Danakar Endeel Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Not sure if this was mentioned, but don't get your hopes up about mounting any S3 fixed weapons. Taken from JumpPoint: Quote " Weapon Hardpoints: 4 x Size 2 Weapons (Gimbal – Nose) 2 x S3 Missile Hardpoint (4 x S2 Missiles) Gimballed weapons on the nose for the co-pilot to more easily control (if co-pilot is controlling weapons) while the pilot is flying. Weapons on the nose have fixed gimbal mounts, fixed mounts. Weapons of larger sizes cannot be equipped. " Apparently it's a forced gimbal ship as the 4xS2 guns are on gimbal mounts that are part of the ship and cannot be swapped out for larger S3 fixed guns. If so, this makes the ship completely useless to me as a HOTAS user. So a ship with only 4xS2 guns and 4 S2 missiles which forces you to fly it with 2 people (or a mouse) to use effectively? No thanks, I'll just stick with my Sabre or get a Cutlass Blue+Dragonfly for the same amount of money. Stahlkopp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athenos Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 The best thing would be to wait until the specs are clarified in one the Q&A next week before buying. Might have to reconsider adding this ship to my collection if it forced gimbal S2 weapons. As someone who is going to be using HOSAS to maneuver, fixed guns are a must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeraldEvans Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Well with TrackIR, Tobii 4c, or VR you can still use gimballed weapons effectively as a joystick user. So those are alternative solutions as well. CheeseNorris and AstroJak 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athenos Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 The Tobii 4c looks interesting. VR will probably be cheaper by the time Star Citizen launches, hopefully CIG has added VR support by then. GeraldEvans 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Khan Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 don't compare the Defender with a fighter IE Sabre or Hornet. Escort ship doesn't mean fighter. It has Higher shields, but oddly very little armor. As to be expected poor turning speed. It does have 4 S3 Heavy weapons and very long range compared to the rest of fighter ships. Get it into a dog fight and you'll lose (Defender) most likely. Riley Egret 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalYurr Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Got one; not a fighter enthusiast (this is the only one I have), but I intend on collecting every Banu ship that's available, so I needz it. Also, I liked playing Wip3out when I was in school. :3 For the most part I like the shape of the ship as is, barring a few minor tweaks for visibility through development. Not particularly bothered about having some stuff in the way; Glaive is the same. I just want whatever the Banu use, but with a readable UI and an appropriately sized seat. Need confirmation from the Q&A about the gimbal sizes; are they S3 (like the stats indicate) with S2 weapons on them (can be upgraded), or is S2 the biggest they can hold (and they should be listed as S2's). The Sabre Comet has 2xS3 gimbals and they hold S3 weapons, so I assume the same can be applied to the Defender (if the page for it is accurate). I hate typing about this stuff, it's such a mess. Hopefully they explain more about the benefits of the shield being Tevarin, as the Prowlers' has some fancy specs; I guess it'll be better than a human one. Need to know more about the Singe weapons too; they were said to be long range/high damage, so they'll probably have a slow rate of fire. This mentions being better for shorter journeys unless in a fleet, but it doesn't site fuel limitations as a reason specifically; another thing we could use some more info on. GeraldEvans and AstroJak 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroJak Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, GalYurr said: are they S3 (like the stats indicate) with S2 weapons on them (can be upgraded), or is S2 the biggest they can hold (and they should be listed as S2's) @GalYurr i was just looking up this question myself as i've seen in this thread many contradictions with regards to the hardpoints. Currently both the ships matrix page as well as the ship concept sale page, list this ship with 2 x S3 fixed weapons and 4 x S3 gimbaled weapons. there is no missiles mentioned anywhere and no pylon hardpoints shown. however the write up does mention that this ship fired missiles on some vanduul raiders?? With regards to the gimbaled weapons, i am hopeful these are not just S2 weapons in a S3 gimbal!!! because if the tachyon cannons are long range and powerful at size 2 they would be OP and soon would be outfitted on every PC ship you came across. I believe they should have been much bigger weapons thereby limiting which ships could have them going forward. Thoughts??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalYurr Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 The missile hardpoints are slapped unceremoniously underneath the ship atm I think. I guess they're what the fixed hardpoints are supposed to be representing. Mixed fixed/gimballed would be complete trash, so that better not be correct. They talked about needing an adapter for putting alien weapons on human ships in the Blades Q&A, so you'd maybe need an S3 hardpoint on a human ship to equip Singes if they are S2. I hope they're S3's as well though. With them being locked as gimbals and not allowing S4's it's a little more likely than otherwise. 4xS4's would be rediculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroJak Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 well if they are in fact S2 weapons, i'll be strapping 2X S2 Sings to both of my prowlers size 5 gimbles and ripping all those MoFo pirates to pieces!