Well there was leaks of the Hull C many many years ago.. And it looks pretty much exactly the same as it does now, it seems like they just took the half worked on version and gave it some new textures then released it.
I wonder how long it really took to complete And that very simple cargo system. It took them very little time maybe a few devs did in a few days at most.
I think it is more a thing of the living space having been done 99% for many years before they started work on the rest of the ship, and CIG not bothering to rework it. The living space really recalls old MISC designs like the Starfarer, and not in a good way.
That one part definitely felt very rushed. Like they were up against the release deadline management had set and so they had to slapdash it together at the 11th hour.
I for one like that there are no windows on the spindle tube. SC already adds alot of cool and convenient details to ship interiors. So its a nice change to have this area that feels specially inhospitable, like its not meant for comfort, and its not even meant to be permanent as its a folding structure, almost gives me the same vibes as walking trough a construction zone and going trough the scafolding, its not necesarily dangerous, but its clearly not pretty or comfortable either, its a nice vibe for a big cargo ship with an industrial asthetic
Agreed. Windows also dont make sense in a folding structure. The rings need to be solid metal for stability, and the folding material cant be transparent either because it needs to be sturdy and flexible.
I'd like to see what that tunnel looks like while doing the party trick. I do feel like the floor is too narrow, but maybe there isn't much need for two people to pass each other in that section, ever.
It sorta reminded me of the tube walkway from Event Horizon, just missing the rotating grinder feel. Edited: Just got up to the EH reference, and i'm pleased he had the same idea.
If what yall are saying is true, then doesnt that mean this game is basically finished already? We are basically just waiting for it all to click together. When it does, the game will feel unreal.
@@jnh8057 Well, no, there is new tech for everything. Everything from objects, rivers, outpost, plants, rocks, caves, minables, it all has tech to make it easy to populate each and every moon and planet. The tech is not completely finished or working as intended, so there's a lot more to do. While the game is not close to being finished as you say, it does have a lot more work done than we've seen or know about. People are mad about Pyro taking so long, as they have a right to be, but I'll be EXTREMELY surprised if Pyro releases and is not nearly a complete system, everything sound be as full as Stanton is right now.
@@yous2244 Are you nuts? You've apparently not been watching many of these ship reviews. So many of the older interior designs are ludicrously dumb which is also why so many are waiting for their reworks. Just visit any Freelancer or the 600i and shake your head...
@@yous2244 It's not about "not liking" something, it's about logic and making sense. Almost every older design of SC ships with an interior are absolute failures. Just watch Morph's review of the 600i if you've never actually been on one. And again, it's usually about the interior, not the exterior. The interior can be detailed af but still be totally stupid. Just like the Hull C.
Totally agreed. And, you missed that huge trip hazard / panel hole in the floor of the habitation area. I mean...who the hell would engineer that right there?
While I agree with you that the living quarters could have been more well thought out I think the components layout makes sense to have one shield generator forward and one aft cause it gives better coverage especially when the ship is extended.
The habitation reminds me of Red dwarf its utilitarian and "staff don't matter" style. Once again the tractor beam for ships feature missing when frankly they could of just used the multi tool code and scaled it up and janked it for now to avoid the awkwardness. That said its standard for CIG features just not thought out (Co-pilots taking exclusive control of stuff unlike IRL where pilot its shared)
@@john681611 The multitool code is based on the player position, where the player is looking, the multitool inputs and the player's state. It also has player-scale considerations when it comes to its interaction with the world. The multitool code scaled up would just be that, a scaled up multitool. If you're going to move dev manhours for that, might as well do tractor beams for ships. The reason tractor beams for ships isn't here yet isn't because it's that much harder to do, it's just that devs are assigned on other features.
CIG already said you probably wont be removing size 3 components. I am an aircraft mechanic and plenty of things on board will not fit through the doors, thus you disassemble them first, then take them out in parts. I dont see why CIG doesnt make you break a size 3 down to manageable components and then reassemble on the ground. Also the placement of components isnt entirely arbitrary here, a single forward and single aft shield generator makes sense. Avionics, radar,grav gen, life support are up front. The rest of the stuff is in back so im pretty sure it wasnt an afterthought. Front shield gen for the living area, aft for the engines..life support &grav for the area where it matters more. Avionics and radar located on the bridge, exactly where you would be using them anyway
Hull C actually kind of feel like my cargo hauler in Starfield, well, minus the party trick, but I think it both look and play like a hauler, that's good. That being said, the interior does feel somewhat dated, which is unfortunate since interior is very important for me from an RP point of view.
Love that you're doing a deep analysis of the consistencies (and issues) in world building through the ships. The logic and lore of design for future humans in space should certainly still follow conventions and norms that we adhere to today. Indeed, for suspension of disbelief, designers need to have relatable, contemporary considerations to design. A few things from a professional seafarer (who's often lamented on CIG ship design): 1. That center spindle doesn't have windows because it is load-bearing. That spindle is going to flex in and out of acceleration and manuevering, especially hard manuevers during emergencies. Windows would not be something a shipwright or naval architect would put along it, as that represents a very weak point where don't want one to be. 2. Ducting and Wiring: It follows no logical layout. While the details are interesting to look out - you wouldn't be able follow their logic with placing them. They don't represent any over-all layout as you'd have a contractor put in to a design. The wiring and ducting needs to be discernible, if visible, as part of a system (AC, main power feeds, etc), which you could trace from engineering, all the way forward to the bridge. If there are any connections to the bridge from engineering, it is not hinted at in the corridor all that much, which means the forward section of the ship would need its' own hub of breakers, pumps and panels. Real ships have these - they're called pump rooms - and they are typically outside the engine room, where they are: A. Easy to access for maintenance (super important - no one at CIG understands that ships are designed to be maintained, hence your door/component issues. They 'know' it, but they just don't have any framing to contextualize it in design.) B. Isolation of incidents - if a pump or piping or ducting goes bad you can isolate it outside the engine room. Alternately, if the engine room has issues for whatever reason, the pumps that keep water flowing to taps, toilets, and other cooling systems will be unaffected by any engine room disasters. Seems the forward section of the ship needs a pump / electrical room. There isn''t one, meaning if the back half of the ship were to lose connection through the spindle, there'd be no troubleshooting the loss of power. On top of that - no back up generator or power source is in the forward half of the ship to take over in the event of an emergency cutting off the spindle connection. That lack of forsight in design, were this a real ship, would never pass certification by UA regulators, because there is a United empire out there and to think they wouldn't have safety standards for commercial shipping is, again, a tell of how familiar (or not, in this case) CIG programmers, artists, or designers are with any of the real world systems and ship types they're looking to call back too. 3. The MISC freelancer, and the Hull C's MFDs are not viewable despite having interactive modules and information on them. The arms of your player model block the line of sight to them. Even considering a real world where I could move my arm, that's a terrible place to put them for ergonomics. Again - no one from CIG has ever seen a real ship bridge before, and I think it would benefit them greatly to do more research, and consider their modelling in both logical human scales, and gameplay. 4. Finally - and this is for any ship currently - there are no automatic fire dispersion systems being considered for any of them. Especially for larger cargo ships - this is absolutely necessary. No ship would ever fly without some sort of automatic procedures to seal off affected areas, disperse agent and protect lives. Furthermore - the layout of the interior spaces is such that in many ships, it would make a dangerous situation MORE dangerous. (The bridge of the Relcaimer accessed only by lift? That's a massive liability if that lift ever malfunctions or is damaged. No ship designer would ever get that cleared in getting certification for flight, and it would likely not clear the drawing room because any Board of Directors worth their salt would reject such a hazard of liability - or liability of hazard - outright.) (Don't get me started on seats moving 10 feet up or down to get to flight consoles.) Overall, no ship that they've produced has been designed in a way that would clear: 1. Function considerations in regards to budget and form. Some ships have exterior details that create further liability, danger, and added cost for no benefit at all to the function or form. The 'Rule of Cool' sounds great as a motto for a Frat Party, less so as a motto for building a believable universe. 2. Regulations of their own fictional Empire based on the lore they have created. 3. In-Game playability comfort Some of these transcend all three. (The MISC Freelancer cargo doors being too small for the cargo containers that go through them, for example.) This is why it is imperative that they hire real trades professionals to oversee the game designers' designs, offer insight, and inform and educate them on how commercial shipping works, how fire works, how heat works in fire scenarios (their fire demo was its own dumpster fire), how common shipboard evolutions, processes and systems work, and how regulations, concerns for life safety, and logistics of the operations their ships are suppsoed to undertake would inform design both inside and out. They need that professional insight because they are signalling they do not have what it takes to 'fake it'. They hired professional actors to portray characters. They can hire professional naval architects to help them design logically considered futuristic ships. Don't even get me started on cargo boxes - they saw shipping containers had ridges, and just slapped design elements on their cargo boxes with no consideration for logical design, of even the box. Containers have 'ridges' or corrugations because it strengthens a thinner ply of steel to make the box as strong, and as light, as possible. They're only corrugated as much is as needed to strengthen the integirty without sacrificing any more interior volume than is necessary. The goal of any cargo operation is maximizing space, minimizing waste. That's the motto. SC's cargo boxes on the other hand, waste a LOT of space on the cargo deck, with large 'handles' that don't get used (we have tractor beam tech, why are they there? Even our real shipping containers don't have massive handles like that), and then the edges are cut in at 45s - that's a massive waste of potential space. Finally, the entire interior volume is shrunk to accommodate random GAK details on the boxes that serve no purpose to storing cargo. So they can't even design a box correctly. Because they're too caught up in trying to make things 'cool' without any knowledge, insight, critical thought into why the things they see, that they're mimicing from the real world, are the way they are. If you're a game designer or artist modelling spaceships: Get a real naval architect, shipwright, or merchant mariner to consult your design. And listen to them. - Someone who has never seen a game designer logically lay out a futuristic space ship, even with the future-tech lore, and it bugs me. If you've never been a real sailor, pilot, or heavily involved in those industries, please, please do not try to 'make up' something cool. The real world is far cooler than anything you could make up. Incorporate real-world operations into futuristic context and lore. The evolutions of those operations are complex, nuanced and can make exciting designs, intuitive and engaging gameplay, and all around, it can heighten the suspension of disbelief well more than your randomly placed GAK ever could.
