I'm now starting to build up a small gallery of ship schematics, and was considering doing a fleet chart. In the process of looking for inspiration online, I got very fascinated by fleet charts themselves.
Who would you guys say has the best fleet chart, however you define "best"?
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
I'd say that the best fleet chart would show confirmed ship sizes or at least reasonable guesses. It would use the best available schematics and match their style. Well, one of the best was already mentioned by Futurama Guy.
And I would really love to see a chart with your ships, Irishman.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Bernd's chart is the one I go with (though I disagree about the giant subspace freighter on the chart with the largest ships and with the size of the green klingon freighter).
You gonna update your charts anytime soon Bernd? The ships from Nemesis would look nice added in there- as well as those from Enterprise. I'm sure some of our fellow Flarites would assist in making the images needed.
I'd love to see you color and add in Gerard Gillian's charts to your site (after getting his permission and fixing the Sabre's scale of course!). Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Are you saying the Klingon freighter is too small in Bernd's chart? Because, if anything, it is that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
it's silly that they used the freighter at all but for a sperate race to use the EXACT design but paint it bright green and scale it up 300% is ridiculous.
Better to keep it the same size as the cardie freighter, say the Klingons bought the design (as it's a colonists transport) and converted the storage facilities into living quarters.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
But that means that IKS Rotarran (which is seen in clear comparison with the freighters, just as Dukat's prey is seen in clear comparison with the Cardassian version) would be the smallest BoP ever seen, whereas we have every reason to suspect that it's larger than most...
IMHO, it's perfectly reasonable to have freighters that are (almost) scaled-up or scaled-down versions of each other. That is exactly what we see in the real world, after all. Basically, there's a grand total of one general goods vessel design (or tanker design, or ro-ro design) in the mercantile navies of the world today, scaled up and down at will.
Now, warships that have easily identifiable functional elements scale a bit more poorly. Still, one can take a WWII destroyer, cruiser and battleship, adjust the scales of any two, and superimpose them - and get an almost perfect match. I think Bernd exaggerates the woes of scaling a bit...
Regarding the "ancient freighter" of "Final Mission" infamy, I see no reason not to assume that it comes from the same family as the other, more modestly sized ships of the same design. "Ancient" in this case need only mean "300 years old", which is quite plausible a design age for the entire family. The heroes in the episode express unfamiliarity with the vessel's *origin*, not its *design*.
If anything, "Final Mission" and "Heart of Glory" put together suggest that the "Batris-type" design is so ubiquitous that one cannot positively identify (or even reasonably guess) the operator on the basis of the model, but must look closely for tiny hints such as pennant codes.
But I digress from the main point. Which is that Bernd's fleet charts rule.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Good show.
Personally, I try to look at each ship on an individual basis and try to ignore the blatant similarities, when the fact of the matter is that it all boils down to budgetary concerns on a science fiction television series. It is fake afterall.
Doesn't Minutiaeman have some fleet charts around floating out there too?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
THEY ADDED NACELLES!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
yeah....a minor tweak but better than nothing I guess.
Better by far than the worst use of another model "scaled up" for a new function: Harry Kim's "Nightingale". Makes me foam at the stupidity of it.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Personally I like Gilso's Schematics fllet charts.
Timo, you cannot scale up a destroyer or scale down a battleship without some major internal and external modifications. For instance you can't have a battleship hull the size of a destroyer's hull, and expect it to perform like a destroyer. Likewise with the destroyer scaled up to match the size of a battleship hull. They're two totally different designs. Compare the Fletcher class of the WWII with the Iowa class.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Holy crap.
who are you?
Posted by The Captain from M.I.K.E. (Member # 709) on :
Matrix, we're talking not about "modifications" but completely different internal structures, since the types of ships were probably engineered completely independant of each other. You're reading far too much into an examination of similarity in external structures and shape only.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
quote: Holy crap.
who are you?
