Not a ship design thing so much as a style thing, but the Corsair having private crew rooms always strikes me as unfitting for a Drake ship. At the very least, those three crew rooms should be double bunks, like on the Cutlass, with MAYBE one of them being single occupancy for the captain. MAYBE. Use the space in the cockpit currently occupied by the captain for something else, maybe a dedicated scanner control seat (its meant to be an explorer yeh?). Or keep it as captains quarters (crampt and awful captains quarters) and use that frontmost crew room for a t1 medbed, so you can treat minor injuries during your LONG RANGE EXPLORATION. Also it would be nice if you could retract the picnic table into the floor when you're not using it, could potentially let you use that space for extra storage or something.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

The Co-pilot seat would be a great candidate for fuller scan controls as I mentioned. You're right about the medbed - if it is an exploration ship you ought to have some medical function.

@Linuscracked

3 ай бұрын

You mean t3 not t1

@BigSneed404

3 ай бұрын

The way I see it, Drake Interplanetary is a civilian manufacturer. In the military, people get used to sharing spaces, particularly on ships and aircraft. But Drake doesn't build military ships, they build civilian ships for the civilian market, and therefore they understand that their clients have a high value on personal space. My question isn't why the Corsair has individual crew rooms. My question is why other civilian manufacturer ships like the Constellation, 600i, etc. don't have individual crew rooms.

@lunasakara7306

3 ай бұрын

@@BigSneed404 Totally overlooks the Caterpillar with it's beds literally in the gally and zero privacy. 🤣

@BigSneed404

3 ай бұрын

@@lunasakara7306 ya, you're right. It should have private cabins too.

This whole game is what you get when you let artists design ships. They really need some naval architects to have the final say on ship parameters.

@inquisitorbenediktanders3142

3 ай бұрын

Or bomber engineers. Birthday Truck himself referenced bomber aircraft repeatedly.

@j.d.4697

3 ай бұрын

I mean, RL experts seem strangely absent from most designs in games. I have no idea why, but it perfectly fits into the reputation of IT people being out of touch with reality.

@ninochaosdrache3189

3 ай бұрын

@@j.d.4697 I would assume because most games don't aim for realism and as such, don't need experts. Especially in Sci-Fi, where the sky is the limit when it comes to technology and how it works.

@Maverrick2140

3 ай бұрын

to be honest .. the problem looks like who ever designs them doesn't even try to take into account what they design .. this is like designing a couch with spikes instead of cushions .. maybe some fakir might like that but regular people who don't have that fetish will never comfortably sit on it.

@misapheonix

3 ай бұрын

Artists have designed 90% of the entire game lol because that's very close to the profession ratio in the entire dev team > .>

All of this, especially the Freelancer turret placement, has being nagging at me for ages!

Another potential fix to the cargo ramp angle would be adjustable landing gear height. Have the default height as it is now, then add an extended height that would enable easier landing on rough terrain, lastly have an specialized rough terrain cargo loading setting where the ship leans backwards. Or just have all the landing gear heights be independently variable and controlled by the players with a couple of useful default settings.

The problem of raising the landing gear is not because of the cargo ramp, but because of how the folding wings don't have enough coverage to enter certain hangars. Hence why the wings are both mid-mounted, and why the landing gear is so short. The solution I'd propose would be having the taller wing have a 2nd fold on itself to cut the wing length in half.

@adrianbarreto4225

3 ай бұрын

or make it use larger hangars?

@Nemoticon

3 ай бұрын

@@adrianbarreto4225 Bad solution, why resort to having to use larger hangars just because it's poorly designed? That's just accepting inefficiency.

@evanred_

3 ай бұрын

they said in one of the last isc that news mediums personal hangars will be taller, so it wont be a issue anymore

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

You, unlike others who pointed out this flaw, proposed a rational solution other than "let's gimp the ship because hangars are too short". The hangars are all being re-scaled for instancing, now. Give us back the taller landing gears.

Good critique! I haven't played that long, or flown that many ships, but every ship I fly always seems to have some infuriating oversight in their design. Most recently I tried gunning in the hammerhead in arena commander, and broadside turrets are so awful I can't even understand how it got this far.

@spartanxander-0476

3 ай бұрын

Tried that as well, the controls for it also felt...off, but I personally ignored that part, it just seemed like I needed some good angles from the pilot in order to get any shots

An exploration ship that's got the ground clearance of a NASCAR car going over a Walmart speed bump.

