Something big

[Azron_Stoma]

Gorgeous as always Fractal. Would love to see the Corvette and an XQ-2 or XQ-5 platform done as well.

[Rogue 9]

What's the twin structure at the end of the fuselage? The Scimitar was a single-engine fighter.

[fractalsponge1]

Single engine doesn't have to be single thrust stream. I've interpreted it as having two primary nozzles and two maneuvering thrust nozzles in the "catamaran" fuselage sections above the launchers.

[fractalsponge1]

So apparently going from a 2008 to 2011 file can really screw up your proboolean objects. Pain in the ***.

Anyways, updates:






The cutouts in the aft hull block have become storage/docking areas with atmospheric shield rings added. The top bays are container storage - might eventually include an image with various cargo containers filling the space. The bottom bays are docking areas for light ships (up to heavy frigate, but probably too narrow for a light destroyer). Each side has pretty much half of the Assertor's single bay volume, with a crane/rail system in the roof. I reworked the hangars on the sides; previously the scale was off. These would be workbays for tugs/tenders/utility ships, or servicing areas for fighters. The ship would probably carry a small attached escort as well. More details as I continue to update.

Also, there will likely be some silent updates to the Assertor gallery over the next few days/weeks, since I find it's just fun rendering the thing at different angles, but I don't really like updating the sitelog for a few jpgs here and there (lazy, I know).

[takemeout_totheblack]

What kind of carrying capacity does this thing have? Those tanks look pretty huge and from what I understand the reactants for hypermatter reactors are mind bogglingly dense (I remember something about the Acclamator carrying many times its own mass within its dinky little fuel silos)

Also, anyone know what the energy density for hypermatter is? How many joules per kilo?

[fractalsponge1]

Energy density of hypermatter is effectively c^2 J/kg, since ICS describes basically total mass conversion to energy (40000 tons of fuel per second for the Venator ~ the stated 3.6e24W capacity). What I don't understand is why these ships don't have obscenely high accelerations when they run their fuel loads down (or maybe they do?).

Carrying capacity of this tanker should be huge, considering those tanks are close to the volume of an ISD (the ship is >5km long). I'm envisioning these as multi-service tenders for entire squadrons of small ships, or perhaps to be bled dry to service something like an Assertor, Mandator, or Executor once (maybe several times for the smaller ones). I'd guess fuel might be kept denser for storage and transport than for actual use.

[Steel]

What I don't understand is why these ships don't have obscenely high accelerations when they run their fuel loads down (or maybe they do?).

There will still be problems with stresses due to the higher acceleration when the fuel runs out and the overall ship mass decreases. Consider that the stresses on all points in the ship (apart from the points where the engines and fuel attach to the hull) will be the same for a given acceleration independent of the mass of fuel remaining.

For example if the ship accelerates at rate X then all a turret of mass M sitting on the hull knows is that it is being subjected to a force sufficient to accelerate it at rate X, which is M/X, and this doesn't change if the mass of fuel changes, so the turret will rip off its bearings if you accelerate faster than they were designed for. An ISD could comically have the bow fold inside itself if you overcharged the engines, even if the engine bearings were infinitely strong.

All that happens as you use more fuel is that you need less thrust (and so less fuel) to achieve the same level of acceleration.

It could be that the other components of the ship aren't built to tolerate higher stresses that result from the faster levels of acceleration because low fuel is an undesirable and rare situation to be in so spending more to strengthen the ship isn't worth it.

[fractalsponge1]

I can't believe I never thought of it like that. It suddenly makes a ton more sense. Thanks

[JointStrikeFighter]

I thought hypermatter in storage had non-newtonian mass?

[phongn]

I thought hypermatter in storage had non-newtonian mass?

It's supposed to be complex mass but it may not be entirely phase-shifted to imaginary values. Fuel containment may also impose demands that decrease as fuel is consumed.

[Grizzly 256]

Hi
I'm new to this forum, however i have been following it for about a year now, and i gota say, fractal, mate, your work is truly AMAZING!!! Serious eye candy. By the way, what every happened to the project called the Urbanus, i think it had real potential.

[Steel]

I can't believe I never thought of it like that. It suddenly makes a ton more sense. Thanks

I'll admit, neither had I until you mentioned it.

