StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Kenny_10_Bellys wrote: Then again a big, fuck-off vulcan cannon might be fun to animate....

forget the vulcan. a flamethrower is what you need. and it´s more fun do animate as well.

Hmmm, a flamethrower, eh? To get it to look exactly right would be a challenge and no mistake. I have some nice flame settings for Hypervoxels and particles, but to get that sort of dripping effect as it flies would be tough. A basic one would be dead easy though, but a Vulcan cannon would be far cooler looking I feel.

Turtle or Tortoise seems to fit better than gator, it doesnt have much in the way of teeth.

Call it the turtle, then have a variant more heavily armed and call it the "Snapping Turtle"

Wait a minute....I thought this was a SW vehicle!

I'd be willing to go against a tank in a humvee...

If the humvee was equipped with LOSAT...

You need a vulcan gun. You should have it in the middle of firing with shells fling and a nice muzzle flash. Also, you could make a variant with every weapon suggested as an attack version.

**
I'd go against a tank in a humvee if it had TOW missles mounted in a reward turret.

Yeah, that might be fun. A close-up of the barrel spinning with a dirty great muzzle flash going would be nice and easy to animate. actually getting cases to fall out would need to be done with a particle system linked to an FX_Linker, but again it's feasible. Hmm, might be one to try for the demo reel. Model has to be finished by the end of the week for the competition, so I'll try it then.

OK, here is the finished design, or at least finished until I can be arsed to work on it some more. I've made the gattling guns fully animatable, so look out for a short animation in the very near future too...

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenny7/LB_Ortho.jpg
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenny7/LB_Beauty.jpg

The beauty shot includes the Clonetrooper model from Sci-fi 3D, I forgot to put the credit on the picture. It's not designed as an AOTC vehicle, it's just the only character models I have handy right now are all SW related.

This design is bad. The best APC designs are as simple as possible. Move the ramp to the rear. Lower the profile significantly. Put vision blocks and periscopes in place of that big vulnerable window. Perhaps even some small devices indicating thermal imagers and other such optronics.

But overall, that thingis just way too high. Those weapons are useless up there. Any enemy could spring an ambush and be nice and safe in defilade under the guns.

Those tires are also too big- if you need em that big, just make em tracks, you'll get more out of the design.

Kenny_10_Bellys wrote:OK, here is the finished design, or at least finished until I can be arsed to work on it some more. I've made the gattling guns fully animatable, so look out for a short animation in the very near future too...

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenny7/LB_Ortho.jpg
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenny7/LB_Beauty.jpg

The beauty shot includes the Clonetrooper model from Sci-fi 3D, I forgot to put the credit on the picture. It's not designed as an AOTC vehicle, it's just the only character models I have handy right now are all SW related.

If your determined to put gns on it, you need to have rear cover. Putting them on the very top is a problem as they will have limited firing arcs due to the square sides (also bad for stopping incoming rounds BTW). You also need to get some weight distribution to the rear, that things asking to dig its front wheels in and bog down. If you bevel the sides of the cockpit module to a slight angle, you can mount your forward guns there, add an extension to the rear with a slight down angle on the roof and you can put two there as well.

This would die as a Military vehicle, it's simply too tall for it's own good and can't boast the armour protection of an AT-AT, so instead have it as a forward exploration vehicle for unknown planets/territories. It has a guard complement and guns for protection of the Scientists inside as they do thier research thing, and you could mount an airlock inside that hatch opening to act as protection from the environment if needed. Give it sensor blisters, roof mountings for antennae and armoured covers for windows and you're laughing, plus the extra extension to the rear would allow you to put in more labs inside (or a rear garage for Speeder bikes/ATV's).

I cant do much to the overall shape, although it does follow the standard APC design philosophy of basically being a big box. It's big because it has to be, it has to carry loads of guys and there gear, possibly for days at a time, in inclement conditions and expeditions. It's more patrol based than front line, it's in no way intended for taking on AT ATs or replacing them. It's size is intimidating and it's got some guns and that's about the extent of it's combat capabilities in that dept. I put the guns on top at the front more for air defence and covering the doors than any other reason, putting one on the back would have spoiled the lines but make more sense. As this is more an art excersize, no rear gun. You'd be surprised just how much they can cover anyway, I've swung it around to check for the animation.

I seem to recall also that if you get within 10 metres of a Russian tank you can pretty much do what you like, it can't bring it's guns to bear on you either. This is part of the reason forces tend to be made up of vehicles and weapons that fill in the holes in the others defences, making a more cohesive team. This is not meant to be the ultimate tank/APC/stand-alone go-anywhere vehicle, it's a big box on wheels for getting around rough terrain and pushing the peasants about, nothing more.

It's also going to get more sensors, antennae and suchlike anyway, it's just the deadline came up for the competition while I was busy playing C&C Generals. I included space in the top of the thing for storage too, so i suppose it could hold a smaller vehicle or something like a speeder bike too. As for tracks versus wheels, it's easier with wheels as the motors are in the hubs and save taking up space inside with motors and such, and the overall ground clearance is much higher, better for rocky terrain.