@Nemoticon

3 ай бұрын

Tbf, it's a space explorer not a ground vehicle. Explorers have radars and scanners for a reason, 900 years in the future we won't be explorering on foot with a magnifying glass. We point our instruments at things from a distance and collect the data.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

And then what do we do when we find something of interest? In the Carrack - shuttle down. In the Corsair, you land down and explore on foot or via vehicle.

@shootloadrepeat

3 ай бұрын

Yeah they pulled the same BS with the Carrack. I loved the original concept. What we got....not so much.

@Power5

3 ай бұрын

You find a suitable spot and drive your vehicle, from the cargo bay, to the location. They do this in just about every instance in real life. You are not taking your 400ft exploration ship up the Nile River. You park in the bay and send out the smaller skiff to head upriver while analyzing the data being sent from the skiff inside the big ship science room.

I would be interested in an analysis and/or critique of space combat in the original Battlefront 2.

I'm reminded of making a few ships of my own in Barotrauma- coverage is something that I as a player notice very easily, especially since staring at an enemy you can't shoot is always infuriating. Blind spots can make for interesting results, like having to have your pilot shift their position to allow for better gunning- but it definitely ought to be weighed carefully. Having a balance of lighter/heavier weaponry is a good way to balance things out- you get coverage for players so they can keep doing damage, but they understand they want to shift to a heavier gun, encouraging such behaviour instead of forcing it. Criminally underrated channel, by the way. Should have 100x the subscribers.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

Thank you - give the channel a share!

Someone needs to send this to Star Citizen devs rn, this dude has amazing insight and should be hired by/leading the design team

All hail to retururn of our glorious King

preach! tear down the overall design issues with all the other ships!

You know, you didn't even touch on the biggest issue with the Freelancer's turret: It's only able to aim up by 25 degrees. It's missing 65 degrees of vertical aim for absolutely no reason!

Nice to see people talking about this. For the time I spent moving cargo in a variety of ships I quickly learned how ineffecient the current cargo grids are. Some compartments arent squared shaped or atleast accomodating for a particular standard cargo unit size and have diagonal or odd shaped hull design around the cargo. There is also a ton of wasted space in walkways, every square inch should have a purpose and having a pretty path shouldnt be the first consideration. As for specifically the corsair, the cargo section connected to engineering has a very wide stair case leading up to it. Which cuts off important space that could be used for cargo. Secondly, the aegis reclaimer's grids have to be an extended april fools joke 12 years ago that someone forgot about. You should be able to stack 16scu 6 high in the middle, but you cannot officially on a grid (have fun stacking unstable boxes). The catwalk is so wide you can fit 16scu crates up there, which is more wasted space. What would be nice to see is some level of control given to the player as to how they choose to change the layout of the ship, get rid of beds and place more cargo space or something.

Great video, I'd love to see functional design deep dive videos for all of star citizens ships

This was surprisingly interesting and enjoyable, I would like to see an analysis on every ship.

@birthdaytruck

27 күн бұрын

I might do a tier list- there is some wonderful ship design that I’d like to point out so folk know why Im so critical abour the bad design.

@Minishimirukaze

23 күн бұрын

@@birthdaytruck that would be phenomenal!

THE RETURN OF THE TRUCK

Not to mention how EVERY big ship is very convieniently a few inches away from being able to store small vehicles/snubs. It's incredibly easy for them to pull away one or two door cavities to make space (and then reduce them, later, when finalising ship balance, at "launch"). Meanwhile, let us have some bloody fun in this bloody beta! Moreover, let us mod the game, ourselves! Like Starfield's unarguable best feature - ship building x. x

Regarding the turrets: during the latest Xenothreat phase, I completed my missions and jumped into a friend's Corsair to help out. I took the side turrets, and couldn't provide any help at all, as the pilot was focusing on forward fire. I wasn't even aware of the co-pilot seat, which might have been the better choice, but since such is not common, I went straight for the turrets.

Dude, what a great video!!!

Great job! I tried to love this ship, but it let me down in so many ways. This is a great analysis of what went wrong, especially with firing solutions, landing gear etc. I hope CIG see this as this could definitely result in better ship design in the future. I think CIG have now learned from the lack of front entrance in the MSR, and I believe the Zeus is going to have a front entrance, I sincerely hope that all medium+ ships end up with a front entrance from now on. Hoping the Zeus will finally be the daily driver I've been waiting for.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

The Zeus looks to be a golden child of functional space ship design. Here's to hoping.

