Shasfio wrote:I built this in google sketchup ages ago, but unfortunately I screwed up somewhere and the geometry isn't closed and I really can't figure out how to close it in this program. That said I have access to solidworks and I'm going to try and recreate it there.
Shasfio wrote:I've been thinking about how much I hate mass fire missile weapons. With seekers you see the individual shots, with marines you can see all 6 or so missiles that a marine carries and fires. But with smart missile systems, high yield pods, and missile pods unless one or two shots counts as high yield I don't see the ammo holding. With energy weapons the reactor is the only limitation apparent so I thought, missiles and ion weapons seem to have the same base strength and the cyclic ion blaster has the same ap even so why not build a proxy piece.
I forgot this is how their rounds work, but while that still works for what a standard game number of shots that would still run even most suits empty before a battle was over (I also assume paired weapons with twin linked both fire in most situations). I agree on how you see missiles working, personally i think they're a little dumber just swarming a radar or thermal profile nearest the initial targeted point. Missile weapons have just always rubbed me wrong for forward operation or long op combat, and on mechs they drive me a bit bonkers as they have no real mechanism to reload.Siyath wrote:I'm under the illusion that a lot of the apparent single warheads we see in Tau missile weapons are in fact delivery systems for a cluster of semi-intelligent micromissiles which see and identify targets, skip around cover, find weak spots and either carpet bombs softer targets (f.e. SMS) or clusters into a pin-pointed target area in heavier armour to deliver the real punch (HYMP).
It's not a magazine, it's a rotary chamber attachment. Ammunition and reactors (energy really) is a reference to how energy weapons are shown to work in Gundam and Star Wars (yes I know the 2nd is space fantasy but its no worse than 40k). In gundam many energy weapons are merely recharged by being placed into holster/sling positions on the machine and can be used again later, or they end up just attached to the machines reactor. In star wars blaster and laser weapons are actually functionally plasma using high energy bursts to excite gas provided by cartridges. In series a cartridge may function anywhere from 50-500 shots on infantry grade weapons and vehicles are functionally loaded with enough for what is routinely multiple sorties. In both of these situations the only restriction to ammunition in any engagement is energy. This is what I'm going for with Ion and particle weapons instead of missiles.Siyath wrote:As for the design of the weapon, it looks good. Since you talked about ammunition capabilities and reactors, I'm not sure I understand the magazine(?) in your design. Since fuel is basically ammunition for a reactor in a weapon, those are some sort of fuel/matter-cartridges, right? I hope Solidworks takes the filetype without too much trouble so you don't have to start from scratch.
While reload drones makes sense for defensive combat and maybe for defensive positions in general they don't really work for assault units with how much they'd have to carry and the hazards of reloaded heavy weapons likes that in the thick, though I could see them being like runners or being dropped in like support, like how in vietnam hueys would drop whole cases of ammo off for troops in the field, maybe with this type the case has a drone attached to the top who pops off and starts reloading automatically. Maybe seekers are just too big?Kael'yn wrote:For me, I used to think about reload drones (but why skyray don't have access to them ?) for replenish missiles.
I'll give it a whack but with solidworks I'm actually sure the program will churn out an OBJ or STL file (neither of which sketchup does well) and since I want to do 2 new models I figure why not work from there.Kael'yn wrote:If you can export it to dxf/stl/obj (or any other file format Blender can handle), I can check and repair the geometry for you for non-manifold parts and wall thickness. I used to do this for videogame models to be 3D printed.
Another program used to check (not repair) the parts is Netfabb (recommended to me by a Shapeways team member)
Shasfio wrote: I'm actually sure the program will churn out an OBJ or STL file (neither of which sketchup does well)
I was actually talking about working the models from scratch in solidworks rather than importing as I've had a class on how to fiddle with solidworks and here we have some of the work I've done already with the program, and I feel that complex curves are noticeably harder than some forms of aesthetics..Kael'yn wrote:Solidworks is a CAO program that can be tricky for some shapes. Tau shapes are simple so this is not a hard job for someone who know his way into the params.
