Constellation

[Lover]

I read a CIG quote somewhere in the forum that those beam cannons shown in some of the Retaliator artwork are not actually in the current plans for the game...

 

sadface...

[AdmiralBoom]

I was hoping to use my Stella for escort missions but the more i read and hear it seems like the Retaliator might be a better bet, anyone thoughts?

[KaptainDark]

Actually I was thinking along the same lines AdmiralBoom, one of the reasons I'm gonna grab a Retaliator is because of my desire to be part of a heavy wing.  With a Retaliator properly crewed, backed up by a constellation, I think people are gonna think twice about messing with that hypothetical trade lane.  Of course, I think the retaliator lacks the agility of the constellation, but in a long range convoy op, your gonna be in some kinda squadron I assume.  Perhaps that balances that concern out.  

 

just my 2 cents.  

[Reavern]

If you want a larger ship for trade convoys, why not just go with the Constellation? It can carry 5 tons more cargo than the Retaliator, it's probably faster and more agile, requires 2 less crew, and has more than twice as many upgrade slots. It seems better suited for merchant convoys IMO. I know that the Retaliator doesn't have to be used as a bomber, but that's what it's original role was, so it's hard to justify it doing other things, especially when the Constellation carries more cargo for trade runs and is probably more self-reliant in combat. And if you want to haul the most cargo and be part of a trade convoy, the Starfarer is an unbeatable value.

[EzE]

I'm curious as to "how agile" the constellation (and some other ships for that matter) will be. I can see it moving in a straight line pretty fast, seeing as it has those four large engines on the back, but how about putting on the breaks or turning? I don't see any reverse thrusters, unless the large engines swivel around or fire both ways - and if they do, is that standard for flight? And I don't see any side, top or bottom thrusters that are very large either (smaller thrusters will have to burn for longer, making it harder to change movement in larger ships).

So how agile will it actually be?

 

 

Constellation:

 

 

P52 (just for kicks):

 

also: the arrows show the direction the thrusters are fired, and are opposite of the direction the ship will turn or rotate.

 

 

Think I'm going to head over to the RSI forums and see if I can find an official answer there. Maybe I missed something... 

[Silveryn]

I've been wondering the exact same thing as well. 

Going fast is nice and all, but what about stopping? Especially for the Origin M50 as a prime example. 2 massive thrusters on the back, and not much on the front.

 

I do know that the stella TR6 thrusters can deviate at least 30 degrees from straight, but i'm not sure how much farther than that. Also, directly firing backwards would create a huge strain on the ship and crew. I'm interested in seeing how this will all be incorporated...

[Reavern]

The Constellation should be extremely agile, because it's the only ship (except the Idris) that has TR3 maneuvering thrusters, whereas every other ship has TR1 or TR2 maneuvering thrusters. The Constellation is also the only known shown that has engines that can pivot 180-degrees, allowing it to execute a full burn emergency stop, or fly in reverse at full speed.

 

In the Hornet commercial, the Hornet's braking maneuver was a vintage Top Gun trick -- very '80s. The Constellation should be able to pull off far more impressive feats of agility.

[Morpheus]

Hopefully the ship's inertial dampers and artificial gravity generators are able to cope. So, when Reavern executes a cobra maneuver in his connie, the contents of his ship and his passengers will not hate him...much. :-P

[Maverick]

The Constellation should be extremely agile, because it's the only ship (except the Idris) that has TR3 maneuvering thrusters, whereas every other ship has TR1 or TR2 maneuvering thrusters. The Constellation is also the only known shown that has engines that can pivot 180-degrees, allowing it to execute a full burn emergency stop, or fly in reverse at full speed.

I read this again and again and I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

The TR6 thrusters should be able to turn 180°, which means that they can be swapped completely to the right or completely to the left in a 90° angle, which, if you add both angles, makes the 180°. No full speed backwards flying imo.

[Lowt3ch]

Is it true we're going to be able to change the color of the Constellation?

 

[novastorm]

Is it true we're going to be able to change the color of the Constellation?

 

 

Probably not, this vid was done by changing materials on the models found in the hangar module by modders as far as i know.

[Reavern]

I read this again and again and I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The TR6 thrusters should be able to turn 180°, which means that they can be swapped completely to the right or completely to the left in a 90° angle, which, if you add both angles, makes the 180°. No full speed backwards flying imo.

That's not what 180-degree pivot means. You don't measure from one extreme to the opposite, you start at the centre, where the arc begins. 90-degrees would mean they can pivot right or left at a right angle. 180-degrees means the engines can spin to the reverse. 360 would mean they can rotate in a complete circle. The notes on Page 3 in the Constellation Mk3 brochure are very clear: The engine nacelles can "Pivot 180 degrees for high G deceleration", meaning that the engines are pointed in reverse from the ship's direction of travel so their thrust rapidly decelerates the ship. In the comments on Page 7 and 10 of JP6, the Connie's designer and CR mention several times that the engines can pivot 180 degrees and be used for rapid deceleration. And if the reversed engines can be used for emergency braking, then it's reasonable to expect they can be used to fly in reverse at full speed.

[eNeRGy]

I wonder how long it takes the engines to pivot that 180^o; and if you can keep them pointed at a side angel instead for some crazy sideways thrust if needed.

[EzE]

So they can be used for emergency breaking - awesome  - that's kinda bad ass - puts the option out for more maneuvers.