The list of ships that should have their primary weapons chin turret mounted is longer than the list of those that should not. e.g. Connies, Vanguards, Cutties, Freelancers, C2, C1, etc. And the turret should either be accessible by a weapons officer/copilot or head/eye tracking by the pilot - just like on a modern attack helo.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

You must have seen my prior video :)

The reason for the short gear is to reduce the total height of the landed ship. Due to the very tall folded wings, it wouldn't fit inside hangars if the gear were taller. The fix *should* ha e been to shorten the wings, or add another hinge for a folding wongtip. But if one does not notice the problem until late in the design, then shorter gear is the cheapest fix.

The landing gear is so laughably short because the folded wings had to fit in the pre-existing hangers. I guess someone didn't want to make the wings shorter. 😆

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

Or make them fold at a different angle?

@Dracounguis

3 ай бұрын

@@birthdaytruck yeah could have had the big wing fold in half? I guess short landing gear was easier to make!

Overall, really good. I would like to point out that the Mercury Star Runner is supposed to get a secondary entrance near the cockpit, as stated by John Crewe a few years ago.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

GIB NOW PL0X

good presentation dud. subbed.

Good stuff, any plans to look at the dlc of MechWarrior 5, I know it's not your favorite thing, but I'm curious about your opinion on it. I'm looking at doing mw5 look myself. Keep it up, boss.

You made an excellent video here. Very thorough with examples and explanations of your findings. I'm grateful that this project has attracted minds like yours over the years. You can tell CIG is learning a lot from each ship they release because of feedback like this. The Zueses are answering a lot of problems the Spirits and MSR have. The Cutters answered some problems of other starter ships. The reworks answer problems of the original designs. It's just the way it goes when artists aren't also master engineers...but they're getting there, and they care. Better every time in my opinion. Let's hope they take feedback like yours into consideration in the future, and instead of balancing in ways that are annoying, they balance while maintaining practicality. If the turret sucks to use, move it or get rid of it. That's how they should be designing.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

Thank you. FWIW - there are good ship designs from CIG. But many exhibit similar frustrating trends, like the Corsair, and I'm not sure they're thinking first "how to make ship fun for multi-crew". I know they can go back and edit things - I'm hoping they do so now.

i just realized that about its landing gears, its so stubby compared to the carrack...

It's an issue I've always had. Directly Mounted turrets in 2954 (WTF), turret placement, illogical design choices. You can make ships look good AND functional.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

We've actually had remote control turrets in the B-29's. It was with periscopes and mechanical controls. Manned turrets I think could be justified and incentivized, but MANNED TURRETS CANNOT BE IN THE WAY OF CARGO HOLDS OR OTHERWISE THE ONLY THING TO OFFER TO OTHERS.

I remember a few years ago when I was only following SW that one ytber, can't remember if it was Bored or Noobifier, mentioned that Roberts wanted the ships to have blindspots, deadzones and be overall suboptimal in someways to avoid making the overpowered or unbeatable, don't quote me on it though. I can't say whether this sound logic but it is an explanation of some of the choices. Like how most turrets are manned, that's intentional aswell so players CAN be killed when the turret is shot at. The funny thing about the corsair is that it's most likely based of the BT 7 thunderclap from star wars the old Republic, same ship designer I believe. And some of the elements in that are actually done better than the corsair. The way to the cockpit is actually pretty quick. It has bigger guns that sit at the wing tips. There's a vehicle rack that likely has its own elevator like the constellation. The landing gear also makes it sit a little higher. And some of game shots have it with a pair of laser canons right below the cockpit protecting the main ramp which could easily be gimballed in Star citizen. I love the core shape of both ship but yeah the way the corsairs is actually arranged is pretty bad and arguably ruins the flow of the ship with the side turrets. Also yeah the mustang should have the space behind the cockpit usable, it's funny how if you really wanted to make it a compact single seater it could be half the size.

The short landing gear is because the folded wings are extremely tall. These need to be short enough to allow hanger doors to close with the wings up. What the Corsair needed is to have the long wing to fold up in its current position, then rotate forward. This would keep the asymmetry of the design will allowing a more compact landing configuration for hangers. With the reduced hight then you can raise the landing gear to give better off pad lading performance. Sadly with the Corsair being one of CIG newest ships I don’t see a rework coming anytime soon. There are other ships like the Caterpillar and the Carrack that need major reworks so that they can be used for cargo gameplay, which is a vital part of their ship design.

Extremely well done video. Also the interesting thing about the Aegis Hammerhead turrets is that they clip through themselves to have a wider coverage area. The Corsair turrets have such a low coverage area that crew members aren't even motivated to crew the Corsair...they would rather crew a Hammerhead or C2/M2

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

The Corsair's multi-crew "fun" is inhibited by it's low function.

