The actual firing mechanism is even more fantastical than you might realize. The rules of this 'universe' tend to follow the rule of cool more often than not.
Sorry for skipping over your previous question, concerning the off-axis blade. I just didn't really have an explanation for it beyond something I added in the concept sketch to split up the symmetry. If I were to attempt to justify it, it might be a gravity field sensing antenna, part of the paired shielding devices.
The extruded grey rectangles extending from the hangars aft at an angle painted with the white markings are responsible for the active and passive gravity control shielding. The grav-shielding allows ships of sufficient size and reactor capacity to distort local space. This allows the ARC bows to be fired from off angle positions, but still ensure the rounds are directed toward the target.
I want to keep the amount of internal components like capacitors and such ...internal. Just having exposed turrets like this is almost too much for my sensibilities. I typically design ships with embedded hard-points, but I needed something that read as a battleship for this contest, so I needed actual visible turrets. If the hull was completely smooth, I think people would be confused as to where the weapons were.
tl;dr my rules of the design don't follow realistic physical limitations, and most of the time just exist to look nice.
The actual firing mechanism is even more fantastical than you might realize. The rules of this 'universe' tend to follow the rule of cool more often than not.
Sorry for skipping over your previous question, concerning the off-axis blade. I just didn't really have an explanation for it beyond something I added in the concept sketch to split up the symmetry. If I were to attempt to justify it, it might be a gravity field sensing antenna, part of the paired shielding devices.
The extruded grey rectangles extending from the hangars aft at an angle painted with the white markings are responsible for the active and passive gravity control shielding. The grav-shielding allows ships of sufficient size and reactor capacity to distort local space. This allows the ARC bows to be fired from off angle positions, but still ensure the rounds are directed toward the target.
I want to keep the amount of internal components like capacitors and such ...internal. Just having exposed turrets like this is almost too much for my sensibilities. I typically design ships with embedded hard-points, but I needed something that read as a battleship for this contest, so I needed actual visible turrets. If the hull was completely smooth, I think people would be confused as to where the weapons were.
tl;dr my rules of the design don't follow realistic physical limitations, and most of the time just exist to look nice.
Someone has been watching too much Robotech/Macross.
Space fighter in his universe the electrical arc is what provides the gun it's power not capacitors yes it isn't the same as a real rail gun but I think the arc bow looks cool as is it is since fiction not science fact if he going for realism then I'm sure he'd design something more realisticly plausible why must you always bash people's design just because they don't fit with real world logics
Because that would require brain function and critical thinking, something he seems to lack.
Your right to an opinion does not make your opinion valid.
Someone has been watching too much Robotech/Macross.
I actually haven't seen any Robotech or Macross anime. I only just started watching the remake of Battleship Yamamoto... I should be ashamed, I know. I am a fan of Captain Harlock/Galaxy Express 999 tho, if that counts for something.
The closest I've gotten to that is playing Strike Suit Zero. I just wanted to come up with a reasonable explanation for shielding that isn't completely magical. I don't like the idea of one-way permeable perfect bubble shields, at least this expands on another concept that is widely accepted in sci-fi universes; gravity manipulation, for the purposes of walkable surfaces. Scale it up sufficiently, and you got yourself a nice defense/offense tool.
I don't know if I have that much time to do a full blown animation with this, but because almost all of the assets in that storyboard/comic had a rough 3d mesh, it's not completely out of the question to eventually do one. I got some plans for at least 2 more pages.
nice shuttle bay at the front there(atleast that's what i assume it is). with the asymmetry it was a good idea to have the asymmetric elements being something fairly lightweight, that way it'll be easy to counterbalance to avoid off-axis thrust. the shapes used in that front section of this ship compliment each other and that girder at the rearward end of your off-axis blade shaped part works really well.
This forum really needs native 3d embedding, it would make this so easy to show off work.
Spacefighter, yea the elements that are off axis are fairly lightweight. The sensor/server spikes are mostly massed computing hardware and cooling elements. Realistically, I could align then along the center axis, but that would lead to a completely different feel to the ship aesthetics, making it look more like a unicorn than I would like. :rolleyes:
The front bays are shuttlebays, or as I like to call them; parasite bays. They hold smaller quasi-independant vessels, like the Silka class corvette.
The model I'm linking is a very rough shape concept mesh that I use for additional concept sketching. As such, don't look at it thinking its a final mesh. A lot of detail is missing.