One of my favorite things about this series is seeing the evolution of Morphologis' cinematography and presentation. Of all the SC content I see, nobody can immerse you in another universe quite like this channel. Can't wait to see what else is waiting to be explored and shown.
I do think it makes sense to have a shield projector by the bridge, though. So much of the ship is about “two halves,” and you want both halves protected.
no all that stuff needs to be in engineering if you have 1 crew member for repairs they will be running way to much especially with the ship extended with everything split like this 2 engineers will be mandatory .
@@COMMANDERHAWK22 The thing is, the bigger the area to cover, the bigger the shield component and the bigger the energy consumption. At some point it's just more practical to have a shield on either sides. It's not about dev magic there, it's about MISC business logic and lore coherency. And even you, as a player, would you prefer to have a bigger shield with triple the energy consumption? You'd need a bigger generator too, and you'd need more fuel storage, etc. There's just only so much you can fit without increasing the ship's size.
One thing I love about the Hull series is all the variants' unique roles. The Hull A feels like a final destination transport, carrying a good quality of cargo from a drop off station to the surface of a planet or moon as needed. While we have ships like the Freelancer, and even the Reliant Kore, its a good ship with logistics in mind. The Hull B will (supposedly) be the "Best of Both Worlds" type of deal, if the rumors of the landing gear allowing the B to land with a full load even though it is just a miniature Hull C are true, that is. The Hull C and up are beautiful transport ships designed for galactic travel via Jump Points, carrying large amounts of cargo to keep the empire thriving. It's like a space train, but without the complications of connecting separate carriages together like an actual train. What more can you ask from a ship?
My first impression of the hab was "How the hell is anyone getting any sleep in this room?". No privacy screens, bright as hell lights, right next to the main social gathering hub, and a goddamn kitchen. Hope this gets another pass.
I know it's not the intended way to land that ship, but i love the vertical landing at the end. Really reminds me of the expanse and how they landed the rocinante. It just feels more realistic for something that size and that non-aerodynamic to need vtol.
I loved that! Might be an interesting loophole to get around the fact that the ship can't land planetside normally. Could set the ship down vertically and then tractor beam all the boxes down to the ground.
The issue of the large component sizes in relation to the traversal space required to move or replace them is a valid point. IRL, components such as these would be replaced at a shipyard where they would cut a hole into the hull to remove it. If it needed to be repaired, the repair would be triaged to see if it can be repaired at the sub-component level or smaller before considering the higher level of repair such as shipyard work. As a solution for the current game design, CIG could redesign the components to be broken down into smaller segments so they can fit through the hatches and reassembled onsite in front of the component bay.
This series has a special place in my heart. It gives me a special kind of happiness, and never fails to put a cosy smile on my face. Great jobb! love the music.
The Hull C really does look like a ship that's been worked on here and there over many years. I like it overall, but agree with you on all the issues you mentioned.
yeah. you can really tell that the ship was worked on in stages throughout its lifetime before being put into the PTU. essentially the ship was in dry dock and was being worked on every once in a while as they worked on the folding mechanics of it. and i do believe that he is right to assume that different teams with different levels of skill likely came in and worked on it as it was in the process of being developed. but CIG has come in and fixed old designs before so there's no reason to assume they wont eventually fix the Hull C is enough people request for it to get a better work over.
I'll still never understand the decision not to let the Argo RAFT pick up/drop cargo pods onto the Hull series. Yes, I get there's a brand difference, but that's common in the trades
I agree. Yet another fine analysis. The ship as a whole is a piece of artwork. However, your discussion on the berthing area, head and galley are on point. It seems they were "rushed" by a junior designer. CIG can really benefit from your expertise in the QA department. Coming from a career as a US Navy Sailor, there are a handful of details that don't sit well with me either but that is a topic worthy of its own video.
Finally, some proper ship review content. After spending 8 hours purely in the SF ship generator, Ive come to appreciate more the level of unique properties and quality of SC ships. Nothing compares (especially Star Atlas ships, more than half of them are nonsensical rule of cool only ships).
Really? I had the thought the other day that some old Trek crew would fit in at CIG and their expertise could be very useful but I haven't been able to find any info on any of them working with/for CIG.
The HULL C is an interesting example of when something old is completed recently, where much of the old is retained. The living space looks like it was made around the same time as the Starfarer, whoes living space is just as bewildering, while the engineering section seems like it was partially done back then and then rebuilt recently. I just hope it gets some attention later to re-do the living space and adjust things to work with things like component access.
The Hull series and Freelancer are my favorite in SC. Something about them feels nostalgic like a cross between the magic school bus and my old Thorax - Phobos. Even though they looks nothing like either. It just feels right.
Would love to see you collaborate with a naval architect who could talk about some of the naval specifc aspect of ship design. Like resilience to flooding (well, spacing in the case of star citizen) and stuff like that. Also I wish SC would put larger life boats rather than individual pods, being by yourself with nothing is probably the last thing you want if you had to abandon ship. I'd really love to see a game with ships that are well thought through and complies with SOLAS so far as is relevant to space
Yeah Morph, I was thinking the same with the living space when going through it and wondering to myself "are they planning to make this modular for nicer upgrades in game? Because this not good." I hope that they take notes for when they do the Hull-D as that is my baby and would be very sad to see a translation of similar design from the Hull-C. Great review as usual Morph, keep up the good work mate.
Man, you nailed it. I was so let down by the habitation space in this ship. To me, they should split the bunk and kitchen area into two rooms. Get rid of the picnic table, extend the counter as you noted and place chairs at the counter. Move all of the kitchen appliances down to the unused corner and place a display panel on the wall in the kitchen across from the counter. It can be used for crew debriefing or to watch the "game," whatever that is. With a wall separating the two areas, now add storage shelves at the new wall across from the bunks. Then, at the space between the cabin and the bathroom, the "Walk through" closet, add full size lockers for each crew person, for street clothes, etc. I mean, you're going to be traveling long distances in this ship. When you get to your destination, you might want to go into town. So where do I put my civies? Maybe add a washer and dryer for cleaning clothes in that space, or some sort of upright locker type futuristic clothes cleaner. They didn't even have a cookie jar and coffee machine in there. I mean, really? Hauling freight without snacks, that's just not right.
Consulting morph for ship interior design was probably the smartest thing Star Atlas did. Unfortunately, the dumbest thing they did was to make NFT ships.
Size 3 components are not suposed to be swapable by hand so it is not an issue that they do not fit through the doors. Acording to CIG you will need to send your larger ships to shipyards to have them refited.
The Hull C is so big. I actually envisioned the Hull D being this size. It’s almost baffling that there’s supposedly going to be a Hull E as well. Those ships will be truly massive.
I figured the Hull series would go: A: Largest ship that can land under load B: Largest ship that can traverse small jump points C: Largest ship that can traverse medium jump points D: Largest ship that can dock at a conventional station E: Largest ship that can traverse large jump points. A & B might be swapped, I'm not sure how small 'small' jump points are Each class representing a different hard cap on starship size and cargo capacity. Because, well, why build a cargo ship any smaller than those limits? Cargo hauling is all about efficiencies of scale. Hull E I figured would be, essentially, a mobile space station compared to the more manageable classes, parking just outside and being loaded and unloaded by smaller haulers before heading off to the next stop on its route.
@@watchm4ker I think the plan for B is that it is still capable to land on planets with Cargo. I know they've had to redesign the whole ship to try and make that work due to the old design just not working. So yeah, A and B are probably swapped.
On a side note about living spaces. The bunks should have curtains. Living with other people in a combined space like this pretty much requires that you need your own little area to just relax in and often times thats the bunk. Without curtains or some other way of sealing off the outside world you feel exposed. Anyone who has spent time onboard a ship or in an area close to others for extended periods like this can testify to that point
I get the impression that the ship was partially reworked recently, but CIG decided the original habitation space was fine since it's what people use the least, and even then it's just to log out in.
Yeah. I think they just wanted the ship to come out and probably thought "Eh, we'll fix habitation in the gold pass later, let's get the ship in the game now while we have people to work on it"
13:57 , 15:08 and the whole living quarters area - Someone on CIGs QA team didn't do their job. I have a Hull A and E. I quite like my little A with it's bigger glass canopy, better lighting and well-considered amenities. Hopefully CIG sees this critique and steps up their game for the remaining ships in the series.
