Here's a very early WIP of a 2250s-era Destroyer. Overall length is about 160 m but that might change. Detailing is provision too. The nacelles and supports were "liberated" from a USS Chimera design by Jason Colbert at ASDB: http://www.trekships.org/chimera-jason-sketch.jpg
Comments/criticism accepted (grudgingly)
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Here's a one-nacelle version. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Great design, Masao! I prefer the two-nacelle version, myself.
A couple of suggestions, mainly pertaining to the nacelles: first, those pylons look neat, but don't really fit in the 2250's era, IMO, with the bent angles. I think the ship might look better if the nacelles were held in closer to the hull, by getting rid of that second, outer segment of the pylons.
Also, you may want to consider slimming down the nacelles themselves just a tad... say, 20% or so? I'm guessing you're wanting large nacelles because the ship itself is so small. But it looks... well, a bit strange. Though strange can be good.
I look forward to seeing further developments! Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Yummy!!
I like them both a lot...maybe you could use them both? The twin-engined one is a "fleet destroyer," able to run out to the frontier & handle large-scale fleet actions as well, while the single-engined one is more for local patrol cruisers & the like.
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
Yea - I would say take that extra bend out of the pylons. Keep them swept, but simpler. Extra bends and kinks may look good some times, but they often compromise strength.
I also think you may want to have both types for - perhaps - different missions (picket ship for the single nacelle version - strike ship for the twin model).
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
Replying to myself?
Also, maybe make the impulse engines a little more prominent and as for the cannon on the twin-nacelle design, some type of a high-energy particle cannon, maybe?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Gee, I kind of like the kinked supports. I wanted to make this ship look ludicrously overpowered, sort of like a hot rod with an enormous engine. In particular I wanted to contrast it with that boring science ship I posted a few months ago. The extra-large, complex-looking nacelles and kinked supports add to that big-engine effect. Whether it fits in the 2250s, who knows? Constitution is from the 2240s, so this is a bit more advanced, leaning toward the refit configuration.
I decided to put the impulse thrusters on the neck. The shuttle bay prevent them from being on the top rear of the saucer, and I didn't want to split them on either side of the neck. They will be detailed more, however.
I think I will make both single-nacelle and twin-nacelle variants. The single-nacelle version should also have a big gun right above the nacelle.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Looks good....but the nacelles are a bit too streamlined for TOS. I'd make them thinner and make the bussard collector more blunt. Mabye square off the secondary hull a bit if there's no shuttlebay there.... Mabye add Connie flux chillers to the nacelles too.
My .02
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Damn. And I was almost done with the article for my Zhuhai-class to lay at your altar.
Another thing: my eyes keep adding depth to the twin-engined dorsal plan. They keep wanting to raise the cranked pylons up at a slight angle. Not a MASSIVE one...but a a gentle one; like, they slope up to the crnak & then go straight out to the nacelles. Maybe you might want to to a test run side view on that concept...just to see how it looks. You already did say it could be the start of the bridge of the refit era, so...
Where are the frigates?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Jason: I'm going to keep the nacelles mostly the way they are, but I will try blunting the bussards a bit. Shik: I know what you mean about the nacelle supports. I haven't done the front and rear views but will probably make the wing slightly like a Corsair (gull wing). Other wise the supports are too long and straight.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Yeah...gullwingin' it would work nicely.
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
I don't know - I wouldn't put a big gun on the single nacelle model myself. Stick with lighter guns, but maybe a couple extra batteries for better coverage.
That's why I thought it might make a good picket ship (that would be like a WWII radar picket - sitting on the edge, watching for trouble, taking a pot shot if it can - otherwise - laying low).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Something small and nitpicky: should'nt the bridge's turbolift be larger to match the TOS Connie's? I'm sure you're working on a forward view so I'll forgo some of my other qurstions....for now. Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Something small and nitpicky: should'nt the bridge's turbolift be larger to match the TOS Connie's? I'm sure you're working on a forward view so I'll forgo some of my other qurstions....for now.
The bridge module is straight off my Connie schematics. The elevator tube looks shorter because it and the back part of the bridge are slightly submerged into the hull mound.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah...now I sees it! I may well build this in 2500th scale....once the fore and aft views are completed, that is.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Once again a never seen before design approach. Great!
I'd go with the two-nacelled version, with the nacelle struts slightly running upward.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bernd: Once again a never seen before design approach. Great!