On the Redeemer, if you look closely on it there's a door that isn't yet functional that's labeled component access. It will open up a spot in the component bay big enough for you to get the components in and out.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

I thought as much.

These are all some really good points. I love the Corsair, but the landing gear does need to be a bit longer. By the way, what was the song in the background at 11:05?

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

Hah - it's "ordinary people" from the Star Citizen OST. Not published anywhere or anything, but a song I found looking at the currently accessible OST tracks.

Hey your back, welcome back. Now that all dlc is done for mechwarrior 5 do you have any more thoughts on it.

you dont need to check Cutlass concept to see the tractor beam attachment, it's actually on it since it's release with a "tractor beam" sticker on it

Most of their non-fighter designs are only designed for a look, not for actual function. If their universe was real many of their ships would never be bought by anyone. There is so much dead space in some of their designs that it boggles the mind. What good do huge wings do on a lot of their stuff when there are not a large number of weapons mounts on them? The C-1 line is a perfect example, the Corsair another. An intelligent and functional design would try to lose as much mass as possible, and not weigh down the ship with useless frivolities.

@birthdaytruck

27 күн бұрын

These looks can easily be made into function; I don’t think the corsair should hold away but for $200+ you have to sell un-gimped functions

i think they will give the landing gear more length when they improve landing gears in general, they will be able to extend feather to compensate for uneven terrain which would imply they will extend more

On the other hand all ship ramps need to be revisited, the angles of the ramps are insane. Very emerson breaking. Real world ramps are about 20 degrees max. In CS we see most ramps at about 50 degrees.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

I don't mind a 50 degree ramp but I'd like controls to adjust the angle to what I need.

The original concept pictures of the corsair had longer landing gear and chin mounted hard point, but they shortened the landing gear when it couldn't fit into a medium-sized hangar with its wings folded up.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

Hangars have been reworked for instancing, now. It seems silly to worsen the ship for a hangar size that eventually changed.

At least the Corsair has smaller landing footprint than the Spirit. The spirit has basically ground clearance and needs the area of a small city to set down.

Haven’t watched the video yet but I hope it mentions the Eclipse having holes in it’s wings

Yep, 100% agree here. I know there's some excuse in that the corsair is a "totally not a purpose-built piracy ship" or a deep space explorer only, but even if you consider that, there are a couple pretty fixable (but glaring) issues that make no sense either way (If you're a pirate, you're gonna want to land in rough terrain). Of course, CIG are a limited number of people, and the corsair functions good enough. let's hope they don't leave this on the back burner for too long.

12:49 same thing with the prowler

I like the co-pilot room, but it would be nice to have a swivel seat to access "stuff" behind that seat. Such a large wasted area. Though not like it matters either way, there are no components back there to access. Would be nice to hide a 1 SCU personal storage box back there though. I have no problem with the low height of the Corsair when landed. It is "marketed" in-game as an exploration ship, but everyone knows why DRAKE put 12 guns on it, and it was not to improve exploration. I do wish we could have a "load" setting on ships with rear ramps. Squat in the back to make the ramp angle less. So many ships have terrible ramp angles and the breakover into the bay is ridiculous. They have these hover pallet jacks they want to put into the game to move cargo boxes, those will not fit through the openings without removing the top layer of boxes. That is just not how trucks are loaded. There is a reason you drive straight into the back of a semi-truck from a loading dock. You have your pallets stacked on your fork and with only a few inches of height clearance, you cannot be going upwards through the opening. The turrets should extend out a slight bit more (~1M) so that they can have more coverage and converge with the pilot's aim. Would have been cool to change the position of the guns on the turrets putting 1 on top and 1 on bottom. Something no other ship has and would fit the Corsair's quirky design language. Also, it would allow the turrets to be tucked closer to the body like they currently are. The top turret can be raised slightly by just making the hump, that it sits on, a little bigger and moving the turret to the back of that hump. It seems CIG does not want any ship to have perfect turret placements in a game that they continue to push as multiplayer co-op preferred. The only ship with good turrets is the HH. Every other ship has turrets in poor positions that leave them blocked by something stupid, ESPECIALLY the damn carry handle on the freelancer. They redesigned the Cutlass and made the back hump upwards blocking more of the reward view of the turret. I am always confused by how CIG places turrets since they do love to say how co-op multiplayer they want their game to be. If that is your goal, make them enjoyable to use.

