iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on May 25, 2006 1:15:28 GMT
Can't the model is acting wierd, it takes itself apart everytime I move something else.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
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?
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on May 30, 2006 21:20:52 GMT
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.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
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.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by jared on May 31, 2006 15:51:40 GMT
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.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
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.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on May 31, 2006 21:55:26 GMT
About the name... Hmm... I could name it the Scimitar Class, I did a basic search and found no ship classes of that name.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by jared on May 31, 2006 22:11:36 GMT
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.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on May 31, 2006 23:15:03 GMT
I could have made them less box-like, but I ust never got to doing it. And I have no clue what you just said about the dual pylons.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by jared on May 31, 2006 23:36:01 GMT
<========================== / / || || \ \ || <========================== Top
O=================O \\ | | // Front
<========================== / / || Side
Like that?
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Jun 1, 2006 3:12:18 GMT
more thoughts, this time Ic concerns.
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.
|
|
Harrias Jira
Commodore
Registered: Apr 27, 2003 20:24:58 GMT
Posts: 2,347
|
Post by Harrias Jira on Jun 1, 2006 12:03:01 GMT
*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.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by jared on Jun 1, 2006 12:44:14 GMT
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.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Jun 5, 2006 23:20:01 GMT
So, you guys want me to make the saucer smaller, right? And yes, I designed it to be a fast warship.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by jared on Jun 5, 2006 23:40:32 GMT
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?
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Jun 6, 2006 1:20:00 GMT
Yeah, I'd say that once I change the engines a bit and add some more details to the ship, it will be decent.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Jun 8, 2006 0:03:04 GMT
I just deleted and redid the main hull of the ship, and I think I got the curved tail to work, somewhat. The tail is a seperate piece of the model. The body was made usinga cylinder and the tail was made using a cube... I don't know how this will work! >_<
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Jun 8, 2006 17:12:21 GMT
*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. Actually, no. there was debate about that. Newton had MA, Leibniz came up with ma squared. it took a while to settle, but it was settled and discovered to be MA squared. that's why nobody ever teaches newton's second law... He was wrong, and it was proved by a good deal of testing. Mass also has a very large effect. It's not air resistance that I'm talking about, that barley figures into anything unless you're moving a t really high speeds in atmosphere. However, the force of mass needs to be taken into consideration because in order to move something you have to overcome the force of mas. If you hold a stick at the top end and move it around, the top end is very easy to move around. but if you take the stick further back ( a bigger stick will work best) and try to move the tip, it takes a lot more energy. That's because of the mas of the tip above the fulcrum (your hand) and it's harder to move. Incidentally, the increased resistantance you feel is measured proportionally to the square, if you measured it. [glow=red,2,300] Important stuff for designing the ship[/glow] So there still is inertia to consider, even if the engine is located at the middle. they both have to pull and push parts of the ship, with the same mass total as just pushing or just pulling. The mas is a constant no matter where you put the engine. Acceleration is going to difficult with a large ship no matter where the engine is. However an engine in the center does help by giving you the same ease turning then if it was in the front or back. If it was in the back, turning would be simple going forward, but it could not turn easily at all going backwards. the middle increases the difficulty for each end, but makes the force required equal depending on which way you're going. Middle is your best bet. the lower the mass of the ship in all, the better your manouverability would be. so the ligher you are, the better your manourability wold be. If you want your ship to be much more manouvaoble going forward, engines in the back, thoguh not in the extreme backwitha ship that large. for manouvorable, you probalby want a light ship with engines near the back and a heavyer back to provide the least inertia in the front. a good example of that idea is the defiant. That's the exteme battleshp design, the galaxy is on the other end that probably the worst manouvorability of any canon starfleet ship. (judging from design, anyway)
|
|
Harrias Jira
Commodore
Registered: Apr 27, 2003 20:24:58 GMT
Posts: 2,347
|
Post by Harrias Jira on Jun 8, 2006 22:46:55 GMT
Firstly, you have just changed what you were claiming, and secondly I still disagree with you, on a large number of points.
Newton's Second Law is with a doubt the most important law of classical mechanics, and the one that is used by far the most. I have probably been taught Newton's Second Law four times in each of my two years at university, and considering it is such a simple law, to have been taught it this many times tells us it's rather important.
