Vanguards: And Then There Were Three

[VoA]

This video has its own thread  - but it has a long section devoted specifically to the Vanguard by its concept Artist Gurmukh (CIG).  Adding the link for those Vanguard owner's for future reference (it is a more detailed presentation of the ship than even what you find in JP mag)

http://livestream.com/gnomon/crafting-star-citizens-3d-concepts/videos/101462367

[GRIZZ]

This video

Harbinger manned turret has 18 rockets per pod, 2pods, and he thinks they can reload 9 times.

If they stuck with those  stats then that's 324 rockets... 

Damn. Ammo bill will get expensive.

 

[VoA]

[VoA]

Ben just showed that the Vanguard will be Hangar ready (and he showed some images) on SC 2.0 :)

[Riley Egret]

Cool but I'm a grrrrredy guy, gief fly ready;)

[GRIZZ]

Watching BadNewsBarron tour the vanguard in hangar and I have a couple notes.

• The warden does not have tank treads on rear landing gears.
• You can glitch onto the roof from the rear compartment (the one with the ramp) Hard to reproduce, he did it against the left wall.
• You can get into the top turret by hopping onto the table opposite the bunk beds and glitching into the ceiling until you find the turret use icon.
• No toilet, wafflestomp?
• The bunk beds now have doors on them making them look like pizza ovens.
• the terminal in the BUK pod flips up like the 'tali

[VoA]

 

[VoA]

Paul Dalessi

Neurological - Vehicle Artist, Foundry 42

Vanguard hangar ready (WIP) for StarCitizen

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/O3WR8

[Cervantes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Aj_szNi5DY

[Shifty]

So the tank tracks were swapped for skids.
Also I can´t see where the maneuvering thrusters are located. The original three hole setup is gone as it seems.

Other than that it looks awesome!

[VoA]

 

[Shifty]

On 21.11.2015, 12:29:03, Shifty said:

So the tank tracks were swapped for skids.
Also I can´t see where the maneuvering thrusters are located. The original three hole setup is gone as it seems.

Other than that it looks awesome!

OK so the Vanguard is still early WIP. There are not many decals on it yet, and those that are there say WIP.
And the landing gear is obviously kitbashed, there are not even openings for those skids yet. Hopefully they keep the original disign for that.

 

€dit: Also this Dev post mentions that its purposefully released earlier to gather feedback in a state where a change doesn´t require a full rebuild of every system. A nice move from CIG, the only problem is that not everyone can fully contribute to that because it´s PTU invite only at this moment.

 

[VoA]

2 hours ago, Turo said:

...I am an LTI backer on the original (now Warden) Vanguard. 

From what I can tell, the Harbinger variant adds armor, which removes speed (allegedly already very fast) and maneuverability (allegedly not terrible, but not great already).

Additionally to that, if we buy only the Harbinger BUK, then that adds in the modularity for the added missiles / torpedo bays, but does NOT add the additional armor (which is allegedly already very very strong)... AND the upgraded fixed weapons!

We also know that the BUK can be broken up into components (but I'm assuming we then lose the LTI / insurance package?  That part isn't 100% clear to me)... and thereby can keep the existing turret, and still have the benefits of the Harbinger for attacking other ships.  I think for every-day flying and CAP, probably best to keep that top turret stocked with energy weapons to cover that six and discourage trailing elements. 

...It is for that reason that I think I am going to stick with my original Warden frame and get the BUK upgrade for the optional striking power.  I'd rather maintain my speed advantage and not reduce my maneuverability (energy bleed) any bit beyond what it already is... such that when we are closing on a target and need to change vector for a shot opportunity, we lose as little of that speed/energy as possible to exit their firing cone as quickly as possible. ....

I don't think the maneuverability of the Vanguard is what the Vanguard is meant to be (or will play much of an affect in combat).  The Vanguard's strengths are long range, tankiness (tough armor and be able to operate while being blown apart), and its fire-power).   Thus I actually think the Warden platform for the Vanguard is the least useful version of the Vanguard.   The Vanguard will never match a dog-fighter like a Hornet (or SH), Sabre, Xi-An Khartu-al, etc.... for maneuverability........ Vanguards are meant to go after larger ships and slower bombers, etc...

