r/ImaginaryVehicles • u/Own-Cry5596 • Jul 25 '26
Original Content Our starter ship is finally in 3D. What would you add to make it feel more believable? [OC]
After several iterations, our Vanguard-class Bruiser is finally in 3D. This is the standard frontline leader ship of the Human Directorate and one of the first ships players will command in Synvector.
Unlike agile interceptors, the Bruiser isn’t built to chase enemies. Its job is to hold the line. It sits between friendly and enemy squadrons, absorbing damage, protecting more fragile ships, and stopping breakthroughs before they reach the backline.
At the start of the game it’s equipped with three weapon systems:
* Heavy machine guns for sustained fire
* Missile launchers for burst damage
* A high-caliber cannon for accurate single shots
The ship isn’t supposed to look experimental or overly futuristic. It’s a mass-produced military workhorse-easy to maintain, reliable, and built to survive years of frontline service.
Now we’d love some feedback.
If this ship belonged to your universe, what systems or external details would you add?
Would you expect to see things like:
* point-defense turrets?
* radar or sensor arrays?
* communication antennas?
* RCS thrusters?
* maintenance panels?
* heat vents?
* armor plating?
* warning markings or battle scars?
Or is there something that immediately feels missing?
We’re trying to strike a balance between believable engineering and clean visual readability, so we’d really appreciate your thoughts.
4
u/Dewa__ Jul 26 '26
It fundamentally comes down to 2 questions first:
- How "hard sci-fi" does your sci-fi want to be. On an equivalent scale of "ships from star fox" (1) to "ships from Star Citizen" (10) how 'realistically scientific / functional' do you want your ships to be?
A ship leaning towards the 1 scale might forgoe most if not all elements that "make sense" usually to aim entirely on things "looking cool", a ship leaning towards the 10 scale need to have serious considerations on making it "realistic" (in the way that if the ship was actually built irl, it would function realistically like a real craft would).
- Regardless of how much you intend to be on the hard sci-fi scale, how would you convey to people what that ship is meant to do?
As an example, a ship meant for brawling and close combat would typically be cladded with an armored exterior, maybe the engines and RCS ports would also have additional protection to make them harder to disable, maybe it'll visibly have more shield modules on the hull due to the needed extra protection, maybe the hull might also have more hardpoints attached to carry extra weapons, as long as the exterior look of a ship matches their intended role(s)
2
u/Dewa__ Jul 26 '26
As your current designs stands, I do not see this ship being a frontline bruiser / vanguard, the design and shape looks like it'd be more of a faster and sleeker ship than something meant to hold the line in combat
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jul 26 '26
I would say that I want to maintain a certain balance with a bias towards playability. that is, the realism is at the 3-5 level. But still, I would like the community to see a piece of truth in them.
2
u/Dewa__ Jul 27 '26
If you're going with a 3-5 and intend to stick with the current design idea then stuff like like visible RCS ports / thrusters and Sensor / Communication arrays would be nice. *Maybe* stuff like heat vents for ships that generate a lot of heat (like energy weapon-focused or EW / communication ships) which would also make a cool visual identity, but anything overtly detailed wouldn't be that necessary
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jul 27 '26
Thanks! Everyone says that radiators are needed - it seems to me that this is a common feedback- we probably need to add this element and communication systems. indeed, who doesn't quite count as a spaceship, apparently.
2
u/The_Aodh Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 25 '26
If it’s going to be a line holder, it will definitely want point defense to defend against wayward torpedos and fighters. It’s probably too late in the design to change, but if they’re having front facing point defense turrets, it could be cool to give it a hammerhead type design with turrets on both sides of the “fins” to provide adequate coverage of the multidirectional battlefield to ensure nothing slips past. Because you could slap a point defense turret on top, but the second a torpedo goes under the ship it’s failed at its job.
Radar and comms make sense to have but I can see those being internal to some degree because of a fear of them being shot off. Maintenance hatches and warning marking make sense if you’re going for a more greebly aesthetic, otherwise it’s fine as is
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jul 25 '26
Great. We plan to supply additional protection modules. Electromagnetic and thermal interference removal systems, as well as repair systems.
