Design the Next Enterprise

[Maverisms]

Okay, but I don't see how making the surface area for the pylon-secondary hull so small could help with warp/slipstream field efficiency (is that is what you mean by Field geometry/efficiency). I'm no suggesting making the nacelle pylon thicker by it's sides (the fore/aft). I'm suggesting making it thicker by increasing the surface area of the pylons from the top/bottom, and not by a whole lot. Maybe the same amount of surface area similar to the pylon-nacelle attachment points of the Prometheus class, only applied to the attachment point for the pylon/secondary hull, and combining that with the curves you already have. You know what I'm thinking?

This is your design, so if you ultimately want to leave the nacelle pylons the way they are, then I'll respect that. I just wanted to make sure that you can visualize what I'm suggesting first.

Bigger =/= Better

That said, the fact that hull shape effects field efficiency is established. How that works is not. It's just a convenient way to justify how the ships are shaped.

Were I writing the technobabble on this ship I would probably posit that pylon attachment is designed to minimize that section of the hull's interaction with the warpfield, in order to tune the "sustainer effect" coming off the warp ring's field coils.

But that's just technobabble to support what I did there (both in terms of cross section and the way the pylon bends.

I'm not exactly averse to toying with the thickness of the attachment point, but I will tend to hesitate, with a certain amount of reason. Right now the top of and bottom of the attachment points sit directly on a deck line. Lifting the top will pull it, and the shuttlebay floor, off that deck line.

Lowering the bottom would require a major rework of, not only the hull, but the interface with the warp ring.

That's a lot of effort to satisfy what is, really, a minor quibble.

Beyond that, I've looked into the Prometheus's pylon attachment, and I can't see what it is you are getting at. if anything the z axis on those pylons is much thinner than what I've done.

Could you, perhaps, elucidate?

 

[JES]

Okay, but I don't see how making the surface area for the pylon-secondary hull so small could help with warp/slipstream field efficiency (is that is what you mean by Field geometry/efficiency). I'm no suggesting making the nacelle pylon thicker by it's sides (the fore/aft). I'm suggesting making it thicker by increasing the surface area of the pylons from the top/bottom, and not by a whole lot. Maybe the same amount of surface area similar to the pylon-nacelle attachment points of the Prometheus class, only applied to the attachment point for the pylon/secondary hull, and combining that with the curves you already have. You know what I'm thinking?

This is your design, so if you ultimately want to leave the nacelle pylons the way they are, then I'll respect that. I just wanted to make sure that you can visualize what I'm suggesting first.

Bigger =/= Better

That said, the fact that hull shape effects field efficiency is established. How that works is not. It's just a convenient way to justify how the ships are shaped.

Were I writing the technobabble on this ship I would probably posit that pylon attachment is designed to minimize that section of the hull's interaction with the warpfield, in order to tune the "sustainer effect" coming off the warp ring's field coils.

But that's just technobabble to support what I did there (both in terms of cross section and the way the pylon bends.

I'm not exactly averse to toying with the thickness of the attachment point, but I will tend to hesitate, with a certain amount of reason. Right now the top of and bottom of the attachment points sit directly on a deck line. Lifting the top will pull it, and the shuttlebay floor, off that deck line.

Lowering the bottom would require a major rework of, not only the hull, but the interface with the warp ring.

That's a lot of effort to satisfy what is, really, a minor quibble.

Beyond that, I've looked into the Prometheus's pylon attachment, and I can't see what it is you are getting at. if anything the z axis on those pylons is much thinner than what I've done.

Could you, perhaps, elucidate?

Okay, permission to take one or more of your images into Photoshop, and show you what I'm trying to describe?

I'll be sure to get it done tomorrow, assuming that you don't mind giving me permission.

 

[Maverisms]

Okay, but I don't see how making the surface area for the pylon-secondary hull so small could help with warp/slipstream field efficiency (is that is what you mean by Field geometry/efficiency). I'm no suggesting making the nacelle pylon thicker by it's sides (the fore/aft). I'm suggesting making it thicker by increasing the surface area of the pylons from the top/bottom, and not by a whole lot. Maybe the same amount of surface area similar to the pylon-nacelle attachment points of the Prometheus class, only applied to the attachment point for the pylon/secondary hull, and combining that with the curves you already have. You know what I'm thinking?

This is your design, so if you ultimately want to leave the nacelle pylons the way they are, then I'll respect that. I just wanted to make sure that you can visualize what I'm suggesting first.

Bigger =/= Better

That said, the fact that hull shape effects field efficiency is established. How that works is not. It's just a convenient way to justify how the ships are shaped.

Were I writing the technobabble on this ship I would probably posit that pylon attachment is designed to minimize that section of the hull's interaction with the warpfield, in order to tune the "sustainer effect" coming off the warp ring's field coils.

But that's just technobabble to support what I did there (both in terms of cross section and the way the pylon bends.

I'm not exactly averse to toying with the thickness of the attachment point, but I will tend to hesitate, with a certain amount of reason. Right now the top of and bottom of the attachment points sit directly on a deck line. Lifting the top will pull it, and the shuttlebay floor, off that deck line.

