Concordia_FP
Spaceman
What's the difference between the Concordia class Carrier and the TCS Victory? I guess the origin designer was to lazy to come up with a different look
WC4 Ships
- Thread starter Concordia_FP
- Start date
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Personally, I'd have trouble calling anyone who'd stay at work for days at a time to ship a product *lazy*.
IIRC, the original plan was to have it be a Confederation-class ship a la WC2, but the model lacked a fly-through bay. So they just did a larger version of the Victory mesh... (they certainly put a lot of time into the WC4 models -- individual carriers even have different textures!)
IIRC, the original plan was to have it be a Confederation-class ship a la WC2, but the model lacked a fly-through bay. So they just did a larger version of the Victory mesh... (they certainly put a lot of time into the WC4 models -- individual carriers even have different textures!)
TCSTigersClaw
Greek Special Forces B' Company "Naoussa" 2007-200
I agree with you Dacis2 but dont forget that TCSVictory is mych much older than any other Wc3/Wc4 era ship.
That does make a lot of sense actually: The WC4 Novel does say it's the same kind of ship as the Concordia; not just that, it also mentioned 2 bays. It doesn't appear to mean the SIDE of the flight deck, or one catapult, it seems more like there are two distinct flight-decks as well in the Novel. There is also one scene where the marines land on the TCS-Princeton, they mention that there is a connecting tunnel between the left and right bay. The Concordia-Class carriers have one single open flight-deck. Look at the Confederation-Class carriers on the other hand. They DO have an interconnecting tunnel between the left and right side flight-decks.
Honestly, I don't see why they just didn't completely re-do the models. How much effort does it take to cut straight through the flight deck and make it a fly-through?
I also have this concept in which the forward prong of the Concordia is preserved. The aft part of the ship looks a bit different though, featuring the Bracher's wings from the WCM, and the flight decks are now fly-through bays, and they run straight through the wings.
It's just a concept, and from the forward view (if it was laying ass-backwards in a body of water) it does look like the WC3 Concordia.
The fact that the Concordia-Class was a different kind of ship than the Concordia did add some depth to the story though; that there were multiple ships named Concordia. At least 2.
TCS-Concordia the original, launched in '34 and was destroyed in the same year. I don't know what it's CV-number was (I'm guessing CV-41 considering Lexington was CV-44)
TCS-Concordia (another one that was in service in -56)
TCS-Concordia which entered service in '60 or '61. Designation CVS-65
Making the Confed-Class into the Concordia class would have disrupted the consistency in the story. It's like "It's a confederation-class dreadnought" "Nah, it's now a Concordia-Class Carrier".
The fact that it looks like the Ranger actually adds to the WC-universe, not subtracts. It shows that the design is a tried and true design, and is reliable. No need to alter it. This would suggest that the Ranger was the first type of ship to have this design, or was one of the first. The design simply worked, so they simply used the same basic shape over and over again.
It also makes the Confederation-Class Dreadnoughts kind of special. Not many built, and also reveals that many of the carriers of the era were NOT of that class, but probably were either Concordia-class, or some other class. I think there were only 12-Bengals built (maybe I'm wrong here). I don't know what actual fleet-carriers were common in WC2. Maybe LOAF would know.
I am planning on making 3D-renderings of the older WC-ships. Starting with WC2, then working my way back to WC1.
I aspire to make the Waterloo's and Gilgamesh's look more WC3 and WC4-ish. This is not an easy task since they look more like big fighters than capships.
-Concordia
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
I'm pretty sure I've already explained this whole thing to you at the Aces Board.
A lot of effort? A ship with more than one bay would serve no practical function and be twice as complex model-wise. The game was developed to *run properly*.
What the hell are you talking about?
If Bengals are produced at a rate of one-per-year from 2619 until the end of the war, how many will there be?
And then... if you work back further... Wing Commander Zero!
You're like the Art Bell of Wing Commander weirdos.
WTF!? if you were making a fan project then you'd know continuity is a BITCH. I challenge anyone here to make wc 1/2 ships fit in with wc 3/4 ships. it's not easy. and quite fraqnkly having the wc1/2 ships with 3/4 ships looks CRAP, the 3/4 ships looks way too good and the 1/2 ships look too unrealistic. so before you try to insult someone for trying to make the ships continuous try doing it YOURSELF.
TCSTigersClaw
Greek Special Forces B' Company "Naoussa" 2007-200
Darkmage, I think that Wc:Standoff and UnkownEnemy are doing pretty well on making Wc1/Wc2 ships look more Wc3/Wc4-ish...