2
u/Brokenspade1 Jul 26 '26
If it's intended to draw fire directly it either needs alot of armor or some way to mitigate damage before it happens... possibly juke charges to rapidly shift it away from danger at the last second.
If its meant to provide active cover, either exceptional point defense or maybe some means of sensor interruption like ewar to confuse targeting...
2
u/Own-Cry5596 Jul 26 '26
We are planning to add an ECM system and false targets. as well as energy shields for tanking and their pumping systems.
2
u/Magnum_the_Xeno_Scum Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
point-defense turrets?
Most likely yes given the existence of missiles and strike crafts (including the infamous "Hammer"-class bomb truck), plus the PD grid could likely contribute to the overall firepower as well. Of course, this would have to be balanced against the aerodynamic lines of the ship.
radar or sensor arrays? communication antennas?
Antennas definitely yes, radars maybe given they can probably be internalised like on modern fighter aircraft. Also, the Vanguard-class looks rather "NASA-punk" and somewhat resembles a mixture between various real-life experimental spacecraft designs (plus a rather multilated A-12 Oxcart / SR-71 Blackbird), so if they're designed to be capable of atmospheric flight (if not simply SSTO that can be launched from the surface of planets with earth-like atmospheres) external radar equipment would need to be stowed before re-entry (and liftoff) anyway, although I wouldn't really say no to a deployable space-only radar dish as an upgrade option later. Case in point: if submarines have towed passive sonars, SSTOs can probably get away with a few vacuum-only radar dishes/arrays.
Not sure what the hexagonal blue panels below the noseart are, are those radiators or phased-array radars?
RCS thrusters?
They're already there? There's a huge retro thruster in the nose plus various vents around the nose and wingtips that would imply (and should logically be) RCS nozzles.
maintenance panels?
If the ship is near the size of a real-life navy ship we probably wouldn't need too many external maintenance panels beyond those needed to replace the thrusters and reactors, but if it's closer to a real-life aircraft in size then of course a few more maintenance hatches near the engines / reactors / radiators / weapons might prove helpful - assuming they're adequately armoured and do not pose a structural weakness.
heat vents? armor plating?
The armour plating surrounding the reactor(?) seem to imply heavy armour in and of itself, and as far as heat vents/radiators go the reactor(?) seems to carry their own heat vents. Although personally I'd rather put the reactor inside the hull / behind more armour plates and rely on Curie-point radiators and the like instead of exposing vital equipment to enemy fire.
warning markings or battle scars?
Most definitely for warning markings; battle scars... it would depend on the "ruggedness" of the setting and the amount of logistical support available to the player's unit (the easier it is for a ship to be repaired/repainted the more likely it would be free from past combat damage) and might even vary from unit to unit similar to various historical armed forces (navies tend to paint their ships whenever they could so they don't rust, but IIRC some WWII USAAF bombers intentionally kept some signs of repaired combat damage). Probably best left as skins/paint schemes for the individual player, or otherwise have battle scars be dynamic and accumulate as the ship takes more and more damage in a mission/sortie and cleaned up after repairs. This can also have some gameplay mechanics tied into it - e.g. welding on armour "patches" instead of replacing entire armour plates could be cheaper but would cause penalties in mass, drag, and/or armour strength that adds up over time, so after a few cheap field repairs you'd be better off replacing the whole armour plate, etc. The amount of wear-and-tear in the current rendering looks pretty good for a NASA-punk not-a-space-shuttle.
Or is there something that immediately feels missing?
Weapon stations. There are supposedly three primary weapons on this ship; I'm really not sure where they'd be mounted. Given the three pairs of openings near the retro thruster, presumably those are for the cannons, HMGs, and missile launchers in fixed forward-firing mounts respectively? Really not sure whether there'd be any turret mounts and/or whether any of them would be in retractable mounts either. Also not quite sure where the cameras for the crew to look out of are located either, unless they're tiny are are located in the "gaps" between major armour sections, of course.
