Something big

[Kanastrous]

I don't know if you choose to ignore the question because your tools are proprietary, or if you choose to ignore the question because you're just secretive by nature, or if perhaps you *have* answered the question and I just managed to miss it, but would you consider actually answering what software tools do you use? - or at least explicitly indicate that you refuse to answer, so I can stop wondering...?

[fractalsponge1]

3d studio max 2008, and finalrender as renderer.

[Kanastrous]

Thanks!

Some of the coolest stuff I've seen anyone doing with 3DS Max, too.

[fractalsponge1]

Well, here are wing-root cannons. Deliberately Ju-87G/H like.

These are going to be much heavier than your regular aethersprite or TIE cannon, more like B-Wing heavy laser equivalents, minimum capital point-defense laser scale, possibly as high as 50 kiloton, though adjustable for higher rates of fire.

[fusion]

The artists overlooked many things - but they probably also had like a 100 polygon limit :p.

That is the reason why I want to wait for Direct x 11 to come out before I buy a new graphics card... Tessellation... The next great thing in graphics... that is if it is done correctly...

Anyways, why is there extra short barrels(?) around the main barrel?

[fractalsponge1]

"targeting lasers" - odd thing, but they do crop up in a lot of places.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Yes, we never did really have good art of the Starwing- until now.

I reckon the guns are fairly heavy weight, possibly more than that; the Starwing is a fighter- bomber, it will be occasionally called on to strafe corvettes and freighters, and it is pretty big. Not particularly so in terms of dimensions, but it's solid enough to have a lot of room for power generation, lots of energy for the guns, and if the wings are there for the same purpose, a lot of radiator area.

Perhaps that's a factor related to the shuttle ancestry; separate reactor and engines instead of most fighters' combined powerplants, meaning that it is less brilliant a performer than it might be but it also doesn't run as hot as most fighters, it has more damage tolerance, more endurance, and it puts a higher proportion of it's power through guns.

The launchers, could be that it's actually an armoured box that the specific set of launch tubes for the specific weight of warhead slides into- a container-launcher system? That fits, it means that the six caps are the six launch cells for standard protons, there would be an eight cell equivalent for concussions, four for standard C or D torpedoes (heavy rockets), two for heavy bombs- other fits possible, just design them to fit in the box.

Land, remove the empties, slot in a new set of launch cells- simple, quick, straightforward, off and away.

Once again, very well done.

[fractalsponge1]

Soft covers for warheads carried internally.

The only way the warhead load makes sense to me is to have a modular system based on multiples of 12. The X-Wing torpedoes from ANH are actually rather small compared to what a gunboat can mount (which are something like 18" diameter warheads - how amusing is that number?). Larger diameter and also longer, stacked two deep per launcher. A "heavy rocket" would just be a double/triple length missile with more warhead space than engine space, so you get the twelve that appears in the TIE Fighter games. Concussion missiles, might even be quad-packable, depending on type, but usually two deep like proton torps. Less weight for slightly better performance, which makes sense since a concussion loadout would be for space superiority or intruder missions, not full-on strike. Take the launcher system out (and I imagine it can be slid out fairly easily), and you can replace it with racks for free-fall proton bombs or seismic charges for heavy ground attack.

Pretty much what I was already thinking ECR

[fractalsponge1]

Oh, and the beginnings of the aft end:

[fractalsponge1]

Pretty much done:

[fractalsponge1]

some area light beauty shots (more to follow), and the landing skids (rigged, as you can see):







Shitty video follows:

[Vehrec]

The skids are honestly silly looking. I suppose they were just as silly on the original, but there you have my opinion on the subject.

[Alyeska]

That thing would tip over in a light breeze. You really ought to incorporate the skids onto the missile bays.

[Alyeska]

If you have trouble finding a location, you can could for tricycle landing gear. One from the front nose and two coming from the rear of the weapon/engine pods.

[Havok]

Honestly, who cares what the landing gear looks like. I mean, how many wings does a space ship in Star Wars need anyway. The skids are the least of what bugs me when I see designs like this. The rendering is awesome, but the original design just wreaks of unoriginality.

[fractalsponge1]

Well, ok, call it a rack mounted ship and pretend the skids aren't there; no real reason it needs rough field capability anyway.

Did a little sensor cluster for the previously empty nose. Plus beauty shots.

[JointStrikeFighter]

I feel the nose could still do with some more...stuff. Sensor turrets, EW blisters etc.

[Vehrec]

Nah, what we really need is a can of TIE blue for this bad boy, and maybe some crazy varient paint-jobs applied by the rebels and pirates who get their hands on them.

[Kanastrous]

Hot rod flames.

[Havok]

Hot rod flames.

I second this. Lets say some hot rodding scoundrel got his grease monkey mitts on it and he has a lot of style.

[fractalsponge1]

Doodling again. Started out with the Relentless concept, and tried to make it a bit more like the film design ethic. Yes, I know it is desperately ugly but wanted to make it look vaguely functional and different. ~2.65km long overall. Shorter than the Relentless, probably medium star cruiser level by volume, whereas Relentless would be a heavy star cruiser equivalent.

Dedicated combat carrier. A lot of engines and ~3500g to operate with destroyers. Throw weight ~10 petatons by reactor volume scaling from ISD at 2.5 petatons. Thinking mass octuple 32-teraton ISDII turrets, as the fit is more self-defense against lighter weight vessels; the escorts and companions should be enough vs anything else. So, large number of barrels, all-round arcs, and a large number of turrets to engage multiple targets. Two rows of 4 octuples either side of the superstructure dorsal, equivalent one row either side on the ventral surface. Some ion cannons in the trenches, maybe a few 320/240/175 teraton centerline turrets to round out the armament. No missiles.

Capacity - I'm thinking at least 12 wings. This is if the ship had twice the proportion of internal volume dedicated to fighter ops as an ISD, and that's already a fairly generous alottment than what it might be. At least reinforced 6-division Corps troop capacity, probably more, and enough bay space to handle really heavy metal for them.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Less, bigger engine bells.

[Teleros]

I'm with JSF on that one. Looks promising otherwise .

[fractalsponge1]

Hm, I'll consider that.

Refining it a bit now: longer (3.1km)






Also ventral cavities starting to get cut.

[Alyeska]

If its a dedicated carrier, that thing out to be able to pack something like 36 squadrons of fighters. Its more then twice the size of an ISD and with a carrier emphasis and little concern for ground troops and support, it should have massive fighter capacity. The Venator was just about 1km in length and it managed 400 some fighters.