Drake Vulture

[Caldon]

No offence VoA, but I think you are being idealistic and unrealistic. Probably you will find there are plenty of 'experts' that will say anything if it means they get paid, or even if they get a few seconds of fame. This is, of course, assuming your blanket statement about said 'experts' being in defence of CIG is correct in the first place.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Caldon

[VoA]

2 hours ago, Caldon said:

No offence VoA, but I think you are being idealistic and unrealistic. Probably you will find there are plenty of 'experts' that will say anything if it means they get paid, or even if they get a few seconds of fame. This is, of course, assuming your blanket statement about said 'experts' being in defence of CIG is correct in the first place.

Architects and Engineers pretty much agree and can spot plagiarism or inspiration or an organic design (one that grew from a process).   If it were taken to court the ones that can show the process steps that led to the final design would win (most likely) - and would be in the majority.   Sure - you can have someone "lie" by being paid but if that happens you appeal and get a broader survey to be done (one where its unlikely that either side can be paid off)

Like I mentioned - I am an experienced architect and aerospace engineer - and seen this process before resolve itself with other cases (luckily none of my projects)

[Devil Khan]

plagiarism and inspiration are two different things when it comes down to a lawsuit. Again the prowler would be plagiarism, while the Vulture inspiration.   

[Metternich70]

18 hours ago, VoA said:

Actually it doesn't work that way - because you are assuming that each design expert would be subjectively different (and in most cases - not all) - it is not = especially when you then take it to a Survey level of experts

 

actually it works that way ... at least before all the IP courts I work with every day: one part takes his expert to witness, the other part takes his expert to witness (and you can be SURE they will tell exactly the opposite thing, followed by "in my opinion") and then the judge decides (and if he's not sure he appoints his own expert). 

15 hours ago, Devil Khan said:

plagiarism and inspiration are two different things when it comes down to a lawsuit. Again the prowler would be plagiarism, while the Vulture inspiration.   

And you are the judge and jury, of course.  

[VoA]

1 hour ago, Metternich70 said:

actually it works that way ... at least before all the IP courts I work with every day: one part takes his expert to witness, the other part takes his expert to witness (and you can be SURE they will tell exactly the opposite thing, followed by "in my opinion") and then the judge decides (and if he's not sure he appoints his own expert). 

And you are the judge and jury, of course.  

My field of expertise is identifying architectural or aircraft (being both an architect and aerospace engineer) - plagiarism / inspiration / organic design.   In these two fields it is easy to evaluate the process and how the end product was derived (this may not be the case for all IP's in general - from what you are used to).   I was just on a review where it was easy for one side to make a sustained argument for how the design was organic and the other side tried to refute it but had to concede for process reasons.    CIG provided us the process of design (Vulture) and in their own words their derivative inspirations (Dragonfly) = these can be tracked with a time stamp on saved files.   An opposition side trying to challenge what was presented in RTV would have to invalidate that process and it really wouldn't be logically possible among the perception of a random majority of design professionals.  If they could mount a logical challenge then a survey of non-participatory design experts can achieve a consensus.   That has been my experience.

[Metternich70]

1 hour ago, VoA said:

My field of expertise is identifying architectural or aircraft (being both an architect and aerospace engineer) - plagiarism / inspiration / organic design.   In these two fields it is easy to evaluate the process and how the end product was derived (this may not be the case for all IP's in general - from what you are used to).   I was just on a review where it was easy for one side to make a sustained argument for how the design was organic and the other side tried to refute it but had to concede for process reasons.    CIG provided us the process of design (Vulture) and in their own words their derivative inspirations (Dragonfly) = these can be tracked with a time stamp on saved files.   An opposition side trying to challenge what was presented in RTV would have to invalidate that process and it really wouldn't be logically possible among the perception of a random majority of design professionals.  If they could mount a logical challenge then a survey of non-participatory design experts can achieve a consensus.   That has been my experience.

Maybe the point is that - according to European law - independent creation may exclude plagiarism but not all the possible violations of IP rights on the shape of a good. European copyright is not in fact technically a protection against the "copy" of a creative work (as it is in the USA), rather consists in the granting of an exclusive right to the first person that has reached a certain creative result and has fixed it on an objective support. In other words, according to what I learned from some american lawyers I worked with on some cross border cases, copyright in USA it's much more similar to a passing off or protecetion against slavish imitation, while in Europe we have an "author's right" that mimics a patent protection.

