Miniatures

General Starfire discussion, including information about old products and editions.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Miniatures

Postby Otterman on Wed 02 Feb 2011 17:42

Yeah, I see what you mean. Those engines are going to be weird - they seem to be mostly cabling and piping.
User avatar
Otterman
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon 09 Nov 2009 15:16
Location: Coppell, Texas, USA

Re: Miniatures

Postby Cralis on Wed 02 Feb 2011 21:21

You know I was thinking about the shape and look of those engines, and it occurred to me that the artist probably based them on 'coils', you know like coils in a motor.

That is actually an interesting idea. Perhaps the drive-field 'field' is 'projected' from some sort of fancy coil. We've never delved that deeply into the pseudo-science, but I cannot think of any reason why we couldn't presume that. Perhaps these ships are some sort of design where the engines are "further left" than other designs and thus they appear more exposed (because they'd be quicker to take damage the further left they are on the ship control chart).

Hmmm. Interesting thoughts...

If someone is really motivated they could search through the old BB/SD/MT designs and see if there is a design with most of the engines really far left on the chart. ;)
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10195
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Miniatures

Postby krenshala on Thu 03 Feb 2011 02:57

I really like all the models.

As for the one you and Matt are talking about, I think the front part of it (based on the two pictures) should be something between 20% and 50% longer. Same for the back. Of course, this might be due to the viewing angle in your image. ;)
-- krenshala
None survive the harvest!

Yeah, I'm finally back (again)! Sometimes, life (and 9yo son's) don't leave you time to play SF and earn a paycheck. :/

No, really! Matt actually made me an admin here!
krenshala
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 2500
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:13
Location: Austin TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: Miniatures

Postby Rhishisikk on Thu 03 Feb 2011 03:24

Otterman,

This is really, really cool.

I have no money, but do you make miniatures for other folks for when I do find a job? Also, what scale are the minis in real life? Are we talking similar in size to the image in this thread? I really don't want my kids playing "wall" with the super-monitor just because we won't let them play with the basketball inside the house. [Only half joking.]

Feel free to PM me with contact info, I'm not trying to be crass.
User avatar
Rhishisikk
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun 21 Feb 2010 12:16
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Miniatures

Postby Otterman on Thu 03 Feb 2011 07:27

Yes, I have been known to sell miniatures. Regarding scale, at first I started a 30 hull spaces == 1 cubic centimeter rule, and that's been constant for the DD through BC. The SD, though, had to be out of scale to make it look imposing. As means of comparison, the CA is about 60mm long, 4mm tall, and 30mm wide. It's very skinny, as per the Southerland art.
User avatar
Otterman
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon 09 Nov 2009 15:16
Location: Coppell, Texas, USA

Re: Miniatures

Postby Starfire on Sat 05 Feb 2011 14:22

Please take the following with a bit of a grain of salt. We have done some numbers here as SDS and the results follow. But this should by no means restrict the creativity of any artist.


***GSF Hull Space size***
5000 colonists must fit in 1 HS; if they are in suspended animation pods, fully self-contained, and which are 2.4m x 1m x .667m in size,
thus 2.4 x 1 x .667 = 1.6 cubic meter per pod. 5000 pods x 1.6 = 8000 cubic meters (m3)
1 HS is 20m x 20m x 20m (the cubed root of 8000 m3)


Ship Size Calculator
Size in HS 500
Volume in m^3 4000000
Radius of Sphere 98.47450309

Not, due to how the drive field is defined

Remember, the following is base on the IDEAL from a physics and construction point of view, however, such ships just look bad from an artistic standpoint, which is why we don't stress this as a needed feature.

Ships are roughly twice as long as they are wide.
Fast Ships are roughly three times as long as they are wide.

The surface area of a ship matters greatly because of armor costs (more surface area, more to armor).

Thus, the "ideal" ship design is a cylinder with two half spheres on the end.
Examples of normal and fast hulls (2 times length/width and 3 times length/width)

Hull Size 50
Volume of the Sphere 400000
Radius of the Sphere 45.70781532 Length multiple
Length of the Ship 91.41563065 2
Cylinder Length (height) 91.41563065
Cylinder Radius 45.70781532
Cylinder Volume 600000.0138
Total Ship Volume 1000000.014
Cylinder as a % of total V 0.600000006
Sphere as a % of total V 0.399999994
Top part of sphere length 45.70781532
Cylinder Length (height) 91.41563065
Bottom part of the sphere length 45.70781532
Total Ship Length 182.8312613 Sum
Total Ship Width 91.41563065 Cylinder Radius * 2
Ship Length to Width 2 Checks
Note: Volume is high, so adjusting
Over volume by 2.500000034 times



Ship Size in HS 50
Volume of the Sphere 100000
Radius of the Sphere 28.79411914 Length multiple
Length of the Ship 86.38235743 3
Cylinder Length (height) 115.1764766
Cylinder Radius 28.79411914
Cylinder Volume 300000.0009
Total Ship Volume 399999.9992
Cylinder as a % of total V 0.750000004
Sphere as a % of total V 0.249999996
Top part of sphere length 28.79411914
Cylinder Length (height) 115.1764766
Bottom part of the sphere length 28.79411914
Total Ship Length 172.7647149 Sum
Total Ship Width 57.58823829 Cylinder Radius * 2
Ship Length to Width 3 Checks
Nerf rock, paper is fine. signed:Scissors.
User avatar
Starfire
Marvin Lamb
Marvin Lamb
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:59

Re: Miniatures

Postby Cralis on Sat 05 Feb 2011 17:08

You forgot to point out, Marvin, that this applies to non-AC-capable spacecraft :)

In AC-capable craft the shape of the hull matters more.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10195
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Miniatures

Postby Starfire on Tue 08 Feb 2011 13:51

True, but the modifications for AC (which only make the hull 5% more costly) are a general flattening out of the one direction of the height (radius, not length) to give more and wider "landing gear" (a term I'm loath to use).[/quote]

That is one possibility. Creating a flatter hull (like the design being worked on) is also another way to go about the same thing. And if you land in water, or in a spacedock, there is likely no "landing gear" necessary!
Nerf rock, paper is fine. signed:Scissors.
User avatar
Starfire
Marvin Lamb
Marvin Lamb
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:59

Re: Miniatures

Postby Otterman on Wed 09 Feb 2011 07:09

Here's a comparison shot with a TFN SD stand-in.

Image
User avatar
Otterman
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon 09 Nov 2009 15:16
Location: Coppell, Texas, USA

Re: Miniatures

Postby Cralis on Wed 09 Feb 2011 09:28

Wow! Sweet!!

I still think the engine coils in the back should be bigger though, probably twice as wide at least. Volume-wise I wonder how it adds up? If you have to increase the volume to get it the same, I'd probably make that front section a little thicker.

Other than that though, it looks really awesome and I can't wait to see it with all the extra bits attached!!
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10195
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests