1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ship Design - Discussion

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Potatocat, Jul 10, 2015.

  1. Potatocat

    Potatocat Back Into Space

    • Member
    Okay so, in space, it doesn't matter what shape your ship is, aerodynamically speaking, because space is mostly vaccum (about #INDEF %.) So really, your ship does not need to be streamlined. But, as we all know, it looks really cool. The basic construction of a ship is as follows: Body > Thruster Cluster(s). Very simple, yes. Allow me to explain: (with pictures)

    ---- The Cube.
    cube.png
    Basically a box with truss beams lining its edges. In each corner of the truss beams there is a thruster cluster, as you can see. This ship is ideal for high-precision maneuvering, like doing repair work or docking ships. But it can be used for just going about space, nothing that says you can't.

    ---- The Spade
    spade-front.png
    spade-portAft.png spade-thrusterCluster.png High mass front, thrusters on arm behind center of mass; X's mark thrusters. Great for making really fast turns. Looks cool.

    ---- What My Dad Recommended. ball-portAft.png ball-portBow.png
    Basically a ball with one (or two) thrusters on rotating rings. Multi-directional. Perfect for anything, except precision work and "high-g" turns.

    What do you guys think? (I didn't explain exactly why the ships are the way they are, so if you need more info, just ask me.)

    Attached Files:

  2. PsychoticLeprechaun

    PsychoticLeprechaun Designer & Web Developer

    • Dev Member
    These are great for ships intended only for space - the shapes look really cool - but what about ships that need to land on planets and so on?
  3. Potatocat

    Potatocat Back Into Space

    • Member
    Haha nice question. XD Honestly, I don't know. The best I can think of is some kind of jet/rocket hybrid. But if I had to come up with a solution, I'd make it modular. You could have your extraterrestrial module and then your shuttlecraft to go down to the surface and back. Though the engine for the shuttlecraft would have to be spectacular. I'm thinking anti-grav accelerator, or something.

    Edit: added quote
    Potatocat, Jul 10, 2015
    Last edited by Potatocat; at Jul 10, 2015
    #3
    ColdFuseon and JClavaud like this.
  4. PsychoticLeprechaun

    PsychoticLeprechaun Designer & Web Developer

    • Dev Member
    We can definitely do more out there technologies as you progress in the game, so perhaps!
  5. JClavaud

    JClavaud Crash Landed

    • Member
    You can think about a big All-In-One ship, going everywhere. But a small rocket ship, fast for short distance space travel would be better in many situations.
    Your can travel between moons with a simple shuttle, and save your expensive anti-matter (exemple) for big stellar trips.
    JClavaud, Jul 10, 2015
    Last edited by JClavaud; at Jul 10, 2015
    #5
    Potatocat and ColdFuseon like this.
  6. JClavaud

    JClavaud Crash Landed

    • Member
    As a player I sure want to make my fist low tech spaceships, and at the end of the game, in my utra-modern mothership, look at it with nostalgia.
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2015
    JClavaud, Jul 10, 2015
    Last edited by JClavaud; at Jul 10, 2015
    #6
  7. Potatocat

    Potatocat Back Into Space

    • Member
    Exactly. I think a combination of the ships used above would work really well. And maybe the ball would be for space travel, the spade for landing, and the cube for doing things like guiding ships to dock or utility work.
  8. Sevio

    Sevio Back Into Space

    • Member
    Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the plan for SoA's vehicles, ships in SoA will be built out of the same blocks you build with on a planet, so you'll definitely be able to make a "borg cube" looking ship, or a spherical ship, or a star destroyer if you put your mind to it. For ships that go down into the atmosphere, maybe there will be a basic aerodynamic simulation so that sleek/pointy ships will do better than barn doors and borg cubes.
  9. Potatocat

    Potatocat Back Into Space

    • Member
    Probs, probs. This is just some things to keep in mind when building ships.
  10. Arctic

    Arctic Giant Robot Advocate

    • Tester
    A spaceplane would be able to travel in space and in atmosphere, but it wouldn't be great at either. See: actual spaceplanes. I imagine it might be possible to carry RCS and reaction wheels and oxidizer but the dame problem as VTOL arises in that, in the atmosphere, that stuff is dead weight. It gets worse if you want a VTOL spaceplane.
    Snipecoolbunny and ColdFuseon like this.
  11. Sevio

    Sevio Back Into Space

    • Member
    It depends on the techlevel, when space travel is at the limits of your technological capability (as on earth and in KSP), you can't afford to make too many sacrifices making a spacecraft that does everything. When tech level gets higher, specialization for a single purpose might not give as many benefits and it could be convenient to have a spacecraft that does more than one thing reasonably well.
  12. Arctic

    Arctic Giant Robot Advocate

    • Tester
    Yes.