Lowering the bottom would require a major rework of, not only the hull, but the interface with the warp ring.

That's a lot of effort to satisfy what is, really, a minor quibble.

Beyond that, I've looked into the Prometheus's pylon attachment, and I can't see what it is you are getting at. if anything the z axis on those pylons is much thinner than what I've done.

Could you, perhaps, elucidate?

Okay, permission to take one or more of your images into Photoshop, and show you what I'm trying to describe?

I'll be sure to get it done tomorrow, assuming that you don't mind giving me permission.

Granted, Number One.

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

For future reference, this ship, being, really just an extension of Adam Ilhe's work is basically Creative Commons share alike. Anyone can go to town with it, but with caveat that if their ideas inspire someone else, that someone else can go to town with them and so on, ad infinitum.

 

[JES]

Thank you, sir! Will do.

(and no need to apologize. Good reference in this case)

I'll be sure to get it done today. It probably won't take too long.

 

[JES]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40445677@N06/5853576217/in/photostream

Okay, hopefully this will illustrate what I've been trying to describe. My idea here is adding more overall length to the pylon, from fore to aft, adding more surface area for the pylons to hang on to the secondary hull. In doing so, this adds to how much damage the pylons can take before they fall off, and that adds to durability.

The areas in black show my suggested changes; the pylons start out somewhere in between the forward and middle sections of the secondary hull, adding more surface area for the pylon to wrap around the hull, and helping it hang in there better, and curves around to form the pylon itself. Towards the part where the pylon and nacelle meets, it stays pretty much unchanged from what you already have.

In my suggestion, the pylons don't become any thicker (from top to bottom), nor is there a change in where they are mounted to the secondary hull; the pylons just become longer overall from forward to aft, and the point where the nacelles are attached to the secondary hull becomes longer.

It wouldn't have to look exactly like that, and you are of course free to play around with and refine my idea; what I want to emphasize here is the thickness of the nacelle from forward to aft.

Hope we're clear now.

 

[Maverisms]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40445677@N06/5853576217/in/photostream

Okay, hopefully this will illustrate what I've been trying to describe. My idea here is adding more overall length to the pylon, from fore to aft, adding more surface area for the pylons to hang on to the secondary hull. In doing so, this adds to how much damage the pylons can take before they fall off, and that adds to durability.

The areas in black show my suggested changes; the pylons start out somewhere in between the forward and middle sections of the secondary hull, adding more surface area for the pylon to wrap around the hull, and helping it hang in there better, and curves around to form the pylon itself. Towards the part where the pylon and nacelle meets, it stays pretty much unchanged from what you already have.

In my suggestion, the pylons don't become any thicker (from top to bottom), nor is there a change in where they are mounted to the secondary hull; the pylons just become longer overall from forward to aft, and the point where the nacelles are attached to the secondary hull becomes longer.

It wouldn't have to look exactly like that, and you are of course free to play around with and refine my idea; what I want to emphasize here is the thickness of the nacelle from forward to aft.

Hope we're clear now.

Ah.

Well, I'm sorry I put you through all of the trouble. I thought you were suggesting increasing the z-axis on the pylons. This is obviously a y-axis change.

The profile you've suggested there is good, but I'm not going to make a change like that. The reason I won't do it is because you want me to.

That sounds mean, but it isn't. No one has accused the pylons of being flimsy. Just suggestions to beef them up for tactical purposes. Thus I can infer that the attachment point is thin, but not "I don't believe this" thin. Which is what I was going for in the first place.

But the point may be moot. I was looking at the design from different perspective--specifically, is it big enough to do the job I built it for. It tuns out, it isn't.

I over focused on the Enterprise-E for comparison, and when I finally put it beside the Enterprise-D I found that the ship was smaller.

So I fattened her up...

and gave her a name. NX-94747 Renown.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Hot damn, that's a big ship.

 

[Maverisms]

There's a perspective effect involved. The Renown is closer to the camera than the Galaxy.

They are roughly the same size. The Renown is still 250 meters longer, but most of that is warp nacelle. Over all, the Galaxy ends up with slightly less habitable volume, but not by much.

 

[largo]

yeah! rocks on socks.

 

[Dac]

For gods sake, slim it down to how your originally had it regardless of size vs anything. It looks horrible now compared to how it did.

 

[sojourner]

^Agreed, just do a universal scale increase and keep the previous proportions. She looks fat now.

 

[Maverisms]

I don't know...

I'm kinda digging the roly-poly look.

But I tell ya what; I just bought a new toy. Once I pick it up in a bit, I'll grab and earlier version and do a uniform scale then put 'em side by side and take votes.

If more peeps hate the fat one, I'll go with the really big one.

It's a tough call for me, know how long the Renown already is, I hesitate to make her longer.

 

[Dac]

I don't know...

I'm kinda digging the roly-poly look.

But I tell ya what; I just bought a new toy. Once I pick it up in a bit, I'll grab and earlier version and do a uniform scale then put 'em side by side and take votes.

If more peeps hate the fat one, I'll go with the really big one.

