Something big

[fractalsponge1]

They're both about 2.2km. The Allegiance is ~49m longer and the Secutor is ~50m shorter. It's negligible at that scale. The big picture is 1pixel=1m.

"Tell them, tell them how all the Star Destroyers in your line were fat as prototypes and only later grew into their hulls!"
"Oh, sweetie, those were all lies. You're just fat."

Winning teh internets

[Eternal_Freedom]

Paraphrasing South Park for the win!

[Abacus]

By the way, what did we settle on the full armament of the Interdictor-class Star Destroyer? I noticed that you put a larger, not barbette turret on the flanks.

[Eternal_Freedom]

IIRC the flank turrets are supposed to be twin-mount HTL's like on an ISD-1.

[Abacus]

IIRC the flank turrets are supposed to be twin-mount HTL's like on an ISD-1.

Ooo...that makes me want to see an ISD-1 all proper and such now...

*stares significantly at Ansel and prepares begging apparatus*

[Abacus]

In fact EF, you're right. The cut-out in the original Cross Sections shows them being the twin-mounted HTLs. Also, in TESB the scene where you see the Executor between two ISDs, the ISD in the foreground is marked as "in transition" or "converted." The rearmost side turret on the top is a barbette turret like the ISD-II, but the other three forward are the older ISD-I twin-mounted HTLs.

[fractalsponge1]

The Dominator has 3 twins for the same type of HTL on the ISDI. I also put the quad trench notch guns of the ISDI back into position. These I think are probably HTL, judging by the size on the Devastator model, possibly similar in caliber to the flank guns.

An ISDI sort of exists - I was asked to modify my ISDII mesh a bit to resemble one. Bridge and guns are about right, but most of the detail is ISDII still:

[Eternal_Freedom]

Ever since I got my OT ICS book I wondered what those quad-mounts in the trench notches were for, since they look like they'd have much more limited firing arcs than the twin mounts on the flanks.

[Crazedwraith]

Did you ever finish Black Prince from Hull 271?

[fractalsponge1]

I think it's a holdover from the Venator days - guns for fleet melees - like a standardization of the SPHA shooting out the hangar field modification. It would also explain the quasi-casemate gun logic in Venators as well. Though the notches actually have quite decent coverage, just not as good as the flank guns.

And no, never finished Black Prince.

[swan2swan]

Ever since I got my OT ICS book I wondered what those quad-mounts in the trench notches were for, since they look like they'd have much more limited firing arcs than the twin mounts on the flanks.

For reference:



Based on a lot of recent canon evidence, I'm inclined to believe that they are actually torpedo tubes.

Exhibit A: Torpedo tubes on actual World War II warships (based on World of Warships, which, while a video game, does its homework):



The location is similar, relatively amidships, with a clear firing arc along the sides. This would allow the Star Destroyer to only necessitate exposing the tubes while taking aim at a target (the trench groove provides cover from the front line of attack, and there is plenty of hull to swing into the path of any hopeful shots), and the location of the weapons would easily be able to reach anything broadside of the destroyer.

Exhibit B: Torpedo tubes on actual Star Wars ships.



The Imperial-helicopters launch missiles from barrels that look like gun barrels, but are actually missile tubes. It's logical to assume that enlarged versions might not look much different.

Exhibit C: References to torpedoes on board Star Destroyers are found in both A New Dawn and Aftermath:

"Step lively, there! If you were loading torpedoes on my ship, I'd be launching you, next!" --Captain Rae Sloane, Chapter Forty-Five of AND. Sloane commands a Star Destroyer, and has been aboard ISDs for some time now, so she knows what her ship is carrying. Furthermore, when she is later in command of an ISD2:

"You'll fire your torpedo. We'll fire ours." --Chapter One of Aftermath. Again, she references her ship having torpedoes.

Exhibit D: Simple logic and redundancy. Putting a quad-laser-cannon mount on that section of an Imperial Star Destroyer is pointless--it's right below the main batteries, and a simple maneuver of ten degrees should put the enemy in firing range of the heaviest guns the battleship is carrying. However, a missile launcher there would open up dozens of new strategic options and provide a healthier level of defense and offense. If an Imperial Star Destroyer is meant to be the all-purpose warship it is, it stands to reason that it should be capable of launching its own missiles. The only downside to the missiles is that they would have a limited firing arc, but this would also reflect the limitations of sea-based warships, and a Star Destroyer should be able to maneuver well enough that any threat demanding the attention of a missile barrage would be set squarely in its sights.



