Epsilon all the way.
Theta has a "Belly" that makes no sense in what is, most likely, meant to be some kind of advanced experimental ship.
Odds are we are designing the look of a "Time Ship".
I voted Theta since: Epsilon looks like someone crushed a star ship together and this was the result. I like the curved underside where the deflector dish is on Theta. The saucer on Theta stands out more than it does on Epsilon. I also like the spacing on the nacelles on Theta, since the nacelles on Epsilon looks too smushed together. It's not that I don't like compact ships either because I would pick the Sigma since it actually looks like a good compact ship compared to Epsilon. I guess I'm just a fan of curved star ships especially where the saucer is concerned. Epsilon just looks too rough.
Nacelles do not generate the ship's power. Nacelles generate the ship's warp field. The ship's main power is produced by the matter/antimatter reaction in the warp core. At most, having more than two nacelles simply produces redundancy in case one or more nacelles take damage so the ship remains warp capable despite losing a nacelle or two. They could possibly be used to stay at warp longer/be more energy efficient by using all four nacelles at lower power consumption to produce a more powerful warp field (if warp physics work that way, though technical manuals in the past have stated that it was found two nacelles are most efficient, but that could have changed due to some technological advancements.) or cycling between using pairs to generate the warp field so that neither pair is overtaxed. So while there are potential advantages to having four nacelles, none of those benefits are improved power generation.
From what I have read, extra power can and is produced by the nacelles when the ship is not in warp. According to what I've read and talked about with other star trek fans is that it is pretty much accepted that power is not directly harvested from the warp core but is converted from the warp plasma in the nacelles. Otherwise a ship not at warp could completely shut down its nacelles to not risk them during combat. But that is not what we see in the episodes or books. Whenever a ship in combat gets its nacelles badly damaged, there is quite often a feed back loop that causes a warp core breach and destroys the ship (think the Enterprise D when they were stuck in that time loop with the Bozeman). If they aren't using the nacelles outside warp, why are they powered at all when at sublight or especially when in battle? And yes, only two nacelles are needed for the most efficient creation of the warp field. So why do some ships have more than two if not for power? They can't be used to go any faster and as for endurance, look at Voyager. She did just fine long distance wise with just two. New technologies make it even better for just having two for warp speeds. So once again, I ask, why do some ships then have more than two nacelles if not for power?
edit: Sorry, I'm a technical trek fan. I look closely as to why they do what they do technologically in the episodes. I tear it a apart and then analyze it. And I'm not alone. We look at things like this (like having more than two nacelles even when they useless for warp, a ship being destroyed because its nacelle it hit when its hull is fine, or that the nacelles are even powered at all during sublight) and they scream to us that the nacelles are what are being used to generate extra power from the warp drive when the ship is not at warp.
If more nacelles=more power, then obviously they'd be slapping all the nacelles they can on all their ships for dem uber powers, obviously it does not work that way.
The warp core creates warp plasma which is siphoned through the EPS grid into the nacelles and other parts of the ship, from the primary EPS grid, there are EPS taps where power is converted from plasma into electricity for other components of the ship. The warp nacelles contain warp coils which generate the subspace displacement field necessary for warp when fed by this warp plasma. There is no mention of any other bits of technology in the nacelles that generate power for the ship or any mention of warp coils producing power. In fact it would be entirely nonsensical for warp coils to generate additional power considering they would need to produce more power than they consume for it to be adding power to the ship. They would be essentially perpetual energy machines, and clearly they are not that. I imagine the ship's nacelles are always fed so that they can go to warp at a moment's notice. It is stated in "Star Trek: Enterprise" that the ship can not go to warp after venting plasma from the nacelles until the plasma is replenished. So I would assume that the nacelles are kept saturated at whatever level of plasma is necessary so that in the event of an emergency the ship can GTFO.