To echo to your Retaliator issues... The A2 bombs should be controlled by the copilot. At the very least that would mean to be a griefing a-hole you at least need two people! 😆

I have no idea about aircraft design, but your reasoning is solid and well explained.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

You don't have to. You only have to ask - does this thing "work and is it "fun".

microphone quality in this one is pretty poor, a lot of static and a much deeper sound than the previous video. still love the critique though, hope its fixed for the next video

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

My current microphone - a secondhand Blue Yeti - is beginning to fail. The static, bass, and volume were all items I noticed while editing. I'll have a new mic for the next one.

Fascinating video Also I agree with all of this. They make cool ships but sometimes I wonder how they overlook these things.

Don't own this ship personally, but your review is spot on from my viewing's of it as well. Hope they take your review under consideration before a "gold pass" is made!

The lower cockpit should be a piloting / landing role, and a tractor beam in the cargo is needed. I use Corsair as my DD, it feels homely...like the movie style spacers or loner would have for extended in the black stays. It would be goodto have a landing area scan...is it ok to land?

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

YES. YOU GET IT. MY GOD SOMEONE FINALLY GETS IT.

Some of their ship designs make me wonder if they even bother to consult an expert. Hell all they would have to do is post a design on spectrum and players would be happy to point out the issues for free. It may not catch all the issues but it would catch the major ones.

I completely agree about turret placement. There are a ton of ships that have awful turret placement. The Cutlass is another one that comes to mind.

They can't make the landing gear taller because then it wouldn't fit into a side feeding medium hanger. They refused to make the asymetrical starboard wing smaller.

Wow yeah. You hit the nail on the head. So many weird design choices. I get they don't want to create the "perfext ship" but if they just made everything more sensibly it would make the whole experience way better.

They also intentionally choose to have Gunners in the Gunner seats for many reasons. Several being, that the MANNED turrets cant' be replaced by the "blades" that everyone hopes comes into the games, as where electronically controlled turrets are supposed to be able to have that feature. Also, it gives the GAME portion a better feel to put a friend in a turret (while sitting at a computer screen) rather than having a computer player sitting at their gaming desk then have their computer AV sit at another computer ( inside a game) at another computer screen,.. shooting a turret gun. That's NOT more fun for friends. It doesn't give the "game feel".. it doesnt' give the feel of the WWII fighting that they wish to have, and it doesn't offer that "star wars" feel we saw in the original.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

I actually support the idea of manned turrets that offer more than remote or automated turrets. They need to be well positioned in order to offer more, though, and the Corsair's turrets are not well positioned. However, the thing is - WWII fighting had remote controlled turrets. The B-29, the P-61, the A-26, there were remote controlled turret designs in WWII fighting. WWII Fighting in space is a really difficult idea to perpetuate.

I'm not too interested in Star Citizen in general, but the video was good as always. Most of it was about ship design anyway, and looking at ship design is always fun.

About the first half of the video: I could agree if we were talking about the Cutlass Black, but I never saw the Corsair as a ship meant to operate in atmosphere, just one to land and grab the loot after his smaller brothers do the dirty work. The corsair is a blunt object designed to surprise attack slow and large targets with overwhelming firepower in space and high atmosphere. If we are comparing to historical real planes, I'd say a P-61 black widow or ME-410, just with some cargo and crew space. The very fact that it assymetrical and flies like a brick should make this point pretty clear. IMHO the ability to hover should be WILDLY nerfed in all but the very clearly vtol oriented assault craft (again, like the cutlass) so large ships or fighters had to STRAFE, not float like gravity didn't exist, that causes real immersion break to me every time I see it. Oh, I completely agree about the landing gear, I was mostly talking about the CAS capabilities while hovering and the nose gun (or lack thereof). About the later half (about turrets and wing loadout placement): 100% agreeed. SC turrets as a whole are just awful design meant to divide the frontal arc firepower so people are FORCED to multicrew and it's really boring, just let turrets be turrets.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

If the Corsair had a dedicated space for a shuttle, I would agree. The concept art, however, clearly depicts an atmospheric planetary explorer ship. It does not fit the design ethos of a "heavy fighter" like those P-61 or ME-410 units: this one has a picnic table and Drakes are supposedly low-armored. If it's turret design mimicked the P-61 or ME-410, I'd be more inclined to agree.

"Why can't we just have a jump seat?" Amen! Honestly more small ships need more passenger seating. Sportscars in the real world have passenger seats even though they don't "need" them. Why? Because bringing friends along is important!

