Ships that look like they should be in space

[crua9]

One thing that has gotten to me is many of the ships (besides the 6 and 9) look like they aren't made for flying in space but on a planet. I want elite to make more ships that has odd shapes, and doesn't look aerodynamic (it doesn't have to be since it's in space).

 

[Quisquis]

One thing that has gotten to me is many of the ships (besides the 6 and 9) look like they aren't made for flying in space but on a planet. I want elite to make more ships that has odd shapes, and doesn't look aerodynamic (it doesn't have to be since it's in space).

Yup. It bothers me too that almost every ship is a wedge.

 

[TiberiuS]

2 things:

1) A lot of ships are from original Elite
2) Atmospheric Flight will be possible with those ships when the expansion will be out (landing on planets)

 

[Ian Phillips]

Spaceships have to balance the thrust of the engines through the centre of mass of the ship, otherwise it spins instead of moving forward.

Ship that are not symetrical have a 'misplaced' centre of mass and would have to have the engines suitably offset to account for that. So wierd shapes might look good or impressive, but are not that functional.

 

[Jaiotu]

One thing that has gotten to me is many of the ships (besides the 6 and 9) look like they aren't made for flying in space but on a planet. I want elite to make more ships that has odd shapes, and doesn't look aerodynamic (it doesn't have to be since it's in space).

Many of the ships are, in fact, designed for planetary landings which will be a future update. The problem with delivering ships with "odd shapes" is applying thrust behind the center of gravity. You are kind of limited in just how oddly shaped you can make a ship without having to ignore the laws of physics.

 

[TiberiuS]

Plus wedge shape ist quite a good shape for forward fire combat (space) ships. you have a lot of planes to fit guns on which all can fire in the direction of the tip of the wedge (forward). Star destroyers ftw.

 

[Cosmo]

We should have more variety with ship designs while keeping the center of mass. The ships are designed for space and atmospheric flight, but the design could have more open sections or a different combination of curves and angles.

 

[Zephyriel]

I'll admit the ships really didn't look appealing at all to me at first, I prefer some of Star Citizen's or Eve Valkyrie's designs by a large margin, but I got used to them after a while and now I don't mind them. I guess they had to respect the old games's style and shapes.

The Asp is particularly ugly though, can't get used to that one.

 

[Holven]

To be perfectly honest... most of these wedge shaped ships aren't aerodynamic at all. An aerodynamic object is flat under, round over and have no sudden cuts over the stern, as that would be a powerful aerobreaker. If dropped into an atmosphere unpowered, the Cobra would fall stern first, as would most of the wedged shapes. So, actually, most of the ships are designed to fly in space and only the brute force of their engines make them flyable in atmospheres, with at best, hulls that at least allow air to pass.

The T9 is actually the most wing shaped ship. The Viper is a rather good design, though I would fill in the gaps around the engines for air flight. The Clipper is nicely shaped, but I'm afraid actual air resistance would tear its "wings" off, due to turbulence in the open spaces. If you glassed its struts in, it might actually generate some lift.

All these ships are designed for space flight only, more or less. Shapes support stress and center of gravitation, not air.

 

[Philip Coutts]

The shape of the ships is pretty much due to the shapes that they could make on a BBC micro to form 3D ships. Check out the original Elite game and you will see the shapes that form the basis of a lot of the ships in ED.

 

[777Driver]

Not a single ship in this game that would be able to generate lift. Purely brute force on these machines.

 

[CMDR MassDef]

....and doesn't look aerodynamic (it doesn't have to be since it's in space).

Aerodynamics are important in space. Whoever states otherwise is wrong. Just do a quick internet search and you 'll know why

 

[Cosmo]

To be perfectly honest... most of these wedge shaped ships aren't aerodynamic at all. An aerodynamic object is flat under, round over and have no sudden cuts over the stern, as that would be a powerful aerobreaker. If dropped into an atmosphere unpowered, the Cobra would fall stern first, as would most of the wedged shapes. So, actually, most of the ships are designed to fly in space and only the brute force of their engines make them flyable in atmospheres, with at best, hulls that at least allow air to pass.

They're not very aerodynamic, because they're firstly spaceships and don't require it. The shape does help with atmospheric flight and entering, leaving the atmosphere I think. The engines and shields are more than powerful enough to keep it airborne.

Other space-sims like Star Citizen have less practical ships, because they're more vulnerable due to exposed engines and doodads sticking out of the hull.

