Thundercraft Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 I've been hard at work designing ships. And, since I've been playing the beta branch, this is what my new ships have been designed for. Due to the changes, I had to redesign a few. But all of these take advantage of Directional Thrusters on leverage arms. Thus far, all of my ships have been designed for performance - high Pitch and Yaw in particular. Also, most of my ships are designed to have the option to carry cargo. They have respectable maneuverability even when carrying cargo. And they're designed for room to add on one or two Cargo Containers. (See my ship parts catalog topic.) For ease of use, I've included separate versions with the cargo containers (or cargo bay) already added. So far, the only exception would be my "Cutter" class, which is strictly a cheap scout or exploration vessel. The classification system that I use is mostly explained by this post in the "Ship class" topic. Following the name is a two-letter abbreviation for the main material(s), followed by a number which indicates the number of module slots (to indicate size). In addition, my later designs also have "gW" with a number to indicate how many Gigawatts it generates, followed by "cargo" and a number (if it has any cargo space). I choose to design for performance. And I think the stats speak for themselves. Cutter class iron starter/scout Needletail Mk V class starter/small freighter Predator I & II class early-game multi-role Caravel class starter/small freighter Monitor class mid-game multi-role Tetralenos class medium freighter Trilen & Trilenos class medium freighters Azugalenos class medium freighter Locus class multi-role (coming soon-ish™) (reserved) Note 1: Most of my ships use 'Void Tech' engines and thrusters. Many of them also use void tech generators, capacitors and/or shields. (See the Scytales Laboratories topic for details.) The exceptions would be my later ships: Trilen, Trilenos, and Azugalenos, which don't use Void Tech. Note 2: All my ships have all blocks protected by IFGs. Note 3: So far, my only ships that come with shields are the Azugalenos, the Trilen, and certain versions of the Monitor. However, it should be possible to add a shield generator to many of them as many have some room to spare (usually with dull, colorless framework placeholders). Note 4: After learning the hard way, I usually to keep my core block buried deep inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundercraft Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 Cutter class iron starter/scout As I said, my "Cutter" class is designed to be a cheap starter exploration vessel, made mostly of iron. The first version ended up being much larger than I had intended. I renamed this "Cutter XL". Then I used tip #6 in Tips for ship building to resize this ship, making a version of the Cutter exactly 1/8'th the size (1/2 in X, Y, and Z) of the XL. Stats for the tiny Cutter: Credits: 572 Iron: 621 Titanium: 98 Stats for the larger Cutter: Credits: 1980 Iron: 1228 Titanium: 37 Thu_Cutter.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundercraft Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 Needletail Mk V class starter/small freighter The Needletail was my early attempt at thruster arms to increase Yaw and Pitch. But instead of doing a classic cross shape - which tends to obscure the top of the ship and thus our view from a 1'st person perspective - I wanted to do three nacelles that are more-or-less evenly spaced. This is difficult to design because the blocks in Avorion are cubic. Attempting a truly triagular (three-sided) shape is a challenge. (Trivia: The white-throated needletail is the fastest level flying bird. Aside for being designed for speed, it got the name for the needle-like antenna in the back.) My first versions used Regular Thrusters: When the thruster changes happened, I did a few major redesigns. Current "V" version: Sans cargo: [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 3271 Iron: 1398 Titanium: 105 With the 336 unit cargo container: [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 8470 Iron: 3433 Titanium: 142 Thu_Needletail_V_Ir-2.