13:55 the spinning thing reminds me of classic star trek engineering props. I hope we get more neat props like this as we get more big ships. Maybe even a ship with that double orange tube prop thats been used in every sci Fi property ever
you mean the thing with the red lights that are moving back and forth that, aside of that, seems to have no function whatsoever? i.imgur.com/rRrP4Lg.png
Nice review M orph. I've been experimenting with the Hull since before Wave 1 (...) and have come to a few conclusions/criticisms myself: 1. Airlock functionality: this door should *NOT* automatically open when the ship spawns on or attaches to a docking port. It currently does auto-open, and that's going to provide pirates with no end of potential. They can hide in the docking port areas of space stations and just wait for someone to spawn a Hull. Then run down the bridge, board the ship before the owner gets there, and stow away. Havoc will ensue later. This needs to be updated by CIG so that the door stays shut/locked until the owner gets to the ship and manually opens it. 2. I'm not sure about the latest sets of ships with weapons lockers near the docking port/airlock. I get it: have the weapons handy when you exit the vehicle, and a place to put them once you board. But the airlock is where attackers are most likely going to board. I'm not sure the lockers right by the boarding entrance are such a great idea. I'd rather see them closer to the bridge (where most will be) or somewhere else on the interior. Bit of a tactical question there. 3. Ship defense. Given the size of that thing, 3 2xS3 turrets seems a bit underwhelming, and worse, the two on the top can only be accessed individually. The keel of the boat is entirely unprotected. I'd rather see manned turrets; ones that can be operated simultaneously for defense purposes so the ship can try to fend off attackers while waiting for help to arrive. No, I'm not suggesting the ship should be able to hold its own against a pirate force. But the way CIG set up the ship's defenses make it damned near useless. All an attacker has to do is ride the keel and continue firing at the ship. The ship's guns won't be able to touch him. Solution: put the forward top turret on the keel somewhere, give it to the co-pilot, and give the top rear turret to the engineer.
The habitation area on the Hull A felt like I could actually live there, on the Hull C it looks like someone threw a bunch of pieces together and called it Habitation
The unfolding mechanism looks like one of the best features on any of the ships. Interesting idea the window in the folding tunnel. Because it's a cylinder, I think the only way to do this would be to have a fixed section of the tunnel that doesn't fold at all for the window to go into assuming they have the luxury of not having to fold part of the tunnel. I don't blame them for not putting this in although the lack of windows in ships to show off the amazing visuals and potential shenanigans is frustrating.
That orange pipe at 17:39 is baffling. It looks like it was added at the last second before release. Maybe a higher up said "ehhh add something to connect the galley area to the living quarters tonight" the night before they added the ship to the game. I hope this room gets a touch up in a future update
Kinda waiting for 4.x before playing more SC, but watching your videos still keeps me up to speed with what’s going on. Excellent work on this video as always!
Well, actually having the different interior fittings and mix of well thought spaces/frumpy spaces show the Hull C being built over time in-game Looking forward to your next Hull report.
i may be a bit optimistic here but i think the forward shield generator may be well thought out. we've seen how the power will work and how capacitors are distributed throughout the ship. thus the forward shield generator would have power for a short while after the ship has been cut in half due to the vulnerable middle section. thus allowing some safety while crew get to the escape pods
The living quarters do seem a bit let down. The counter could easily have had a fold up component, and stools rise up from the floor to allow bar seating style arrangement. That corner could easily have had shelves added in. Sloppy work all over.
Large components are not meant to be taken out. Access is only for maintenance. You'd need to go to a drydock for replacement, where they cut out part of the ship to swap it. Oh, and after seeing that last bit of the video I realized that this is the only ship that looks like an actual space rocket).
I believe the interior issues are a result of how long the Hull-D has been sitting there on the shelf, without the working transformation mechanic. We've been seeing interior shots of these Hull series for years prior to them actually being released, so there's an odd combination of old and new, with only the essential component access work done to modernise it.
So I noticed that the ship has two shield generators located in the front half and back half. Perhaps that's why the generator is in the front? Either to simulate the idea of needing two in each part of the ship to fully shield it OR perhaps it will ACTUALLY leave one half exposed if that half's generator goes down. I'm not too bothered by the placement if either is the case, really. Just made me think that it'd be neat if you could jettison the front half for a crash landing and use it as a makeshift survival shelter while crashed, lol.
Great content, Morphologis! Would you consider "An Architect Advises" series to give your recommendations to CIG on unreleased concept ships? I'm looking forward to the RSI Perseus, and while the combat design has some issues (mainly not enough defense against small fighters), the proposed internal layout looks perfect for a small crew. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I disagree because I think the lackluster elements are more likely to be the fault of newer work than older work. There seems to be a consistent trend in all of the art/design away from functionality and immersion and toward more standard video game content, probably due to the massive amount of hiring they've done. I've been playing Starfield recently and it really highlights how non-functional misaligned buttons, poorly made details where people won't look, and elements placed at random for no apparent reason are the industry standard, even from studios that are well known for attention to detail. As CIG has brought in more people, you see this sort of thing creeping in more and more on all teams, but especially the teams making various facilities. Consider what you'd be saying if the habitation room were a module in Starfield. It would probably be highlighted as one of the best pieces of work in the ship. It's kind of amazing how much Star Citizen has changed our expectations and it makes it really noticeable when someone doesn't bring that immersive mentality to their work, or doesn't understand it in the first place.
On topic of moving componetns into and out of the ships. CIG said a while (~2 years) ago that not on all ships crew will be able to replace (all of) the modules on their own. For some ships you'll need to go to repair ships to do so, and service installed modules when you're on the move, and just pray that they won't die-die.
I suspect the crew region on the hull C was made way back when the ship was first designed, and didn't get updated with the rest of the ship, as CIG expected people to spend very little time there relative to the rest of the ship. I do love the rest of the ship, despite not being a hauler myself.
The ladder between the bulk of the ship and the living area is the biggest problem for me, it means any equipment, gear, food, and injured people have to somehow make that trip, a small elevator next to the ladder would make so much more sense. Picture living in a house with 2 floors with the kitchen on the top floor, and only a ladder between the floors.
Good thoughts but this ship will spend the vast majority of its life in space, micro or no gravity. Sending a body up the ladder is as easy as turning off the gravity generator for a few minutes.
@@ymemag9861 SC ships have artificial gravity, turning off gravity just to move stuff past an inconvenient ladder doesn't make much sense. A small elevator next to the ladder would fit as far as I can tell, and would massively ease logistics, not the only ship with this problem, Valkyrie also comes to mind.
eye for spotting out details and explaining. Reminds me of my Vanguard how you said it, 80-90% done, like the Hornet or Avenger left untouched for years with small problems never fixed. Maybe like Hurston *Eventually* they have a plan to revisit.
The 20 year old interning at CIG, that worked on this ship. 😢 lol Good, and fair, review. Though, with those massive engines, is this one of the fastest ships, when it's not hauling cargo? Yeah, yeah, it's just torque...blah, blah,blahgotta go fast!
11:58 if CIG put windows there it would look so stupid in many ways, this is not the cutter, a tiny window near the exit ramp was a great design feature, but that wouldnt work for a giantic craft like the Hull C ( to inspect ) , the entire corridor would have been transparant and the ship wouldnt feel like utilitary anymore, it is better to make the cargo corridor much dull and depressing as possible, zero fun. It is very cool for large structures/buildings not to have cool spaces everywhere.
I think that random shield generator kinda makes sense where it is. With the ship essentially splitting in half, it would make sense to have one generator power the front nodes, and another power the rear ones. It's definitely not the best place for it with consideration to engineering, but there is a logical pass for it in my opinion. The habitation feels like it's a bit rushed and unfinished, like the designer working on it had to do as much as possible to make the space not feel completely empty before being moved to work on something else, and then no one came back for a sanity check and just assumed all was good.
It actually kinda reminds me of Star Wars's Blockade Runner when the cargo grid is retracted, with all those giant engines on the back there. I'd hope it goes fast when unloaded (once the flight model is updated to factor mass into max Gs).
If you look at the direction that the beds are laid out in the Hull A, the the raised cutout in the "port" opening to the bed aligns with the head of the sleeper. In the Hull C, that lines up with the feet for some reason, and this causes the ladder to be right in front of the face of the person laying down. This seems like a small oversight in the way the bed was dressed and set up for tech, because it seems like the bedding should be turned 180 degrees. Maybe a small thing, but it stuck out to me immediately as not an ideal UX. it makes it feel more claustrophobic and you don't want peoples feet climbing up a foot away from your face where you're sleeping.
Weapons locker will be nice for multi-tools and tractor beams if players will actually have to move cargo around, or if using this as a loot holder in space for larger salvage ops if we ever get to sell that stuff at stations.
It looks like some of the issues you pointed out has been fixed. At least I notice the crew area pipes actually has proper connection to the ceilings and walls now.
From a lighting design perspective something I'm not intimitaly familiar with we try to line up lights with structural elements and typically if we can't get a downlight centered we opt for an adjustable fixture which can be aimed at what we are lighting.
Something about the silhouette of the Hull-C was a hard sell for me, but until the ending shots of the thing standing up on its backend, I wasn’t sure what. I know why, now.
Great review and good that you’ve pointed out that the Hab area doesn’t fit to the rest of the ships details. It bothered me since I saw it the first time.
If they’d have rearranged the living quarters slightly they could’ve had the exterior access elevator go straight up to them with a little glass door like in the Hercules series.
So one bit of information, the spinny bit in the engineering section is the Spinnorator 5000™, which is pretty important for space travel. Obviously. Totally agreed on the living space - it feels like this was made way before the Hull A's interior, or perhaps even the RAFT, which would track given how long this ship was in development. I'm guessing habitation was one of the first rooms made, checked off the list, and then never iterated on as the years went by.
