StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Image.

I've started a new thread since the old one was to discuss how to design it. This one will cover the construction of this beast. You can tell from the photo I've already narrowed the hull, added a sharper prow tip, and changed the stern angle. The ceilings for the landing bays are already added to the docking bay ceiling piece, and I've moved the reactor bulb slightly aft.

Comments welcome, as always.

WOO!!!

Can't wait FrieFox! Can't wait. The added sections already look nice.

Dude, your ship has a hole in it!

Question: Am I the only one who doubts the fighter complement stated by WEG and other sources? Two TF squadrons seems very light. From some very basic measurements, there seems to be enough room for four V-wing squadrons, which would correspond to about the same number of TIE squadrons (even more if there are two stacks of fighters). Thoughts?

I always assumed it was because the Vic was geared more to being a heavy Anti-Capital ship. The advent of the Venator and it's heavy carrier role reinforces this. So, Vic should be more powerful, and hold only a meager force of fighters.

The Vic appears to be armed with what is at most a defensive fighter compliment.

I'd still like to think they gave it no more than four V-wing squadrons during the war (a quarter the V-wing complement of the Venator class). The size of the ARC-170s would mean there were either special accomodations to have a squadron of them kept aboard, or they weren't used at all.

Meanwhile, I've started the process of smoothing out the hull halves. There was a lot of detail and texturing that had to be sanded away. The top half is completely bare, while the lower half has significant changes to the terrace structure (the cutouts have been filled in; reactor bulb moved aft; plating forward of the docking bay extended).

Most of the smoothing is being accomplished using bondo, a paste you can find at auto stores. I'm using it to fill out divots and gouges made by the Dremel, and so far it's turning out pretty good. I'm also wet sanding the surfaces, which is making things go a lot faster.

Once I've smoothed out both halves, I'm going to focus on the docking bay. It'll have as much detail as I can cram into it, with three landing bays visible fore and aft (none of the V-wing bays on either side will be open, however). I'm thinking about putting a small Theta-class shuttle in one of the aft bays, and perhaps something in the forward bay. Any ideas?

I haven't been following the other thread too closely, but do you plan to leave those big panels off the sides of the ship? Official materials list them as maneuvering planes to help in atmospheric flight. However, I've been talking to the guy maintaining the Galactic Empire Data Bank, and he seems to think they serve some form of repulsor lift function.

I was thinking of simply leaving those panels off because they interfere too much with the VDS's fire arcs, especially the ones on the Mark II. You could explain it as being a result of improved and more sophisticated repulsorlift engines.

The panels are going to be closed, not flared out like the 3D drawing.

While I've essentially smoothed out the hull for future scribing and detailing, the subject of tail vs. tailless configuration has resurfaced. Since I've added 3/8" to the prow, the tail would be very stubby if it were to make up the ship's remaining 900m length at this scale. However, if I cut the prow tip back to the original, I can add that 3/8" to the tail. Any thoughts?

Also, the engine design's still bugging me. I've thought of everything from Acclamator-like cylinders, to Venator-style cone-and-bulbs, to a conical shape similar to the secondaries on the ISD (only slightly longer in profile). I don't want to build bells.

Well, I'm sure you know by now where I stand on the whole Tail issue

As for the Engine Design... The Venators Engines were far to exposed and stretched out. The Acclamator were some what the same. Since the Victory is a bridge between old and new, I would have Cynlidrical style Engines the 'resemble' those of the Acclamator, but are far shorter and buried more into the ship like those on an ISD.

Update:

Comparison with Venator hull of same scale.

Docking bay details. (Yes, I'm building a Theta-class shuttle to fit in one of the smaller landing bays.)

You can tell the hull has been fairly well smoothed out, with some changes to the plating. I photographed it next to the Revell Republic Star Destroyer's hull not only because it gives a size comparison between the two, it gives an idea of a problem I've been thinking about since yesterday. To illustrate:

Approximate reactor size comparison.

Assuming the ships are on parity with respect to reactor size and output, I'm thinking about moving the VicStar's reactor bulb further aft, probably another 1/4" (nearly 50' in scale). Thoughts?

I was under the impression that the Victory had a higher reactor output, but the Venator was considered its rough equal because of its massive fighter complement.

Saxton touches on this in his new Venator entry. The power output between the two ships is roughly equal, at 3.6E24W, though the reactor volume and output is slightly larger than the VenStar.

