202 replies to this topic

[Michael Knell]

I'm sorry, but no one would put 60 soldiers in one cramped space and risk loosing so many men in one unfortunate hit. Too many casulties in too short a time.

[Karl Streiger]

No need to be sorry. I have the same distaste for this concept
A platoon however did happened in the past and present when you consider the Chinock, a VTOL but with the same vulnerability

[Koniving]

Are you using the pro or the free version, Karl?

Free version seems to be in a browser which has me wondering how to apply plugins or if those are things to toggle on.

Side note, I like how it looks and some of the features. But it'll still be a learning curve for me.

Can it export/import 3ds?

[Karl Streiger]

Look for older versions.
Did have seen a 2017 Make setup.(free)
The web version is a no-go for me

[Karl Streiger]

[Karl Streiger]

one of the issues with BT were always the missile systems.
Finally got a kind of Standard inspired by the Israeli LAHAT missile.


just for comparision the other approach for the Goblin SRM is to use a bigger heavier missile - here 139mm ~30kg per rocket.


from the artwork there is not much difference between the 105mm LAHAT Style 13kg per SRM and the 139mm Kornet style - but the functioality for firing and reloading is different.

The bigger missiles would fire 2 per SRM6 volley, while the smaller SRM would indeed fire 6 missiles per shot.
The biggest difference is the ignition (the big would need a kind of exhaust) were the LAHAT would use a propellant charge to accelerate the missile from the barrel (more sic-fi would be a Coil Gun) so our missile launcher becomes a mult-barrel automatic cannon.

Here for the Goblin it uses a revolver with 4 reloads - the revolver drum can replaced from the outside as one - (use the crew) or over a carousel and lift system one missile per time.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 15 January 2018 - 07:17 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Got bored with all those tanks (Demolisher, Goblin, Scorpion, Rommel) and missiles and autocannons, this is for you Metus

Edited by Karl Streiger, 18 January 2018 - 07:13 AM.

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 18 January 2018 - 07:12 AM, said:

Got bored with all those tanks (Demolisher, Goblin, Scorpion, Rommel) and missiles and autocannons, this is for you Metus

Perfect, it is exactly what I would expect a Yellow Jacket to really look like, not that silly TRO version. You really hit it out of the part Karl!

Now for a little lit pick...

How many blades on the rotor are you looking at using? (2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 8 are usual numbers)
What kind of landing system is going to use? (wheels, skids, struts/feet)
How many points of contact with the ground will it have? (2, 3 or 4)
Does said landing system retract?

Edited by Metus regem, 18 January 2018 - 09:23 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Metus regem, on 18 January 2018 - 09:17 AM, said:

How many blades on the rotor are you looking at using? (2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 8 are usual numbers)
What kind of landing system is going to use? (wheels, skids, struts/feet)
How many points of contact with the ground will it have? (2, 3 or 4)
Does said landing system retract?

Well considering mass I will go with ehrm six? Like the CH-53

4 Retractable wheels, 2 in the "boxes", those will contain targeting stuff as well.
Also wheel in the wings, considering the center of mass those wings would need a stronger superstructure. (The YJ had also some wheel like objects in the wings

Of course I could drop the vertical wings and have all 4 wheels in the body similar to the RH-66?

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 18 January 2018 - 10:26 AM, said:

Well considering mass I will go with ehrm six? Like the CH-53

4 Retractable wheels, 2 in the "boxes", those will contain targeting stuff as well.
Also wheel in the wings, considering the center of mass those wings would need a stronger superstructure. (The YJ had also some wheel like objects in the wings

Of course I could drop the vertical wings and have all 4 wheels in the body similar to the RH-66?

The RH-66, like the AH-64 use tricycle landing gear, two larger in front, one small one under the tail.






As seen in both of these picture the pylons on the fuselage is used for ordnance, if no external ordnance is required, or wanting a smaller RADAR cross section, best to just omit them.

[Karl Streiger]

Don't want to keep it hidden. NFX did a Yellow Jacket for KSP


that thing looks even much better compared with my sketch

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 24 January 2018 - 04:20 AM, said:

Don't want to keep it hidden. NFX did a Yellow Jacket for KSP


that thing looks even much better compared with my sketch

Debatable, I like yours more, as it feels more grounded in reality.