When the ship retracts the front portion of the ship goes INTO the back portion. In my head it's logical for the back portion to go into the front piece. Now there is that weid joint exposed forward when flying,surley it should be the other way around?
I'd like the side with the escape pods to be a small armoury/storage/maintenance area. Where crew can store some carried on supplies and weapons (away from the airlock, since if anyone manages to get on before crew can get to the weapons the borders get some free guns. I'd like to see the quarters to be redone entirely. Re-detail the bunks, change the kitchen side to be a 'captains' quarters, place a small kitchenette probably on the back wall and centre the dining table in the middle of the room and change the design of the table since it just looks like a couple boxes slapped on the ground to me. Add some lockers near the each bunk and in the bathroom and so on and it'd be good. I don't think the doors are too bad in the engineering area, but they could maybe be a bit bigger. As for an elevator up to the crew quarters, the floor near the ladder could be adapted to be a lift or it could be moved to an alternate spot I guess, but having using the same shaft as the ladder could be cool.
MISC's director : If we ask DRAKE to make the hull-C, will customers notice ? Engineer : Absolutely, there will be apparent cables, huge ass fuel pipe in the kitchen, no toilet paper, doors too small for components. MISC's director : Ok then. Put MISC stickers everywhere. They won't notice.
@Morphologis Have you ever reviewed the way Unground Facilities are designed? It seems that landing pads and staging areas would have been required for the excavation, construction and ongoing freight handling for each UGF. It is frustrating trying find a reasonable landing spot for a ship larger than a Pisces during Bunker missions.
Thumps up for the Freelancer first ship. Did you notice the engine nozzles move away from the other part of the ship at 23:27? Need to check if there is already an issue council entry on the weekend
At least on naval ships, the crew is generally larger than the amount of beds onboard, even officers share state rooms in medium/smaller sized ships. On submarines everyone but the captain, XO and the COB will usually be at risk of having to share a bed. Theres always gotta be someone operating the ship, so at no point is everyone asleep. You have 3 8 hour shift, one shift for sleeping, one shift for working and one shift for free time; so 3 people can be slept in one rack. When you deply you usually have WAY more people on board than you have beds and even the above system breaks down so you sleep the junior sailors in axillary spaces that are relatively quiet and have the space to lay out mats like a torpedo room or a computer room. Theres no reason why a ship with 4 beds couldn't be made intended to have a complement of at least 8.
Praises to these developers, they're engineers not only in a video game sense but in an architectural and mechanical sense as well. Designing these ships specifically so they'd make sense realistically is a step above. I do wish to see this game released before it loses what's left of its fanbase, a lot of hard work has gone into it and it deserves to be seen. Hopefully the leadership at CIG doesn't let their talent and commitment go to waste.
The reason why the Hull C is lacing in the hab area is because the interior was designed years ago. They were just waiting on the folding mechanics that they were working on. They did a refresh I bet they just forgot the hab area since it is up a ladder and was just forgotten. I just wish CIG would take 1 old ship a year and update it to the new gold standard. And the cargo loading and unloading mechanics for this ship are horrible right now. Sadly it will make a nice ship design irrelevant till they redo the cargo mechanics for stations.
It truly amazes me that you are able to even login and load the game to make these amazing looking videos. Every time I watch one of your videos on SC I immediately login and want to play but I am ALWAYS met with extremely low performance, I have a 3080 and an AMD Ryzen 9 so I should have NO performance issues. Now I understand that PTU and even PU are testing environments so bugs are normal, I dont mind the bugs, I very much do mind my $7,000 computer not being able to run the game at higher than 10fps at some points. I logged into PTU today and was not even able to make it out of my hab on the lowest graphic settings. They really need to do something about this if they want us to be able to test the game because right now most people cant even login and play normally to find bugs.
With the size of the Hull series, I would have expected the -C/D/E ships to be capital class like the 890 jump. But it looks like the Hull-C will be launching with S3 (i.e. Large sub-capital) components. So, according to CIG, you should be able to remove, repair, and/or replace them. Meaning that either the components are physically too large or the doors are too small. If they're S4 components, however, then it would make sense. The hatches are so that you can access the components for maintenance or repair, but not actually remove them. You'd have to go to a drydock and have the station-based repair services open up the hull plating to replace the components.
I am glad they have a shield generator near the bridge. If the only one was in engineering when that ship is fully deployed the shield attenuation would be horrible. The generator at the front will save lives when fully deployed.
As an ultrawide user, I love seeing these videos. But I agree with all your points here. I think it would be a cool ship to have and I honestly love the bridge due to the inclusion of a captain's chair, but it's clear a lot of this ship was made a long time ago.
can only agree on the habitation part,, for me they designed it long ago and as they had more problem wit the folding part etc they let it as it is, maybe one day we will get a whole remake of MISC interior ( the freelancer even if it is already a rework, do feel very dated to a hull A). then a small reflection that popped when you talked about the cockpit view ( also fan of misc so im ok with it),it is a big hauler, almost to the level or IRL cargo container ship that cross the ocean. So what would you think of a cargo ship with a cockpit at the "rear" ( can be top or underbelly) with cargo in the front, it could have a nose to extend and put cargo on it with at the end a technical part with engine for direction and slowing down. would that make sense ? ( having cargo all front can make it easier to load (?), and you could check the cargo will flying ( part of it, in the hull series beside the tarctorbeam post and turret, you can t see if someone is stealing cargo box on the grid)^^
The crew area feels like "oh fuck.. we forgot the crew space... GET THE NEW GUY, QUICK!" The escape pods being in a separate area make some sense if you think about if you're attacked they're an easy place to breach hull if someone boards. Just jettison the pods and leave the doors open. Just like how no windows in the spindle makes sense. Bit difficult to make extending windows that are also space rated.
I feel like the escape room area has a little to much wasted space in it its a realy big room... thats only there for escaping??? they could have added something better there
Do agree on the living quarters need some more work. And fyi size 3 components cant be swaped in space, while size 4 need a full on shipyard. So you will be handling sub componets on ships like this.
That habitation interior reminds me a lot of the Starfarers. It seems they took what they learned from the Starfarer and iterated on it to something that certainly looks better, but looks quite dated compared to current offerings.... Man, that Starfarer interior.... *shivers*
I partially feel that no windows in the spindle is ok as it's a crucial structural part to carry load from the rear to the front of the ship and any windows would create a weak point structurally for any flexing. But I am glad that the ship was released as it put in a new gameplay loop, I just hope that they come back to the ship later on and do a face-lift, once engineering really comes into play. That way it'll be up to snuff and still be enjoyable to fly.
Another wonderful review, Morph! I was very interested to see your take on the habitation section of this ship since that seems to be very different from the rest of the ship. As you said, I also think this is a byproduct of this section of the ship being designed years ago and potentially just not being updated once it was completed. Which is a bit unfortunate since it is one of my favorite ships. Part of me wonders if this is just part of MISC's interior design. Hopefully, the Hull A is more of an indicator of how the MISC design has been updated and will be implemented in future ships, especially for habitation sections. Additionally, I just wanted to say congratulations on working with Star Atlas! Hearing that news is amazing and I cannot be more excited for you! It would be awesome to see some of your work from that time if you are able to share or do a bit more of a behind the scenes on workflow/process and how you approach these kind of projects.
![The Lynx Rover - An Architect Reviews [Star Citizen]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QTXdy-JF65g/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Lynx Rover - An Architect Reviews [Star Citizen]](/img/tr.png)
You can really feel that much of the interior was created years ago, closer to the Starfarer than the Hull-A in quality.
Well there was leaks of the Hull C many many years ago.. And it looks pretty much exactly the same as it does now, it seems like they just took the half worked on version and gave it some new textures then released it.
I wonder how long it really took to complete And that very simple cargo system. It took them very little time maybe a few devs did in a few days at most.
That just shows how pathetic CIG's devs really are
@@lukas6485 ah yes, armchair developers, the best kind of devs.... they would revolutionize game development if they just could be bothered...
I‘m shocked they had all this time and still gave it to us in this old form… that‘s a big ooof.
The living space kinda feels like...CIG was 99% done with the ship and about to release it and realized "Oh shit we forgot the living quarters!"
IMO pretty much all the MISC ships have questionable interior designs. Soooo, guess it's consistent?
Or....they made the living space a long time ago...say, back when they were first working on the ship. And just didn't revisit it before releasing it.
I think it is more a thing of the living space having been done 99% for many years before they started work on the rest of the ship, and CIG not bothering to rework it. The living space really recalls old MISC designs like the Starfarer, and not in a good way.
That one part definitely felt very rushed. Like they were up against the release deadline management had set and so they had to slapdash it together at the 11th hour.
@@CrowDawg11it feels more like they had that part finished for a while and didnt have time to update it
I for one like that there are no windows on the spindle tube. SC already adds alot of cool and convenient details to ship interiors. So its a nice change to have this area that feels specially inhospitable, like its not meant for comfort, and its not even meant to be permanent as its a folding structure, almost gives me the same vibes as walking trough a construction zone and going trough the scafolding, its not necesarily dangerous, but its clearly not pretty or comfortable either, its a nice vibe for a big cargo ship with an industrial asthetic
Agreed. Windows also dont make sense in a folding structure. The rings need to be solid metal for stability, and the folding material cant be transparent either because it needs to be sturdy and flexible.
