Greetings!

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

3DHeavy Interdictor

StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
edited April 2016 in Work in Progress #1
Once again i've embarked on the task to modeling a large heavy interdictor - been down this road twice before but always got to a point where i was unhappy with the basic shape - to flat - to steep - to bulky etc but this time I THINK i am happy with the basic shape so i might actually finish this one

decided to give it its own thread rather than revive my own dead star wars ship thread - but i do have another smaller ship (still star destroyer sized though not in the same mass category) and will show it here too - did it a while back and forgot all about it ironic when its one of the more complete star destroyers i ever made - not sure if i have shown it here before or not but its not he main focus anyway just threw it into the scene as i thought it would do as an escort for the larger ship

i like agressive shapes and have always felt that side mounted weapons on most star destroyers didn't seem right - enemy can escape and you have to choose between chasing them with little firepower on the target or letting them get away - so at least half the ships guns can fire in the forward arc

i also have always thought that the hanger bays would be a bitch to land in if the star destroyer was underway - so while the hanger on the underside is still there its more for visiting ships and capturing operations or finally to possibly carry smaller corvettes etc - its not used for the fighters which launch and land below and between the engines

comments and suggestions welcome
110313.jpg
110314.jpg
110315.jpg
110316.jpg
Post edited by Stormcloud on
Tagged:
«1

Posts

  • SeanPSeanP218 Posts: 256Member
    Nice design Stormcloud! You should be happy with it, it looks cool! :)
  • jedi44jedi440 Posts: 0Member
    Beautiful.
  • BarricadeBarricade198 Posts: 180Member
    Oh nice. I see you did move the upper ion cannons forward on your smaller hull, which still looks badass as all hell (and its a damn shame you haven't done more with it).

    As for the hangar issue, why not pull an idea from Ep.VII and install a side/trench hangar, one per side? TIEs, gunboats, and shuttles launch from the side hangars, but land in the rear hangar, only to later on be transferred via tubes/connecting tunnels to the side hangars

    Also, since you mentioned captured ships getting hauled into the ventral hangar, you might want to add at least two more ion cannon turrets on the ventral side of the new hull - in case any Rebel captains decide to try to play dead, only to shoot out your tractor emitters at the last second. Nothing like slapping them occasionally with one or two 'just in case' heavy ion cannon bolts to ensure that their ship truly is immobilized.
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    well that answers one question - i did show that ship off - no idea why i forgot about it but i will finish it off this time (nearly done anyway)

    as to the heavy interdictor - interestingly i was thinking something similar for the launching of the fighters - was actually thinking more like battlestar galactica launch system though - just some tubes they get fired out off rather than proper hangers etc

    and yes i will be adding ion cannons to the ventral surfaces - as you said dont want any active hostile ships inside your shield perimeter!!! - i just started modeling details from the top down :)
  • TALON_UKTALON_UK2 Posts: 0Member
    Nice design, particularly like how the reactor dome (I'm assuming that is what the large central dome is?) protrudes out of the top of the hull as well as out of the more traditional ventral hull protrusion. It's a nice detail. With the rear hangar do you mean they'll be in that tail section of hull that stretches out beyond the rear thrusters?

    I like the smaller Destroyer too, looks familiar so you have definitely shown it before at some point.
  • fractalspongefractalsponge254 Posts: 1,088Member
    Below and between the engines for fighters is bad. As awkward as it might be to go to a ventral hangar, between-engine positions are worse because of engine ion wash that might be unexpectedly vectored into the landing approach. Tractor beams should be able to handle close approaches in general also, so a ventral underway approach is likely not to be too bad.

    The small ship is awesome looking. The big one has some interesting elements to it - the partially revealed dorsal bulb is really cool looking.
  • BarricadeBarricade198 Posts: 180Member
    Below and between the engines for fighters is bad. As awkward as it might be to go to a ventral hangar, between-engine positions are worse because of engine ion wash that might be unexpectedly vectored into the landing approach. Tractor beams should be able to handle close approaches in general also, so a ventral underway approach is likely not to be too bad.

    The small ship is awesome looking. The big one has some interesting elements to it - the partially revealed dorsal bulb is really cool looking.

    You sure? All it'd require is that the main ion engines be permanently angled slightly off centerline on either side of the landing bays, rather then point directly aft. Between 8-12 degrees would likely be more then sufficient. That or have it so that the nozzles can swivel slightly off-centerline, and then swivel back after landing operations have finished.
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    ok quick pic of the aft flight deck - i personally dont think engine wash would be a big issue but lets see what you all think after seeing this
    110336.jpg
  • fractalspongefractalsponge254 Posts: 1,088Member
    The thing is we've seen that the thrust axis can be directed to maneuver the ship. You can have plenty of safeguards in place, but I think that would tie ship operations too much into fighter operations. For a carrier, maybe that's fine, but how many fighters is the ship going to operate? Does the ship exist to service the fighter wing, or vice-versa? Making the approach path under the drive stream from forward would be fine, but a direct approach from aft is asking a lot of faith from the pilots that the big multi-km ship is going to move its engines just for you.

