StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Started from this thread.

I'm trying to put together research material for making a VicStar model. I had pointed out the link to this webpage, showing a 3d model of the ship for X-Wing Alliance. What I need are opinions on the subject, and how I should build it. Here are some of the issues I'm dealing with:

-Number of engines (Saxton argues the ship uses two primary and two secondary sublight thrusters, while some sources claim three primary and four secondary, the same as on an Imperator class).
-Gun turrets or no. There seems to be no consensus on whether there were visible turrets, a'la Imperator class, turrets located in the brim trenches, or if they were retracted behind blast doors.
-Bridge tower. All designs point to a KDY-style tower, with two globes, an antennae cluster between, and a pod on the front of the tower. Sources vary on whether the bridge is wide or narrow in cross-section, and the XWA Upgrade variant has a third globe on the top of the neck supporting the bridge module (WEG seems to show this, as well).
-Secondary docking bay. There's apparent consensus on the existence of the main docking bay, but the XWA Upgrade shows only that bay, while WEG and others show a secondary.
-Markings. All sources point to a color scheme identical to that of the Imperator class. I'd like to see if there could've been a more colorful Clone Wars livery, similar to what's seen on the Venator class ships in RotS.

In the end, I want to build a ship that's to scale with the Revell Venator, and hopefully will look better than this attempt. Debate is welcome.

I've never liked the Vicstar design. To me, it just screamed "Kitbash", and a very, very half-assed one at that. A lack of the Victory in the prequels was pretty nice.

That said... if you want to go with a model, I'd suggest that you either A: just go with the earliest identifiable and published source (that is, ignoring early designs for Star Destroyers and such), or B: go with what you think makes the most sense. After all, no matter what you do, you're bound to get some rabid fan screaming, "That's not a Victory, you moron!" Since you can't please everyone, you might as well just please yourself, eh?

I found a page where a guy entirely scratchbuilt a VSD a couple years ago, it looked MUCH better than the example you linked to at Starship Modeler.
Wish I could find it again for you.

Thanks for the tips, guys. I know the VSD isn't everyone's favorite (it's not really mine, since I prefer the new VenStar and the ImpStar of the OT, anyway). But given this recent SW modeling bug, I thought I'd try it out.

I agree that the best approach is to go with common sense. I'm trying to picture a design that would almost fit alongside the VenStar in RotS in terms of features and perhaps paint livery. For example, there are a number of awning-like structures that line the VenStar's brim trench, that I'd like to add to the VicStar. I may also use shortened engine pods instead of bells, since that seemed to be the standard during the CW era.

And most VSD models are just ImpStars with the forward pod attached on the front, and the antennae clusters and such. I want to change the shape, maybe make the top of the bridge module flatter or completely flat. The aft face of the neck could be flat, instead of angled towards the stern. I could also add some quad cannon turrets to match some of the stats.

Ultimately, the only real consensus is that the VSD is 900m long, and that it looks a lot like an ImpStar. I'm still inclined to believe it was adopted by KDY as the standard-bearer for its post-CW designs, and that the VenStar was abandoned due to design flaws, though its HTL arrangement was kept.

Here are a couple more ideas I've come up with:

-Placing the secondary sublight engines outboard. Traditionally, the VSD's configured with secondaries inboard of the primaries, and arranged vertically. I saw someones' garage model, which possessed two outboard secondary engines.
-Enlarging the forward notches and adding a through-deck hangar. Similar to the Venator, only not as exaggerated. This would eliminate the ventral docking bay, which would make the ImpStar's a holdover from the VenStar KDY design. This one would be pretty damned controversial, though, since all VSD designs show a ventral docking bay.

Plus, Sharky in the VSD Firepower thread commented that the WotC stats show 20 missile tubes for the VSD-I. Any ideas on how these should be arranged?

Firefox wrote:-Enlarging the forward notches and adding a through-deck hangar. Similar to the Venator, only not as exaggerated.

Huh? What do you mean? I REALLY hope you don't mean the STUPID opening-up flight deck on the Venator. Kills the whole design for me.

The missile tubes - search for RL inspiration in submarines. Have some clustered around the bow like the Acclamator. I'm thinking two clusters of four tubes near the bow, firing forward, a cluster of four tubes angled about forty-five degrees from the longitudal axis in each notch, and four tubes feeding out of the base of the bridge neck facing dead aft.

I'm thinking you ought to make a bulkhard or armor bar come down from the base of the bridge neck and terraces, splitting the engine bank in two. Think the tail of the Acclamator or Venator, cut flush with the back of the terraces and neck. Adds continuity since most designs back then don't have unified engine banks. I agree, make the engines into shortened/embedded pods, two major, two minor (further out).