I'd go with the two-nacelled version, with the nacelle struts slightly running upward.
Well, it's not entirely new. I took the head off of Pyotr Velikiy, the forward bridge off of Paris and the secondary hull off Al-Burak. But I like the slightly snaky look of this ship.
I think I will have both types, however.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I don't have a ruler on me to figure out howbig the saucer is, but for a 160 meters ship, it looks like the saucer is only a few decks thick. I hope it's not going to have everything inside including the kitchen sink inside. If you do, I estimate less than a dozen could fit confortably inside Starfleet style (though if it went Navy style you could fit a good 100 people inside).
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: I don't have a ruler on me to figure out howbig the saucer is, but for a 160 meters ship, it looks like the saucer is only a few decks thick. I hope it's not going to have everything inside including the kitchen sink inside. If you do, I estimate less than a dozen could fit confortably inside Starfleet style (though if it went Navy style you could fit a good 100 people inside).
Yup. It is a very small ship internally. Most of the length comes from the nacelles, which are, of course, uninhabitable. I'm thinking of scaling it up a bit, but I wanted this ship to have a small head and long legs.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: I don't have a ruler on me to figure out howbig the saucer is, but for a 160 meters ship, it looks like the saucer is only a few decks thick. I hope it's not going to have everything inside including the kitchen sink inside. If you do, I estimate less than a dozen could fit confortably inside Starfleet style (though if it went Navy style you could fit a good 100 people inside).
Yup. It is a very small ship internally. Most of the length comes from the nacelles, which are, of course, uninhabitable. I'm thinking of scaling it up a bit, but I wanted this ship to have a small head and long legs.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Small ships are more of a challenge to design. I see two full decks with living space in the saucer, plus the bridge. The deflector would be most likely uninhabitable (meaning there would be only Jefferies tubes). The neck and secondary hull would be entirely occupied by fuel storage and a small engineering area.
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
Very cool Masao! Love the design idea! Would you mind if I made a 3D model from the design, You're initial designs interest me greatly, especially the nacelles. Maybe some illuminated venting between the fins at the back of the nacelle.....Have you considered inverting her (nacelles above the primary hull?)
Makotokat
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Makotokat: Very cool Masao! Love the design idea! Would you mind if I made a 3D model from the design, You're initial designs interest me greatly, especially the nacelles. Maybe some illuminated venting between the fins at the back of the nacelle.....Have you considered inverting her (nacelles above the primary hull?)
Makotokat
1. Sure, go ahead. I'm working on the final schematics now. 2. The nacelles were from a design by Jason Colbert. I just "liberated" them. Mess with them as you'd like. 3. I haven't considered that!
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
Thanks my friend! I don't feel busy unless i've got about 5 projects on the go and this one looks pretty interesting! I might add a little texture detail as I go but I'll keep true. BTW I finally found where my D2 files went and I look forward to finishing texturing her (nacelles are about all I need to do now but they're tricky)
Makotokat
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Inversion would look...very bad. Yes.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Ack! A straight inversion would be a VERY bad idea! If there were a rearrangement of the sections, then possibly... but then it'd end up looking much more like the Paris class.
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
Not a straight inversion no.....Move the shuttlebay under the hull flaring out from the deflector housing, then a low neck fluting into a engineering pod....let me try the original first
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Okay, I see what you mean... however, IMO that arrangement would be (as I said) too similar to the earlier Paris-class light cruiser that Masao designed about a year ago. One of Masao's traits that make him such an excellent designer is his desire to have as much variety as possible for the different classes. (Barring, of course, those obvious kitbashes where such kitbashing is intentional and considered. )
But who knows? It might be worth considering... though I think I'd still prefer the current configuration. It's more traditional, and also specifically related to the well-known FJ Saladin class -- even though the ships aren't supposed to have anything really in common, anyway...
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
Well I've got the saucer done so far as bridge, shuttlebay, torpedo mounts, and deflector pod (still need to add dish to it though)and she looks like a good start! I'll start out with Masao's original design and build her up. I'm still a little leary of those nacelle struts mind....so I might modify them a bit, more TOS-ish. I'll post a pic of the progress tomorrow.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I'm had trouble with the deflector mount. It's similar to the one on my Pyotry Velikiy class but doesn't extent as far forward. Maybe a modeler can help hash out the details there.