 

But what I'm worried about is normal breaking and turning. I haven't seen any thrusters on the front of the ship. If you don't have a force in the opposite direction, forget stopping, or even breaking around a turn. You'll overshoot the turn/arc by a mile.

Sure you can turn the ship, but you're still moving in the Z (or x or y - it's all relative) direction and you're just flying sideways.

 

(The same goes for other ships. The hornet is small enough, and seems to have enough multi-directional thrusters to solve the issue, but what about the M50? or P52? no reverse thrust?)

 

And what about rotation? How powerful are these small thrusters all over the ship? can they be moved further from the axis for better/faster rotation?

[Reavern]

The Connie brochure shows that its maneuvering thrusters have 5 ports that can fire in 5 directions (forward, reverse, side, up, and down), so they can be used for decelerating. CR said on page 10 of JP6 that normally the Connie would use its thrusters to decelerate, and the engines would reverse for emergency braking. However, the thrusters wouldn't produce nearly as much counter-thrust as the main engines. It would be like trying to slow down a rocket engine with a fire extinguisher. That's why the Connie's pivoting engine nacelles will be so extraordinary. Compared to other ships, the Connie should be able to stop on a dime.

[NanoPoly]

Taken from jumppoint no. 6 page 3 : "The Constellation includes a launch bay with a small p52 fighercraft, plus in-flight configurable arrays, optimized for travel, combat and other flight modes."

 

For me thats looks like, it comes with a p52

[EzE]

...the thrusters wouldn't produce nearly as much counter-thrust as the main engines. It would be like trying to slow down a rocket engine with a fire extinguisher....

 

That makes more sense. I guess it will be just longer breaking periods for normal travel.

 

 

...the Connie should be able to stop on a dime.

 

I really hope so. I'm also hoping I can swing those engines can swing around as needed. It would be beyond awesome if I could pull some top gun maneuvers in a Constellation!

[Perditor]

That makes more sense. I guess it will be just longer breaking periods for normal travel.

 

 

 

I really hope so. I'm also hoping I can swing those engines can swing around as needed. It would be beyond awesome if I could pull some top gun maneuvers in a Constellation!

 

If not, you can always do a 180* y-axis roll and stop using the main-thrusters.

[EzE]

Taken from jumppoint no. 6 page 3 : "The Constellation includes a launch bay with a small p52 fighercraft, plus in-flight configurable arrays, optimized for travel, combat and other flight modes."

 

I have a feeling that those P52's that come with the Constellation are going to be nasty little buggers too. 

The way that the thrusters are set up, and how each one is further from the axis of rotation than most ship's thrusters makes it look like it will be highly maneuverable - a pain in the rear to shoot down. A good pilot could cause some damage.

[Maverick]

That's not what 180-degree pivot means. You don't measure from one extreme to the opposite, you start at the centre, where the arc begins. 90-degrees would mean they can pivot right or left at a right angle. 180-degrees means the engines can spin to the reverse. 360 would mean they can rotate in a complete circle. The notes on Page 3 in the Constellation Mk3 brochure are very clear: The engine nacelles can "Pivot 180 degrees for high G deceleration", meaning that the engines are pointed in reverse from the ship's direction of travel so their thrust rapidly decelerates the ship. In the comments on Page 7 and 10 of JP6, the Connie's designer and CR mention several times that the engines can pivot 180 degrees and be used for rapid deceleration. And if the reversed engines can be used for emergency braking, then it's reasonable to expect they can be used to fly in reverse at full speed.

There's also a figure showing the configuration with reversed thusters, but still, I think that would give the Connie a BIG advantage compared to other ships, a little too big maybe.

Concerning pivot:

http://www.electronichouse.com/article/new_sanus_hdmi_cables_pivot_180_degrees/Sanus

That means pivot 180°, what the JP shows is something else.

[EzE]

That means pivot 180°, what the JP shows is something else.

 

ie: Pivot around an axis. Rotate around a center.

Variation in terms is all. 

[eNeRGy]

FYI they just annouced that there will be two Constellation variants released.  Though no date or info on them yet.

 

 

We aren’t ready to announce what the variants will be, but can confirm that the design team is focusing on three more Freelancer variants and two additional Constellations.

[TheGeneral9395]

I'm not sure if this has been posted in another thread, but here is a video of all the animations for the Conni

 

[novastorm]

I'm not sure if this has been posted in another thread, but here is a video of all the animations for the Conni

 

 

I hadn't seen it yet, so thanks =)

[Reavern]

FYI they just annouced that there will be two Constellation variants released.  Though no date or info on them yet.

 

I'm surprised that there's only 2 variants of the Connie. Based on its upgrade capacity, I thought it would have 4, like the Aurora, or MORE.

 

With only two variants, I might not bother buying a second add-on Connie. If there were 3 or more variants, chances are that I'd want more than one. But with only 2 variants, chances are that I'll only want the Limited Edition. But I suppose if I bought the second Connie, if I didn't like the 2nd variant, I could reclaim it and use the credits to pay for the upgrade for my first Connie.

 

I suppose it'll depend on what surprises CIG has in store for us in the last day or two before the deadline. The Xi'an Scout, Banu Merchantman, and Mustang are supposed to be released. If I spend my money on those, I'll pass on the second Connie. If not, I'll bank it just in case.