Sanderlee, I'm glad you're enjoying the mesh-work. I was tweaking the forms so that they are balanced yet asymmetric... it's always good to know that it worked. Sometimes I just need another pair of eyes to see if all the meshes are working together in a complimentary fashion.
sorry, if it wasn't clear i was trying to compliment the blade thing, for being asymmetric in a cool way without being massive (in the kilograms and tonnes sense)enough to cause any problems. this will look amazing once the rest of the hull is up to the same detail level as the forward section.
Just curious, as I checked out the 3d viewer, but what are the four cylinders inside the main body for? Or are they simply leftovers from when you started?
All the work thus far..the sketches and your modeling are just fantastic!
One crit: Don't you think a civilization capable of building something like the carrier you are modeling would be able to produce advanced weapons systems that don't require the emplacements to be the size of large buildings to get the same power output as the uber-guns you have detailed? Look at modern real-world warships. Weapons are getting more powerful and smaller. The ballistic/firepower value of some of the more advanced weapon systems on naval warships are equivalent to the 16 in. guns on a WWII era Iowa Class battleship but a 10th of the physical size. I have always struggled when it comes to the suspension of disbelief when artists/designers place unbelievably massive weapons turrets on already massive vessels. When it comes to turret systems and technology so advanced they probably have an entirely different and more advanced understanding of physics than we do bigger is not likely better.
Thats one crit I do agree with whole heartily. The problem with large ships is that any visible weapon systems quickly become so small they become hidden in the details. I think the main reason for the size of the weapons is for visual balance, you see it in other established professional designs, like the ISD from star wars. I typically go with embedded weapon systems in my designs, but because this was partially for a contest with the topic of 'Battleships', I felt I really could not get away with non-visible weapon systems.
If I were to explain the massive turrets' scale in a semi logical manner, they consist of multiple independent siege weapons. Siege weapons can be equipped on smaller vessels, like destroyers, but in those cases they take up the entire vessel with all the required cooling and targeting hardware. Because those turrets contain 3 of each per enclosure, I feel the scale actually matches the established size. radius=*1/4 the length of a destroyer.
The ARC bow, the secondary turrets are actually scaled to old battleship main cannons. The scale looks a little off because it's hard to see human scale details on these renders currently. I'll try to fix that with the next pass of detailing.
Thanks for the comments! I hope I didn't sound overly defensive, I just felt the need to establish the thinking behind the sketches that hasn't really come across as clearly as it should.
--
In other news, I've set up the fuselage for my boolean workflow, so I should be posting progress on that soon enough. I've been doing some art design for the indie game Shallow Space as well.
Sorry, but I don't really see the resemblance to Normandy Sr 1 or 2. I suppose yea, it's got a smooth hull, and its got a vague slant leading back? Or maybe it's the fact that the Normandy was designed by a skilled professional?
Forgive me if I'm a bit insulted at how you phrased that comment, but I'll chalk it up to me just not being awake yet. More pictures of other ships to come later, once I can learn how to draw a design without it being compared to existing intellectual properties.
That said, thank you for the comment. Some response is better than the nothingness / void of the internet.
I really like the design itself, it's just that it feels like there's still something missing that breaks the instant association that happens at this angle.
Posts
Sorry for skipping over your previous question, concerning the off-axis blade. I just didn't really have an explanation for it beyond something I added in the concept sketch to split up the symmetry. If I were to attempt to justify it, it might be a gravity field sensing antenna, part of the paired shielding devices.
The extruded grey rectangles extending from the hangars aft at an angle painted with the white markings are responsible for the active and passive gravity control shielding. The grav-shielding allows ships of sufficient size and reactor capacity to distort local space. This allows the ARC bows to be fired from off angle positions, but still ensure the rounds are directed toward the target.
I want to keep the amount of internal components like capacitors and such ...internal. Just having exposed turrets like this is almost too much for my sensibilities. I typically design ships with embedded hard-points, but I needed something that read as a battleship for this contest, so I needed actual visible turrets. If the hull was completely smooth, I think people would be confused as to where the weapons were.
tl;dr my rules of the design don't follow realistic physical limitations, and most of the time just exist to look nice.
Someone has been watching too much Robotech/Macross.
Because that would require brain function and critical thinking, something he seems to lack.
