It would remove blind spots, yes but it would also require the turret to completely rotate to continue tracking a target that moves past it. which would make it difficult to engage close and or fast targets.90° would completly remove turret blind spots.
AA guns don't HAVE blind spots m80Am I the only one aware of AREA COVERAGE CHANGE this would make and who has problem with that change?
I like the idea, but I dont like angles the picture shows. Barrel rotation should be 45° upwards, not 90°. 90° would completly remove turret blind spots. Which would completly remove ability of fighters to abuse them and concept of strategicaly distributing turrets over your ship to cover all the blind spots to prevent fighters from doing that and to be able to shot missiles coming from all angles.
I would like option to make upward facing turrets, but they should have their downside.
As basic requirement definitely, but i think there's more needed.This turret system only requires to have chained turrets. I mean a turret on a turret on a turret on a turret and so on.
The different parts of a single turret should share shields. This is so you don't need to put shields on each part of the turret.As basic requirement definitely, but i think there's more needed.
In order to have a point in using different movable parts, turrets should only be able to move around the y-axes.
Also, these big docking boxes are pretty restrictive in terms of creativity. I would reduce the minimal size from 7 to 1 (atleast for turrets).
That way the necessary openings for the actual cannons only have to be at least two blocks wide.
Yet another edit: As for shared shields, i think we should first try it without sharing and see how that works.
That's my suggestion; no docking boxes. I realize this would be a rather large change, but IMO allowing for mass/energy drain instead of volume allows more creative designs.In the very first picture on the head post: I see an issue there. The turret body beneath the part that holds the barrel is thinner than the rest of the turret. Turret-docking areas are boxes though. I guess it's codeable to have a docking area that is shaped that way and all, but lets assume the docking-area stays a simple box.
The part of the turret within the hull would be as thick as the turret above it and you could easily see it turn within the hull, which might look bad. So instead of splitting a turret into barrel and body, why not split it into plattform/base, body and barrel. All three would share their block-stats, but the plattform can't turn, the body can only turn horizontal and the barrel can only turn vertical. That way we could have stronger turrets which are sunk into the hull and still have only the top part moving around, which would look better. The plattform/base would have to dock in such a way though, that it has no distance to the mothership though, so you don't have a random square-shaped gap ,surrounding your turret, in your hull.
Of ocurse if it is not an issue to code the box to simply be shaped as in the example picture, then this issue doesn't arise since the thinner part of the turret would not be visible due to the top part hiding it.
If that wouldn't create a problem with a very small hit-box for a very strong turret.Would it be possible to have the turret's base be bigger than the turret body? Then turrets don't need to take up that much -flat- area on the surface of a ship while still remaining strong. It would simply look better.