test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Design Your Ship Round 3 [Epsilon VS Theta]

15678911»

Comments

  • tarlcabot007tarlcabot007 Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    #TeamEpsilon
    I have an idea for launching fighter ships , launch from the sides and recover from the back , like the old battle star galactica
  • wakeoflovewakeoflove Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    #TeamEpsilon
    wakeoflove wrote: »
    angrytarg wrote: »
    Everyone does know this is for a carrier, right? Need a large interior volume. epsilon

    Once again, the design with the most and most sensible use of interor volume lost in a landslide vote. You people have no idea what you want, aside from "it has to look like a race car"​​
    angrytarg wrote: »
    (...)
    Remember that people have different tastes and opinions. In mass market, beer and pretzels science fiction, those tastes don't necessarily have to be logical.

    If arguing logically (efficient use of space) and then making a vote that goes against that I feel there is reason to point that out. And if anyone takes arguing about video game space ships more serious than they should it's not my problem pig-23.gif

    I'll never argue against anyone's taste (how terrible it might be pig-26.gif ) as that's subjective and totally fine.​​


    To settle this "internal volume" question for good:

    3300d5424409ca871c088ff35b19272b1443715040.png
    EpsilonVsThetaVolume_zpsrnal7crh.jpg

    Take off the nacelles/pylons and it's plain to see that epsilon is a big, solid, full of internal volume vessel, while theta's profile is full of empty space between the nacelles, empty space where her neck cinches in and empty space where her secondary hull sharply tapers off which is clearly not made up for by the volume of her protruding "belly".

    Battle of the biggest saucer:
    EpsilonVsThetaVolumeSaucer_zpsso44k5ip.jpg

    Winner: Epsilon*

    Battle of the most secondary hull:

    EpsilonVsThetaVolumeSecondaryHull_zpsj6oeku6e.jpg

    Winner: Epsilon.*

    *: Assuming these ships are drawn to scale of one another.

    Where were you when Beta was up for vote?

    Hands down most volume of all ships presented.

    Whatever we end up with now won't be a Carrier compared to Beta.

    Well based on what I recall from that thread, people were actually voting for alpha over beta because they thought beta looked too big and would thus end up with poor maneuverability, so they voted alpha hoping she'll get a better turn rate or something. So if I had popped in there with a chart to show that beta is indeed, a bigger ship than alpha, I would only be fanning the flames of the torches people gathered with their pitchforks to burn beta at the stake. Though if danpmk had popped in with their ship size comparison chart, alpha might have gotten the boot now that it it looks so huge, lol. This is why I think the devs should have told us the ship stats already if how it looks doesn't end up determining turn rate. If they told us the turn rate will be 6 no matter what, for example, then people could have cooled their heels about that and maybe even voted for the hulks so that they visually match that slow turn. Plus having a defiant or some other ship for scale would have been helpful, and making sure they are to scale against each other.

    Again, I feel I have to bring up that trendy said planning this competition took months, they should have had a better presentation for each contender, rough orthographic, size comparison, and probably at least stats if not boff layout too.

    I voted for beta, and she was my favorite of all of these from the start, but at least alpha has grown on me, epsilon isn't too bad, nor sigma, I think they kind of follow the defiant "flying brick" philosophy for combat vessels. And omega I actually kind of hated but I like it a bit more after I pulled it into a photo editor and messed around with it a bit.

    OmegaFixed_zps6dy8vrex.png

    Going with the smaller nacelles (from my notes above) and moving them in so they match the pylons, omega seems like it would be in line with the sovereign aesthetic to me. I am just not very fond of the visuals of nacelles sticking out past the saucer on the lateral plane, so after pulling them in I liked it better. Though I don't think the small nacelles were what the artist was going with given that the profile view's nacelles are now longer than in my graphic. I started messing around with trying to restore the larger nacelles, which has proven much more labor intensive and I don't think are even in the style of the smaller nacelles that got placed on top, so there's a lot of guess work in trying to figure out what the artist intended. But even with a partial reconstruction of it, getting rid of that "double" appearance suddenly made omega a lot more appealing to me. So if trendy gets omega fixed before her showdown, she might actually be a possibility to me, but her current state I'm not terribly fond of. It's strange how such tiny details can make or break things.