What's that song at 11:05?

@gameboisaga

3 ай бұрын

I would like to know too

@g1gabyt3

2 ай бұрын

"Ordinary People" from SC ost

@birthdaytruck

27 күн бұрын

Correct!

I appreciate and agree with the concerns brought up for a general ship design, but I don't think there is a case for the Corsair specifically 1 ) its not a drop ship, there is no impetus for a chin turret - its sold as an explorer 2) landing gear height was a concern, but in practice it hasn't been all that limiting 3) the ship is made with frontal assault in mind, defensive coverage gaps feel intentional - every ship is built with some weaknesses and specific focuses in their operational design 4) fully agree with the copilot zone short comings // Note on redeemer - their intention is size 3+ components can only be serviced in dry dock - and not support field upgrades - ( just like modern carriers need their reactors physically cut out of them for servicing) // most ships in this game can be made 'whole' with basic design updates, but the intent is to have specific focus for ships, and clear weaknesses that can be exploited ( attempt for no meta)

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

An exploration ship still benefits from a chin turret - an exploration ship is also supposed to deposit and protect ground crews. Ships should not be built with weaknesses "on purpose" - weaknesses should exist because of an engineering tradeoff or compromise.

@neonblueshadow

3 ай бұрын

@@birthdaytruck I don't know how I feel about the implicit assumption that an exploration ship should have to deal with ground assault and combat cover when landing - but this is also a Drake ship, so I guess that concern is moot. I agree with you on the latter point, and I think thats exactly whats happened here. The guns laid out with a focus towards a frontal assault , accounting for a rear assault isn't part of the design language here - same thing appears to be happening on other offense driven ship. the A2 has a large gap in 6 o clock high vector, because its built for forward ground assault

Melted my Corsair for these reasons. Would go back to it if they re-design the elements youve mentioned to make sense. Good disection!

Excellent points. I agree with all of them.

great content and as others have stated, definately something that CIG should consider.

i have to agree .. at this point i can only guess that these are _not_ terrible design blunders .. but actually the result of _crippling stuff on purpose_ .. Similar to the terrible internal design of the Starfarer .. there is so much work put into these ships .. but simple basics are ignored or made worse on purpose.. stuff like the ability to move components around should be a basic thing .. ships with a cargo room where 20 boxes would fit but you can only attach 10 because "reasons" and the fact that there is more than enough room ... you end up stacking items in an "unsupported" way .. and why ? because someone "decided" that there is room for 10 boxes in the 20 box cargo room ... it is terrible. The worst offender of turrets is the one on the freelancer - the fact that CiG still tries to force people into a manned turret even if that creates a ton of extra problems and doesn't make any sense to do so .. i just dont understand it at all -.-

Completely agree. (The Prowler has the same problem than the Redeemer, no space to change component in the upper deck)

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

I'm sure they'll go back and address that, but come on, man.

The part about turrets earned you my sub. Been saying these ever since 2013, CIG needs to get a clue once and for all or make all of those automated PDS because surely I would not waste NPCs or players in them.

So I think that you had 1 point good vs the 3-4 others that are null n void as they are more or less already scheduled sometime soon ish. Corsair NEEDS bigger landing gear. Doing that would let it have the ability to have a chin TURRET (not Gimbal) like the Mustang Series. That would indeed be cool. The Co-pilot seat of the Corsair already is scheduled to be a thing, and we already have ships in-game that has functions LIKE this until the pilot seat is taken (Banu Defender, Prowler, Carrack, and at some point even the Caterpillar had it). The "Bad turret angling" issue you have current game will be fixed as turrets are getting gimbals to let the guns aim more than what the turret can Swivel and pitch. This has been a talking point in recent Inside Star Citizen videos around Master Modes. These does not need more fixing as that will fix the main issue. The Wing Guns doesnt need to be further out on the wing, as Gimbals have a set angle they can rotate and shoot. It would not give it a bigger angle, it would be the same (Tho points of Sail Up wingtip gunning tho. Love that idea!). --------------- When it comes to other ships: - Retaliator doesnt need a Co-pilot. Its a 6 manned ship, and adding more would mean another escape pod would be needed to be constructed somewhere inside of it (And Its Gold Standard is already set for 3.23 Patch Line... so Gold Standard is done). - Freelancer had its talk on a gold standard, but I 100% agree that it should have a remote turret that is placed at the end of the ship (It should also be a 2 manned ship, and have better living quarters, but thats up for CIG to fix). - Aurora can carry like 4 people inside of it as it has an interior and a bed. The Mustang CAN TOO, but its in its cargo box in the back. Mustang SHOULD have an "Enter/exit" behind the pilot seat like the V.1 had in my opinion. - The Mercury Star Runner is the biggest Miss of an executed ship that CIG has produced. Chonky, unrefined, cluttered interior, no escape pods, no eating table, Manned turrets over Remote Turrets, and all that so they could have it carry a rover and have that useless tunnel below it... That and the Huge hunch it has with empty space that takes up 40% of the ships mass or so. It CAN have all the things listed, and it has none. - Cutlass we had before was NOT the concept Cutlass, as the Cutlass we have now is the correct one. That one and the constellations, and freelancers was updated to accomandate future plans of adding stuff like components and such of the now standard size 0 - 4 (Vehicle, Small, Medium, Large, Capital) components. The Corsair already fits all of these, but MINOR changes could work, like putting the remote turret further back, extending the ramp and landing gear, and make the bottom guns into a turret (not a gimbal). Overall. I see where you are coming from, but lots of your talk wouldnt make a difference, or are already planned (without a schedule or with a shorter schedule than thought). Good video overall, tho!

