Star Dragon Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 And I think you missed my point. I meant before they would go for one taht big off the bat they would try to make a not so big one big still significantly bigger version first, THEN go for the super jumbo large deluxe version. Kinda like the evolution of skyscrapers. (Modern Marvels is a great TV show!) As for a MII: Macross Cannon You could use a substitue... (wink). Like Macross VO. Then refine later when you have time. Anyway nice ARMD. Are those details modeled or all in the texture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted April 19, 2009 Author Share Posted April 19, 2009 And I think you missed my point. I meant before they would go for one taht big off the bat they would try to make a not so big one big still significantly bigger version first, THEN go for the super jumbo large deluxe version. Kinda like the evolution of skyscrapers. (Modern Marvels is a great TV show!) As for a MII: Macross Cannon You could use a substitue... (wink). Like Macross VO. Then refine later when you have time. Anyway nice ARMD. Are those details modeled or all in the texture? I'm not sure what all the black squares on the side are actually supposed to be, so they are part of the texture. I figure they are openings of some kind, but their positioning seems to be almost random, and they are always drawn as fullblack, so I'm not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 The black spots are launches/bays/docking ports. As a general rule, whenever you see something solid black on vehicle line art, it's a port/opening/slot/bank/launch tube/thruster et cetera. If it's unlikely to be any of those (based on the function of the vehicle, placement of the black spot, etc) then it can be a light, vent, or other such detail. On larger ships, black spots are usually bays or launch ports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted April 19, 2009 Author Share Posted April 19, 2009 The black spots are launches/bays/docking ports. As a general rule, whenever you see something solid black on vehicle line art, it's a port/opening/slot/bank/launch tube/thruster et cetera. If it's unlikely to be any of those (based on the function of the vehicle, placement of the black spot, etc) then it can be a light, vent, or other such detail. On larger ships, black spots are usually bays or launch ports. Thats what I figured. Are there any close-up shots of these openings that I could use to add more detail? I'm unsure of the internal structure, and don't really want to fly blind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chillyche Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Thats what I figured. Are there any close-up shots of these openings that I could use to add more detail? I'm unsure of the internal structure, and don't really want to fly blind. There's basically the VF-1 launch shots in DYRL. There's some detail of the bay door, and I believe I saw a model of the ARMD that identified at least two or three of those black holes as VF-1 launch bays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kremmen Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) That's starting to look awesome. Back to the Star Wars nomenclature for scaling things, I'd like to formally request that people stop saying "Super Star Destroyer." A Super-class Star Destroyer is a fake set of statistics, made up to fool an Imperial Oversight Committee, so that funding for the Executor-Class could be procured. Super-Class (Star Dreadnoughts, not Star Destroyers) is listed to be 8km long and 6km wide. The product of the project, the Executor-class, was 19km long, and 8km wide. In the movie, it was mis-referred to as a Super Star Destroyer. In fact, the ship was the flagship of the class, the Executor. Also, don't bring the Eclipse-class dreadnought (Note: Dreadnought is spelled dreadnought, not dreadnaught, as it would normally be) in, as it is shorter, but deeper. Nerd. ;p hehe Like someone else said I've never been really a fan of that retcon either. I wish they'd just said Admiral Ackbar was using Rebel slang - LF DOES try to please everybody by "acknowledging" previous information, which is futile. BTW, she is not 8km wide, that doesn't match the proportions of the model. At 19km long the beam dimension works out closer to 6.4km. And to get even nerdier: 19km is actually TOO long. She was intended to be 11 miles long, which is about 17.6km. One of my friends was largely responsible for getting Lucasfilm to amend the late-80's scaling error which derived from the West End Games stuff. Unfortunately they've backslid in more recent material and are now using some third, incorrect length number. LF continuity screwups are like a Hydra. This Macross ship is shaping up, however even at sub-Death Star proportions there's still a problem with its weaponry. It is WAY under-armed for that kind of size! The thing has the surface area of a major city; it should have tens of thousands of missile launchers and entire air forces' worth of fighters. Edited April 22, 2009 by Kremmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Nerd. ;p hehe Like someone else said I've never been really a fan of that retcon either. I wish they'd just said Admiral Ackbar was using Rebel slang - LF DOES try to please everybody by "acknowledging" previous information, which is futile. BTW, she is not 8km wide, that doesn't match the proportions of the model. At 19km long the beam dimension works out closer to 6.4km. And to get even nerdier: 19km is actually TOO long. She was intended to be 11 miles long, which is about 17.6km. One of my friends was largely responsible for getting Lucasfilm to amend the late-80's scaling error which derived from the West End Games stuff. Unfortunately they've backslid in more recent material and are now using some third, incorrect length number. LF continuity screwups are like a Hydra. This Macross ship is shaping up, however even at sub-Death Star proportions there's still a problem with its weaponry. It is WAY under-armed for that kind of size! The thing has the surface area of a major city; it should have tens of thousands of missile launchers and entire air forces' worth of fighters. It was INTENDED to be. However, as it stands, Executor is 19km long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star Dragon Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Besides... Do you people