I'm working on the single nacelle version right now.
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
Interesting.....thanks Masao!
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
You're welcome!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Well, that's simple. You need a half-round hull cut. Like this.See?
Seriously. The names Anasazi & Anahuac stick in my mind for this thing. And any idea what those dorsal strakes are supposed to be? Sensor blisters perhaps? And I still keep seeing those nacelles & pylons raised up a bit.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Well, that's simple. You need a half-round hull cut. Like this.See?
Thanks. Those will be helpful. Looks like I'll have to cut away a tunnel in the front of the dorsal mound to clear a path for the deflector in front.
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Seriously. The names Anasazi & Anahuac stick in my mind for this thing. And any idea what those dorsal strakes are supposed to be? Sensor blisters perhaps? And I still keep seeing those nacelles & pylons raised up a bit.
I've already had a class with native American names, so I won't use them for this class.
The strakes are off USS Huron, of course. I'm going to say they are some sort of deflector system, mostly to protect the bridge.
Finally, here are the schematics for the single-nacelle variant. I think I actually like this one better. Single-nacelle destroyer Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Lurvley.
For the single-naceller...I dunno. Fiji, Dido, & Shenzhou popped onto mind. Still like the idea of both variants.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
That single-nacelle one looks... interesting. Beefed up, but maybe a bit too similar to FJ's Saladin? I know, I know.... can't be helped.
One suggestion from an artistic POV, Masao. This applies to both versions, but I first noticed it on the single-nacelle version because there's a bit less there to look at.
I'd suggest that you add some more detailing to the bussard collectors -- I know you probably left off those forward spikes since the 2250's are getting into the era where they're gone. But looking at it from the front view, the plain gradient looks a little too... well, flat. Perhaps adding those radial lines like on the classic Enterprise? You know, the ones that spin round and round?
Lookin' cool! Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
I think it's intersting design, even though I don't like single nacelled ships (well, maybe not that I don't like those ships, it's just they look like one-legged chicken with only once nacelle ) Have you considered variant with another nacelle under the first?
Oh, and impulse engine placement is... unusual, but nice. But it looks to me that exhaust from those engines will go diagonally up, straight at that poor shuttle Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: I'd suggest that you add some more detailing to the bussard collectors -- I know you probably left off those forward spikes since the 2250's are getting into the era where they're gone. But looking at it from the front view, the plain gradient looks a little too... well, flat. Perhaps adding those radial lines like on the classic Enterprise? You know, the ones that spin round and round?
Yeah, I've thought about that, but I started out trying to mimic the flat red caps of "The Cage" version! adding a bit of yellow was a big step for me. I'll probably keep them that way.
quote:Originally posted by Kazeite: Have you considered variant with another nacelle under the first?
Oh, and impulse engine placement is... unusual, but nice. But it looks to me that exhaust from those engines will go diagonally up, straight at that poor shuttle
No stacked nacelles. I don't see any advantage in that.
The impulse thruster housing just looks angled. I'm sure the engineers have ensured the thrust will be horizontal.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Wow!!!!!! Very nice design Masao. I especially like the fact that you made both classes smaller than the Constitution-class and Constitution derived starship classes. Although the single nacelle ship looks like a member of the Federation starship family, I don't think it will ever be confused with a Saladin/Hermes destroyer or scout.
Kudos to Jason Colbert for the nacelle design as well.
Have you thought of possible names for this class? I think that it would be an interesting, and refreshing, change if members of the class were named for historical figures, famous ships, or myths from East Asia (Japan, Korea, Thailand etc.) and India. Ancient civilizations and Occidental cultures seem to be predominant in Starfleet starship names. I have grown tired of seeing starships named for Roman and Greek mythology.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Masao, I didn't mean that the third paragraph applied to your creations in the "Starfleet Museum". You seem to use plenty of names from East Asia and Indian culture and history. Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Fantastic as usual Masao. Possibly the single nacelle design could be a scout and the two nacelle the destroyer, similar to the Saladin/Hermes designations.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I'm trying to decide the final size of this ship. originally I had it at 156 m but am considering blowing it up 25% to 196 m. Opinions? (Also note that I've fixed the size fo the bridge to match Constitution's) Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
As a destroyer the larger version is better. Considering that the Saladin with a full size Connie saucer was in service at this time.
Either size would work well as a smaller ship (corvette say).
