Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

3DBattlestar Valkyrie

1679111218

Posts

  • spudmonkeyspudmonkey0 Posts: 0Member
    backstept wrote: »
    I say, chaps! This debate is just about as useless as whether or not Galactica had its armor stripped. :lol:

    let's give it a rest, and let Infinity build it how he likes :D

    It's a slightly different debate to that particular argument, but that's the point I was trying to make too, albeit not quite so succinctly :p
  • Infinity238Infinity2380 Posts: 0Member
    And now for something completely different.....
    Have you made any guesses as to how long this is compared to the Galactica? 1/2? 2/3? I haven't seen the Razor pics so I don't know if that clears it up or not.
    Razor does give us some insight though not much.
  • SnowCrashSnowCrash191 Posts: 279Member
    if the viper launch tubes are the same size then we already know the size comparison between galactica and valkyrie. Of course, having decent enough refs to do the calculations is a different matter.....
  • XRaiderV1.7XRaiderV1.7226 I have absolutely no ideaPosts: 1,074Member
    spudmonkey wrote: »
    I'll leave the insults to other people. Perhaps if you highlight on the image where the 6 engines are then I can point out why you are wrong. Alternatively I could just say that this



    is a damned good guess, but that assumes that those are the parts that are making you see the phantom engines...

    Until I get permission, which I am actively seeking, I cannot post proof of what I say. Sorry, but that's what an NDA is and any images or material I may or may not have is currently publically unavailable

    valkyrienew02hr3.png

    spudmonkey, theres the highlighted sections.

    unless I need an eye exam, and pending definitive proof, I stand by my conclusion.

    infinity, someone sent me a better res image of the one you sent, still too inconclusive to call one way or the other.
  • SnowCrashSnowCrash191 Posts: 279Member
    so you've highlighted 2 engines - are you assuming that there are pairs on the side? (because if you are its an incorrect assumption.......)

    EDIT: Sorry - that came across a little bit harsh. Given the design of other ships featured in the series it's easy to assume that there would be pairs port & starboard and then the extra 2 on the top as you've highlighted.
  • spudmonkeyspudmonkey0 Posts: 0Member
    As Snow says, the bits at the end that looks like engines on the underside are actually exhaust deflection flaps which are attached to the rear of the top engines. I've circled the bits in green to show you the bits I mean:

    image1.jpg
  • There is not engines on the underside:

    No6Engines.png
  • XRaiderV1.7XRaiderV1.7226 I have absolutely no ideaPosts: 1,074Member
    my conclusion is based on the engine block being symmetrical, which, I swear, that block is symmetrical.

    If i can get hold of a trusted source I know, maybe I'll be able to wrangle up something that either proves or disproves my claim.
  • spudmonkeyspudmonkey0 Posts: 0Member
    my conclusion is based on the engine block being symmetrical, which, I swear, that block is symmetrical.

    It's not top-to-bottom symmetrical, so your assumption is incorrect. My conclusion is based on having seen that area up close and personal, but of course, you don't have to believe what I'm saying
  • Infinity238Infinity2380 Posts: 0Member
    spudmonkey wrote: »
    As Snow says, the bits at the end that looks like engines on the underside are actually exhaust deflection flaps which are attached to the rear of the top engines. I've circled the bits in green to show you the bits I mean:

    image1.jpg

    Was that a hint.:D
  • BeomooseBeomoose171 Posts: 0Member
    jmsprovan wrote: »
    There is not engines on the underside:

    No6Engines.png
    That's an excellent shot, I'm sold. 4 engines.:thumb:

    Makes you wonder about the flaps, though. Are they mobile to give the ship more agility, or static to deflect the exhaust away from....something?
  • mattcmattc181 Perth, AuPosts: 322Member
    Was that a hint.:D

    I don't know how more specific he can be, quite frankly.
  • Infinity238Infinity2380 Posts: 0Member
    New Valkyrie guns. Does anyone know if she has smaller AA guns?
    valkyrie5cr0.jpg
  • mattcmattc181 Perth, AuPosts: 322Member
    segmentation..ewww...
  • count23count23361 Posts: 781Member
    mattc: Breathe Matt.... Breathe...

    infinity: I don't recall seeing any smaller guns in the few closup shots we saw. Maybe she's too small for AA and requires a full fighter screen?
    Formerly Nadesico.

    Current Projects:
    Ambassador Class
  • Infinity238Infinity2380 Posts: 0Member
    Quite possible, and since the class seems to use ship to ship missiles. It might require fighter screens like basestars, or even the support of other ships.
  • Free-LanceFree-Lance0 Posts: 0Member
    Infinity238 My man I honestly think this class ship is bigger then 1204 meters reason being it was almost as large as the PEGASUS and we know it 1800 meters+!

    I think this ship class is in the range of would defiantly be in the range of your Cerberus or larger.

    In short I think they did a STAR TREK on us and superimposed the CGI on us like star trek did to save money!
    In fact during a recent interview with the producers it was stated quite clearly (
    David Eick's) by one of them that the CGI is trimmed to fit the budget not the math or PHYSICS, just they run short on funds to all the things they really want to do!

    Ron Moore ( he liked the design better) said that this was to be the original design of the PEGASUS, before a CGI program problem occurred and time constraints! But he also said he wanted to make the PEGASUS look like a battlestar with the naked eye that the design would screamed this is a battlestar much like you would be able to tell an AIRCRAFT
    carrier of WW2, to a super carrier of today!