even know how LONG it takes just to lauch or fly past the surface? A LONG time in a sublight fighter unless you keep accelerating past .1c, in theory eventually you can get to .99c BUT then you can't turn in space on a dime at that speed and need to decelerate the same amount if not more (I forgets) I envisioned a 30ish KM ship and for testing and screenshot comparisons (It's fricking HUGE) takes me like almost 3mins to fly from bow to stren! SS mesh enlarged to be a giant Battlestar type: http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b321/Sta...leet/osiris.jpg Can almost launch SDF-1's out Each side bay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Besides... Do you people even know how LONG it takes just to lauch or fly past the surface? A LONG time in a sublight fighter unless you keep accelerating past .1c, in theory eventually you can get to .99c BUT then you can't turn in space on a dime at that speed and need to decelerate the same amount if not more (I forgets) I envisioned a 30ish KM ship and for testing and screenshot comparisons (It's fricking HUGE) takes me like almost 3mins to fly from bow to stren! SS mesh enlarged to be a giant Battlestar type: http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b321/Sta...leet/osiris.jpg Can almost launch SDF-1's out Each side bay. I'm confused, what are yo talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star Dragon Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) If you look at the time I was typing, just posted one minute after the post above me, it would have made more sense of you read Kremmen's post above that. I didn't count on a simultaneous post so I responded to him directly with no quote. "The thing has the surface area of a major city; it should have tens of thousands of missile launchers and entire air forces' worth of fighters. smile.gif" Yeah and have you tried flying over something like that in combat? Or just getting out a launch bay? The damn battle would be over practically "Ok I'm here guys, is there any enemies left to kill???" Are you clear now? Edited April 24, 2009 by Star Dragon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Well, of course it takes time. But, then, you've gotta realize that it's only when it's moving exactly parallel to you. If you're moving antiparallel to it, you'll be over it in seconds. Relativistic speed, right, Mike? I don't see the point in it having huge guns. It's not a fleet, it's an aircraft carrier. It can have CIWS and anti-ship weapons, even, but as soon as it comes to having a million guns, it's really pointless. At that point, you don't need the fighter squadron, so you can eliminate that aspect, which would cut its role to something else. Point of this post: Leave it to the fighters. Concentrate on shooting the missiles down! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kremmen Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Well, of course it takes time. But, then, you've gotta realize that it's only when it's moving exactly parallel to you. If you're moving antiparallel to it, you'll be over it in seconds. Relativistic speed, right, Mike? I don't see the point in it having huge guns. It's not a fleet, it's an aircraft carrier. It can have CIWS and anti-ship weapons, even, but as soon as it comes to having a million guns, it's really pointless. At that point, you don't need the fighter squadron, so you can eliminate that aspect, which would cut its role to something else. Point of this post: Leave it to the fighters. Concentrate on shooting the missiles down! Uuurrrhh...ok, just not understanding some of this I'm afraid. * Any capital ship will have plenty of point-defense installations. I didn't mention huge guns, I mentioned missile launchers. Point-defense missiles at the very least. * No, fighters don't obsolete naval gunnery in all circumstances: they can't perform the kind of surface bombardment that a capital ship can, nor take out an opposing capital ship defended by superior numbers of enemy fighters, etc. * This thing COULD mount a million guns quite readily. Whether it could crew or power them is moot, but it has the space. My point is that the quoted figures would be inadequate for a much smaller ship - you're talking about one weapon per five square miles of surface (yes, I made that figure up, but you get the gist). The average middle-eastern village has a greater density of fire. * The Executor model was built to represent a ship 11 miles long, and filmed with that in mind. She is fairly consistently represented in the films at that scale. She's actually a fair bit less than 19km. Like I said - 11 miles is 17.6km. * Executor can't be both 19km long and 8km wide. * Star dragon, what exactly are you arguing against? You're saying the ship is still too big? BTW a flagship isn't the same as the lead ship of a class. A flagship can be any vessel, it is distinguished by carrying an admiral's flag, i.e. being the ship on which he is based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Fine. I'll leave you to your knowlegde. I'll remember to read my signature before I say anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 If you're moving antiparallel to it, you'll be over it in seconds. Relativistic speed, right, Mike? I'd like to be able to get through at least ONE thread without it becoming a physics problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 I'd like to be able to get through at least ONE thread without it becoming a physics problem Too bad. By the by, your sig: balls were tripped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kremmen Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Fine. I'll leave you to your knowlegde. I'll remember to read my signature before I say anything. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star Dragon Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 I am not arguing, I made a comment that confused someone, so let's just drop it ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 I've been spending more time on my SDF-1 as usual, starting on the bridge. But I've still managed to make some progress with the EDF-1. You'll notice that one of the 'towers' is taller than the other on the transformed EDF-1. It ends up way to tall as it is, so I'm working on ways to reduce the tower height. I haven't moved the changes over to the other side yet. I've also just started on the bridge. It needs a whole lot more details, but its better then having the thing headless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akt_m Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 The design looks older than Battle Frontier or Battle 7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 At that angle, it looks like the bridge to a Halcyon-class cruiser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Back to the Star Wars nomenclature for scaling things, I'd like to formally request that people stop saying "Super Star Destroyer." A Super-class Star Destroyer is a fake set of statistics, made up to fool an Imperial Oversight Committee, so that funding for the Executor-Class could be procured. Super-Class (Star Dreadnoughts, not Star Destroyers) is listed to be 8km long and 6km wide. The product of the project, the Executor-class, was 19km long, and 8km wide. In the movie, it was mis-referred to as a Super Star Destroyer. In fact, the ship was the flagship of the class, the Executor. Also, don't bring the Eclipse-class dreadnought (Note: Dreadnought is spelled dreadnought, not dreadnaught, as it would normally be) in, as it is shorter, but deeper. Sez who? Neither www.starwars.com, nor the dreaded Wikipedia mention this information. So... request denied. Super Star Destroyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Sez who? Neither www.starwars.com, nor the dreaded Wikipedia mention this information. So... request denied. Super Star Destroyer. Eat one, Drew Carrey. Shed some light: Star Dreadnaught, the classification of the Executor-class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chillyche Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 I also notice your stars in the bg. Are those from where I think I they're from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Eat one, Drew Carrey. Shed some light: Star Dreadnaught, the classification of the Executor-class. Eat yourself. Nowhere in that article does it specifically state that "Super-class Star Destroyer" was the name used a s a red herring. Furthermore, the information is suspect because 1) It is EU, which typically = crap, and 2) The specific article from which this information is derived was written for a magazine by some dudes trying to justify information on a tabletop RPG, 3) It's Wookiepedia, a Star Wars-specific wiki, and all wikis are inherently unreliable. Hardly official. Super Star Destroyer. p.s.- Sorry about the baklava. Man, that stuff is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Eat yourself. Nowhere in that article does it specifically state that "Super-class Star Destroyer" was the name used a s a red herring. Furthermore, the information is suspect because 1) It is EU, which typically = crap, and 2) The specific article from which this information is derived was written for a magazine by some dudes trying to justify information on a tabletop RPG, 3) It's Wookiepedia, a Star Wars-specific wiki, and all wikis are inherently unreliable. Hardly official. Super Star Destroyer. p.s.- Sorry about the baklava. Man, that stuff is good. Super-class Star Destroyer. It describes how the term "Super Star Destroyer" came in as a misnomer. Sourced from Starwars.com, even. Star Dreadnought. PS You say it's from a wiki, thus it can't be trusted, yet previously, you bring up Wikipedia. Further, this IS sourced from Starwars.com. Also, I need more money to accomodate Valks AND baklava. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) @ Schitzo Your link is to a wiki. (http://starwars.wikia.com) Try: http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/...oyer/index.html (note: www.starwars.com The official site.) Edited May 18, 2009 by sketchley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 @ Schitzo Your link is to a wiki. (http://starwars.wikia.com) Try: http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/...oyer/index.html (note: www.starwars.com The official site.) Need I point out the Compendium, source of knowledge for most of the community, is a Wiki? Further, the article to which you have directed me specifically states that the classification is Star Dreadnought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Need I point out the Compendium, source of knowledge for most of the community, is a Wiki? Which community are you refering to? Star Wars? If you mean Macross, which isn't clearly stated, nor even implied, given the topic of the past few posts, my source are a bunch of Japanese books. Further, the article to which you have directed me specifically states that the classification is Star Dreadnought. And there's your answer from an official source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Which community are you refering to? Star Wars? If you mean Macross, which isn't clearly stated, nor even implied, given the topic of the past few posts, my source are a bunch of Japanese books. And there's your answer from an official source. Macross Compendium, whichi is heavily implied in that statement (Considering any post concerning a compendium of any type on this forum is of the Macross Compendium), may not be your source, but it is for many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Macross Compendium, whichi is heavily implied in that statement (Considering any post concerning a compendium of any type on this forum is of the Macross Compendium), may not be your source, but it is for many people. http://macross.anime.net/index.html ? As the writer of the statement, you may feel that you are heavily implying something. As a reader, given the context of the situation, see http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...st&p=751535 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 http://macross.anime.net/index.html ? As the writer of the statement, you may feel that you are heavily implying something. As a reader, given the context of the situation, see http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...st&p=751535 I'd rather not get into a battle of wits with the one who is "Smarter than brainy smurf." Especially, since I am quite tired at the time being. Let's just leave it at "Star Dreadnought" and get back on topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Get it back on topic guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 yeah, yikes O_O If all these posts had been on subject, I'd have felt popular Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.