I melted my original pledge Vanguard Warden (concept Sale) then purchased the Harbinger (and then got the Sentinel BUK - LTI - and the Warden BUK - 1 year insurance).  I wanted to have the extra armor that the Harbinger has and to be honest with you I can't see any mission scenario where I would take my Vanguard out as a "Warden" as oppose to a "Harbinger".   The only real reason why I picked up the Warden BUK is to pick up an extra good weapon for another ship (see image below) for cheap ($10).  I did recently melt my Warden BUK and re-purchased it to get a 3 year insurance on it...... but again I will only use it for an extra weapon for another ship (and never outfit the BUK for my Vanguard - only use it as a Harbinger or Sentinel).   People shouldn't be so obsessed with LTI that they would give up the better armor (and weaponry) the Harbinger has.  LTI is negligible and 3 year Hull insurance is huge as well..... even though the cost of Hull insurance in game will barely be noticeable (according to CIG).

I also have a second Warden in my Armada Pacakge but I will CCU this to a Banu MM.

See below where my Warden BUK will be used 

Size 4 Vanguard nose gun on the Constellation

[VoA]

18 minutes ago, Turo said:

The Warden already has plenty of armor. As a base chassis, it is also faster and bleeds less energy. The increased firepower afforded by the Harbinger BUK (but without turning the warden into a slower lumbering bomber) ... is more preferable to me so you can still make high speed passes through the fur ball and pick off outliers and extend safely.

For my play style, this is perfect, where speed and firepower control the engagement.

I don't think your analogy is applicable when comparing a Warden to a Harbinger (there isn't that much weight or handling difference - but some major fire-power difference - and some minor armor difference).  Your analogy is more applicable if you were to compare a Gladiator to a Retaliator.   We can respectfully disagree however.

The only case (mission wise) where I think using a Warden over a Harbinger.... is if you think you are going to be ambushed and likely destroyed - like Operation Pitchfork or going into Spider (with all the pirates) - where ejecting and surviving is your primary goal.  In all other cases the Harbinger will be the better choice fulfilling many more options for that mission than the Warden can.  If you really need a fighter for a mission just send a Super Hornet (which also has a Jump Engine).   The Warden (and all Vanguards) are too lumbering to fulfill a dog-fighting roll well and are really meant to go after larger or more hardened targets (thus - the firepower of the Harbinger is more important).

[ZomoZ]

Gurr, ive been on the fence about a harb or a retaliator

Wanted a tali for a long time it just seems like it would not get nearly as much use as a vanguard harb

Tali is huge compaired to the harb and you get so much more ship for your dollar, but then again you would likely need to hire crew or friends to make it work well, and yea that would cut into time played for sure

Gurr, i just forsee a "farming" ship being the vanguard more likely to be used

But almost 300 bucks for such as small ship 

makes me wonder if its worth getting now or easy in game

And yet LTI will be more useful on ships you put in harms way and are more likely to blow up...

While orions starfarers crucibals ect all have the chance to get killed, a lot less likely imo than the ships you try to shoot at things with

[Gremlich]

3 hours ago, Turo said:

The Warden already has plenty of armor. As a base chassis, it is also faster and bleeds less energy. The increased firepower afforded by the Harbinger BUK (but without turning the warden into a slower lumbering bomber) ... is more preferable to me so you can still make high speed passes through the fur ball and pick off outliers and extend safely.

For my play style, this is perfect, where speed and firepower control the engagement.

Looking forward to using it like a P38 or Fw190 with all that delicious centerline power and screaming in high energy and smashing some bugs.

Weeeee

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

More like the P-61 Black Widow than anything else. The P-38 is what most people are familiar with for WWII twin-boomed aircraft, but the P-61 is a more apt aircraft to consider.

[Rutheon]

After much deliberation, I finally got the Vanguard Warden heheh.

[GRIZZ]

On 11/22/2015, 9:34:43, Turo said:

I dunno about the P-61 comparisons.  

I can't believe this was never posted to this thread.  This video is IMHO the ultimate Vanguard design video.  Gurmukh Bhasin himself discusses where he started and what Chris Roberts wanted from him.  It contains lots of spoilers if you don't want to break immersion.  All of the original art from the father of the vanguard himself.

Vanguard Spoilers:  http://livestream.com/gnomon/crafting-star-citizens-3d-concepts 

 

Spoiler

Inspiration: 

 

 

[GRIZZ]

6 hours ago, Turo said:

P38 and A10... two of my all time favorite planes!

