Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Designs: Opinion Poll

This is topic Designs: Opinion Poll in forum Designs, Artwork, & Creativity at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/7/67.html

Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :

OK, here's the deal. What sort of designs do you guys prefer? Should they be cut 'n' paste, like a lot of fan designs (including a lot of the Jackill's Guide ones)? Should they be original? Should they fit in totally or be visually distinct? And what about variants?

Do you think some fan designs overdo it on weaponry and other capabilities? I saw one recently which had a shuttlebay that was also a transporter, for assault forces - is that overkill?

Do FASA's designs count? Some were pretty silly, but others made sense... Should they be grouped as rubbish or used selectively? And what about their deck plans? I for one liked the Regula 1 plan

And what about the topic rather than the look? Should we include naval-type classes that Starfleet don't (officially) use, like fighters, carriers and dreadnoughts? All of these have appeared in fan designs and fiction...

Oh yeah - and hands up who likes Cargile's pencil drawings better than some of the crap pixellated images people keep posting??

Come on, folks - let's hear your opinions and get some good arguments, links to your fave designs, and LOTS of controversy!

------------------
----------------------------------
WARNING: Storing semtex in the microwave
may be hazardous to your health!

[This message was edited by Starbuck on June 09, 1999.]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I dislike most cut-and-paste designs. I prefer original stuff, along the lines of Adam Heinbuch's and Cargile's designs.

I really don't like the Starfleet style at all anyway, though...the further a design is from that, the better.

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"Let's get those missiles ready to destroy the universe!" - TMBG

Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :

*can barely believe this* I actually am in agreement with Frank. For the most part, I disdain cut-and-paste ships. Adam and Cargile do much better work, with original looking ships and ideas. Not recycling things that are already there.

Yes, some fans make their ships way too powerful. No ship would have 2000 quantum torpedoes. I like a bit more realism than that.

If you want real controversy, move your 4th question to the Starships forum.

------------------
"Angels and Ministers of Grace, defend us"
-Hamlet, Act I, Scene IV

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, as far as the "crap pixellated images" go... Bear in mind that not everyone here is a hand-artist of Cargile's caliber, or has the computer imagery talent of RW. Some of us can't so much better than "crap pixellated". :-)

And, some kitbashes are okay. Obviously, if you only cut and paste directly from other ships, it isn't as good as if you add some original stuff. But, rememeber, the Nebula itself is only a little beyond a kitbash...

Now, as far as irrationally "beefed-out" ( :-) ) ships go... Well, here's a hint: if your ship can take down a Borg invasion fleet in a single volley, it's probably got a few too many armaments...

------------------
"I ran into Charlie Fogg.
He blacked my eye, and he kicked my dog.
My dog turned to me, and he said,
'Let's head back to Tennessee, Jed.'"
-The Grateful Dead, "Tennessee Jed"

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :

Cut-and-paste is no way to draw a good starship, but can only give a very rough idea of what the finalized ship could look like. In particular, if the designer takes any available components from Galaxies, Constitutions, Defiants and Danubes without veiling their origin, he should be aware I will pick at him.

As for the specs, most of the stuff I read about fan-designed ships gives me the impression that all previous ships are scrap. Newer ships are supposed to be better (would be a shame about Starfleet otherwise), but not every design can be groundbreaking.

------------------
"No, thanks. I've had enough. One more cup and I'll jump to warp." (Janeway, asked if she would like some coffee in "Once upon a Time")
www.uni-siegen.de/~ihe/bs/startrek/

Posted by RW (Member # 27) on :

Pixelated pictures are only as crappy as the designs that they make up. I've seen great designs made in paintbrush, and awful ones in photoshop, the maker of which should preferrably be punished by a well-targeted discharge of strong electrical current in the vicinity of the rectal area over a timespan of approximately 2 years.

(I am only kidding, and I made the above sentence complicated on purpose.)

Posted by Cargile (Member # 45) on :

I don't see a reason to impose restrictions or boycotting threads because they don't adhere to our esteemed standards.

I don't like cut-and-paste because you can tell it's cut-and-paste. I've not seen anyone put one on the web that impressed me.

I personaly enjoy designing warships partly because of the SMR page I have, and because I can deviate from the standard starship configuration. There is only so much I can do with a saucer, secondary hull, and pyloned nacelles. That arrangement has bored me and designing something that has a Trek feel and yet looks radically different is a bigger challedge. I'd rather design shuttles, runabouts, transports, and even travelpods, than the next galactic Explorer.

------------------
"Minsk."

