New design, lots of guns!

[Sky Captain]

Yeah, the stuff looks great.
I suggest to introduce some asymmetry in the next model.

Asymmetry is bad because if you have one large piece sticking out of your ship unbalanced by other large piece on the opposite side your ship will fly in circles because center of mass will be offset from engine thrust line.

[JointStrikeFighter]

I hear they have these things called thrusters now.

[Stark]

You still have to waste thrust and power to keep the ship straight that could have been used to make it accelerate faster. F-22 with thrust vectored 5 degrees to the left all the time = not as good as a balanced one.

But hey, 'looks kewl' is it's own criteria when you're not even considering how the design makes sense.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Oh I didn't mean to say it was in anyway sensible, just possible. And hey, he said himself he was going for a sins design aesthetic

[Stark]

You mean a slapped-together collection of illogical, stupid and plagarised designs that have nothing in common with one another?

I think he's outdone the Sins designs already. Two ships that actually show similarities = instant win.

[JointStrikeFighter]

You mean a slapped-together collection of illogical, stupid and plagarised designs that have nothing in common with one another?

I think he's outdone the Sins designs already. Two ships that actually show similarities = instant win.

Shh don't tell anyone. Oh noes the NOT THE SULACO and the NOT THE PILLAR OF AUTUMN are going to get you!

[Grahf: Seeker Of Power]

I KNOW, I KNOW, forward facing hangars are Teh DeVILZ, but I did this one real quick after I got home from work:

[RogueIce]

But hey, 'looks kewl' is it's own criteria when you're not even considering how the design makes sense.

Liberal usage of handwavium isn't a bad thing sometimes.

Should I ever get into designing spaceships and a universe and such I plan to go with "what looks cool" (at least to me, since I'd be the one putting the effort in) rather than what's realistic.

Random Person: "Hey wait, this doesn't make any sense. How does it work?"
Military Dude: "It's classified. Now shut up before I taze you."

[salm]

Meh, it´s a matter of taste.
Personally i never understood realism wank. Fictional things work at the artists whim, so why stick to artificial rules loaded on to us by the percieved necessity of reality?

[Stark]

Meh, it´s a matter of taste.
Personally i never understood realism wank. Fictional things work at the artists whim, so why stick to artificial rules loaded on to us by the percieved necessity of reality?

Not having giant explosive holes in the front of your warships = 'realism wank'. It's one thing to have handwavium or tactics that work around the design decisions, but let's face it - there ARE no design decisions beyond 'looks cool' so of course the art will be superficial and foolish upon examination.

I'm far more interested in why anyone would think forward facing hangars even makes sense or looks 'cool' on a space warship, aside from 'I played Homeworld and have no creativity'. They don't even NEED hangars for launch operations.

Let's face it - Sins has giant hangars accounting for ~10% of a ship's mass that don't even do anything until you upgrade it. The level of competition is not high.

[salm]

Yep, that´s realism wank. Besides a couple of sci-fi and military ubergeeks nobody gives a shit about the hangars being in the front. Nobody besides people categorized as the above would even think about this being a bad idea for a real design.
That´s not all that surprising considering the viewing habits we have formed from current aircraft carriers. The viewing habits are also an argument for this particular design decission btw.

[Stark]

Yep, that´s realism wank. Besides a couple of sci-fi and military ubergeeks nobody gives a shit about the hangars being in the front. Nobody besides people categorized as the above would even think about this being a bad idea for a real design.

Prove it, then prove how this supports the idea that it's 'realism wank'. Oops, you can't.

That´s not all that surprising considering the viewing habits we have formed from current aircraft carriers. The viewing habits are also an argument for this particular design decission btw.

Floating aircraft carriers don't have forward facing hangars; their hangars are internal and the planes are launched from the outside. The same could be done in space, but OMG THAT'S WANK.

Before anyone gets their panties in a knot, I have to reiterate that crazy old Graff Vynda Ka is already better than professional artists, so he's got nothing to worry about. That doesn't make his designs even remotely make sense, but hey.

