Request feedback on this starship design
- Thread starter Scott1768
- Start date
Same Here
One more thing to save up money for...
I am curious about one thing. Is there a reason why you went with standard TMP-era nacelles rather than the modified engines used on the Jackill sheets? I've always thought they had a nice post-movie era feel, and they really suited the lines of the design. Was there some sort of problem, or were those engines a modification to your original design?
I am curious about one thing. Is there a reason why you went with standard TMP-era nacelles rather than the modified engines used on the Jackill sheets? I've always thought they had a nice post-movie era feel, and they really suited the lines of the design. Was there some sort of problem, or were those engines a modification to your original design?
One more thing to save up money for...
I am curious about one thing. Is there a reason why you went with standard TMP-era nacelles rather than the modified engines used on the Jackill sheets? I've always thought they had a nice post-movie era feel, and they really suited the lines of the design. Was there some sort of problem, or were those engines a modification to your original design?
I am curious about one thing. Is there a reason why you went with standard TMP-era nacelles rather than the modified engines used on the Jackill sheets? I've always thought they had a nice post-movie era feel, and they really suited the lines of the design. Was there some sort of problem, or were those engines a modification to your original design?
When I first designed the version that Eric published, I had in mind a much more TNG-ish look and timeframe. If you look carefully, you'll notice phaser strips around the primary hull. That's why I drew the nacelles that way, as well as the reason for the sensor pallets and lifeboat hatches on the hull.
That was a very early version of my design. At that point, I had only drawn exteriors and a comparatively crude cross-section; no deck plans at all. As I started working on the interior layout, it felt more and more like it should be more movie era / lost years. So I changed the nacelle design and put phaser turrets in rather that phaser strips. I decided to keep the sensor pallets and lifeboat hatches. If you look at the Jackill-published version vs my current version, you'll see that the overall appearance has changed substantially. Personally, I like this one better. The older version always felt a bit...unfinished.
Take a close look at the new nacelles, though, specifically the front and rear. You will see that they are not quite identical to the ones on the 1701 refit. I wanted them to be a bit different, but not overly so. My in-universe rationalization for this is that they were built by Rolls-Royce Propulsion Division under license from the original manufacturer.* There's even a small Rolls Royce nameplate on the nacelle:
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to locate it on the nacelle.
At this point, I consider the earlier design, ironically, to likely be a later refit of the Explorer class. Then there'll be the complete Voyager-era redesign... *scurries back to virtual drawing board*
_______
*One real-world reason was that the nacelle in the Jackill-published version would have been a real bitch to modify from any of the 1701 refit model kits. And I *do* hope to actually build a real-world model of this thing someday.
**FYI, the "FFWE" in "FFWE-69A" stands for "Fast F**king Warp Engine."
.
Last edited:
I see what you're saying. I had noticed the phaser strips, but I had always rationalized it as an early usage of the technology (after all, it had to start somewhere). Still a nifty design, in either incarnation. Like I said, time to start scraping up the cash.
Cross-section Detail
Hey folks!
Here is a close-up of the secondary hull in cross-section. This is where the Starfleet Marines are bunked, as well as the location of antimatter storage, main tractor beam, the primary planetary sensor array and the Marine Assault Craft. The craft shown here is an earlier concept, and is currently in the midst of a major redesign.
http://starshipdynamics.com/download/secondary_hull_x_section.jpg
.
Hey folks!
Here is a close-up of the secondary hull in cross-section. This is where the Starfleet Marines are bunked, as well as the location of antimatter storage, main tractor beam, the primary planetary sensor array and the Marine Assault Craft. The craft shown here is an earlier concept, and is currently in the midst of a major redesign.
http://starshipdynamics.com/download/secondary_hull_x_section.jpg
.
That assault craft looks badass awesome
You liked it? Well, I guess I'd better share it as well, then...
over at www.federationreference.com Aridas has work on many TMP era ships, though he likes a cut off around ST II.
I really like his Ariel shuttlecarrier, and wonder what it might look like with your saucer's thickness. That might be something you could try later if permissible.
I really like his Ariel shuttlecarrier, and wonder what it might look like with your saucer's thickness. That might be something you could try later if permissible.
He is responsible for the finest blueprints out there we grew up with--including Ships of the Star Fleet
Ariel
http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/shuttlecarrier_ariel.jpg
The thick hull treatment here, with a raised bridge to even things out, would allow a concept like the Stargazer to have more room, yet remain sleek.