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

That's how I felt when I saw the video.  Almost half the items on the collage I love from some point growing up. McLaren F1 is my favorite exotic sports car after Need for Speed 2se.  A10 from being a boy during  Desert Storm where the media glorified the airplane as being the champion tank killer. Especially the Commanchi (May it rest in peace) after playing through Commanchi 4 on PC.

If I could make one change it would be to add the Army's m1a2 and then this picture would encompass everything I loved growing up.

 

[VoA]

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/5972866/#Comment_5972866

 

 

PDalessi_CIGPDalessi_CIG

 

 

 

Posted: November 26
Edited: November 26 by PDalessi_CIG

 

 

 

I figured I’d put in a quick comment regarding what's being said around here and maybe dampen the crazy speculation.

First of all, what is in the hangar right now, is a work-in-progress version of the vanguard. 
currently it will stay *more or less* the same, there won't be any massive changes to the overall shape at this stage (apart from the cockpit as I pointed out before), it'll be mostly refinement and adding detailing, lighting, all the good stuff that'll make the final product look as good as it should. Some people will be happy with this, some people won't be, there's never a way to please -everyone- and this is no exception.

With that said, the upside is that that doesn't mean that 'what you see now is what you get'; some good feedback was posted, and a fair bit of it is currently already implemented. For example some of the profile outlines have been sharpened up, and the wings angled down, among other things. 

A downside again would be that we don't have complete freedom to do whatever we want with the ships, there's a million and one considerations that we have to deal with when putting anything in these ships together, even more so when dealing with the interior than the exterior.
Personally I thought that the posted suggestions of shuffling the interior around to use more space was a great one.
The problem with that specific case however, is that I don't have the option to do that for multiple reasons. I won't go into detail on this, since there's really no point as it doesn't change anything.
There's plenty things I'd like to change on the ship as well, but can't, due to the fact that we either don't have the freedom to do so due to other constraints, or simply due to not having the time available; we do have a deadline to hit after all.

Secondly, regarding the "issue" of re-using parts from existing ships.
Reusing textures is a no-brainer, there's no reason to not reuse textures and shaders from other ships that already exist, within the same class of ship from the same manufacturer. It saves time, it saves memory, it saves your framerate, and it brings consistency in a line-up that is entirely supposed to be consistent. 

We are in the process of streamlining our ship pipeline so that it doesn't take excessively long to build these ships and have them available to you guys, and so that we don't end up building ships three times over from scratch.
Part of that is reusing parts of other ships that define the style of that manufacturer, a simple example would be the wings you see on the gladius, retaliator, and now vanguard. 
This is done for you, the backers, so that you don't have to wait until 2017, or whatever distant date, to get that specific ship that you're waiting for, instead, you could have it in a few months for example. Wanting everything 100% unique and custom built per ship is something that is simply not conducive to this.

To elaborate on this a little bit, the first bunch of ships of any line will generally be all unique, to build up a library of shapes to pull from, then later in the pipeline, we can speed up the process by adopting parts and shapes that are already there, in the defined style of the manufacturer. 

Demanding a special engineering console for the vanguard completely redesigned from the one in the retaliator is probably one of the more stand-out cases of this, since building a new one isn't just a case of 'make a new console', this also affects the UI, it'd have to get new UI elements laid out, even if it used the same graphics, it would have to have to go through the animation department too, not just for the 'open' animation of said console, but the characters would need new animations as well, it's a huge time-investment.

Just to reiterate, the vanguard you have in your hangars isn't the final product, a good bunch of feedback posted here has been taken in already, and some of it hasn't, for any number of reasons. Some people will be happy with the final vanguard, some won't. 
In the unfortunate case you're not happy with the final version of the vanguard, you always have the option of asking that more parts will be changed in your favour further down the line, or even melting it, and adopting a ship that's more to your liking instead. 
Keep in mind that we're always building new ships, so chances are that something else that you like a lot more will come along are pretty good.

I hope gave you a bit of insight, and put some minds at ease for the time being.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(also the ship flies pretty great ingame)

Permalink FlagQuote

[VoA]

[Shifty]

And the new nose snapped out of the stream

[VoA]

 

[Shifty]

Once I heared that 2.1 is live on the PTU and the Vanguard received another update I cam here for some pictures posted by VoA - was not disapointed

Reliable as always

 

The only thing I don´t like now are the wings, they need to be fully retractable.

[VoA]

Good 2.1 update video study of the new Vanguard (and changes from 2.0)