[Ford Prefect]

Honestly, the main problem with forward facing hangars is that under acceleration, they're not forward, they're up. Though I'm wondering, do the hangars need to be so big? They're a pretty huge fraction of the ship's dimensions; how big do you envision the vessels, Grahf? In any case, I think Grahf's (I want to make a 'do you seek the power?' reference here, but it seems pointless) ships have a strong aesthetic theme to them. They do look like they've been built by a single polity, while being different enough to make it look like they have been built to fit specific roles.

[Stark]

Which means ironically he's already put more thought into it than pretty much anyone who ever designed ships for a game.

[salm]

Most people will think of something that looks like a Nimitz carrier when asked what a carrier looks like. In other words, a big, long, flat thing with small planes launching into the air in the front. That´s exactly what some of the designs in this thread look like.

It really depends on the requirements of the ship. And by that i don´t mean carry small ships or carry big guns. I mean the artistic requirements.
If you have time to introduce it and tell the viewer (of your animation, movie, game or whatever) that it´s a carrier ship then you can pretty much design it the way you want to, even so that it makes sense in space.
If, for some reason, you need a ship that screams CARRIER at the audience because you don´t have time to introduce it or explain that it´s a carrier you better go with something that people will immediately identify as a carrier. In this case one possible way to achieve that is to use a big, long thing with small planes comming out in the front or at least a visible thing in the front that has potential to make little planes come out.

If you, however, go for a realistic approach sacrificing the artistic requirements, then yes, that´s damaging realism wank.

If you don´t want to use it for any specific task then it´s just a matter of taste, like mentioned before, and in my eyes still realism wank, albeit not damaging.

[Stark]

Most people will think of something that looks like a Nimitz carrier when asked what a carrier looks like. In other words, a big, long, flat thing with small planes launching into the air in the front. That´s exactly what some of the designs in this thread look like.

a) no it isn't

b) so what

It really depends on the requirements of the ship. And by that i don´t mean carry small ships or carry big guns. I mean the artistic requirements.
If you have time to introduce it and tell the viewer (of your animation, movie, game or whatever) that it´s a carrier ship then you can pretty much design it the way you want to, even so that it makes sense in space.
If, for some reason, you need a ship that screams CARRIER at the audience because you don´t have time to introduce it or explain that it´s a carrier you better go with something that people will immediately identify as a carrier. In this case one possible way to achieve that is to use a big, long thing with small planes comming out in the front or at least a visible thing in the front that has potential to make little planes come out.

If you, however, go for a realistic approach sacrificing the artistic requirements, then yes, that´s damaging realism wank.

Prove it. Damaging... what? Not pandering to cretins = DAMAGING ART! Good thing there's no art that requires understanding and knowledge to apprecia... oh wait, you're a moron.

In the context of a computer game it's even more laughable - I hear they can draw text on screens now!

If you don´t want to use it for any specific task then it´s just a matter of taste, like mentioned before, and in my eyes still realism wank, albeit not damaging.

Oh he deems it not damaging something somehow if you're never going to use it for anything!

What a fucking prat.

The best part is that Graff-oh-my-lud isn't nearly this pretentious; he's just making cool-looking ships in his spare time and doing a cool job. He's not concerned about 'damaging' art with his 'wank'.

[salm]

Most people will think of something that looks like a Nimitz carrier when asked what a carrier looks like. In other words, a big, long, flat thing with small planes launching into the air in the front. That´s exactly what some of the designs in this thread look like.

a) no it isn't

b) so what

a) Yes it is.
b) See: viewing habbits.

It really depends on the requirements of the ship. And by that i don´t mean carry small ships or carry big guns. I mean the artistic requirements.
If you have time to introduce it and tell the viewer (of your animation, movie, game or whatever) that it´s a carrier ship then you can pretty much design it the way you want to, even so that it makes sense in space.
If, for some reason, you need a ship that screams CARRIER at the audience because you don´t have time to introduce it or explain that it´s a carrier you better go with something that people will immediately identify as a carrier. In this case one possible way to achieve that is to use a big, long thing with small planes comming out in the front or at least a visible thing in the front that has potential to make little planes come out.

If you, however, go for a realistic approach sacrificing the artistic requirements, then yes, that´s damaging realism wank.

Prove it. Damaging... what? Not pandering to cretins = DAMAGING ART! Good thing there's no art that requires understanding and knowledge to apprecia... oh wait, you're a moron.