...on a side note, I've been eager to discuss this topic, and when the opportunity arose on this forum, I had to finally create an account. Perhaps it would be better suited to another thread, but this is my first post, so let me tie it into relevance by saying I love these designs and the work fractalsponge has put into all of this. These are beautiful ships.

[Lord Revan]

while I don't think it's longer canon the AOTC ICS gave the Acclamator 4 torpedo tubes at the nose (2 per side) and while it's true that most WW2 ships did have torpedo tubes I wouldn't trust a video game as far as firing arcs go.

[fractalsponge1]

I don't think the notch position hosts missile launchers. The trench notch position is labeled as a laser battery in the ICS, and look like gun barrels. Also, arcs don't matter for long range missile launchers in SW - the projectiles themselves can maneuver better than starfighters (see AOTC, ROTS). I don't think there's anything wrong with ISDs having torpedo tubes, but I don't think these are the launchers.

[darthscott]

I would think they were laser batteries as well, from ICS and such, but I have also assumed there would be more missile and torpedo tubes on a Star Destroyer. Low yield stuff maybe to take out star fighters or precision planetary strikes. Then I would assume they would have some really high yield (baradium?) weaponry, much like the old Acclamator II class torpedo tubes, to be used to devastate planets or quickly take out another capital ship.

[Lord Revan]

well the thing is you need weapons you can dial the yield on more then weapons that can devestate a planet, after all more you crash on a planet the more you need to rebuild later and the Death Star was something they were planning to use once or twice then use the fear of it to keep the systems in line, not to blow up planets when the mood stuck them.

[swan2swan]

Also, because Rebels has been featuring the Arquitens-class cruiser, which I love despite its name (Acclamator, Venator, Victory, Imperial, Executor/Super, Vindicator, Immobilizer, Arquitens), I decided to scale it up against the Vindicator vessel:



It may be a little off, but I like having some perspective with things like this. The Arquitens has been measured to be around 300 meters long, so I lined it up so two of them would be the same length as the 600m Vindicator; I know perspective and angle would change things up, but I did it in about three minutes of boredom.

I also took it a little further...



Obviously this is not the ideal angle, but I didn't have a profile shot of the Arquitens ready. I think the ISD might be a bit oversized as a result...I might hunt down some profile shots of the Light Cruiser and get a better read, but until then, this is what I can contribute.

[darthscott]

well the thing is you need weapons you can dial the yield on more then weapons that can devestate a planet, after all more you crash on a planet the more you need to rebuild later and the Death Star was something they were planning to use once or twice then use the fear of it to keep the systems in line, not to blow up planets when the mood stuck them.

Very true, good point. Better to draw from your reactor power for your main weapons, rather than rely on something you can not instantly reproduce on the spot like a missile or torpedo. Still would think something like would exist for certain matters of last resort, or to make an example of an unshielded planet. Either way can't wait to see more great work from fractalsponge.

[fractalsponge1]

New commissioned ship WIP:

[Jub]

Looks sort of like a Nebulon-B had sex with an Action VI transport. Not ugly, but a little different than your usual work.

[Geforce]

nice new enemy ship!

but whats that detail on the hole ship? weapons? dockingbays?


https://picload.org/view/pproiiw/kandosii12.jpg.html

[Eternal_Freedom]

That looks like a Progenitor ship from Homeworld 2. And it looks awesome too

[fractalsponge1]

This is supposed to be the Kandosii-class Dreadnought - a Mandalorian ship from some old comics. The references are not great:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kandosii ... readnaught

In theory, the ship should be ~1.36km long, have 15 double turbolasers, and 12 heavy concussion launchers. The tubes are the launchers. The turrets seem to be all mounted midships, with very restricted forward/aft arcs apart from a few outrigger mounted guns. My way of thinking about it is that the ship is designed to turn its big armored bow on most of the time - launch missiles, then sweep side-to-side to sequentially unmask the flank gun batteries - sort of like a shark moving.

[darthscott]

Wow, looks great. I liked that design from the comics. Pretty cool scene when she launches her complement of missiles that glass the cities of Serroco.

[fractalsponge1]

A little side project playing with proxy objects: the Field-Secured Container Vessel (FSCV) - basically from the EU, a container space train with large cargo containers secured by force fields. The size is quite large. Like, used to feed-Coruscant large.

Reference:

[InsaneTD]

That thing is insane.