Valkyrie-class Battle Cruiser

[JES]

*Major Update*

After quite awhile, I have finally managed to make enough progress on my brainchild, the Valkyrie-class Battlecruiser that I consider worth posting.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40445677@N06/7281766500/in/photostream

Because my Mac crashed a couple a months ago, much of the progress I had made from last year had been lost. In spite of this, I think I've manages to make a lot of progress over the past month, though unfortunately, some details I was working on, such as the bridge and the hanger bay doors, have not as yet been made up for.

Perhaps this isn't a bad thing, since I have also been attempting to tweak the proportions here and there. Because I think in 3 dimensional terms, I have finally started the finalized views for Fore, Aft, and Ventral, with the intention to try to get as much as I can "right" the first time, so as to avoid having to start anything over.

That said, there are still definitely a lot of anchor points I'm going to have to triple check before all of the proportions match precisely.

So far, it seems that to biggest headache is going to come from the hull separation, everything has to match up from all angles, AND I'm not certain I'm satisfied with the curve of the engineering hull's front.

Anyways, fell free to leave any comments, be it complements, advice, suggestions, comments, criticisms, or verbal abuse! Though please, seriously, I would prefer it if you don't leave verbal abuse! I do happen to welcome any suggestions or opinions for any changes or modifications!

I might use said suggestions on this class, or might decide to save them for a future design.

And most importantly, I need more name proposals! I would like this class to consist of at least five individuals, after all. Assuming there are no contradictions with any other vessels that I know of, I would probably use them.

I intend to try to leave an update every week, so expect to see more progress relatively soon!

 

[Albertese]

I would only suggest you please post in line images only half this width. I HAAATTTEEE scrolling side-to-side over and over again to read posts.

Otherwise this looks pretty slick.

--Alex

 

[Starship]

It´s a cool ship Jes!

 

[Mr. Lezar]

Sweet... I like the separated mode.

 

[publiusr]

I like what you did with the very aft of the secondary hull, having a mirror of the fantail below scooped out and the shuttlebay recessed there. I'd like to see that done on other pre-TNG designs as well.

 

[Orne]

Like the way you're blending the overall lines with one another, and the stand-alone hulls each look good on their own terms. Only suggestion I have is to move that housing on the lower primary hull further back along the center-line - just looks a bit odd in the current position.

 

[JES]

I would only suggest you please post in line images only half this width. I HAAATTTEEE scrolling side-to-side over and over again to read posts.

Otherwise this looks pretty slick.

--Alex

Well, I'm very glad that you think she looks very slick, since my intention is to have adjectives such as "sleek", "aerodynamic", "elegant", or "sporty" come to mind when viewers look at her, or as you said, "pretty slick". And if there is anything about her that isn't that can be addresses without compromising her practicality (such as being solid enough for heavy combat), then someone should tell me, because that would mean I have done my task well enough.

And yeah, I can see what you mean by having to scroll over and over again to read a post, and I can see how that is annoying.

I'll see what I can do about it in my next update, though do to having to design the layout of the document so that it is easy to compare all angles and ensure that they will all match up in the end, I'll have to post a smaller size image, so in order to view at full size, viewers will have to click the link.

Anyways, I appreciate your comment!

It´s a cool ship Jes!

Thanks! Now there is another adjective that I definitely was hoping the Valkyrie to elicit: "cool"!

Sweet... I like the separated mode.

Thanks! I'm very pleased that so far, the overall consensus for the hull separation mode has been positive.

I still have a lot of work on deciding how I'm going details for the sections that are normally concealed are going to look, and I'm probably going to have to do a lot of research and thinking for how I'm going to finalize the look of those portions of the ship.

I like what you did with the very aft of the secondary hull, having a mirror of the fantail below scooped out and the shuttlebay recessed there. I'd like to see that done on other pre-TNG designs as well.

Thanks!
The idea behind the shuttle-bay was that I loved how the shuttle-bay was done for the Intrepid class/Voyager, but I also loved the ingenuity behind the clamshell doors, so I decided to combine the two design elements, and keep the compactness of the clamshell doors, while also recessing them somewhat inside surrounding hull, so they were offered some deal of protection; at least from the side.

Like the way you're blending the overall lines with one another, and the stand-alone hulls each look good on their own terms. Only suggestion I have is to move that housing on the lower primary hull further back along the center-line - just looks a bit odd in the current position.

