|
|
Post by PoorRichard (AKA - The Guido) on Jun 6, 2014 19:49:05 GMT -8
Go check em out! Whether you want long distance cruising for exploration, a heavy weapons platform, extra cargo capacity for those big hauls, or the go to jack of all trades, they are there! Check em out! Also, check out the finale of The Next Great Starship tomorrow on June 7. to see the commercial, or at least visuals.. I'll be sticking with my stock Freelancer. Very Firefly'esque, but I decided that when I saw the ship for the first time and that's why I fell in love with it then. And I do believe that's the same guy who voiced Admiral Hackett in Mass Effect. robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13926-Introducing-The-Freelancer-Line-Up |
|
|
|
Post by lostsheep on Jun 6, 2014 19:54:51 GMT -8
I like the choices, might pick one up.
|
|
|
|
Post by TSilver on Jun 6, 2014 21:11:06 GMT -8
While that Missilelancer has my dick hard, I think I am going to hold out for Cutlass variants.  |
|
|
|
Post by PoorRichard (AKA - The Guido) on Jun 6, 2014 22:21:38 GMT -8
Keep your cutlass. I will get that "Misslelancer" in game. Not giving up my Freelancer
|
|
|
|
Post by TSilver on Jun 6, 2014 23:52:46 GMT -8
Looking at the specifications, the Cutlass looks to be substantially more massive than most of the Lancers, and more nimble, but not nearly as fast. Also, baseline, just as well shielded but a smaller powercore to draw upon. |
|
|
|
Post by PoorRichard (AKA - The Guido) on Jun 7, 2014 0:14:14 GMT -8
Cutlass shows to be shorter in both height and length, but wider at the beam. Just judging off of the base Freelancer, the Cutlass has it outmatched in maneuverability by a longshot with 16 maneuvering thrusters compared to the 8 on the 'lancer. Although, without cargo, the 'lancer is lighter and boasts larger main thrusters. I can see the 'lancer outrunning a Cutlass in a straight line, but if it comes down to dogfighting, the Cutlass would probably win out in the end. Also, regarding the smaller power core, I think that gets cancelled out with the smaller main thrusters. Heh, mine's bigger. Either way, I think both of these ships are going to be very formidable. Did you look at the brochure on the 'lancer yet? Up to 50 size 2 missiles with the internal rack upgrades. NUTS!! Can't wait to surprise a noob thinking he can get an easy collection on my bounty.
|
|
|
|
Post by PoorRichard (AKA - The Guido) on Jun 7, 2014 18:25:08 GMT -8
Added commercial. ...bump
|
|
|
|
Post by TSilver on Jun 7, 2014 22:56:10 GMT -8
The only complaint I have about the commercial is the entire engine nacelle/wing structures rotating down for landing. That just looks fucking goofy |
|
|
|
Post by PoorRichard (AKA - The Guido) on Jun 7, 2014 23:18:52 GMT -8
yeah... me too, but they're the most powerful for slowing that big fucker down. Plus, that's kinda how she's designed.... I'll bet the Cutlass will do the same thing. Those guns though!!! Thinking of naming my 'lancer "Sad Sack".
|
|
|
|
Post by TSilver on Jun 7, 2014 23:30:32 GMT -8
Its different for the Cutlass. Built more like the Osprey. It doesnt have giant sections of wing drooping down when the engines transition |
|
|
|
Post by PoorRichard (AKA - The Guido) on Jun 7, 2014 23:49:56 GMT -8
that is true. They're just engine nacelles on Cutlass. I wouldn't mind if they changed the nacelles to move independently of the wing, but that would be some serious engineering that I doubt MISC would take on.
|
|
