Something big

[fractalsponge1]

I imagine a hidden hinge at the back.

Crusader gallery is up:

[fractalsponge1]

Beskad-class Starfighter gallery

Apparently beskad is a curved Mandalorian sword - I thought it appropriate.

[fractalsponge1]

This should make some people here happy...:p

Slightly impure commissioned ship based on the original. Call it a refit

[Raesene]

Finally

very much looking forward to this one

[Elheru Aran]

Dreadnought, I assume? Nice

[fractalsponge1]

Dreadnought, I assume? Nice

DreadnAught - this thing doesn't deserve to even share a marketing name with real Star Dreadnoughts

[fractalsponge1]

[Eternal_Freedom]

Looking good.

Incidentally, I would love to see you do a model of the original Battlestar Galactica, if you wanted to do something different.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Oh my.. Oh my HEAVENS COuld it be?
Fractal is at least doing a (old republic) DREANAUGHT!!!!
(Squeees and make fan girl sounds)
SOOOO EXCITED!!!!

[Patroklos]

Those turret mounts seem out of place given the context. What possible reason would you have to mount them on a jutting sponsor like that where 50% of its potential arc is in cutouts vice mounting ig flush to the hull for a near hemispherical arc (significantly more if its right on that ridge)?

I am assuming this is the artists choice, I have never seen a cannon image of a Dreadnought that showed those weapons emplacements.

[Captain Seafort]

I am assuming this is the artists choice, I have never seen a cannon image of a Dreadnought that showed those weapons emplacements.

You must never have seen an image of a Dreadnaught then - they've all got those TL blisters, albeit not in nearly as much detail as fractal's version.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I think he means the smaller quad mounts on the sides of the bow section.

[Patroklos]

Yes, as EF says.

Those blisters as drawn have the same issue though. There is really no reason to have the turrets half burred into the ends like that rather than sticking out of the top for better arcs. I realize cannon ships that actually have their weapons emplacements shown have "odd" arcs sometimes as in the ISDI, but if you are making up details from whole cloth there is no need to repeat such errors.

In the case of blisters on various hulls I always assumed they were to lift emplacements off the hull to give them less cutouts, not to create more cutouts.

[fractalsponge1]

Out of universe:
1) The references have blisters, so there must be blisters
2) The Dreadnaught doesn't make a huge amount of sense, but unless I'm turning it into a dagger I've got to work with what's out there
3) All the details are my invention, because there does not exist an official version that shows anything close to this level of detail

The small guns I was going to duplicate on the ventral side of the sponson - then you'd have simultaneous dorsal/ventral coverage. You could get the same coverage with one turret but then you'd be less able to deal with swarming attacks.

The blisters - I dunno, they kinda suck. They sucked on the Mon Cal as well, and I don't have a great explanation for it other than "it's there, let's make it work". Hand-waving it, I'd guess it's about compartmentalization - put local fire control, capacitors, local shield node all away from the interior of the hull behind an armored bulkhead minimally pierced for life support, power trunking, personnel access. Local overload blows outward, and you get simplification of interior layout that way. Stylistically, turrets don't go on top of a blister, because that looks ugly, limits you to one turret per blister, and the blisters are really too big to be single turret. Also at that point, why not have a damn barbette and easier-to-build smaller gun battery structure to begin with?

The blister gun arcs kinda blow compared to a turret on the hull surface. Yeah I know. The whole blister if it exists should be a goddamn turret, but they're too big for that on the Dreadnaught, and geometrically impossible for it on a Mon Cal. More hand waving - blister armament is "better" for melee (at least more suited) - there's no consideration for an alpha arc because the ships aren't really designed to move like that. For a ship that's built to protect things like planets, that almost makes sense. Ships expecting to deal with targets all around, with limited maneuverability. Dreadnaughts supposedly move sorta like they're already shot to begin with, so there's that...

That's all I got.

[Knife]

Well done Fractal, not a huge fan of the Dreadnaught but that thing looks really good.

I think an idea of the blisters would be a design philosophy issue, one of decentralization instead of an all encompassing integrated philosophy. Each blister would represent all the sub systems, targeting, power (well power trunk), etc of that particular battery almost making them a module design. Taking out one of the blisters doesn't affect the others giving viability to the ship instead of a hard hitting blow to once battery affecting power and targeting to another.

Just an idea though.

[fractalsponge1]

Had to move the blisters around. Still not optimal, but better than the original, which must've been broadside-only batteries for some of the blisters.

[CetaMan]

A ventral or dorsal missile battery might look pretty good also, its mentioned that the Imperial ones often had them added on.

Are you putting a hangar on yours? if you do I will be interested to see how you do it.

P.S:looks pretty good for a wanked brick

[Crossroads Inc.]

By the by... I am not sure what it is about this version... But it looks... Shorter I guess, Smaller than the original..

[Eternal_Freedom]

By the by... I am not sure what it is about this version... But it looks... Shorter I guess, Smaller than the original..

I think that's because the weapon blisters are bigger than the original ones, so the ship looks smaller as a result.

[Elheru Aran]

By the by... I am not sure what it is about this version... But it looks... Shorter I guess, Smaller than the original..

I think that's because the weapon blisters are bigger than the original ones, so the ship looks smaller as a result.

I'm with you.

Linking because this is ungodly big (OK, Fractal has some big images, but we don't need to take up more space on the thread than necessary):

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/sta ... 1001131548

In particular it feels like there's less space underneath the blisters, especially as one of the blisters on Fractal's version almost spans the bottom from the equator (for lack of a better term; lateral center-line?) to the bottom of the hull while on the original EGTVV schematic there are no blisters on the lower half.

[fractalsponge1]

Yeah, I agree. I think the blister ratio is why you're thinking the ship looks "smaller" - I built the blisters first based on the guns they had to mount to seem a reasonable use of the ship. I was surprised too when I put it on the hull and realized that the old design couldn't actually take the armament, hence why the blisters are re-arranged. By the old arrangement the new blisters would've had severely limited arcs - actually I'm not sure the old blister arrangement had much better arcs even at the old size, tbh.

[fractalsponge1]

A rework of my previous idea. I went with a more Mi-28 look. So LAAT/i:Mi-25::This craft:Mi-28

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ooooo I LIKE it!
looks very stylish, and very deadly!

Is it sad in my mind I see it flying around with me wanting to go PEW PEW PEW!!

[Kal_Skirata]

Beautiful. That thing looks murderous. And you certainly got the Havoc look down. It looks like the internal troop space is a bit bigger the the LAAT. What's the troop capacity?

[fractalsponge1]

I think it'll be a bit bigger, so possibly surge platoon strength. But 20-30 is safe.