Terran Trade Confederation

Mine and Blade is that good, eh?

I haven't tested out the new one, but the old version was great!

I am steam rolling through this one! My second night in and I've already finished the hull!

Spoiler:

Laserbilly wrote:

I am steam rolling through this one! My second night in and I've already finished the hull!

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Nice. I like the extra engines.

The front looks a bit....Holey.

As in hole-filled? Because I don't see a single hole there.

What's up with the Giant ship BTW ?

It looks like a cross between a Battlestar, a cruiser, and a really big gun.

Iv121 wrote:

What's up with the Giant ship BTW ?

Read his posts.
He didn´t feel like building on it, so he took a break and built something smaller.

Looks good, I challenge you to a skirmish, in fact I challenge everyone to a skirmish when FC is released

DevsgetonwiththatIreallywannaplaykthxbai

I approve of this new ship. The addition of extra engines was a good idea. I also like the cannon. I think the bow is a weird shape though, may want to reevaluate it.

The Schmetterling wrote:

I approve of this new ship. The addition of extra engines was a good idea. I also like the cannon. I think the bow is a weird shape though, may want to reevaluate it.

I like the bow, but it does look a bit (captain obvious to the rescue) unfinished

Only thing that I don't like is the guns. While I can follow the MAC theory (a really big gun on the front of your ship), having them exposed to fire from the sides renders them huge targets. Maybe put a "kick me" note of the thing?

Aesthetically, it's great. Keep up the good work.

Commander Error wrote:

Only thing that I don't like is the guns. While I can follow the MAC theory (a really big gun on the front of your ship), having them exposed to fire from the sides renders them huge targets. Maybe put a "kick me" note of the thing?

Aesthetically, it's great. Keep up the good work.

Not to mention, the recoil from those locations really stresses the frame...

I'll shut up now.

Avenger_7 wrote:

Commander Error wrote:

Only thing that I don't like is the guns. While I can follow the MAC theory (a really big gun on the front of your ship), having them exposed to fire from the sides renders them huge targets. Maybe put a "kick me" note of the thing?

Aesthetically, it's great. Keep up the good work.

Not to mention, the recoil from those locations really stresses the frame...

I'll shut up now.

Depends on what type of gun it is, if it's a rail gun, no recoil, if it's a comventional chemical explosive weapon, craploads of recoil. If its a laser, no recoil.

Prototype wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

Commander Error wrote:

Only thing that I don't like is the guns. While I can follow the MAC theory (a really big gun on the front of your ship), having them exposed to fire from the sides renders them huge targets. Maybe put a "kick me" note of the thing?

Aesthetically, it's great. Keep up the good work.

Not to mention, the recoil from those locations really stresses the frame...

I'll shut up now.

Depends on what type of gun it is, if it's a rail gun, no recoil, if it's a comventional chemical explosive weapon, craploads of recoil. If its a laser, no recoil.

Well, railgun does have recoil.
Basic repulsion principe: If an object gets thrown out, it creates repulsion, called recoil for guns. the faster and heavier ht object thrown out is, the more powerful the recoil.
Thus MAC->much recoil

Surp. Grm. Ivan Kintobor wrote:

Prototype wrote:

Avenger_7 wrote:

Commander Error wrote:

Only thing that I don't like is the guns. While I can follow the MAC theory (a really big gun on the front of your ship), having them exposed to fire from the sides renders them huge targets. Maybe put a "kick me" note of the thing?

Aesthetically, it's great. Keep up the good work.

Not to mention, the recoil from those locations really stresses the frame...

I'll shut up now.

Depends on what type of gun it is, if it's a rail gun, no recoil, if it's a comventional chemical explosive weapon, craploads of recoil. If its a laser, no recoil.

Well, railgun does have recoil.
Basic repulsion principe: If an object gets thrown out, it creates repulsion, called recoil for guns. the faster and heavier ht object thrown out is, the more powerful the recoil.
Thus MAC->much recoil

Yes there would be recoil, but much less than a conventional shot, as the projectile is accelerated by a catapult field instead of a chemical explosion, and e recoil acts the entire time the projectile is accelerating, but the recoil wouldn't be enough to damage the hull, considering that the magnetic field is what the projectile acts against (and that transfers to the barrel) and also I imagine anything producing a large amount of recoil would have a system to counter the recoil (we do that already with guns on battleships)

Railguns do have recoil, but nowhere near as much compared to conventional guns, due to the more efficient energy transfer, which is why we can have huge railgun, but are restricted with the size of conventional guns.

In fact you would be better off mounting a MAC on the exterior of the ship, then it would be easier to counter recoil.

Yeah, but it'd rip half the ship off with each firing.

Not if you have an effective shock absorbing system, considering such systems are already used in present day weaponry, I'm pretty damn sure in the future you could make a gun that size, mount it in that position, and have a shock absorber (which are really not so complicated) and not rip the ship in half

For a mod called FUTURECRAFT, it shouldn't be so hard to comprehend how much technology would advance in the time it would take to get spaceships of this scale.

>>>end rant<<<

And the guns make the ship look kickass

This is one half of the tank's mass, yes, but note the positioning of cannon in relation to the chassis. It's in such a way that the gun is sturdily mounted on the vehicle to suppress any recoil in conjunction with the shock asorbers. No matter how you put it, SAs aren't going to reduce the kinetic backfire produced by a gun of this size singlehandedly, there has to be some thought behind the placement, IE not TWO on EITHER SIDE OF THE MAIN MODULE WITH NO FORM OF STRUCTURAL SUPPORT WHATSOEVER.