Kenny_10_Bellys wrote:I cant do much to the overall shape, although it does follow the standard APC design philosophy of basically being a big box. It's big because it has to be, it has to carry loads of guys and there gear, possibly for days at a time, in inclement conditions and expeditions. It's more patrol based than front line, it's in no way intended for taking on AT ATs or replacing them. It's size is intimidating and it's got some guns and that's about the extent of it's combat capabilities in that dept. I put the guns on top at the front more for air defence and covering the doors than any other reason, putting one on the back would have spoiled the lines but make more sense. As this is more an art excersize, no rear gun. You'd be surprised just how much they can cover anyway, I've swung it around to check for the animation.

I seem to recall also that if you get within 10 metres of a Russian tank you can pretty much do what you like, it can't bring it's guns to bear on you either. This is part of the reason forces tend to be made up of vehicles and weapons that fill in the holes in the others defences, making a more cohesive team. This is not meant to be the ultimate tank/APC/stand-alone go-anywhere vehicle, it's a big box on wheels for getting around rough terrain and pushing the peasants about, nothing more.

It's also going to get more sensors, antennae and suchlike anyway, it's just the deadline came up for the competition while I was busy playing C&C Generals. I included space in the top of the thing for storage too, so i suppose it could hold a smaller vehicle or something like a speeder bike too. As for tracks versus wheels, it's easier with wheels as the motors are in the hubs and save taking up space inside with motors and such, and the overall ground clearance is much higher, better for rocky terrain.

It' not a military vehicle by any stretch of the imagination I'm afraid (it's too large from all angles and lacks the armour to back up it's profile - the only way it could be a Military vehicle would be as a Logistics cargo hauler, always in the rear-area and never under serious threat; you would probably have to put a rear cargo door on it though), Just have it as a pure exploration vehicle with limited self-defence properties. And design aethetics or not, you need to balance out that forward overhang or the vehicle is unbalanced (bad news when heading down a steep slope), alternatively you could put a 4th set of wheels on it and have them bogeyed so they sit forward of the axle enough to support that overhang.

Move the wheels forward a bit, add a top hatch and some railing around the side, Make it a dedicated research vehicle. Call it the Research and Exploration Vehicle.. REV...

Round it out.

Kenny_10_Bellys wrote:I cant do much to the overall shape, although it does follow the standard APC design philosophy of basically being a big box. It's big because it has to be, it has to carry loads of guys and there gear, possibly for days at a time, in inclement conditions and expeditions. It's more patrol based than front line, it's in no way intended for taking on AT ATs or replacing them. It's size is intimidating and it's got some guns and that's about the extent of it's combat capabilities in that dept. I put the guns on top at the front more for air defence and covering the doors than any other reason, putting one on the back would have spoiled the lines but make more sense. As this is more an art excersize, no rear gun. You'd be surprised just how much they can cover anyway, I've swung it around to check for the animation.

Mounting the guns on the 'chin' underneath the ramp would do more to cover the doors than where they are now- though muzzle flash might dazzle the dismounts. They're simply not placed well to defend a dismount.

I seem to recall also that if you get within 10 metres of a Russian tank you can pretty much do what you like, it can't bring it's guns to bear on you either.

Not true, within 10m the tank commander can swing his NSVT heavy machine gun towards you from the safety of inside the turret on the T-64, T-80 and T-90 tanks, or just do it the old fashioned way from the cupola on the T-72. Also- this APC is much higher than any tank design, and the Russian tanks are the lowest. There's also nothing stopping any tank from swinging it's turret to draw a bead with it's coaxial on you- getting close to a tank only makes you a more difficult target. They are stand off weapons after all. This doesn't fit the bill of a tank.

This is part of the reason forces tend to be made up of vehicles and weapons that fill in the holes in the others defences, making a more cohesive team. This is not meant to be the ultimate tank/APC/stand-alone go-anywhere vehicle, it's a big box on wheels for getting around rough terrain and pushing the peasants about, nothing more.

I'm quite aware of that

It's also going to get more sensors, antennae and suchlike anyway, it's just the deadline came up for the competition while I was busy playing C&C Generals. I included space in the top of the thing for storage too, so i suppose it could hold a smaller vehicle or something like a speeder bike too. As for tracks versus wheels, it's easier with wheels as the motors are in the hubs and save taking up space inside with motors and such, and the overall ground clearance is much higher, better for rocky terrain.

Ah, wasn't aware the motors were in the wheels. Quite an unorthodox arrangement, but not unheard of.

Hi all,

The '10 metres from a Russian Tank' bit comes straight from an infantry instructor with the marines who advises writers, so blame him if it;s not true. It's always been true that tank drivers hate infantry and vice-versa due the trouble each gives the other, so I can well believe it. It's too late to round it out I'm afraid, that would mean a total rebuild. If I was to rebuild it from scratch I'd make a completely different model anyway, so why bother now. As for weight distribution, it's pretty evenly balanced from what I know of it's inner structure, all the heavy stuff is at the back and the inner chamber doesn't go all the way to the rear and nowhere near the top of it, so if anything it'll be slightly rear-heavy.