Cmdr Worf

Posted by Michael Dracon (Member # 4) on :

I agree with Cargile. The 'Starfleet standards' are limiting creativity (I know the feeling). Granted, the Akira class is the best new design there is that still has the basic elements.
Look at the Equinox/Defiant Pathfinder, the Prometheus (originaly one of the early Intrepid Class ideas, with some extras). Even the official designers are running out of options.

Generaly I don't like cut'n'paste designs that comply with the 'Starfleet standards'. I'd rather see radical new designs, like the Defiant.

------------------
Bugs Come In Through Open Windows.

[This message was edited by Altair on June 10, 1999.]

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

I think Kit bashes - can be acceptible when your trying to CONVEY a rough idea of your ship when you don't have the TIME nor the TALENT to create one that would satisfy you talent pigs on this board

like this - this was done to convey an IDEA.

Andrew

------------------
"I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die, while you discuss this invasion in a committee" Queen Amidala - Star Wars: Episode 1, The Phantom Menace

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :

Interesting kitbash. I would of gone with more modern nacelles.

Hobbes
9906.10

------------------
"You're a groovy baby...baby" - Austin Powers

Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :

This is turning into fun

I will admit to being a fan of Cargile's drawings, rather like I'm a fan of the "Making Of" books purely for the sketches; and for liking Adam Heinbuch's CGI because they are so much like the proper ones.

Let's keep this one going! More opinions?

------------------
WARNING: Storing semtex in the microwave
may be hazardous to your health!

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Hobbes, its supposed to be an Ambassador era Miranda/Nebulaesque ship

------------------
"I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die, while you discuss this invasion in a committee" Queen Amidala - Star Wars: Episode 1, The Phantom Menace

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Is it just me, or is that pod on backward?

------------------
"I ran into Charlie Fogg.
He blacked my eye, and he kicked my dog.
My dog turned to me, and he said,
'Let's head back to Tennessee, Jed.'"
-The Grateful Dead, "Tennessee Jed"

Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :

Kitbashes to me are acceptable if the look and feel of the components is similar. I personally hated the Rigel because it broke this rule. There is something about a ship that contains an engineering section of a constitution, a galaxy saucer and nacelles that I find visibly offensive. My best explanation for this assault on my senses is that Starfleet was attempting to keep the Rigel in service because of some unknown reason. Perhaps if Starfleet had continued the upgrade the constitution engineering section would have been replaced with something more similar to the other components. I much prefer original designs, but from the standpoint of producing ships for a navy, I believe proven components would be use in every possible configuration to achieve a space worthy vessel. This has been proven by ST writer and designers on many occasions, but for some insane reason they care far less about aesthetics than about producing a show�..lol

Kitbashes are ok if they are done with some taste!

Weapon loading kitbashers should be summarily taken out and executed!

Here are some constitution/miranda/constellation reconfigurations to produce specific designs of given class.
Note Large pic
http://www.geocities.com:80/Area51/Stargate/9268/variantlist.jpg

------------------
hello world

[This message was edited by bear on June 11, 1999.]

[This message was edited by Fabrux on June 13, 1999.]

Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :

Nice pic, bear. Did you make it yourself? Interesting configurations.....

------------------
Star Trek: Dark Horizon
Creator, Owner, Only Writer

Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :

All the configurations came directly or indirectly from the constitution. As for drawing them by hand, all the drawing are from material that was traced, improvised , or invented.

I personally have always loved this era of Trek, but the powers that be feel that new and sharper designs are better. I would have love to have had more fleet battles similar to the era of battleships and sailing vessels.

Boy is it dead around here!

------------------
hello world

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Yikes! And I thought the normal (albeit, probably wrong) configurations for the Challenger and Rigel looked odd!

------------------
"Silence, you contemptible shrew!"
-Stewie, The Family Guy

[This message was edited by TSN on June 14, 1999.]

Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :

Right, I see lots of people have had their two cents' worth, so it's time for mine...

Kitbashing
There's kitbashing in the movies (Constitution and Miranda), in TNG (Galaxy and Nebula), and now the DS9 fleet. I think kitbashes are OK if done properly... I mean, most of the material put out by people like Jackill and Mastercom Data are kitbashes; even the original "Star Fleet Technical Manual" had kitbash designs in to make scouts, destroyers etc.

FASA
Some FASA designs are OK, some are terrible. I tend to judge them on an as-and-when basis (ie when I find them), and modify them to suit.

Image Quality
Cargile's pencil sketches and Adam Heinbuch's CGI are just two of the gems to be found... I don't mind lesser quality images, althouhg what I do hate is drawings which look like they were done with a Commodore 64! I mean, there's artistic license, there's art, and then there's usable Treknology...