    And here's what I threw together if gamma had her primary nacelles on top:

    GammaAlt_zpspg8zxl7a.jpg

    She might appeal to a broader audience if she were in this configuration, so... eh, it seems to me that we have more decent contenders than some of us may have thought, they just need some tweaking. The devil's in the details, and these little things make or break the designs. With a ship like gamma, they could give the option for whether the large nacelles are on top or bottom, or both the same size, that should be rather simple. But yeah... lets just hope these designs get even better when they get into their modeling phase and that we end up with some customization options/maybe the top two designs both get made as skins or something.

    NebulaOdyssey1_zpsqjc6anjg.jpg
    The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
  • wakeoflovewakeoflove Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    #TeamEpsilon
    Well I went for Epsilon, but to be honest only Alpha and Omega fit a carrier to me, and even then it's debatable. Omega has the obvious slots for hanger bays in it's primary hull, while Alpha has the feel of a large lumbering vessel. A while back I was talking in the Iconic T6 section about what i would like to see with a carrier. I find that it still holds weight today when I have noticed this build (Really build? it seems like were picking a ship from a list. kinda odd that) a carrier voting going on.
    Even if it was a ship with minimal weapons and had to be used in a group function it would be fun. take a more long range battle type than get in it's face and DPS DPS DPS.

    I'm running the breen carrier atm, and it's alright, but that's it. it's ALRIGHT. Pull some guns off of a carrier like it, add another hanger (or two), tweak with the settings. Make a bloody support ship. A REAL support ship, rather than a average cruiser with some minor tweaks. A Hanger to attack with, a hanger to defend a teammate, and a hanger to defend yourself. (and add another one in reserve for when you need it should there be 4 bays) Limit the weapons to turrets if you want to make it interesting. I mean make it like an aircraft carrier of the now. Limited on board ship weapons mostly for close defense and it's 'attack force/ long range defense' being it's fighter craft. Surely this game has gotten worked on enough to support 3+ pet bay carriers now a days, right? Make players think strategy not bashing in something's shields and then rip it apart.

    Make it a slow heavy ship with a bog ol booty who can't turn well. It would make her something that other teammates might need to protect in their cruisers. escorts, destroyers and sneaky craft (science). This might be making it sound like WWII tactics (which it is) but it could bring back some TEAM dynamics again. On the flip side it could just make people hate the carrier guy. I dunno. I wouldn't mind trying this ship out if it was made.

    That said and with these newer ship designs, I'm noticing a trend. Quad nacelles, BIG primary hulls, and weirdly shaped secondary hulls that seem oddly small to house warp cores let alone hanger craft. Frankly I'd find it more logical to have a smaller primary hull and more of a focus on the secondary in a carrier. I'll admit that the Quad engines make sense when you think of a large vessel moving to keep up with a fleet of faster moving vessels, it's the big primary hulls and little secondary hulls that throw me for a loop. Historically shuttle bays and carrier bays have been in secondary hull, and maybe this is a stickler for me but I rather prefer it that way. A lot of things have to be done for fighter/support craft. Ammo, fuel, and maintenance that would require space that would be best suited away from the more vital areas that are primarily housed in the Primary hull (hence the name).

    Just a part of the rant I had planned but meh. i'll wait and see where the others are going with this.

    Well both the enterprise D and E had their main shuttle bay in the saucer, so sticking the hangars in the saucer (which is what the devs seem to be going for with that split in the middle of the saucer seeming to be the launch area) isn't really that big of a deal to me. Plus, given the saucer has pretty much always been the "primary hull" and thus the largest part of the ship, it makes sense to me that the designers would amplify the size of the primary hull and stick the hangars in there. Usually the secondary or "engineering" hull or "star drive" section is just that, the star drive, the warp core, engines, deflector, and fuel necessary for warp. And yes, usually the rather small shuttle bay ended up there too, likely because it's the engineering section so the shuttles are there to have a shorter route for fuel to travel and so the engineers are all in that section for maintenance and whatnot. Though most everything else is in the primary hull, the saucer.

    In fact, that might be a reason for these ships to have that more "mono-hull"/unibody construction, depending on how the hangars are laid out, they could run the length of the center of the ship where they are well protected and might make it so that the fighters are stored/maintained rather close to engineering so that they have quick access to antimatter for fuel and the engineers can more easily double duty between engineering and the hangars as necessary.
    NebulaOdyssey1_zpsqjc6anjg.jpg
    The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
  • gulberatgulberat Member Posts: 5,505 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    #TeamTheta
    On a real carrier, the ship engineers and the flight maintenance crew aren't the same people. (I know because I had a wartime fighter mechanic in the family.)

