Sounds a good name; neutral connotations, not culture specific and doesn't sound like a sports car.
No, as close as it gets are the Rolls Royce Silver Spirit line. However, its neutral connotations provides in my view the largest flaw. It really doesn't have much meaning at all, which while perhaps good, just seems too lifeless to me.
Commodore Harrias Jira
And miles to go before I sleep
Post by iantalosarika on May 23, 2006 21:00:36 GMT
Yeah, now that I think about it, it does sound lifeless. I got this idea yesterday and was going to see what you people thought of the Crusader Class. I looked at the Official site and there are no official ships called the Crusader or the Crusader class, and I don't know where to look for other fan ships, so I don't know about any unofficial fan ships with a similar name.
Post by iantalosarika on May 30, 2006 19:53:06 GMT
My dad told me how to fix the problem and what was wrong, but he never told me how to actually do what needed to be done, so until further notice, the model will be unusable.
But in the meantime, I was bored, so I started surfing through Memory Alpha (WikiPedia for Trekkies?) and found the Omega Molecule and read how it could be stabilized. I then thought, "What if my ship could be powered by that?" But then I saw how research on it was banned.
So, any suggestions on changes to the model before I fix it up?
check it from all angles. If you notice the pics you have up tehre, the first looks pretty good, but the second looks awkward. The Enterprise-D looked the same way. You could only shoot it from a few angles. The original, the -A, the -B, the -C,a nd the -E looked good from every angle. you want something versitale that can be shot from any angle, depending on the veiwing angle. While this is a sim where people probalby wont' use pictures, It's nice to think about.
Post by iantalosarika on May 30, 2006 22:16:41 GMT
My ship was somewhat modeled after the Enterprise-D in some ways. And I can't get angled shots because my 3d model keeps falling out of alignment. My dad told me what I need to do to fix it, but he didn't tell me how.
The trouble with design is that what works and what doesn't is based on personal assumptions. The main trick is to make it look military, which many designers fail to do. Compare the old and new Battlestars Galactica for a good example of this. The second is rounder and looks 'cooler', but the first looks genuinely military and like it would stand a fair amount of pounding (which it could).
I'd suggest you widen the neck to remove that weak spot but keep the general proportions since it make the ship more compact. Despite the absurd nacelles of the Intrepid class, the actual design was fairly good because it did not have the usual weaknesses. The rear of the ship looks very impressive and post-modern, but in a military ship you need a good reason for it instead of having a simpler shape. Also, unlike most three part Starfleet ships, yours doesn't appear to have the usual shape rear shuttlebay on the engineering section, but one could be added on it. Even better, add one on the top slant and a tractor beam emitter on the bottom slant so that small ships can be tractored the whole way into the bay which would explain the shape and be of an obviously beneficial nature.
Of course, these are all IC engineering concerns. If your purpose is just to make a ship you like the shape of, then feel free to disregard them.
On the name; don't use Crusader. It sounds heroic to Europeans and Americans, but really they were about religious bigotry, psychopathy and general hatred. It would be like calling it the Ji'had class. Possibly call it the Jefferson class as he and Roddenberry had a similarly positive vision of the future.
Time for the positive analysis. Generally I like the design. It seems to combine the simplicity of TOS with some more technological elements of the later series. But the design isn't overcomplicated or sacrificing function for form as many classes do. At first, the double support looked out of place, but the more I thought about it, the more it seemed right. Even though the nacelles cannot pull themselves off, they can be shot off. Having the extra support makes tactical sense. Even though I suggest making the neck wider, it is already thick enough that it could take more of a bashing than the Galaxy class ones could. It isn't streamlined as much as the Intrepid and Sovereign classes, but I like that. They were too much concerned with sleek lines, which a starship does not need, although in the case of the Intrepid some argument could be made as it could land. I assume you won't try to give it that capability which I would discourage since it is generally useless and would be impossible to realistically do on a ship of that shape. It barely made sense on the Intrepids as the legs were too thin, so avoid it.
I'd be happy enough to take the ship into a hostile situation, it just needs the details added really.