That effect is only important to a degree however, as the ship uniformly accelerating is similar to a skyscraper sitting on earth. The ground floor has to be able to support the weight of all the floors above it, but the top floor only has to support the weight of the roof. That means the top floor could be made of plywood and still be ok, but the ground floor would be crushed instantly if it were as weak. So the engine bearings will be under massive stress as they represent the "foundations" in the dodgy skyscraper analogy, while say the supports for the sensor dome only need to take the relatively tiny "weight" of the sensor dome. So basically it depends on if you can make something that can take the force to accelerate the whole mass of the ship to attach the engines with, but can't (or didn't) make something that will take the force to accelerate some individual component somewhere.

Another possibility is that the ship has significant active components to acceleration control (a given, seeing as people don't turn to goo when the ship starts engines) and those aren't rated beyond a certain level of acceleration.

Fantastic work on all this.

[Azron_Stoma]

Loving those engine banks.

[fractalsponge1]

Hi
I'm new to this forum, however i have been following it for about a year now, and i gota say, fractal, mate, your work is truly AMAZING!!! Serious eye candy. By the way, what every happened to the project called the Urbanus, i think it had real potential.

The Urbanus is on hold, like many of my half-started ideas. It'll get done eventually; it just has no set schedule at present.

Something light to keep me occupied: a turret set. Most of these are variations on the same theme, and all are low-mid poly, not meant for closeups. Many have already been used in my ships before, but I am now filling out the range.



Far left (stretching beyond left margin): 3xquad 240-teraton HTL battery, used in Assertor and Bellator classes.
Top row, from left to right:
1) single 320-teraton HTL ball turret
2) triple 175-teraton equivalent ion cannon ball turret (Allegiance trench battery)
3) quad 70-teraton HTL ball turret (Venator main gun caliber)
4) quad 175-teraton HTL ball turret (Allegiance trench battery)
5) quad 240-teraton HTL ball turret (Assertor and Bellator trench batteries)
6) various launch assemblies for strategic missilesl, 3-12 tubes per cluster (>Venator/Acclamator scale, mounted in Bellator, modified version in Procursator)

Second row, from left to right:
1) quad 240-teraton HTL turret (Assertor and Bellator secondary batteries)
2) twin 720-teraton HTL turret (Assertor and Bellator primary batteries)
3) single 720-teraton HTL turret
4) triple 240-teraton HTL turret
5) single 720-teraton HTL ball turret (Allegiance axial battery)

Third row, from left to right:
1) quad 175-teraton HTL turret (Allegiance primary battery)
2) twin 175-teraton HTL turret (ISDI primary battery)
3) twin 175-teraton equivalent ion cannon turret (ISDI primary battery)
4) triple 175-teraton HTL turret (Procursator axial primary battery)
5) twin 320-480-teraton range HTL turret (I'm not sure what the yield is, I scaled the barrels to be intermediate between the 175/240 and 720 barrels)
6) quad 240-teraton equivalent ion cannon turret (Assertor and Bellator)

Fourth row, from left to right:
1) octuple 32/40-teraton HTL barbette mount (ISDII primary batter, Assertor and Bellator tertiary batteries)
2) twin 70-teraton HTL turret (DBY-827)
3) quad 32/40-teraton HTL barbette mount
4) quad 70-teraton HTL turret

Foreground:
1) Tactical missile silos, 24 tubes/cluster, 72 tubes shown (Bellator and Assertor)
2) Quad 200-gigaton MTL mount (all ships)

All the ball turrets can function mounted to a vertical surface or emplaced in a more conventional barbette like the 240-quad ion turret.

This range largely excludes anything lighter than MTL, which on this detail scale wouldn't really show up at all.

Still some gaps, I imagine:
Superheavy ship-mounted planetary defense artillery (ball turret w-165 equivalent?)
Medium battleship-level primary gun, 500-640 teraton per shot range.
Single/twin 32/40-teraton range light HTL. Same issue as with lesser MTL mounts - detail scale needs to be changed.