I'd like to see what that tunnel looks like while doing the party trick. I do feel like the floor is too narrow, but maybe there isn't much need for two people to pass each other in that section, ever.
It sorta reminded me of the tube walkway from Event Horizon, just missing the rotating grinder feel. Edited: Just got up to the EH reference, and i'm pleased he had the same idea.
Have you ever walked around inside a shipping container and thought “wow how hospitable”.
To me the hull C has a bit of an odd interior layout, but on the outside I think its beautiful.
If what yall are saying is true, then doesnt that mean this game is basically finished already? We are basically just waiting for it all to click together. When it does, the game will feel unreal.
@@jnh8057 Well, no, there is new tech for everything. Everything from objects, rivers, outpost, plants, rocks, caves, minables, it all has tech to make it easy to populate each and every moon and planet. The tech is not completely finished or working as intended, so there's a lot more to do. While the game is not close to being finished as you say, it does have a lot more work done than we've seen or know about. People are mad about Pyro taking so long, as they have a right to be, but I'll be EXTREMELY surprised if Pyro releases and is not nearly a complete system, everything sound be as full as Stanton is right now.
True for 90% of all ships in SC
@@yous2244 Are you nuts? You've apparently not been watching many of these ship reviews. So many of the older interior designs are ludicrously dumb which is also why so many are waiting for their reworks. Just visit any Freelancer or the 600i and shake your head...
@@yous2244 It's not about "not liking" something, it's about logic and making sense. Almost every older design of SC ships with an interior are absolute failures. Just watch Morph's review of the 600i if you've never actually been on one. And again, it's usually about the interior, not the exterior. The interior can be detailed af but still be totally stupid. Just like the Hull C.
Totally agreed. And, you missed that huge trip hazard / panel hole in the floor of the habitation area. I mean...who the hell would engineer that right there?
That panel has a glass face on top so it appears to be a hole but is actuality flush with the rest of the floor
@@schlagzahne6741- ah, didn't know since I don't have one. Still, a rather odd place for one.
While I agree with you that the living quarters could have been more well thought out I think the components layout makes sense to have one shield generator forward and one aft cause it gives better coverage especially when the ship is extended.
Totally agree given this is an industrial ship.
The habitation reminds me of Red dwarf its utilitarian and "staff don't matter" style. Once again the tractor beam for ships feature missing when frankly they could of just used the multi tool code and scaled it up and janked it for now to avoid the awkwardness. That said its standard for CIG features just not thought out (Co-pilots taking exclusive control of stuff unlike IRL where pilot its shared)
size 3 components can only be removed at a shipyard. you'll be able to add a chip on it or tweak/oc it while on the ship though. @@john681611
@@john681611 The multitool code is based on the player position, where the player is looking, the multitool inputs and the player's state. It also has player-scale considerations when it comes to its interaction with the world. The multitool code scaled up would just be that, a scaled up multitool. If you're going to move dev manhours for that, might as well do tractor beams for ships. The reason tractor beams for ships isn't here yet isn't because it's that much harder to do, it's just that devs are assigned on other features.
CIG already said you probably wont be removing size 3 components.
I am an aircraft mechanic and plenty of things on board will not fit through the doors, thus you disassemble them first, then take them out in parts. I dont see why CIG doesnt make you break a size 3 down to manageable components and then reassemble on the ground.
Also the placement of components isnt entirely arbitrary here, a single forward and single aft shield generator makes sense. Avionics, radar,grav gen, life support are up front. The rest of the stuff is in back so im pretty sure it wasnt an afterthought. Front shield gen for the living area, aft for the engines..life support &grav for the area where it matters more. Avionics and radar located on the bridge, exactly where you would be using them anyway
Hull C actually kind of feel like my cargo hauler in Starfield, well, minus the party trick, but I think it both look and play like a hauler, that's good. That being said, the interior does feel somewhat dated, which is unfortunate since interior is very important for me from an RP point of view.
In Starfield ?
Love that you're doing a deep analysis of the consistencies (and issues) in world building through the ships. The logic and lore of design for future humans in space should certainly still follow conventions and norms that we adhere to today. Indeed, for suspension of disbelief, designers need to have relatable, contemporary considerations to design.
A few things from a professional seafarer (who's often lamented on CIG ship design):
1. That center spindle doesn't have windows because it is load-bearing. That spindle is going to flex in and out of acceleration and manuevering, especially hard manuevers during emergencies. Windows would not be something a shipwright or naval architect would put along it, as that represents a very weak point where don't want one to be.
2. Ducting and Wiring: It follows no logical layout. While the details are interesting to look out - you wouldn't be able follow their logic with placing them. They don't represent any over-all layout as you'd have a contractor put in to a design. The wiring and ducting needs to be discernible, if visible, as part of a system (AC, main power feeds, etc), which you could trace from engineering, all the way forward to the bridge. If there are any connections to the bridge from engineering, it is not hinted at in the corridor all that much, which means the forward section of the ship would need its' own hub of breakers, pumps and panels.
Real ships have these - they're called pump rooms - and they are typically outside the engine room, where they are:
A. Easy to access for maintenance (super important - no one at CIG understands that ships are designed to be maintained, hence your door/component issues. They 'know' it, but they just don't have any framing to contextualize it in design.)
B. Isolation of incidents - if a pump or piping or ducting goes bad you can isolate it outside the engine room. Alternately, if the engine room has issues for whatever reason, the pumps that keep water flowing to taps, toilets, and other cooling systems will be unaffected by any engine room disasters.
Seems the forward section of the ship needs a pump / electrical room. There isn''t one, meaning if the back half of the ship were to lose connection through the spindle, there'd be no troubleshooting the loss of power.
On top of that - no back up generator or power source is in the forward half of the ship to take over in the event of an emergency cutting off the spindle connection. That lack of forsight in design, were this a real ship, would never pass certification by UA regulators, because there is a United empire out there and to think they wouldn't have safety standards for commercial shipping is, again, a tell of how familiar (or not, in this case) CIG programmers, artists, or designers are with any of the real world systems and ship types they're looking to call back too.
3. The MISC freelancer, and the Hull C's MFDs are not viewable despite having interactive modules and information on them. The arms of your player model block the line of sight to them. Even considering a real world where I could move my arm, that's a terrible place to put them for ergonomics. Again - no one from CIG has ever seen a real ship bridge before, and I think it would benefit them greatly to do more research, and consider their modelling in both logical human scales, and gameplay.
4. Finally - and this is for any ship currently - there are no automatic fire dispersion systems being considered for any of them. Especially for larger cargo ships - this is absolutely necessary. No ship would ever fly without some sort of automatic procedures to seal off affected areas, disperse agent and protect lives. Furthermore - the layout of the interior spaces is such that in many ships, it would make a dangerous situation MORE dangerous. (The bridge of the Relcaimer accessed only by lift? That's a massive liability if that lift ever malfunctions or is damaged. No ship designer would ever get that cleared in getting certification for flight, and it would likely not clear the drawing room because any Board of Directors worth their salt would reject such a hazard of liability - or liability of hazard - outright.) (Don't get me started on seats moving 10 feet up or down to get to flight consoles.)
Overall, no ship that they've produced has been designed in a way that would clear:
1. Function considerations in regards to budget and form. Some ships have exterior details that create further liability, danger, and added cost for no benefit at all to the function or form. The 'Rule of Cool' sounds great as a motto for a Frat Party, less so as a motto for building a believable universe.
2. Regulations of their own fictional Empire based on the lore they have created.
3. In-Game playability comfort
Some of these transcend all three. (The MISC Freelancer cargo doors being too small for the cargo containers that go through them, for example.)
This is why it is imperative that they hire real trades professionals to oversee the game designers' designs, offer insight, and inform and educate them on how commercial shipping works, how fire works, how heat works in fire scenarios (their fire demo was its own dumpster fire), how common shipboard evolutions, processes and systems work, and how regulations, concerns for life safety, and logistics of the operations their ships are suppsoed to undertake would inform design both inside and out. They need that professional insight because they are signalling they do not have what it takes to 'fake it'.
They hired professional actors to portray characters. They can hire professional naval architects to help them design logically considered futuristic ships.
Don't even get me started on cargo boxes - they saw shipping containers had ridges, and just slapped design elements on their cargo boxes with no consideration for logical design, of even the box. Containers have 'ridges' or corrugations because it strengthens a thinner ply of steel to make the box as strong, and as light, as possible. They're only corrugated as much is as needed to strengthen the integirty without sacrificing any more interior volume than is necessary. The goal of any cargo operation is maximizing space, minimizing waste. That's the motto.
SC's cargo boxes on the other hand, waste a LOT of space on the cargo deck, with large 'handles' that don't get used (we have tractor beam tech, why are they there? Even our real shipping containers don't have massive handles like that), and then the edges are cut in at 45s - that's a massive waste of potential space. Finally, the entire interior volume is shrunk to accommodate random GAK details on the boxes that serve no purpose to storing cargo. So they can't even design a box correctly. Because they're too caught up in trying to make things 'cool' without any knowledge, insight, critical thought into why the things they see, that they're mimicing from the real world, are the way they are.
If you're a game designer or artist modelling spaceships: Get a real naval architect, shipwright, or merchant mariner to consult your design. And listen to them.