[VoA]

38 minutes ago, Metternich70 said:

Maybe the point is that - according to European law - independent creation may exclude plagiarism but not all the possible violations of IP rights on the shape of a good. European copyright is not in fact technically a protection against the "copy" of a creative work (as it is in the USA), rather consists in the granting of an exclusive right to the first person that has reached a certain creative result and has fixed it on an objective support. In other words, according to what I learned from some american lawyers I worked with on some cross border cases, copyright in USA it's much more similar to a passing off or protecetion against slavish imitation, while in Europe we have an "author's right" that mimics a patent protection.

In the USA we have a problem of the side that is essentially "wrong" drag out the case so it forces a settlement from the side that is in the "right".... sorry but that is why we need TORT REFORM !!!! in the USA.

In this case - coming back to topic.  I think CIG could easily win their case to prove that the Vulture is an Organic design with no plagiarism or even inspiration from EVE

[Devil Khan]

Ok the main axiseseseseses are different by 90 deg to add. Vulture has arms, Eves doesn't. SC engines are mounted on axis, eve doesn't. Again size isn't an issue.  Jeeze it's like a bunch of crybabies and trolls.

This is like a common ship style as cars (motorized vehicles) EG SUV, Jeep(not the maker, but the 4x4 style), Estate or compact.

@Metternich70 you maybe a IP lawyer, but if you think you'd have a leg to stand on think again. Anyway, there is nothing inside their ships, it's a third person only (while in space)

Eve WAS NOT the first to use this in their game. Now stop this trolling gawd damit.

 

Quote

 

plagiarism

[pley-juh-riz-uh m, -jee-uh-riz-]

 

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

noun

1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne.
2. a piece of writing or other work reflecting such unauthorized use or imitation: “These two manuscripts are clearly plagiarisms,” the editor said, tossing them angrily on the floor

 

 

[Caldon]

44 minutes ago, Devil Khan said:

...

@Metternich70 you maybe a IP lawyer, but if you think you'd have a leg to stand on think again. Anyway, there is nothing inside their ships, it's a third person only (while in space)

...

 

"You may be a professional in this field who does this for a living, but I read something on the internet!!!1!"

This whole thread is a goldmine. I wonder when the mods will shut it down for going off-topic. To reply to you further, again, the USS Enterprise example. If I mount the nacelles at a different angle, it's still a ripoff. If I make the saucer slightly eliptical, it's still a ripoff. If I paint it a different tinge of gray, it's still a ripoff. The reason why most farm equipment looks the same is because - in the real world - it needs that shape for a function. While one could argue that the same is true for fictional ships, that still doesn't make it less of a ripoff. Things that fly in the real world don't necessarily hold up legally for fictional spaceships.

[Metternich70]

@Devil Khan

I ask you to stop calling me troll just because I express a different opinion than yours.

Next time I will report you. Ok?

[Devil Khan]

11 minutes ago, Metternich70 said:

@Devil Khan

I ask you to stop calling me troll just because I express a different opinion than yours.

Next time I will report you. Ok?

I didn't call you anything.

[Metternich70]

58 minutes ago, Devil Khan said:

I didn't call you anything.

Sure?

2 hours ago, Devil Khan said:

 

@Metternich70 you maybe a IP lawyer, but if you think you'd have a leg to stand on think again. Anyway, there is nothing inside their ships, it's a third person only (while in space)

Eve WAS NOT the first to use this in their game. Now stop this trolling gawd damit.

 

So , I repeat: do not call me troll again, else you will be reported.

[Devil Khan]

Ummm 2 new paragraphs and your name isn't mentions in those. You might want to rethink life.

[Danakar Endeel]

Alright everyone I'm not a moderator here but please knock it off. We have all said our piece about this whole Venture non-issue and this is getting a little ridiculous with you guys fighting eachother now over nothing. EvE devs already said they were perfectly fine with it so why not leave it at that?

Some goons over on /EvE and SA are probably laughing their asses off right now for having succeeded yet again in stirring up drama and spreading dissent among the Star Citizen backers. This thread is about the Drake Vulture, not some generic block with prongs that doesn't even have an interior.  

Even I, the ultimate 'Go Aegis or Go Home' guy, bought a DUR>Vulture CCU and I hate Drake! How is that for controversy?  