That said, this is really irrelevant as there's likely not going to be this depth of physics in the mod if it comes out. Still can't say I'm a fan of



Though Laserbilly's been pretty conservative about weapon placement so fairly confident those two railguns/MACs/WTFguns are going to comprise the bulk of the ship's armanents.

I respect your opinion about too many guns, personally I prefer having lots of guns because I can't have lots of ships.

However your argument is missing one vital element:

Future (as in, a hell of a lot more advanced than the stuff we have now)


That tank is a modern creation, sure with modern technology we could not mount guns on the side, but as my previous post said, in the time it would take to develop spaceships such as the one we are discussing, I'm pretty sure you could develop a system which would allow such a configuration.

By what your saying, if you fired the guns, the whole ship would (sort of) blow apart, but how would you accomplish fast travel in such a ship? The ship would be moving bloody fast, and has a higher mass than anything coming out of those guns, so if you tried to go anywhere fast, the ship would break apart

But it wouldn't because there would be something countering that, and if you could counter that, countering the recoil of a gun mounted on the side would be child's play surely?

I could not explain to you how such a system would work, but would you be able to explain how exactly a light sabre works? (I know it's a plasma beam, but how do you contain such a volatile substance without blowing the whole thing up? The answer? Future technology that we can't describe, but it just works)

This isn't about the orientation of the guns. We had tanks in WW1 that had guns mounted on the sides, but they were proportionate. The guns of the spacecraft are simply not in an appropriate position. You look at ANY other franchise and tell me what you see in terms of cannons.

Spoiler:

These are all 'future' franchises and all make use of some pretty sweet guns, but do you see any that have the configuration you're trying to justify here? Simply put, the 'rule of cool' you're trying to argue here doesn't exist, most if not all ships in scifi take into consideration the restraints of physics and a vessel's structural integrity. Hell, even the superbly OP Death Star doesn't have a big gun stupidly mounted on the top...

I might also add there's a massive difference between propelling an entire spacecraft into FTL speeds and having the recoil of two massive guns bearing on a single hull segment.

Maybe its designed to make the enemy engineers laugh to death, So none of them know how to fix the engines?

I never said what's cool and what's not, all I said is that future technology could easily have any configuration of guns you could imagine... Well withing reason.

And this whole argument was about orientation and location of guns from the start, and how ridiculous it is that you could have the technology to build such a spaceship, but not be able to fire the guns without wrecking the hull.

As for other franchise, I don't give a flying monkey how other franchises design their ships, that is the choice of those who are paid to design them.

And may I point out that the death star did not have one big gun on top it WAS one big gun.

And you say there is a difference between putting a ship into FTL and countering the recoil of a gun, both are faced with problems related to momentum (just on different scales)

Also you say most ships take into account physics, if a ship can travel at FTL (most sci-fi ships can), they are already smashing the laws of physics to pieces, I we could really design a ship that worked and fully took into account the restraints of physics we would already have such ships, but we don't, do we?

And going by your idea that firing the guns would strain the hull, take a well known spaceship, the USS Enterprise, the engines are connected to the rest of the ship by relatively flimsy structures (emphasis on relatively), with the massive thrust those engine put out, they should just break away from the ship.

As for the "rule of cool" that I am supposedly arguing, there is no rule of cool, and nobody said there was, and I never argued that, only what people want to do, and here, someone has chosen to put their guns on the sides, a respectable choice and I see nothing wrong with it, if you want them to change the product of their work, that's your choice, and I can respect that.

But I still think people should be allowed to design their ships in whatever way they want, as creatively as possible, if people disagree with their designs, that's their problem.

Here's the thing: That's exactly what you're saying. That future technology would enable the construction of allegedly physically impossible ships. Pretty much the rule of cool, there.

As far as your attempting to insinuate I'm trying to say Laserbilly's ship sucks, while this whole debate stemmed from my saying that the firing of those guns would split the ship in two, this has nothing to do with the vessel in question anymore, more my disputing of your argument that in the future such a configuration of weaponry proportionate to the ship would be feasible. I have no real quarrel with the guns on his ship, to be perfectly clear here. What I do have a problem and have been arguing with is your logic in justifying them. Since I'm using his ship as a reference point here it still holds some relevance to the thread at hand.

That said, you mean this



Enterprise? I don't know, those look pretty sturdy to me. Nonetheless, logical aesthetics has never been one of Trek's strong suits. In this scenario the other pictures I listed more than counterbalance the nonsensical engineering of a good portion of the ships in Trek.

And you say you don't care how franchises design their ships, yet sci fi films and lore are all we have to represent the 'future' of technology and what's possible with it. I've rarely seen any made up craft outside this forum with half of the ship's mass composed of guns (one of your ships)...one can surely be creative without



...yes? Of course you have creative license. Of course pretty much no one can stop you from covering a battleship in turrets. Even the mod likely won't be able to provided it comes out. All I'm saying here in regards to this point you brought out is that authenticity plays a pretty big role in sci fi design. I very much doubt Laserbilly is going to slap on twenty guns of the same size of the ones he's shown thus far, because that would be ludicrous and take away from the aesthetics of the warship.

But I'm starting to get weary of typing...one should not argue with people on the internet when sick

We can debate this over PMs later. Or something. I don't know.