Top view

Front view

Side view






Any comments, suggestions and and criticism are welcome.
Moderator: Beowulf
Big forward facing fixed guns are supposed to be some sort of very long range particle beam canons so ammo is not a big issue. My main reasoning behind the wings were to provide more space to spread our main guns and engines so it`s less likely a single hit could damage them all at once. Also the large surface area of wings are supposed to be used to carry smaller support craft, extra propellant for long missions or large capacity missile pods (not yet modeled). As far as big cutout between the wings it was meant to save mass, but I may remove it since the overall mass saving probably is`t worth the lost volume that could be used to carry more stuff.Starglider wrote:If those big guns are magnetic accelerators, ammo capacity is going to be pretty modest. Unless the projectiles are extremely subcaliber, but there's no reason to make the inner diameter of a normal coilgun much bigger than the projectile (or at least, the sabot). One wonders why the cutout between the forward and aft wings exists at all. Why not fill that area in and use it for fuel tanks? A shallow notch would be enough to give the missile launchers some protection. If you are going to keep the wing structure, the forward wings could and should be a little narrower than the aft ones, there's no obvious reason to extend them so far past the outer weapon mounts.
Yep it`s just that - a missile launcher.Would be nice to know if the torpedo thing is that, or a docking section perhaps.
I`m also thinking of redesigning that part since I`m not quite satisfied with it.Also, in terms of design, shouldn't there be load bearing structures between the two 'wings' of the ship, on each side, as they're both going to be exerting strong forces and it would reduce the effects of shear on the centre hull of the ship by spreading it over both wings areas. If that centre space needs to be left open they could be columns.
I use anim8tor since that`s a program I`m most familiar with.Grahf: Seeker Of Power wrote:What program are you using to make it? I would suggest looking at Sketchup next.
I think you have mistaken retro engines for accelerators. The two round things on the protruded sides of the forward hull are meant to be retro thrust engines. When I finish defining all engine locations in my Orbiter config file (now I have only main engine locations defined) I will show a demonstration of retro, hover and maneuvering thrusters firing.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Why two different lengths in calibers for the accelerators, exactly? The ones mounted on sponsons to the forward hull seem useless with the much shorter length. And really the size should be reduced substantially. They shouldn't need a bore any larger than modern weapons, if they're going to be accelerated to any reasonable c-fractional velocity.
Yes that could be an issue although not that big since the maneuvering also can be done by vectoring main engine exhaust especially during the combat when the ship may need to change attitude faster than attitude thrusters alone could manage. But I may add more attitude thrusters to add redundancy and also for faster maneuvering.Tritio wrote:Nice ship! It certainly looks warlike and impressive.
A thought that occured to me was that there are too few mini-thrusters. The ones that do the yaw/pitch/retro etc. It appears that there are two on each side. What if they get damaged? Are they protected? Because eliminating those thrusters would severely impair the mobility of the ship.
Main guns are primary meant to engage very distant targets with effective range of more than dozens of light seconds against targets that are fixed or move predictably. Their main role is to eliminate heavy orbital battlestations and batter enemy fleets from what would be normally considered a missile range while closing in and emptying the missile loadout.loomer wrote:What's the firing sequence on those MACsPACs? Sequential barrage? Single fire control? Simultaneous discharge of all the guns? Dual-fire pairs for the |-| arrangement? Also, is there a reason in particular they're so far exposed forward? With the additional load bearing support between the wings you could sink the middle pair further into the ship if the space isn't occupied.
Yeah, I`m thinking of making some sort of huge strap on MAC cannons that could be used to bombard stationary targets with relativistic projectiles from very long range limited only with how precise ship can be aimed at it`s target. Since such weapon would be inefficient against highly maneuverable warships it would be carried only if there is stationary targets that are too well defended to be attacked in conventional way.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:That's looking pretty darn good now, and the bore is, I see, now quite realistic. I think I once calculated the kinetic energy of a 155mm (6.1in ) artillery shell fired at .9999c to be somewhere around 4 - 6 gigatonnes.