More later - keep em coming!

[This message was edited by Starbuck on June 15, 1999.]

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :

One thing that bugs me?

Ascii art ship designs.

*Speeeeew!*

------------------
American Society of Newspaper Editors motto:
"Proudly Maintaining the (Continued on Page A-4)".
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :

** agrees with Baloo **

------------------
WARNING: Storing semtex in the microwave
may be hazardous to your health!

Posted by Federation Shipmaster (Member # 15) on :

I'm neutral on the first issue. It all depends on the components and how they're used.
I dislike it when peopel make ships that have too many weapons. It's unrealistic.

------------------
What bloke invented signatures?

Posted by Gaseous Anomaly (Member # 114) on :

*Remembers having a major rant about this a few weeks back that upset Altair*

I don't like kitbashes much.
BUT I think the keyword here is TASTE.
Say it with me, jurors.
"Taste."

This topic pleases me.

------------------
If no-one will play with me, then I'm going home,and I'm bringing the inflatible with me.

Posted by RW (Member # 27) on :

Personally I believe ASCII-art is an art form in itself.

About designs, I believe a ship must have flowing lines, as if it cuts through space, but not too much, keep them a little bulky. But one deadly thing, I believe, is big protruding nacelles in exactly the wrong places. Andrewr's example, er..for example, is a good example of a clean, balanced design. A kitbash, but a good one nonetheless.

[that's three times example in one sentence-how's that?]

Posted by Cargile (Member # 45) on :

I wanted to jump into this again. I actually like engineering the ships I design. Where is the warp core going to be? How about the fuel tanks and the computer core? Where do I think the nacelles should be placed for optimum performance? What brand of headers should I use? Pirelli or Good-year? And of course, wheelbase.

Er, wait a minute. Back to starships. I'll do a lot of scribbling to get the shape right, then work with a ship for days--some times months, until I get it just right.

(and because someone will assume the above mentioned namebrands are meant to be answer the header question and tell me that I'm wrong. The namebrands are tires. I know that.)

------------------
"There are always bigger tits."

Qui-Gon Jinn in Mos Espa's sleaziest adult nightclub.

Posted by Antagonist (Member # 76) on :

Not to raise an old topic from the dead or anything...

Sometimes a ship may seem over armed, but in reality modern day vessels in the U.S. and other navies have massive armaments.

Take the WWII German Type-XX U-boat. This massive beast had six forward and twelve aft torpedo launchers, of course it only held 30 or so torpedoes. They had quick firing in mind with that rather than pure firepower, as reloading a torpedo was dangerous and lengthy.

And most of the old German U-boats had a single 20mm cannon for anti-aircraft use. Others that were customized had a quadruple 20mm cannon on deck along with smaller 7.25mm guns. (That partiular U-boat drove off two squadrons of Avenger aircraft at one time, heavily damaging all of them. Tell me that's not overarming!)

If the weapon can fit into the ship, then it's not over arming it (unless of course you have a special Defiant class ship with a million torpedoes, which is not only unrealistic but defeats the whole purpose of designing a starship).

In the way of actually designing a starship in hull shape: It can be anything you want. Whether it be a single saucer or a multiple-hulled craft like the Enterprise, it all depends on what you do to it to make it interesting to the eye.

Paul Cargile's ships are sometimes kitbashed (slightly, if I remember correctly the Prevaricate looks like a Defiant and a Runabout), but they're interesting to the eye because they seem to have their own way of combining it.

Adam Heinbuch's designs are interesting to me as well, at least the Sentinel is. It's a very streamlined organic-looking shape and it's never been done that way before.

------------------
Master of the spoon

Posted by Cargile (Member # 45) on :

I didn't design the Prevaricate. The vessel was created by David Highlander for his fanfiction and the artwork on the SMR site was done by Tom Varvaresos. I would like to redesign the ship and give it a more Rapier look, but as it is not mine I will not.

I don't mind kitbashing. I can take several elements form a few starship in existance and merge them together in a sketch, but I don't cut and paste often. On CSD, the Chikara is blatanly a Galaxy c-n-p. But others do because that is what they can do to express their ideas. And that's cool.

------------------
I was right in the middle of a f*cking reptile zoo. And somebody was giving booze to these goddam things."
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Posted by RW (Member # 27) on :

Hey, if U-boats had multiple tubes for quick reloading, why didn't tanks of that time have multiple guns as well? *ponders* *lightbulb appears floating above RW's flaming hair* Erm, weight, I guess. And space.

Never mind :]