Anvil Carrack - Reverse the Verse - The Shape of Ships (Dec-2018)

[Mastersan]

Hi All,

Just seen the updates on ships, and was largely disappointed with the update on Carrack.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/16899-Reverse-The-Verse-LIVE?utm_source=Star+Citizen+Supporters&utm_campaign=0d83680c4d-Weekly+Friday+Newsletter+-+07/27/2018_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_607785b0c2-0d83680c4d-40741793


There's been size changes from 123 meters to 170 then down to 125, which is fine by me, as the original concept was 123 anyway, but it's the exterior and interior changes that I don't see fit into the original concept and change the shit to the worse.

Few main points I have:

1) Aesthetic.

It's Anvil ex-military ship, the original concept looks like one: solid, rugged, streamlined, almost like an ex-military person still involved with private military company after turning civilian. The new Carrack looks like a fast-food addict: the ship appears awkward and bulky, with a big belly and short crippled legs.


2) Functionality.

The original long landing gear would have a great value in rugged terrain landings when you can't find a patch of even surface and have to land with rocks, trees, pits and other obstacles in your way. This is an essential feature of an explorer ship. If you've tried to land a Connie with it's tiny landing gear, you would know what I mean. The new Carrack is like that short-legged crook, which will have hard time finding a place to land. The explanation provided that it takes too much system resources to have the old gear, as it hasn't been retractable. In my view, it would make a lot more sense to make the long gear retractable, then to screw up the original concept.

The other old Carrack's essential feature was modularity and detachable modules. Looks like the new Carrack has internal modules, that you can't detach.


3) The bridge.
The old Carrack appeared to have a 2 level bridge with charting operations table and a place where the captain can oversee the whole bridge and surroundings through the glass canopy. The new bridge looks empty with Connie-like 3 seats.

Also, they've replaced the charting operations table with a 3D holosphere like on Idris and Bengal. Sounds good on a face value of it, but a desk may be used for local area charting, so that you can do some cartography and creates local area maps, for which you need a flat surface. This is another essential feature of this ship taken away.


On a potentially positive side the Carrack is getting a new snub ship, the Pieces (https://starcitizen.tools/Pisces), which is supposed to be a dedicated pathfinder ship.
I've put ahead an idea for such type of a ship for the Constellation Aquila a while ago (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/65300/thread/aquila-more-exploration-focus-proposal-thoughts).
Now, given that the Pisces is very close to Merlin/Archimedes, it might be possible to use it in a Connie also.
However, I would be more inclined towards a normal size light exploration ship, like light fighter type, which the Carrack could carry. The functionality of the Reliant would fit well in my opinion: great view from the cockpit, 2 seater, has internal cargo capacity.

I'm not too sure about a rover though. It appears to be a single Ursa rover. So this may mean no dedicated Anvil exploration rover. Also, the old Carrack could fit 2 Ursa rovers, when the new Carrack appears to be able to only fit 1.

They've also added a rear ramp by the looks of it, which is good for access.


What do you think?




The Old Carrack

The New Carrack.

 

[BUTUZ]

I understand your points but you've got to understand their points, what's the point of having a carrack that looks like the original concept (i.e looks awesome) if you go from 70fps down to 15fps every time you get near (or in) it! If the landing gear has to be sacrificed for it to be in game and function properly, then so be it.

Maybe they could reach a compromise where the landing gear is completely fold in but with longer legs, or legs that extend a bit more so the carrack sits higher?

I think the internal asthetic are going to change over the next 12 months, this is a very early glimpse don't forget.

Frankly I have nothing negative to say - it was just great to finally see it being worked on!!

 

[Phil]

I think ship size was the main concern, anything over 128 meters requires a large landing pad like an Idris and that doesn't make sense so while I agree the original look of the ship was better the overall functionality is better with the new version.

 

[Spacer-Steve]

I too liked the original landing gear. But they're right when they point out that you wouldn't be able to properly land if you had one of the "wings" shot off on the old design.

I'll agree that the interior, as presented, doesn't strike me as a military design. The pool table kinda bothers me as it seems like space that could be better utilized (more room for activities!). I haven't heard any word that the cargo capacity has been reduced, so that's good.

Overall, I guess I'm not too concerned. I'm just glad to see progress on what I'm hoping to be a very versatile ship.

 

[Mastersan]

Maybe they could reach a compromise where the landing gear is completely fold in but with longer legs, or legs that extend a bit more so the carrack sits higher?

But they're right when they point out that you wouldn't be able to properly land if you had one of the "wings" shot off on the old design.