Blender is an open source free powerful 3D modelling tool (although some people found it difficult to handle, being lost by its unique and fully customizeable UI)
You can found somewhere explanations and videos on correcting non manifold meshes in Blender (watertightness is a major issue, but not the only one: inverted normals, loose edges, ...)
I don't know if Solidworks has the same features if you import the Sketchup file.
I didn't say at all, I said "well", also apparently since I last used sketchup they've added in native exporting to obj files so I was right then, wrong now. If you're interested in the model I could send you the skp file and you could fix it for me. I'm planning to have it printed by shapeways and then recast locally once I have the right size set up (I figured on printing it in 3 different sizes and deciding which one to cast).Kael'yn wrote:Are you sure ? The last time I used Sketchup (modelling a house global shape), the basic DAE exported then imported to blender has a correct shape (but not optimized geometry for complex plane cuts). Blender then can export to STL natively.
I don't know about other exporters of Sketckup (mine is an old version that has only Collada DAE and GoogleEarth), But I think you can found OBJ or STL exporters for the latest Sketchup.
Shasfio wrote:So people whaddya think, more gubbins or leave it as is?
The barrel's curved surface is really tricky to work on at this stage and I'm still going for the imitated Tael look which had blank sides. However I did take your request for certain details. For some of the new additions I pulled out a few weapons to take inspiration from.modelglue wrote:I would love to see more of the geometric armor saw-tooth panels like we see on Crisis and Broadside thigh armor incorporated into the barrel area. I would guess you are mirroring this part to make a left and right sided option, and the outside face is a bit too stark for me.
The keyway at the back end of the gun body is very nice though, I love those details on the Tau models and I think that is definitive.
Just for you.ShasODerpy wrote:All the small additions are a definite improvement
Do you have a shot from the underside of the weapon?
This sucker is gonna be connected to a mech, that thing on the back is a capacitor at best the suit itself houses the reactor. Aesthetic wise, since it's a shoulder or arm mount for a broadside it has to keep a generally balanced profile much like the heavy rail rifles from the old model were.Myrdin wrote:That is actually a nice looking piece. Has that "modern laser weaponry" look to it you could see in the Sci fi movies 20 years ago.
One thing I would change however is the back part piece. I would make it bigger and more elaborate to give of the feeling that this is the battery/generator that produces the energy for the weapon
I did my best to really make it feel linked in aesthetic. The barrel will get a paintjob to make it look more broken up but I think with this last round of details I can start chamfering edges and getting it ready to print.modelglue wrote:Yep, I'd call that done.
I like the details you added, and I can see where the barrel area would be a bit tough to modify with my suggested additions. I do like where you placed the undulating details on the gun body.
I've see the experimental weapons done by the forum and I have taken some detail from them but one thing I've never been a big fan of is exposed coils or critical exposed parts, I tried to add in either a capacitor or heat sink look with the back of the weapon but I guess it doesn't come across as that. I really prefer keeping the battle and cylinders blank for paint work after production. I can see the need for a vent, maybe on top of the receiver where it's just a panel I could convert that into a vent so it would back blast overpressure gasses.Kael'yn wrote:To add details, maybe check our current weapons and design.
Or think of the weapon mechanism:
PAC = Particle Accelerators Cannon (following Tael idea): I want to see something that seems to "accelerate" a particle: coils, ribs, ... (check the look of Fallout M72 gauss rifle for a caricatural effect, but you can get the idea) on the two cylinders (without looking too Necron of course). And maybe subtle ventss or cooling system on the backside to add details to catch the light and paint.
IIRC the XV88 has also a "particle accelerator" (why ??? ) on its backside too. I don't know if you can borrow some features too.
Shasfio wrote:Are you happy now Kael'yn? Cause I am after that edit.
Kael'yn wrote:It's your model so do as you want
I just gave you some inputs.
Want another : Now that the back is full of nice details, the barrel sides looks very flat... Look at the BC on the stealth suits or the old plasma rifles : they added (useless ?) lines on the barrel
just to balance the details.
Users browsing this forum: El'mo and 5 guests