Hammerhead - Corvette Anti-fighter

[MericSever]

32 minutes ago, Reavern said:

The 115m x 75m x 16m stats you quoted are from 2017 -- they're in the ship brochure! CIG just revealed that they've re-designed the Hammerhead with a second deck. Do you really believe the stats are the same now? Really? 🤨 Ok, the HH ship designers didn't mention any specific stats in the Ship Shape video, but once again I guarantee that the Hammerhead has grown since 2017.

i think we will all find out once 3.3 hits but from what was said in ATV/SS it has stayed the same dimensions but they used more of the wasted space by lowering the crew quarters / cargo a bit - time stamp 4:54

P.S. you beat me by 1 minute 1 MINUTE 

Devil Khan

[MericSever]

Just looking at the image now hmmm... elevator to bridge and maybe ..... escape pods somewhere.

the concept forgot the elevator XD

this has obliviously been changed XD ... so much for not filling in that space lol

[Reavern]

2 hours ago, MericSever said:

i think we will all find out once 3.3 hits but from what was said in ATV/SS it has stayed the same dimensions but they used more of the wasted space by lowering the crew quarters / cargo a bit - time stamp 4:54

2

I agree that we won't know the 2018 Hammerhead's revised ship specs until 3.3 is released. Regardless, I am 100% certain that they'll be different than 2017 because I don't believe for a second that the Hammerhead will be the only ship that CIG has ever developed that remained the same size from concept to flyable. (I'm also 100% certain that the 2018 Hammerhead won't be the final design either.)

I've seen that AtV/SS video multiple times already and none of the interviewees said that the Hammerhead's dimensions are "exactly the same". I acknowledge that they didn't say the ship has grown either -- so it's a stalemate, at best. (Ambiguity sucks!) Regardless, I guarantee the ship's dimensions have changed since 2017.

They did say that they lowered the back half of the ship in order to fit the galley and other amenities on the upper deck. How could they lower the cargo hold and crew quarters inside the ship without also lowering the ventral hull? It doesn't matter if they raised the dorsal hull or lowered the ventral hull to fit in two decks, the point is that the distance between the dorsal and ventral hulls has increased to accommodate two decks, therefore, the Hammerhead's size has changed.

The fact that the Hammerhead now has two decks is incontrovertible proof the Hammerhead's design has changed since 2017, as I said it would.

@Devil Khan can be petty and refuse to acknowledge that I was right about the Hammerhead changing, but it's only a matter of time until the CIG reveals all of the changes they've made to the Hammerhead since the 2017 concept sale.

Although, we'll have to rely on Turbulent to post those 2018 Hammerhead ship specs, so who knows what will happen? 😖

The Hammerhead's Concept Sale Page still has these ship dimensions posted:

HAMMERHEAD

MAX CREW

9

LENGTH

100M

WIDTH

40M

HEIGHT

20M

Who knows where Turbulent got those ship specs from? And I remember a comment I made in this thread about the Hammerhead's mass only being 195,000 kg, which had to be wrong. Now it's 4,260,000 kg on the Ship Matrix. That's a helluva weight gain.

I sincerely wish that CIG would take over responsibility for maintaining the RSI site. Or if they explicitly stated the correct ship specs in their videos (both verbally and with an on-screen graphic) because we know that video content comes from CIG, not Turbulent. If the ship specs were included in videos it would preserve a record of how they changed over time. We could go back to a video from Nov 2017 and see the Hammerhead's specs were this. Then in the latest AtV/SS video from September 2018 the HH's specs were that. We could track the changes and go by the most up-to-date source. It would settle a lot of pointless arguments. But I don't think CIG wants an easy way of keeping track of all of their mistakes.

[Devil Khan]

The elevator only brings you down to the bridge, there are two lifts either side who the center walkway that give you access to the outside. 6 Elevators not counting 2 are just turret lifts and also severally "airlocks".

I have just one point. The 2 mid-corridors lifts I would have suggested that they would included air locks as the front, At least I think it is an airlock in front section I think. It has no reason for holding or room for salvaging really.

Still think that that is slight overlap with front and rear turrets aiming directly ahead. Of course you can simply point the ship up or down and then have the full power of 5 turrets. Although based on how the rear facing is set could be possible target all 6 turrets heh. Still a very small window IF possible.

Anyway, every really like the ship, anybody who doesn't can just briefly stand in front of my Hammerhead...  

@Reavern again using the wrong stats.