Thank you!
I'm very pleased that you think that both sections look good on their own, because that is sort of one of my goals for the design.

I'm trying to figure out which housing you're talking about, because there are a few parts that might or might not be referring to. As soon as I'm certain that I know that you're referring to, I'll address it.

By housing, do you mean my planned locations for the primary hull's ventral impulse drives, or perhaps the curve of the cutout in the aft portion of the primary hull, from the side (which are sort of the same things, considering that I plan to put ventral impulse thrusters in that cutout)? I'm guessing that when you say lower primary hull, you are referring to what I call the ventral side of the primary hull. Or do you mean something on the dorsal side that is towards the edge(s)?

My next post will be for the work I've done over the past week. I'm doing this in a separate post to keep the size of the post down.

 

[JES]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40445677@N06/7337426968/sizes/k/in/photostream/

My present progress from over the past week. I've done some work on the fore and ventral views for the ventral torpedo turret and dorsal and side angles for the pulse phaser cannons, amongst other things, with varying degrees of progress, and most noticeably of, I've done a lot of work on the dorsal deflector grid, hull plating, and some of the phaser arrays, for the primary hull. Due to being tedious to work on, the deflector grid and phaser arrays are far from completed, and not all dorsal primary hull phaser arrays have even been started on.

Comments as always are welcome.

 

[sojourner]

I'm guessing that when you say lower primary hull, you are referring to what I call the ventral side of the primary hull. Or do you mean something on the dorsal side that is towards the edge(s)?

My next post will be for the work I've done over the past week. I'm doing this in a separate post to keep the size of the post down.

He's referring to the "snaggletooth" hanging down at the front third of the primary hull in your side view. I agree with him, you should at least move it back far enough so it stays with the "battle" portion of the ship after separation.

 

[JES]

I'm guessing that when you say lower primary hull, you are referring to what I call the ventral side of the primary hull. Or do you mean something on the dorsal side that is towards the edge(s)?

My next post will be for the work I've done over the past week. I'm doing this in a separate post to keep the size of the post down.

He's referring to the "snaggletooth" hanging down at the front third of the primary hull in your side view. I agree with him, you should at least move it back far enough so it stays with the "battle" portion of the ship after separation.

I'm now guessing that you and Orne must have been talking about (what is going to end up being) the ventral forward torpedo turret.

To be honest the exact location of that torpedo turret has been one of those things I've been struggling to make a final decision on for some time.

Arguably, you and Orne have a good point, and it would be a disservice not to try it. I'm thinking of making a copy of the side, and possibly the ventral view, and using those to make the other version, and posting them side by side, so that we're all certain which direction is the best to head in. This will be the next thing I will begin work on.

My thought up to this time was that the primary hull would have 5-6 forward torpedo launchers: 1-2 under the bridge, 2 in the forward cutout, and finally a double turret on the ventral side, while the secondary hull would have 2-4: 2 underneath the primary deflector, and possibly an additional 2 mounted in the sides of the front of the secondary hull, like the Prometheus class.

For most multi-purpose vessels, this might not make a whole lot of sense, since the hull with warp drive would be the one expected to be the most heavily armed section, while the other hull would attempt to make an escape at impulse, right?

But my idea is that since the Valkyrie is a warship, that none of the sections would qualify as a battle section alone, because both sections should function as ships of war in their own rights.

That all said, I can see how giving the secondary hull the torpedo turret would be more balanced.

 

[JES]

Okay, like I said I would, I followed the suggestions given by Orne and Sojourner, and have made a version with the primary ventral torpedo launcher further back.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40445677@N06/7177616619/sizes/k/in/photostream/

I have also left a version like what I had before for comparison, with the torpedo launcher equipped to the primary hull, which is depicted from the side on the very top and from below on the bottom left.

I have also worked a little bit on working out some of the details of the torpedo turret.

So, what is the verdict? Should I keep the version with the torpedo launcher equipped to the primary hull and delete the other, keep the version with the torpedo launcher equipped to the secondary hull and delete the other, or do you perhaps have your own suggestions?

Given the fact that it is very important that this gets settled as soon as possible so that I can focus more on the rest of the ship, I would really appreciate comments and opinions! Otherwise, I might have to settle this issue with a poll!

 

[B.J.]

Well, you could always keep both as different production changes to the class. If you do that, just keep the one you like better for the Valkyrie herself.

 

[JES]

At this point, that does seem like the best option.

Thanks for the suggestion!