Subject:
|
Re: new Mk4 pics are up on brickshelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:59:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1803 times
|
| |
|
|
"Trevor Pruden" <trevor_pruden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G7L7C7.F4q@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.space, Tim Courtney writes:
> >
> > Interesting that you follow Star Trek technology quite closely - Brandon and • I
> > started out doing that when we began building stuff for Zacktron back in '92,
> > but over the years have split and used other influences such as modern • military
> > strucutre/units, NASA/future realistic space flight projections, and other
> > Sci-Fi movies. Its kinda a conglomeration of all - we try to become unique • and
> > not just one technology.
>
> I did before, but I found that some people use fold technology, some use
> warp conduits, some use hyper space - but when it comes to fictional FTL
> technology, I found that the most documented material comes from Star Trek.
> So, in the interest of adding detail to my ship, and because I'm an enigneer
> (really!) I wanted something that looked half believable. To me at least.
> But that's not to say that I don't like everyone elses method of attack too.
> So far I have been very impressed with what I have seen out there. I only
> wish people would build MORE capitals, since capitals in my mind are far
> more realistic than teeny-tiny 1-man fighters performing intersellar flight.
> I also can't see the use of only fighter craft without jump gates - Very
> small vessels just don't have the power generation capability in my mind's
> eye. A transport or freighter or even a heavy fighter: now *that's* a
> different story - they tend to be larger and have room for the power
> generation. Thoughts?
Aah, I understand. I'm considering several NASA theories to explain Zacktron's
FTL 'Translight' drive system, and will BS my own explanation. But I really
like the Trek documentation on Warp theory - cool stuff!
(I used to be a die-hard Trekkie in jr high, but now its just grown out of me,
probably because of the lack of a good story on TV - when TNG ended and Voyager
started featuring 'weird phase shifiting alien of the week complete with time
dimension plot hole' I quit watching)
> Well there are 4 true decks in total (I don't think I finished paragraph
> relating to this in my last post)
> Deck 1) bridge/science (highest deck)
> Deck 2) general crew
> bunks/washrooms/showers/cargo/weapons/brig/security/subsystems
> Deck 3) officer's quarters/medical/mess hall & galley/fighter bay control
> Deck 4) docking ring, escape pods, service bays. (lowest deck)
Cool...
Aah...where to put the docking ring :) Well, on a 2-deck ship, like Brandon's
and mine, you have three choices - top deck, bottom, or right in the middle.
Probably in hindsight the best place for a docking ring is near a cargo hold and
near the medical bay, with easy access to engineering sections. Gotta consider
that in the future with larger designs.
> The service and main fighter bays are all two decks high, and engineering is
> three decks high. There is an upper and lower level in
> engineering/propulsion, but they tend to overlap the second and third decks
> since the propulsion machinery is so big compared to the minifigs themselves.
Cool! I want the room to do a few decks worth of cargo hold/shuttlebay. If I
do a ship 5ft long or longer, I'll definitely include a large shuttlebay to one
side or the aft. Best position for one of those suckers anyone?
I have a sketch of the side and top view of a ship which has a couple
rectangular pods sticking out the back of the ship, kinda 'exo-hull' to serve as
craft bays. Propulsion is underneath. It all depends on the purpose of the
ship, I imagine. Tight warships don't really need them - save as a means of
escape.
I have another concept (built) for a modular cargo bay unit - which would attach
to the lowest deck of a large vessel and clamp on and become a functioning part
of the ship. This is to keep cargo storage out of the main hull (unnecessary on
shorter missions), and to provide a possible escape pod for the crew. My pod
can hold 18 minifigs seated, and the assumption is a planet will be near by it
can re-enter and guide its way down to a city or a pickup location.
The unit has an exterior door to space and a 6-wide closing door to the inside
of the ship, where there would be presumably a large corridor and a similar
cargo unit across on the opposide side. Perhaps elevators or chutes up to the
upper decks?
Maybe I could scan the sketch with the documentation for it and post it - the
model is at home and I don't have pics of it yet, its not really complete.
> As for the brig, well, I have always liked the use of a brig. The brig is
> useful containment area to perform torture and interogations prior to
> ejection from an airlock! ;^D Wait, I didn't say that! Nobody better
> tattle to Grand Admrial Sandlin on me, now! He's liable to have one of my
> captians stripped of rank!
Aah don't worry about those Admiral Sandlin types...besides, he spends too much
time talking about his Muffin Head :^)
I think our ships larger than 30 strong crew should have a detention area, but
something smaller its just not practical for the space, besides - there's
probably not a lot transferring between ships when its out, my destroyer only
has one docking port and a hatch in the airlock.
> > You should LDraw the models you like and disassemble them for capship • projects -
> > if you use more specialty parts you'll get a lot better asthetic effect. • Just
> > my suggestion :-)
>
> I REALLY want to get into Ldraw. I tried, but I think I had a down-level
> version that was non-user freindly. If someone could set me up with a
> windoze-based version that is user friendly and provide some instruction,
> now THAT would be a kind gesture! :^) If that were to happen, my capitals
> would get really nice in a short period of time becuase I wouldn't be
> restricted to the number of pieces available! Suggestions are welcome!
What Brian said...gosh darnit, beat me to it ;-)
> > They're permissable, but they're still not as visually pleasing as a well
> > rounded, defined ship.
