Victory class SD model

[Crossroads Inc.]

No no...I like it just how it is! It sets up nicely all the requirements that leads to the ISD that Kuat will make, but has several attributes that bridge it to the Acclamator and Venator ships.

[Firefox]

It's a study design, at any rate. Some things are bound to change when building the model itself (should get it some time today).

I examined a model a son of a friend had made. It shouldn't be too difficult to convert. The hardest part would be modifying the engine area, and I will have to sand off most of the hull detail. I'm also thinking about keeping the hull width of the SD kit, since there's a dado along the edge on either side. The brim trench will be narrowed, though, and the wedge angle at the stern will be reduced. The docking bay might keep its original size, too. At the desired scale, it'd be about 300' long.

One thing I forgot to add to the drawing were the pair of brim notches. Any ideas?

[Firefox]

Just to play around, here's a tailless version, scaled to 900m long:



And here's a colored version: Picture.

Open to critique, as always.

[Crossroads Inc.]

LOVE The colors FireFox! Especially the Logo of General Kenobi

But, I think it looks better with the extened Tail. That part seems a real hallmark of the eariler ships, and while it seems the the Victory is responsable for introducing the major eliments of what would become the ISD, I;m not sure a Tail-less ship is one of them.

I think the reason Kuats' ISD was able to abandon the Tail, which held Hyperdrives and lots of cooling systems, was because it was so much bigger then previous ships, and would have a Lot more room inside.

[Firefox]

Like I said, it's a speculative I wanted to throw out (just like the rest, I suppose). Here's a thought I've had: the Mk. II VSDs had the hyperdrive internalized. The tailed version is greater than or equal to a kilometer long, while the tailless successors were 900m. The explanation could be that Rendili found a way to internalize the hyperdrive and other systems without compromising fighting power too much. This may have been one of the changes adopted by KDY.

Of course, I could do the split-wing version for the Mk. II, but I don't like it from a functionality standpoint. They create too large a blind spot for weapons.

[Sephirius]

umm, if it's not too late for input, I think it should have some recesses into the hull like the acc/vern does further up than the 'wings' on the hull.

[Firefox]

I keep forgetting to add those. I haven't decided how big they'll turn out to be, but they shouldn't take away much of anything from the ship's mass.

Any other input? IP? GMJ?

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Hmm... well, I was going to protest the lack of tail, but your explanation kind of convinced me otherwise.

As for suggestions... I think some sort of pattern, like a sunburst or the open circle would go well on the ventral bulb. Not that it would be visible really from these views, but the bland grey blob doesn't really do anything for me. Also, I don't know if you've already accounted for this, but if you're going for the scanner globes being the same or a similar model to those of the Imperators, be sure to compare and scale accordingly.

[Firefox]

IP had suggested making the globes a bit larger. I'm not sure what size they'll be on the final model, but probably a little larger than the stock globes. They'll also likely be closer to the Devastator-type globes, which don't have the exaggerated polygonal shape and spikes of the Avenger type.

I think my issue with the tail is that it's seen on two KDY models so far, the Acclamator and the Venator. Rendili needs to have a more distinctive look besides the bridge tower and terraced superstructure. I love the engine orientation, with the secondaries outboard, and the primaries separated by a structural element, but she seems like she needs a rear end that more closely approximates the Imperator design. I could change the superstructure somewhat to make it more distinguished, but I can't think of anything at the moment.

Like I said, the tailed design may be the Block I VSDs. I might put it up to a poll, and let others vote which version they like. I'll have to polish the design a bit more, though.

Here's the latest incarnation (minus tail). I added some extra long notches and changed the wings a little.

I might color the ventral bulb red along with the keel plating, but it may actually look better in plain gray highlighted by a red surrounding.

Meanwhile, with all of the various sources on the VSD's armament, which one should I go with? Should I compromise? The missile tubes won't be a problem to place, but I'm beating my head about the batteries.

[Firefox]

Meanwhile, I've had a new thought on the subject, something that could reconcile the tailed and tailless designs.

The Victory I class was equipped with the tail. As a result, her length was slightly over 900m. This includes the non-ISD bridge tower (which will probably receive an antennae cluster). When later ships of the Mk. II class were built, the tail was dropped in favor of an enclosed hyperdrive. The engines were also shortened. The decision may have been to offer greater armor protection, and the feeling that greater acceleration could be sacrificed in favor of staying power (perhaps an increased armament).

In addition, the Mk. II had a new tower design that was similar to that adopted by KDY's recent new Imperator class. After the Empire was declared, all Mk. Is were retrofitted to this new standard, and incorporated other changes, such as removal of some or all of the missile complement to make room for more reactor space.

Plus, the ship was never intended to land, despite its similarity in mass to the Venator class. Ships like the old Dreadnoughts and various space-borne frigates were never designed for planetary landings (they may have been suited for high atmospheric flight, on the other hand). There simply wasn't a need for the Victory to make planetfall while the Venators could land, taking advantage of their large hangar space to carry gunships and ground vehicles.

