StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The fan-created ship is pretty, I'll admit, but there's some big problems with it... for instance, the main hangar appears to extend INTO the main reactor, and the rear hangar appears to be too deep for the space it can have.

Cabwi Desco wrote:Dual Bridges? WTF?

so basically the bridge design goes

1.Triangle with elongated pod at the top
2.Imp Star Bridge with antenae sticking out the front
3.Larger Triangle with Two elongated pods at the top
4.Normal Impstar bridge.

backwards forewards backwards forewards...something seems out of whack with star destroyer chonology.

I don't think those are Bridges, they look like the Large Sensor/Comms arrays on the ISD's but turned sideways. Maybe they are bigger because they are older. The ISD's have newer systems so a single smaller array facing forwards the top of the bridge rather than 2 that face sideways.

That's my take anyway.

Considering Dr. Saxton's take on the Acclamator bridge pod, I'm inclined to believe the bridge is located in one of the pods, if not both (one serving as auxiliary). There's already precedent for that, because practically every real-world ship has a backup bridge in either an adjacent, or separate, location.

Firefox wrote:Considering Dr. Saxton's take on the Acclamator bridge pod, I'm inclined to believe the bridge is located in one of the pods, if not both (one serving as auxiliary). There's already precedent for that, because practically every real-world ship has a backup bridge in either an adjacent, or separate, location.

Yeah but what moron buts the back-up bridge right next to the main? If it'#s taken out by gunfire/explosions then the back-up goes right with it.

From a military standpoint it is stupid to have that arrangement.

I'd be more inclined to have the bridge on that central spine, near the top, and have those as Sensor/comms arrays - they are very exposed and thin superstructure connections.

It's better than having only one bridge, and there are likely auxiliary control stations in the main hull, as well.

Firefox wrote:It's better than having only one bridge, and there are likely auxiliary control stations in the main hull, as well.

Of course you have the extra bridge/CIC inside the ship, I never once said that you wouldn't have a spare, but you don't put the main and the auxillary side-by-side on the very top exposed part of the hull.

Anyway you look at it, the Venators design is just silly. If those two pods are ‘Not’ the bridge, but sensor pods, where is the bridge? And why use up such valuable space with something that can be put elsewhere!
If those things are the bridge, Why is their two? What possible use could two serve? And, if one is a back up bridge as suggested, it makes no senses at all to have a backup bridge Right Next To the original bridge!

Crossroads Inc. wrote:Anyway you look at it, the Venators design is just silly. If those two pods are ‘Not’ the bridge, but sensor pods, where is the bridge? And why use up such valuable space with something that can be put elsewhere!
If those things are the bridge, Why is their two? What possible use could two serve? And, if one is a back up bridge as suggested, it makes no senses at all to have a backup bridge Right Next To the original bridge!

If they are sensors/Comms then they are up there for maximum uncluttered operating horizons - the same reason they are located there on real ships.

And I'm guessing the bridge is in the central spine between the two fins with the pods, but it near the top-middle and it's in a good observation place.

It should be noted that the bridge on such a ship doesn't have to be up in the tower. The existence of holographic displays and advanced command/control function precludes that. The Acclamator's bridge doesn't have viewports, for example.

Having said that, I still don't see why the bridge wouldn't occupy one of the pods.

Firefox wrote:It should be noted that the bridge on such a ship doesn't have to be up in the tower. The existence of holographic displays and advanced command/control function precludes that. The Acclamator's bridge doesn't have viewports, for example.

Having said that, I still don't see why the bridge wouldn't occupy one of the pods.

True they don't have to be, and the Norm for transports (such as the Rebel one in ESB and the Acclamator in AotC) is to have bridges in enclosed pods. But Warships all have viewports (very hard for battle damage or Powerloss to stop a window from working in the heat of battle )

Ant having it in one of the pods would make it horribly, dangerously exposed. And also why put it in an asymetrical position?

It should of course be pointed out that the ship isn't being designed by the military, but by Art majors in Lucasfilms, so they may very well have put 2 bridges up there.

But from a sensible, military point of view it's just a horrible and stupid place for bridges.

Rob Wilson wrote:It should of course be pointed out that the ship isn't being designed by the military, but by Art majors in Lucasfilms, so they may very well have put 2 bridges up there.

Yes yes, I have heared this point before.. That the reason the Tech of SW is riddled with so many frustrating inconsistencies is because the ships themselves are designed by artist and not Engineers, as such they are usually made to ‘look cool’ then be practical…

MY Point is that these ships don’t even look cool! Their horrible!

Rob Wilson wrote: But Warships all have viewports (very hard for battle damage or Powerloss to stop a window from working in the heat of battle )

The Acclamator doesn't have bridge viewports, as I've already pointed out.

Ant having it in one of the pods would make it horribly, dangerously exposed.

No more exposed than the bridge of an Imperator class.

And also why put it in an asymetrical position?

Why not?

Perhaps one is the bridge for the ship itself and the other is a command-center for its fighters.

That or the sensor-dome-idea.

As an "art major" I take offense to those comments. Are you insinuating that an art major has no grasp of engineering principles at all, and that art majors cannot design a realistic ship? Would it alter your opinion to know that if I hadn't gone into animation, I would've gone into physics?

McC wrote:As an "art major" I take offense to those comments. Are you insinuating that an art major has no grasp of engineering principles at all, and that art majors cannot design a realistic ship? Would it alter your opinion to know that if I hadn't gone into animation, I would've gone into physics?