As to why ships have more nacelles "than they need." I already stated that they can use one pair actively while the other pair takes a break and thus not have to drop out of warp like a ship such as the enterprise D might have to, for example, when they were chasing the borg. Even voyager had to drop out of warp for periods of time to "cool her heels" as it were. The ships we see with more than two nacelles would be the Prometheus who needs them for each of her sections to be warp capable when separated, the Cheyenne, who may well have been some sort of transport ship or patrol ship that might have been expected to use warp much more frequently/longer than other vessels, and the constellation that, from the alpha wiki states: The class's mission statements were: long-range sensor analysis within threat territories, communications, intelligence gathering, deployment and retrieval of cargo and stealth shuttles, general science and patrol duties. So this ship too may have been expected to be at warp more frequently/longer than other vessels and thus had two pair so it could do so by switching between them, or perhaps using all four at lower power to create the same warp field with less stress to each nacelle. Doing so could be less efficient, but improve longevity of the system, reduce maintenance, or allow longer/more frequent use. So while more nacelles may not be most efficient for typical use, it may be worth the investment of materials and maintenance to have the spares for certain roles.
That would be the in-universe technical explanation, the real explanation is probably just because they don't want people to get bored with a limited selection/style of ship and thus started making three and four nacelle designs just to shake things up a bit.
In regard to the three nacelles on the best of both worlds galaxy refit, I imagine it was mostly because they wanted to make the galaxy class "look even cooler" and slapped a bunch of bits and bobs on her. However, we could also consider that she might rotate which two nacelles are active at any one time for extended warp to give the third nacelle a break, or she uses all three at lower power so she can stay at warp longer without overtaxing, or that it was added for redundancy so it is more difficult to disable her warp capabilities in combat given she was a war ship in that reality, essentially giving her a "spare" or perhaps it was for some reason necessary to create an asymmetrical warp field or whatever magic was used to make her capable of the warp 13 speeds that in voyager are theoretically impossible due to the warp 10 speed limit that will turn you into a space salamander or whatever should you exceed it.
I too am a technical trek fan, or I would not bother correcting you about the purpose and capabilities of warp nacelles, especially when you are using these forums to spread such heinous misinformation as to their function. I must protect those who might come across your posting and think such ridiculous things to be true. I do this, not for myself, but for future generations of trek fans everywhere! But seriously. Stop spreading these lies.
I suggest you read these articles from the memory alpha wiki:
When reading the article on nacelles that says: "Warp nacelles were also sometimes known as power nacelles, antimatter nacelles, warp drive pods, or space/warp propulsion units during the 23rd century" you are NOT to take that "power nacelles" or "antimatter nacelles" and run with it as a power generating mechanism as it applies to modern, established federation technology. These references are from the original series where pretty much no one can tell you for certain where the warp core was located or if there even was a warp "core" aboard the original enterprise as they never showed one or even uttered the words (in the series, not the movies). Keep in mind that the original series was quite rough and low budget and they just worked with whatever sets they cobbled together out of christmas lights and whatnot. Proper, established treknology as to what things are, what they do, how they do it, where they are located on the ship, starts from TNG on.
The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
I went with Epsilon, Theta looks too much like the command cruisers. I too would prefer two nacelles but, I think four works better on a carrier than a cruiser. Wish I had the option to remove the secondary nacelles from my command cruiser.
I for design the Theta, because there is a bridge for me, more streamlined, but as for me, even on the nasal side and on the engines so the ship combat should be not only strong, but also graceful
Theta remeber the actually state of the art Command Battlecruiser specifically the Concorde class but for the engine assembly she remeber the very famous Galaxy class in conclusion she is the best mix of two poweful UFP starships so vote Theta
Theta is half Excelsior class and dont like it. The only think i like from the Theta is the saucer and the nacelle (non quadnacelles like all the remaining designs)
I choose Epsilon cause i like the compact-ness like Prometheus class. It will be a Carrier please dont make it a easy target with large pylons struts or nacelles.
A) I'm kind of picking the best of the worst, not really that keen on any of the designs, not for a carrier...
b) Why are we not getting all options as part of the regular kit-bash for this carrier?