Post by iantalosarika on May 31, 2006 21:47:12 GMT
Landing=Bad. The top slant on the rear is supposed to be curved, but I didn't get to that because my model started to fall apart. The dual pylon system is gone because when I tried it in 3d, I just couldn't make them cross without going through each other, but I kept the back center pylon and connector section. About the engines, I was hoping to make them a little more rounder, the look like boxes, which I think I disklike. And in order to fix the neck up, I'm just going to delete it and remake it, it came out to be an odd shape I didn't like.
An updated model will be available soon, my dad demonstrated what I needed to do. If I finish the model to a point where I'm satisfied, I'm make a short animation with it.
How about setting the dual pylons so that they're mounted on slanted pylons at the front and joined and connected further back by a 'T' shaped mounting. That way it's a triangual point of strength, which is the best kind. I assumed you did mean for the engines to be less boxy but had lacked the ability to make them less so on the programme.
alright, what do you want this ship o do? defender class suggests it's first and foremost a warship. let's start with that.
manouverability. there. the mass of the saucer is too much. you're too wide for good performance. Remember inertia: you have to overcome the mass of the saucer before you can move it. And that force that you have to overcome is not just mass times velocity, it's mass times velocity squared. high speed manoeuvres would be virtually impossible with any precision in a ship that shape (why the galaxy class was an overall failure, among other things) I would not want to go into battle with a ship I could not manoeuvre accurately.
other then that? (and other suggestions) I like the design. it has some limitations right now, but those can all be fixed. so I would say run with it, and either redefine it's role or get rid of the neck or strenthenit by a lot, which would impruve the strucure. look at the -E on that one- the neck and the Engineering hull are one peice. much stonger then the neck design.
*sighs* The equation that we should be dealing with when thinking about inertia is in fact F=ma. Which is mass time the acceleration, which is the first derivative of velocity, NOT velocity squared. However, at sub warp speeds, the opposing force would be minimal as we are acting in a vacuum, therefore friction is negligible as are gravity and 'air resistance'. Obviously there would be some forces to act against motion, but in all honesty, it would make little difference, and thus manoeuvres would only be minimally affected by the mass of something. In comparison, the size of the ship WILL have an affect, for the simply reason that it means the ship has to move further, and the distance between port and starboard thrusters would also limit such manoeuverability.
Commodore Harrias Jira
And miles to go before I sleep
Also, the impulse engines are mounted on the rear quarters of the saucer. Therefore the front and back balance each other. I'm not sure if this is needed for space flight, but aesthetically it is preferable to a front or back heavy ship. In either case, the well balanced Galaxy is in fact better than an off balanced ship.
I'd say leave the saucer as it is. The engineering section is larger than usual and the saucer is a good size in comparison. It's balanced and large enough to have the impulse engines mounted a good distance apart. Do you like the size of the saucer compared to the rest of it?
Savot: Happy Belated Anniversary to us!
May 27, 2019 22:44:29 GMT
Carl Torek: Today is Section forty Seven's Anniversary ... We are Nineteen Years Old today ... Congratulations to everyone involved throughout the years, lets hope for many more to come
May 7, 2019 17:26:36 GMT
Carl Torek: Not a single Easter Egg bribe ... What's the world coming too, I ask you
Apr 21, 2019 22:58:25 GMT
Steven Smith: Always a pleasure to see familiar faces....hopefully more will pop in
Mar 15, 2019 7:53:47 GMT
Carl Torek: WOW ! .... Hello Karynn, great to here from you, hope the site is still up to expectations ... It's so good to know our former members are still looking in now and then, one surprise after another lately lol.
Mar 14, 2019 21:02:30 GMT
Steven Smith: WOW.....Hello to you too! Now this IS a surprise!
Mar 14, 2019 14:07:25 GMT
Steven Smith: I'll share some pics somehow...when I am not at work
Mar 14, 2019 14:07:02 GMT
Karynn McCormick: Hello, all! Just passing through. I was curious to see how the sim was faring. Happy star trekking to all of you!
Mar 14, 2019 10:01:10 GMT