- Someone who has never seen a game designer logically lay out a futuristic space ship, even with the future-tech lore, and it bugs me. If you've never been a real sailor, pilot, or heavily involved in those industries, please, please do not try to 'make up' something cool.
The real world is far cooler than anything you could make up. Incorporate real-world operations into futuristic context and lore. The evolutions of those operations are complex, nuanced and can make exciting designs, intuitive and engaging gameplay, and all around, it can heighten the suspension of disbelief well more than your randomly placed GAK ever could.
One of my favorite things about this series is seeing the evolution of Morphologis' cinematography and presentation. Of all the SC content I see, nobody can immerse you in another universe quite like this channel. Can't wait to see what else is waiting to be explored and shown.
IIrc CIG said that large sized components are not supposed to be swapped out of a dry dock (probably to avoid a heavy rework for several large ships)
i believe thats for capital sized components.
@Tr2w unfortunately that's not the case. Size 3 components and above will need dry dock.
@@purpleyeti705 gotcha. thanks for clearing that up
I do think it makes sense to have a shield projector by the bridge, though. So much of the ship is about “two halves,” and you want both halves protected.
no all that stuff needs to be in engineering if you have 1 crew member for repairs they will be running way to much especially with the ship extended with everything split like this 2 engineers will be mandatory .
@@COMMANDERHAWK22 The thing is, the bigger the area to cover, the bigger the shield component and the bigger the energy consumption. At some point it's just more practical to have a shield on either sides. It's not about dev magic there, it's about MISC business logic and lore coherency. And even you, as a player, would you prefer to have a bigger shield with triple the energy consumption? You'd need a bigger generator too, and you'd need more fuel storage, etc. There's just only so much you can fit without increasing the ship's size.
One thing I love about the Hull series is all the variants' unique roles.
The Hull A feels like a final destination transport, carrying a good quality of cargo from a drop off station to the surface of a planet or moon as needed. While we have ships like the Freelancer, and even the Reliant Kore, its a good ship with logistics in mind.
The Hull B will (supposedly) be the "Best of Both Worlds" type of deal, if the rumors of the landing gear allowing the B to land with a full load even though it is just a miniature Hull C are true, that is.
The Hull C and up are beautiful transport ships designed for galactic travel via Jump Points, carrying large amounts of cargo to keep the empire thriving. It's like a space train, but without the complications of connecting separate carriages together like an actual train. What more can you ask from a ship?
My first impression of the hab was "How the hell is anyone getting any sleep in this room?". No privacy screens, bright as hell lights, right next to the main social gathering hub, and a goddamn kitchen. Hope this gets another pass.
I know it's not the intended way to land that ship, but i love the vertical landing at the end. Really reminds me of the expanse and how they landed the rocinante. It just feels more realistic for something that size and that non-aerodynamic to need vtol.
I loved that! Might be an interesting loophole to get around the fact that the ship can't land planetside normally. Could set the ship down vertically and then tractor beam all the boxes down to the ground.
The issue of the large component sizes in relation to the traversal space required to move or replace them is a valid point. IRL, components such as these would be replaced at a shipyard where they would cut a hole into the hull to remove it. If it needed to be repaired, the repair would be triaged to see if it can be repaired at the sub-component level or smaller before considering the higher level of repair such as shipyard work. As a solution for the current game design, CIG could redesign the components to be broken down into smaller segments so they can fit through the hatches and reassembled onsite in front of the component bay.
This series has a special place in my heart. It gives me a special kind of happiness, and never fails to put a cosy smile on my face. Great jobb! love the music.
The Hull C really does look like a ship that's been worked on here and there over many years. I like it overall, but agree with you on all the issues you mentioned.
yeah. you can really tell that the ship was worked on in stages throughout its lifetime before being put into the PTU. essentially the ship was in dry dock and was being worked on every once in a while as they worked on the folding mechanics of it. and i do believe that he is right to assume that different teams with different levels of skill likely came in and worked on it as it was in the process of being developed. but CIG has come in and fixed old designs before so there's no reason to assume they wont eventually fix the Hull C is enough people request for it to get a better work over.
I'll still never understand the decision not to let the Argo RAFT pick up/drop cargo pods onto the Hull series. Yes, I get there's a brand difference, but that's common in the trades
I agree. Yet another fine analysis. The ship as a whole is a piece of artwork. However, your discussion on the berthing area, head and galley are on point. It seems they were "rushed" by a junior designer. CIG can really benefit from your expertise in the QA department. Coming from a career as a US Navy Sailor, there are a handful of details that don't sit well with me either but that is a topic worthy of its own video.
Long time viewer. Love your analysis and the cinematic shots! Keep it up and wish you the best!
Finally, some proper ship review content. After spending 8 hours purely in the SF ship generator, Ive come to appreciate more the level of unique properties and quality of SC ships. Nothing compares (especially Star Atlas ships, more than half of them are nonsensical rule of cool only ships).
Most of this ship was designed by the guy who built the Enterprise-D and the living quarters were made by the guy who built Red Dwarf.
Really? I had the thought the other day that some old Trek crew would fit in at CIG and their expertise could be very useful but I haven't been able to find any info on any of them working with/for CIG.
I really feel like in a futuristic ship we would have something more advanced then toilet paper in the bathroom.
The HULL C is an interesting example of when something old is completed recently, where much of the old is retained. The living space looks like it was made around the same time as the Starfarer, whoes living space is just as bewildering, while the engineering section seems like it was partially done back then and then rebuilt recently.
I just hope it gets some attention later to re-do the living space and adjust things to work with things like component access.
The Hull series and Freelancer are my favorite in SC. Something about them feels nostalgic like a cross between the magic school bus and my old Thorax - Phobos. Even though they looks nothing like either. It just feels right.
I don't know why, but the details in the living areas are my number one consideration when ship buying.
Would love to see you collaborate with a naval architect who could talk about some of the naval specifc aspect of ship design. Like resilience to flooding (well, spacing in the case of star citizen) and stuff like that. Also I wish SC would put larger life boats rather than individual pods, being by yourself with nothing is probably the last thing you want if you had to abandon ship. I'd really love to see a game with ships that are well thought through and complies with SOLAS so far as is relevant to space
Yeah Morph, I was thinking the same with the living space when going through it and wondering to myself "are they planning to make this modular for nicer upgrades in game? Because this not good." I hope that they take notes for when they do the Hull-D as that is my baby and would be very sad to see a translation of similar design from the Hull-C.
Great review as usual Morph, keep up the good work mate.
Man, you nailed it. I was so let down by the habitation space in this ship. To me, they should split the bunk and kitchen area into two rooms. Get rid of the picnic table, extend the counter as you noted and place chairs at the counter. Move all of the kitchen appliances down to the unused corner and place a display panel on the wall in the kitchen across from the counter. It can be used for crew debriefing or to watch the "game," whatever that is. With a wall separating the two areas, now add storage shelves at the new wall across from the bunks. Then, at the space between the cabin and the bathroom, the "Walk through" closet, add full size lockers for each crew person, for street clothes, etc. I mean, you're going to be traveling long distances in this ship. When you get to your destination, you might want to go into town. So where do I put my civies? Maybe add a washer and dryer for cleaning clothes in that space, or some sort of upright locker type futuristic clothes cleaner. They didn't even have a cookie jar and coffee machine in there. I mean, really? Hauling freight without snacks, that's just not right.
10:07
It's important to remember that the fore and aft sections are _very_ separate. Components living both fore and aft is totally acceptable.
Consulting morph for ship interior design was probably the smartest thing Star Atlas did. Unfortunately, the dumbest thing they did was to make NFT ships.
Can you actually play and fly around or is it simply a visual... thing?
Size 3 components are not suposed to be swapable by hand so it is not an issue that they do not fit through the doors.
Acording to CIG you will need to send your larger ships to shipyards to have them refited.
The Hull C is so big. I actually envisioned the Hull D being this size. It’s almost baffling that there’s supposedly going to be a Hull E as well. Those ships will be truly massive.
I figured the Hull series would go:
A: Largest ship that can land under load
B: Largest ship that can traverse small jump points
C: Largest ship that can traverse medium jump points
D: Largest ship that can dock at a conventional station
E: Largest ship that can traverse large jump points.
A & B might be swapped, I'm not sure how small 'small' jump points are
Each class representing a different hard cap on starship size and cargo capacity. Because, well, why build a cargo ship any smaller than those limits? Cargo hauling is all about efficiencies of scale. Hull E I figured would be, essentially, a mobile space station compared to the more manageable classes, parking just outside and being loaded and unloaded by smaller haulers before heading off to the next stop on its route.
@@watchm4ker I think the plan for B is that it is still capable to land on planets with Cargo. I know they've had to redesign the whole ship to try and make that work due to the old design just not working. So yeah, A and B are probably swapped.
On a side note about living spaces. The bunks should have curtains. Living with other people in a combined space like this pretty much requires that you need your own little area to just relax in and often times thats the bunk. Without curtains or some other way of sealing off the outside world you feel exposed. Anyone who has spent time onboard a ship or in an area close to others for extended periods like this can testify to that point
I get the impression that the ship was partially reworked recently, but CIG decided the original habitation space was fine since it's what people use the least, and even then it's just to log out in.
Yeah. I think they just wanted the ship to come out and probably thought "Eh, we'll fix habitation in the gold pass later, let's get the ship in the game now while we have people to work on it"
please don't stop doing architect reviews! i love them!