And yes, to move something we do have to overcome something, inertia in fact. Newton tells us this in his First Law; 'A body moves at a constant velocity unless acted on by a force.' These inertial properties are related to the inertial mass. Indeed, there is NO quantative measure for inertia, all we know is that it is something that we can't escape. Yes we do need to overcome the mass still in space, but it would still be a neglible quantity. The more worrying result we get from inertia is that once the ship is started, it won't stop without substantial effort, and entirely different problem.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by jared on Jun 8, 2006 23:50:29 GMT
<Following on from Jira's points> Hence the problem that when a ship stops firing the engines it will still travel forwards until the retro engines fire. Have you ever noticed in Star Wars how the ships flare their engines as they begin moving, then the flare dies down? That's because they're firing to accelerate, then only using the engines to maintain the speed when various gravity wells slow them down. Even Red Dwarf managed to have this right; the engines of the ship were fired by the computer only to accelerate away from the solar system.
And air resistance is not just for high speed. Even opening your car windows will increase the drag factor markedly; watch a car in an air tunnel.
Where are you finding these things out? I have the feeling you're reading science books being written the Star Trek writers, who are arts students only. Hell, even I'm an arts student but I know things about science they have no grasp of, although I need to apply a scientific method to my field and they don't. Also, when something doesn't sound right or I don't know I ask someone who knows, like Elron or Jira, both of whom do genuine science degrees.
|
|
jared
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by jared on Jun 8, 2006 23:52:38 GMT
I just deleted and redid the main hull of the ship, and I think I got the curved tail to work, somewhat. The tail is a seperate piece of the model. The body was made usinga cylinder and the tail was made using a cube... I don't know how this will work! >_< Beware a cylinder into a cube. They had the same trouble building the Pantheon (Trajanic/Hadrianic rebuild). It didn't work for the Romans and it might not work for you! Still, once you have it done, paste pictures and we can see.
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Jun 9, 2006 17:08:23 GMT
<Following on from Jira's points> Hence the problem that when a ship stops firing the engines it will still travel forwards until the retro engines fire. Have you ever noticed in Star Wars how the ships flare their engines as they begin moving, then the flare dies down? That's because they're firing to accelerate, then only using the engines to maintain the speed when various gravity wells slow them down. Even Red Dwarf managed to have this right; the engines of the ship were fired by the computer only to accelerate away from the solar system. And air resistance is not just for high speed. Even opening your car windows will increase the drag factor markedly; watch a car in an air tunnel. Where are you finding these things out? I have the feeling you're reading science books being written the Star Trek writers, who are arts students only. Hell, even I'm an arts student but I know things about science they have no grasp of, although I need to apply a scientific method to my field and they don't. Also, when something doesn't sound right or I don't know I ask someone who knows, like Elron or Jira, both of whom do genuine science degrees. ack! let me clrify a few things.... by high speed I meant above 50 mph. that's what most people think of with high speed. below that opening your windows does not make a noticable difference (not noticable) Newton got the idea right, but it's stillnot taught below college level (usually). I don't know why, but It's probably because he got the force equation wrong. it is proportional, but not directly, like newton says. As for where I found all this out? A book for complete geeks (well, almost) Called E=MC 2, which is the history of the equation. There is an entire chapter in there deicated to just the relationship between M and V. It points out Newton's veiw, and Lebintz's, and then shows how Newton was proved wrong and Lebintz proved right. And I was clarifing what I said before. And even if it was MV, it would still be better to put the engines in the back if you want to manouvour well while going forward. two on opposite sides, or thrusters near the front. However, if you have 2, they'll work just fine in the middle, but If you only have ony it would do much beter to have it in the rear.
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Jun 13, 2006 0:06:09 GMT
I think I've gotten a better solution for the tail, I'll have an updated model soon.
|
|
cptjeff
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by cptjeff on Jun 16, 2006 18:20:10 GMT
we look forward to seeing it!
|
|
iantalosarika
Guest
Registered: Mar 29, 2024 6:38:56 GMT
|
Post by iantalosarika on Jun 16, 2006 21:52:32 GMT
It's ready now. I'll try to get a few perspective views of it, too.
|
|