Jump to content

Banu Defender


VoA

Recommended Posts

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.

There's a YouTube video of someone using it for SC now.

Devil, source for the Hoplite in an Idris?

As for the view...look, I think the outside looking in view of the defender is lovely. But then the same goes for most of the ships. Unfortunately it seems all too often that the view from the inside looking out isn't a consideration, and instead we get this ass-tactic rationalization of balanced gameplay through functionally handicapped views.

No car, truck, etc does this but somehow you still know you're in a car or a truck. That's conveyed through other means such as speed, acceleration, turning rate, grip, noise, etc. I drive an econobox but I don't think it's Ferrari just because I can see unimpeded.

And even if you allow for balancing the gameplay via a restricted view, we have a great in game example of that in the helmets. The tank sees less to the sides and in the corners. No one, not even the outlaw with the individual eye holes in the helmet, has anything impeding the central field of view. It's asinine, and we should stop trying to bend our minds around accepting it. With enough pushback we could get this fixed, just like we got the Freelancer much improved. /rant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets see: widening the wings will fix the problem of visibility but without gimballed guns that adjust their aim to cross their trajectories at exactly the target distance you will have problems hitting another ship with both guns at the same time ;-) 

Dropping the wings into landing position is an even dumber idea (sorry @VoA ) I would suspect the gun mounts are so long because the tachyon gun has a long barrel. You would have to "bend" the projectile or beam substantially just before it leaves the barrel in order for the beam/projectile to fire forward which makes no sense whatsoever. You could also forget about non gimballed guns because you would have major aiming issues. For projectiles it is impossible and for beams it would mean using complicated optics, I have no clue if it could be done with Tachyons but seriously why would anyone design it that way ..... 

All this points at stupid design decisions from designers that have no clue about how to design "believeable" spaceships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Pharesm said:

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...

Even CR has a problem with the Defender's field of vision:

7k3YlbR.png

We all know how CR manages his projects... if he doesn't like it, there's no way its going to remain for long in his game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Booster Terrik said:

Lets see: widening the wings will fix the problem of visibility but without gimballed guns that adjust their aim to cross their trajectories at exactly the target distance you will have problems hitting another ship with both guns at the same time ;-) 

Dropping the wings into landing position is an even dumber idea (sorry @VoA ) I would suspect the gun mounts are so long because the tachyon gun has a long barrel. You would have to "bend" the projectile or beam substantially just before it leaves the barrel in order for the beam/projectile to fire forward which makes no sense whatsoever. You could also forget about non gimballed guns because you would have major aiming issues. For projectiles it is impossible and for beams it would mean using complicated optics, I have no clue if it could be done with Tachyons but seriously why would anyone design it that way ..... 

All this points at stupid design decisions from designers that have no clue about how to design "believeable" spaceships.

Its actually quite simple - move the guns to the inside face of each arm - having them on the tips of the arms would have them break off easy on a semi-bad landing

If you look at the configuration of the arms in landing position - you'll see that it solves the cockpit visibility issues - see images

 

Ship-Shape-Banu-Defender-Dual-Cockpit-De

MXlERL1g.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Everything is fine, just need to raise the cockpits or put dimples in. There is no reason for moving the weapons.

It is a simple reason just lower the whole area around (or raise the central spine) .

One reason as to why they can't move is because the center lines are now crossing out and can't move enough to correct the central line.

The odd thing is if was a centrally placed cockpit and co-pilot  probably be correct, but it will be easier to move the "wing" mounts down a bit or raise the center of the cockpits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, VoA said:

Its actually quite simple - move the guns to the inside face of each arm - having them on the tips of the arms would have them break off easy on a semi-bad landing

If you look at the configuration of the arms in landing position - you'll see that it solves the cockpit visibility issues - see images

 

Voa, if you look at the guns when the arms are in the landing position you see quite clearly that they point down at an angle. This might be useful if you design an aircraft  for ground strafing but otherwise pointing your guns anywhere but straight forward leads to aiming problems ;)

Since you mention you are an architect I hazard a guess that you are the kind of architect that favours form over function. The kind who sees the design of buildings as an art. The kind of architect who designs a building that looks striking yet fails to deliver on their functional purpose. The kind of architect that doesn't think about elementary structural requirements in order to deliver their unique vision ;) You know the kind of architect that professor John Silber rants about in his book :P If you are then I know why you keep defending bad design choices by CIG: both you and CIG  seem to think that something needs to look amazing and needs to be something you can show off in your portfolio (functionality be damned and all that ;) ). I wish CIG had the balls to design space ships that might actually look like something which humanity might actually build sometime in the future and not ships that just look cool but make no sense whatsoever :(