 

 

 

[MericSever]

1 hour ago, Devil Khan said:

anybody who doesn't can just briefly stand in front of my Hammerhead...   

the Hunt is on XD ..... Muhhhhhahahahahahaahah

 

[VoA]

9 hours ago, Danakar Endeel said:

Besides, I'm going to see if I can replace the 4xS4 guns on my top turret with 2xS5 (2xS6?) guns with the longest range. 

Don't think so.... just like the Hurricane is locked to the 4x guns per turret - its unlikely you can swap to 2x larger weapons for the Hammerhead turrets.

Also as an FYI - as I mentioned I do love the Hammerhead and have one alongside the Polaris - its just the Hammerhead isn't as flexible in its mission type as the Polaris.

9 hours ago, Danakar Endeel said:

That way I WILL have my STS deck gun! Someday... 

 

Just get an Idris-M

[Danakar Endeel]

1 hour ago, VoA said:

Don't think so.... just like the Hurricane is locked to the 4x guns per turret - its unlikely you can swap to 2x larger weapons for the Hammerhead turrets.

Also as an FYI - as I mentioned I do love the Hammerhead and have one alongside the Polaris - its just the Hammerhead isn't as flexible in its mission type as the Polaris.

Just get an Idris-M

No, the Idris is too big for me and I don't want a flightdeck. That's why I like the Hammerhead so much as it is just the right size for me. It still gives me the feeling of operating a warship with lots of firepower but without it being too large. 

Besides, in case you missed it. That image of the Javelin I linked? It uses the exact same turret model as the Hammerhead but with the only difference being that it has 2 Size 5 guns on it instead of 4 Size 4 guns.

The Reclaimer also uses that same turret model and also has 2 Size 5 guns on it. Here's an image of my Reclaimer:

And lastly there's the Idris which also uses the same turret model as I saw this in last year's SQ42 presentation video when the player was walking around on the bridge. That turret also looks like it had 2 S5 guns on it.

So I am wondering if that 2xS4 mount basically functions the same way as a twin-link 'puck'. An item that mounts onto a hardpoint in order to change the configuration from 1 gun to 2 guns. But without that item attached it's just a regular hardpoint. 

We also know that you are supposed to be able to shoot off turret pods and use the opening as a means to breach a ship. If that's the case, those turret pods are separate items that you can replace (you'd also have to buy a new pod if someone shot one off). So the turret model itself might be a universal version that fits on every large Aegis ship as it would be silly for CIG to create different entries of the exact same model and cause needless bloat. So I'm betting that the universal base-model of the turret can mount 2xS5 guns but the Hammerhead has items attached to it which turns it into 4xS4.

If my theory is correct then it would also offer more variety for every other ship using that turret model. So the Reclaimer, Idris, and Javelin could theoretically mount a quad-gun setup on their turret too if the person uses this 'dual-mount puck'. 

Just like I saw images of people being able to attach those dual-mounts from the 600i on the nose hardpoint of the Vanguard. Same principle where an item is attached to a hardpoint first which then allows for 2 smaller guns to be mounted.

And here's Noobifier using the twin-link mounts from 4x Origin 85X and put them on the S3 hardpoints of his Sabre.

[MericSever]

Yep the Gamble mount takes the place of the S5 socket and attaches twin mounts on to that for the 4xS4, for balancing i doubt they would allow for a 1xS5 mount (one each side)

 

[Danakar Endeel]

20 minutes ago, MericSever said:

Yep the Gamble mount takes the place of the S5 socket and attaches twin mounts on to that for the 4xS4, for balancing i doubt they would allow for a 1xS5 mount (one each side)

 

 

balance shouldn't be too much of an issue according to this weapon spreadsheet I found. The S5 ballistic repeaters had only a 30% dps increase or so compared to their S4 counterpart while the S5 energy cannons had around a 100% increase compared to their S4 counterpart. So balance would be no issue as most S5 weapons (except for energy guns) would actually gimp your dps.

So swapping out 2xS4 for 1xS5 would either yield the same dps or actually less in most cases but it gives more options and to me it's more aesthetically pleasing to have my top turret with 2 S5 guns.

Ofcourse weapon stats are always changing and I believe the devs have revamped a lot of weapons for 3.3. This spreadsheet only covers the current data for 3.2

[MericSever]

11 minutes ago, Danakar Endeel said:

So swapping out 2xS4 for 1xS5 would either yield the same dps or actually less in most cases but it gives more options and to me it's more aesthetically pleasing to have my top turret with 2 S5 guns.