    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.
  • bloodyrizbloodyriz Member Posts: 1,756 Arc User
    #TeamTheta
    Isn't this vote over yet? Midnight on the 3rd has come and gone.​​
    signature.png
    We come in peace, SHOOT TO KILL!
  • wakeoflovewakeoflove Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    #TeamEpsilon
    gulberat wrote: »
    On a real carrier, the ship engineers and the flight maintenance crew aren't the same people. (I know because I had a wartime fighter mechanic in the family.)

    Well hurdur, I'm sure there's heaps of difference between maintaining a sea ship and maintaining an aircraft. However, this isn't the navy, it's star trek, where engineers pretty much know everything about everything technological (or can figure it out). Chief engineer Geordi Laforge or B'Elanna Torres, or any engineer for that matter are just as likely to be maintaining the warp core as they are tweaking a shuttle for some mission.

    Not to mention the fact that the systems on a shuttle are pretty much just condensed versions of the systems on their mother ship. Whether you're maintaining a shuttle or a capital ship, an impulse engine is an impulse engine, a warp core is a warp core. It's not like in the navy example where the ship's engineers might be working with a nuclear reactor and propellers while the aircraft mechanics work with jet engines and hydraulics or whatever. Although a star trek engineer could maintain all of these things in their sleep and don't understand why the flight deck crew can't calibrate a nuclear reactor, it's just so freaking simple after all.

    While some engineers may typically be assigned to the flight decks because that's where they want to be/their area of expertise, they would be trained to handle all ship systems and would likely end up rotated into various jobs to keep them sharp should some emergency necessitate they fill that role.

    Pfff, next thing you're gonna tell me is that Doctor Crusher can't perform brain surgery because she's a general practitioner and not a neural surgeon... and you know that's not how it works cause you have a friend who's a doctor. -.-
    NebulaOdyssey1_zpsqjc6anjg.jpg
    The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
  • wakeoflovewakeoflove Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    #TeamEpsilon
    bloodyriz wrote: »
    Isn't this vote over yet? Midnight on the 3rd has come and gone.​​

    Yes, but it's also the weekend, so we're not going to see anything about the results or the next match up till monday.
    NebulaOdyssey1_zpsqjc6anjg.jpg
    The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,008 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    #TeamTheta
    wakeoflove wrote: »
    (...)
    Well hurdur, I'm sure there's heaps of difference between maintaining a sea ship and maintaining an aircraft. However, this isn't the navy, it's star trek, where engineers pretty much know everything about everything technological (or can figure it out). Chief engineer Geordi Laforge or B'Elanna Torres, or any engineer for that matter are just as likely to be maintaining the warp core as they are tweaking a shuttle for some mission.(...)


    YES YES YES pig-42.gif

    Every time somebody wants to argue Star Trek and opens with "In the navy" or "on real carriers" or "I was in the air force" (...) I want to slap them a cloven hoof to their face.

    EDIT: Metaphorically. I don't have any hard feelings for anyone here in that regard, I just wanted to illustrate how little basis those real-life comparisions have pig-23.gifpig-2.gif​​
    Post edited by angrytarg on
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • wakeoflovewakeoflove Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    #TeamEpsilon
    wakeoflove wrote: »
    @pwlaughingtrendy

    Hey Trendy,

    Before you post the next match up, you might want to get with the artist and have omega's card fixed. I pulled omega into a photo editor to see if I could tweak the design to be more to my liking and when I zoomed in a bit, I realized that the effect on the nacelles that makes them look a bit more 3d than other ships in the competition is actually a photoshopping error where someone left two different sizes of nacelle layers visible on top of each other. So either the larger ones underneath are what is meant in the design, or the smaller ones on top are, but yeah... might want to get that fixed before she enters her showdown.

    *edit* I posted this here and then realized I could click on that little @ thing and it sent me to your... profile? Or whatever it is. So I copied and pasted it there too hoping you'll get it before the voting goes live.

    *edit 2*

    A image for referance:
    OmegaCorrectionsLarge_zpstfq6jud7.png

    Well now, I think I'm gonna have to post a retraction about my observations on the omega. I was taking another gander at danpmk's size chart at: http://imgur.com/t8LTo9r and was looking at alpha... then omega... then alpha... and realized that alpha has a similar "mismatched pylon seams." and almost the same "double warp grill" as omega, the one thing that really threw me and made me think omega's design was a photoshop error was that it, unlike any other ship, for some reason has that extra line in the bussard that when compared to the other entries who all have just a single red blob for a bussard, made it look like a smaller nacelle accidentally made it to the final cut on top of a larger nacelle.