 

[Devil Khan]

Ummm this is Drake Vulture

Anyway, still think the cargo is very small for salvaging tbh

[Danakar Endeel]

1 hour ago, Devil Khan said:

Ummm this is Drake Vulture

Anyway, still think the cargo is very small for salvaging tbh

Yeah, although it is ofcourse the entry-level ship for the salvaging mechanic and not some behemoth like the Reclaimer. The Vulture was supposed to have 24SCU right? I guess it all depends on the value of those scrap cubes then. I'm also betting that we'll get another salvage ship that will be around the size of the Constellation. That way CIG will have entry-level, mid-range and top-tier covered. Then they will likely do the same for mining.

From what I've seen the Prospector has 32SCU at the moment but no mention if the 'saddlebags' are still removable or not. Personally I'm guessing CIG scrapped that idea and just gave it a flat 32SCU. As the Prospector can only store ore I guess that's fine for it to have more SCU compared to the Vulture which can use its cargospace for other things besides scrap. 

edit: Oh, the Vulture only has 12SCU? I thought it would have 24. 12SCU sounds rather minimal...  

Edited June 21, 2018 by Danakar Endeel

[VoA]

Just to show how silly the Design Controversy is now with the Drake Vulture - now Reddit is saying that Drake copied the Early Connie concepts from Ryan Church (the RSI concept Artits) 

[GeraldEvans]

Guys, there's no call for taking any of this personally. I'm not in love with the design but conceptually it works. Does it look like another ship? Yes. And the Dragonfly looks exactly like a riding mower.

I don't really care, except for how it works in the game. We're seeing early mining right now and it looks pretty good to me. I'd like to see the pile diminish rather than n seconds of floaty rock coming in and then 'poof' the original hunk vanishes, but that's polish and iteration.  So, I can see how this works for salvage, at least on a very small scale. My problem with it would be that the arms are a bit narrow to straddle much. Better if they had some ability to spread out wider. Maybe that's a way to implement skill here: get the arms the right width to collect the pieces, etc.

Regardless, it looks okay, it looks Drake, and it looks industrial, without looking purposely piratey. I look forward to crushing many of them whole in my Reclaimer.

[Chimaera]

This thread has gone off the rails. Tack it back toward actual discussions of the SHIP and salvage dynamics, or it will be locked and hidden so a new thread can be placed up. Any further CoC or Forum Guidelines violations will be addressed strongly. @HR Officer @Human Resources are watching this thread.

 

If you feel that CIG has "lost the plot" or is "copying" or whatever, make your own thread specifically for that debate...but know that it will be heavily moderated for CoC violations. My personal recommendation would be to spend more time thinking about how best to let CIG know your opinion, as opposed to arguing and insulting members of the community who don't agree with your viewpoint.

[VoA]

Any chance we can get the Vulture added to the Portal so we can add it to our Hangars? - thanks

[Danakar Endeel]

Q&A: Drake Vulture

Spoiler

 

 

Does the Vulture have any special synergy with other Drake ships like the Caterpillar? For example, the rear of the Vulture looks like it could easily back up to the Caterpillar‘s front air-shield door for easy offloading of salvage. (fan image example)

 

 

 

 

There are no particular plans to have any synergy with other Drake ships as suggested in the image, however the idea is interesting and should work in theory with the Caterpillar and other ships of a similar arrangement.

 

The Vulture has 12 SCU however, the similar entry level miner MISC Prospector has 128 SCU. With that significant difference of cargo, how will profit differ between the ships?

 

The Prospector has its 128 SCU capacity spread across its multiple saddlebag containers, but cannot hold the full 128 SCU at a single time and must detach these containers to keep collecting material. Each container currently holds 8 SCU so without detaching them the Prospector can naturally only hold 32 SCU at a single time, the current value in 3.2.

 

 

Is a scant 12 SCU of scrap material going to be economically viable, considering that scrap usually isn’t worth much as a commodity, plus the cost of fuel burn, cost of demolition charges, and risk of operating a relatively undefended ship in potentially hazardous environments?

As with all things economy based, we will be reviewing the profit/hour balance and make adjustments where needed. People should not speculate on the viability of the Vulture based on the current in-game scrap metal prices, as these are not the same as what the Vulture will produce. Internally, we discussed the size of the cargo bay during concept and made sure that if we need to increase the size of it, it can be brought in line with the other profession starter ships without requiring a significant rework. Likewise, if we feel the Prospector containers skew the comparison, they can be brought down in capacity.

