Greetings!

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

3DVir Inter Astrum Reboot

145791024

Posts

  • bbzwbbzwbbzwbbzw1 Posts: 0Member
    I also like the idea of, generally speaking, the interstellar warships having spin modules and being multimission while the interplanetary are modular and with a narrower mission profile but can be easily reconfigured based on needs.

    Here is the US frigate blocked out, this one is definitely going to be a interstellar 'black space' ship
    usfrig.png
  • StonecoldStonecold331 Posts: 0Member
    "Deep space" or "free space" is a better definition, imho. As for spin-modules, it is arguable. Since interplanetary travel may require more time then interstellar. However, interplanetary ships, are supposed to be more compact in general, due to limitations of jump drive. Smaller jump bubble radius - closer to a gravity sourse it can jump in. Hm... Spherical ship could became most cost-effective...

    Frigate looks nice so far. Do you plan to add a second radiator on the bottom side, or one is enough?
  • spacefighterspacefighter2 Posts: 0Member
    the frigate looks good, but the spin module now appears too big in comparison to the rest. maybe bring the habitation sections slightly closer in. not sure if it a heat radiator or something else but i also like the curved "cover" above the "engine"(?) at the back.
  • Knight26Knight26191 Posts: 837Member
    I am liking it so far, but how are you planning to counter the torque effect from the spin arms?
  • Mikey-BMikey-B0 Posts: 0Member
    The problem with bringing the habs closer in is that you don't get as much gravity that way unless you spin faster, which worsens the Coriolis effect. You want to keep the RPM low, which means either putting up with lower artificial gravity, or longer arms, or both.
  • StonecoldStonecold331 Posts: 0Member
    the frigate looks good, but the spin module now appears too big in comparison to the rest. maybe bring the habitation sections slightly closer in. not sure if it a heat radiator or something else but i also like the curved "cover" above the "engine"(?) at the back.

    It isn`t that big. You don`t have aerodynamic drag in space, so who cares? Curved thing is a radiator, and yes, it is on top of the thruster module.
    Just as a second thought, as it is now, it will radiate portion of the heat on spin habitat. What if you somewhat incline it, to radiate more backward?
    Knight26 wrote: »
    I am liking it so far, but how are you planning to counter the torque effect from the spin arms?

    My guess, in combat spin hab is stopped and locked, to avoid gyroscope effect. And during cruise flight, the effect is negliable.
  • bbzwbbzwbbzwbbzw1 Posts: 0Member
    I'm going to calculate what sort of gravity the spin would realistically generate without the crew projectile vomiting all over each other.
    And I like the idea of counter rotating flywheels on the hub section of the arms. I also designed them to retract for combat; you can see the break on the arms where there are two bumps for and aft that cover the motors that retract the arms. I'll pop up another render when I get home as I got a lot of work done on this last night.
  • TomboTombo0 Posts: 0Member
    bbzwbbzw wrote: »
    I'm going to calculate what sort of gravity the spin would realistically generate without the crew projectile vomiting all over each other.

    http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/SpinCalc.htm This page might be useful for that.

    Liking how it's looking, that figure puts the size into perspective.
  • spacefighterspacefighter2 Posts: 0Member
    artificial gravity will be calculated from the equations of circular motion

    a=w^2 r (w is the angular velocity measured in radians per second) for normal earth gravity the acceleration should be 9.81 ms^-2 . i know that too small a radius can cause problems with having different gravity strengths at the astronaut's heads and feet and also will require faster rotation. i have found sources saying that more than 2 rpm will cause coriolis forces that are disorientating. this is 4 Pi radians in 60 seconds, 0.2094 rad s^-1. this solves to suggest you need a radius of 223.7 m(ouch). alternatively a smaller radius can be used but coriolis effects get worse. now i've done that calculation saying make the radius less is a bit stupid, however you could still make the ship bigger meaning you have extra volume to store fuel and reactors or weapons(this will also increase the mass but scaling parts correctly will avoid those problems.). i now notice the way that the habitat modules can slide inward which is interesting and could well be useful for combat and docking.
  • bbzwbbzwbbzwbbzw1 Posts: 0Member
    Using the link provided by Tombo, at 2 rotations a minute it would generate .28g, so more than the moon but less than mars.
    however you could still make the ship bigger meaning you have extra volume to store fuel and reactors or weapons

    Isn't that kind of like saying, all current navies should just build cruiser size hulls?

    Here is an updated render;
    usfrig.png
  • Mikey-BMikey-B0 Posts: 0Member
    Looks good, I li ke the shape and panel lines.
  • StonecoldStonecold331 Posts: 0Member
    Retro thrusters look good! Dome-shaped laser turrets without barrel - at last! That cylinder under the nose section will become FTL missile?
  • bbzwbbzwbbzwbbzw1 Posts: 0Member
    Stonecold wrote: »
    Retro thrusters look good! Dome-shaped laser turrets without barrel - at last! That cylinder under the nose section will become FTL missile?
    lol. Yep, you finally convinced me, no more star wars lasers. I'm going to go back and redo the sheet for the CEGD frigate I posted to change the laser to a kinetic weapon, and also change the sheet to reflect its new status as an interplanetary rather than interstellar ship. And yes, the cylinder will be an FTL missile and the rectangular thingy is going to be a railgun.
  • bbzwbbzwbbzwbbzw1 Posts: 0Member
    Oh! Almost forgot. I was shufftying around an old hard drive and found these. A few years ago during my burnout phase I was trying to get back into it and thought about what the VIA-verse would be like 5,000 years in the future. Never got past these designs though. Just thought I'd share them, maybe one day I'll revisit them;

    This was going to be the descendants of the CEGD;
    sinjan1.png

    Some sort of gothic looking religious order;
    see1.png

    Don't know about these next two, never gave them a back story;
    sj1.png
    taug.png


    Descendants of a unified US/UC;
    westal2.png

    And a 'map' of the political structure (this one is pretty big, click the thumbnail);
    vm2h.th.png
  • TomboTombo0 Posts: 0Member
    I saw some of those over on the Cartographers Guild a while ago. That top one made me think of the cover of a 70's sci-fi novel for some reason, the colours perhaps?