Meanwhile, the rear engine bulkhead has been started. It's slightly deeper than one would expect, since it's four triangles converging at a single point further forward. I'm also going to get a 1"-dia. PVC pipe to make the primary sublights (about 188' across at scale).

At this point I'm going to leave the bulb where it is, but I won't scale up the superstructure as large as it appears in my most recent drawings.

Teeny tiny Theta:

Image 1.
Image 2.

The landing bays are finished, so it's a matter of placing the shuttle in one of the bays and gluing them to the docking bay subassembly.

The hull's together:

Image 1.
Image 2.
Image 3.

Any thoughts on the current spine?

I've decided to cast a pair of copies of one of the Venator kit's engine nozzles for the Vic's primaries:



With little modification, I think those will do fine. They're about 1" dia., and the secondaries will be half that.

Go for it, The extra Vent Engines should be easily convertable for the Victories

Thanks for the encouragement.

Armament has been on my mind lately. I've thought about making copies of the DBY-827 HTL turrets and modifying them to create the quad turbolasers, but they should be simple enough to build. (Didn't IP suggest placing the barrels in a linear arrangement?)

Two configurations for the QTLs are tempting: four on either side of the superstructure, with two axially-mounted on the dorsal spine, or five on either side of the superstructure. There's also the issue of the 40 double TLs. Many of those will be mounted in the brim trenches, obviously. I'm not sure how visible they would be, however. Any thoughts?

I'm a fan of the axially-mounted choice. It gives it a nice tie-in with the ISD-1.

As to the double TLs, looking at the Venator art in the RotS:ISD, the ones in the brim trench should be visible in the sense of "if you're looking for them, you can find them", but not necessarily obvious. The ones on the main hull are AFAIK never seen on either ISD variant or the Venator.

First off, this is awesome. Good work-- am I to understand that the Venator is an actual model kit available for sale, and you're using one to kitbash a Victory?

As to the fighter compliments-- I'd say that the Republic did indeed have two different ship classes for a reason, one a heavy cruiser (the Victory) and one a fleet carrier (Venator). Later, as the Empure grew, they had the resources to combine the two and get rid of the redundancy of having a fleet carrier.

Also, as the CIS was alregely subdued, the need for dedicated massive-assault platforms dried up, and the ISDs were more useful for combat patrol and system suppression.

I'm also digging for information on the Rand Ecliptic-- it looks, in the Commentaries, to be a modified Acclamator with four landing bays that face out two on each side. I'm digging through the internet for this, but... any hints or other links would be nice...

Coyote wrote:First off, this is awesome. Good work-- am I to understand that the Venator is an actual model kit available for sale, and you're using one to kitbash a Victory?

Kitbashing an old AMT Star Destroyer kit. The Venator is from Revell, and will be built parallel to this beast.

As to the fighter compliments-- I'd say that the Republic did indeed have two different ship classes for a reason, one a heavy cruiser (the Victory) and one a fleet carrier (Venator). Later, as the Empure grew, they had the resources to combine the two and get rid of the redundancy of having a fleet carrier.

Makes sense. Once I put the hull together, there seemed less room on either side for fighters anyway. It may have to go back to two squadrons.

I'm also digging for information on the Rand Ecliptic-- it looks, in the Commentaries, to be a modified Acclamator with four landing bays that face out two on each side. I'm digging through the internet for this, but... any hints or other links would be nice...

Apart from the SWTC stuff, I know nothing about the Rand Ecliptic. Any way you can find the comic of origin?

Meanwhile, quick informal poll: should I add notches to the brim trench forward of the wings like this:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y247/M ... otches.jpg

Perhaps not? There is a depression in the brim trench where the notches would be located. I can put one or two double TLs in there, but I wanted some opinions before I proceeded with this change to the ship's profile.

This is all I can find about theRand Ecliptic, and it's from Saxton's Star Wars Commentaries.

According to SWENC, the ship appears in several of the Star Wars: Empire - Darklighter series, issues 8, 9, 12, and 15. Hope this helps.

Firefox wrote:Meanwhile, quick informal poll: should I add notches to the brim trench forward of the wings like this:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y247/M ... otches.jpg

Perhaps not? There is a depression in the brim trench where the notches would be located. I can put one or two double TLs in there, but I wanted some opinions before I proceeded with this change to the ship's profile.

I kinda like the notches. Can't say exactly why, but I do.

Also, if you go with two HTLs on an axial mounting, will the one closer to the rear be higher up? One of my pet-peeves with the ISD design is that most of the guns are obstructed in the forward arc.