Something big

[fractalsponge1]

Hmmm...

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/L2rVbA

That's a copy by someone working from my design, believe it or not. No foul.

[CFletch08]

At least he has some talent. It's a nice piece, unlike some of the more lazy photoshop-mods of your images. He went and put some work into it and made something cool.

[Knife]

Hey Fractal, just curious, have you seen the Imperial Nebulon B by E Henry?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz13rwQpUd4

[Galvatron]

I never really liked the idea that the Nebulon was an Imperial ship. I could buy that it was used by the Old Republic though. Hell, I think it would fit right in as a Mandalorian design too.

[fractalsponge1]

Hey Fractal, just curious, have you seen the Imperial Nebulon B by E Henry?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz13rwQpUd4

We were talking through our ideas on Messenger. I have a version cooking that I started at the same time but been so busy with other stuff that I haven't made much headway. His looks amazing though.

[fractalsponge1]

Tyrant missile cruiser galleries are up:

Full views at: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/9eV8ZQ
4k renders: http://fractalsponge.net/?p=4517

[PhoenixKnig]

It.Is.Here!
All ~4.1KM of her is finally complete. I would like to thank EJ for the original model and permission for use on our take the Tyrant. I would like to hear his thoughts on how it ended up. FS, thank you for your patience and agreeing to take this on.

[PhoenixKnig]

Here is the Count!
48x2 70TT HTL
14x4 200GTMTL
92x2 PD mounts

696 missile tubes with any number/mix of missile types

[PhoenixKnig]

I wonder what is next

[Abacus]

Hmmm...

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/L2rVbA

That's a copy by someone working from my design, believe it or not. No foul.

Oh, good. I saw that he'd posted a few bits of sourcing you (if you check through all of his images and not just the Mantis), but I wasn't too sure. The Imperial Handbook fiasco rather infuriated me and thus I've been a bit more on my toes about that when I see it.

Tyrant missile cruiser galleries are up:

Full views at: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/9eV8ZQ
4k renders: http://fractalsponge.net/?p=4517

Besides it's obvious weaponry, what might be the Tyrant-class's complement of support craft? Any TIE squadrons? Normal shuttles, etc? Standard or reduced stormtrooper accompaniment?

[PhoenixKnig]

mostly shuttles

[fractalsponge1]

Finally decided to have a go at making a TIE hangar rack work properly:

http://fractalsponge.net/?p=4495

[evillejedi]

For the TIE rack how do they go backwards for larger ships, it looks like the struts are only on one side so they wouldn't reverse?

[Elheru Aran]

For the TIE rack how do they go backwards for larger ships, it looks like the struts are only on one side so they wouldn't reverse?

Goes around the top from the look of it.

[Abacus]

Does anyone remember what the stat write up was for the Legator-class Dreadnought?

Finally decided to have a go at making a TIE hangar rack work properly:

http://fractalsponge.net/?p=4495

Oooh, that's nifty. I appreciate the effort you made for the end animation there.

[fractalsponge1]

For the TIE rack how do they go backwards for larger ships, it looks like the struts are only on one side so they wouldn't reverse?

Round the top - the gantries to hold the rail up would go on either side. reversing to go back but in the same horizontal plane would be problematic for fighters lined up behind, unless the rails curved outwards a lot, and that isn't space efficient - I imagine storage and launch setups to be a high-density thing, and recovery and such happens elsewhere. At the very least post recovery there's usually maintenance required, and it's probably not good to do that on a high density rack system.

[fractalsponge1]

Does anyone remember what the stat write up was for the Legator-class Dreadnought?

Finally decided to have a go at making a TIE hangar rack work properly:

http://fractalsponge.net/?p=4495

Oooh, that's nifty. I appreciate the effort you made for the end animation there.

I have in my notes:
8014.5m, ~3.20E+26, 2900g, 50 wings,1 army
16x240TTion, 64x175TT, 698x70TT

[evillejedi]

The ships in the profile view in the rack link do not have them going on the top side, all of the racks are on the bottom? for example the scimitar. also if they had to go on the top then you would have the issue that only one ship could be on the rail at the same time since any returning racks would be colliding with the upper rack that has to move forward. I think a rotational plate would solve this by allowing the rack to pivot completely rather than having the ATST leg joint only

illustrated an idea (ignore the stupid curved gears that failed stretching), the lower arm can be built out similarly, but this gives clearance to the arm to rotate around backwards as well as allow transferring from a perpendicular rack by giving the flexibility to grab the ship in a larger range of orientations

[Abacus]

Does anyone remember what the stat write up was for the Legator-class Dreadnought?

