 MT)
Shield Damage: 25
Armor Damage: 15
Ionization: 5

- Same behavior as 5 MT Nichron Cannon, but the shots travel slightly further. Same decay over distance.
- Uses slightly more ship energy than smaller version.
- Causes limited ionization due to EMP from nuclear discharge.
- High-Energy Weapon (Secondary fire)

Focused Nichron Cannon (5 MT)
Shield Damage: 20
Armor Damage: 15
Ionization: 15

- Skewed shield/armor stats compared to regular variants, as heavier focusing is applied to the blast.
- Same range as regular 5 MT cannon, but shots DO NOT decay over distance (persistent lethality).
- Uses ship energy.
- High-Energy Weapon (Secondary fire).

Nichron "Devastator" (12 MT)
Shield Damage: 30
Armor Damage: 18
Ionization: 15

- Very long reload, but the bolt travels very fast and longer than regular cannon.
- Shots decay over distance.
- Forward quadrant turret, for use on giant ships with low turning rate.
- Uses quite a bit of energy.

Nichron "Annihilator" (20 MT)
Shield Damage: 45
Armor Damage: 25
Ionization: 20

- Extremely long reload, but very fast bolt and extremely long range.
- Shots decay over distance.
- Forward quadrant turret.
- Uses "Nuclear Charges" as ammo, instead of ship energy.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Either way, those are a few concept weapons I have yet to fully toy around with. Prices are subject to change, yadda yadda blah blah blah. All I know is that personally, I can't wait to fly the Alexander Dominant with the proper Nichron Annihilator cannons installed and tracking an enemy target.

Oh, and the E-Mag Shells and Nuclear Charges will be in plentiful supply, so don't worry about running out of ammo. Most spaceports, both NDC and Enclave, stock the ammunition for use in their ships. Although the Enclave don't have access to Nichron weaponry, their ship drive cores use re-purposed nuclear charges for fuel, so they stock the regular ones as well simply by virtue of usefulness. Also, the two types of ammo will be weightless, so you can load as much as you can afford (within limits, of course). Basically, the E-Mag charges are only the size of a AA battery, and once you're flying a ship large enough to fire the Annihilator and use its ammo, you've already got more than enough space for a few hundred shells, so I don't see the need to bring weapon mass into the picture.

Wow, that was a lengthy post. Kudos to whoever actually reads the whole thing.

P.S. - Though this has NO bearing on the weapon list, the Nichron-Researched Nuclear Focusing and Delivery Chamber Weapons are not to be confused with the Nichron-Researched Nuclear Focusing and Delivery Chamber Power Systems used in capital ships. I know that naming conflict seems weird, but the same organization develops both of them, so they share similar names. In the game and the Delphi universe, the reactors are called NFAD Reactors, and the guns are called Nichron Cannons, to avoid confusion.

I can also tell you this, NFAD Reactors are a sight to behold, were you to stand in the superstructure of one. Used only in the largest of ships, the reactor cores sometimes stand more than 30 decks tall, and can span a width of 100 meters in some configurations. The superstructure is a giant cylindrical room enclosing the device, with countless catwalks and service ladders lining the chamber, though none are extended to the core during full operation of the reactor; the radiation is far too strong to be survived. The space around the reactor is very dark, mostly because high-intensity energy-absorption devices are employed to bleed radiation away from the core to prevent tissue damage to maintenance personnel. These radiation cleaners, though, also have the effect of bending a large amount of visible light into them as well. Strong headlamps are often required to perform service on the reactor even when it is placed in a dormant state for repairs, and even then, you can't see across the entire chamber with even the strongest light.

If one of these reactors should be breached by enemy weapons fire, the resulting explosion can actually cause ripples in space-time much like that of the Kiev supernova holocaust at the end of the Orion war, though much weaker in comparison, and less likely to erase half of the human species. Either way, the destruction of an NDC Heavy Cruiser or Dominant often means that the majority of its assailants will be wiped out along with it.

(The same goes for the game; if you're shooting a gigantic ship, make sure you're clear of it when it goes kaboom! The ship destruction blast effects are extremely lethal!)

This post has been edited by Delphi : 22 November 2009 - 05:36 AM

Wow, I'm just full of words tonight.

I was also just wondering if anybody knew what the "Satu" tag under my name means? I've seen it there for quite a while but I just never really questioned it until now. For that matter, what do the blue boxes represent, as well?

"Satu" is indonesian for "one," I believe, as in one blue box. You get a new blue box at 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12,800 posts and so on.

