Our representation of Halo's iconic space combat in the Homeworld 2 engine, which puts the player in command of some of the most powerful weapons fielded by the UNSC and Covenant and to provide a balanced and competitive experience.
Here are some shots in game. Sorry, no normals still, I just can't figure them out yet.
The first image is the slipspace effect by T-McKenney from "Slipspace: The Price of Freedom."
The second image is the Orthrus firing it's 24 oversized Archer pods. Because the Frigate has 50, it fires 5 missiles from each group (one missile per pod). The Orthrus only has two side-by-side pods so it fires in bursts of two, and 1/3 the time quicker than a Frigate to keep up the same payload.
The third picture is a badly damaged destroyer coming back home for a repair. Notice the atmosphere venting and a bit of fire on the right nacelle.
And the fourth is the regroup of forces to take out the Vaygr Mothership. MAC rounds *push* enemy units by 500m per shot. So the Destroyers and Frigates I had actually made the Mothership do a 360 and ended up finishing it off no where remotely close to the initial respawn.
I have to redo the Frigates now because of they way they're set up. You can compare the two in quality and the Orthrus is very much better texture wise. Also, we've given the Frigate it's own class, the Agon-class, just so it can fit in with the Orthrus-class. It means contest or struggle, because Frigates are pretty much toast against larger Covenant warships without massive numbers. Orthrus was the name of Cerberus' two headed brother so that one's pretty self explanatory.
omg that is really good
i dunno about the macs being able to "push" a mothership 500km per hit :/...maybe 500km for smaller vessels but a mothership is quite big compare to say a frigate and its mac rounds :/...i dunno maybe im not reading it right xD...u should put a video up to demonstrate this :D
Not 500km, that was a typo. It's supposed to be 500m, or .5km. Yeah, in space there is no such thing as weight. Size and mass, yes.
Newton's first law says everything stays in motion unless another outside force acts upon it. So the projectile will continue to fly until it hits a target. The force of the MAC hitting the other ship will stop the MAC and the ship absorbs the kinetic force of the MAC, causing it to be pushed. From a scientific viewpoint, anyways, I thought it was just a cool feature and kept it.
In the vacuum of space weight or size is not a thing to worry about as far as I know. But then I'm no expert :P
Weight isn't, Mass is still a very large factor though.
Weight is relative, and does not matter unless an object is near another object with large mass. However size, mass, and heat dispersion are extremely important in the contect of space travel and theoretical combat.
Here is the problem, MAC rounds don't push the frigates back, as far as I know, so if you're going to impliment this feature, then make sure that the frigates are pushed back when they fire. Even MAC cannons have recoil. Anything that propels matter out one end has the same amount of force pushing back: recoil in a gun, jet engines propel gas out one end to push planes forward, you fall on the ground and feel the force of the ground hitting back at you. If a mothership is pushed 500m, then a frigate or destroyer sure as hell better be pushed back much further. I agree it's a cool idea, and realistic, but make sure it's done right.
wouldn't the frigate just use its engines to counter the recoil? T_T
Oh and WOW! I can't wait until another update or beta comes out =D this is going to an awesome Mod!!!! XD
I'm just saying, if a tiny little MAC round can push a mothership, it will definitely push a frigate, engines or not.
When you fire a gun, there is recoil yes. It's in space, however, I just don't see recoil being a problem when it's magnetically accelerated like a rail gun and doesn't use the same mechanics as a regular gun. The reason there is recoil when firing a gun is because the gun powder explodes to shoot the bullet out. MACs use kinetic coils to accelerate a bullet from 0 to the velocity speed without using an explosion.
"Yup, a rail gun like the MAC has no recoil whatsoever"
WOAH, WHAT? Are you serious?
"I just don't see recoil being a problem when it's magnetically accelerated like a rail gun and doesn't use the same mechanics as a regular gun"
WTF? Your understanding of physics is painfully flawed. For every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. The force of accelerating a projectile is applied to the projectile AND TO THE SHIP. No matter HOW the force is applied, it must be applied to both the projectile and the launcher.
Also, 500m push-back? Really? How much mass does a frigate have when compared to a MAC round? How much mass does a mothership/station have when compared to a MAC round? I'm not kidding, tell me the mass of a MAC round, the mass of one of those frigates, the mass of Anchor 12, and the velocity of a MAC round. I'm going to guess the "push-back" velocity on the frigates will be less than 0.01 meters per second.