    I still don't know why omega has that double bussard looking line considering there appears to be no double bussard in the side profile, and I don't know why the side profile's nacelles don't quite match the top down's in length (I realize now that in a previous post where I showed a "corrected" image where I stated that my alteration had shortened the nacelles... in fact had not, they never properly matched up... but yeah. Woops. There may not have been an error. But I still think my nacelle revisions look better. I stand by that. lol.
    NebulaOdyssey1_zpsqjc6anjg.jpg
    The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
  • wakeoflovewakeoflove Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    #TeamEpsilon
    Just for good measure, this is what omega looks like without the apparent special attention it got in the bussard department, RED BLOBS FOR ALL!

    OmegaBlobBussard_zpsgnrtmgm6.png

    I think she looks approximately 250% better without the apparent double bussard... like I said, devil's in the details. But then beauty is in the eye of the beholder... so I'm sure there are those who disagree, lol.
    NebulaOdyssey1_zpsqjc6anjg.jpg
    The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,008 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    #TeamTheta
    I just don't know why it has smaller nacelles, like "back-up nacelles" - why not four large ones. It doesn't make sense.

    EDIT: Or can it separate? Like, splitting int he middle (that white line) - that would be awesome. It'd lose one hangar but gain a second ship.​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • danpmkdanpmk Member Posts: 44 Arc User
    #TeamEpsilon
    There's a ton of votes on Facebook for this one, I wonder how it'll turn out...
    It is corporeal.
  • bloodyrizbloodyriz Member Posts: 1,756 Arc User
    #TeamTheta
    wakeoflove wrote: »
    bloodyriz wrote: »
    Isn't this vote over yet? Midnight on the 3rd has come and gone.

    Yes, but it's also the weekend, so we're not going to see anything about the results or the next match up till monday.

    Perhaps they shouldn't have the end time for a vote on the weekends then.​​
    signature.png
    We come in peace, SHOOT TO KILL!
  • valusolusvalusolus Member Posts: 19 Arc User
    #TeamEpsilon
    Epsilon represent :)

    Seriously can't stand spade or triangle saucer designs...so theta's out on that alone.
    But I also like how massive Epsilon looks, with a huge saucer covering most of its body - it feels like a carrier.

    Bunched-up nacelles also make it seem more rugged.

    tumblr_n551o9hW5W1tzixowo1_500.gif

  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,008 Arc User
    #TeamTheta
    while I am sure they are the same type systems...keeping a fighter in good working condition would take time...just like keeping a ship's engines in good working condition is a full time job. It would be better if there were just dedicated fighter mechanics...that way when the ship is in the fight...the ship's engineers worry focus on keeping the ship going and the fighter engineers worry about fixing fighters and putting them back in the fight.

    wakeoflove wrote: »
    gulberat wrote: »
    On a real carrier, the ship engineers and the flight maintenance crew aren't the same people. (I know because I had a wartime fighter mechanic in the family.)

    Well hurdur, I'm sure there's heaps of difference between maintaining a sea ship and maintaining an aircraft. However, this isn't the navy, it's star trek, where engineers pretty much know everything about everything technological (or can figure it out). Chief engineer Geordi Laforge or B'Elanna Torres, or any engineer for that matter are just as likely to be maintaining the warp core as they are tweaking a shuttle for some mission.

    Not to mention the fact that the systems on a shuttle are pretty much just condensed versions of the systems on their mother ship. Whether you're maintaining a shuttle or a capital ship, an impulse engine is an impulse engine, a warp core is a warp core. It's not like in the navy example where the ship's engineers might be working with a nuclear reactor and propellers while the aircraft mechanics work with jet engines and hydraulics or whatever. Although a star trek engineer could maintain all of these things in their sleep and don't understand why the flight deck crew can't calibrate a nuclear reactor, it's just so freaking simple after all.

    While some engineers may typically be assigned to the flight decks because that's where they want to be/their area of expertise, they would be trained to handle all ship systems and would likely end up rotated into various jobs to keep them sharp should some emergency necessitate they fill that role.

    Pfff, next thing you're gonna tell me is that Doctor Crusher can't perform brain surgery because she's a general practitioner and not a neural surgeon... and you know that's not how it works cause you have a friend who's a doctor. -.-
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • wakeoflovewakeoflove Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    #TeamEpsilon
    bloodyriz wrote: »
    wakeoflove wrote: »
    bloodyriz wrote: »
    Isn't this vote over yet? Midnight on the 3rd has come and gone.

    Yes, but it's also the weekend, so we're not going to see anything about the results or the next match up till monday.

    Perhaps they shouldn't have the end time for a vote on the weekends then.​​

    No, you must suffer with anticipation, SUFFER! >:)
    NebulaOdyssey1_zpsqjc6anjg.jpg
    The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
  • pwlaughingtrendypwlaughingtrendy Member Posts: 2,966 Arc User
    Epsilon won by a hair! That was incredibly close! (52%/48% of total votes)
  • wakeoflovewakeoflove Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    #TeamEpsilon
    khan5000 wrote: »
    while I am sure they are the same type systems...keeping a fighter in good working condition would take time...just like keeping a ship's engines in good working condition is a full time job. It would be better if there were just dedicated fighter mechanics...that way when the ship is in the fight...the ship's engineers worry focus on keeping the ship going and the fighter engineers worry about fixing fighters and putting them back in the fight.

    wakeoflove wrote: »
    gulberat wrote: »
    On a real carrier, the ship engineers and the flight maintenance crew aren't the same people. (I know because I had a wartime fighter mechanic in the family.)

    Well hurdur, I'm sure there's heaps of difference between maintaining a sea ship and maintaining an aircraft. However, this isn't the navy, it's star trek, where engineers pretty much know everything about everything technological (or can figure it out). Chief engineer Geordi Laforge or B'Elanna Torres, or any engineer for that matter are just as likely to be maintaining the warp core as they are tweaking a shuttle for some mission.

    Not to mention the fact that the systems on a shuttle are pretty much just condensed versions of the systems on their mother ship. Whether you're maintaining a shuttle or a capital ship, an impulse engine is an impulse engine, a warp core is a warp core. It's not like in the navy example where the ship's engineers might be working with a nuclear reactor and propellers while the aircraft mechanics work with jet engines and hydraulics or whatever. Although a star trek engineer could maintain all of these things in their sleep and don't understand why the flight deck crew can't calibrate a nuclear reactor, it's just so freaking simple after all.

    While some engineers may typically be assigned to the flight decks because that's where they want to be/their area of expertise, they would be trained to handle all ship systems and would likely end up rotated into various jobs to keep them sharp should some emergency necessitate they fill that role.

    Pfff, next thing you're gonna tell me is that Doctor Crusher can't perform brain surgery because she's a general practitioner and not a neural surgeon... and you know that's not how it works cause you have a friend who's a doctor. -.-

    Well in STO, we don't worry about fixing fighters, they get vaporized out there and we just spit out new ones, so it's not fixing they'll be doing, it's assembling new ones. :P

    Like I said, I'm sure there would be engineering teams assigned specifically to the flight decks as well as engineering teams assigned specifically to the ship, but I am also certain that those teams would rotate so that in an emergency where they need all hands fixing the mother ship, they would be prepared and hop to it, or if more hands are needed in the hangars for some reason, ship engineers could pull double duty there. And I am certain that the similarity of all these systems and the training they would have received from the academy would have prepared them to be fully capable of all of these duties.

    And like I said, starfleet engineers would be trained in all these systems, shuttle/fighter/mothership, and all these systems are related, so it's not like the difference between maintaining a nuclear reactor and maintaining a jet engine, these engineers wouldn't be wildly outside of their specialty going back and forth, it would just be to keep them familiar with working on everything.

    Not to mention, I'm sure that when the first starfleet carrier, a prototype with the NX registry and everything was on her shakedown and engaged in simulated combat with hostile vessels. There was some explosion in the hangar and when Chief Engineer Sir heard over the comms that the shuttle teams are short handed, he told Ensign Whatshisface to go help out on the flight deck. When Ensign Whatshisface said "But Sir, I haven't touched a shuttle or fighter in months!" Chief Engineer Sir furrowed his brow, glared at Whatshisface with a terrifying look Ensign Whatshisface thought surely would be followed by a hyperspanner to the face, only to hear "WELL THAT CHANGES TODAY, ENSIGN!" in a voice he'd only ever heard from drill instructors in historical old-earth holonovels.

    And from that point on, all engineering crew aboard starfleet carriers have been rotated between hangars and ship duty.
    NebulaOdyssey1_zpsqjc6anjg.jpg
    The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
This discussion has been closed.