Confed Light Carrier

Tolwyn

Vice Admiral
I made another two pictures with ambient lightning
 

Attachments

  • r1.jpg
    r1.jpg
    47 KB · Views: 279
  • r2.jpg
    r2.jpg
    65.5 KB · Views: 236

Tolwyn

Vice Admiral
The Fly said:
I though you guys where going to show us more fighters instead of big ships and stations? :mad:


everything to its given time... ships that have higher priority are being done first.
 

Moonsword

Spaceman
Out of curiosity, how precisely does a wall fuck? They're not very mobile, really.

Anyway, back on topic:
It takes time for them to get all the fighters nice and pretty looking. Restraint is the key.
 

Tolwyn

Vice Admiral
Lynx said:
Fighter are a pain in the ass to UV map. That's why we keep making capships, us lazy bums. :p

that is right... but as far as I recall there is only one capital ship to be done, which means we HAVE to move to fighters... speaking of which, you current project is looking as excellent as ever ;)
 

Tolwyn

Vice Admiral
at least three ;)

But it all depends on Lynx, I won't have much time in the next two weeks, five tests to pass... and besides there are still two models to take care of (one cap ship and one star base... at least one starbase).

Speaking of which: you could surely add a few modifications to the Bluepoint mesh... making the weapons factory out of it?
 

TZSB424

Spaceman
I have a question:

If both the Ranger and Concordia class carriers are 80 and 40 year old designs (respectively), then why is it that the Tallahasse and Savanah class cruisers along with several other classes and types, which have very similar designs to the Ranger and Concordia carriers, are featured quite so prominently as they are in WC 3 & 4? I realize that because of the Battle of Terra (ca. 2667 or 2669?), they had to start using older vessels as main line battle vehicles, but you got to wonder, were there really THAT many perfectly good frigates, destroyers and crusiers in mothballs/reserve status for 20+ years?

And also, why is it that a Ranger class carrier is almost the exact same length, while only having 35% of the mass and 40% of the fighter compliment, as a Bengal strike carrier, and at the same time a Concordia class carrier is only 80 meters longer than a Ranger class carrier, and yet has 2 and 1/2 times the fighter compliment???

In other words, why does 720m=40F, yet 800m=96F?

And also, although the 40% increase in length from the Bengal to the Confederation more or less matches the 20% increase in fighter compliment, why is there also a 9% reduction in mass???

Again, in other words, why does 700m@80kT=100F, yet 963m@73kT=120F?

Lastly, I noticed a slight snaffu with your rendering: Using the JPEG image and using a pixel length comparison (assuming that both ships are level with one another and an isometric view point), I have the Ranger at 552 pixels in length and the Concordia at 682 pixels in length. That's a 23% increase in length. Yet according to the ship's statistics that I found in the CIC database, the Ranger and Concordia are 720m and 800m in length, respectively. That's only an 11% increase in length. WTF?

If the Ranger were only 650m in length, which would actually kind of account for the drastic reduction in mass as compared to a Bengal carrier (especially if you take into consideration that those two little prong thingys at the front end of the ship that don't do a hell of a lot and prolly aren't that massive take up 30-50 meters), then I could completely understand and even applaud the differences.

But it aint.

So, I say again, WTF?

***

Quick Statistical Reference:::

Bengal class Strike Carrier: (Ex: TCS Tiger's Claw, ca 2644-2655 [WC1])
wc1bengalthumb.jpg

Mass: 80 kT
Length: 700m
Fighters: 104

Confederation class Dreadnaught: (Ex: TCS Concordia, ca 2660-2669 [WC2])
wc2confederationthumb.jpg

Mass: 73 kT
Length: 963m
Fighters: 120

Ranger class Light Carrier: (Ex: TCS Victory, ca 2584-2669 [WC3])
wc3lightcarrierthumb.jpg

Mass: 28 kT
Length: 720m (680-700, if you exclude the prong thingys)
Fighters: 40

Concordia class Fleet Carrier: (Ex: TCS Lexington, ca 2634-2670 [WC4])
https://www.wcnews.com/ships/images/wc4carrierthumb.jpg
Mass: ?
Length: 800m (I'm hoping that excludes the prong thingys, but 730-770 if not)
Fighters: 96
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Moonsword

Spaceman
The Ranger-class carriers lack the armaments, armor, and shielding of both the Bengal-class and Confederation-class ships. Second, I'm not sure the Ranger is supposed to be that big. Third, the internal design is considerably differenet, and the Ranger's is less efficient, while the Confederation likely incorporates newer, lighter materials to improve speed while also increasing armor.

Fourth, those 'prongs' are fairly large components of the ship's bow, so they should be included in any discussion of the ship's length. Fifth, why do you care? This is not an exact science.

The return to a more traditional design in ship-building could reflect a recent trend or a new conservatism on the part of designers. And, no the Tallahassee and Savannah-class cruisers are not that old. Look it up before you start something like this.

The Caernarven frigates are that old, however, and they've been in service the entire time. The older destroyers are the Exeter, Gilgamesh,and, to a lesser extend, Paradigm-class ships.
 

TZSB424

Spaceman
The prongs only take up 5-7 % of either ships length, and I fail to see any purpose that they could possibly serve, aside from some wierd docking system or perhaps really big bayonettes. I also fail to see why I should treat them with any amount of seriousness, aside from the fact that they're rendered like that in the games.

It's kind of like saying that the Empire State Building is the tallest skyscraper in the US just because of that silly 50 or so foot tower designed for docking zepplins... if that made any sense.

I actually did look up a lot of stuff, thank you very much, and at the time I thought I was looking at the whole picture. I was asking because the whole picture didn't look right, and I wanted to double check.

Lastly: I was bored, so sue me!
 

HammerHead

Rear Admiral
TZSB424 said:
Lastly: I was bored, so sue me!

"Case number 5638A-5, WC Peoples VS TZSB424, the charge is Techno-doubting in the second degree..."
;)

Why?
they simply look cool...
why the numbers?
I can only refer you to the Armada Banshee (or any other armada fighter for that issue) : How come a 43 meters long heavy-fighter/bomber has a mass of 8.345 tons? (it's even lighter then light fighters!)
 

Moonsword

Spaceman
Look at how they're attached before you attack my point, please. It looks like they may be anchored to a major structual member. Except for the Eagle-class light carrier, the bow has equipment in it. That could be part of the sensors or be

My point about the Ranger's size was not a comment on your research. It was a comment on the size of the ship itself as printed. Please try to think about what I said before you respond harshly. If I was commenting on the quality of your research I'd have said so.

As for being bored, thank you, I actually do appreciate the answer.

HammerHead, yes, that's dead-on accurate.
 

Moonsword

Spaceman
Looking at the numbers for Armada in CIC page, whoever was making those up for the manual could have been pulling the numbers out of their ass. Which may also be teh case for those numbers above, come to think of it.
 

Tolwyn

Vice Admiral
TZSB424: For your own good I assume that you was not serios, while writing your post. :D

Moonsword: also consider mass of different carriers. You will see that they are very different, even if their length is almost the same :D
 
Top