The full scale I'm envisioning as this (lots of speculation, drawing heavily from Eleventh Century Remnant's work):
1) Kiloton-scale point defense, anti-warhead and anti-light fighter roles. Various mounts and models.
2) Sub-megaton heavy laser/cut-down LTL. Area anti-fighter and warhead defense roles.
3) 6-megaton fleet standard LTL. Area fighter defense, anti-heavy fighter gun. Useful in numbers against light corvettes and gunboats. Standard light corvette main gun. Standardized caliber, numerous mounting variants?
4) 100+ megaton heavy LTL. Anti-corvette gun. Medium corvette main gun. Various models.
5) 1-25 gigaton light MTL. Anti-corvette gun, useful in anti-frigate work when used in large numbers. Medium and heavy corvette main gun.
6) 100-500 gigaton standard MTL models. Anti-frigate gun. The 200-gigaton Acclamator quad falls in this range. Standard frigate main guns. Category blurs into the 1-teraton light HTL of the Providence. From this point turret and barrel size matters less than sub-deck space. Lighter weapons are basically on non-penetrating or between-deck equivalent mounts. Anything heavier requires a lot more structural preparation and volume than can be placed on a light gun platform.

Heavy turbolasers can range from ISDII main guns all the way up to the huge W-165, which might not even have a real ship-mounted equivalent apart from the Munificent's siege guns. From this point on heavy ships can mount almost any combination that space allows. Lighter, faster firing weapons would be more useful against fast, difficult to hit targets. These gun fits would predominate in ships designed with peacekeeping/hunter/civil enforcement operations in mind, or those where self-defense against light ships is more important. More general purpose ships might ship a standard battery of medium-caliber guns, or go split battery with a large-caliber gunfit to go after capital targets and lighter HTLs to deal with destroyers and the like.

7) 32/40-teraton light HTL. Used in numbers in ISD2, Executor. Can be used to hose down an agile target, or massed against bigger targets. Standard heavy frigate main gun, and destroyer main gun option. Power somewhat variable; can trade ROF for single shot yield to some extent, depending on below-deck space for capacitors and other equipment.
70-teraton HTL. Standard fleet caliber, used as primary line destroyer gun, or secondary/tertiary weaponry in heavier ships.
9) 175-teraton HTL (ISDI). Heavy destroyer main gun, main gun option for light cruisers. Capital secondary caliber
10) 240-teraton HTL. Medium-cruiser main gun, capital secondary caliber.
11) 320/400-teraton HTL. From here on out the recoil and rate of fire might limit target selection at full power to slower, larger targets. Medium/heavy cruiser/battlecruiser main gun.
12) 500+teraton HTL. Capital weaponry; battlecruiser, battleship, and dreadnought main gun. Possibly present in small numbers in lighter ships, but certainly not standard. Not that useful against destroyers and lighter due to size and rate of fire, but hit a regular line destroyer or worse with one and it will be badly hurt. Heavy destroyers will be designed to take a certain amount of fire from such a weapon and survive, since they're likely to be in fleet actions with ships that mount entire batteries of this kind of gun.

Whew, big post...

Oh, also, many new renders in Assertor-class gallery:
http://fractalsponge.net/gallery/Assertor/index.html

[takemeout_totheblack]

What kind of kick do those missile have? I remember the fighter grade stuff being 100GT-1TT, and I assume the capital grade strategic missiles being much more powerful.

Is 1-PT too outlandish? Considering the heavy turbolasers clock in at several dozen to several hundred teratons, I should think that the missiles ought to be more powerful to compensate for their disadvantages to TLs (can be intercepted by fighters and PD fire, slower, limited carrying capacity, etc.)
Also, does each tube represent a pepper-box style missile stack with dozens of separate tubes, or just one really big one? is the ordinance stacked? If so, how deep?

Sorry about all the questions, I'm just wondering if the 'Itano Circus' I'm envisioning with a hail of TL fire is accurate.

[Grizzly 256]

On the subject of Turbolasers and the each types associated firepower, i was doing some trawling of scale model sites and found a scale model of a Imperial I class SD, after viewing the close ups of the model(which is highly detailed) i realised that a SD carries at least 7 different types of turbo laser, and that just the ones i can see. So what kind of firepower would some of these have, e.g. 6 barrel medium(?) trench guns.




i draw your attention to this one

[fractalsponge1]

What kind of kick do those missile have? I remember the fighter grade stuff being 100GT-1TT, and I assume the capital grade strategic missiles being much more powerful.