I would be more concerned about power draw of the 2xS5 vs 4xS4 i think that would be good to know if it would be more OR less efficient    

[Danakar Endeel]

10 hours ago, MericSever said:

I would be more concerned about power draw of the 2xS5 vs 4xS4 i think that would be good to know if it would be more OR less efficient    

You know, I hadn't even considered that yet to be honest.

 

According to that spreadsheet it seems that 4 S4 M6A guns would draw 1228 total energy while 2 S5 M7A guns would only draw 800 total energy. 4 S4 Rhino Repeaters would draw 1720 total energy while the 2 S5 Galdereen Repeaters would draw only 1118 total energy.

So yeah, it appears that there's quite a bit of gain to be had in the efficiency department of energy consumption by using 2 S5 over 4 S4 guns.

[Painmiester]

Maybe they deploy in a wedge /knife edged  if the hydraulics allow for it.   the words run um thru comes thru mind or burn thru them.

 

did you try Gatling guns

[MericSever]

M6A seem like the best overall fit with a +5000 range vs 2500, dps value is better per shot though will need better gunners, at the end of the day i think if the 4 side guns are to be automated they will need to be Rinox4 cause ai/npc wont hit shit with anything else, Top and bottom your choice.

[Reavern]

19 hours ago, Devil Khan said:

 

@Reavern again using the wrong stats.

 

 

Why don't you bother READING my posts instead of knee-jerk replying? What you posted doesn't refute the point I was making -- it confirms it. I know that the Hammerhead's stats on the Concept Sale page are incorrect. That was my point! 🙄

The HH's stats changed (or were incorrect) during the November 2017 concept sale itself, which proves that CIG does change the ships and/or makes mistakes. The HH ship designers explained in the AtV/SS video that there wasn't room for all the amenities and rooms on a single deck inside the HH, which is why they changed the HH's interior and added a second deck. The HH's design changed, just as I predicted.

That's why your comments, and the others like you on this thread, with the attitude that the Hammerhead design hasn't changed and will never change, are so blatantly wrong and ridiculous. You can try to deflect the issue with nonsensical arguments, and conspicuously ignore all of the things I was right about so you can avoid admitting you were wrong, but I'm going to continue calling you out for it so everyone knows what you really are.

[VoA]

15 hours ago, Danakar Endeel said:

So I am wondering if that 2xS4 mount basically functions the same way as a twin-link 'puck'.

There is nothing from CIG saying it can't be swapped out and you present a good case - however - I think them defining the Hurricane Quad turret as not being able to be swapped out as a governing precedence.   CIG using the "model cab" of the turret is really just re-using assets and doesn't necessarily govern lore or balance considerations - we'll see.

[MericSever]

46 minutes ago, Reavern said:

Why don't you bother READING my posts instead of knee-jerk replying? What you posted doesn't refute the point I was making -- it confirms it. I know that the Hammerhead's stats on the Concept Sale page are incorrect. That was my point! 🙄

The HH's stats changed (or were incorrect) during the November 2017 concept sale itself, which proves that CIG does change the ships and/or makes mistakes. The HH ship designers explained in the AtV/SS video that there wasn't room for all the amenities and rooms on a single deck inside the HH, which is why they changed the HH's interior and added a second deck. The HH's design changed, just as I predicted.

That's why your comments, and the others like you on this thread, with the attitude that the Hammerhead design hasn't changed and will never change, are so blatantly wrong and ridiculous. You can try to deflect the issue with nonsensical arguments, and conspicuously ignore all of the things I was right about so you can avoid admitting you were wrong, but I'm going to continue calling you out for it so everyone knows what you really are.

I think we are all arguing semantics, i feel most are thinking about the overall shape / outer design witch (from concept) has changed, but only slightly and has maintained the dimensions via concept on the Brochure, the confusion was from this is different people (in CIG) saying it was about 100m vs what the concept artist / designer had it down for.     ! EDIT: the Web page is notorious for being out of date / wrong XD !

i don't think anyone would argue that the internal design hasn't changed since all we have had till now has been basic concept art, and as said in the vids is that while building it they noticed the issue and corrected it.

But anyway this is still all conjecture till its released as the saying goes ............. "All subject to change" has never ................ changed XD

[ChiefWarrant]

I scimmed through the last two pages worth so if it was mentioned already...... my bad,

Anyone notice, catch, know if the engines will still pivot like The Voyager (per concept sale video)?