13:57 , 15:08 and the whole living quarters area - Someone on CIGs QA team didn't do their job. I have a Hull A and E. I quite like my little A with it's bigger glass canopy, better lighting and well-considered amenities. Hopefully CIG sees this critique and steps up their game for the remaining ships in the series.
13:55 the spinning thing reminds me of classic star trek engineering props. I hope we get more neat props like this as we get more big ships. Maybe even a ship with that double orange tube prop thats been used in every sci Fi property ever
you mean the thing with the red lights that are moving back and forth that, aside of that, seems to have no function whatsoever? i.imgur.com/rRrP4Lg.png
Nice review M orph. I've been experimenting with the Hull since before Wave 1 (...) and have come to a few conclusions/criticisms myself:
1. Airlock functionality: this door should *NOT* automatically open when the ship spawns on or attaches to a docking port. It currently does auto-open, and that's going to provide pirates with no end of potential. They can hide in the docking port areas of space stations and just wait for someone to spawn a Hull. Then run down the bridge, board the ship before the owner gets there, and stow away. Havoc will ensue later. This needs to be updated by CIG so that the door stays shut/locked until the owner gets to the ship and manually opens it.
2. I'm not sure about the latest sets of ships with weapons lockers near the docking port/airlock. I get it: have the weapons handy when you exit the vehicle, and a place to put them once you board. But the airlock is where attackers are most likely going to board. I'm not sure the lockers right by the boarding entrance are such a great idea. I'd rather see them closer to the bridge (where most will be) or somewhere else on the interior. Bit of a tactical question there.
3. Ship defense. Given the size of that thing, 3 2xS3 turrets seems a bit underwhelming, and worse, the two on the top can only be accessed individually. The keel of the boat is entirely unprotected. I'd rather see manned turrets; ones that can be operated simultaneously for defense purposes so the ship can try to fend off attackers while waiting for help to arrive. No, I'm not suggesting the ship should be able to hold its own against a pirate force. But the way CIG set up the ship's defenses make it damned near useless. All an attacker has to do is ride the keel and continue firing at the ship. The ship's guns won't be able to touch him. Solution: put the forward top turret on the keel somewhere, give it to the co-pilot, and give the top rear turret to the engineer.
The habitation area on the Hull A felt like I could actually live there, on the Hull C it looks like someone threw a bunch of pieces together and called it Habitation
The unfolding mechanism looks like one of the best features on any of the ships. Interesting idea the window in the folding tunnel. Because it's a cylinder, I think the only way to do this would be to have a fixed section of the tunnel that doesn't fold at all for the window to go into assuming they have the luxury of not having to fold part of the tunnel. I don't blame them for not putting this in although the lack of windows in ships to show off the amazing visuals and potential shenanigans is frustrating.
That orange pipe at 17:39 is baffling. It looks like it was added at the last second before release. Maybe a higher up said "ehhh add something to connect the galley area to the living quarters tonight" the night before they added the ship to the game.
I hope this room gets a touch up in a future update
Kinda waiting for 4.x before playing more SC, but watching your videos still keeps me up to speed with what’s going on. Excellent work on this video as always!
Well, actually having the different interior fittings and mix of well thought spaces/frumpy spaces show the Hull C being built over time in-game Looking forward to your next Hull report.
i may be a bit optimistic here but i think the forward shield generator may be well thought out. we've seen how the power will work and how capacitors are distributed throughout the ship. thus the forward shield generator would have power for a short while after the ship has been cut in half due to the vulnerable middle section. thus allowing some safety while crew get to the escape pods
13:55 As a wise puppet general once said, spinning is so much cooler
The living quarters do seem a bit let down. The counter could easily have had a fold up component, and stools rise up from the floor to allow bar seating style arrangement. That corner could easily have had shelves added in. Sloppy work all over.
Large components are not meant to be taken out. Access is only for maintenance. You'd need to go to a drydock for replacement, where they cut out part of the ship to swap it.
Oh, and after seeing that last bit of the video I realized that this is the only ship that looks like an actual space rocket).
I believe the interior issues are a result of how long the Hull-D has been sitting there on the shelf, without the working transformation mechanic. We've been seeing interior shots of these Hull series for years prior to them actually being released, so there's an odd combination of old and new, with only the essential component access work done to modernise it.
So I noticed that the ship has two shield generators located in the front half and back half. Perhaps that's why the generator is in the front? Either to simulate the idea of needing two in each part of the ship to fully shield it OR perhaps it will ACTUALLY leave one half exposed if that half's generator goes down. I'm not too bothered by the placement if either is the case, really. Just made me think that it'd be neat if you could jettison the front half for a crash landing and use it as a makeshift survival shelter while crashed, lol.
Great content, Morphologis! Would you consider "An Architect Advises" series to give your recommendations to CIG on unreleased concept ships? I'm looking forward to the RSI Perseus, and while the combat design has some issues (mainly not enough defense against small fighters), the proposed internal layout looks perfect for a small crew. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I disagree because I think the lackluster elements are more likely to be the fault of newer work than older work. There seems to be a consistent trend in all of the art/design away from functionality and immersion and toward more standard video game content, probably due to the massive amount of hiring they've done. I've been playing Starfield recently and it really highlights how non-functional misaligned buttons, poorly made details where people won't look, and elements placed at random for no apparent reason are the industry standard, even from studios that are well known for attention to detail. As CIG has brought in more people, you see this sort of thing creeping in more and more on all teams, but especially the teams making various facilities.
Consider what you'd be saying if the habitation room were a module in Starfield. It would probably be highlighted as one of the best pieces of work in the ship. It's kind of amazing how much Star Citizen has changed our expectations and it makes it really noticeable when someone doesn't bring that immersive mentality to their work, or doesn't understand it in the first place.
On topic of moving componetns into and out of the ships. CIG said a while (~2 years) ago that not on all ships crew will be able to replace (all of) the modules on their own. For some ships you'll need to go to repair ships to do so, and service installed modules when you're on the move, and just pray that they won't die-die.
Heck yes! didn't think we would get a review of this ship :D
I suspect the crew region on the hull C was made way back when the ship was first designed, and didn't get updated with the rest of the ship, as CIG expected people to spend very little time there relative to the rest of the ship. I do love the rest of the ship, despite not being a hauler myself.
I goota say the ending shot, while really cool looking, had me thinking "That can't be good for the engines."
The ladder between the bulk of the ship and the living area is the biggest problem for me, it means any equipment, gear, food, and injured people have to somehow make that trip, a small elevator next to the ladder would make so much more sense.
Picture living in a house with 2 floors with the kitchen on the top floor, and only a ladder between the floors.
Good thoughts but this ship will spend the vast majority of its life in space, micro or no gravity. Sending a body up the ladder is as easy as turning off the gravity generator for a few minutes.
@@ymemag9861 SC ships have artificial gravity, turning off gravity just to move stuff past an inconvenient ladder doesn't make much sense. A small elevator next to the ladder would fit as far as I can tell, and would massively ease logistics, not the only ship with this problem, Valkyrie also comes to mind.
Thank you for the widescreen recording!
eye for spotting out details and explaining. Reminds me of my Vanguard how you said it, 80-90% done, like the Hornet or Avenger left untouched for years with small problems never fixed. Maybe like Hurston *Eventually* they have a plan to revisit.
The 20 year old interning at CIG, that worked on this ship. 😢 lol
Good, and fair, review.
Though, with those massive engines, is this one of the fastest ships, when it's not hauling cargo? Yeah, yeah, it's just torque...blah, blah,blahgotta go fast!
11:58 if CIG put windows there it would look so stupid in many ways, this is not the cutter, a tiny window near the exit ramp was a great design feature, but that wouldnt work for a giantic craft like the Hull C ( to inspect ) , the entire corridor would have been transparant and the ship wouldnt feel like utilitary anymore, it is better to make the cargo corridor much dull and depressing as possible, zero fun. It is very cool for large structures/buildings not to have cool spaces everywhere.
I think that random shield generator kinda makes sense where it is. With the ship essentially splitting in half, it would make sense to have one generator power the front nodes, and another power the rear ones. It's definitely not the best place for it with consideration to engineering, but there is a logical pass for it in my opinion.
The habitation feels like it's a bit rushed and unfinished, like the designer working on it had to do as much as possible to make the space not feel completely empty before being moved to work on something else, and then no one came back for a sanity check and just assumed all was good.
The weapon rack is also for Maxlift tractor beams, multitools and SRT repair tools.
It actually kinda reminds me of Star Wars's Blockade Runner when the cargo grid is retracted, with all those giant engines on the back there. I'd hope it goes fast when unloaded (once the flight model is updated to factor mass into max Gs).
If you look at the direction that the beds are laid out in the Hull A, the the raised cutout in the "port" opening to the bed aligns with the head of the sleeper. In the Hull C, that lines up with the feet for some reason, and this causes the ladder to be right in front of the face of the person laying down.
This seems like a small oversight in the way the bed was dressed and set up for tech, because it seems like the bedding should be turned 180 degrees. Maybe a small thing, but it stuck out to me immediately as not an ideal UX. it makes it feel more claustrophobic and you don't want peoples feet climbing up a foot away from your face where you're sleeping.
Weapons locker will be nice for multi-tools and tractor beams if players will actually have to move cargo around, or if using this as a loot holder in space for larger salvage ops if we ever get to sell that stuff at stations.
It looks like some of the issues you pointed out has been fixed. At least I notice the crew area pipes actually has proper connection to the ceilings and walls now.