Performance optimisation and ability to land even with badly damaged ship are important, so the points you've made are valid. Still, I believe what makes sense for an explorer ship is an ability to land even on the most unsuitable terrain for landing. So, I would agree that to keep the game performance, as well as to improve the aerodynamic characteristics of the ship the landing gear should be fully retractable, but at the same time, in my view, it should be long and sufficiently segmented and it should have sufficiently high amplitude that provides long travel and maximises ground clearance. This way you can, for example, land the ship in rough rocky terrain, with one leg on flat surface, another on a large rock sticking out of the ground, another leg in a deep pit, etc., and still the ship's hull will stay even, so that you can have a base for long term operations with comfortable habitation.

The long gear could actually be placed on sides of the ship and retract not inside the ship from the bottom, but along and inside the ship's hull from the sides.

Not sure how far will the physics go in the game, but I would also add more legs (maybe keep the 4 legs on the hull and add legs on the side sections) and expand the surface of the landing gear to reduce the surface pressure the ship produces, so that the ship can land on soft ground/sand and in swamped areas.

 

[Printimus]

Initial concepts almost always go through change and never survive actual production. That's why its called a concept and not a set-in-stone.

 

[Phil]

I keep hearing the military design being tossed out, yes it was military but now its civilian its like the hummer when it was first sold to the public, hehe people wouldn't buy a military version of a hummer and drive it on the street it had to be updated and fitted for civilian use just like this ships interior has been modified for civilian use. I don't disagree that the original look to me was more appealing it reminds me of the original Alien feel but I don't have issues with the interior, maybe in the future CIG will implement modifications for interior design on ships so people can choose their own look, like removing the pool table for a work out room or something lol.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

I agree if they lose the 2 floor bridge design it will be a great loss, but I see nothing in the simulation that suggests this--only that they haven't worked up the second floor yet. If they drop the second floor the ship would lose much of its appeal to me. I really loved the cathedral ceiling feel of the bridge, with five stations on two floors, adjacent to but not centered around the holoviewer, and all protected by the deployable armor plating. I'd be hugely disappointed if they lost that.

They have said for long that the Pieces is a dedicated pathfinder, and if they give it more functionality than a Sen, that will be fine. Just takes good scan and higher speed and everyone should be happy. I still think allowing Sen's into the bay is the best approach, since then you can fly a dozen off the one ship, but it does appear they're not making room for this. Disappointing, and another reason I want to step up to the Polaris.

I have no complaints about the rest of the ship, but I still think the Polaris better fits my interests. Apart from the smaller cargo hold, I think the Polaris has lots of advantages and should, since it costs twice as much. I do wish the Polaris had the two floor bridge and deployable armor. Both ships have huge appeal to me because of the holoview display--something you don't get in smaller ships, and ships with civilian origins. I have always liked the Carrack Bridge a little better than the Polaris because of the two floor design. They're very similar to each other, and much moreso than the Idris which is different just by reason of scale.

This shot of the proposed Polaris bridge is interesting to contrast to that of the Carrack. Note the Carrack has the viewer behind the bridge crew, where it can be viewed at leisure by those planning exploration, whereas the Polaris has it in the middle of the bridge where it can be referred to quickly during combat. I think they thought this through just right.

 

[Zookajoe]

While I can't argue aesthetics, you have to remember that the old Carrack was an artistic misconception of what it would look like, they want it to look pretty. The new Carrack is a developer's rendition, they want it to actually work well in the game. That being said, the older model does look cooler, but in reality, you would not want tall spindly legs to support a heavy weight.

From a functionality viewpoint. This sets the cargo/vehicle bay closer to the ground and you do not have such a steep angle on the ramp to try and get across. Nothing like high centering your exploration vehicle when you try to deploy it. Also, if the terrain is so rugged that you would need long articulated legs to be able to land, you should really look for a new landing zone. In such rough terrain, you would not be able to deploy your explorer anyway.

Not sure about the detachable modules yet, it is still in whitebox, so will wait and see. Though if they are internal now, it would not be a breaking point for me, just a minor disappointment.

The bridge is still two levels, if you look at your video you have linked, beginning at the 0:15 mark you can see that the holo sphere is projected from the lower deck to the upper deck. With the pilots seat on the lower deck.

