Greetings!

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

3DStormcloud's Star Wars Ships

1234568

Posts

  • jedi44jedi440 Posts: 0Member
    Awesome work Stormcloud,well done mate.
  • XRaiderV1.7XRaiderV1.7226 I have absolutely no ideaPosts: 1,074Member
    my new favorite star destroyer XD
  • colbmistacolbmista2 Posts: 0Member
    Love the fighter drop ship and side view of the destroyer
  • Road WarriorRoad Warrior207 Posts: 815Member
    I LOVE that fighter/drop ship. It is a fantastic design, like all of your ships and concepts are. However, and I don't mean this in an foul way, I think that this fighter version of the drop ship would fit in well with the nubsg universe. It looks the part and better fits that design ethic. I can envision a few of these on an airbase outside of Caprica City, providing close air support for colonial marines in some campaign , or just nestled in between a couple of raptors on the the big G herself as folks do routine maintenance.

    Like I said I really like this ship a great deal. I just feel that it fits that universe better. It would look good in raptor brown or white with stripes. But, I'm just talking out loud and it is just the opinon of one man. I even considered not posting this as I was afraid that I would insult and that is not my purpose at all.
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    hmmm i can kinda see what your saying - i guess its cause bsg tended to wards a more gritty realism and i like abit of technology that we can recognise from todays military equipment in some of my designs - but i think it can also harken back to original star wars where ships were a bit blocky - and star wars ships vary so much i dont feel to bad about this design in the star wars universe - kinda like the idea of a multi use vehicle for smaller ships that cant afford to carry fighters drop ships troop transports etc - that said the destroyer has grown when i looked at the windows and thought they were abit small - scaled them up and rest of ship with them and wham the ship is huge =/ - near 1500m long now =(
  • Road WarriorRoad Warrior207 Posts: 815Member
    Stormcloud wrote: »
    hmmm i can kinda see what your saying - i guess its cause bsg tended to wards a more gritty realism and i like abit of technology that we can recognise from todays military equipment in some of my designs - but i think it can also harken back to original star wars where ships were a bit blocky - and star wars ships vary so much i dont feel to bad about this design in the star wars universe - kinda like the idea of a multi use vehicle for smaller ships that cant afford to carry fighters drop ships troop transports etc - that said the destroyer has grown when i looked at the windows and thought they were abit small - scaled them up and rest of ship with them and wham the ship is huge =/ - near 1500m long now =(

    I agree with all that. That is why you are such a good designer- you get it. If you get my meaning.:)

    I do have a request it it's not too much trouble. Is it possible for you to render that fighter again- from the same angle- in a muddy brown? Just want to see something.....

    And keep up the good work. Hey, you do any more ties lately? The one that's toward the beginning of the thread is very nice.
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    here ya go - but looks better in blue/grey in my opinion - oh maybe an german africa corp paint job?? will have to give that a try
    104688.jpg
  • AresiusAresius359 Posts: 4,171Member
    Love the destroyer...
  • Road WarriorRoad Warrior207 Posts: 815Member
    The brown is cool but you are correct. The original coloring is way better.

    More please. And thanks for the render, btw.
  • spacefighterspacefighter2 Posts: 0Member
    i like the design of this craft but some of the weapons really need to be more integrated into the fuselage, at the moment some look like they were stuck on as an afterthought by someone without enough time or tools. the drooping nose and cockpit section is an interesting shape and has obvious practical value for the guy in the rear seat but the wings and canards need to be attached in a more firm way rather than the current very narrow joint like parts. probably would look better in grey of some kind but as most rocky planets are bare rock(we assume) then brown makes sense. cool landing gear and nice missile pods forward of the aft gear bays. can we please see the underside and top. a variant of the luftwaffe world war 2 small spots grey camouflage might be nice, but it all really depends where you intend to operate this.
  • SchimpfySchimpfy396 Posts: 1,632Member
    i like the design of this craft but some of the weapons really need to be more integrated into the fuselage, at the moment some look like they were stuck on as an afterthought by someone without enough time or tools. the drooping nose and cockpit section is an interesting shape and has obvious practical value for the guy in the rear seat but the wings and canards need to be attached in a more firm way rather than the current very narrow joint like parts. probably would look better in grey of some kind but as most rocky planets are bare rock(we assume) then brown makes sense. cool landing gear and nice missile pods forward of the aft gear bays. can we please see the underside and top. a variant of the luftwaffe world war 2 small spots grey camouflage might be nice, but it all really depends where you intend to operate this.