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundercraft Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 Predator I & II class early-game multi-role After designing the Needletail and Locus classes, I learned a few things about thruster placement and the value of Directional Thrusters on long leverage arms. The Predator class was the culmination of my experiments. (As one may guess, it's named for the Predator drone, which it sort of resembles.) Some of you are probably thinking that thrusters on leverage arms is a weak point that can be exploited. It depends on how you design it. For ships that may see combat, like the Predator, my leverage arms consist of no more than four blocks - two if I can manage. And I place these in such a way that at least two neighboring blocks would need to be destroyed before it would break off. In the case of this Predator class, each Nacelle is connected to the main body by 4 blocks, each with about 15 HP. However, because of the IFGs, each of those 4 blocks can take 10 times the damage or 150 HP. And all four would have to be destroyed, which amounts to about 600 HP. With the whole ship having 863 HP, each arm can take about 70% of the damage of the ship. Predator Mk I class: [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 15493 Iron: 2004 Titanium: 1369 Predator Mk II class: [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 15497 Iron: 1934 Titanium: 1441 You can see from the stats that the Predator II has better Yaw and Pitch than the Predator I. Though, the only major change was the side thruster arms were relocated from the back to the middle. This demonstrates how - at least with Directional Thrusters - placing thruster arms near the middle is best. I would move the bottom thruster arm to the middle, too, except that would interfere with adding a cargo container. Also, it looks better this way. (For more about thruster effectiveness and placement, see my Thruster Nacelles & Leverage Arms post. Click the spoiler tags to read about it. Also, there is my rant in "The Cube Meta" topic.) Thu_Predator.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundercraft Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 Caravel class starter/small freighter A recent attempt to modify the Needletail to further improve performance and cost ended up being a near complete redesign. The only thing that was borrowed were the nacelles. Taking what was learned from the Predator class, the Caravel class (sci-fi vernacular for a small, speedy freighter) has the thruster arms and nacelles in the middle, for higher thrust and cost efficency. And directional thrusters are pointed up/down in the nose and tail for Pitch, which eliminates the need for an upper and/or lower thruster arm, saving significant weight. Being mostly iron, this is another starter ship. But it seems to work pretty well for an early, small freighter. Though more fragile than the Predator series, it's also much cheaper. As usual, the whole ship is protected by IFGs. And like the Predator, the thruster arms can take considerable punishment. This isn't designed for combat, though. The whole thing is covered in iron solar panels for cheap energy. Sans cargo: [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 3987 Iron: 796 Titanium: 209 With the 74 unit cargo container: [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 5735 Iron: 1500 Titanium: 218 With the 336 unit cargo container: [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 9186 Iron: 2830 Titanium: 247 Thu_Caravel.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundercraft Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 Monitor class mid-game multi-role I've been using the Monitor class quite a lot. It handles well, even with a cargo container. I used what I learned from earlier designs. The thruster arms are tough. With IFG protection, it would require about 750 HP in focused damage to sheer a nacelle off. And versions with shields can take quite a bit of punishment. Like the Caravel class, it has thrusters in the nose and tail to save weight, yet give good Pitch. Monitor Ti-3: Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-3 gW 1.6.xml: Credits: 11583 Iron: 1020 Titanium: 1693 Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-Na-3 gW 5.7.xml: Credits: 52984 Iron: 364 Titanium: 4966 Naonite: 986 Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-Na-3 gW 9.6.xml: Credits: 81191 Iron: 364 Titanium: 7320 Naonite: 986 Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-Tr-3 gW 9.6.xml: Credits: 91181 Iron: 384 Titanium: 7313 Trinium: 1707 Monitor Ti-4 cargo 176: Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-Na-4 gW 5.9 cargo 176.xml: Credits: 56223 Iron: 1658 Titanium: 4981 Naonite: 986 Monitor Ti-4 cargo 336: Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-4 gW 9.6 cargo 336.xml: Credits: 76213 Iron: 207 Titanium: 9308 Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-Na-4 gW 5.9 cargo 336.xml (w/shields): Credits: 59988 Iron: 364 Titanium: 7095 Naonite: 986 Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-Na-4 gW 9.6 cargo 336.xml (w/shields): Credits: 88194 Iron: 364 Titanium: 9449 Naonite: 986 Monitor Ti-4 cargo 876: Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-4 gW 1.9 cargo 876.xml: Credits: 26747 Iron: 208 Titanium: 7118 Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-4 gW 9.7 cargo 876.xml: Credits: 83787 Iron: 208 Titanium: 11792 Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-Na-4 gW 9.9 cargo 876.xml (w/shields): Credits: 95765 Iron: 370 Titanium: 11928 Naonite: 986 Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-Tr-4 gW 9.9 cargo 876.xml (w/shields): Credits: 105755 Iron: 390 Titanium: 11920 Naonite: 1707 Monitor Ti-4 cargo 1752: Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-5 gW 2.1 cargo 1752.xml: Credits: 38550 Iron: 3797 Titanium: 8143 Stats and Cost for Thu_Monitor Ti-Tr-5 gW 10.1 cargo 1752.xml (w/shields): Credits: 117558 Iron: 3978 Titanium: 12945 Trinium: 1707 Download: Thu_Monitor.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundercraft Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 Tetralenos class medium freighter Next, I wanted to design a rather big freighter. And I wanted to take maximum advantage of the weird way in which Cargo Bays scale. Single, big Cargo Bays are insanely more effective than many smaller ones. (E.g.: Despite being the same volume, building a single 10x10x10 Cargo Bay is 685% more efficient than building 1000 1x1x1 Cargo Bays. I'm not exaggerating. :() So, I planned for a really big cube as my Cargo Bay and literally built a ship around it. (Trivia: Tetralenos should translate to "four-armed". Tetra is Greek for four and Lenos is Greek for Arms.) Thu_Tetralenos Ir-6 gW 18.7.xml (Iron version, sans cargo): [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 215814 Iron: 28064 Titanium: 12044 Thu_Tetralenos Ir-6 gW 18.7 cargo 8.1 k.xml (Iron version with 8100 unit Cargo Bay): [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 277814 Iron: 60464 Titanium: 12044 Thu_Tetralenos Ti-7 gW 19.xml (Titanium version, sans cargo): [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 227781 Iron: 277 Titanium: 39830 Thu_Tetralenos Ti-7 gW 19 cargo 8.1 k.xml (Titanium version with 8100 unit Iron Cargo Bay): [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 299782 Iron: 32677 Titanium: 39830 Do note that this is another cross design, taking advantage of Directional Thrusters on long leverage arms. The bulk of the ship's mass is going to be near the center of the huge Cargo Bay, which helps thruster arm effectiveness. Though, I loose some effectiveness due to how much mass I added around my thrusters. It would work better with less protection around the thrusters and thinner leverage arms. It would also work better if my Cargo Bay was made of anything other than Iron, or if the ship was built from Naonite or better. Download: Thu_Tetralenos.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundercraft Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 Trilen & Trilenos class medium freighters As I've been playing multiplayer lately, I wondered if my use of void tech would be frowned upon as cheating. (Though, in fairness, NPC ships regularly overlap their blocks in a similar fashion.) So, I endeavored to modify the Tetralenos to get rid of the void tech. Replacing the void tech engines was a snap. But, I had to completely remake the nacelles because of the size difference. With those void tech thrusters, the ship got five times the directional thrust as normal. Without that, I had to make the nacelles about five times larger! Interestingly, in the process of remaking the nacelles, I discovered that the ship would actually have better performance with only three nacelles instead of four. (It was too much mass far from the center of mass.) So, I left the top one off for a better view of where the ship is going and what's in front. Thu_Trilenos Ti-7 gW 38.2.xml: [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 286729 Iron: 7969 Titanium: 41657 Further experiments showed that my long thruster arms were just too long. Even down to three, they contributed too much mass. It negated the extra thruster efficiency. So, I created a separate version with short thruster arms. This really improved performance and even saved some in cost and materials. Then, as I felt that I might be using this a lot, I added about 30000 HP in shields. That jacked the price way up. Thu_Trilen Ti-Tr-7 gW 53.5.xml (with shields, sans cargo): [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 630448 Iron: 1779 Titanium: 61935 Trinium: 12801 Thu_Trilen Ti-Tr-7 gW 53.5 cargo 8.1 k.xml (with shields and 8100 unit Iron Cargo Bay): [spoiler=Stats and Cost] Credits: 640700 Iron: 1779 Titanium: 87087 Trinium: 12801 The original, long-armed version I named "Trilenos" or "three-armed". And the final version with three short arms I named "Trilen" - a shorthand version of "Trilenos." Trilen download: Thu_Trilen Ti-Tr-7 gW 53.5.zip (Attachment below is for Trilenos.) Thu_Trilenos_Ti-7_gW_38.2.xml.