In the context of a computer game it's even more laughable - I hear they can draw text on screens now!

Damaging art? No,the effect of the scene. Can you imagine that there might be the need for a scene in which the viewer has to be able to identify something in first few seconds for a specific effect?

If you don´t want to use it for any specific task then it´s just a matter of taste, like mentioned before, and in my eyes still realism wank, albeit not damaging.

Oh he deems it not damaging something somehow if you're never going to use it for anything!

What a fucking prat.

If you´re going to use it for the sake of designing it, then no, of course it can´t be damaging to something in context with what i mentioned above.

The best part is that Graff-oh-my-lud isn't nearly this pretentious; he's just making cool-looking ships in his spare time and doing a cool job. He's not concerned about 'damaging' art with his 'wank'.

Oh, please get off of this "damaging art" crap.

[Stark]

a) Yes it is.

Prove it. For that matter, prove anything you've said in this thread. PS, I don't believe you. Show me. Demonstrate.

b) See: viewing habbits.

Referring to your own unsupported statements is not evidence. By your own totally broken logic, this nonsensical 'underestimate your audience' stuff only counts for minor elements, and nobody is confused about Galactica being a carrier and not being flat or whatever the fuck you declared off the top of your head to be the universal definition of 'has planes pew pew'.

Damaging art? No,the effect of the scene. Can you imagine that there might be the need for a scene in which the viewer has to be able to identify something in first few seconds for a specific effect?

You're right, that totally demonstrates how considering how something is supposed to work is 'damaging' 'realism wank'.

(btw that's sarcasm)

I have no idea why you're even talking about scenes. He's banging up models. Scene... where?

If you´re going to use it for the sake of designing it, then no, of course it can´t be damaging to something in context with what i mentioned above.

What? Use it for the sake of designing it? What does that even mean?

Oh, please get off of this "damaging art" crap.

Does that mean you realise he's nowhere near as pretentious as you are, and is just doing it for a lark and doesn't care about your hilariously bigoted ideas about art/scenes/whatever the fuck 'using it for the sake of designing it' means?

Oh wait, no, you think you're being clever! That's right, it's funny that you can't commuincate to save your ass.

[Sky Captain]

IMO for a space carrier it would make more sense to carry most of parasite crafts on the outside clamped to docking hardpoints and leave only relatively small pressurized internal hangar for repair and maintenance. That way you could even make plausible battleship - carrier hybrids without impairing battleship part since there is no need to sacrifice large volume of your battleship for hangar space. When expecting combat battleship disengage parasites riding on it and becomes a pure battleship. After combat surviving parasites docks back and ride home. Such a scheme would make even more sense if FTL gadget is too big and power hungry to be mounted in small craft.

[salm]

I´ll cut this down to the relevant parts. The others are pretty much adressed by this.

Prove it. For that matter, prove anything you've said in this thread. PS, I don't believe you. Show me. Demonstrate.

Can´t of course since there´s no data. Anyway, we can continue the rest by using a placeholder for this for the rest of the discussion. So if it´s ever found out what the average viewer thinks of when asked about carriers we can come back here and see who´s right. It doesn´t affect my other points after all.

Referring to your own unsupported statements is not evidence. By your own totally broken logic, this nonsensical 'underestimate your audience' stuff only counts for minor elements, and nobody is confused about Galactica being a carrier and not being flat or whatever the fuck you declared off the top of your head to be the universal definition of 'has planes pew pew'.

The Galactica is not relevant here since they have enough time to show what it´s purpose is.

You're right, that totally demonstrates how considering how something is supposed to work is 'damaging' 'realism wank'.

So, you agree with me it´s possible to need a ship thats purpose can be identified quickly? Very good.
If that is so, would you also agree that it is ok to sacrifice realism in order to achieve this?
If yes, then our whole disagreement lies within our definition of a quickly identifiable ship.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

If the narrative does not make the purpose of a carrier clear, then why would it be critical for an uninformed audience to instantly identify it without other cues? Once it launches other craft it's obviously a carrier. If it's important enough for the audience to know it's carrying subsidiary craft, it can be referred to as a carrier at some point. Or visually, a close up pass can show the parasite craft mounted on their exterior hardpoints or internal scenes can show pilots scrambling to their seats or receiving orders or loading ammo or whatever supplies before launch. I personally think a more thoughtful design could be more visually interesting than a Nimitz with rocket engines and big obvious bays without somehow disenchanting the majority of viewers. Will they comment on that with the same vehemence that a realism-oriented person will object to unnecessary silliness in design?