Another reason you don't play hardball with LOAF. I know what you're talking about, Concordia, but I must admit the Concordia-class vessels look better than what your proposing. IMO, they were not large enough to warrant two landing bays. Besides, they already had something with double-decker parking in the game, right? Black Lance base, was it? I haven't played the game in a long time, again, but hopefully I'm not dreadfully wrong about it like I was last time.
Actually you stated that a bay was an area for fighter storage. Under that statement there would be like 20 or 40 or 50 bays on a carrier. So that's not it. Your argument for the number of catapults was a better one, but considering there were TWO landing patterns. Seether was said to be heading into the pattern aligned for the right bay. The Lexington was supposed to be like the WC2 Concordia, with two flight-decks.
The thing that has me is the interconnecting tunnel betwen the left and right bay.
I'm going to punch up a graphic too...
Check that flight deck out... I don't see any interconnecting tunnels...
Now the WC2 Concordia on the other hand DID have an interconnecting tunnel between the two flight-decks. You even said yourself that the Lexington was supposed to be the same class of ship as the Concordia but they decided against it.
The book had numerous flaws in it. It was just an error on William Forstschen's part. This doesn't mean I think he's an idiot; in fact I liked to read his work! But we all make mistakes.
Actually, it would simply make the game more accurate actually. I just believe if you say there's two flight-decks, there should be two flight-decks.
1.) The first thing (about the Concordia/Bracher/Flight-Deck/Wing thing) was basically explaining a concept which I drew, which I never got a chance to make a 3D-Mesh out of. It was essentially a mix of the "Concordia" from the movie (which actually was the Concordia/Bracher.) while keeping the claw shaped projection at the front. It would look like a mix of both. The front would look like the WC2-Concordia, while the back would look like the Bracher. Laying ass-backwards in a body of water, the front part would look just like the WC3 Concordia-scene at Vespus.
2.) The comment about the Concordia-Class adding depth to the WC Timeline was just that: It kept consistency. It also revealed that there were 3 vessels with the name Concordia. That makes the timeline seem more realistic because the names of famous ships are often recycled. Concordia's a cool name (I wouldn't have made it my nick if I didn't think so), and it shows that there are multiple ships with that name.
-Concordia I:
Commissioned 2634
Destroyed August 2634
-Concordia II:
Commissioned 2645(?)
Destroyed/Decomissioned: Before 2660
-Concordia III: (CVS-65)
Commissioned: 2661
Destroyed: 2669
If you chose to constitute the movie as part of the timeline, that would be 50. Counting purely from the novels (not counting the WCM novels), and the Game-Canon, the Bengals entered production in 2644. From 44 to 69 would be 25. If you count from when production started in 2642, that would be 27.
There is another factor however; many Confed carriers were destroyed by the end of the war. I don't know how many (would you enlighten me with fleet-estimates?)
Poking fun of my ideas is not necessary. WC-Zero would probably be Action-Stations, and I don't think that would be such a bad idea making that Confed Battlewagon in 3D. I thought it was a cool looking ship actually.
As for the basic connotation of the message, I would have to agree with Darkimage, and I thank him for it.
Continuity *IS* a bitch. The WC1 ships sort of have a vague resemblance to WC3, but just barely. The WC2 ships-- Fugghedaboutit! The Waterloo looks like a big fighter with two bridges, and twin-flight decks strapped on top. Even has wings and canards to match! The fact that the nose sort of looks like the Hindenburg-Blimp doesn't help (although I *could* use a Blimpie right now) Fly a Waterloo alongside a Plunkett or a Talahassee and you'll see what I mean. The WC2 capships are largely a joke. They looked good back in 1991, but now, they are laughable.
Despite this, I can rework the shape to some extent from graphics I found on the WCMDF of the WC2 ships.
It will be abstract, but will preserve the BASIC shape. They will look more WC3-ish.
I actually do have a formula to capship design
-Boxyness yet Sleek: Many scifi-series with the exception of Star Trek, often have boxy ships. This is not because of the 1970's idea of economy; it has to do with realism; there is no drag in space. For this reason making the ships boxy makes it look better-- you score no points for making the ships look like big fighters with lots of little guns on it. However if all the ships looked like big boxes floating through space, they would look ugly, so some sleekness is needed. Capships as a rule, unless they are very fast ships, should not look sleeker than fighters, in fact, they should look less sleek.
-Make it all fit: If the ship can carry 40 fighters for example; it should be believable that it could actually wedge 40-fighters in its belly. The flight decks should be made to look like they could carry it.