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
Epislon resembles a True Federation Carrier, the Theta design resembles too much like a standard Star trek Cruiser design. I think all Carrier designs should be more unique, while being more streamline.
Epsilon because have better hull to store and launch fighters and store and move repair stuff.
Hope next step in design will be vote for narcelles and rest of minor stuff
b) Why are we not getting all options as part of the regular kit-bash for this carrier?
On that point...I'm not sure it's been said anywhere that we are 100% NOT getting any other ship parts for kitbashing.
Trendy has NOT said this, mind you, but if I were at Cryptic running this contest, I'd be watching for "popular losers." Tight contests, things that are not blowouts, would be indications to me of ships where I might offer the whole design, or at least parts, as kitbash options.
What Trendy DID do was make a cryptic remark (pun intended) where she noted how close this contest was compared to the others. The rest...is entirely my own speculation, worth what you paid for it.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Everyone that wants theta needs to relook at that disgusting fat hull, or need I remind everyone of the griping they did when the veteran ship came out.....
Everyone that wants theta needs to relook at that disgusting fat hull, or need I remind everyone of the griping they did when the veteran ship came out.....
I like the hull. I also like the Vet ships.
Join date is wrong, I've actually been around since STO Beta.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event rewards!!
I guess my biggest issue with Theta is that the nacelles seem to be connected to the saucer instead of the engineering hull.
Though it does occur to me, depending on where the hangar bay is, could that not provide a maneuverability advantage to deploying shuttles/fighters? That is, the small craft wouldn't have to clear the pylons and might be able to execute a quicker turn to deploy in front of the carrier as long as they do not pitch "upward" (relatively speaking compared to the spatial orientation of the ship).
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Epsilon looks much more compact, sort of how a Carrier should be.
Compact is not a term that should apply to a carrier. Even without the launch catapult, modern carriers would be enormous due to the fighter compliment and the equipment necessary to maintain, repair and arm them.
b) Why are we not getting all options as part of the regular kit-bash for this carrier?
On that point...I'm not sure it's been said anywhere that we are 100% NOT getting any other ship parts for kitbashing.
Trendy has NOT said this, mind you, but if I were at Cryptic running this contest, I'd be watching for "popular losers." Tight contests, things that are not blowouts, would be indications to me of ships where I might offer the whole design, or at least parts, as kitbash options.
But why only some? Why not offer all the options? We'd get some really interesting ships from having 8 options for each segment. I understand it would take a lot of work, creating the 8 ships and making their parts interchangeable but I think in the long run it would prove a popular and possibly lucrative idea for this and future ships, people love their customisability... Dare I say it 'kit piece packs' for a core ship that has the usual 3 or 4 thrown in.
On another note it'd be good to get some idea of scale on these ships as looking at the sketches I can only really imagine these as little escorts!
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
b) Why are we not getting all options as part of the regular kit-bash for this carrier?
On that point...I'm not sure it's been said anywhere that we are 100% NOT getting any other ship parts for kitbashing.
Trendy has NOT said this, mind you, but if I were at Cryptic running this contest, I'd be watching for "popular losers." Tight contests, things that are not blowouts, would be indications to me of ships where I might offer the whole design, or at least parts, as kitbash options.
But why only some? Why not offer all the options? We'd get some really interesting ships from having 8 options for each segment. I understand it would take a lot of work, creating the 8 ships and making their parts interchangeable but I think in the long run it would prove a popular and possibly lucrative idea for this and future ships, people love their customisability... Dare I say it 'kit piece packs' for a core ship that has the usual 3 or 4 thrown in.
I certainly agree that customization is good. What I'm not sure of is if ALL of the designs or parts will play nicely with each other. All of those kitbashes have to be programmed as I understand it, so the parts don't clip with each other or fail to meet at all...similar considerations to what you have to take into account with the tailor. So based on that, I'm not sure we can expect to get all 6 designs as available options. Certain popular ones, or some that mesh well together on the back end...that, I think, is a more realistic expectation. A ship artist would be able to confirm or deny this for sure, but it makes sense to me.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I wouldn't be surprised if they took the top 3 designs and made them as alternate hulls, with the winning design of course being the featured one across all art and promotional work for the new ship. Assuming this is just for a single ship of the line.