I actually haven't seen any Robotech or Macross anime. I only just started watching the remake of Battleship Yamamoto... I should be ashamed, I know. I am a fan of Captain Harlock/Galaxy Express 999 tho, if that counts for something.
The closest I've gotten to that is playing Strike Suit Zero. I just wanted to come up with a reasonable explanation for shielding that isn't completely magical. I don't like the idea of one-way permeable perfect bubble shields, at least this expands on another concept that is widely accepted in sci-fi universes; gravity manipulation, for the purposes of walkable surfaces. Scale it up sufficiently, and you got yourself a nice defense/offense tool.
Some more progress on the battlecarrier, and a design for the parasite corvette.
Silka corvettes independent from their carrier, in ambush positions.
Hey, it's more of those sneaky buggers. What are they getting themselves into now? Page 1 of... more than 1?
I don't know if I have that much time to do a full blown animation with this, but because almost all of the assets in that storyboard/comic had a rough 3d mesh, it's not completely out of the question to eventually do one. I got some plans for at least 2 more pages.
I also love the off-symmetry of it. It's interesting, without being so off-axis that it's going to trip my form/function/reality trigger.
The detailing is beautiful.
This forum really needs native 3d embedding, it would make this so easy to show off work.
Spacefighter, yea the elements that are off axis are fairly lightweight. The sensor/server spikes are mostly massed computing hardware and cooling elements. Realistically, I could align then along the center axis, but that would lead to a completely different feel to the ship aesthetics, making it look more like a unicorn than I would like. :rolleyes:
The front bays are shuttlebays, or as I like to call them; parasite bays. They hold smaller quasi-independant vessels, like the Silka class corvette.
The model I'm linking is a very rough shape concept mesh that I use for additional concept sketching. As such, don't look at it thinking its a final mesh. A lot of detail is missing.
silka corvette (View in 3D)
Sanderlee, I'm glad you're enjoying the mesh-work. I was tweaking the forms so that they are balanced yet asymmetric... it's always good to know that it worked. Sometimes I just need another pair of eyes to see if all the meshes are working together in a complimentary fashion.
ryo80, Starrigger, thanks for commenting. :]
more progress.
One crit: Don't you think a civilization capable of building something like the carrier you are modeling would be able to produce advanced weapons systems that don't require the emplacements to be the size of large buildings to get the same power output as the uber-guns you have detailed? Look at modern real-world warships. Weapons are getting more powerful and smaller. The ballistic/firepower value of some of the more advanced weapon systems on naval warships are equivalent to the 16 in. guns on a WWII era Iowa Class battleship but a 10th of the physical size. I have always struggled when it comes to the suspension of disbelief when artists/designers place unbelievably massive weapons turrets on already massive vessels. When it comes to turret systems and technology so advanced they probably have an entirely different and more advanced understanding of physics than we do bigger is not likely better.
If I were to explain the massive turrets' scale in a semi logical manner, they consist of multiple independent siege weapons. Siege weapons can be equipped on smaller vessels, like destroyers, but in those cases they take up the entire vessel with all the required cooling and targeting hardware. Because those turrets contain 3 of each per enclosure, I feel the scale actually matches the established size. radius=*1/4 the length of a destroyer.
The ARC bow, the secondary turrets are actually scaled to old battleship main cannons. The scale looks a little off because it's hard to see human scale details on these renders currently. I'll try to fix that with the next pass of detailing.
Thanks for the comments! I hope I didn't sound overly defensive, I just felt the need to establish the thinking behind the sketches that hasn't really come across as clearly as it should.
--
In other news, I've set up the fuselage for my boolean workflow, so I should be posting progress on that soon enough. I've been doing some art design for the indie game Shallow Space as well.
Work begins on the ventral surfacing.
Working on another scene. Trying some new techniques, in attempt to take the detail to the next level.
I also have a near 4k resolution version, if you have an absurdly huge display and want this image. Just message me, and i'll give you a link.
stage one armor.
stage two. (i made a 1080p res wallpaper of this one, message me if interested)
Stage3, final.
Forgive me if I'm a bit insulted at how you phrased that comment, but I'll chalk it up to me just not being awake yet. More pictures of other ships to come later, once I can learn how to draw a design without it being compared to existing intellectual properties.
That said, thank you for the comment. Some response is better than the nothingness / void of the internet.
Edit 2;
I really like the design itself, it's just that it feels like there's still something missing that breaks the instant association that happens at this angle.