As for the guns, I'd have four quads along the flanks of the terraces, and one quad just aft to the angled missile tubes in your enlarged notches.

Give it the red-stripe and open-circle emblem paint job, too.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Huh? What do you mean? I REALLY hope you don't mean the STUPID opening-up flight deck on the Venator. Kills the whole design for me.

Hell no. That's a flaw I'd expect to be limited to that design. I'm talking about something similar to the large side apertures located in the oversized notches, used for cargo loading.

I'm thinking you ought to make a bulkhard or armor bar come down from the base of the bridge neck and terraces, splitting the engine bank in two. Think the tail of the Acclamator or Venator, cut flush with the back of the terraces and neck. Adds continuity since most designs back then don't have unified engine banks. I agree, make the engines into shortened/embedded pods, two major, two minor (further out).

You mean like the one shown in this image? I agree, and it would add a little length to the ship, since it's probably shy of what I'm trying to achieve for the scale.

Give it the red-stripe and open-circle emblem paint job, too.

Thought about the open circle emblem, though isn't it limited to Obi-Wan's and Anakin's fleet?

Small update: Picture.

Just tinkering with the design at the moment. I'm not sure if I like the stumpy tail concept from this angle. Feel free to edit and show if you'd like. Note that the scale would have to be changed, though I'm not sure about proportions.

Interesting, so your trying to make the Victory more of a Between ship between ISD's and the Acclamator or Venators? It would be rerally interesting, and help the Victory fit more easily into the evolution of StarWars ships. I like it!

That's part of it, yes. Like I said, the plan is to present the VSD as though it would fit alongside the VenStars during the Clone Wars. Its resemblance to the ImpStar still makes me think it was stolen by KDY, so I've been hesitant to change too many features.

Here's the current version. As mentioned previously, everyone's input is welcome. About the only thing I can think of changing at the moment is the stub tail. There may also be a couple of added quad turbolaser turrets to the slanted side panels on the superstructure.

Nice!

Really like the way this looks to be going... I really like how the ship is starting to seem more like the Acclamator and Venators. Of course, as you mentioned this is NOT a Kuat ship, so we have to think about a few things...

They are obviously going to steal a lot from Kuat, and once the Victory comes out, I think Kuat steals from them to develop the ISD. The Bridge is the best example of this. Both the Acclamator and Venators have bridges that look nothing like modern ISD's shoot one has Two on it. They are long, thin, and not nearly as imposing.

The Victory, produced by another company, would have a different bridge... I think you need to look into obviously changing it more ((because as it is, the Victories bridge is nothing more then an ISD's with some stuff thrown on)) But, you should be able to see that the Victories was the obvious predecessor to the ISD's bridge.

Some other notes. I would extend the 'tail' part just a tiny bit. And, even though it would really take away from Cannon... Remove that silly 'Observation Poll' Say that it was a feature added later or soemthing because it does NOT belong on a warship.

Update.

I may remove the spike on the starboard side of the tower (I'd prefer if it had another function), and the tail may be lengthened, but like I said, I haven't finalized the design. I'm still waiting for input from others before proceeding.

Odyssey Slipways

You may want to talk to this guy. He's got a 1/10000 VSD, and maybe so other references available.

Firefox wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Huh? What do you mean? I REALLY hope you don't mean the STUPID opening-up flight deck on the Venator. Kills the whole design for me.

Hell no. That's a flaw I'd expect to be limited to that design. I'm talking about something similar to the large side apertures located in the oversized notches, used for cargo loading.

No - definite brain-bug. That's a big armorless spot where a well-aimed broadside could blow through right into a ship's soft insides. Bad idea.

Besides, part of the reason the Victory's hangar only hosts a squad or two of fighters and a few utility ships and transports is probably because the Venator was being designed with so many fighters. If anything, shrink the hangar.

Thought about the open circle emblem, though isn't it limited to Obi-Wan's and Anakin's fleet?

Yeah but I think it'd be really neat if you rendered this particular vessel as being one of the members of this fleet. It'd look ripped right out of ROTS.

That said, add the cannons where I suggested I think - likewise with the missile tubes.

Elongate the tail just a hair. Have the base of it merge with the ventral hull and have the bridge spine merge with the top - tapering into it. Elongate the main engines just a hair. This is the Victory Mark IA; THE first flight of ships. Taking what we know about it into consideration, you should add bay doors to contain unfolding landing stuts and pads. Saxton notes how ships that are designed to be able to land have flattened or otherwise reduced-profile ventral hulls to allow it to sit closer to the ground. Perhaps you should flatten out tha angles of the lower hull and maybe also make the reactor dome protrude a little bit more? Look for orthagonal views of the Acclamator and Venator to copy the flat/reduced profile hull.