Technically 500m doesn't make the slightest sense at all. This should be a measurment of velocity, not distance, but since HW2 has magical friction in space, I can understand that slip of terminology. But to be blunt, don't say anything about physics unless you actually know something about physics.
I hate it when you say "MAC's have no recoil" everyone assumes you know what you are talking about.
So far, the only one who has been making any sense at all is V3LO. However, I do want to point out that coilguns and railguns (yes, they are different) are far less efficient than chemical explosives. The most advanced electromagnetic weapons that the US military is experimenting with waste at least 60% of the energy used to fire the projectile. The typical bullet fired from an assault rifle, propeled by a chemical explosive wastes somewhere between 30% and 50% of the energy produced by the explosion.
I am well aware of the laws of physics, no where did I state the MAC would not have recoil. I have covered physics course in the past, as well. Claiming I know nothing about this subject is absurd.
A MAC round is accelerated at 30km/s by the time it leaves the barrel. The bullet weighs 600 tons. I mean if I wanted to be super scientific, I could calculate damage tables, recoil, and push back etc. Better bust out the calculator and make this a real life space simulator. Or better yet, to save me the time, I'll just go in and remove it so everyone is happy. It's just a game and it was a cool little feature I discovered.
I'm aware rail guns and coil guns are different. MACs are coil guns, and that's all i've referred to them as. The "efficiency" comment was wrong, i was referring to the expanding gasses in a gun initially being uni-directional, but realised that it mustn't have influenced much.
However, it's quite easily arguable that the UNSC would develop higher efficiency coil guns than the ones the US navy is currently experimenting with.
"I thought it was just a cool feature and kept it."
There's the magic words. I missed them my first readthrough.
No it's cool, I just couldn't figure out why you went on such an offensive. I was under the impression that coil guns use heatsinks and such to disperse the energy since it's mechanical and not necessarily chemical like a gas operated rifle. I could be wrong, as I have not yet fully tested my prototype coil gun in my backyard, but meh.
Yup, a rail gun like the MAC has no recoil whatsoever, thats why in Halo 3 when you see the frigate firing their MACs in atmosphere they don't move at all? Or in transformers 2 when they fire the railgun from the destroyer there is no recoil at all? Because it uses the magnest to launch the projectile there is no explosion, but the force of the gun hitting something actully wouldnt push the ship back, it would just go straight through. Super MACs can go straight through the sheilds of a Covie destroyer, through the entire ship then out the other side.
The kinetic force of the MAC round hitting the target would still push it backwards as it makes contact.
I will probably bump the push down to 300-, just fyi. 500 I think is a tad much albeit funny watching Vaygr and Hiigaran ships struggle to keep up.
I'd say MAC guns dont produce such recoil of any sort, since they dont need any propellant charges,propellant-based weapons would be the type to have recoil....The targets though would be the ones to be pushed upon impact
of the projectile...
Like Hell_Diguner was saying, however, is that Newton's laws of physics state every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The energy transferred from the coil gun firing the MAC may not necessarily result in any recoil whatsoever, but there is still an energy transfer. And the way coil guns work is that they have massive heatsinks to absorb the power of the coils or something like that.
until a Covenant's shields "buckle," doesnt the shield just absorb the shock from the MAC anyways, resulting in no movement of the ship?
The shield is projected by the shield generators, which are attatched to the ship. The same force is conveyed to the shield generators as they're holding the shield in place, and so the same force is conveyed to the ship movement wise.
Coil guns still have recoil, they're just far more efficient in terms of force direction compared to a normal gun so the recoil is reduced compareatively. The ship is pushing the MAC round forward, while the MAC round is pushing the frigate backwards. But yes, the engines would compensate for the recoil, it would be entirely silly if after spending minutes calculating a firing solution for the MAC which involves precise bursts from the engines to line up the shots that the crew wouldn't at the same time co-ordinate the engines to compensate for the recoil.
I've not done physics for 2 years, but i'd also wager the fact that the frigate is a few hundred times heavier than the MAC round would make recoil managable.
This is greater than great out of all of the game re-textures that I have seen and done this is the best yet. KEEP IT UP!!!