Spring RTS Engine

Toothpick legs are really sexxy arent they?

They are simply support struts, they are not really 'legs' in any way.

The unit is a hovercraft; it simply attaches itself to the ground during firing, as it's repulsorlift engines cannot take the intense power of the gun kickback.

I understand, but the hovercraft in the films don't have those struts. The 2nd and 3rd screenshots remind me of prehistoric crustaceans resting on the bottom of the ocean.

Warlord Zsinj wrote:They are simply support struts, they are not really 'legs' in any way.

The unit is a hovercraft; it simply attaches itself to the ground during firing, as it's repulsorlift engines cannot take the intense power of the gun kickback.

That is the first unit from SWS that I honestly don't like in the least bit (except for maybe the top part).. Even if those aren't actually legs, they definitely look like legs.. And if the unit is a hovercraft, it still doesn't look anywhere near sturdy enough to support an artillery shell/laser/plasma/whatever being launched. Frankly, it looks like it would tip over and do back flips when it fires.. I'm not a modeler in any sense (haven't modeled anything since I took a random 3d modeling class in college), but the bottom needs to be way heavier-looking and expanded.. Otherwise, it just looks.. too weird for an artillery unit.

I'm actually surprised with how much hate there is for this unit!

It is a design loosely based off two existing star wars units.


Which is a trade federation unit

and


Which is an Imperial unit (or late republic).

To be honest, it is one of my favourite designs. It isn't quite right - but it's funky anyway. It takes what you think about weapons, and distorts it using future technology. By rights we could simply say that the thing has repulsor engines powerful enough to withstand the artillery shells, so that it never needs to deploy. You have to remember that this isn't a hovercraft in the modern sense, but a long, long time ago hovercraft that uses anti-gravity technology.
The main reason we gave it struts was as a visual link so that players can tell when their artillery is deployed, and when it isn't. It needs to deploy for important gameplay reasons.

I think it's the sort of quirky Slave-I type design that you can only get out of Star Wars. Sure it's weird. But it's also cool (atleast, IMO).

looks great.when do we get to play this mod?

When it's done :)

I'm putting in as much time as I can fit in right now, but I'm going overseas for a few months (don't worry, got myself a laptop), so I'm pretty busy, which is why my output is a little down.

The rest of the team is working very hard too!

Are the AT-ATs gonna be able to carry troops? considering that the AT-AT stands for All Terrain Armoured Transport, it would make sense to me, would would there be issues with balance?

ATAT's, when they are finally introduced, will probably carry troops, yes. The ATAT we had working in SWTA could carry troops. There is no balance issue with allowing the ATAT to carry troops. I suspect that the ability would rarely be used in a competitive game, but certainly ATAT's did carry a large complement of troops and we would look to reflect that in SWS.

However, be aware that ATAT's will not be seen for a little while in SWS, as we have to get the core gameplay downpat and released before releasing superweapons such as the ATAT and Jedi/Sith.

IMO, just have the artillery land when it needs to deploy. I think the chassis is pretty nice, but I have to agree the legs look a bit wonky.

At the very least, go to fewer, thicker, legs.

EDIT: standard it's-your-mod-do-what-you-want disclaimer! Overall, SWS is looking unbelievable.

Imo that arty unit would make more sense if its struts came out from the turrets pivot point, and drop those front support struts.

The amount of torque that gun could exert on the hover platform with its long "tail" would be insane unless it had direct support there.

Also, the struts look like slightly adapted cubes, maybe greeble em a little to look like they have shock absorbers or a slightly more mechanical look.

Warlord Zsinj wrote:I'm actually surprised with how much hate there is for this unit!

and

yeah see those little thick arms, they look aceptable as a fire brace. I am with the majority here, the skinny little legs are ugly.

Don't anger the anorexia front :P

Warlord Zsinj wrote:I'm actually surprised with how much hate there is for this unit!

It is a design loosely based off two existing star wars units.


Which is a trade federation unit

and


Which is an Imperial unit (or late republic).

To be honest, it is one of my favourite designs. It isn't quite right - but it's funky anyway. It takes what you think about weapons, and distorts it using future technology. By rights we could simply say that the thing has repulsor engines powerful enough to withstand the artillery shells, so that it never needs to deploy. You have to remember that this isn't a hovercraft in the modern sense, but a long, long time ago hovercraft that uses anti-gravity technology.
The main reason we gave it struts was as a visual link so that players can tell when their artillery is deployed, and when it isn't. It needs to deploy for important gameplay reasons.

I think it's the sort of quirky Slave-I type design that you can only get out of Star Wars. Sure it's weird. But it's also cool (atleast, IMO).

I think the problem is that the unit looks like a combination of the large gun from the first unit and the thin lower half of the second unit. The first unit works because of the bulky lower half, and the second works because the guns are skinny and long. I think if you added a bulky hovercraft sleeve type thing to your model it would make it look much better.

Those little "arms" you speak of are not arms/feet/legs, they are repulsorlift engines...

Even so the struts do look a little small but hey, it's sci fi! miracles can happen!

I understand the criticism here, and consider it fair, though I don't agree with the entirety of what is being said. A specific point is Hrmph's comparison of the two; masswise I suspect that there is higher ratio of chassis-to-gun in my design then there is the in that Trade Fed design; though perhaps not distributed in the same way. That design also does not anchor itself to the ground in order to fire, whereas mine does.

Nonetheless, I appreciate that the design here is not universally popular. However, resolving it would take time in a redesign that I don't think I want to spend time on, considering I am reasonably happy with the final outcome, and considering how long it has been since our last release, and the mountain of work still ahead of us.

However, if any of the circling wolfpack of pedants (I kid ) would like to have a crack at fixing it up themselves (that is, adjust/redesign the struts, readjust the UVmap to suit, reanimate), I would be more then happy to have a look at what you've produced and consider it's inclusion instead of my version.

Thanks for the constructive criticism though, I'm glad you guys have taken an interest :)

Imperial Territorial Fortification

New information regarding the planned resource system can be found in the thread.

the light circles for units firing blasters need to be alot fainter

Maybe, if anorexia is in style, give the toothpicks some thicker joints or something, anything that suggests that someone was board and poked some toothpicks into the bottom of the craft.

The effects are all very much WIP, Ivory - much of it is going to change. However, there is no flash when units fire blasters - those flashes are rather occurring when units are hit by blaster fire. I think in the latest version they aren't even there any more.