 

Since the Prospector can scan to locate mineable nodes, will the Vulture have similar scanning tech onboard to tell its pilot what components are still salvageable (salable/usable) and what are not instead of having to EVA out to check manually?

 

Absolutely, all ships will have the scanning ability and certain ships, such as the Vulture, have enhanced scanners specifically suited to that role.

 

Does the 12 SCU of cargo space include the space for storing cubes of salvage, or is there a different hold specifically for that?

 

The 12 SCU cargo space is the cargo grid for both cubes and scavenged items which you wish to legitimately store. Of course, as in all ships, you can place items outside the cargo grids. However, this has downsides, such as your cargo not being secure and risking being damaged, as well as not being recognized or detected by the kiosk or sales interfaces as legitimate goods for sale.

 

 

If intact components will typically be more valuable for low-volume salvaging versus compressed scrap, and the Vulture can only secure those items by pilot EVA, why would players find the Vulture more desirable to use for light salvage instead of better defended and/or cheaper fighter craft/light hauler like the Hornet, Cutlass, Freelancer, or Aurora CL?

 

 

Component salvaging is only one part of the salvage career, and while any ship could technically do this, the Vulture is equipped for the whole process (scraping, processing, and ship breaking) which will maximize profit from your trips versus just grabbing components alone. The Vulture, and other salvage ships such as the Reclaimer, come equipped with dedicated salvage scanners that allow you to identify components and their states much easier than non-dedicated ships. So while you could strip every item out of an abandoned ship into a Cutlass, 90% of it could be such low value that the Vulture owner would return essentially the same end profit by only grabbing the 10% identified as worthwhile.

An example to use would be Mining in 3.2. Players can just fracture and extract every rock in sight, but without scanning and reviewing their composition and carefully fracturing, returns will be low compared with a player who specifically targets the high-value assets.

 

Given that the initial Vulture concept that the community voted for emphasized a ship oriented towards salvaging valuable components over processing large volumes of low-value scrap material, what prompted the shift towards making the Vulture a low-volume, low-value raw material reclamation ship?

 

During the concept phase we started out with just the component salvaging process as its key aim, but as we progressed through the concepts, it became clear that this wasn’t a particularly interesting or fulfilling role for the ship. As such, we decided to make the Vulture a more rounded introduction to Salvage covering all the basic principles.

Considering the Vulture can only carry roughly a snub-fighter’s worth of compressed scrap, why were live-aboard features prioritized over just making it a daytripper with increased storage space for cargo and/or better tools for harvesting intact components?

 

Player accommodation and live-aboard features will have a role in the future. As such, we decided that entry-level ships should have these basic features to support solo players in being able to spend long amounts of time away from base, rather than requiring daytripper style planning.

 

Will there be any risks associated to salvage akin in to mining? I.e. rupturing a fuel line, tractoring in a live wire or causing a structural collapse?

 

Definitely, like Mining we don’t want it simple to be a click and leave mechanic, but to require some level of skill to control the return on investment for salvaged materials.

 

What advantage does the Vulture have over another ship that simply removes profitable/intact components and not stay to melt the hull of a wrecked ship?

 

Please see our answer to question six above.

Since the Vulture requires some manual cutting of scrap, will it come with the requisite hand tools, or will those have to be purchased separately?

 

Every Vulture comes equipped with the Multitool which can be used for welding and cutting of objects, alongside a full complement of salvage charges.

 

12 SCU of cargo… okay let´s try some math.
The Cargo area must be at least 2 SCU wide and 2 SCU in height. So 2 × 2 x L = 12 SCU ; L = 3. So the cargo area should be about 3 SCU long.
For comparison: 1 mid sized power plant (Terrapin for example) is about the size of 1 SCU.
Conclusion: The most profitable job in salvage is to find used components that are still working so cutting them in smaller parts is no option. 
So the pilot of the Vulture can store up to 12 mid sized components. Isn´t that a little bit small? Or did I forget an important aspect of salvage?

 

As mentioned earlier, we’ll be making sure the return is appropriate from an economy point of view and that one method of salvaging is not vastly superior to the other. Components salvaged from a ship are extremely unlikely to be in pristine condition and their value will drop appropriately, presuming you can find a buyer willing to accept items in that condition. On the flip side, processed and compacted raw materials from salvage will be readily bought by most manufacturing locations and refineries.