    With a ventral approach, if the ship needs to move (say, it gets taken under heavy fire), it just moves and the fighter aborts its approach. With an aft approach, the ship moving for something critical means the ion wash can slew around into the approach path. Just needless complication imho.

    It doesn't have anything to do with how the model looks, just with how it might actually be run.
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    arrrrrghhhhhhh - stuck between a rock and a hard place - i agree its not idea but i like the LOOK of the ship and i want a aft hanger bay - going to have to make a compromise somewhere or i start the design all over again! so with compromise in mind this is what i've got in mind to try and justify sticking with things as they are

    i cant quite get over the 'dog leg' landing maneuver while the ship is acceleration and while the tractor beams would help could they handle the entire fighter wing doing an emergency landing before the ship escapes into hyperspace?

    also how dangerous is the engine wash anyway? - in the old tiefighter/x-wing games it jostled your fighter around a little but nothing major and with the hanger being potentially vulnerable spot on the ship its got to have strong shields perhaps they could be used to deflect the engine wash away from the approach path?

    finally if the engine exhuast was vectored towards the ships center line then the wash would hit the hull of the ship before it was likely to seriously impact fighter operations anyway - and as the ship would be turning the approach would be an arc too that should still be between the 2 exhuast plumes

    anyway little update to this section of the ship - i've recessed the hanger further into the ship think it looks quite good - will add some launch tubes on the side and front of this section make it clear this is the flight deck area

    the dorsal hanger bay i've descided is actually used for resupply freighters drop off cargo containers etc and they are pulled and and unloaded in this area - and the equipment that grabs cargo containers etc also doubles for capturing hostile craft and holding them
    110343.jpg110344.jpg
  • TALON_UKTALON_UK2 Posts: 0Member
    There's also the issue of having so much sensitive/volatile material in a single area of the ship. An issue in the hangar bay area, say exploding fuel cells or a severe crash, could then have a knock on effect on main propulsion if the resulting fire compromises engineering for example.
  • BarricadeBarricade198 Posts: 180Member
    Well, since the landing bay is 'below' most of the thrust from the innermost engines, and that the engines can swivel slightly as per what Fractalsponge mentioned, I don't really see much of an issue with landing conditions. If someone is authorized to landing/take off, the innermost engines are slightly pivoted off center so to angle to the left and right, away from centerline, to better clear a landing/launch approach. After said ship(s) are clear, the engines are pivoted back to normal. Shouldn't be that hard to work around as a hull like this, especially a military grade hull that's heavily reinforced, should have no problems dealing with the slightly extra strain of the off-centerline thrust for a few minutes or more at a time. Considering how the military IRL loves redundancy (for good reason), this design probably is reinforced enough to handle the strain for up to an hour straight of it off-centerline, without more then minor maintenance issues.

    By the same token, anyone wanting to try to get in a lucky 'up the kilt' shot, can suddenly find themselves facing the engines pivoting inwards, and making it pure hell for them to line up an accurate shot, let alone any possible concussion missiles or proton torpedoes from accurately hitting.
  • psCargilepsCargile417 Posts: 620Member
    And then there is the trope that ships are always accelerating...so IRL, they ain't gonna be on all the time.
  • fractalspongefractalsponge254 Posts: 1,088Member
    It's false to say you always need power to maintain speed in vacuum (ahem, game mechanics). However, turn off the engines and you're ballistic and fully predictable within the limits of ECM, which in an environment of light-minute turbolasers is sorta a dangerous thing to do. I think minor off-axis acceleration would normally be the order of the day in SW combat in open space, much like ships will zigzag as a precaution where there might be submarines.

    But, I have a solution that may not even require any modeling - make the aft bay the launch hangar - that way all ops are predictable, controlled by the ship, and while a little more inconvenient, at least shielded from fire. About to make a turn? Suspend all launches. Do all recoveries from the forward bay, and anything bigger than a fighter launches from there as well.
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    ok still thinking that the aft bay is the primary flight ops hanger - figuring that under normal operations the engine wash would not be an issue and in an emergency better to risk the engine wash than get left behind

    for now this is light tactical tie bomber - i modified it from the interceptor model i made ages ago - like the interceptor the bomber sports shields, 4 lasers and a hyperdrive (yes i know that would negate the need for emergency docking but hey things can get damaged) -6 concussion missiles - and for the bomber it gets 14 torpedos - 2 ion cannons and a tractor beam

    why the cel shading you ask - to hide bad lightning and no textures :)
    110367.jpg
  • psCargilepsCargile417 Posts: 620Member
    The thrust is more likely a convergent cone and easily maneuvered around anyway.
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    ok little update - added some more layers to the ziggurat -slightly more detailed engines - threw in some random greebles along the main trench - is just scaled up from other littler star destroyer so kidna makes the scale seem wrong but will alter it later once i've got a better handle on the rest of the ship

    main flight ops is still between the engines - partly because not sure what else i'd put there if i removed it and i do like the look of it there

    as always crits and comments welcome
    110370.jpg110371.jpg110372.jpg110373.jpg
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    okback to the issue of the fighter bay approach - i've pulled the engines back a bit further and they still look ok - then i threw in some cones to represent the range of angles the thrust most likely could be vectors through