    However, spacefighters will never be practical. The only practical weapon in space is thrust-vectoring missiles.
    Snipecoolbunny and Jpr like this.
  13. Potatocat

    Potatocat Back Into Space

    • Member
    I like how space fighters fly. The way they are makes it easy to maneuver when your only frame of reference is an enemy ship.
  14. Arctic

    Arctic Giant Robot Advocate

    • Tester
    > point at enemy
    > full thrust
    > explode

    Versus a spacefighter

    > point at enemy
    > pewpewpew
    > oh no we missed
    > die to missile

    Hell, planes nowadays never dogfight. They just fire missiles at one another from miles away. If it were aerodynamically feasible, I'm sure we would install big machine gun turrets on planes. 360° protection right there.
    Snipecoolbunny and Potatocat like this.
  15. Potatocat

    Potatocat Back Into Space

    • Member
    Glad we could come to an agreement.
  16. Jpr

    Jpr Industrial Re-revolutionist

    • Member
    Mmm... what about long-range beam weapons? They're heavy and require a lot of power and specialized chemicals, but the range and "Point and shoot" is a MAJOR advantage.
  17. Sevio

    Sevio Back Into Space

    • Member
    Realistic space combat in general would be utterly boring for a game, because it would take place using drones and missiles and across half the solar system. Star Citizen has made a stylistic choice here to ignore that and have space fighters and capships fight at ranges where you can still see the enemy. I think that's a respectable decision to make. What kind of technology you make available and how the game lets players use it will then be determined by such a style choice.

    Laser type energy weapons having a travel time so they can be dodged is an example of a style choice determining what a technology can do.
    Sevio, Jul 13, 2015
    Last edited by Sevio; at Jul 13, 2015
    #17
  18. Jpr

    Jpr Industrial Re-revolutionist

    • Member
    Personally, I want a more "cinematic" damage style, with lasers burning chunks off that you have to repair all the time, or a missile flight blasting holes in systems and depressurizing the ship, and you have 7 minutes till the next salvo comes into range of your defenses... which just got SHUT OFF by the blast, so you have to run cabling to get power back up, alter the drive's thrust angle to compensate for the hole, and try to get your weapons on target, and FORGET ABOUT THE ATMOSPHERE! PRESSURE IS ONLY A LUXURY! :D
    In short, something that's NOT one-hit KO without ridiculous specialization (though I'd like to see that too)

    iwantitall
    Snipecoolbunny likes this.
  19. Arctic

    Arctic Giant Robot Advocate

    • Tester
    Now, while space combat in KSP is only available through modding and is very, very finicky, especially in MP, I think it does present a very tense and very interesting opportunity for an entirely different type of combat. To merely transplant atmospheric combat mechanics to space would be a tremendous waste of an opportunity, and no games currently simulate realistic space combat. Combine that with subsystem damage and you have something really rather tense. Spacecraft aren't just there to fight, they're there to keep you alive. Do you prioritize oxygen supply repair and live a little longer? Or do you risk diverting resources to weapons to try and neutralize the threat? Do you armor most heavily the crew compartments or do you put it all in the engines? When do you launch the escape system? When you do, will it even work?
    Snipecoolbunny and Jpr like this.
  20. Jpr

    Jpr Industrial Re-revolutionist

    • Member
    Oh yes. That's what I was getting at. With your ultratech repair tools, and the fact that your spaceship CAN'T sink, AND the fact that any stupidly powerful weapons (non-beam) need to be launched on trajectories, that can be predicted, I can see it being a rather !FUN! game. Hell, it's probably pretty easy to mission-kill a ship (sustained/pulsed laser, railgun, or missile (if you can get it through point-defense) to the bunkerage, and you have a fuel leak that MUST be fixed ASAP)
    I know that when my KSP ships lose an auxiliary tank due to collision, I usually need to send a rescue, and a fuel leak mod (for KSP) would be straight up EVIL.
    I see lasers as being constant-fire, limited (surface layer only) damage weapons that can shoot at anything in range of the optics in a straight line, railgun rounds being relatively cheap, easy to fire, and capable of tearing small holes THROUGH a ship, but being unable to maneuver once launched and being unable to carry warheads, and missiles varying according to design, but ranging from low delta-v orbital only/OTG missiles, to HIGH delta-v missiles (basically a tiny ship)designed to whack a ship in orbit around a different planet. The advantages of missiles are that they can maneuver, can carry any payload (up to GG no re weapons, like nukes), and can be attached to a ship on external hard points that can't carry any other weapon system due to size. The DISADVANTAGES are that they're easily destructible by point-defenses if seen, a ship can try to change it's orbit to one the missile can't reach, they cost much more than the other 2 systems, and you can carry relatively few. I see missile attacks as either swarms of light missiles at long range, or trying to sneak a nuke through at relatively close ranges.
    Thoughts?
Similar Threads: Ship Design
Forum Title Date
General Discussion Ship specification (minimum) May 17, 2015
General Discussion Seed of Andromeda (Spaceship, not game) Discussion Feb 23, 2015
General Discussion How will spaceships work, Mass construction Aug 31, 2014
General Discussion I Recommend The Game Designers Watch These Sep 6, 2014

Share This Page