Now that I see your version of the fighter. I can see how it can now fill the role of a light gunship. The front profile kinda gives a retro look to the Clone war era fighters. I could easily see it as a replacement or alternative to the Y-wing bomber. Again the ship looks like the type i could see being used by security forces, police, para-military forces and even full-fledged military. However i still can't see it as a civillian fighter, unless its really stripped down in armour and weaponery which would in many ways make it a flying death trap. Overall i say its slightly slower then the assualt gunboat of the imperial navy but more heavily armed and able to adapt better to changing situations.
It's not really a fighter at all - it's the size of a Lambda shuttle. Really it's a small gunboat, that just happens to have at least (linear) fighter acceleration.
This is almost done. Ventral shots and landing gear. Ventral hatches to service the magazines that I imagine are in the wing-root. Added a engine module landing gear fairing and assembly because I thought the sourcebook version without one there looks silly. Might do doors to cover the gear rather than the pad-as-hatch setup right now.
Is it bad that I think the first new render is one of the most visually interesting, with the most interesting shape? I just don't really like this gunboat - Don't get me wrong, the rendering is gorgeous! But something about the design just feels... Bleh...
First, some mods to the setup - centerline gear now retracts behind doors, and have smaller pads. Other minor modifications as well.
Some general thoughts about how the gear is likely to work (prompted on another forum):
The ship does need landing gear, let's get that out of the way. It's a very awkward shape for rack mounting, though you could argue it's reasonably well built for stacking. As a craft that wide-ranging light forces might be equipped with, temporary rough-field is going to be more important than a purely fleet ship. Plus, references, blah blah, precedent, blah blah. It does need an aft gear, because it looks horribly retarded balanced only on the front with a huge back-end hanging over the center gear. It's not on the refs, but Deal With It (TM).
The gear in the aft section doesn't take very much space retracted. Keep in mind the reactor is actually in the fuselage, not the central rotating tube at the back, which is engine. The engine itself is narrower than the big tube the wings mount into, which you can see from the size of the vectored thrust assembly on all the refs extends further aft. The rotating assembly thus has some space to either side to fit other equipment.
The wings might be a tempting place to put aft landing gear, at first blush. However, there are some problems. First, unlike the center assembly where there is space that doesn't compromise the interior arrangement for the other stuff that's going to be there, it is very difficult to put even the compact gear I've got now without blocking off the whole thickness of the wing, which is fairly slender. The wing is going to have structural bracing for the wingtip ion pods, heatpiping/power links for the same, and possibly radiator space, none of which does well with a retractable landing gear well cutting across the whole area and blocking off the link between the center assembly and the wingtip. You can put it as a pod on the outside of the wing, but that is ugly, and thus I will not have it. Small retractable stilts like a Harrier's wingtip gear is a possibility, but there are 2 problems:
1) I think in order to make it look not flimsy, you'll end up having a big pod anyway for it to retract into
2) Mass of any kind is best kept towards the center, unless it has to be outboard (space issues, firing arcs, etc.), since that's less work for a central vectored thrust engine to do to pitch or turn the ship.
The reactor itself is actually not going to be that voluminous; consider the cross sections of the Lambda and Theta-classes; comparable size ships, but with extremely compact reactors. Even at several times the power density, the Skipray won't have a huge reactor, and can easily fit it all in the fuselage.
Are the forward landing gear doors going to end up flush with the superstructure? At the moment, they seem to stick out a bit. I've always thought that doors that effectively "disappear" into the fuselage save for the faint outline of the panels tend to look better and make sense from a maintenance and aerodynamic point of view. Just a thought...
I'm interested to know - given the more...Organic/curved shape of this and some of the other designs you've been working on in the last 3-6 months, do you feel you're pushing yourself to learn new/better techniques all the time? Or do you now spend more time working out the actual design/flow of the detailing, rather than the technical aspects of the modelling itself?
I just realized I had these a while ago but never posted them...
