Definitely with the landing pad. Early combat CV's often need SV support for mining and additional combat functionality. Also, if you have the space/CPU, add the harvest box, as some people like to add multi-turrets to combat CV's to quickly break down CV kills. Love the design/texture work, good job.
I would throw the non landing pad version into the warlord faction. And publish the landing pad version for players. It looks like a good ship over all.
Post both version landing bay and no landing bay they are both excellent builds and look amazing as usual…. I would use both in a game… I swear there isnt a playthrough I have played where I don’t use a build or multiple builds from you…
First looks better, second has more utility, go for third option, use blueprint 2, but move back side engines to the point where bridge is. It is probably better to leave back thrusters where they are, and just to move side blocks with forward thrusters. May be some cutting is needed between bakc thruisters and side compartments to visually distinguish them. When have time would defenetly try utilising/changin it, looks awesome.
I like the shaping on the non landing pad one a lot more, the rear looks better that way but a landing pad is pretty much a must have if you don't have a hangar. And don't worry about the rear turret, you can always turn around for pesky drones. Worst case you just add some sentries on there. So yeah option 2 is probably more usefull... Also i caught up on your workshop uploads of the last few years, seems like it was mostly skaar and some empire looking stuff. Some great builds in there :) on a related note do you still do designer challenges?
I think I would rather have the landing pad... if someone doesn't need it they can throw a turret on there. It's much more of a challenge to find a parking spot for the SV on a CV without a pad.
I always prefer a landing pad. That said - I'll use either and be so happy the Skaar is getting some RE2 love! Thanks!
Excellent work as always. In my case, I will definitely use the one with the landing pads. We need room for those small SV.
That looks amazing!
That paint job really makes a big difference with this hull. It looks great! My preference is for the ship with the bridge towards the back.
Nice job on the ship i think the one with the landing pad on back would be the one i would use as could carry a salvager with you
Looking Good! Wow!
Definitely with the landing pad. Early combat CV's often need SV support for mining and additional combat functionality. Also, if you have the space/CPU, add the harvest box, as some people like to add multi-turrets to combat CV's to quickly break down CV kills. Love the design/texture work, good job.
With landing pad. I’m always a fan of utility over style.
I would throw the non landing pad version into the warlord faction. And publish the landing pad version for players. It looks like a good ship over all.
Post both version landing bay and no landing bay they are both excellent builds and look amazing as usual…. I would use both in a game… I swear there isnt a playthrough I have played where I don’t use a build or multiple builds from you…
Both would be the answer. Different set ups, let the fans decide their fate.
Both are great, but for me the landing pad is a must.
i like the one with the landing pad better. The cockpit seems to be at a better, more balanced spot.
Both looks great tho.
First looks better, second has more utility, go for third option, use blueprint 2, but move back side engines to the point where bridge is. It is probably better to leave back thrusters where they are, and just to move side blocks with forward thrusters. May be some cutting is needed between bakc thruisters and side compartments to visually distinguish them. When have time would defenetly try utilising/changin it, looks awesome.
IMHO the one with landing pad is better.
I prefer the landing pad version and there is easily enough room on the back end to add a turret hardpoint
I like the shaping on the non landing pad one a lot more, the rear looks better that way but a landing pad is pretty much a must have if you don't have a hangar. And don't worry about the rear turret, you can always turn around for pesky drones. Worst case you just add some sentries on there. So yeah option 2 is probably more usefull...
Also i caught up on your workshop uploads of the last few years, seems like it was mostly skaar and some empire looking stuff. Some great builds in there :) on a related note do you still do designer challenges?
I think I would rather have the landing pad... if someone doesn't need it they can throw a turret on there. It's much more of a challenge to find a parking spot for the SV on a CV without a pad.
I think the landing pad is too useful to discard.