The design trick of putting motors in the hubs is far from new (see previous page) and is something a few modern designers are moving back to as a real space saver, and it certainly cuts down on tranmission parts too. With computer control and a decent power supply it's a good way to go for a hardened vehicle, gives a lot of redundancy built right in to the design.

I also thought of mounting the guns under the chin, it would look somewhat cooler but cause all sorts of problems for the guys exiting and the top ones provide decent enough coverage as it is. As I said above they cover more of an area than you might think, and I dont want anyone dismounting from this thing some 5 metres from guys with weapons heavy enough to knacker this thing up anyway. That would be real bad for moral, I'd like to keep there heads down with the vulcans as I came in, then drop the guys near cover with this thing dropping back afterwards firing as it went.

http://www.army-technology.com/contract ... mics2.html

Gun mounting could be a little like that on this one??

Kenny_10_Bellys wrote:Hi all,

The '10 metres from a Russian Tank' bit comes straight from an infantry instructor with the marines who advises writers, so blame him if it;s not true. It's always been true that tank drivers hate infantry and vice-versa due the trouble each gives the other, so I can well believe it. It's too late to round it out I'm afraid, that would mean a total rebuild. If I was to rebuild it from scratch I'd make a completely different model anyway, so why bother now. As for weight distribution, it's pretty evenly balanced from what I know of it's inner structure, all the heavy stuff is at the back and the inner chamber doesn't go all the way to the rear and nowhere near the top of it, so if anything it'll be slightly rear-heavy.

You actually want all the storage space to be in the floor of the bottom level, keep your weight low and spread out evenly. your Computers and such can all have their innards down there and your heavy equipment can likewise be stored there. If you have your weight at the back or on top you have the same problems as with your front overhang - you're moving your center of gravity away from where you need it. Imagine what will happen if you have all your weight at the rear and then go up a steep incline. Tiiimber

Dodge wrote: Gun mounting could be a little like that on this one??

That's a turret. I don't think he wanted to go so far into dedicated combat vehicle territory.

You're right, of course, Vympel. However, it's made me think a little of that APC-type vehicle used in Aliens 2 to storm the complex early in the movie. The vehicle had a turret that ran on rails so it could move to the rear and hide (to avoid low doorways, as in the movie, for example).

I dont think this thing will be squeezing under any doorways anytime soon, and the dropship that carries this thing would be pretty scary on it's own.

The space at the top of the vehicle is there because of the same reason there's motors in the wheels rather than in the body. Space. To mount stuff in the body means mounting it low, which means the floor rises drastically and makes ingress/egress considerably more of a task for the punters on board. I should think the wide wheelbase will offset any real problems that might cause with weight distribution, I dont picture this travelling at speed over harsh terrain anyway. If I wanted to make a more 'early 21st century' APC of this, I'd cut out the bulge downwards eliminating the front door, give it a back door, scale it down by about 50%, remove the gun turrets and...oh, wait. Now it's a Stalwart APC!

Kenny_10_Bellys wrote: The space at the top of the vehicle is there because of the same reason there's motors in the wheels rather than in the body. Space. To mount stuff in the body means mounting it low, which means the floor rises drastically and makes ingress/egress considerably more of a task for the punters on board. I should think the wide wheelbase will offset any real problems that might cause with weight distribution, I dont picture this travelling at speed over harsh terrain anyway.

The wide wheelbase will stop it toppling sideways, but if it goes up a steep slope, you need the weight down low otherwise it can go backwards and all the wieght will be on the rear wheels only. For All-terrain stuff you keep the center of gravity low, so you store everything heavy low down, only light stuff like tents and clothing goes on top.

Kenny_10_Bellys wrote: If I wanted to make a more 'early 21st century' APC of this, I'd cut out the bulge downwards eliminating the front door, give it a back door, scale it down by about 50%, remove the gun turrets and...oh, wait. Now it's a Stalwart APC!

Closer to a Saxon.

No, definitely a Stalwart, check out the page below. I checked out a few designs before I built this thing and this is one of the ones that popped up the most. They redressed a couple of these for some Martian sci-fi films in the 80's, maybe it was The Martian Chronicles, i can't remember.

http://www.greensix.simonides.org/vehic ... lwart.html

The ultimate 21st century APC is the United Defense MTVL, a stretched M113, the best armored vanilla box ever produced.

Kenny_10_Bellys wrote:No, definitely a Stalwart, check out the page below. I checked out a few designs before I built this thing and this is one of the ones that popped up the most. They redressed a couple of these for some Martian sci-fi films in the 80's, maybe it was The Martian Chronicles, i can't remember.

http://www.greensix.simonides.org/vehic ... lwart.html

I know what the Stalwart is, and it's a Cargo container, not an APC, if you want a tall boxy APC with wheels (although it's 4 not 6), then the Saxons the contender.