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Khan Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 S2 on MAX s3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoA Posted April 23, 2017 Author Share Posted April 23, 2017 Teller vid Sky Captain and Pharesm 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Captain Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 I appreciate this ship the more I see it from different angles. The holo-model views are helpful for that. Thanks. I just wonder how big of a deal the pilot visibility issue will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Khan Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 In Jump Point the Devs already noticed the FOV and it would be fixed. Sky Captain 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reavern Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 It's clear that the Banu Defender appears to have visibility issues caused by the wing-arms... however, I think most critics are overlooking the obvious fact that the wing-arms can MOVE! As you can see, the Defender's wing-arms don't just lower, they slide aft on articulating "shoulder joints", shortening them by about half their length. It's also possible the wing-arms can open wider. In the April issue of Jump Point that was just released, on Page 15, there's this quote: Quote Guns or tech that folds out are also something to take into account. The traders like to appear innocent, but can fully deploy weapons if the need arises. I speculate that the Defender has a "combat mode" that automatically articulates the wing-arms for improved visibility and gives the Defender a more aggressive stance, like a crab brandishing its pincers. Since the Banu aren't an aggressive alien civilization, it would make sense that they designed the Defender so that in its default flight configuration it appears passive and non-threatening -- like it's impractical as a starfighter and therefore not intimidating. But in an instant, it can convert to combat mode and become very menacing! That's my theory about the Banu Defender's visibility issue. I expect it will be explained in the upcoming Q&A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Villder Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Radiant Flux addresses a very important problem with the Banu Defender concept as it was presented to us and provides a decent solution imo: GeraldEvans 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Khan Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Read the previous posts Tom. They have said the there was a problem with LOS and they will adjust the problem. This was weeks ago from the Devs the this months issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Villder Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Devil Khan said: Read the previous posts Tom. They have said the there was a problem with LOS and they will adjust the problem. This was weeks ago from the Devs the this months issue. Although we've seen them adjust ships as they transition from concept to in-game (and even after its initial implementation), its good to hear them address this one. While I love the design, I just couldn't stop thinking about the arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharesm Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 11 hours ago, VoA said: Teller vid nice, especially with crew shown in place. But very hard to believe its weight is so close to the Gladius... Did the Banu build this with foamed metal? Tryrofoam® ...? 5 hours ago, Tom Villder said: Radiant Flux addresses a very important problem with the Banu Defender concept as it was presented to us and provides a decent solution imo: Sad but intended... I guarantee you, that's what they'll say... "'balancing' ships by making the cockpit view miserable" Please do something: Watch the part from Friday's ATV again, where the head of the ship design department responsible for the Defender explains how ships are designed under his lead. . . . He's plainly admitting to reversing the design process. Doing it like the Chinese in the 70's with their awful little contraptions. I guarantee, he has no degree in anything design related. A completely idiotic hire. Beyond that, he reminds me of Sinofsky. Always with his thankful little smile, marveling how he managed to get his job with an IQ of 80, but never shy to interrupt (on video) and override (his own words) designers in his department who know more and who actually have talent. Making designers work under him is affront and insult, only people without other options will put up with... /rant Aside from the Star Trek fun, he did make a few good points... GeraldEvans 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoA Posted April 24, 2017 Author Share Posted April 24, 2017 I think people are blowing the cockpit visibility issue WAY out of proportion since CIG has an easy fix with the existing design per this POST and per @Reavern post above. What needs to happen is for people to post on Spectrum (when CIG creates the thread) to point out the easy fix for the Q/A thread when questions are asked. Devil Khan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faquarl25 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 I STRONGLY dislike the forced fixing of gimbals. As an Avenger pilot, I find it incredibly annoying to be forced to play around a single feature when they promised the opposite, that any hard point could be swapped out. Instead its, well you can except on that one and that one and that one grrrrrr... Stahlkopp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefWarrant Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Don't bash me.... I had a probably rhetorical question. It's similar in size to the Saber, so is it safe to say it can land in the Idris? (I am sure we'll get an answer this week but the Q&A don't always cover he simple inquiries.). PS.... I personally like this idea to solve the visibility conundrum Fintz, Danakar Endeel and GeraldEvans 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Khan Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 if a vanguard can land on an Idris then a Defender can too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheeseNorris Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 On 4/23/2017 at 3:24 AM, GeraldEvans said: Well with TrackIR, Tobii 4c, or VR you can still use gimballed weapons effectively as a joystick user. So those are alternative solutions as well. I'm sitting on the Tobii 4C, used for ED. I'm just hoping CIG would support this tech as well. You can't quite aim guns with eyes, but its good enough to support looking around without tilting the head. Found that awkward. GeraldEvans 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharesm Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Devil Khan said: if a vanguard can land on an Idris then a Defender can too. Yeah, but can I land a Firefly in a Defender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefWarrant Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 2 hours ago, Devil Khan said: if a vanguard can land on an Idris then a Defender can too. Never knew the VG was allowed to land on the Idris. The Jav I knew about but I thought they were only allowing "small" landing pads on the Idris. GeraldEvans 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now