Subject:
|
Re: Giant space ship links site idea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:11:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
613 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew at moulton@hscis.net wrote:
> I disagree, I think it has more to do with overall size and capacity
> than it does stud length. The Behemoth on my site is 90 studs long,
> which doesn't sound too impressive until you note that it's also
> around 60 studs wide and around 18 studs high.
Ok, you have a point there.
> I think that the ship
> should have to have an overall volume of a certain amount. For
> instance the Behemoth would have an average volume of 97,200 bricks.
> So you could have two classes of large ships, those that are 50,000 to
> 100,000 brick volume and then those that are 100,000 or higher. So
> basically if you wanted to find the average volume of your ship you
> would take the heigth, width, and lenght, and then multiply them
> together.
Hmm, so my Mithrandir would be approx. 74,480 if you don't count the engine
pods on the sides of the main hull. The problem is that the ship has many
different widths all along its length. If I include the engine pods, the
number goes up over 200k, which is obviously inaccurate. I suppose we'll
just have to shoot for a "relative" volume that excludes protrusions and
wing-like bits, like what you've mentioned below.
> Of course the only bad thing is that I could put a rather
> large antena on the top of my ship and suddenly it's volume would be
> huge. So I think you'd have to exclude anteni, radar, extraneous
> weapons, etc.
Yep. Even my 74k figure is off, because of the skinny portions of the ship
mixed with the command tower in the middle. I'd guesstimate the actual
number would be somewhere around 45-50k. I suppose one could measure out
different portions of the ship, calculate them, and then add them together.
> On the other hand it could just be a judgement call. I
> mean if it looks big then it's gotta be big right? Well, those are
> just some of my thoughts.
Yeah, I guess if it gives sort of a "massive" feeling, then it's a capital
ship. I suppose our points were the same... I was just trying to say that
something long n' skinny doesn't necessarily qualify as a cap-ship, but
short n' massive certainly can.
~Mark
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Giant space ship links site idea
|
| (...) I agree with the volume idea for definition of a Capital Ship - with one other addition. IMHO a Capital Ship must have a crew size greater than a fighter, scout or simple transport. I suggest that the crew compliment has to be at least 20. (...) (24 years ago, 3-Oct-00, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: Giant space ship links site idea
|
| (...) What if you classified them differently. Say starships, capital ships, etc. I think of a capital ship as a sort of mobile space base, which may carry a heavy payload, onboard fighters of some kind, sustainable crew, etc. I mean think of say an (...) (24 years ago, 3-Oct-00, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Giant space ship links site idea
|
| (...) I disagree, I think it has more to do with overall size and capacity than it does stud length. The Behemoth on my site is 90 studs long, which doesn't sound too impressive until you note that it's also around 60 studs wide and around 18 studs (...) (24 years ago, 3-Oct-00, to lugnet.space)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