I take it it's either you're joking or you really don't remember me. I've been in the Gulf for the part several months, bombing the hell out of some Iraqi natives.
Basically what I am saying is that you cannot seriously scale up a design regardless of how simple or complex the design is without making modifications to the exterior to accomodate the scaled up design. Most ships probably have a certain design for a reason. Sure if you scale up a design 200% and give an extra deck for every one deck, it's sounds simple. Real life terms, you're talking about practically redesigning the whole interior, so you can keep in the exterior design. More than likely that scaled up design won't be nearly as efficient as a scratch designed and built design of similar design. Just my cents.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
which is why it is so laughable when it happens constantly on TV
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Not completely laughable, mind you. I'll give you a real world example - the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which is 25% larger than its predecessor. Yes, the structure was completely redesigned for the new version (and made more efficient), but the advantage here was that the aerodynamic analysis was basically done, save for a few minor tweaks here and there. (Aerodynamics scale easily.) So the hard part was done, and there wasn't a lot of time wasted iterating different shapes and configurations, so the structures and systems people could start their work a lot earlier.
Applied to Trek, you could say that the hard part of designing the hull shape and warp dynamics was reused, and they just designed a new larger interior for the shape.
B.J. (BTW, I spent 2 years on the Super Hornet program as a structural design engineer.)
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Depending on the level of accuracy you want, aircraft are more often "scaled" than not, really. And just for the above reason - vehicles moving through the air have their fluid dynamics dictated more by shape than size (to a certain limit). The world's jet transports tend to be scaled-up or scaled-down versions of each other, despite not necessarily sharing *any* common components. And it's quite customary to build half-scale or quarter-scale models before committing to a full-scale prototype. Or at least it used to be, prior to modern computational fluid dynamics.
This excuse can be used quite nicely with the apparently scaleable Klingon BoP, since this is a transatmospheric design.
Nautical ship scaling depends on your priorities. If you aim for speed, your best bet (with non-planing, non-flying monohulls) is to go for something really long and really powerful. Which is why the final WWII battleships look very much unlike any other vessels. Prior battleship designs that paid less heed to speed would have been more remniscent of cruisers and destroyers.
Whether this sort of logic applies to starships and their "warp dynamics" is unknown, but presumably it plays at least some role in Starfleet vessels. Few alien designs go for the systematic smoothness of Starfleet designs, though. Then again, e.g. Cardassians may insist on "scaling" their ships for quasi-religious reasons. If the Galor class really is shaped after the Cardassian national symbol and not vice versa, then we could expect the shape to be applied in other ship sizes as well.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: it's silly that they used the freighter at all but for a sperate race to use the EXACT design but paint it bright green and scale it up 300% is ridiculous.
Better to keep it the same size as the cardie freighter, say the Klingons bought the design (as it's a colonists transport) and converted the storage facilities into living quarters.
I was reading the ST:DS9 companion the otherday where they mention the Klingon cargo vessels... they were GOING to make a new design - but ran out of time and decided on using green-painted Cardie cargo vessels - as it made sense they most probably being procured as spoils of war.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Except, in that case, the size issue still exists....
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Oh, don't be so defiant.....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Best to discount the whole "size issue" as poor recollection on behalf of those testifing. Besides, there were 300 (?) colonists being transported? Plenty of room in a converted Cardie Freighter for them, once you consider how klingons shun creature conforts- and it being wartime and all.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Princess Abby, you're on the wrong episode. These freighters are the ones from "Sons and Daughters" not the green Merchantman from "Rules of Engagement".
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah. I stand corrected. ...and here I was gonna ask for a screenshot too...
Of course, using a merchantman is even worse scaling fuckery: the one we first see in STIII cant be longer than 25-30 meters (practically a shuttle!).
I's STILL rather believe that's a tiny KBOP than enlarged freighters....or that the freighter positioned at lower left is in the extreme foreground. After all, Sternbach went to a lot of trouble designing them to be Cardassian.