They should just turn the two guns at the bottom into a turret for the co-pilot with remote control that would make it much better with friends

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

Better with friends is the theme I'm arguing - I'm thrilled you understand!

The redemmer needs to switch the hab and jumps seats

They have said multiple times, the reason the corsairs legs so stumpy is due to the hangar height restrictions. And the wing height. Until they give us taller hangars... wont happen.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

Hangars are being re-worked and re-scaled for instanced hangars. Also - hangar height restrictions isn't a sufficient enough reason to gimp a ship design you're charging $250.00 for.

I think you nailed all the reasons I have a love hate relationship with this ship.

I am sure CIG will offer a mk2 version of it in the pledgestore soon 😂

Keep 'em comin'.

generally it seems CIG has done a very good job more recently with ships and their design, but many older concepts like the corsair are suffering from issues present since concept.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious! What we are seeing with CIG is never trust a game developer to build engineered elements without the guidance of a real world engineer!

My trouble is having Drakes ship being reliable. Cheaply made, yes but reliable?

I would love to see better landing gear on every ship, soften up those landings a little bit.

Don't want to be an apologist, but there may be some game engine reasons why things are the way they are. Clearly, the concept had everything mentioned as 3 core pillars mentioned short of the manually controlled ramp (which can be easily added later in its gold pass). The ramp is actually one of the best ones in the game since it goes flush on uneven terrain. The landing gear was likely shortened because of internal space and/or longer gears simply breaking, hence the chin mounted gun being raised to port/starboard. CIG is still hiring artists for ship final pass updates I hear, and Manchester is nice this time of year. ;)

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

England isn't too different from Michigan climate wise :\ Since hangars are being reworked for player instanced hangars, there's no reason the landing gear can't be restored to original, taller height.

The landing gear is short because of hangar metrics. It'd be too tall with the wings up

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

Good thing hangars have been re-worked. That's not a sufficient reason to edit the design to a lesser state.

@Adam-vo6yl

3 ай бұрын

@@birthdaytruck it was released a year and a half ago. Should they have originally made the wings shorter so the gear could be taller? Yes.

That's not a probleme exclusive to the Corsair's design. One giant problem with SC designs is how they are not made with the purpose in mind. To me it's the most obvious with ground vehicle design. It's not just unfun because ground vehicle physics are at an early stage of development, but because they clearly weren't designed for the types of terrain the planet designers keep pumping out. These vehicles were designed with either roads or relatively flat off-road surfaces in mind, and if your response is "they are going to add roads" then I have to ask "where are all the ground vehicles made for off-road exploration on alien planets?" How did humanity make all these places accessible without a single ground vehicle that could reliably drive on them?

Regarding the Deemer, go outside, look up above the ramp. There is an access door. That is where you load and unload components. They already thought about it. Just didn't add functionality yet. Because they don't need to. I'm sure they will on a GS pass.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

I figured something was there.

@sudonix5923

3 ай бұрын

@@birthdaytruck this video was really good. Looking forward to more. We need more constructive criticism out there regarding this game and not just the typical salte-bitching with no feedback.

The voice is very relaxing

Aircraft turret design is nice, but the corsair can literally fly backwards and shoot at a pursuer with its main guns+both cheek turrets.