-Form and Functionality: No points are to be scored with cool looking fins and wings when you're in space. Make the ships components do stuff useful. No points for useless pods like the WC2 Strakha. Looks good if you're making a cartoon, but doesn't look good in a 3D-game. Make the components work, and do their job. Don't add stuff that doesn't have a purpose. There's nothing wrong with making it look sleek, but don't add useless pods and fins and uncovered flight-decks.
-Guns and Symmetry: In some of the WC ships, it looks like a majority of the guns are on top. Look at the Concordia Supercruiser from WCM. It has all 4 AMG's on top and a bunch of little guns on the bottom. Not a good idea considering the enemy can attack ANYWHERE, even from below. The ships should be covered as well top and bottom. The back should be covered to at least some extent. However it is expected that Destroyers and Cruisers will have less rear-coverage than a Carrier though.
-Flight Decks: WC1 and WC2 ships often have uncovered flight-decks. It really serves no point. With the TCS-Tiger's Claw for example, that huge uncovered deck is vulnerable to attack. I suppose it's shielded and armored mostly, I hope. If it's not it should be: if it was covered, the ship could be fitted with a lot more hangar room. The Centerlines (those dotted-lines) in WC2 is over the top. I mean why do you need a centerline once your IN SPACE!? After you're free of the flight deck you're pretty much in the clear except for that big 'ole gun on the front of the ships, but if you know at all how to fly you'd wait until you were clear of it (it's pretty big!), then start a clearing turn. You need a centerline when you're taking off to make sure you're lined up straight down the field. If you're already clear of the bay there's no need for them anymore.
Also this goes down more to cosmetics than anything else: No GREEN, YELLOW, RED, OR PURPLE!!! Ugh! Look at a modern-day naval vessel. Do you see them painted bright colors? NO! They're white, gray, and black mostly. Look at the WC3 capships and you'll notice they're painted in grays, whites, and blues. Much more dull and muted colors. Real things are often not brightly colored. Look at your house for example. Do you see many brighly colored things? Unless you have kids, probably not. Kitchen stuff sometimes have bright colors, and tool-boxes and stuff do. Also some house-hold cleaners are brightly colored, but that's only so that you notice them in the stores. Most of the other stuff in your house is more bland colors.
Art Bell is, to the best of my knowledge, a guy who believes in Crop-Circles and stuff. I see no reason to be compared to him. I'm simply trying to make some WC2 models into WC3/4/P ones. Perhaps this could be helpful for some people who wish to make games, similar to Eder, who's doing a Fleet-Action game using the WCP:SO game engine. That would be helpful, WC1 and 2 in WC3 Graphics.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Yeah, *LOAF* doesn't know anything about *continuity*.
I was coming to terms with continuity issues when you were {insert youth cliche}. Ships look different, live with it.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
It's the area where the fighters are stored and worked on and such. There's one on each side of the Lexington. It's where the Project personel worked on putting Dralthi parts in Hellcats and so forth. They didn't stand outside in space suits.
It was *supposed* to be like the WC2 Concordia. But it *wasn't* -- no sense crying over spilled milk. And had it been like the WC2 Concordia people would be bitching about how the FMV called it 'Concordia class' instead of 'Confederation class'.
Anyway, if the Lexington is large enough to have two catapults it stands to reason that it's also large enought to land two fighters at once.
You know those tunnels that go under streets sometimes? Think that.
Oh, wow, I forgot about that. Possibly because we've never seen or heard about it before.
The key here -- which you are somehow missing -- is that they *DECIDED AGAINST IT*. They consciously decided *not* to use the WC2 design. I provided this information as a fun fact -- not as proof of anything at all. It's *interesting* that they'd written the dialogue with the WC2 ship in mind... but it's of no effect on the final product.
Forstchen wrote the outline, not the book. Which is clear from the style...
Developer 1: So... the old Concordia model is too complex. What if we just re-use the carrier model from Wing 3?
Developer 2: Well, my only worry is that what if after the game is released they write a novel about it that claims that the ship has two bays. Then we'd be *inaccurate*!
Developer 1: Wow! I never thought of that! Possibly because it makes no sense!
Developer 2: Now, to create Cybermage 2!
{I have to reply to the next bit in another post, since the CZ has a character limit. Wo.}
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Yes... I understand all this. I was probably the person who wrote whatever document you read about this in.
I don't think 'game-canon' is a real concept -- and I'll be happy to argue about that if you want. Regardless, either way, 12 was wrong.