Um, heh, Sorry about that No offence intended, I’m a graphic artist myself so. Just, Since I do study Engineering on my off time, I have a bad habit of looking at a pretty picture of a Starship, and quickly picking out all the problems with it. I guess what really gets to me is this whole Two Bridges thing…

I mean two bridges! Right next to each other! Honestly!

Again, so what? Look at battleships. The Bismarck had a bridge in the conning tower, in addition to the Admiral's bridge in the tower above and slightly aft. There was also a navigation bridge forward of both on the conning tower.

Other ships have redundant bridges, as well. The Olympic class liners had a wheelhouse inside the Captain's bridge, as well as a docking bridge on the poop deck.

Firefox wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote: But Warships all have viewports (very hard for battle damage or Powerloss to stop a window from working in the heat of battle )

The Acclamator doesn't have bridge viewports, as I've already pointed out.

And the Acclamator is a Transport, hence my listing it as such in the post you just replied to.

Firefox wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:Ant having it in one of the pods would make it horribly, dangerously exposed.

No more exposed than the bridge of an Imperator class.

Actually up there it's a lot more exposed as it is the very end of the pod on a very slim superstructure connection without the bulk of the Conning tower protecting its flanks - the only vunerable angle is straight on.

Firefox wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:And also why put it in an asymetrical position?

Why not?

Because it has the other pod obstructing it's view of an entire hemisphere of operations, do I really have to point out something that obvious??

McC wrote:As an "art major" I take offense to those comments. Are you insinuating that an art major has no grasp of engineering principles at all, and that art majors cannot design a realistic ship? Would it alter your opinion to know that if I hadn't gone into animation, I would've gone into physics?

Pah, I say. Pah and Humbug. NO Arts Major can have a grasp of reality, NONE I TELLS YA!

Rob Wilson wrote:And the Acclamator is a Transport, hence my listing it as such in the post you just replied to.

Irrelevant. The Acclamator is still a warship.

Actually up there it's a lot more exposed as it is the very end of the pod on a very slim superstructure connection without the bulk of the Conning tower protecting its flanks - the only vunerable angle is straight on.

As I don't have the ICS on hand, I can't say for certain, but I remember the bridge being fairly aft of the tip of the pod.

Because it has the other pod obstructing it's view of an entire hemisphere of operations, do I really have to point out something that obvious??

Again, why bother when the bridge has no viewports? It relies on holographic displays, just as the Acclamator did and, in addition, the ISD Devastator.

EDIT: Fixed quote tags.

Firefox wrote:Again, so what? Look at battleships. The Bismarck had a bridge in the conning tower, in addition to the Admiral's bridge in the tower above and slightly aft. There was also a navigation bridge forward of both on the conning tower.

All ships have a bridge in the conning tower, but they also have a seperate CIC and Auxicilary bridge buried deep inside the ship to keep them safe. And as far away as possible from each other so they can't be taken out at once.

Firefox wrote:Other ships have redundant bridges, as well. The Olympic class liners had a wheelhouse inside the Captain's bridge, as well as a docking bridge on the poop deck.

Oh dear lord are you now using Civilian ships layouts as proof of Warship layouts??

ON top of that every example so far has been old, very old. When technology limits made it hard to have widely seperated control area's (plus the old designs helped show why you needed Seperated Control centres in the first place).

*shrug* I was simply pointing out examples of independent bridges being located in close proximity. There's hardly a precedent for it, and I still don't see the problem in having such an arrangement.

Firefox wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:And the Acclamator is a Transport, hence my listing it as such in the post you just replied to.

Irrelevant. The Acclamator is still a warship.

No it's not! It's a Troop transport. A transport, military but not a Warship, hence my calling it a Transport. Which part of this is so fucking hard for you to grasp?

Firefox wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:Actually up there it's a lot more exposed as it is the very end of the pod on a very slim superstructure connection without the bulk of the Conning tower protecting its flanks - the only vunerable angle is straight on.

As I don't have the ICS on hand, I can't say for certain, but I remember the bridge being fairly aft of the tip of the pod.

What? What pod on an ISD? I was talking about an ISD's bridge in there remember? If your going to keep cutting bits out of the post at least try to remember their fucking context.

Firefox wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:Because it has the other pod obstructing it's view of an entire hemisphere of operations, do I really have to point out something that obvious??

Again, why bother when the bridge has no viewports? It relies on holographic displays, just as the Acclamator did and, in addition, the ISD Devastator.

Everytime we've looked out of An ISD bridge it's been through viewports. What Holographic display on the Devastator? And for the Last time the Acclamator is a Transport. It's not a Warship, it's not intended for frontline combat, it has weapons for self-defence.

Firefox wrote:*shrug* I was simply pointing out examples of independent bridges being located in close proximity. There's hardly a precedent for it, and I still don't see the problem in having such an arrangement.

IN old designs , which when they failed showed the need for modern designs to have well seperated bridges... oh and a Civilian liner of course.

Rob Wilson wrote:No it's not! It's a Troop transport. A transport, military but not a Warship, hence my calling it a Transport. Which part of this is so fucking hard for you to grasp?

Point conceded.

What? What pod on an ISD? I was talking about an ISD's bridge in there remember? If your going to keep cutting bits out of the post at least try to remember their fucking context.

You had said the Acclamator's bridge is vulnerable because it's at the tip of the bridge pod. I thought it was positioned further aft than that. I will admit that it's not as protected as an ISD bridge, however.

Firefox wrote:Everytime we've looked out of An ISD bridge it's been through viewports. What Holographic display on the Devastator?

According to Saxton, it does.

IN old designs , which when they failed showed the need for modern designs to have well seperated bridges... oh and a Civilian liner of course.

The civilian liner was just used as an example.