 

Sorry for the rant @VoA;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Booster Terrik said:

Voa, if you look at the guns when the arms are in the landing position you see quite clearly that they point down at an angle. This might be useful if you design an aircraft  for ground strafing but otherwise pointing your guns anywhere but straight forward leads to aiming problems ;)

What I mentioned in a previous post is that they can attach the weapons on the arms to the inside face of the arms (this allows them to gimble up or to be mounted at that inclined angle - to either fire straight - and to not get broken off if the pilot has a bad landing - as would happen with the current design).

1 hour ago, Booster Terrik said:

Since you mention you are an architect I hazard a guess that you are the kind of architect that favours form over function.

I am actually an Architect + not practicing Aerospace Engineer and Pilot.   Having the inclined arms does look cool (yes that is obviously a consideration) but as to function per above - (it doesn't' impact function - especially in space).   The larger consideration however is not to create more work for CIG with yet another extra animation - but look at a resolution that works just fine with their current concept sale model and planned landing animation mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EMP missiles sound cool; they go along with the nature of the ship as well.  Would be annoying as hell to get hit by. :0

Watching the stream again atm as I missed the first half and there's some stuff about the hard points I read that I want to confirm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, it's no big deal (EMP) just we may have them or normal missiles as the default loadout.

However, It is iffy whether they are going to put them on as default. Especially when they are supposed to be an long range escort ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Devil Khan said:

The very first Q&A was about the visibility of the defender he said they have 4-5 ways of getting around it and they have know it for a while.

Too many times, this is CIG's basic mode of operation:  Make something that's screwed up in several ways, but "they know already and have a work-around"

Why create problems without need in the first place?  Lack of talent and/or clear design priorities.   

- Reversing the design process is retarded. Fire people who do shit like that on our money!

- A master in the field of design knows how to design for function first - and as he's doing that, finds it a breeze to make it look awesome exactly by having the design follow a brilliantly designed function.  Which isn't hard, because function IS awesome in itself!  You just have to avoid mucking it up.  Function looks as elegant or crappy as your solution to the design problem was in the first place.

 

1) Contrived "looks" NEVER look good beyond the first 5 minutes of ownership (or however long it takes you to notice).

2) If someone lacks skill and talent, they might come up with a terrible, convoluted and inefficient technical solution to a given problem. The resulting contraption will not only work poorly, it will also look like the garbage it is.

3) You cannot hide the functional ugliness of a poorly conceived apparatus with a fancy skin. It never works out, because the skin would have to be unrelated to the bad underlying mechanism.  But a skin that can't cover function transparently will end up contrived, unrelated and adding its own inefficiency to the result.  Almost better to leave the ugly contraption ugly but honest.

4) Any design that falsifies the function is a non-verbal, 2D or 3D lie.  A design lie. An object that tries to look like something it isn't.

5) There is severe punishment for illusory designers with lack of sense and education.  We, who are injured by poor design every day, will be avenged sooner or later, by the perfect balance in the universe, that allows the sun to rise up every morning without any vibration or clanking sounds... ;-)

6) Without great talent and insight in the mathematics that curve all space, your only salvation is in copying nature as closely as you can, for you will never surpass her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning - North america , after noon Europe

bought a defender in hopes that  it will mess with someones day. it being a sniper  class 3 weapon and very accurate sensor suite-to be called a sniper. 

To pop some one and say good morning sunshine. 

 

20170426_065711[1].jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the general layout The weapons are close (not externally mounted and the look and feel of the ship is  very nice.

One of the "fixes" is reach the canopy and out stairs at the back part. It easier to chance as it requires very little effort. Just raises your line of sight line and the dimple at the pylon end giving your gimbal more range (limited still).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gimballed weapons being that far back means almost no shots towards the top of your screen at medium close targets. They could hang the gimbals lower for more deflection angle or (even better I think) recessed guns in the top and bottom of the arms towards the front that deploy to fire. Of course the issue there, with the cockpit so far back, is that the guns now obstruct the view.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Switch said:

Haha, perfect post!   I was wondering when the Q&A would show up, and you delivered the link right to my inbox! :D

Thanks for that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...