Challenger has silly nacelle landing gear too?

[Devari]

Looks to me like it's barely poking into the engine compartment.

Not based on the thickness and size of the landing gear struts. The solid supports on either side of the landing gear pivot directly up into the lower pod. They would extend into at least the lower 1/3 of the pod when retracted.

I also don't know why you'd assume it is running on hydraulics. It looks to me like an upper and lower pair of gears at the two pivot points, and it doesn't appear the assembly would retract any more than the diameter of those gears, if that, and they could potentially be cradled around the sides of the lower thruster.

It would likely be a hydraulic pivot given the massive amount of forces required to support the ship's weight. Here's a google search of what that looks like:

On the topic of what the "intakes" do on the engine pods, in addition to any possible intake/scoop function they are fully functional retrothrusters as seen here when the Chieftan is decelerating:

Interestingly enough on the Krait we have obvious intakes mounted on the top of the engines which clearly do not fire as retrothrusters. This tells us that the ship engines are designed with some sort of scoop/intake function that has no direct role as a retrothruster assembly:

And in case anyone was wondering what use a space craft would have for an intake, here's the relevant section from the Colonial Marines Technical Manual describing the function of the engines on the Sulaco's dropship:

 

[Julio Montega]

To me, judging from the above screenshots,
the landing gear in the chieftain looks very solid
filling the complete lower rectangular section in the pod.

 

[Vedmo]

Not based on the thickness and size of the landing gear struts. The solid supports on either side of the landing gear pivot directly up into the lower pod. They would extend into at least the lower 1/3 of the pod when retracted.







It would likely be a hydraulic pivot given the massive amount of forces required to support the ship's weight. Here's a google search of what that looks like:



On the topic of what the "intakes" do on the engine pods, in addition to any possible intake/scoop function they are fully functional retrothrusters as seen here when the Chieftan is decelerating:



Interestingly enough on the Krait we have obvious intakes mounted on the top of the engines which clearly do not fire as retrothrusters. This tells us that the ship engines are designed with some sort of scoop/intake function that has no direct role as a retrothruster assembly:



And in case anyone was wondering what use a space craft would have for an intake, here's the relevant section from the Colonial Marines Technical Manual describing the function of the engines on the Sulaco's dropship:

The up-shot in your second pic makes it look pretty bad, like the cones end at the surface of the pod and nothing but landing gear could be behind them, I'll give you that.

 

[Devari]

The up-shot in your second pic makes it look pretty bad, like the cones end at the surface of the pod and nothing but landing gear could be behind them, I'll give you that.

The first screenshot was to show the size and thickness of the landing gear struts. The second screenshot does have a distorted perspective because the landing gear foot is closer to the camera but it does clearly show that the solid struts will need to retract fully into the lower area of the engine pod.

 

[Ddraig]

As a designer, how the the landing gear is assembled in the engine pod bothers me terribly. Call it professional deformation if you will, but I need for any tridimensional configuration to make sense based on the function it is supposed to perform, and the rear landing gear/engine pod on the chieftain/challenger, does not.

 

[Devari]

As a designer, how the the landing gear is assembled in the engine pod bothers me terribly. Call it professional deformation if you will, but I need for any tridimensional configuration to make sense based on the function it is supposed to perform, and the rear landing gear/engine pod on the chieftain/challenger, does not.

I suppose in theory we haven't excluded the possibility that the engine pod uses Tardis technology and has room for the entire engine assembly, the landing gear and a small room for tea.

 

[Ddraig]

I suppose in theory we haven't excluded the possibility that the engine pod uses Tardis technology and has room for the entire engine assembly, the landing gear and a small room for tea.

errr.. pls no.

 

[Devari]

errr.. pls no.

Sorry I try to avoid Dr. Who references whenever possible but that is literally the only way I can make everything fit.

 

[Ddraig]

Sorry I try to avoid Dr. Who references whenever possible but that is literally the only way I can make everything fit.

I do get it is scifi and a game at the end of the day. But, some things need to make sense, even if you dont have the math to support it, visually you need to trick the observer into thinking that could work.

Also, does anybody buys that those flimsy wings that attach those engine pods to the ships wouldn't bend in a rough landing? Or in a high G world?
I feel that there was not much thinking behind that ship, I see rule of cool and nothing more.

 

[monogenetic]

I don’t mind the landing gear in the engine nacelles but I hate how it looks like it’s doing a number 2 on the ground.

 

[Jack Schitt]

Would you care to show us on a doll where the Challenger touched your immersion?

Spoiler

Thanks for the thread, guys. It reminds me of the Star Destroyer vs USS Enterprise Forever Wars from the heyday of Usenet. Makes me feel quite nostalgic for the good old days.

 

[Devari]

I do get it is scifi and a game at the end of the day. But, some things need to make sense, even if you dont have the math to support it, visually you need to trick the observer into thinking that could work.

That's a common issue in most sci-fi settings I think. Some of the best "hard" sci-fi series like Battlestar Galatica and The Expanse don't actually have any better explanations for how their technology works than Star Trek does - but it all "looks" very realistic and plausible, to the point that you don't really feel the need to question any of it. It was the same with the Aliens films, the spacecraft like the Nostromo and Sulaco were so well-designed that you didn't even question how they worked. In part this was necessary to establish a believable setting where they could introduce the essential "soft" sci-fi plot elements, i.e., Cylons for BSG, the protomolecule for The Expanse and the xenomorphs for the Aliens films. In that sense even these series aren't truly "hard" sci-fi due to those elements but at least the ship technology itself is extremely believable.