And tujuh means seven, I presume.
Delphi, thats was much longer than i anticipated and full of amazing detail.
This game is going to keep me glued to my mac for a month when it comes out.

QUOTE (Pyrophage @ Nov 22 2009, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm new to modeling and seeing the stuff you posted is like showing a caveman who's discovered fire a napalm grenade launcher,
shock and awe.

That effect NEVER goes away. Seriously, back when I was making a stick with some blobs, I felt the gap between us, modeling wise was huge. It was.

It still is.

Delphi: I read it all! Can I has kudos now?

It's impressive backstory and information, though I question the feasibility of putting faith in such horrifically unstable reactor tech. What if someone sneaks some explosives on board? They could take out a huge amount of ships and probably even a station if they waited until the ship went back for re-supply.

Tujuh does indeed mean seven.

QUOTE (Templar98921 @ Nov 23 2009, 02:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That effect NEVER goes away. Seriously, back when I was making a stick with some blobs, I felt the gap between us, modeling wise was huge. It was.

It still is.

Delphi: I read it all! Can I has kudos now?

It's impressive backstory and information, though I question the feasibility of putting faith in such horrifically unstable reactor tech. What if someone sneaks some explosives on board? They could take out a huge amount of ships and probably even a station if they waited until the ship went back for re-supply.

Tujuh does indeed mean seven.

Really, any reactor is unstable. Remember that the number one hazard we deal with on a daily basis no matter where we live is the possibility that a nuclear power plant could suffer a meltdown and irradiate hundreds of thousands of square miles. In the case of the NFAD reactors, they are just simply gigantic nuclear furnaces. They're as stable as they can be, but even the most advanced human technology has its limits. If you filled a modern nuclear reactor full of holes, it'd blow up pretty good as well. Fortunately for most ships in the Delphi universe, it's far more likely that a ship will rupture its hull due to decompression and achieve the desired effect of disabling all offensive systems long before the core is penetrated, effectively "destroying" the ship, in that it is useless for all original intensive purposes. In truth, although Nova requires that a ship be annihilated outright, it's more plausible in the Delphi universe that space wreckage would be left behind; a twisted piece of somewhat-melted slag looming in the void, with most of its actual internal systems still functional, possibly including the nuclear core. Though the wide explosive radius is being implemented in the EVN plug for strategic purposes and to give it a little more challenge, the "real" Delphi ships are much more durable and less likely to actually have a core punctured by weapons fire.

Also, regarding space-terrorism: it's highly likely. Simply by virtue of the scale on which ships are built, they could make for absolutely horrifying improvised explosives if rigged to self-detonate. However, it's important to remember that the ships are heavily armored, even down to the smallest shuttle, and metal is malleable before reaching its snapping point. A ship that has its core detonated would likely absorb most of the blast throughout its interior, before the hull would buckle and some energy would finally be released. It'd certainly kill every single thing inside, but then again, so would be the case for any other fantasy/sci-fi ship in the same circumstances.

In short: yes, the furnace in your home could spontaneously set a fire and burn your house down with you in it. It is inherently dangerous, so you rely on its careful and safe operation to prevent tragedy. Could you just reduce its size or get rid of it outright? Highly unlikely. The same goes for the nuclear furnaces in gigantic ships with massive weapons to power. Effectiveness is guaranteed; safety is not.

Oh, and regarding the radiation in the core room: it's not so much a problem of instability in the reactor. No, as a matter of fact, the reactor room can be flushed with a gaseous coolant at a moment's notice in the event of emergency, both reducing core temperature and also absorbing excess radiation. The issue is just that shielding materials can only be manufactured so thick, and you can only absorb so much radiation in a closed environment before you need a bigger space to work in. They could just make the area around the core inaccessible, but then there is no possibility of maintenance when something fails, and with nuclear technology, if something fails, it usually means disaster if not repaired quickly.

Besides, it's a dark, dystopian future and there's a war going on. You really think they thought this all the way through when they built it? Nah, they just wanted a large enough source of crude power to fire their guns. Injuries? That's what medlab is for. Deaths? Pffft, I'm sure they can pick up some new recruits at the next planet.

QUOTE (Delphi @ Nov 23 2009, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<snip>

Nuclear fission reactors don't blow up. At all. The uranium simply isn't high enough quality. And, post-Chernobyl nearly all reactors have systems to stop meltdowns that don't have overrides. After all, Chernobyl was a really, REALLY bad PEBKAC error. The Chinese have also apparently made a control 'rod' design that's a sphere that breaks before meltdown can occur, so the extra surface area can absorb stray neutrons.