 

[777Driver]

Aerodynamics are important in space. Whoever states otherwise is wrong. Just do a quick internet search and you 'll know why

And there I was thinking all those years of studying.. Aerodynamics is the way objects move through air.. ED ships have thrusters, plus they never actually travel FTL

 

[Holven]

Aerodynamics are important in space. Whoever states otherwise is wrong. Just do a quick internet search and you 'll know why

We are not subject to Lorentz contraction caused by FTL flight. We don't fly faster than C.. technically. We cheat by having our drives form extra-spatial dimensions that allow us to shift our frame of reference. So technically, we don't breach the light barrier. It is more like we wrap our selves up in our own personal space dimensions and move those on additional axis that translates as seemingly moving faster than light. This is explained in Michael's novel Elite: Legacy. Well, at least they talk offhandedly about the functionality of the drives.

- - - Updated - - -

They're not very aerodynamic, because they're firstly spaceships and don't require it. The shape does help with atmospheric flight and entering, leaving the atmosphere I think. The engines and shields are more than powerful enough to keep it airborne.

Other space-sims like Star Citizen have less practical ships, because they're more vulnerable due to exposed engines and doodads sticking out of the hull.

That was kind of what I was saying. Since OP stated that they were aerodynamic, I stated that they really aren't.

And I'd hate to have any doodads sticking out anywhere.. imagine getting those tangled in the landing grid...

 

[AH_ImADot]

The Firefly class freighter isn't very aerodynamic; but it is a nice design. I think the show got it right on how the ship would fly and handle once it hits the atmo.

 

[Edith_The_Hutt]

The Adder and the Hauler struck me as fairly aerodynamic. I figured this was a pre-planned niche for these ships.

 

[hilroy2]

One thing that has gotten to me is many of the ships (besides the 6 and 9) look like they aren't made for flying in space but on a planet. I want elite to make more ships that has odd shapes, and doesn't look aerodynamic (it doesn't have to be since it's in space).

crua9, i guess you mean the contrary.. :3 ?

a lot of the ships seems ,in reverse, that their shapes makes them hard to come down a planet atmosphere...

just think of an ASP, a lakon type 9 or lets say a cobra 3 flying down an atmosphere seems harsh ?

anyways, flying throught space is easy , but when having to face a gravity its harder to deal with

 

[Hellhawk666]

I feel more and more alone in my love of the ship designs in ED. I can't speak regarding aerodynamic efficiency or practical design as I have zero understanding of those things (other than the Bernoulli effect, which I understand in relation to sailing).

The designs are obviously an hommage to the original Elite and Frontier designs, but that's not why I love them. There are two overwhelming reasons:

1) They look tough. These are not flimsy, dainty aircraft with lots of unnecessary antennae and gee-gaws hanging off them. They are built like tanks, and look it. I see the ships in most games (particularly Star Citizen) and think to myself there is no way I'm trusting myself to the dangers of interstellar flight in one of those things. Then I look at the ships in ED, particularly when you appreciate their scale, and think:

Yes! that's a spaceship.

2) They all look like something Chris Foss or Bruce Pennington would design. I can imagine no higher praise, nor greater delight than to actually fly in such a craft. It is a particularly happy coincidence that the simple geometric shapes of the original ship designs coincide so nicely with retro 70's SF graphic design.

FD ships rule

 

[DocLooshkin]

I feel more and more alone in my love of the ship designs in ED. [...] They are built like tanks, and look it.

Oh, you're not alone, not at all. I'm a big fan of the solid, chunky look and feel of these ships. While it would be nice to see a little more assymetry on one or two models, just for stylistic variety's sake, they're basically quite fine designs as they are.

It is a particularly happy coincidence that the simple geometric shapes of the original ship designs coincide so nicely with retro 70's SF graphic design.

I actually doubt this is a coincidence: SF artists of the era - Chris Foss, especially, judging by the look of his stuff - would often have used actual physical models to get the lighting right. Simple geometric shapes are the easiest things to render physically, as well as on a BBC Model B. I suspect Foss spent a lot of time looking at large buildings.

Regarding aerodynamics, all of these ships are designed to operate with force-shields, rather than hitting the atmosphere naked. The underlying hull design should inform the shape of those shields, but by no means precisely define them. If and when we get atmospheric entry in the game, it will be a very excellent thing if we see that (a) the shields are aerodynamically contoured, rather than the simple bubbles we see in combat and (b) ships which lose their shields in air combat suddenly plummet like bricks. Waiting for that shield to recharge would take on a whole new meaning...