 

[MonsterNeal]

did they mention any changes to how much it can haul? on the website they were going for 1000 scu. I mean even with the ship not being as long as we thought it was going to be they did increase its with. So instead of talking about its size i am nor curious what does it have on it. the 890 jump increased in size because it has a swimming pool. I would be hap py with carrack if it doesnt have a bunch of wasted space. I got rid on my 600i explorer due to all the wasted space on it

 

[Spacer-Steve]

did they mention any changes to how much it can haul? on the website they were going for 1000 scu. I mean even with the ship not being as long as we thought it was going to be they did increase its with. So instead of talking about its size i am nor curious what does it have on it. the 890 jump increased in size because it has a swimming pool. I would be hap py with carrack if it doesnt have a bunch of wasted space. I got rid on my 600i explorer due to all the wasted space on it

I've been looking into this most of the morning. Some on the forums are saying the cargo size was reduced but I didn't hear that in the video or read anything like that from a solid source. As far as I know, it's still 1000 scu.

UPDATE: Seeing chatter in Spectrum about how the math for the Carrack's cargo capacity has never made any sense. Apparently, I'm an idiot for believing RSI's numbers and should know better. No consensus on what the actual capacity might be.

 

[August]

Expectations. Key to disappointment.

People have been theory crafting an exploration ship as the lynchpin of their trading empire. Not to point out the absurdity of this approach, but really.

 

[Thugari]

I am reserving my judgement until mine is delivered. this is the one ship i have been looking forward to. I do believe from what i have seen so far it will still serve its purpose well, which is grabbing some friends and setting off into the great unknown. Fun times are coming.

 

[atpbx]

I too liked the original landing gear. But they're right when they point out that you wouldn't be able to properly land if you had one of the "wings" shot off on the old design.

I'll agree that the interior, as presented, doesn't strike me as a military design. The pool table kinda bothers me as it seems like space that could be better utilized (more room for activities!). I haven't heard any word that the cargo capacity has been reduced, so that's good.

Overall, I guess I'm not too concerned. I'm just glad to see progress on what I'm hoping to be a very versatile ship.

With the pool table, people forget that AI crews require amenities, they will not function as well as they should if you ship doesnt tick the relevent boxes on their checklist.

 

[atpbx]

You can tell CIG are doing great work when the best people can find to whinge about is meaningless stuff like “it looks a bit fat” and “i dont like the landing gear”.

Never mind the fact that rhe original concept is the most unbalanced game breaking ship they have ever sold and yet they are still delivering every piece of functionality they sold it with, where before they have nerfed other ships almost to breaking point for offering far less.

 

[Thugari]

You can tell CIG are doing great work when the best people can find to whinge about is meaningless stuff like “it looks a bit fat” and “i dont like the landing gear”.

Never mind the fact that rhe original concept is the most unbalanced game breaking ship they have ever sold and yet they are still delivering every piece of functionality they sold it with, where before they have nerfed other ships almost to breaking point for offering far less.

To me that's what makes the Carrack a great ship. I like the fact it will launch a snub ship, has decent storage, a repair shop and a med bay. All in a nice tight package. I am not expecting it be a master of all trades type ship. but its nice to know that we Carrack owners will have a little bit more self reliance when we are alone in the void.

 

[Mastersan]

I am not expecting it be a master of all trades type ship.

Should be the master of exploration.

 

[Bambooza]

To me that's what makes the Carrack a great ship. I like the fact it will launch a snub ship, has decent storage, a repair shop and a med bay. All in a nice tight package. I am not expecting it be a master of all trades type ship. but its nice to know that we Carrack owners will have a little bit more self reliance when we are alone in the void.

Indeed and here I was expecting it would be at best a tier 3 med bay but they are saying its going to be a high level med bay so we might end up with a tier 1 med bay. As others have mentioned it has always been a snub craft hanger and room for a Ursa like rover. They did mention they are attempting to do the shutters but are not yet sure they can due to graphic cost because it can just be large sheets but more like a roller drawer.

For me the fact that its still mid size ship plus all the functionality and storage that is not taken up by its rover keeps it at the top of my favorite ship list. While I do agree the changes in the legs and the shrinking of the engines off the back did shift its silhouette. I still find it it appealing.

 

[BUTUZ]

It's always been my joint favourite alongside the banu merchantman - hopefully my faith will be rewarded!

 

[Phantomoftruth]

Over all, the Carrack is 3m longer than original Concept.
At 1:23:44 of the RtV, they state it retains the 3 modular, detachable pods.
Bridge remains two decks.
The Armored shutters for the bridge remain something they are working on, and not destroy performance.
unless it is information since removed, I see nothing stating the Carrack was to carry Two Rovers.
Per RtV, Carrack has a Front Ramp and a rear entry.