Love the corsaire and the problems are real. Would be cool if they switch turret location but I have to say cig did improve a lot in making them in their design

"The Virgin top turret vs the Chad Chin Turret"

I tend to agree with the feedback but that said, they´ll most likely not fix most of these issues in the near future. The ships all need a "gold pass" and the hope would be that they introduce some of these features and fixes to those ships then. But it´ll take ages for CIG to fix and implement all of them and they still need to drive their funding so the focus will probably still be split between adding old concepts into the game and introducing new designs that already have those features. The Zeus Mk2 as an example just completly trumps the Spirit in almost every aspect and even includes a side ladder and airlock.

love the video. CIG designers are seemingly basementdwellers who never touched grass and seen why their designs are bad and how this already is addressed in real life, and how this translates into hindered gameplay with their choices. i don't think there is a single vehicle in the game that doesn't put their competence into question.

Excellent criticism... I wish MSR would have a side entrance and the rear turret in freelancer would not obstruct so much... I would add the terrible state of flight physics to it, flying ships is the primary function since the very beginning, but it seems every indie game does the flight better than SC

You are right in a lot of points but the issue with pathways and multiple entry points into ships ignores that we are talking about SPACE ships. Entry and exit points are already rarely secured against depressurization and the vacuum of space. Adding more doors only makes this worse. The C1 is actually a pretty good design in this regard. Furthermore we are talking about SHIPS not aircrafts and looking at ships they often have few entry points where crew and passengers use the same to get on board. So yes CIGs Design philosophy is quite flawed but copying aircraft design isn't the right solution for every space ship.

@Banzai51

3 ай бұрын

However, many of our ships have dual entry. The little Avenger Titan, for example. It fits in-game lore. The MSR and others should have dual entry, and they don't because of Crusader design language taken too far.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

The Avenger TItan is one of the few ships that prove it can be done right. A ramp entry and a cockpit entry can co-exist.

I'm going to assume the side turrets not pointing forward was a choice to not make the ship even more OP than it is. A game decision not a reality decision.

CIG must give this man a job!

I have no problem recommending SC to friends but I always include a couple of caveats. Firstly, they're not paying to be a player in a game. They are in fact paying to be a play tester of a game in development. Second, they don't have to buy anything other than a $45 starter pack as 90% of the ships they see are available with aUEC but they need to cool with the fact that anything they buy in-game can be wiped if the devs decide a dbase reset is needed. .. I agree with most of what was said about the ship design though. They've made some strange choices but it is what it is I guess. Maybe some of these things will get fixed before full release but somehow I'm not too confident about that.

I dislike this Drake but that doesn't invalidate any of your observations. CIG take note.

The only purpose of the Corsair is to melt Hammerheads.

1st off single seaters are single seaters full stop, they do not need a second seat. The Freelancer issue is age-related the turret was built before remote turret tech was available, given they need a re-work it should go to remote, as it solves a lot of issues. Also CIG is trying to give ship roles, and avoid the whole I only need one ship thing, so yea there will things you want that will not be there And as a final note changing a ship layout is a big deal, it can take months. So do not expect changes, that are just it would be nice or I want it that way.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

I think, for $250.00 and however long we've waited, we should ask for and expect changes that improve the entertainment value of a game. This is not an indie studio, this is a half-billion dollar studio. The Mustang might be a single seat fighter, but it is sold as an entry point to Star Citizen. There is no reason it cannot have a simple jump seat for a friend to tag along in when, inevitably, the friend's ship crashes or bugs out.

The Corsair being inefficient… is so… Drake.

@birthdaytruck

3 ай бұрын

Drake is supposed to be minimal and efficient. The inefficiencies are from the developers.

@MrDecelles

3 ай бұрын

@@birthdaytruckAre you really writing about Drake? The ship are held by duct tape, exposed piping, monitors on the floor and often have vapors in the engine hold. They will tack on whatever bits they can refurbish to make a flyable ship.

I served in the navy, specialized in structures, hudraulics, composites, and non destructive inspection. I worked as a surveyor after and then got into trucking. I have an eye for things to say the least. I've been an atrist the whole time, its my passion outlet. Unfortunately I see no path with which to work with them. OFC it would be a dream job, but I'd be competing with the very folks that spent that whole time competing in their field. Its sadly, a little demoralizing, but what can ya do? I'll have to settle for doing my own thing. Heres hoping in the next year or two I'll be ablento put my software and printer to good use and sell collectables, and who knows, that could lead to some visibility amd the ability to contribute if not to SC, then at least something in creative design and concept work on similar projects. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

To the redeemer I think they said it will be one of the next to be reworked but dont take it as save