RAR, of course. I'll submit a poll either tomorrow or this weekend to see what everyone thinks of the different designs.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Sounds like a decent Backstory to the Victories life. and seems to make a lot of sense. Would explain why Victories, all victories, look the way they do ((to an extent))

Don't know why I'm now more fond of the tailed Victory, but noth are nice. Can't wait to see these begin to become "Real Life" as you turn them into modles.

[Captain Cyran]

Wow, I really like it. Are you going to be getting into greater detail with it? Such as the placement of the heavy guns and things like that? Or perhaps pester someone with good 3-D skills to make something?

[Firefox]

Someone else can feel free to convert it into 3D, but yeah, I intend to detail the hell out of this beast in plastic form. The AMT kit hasn't come in yet, and I don't expect it to until early next week.

[Firefox]

According to most sources I've seen, the ship's described to have two TIE squadrons. 24 fighters doesn't seem like a lot, although its hangar bay is considerably smaller than the ISD's. Any idea how large a complement it should carry? (I'm also interested in what CW complement she'd have, as in ARC-170s, V-wings, etc.)

[Firefox]

New version. No idea how the bridge will turn out. It'll probably wait until I start cutting plastic before it takes shape. Until then, I'm leaning towards some Acclamator/Imperator hybrid.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Firefox, saw the new version, LOVE looks to be the perfect Hybrid between Acclamator and Imperator Your New Victory will be a keeper! :swoons:

[Illuminatus Primus]

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?

I say have it to scale with the old design; but the tail making it longer. Make the tail a hair shorter, and don't have it run the depth of the aft. Instead make it like the Venator's tail, such that the tail runs about half way deep along the aft, and then conforms to the back of the hull (keep a spine over the aft to the bottom though, don't have the tail just terminate).

I think you should go with an Imperator tower and again, modify dome proportions and add somesort of foreward pod, but I really think the ISD design should be largely stolen from the Vic.

I really think it should have the full bulk not only to emphasize the ISD inspiration but also because the pyramidal base of the tall Venator tower has a similar purpose as the terraces in concealing the power generation mechanisms. A sleeker profile near the tower will imply low power output. Definitely have the terraces and dome stay. Maybe make the terraces sleeker, but still have a bulky profile.

[Firefox]

I say have it to scale with the old design; but the tail making it longer. Make the tail a hair shorter, and don't have it run the depth of the aft. Instead make it like the Venator's tail, such that the tail runs about half way deep along the aft, and then conforms to the back of the hull (keep a spine over the aft to the bottom though, don't have the tail just terminate).

Like this?

I think you should go with an Imperator tower and again, modify dome proportions and add somesort of foreward pod, but I really think the ISD design should be largely stolen from the Vic.

I really think it should have the full bulk not only to emphasize the ISD inspiration but also because the pyramidal base of the tall Venator tower has a similar purpose as the terraces in concealing the power generation mechanisms. A sleeker profile near the tower will imply low power output. Definitely have the terraces and dome stay. Maybe make the terraces sleeker, but still have a bulky profile.

I had started considering deleting the uppermost terrace, but you have a point. It adds more protection to the reactor compartment, and/or allows it to be larger.

Meanwhile, here's a new bridge design I'm thinking about:



I'll wait for further input before proceeding. Thanks for what you've provided so far.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The Bridge, it's still so, 'square' sure from the side it looks nice, but, I'm not sure what I'd change, maybe shorten the bridge a bit lengthwise, but keep it long. like this


*
******
*
As opposed to this

*
*
******
*
*

[Firefox]

I may add an angle to the lower half, either structurally or in the form of small terraces that build up towards the center line. The hammerhead itself will likely be fairly narrow. I'm still not sure about the globes, though IP recommends changing the size.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

If you do keep with the current style of tower, perhaps something like this would make it look less boxy?

[Firefox]

Hey, that's not too bad. The globes will have to be shrunk a little in my view, and I'd like to extend the hammerhead aft to meet the neck, but the pod can still wrap above and below the structure.

It might need to be narrowed, as well.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I still think the Imperator's bridge shouldbe taken from the Vic. I'd keep the trapazoidal tower, but have a round - as opposed to boxy - pod emerging a la the Rand Ecliptic/Acclamator bridge. I'd have the domes still be proportionally larger than the ISD's but smaller and sitting much lower to the bridge. And the terraces really do need to come from somewhere, so I'd definitely keep them.

And yeah, that's great with the Vic tail; the Venator tail does not run from ventral to dorsal but only half way too.

[Firefox]

How's this look?



I'm thinking of a module similar to the Acclamator's, only with bridge viewports on the front and sides. The hammerhead itself will meet directly with the supporting neck aft.

EDIT: The hammerhead might have to be narrowed a bit.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

How's this look?

[snip]

Odd. I dunno, maybe it will look better when it's more rendered than line art, but it just looks weird to me. Almost like a giant screw was pushed into the bridge, or something.

I'd add some stuff around the circular part, between it and the 'prongs' of the tower. I don't know how good that would look, but it might help break up the out-of-place circle.

Again, it would probably look better from a different angle.