I don't believe that the number of carriers destroyed has any effect on the number of carriers *produced*. Regardless, TC and I did an excellent study of Confed carrier production, which I'd be happy to find when I get home... I believe the estimate was that Confed had nine carriers in service when the war ended.
WC-Zero was the hidden mini-game in Origin's System Shock.
We're talking about 50 years of Wing Commander history -- of course the ships will look different. Look at how much aircraft changed in the 50 years following World War I. Making every ship look similar is...
- Boring. If you're doing some kind of project about WC history or some kind of WC game why would you want all the ships to look the same? And if you're doing a game set in WC3, use the WC3 ships (if the fact that the Sabre is green offends you so much). (I know, I know -- how could they possibly make *military hardware* that's *dark green*?
)- Pointless. To what end? Why would anyone need a *different* looking Waterloo class ship? Don't we have enough people complaining that the Krant got changed in Super Wing Commander or that the Rapier looks wrong in the movie? We *do*.
- Insulting. Who are you to say that other designs are *wrong*? And why are your designs *right*? Wing Commander 3 and 4 were the technologically limited games (no curves)... are you going to make the WC3 and 4 ships look like WC1 and 2 ships?
Well, here's a hint: he's *crazy*.
I guess they had sheds on the hangars, otherwise people would see inside.
True
I figured they'd just say aligned for the starboard runway.
They said that this all occured ON the flight-deck. Not under the flight deck. It wasn't until after the fight occured that Blair went under-decks and saw the Dragons which were parked there.
In the WC4 Novel, they mentioned the interconnecting tunnel.
In WC2 when the bomb on the flight-deck exploded it made it impossible from to launch or receive fighters. The only way that could occur would be if the explosion managed to get into the other flight deck. If the other flight-deck was unaffected, they would have just vectored them for a landing on that bay. If there was an inter-connecting tunnel, it would make sense as the fireball could have made it into that flight-deck.
The whole point I was trying to make was that the WC2 Confederation class was NOT used. I was saying *that's* why the referrences to two bays were made. Not because of the fact that there were 2 side's of each launch bay or two catapults, but because the WC2 Concordia had 2 flight-decks. When they made WC4, they decided against it, and the ship had 1 flight-deck. I have nothing against the WC4 Concordia-Class. It was a nice looking ship actually; I'm just saying that it doesn't have two flight-decks.
True
I was trying to make a point that the WC2 Concordia was initially supposed to be used, which is why the 2 flight-decks were mentioned in the Novel, not the game. The fact that they switched the model is not an objection of mine; it's the fact that the two flight-decks are mentioned anyway even though there is only one flight-deck. My point is that it's an error that occured as they designed the game. Nothing more. I am not disputing that the Lexington secretly has a second flight-deck tucked away in there or should. I'm saying that they made an error by listing two
Document? Do you mean text-documents? Or do you mean WC-Document like canon-document?
I just thought you were a fan.
I stand corrected.
Really? What's the story about? When was System Shock made?
I'm not trying to make them look the same, I'm trying to make them all look WC3/4/Prophecy Style. As for your comment about green fighters and stuff. Look at the Hellcat, Arrow, Thunderbolt, and Longbow. Are ANY of them painted green?
Because the shape could be used in a fan-project. Plus I feel like practicing 3D-art work. This would be time to put my skills to the test. Plus, maybe somebody would like it.
As for people complaining about the Krant being changed in Super Wing Commander: It's a good complaint! It was the one ship I *TRULY* liked in WC1, only for it to be turned into a piece of crap. If Eder could change ONE thing about his WC: Standoff thing, would be to make the Krant look like the WC1 version!
Also, the WCM Rapier was just downright ugly, and I don't just mean a little ugly, I mean Fugly! The WC1 Rapier on the other hand was a really cool ship.
Actually, the WCP ships *ALSO* look like WC3 and 4 ships as well. Are you saying WC3 and WC4 and WCP are wrong?
Now why would you think *I* was crazy
-Concordia
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
What makes you think Eder's Krant looks like the SWC Krant?Originally posted by Concordia
As for people complaining about the Krant being changed in Super Wing Commander: It's a good complaint! It was the one ship I *TRULY* liked in WC1, only for it to be turned into a piece of crap. If Eder could change ONE thing about his WC: Standoff thing, would be to make the Krant look like the WC1 version!
Look at the sides of the flight deck. You see those elevators the fighters are on?
And below you also say this was an error.
We see to runways on the Confederation-class, but they never really say that there are two flight decks or show them.