Is 1-PT too outlandish? Considering the heavy turbolasers clock in at several dozen to several hundred teratons, I should think that the missiles ought to be more powerful to compensate for their disadvantages to TLs (can be intercepted by fighters and PD fire, slower, limited carrying capacity, etc.)
Also, does each tube represent a pepper-box style missile stack with dozens of separate tubes, or just one really big one? is the ordinance stacked? If so, how deep?

Sorry about all the questions, I'm just wondering if the 'Itano Circus' I'm envisioning with a hail of TL fire is accurate.

I had envisioned the big launch tubes as having stacked rounds, with 1 or 2 reloads behind the first round (SW warheads don't seem to be very long relative to diameter). Launcher assemblies in the cross-sections don't seem to be very complicated - I can see it being largely a repulsor/tractor-based soft launch system, with the missiles igniting their own propulsion on clearing the launch ship.

Yeah, PT-range heavy ship munitions at least to make them worthwhile. Venator had 4 tubes, but this was supposed to add something to 16x70-teraton/second HTL? Has to be much better to make it worthwhile. In the same way that starfighter-carried anti-ship rounds should be in the triple-digit gigaton, low-single digit teraton range for fighters to be anything more than a nuisance for destroyer-level ships and better.

[quote = "Grizzly 256"] snip [/quote]

Hm, that model, while brilliantly executed and obviously based on it, is clearly not standard ISDII subtype. The author calls it Imperial-III. The 1750m quoted length is rubbish; as built it's no bigger than a regular ISD, scaling by the bridge. Assuming the reactor is not significantly upgraded, the 24 barrels of this model (6xquad turrets) should rate out near the Venator main gun range. The funny stacked turrets are probably MTL, and the axial battery triples might be ISDII main gun caliber.

Studio version (Devastator): http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/w ... el-055.jpg

ISDI has possibly 4 visible main gun types:
1) flank twin HTL (~175-200 teraton estimate)
2) flank twin heavy ion
3) small trench notch quad HTL (~175-teraton? not always present)
4) axial triple turrets (possibly ISDII main gun caliber by size - they are triples in the ICS, but look like twins on the studio model; ambiguous).

The hangar guns used against Tantive IV are either LTL, or MTL/HTL on massively reduced-yield firing modes. Teraton-scale firepower would have obliterated the corvette on the first hit.

The Devastator studio model is not very detailed, and very little can be seen on it beneath those scales. However, despite being a vastly more detailed (and larger) model, the Avenger from TESB only has one visible weapon type, the octuple 32/40-teraton HTL. From the movies, there are obviously other smaller weapons, but these are not visible on the model.

[Ryan Thunder]

Man I'm loving those big guns on the original model. There's just something about them that screams "I'm gonna fuck you up."

[takemeout_totheblack]

So those missile launchers represent one missile per pod thing? Are those missiles several of meters across or something? I would have thought that each pod in a stack holds more than one missile stacked 2 or 3 deep in order to overwhelm PD and fighter screens, right? If all else fails, spam!

[Crossroads Inc.]

Gri, is that a fan made model? I cannot recall any movie model ISD with turrets like that...

[fractalsponge1]

Crossroads, it is a fan made model. If you can read German then you might get more info out of the original page. So far as I can tell the author calls it Imperial-III.

So those missile launchers represent one missile per pod thing? Are those missiles several of meters across or something? I would have thought that each pod in a stack holds more than one missile stacked 2 or 3 deep in order to overwhelm PD and fighter screens, right? If all else fails, spam!

Several stacked large warheads, or many small warheads in a cluster, I suppose. The tubes on the Venator were several meters in diameter, so I figured a capital warhead would be even bigger. But I suppose you could multi-pack it with smaller weapons.

For an idea of scale, the DBY-827 turret in the foreground is almost 30m long. The octuple barbette mount has a platform diameter of nearly 50m.

[fractalsponge1]

Got scatter for individual meshes working properly. I suddenly feel like I should finish that carrier...

[fractalsponge1]

This weekend's free time project: that heavy 250m corvette I was working on earlier:

[fractalsponge1]

Scaling:



TIE/ln, sensor globe, and primary turret from an Assertor/Bellator.

[Littlefoot]

are those going to be torpedo tubes on the bow? This will make one mean escort/interceptor. I really like the corner turrets, they have massive fields of fire, there really is no safe bombing or strafing lanes on this thing.