Even then, that leaves the Mercenary support vessel. Doesn't make any sense for that to have cargo space, so its use is.....what?
So many questions to be answered.
Carrying ammo?
Even then, that leaves the Mercenary support vessel. Doesn't make any sense for that to have cargo space, so its use is.....what?
So many questions to be answered.
Carrying ammo?
But, the habitation ring with the windows in suggests something on large scale, as does the forward "bridge" area. And the scaffolding around the inner part of the ring compared to the large scale scaffolding on the outer edge suggests that too. As do the rear pylons in comparison to the forward bridge "bulb". (Incidentally, does anyone else think it looks horribly similar to the "Event Horizon"? In which case, I'm never going to have one of the damn things!!!)
It's quite probable there is fore-shortening, but I don't see it making this vessel really tiny in comparison to the fleet carrier at the moment.
I'm also wondering just how many people are supposed to be on this thing
Of course, the one thing we can say with certainty about the whole business is that we just have no solid information details at all![]()
There will, apparently, be at least three different variants, an Orbis-style ship (pictured) that'll accompany exploration Carriers, a "Hammerhead" ship that'll accompany mining Carriers and a rocket ship that'll accompany Bounty-Hunting Carriers.
Does this mean we can have a COVAS named HAL 9000?Just what is this a Space Port or Support Ship, it seems to large to be anything but some new Spaceport. It’s huge compared to the Carrier and must have thousands living on board, and It doesn’t have a toaster slot so what is it. Maybe the slot is on the back side
I didn't mean swappable parts on the fly.I think the support ship makes a little more sense than swapping big parts of the ship in the fly. I think there will still be customizable parts, but for more permanent parts of the ship
Am I the only one thinking this is really stupid? If you have to develop different parts for different mission profiles, does it really matter if you design parts for a support ship or parts for a carrier? Can't wrap my head around this.I'm expecting the support vessel has no landing pads, and is a simple visual clue about your specialty upgrade (explo, mining etc) without FD having to make the big carrier have interchangeable parts. Notice that each time a support vessel is shown the carrier is in shot behind it, suggesting they are separate. I'm assuming that when you land on the carrier, support ships add new menu options.
It could make a big difference to the code. A station is something that you land on and provides services. A ship is something you sit in and can move around. They are probably very different things in the code. To make one of them do what the other does would lead to massive duplications and lots of new bugs. So it makes sense to implement carriers as both a new station and a new ship. Making them separable is an interesting decision and implies that you can fly the support vessel around in a system. That would work in squadrons. I don't see how it could work for a commander playing alone. Perhaps it has a follow-me capability. That would be a great thing to have available in the code; it's halfway to NPC wings.
Am I the only one thinking this is really stupid? If you have to develop different parts for different mission profiles, does it really matter if you design parts for a support ship or parts for a carrier? Can't wrap my head around this.
Also it's more a fleet carrier fleet, then a fleet carrier this way, right?
^This!its like a mobile circus of sorts where each ship is a tent.
Which is the trend since few years already: just a couple of examples: the FSS as a separate view and not integrated in the HUD, new (copy-paste) ax multicannon, all ship variants rather than brand new ship design (type 10, krait phantom, alliance challenger and crusader).My frame of reference now is 'whatever is simplest FD will do'