Below is what I have so far of my Shinto Class Assault Bomber. It's an accompaniment to my Shuriken Class Starfighter/Interceptor.
The Shinto is larger, but not much wider than the Shuriken. Considerably more room inside for torpedoes and photon missiles tho. The weapons officer is in a rotating drum-like command cabin behind the pilot. He/she handles the weapons lock and releases as well as keeping an eye on the 'sky' around them. The pilot concentrates on flying and navigation but has duplicate weapons controls incase his weapons officer is hurt or killed or something.
Size Comparison to Shuriken w/ optional Torpedo Rollpod
Ahkileez
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on June 01, 2003 12:04 PM:
The design work is grand...BUT....
I am appalled by the decision to name such a blatant offensive weapon after a peaceful nature-based religion. It's tantamount to an affront to its principle. That being said, the appellation of "assault bomber"...well, it's rather redundant, don't you think? I mean, you can't much use a bomber to do anything BUT assault someone, can you? And what does one bomb in space? Orbital bombardment? Hardly the Federation's style. Well....maybe the Federation of "Blake's 7."
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on June 01, 2003 12:54 PM:
It looks a bit like the Klingon transport ship from "Bounty" (ENT).
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on June 01, 2003 01:02 PM:
Well I'll try to answer your questions as they come.
First off, yes Shinto is a religion in Japan. But it's also the 'modern' class of swords. Japanese sword making has three eras, Jokoto (Ancient), Koto (Classic) and Shinto (New). Shinto is considered the last era of 'true' Japanese katanas and other swords. It's also the era in which the Samurai finally died out.
It's an unfortunate coincidence. But not intended as an insult.
The term "assault bomber" speaks a bit to its more aggressive nature. The difference between, say, a B-52 and an F-16. The former being a strategic bomber.
As for the term 'bomber'. I don't know any other that applies. I know bomb implies something that's dropped. But short of calling it a torpedo boat, a bomber is what it is. It's the heavy hitter of the 'aircraft' sized ships I've drawn.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on June 01, 2003 01:04 PM:
Mim: It does look like it, yeah But that wasn't the inspiration for it. I found this pic on the net somewheres some time ago for something the person called a 'flux class shuttle' I believe. The inspiration came from that.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on June 01, 2003 01:04 PM:
I knew that...but still hinky.
"Aggressive nature." More hink. I rankle.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on June 01, 2003 10:40 PM:
Showering will help with that...
Maving them couriers with the ability to be fitted out for comabt is more the vain you should have shot for.
My thoughts anyway....
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on June 01, 2003 11:18 PM:
Frankly, without a sideview it's the most boring design I have ever seen. Assault egg?
I can see the design lineage, from the bulky "DeLorean" Danube to the streamlined perfume bottle Delta Flyer to...this. All-out "teardrop".
The details and colors are overdone, reminds me of a Faberg� egg. Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on June 01, 2003 11:46 PM:
Ritten: I'm not sure what you're saying... What couriers are those?
Nim: The Delta Flyer similarity I can see from the smooth shape and such, but where you see a lineage related to the Danube.... I really have no idea
If you don't like the ship, there's not a whole lot I can do to help you out there I plan to, but haven't done yet, a ventral and elevation view. Of course it will mostly be more of the same: smooth/aggressive shapes. But with some provision for volume so she can hold a lot.
People have mentioned this before... what's the problem with the colors? Those are the same colors you find on every Trek ship. glowing blue nacelles, glowing red impulse engines and bussard collections. Red striping, orange RCS thrusters and black/red lettering on the hull. Is there some other palette out there that I missed?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on June 01, 2003 11:56 PM:
I didn't mean the Danube resembled the Shinto, just that the Danube-design was the first of the new "breed" of shuttles/runabouts since early TNG, the Delta Flyer being the next milestone in this comparison.
My opinion of the design isn't that it is ugly, just that from this view there is no depth or characteristics whatsoever to the design, just an egg. I'm sure it will get more interesting, especially if you'd do a 45-degree "northwest" view.
Regarding your colors, their strength and brightness kind of steal the eye's attention, is all. It makes your images look like car window decals. :-)
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on June 02, 2003 12:37 AM:
Ohhhhh, yeah I suppose you're right indeed. The Danube was the first 'rebel' against the slope-nosed shuttles of TNG. The first of the new ships that had a stronger, more 'manufactured' feel to them.
The depth there is deliberate. There isn't a whole lot of elevational changes in the design. It's designed to maximize internal volume so that means keeping shapes simple so they don't leave you with a lot of dead space inside. Oh, and no chance on the 45-degree drawing. I'm no good whatsoever at doing perspective
Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't draw these things with realistic lighting. If I did, I'd have to account for a hell of a lot more shadows and I could darken the colors to blend more into the hull. But since this is an illustration, it's important that everything is clear and easy to recognize Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on June 06, 2003 06:42 AM:
I think I'm more or less done with the dorsal view of the Shinto. I utilized some of the suggestions from here and elsewhere.
Now, on to Ventral Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on June 06, 2003 09:54 AM:
Side view! Side view!
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on June 06, 2003 01:20 PM:
Hehe, unfortunately I need to do the ventral view first, Masao, so I can get all the proportions right and what not. And to know what the heck the underside of the ship even looks like Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on June 06, 2003 01:38 PM:
I almost never do bottom views since I always found them sort of boring. I usually do side view and top views at the same time. To each his own!
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on June 06, 2003 01:56 PM:
Well you usually work on 'regular' Trek ships. The saucer and soda can variety. Which look great on top and from the side, but underneath they *are* kind of boring
Not a knock at your work, but just the luck of the draw when it comes to that particular type of ship. Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on June 07, 2003 02:45 PM:
Here you go, ladies and gents Top & Bottom.
Ventral is pretty much complete. Made some minor changes to the dorsal side as well.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But that wasn't the inspiration for it. I found this pic on the net somewheres some time ago for something the person called a 'flux class shuttle' I believe. The inspiration came from that.