It's a tough call for me, know how long the Renown already is, I hesitate to make her longer.

I'm not saying make her longer, just make her skinnier. Those nacelles alone look wider than an entire defiant class, if not an Intrepid. They just look way too huge compared to those tiny pylons, to an extent which vastly outweighs that seen on the JJprise.

 

[Maverisms]

I understand what you mean. I also get that it's a feeling, so I'm not trying to over emphasize the example while missing the point.

But, most nacelles are bigger than the Defiant. In terms of the Renown, her nacelles were already wider than the Defiant to start.

That really is the Defiant to scale at 122 meters. The Galaxy might be a little small, but that's the best model I could find. I'm clearly going to have to do my own at some point.

Amusingly, if you take the 700 meter JJprize next to the Renown, the nacelles would probably end up about the same size.

 

[JES]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40445677@N06/5853576217/in/photostream

Okay, hopefully this will illustrate what I've been trying to describe. My idea here is adding more overall length to the pylon, from fore to aft, adding more surface area for the pylons to hang on to the secondary hull. In doing so, this adds to how much damage the pylons can take before they fall off, and that adds to durability.

The areas in black show my suggested changes; the pylons start out somewhere in between the forward and middle sections of the secondary hull, adding more surface area for the pylon to wrap around the hull, and helping it hang in there better, and curves around to form the pylon itself. Towards the part where the pylon and nacelle meets, it stays pretty much unchanged from what you already have.

In my suggestion, the pylons don't become any thicker (from top to bottom), nor is there a change in where they are mounted to the secondary hull; the pylons just become longer overall from forward to aft, and the point where the nacelles are attached to the secondary hull becomes longer.

It wouldn't have to look exactly like that, and you are of course free to play around with and refine my idea; what I want to emphasize here is the thickness of the nacelle from forward to aft.

Hope we're clear now.

Ah.

Well, I'm sorry I put you through all of the trouble. I thought you were suggesting increasing the z-axis on the pylons. This is obviously a y-axis change.

The profile you've suggested there is good, but I'm not going to make a change like that. The reason I won't do it is because you want me to.

That sounds mean, but it isn't. No one has accused the pylons of being flimsy. Just suggestions to beef them up for tactical purposes. Thus I can infer that the attachment point is thin, but not "I don't believe this" thin. Which is what I was going for in the first place.

But the point may be moot. I was looking at the design from different perspective--specifically, is it big enough to do the job I built it for. It tuns out, it isn't.

I over focused on the Enterprise-E for comparison, and when I finally put it beside the Enterprise-D I found that the ship was smaller.

So I fattened her up...

and gave her a name. NX-94747 Renown.

That is perfectly fine. She is your design, and you're politely telling me you like her the way she is, as you have a right to do.

I'm not sure that I like her widened like that, I just can't seem to shake the impression that she looks like she has been simply widened, and that to really make the design work, she would need to be redone from scratch.

 

[Maverisms]

That is perfectly fine. She is your design, and you're politely telling me you like her the way she is, as you have a right to do.

I'm not sure that I like her widened like that, I just can't seem to shake the impression that she looks like she has been simply widened, and that to really make the design work, she would need to be redone from scratch.

I do know what you mean. One of the deciding factors for me was that the widened hull isn't obvious from every angle. She retains some of her aggressiveness for certain aspects, while taking on a more Galaxy-like posture from others.

I'm being regressive in the design, in a sense, because--while I like phasers and photorps with big explosions as much as the next guy--I dislike the "my Starship kicks more butt than yours" ethic that set in after the Defiant was introduced.

I am concerned that the result will just look broad, but I'm not abandoning this direction for now because...well it only looks like the earlier version widened because it is. I can't make anyone unsee what I've done, short of deleting the pictures and hoping you all forget. But I can show how it evolves from here.

It this point, my plan is to go back over the discussion and try out suggestions...even the ones I dismissed. Technically, widening the ship was one of those suggestions. I'm at a point where I'm happy with the basic outlines, and don't plan to change them much. Now I have to learn how to texture (which I plan to use Azurian's design as a test bed for).

 

[Retroneon]

It's fascinating how these pylons are angled in the same direction with the neck. The official designers have a hard time not making the orientation look like turkey legs. But you've avoided that problem. It has a little bit of an insect quality to it, which is cool. From the forward bottom view, it almost has the optical illusion that the pylons and necks are splayed out in an "X".

 

[Dac]

The Second DTNE Dev Diary is now live over at Star Trek Online:

http://www.startrekonline.com/node/2492

My first impressions? That draft 3D model at the end looks rather nice, but that paint over is absolutely horrible. God I hope the final piece doesn't look anything like that.

 

[largo]

the nose on the secondary hull, side view is kind of daft, but i very much like the split tail.

 

[Captain_Amasov]

The Second DTNE Dev Diary is now live over at Star Trek Online:

http://www.startrekonline.com/node/2492

My first impressions? That draft 3D model at the end looks rather nice, but that paint over is absolutely horrible. God I hope the final piece doesn't look anything like that.

The render is much more likely at this stage to be what it will eventually look like in-game I'd say.