Finally decided to have a go at making a TIE hangar rack work properly:

http://fractalsponge.net/?p=4495

Oooh, that's nifty. I appreciate the effort you made for the end animation there.

I have in my notes:
8014.5m, ~3.20E+26, 2900g, 50 wings,1 army
16x240TTion, 64x175TT, 698x70TT

Thank you, Ansel. By the by, I got a friend saying that the Executor is stronger than the Assertor-class. I've been trying to convince him he's wrong, since the Executor is a battlecarrier and the Assertor is a battlewagon...anything you can do to help?

[Abacus]

And actually, that brings up something else I remember running across. Is the old EU depiction of the standard ISD reactor output at "~7,73 × 1024 W" correct enough or was that just putting a number without thinking about the dimensions of the reactor?

[fractalsponge1]

Thank you, Ansel. By the by, I got a friend saying that the Executor is stronger than the Assertor-class. I've been trying to convince him he's wrong, since the Executor is a battlecarrier and the Assertor is a battlewagon...anything you can do to help?

You can link to this and say that I say the Assertor can generate for power and has more armament. Given the bogus RPG numbers available I can't say that's official, so take it for what it's worth.

[fractalsponge1]

And actually, that brings up something else I remember running across. Is the old EU depiction of the standard ISD reactor output at "~7,73 × 1024 W" correct enough or was that just putting a number without thinking about the dimensions of the reactor?

I assume 1e25W. I don't actually know where exactly 7.73e24W comes from. It's all pretty ballpark - if we assume perfect linear scaling from volume from Venator then an ISD is probably even more than 1e25W.

[fractalsponge1]

The ships in the profile view in the rack link do not have them going on the top side, all of the racks are on the bottom? for example the scimitar. also if they had to go on the top then you would have the issue that only one ship could be on the rail at the same time since any returning racks would be colliding with the upper rack that has to move forward. I think a rotational plate would solve this by allowing the rack to pivot completely rather than having the ATST leg joint only

illustrated an idea (ignore the stupid curved gears that failed stretching), the lower arm can be built out similarly, but this gives clearance to the arm to rotate around backwards as well as allow transferring from a perpendicular rack by giving the flexibility to grab the ship in a larger range of orientations

The profile view just shows the arms in position - once the first fighter launches the arms would start swinging above the rail.

If you look closely the xy-plane rotation you added is partially available already, because the first linkage is a hemispherical socket mount - and if you look head on for some of the larger fighters you see that rotation come into play to swing the arms outward from the rail axis. There is enough room and articulation in the system that you can have an arm on the top of the rail pass by any arm on the bottom in the shown configurations - mostly it's just a question of vertical clearance above the rail and how you rotate the folding positions.

If you gave 360 rotation in xy like you show in your example, then yes the system can grab stuff in many more positions, but the way I have it conceived the system is not designed to do things like pass fighters across from one rail pair to another - they are basically just guides to bring ships into launch or storage positions. A full hangar would have another rail pair immediately next to this one, and all the cross-rail arrangements happen in the maintenance areas deep in the hangar complex, and would be invisible when you're just looking at the launch bay itself. To put that into perspective, this is the kind of maximum density I'm proposing (1 wing TIE/ln):

[Abacus]

You could potentially have an entire wing deployed in...well, perhaps half a minute or a little more. I'd even wager that diligent ship captains drill their squadrons for quickest deployment times.

For ships such as the Secutor-class, Compellor-class, and all of the dreadnoughts that carry a lot of fighter support -- this system would be ingenious and eminently desirable.

[evillejedi]

understood

Now with that rack arrangement you could do an inverse staggered set of rails so that you could drop multiple rows at the same time. The ships could be in limited slave control by the carrier until they exit the hanger zone and get fanned out to not collide before they go under their own power