>
> Well put. You know, everyone should bear in mind that while this ship lacks
> in some asthetics, (and this is important!) I *REALLY* like the way it
> turned out. I actually wanted this thing to look somewhat boxy. That was
> the style that I was looking for this time around, and that's why this is
> the "Mk4". My previous attempts were trying to achieve the same thing, but
> I just wasn't happy with them. And for good reason (they sucked). I finally
> feel that I have achieved the look that I want in a ship of this specific
> type and style, taking into account the available pieces.
Good point. Yes, I think the Mk4 is the best of your Destroyer series yet.
> Yes, some details
> could always be improved, but that's the point. If this ship was perfect,
> I'd never want to make another one.
I tend to think the opposite - I always want to outdo myself, so I will always
try to build something better. Brandon and I have been designing capships for
close to 10 years now - and we never get tired of it! We've learned a TON since
we were wee ones too.
> You're all right , though - I should
> now use the experience I have gained and move into the non-boxy arena. I
> would like to keep my size around the size of your destroyer, and eliminate
> the use of fighter bays altogether. I wanted a ship that would accomodate
> larger fighters, and escort fleet carriers. I have accomplished this. Now
> let's look at cruisers, frigates and gun boats to add to my line of craft.
> I really liked Dan Jassim's A-wing carrier and felt that I could tackle
> other roles for now.
Well, you've got a good goal ahead of ya - I can't wait to see what you come up
with.
> I think I'm about 6000 pieces, maybe more. Mostly classic brick. I placed
> the escape pods on the lowest deck to allow for more support (walls in
> between pods). My Mk2 was my last solid piece ship of this size, and that
> one was HEAVY. This one is twice the size altogether.
See ours is probably 3-2 brick to plate ratio! The back gray area internal
structure is a lot of plates, because its not built in 3-plate intervals to
accomodate bricks nicely. Also, when you get into the built-into-wall detail,
that gets tough to do with just bricks. So, to us, the 1200 piece tubs are
great (wish they made an off-color bin of say gray, dk gray, tan, and orange in
1200 piece tubs...and...1200 plate tubs!!) - but plates are more valuable,
especially in 6xN format.
> One thing of note: My ships modular as you can see in the pics. The idea
> here is that I can leave sections off if I want! :^) So, I could remove
> the service bays to make a different configuration of the craft. I saw this
> in Star Trek where the show modelers took pieces of older models to make new
> ships in new episodes. We see this in Star Trek Generations at the end of
> the movie.
Wow I didn't notice that! That's a good idea when making ships. Brandon and I
go for a ship that's 'wooshable' - even though if you get much bigger than this
you can't manuver it very easily. So, a ship that's built totally in pieces vs.
structurally one unit isn't our style - but good idea!!
What I really want is a sweet technique on doing shuttle bay doors...
> I like this because I can create different role craft with
> different pieces. (For such large ships, pieces would not be manufactured
> in prefab segments, but think of incorporating existing designs, and
> individual segments are designed by different teams - this sort of
> standardization is model used by Astro Lift Co.)
Cool.
> > You mention accomodating your ships - and I saw a hangar bay with a plane in • it.
> > Is that what you meant?
>
> Yup. I can hold three A-wings comfortably. Which is what I wanted since
> Dan Jassim's A-Wing carrier holds 8 I believe.
Is the A-Wing a mysterious standard among .space? ;-) I dunno what I'd measure
my bays by....maybe average fighter storage volume of all the fighters designed
(by Brandon and I), find a common shape for that, and assign units to that and
marker lines in a hangar bay....
> > With our ship classes - we intend to provide more loose guidelines and then
> > every ship built for the fleet will have a specific mission. So, some
> > Destroyers (this is odd - Destroyer is both a category and a class in • Zacktron,
> > because we haven't come up with a naming convention for our ships yet - still • in
> > development, but we believe our Destroyers will be named after famous • military
> > personnel and space battles) follow the typical 'put a few guns there and a • few
> > guns there and kick the snot out of em' pattern, and others have special
> > functions and therefore different internal/external configs.
>
> I would love to have us all come up with some loose standard guidelines.
> People can play around with that and it doesn't have to be fixed, but for
> comparison purposes and with the up and coming Space Domain, it would be
> nice to be able to classify what is a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, carrier,
> fleet carrier, support craft, gun boat, super destroyer, and so on, just
> like the talks that have transpired on what is a heavy, medium and light
> fighter. None have to look similar of course, but it would be neat-o non
> the less.
Hmm - people have tried to come up with standards in here for a while and it
never seems to work. Each persons' style is pretty different most of the time.
I have a set of standards for Zacktron, which can be read at
http://www.zacktron.com/alliance/mil/space/ - (I've referenced this a few times
already) - the source of that is a book called 'Ships of the US Fleet' published
by the US Navy in the 1970s, our storyline, and various Sci-Fi influences. On
the light/med/heavy thing, take a small destroyer (crew 15-25) and call it
light, mid size (25-35) and call it medium, and large size (35-50) and call it
heavy (for us). But I realize others have other standards. But at the same
time, none of the others *can* participate in the Zacktron universe, so my
standards are fine for me (and likewise for you or anyone else, probalby - have
your own set of independent standards which you feel best suit your storyline).
Man, I want my bricks! This is what sucks about living in a dorm 1000 miles
from home.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: new Mk4 pics are up on brickshelf
|
| (...) I did before, but I found that some people use fold technology, some use warp conduits, some use hyper space - but when it comes to fictional FTL technology, I found that the most documented material comes from Star Trek. So, in the interest (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.space)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