Posted by Sargon (Member # 1090) on :
I prefer the smaller; The Connie is a Heavy Cruiser, the largest ship built by Earth in her time. I see them as equivalent to the WW2 Alaska class for her time. Destroyers would be considerably samller. I also like the bridge of the destroyer being smaller, with fewer stations or just not as much room for a similar number of bridge crew.
Posted by superslowmo (Member # 875) on :
hey, that's cool... kinda like an old-fashioned charleston class, you know? it was a 3d ship some guy designed... anyhow yes, this is cool
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Masao do I see an Avenger-class destroyer NCC-D100? Is another of the destroyers going to be named Reliant?
I think that I like the 156 meter size the best. I liked the fact that it was a lot smaller than the Constitution-class and the Saladin/Hermes-classes. I was thinking that your destroyer design could be produced in greater quantities and in less time than the Saladin/Hermes-classes. Perhaps the shipyards could build four of the smaller destroyers for the time it takes to build one of the larger destroyers.
And I think size has little to do with offensive firepower, look at the modern Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser at 173 meters in length. This battle cruiser is part of a carrier battle group and principally designed to protect aircraft carriers that are about the size of the Constitution-class heavy cruiser.
The final decision is of course yours to make, but if given the choice I would chose the smaller size. Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Oh, now I think I know the issue about the size! I presume Masao that you are concerned about the size of the the new destroyer because its so close to that of your 22nd century Paris-class Light Cruiser at 129.56 meters.
Hmmm... in that case, I would probably increase the size of the destroyer by 25%.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Triton: Oh, now I think I know the issue about the size! I presume Masao that you are concerned about the size of the the new destroyer because its so close to that of your 22nd century Paris-class Light Cruiser at 129.56 meters.
Not exactly. I'm not really worried about comparisons with the Paris class, but more about whether this ship will look like a bug next to a Constitution. I have always thought that Hermes/Saladins had unnecessarily large primary hulls, so my mod of them (posted earlier: Hermes) had smaller discs; but again, they're not really relevant here. I suspect that ships of the same type would tend grow larger over time, just as heavy cruisers have.
About the name: Minutiae Man came up with that one! USS Avenger as a designation for Reliant's class is not canon (and Miranda might not be either, for that matter). I'm going to give all the ships names ending with -er, -or, or -ur, such as Marauder, Interceptor, Invader, Savior, Boxer.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Cool naming scheme Masao!
May I suggest Blazer from HMS Blazer, the ship that gave us the garment of the same name. I also like Smiter,Dasher, Puncher, Charger, Reaper, Ranger, Trumpeter, Pursuer, Gleaner, Biter, Ravager, Slinger, Trouncer, Hunter, Stalker, Fencer, Battler, Chaser, Striker, Tracker, Attacker, and Victor all names from ships in the Royal Navy.
You could also use Donner, which means thunder in German.
I always thought that these names would be appropriate for Akira-class or Streamrunner-class starships because they sound so offensive in the warlike sense. Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I've got another list of 175 names that I've already rejected!
These include: Vomiter, Retreater, Farter, Motherf*cker, Drooler, Stinker, Hider, Whinger, Sneezer, Bleeder...
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
LOL! Looks like my faves made it!
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Personally, I could go for either size but am edging towards the larger. Are these ships predecessors of or a contemporary design of the Saladin/Hermes classes in 'your' timeline?
The list of names looks damn good to me as well, BTW.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I'm leaning towards the bigger size, for added capability, for general growth over time, and to allow shuttle craft to fit into the hanger.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Will you increase the size of the single-nacelled variant by 25% as well? Will this be a different class and type of starship? Or will there be a single-nacelled Avenger-class destroyer?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I've been talking with Masao via e-mail about this design (among other things). The two variants (single- and dual-nacelle) go together, so both will be the same size. And the single-nacelle design will also be getting its own class designation, most likely -- as I understand what he's said, anyway.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Yes, Minutiae Man speaks the truth. The one- and two-nacelle variants will be the same from the neck up but will have different warp power trains. Each variant will be a separate class.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
I certainly prefer bigger version, for reasons already stated (shuttlebay big enough to actually acomodate a shuttle, etc).
While we are at it, that bridge module appears to be smaller than Connie bridge module (although it size remains the same on both versions)... It's just smaller, right? Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The bridge module is the same size as that of the Connie. I took it directly off my Connie Schematics. It might appear smaller because it doesn't have the teardrop base.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
Oh.
