StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2017-10-15 02:37pm**

Galvatron wrote: ↑2017-10-15 09:12am Here's another new ship for you to pick apart.

Eh, fairly boring, too blocky, surface too busy, IMO would fit better with a BGS style fleet.

Posted: **2017-10-15 06:04pm**

'Surface too busy' is par for the course for Star Wars starships and interestingly, not a single visible (or at least easily identifiable as such) gun turret.

And is anybody else reminded of the battlecruiser from 'Starcraft'?

Posted: **2017-10-15 08:22pm**

Batman wrote: ↑2017-10-15 06:04pm And is anybody else reminded of the battlecruiser from 'Starcraft'?

God dammit. Can't there be an original ship every now and then?

Posted: **2017-10-15 09:34pm**

KraytKing wrote: ↑2017-10-15 10:43am Don't read too far into it. A comic book artist drew a carrier and decided it would be cool if it looked like our carriers. It's stupid. Leave it at that.

Edit: Missed the original date. Seems I'm a bit late to the party.

I don't know about the rest of everyone, but the " because it looked cool" seems to be a reoccurring trend lately

Posted: **2017-10-16 03:28am**

Galvatron wrote: ↑2017-10-15 09:12am Here's another new ship for you to pick apart.

It looks like something I would have made in an afternoon in Wings3D. When I was 15.

Posted: **2017-10-16 03:54am**

PhoenixKnig wrote: ↑2017-10-15 09:34pm
KraytKing wrote: ↑2017-10-15 10:43am Don't read too far into it. A comic book artist drew a carrier and decided it would be cool if it looked like our carriers. It's stupid. Leave it at that.

Edit: Missed the original date. Seems I'm a bit late to the party.
I don't know about the rest of everyone, but the " because it looked cool" seems to be a reoccurring trend lately

Lately? What do you think was happening before that. "Because it looked cool to someone" has always been the metric.

Posted: **2017-10-16 06:49am**

Patroklos wrote: ↑2017-10-14 10:46pm
Simon_Jester wrote: ↑2017-10-13 06:16am Okay, my original core point here was that there is nothing external to the hull that makes a ship's "up" and "down" somehow better or more important than its "left" and "right." Up/down symmetry is no more important than left/right symmetry, and vice versa. There's no deep, external fundamental reason why a star destroyer hull works better with the tower sticking "up" off the hull and the reactor bulb sticking "down" off it than it would with the bridge tower sticking "left" and the reactor bulb sticking "right."
If we were talking about a ship with radial symmetry about about its thrust axis, or at the very least the engines having radial symmetry even if the rest of the hull doesn't, you may be right. However the ISD has neither, its engines are in a line with the hull flattened into that line. I would expect port/starboard asymmetry to have a far larger impact on an ISD than dorsal/ventral from a center of gravity and moment of inertia perspective.

I think you'd have the opposite situation. Assuming the hull is strong enough to survive doing so, the arrangement of the engines gives you a lot more control over port/starboard maneuver; if the center of mass shifts to one side or the other, you can still make the center of thrust pass through it by using asymmetric thrust from the engines.

Slap an asymmetric weight on the port/starboard side of an ISD and you can pretty easily make up the difference with asymmetric thrust. Do the same on the dorsal/ventral side and it's harder to compensate for, precisely because all the engines lie in the same plane.

KraytKing wrote: ↑2017-10-15 08:22pm
Batman wrote: ↑2017-10-15 06:04pm And is anybody else reminded of the battlecruiser from 'Starcraft'?
God dammit. Can't there be an original ship every now and then?

Honestly, this thing doesn't really look that much like a Terran battlecruiser. No 'wings' to speak of, the 'hammerhead' is so much more tightly integrated into the hull it loses a lot of the distinctive outline.

It's worth remembering that there have been dozens of very famous starship designs running through the period of visual science fiction running back to the 1950s and forward through the present. Given certain basic constraints like "engines in back, largely solid hull," there aren't a lot of ideas left that look absolutely nothing like anything that's been tried before. And ships that look very unusual will tend to remind you more of other unusual ships with similar features, or are likely to look impractical for battle (i.e. a ship whose engine pod is connected to the main hull with a series of cables and "tows" it through space would be cool, but nobody would think of it as a good design for a warship).

Now, if you really want original-looking spaceships there's always the work of Chris Foss, but being truly original is harder than it sounds, and even with Foss a lot of the originality seems to be in the paint job.

Posted: **2017-10-16 08:57am**

Batman wrote: ↑2017-10-15 06:04pm 'Surface too busy' is par for the course for Star Wars starships and interestingly, not a single visible (or at least easily identifiable as such) gun turret.

And is anybody else reminded of the battlecruiser from 'Starcraft'?

In general, small ships like corvettes and transports tend to have bumpy surfaces with various stuff, but larger ones tend to have much less stuff & more flat hullspace save for the bridge sections and gun turrets.

Posted: **2017-10-16 10:30am**

The lines on the Enshado conflict with each other, there's no transition from the tapered front to the blocky rear, causing the basic shapes it's composed of to clash.

I'll illustrate what I mean.

This is a basic mock up with the greebles removed:

It's not quite proportional, but I did this in about ten minutes.

Now, there's a few things we can do to clean this up. First thing I would do is remove that ugly roof from the forward part, and consolidate the engine block:

Already looking a lot better.

Next, I'm going to extend the actual engines more into the hull (normally I would curve these, but I'm lazy) and add some bevels:

Finally, I am going to thicken the neck to align with the dorsal face of the head, add a slope connecting the two primary dorsal planes, extrude a trimmed negative of the earlier bevels on the head to make some nice negative space, and add a simple shape across the neck to link the areas:

And there we go. Still a pretty boring ship in this state, but given a serious go at it, could easily be made into something nice.

Posted: **2017-10-16 10:39am**

Yea, I like those adjustments.

Posted: **2017-10-16 11:02am**

Looks like an Autobot ship now.

Posted: **2017-10-17 04:21am**

Looks a lot better

Posted: **2017-10-27 11:07pm**

They're heavy bombers of some type.

Posted: **2017-10-27 11:14pm**

PhoenixKnig wrote: ↑2017-10-27 11:07pm More info on the heavy bombers.

Posted: **2017-12-18 07:33pm**

The FO Cruisers is said to be attached to rejuvenator class battlecruiser

Posted: **2018-01-06 05:17am**

i've got the TLJ:ICS & Art of TLJ

Posted: **2018-01-11 11:29pm**

Anyone has any more information about the heaviest Scout Walker

Posted: **2018-09-29 12:02pm**

Here it is again...

Posted: **2018-09-29 12:27pm**

Modeled a bit better. Still think the design is silly, though.

Posted: **2018-09-29 01:48pm**

Better looking

Posted: **2018-09-29 03:41pm**

Whats going on with those dorsal explosions. They aren't trying to cram in that carpet bombing BS from the movie as a normal thing are they?

Posted: **2018-09-29 03:47pm**

Nope.

Spoiler

Posted: **2018-09-29 05:52pm**

Well, that's just upsettingly silly.

Posted: **2018-09-29 07:05pm**

Esquire wrote: ↑2018-09-29 05:52pm Well, that's just upsettingly silly.

Yeah. The bit in TFA where he zooms by and blows up a bunch of TIEs-- a bit silly, but still cool. This, though... is just... overkill. Why the hell would a bunch of TIEs be flying in a line like that? I mean, come on.

Posted: **2018-09-29 07:13pm**

I assume you have neither the means or the inclination to read the comic, so here you go...

Spoiler

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship

Re: Finally, another class of First Order warship