|
Post by Atrahasis on Aug 8, 2008 3:59:45 GMT -5
Really, I'd like peoples' ideas on how to make it better. Feel free to say what you like and don't like about it.
|
|
vipre
Lieutenant
Posts: 40
|
Post by vipre on Aug 8, 2008 8:44:30 GMT -5
Not sure what there is to say other than YES. I like that you "left" the pennant, it was my favorite aspect of the original model. I also like the way in which you integrated the NX saucer element.
If you'd really like a suggestion though, the dorsal section between the nacelles and the saucer is pretty plain. Perhaps some grill or plate/panel detailing like are on the command pod of the D-4? Nothing real busy but something to break up the large plain surface.
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Aug 8, 2008 9:19:32 GMT -5
Thank you! I'll definitely do that.
One thing that I'm agonizing over is the shape of the pylons. So many possibilities. Angled or straight? Large at top and small at bottom or vice versa?
Btw what's it like on the original miniature?
|
|
vipre
Lieutenant
Posts: 40
|
Post by vipre on Aug 8, 2008 11:55:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Aug 8, 2008 17:43:14 GMT -5
I really like what you have so far. I have been debating if the nacelles would look better angled outward or as they are. I think I like it the way it is. It probably could use a little more detailing, but not so much that it is cluttered. Most of my other suggestions pretain to variants.
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Aug 8, 2008 18:15:24 GMT -5
So are you going to tell me your ideas for variants?
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Aug 9, 2008 20:18:40 GMT -5
Well for the Escort Carrier/Survey Cruiser version I was thinking of a thicker rear hull. The SSD says the shuttle bay is 6 boxs instead of 2. So the bay should be 3 times as big and you figure their would have to be room for spares and ammo. I wouldn't want it to look like it was just bolted on though. These ships have been around for a while and they probaly had time to develop it, instead of just rushing it. I was also thinking of maybe a YCL with an older style look maybe borrowing even more from the NX-class. Maybe even a nacelle that takes from both the NX and the Connie. Also it would probably have the same UESPA markings as the Marshall, possibly replacing the TOS style pennant on the nacelle. Nothing major structurally, just maybe the nacelles and the textures. Now the ECL escort cruiser has a shuttle bay half way between the base cruiser and the light carrier version. I am not sure how I would tackle this as it might not warrant major structural changes as it only services the carriers fighters and doesnt have its own. Thats all I have for now. Just some ideas
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Aug 10, 2008 8:10:51 GMT -5
Thank you! One problem I have with the YCL is that they would have been all upgraded out of existence by the modern era, up from 9 warp boxes to 12. NOt that I've let that fact for other ships stop me before, but the fact that the OCL is used prolifically really casts doubt on the raison d'etre of the YCL. Still, I'll consider making a version. But thanks for pointing out the carrier and escort variants.
|
|
|
Post by zerosnark on Aug 10, 2008 10:19:03 GMT -5
I really object to the carrier varients. SFB was notorious for easy swaps. . .Transporter boxes interchangeable with Photons and shuttlebays? I don't think so.
I think if you are tripling the size of the hanger bay, you are going to change the basic structure of the ship. Take a look at the enormous shuttle bay of the Coronando. It's basically the ENTIRE secondary hull.
Now an escort cruiser. . .that would be interesting!
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Aug 10, 2008 10:29:58 GMT -5
Well, the way I've modelled her so far would allow for all sorts of stuff to be added dorsally and ventrally, even carrier modules I'm thinking along the relatively flat and bare back, not unlike the way it is on the SFB Napoleon-class carrier.
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Aug 10, 2008 20:04:27 GMT -5
Some more work on it. New bussards, to simulate what the dark "Pike-era" ones would look like if lit. Darker sensor dish. New side intakes.
|
|
|
Post by zerosnark on Aug 10, 2008 22:53:10 GMT -5
Well, the way I've modelled her so far would allow for all sorts of stuff to be added dorsally and ventrally, even carrier modules I'm thinking along the relatively flat and bare back, not unlike the way it is on the SFB Napoleon-class carrier. But. . .the Napoleon is a *purpose built* carrier. I wonder if you can really "bolt on" carrier modules without something bad happening. . .like excessive radiation from the engines or simple structural failure. - - - - - - Oh . . .by the way. . . this is an AWESOME rendition of the OCL. Can't wait to fly it!!! This ship is way underappreciated by the modelling communittee. In SFB, extra engines are bolted on to many designs with no adverse affects except increased move cost. I doubt it would work that way in "real life".
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Aug 10, 2008 22:55:26 GMT -5
You know what? I don't think this design even needs a new model for the carrier version because that aft hangar is frikkin' huge. Just hollow out some inside space for more room if you need it.
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Aug 10, 2008 23:17:20 GMT -5
I think the swept back pylons are the best choice because they bring more of the ship forward, otherwise it just looks a tad ass-heavy. The pylons will get more detail later.
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Aug 11, 2008 18:47:06 GMT -5
Here's what the ship looks like with the USS Revenge's engines, not color-adjusted yet.
|
|