What ARE those nacelle-thingies made from anyway? They look more like weapons to me than nacelles. Gotta be kitbashed parts of some other model slapped onto the Cardie studio model.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
They may look Cardie - but why not them just be repainted by Klingons. Yes the size issue is a problem - but either they are a larger version - or the Klingons have attatched one of their infamous ship-scaling-deceiving-devices on them! SSDD's for short. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The ship's nose looks diffrent as well- the Cardassian version is kinda a tuning fork shape.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: The ship's nose looks diffrent as well- the Cardassian version is kinda a tuning fork shape.
I, for one, do not have a problem with this representing another ship what-so-ever. Its not like there is/was an unlimited supply of models and/or budget to create such a supply of models and so with that in mind I can see each ship on an individual basis as a new ship if that is what the presented is attempting to convey - they are MODELS afterall, not REAL ships. Besides, it's what's in the transponder code that counts. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...it's starting to grow on me now that I'm noticing more diffrences than a green paint job..
I dont suppose you've got a nice shot of the Cardassian version to compare against?
Okay: I can now accept them as two seperate designs that two rival races created independant on each other yet still retail many simmular features.
Are you happy now!?! You've shattered my entire world-view.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
You cannot shatter that which is already fragmented. B)
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
I make pretty pictures, I must say Posted by Intruder1701 (Member # 880) on :
B.J. (BTW, I spent 2 years on the Super Hornet program as a structural design engineer.) [/QB][/QUOTE]
I work on super hornets, I hate them
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
And why couldn't the Cardassian and Klingon merchant marines buy ships (or the blueprints for ships) from the same source?
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
My squadron is going from F-14Bs to F/A-18Es, so I'll se how they are. though I still think they're oversized lawn darts. Anyway, yes that is correct, compare a regular Hornet to a Super Hornet, you can see the difference. Just like if you were to compare a F-15A and I think they are F-15Es. But that's only a small increase over the original. If you were to increase the size of a Hornet to twice it's normal size, then are problems.
Hell, the reason why they enlarged the Super Hornets was to replace the F-14s. Though many believe even the 30 year old planes are far better than these new aircraft. Personally they should have spent their time on designing a new F-14E.
/End of Rant.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I would never claim that the Super Hornet is a replacement for the F-14. The F-14 is an interceptor, and there's not as much need for that type of mission in today's world. One of the major reasons for the Super Hornet was growth. With all the upgrades, they had stuffed the original Hornet to its limit, and couldn't go any further. The Super Hornet has room for future growth in capabilities.
In case you're curious, I worked on the redesign of the trailing edge flaps and ailerons to accomodate the buffet loads encountered during flight test. I released some of the first Model Based-Definition (MBD) parts for that aircraft (that means no 2D drawings to you laypersons).
B.J.
Posted by Intruder1701 (Member # 880) on :
The only thing I like better on the Super Hornet is loading. I am an Ordnanceman and I hated having to load Sparrows or Phoenix or bombs on the belly of the F-14. it was a pain in the ass. The Super Hornet all we have to do is just lift straight up onto the pylon. But they are still a pain in the ass to work on.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
quote:I hated having to load Sparrows or Phoenix or bombs on the belly of the F-14. it was a pain in the ass. The Super Hornet all we have to do is just lift straight up onto the pylon. But they are still a pain in the ass to work on.
You really have my utmost sympathy... Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I'd like to see a fleet chart done where all the ships are created in the same style - most probably from the same person - and not just piececd together from the encyclopaedia etc. Even the encyclopaedia diagrams aren't consistant. Some are shaded in a particular way, some are more just line drawings etc.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't think any of the encyclopedia ships are just line drawings, but it's been awhile since I've looked.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I tend to agree but what I REALLY want (and started to do one rainy day in Photoshop) is to have the Fed ships scaled all along the left of the chart, the advasary ships all along the right side (both fleets facing towards the center of some 24x36" canvas) and a Borg Cube (with Sphere) directly in the center.