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ohd67exti8uec3c/Screenshot%202016-03-10%2000.48.47.png?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6mnip4b252in23/Screenshot%202016-03-10%2000.49.55.png?dl=0

    as you can see from this it leaves enough room even under worst case scenario of both engines being deflected into the flight path (cant see any reason why this would be done) there is still a clear flight path to the bay - and since at a maximum turn one engines would be vectored away from the hanger the flight path would be fine specially as you would need to fly that arc anyway since the ship is turning

    so i'm now happy with the positioning of the hanger
    Universe Chaos
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    I like the smaller ship, that's really cool. The massive interdictor isn't bad so far. From it's apparent size, I'm guessing it's somewhere between the size of an ISD and the Executor. I'll bet those massive gravity generators could put out a huge hyperspace jamming zone. ;)

    As for the exhaust issues, it doesn't appear to be too big a deal, especially seeing those images you posted with the cones. Sure, the pilots still have to avoid the exhaust when coming from directly aft of the ship, but they can always come from below and aft. Besides, whoever said being a pilot for the Empire was safe? ;)
  • psCargilepsCargile417 Posts: 620Member
    What rational are you using to convince yourself you need divergent thrust? Once the divergent thrust has transferred it's momentum to the sides of the bell nozzle, it can be directed into a cylinder or convergent "flame" as it leaves the engine, just as atmospheric pressure does. The design is sound.

    Plus their "ion" engines, so....
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    if you redirect the thrust then you impart a force onto whatever you used to redirect it - since that would be attached to the ship you would be effectively cancelling out your initial thrust vectoring - also once the plasma has left the engine in space the plasma/hot gas will expand not converge

    since the plasma must be coming out at very high relativistic speeds the expansion can be minimised, possibly, depending on plasma desnity even forced to converge by the magnetic fields of the engine for a short while but that would just cause extra well drag and the gas will ultimately expand anyway

    no the fighter craft need to avoid the blue cones ideally and certainly avoid the orange one which are of course mobile but are shown in about the worse case position for recovering fighter craft
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    little update making the lower section into a proper flight deck - more ziggurat layers - a few more guns - for broadsides - also done a bit of work on the dorsal hanger
    110374.jpg110375.jpg110376.jpg
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804256 Posts: 11,034Member
    Looking good. :)
    psCargile wrote: »
    Plus their "ion" engines, so....

    They're ion engines. Though, I suspect that you have the word ion in quotes because you're going with the scientific meaning of ion. That I can't speak on because I'm no good at science. However, ion engines are the name of sub light engines in Star Wars. In fact, there are a number of things in Star Wars that use "ion" in the name. Ion cannons, for example.
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    ions are just atoms missing an electron or two - as such they respond to electrical and magnetic fields - often called plasma - but its basically just gas and if hot enough and traveling fast enough and in suffcient quantity it could pose a hazard to small craft - lets face it if enough is coming out of the back of a star destroyer enough to propel it at extreme speed then its got a lot of energy behind it
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    another update - main changes are the aa turrets - paneling on primary hull and re did the overhanging panels around the edge to give the aa turrets better clearance etc
    110377.jpg110378.jpg110379.jpg
  • SeanPSeanP218 Posts: 256Member
    Looking good! :thumb:
  • BarricadeBarricade198 Posts: 180Member
    Might want to add something beneath those turreted missile launchers near the bridge tower. Make it look like either they can retract into the hull a little to reload the tubes, or have something set 'behind' the direction they're normally stowed externally (such as how you've got them facing now) that can rise up slightly, and push new missiles in.

    The former lets you keep the launchers relatively safe from incoming fire, but the latter, while exposing them, means you could potentially flush missiles from the ship's magazines right into the tubes, and launch them, as fast as its mechanically possible. If however, meaning that they can only be launched in the ship's broadside arc.

    *chuckles* Choices, Choices...

    Love how you made it so that from directly ahead, you can see that there's a whole secondary 'wedge' below the main hull, which is where the hangars are located. I like how there's that gap there between the two.
  • StormcloudStormcloud2 Posts: 0Member
    yeah i think i will create doors for the missile launchers to recess into - almost tempted make the launchers larger but then the missiles would be almost icbms

    anyway just a small update
    110413.jpg
  • jedi44jedi440 Posts: 0Member
    Love your work my friend.
Sign In or Register to comment.