    ONE MORE THING THEIR ARE 6 ENGINES ON THE
    Battlestar Valkyrie
    I watched hero ( I OWN THE DVD'S) again and freezed the fram of the side images and there are 6 ENGINES!

    spudmonkey IS WRONG MY FRIEND AND I OWN THE DVD that PROVES IT!
    Sorry spud, so unless they were,major refit I have to say you need to replace the the other 2 engines but it's your model so you do with it what you want, I'll enjoy it either way!

    One more thing folks if you oen the sries 2.5 in hero freeze the frames of the
    Battlestar Valkyrie You'll see what I mean by CGI doctoring to fit formate not CGI it a grainly picture thats for sure!

    P.S. By the way did any of you get that interview on the E channel about how SCI FI channel ript off the writers by not paying them or even giving them credit of their work on the promos, and extras?

  • JDRJDR0 Posts: 0Member
    Hahaha, you're completely wrong though. The Valkyrie does not have 6 engines, and it is supposed to be a LOT smaller than the Galactica (by how much I can't determine exactly)

    Not that it really matters one way or another because its a sci-fi TV show. So its pretty much a waste of energy to get this jumped up over a mere sci-fi ship. :rolleyes:
  • spudmonkeyspudmonkey0 Posts: 0Member
    Free-Lance wrote: »
    ONE MORE THING THEIR ARE 6 ENGINES ON THE [/B]Battlestar Valkyrie
    I watched hero ( I OWN THE DVD'S) again and freezed the fram of the side images and there are 6 ENGINES!

    No, there are not. However, once more, post the proof of 6 and we will see. I guess it could be possible that they added two engines for the effects shots in the episode, but in the HD version of the aired TV show there are only 4 engines visible, and there's a good reason for that...
  • mattcmattc181 Perth, AuPosts: 322Member
    Is this guy on something hallucinogenic?

    Still it was nice of him to use bold text to highlight how utterly wrong he really is. :)

    M
  • spudmonkeyspudmonkey0 Posts: 0Member
    Sorry Tim, this conversation seems to have taken over your thread! Hope you can post some updates soon :)
  • mattc wrote: »
    Is this guy on something hallucinogenic?

    Still it was nice of him to use bold text to highlight how utterly wrong he really is. :)

    M

    hehe. fanboys. Don't feed them after dark. They go all horrible. (or is that Gremlins!?! :eek: anyway...)

    Nice work on the new guns Infinity :thumb: And I agree with Nadesico on the AA gun front. ;)
  • XRaiderV1.7XRaiderV1.7226 I have absolutely no ideaPosts: 1,074Member
    unless someone posts a pic, this might not be over with, is my observation on the matter.

    As for me, I dont care one way or the other, I just wanted to see the pic.

    aside from that, can we please move on already?
  • Free-LanceFree-Lance0 Posts: 0Member
    Is this guy on something hallucinogenic?

    Still it was nice of him to use bold text to highlight how utterly wrong he really is. TheSmile.gif

    NO MATTC I'm not doing drugs and even resent you saying it!
    Everything I said can be checked out on the web with a little work but I stand by my statement that they did a CGI patch ( as I see it) on the VALKYRIE I think the CGI PEOPLE were trying to, on low budget funds and time and put something together to impress the masses ( and did a very good job at it to) for the episode HERO!

    Fabio
    Stated that both time and money were an issue on may episodes so it would not surprise me if they star treked us in the CGI department!
    But thats okey hell, I enjoy the effects for no other reason then it's done for entertainment value.

    EXAMPLE: You people know that seen where the Enterprise attacks that Sona battleship the Pixels were way off when measured it Enterprise was something like 400 + meters by measurement, even know we all know the ship is over 670 + meters!
    But as stated earlier it's what I don't see that convinces me it's a patch!

    I'd love to post the frame but due to the fact it's a BURNED copy of "HERO" off Scifi broadcast (privet use only) but the fame goes like this Bulldog comferms a "Presents and damage done to his "STEALTH PLANE" and needs assistance due to damage done! at the point Tie informs Adama that "we need to help him" and Adama replys "and comferm our violation of the RED LINE" thats when the full STARBOARD SIDE OF SHIP COULD BE SEEN, and yes there is a starboard side engine there with 2 outlines into the PORT SIDE of ship!

    Anyway as stated earlier I ALWAYS love your work infinity and really look forward to seeing more of it anyway you want to present it!

    I hope someone other then me got a copy of this Episode!
    P.S I love STAR TREK so don't call me a hater!
  • spudmonkeyspudmonkey0 Posts: 0Member
    Free-Lance wrote: »
    thats when the full STARBOARD SIDE OF SHIP COULD BE SEEN, and yes there is a starboard side engine there with 2 outlines into the PORT SIDE of ship!

    Yes, correct. There are two engines on top, and one on each side as you say, making 4 engines; one on the port side and one on the starboard side. There are no engines on the underside though, which is where people are speculating the imaginary extra 2 engines are. Interestingly, that scene doesn't seem to appear in the broadcast version of the episode and you never get to see a full side-on view of the ship
  • NayslayerNayslayer333 Posts: 57Member
    THERE ARE FOUR ENGINES=End of discussion!
  • JDRJDR0 Posts: 0Member
    Must say, this thread is very funny.
  • Infinity238Infinity2380 Posts: 0Member
    lol, enjoyable what can I say never a dull moment. As for the engines, can we leave that one alone for a little while? Seems the argument has run its course.
  • SnowCrashSnowCrash191 Posts: 279Member
    eleventeen engines.......

    (sorry - couldn't resist)
  • t-castt-cast331 Posts: 0Member
    Terrific model - no matter the number of engines.
Sign In or Register to comment.