From a lighting design perspective something I'm not intimitaly familiar with we try to line up lights with structural elements and typically if we can't get a downlight centered we opt for an adjustable fixture which can be aimed at what we are lighting.
Something about the silhouette of the Hull-C was a hard sell for me, but until the ending shots of the thing standing up on its backend, I wasn’t sure what.
I know why, now.
It's just begging for some Dr. Evil role play.
Great review and good that you’ve pointed out that the Hab area doesn’t fit to the rest of the ships details. It bothered me since I saw it the first time.
If they’d have rearranged the living quarters slightly they could’ve had the exterior access elevator go straight up to them with a little glass door like in the Hercules series.
So one bit of information, the spinny bit in the engineering section is the Spinnorator 5000™, which is pretty important for space travel. Obviously. Totally agreed on the living space - it feels like this was made way before the Hull A's interior, or perhaps even the RAFT, which would track given how long this ship was in development. I'm guessing habitation was one of the first rooms made, checked off the list, and then never iterated on as the years went by.
Man i wish the interior is as good as the hull A, love this little ship
Love the way you narrate your videos, very articulate and well done!
When the ship retracts the front portion of the ship goes INTO the back portion. In my head it's logical for the back portion to go into the front piece. Now there is that weid joint exposed forward when flying,surley it should be the other way around?
Good review! Still wating for the review of the Reclamer
I'd like the side with the escape pods to be a small armoury/storage/maintenance area. Where crew can store some carried on supplies and weapons (away from the airlock, since if anyone manages to get on before crew can get to the weapons the borders get some free guns. I'd like to see the quarters to be redone entirely. Re-detail the bunks, change the kitchen side to be a 'captains' quarters, place a small kitchenette probably on the back wall and centre the dining table in the middle of the room and change the design of the table since it just looks like a couple boxes slapped on the ground to me. Add some lockers near the each bunk and in the bathroom and so on and it'd be good. I don't think the doors are too bad in the engineering area, but they could maybe be a bit bigger. As for an elevator up to the crew quarters, the floor near the ladder could be adapted to be a lift or it could be moved to an alternate spot I guess, but having using the same shaft as the ladder could be cool.
MISC's director : If we ask DRAKE to make the hull-C, will customers notice ?
Engineer : Absolutely, there will be apparent cables, huge ass fuel pipe in the kitchen, no toilet paper, doors too small for components.
MISC's director : Ok then. Put MISC stickers everywhere. They won't notice.
@Morphologis Have you ever reviewed the way Unground Facilities are designed? It seems that landing pads and staging areas would have been required for the excavation, construction and ongoing freight handling for each UGF. It is frustrating trying find a reasonable landing spot for a ship larger than a Pisces during Bunker missions.
Thumps up for the Freelancer first ship. Did you notice the engine nozzles move away from the other part of the ship at 23:27? Need to check if there is already an issue council entry on the weekend
At least on naval ships, the crew is generally larger than the amount of beds onboard, even officers share state rooms in medium/smaller sized ships. On submarines everyone but the captain, XO and the COB will usually be at risk of having to share a bed.
Theres always gotta be someone operating the ship, so at no point is everyone asleep. You have 3 8 hour shift, one shift for sleeping, one shift for working and one shift for free time; so 3 people can be slept in one rack.
When you deply you usually have WAY more people on board than you have beds and even the above system breaks down so you sleep the junior sailors in axillary spaces that are relatively quiet and have the space to lay out mats like a torpedo room or a computer room.
Theres no reason why a ship with 4 beds couldn't be made intended to have a complement of at least 8.
Praises to these developers, they're engineers not only in a video game sense but in an architectural and mechanical sense as well. Designing these ships specifically so they'd make sense realistically is a step above. I do wish to see this game released before it loses what's left of its fanbase, a lot of hard work has gone into it and it deserves to be seen. Hopefully the leadership at CIG doesn't let their talent and commitment go to waste.
The reason why the Hull C is lacing in the hab area is because the interior was designed years ago. They were just waiting on the folding mechanics that they were working on. They did a refresh I bet they just forgot the hab area since it is up a ladder and was just forgotten. I just wish CIG would take 1 old ship a year and update it to the new gold standard. And the cargo loading and unloading mechanics for this ship are horrible right now. Sadly it will make a nice ship design irrelevant till they redo the cargo mechanics for stations.
To correct you my friend regarding toilet paper in the toilet compartment ... there is a well used brown towel hanging there ... now you know :D
It truly amazes me that you are able to even login and load the game to make these amazing looking videos. Every time I watch one of your videos on SC I immediately login and want to play but I am ALWAYS met with extremely low performance, I have a 3080 and an AMD Ryzen 9 so I should have NO performance issues. Now I understand that PTU and even PU are testing environments so bugs are normal, I dont mind the bugs, I very much do mind my $7,000 computer not being able to run the game at higher than 10fps at some points. I logged into PTU today and was not even able to make it out of my hab on the lowest graphic settings. They really need to do something about this if they want us to be able to test the game because right now most people cant even login and play normally to find bugs.
Try turning the graphics setting up. Lower settings supposedly offload stuff from the GPU to the CPU.
Exit sign on the ceiling is a bit confusing. Properly set markings around an exit(or egress spaces)would make sense
With the size of the Hull series, I would have expected the -C/D/E ships to be capital class like the 890 jump. But it looks like the Hull-C will be launching with S3 (i.e. Large sub-capital) components. So, according to CIG, you should be able to remove, repair, and/or replace them. Meaning that either the components are physically too large or the doors are too small.
If they're S4 components, however, then it would make sense. The hatches are so that you can access the components for maintenance or repair, but not actually remove them. You'd have to go to a drydock and have the station-based repair services open up the hull plating to replace the components.
the "smallest" hull with capital components is the Hull D
I am glad they have a shield generator near the bridge. If the only one was in engineering when that ship is fully deployed the shield attenuation would be horrible. The generator at the front will save lives when fully deployed.
Another release where half of the ship's functions don't yet work.
As a Carrack owner I can relate to the "some day this room will do something".
The amount of attention to the detail that CIG has nowadays is completely mindblowing.
As an ultrawide user, I love seeing these videos. But I agree with all your points here. I think it would be a cool ship to have and I honestly love the bridge due to the inclusion of a captain's chair, but it's clear a lot of this ship was made a long time ago.
can only agree on the habitation part,, for me they designed it long ago and as they had more problem wit the folding part etc they let it as it is, maybe one day we will get a whole remake of MISC interior ( the freelancer even if it is already a rework, do feel very dated to a hull A).
then a small reflection that popped when you talked about the cockpit view ( also fan of misc so im ok with it),it is a big hauler, almost to the level or IRL cargo container ship that cross the ocean. So what would you think of a cargo ship with a cockpit at the "rear" ( can be top or underbelly) with cargo in the front, it could have a nose to extend and put cargo on it with at the end a technical part with engine for direction and slowing down. would that make sense ? ( having cargo all front can make it easier to load (?), and you could check the cargo will flying ( part of it, in the hull series beside the tarctorbeam post and turret, you can t see if someone is stealing cargo box on the grid)^^
The crew area feels like "oh fuck.. we forgot the crew space... GET THE NEW GUY, QUICK!"
The escape pods being in a separate area make some sense if you think about if you're attacked they're an easy place to breach hull if someone boards. Just jettison the pods and leave the doors open. Just like how no windows in the spindle makes sense. Bit difficult to make extending windows that are also space rated.
I feel like the escape room area has a little to much wasted space in it
its a realy big room... thats only there for escaping???
they could have added something better there
Do agree on the living quarters need some more work. And fyi size 3 components cant be swaped in space, while size 4 need a full on shipyard. So you will be handling sub componets on ships like this.
I would love to see small tug ships pulling large freighters that may be either too heavy or not aerodynamic out of atmosphere.
*SRV enters the room*
aerodynamic out of atmosphere? I have to tell you something...
read it again, tug freiters that arent aerodynamic out of the atmosphere, help them get OUT of atmo@@30noir
@d2ricci I was about to make this comment lol! Thank you!
I thought it weird, and funny, that as it was sitting on it's thrusters on the pad near the end, the left gun from the turret just fell off.
That habitation interior reminds me a lot of the Starfarers. It seems they took what they learned from the Starfarer and iterated on it to something that certainly looks better, but looks quite dated compared to current offerings.... Man, that Starfarer interior.... *shivers*
I partially feel that no windows in the spindle is ok as it's a crucial structural part to carry load from the rear to the front of the ship and any windows would create a weak point structurally for any flexing. But I am glad that the ship was released as it put in a new gameplay loop, I just hope that they come back to the ship later on and do a face-lift, once engineering really comes into play. That way it'll be up to snuff and still be enjoyable to fly.
Another wonderful review, Morph! I was very interested to see your take on the habitation section of this ship since that seems to be very different from the rest of the ship. As you said, I also think this is a byproduct of this section of the ship being designed years ago and potentially just not being updated once it was completed. Which is a bit unfortunate since it is one of my favorite ships. Part of me wonders if this is just part of MISC's interior design. Hopefully, the Hull A is more of an indicator of how the MISC design has been updated and will be implemented in future ships, especially for habitation sections.
Additionally, I just wanted to say congratulations on working with Star Atlas! Hearing that news is amazing and I cannot be more excited for you! It would be awesome to see some of your work from that time if you are able to share or do a bit more of a behind the scenes on workflow/process and how you approach these kind of projects.