(Eurofighter) Typhoon and (Saab) Draken are RL fighters, so it may be confusing to call a ship like that in the game.
I’d keep Arbiter and Harbringer for Centauran ships, and give SFC ones descriptive names like Brawler or Hammer.
I like the Anvil, though it should be kept for a slow, hardened ship (this one looks like it has enormous engines). Hammer would be good : a big, single-minded, hard-looking hunk of metal, thrown at the enemy at high speed.
FAC(AS)-6 Rev.1.1 (Hammer)
I like “Burst” for some reason.
I was hoping the different factions would have there own type of names also.
Bentware, you are as free as anyone else to suggest names.
Hammerhead
Malleus(hammer in latin)
Onyx
Maurer(bricklayer in german)
Scoria(a rock)
Tremor
@INovaeAndre, do you guys have some sort of convention to naming starfold ships? Like, maybe it has to be in a certain language, have no animal names, or something like that?
We have no such convention.
I did on a different page. =)
An in-engine shot of the normal mapping WIP for the yet unnamed SFC Bomber.
A bit surprised that the thrusters don’t feature any actual geometry. Are you allowed to give us a tri cout?
(I’m aware that with spec/diff and proper materials, it’ll look a whole different.)
Also I’m kinda excited to see what kind of editor you guys have :3
It may have, you’d have to ask Dan, but cuts had to be made to get it within budget. All the hoses/pipes in the back had to be removed as well.
This is more of a KS video WIP assent as opposed to a final I:B asset, there will likely be changes, however modeled thrusters is still a challenge on this particular ship as there are many If you want them to look round, well, that requires many sides. It’s better to bake such round elements from an HP. This ship is also only 17m long.
Why groups of many instead of single ones?
Also why extra ones on the top of those engine shrouds? More than the usual 12 seems superfluous.
Either way, thrusters are generally baked in on ships this small.
I’d call it the Jellybean Jiggler 5000
I’m not surprised at all. Good grief, the original models were insanely high-poly! Kids these days…
@Indicable Considering that next to the cockpit the engines are the second most eye-catching thing on a starship… It’s the only “moving” part of the vehicle so it will draw a lot of attention.
I have no idea what the average ship size in Battlescape will be, so if this bomber is considered a small ship, that’s fine. I was under the impression that it will be a “dogfighting” game, therefore smart ships like this will be the most common (so ship poly count would be optimized for these ships, and cut back on big ones, not the other way around.)
The “insanely high-poly” doesn’t matter. The only form that a hard surface model like that will ever meet any game engine is in bakes. I’m not comparing the two models.
But considering what Gene said, that this is not really and ingame model, the whole question can be disregared in the first place. 
Except he also said that thrusters “are generally baked in on ships this small”.
This suggests that it’s not all that different from the in-game model
Yes they will, and the triangle budgets take that into account. Ships up to Corvette size will likely have thruster detailed baked in.
Correct, this model is pretty close to an in-game mesh.
The triangle budget for the Bomber is ~15,000-20,000 triangles. At the moment the current LP mesh is around 17k and it does not have landing gears yet.
Thanks for the info Gene. Looking forward to the KS 
I really like the style of concepts - they’re looking very solid and utilitarian. As spaceship should be. I’m not a big fan of the “space planes” a’la Star Citizen style - they’re looking too “aircraft’ish” for me.