I think you are confused. LOAF said this. You were arguing the other way around and then changed your stance.The whole point I was trying to make was that the WC2 Confederation class was NOT used. I was saying *that's* why the referrences to two bays were made. Not because of the fact that there were 2 side's of each launch bay or two catapults, but because the WC2 Concordia had 2 flight-decks. When they made WC4, they decided against it, and the ship had 1 flight-deck. I have nothing against the WC4 Concordia-Class. It was a nice looking ship actually; I'm just saying that it doesn't have two flight-decks.
I was trying to make a point that the WC2 Concordia was initially supposed to be used, which is why the 2 flight-decks were mentioned in the Novel, not the game. The fact that they switched the model is not an objection of mine; it's the fact that the two flight-decks are mentioned anyway even though there is only one flight-deck. My point is that it's an error that occured as they designed the game. Nothing more. I am not disputing that the Lexington secretly has a second flight-deck tucked away in there or should. I'm saying that they made an error by listing two
It's first person shooter set in space I believe. (I've only played the second one that came out a few years ago).
You just contradicted yourself. And the other fighters aren't painted green, just because they are designed by a different person then WC1/2. The could have very well made them green if they wanted to. And oh, the Vindicator is kinda green, the Avenger and Banshee are red, the Dragon is black, the Wasp is mostly yellow....
Every thing was changed in SWC, so what? And you do know that SWC was the Mac's version right?As for people complaining about the Krant being changed in Super Wing Commander: It's a good complaint! It was the one ship I *TRULY* liked in WC1, only for it to be turned into a piece of crap. If Eder could change ONE thing about his WC: Standoff thing, would be to make the Krant look like the WC1 version!
Not really. Sure they have some similarites, but the WCP ships look more like B5 ships (they were designed by the same guy).
Yeah, but sometimes those fighters would be raised up on the deck... ah, never mind.
Oh, well then I f*cked up. Plain and simple. The WC4 novel did mention an interconnecting tunnel.
I think I was trying to say how the 3D Model did not have an interconnecting tunnel like the Novel Version did.
Yeah you do, you can see the bays they launch from.
Okay, then I misunderstood LOAF.
Cool.
I'm saying that the WC1 and 2 fighters were largely painted in Green, and the WC3 and 4 fighters were not. As for the Vindicator, that's blue.
It's more than just it's colors actually; It's more the fact that a real metal texture is duplicated sort of.
Well, i'm not fond of SWC. And SWC was also made for 3DO
They do have more of a boxy-ness though. Similar to the WC3 and WC4 thing.
It's hard to combine the sleekness and boxyness thing perfectly. To boxy and they're ugly, too sleek and they look more like atmospheric vehicles.
-Concordia
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
And where *are* these sheds? Your personal version of the Confederation class dreadnought seems mighty different from the real thing -- the Concordia CVS-65 had flight decks that were open to space. The two flight decks, as we also see in WC2, open into a single hangar. Where's the interconnecting tube? Where are the Lances being hidden?
And yet they didn't! Sometimes it's just that easy.
But that's what I said -- there's a tube that leads from the hangars on the port side to the hangars on the starboard side. This would seem to be a necessesity in a carrier with two hangar bays, as you can't have techs scrambling across the runway. The Lances were below decks (down the elevators).
This is circular logic: you're claiming that the Princeton is a Confed class ship because it has a tube... and we know that Confed class ships have tubes because the Princeton has one! Does not compute.
We *see* the innards of the Concordia CVS-65 in that very scene (and in many others), though. The two flight decks lead to a single central repair area, with individual hangars in the back of the ship. The bomb was in the repair area, which connects to both flight decks.
The ship has *two* flight decks because the novel says so. Simple.
No you weren't. You only *know* that the Wc2 Concordia model was considered *BECAUSE I TOLD YOU SO*.
Text document, probably... as there's no WC history that talks about the three Concordias.
I have, though, had some input on various products... (False Colors, movie novels and WCP:GBA mostly).
System Shock was... 1994. Only the CD version has the mini-game. It's basically just a cheap little shooter thing with some dialogue looped from WC2.
So, in your world when several things aren't green NOTHING CAN BE GREEN AT ALL? What you hear is the sound of my mind boggling.
Of course, they're different classes of ships.
Nor is there any requirement that warbirds be *pretty*.
The WCP ships are all nice and rounded -- the WCIII and WCIV ships are entirely made up of straight lines. And they're weird looking -- they have rotating pods and what-not. From a 3D design standpoint, they're much more similar to the WC1/2 ships.