Ariel
http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/shuttlecarrier_ariel.jpg
The thick hull treatment here, with a raised bridge to even things out, would allow a concept like the Stargazer to have more room, yet remain sleek.
Are you serious?
Aridas Sofia did that. It's not "unknown" in any way. And as far as I know, Aridas was the first guy to do a "real" version of the McQuarrie-prise.
And I, personally, consider that to be one of my favorite designs. I consider it to be part of my own "personal canon" Starfleet.
FYI, look CLOSELY at that primary hull. It is not the TMP hull... it merely shares a few common features, but no common ("traced" or "copied") details. Every element is distinct from the "Heavy cruiser hull" elements.
The engines are similar to the TMP engines, of course, but not identical. But they're the only thing you might call "kitbashed" unless you're just trying to be obnoxious.
The secondary hull is something that I spent ages trying to work out the shape of, and finally got it "just right" for my own computer model... there are minor "quirks" between the two views which make them not 100% reconcilable. However, the final version I worked out is very similar to what you see here.
Aridas is one of those guys who was most active back in what I consider to be the "heyday of Trek fandom," from the early 1980s to the early 1990s (eventually put down by Paramount's legal department, sadly... about the stupidest thing I've ever seen any intellectual-property-holders do, killing off their free support system!)
Aridas has also done a lot of other things... and while I don't "fawn" over anyone who's made up stuff, his work is definitely something I enjoy.
It's okay not to be familiar with him, or even to know him and not like his stuff.
But there's no call for that kind of tone... especially when, when you say that, you're also sort of insulting those who enjoy what the person you're insulting has done. Me, I LOVE the Ariel Class Shuttlecarrier.
Personal taste, and all that... right?
Hey, don't shoot the messenger there Cary. The website said it was unknown. The image on the sight is small and pretty crappy and makes the thing look like a kitbash.
Sort of a conflicting message here. I stated my personal taste on that one design and even state it doesn't meet the standards of the SOTF books. I didn't in anyway condemn all works by Aridas. Even if I had, what gives you the right to say that I cannot voice that opinion because it's "sort of insulting those who enjoy what the person you're insulting has done". I have just as much right to say I don't like it as you have to say you do.
Sort of a conflicting message here. I stated my personal taste on that one design and even state it doesn't meet the standards of the SOTF books. I didn't in anyway condemn all works by Aridas. Even if I had, what gives you the right to say that I cannot voice that opinion because it's "sort of insulting those who enjoy what the person you're insulting has done". I have just as much right to say I don't like it as you have to say you do.
Apologies to all for the "unknown" listing on that design. At the time I built these, it was before the internet grew into the massive resource of historic genre information (this was around 1996-97), and, IIRC, there were no individual credits that I could find - I initially found it as a simple one-view silhouette. I cobbled together those two low-res views from various pieces around the web (hence the "crappy" quality of that and other early entries in the database) and never got around to updating that small bit of information in the database after it was well known who built it. Special apologies to Aridas for the oversight and apologies again to all for any confusion that may have caused.
Aridas - if you're lurking about here, would you happen to know the publication date of the "Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints", which I believe is the first time this design appeared publicly. Please correct me if I'm incorrect about that. Also, I found "David John Nielsen" as the overall author of that work. Would that be correct as well?
And to the OP Scott1768 - always loved this design from the first time I saw it. IIRC, I made a simple 3D model of it back in the late 90's for a fan club using this design for their "ship" down in Texas. Can't remember which one it was, though. Looking forward to seeing more on this.
Aridas - if you're lurking about here, would you happen to know the publication date of the "Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints", which I believe is the first time this design appeared publicly. Please correct me if I'm incorrect about that. Also, I found "David John Nielsen" as the overall author of that work. Would that be correct as well?
And to the OP Scott1768 - always loved this design from the first time I saw it. IIRC, I made a simple 3D model of it back in the late 90's for a fan club using this design for their "ship" down in Texas. Can't remember which one it was, though. Looking forward to seeing more on this.
Last edited:
My point is that the tone doesn't need to be "nasty," as it definitely came across to me.
I can say, for example, "I don't like the JJPrise design" and give all my reasons. And that's OK. I could also say "The JJPrise is a fetid, stinking pile of donkey crap" and that would not be OK.
It's all about the tone... that was my point. Not saying you can't express an opinion. (Not that I could stop anyone here even if I wanted to, anyway!)
It's just one of those "internet meme" things... people tend to be a bit less... oh, shall we say, "diplomatic?"... on the 'net than they would be if having a normal conversation.