Nuclear fusion reactors would have no such issue at all. If they stop working, they just stop. No explosion, no excess rads, nothing. Even H-Bombs require uncontrolled fission merely to force uncontrolled fusion. A working fusion plant would be less likely to kill you than a natural gas or coal plant, even in the event of a critical failure. It seems insane to trust such dangerous tech.

Mind you, given the amount of fusion reactors you'd need to propel a 12km long ship consistently with any appreciable speed...

QUOTE (Templar98921 @ Nov 23 2009, 04:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nuclear fission reactors don't blow up. At all. The uranium simply isn't high enough quality. And, post-Chernobyl nearly all reactors have systems to stop meltdowns that don't have overrides. After all, Chernobyl was a really, REALLY bad PEBKAC error. The Chinese have also apparently made a control 'rod' design that's a sphere that breaks before meltdown can occur, so the extra surface area can absorb stray neutrons.

Nuclear fusion reactors would have no such issue at all. If they stop working, they just stop. No explosion, no excess rads, nothing. Even H-Bombs require uncontrolled fission merely to force uncontrolled fusion. A working fusion plant would be less likely to kill you than a natural gas or coal plant, even in the event of a critical failure. It seems insane to trust such dangerous tech.

Mind you, given the amount of fusion reactors you'd need to propel a 12km long ship consistently with any appreciable speed...

I am corrected. I assumed a higher possibility for catastrophe. However, it still stands that conventional science fiction has ships exploding in a massive fireball when taken out (see: "Alien"), and generally, using the word "nuclear" when describing an engine gives people enough of the idea that it'd blow up pretty nicely. If needs be, I'll pull a "Corbomite Maneuver" and explain the instability through some sort of fictional fissile material not yet discovered that is required to properly deliver as much power as is required.

I mean seriously, do you really want these ships to be completely realistic? Realistic is boring. That's why we write fiction.

By the way, if you don't know what Corbomite is, you need to watch more Star Trek.

QUOTE (Delphi @ Nov 23 2009, 04:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<snip>

My mind exploded after I tried to read all this. Seriously, man. Technical's a good thing--I mean, I do that, but the extent you go to makes it all seem more lifelike than fantastical.

That's totally awesome. I could never match that level of epic detail.

Well, truth be told, with a reactor output the size of what Delphi is proposing, you'd either need about half of the yearly output of slightly enriched uranium of the entire planet Earth right now, or you'd want to use some much, much higher grade fissile material, such as weapons grade uranium, plutonium, or some other high-mass radioactive element with a relatively long half-life. That would be much more likely to go boom than current reactor technology.

I believe that is where the new, fictional, and unstable fissionable material comes in.

The weapon sprites are, for the most part, done. I've got full rleds and spins for every projectile gun and missile, and of course beam weapons generate their own thing so there's no real work to do there other than making them look cool with neat color effects. I recently finished putting together the settings for the continuous Electromag laser, and it looks very cool when it fires.

Next, I'm going to tackle some of the fighter squadron sprites. I still want to launch fighters in groups, except for one particular fighter that's large enough to serve as a gunboat and therefore works well as a playable ship. I had a few ideas for the smaller ships in the game, and I wanted to get your input.

One option is to render the fighters in incorrect scale, as was done in Nova, where the Anacondas are way different in scale than the bay they launch from, especially when compared with the outfitter picture of the Anaconda bay. This would make the fighters highly visible, but you couldn't launch squads because their sprite would be too big and cumbersome to fly as a single "ship".

The second option is to render the fighters in small scale, more realistic and looking more appropriate when they swarm enemy cruisers/warships, but ultimately defeating the purpose of purchasing one for the player. This option would require that fighters be non-player ships, but then again they're not really good unless delivered in large quantities, so it wouldn't make much sense to pilot a singular squad anyway.

The third option is to assign indicator icons to the fighter squads, drawing them as merely bright pixels on the screen with perhaps a circular HUD indicator around the group, to indicate their location. I was thinking something like a colored ring encircling the group to indicate nationality with a small chevron pointing out of the group indicating heading. Other small ships could also be indicated through this method, such as civilian shuttles. If using this method, I've also drafted up a few investigative missions in which the target ships are uniquely non-selectable through the regular (TAB) method, so you have to find the indicator marker somewhere in the system and click on it to select the ship. Could be used in a mission to recover a lost probe or maybe a ship so crippled that it has lost power to its scanning transponder.