    The frigate is looking sexy!
  • Knight26Knight26191 Posts: 837Member
    sweet, a lot like those old 70s sci-fi paintings, love'em
  • Orion's beltOrion's belt0 Posts: 0Member
    "Isn't that kind of like saying, all current navies should just build cruiser size hulls?"

    the counter argument to that is all navies are built on compromise whether it be during wartime or during peacetime and in this case sometimes they needed to free up large space docks or to free up the cue on planet based mass driver catapults. Thus small ships with out the greatest gravitational effect would exsit.

    Im also personally tepid to no beam weapons existing in this verse while a ship of this size that might be a good idea and I always thought it laser looked like a auto cannon of some kind.. but If you do what we talked about with the emergancy war program RSN ships I would keep the RSN laser Even now the US Navy is really excited about the game changing prospects of DEW.
  • Orion's beltOrion's belt0 Posts: 0Member
    double post
  • Orion's beltOrion's belt0 Posts: 0Member
    I also think the Camp or kitchyness is kind of fun and that is also what VIA is supposed to be while we create it
  • bbzwbbzwbbzwbbzw1 Posts: 0Member
    70's and early 80's sci-fi have always been my favorites; the work of Chris Foss, Ron Cobb, and the criminally under-rated Mike Trim have always been huge inspirations.

    As for the lasers vs kinetic weapons, I'm all for both, and going forward most ships will have both.

    Here is tonight's update on the frigate. Got the weapons basically done, I'm going to change the way the missile boxes are attached as I think it looks a bit wonky now. This shot is with the arms retracted for combat, on it's way to eff up someones day.
    usfrig.png
  • StonecoldStonecold331 Posts: 0Member
    Detail level is off-charts. Radiator ring on FTL missile container is a nice and logical addition.And yes, missile box attachment looks somewhat strange. Is the centrall part of the hull (between nose section and spin-hab) supposed to be a hangar? Top of it surely looks like hangar doors. As for spin hab - in current position, retro thrusters will blow it clean off. My guess, it supposed to be locked in "vertical" position. Another note - no maneuvering thrusters are visible so far.

    BTW, can you make a simple tutorial on making pannel-lines your way?
  • wminsingwminsing171 Posts: 0Member
    Wow, another amazing piece of work, the detail is fantastic. I don't have too much to add from a technical standpoint, but the dome-lasers are an excellent decision. :)

    Is it carrying a pair or a single FTL-missile?

    -Will
  • StonecoldStonecold331 Posts: 0Member
    wminsing wrote: »

    Is it carrying a pair or a single FTL-missile?

    -Will
    Looks like there are two of them - on each side of the ship, under the boxes of short-range missiles.
  • bbzwbbzwbbzwbbzw1 Posts: 0Member
    Good point about the retros. And yep. that's a shuttlebay. With the panel lines, I just make a very slim rectangle, or whatever shape you need the indentation to be, intersect it with the body you want engraved, then use the joint push pull plugin http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6708 with a negative number in the first box and it does all the work.
  • StonecoldStonecold331 Posts: 0Member
    Thanx for the plugin. It eased my work a lot.
  • KhayKhay0 Posts: 0Member
    Too bad for the retro thruster problem, i think it looks better "flat" than vertical.
    Like the Yan, it looks bulkier and sturdier than the older version and that's great.
    [please insert usual mandatory compliment about the quality of the new model and wondeful detailing here]
  • bbzwbbzwbbzwbbzw1 Posts: 0Member
    I feel the same way about the pod alignment Khay. Oh well, can't have the comfy quarters being blown off into the aether. Tonights update; got a lot of twiddly bits done. Going to do one more round of detailing, especially on the pods, and calling it done. It also just happily occurred to me that I'll only have to do many of these components once, guns missiles and such, which should really speed up future models.
    usfrig.png
  • Mikey-BMikey-B0 Posts: 0Member
    It also just happily occurred to me that I'll only have to do many of these components once, guns missiles and such, which should really speed up future models.
    I highly recommend it. That is what I did for my Contact Lost spacecraft and it has paid off in time saved. Liking the new render, lots of detail
  • Knight26Knight26191 Posts: 837Member
    I agree sub-component modelling is the way to go for common parts. How big a ship is it? What kind of crew compliment?

    hint hint //// hint hint
  • bbzwbbzwbbzwbbzw1 Posts: 0Member
    Knight26 wrote: »
    I agree sub-component modelling is the way to go for common parts. How big a ship is it? What kind of crew compliment?
    98.28m, So it comes in quite a bit shorter than an Oliver Hazard Perry frigate. And using your nifty calculator, which I dig btw, 69 on a two shift rotation. So submarine cramped.
Sign In or Register to comment.