[Grahf: Seeker Of Power]

SO......other than docking the ships on the outside, any suggestions on a hangar set-up. I'm a lot more competent in designing pure combat brawlers than something like a carrier.

[Ford Prefect]

Well, for one, you should probably think of ships as being more like skyscrapers in design. Even if you envision them as having artificial gravity, it would still make more sense for the decks to be arranged perpendicular to the line of thrust; so in essence, the engines will be below your feet, and the bow of the ship will be above you. To that end, you would expect the hangars to be arranged around the 'spine' of the ship, facing out

[Stark]

Can´t of course since there´s no data.

So shut the fuck up and stop playing this pompous art nazi bullshit.

Anyway, we can continue the rest by using a placeholder for this for the rest of the discussion. So if it´s ever found out what the average viewer thinks of when asked about carriers we can come back here and see who´s right. It doesn´t affect my other points after all.

Wrong. Either prove what you're saying is based on more than your own fatuous bias or shut the fuck up.

Actually they're option 3 - keep posting and look stupid. Stick with that.

The Galactica is not relevant here since they have enough time to show what it´s purpose is.

What, you mean just like I said in my fucking post, where this nonsense is only relevant for things seen briefly? HOLY SHIT WOW REALLY?!

So, you agree with me it´s possible to need a ship thats purpose can be identified quickly? Very good.
If that is so, would you also agree that it is ok to sacrifice realism in order to achieve this?
If yes, then our whole disagreement lies within our definition of a quickly identifiable ship.

Whoa, you're a complete cretin. Did you notice the phrase '(ps that was sarcasm)' that you snipped out to try and look clever?

In any case to address your retarded argument, you DON'T HAVE TO SACRIFICE 'REALISM' TO HAVE OBVIOUS DESIGN ROLES. So even if we accepted all of you gasbagging artschool horseshit, you're STILL WRONG. There's a giant difference between slapping a design together as entertainment with no thought to how it should work and designing a totally unrealistic yet setting-consistent design whose purpose is obvious, unlike your pathetic dilemna presented in the statement

Yep, that´s realism wank. Besides a couple of sci-fi and military ubergeeks nobody gives a shit about the hangars being in the front.

Turns out any setting anywhere with worthless armour but strong shields might have ships like this, but otherwise it's inadvisable. Of course, this makes me a 'realism wanker'.

Anyway Grahf I'm sorry to mess up your thread, but don't get too hooked on 'proper' realism. Even if you can be fucked designing a 'universe' around your designs (frankly they're so consistent I could write an essay on what the designs tell us about the technology involved already) the 'rules' can be whatever you want. As Hav says, it's not really worth worrying about it unless you have ships that obviuosly don't work together.

After all, I designed a space fleet based on the premise 'I want 1890s dreadnoughts in space'. Not realistic in the slightest, but consistent. . . as shown in my fanfiction. Sadly, by thinking about design forces (like 'giant active radiators throwing off 'smoke' and 'bow deflector having wave at ftl')I 'damaged' 'art' 'scenes' and confused the audience.

[salm]

If the narrative does not make the purpose of a carrier clear, then why would it be critical for an uninformed audience to instantly identify it without other cues? Once it launches other craft it's obviously a carrier. If it's important enough for the audience to know it's carrying subsidiary craft, it can be referred to as a carrier at some point.

You have very little time, say the animation is for a commercial, you want to show the ship coming out of hyperspace, cut to planet, small space ships enter atmosphere, attack stuff, cut to product that the advertisment is for.
In cases like that time is money and if you have the possibilty to imply something without showing it you can cut down on production costs as well as costs that it takes to air the clip. Hence a design which most people understand by seeing it for a second is more cost efficient and therefore superior to a more realistic one which most people won´t understand in a second.
Not all designs are for full length feature films.