Even for "soft" sci-fi series like Star Trek I get annoyed if they don't follow their own internally-consistent rules even when the technology itself is nonsense in terms of how it would actually function. The writers on Star Trek were usually very good about this although there were still occasions where they might do things that clearly broke established rules for the sake of making the plot work, like firing phasers while at warp or beaming through shields. Usually the TNG writers were very careful to explain any discrepancies in detail during the episodes but this declined noticeably with DS9 and was basically ignored completely with VOY, ENT and DIS. Star Wars is probably the worst for not being internally consistent with technology from one film to the next, although to be fair Star Wars is really "space fantasy" or "space opera" more than actual sci-fi.

Also, does anybody buys that those flimsy wings that attach those engine pods to the ships wouldn't bend in a rough landing? Or in a high G world?
I feel that there was not much thinking behind that ship, I see rule of cool and nothing more.

This is actually a bit of a theme with the newer ships like the Chieftan and Krait, they are designed more to look cool than they are to be functional spacecraft. I don't mind this really because the most functional and believable spacecraft in Elite is probably the Adder, and it looks like an adorable little space shuttle that shouldn't be anywhere near combat. My Krait, on the other hand, looks like it could punch the Millennium Falcon in the face and get away with it simply because of how awesome it looks.

 

[Devari]

Thanks for the thread, guys. It reminds me of the Star Destroyer vs USS Enterprise Forever Wars from the heyday of Usenet. Makes me feel quite nostalgic for the good old days.

"Enterprise D vs. Imperial Star Destroyer" is the best thread title ever. Guaranteed lulz for everyone involved. Bonus points if someone quotes numbers from the TNG Technical Manual or Incredible Cross Sections to "prove" their point.

 

[Ddraig]

That's a common issue in most sci-fi settings I think. Some of the best "hard" sci-fi series like Battlestar Galatica and The Expanse don't actually have any better explanations for how their technology works than Star Trek does - but it all "looks" very realistic and plausible, to the point that you don't really feel the need to question any of it. It was the same with the Aliens films, the spacecraft like the Nostromo and Sulaco were so well-designed that you didn't even question how they worked. In part this was necessary to establish a believable setting where they could introduce the essential "soft" sci-fi plot elements, i.e., Cylons for BSG, the protomolecule for The Expanse and the xenomorphs for the Aliens films. In that sense even these series aren't truly "hard" sci-fi due to those elements but at least the ship technology itself is extremely believable.

Even for "soft" sci-fi series like Star Trek I get annoyed if they don't follow their own internally-consistent rules even when the technology itself is nonsense in terms of how it would actually function. The writers on Star Trek were usually very good about this although there were still occasions where they might do things that clearly broke established rules for the sake of making the plot work, like firing phasers while at warp or beaming through shields. Usually the TNG writers were very careful to explain any discrepancies in detail during the episodes but this declined noticeably with DS9 and was basically ignored completely with VOY, ENT and DIS. Star Wars is probably the worst for not being internally consistent with technology from one film to the next, although to be fair Star Wars is really "space fantasy" or "space opera" more than actual sci-fi.



This is actually a bit of a theme with the newer ships like the Chieftan and Krait, they are designed more to look cool than they are to be functional spacecraft. I don't mind this really because the most functional and believable spacecraft in Elite is probably the Adder, and it looks like an adorable little space shuttle that shouldn't be anywhere near combat. My Krait, on the other hand, looks like it could punch the Millennium Falcon in the face and get away with it simply because of how awesome it looks.

Honestly?

I dont even mind if we enter absurd territory with scifi design. After all, when you craft an story or an universe, you can set whichever rules you see fit and roll with them. You can be as absurd as you want and go with magic machines with not a single spec of reality in it, but as long as your are consistent with the rules and how you follow them, visually and in story telling, people will get it and enjoy it. Considering the proper objective market of course, I really dislike Dr Who for instance. Problem starts when you cut corners with your own rules, which I think the design of the chieftain is guilty of.

So far, Elite's ships were all rather consistent with some deviations here and there, but nothing that could make you point your finger like the Chieftain does. In any other space game with different rules, I would be ok it, it does look cool after all.

The Krait I think is a proper marriage between rule of cool and proper Elite ship design. I am happy with it.

Anyway. It is done. I do hope this feedback reaches Frontier, not in the negative way, but for they to remember to be consistent with their own rules. People notice when you break them.

 

[Jack Schitt]

"Enterprise D vs. Imperial Star Destroyer" is the best thread title ever. Guaranteed lulz for everyone involved. Bonus points if someone quotes numbers from the TNG Technical Manual or Incredible Cross Sections to "prove" their point.

During my Usenet salad days I always maintained that the second best way to start an internet bunfight was to mention Star Wars on a Star Trek group or vice versa. The absolute best way was to mention car drivers on a cyclists' group, or cyclists on a petrolheads'.

If the Trek vs Wars thing is still ongoing I guess it's moved to forums or Reddit or other places I don't frequent. As for cyclists vs motorists, I'm pleased to note that Jeremy Vine is keeping that one alive and well on Twitter.