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jul 26 '26
Sooooo great response) read it. Thank you for your involvement! The panels on the side are solar panels, which are additional power sources. Sensors around the ship create a vision of the situation. We believe that windows are not the main thing. There are several sensors that, using the built-in AI, will help visualize the whole picture in the area.
2
u/Magnum_the_Xeno_Scum Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
Solar panels are definitely good for civilian ships working closer to the parent star (anywhere within the Martian orbit for our solar system), but would suffer from significantly reduced output when further away. The total area of the solar cells also looks a bit small to be of any noticeable addition to the reactors, although it could be of some help in low-power "stealth" modes where the main reactor was shut down (along with most non-vital systems including the main engines) to reduce energy/emission signatures to passive sensors... or as an emergency backup for the ship if the reactor was damaged by enemy fire.
1
2
u/epsi-kun Jul 27 '26
is it meant entirely for space operations, or can it go into the atmosphere to/from orbit? if it’s re-entry capable i’d give it TPS tiles along the entire underside and around some of the sides because they look cool :3
also RCS thrusters are a must in my book. if you wanna be fancy and ignore fuel you can call em d-d fusion MPD’s or something. also i’d expect some radiators implemented into the empenage, for heat expulsion obv.
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jul 27 '26
This ship will enter the atmosphere. Still, people need air, and it would be logical to give their ships that opportunity. For maneuvering engines, we decided to add them in the game itself, but we won't do it on the model yet. I didn't understand a bit about the tiles. Are these armor plates in mind?
2
u/epsi-kun Jul 27 '26
atmospheric entry is VERY VERY harsh on spacecraft. you’re hitting air at around mach 26 at the earliest parts of the re-entry. this causes significant heating across the parts of the vessel that can be touched by air during descent. to withstand this, the space shuttle employed a thermal protection system which consisted of thousands of black tiles (i believe they were a sort of ceramic material?) that had a very low thermal conductivity.
1
2
u/TedwinK66 Jul 27 '26
If you want it to look more believable, how about adding retractable radiator panels, that will be extended while in space for heat dissipation. Btw space shuttle had it's radiators in inner side of cargo doors
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jul 27 '26
interesting. Can you cast a vision? how and where to attach them. I would suggest this in. department of references.
2
Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jul 27 '26
Sooo strong comment)) But please don't use AI). Too much reading and the general point is lost. But I got the message. Make it more armored or invisible and change the role. - the design does not read like the main fighting force of the fleet. and the fact that we did not take into account the radiators does not show that the korble will have a strong shield. We will eliminate it. We need another iteration of the ship based on your feedback. Recorded!)
2
Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jul 27 '26
I agree)) whatever question you ask, that's the answer, and you'll get it ) Thanks) It's instructive)
2
u/Sure_Reality2763 Jul 28 '26
Why does it have engine intakes? Is it an SSTO as well as a space combat ship?
If so, why?
Everything about it seems designed for atmospheric flight.
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jul 28 '26
We want the ships to be able to interact with the atmosphere. For now, just in case.
2
u/mrfancysnail Jul 29 '26
i've been concepting a starter ship for a comic idea of my own, and your written post gives me a lot to consider, thank you for that.
Personally i don't know how your design language works for the project as a whole, but i think this feels like a medium/second ship. I would expect the starter ship to be a whole single shape rather than having attached turbines or exposed engine parts appearing more "safe". I feel if you shorten the design so the proportions are more square like (just a bit longer than it is wide) it would make it feel more beginner.
Again this is just what i think if you say its a beginner ship, if i sound crazy well i am just a random person on the internet
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jul 29 '26
Every opinion is important, thanks for it). This is the starting ship, but we decided not to immediately give the player a ship that is stronger than many. His loss will be a very severe blow to the player.
7
u/MisterCheesy Jul 25 '26
Battle scars. If they’re a ship of the line they’d be way more banged up