If someone were to make a nice version of such a chart (even by re-arranging Bernd's bueatiuful charts), I'd print them off a 24x36" copy in color for their trouble! A nice BLack background would be required though- it's one of the few things that throws me with Bernd's work: i'm not used to seeing the ships out of their element, as it were.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: I don't think any of the encyclopedia ships are just line drawings, but it's been awhile since I've looked.
I think they are. The problem is worse on the page that has the various Enterprises. The nil and A are shaded, and the D is a line drawing. It looks, well, inconsistent.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I think we can still agree on preferring the shaded pictures to those infernally dark CGI prints found in the new ship entries of the expanded Encyclopedia. A good comparison chart ought to use "schematics" rather than "photographs" for clarity's sake, right?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by The Captain from M.I.K.E. (Member # 709) on :
i know a lot of people are working at creating new vector drawings, but if it were simply for a decent fleet chart, i could probably photoshop something equally good looking directly from scans of the CGIs.
for a good new fleet chart, at least steps should be taken to unify the style of the lines and linework and color schemes used. many fall into using graphics collaged from other reference materials, like the ridiculously light-blue ships of the Okudapedia, and the equally incorrect flat-grays that are the favorite of fan artists
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: A nice BLack background would be required though- it's one of the few things that throws me with Bernd's work: i'm not used to seeing the ships out of their element, as it were.
I'd like to see a good *accurate* profile shot of the Neghvar, Bernds has never been quite right.
...a black background spells out a hell of a lot of ink vs. white.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I use toner on a HP 5000 oversize color printer for vinyl and backlight film- a benifit of my job- but you're right: for home printing, that would be a lot of ink and rough on the printer. Mabye make both a black background and white background version? I've tried the old "Photoshop Paintbucket" trick on Bernd's charts but that makes a horrible mess and I have not had the time do it via the paintbrush tool.
Bernd's NeghVar loks okay to me: mabye a bit tall in the bridge area though.....the bridge "dome" looks a bit too small (though who can say which version this originally represented?) and the ship seems a bit short- the "neck" should be longer: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/mechanics/voodieh-model1.jpg For the NeghVar, the lower structure on the command pod's ventral side should blend in more- that pic looks pretty odd- and the cannons on the wingtips should be more aparant (though not the idiotic 70 meter long tubes of the Vodieth from AGT).
I a loooong time back, I was going to make one uber-chart of all Bernd's charts and print a 24x36" poster for my wall: http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=1468230&uid=657989 ....but I never got back to it, then I realized I could just snag the ships seperately from various sources and arrange something more esthetically pleasing than just slapping Bernd's charts side-by-side....
That would require work though and I am a lazy lazy man.
currently I DO have the charts printed as they are, along with all Gislo's stuff: once I move into an apartment with an extra room for artwork only, I'll adorn all it's walls with such an array of geekyness that a starship fan might swoon from sensory overload.
Request of the year: someone PLEASE make a nice dorsal view starship chart! I may color Gislo's for kicks and see how that turns out: the resolution on those larger charts is not real great though.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: A good comparison chart ought to use "schematics" rather than "photographs" for clarity's sake, right?
Oh, absolutely. Nothing annoys me more than the occasional detailed images of various ships that would show up where one half the ship would be in total darkness since to some bizarre compulsion to have "realistic" lighting effects.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I'd be happy with black-and-white line schematics if it meant consistency.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
Andrew, have you tried Gilso's B & W schematics? They look pretty consistent to me.
Posted by The Captain from M.I.K.E. (Member # 709) on :
if you simply isolate a background layer, it should be child's play to flick the background on and off with a toggle you know...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System:
quote: A good comparison chart ought to use "schematics" rather than "photographs" for clarity's sake, right?
Oh, absolutely. Nothing annoys me more than the occasional detailed images of various ships that would show up where one half the ship would be in total darkness since to some bizarre compulsion to have "realistic" lighting effects.