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundercraft Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 Azugalenos class medium freighter I was surprised to learn that the Trilenos had better performance with three arm instead of four. As an experiment, I wanted to see if Trilen might end up with even better performance with only two arms - one horizontal and one vertical. So, I created this: Stats and Cost for Thu_Azugalenos Ti-Tr-6 gW 54.7.xml (with shields, sans cargo): Credits: 560341 Iron: 1259 Titanium: 50997 Trinium: 12801 Stats and Cost for Thu_Azugalenos Ti-Tr-7 gW 54.7 car-Ir 8.1 k.xml (with shields & 8100 unit Iron Cargo Bay): Credits: 632341 Iron: 33658 Titanium: 50997 Trinium: 12801 Stats and Cost for Thu_Azugalenos Ti-Tr-7 gW 54.7 car-Ti 8.1 k.xml (with shields & 8100 unit Titanium Cargo Bay): Credits: 657542 Iron: 1259 Titanium: 83397 Trinium: 12801 The odd-armed Azugalenos does have markedly better performance without a cargo bay. However, with the same 8100 unit Iron cargo bay, the Trilen has somewhat better stats. Interestingly, though, the Azugalenos requires nearly 5 GW less energy (and produces slightly more). Combined with how it reqires 19 less crew, this makes it ideal to use with the Extra Crew Workforce System Moduls mod. It's also has better Roll and is slightly cheaper. Despite the slightly worse stats when hauling cargo, I've decided on the Azugalenos as my go-to freighter ship. The server where I play has the Extra Crew mod and I have the modules on hand. (Trivia: I think Azugalenos translates to non-paired arms. Lenos is Greek for arms. And ázuga is Greek for 'non-pairs' or 'odd'.) Thu_Azugalenos_Ti-Tr-6_gW_54.7.xml.zip Thu_Azugalenos_Ti-Tr-7_gW_54.7_car-Ir_8.1_k.xml.zip Thu_Azugalenos_Ti-Tr-7_gW_54.7_car-Ti_8.1_k.xml.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundercraft Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 Locus class multi-role (coming soon-ish™) This one needs a thruster overhaul and rebalance to optimize for the beta branch: Preview: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundercraft Posted March 10, 2017 Author Share Posted March 10, 2017 (reserved) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hype365 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Love your designs :) Looking forward to the rest being posted :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondersheel Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Cool designs and I like the walk through of your design evolution! Might I suggest use of the "spoiler" function to organize the designs a little bit more? You could put each variant under its own spoiler so people can open them up if interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hype365 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 For some reason, when I apply the either cutter blueprint the stats show zero breaking thrust yet your stats show there is breaking thrust... I'm a little confused by this... Here is a screenshot of the large cutter http://imgur.com/fiDLM4X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hype365 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Actually... .Now that I'm looking through the rest of them, none of them are showing any breaking thrust when I apply the plans... o.O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundercraft Posted March 11, 2017 Author Share Posted March 11, 2017 Might I suggest use of the "spoiler" function to organize the designs a little bit more? The stats and costs are now behind spoiler tags. Those were taking up far too much space and detracting from everything else. For some reason, when I apply the either cutter blueprint the stats show zero breaking thrust yet your stats show there is breaking thrust... Actually... .Now that I'm looking through the rest of them, none of them are showing any breaking thrust when I apply the plans... o.O Sorry they don't work for you. I'm playing the latest beta branch, which is currently v0.10.5 r7633. I suspect that you are not as that would explain this difference. As I explained in my OP, all of these use Directional Thrusters which, AFAIK, are still restricted to the beta branch. Perhaps I should have made this more clear? But I did prefix my topic with [beta] and ended it with (DTU) to indicate that these are Directional Thrusters Upgraded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hype365 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 AH that's my bad then. I'm new to Avorion. Thank you for explaining that to me :) I'll try them out in the beta :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now