    I'm curious, spacefighter, if you ever consider what you're posting about before you post. This design fits in well with the Star Wars design ethos.
  • oldmangregoldmangreg198 Woodland Hills, CAPosts: 1,339Member
    Juvat wrote: »
    I'm curious, spacefighter, if you ever consider what you're posting about before you post. This design fits in well with the Star Wars design ethos.

    Unlikely. He likes to criticize people on their designs but has no understanding on how in-universe technology works.

    Personally I think it looks fine aside for the turret-like weapon on the top of the wings. They feel a little awkward atop the wing without extra support and/or streamlined with the wing.
    Your right to an opinion does not make your opinion valid.
  • BarricadeBarricade199 Posts: 181Member
    Something about the destroyer seems off. I think it's two things. One being that you've yet to build up around the sensor globe/shield globe on either side so it looks really weird. Kinda like someone smacked someone else's eyeball out and it's just hanging there.

    A gross metaphor I agree, but I'm having problems coming up with another more pleasant phrasing. Sorry. Still, something needs to be built up around them. Not a lot, because it doesn't need to be encased in greebling, but....*shrugs*.... something.

    The second is that you've deliberately not lined up the main turrets on the ventral and dorsal 'spines', but the four Ion turrets are lined up. It looks like it unbalances the design a bit from the side. From a more military standpoint, if they're lined up, a lucky shot can take out both at the the same time, or you only need to swing up/down to hit it, rather then having to swing both up/down and yaw right/left (which can throw your aim off) in order to hit it. I lean more towards the former reason, just because of how you've setup the other turrets, which looks really good. So seeing the ion turrets lined up kind of takes away from that.

    One minor quibble (at best, and feel free to ignore it) is that the docking bay - or at least I think it's a docking bay in the prow, needs the tractor beam emitters. The dish shaped projections seen on (almost every) ISDs on the front corners of the bay.

    I definitely prefer how you've utterly removed any hint of a T-shaped bridge tower which really brings out the difference between this and many, many, many, other designs out there. I think the bridge is actually visible in the forward view, directly ahead & below the forward/lowest main turret on the dorsal side, but I'm not certain. No matter what, I have to appreciate the fact the back most turret can swing a full 360 to hit anything around it.
  • Major DiarrhiaMajor Diarrhia331 Posts: 0Member
    Shouldn't it be star cruiser, and star frigate, to go with star destroyer? Star corvette. :)

    I really like that gunship, helicopter analog. I think it would make sense with a big turret on the belly to hold a single big gun, instead of the guns in the wings. The small guns make some sense for automated defensive fire, and use against personnel.
  • colbmistacolbmista2 Posts: 0Member
    Looks fine to me
  • spacefighterspacefighter2 Posts: 0Member
    Shouldn't it be star cruiser, and star frigate, to go with star destroyer? Star corvette. :)

    corvettes are the smallest ships, what churchill called "cheap and nasties" for convoy protection. frigates the next size up, destroyers like frigates but in general slightly larger and used for fleet actions rather than independent operation. cruisers are larger still. surface navies all have slightly different definitions but it always goes in this order for size.
  • TALON_UKTALON_UK2 Posts: 0Member
    True, doesn't really translate quite the same over to Star Wars though, well at least not with Imperial Star Destroyers, they're not really what would fit into a typical naval destroyer class, which tend to be comparatively fast heavily armed warships. They come across more like an equivalent of a battlecruiser or carrier if you look at their function within the fleet.
  • MaxxRushMaxxRush180 Posts: 168Member
    TALON_UK wrote: »
    True, doesn't really translate quite the same over to Star Wars though, well at least not with Imperial Star Destroyers, they're not really what would fit into a typical naval destroyer class, which tend to be comparatively fast heavily armed warships. They come across more like an equivalent of a battlecruiser or carrier if you look at their function within the fleet.