If this ends up as a 3-pack, I could easily see the top 3 designs being featured. If nothing else, they can use the opportunity to vary them up a bit; say the Tac-Variant having a massive broadside weapon. The Eng-variant having a massive frontal siege weapon. The Sci-variant maybe having an extra hangar. Or something.
Comments
Theta has a "Belly" that makes no sense in what is, most likely, meant to be some kind of advanced experimental ship.
Odds are we are designing the look of a "Time Ship".
Sadly, Theta looks too much like a Guardian that has been lengthened and merged with a excelsior.
If more nacelles=more power, then obviously they'd be slapping all the nacelles they can on all their ships for dem uber powers, obviously it does not work that way.
The warp core creates warp plasma which is siphoned through the EPS grid into the nacelles and other parts of the ship, from the primary EPS grid, there are EPS taps where power is converted from plasma into electricity for other components of the ship. The warp nacelles contain warp coils which generate the subspace displacement field necessary for warp when fed by this warp plasma. There is no mention of any other bits of technology in the nacelles that generate power for the ship or any mention of warp coils producing power. In fact it would be entirely nonsensical for warp coils to generate additional power considering they would need to produce more power than they consume for it to be adding power to the ship. They would be essentially perpetual energy machines, and clearly they are not that. I imagine the ship's nacelles are always fed so that they can go to warp at a moment's notice. It is stated in "Star Trek: Enterprise" that the ship can not go to warp after venting plasma from the nacelles until the plasma is replenished. So I would assume that the nacelles are kept saturated at whatever level of plasma is necessary so that in the event of an emergency the ship can GTFO.
As to why ships have more nacelles "than they need." I already stated that they can use one pair actively while the other pair takes a break and thus not have to drop out of warp like a ship such as the enterprise D might have to, for example, when they were chasing the borg. Even voyager had to drop out of warp for periods of time to "cool her heels" as it were. The ships we see with more than two nacelles would be the Prometheus who needs them for each of her sections to be warp capable when separated, the Cheyenne, who may well have been some sort of transport ship or patrol ship that might have been expected to use warp much more frequently/longer than other vessels, and the constellation that, from the alpha wiki states: The class's mission statements were: long-range sensor analysis within threat territories, communications, intelligence gathering, deployment and retrieval of cargo and stealth shuttles, general science and patrol duties. So this ship too may have been expected to be at warp more frequently/longer than other vessels and thus had two pair so it could do so by switching between them, or perhaps using all four at lower power to create the same warp field with less stress to each nacelle. Doing so could be less efficient, but improve longevity of the system, reduce maintenance, or allow longer/more frequent use. So while more nacelles may not be most efficient for typical use, it may be worth the investment of materials and maintenance to have the spares for certain roles.
That would be the in-universe technical explanation, the real explanation is probably just because they don't want people to get bored with a limited selection/style of ship and thus started making three and four nacelle designs just to shake things up a bit.
In regard to the three nacelles on the best of both worlds galaxy refit, I imagine it was mostly because they wanted to make the galaxy class "look even cooler" and slapped a bunch of bits and bobs on her. However, we could also consider that she might rotate which two nacelles are active at any one time for extended warp to give the third nacelle a break, or she uses all three at lower power so she can stay at warp longer without overtaxing, or that it was added for redundancy so it is more difficult to disable her warp capabilities in combat given she was a war ship in that reality, essentially giving her a "spare" or perhaps it was for some reason necessary to create an asymmetrical warp field or whatever magic was used to make her capable of the warp 13 speeds that in voyager are theoretically impossible due to the warp 10 speed limit that will turn you into a space salamander or whatever should you exceed it.