@Tim
Forward doors need a little more work, yes. The powered hinges are currently exterior to the main well though, given how narrow and compact the main well is; those will stay, but I do need to make the final doors a bit more flush to the main hull.
Curves - well, I'm less afraid of them than I used to be, and use subD a lot more than I used to. The better I get with it, the less I worry about tackling more difficult "curved" designs. Though the main difference is cleaner geometry; you can bodge anything together and make it look good for a render .
Posts
This is almost done. Ventral shots and landing gear. Ventral hatches to service the magazines that I imagine are in the wing-root. Added a engine module landing gear fairing and assembly because I thought the sourcebook version without one there looks silly. Might do doors to cover the gear rather than the pad-as-hatch setup right now.
Some general thoughts about how the gear is likely to work (prompted on another forum):
The ship does need landing gear, let's get that out of the way. It's a very awkward shape for rack mounting, though you could argue it's reasonably well built for stacking. As a craft that wide-ranging light forces might be equipped with, temporary rough-field is going to be more important than a purely fleet ship. Plus, references, blah blah, precedent, blah blah. It does need an aft gear, because it looks horribly retarded balanced only on the front with a huge back-end hanging over the center gear. It's not on the refs, but Deal With It (TM).
The gear in the aft section doesn't take very much space retracted. Keep in mind the reactor is actually in the fuselage, not the central rotating tube at the back, which is engine. The engine itself is narrower than the big tube the wings mount into, which you can see from the size of the vectored thrust assembly on all the refs extends further aft. The rotating assembly thus has some space to either side to fit other equipment.
The wings might be a tempting place to put aft landing gear, at first blush. However, there are some problems. First, unlike the center assembly where there is space that doesn't compromise the interior arrangement for the other stuff that's going to be there, it is very difficult to put even the compact gear I've got now without blocking off the whole thickness of the wing, which is fairly slender. The wing is going to have structural bracing for the wingtip ion pods, heatpiping/power links for the same, and possibly radiator space, none of which does well with a retractable landing gear well cutting across the whole area and blocking off the link between the center assembly and the wingtip. You can put it as a pod on the outside of the wing, but that is ugly, and thus I will not have it. Small retractable stilts like a Harrier's wingtip gear is a possibility, but there are 2 problems:
1) I think in order to make it look not flimsy, you'll end up having a big pod anyway for it to retract into
2) Mass of any kind is best kept towards the center, unless it has to be outboard (space issues, firing arcs, etc.), since that's less work for a central vectored thrust engine to do to pitch or turn the ship.
The reactor itself is actually not going to be that voluminous; consider the cross sections of the Lambda and Theta-classes; comparable size ships, but with extremely compact reactors. Even at several times the power density, the Skipray won't have a huge reactor, and can easily fit it all in the fuselage.
Are the forward landing gear doors going to end up flush with the superstructure? At the moment, they seem to stick out a bit. I've always thought that doors that effectively "disappear" into the fuselage save for the faint outline of the panels tend to look better and make sense from a maintenance and aerodynamic point of view. Just a thought...
I'm interested to know - given the more...Organic/curved shape of this and some of the other designs you've been working on in the last 3-6 months, do you feel you're pushing yourself to learn new/better techniques all the time? Or do you now spend more time working out the actual design/flow of the detailing, rather than the technical aspects of the modelling itself?
@Tim
Forward doors need a little more work, yes. The powered hinges are currently exterior to the main well though, given how narrow and compact the main well is; those will stay, but I do need to make the final doors a bit more flush to the main hull.
Curves - well, I'm less afraid of them than I used to be, and use subD a lot more than I used to. The better I get with it, the less I worry about tackling more difficult "curved" designs. Though the main difference is cleaner geometry; you can bodge anything together and make it look good for a render
Tie's Hang from the ceiling since the opening is on top.
Awesomesauce!
Well Done, Sir! :thumb:
Bravo!
Wasn't that Binkerman? I can't remember that Fractal had started a AT-AT.
Never mind it was this guy: http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/showthread.php?65738-At-at&highlight=