    This.^^^

    The Honorverse works similarly, in that a ship class is defined by its function rather than size. Some of the later books have a destroyer that based on mass, would qualify as a light cruiser to any other Navy in the series. Later heavy cruisers would qualify as pocket battlecruisers, if you go by mass/size.
  • BarricadeBarricade199 Posts: 181Member
    Shouldn't it be star cruiser, and star frigate, to go with star destroyer? Star corvette. :)

    I really like that gunship, helicopter analog. I think it would make sense with a big turret on the belly to hold a single big gun, instead of the guns in the wings. The small guns make some sense for automated defensive fire, and use against personnel.

    Well, if the area I think is the bridge really is that, then this hull fits between the Victory and Imperial-I classes, if being much closer to the Imperial-I's size. So those turbolaser batteries are easily into the super-heavy category, if not something of an 'ultra' heavy category - if such a category exists. They aren't the mini/micro superlasers, but they're coming awfully close. So I'd firmly put this design into the cruiser category, or even rank it directly next to the standard ISD. Not in mass, or parasite compliment, but in sheer firepower.

    Actually, scratch that, it's firepower is even more impressive then an ISD. Just that an ISD is a jack-of-all-trades, while this hull is a purebred gunboat.
  • TALON_UKTALON_UK2 Posts: 0Member
    I think you might be a little mistaken about the scale of this Star Destroyer, it seems a little smaller than a standard ISD to my eyes. I see it more Interdictor like in size, though I too might be mistaken, have to consult with the model builder himself to be sure of the scale that is intended.
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    orignally this ship was supposed to be smaller than it is now but when doing the bridge windows and the hanger bay it became apparent that the ship needed to be much bigger if those features were going to be sensible

    it its current state the ship is pretty much as long as an ISD coming in at almost exactly 1500m long - in terms of mass it is lower though

    the main turrets measure about 72m from front to back - so they are substantial guns - combined with the 4 ion turrets they represent all the anti capital ship energy weaponary - the rest is anti fighter turrets 8 on each side 4 covering ventral 4 dorsal - the ship does have long range torpedo's too which can be used against large ships and planetary targets

    on thinking about it would probably class this as a battle cruiser - heavy firepower, fast, good but not excessive defense and carrying only token auxiliary craft (max of 12 fighters) - so escort ship for larger carriers etc
    105113.jpg105114.jpg105115.jpg105116.jpg
  • jedi44jedi440 Posts: 0Member
    Love it.
    Only one critique though,the main guns barrels need to look more turbolaser like.
    But I love the rest,well done.
  • BarricadeBarricade199 Posts: 181Member
    Stormcloud, could I have permission to do a (very) rough partial edit to the side image, to show you what I meant about the ion cannons? I don't think I described it quite enough, but I don't feel it's right to draw over/edit your artwork, even here as (possibly) helpful critiquing, without permission. If not ok, no problem, it's cool.
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    yeah no problem
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    Man, that looks great. I love the design. :)
  • BarricadeBarricade199 Posts: 181Member
    Stormcloud wrote: »
    yeah no problem
    Okay, here's what I meant. Considering I only used MSPaint I was rather limited in being able to move it forward without making a hash of everything, and I consider a bad edit, worse then no edit (I'm OCD like that). I'd have moved it even more foreward, just behind the sensor globe personally, but I couldn't do it with what I used.
    105198.png
  • colbmistacolbmista2 Posts: 0Member
    I don't see a difference
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    the problem with putting the ion cannons further back like that is that i would have to move them out from teh centerline too so not quite as easy as you think - might have another look at it but i dont think its will work so just have to think of the ion cannons as seperate from the gunnery decks
  • BarricadeBarricade199 Posts: 181Member
    Stormcloud wrote: »
    the problem with putting the ion cannons further back like that is that i would have to move them out from teh centerline too so not quite as easy as you think - might have another look at it but i dont think its will work so just have to think of the ion cannons as seperate from the gunnery decks

    Umm actually I moved forward only the top ion cannons. I never touched the bottom ion cannons in the edit.
    105203.png
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    you know your right - i had thought about staggering the ion cannons but thought if i moved the bottom ones back it then didn't looks right - clean went out of my head that i should consider moving the top one forward instead :/ - will give it a try and see how it looks
Sign In or Register to comment.