Starbuck "Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"
Member # 153
posted June 08, 1999 10:05 PM
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 June 09, 1999 05:26 AM
*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 June 09, 1999 08:52 AM
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 June 09, 1999 09:08 AM
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 June 09, 1999 10:35 AM
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 June 09, 1999 05:40 PM
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.
posted June 09, 1999 07:18 PM
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 June 10, 1999 05:45 AM
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
Starbuck "Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"
Member # 153
posted June 11, 1999 12:42 AM
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 June 11, 1999 05:07 AM
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 June 11, 1999 08:54 AM
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 June 11, 1999 03:29 PM
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!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
