StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Just for the hell of it? Because that's what adding a bridge tower sounds like to me.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Just for the hell of it? Because that's what adding a bridge tower sounds like to me.

As the OP suggests, to find ways of changing its appearance. If you don't care for that, you're welcome to stop posting in this thread.

The thread title states that the purpose is to improve the Dreadnought-class, not merely change its appearence. In my opinion adding a bridge tower firmly lands in the second category rather than the first.

So far it seems like IP has been the only one to go with the intention of actually improving the design while maintaining that it remains the same ship. Most of everything else just seems like puny alterations just 'cause.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:The thread title states that the purpose is to improve the Dreadnought-class, not merely change its appearence. In my opinion adding a bridge tower firmly lands in the second category rather than the first.

So far it seems like IP has been the only one to go with the intention of actually improving the design while maintaining that it remains the same ship. Most of everything else just seems like puny alterations just 'cause.

I don't see why adding something like this would be a problem. Changes that are not only better from a military standpoint, but eventually lead to Rendili's later Victory class, is what I'm getting at.

It seems odd already that the VSD comes from a different manufacturer from the larger Imperator, but there's nothing in Rendili's design history that lends to the Victory. Adding a bridge structure and "wedging out" the hull would make the Dreadnaught fit in more with the later ship.

Firefox wrote:I don't see why adding something like this would be a problem.

Because it doesn't need a bridge structure. Besides, the original Strike Cruiser did have small raised bridge structure, while the Dreadnought does not.

Changes that are not only better from a military standpoint, but eventually lead to Rendili's later Victory class, is what I'm getting at.

I see, so your goal is to force a design lineage between unrelated ship classes. Too bad it doesn't really work like that.

It seems odd already that the VSD comes from a different manufacturer from the larger Imperator, but there's nothing in Rendili's design history that lends to the Victory. Adding a bridge structure and "wedging out" the hull would make the Dreadnaught fit in more with the later ship.

Probably because the Victory-class is a Star Destroyer, while the older Dreadnought-class is not.

Firefox? I'm going to have to agree with spanky here...

I like the Drednaught as is. Sure it can be improved, but constantly forcing ships to resemble other ships shouldn't be a needed factor.

Personally, I think that adding a bridge tower/stub would be an improvement. AFAIK, there's no onscreen full capital ships that have a bridge in the nose, and all but the 1.2-km Mon Cal ships are known to have dorsal bridges projecting outward. Keeping a common aesthetic is something that should be aimed for, in my opinion.

However, this opinion seems to be in the minority, and as I was not a fan of the Dreadnaught to begin with, I may be trying to change it too much.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I see, so your goal is to force a design lineage between unrelated ship classes. Too bad it doesn't really work like that.

So what if they're unrelated? There's an obvious design lineage between the Acclamator class troop transport and the Imperator class Star Destroyer.

Probably because the Victory-class is a Star Destroyer, while the older Dreadnought-class is not.

Again, what's wrong with showing at least some design lineage between the two?

Crossroads Inc. wrote:I like the Drednaught as is. Sure it can be improved, but constantly forcing ships to resemble other ships shouldn't be a needed factor.

Again, it's really no different than my above example. The original idea of this thread was, again, to explore ways to change the ship's appearance, regardless of degree. If you're going to disagree, say so.

Firefox wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I see, so your goal is to force a design lineage between unrelated ship classes. Too bad it doesn't really work like that.

So what if they're unrelated?

When ship classes aren't related or part of an evolution of development, that means there's no design lineage, moron. That's what design lineage means!

There's an obvious design lineage between the Acclamator class troop transport and the Imperator class Star Destroyer.

That's because they're related! That's the whole point. Don't you get that?

Probably because the Victory-class is a Star Destroyer, while the older Dreadnought-class is not.

Again, what's wrong with showing at least some design lineage between the two?

Because they're not fucking releated, you nimrod! That's not how design lineages fucking work.

Jesus, I got sick of this kind of crap back when I used to be more involved in Gundam fandom, where people would try and force non-existant design lineages between unrelated mobile suits that had only superficial similarities.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:When ship classes aren't related or part of an evolution of development, that means there's no design lineage, moron. That's what design lineage means!

Why the fuck do you think I created this thread? I'm interested in different ideas.

That's because they're related! That's the whole point. Don't you get that?

No shit. Why can't I create a hypothetical Dreadnaught that's related to the later Victory class? This is all apocryphal, remember?

Jesus, I got sick of this kind of crap back when I used to be more involved in Gundam fandom, where people would try and force non-existant design lineages between unrelated mobile suits that had only superficial similarities.

No one's forcing you to participate. This thread has been about apocryphal concepts from the beginning, with the intent of eventually building a scale model. See my Victory class threads to see more of what I'm talking about.

you know, Rendilli (or whoever made the Victory) probably copied the wedge design from the Acclamator, Venator, etc.

"Hey look, those ships have been successful. They also look like wedges."

"Hey, I know! Let's make a ship that looks like a wedge, implying that *our* ship will be succesful as well!"

please excuse me if this post is completely wron,g I'm pulling references from hazy memories here.

Hawkwings wrote:you know, Rendilli (or whoever made the Victory) probably copied the wedge design from the Acclamator, Venator, etc.

"Hey look, those ships have been successful. They also look like wedges."

"Hey, I know! Let's make a ship that looks like a wedge, implying that *our* ship will be succesful as well!"

please excuse me if this post is completely wron,g I'm pulling references from hazy memories here.

That's something that's been discussed before. Since the Victory was apparently around early on in the Clone Wars (certainly earlier than the Venator class, judging from the ICS), it's possible Rendili's designers looked at the designs coming out of KDY and decided to copy them. (Another thing to keep in mind is that there were Acclamator-like star frigates around during or shortly after the events in TPM, so the flying wedge didn't start with the CW.)

What about the rebal assult frigate conversion? I actualy liked the look of that.