That leaves out everything from ST:The Magazine. Their own fleet chart was the most laughably bad thing I've ever seen published. Really- it's incredibly bad, and includes 65 meter long Federation Fighters. Fortunately, it was only in the very last issue of the mag.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, only, or at least largely, because they were the only ones publishing such material. As far as the rest of your complaints go, I can't really speak to those. The ships looked fine, you just couldn't see all of them.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
About the shading thing: I'm just selfish in that regard- I want clear images for modeling references. Today's quest is a definitive New Orleans schemtic that I can scale for scratch-building a model. sounds like that'd be a simple matter, but I'm having to adjust for discrepancies in the studio model pics (what few there are).
Really, I just want Sternbach to be chained to a art desk untill we have definitive schematics on all ships shown in all the series from all angles.
Is that so much to ask for?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Not at all Jason... I'm up for that happening! Bring in the chain!
Re: Gilso - I didn't think his site was around anymore?
Anyone got a scan of this Fact Files chart?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
...seems to disagree, in some cases, with Bernd.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I mentioned the Sabre's size being based on the misprint from the DS9TM (a couple of years back) to him and he mentioned that it was "on his to do list" or something but I guess it was not to be. On the nice 11x17" print I made of that, I corrected that small issue.
It's really odd to see a Warbird and the Dominion Battleship so huge when next to DS9.....I agree with his figures there though.
Strange that he chose to add the tug in there: of all the ship designs, he add in something with one second of screen-time.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Well despite the fact that he acknowledges "I have my own doubts about some of the ship measurements in that book [DS9 Tech Manual]."
I am still somewhat disturbed by the madness that must have overcame him to lead to such size dissimilarities of his 87m Rom TOS BoP -vs- Bernds 131m, and his 68m Jem'Hadar Attackship -vs- Bernds 95m.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I tend to agree but what I REALLY want (and started to do one rainy day in Photoshop) is to have the Fed ships scaled all along the left of the chart, the advasary ships all along the right side (both fleets facing towards the center of some 24x36" canvas) and a Borg Cube (with Sphere) directly in the center.
The Borg cube alone, if scaled 1pix/1m, would covert out to be around 30 inches x 30 inches. If you were to go much less than that...say 2pix/1m or less all of your smaller ships, ie BoPs, would be specks in comparison. I couldn't see throwing anything bigger than a Warbird on the chart and just stick to the sphere.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I'd prefer DS9 to be bigger in relation to those ships.
We've seen the Enterprise and a big Jemmie cruiser docked at DS9... oh and a Nebbie - all with ease.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Uh.....no on the Nebbie from the opening credits: that's WAAAAY too small in relation to the station. The Jemmie cruiser was parked at the lower pylon and (someone gimmie a screencap!) is absolutely frikkin huge compared with the station.
I gotta go with Bernd's sizes for just about everything shipwise.....though the Jemmie Battleship is realy that huge. It occurs to me that we never see a Jemmie cruiser or battleship destroyed. Ever. Closest is the Defiant's satrafinng run down a cruiser's back in SOA (after the klingons show up).
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Uh.....no on the Nebbie from the opening credits: that's WAAAAY too small in relation to the station.
But we've seen the Enterprise/Odyssey docked at an upper pylon and we've seen the Leeds and the Prometheus and the one where the Doctor who beat Bashir at the Academy arrives and thinks he was an Andorian - docked at a lower pylon.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
nice: it shows what I was talking about too- The cruiser's freaking HUGE!
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Uh.....no on the Nebbie from the opening credits: that's WAAAAY too small in relation to the station.
But we've seen the Enterprise/Odyssey docked at an upper pylon and we've seen the Leeds and the Prometheus and the one where the Doctor who beat Bashir at the Academy arrives and thinks he was an Andorian - docked at a lower pylon.
Lexington
We've also seen a Vorcha, Miranda and Oberth docked there, which could be used for reference.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I use the Venture's brief appearance docked at the station as a good scale-indicator.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)