I too am a technical trek fan, or I would not bother correcting you about the purpose and capabilities of warp nacelles, especially when you are using these forums to spread such heinous misinformation as to their function. I must protect those who might come across your posting and think such ridiculous things to be true. I do this, not for myself, but for future generations of trek fans everywhere! But seriously. Stop spreading these lies.
I suggest you read these articles from the memory alpha wiki:
http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Warp_core:
http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Electro-plasma_system
http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Nacelle
http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Warp_coil
When reading the article on nacelles that says: "Warp nacelles were also sometimes known as power nacelles, antimatter nacelles, warp drive pods, or space/warp propulsion units during the 23rd century" you are NOT to take that "power nacelles" or "antimatter nacelles" and run with it as a power generating mechanism as it applies to modern, established federation technology. These references are from the original series where pretty much no one can tell you for certain where the warp core was located or if there even was a warp "core" aboard the original enterprise as they never showed one or even uttered the words (in the series, not the movies). Keep in mind that the original series was quite rough and low budget and they just worked with whatever sets they cobbled together out of christmas lights and whatnot. Proper, established treknology as to what things are, what they do, how they do it, where they are located on the ship, starts from TNG on.
The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
The flat bottom of Epsilon looks perfect for launching hangar pets.
Theta is half Excelsior class and dont like it. The only think i like from the Theta is the saucer and the nacelle (non quadnacelles like all the remaining designs)
I choose Epsilon cause i like the compact-ness like Prometheus class. It will be a Carrier please dont make it a easy target with large pylons struts or nacelles.
b) Why are we not getting all options as part of the regular kit-bash for this carrier?
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
Hope next step in design will be vote for narcelles and rest of minor stuff
On that point...I'm not sure it's been said anywhere that we are 100% NOT getting any other ship parts for kitbashing.
Trendy has NOT said this, mind you, but if I were at Cryptic running this contest, I'd be watching for "popular losers." Tight contests, things that are not blowouts, would be indications to me of ships where I might offer the whole design, or at least parts, as kitbash options.
What Trendy DID do was make a cryptic remark (pun intended) where she noted how close this contest was compared to the others. The rest...is entirely my own speculation, worth what you paid for it.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I like the hull. I also like the Vet ships.
Though it does occur to me, depending on where the hangar bay is, could that not provide a maneuverability advantage to deploying shuttles/fighters? That is, the small craft wouldn't have to clear the pylons and might be able to execute a quicker turn to deploy in front of the carrier as long as they do not pitch "upward" (relatively speaking compared to the spatial orientation of the ship).
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Compact is not a term that should apply to a carrier. Even without the launch catapult, modern carriers would be enormous due to the fighter compliment and the equipment necessary to maintain, repair and arm them.
But why only some? Why not offer all the options? We'd get some really interesting ships from having 8 options for each segment. I understand it would take a lot of work, creating the 8 ships and making their parts interchangeable but I think in the long run it would prove a popular and possibly lucrative idea for this and future ships, people love their customisability... Dare I say it 'kit piece packs' for a core ship that has the usual 3 or 4 thrown in.
On another note it'd be good to get some idea of scale on these ships as looking at the sketches I can only really imagine these as little escorts!
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan
I certainly agree that customization is good. What I'm not sure of is if ALL of the designs or parts will play nicely with each other. All of those kitbashes have to be programmed as I understand it, so the parts don't clip with each other or fail to meet at all...similar considerations to what you have to take into account with the tailor. So based on that, I'm not sure we can expect to get all 6 designs as available options. Certain popular ones, or some that mesh well together on the back end...that, I think, is a more realistic expectation. A ship artist would be able to confirm or deny this for sure, but it makes sense to me.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Theta looks too much like a generic cruiser. Epsilon brings an air of novelty.
Support 90 degree arc limitation on BFaW! Save our ships from looking like flying disco balls of dumb!
If this ends up as a 3-pack, I could easily see the top 3 designs being featured. If nothing else, they can use the opportunity to vary them up a bit; say the Tac-Variant having a massive broadside weapon. The Eng-variant having a massive frontal siege weapon. The Sci-variant maybe having an extra hangar. Or something.