EDIT: According to Saxton it could not land on a solid surface (?). Perhaps Tarkin landed on the the protesters in a different vessel. I would live it as it is then, don't modify it for landing; too radical.

What's that bar and structure you added running down the middle?

Another thing is that remember this ship is only 900 meters long. The bridge should not be a precise replica of the ISD's bridge, because, after all, KDY scaled it up quite a bit. An early attempt to copy this bridge may be in the Rand Ecliptic (see here and here). Anyway, have some of the features be disproportionate (when compared to the ISD tower). Make the domes extra large, patch a targeting array like on the ISD IIs on the tongue-part of the tower, stuff like that.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:No - definite brain-bug. That's a big armorless spot where a well-aimed broadside could blow through right into a ship's soft insides. Bad idea.

Good point. I'd started to drift away from it after my last comment on the subject, anyway.

Yeah but I think it'd be really neat if you rendered this particular vessel as being one of the members of this fleet. It'd look ripped right out of ROTS.

Not a bad idea.

That said, add the cannons where I suggested I think - likewise with the missile tubes.

I'd already had in mind to add eight tubes at the front end, alongside tractor beam projectors. I'll keep the others in mind.

Elongate the tail just a hair. Have the base of it merge with the ventral hull and have the bridge spine merge with the top - tapering into it. Elongate the main engines just a hair. This is the Victory Mark IA; THE first flight of ships.

Another thing I'd thought about: whether this is among the first of the series, or a later production model. Makes sense.

EDIT: According to Saxton it could not land on a solid surface (?). Perhaps Tarkin landed on the the protesters in a different vessel. I would live it as it is then, don't modify it for landing; too radical.

I'd like to think the ship can operate in high atmosphere, but not land. Leave that to the Venators.

What's that bar and structure you added running down the middle?

Dorsal keel plating. I know it serves as the doors for the Venator's flight deck, but that's not its function in this version. I may narrow it a bit, though.

Another thing is that remember this ship is only 900 meters long. The bridge should not be a precise replica of the ISD's bridge, because, after all, KDY scaled it up quite a bit. An early attempt to copy this bridge may be in the Rand Ecliptic

Rand Ecliptic has been on my mind as far as the bridge is concerned, although it's a Rothana/KDY product, from Saxton's musings. Reverse-espionage between Rendili and Kuat?

I'll probably have a revision ready for this evening, hopefully. As for the Odyssey Slipways site, it only shows the VSD in pieces. I'd like to see it fully assembled.

Updated the bridge tower, lengthened the engine pods and tail, and narrowed the keel plating. I wasn't sure what you meant by "tongue" of the ISD tower (the portion behind the head?), so I've left out the other sensor arrays for now.

Nice.

Love the reduced the size of the bridge, but keeping it the same over all shape as the original. And the slight lengthening of the tail section works well, especially being blended into the over all Hull of the ship. Would love to see a top down version of your sketch!

Crossroads Inc. wrote:Would love to see a top down version of your sketch!

A dorsal elevation? Look at the drawing.

Would it be terribly silly if I mentioned I never scrolled down
That said, looking at the front and back views of it. Shouldn't there be more space betwen the top and bottom? I mean, they meet into a single point. All other ships have a space, a gap where guns and such would go.

What do you mean? The brim trench? The Imperator class has a pretty narrow trench as well. You may be thinking of the drawings and toys of the subject. The trenches on those are horribly out of proportion.

Nevermind.. found what I was looking for, the Victories 'Winglits' come to a point, so it makes the whole ship look as if it doesn't have a Brim Trench, which it does. Also, if theres Anything I could do to help with this progect? Let me know!

No help other than design input needed, really.

Wow...

I really have to say that I like how this is going. Firefox, your redesign has actually made me like the Victory. It looks like a distinct class now, not an ISD kitbashed and hit with a shrink-ray.

It seems to be missing a comm antenna (unless that's what the mini-globe is), but other than that, the only suggestion I have is to make the winglets from the bridge tower more distinctly unique, as compared to the Kuat bridge design. That's just a stylistic design, though, so take it as you will.

This is going to be a smaller ship:



Which has me wondering if I should change some proportions. She'll be narrower than the Venator, not to mention shallower. Mass-wise, they'll be about the same, since the VenStar has the hollowed-out forward hull for the hangars and flight deck, plus the notches and internal holds.

What about the VicStar's depth, though? Should I thicken the hull a bit, to more closely match the contours of the original design?