Yep, it certainly looks smaller without deck two structure Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Great! Thank you for posting them here! I intend to do some more renders featuring the Avenger in the near future (as far as university allows me to take the time). I'm looking forward to your article at the Starfleet Museum!! Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Very nice work, Jan!
Looking forward to seeing more renders, as well as the article (of course!). Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
That is one dinky little ship. B)
Posted by Jan (Member # 1133) on :
Thanks! I liked this ship from the very beginning! It's always amazing how impressive Masao's drawings look in 3D, I think.
Wraith: There are indeed some interesting scenes in my mind to put this ship into. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Excellent artwork there, Jan!
I've got a request for a scene if you're interested and willing... assuming you have a model of the Constitution class that you can use, I would love to see a pair of Avengers escorting the Enterprise or some other Connie! Posted by Jan (Member # 1133) on :
Thank you, MinutiaeMan!
This would be one of the scenes I definitely will do. Actually, four days ago, I finished my new Constitution-class model which I built after Alan Sinclair's blueprints. If you like my Avenger model, you'll probably like that one, too. Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
The article is coming one of these days. I promise.
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
Beautiful, simply beautiful. She looks fast! Nice work.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Amazing! What program are those ships rendered with!?!
Andrew
Posted by Jan (Member # 1133) on :
Glad you like them! I use 3ds Max 5 for modelling and rendering.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Jan! Who do I have to kill for you to render one of my designs that nicely? Just name the person....BLAM!
Really, have you ever considered doing some nice original DS9 era ships?
Posted by Jan (Member # 1133) on :
Hmm, I'd like you to kill... Wait! That's illegal!!
Do you have a special design in mind, Jason? Your models look very nice and unique and besides they are 3D already, why not making them digital?
DS9 era? I'd really like to build the Defiant! I also made an Ambassador-class starship (without textures, yet) last year and an original design, a Mustang-class light cruiser (Excelsior era). I'm working on a Niagara-class ship (with some changes to make it look more credible, at least in my opinion) at the present and finished a Type-VI shuttle only two weeks ago. There's also a cool and original Sovereign era ship I'm working on from time to time, but progress goes slow, I have to admit.
Posted by Makotokat (Member # 1041) on :
The mesh looks wonderful, love the torpedo tubes!
Posted by Capt_Spencer (Member # 312) on :
Wow! And to think this went 2 years without my even knowing such a lovely model had been made based off one of my designs!
Thanks for the linked image, Masao, glad you thought the design held some interest. I know no one likes clutter on renders, but it would have been nice to see a credit there in some form...
Anyway, what ever happened to the model? Was it released? Ported to Bridge Commander? Put into any more renders? Forgotten?
Take care, Jas
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Is this a record?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No... the ressurected "JOhn Brummer" thread was dead for six years.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Jason Colbert? You're alive???
I adapted the nacelles and supports from your design, but the hulls are mine. I neglected to credit you on the museum page, which I apologize for. I'll correct that. http://www.starfleet-museum.org/avenger-predator.htm
The design has been pretty popular. Several meshes have been made, in addition to those by Jan Wehlack, which you can see on the museum page. Two physical models have been made, and a kit in 1/1000 scale is going to be released by Starship Modeler (one of these days).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah...I see now. Masao kills young starship designers and makes a fortune off their designs. Now, after lying in a coma for six years, Jason Cobert... will kill Masao. (a thread by Quintin Tarintino)
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
If Jason isn't dead, whose head is it in that jar in my attic?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
His twin brother, obviously.
Posted by Capt_Spencer (Member # 312) on :
Well give it back! Finally, I can replace the rotting jack-o-lantern I put on his neck...
Lovely work on the Avenger and Predator, I especially admire the renders' realism. It had been a while since I'd been to the Museum, it was patch/insignia-only updates for a *while* there...
Is the Gagarin one of the newer ships? I don't remember it from before. Great Moskva-class contemporary, though!
Maybe you'll see me more often, I can just keep drawing nacelles.
Jas
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Sorry, Jason, but I can't send back the head. Racoons got into the attic and opened up the jar. All that's left is some bones and hair.
The Avenger/Predator article is the most recent and was posted around Christmas 2003. I haven't finished anything major since that time. I think Gagarin is from 2002.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Looks like my faves made it!