[Karl Streiger]

ok the third landing gear will be placed in the rear behind the "mission container" (like the original tro3058) yellow jacket.

i reduced the size of the wings and snub noose(d) the Gauss for better aerodynamics. added a variant loadout with 10 arrow cruise missiles.

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 01 February 2018 - 07:46 AM, said:

ok the third landing gear will be placed in the rear behind the "mission container" (like the original tro3058) yellow jacket.

i reduced the size of the wings and snub noose(d) the Gauss for better aerodynamics. added a variant loadout with 10 arrow cruise missiles.

Perfect, that gives me a feel for a logical evolution in the line of Gunships, I'd say that this one is perfect.

[Karl Streiger]

Well, thanks for a entry in the German Subforum (about the Merkava) I realized that the mentioned Armstrong Cannon is supposed to be a 105mm.
Armstrong - this name and AC5 means Shadow Hawk for me.... although the lore(novels either name the J11 on the Shadow Hawk as 80 or 90mm.... some might say hey its a J11 not just a Armstrong.... but maybe the J11 is just a type for a folding AC.

folding AC.... suddenly I found myself with the MWO Shadow Hawk and my obsession in tapered bore cannons.



Some might realize that there were some "tubular" objects on the Cannon in the Unseen as well as in the new CGL Shadow Hawk version. What if those tubes are the magazine shots..

So 105mm tapered bore with 70mm at the muzzle. 3 shot burst, a tround loading mechanism for the magazines (has some merrit because you don't need so much space for the loading.

However while running all that stuff i suddenly realized that the "LORE" 9.5m height Shadow Hawk is much to small to have room for a seating warrior AND a standing one behind the seat (Mercenary Star)
So either the Mech is bigger or I need to resize the head by some margin (would completly ruin aesthetics)

Considering the numberous drawbacks of a tapered bore i will change it into a full featured 105mm dmfirinf saboted ammunition.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 08 February 2018 - 09:33 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Well - one of our issues with MWO was the size of the BattleMechs.... they were to big. Not the size that was given by lore.
Well well ---- look for yourself

The 55t Shadow Hawk has hardly enough room for a pilot in the head (and only because his lower body is in the torso of the Mech.
When you remember Mercenary Star there should be guy standing behind that seat (well theoretical its possible -now where I did not have placed a locker, or fire extinguisher. A ejection seat is an absolute no-go. Maybe when i remove the given radio and air conditioner on the roof.

As you see I've started with the MWO SHD - shrinked it to 9.5 later 10.4m in height - i also reworked the torso and removed all the shot-traps and gimmicks.
The head was remodeled to allow a cockpit (would not have been possible with the MWO SHD not with this size.
The Armstrong J11 is a folding 105mm cannon

[Karl Streiger]

how get the pilot into the cockpit - this question is a good one - and finally I present you the options:


through the front via an open face plate. (I think there is an artwork that shows this option)
through the roof (i removed the life support and radio equipment) this also allows the mountion of an ejection seat.

the hatch in the rear is for maintenance only. Speaking of rear - the novel where Grayson stood behind Lori in the cockpit of hte shadow hawk is a myth - a busted myth

same goes for the Wolverine Cockpit

Edited by Karl Streiger, 12 February 2018 - 07:12 AM.

[Metus regem]

I figured the entrance to the cockpit would either be through the top or side, as crawling over your controlled can be less than ideal in most cases.

[Karl Streiger]

Metus regem, on 12 February 2018 - 07:25 AM, said:

I figured the entrance to the cockpit would either be through the top or side, as crawling over your controlled can be less than ideal in most cases.

Good hint.... so the faceplate is always closed? Or might there be a reason to open the heavy canopy?

maybe I can have more space so that the hatch in the rear becomes an option:
In the current SHD model I used the 9.5m from somewhere from lore - but when you put it onto the TRO3039 Size Comparison, things look different. Anybody remember where the 9.5m came from?

[Metus regem]

Karl, my Gunship I could enter from one side, but the forward windscreen was fixed in position... so I just don't see a reason to make the faceplate moveable on the SHD, I mean why make that part mobile when you could have the door on top, as a door is structurally weaker....