[MericSever]

1 minute ago, JediKel said:

I scimmed through the last two pages worth so if it was mentioned already...... my bad,

Anyone notice, catch, know if the engines will still pivot like The Voyager (per concept sale video)?

Nothing has indicated THAT function has changed as its "the bees knee's" of awesomeness (X-WING)  

[Danakar Endeel]

6 hours ago, VoA said:

There is nothing from CIG saying it can't be swapped out and you present a good case - however - I think them defining the Hurricane Quad turret as not being able to be swapped out as a governing precedence.   CIG using the "model cab" of the turret is really just re-using assets and doesn't necessarily govern lore or balance considerations - we'll see.

The Anvil Hurricane has a unique/bespoke turret though and will likely only be used on that particular ship (but who knows, CIG might use that asset for the Anvil Carrack too if they wanted to) while the Reclaimer+Hammerhead+Idris+Javelin all share the same turret model but with 2 different weapon configurations (either 2xS5 or 4xS4).

Hence why I believe that the Aegis turret-pod is a standard model used for all large Aegis ships and comes stock with 2 S5 gun hardpoints while the Hammerhead just has dual-mount pucks attached to those S5 points in order to get the quad-S4 setup.

Now there could be some slight variation though where one of the pods may accept S6 guns (Javelin maybe) while the other is limited to S5 (like Reclaimer). But yeah, once the Hammerhead is ingame we can see what's possible and what's not.

[MericSever]

one thing i will say about the Hammerhead though is the placement of the rear turret, instead of one rear landing gear it should have been the same as the front that way it would have same turret placement

Edit: did a quick edit in gimp   : the Back Turret was moved to where the bottom landing gear was and the front landing was copied.

[Danakar Endeel]

1 hour ago, MericSever said:

one thing i will say about the Hammerhead though is the placement of the rear turret, instead of one rear landing gear it should have been the same as the front that way it would have same turret placement

Edit: did a quick edit in gimp   : the Back Turret was moved to where the bottom landing gear was and the front landing was copied.

Nice work!

But wouldn't that location put the turret entry right in the middle of the cargo area and effectively block the "roro" function of the cargo elevator (meaning you can't easily roll a rover on/off it)? Not entirely sure why you would want to move the turret either as the current location appears to offer more greater coverage of the back. In this location it looks like there would create a massive blind spot at the rear.

Here, compare the current location of the turret with your proposed location and it appears that this would create a big blind spot between the thrusters that a fighter could easily exploit. Also remember that the rear section was lowered by a couple meters to accomodate space needed for implementing the upper deck. So the turret would likely get stuck in the ground upon landing due to potential clearance issues.

[Danakar Endeel]

 

[MericSever]

12 minutes ago, Danakar Endeel said:

But wouldn't that location put the turret entry right in the middle of the cargo area and effectively block the "roro" function of the cargo elevator (meaning you can't easily roll a rober on/off it)? Not entirely sure why you would want to move the turret either as the current location appears to offer more coverage of the back. In this location it looks like there would be a massive blind spot at the rear. 

Here, compare the current location of the turret with your proposed location and it appears that this would create a big blid spot between the thrusters that a fighter could easily exploit. Also remember that the rear section was lowered to make room for the upper deck. So the turret would likely get stuck in the ground upon landing due to potential clearance issues.

the idea of this is that the turrets (top & bottom) extends out a bit making that blind spot non existent meh its just an idea as the rear turret has 0 ark forward can only fire back/down and sides not forward

[Danakar Endeel]

24 minutes ago, MericSever said:

the idea of this is that the turrets (top & bottom) extends out a bit making that blind spot non existent meh its just an idea as the rear turret has 0 ark forward can only fire back/down and sides not forward

True, but personally I think you'd lose too much coverage in the rear section (the most vulnerable area of a ship) only to gain the ability to have all 6 guns fire forward. So for me I prefer the current location as that offers more protection of the aft section (an area which CIG is notorious for having blind spots at on nearly every other ship they designed).

So I get the notion of it having a somewhat limited degree of freedom when it comes to 360 coverage but personally the loss of rear coverage (in addition to the problems it might cause for the elevator platform and general clearance issues) sounds like it would be too big a price to pay. But that's just my opinion.

EDIT: Here, I made a quick screengrab of the rear section of the Hammerhead when landed.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Danakar Endeel
added screenshot

[MericSever]

there is something that just came to me in regards to the Turrets is that there is no rotation on the extending clamps, this means it will handle rather awkwardly at certain angles and preventing full aiming potential     

On 9/24/2018 at 2:41 PM, MericSever said: