Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > General Traveller Discussions > Sylean Academy of Art and Design

Sylean Academy of Art and Design Computer graphics, physical models, and other artistic projects

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 6th, 2011, 11:11 AM
Starviking's Avatar
Starviking Starviking is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Japan (ex Ulsta)
Posts: 771
Gallery : 1
Starviking Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navanod View Post
The picture shows 4 turrets for sure, and possibly 6 if you count the ones blended into the forward edges of the engine pods. Therefore, it's at least 400 dtons, and 600+ if you go with 2 main decks. The argument could be made that the objects in front of the engine pods are docking ports; heck, I'd even go with ground defense turrets if it was a merc ship or frontier trader.

Thoughts, opinions, critiques, and full-on complaints are welcome as always.
Here they come

Opinions/thoughts: The 'turrets' blended in with the forward edges of the engine pods are just that: turrets. If I recall correctly Tom Peter's did a picture in "The Flaming Eye" with a Villani Cruiser docked with a Far Trader. There were a range of types of turrets, including the ones in question - and oblong airlocks - one of which was connected to the Far Trader mentioned. I can't see the need for two different types of airlocks (...well, in a game anyhow).

The turrets, as they are in three different styles could also fit with the Traveller Missile/Laser/Sandcaster/Damper turret differentiation. Sandcasters or Dampers may even warrant visible warning stripes around them - because of the way they operate: using forces to manipulate/modify matter.

As for the size of the ship: I would think that there would be coverage of the bottom of the ship - and it makes sense to me to have the upper turrets have partners on the lower section of the hull. This would suggest a minimum displacement of 1000dT. (EDIT: or I should say I am in agreement with Bruce Edwin Morrow. Must remember to refresh my browser regularly!)

Any ideas on the cylindrical structure sticking out from between the two rear prongs?

IMHO, as previously mentioned on another thread I think it's at least a bipartite craft: armoured front half, less combat-worthy rear (though not necessarily defenceless)
__________________
http://yea-mon.livejournal.com/

Last edited by Starviking; January 6th, 2011 at 11:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old January 6th, 2011, 12:03 PM
far-trader far-trader is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Regina Subsector aka SK, Canada ;-)
Posts: 13,724
Gallery : 12
Visit far-trader's Blog
far-trader Citizen
Default

While I can't fault the opinions that it is bigger, it just looks wrong to me. The quick upscaled take navanod did makes the turrets look too small and the hull to bulky compared to the original drawing. I think the earlier tonnage assessment is closer and it is likely 400tons. Possibly up to 600tons, as I kind of like the idea Starviking made about the waist turrets with the danger stripes.

One thing I don't get, but meh, is figuring this is any kind of merchant with that much armament (...well, at least not an "honest" one ) but a heavily armed merchant game could be fun
__________________
Dan "far-trader" Burns

Original material in this post may be employed for personal non-profit use with the origin noted. Any other use is subject to permission from the author. Contact me through the private message feature of this board.

Fund Rare Bard Rants - Donate your unused rants today!

Musings of an old Trader... (my CotI Travellog) updated - May 3 2012
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old January 6th, 2011, 12:11 PM
Orr Orr is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 468
Gallery : 0
Orr Citizen
Default

How about looking at the windows in bow too? You count turrets and discuss what is a turret or not, but those windows make the ship seem smaller to me than larger.

I'm okay with 400 tons because of the turret count and the windows.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old January 6th, 2011, 12:36 PM
navanod's Avatar
navanod navanod is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 279
Gallery : 28
navanod Citizen
Default

Just for a point of reference - the hull I used is based on 2 decks (see deckplan above) which puts the quickie version at closer to 800 tons, which is probably why my quick version seems so bulky - it is. If you use just 1 main deck, it works out to around 400 tons, give or take. So, we can go either way with it (and probably will, knowing me).

I'm still not sold on the idea of the making the front hull detachable. If the extra half-deck on the top is replicated on the bottom, where does the detachment occur? And why? If the front half is armored, etc., by definition under HG the aft section is too, if it's a single ship. If the whole works is streamlined enough to land (and it looks to be), why add the complications and failure points of making it two ships? I'm not opposed to the idea, but there has to be a logical reason to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old January 6th, 2011, 12:56 PM
far-trader far-trader is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Regina Subsector aka SK, Canada ;-)
Posts: 13,724
Gallery : 12
Visit far-trader's Blog
far-trader Citizen
Default

I'd also say the small craft speaks against it being a multiple hulled main craft.
__________________
Dan "far-trader" Burns

Original material in this post may be employed for personal non-profit use with the origin noted. Any other use is subject to permission from the author. Contact me through the private message feature of this board.

Fund Rare Bard Rants - Donate your unused rants today!

Musings of an old Trader... (my CotI Travellog) updated - May 3 2012
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old January 6th, 2011, 01:09 PM
Gray Lensman's Avatar
Gray Lensman Gray Lensman is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 619
Gallery : 6
Gray Lensman Citizen-
Default

even with the fresh coat of paint she looks to have been around the block a few times.

Nice!
__________________
"You are the master architect. If a chart gives you a result that you don't like, throw the book out the window and make your own choices!" World Builders Guidebook, TSR, 1996
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old January 7th, 2011, 08:31 AM
Starviking's Avatar
Starviking Starviking is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Japan (ex Ulsta)
Posts: 771
Gallery : 1
Starviking Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by far-trader View Post
I'd also say the small craft speaks against it being a multiple hulled main craft.
Not if the ship is designed with one being for combat and the other for command and support: in that case the latter is going to need craft for interface, intercepting inbounds and possibly as a means of escape.
__________________
http://yea-mon.livejournal.com/
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old January 7th, 2011, 08:50 AM
Starviking's Avatar
Starviking Starviking is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Japan (ex Ulsta)
Posts: 771
Gallery : 1
Starviking Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navanod View Post
I'm still not sold on the idea of the making the front hull detachable. If the extra half-deck on the top is replicated on the bottom, where does the detachment occur? And why? If the front half is armored, etc., by definition under HG the aft section is too, if it's a single ship. If the whole works is streamlined enough to land (and it looks to be), why add the complications and failure points of making it two ships? I'm not opposed to the idea, but there has to be a logical reason to do so.
Generally, the area where the extra half-deck tapers off at the front seems to be the logical point for the grapples. If you look at where the 'petals' come out from the rear of the drive pods you can see they drop a shadow on the rear hull on the left - suggesting there's a bit of space between them and the top of the rear hull surface. The last straight stretch of the extra half hull also seems to drop a shadow on the petals below it - more space.

All that space suggests that it's there to allow clearance between the two hulls in docking/undocking manouvres.

EDIT: And then there's the location of the drive pods - right where the armoured hull ends, not at the rear of the ship. Very suggestive of separate hulls. In fact, the only other Traveller ship I can think of which has drive pods in a similar location is the Common Imperial Transport in the Rebellion Sourcebook - and it is modular too.

There is more shading too: the shadows between the central hull and the 'prongs' suggest there's space there too, same for the area at the end of the half-hull - shadows between it and it's interface with the forward hull.
__________________
http://yea-mon.livejournal.com/

Last edited by Starviking; January 7th, 2011 at 09:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old January 7th, 2011, 04:06 PM
Swiftbrook Swiftbrook is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 283
Gallery : 8
Swiftbrook Citizen
Default

FOUL!

Just got back to the boards and found this!

Everything you're talking about, aka deconstructing the picture, I did over ten year ago!

I wanted someone to publish it, and it never happened. I think I even gave MWM a copy at GenCon one year. I have a wonderful MT DGP style folio created.

It's was all done in TurboCAD (2.0 ?). I can't even port it over to my current AutoCAD LT without major fixes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by navanod View Post
Just for experimentation, rather than spend days modeling and texturing, I decided to see if doing a rather simple model in a day was possible.
Too fat/tall.

Here's a run down of my plan:
  • 1000t
  • Main maneuver drive amid ship - really cool and not typical Traveller design.
  • Four triple laser turrets two top two bottom up front.
  • Two PA barrettes in front of the maneuvering engines
  • Chin (hidden in picture) and tail (top center bump) sandcaster turrets
  • Port and starbord waist missile turrets.
  • 20t fast gig mentioned in MTJ #3
  • Two main decks and a third deck just below the gig.
If I could get permission from the artist, I might be persuaded to create a PDF of my work and post it.

-Swiftbrook
feeling like my best idea is being swiped even if 10 years later
__________________
Just My Thoughts
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old January 7th, 2011, 05:04 PM
Orr Orr is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 468
Gallery : 0
Orr Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swiftbrook View Post
Everything you're talking about, aka deconstructing the picture, I did over ten year ago!

So what?

I got write-ups from twenty years ago of planets that other people decided to write about too. Who cares what you or I did? And why should anyone care what you or I did?

Quote:
Here's a run down of my plan...
Sounds good, but how do you explain the size of those windows in the bow if the ship is 1,000 tons? Aren't they awfully big? And for a warship too?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Image Gallery Rules Clarification Maladominus Citizens' Information Centre 17 August 22nd, 2009 02:09 PM
Picture of the Day Andrew Boulton The Lone Star 111 May 22nd, 2006 03:30 AM
Image to A4 Page? Golan2072 Software Solutions 5 March 21st, 2006 08:34 AM
Test of 1248 Avatar Image William Traveller: The New Era 6 September 18th, 2003 11:24 PM

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.