Are there VTOL thrusters on the ship? The RTV section mentioned the Vulture had VTOL thrusters instead of a grav-lev system, but the ship description only has main, retro, and maneuvering thrusters.

 

This is just an oversight on the ship matrix and will be updated soon. The ship has two dedicated VTOL thrusters in the front nacelles at the rear of the landing gear, plus the rear two main engines will have VTOL capabilities if required. An early concept had them doing thrust vectoring, but this was left off later images. We may just use an additional integral thruster depending on what can be implemented at the time of production and whether it is required based on the other thrusters on the ship and their capacities.

 

 

[Reavern]

Quote

As with all things economy based, we will be reviewing the profit/hour balance and make adjustments where needed. People should not speculate on the viability of the Vulture based on the current in-game scrap metal prices, as these are not the same as what the Vulture will produce. Internally, we discussed the size of the cargo bay during concept and made sure that if we need to increase the size of it, it can be brought in line with the other profession starter ships without requiring a significant rework. Likewise, if we feel the Prospector containers skew the comparison, they can be brought down in capacity.

 

Bad news for Prospector owners: CIG screwed up the design of the Drake Vulture so badly that they might have to nerf the Prospector's cargo capacity to bring it down to the same level.

The Prospector's removable saddlebag system gives it 128 SCU of ore capacity, whereas the Vulture only has 12 SCU.

Shouldn't CIG have compared the cargo capacities of these two industrial ships during the concept phase, instead of afterward? Apparently, it didn't occur to CIG until someone asked that question. CIG has gotten so sloppy with their concept ship designs, it's disgraceful!

Instead of screwing over Prospector owners, why doesn't CIG give the Vulture a removable storage option instead? Like a removable cargo container that slots into the aft hold, which can be ejected and carried away by a cargo hauler, letting the Vulture stay and continue scrapping ships. That's not a brilliant, new idea. The Orion's spinning ore storage pods are supposed to work like that. So CIG ripped off the Dragonfly's design for the Vulture, but they didn't think of using the Orion's ore storage solution? WTF!?!

This is terrible timing because the Prospector can finally mine in Alpha 3.2, and now CIG is considering nerfing it. Prospector owners should be justifiably PO'd at CIG and demand they leave the mining ship alone. CIG should work on fixing the Vulture's horrible design, not screwing over Prospector owners.

[Danakar Endeel]

33 minutes ago, Reavern said:

Bad news for Prospector owners: CIG screwed up the design of the Drake Vulture so badly that they might have to nerf the Prospector's cargo capacity to bring it down to the same level.

The Prospector's removable saddlebag system gives it 128 SCU of ore capacity, whereas the Vulture only has 12 SCU.

Shouldn't CIG have compared the cargo capacities of these two industrial ships during the concept phase, instead of afterward? Apparently, it didn't occur to CIG until someone asked that question. CIG has gotten so sloppy with their concept ship designs, it's disgraceful!

Instead of screwing over Prospector owners, why doesn't CIG give the Vulture a removable storage option instead? Like a removable cargo container that slots into the aft hold, which can be ejected and carried away by a cargo hauler, letting the Vulture stay and continue scrapping ships. That's not a brilliant, new idea. The Orion's spinning ore storage pods are supposed to work like that. So CIG ripped off the Dragonfly's design for the Vulture, but they didn't think of using the Orion's ore storage solution? WTF!?!

This is terrible timing because the Prospector can finally mine in Alpha 3.2, and now CIG is considering nerfing it. Prospector owners should be justifiably PO'd at CIG and demand they leave the mining ship alone. CIG should work on fixing the Vulture's horrible design, not screwing over Prospector owners.

Yeah, I already suspected that in the end the Prospector will lose those removable bags and be reduced to 32SCU (4x8SCU) while I'm guessing that the Vulture will get cargo plates installed in the entire bay for a total of 24SCU instead of only 12SCU (half of the bay) as it is now.

Then with all 24SCU fully loaded in the cargohold you wouldn't be able to exit out the rear but for the Vulture that wouldn't matter because it has a cockpit entry/exit. So I believe CIG already kept that in mind as they did the exact same thing with the updated Avenger where you can't walk through the cargohold either when fully loaded.

That's what I suspect at any rate. 32SCU for the Prospector (mined ore only) and 24SCU for the Vulture (salvage and/or regular cargo). 

[Chimaera]

I'd like to see this discussed more in the Prospector thread if it isn't already being done.

[VoA]