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 Cralis on Thu 19 Oct 2017 13:27

Otterman wrote:I'll start with the assumption that the picture in Crusade is of a Wolfhound refit-B, which added a squadron and ECM3. This will be represented by the missing armor around the bays, wacky crap in the front, and the curved rear.

Accordingly, an original Wolfhound will have less wacky front stuff, a less-rounded behind, smaller fighter bays, and intact armor.


That's a clever choice. Though now I'm wondering if other hull designs with ECM3 will need those antenna bundles up front. You could use that to make hull variants :) Still, a great interpretation.

I note the lack of classic shield grid, and something should be decided. I can either add the grid to the top thus deviating from the picture, add it to the bottom, or make a new type of S1 shield generator and try to blend that into the picture.


It's entirely possible that ECM3 makes the traditional shield grid go wonky. That said, in this case I'd go for aesthetics. Though I could see earlier versions without ECM3 having the grid added. Shield generators should be inside the ship.

The ISW-3 era CV (Independence, reserve fleet Essex) has one less squadron. That will definitely have an upper shield grid and CV bays sized appropriately.


That definitely makes sense. I'm sure the same would apply if you do the CVL and CVE in the fiture.

No idea how to represent the Wa.


Missiles are probably launched from VLS launchers. There is no reason they would need a turret. Do only the Rigellians have bubble blisters for other weapon mounts?

CV bay sizes will be consistent with RPSA bays, because that sort of thing entertains me.


Cool. I don't have the graphics here at work... did Jack put separate launch tubes and landing bays in his art?
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Miniatures

Postby Otterman on Thu 19 Oct 2017 14:00

Thanks guys!

Hm, the TFN Crusade era and RPSA ISW3 era carriers have an identical evolution in their bays. The pre-conflict versions have 24 V, then 30, then the final refit 36. Model wise, each V occupies 1mm of linear space. I declare TFN and RPSA use bays solely for launch and landing. KON or OADC may use something else.

Reviewing my interpretation of RPSA ships, it seems I chose to model Wa as partially-collared holes.

Regarding shield generators, my designs are deliberately done with (some) shield components as being represented by a central spine of rectangular doo-dads. Alkeldan designs are different, due to artwork.

When I'm done with these three variants I'll make a special KON BC - the Prokalhon BCV. Afterwards, their CV.
User avatar
Otterman
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon 09 Nov 2009 15:16
Location: Coppell, Texas, USA

Re: Miniatures

Postby Cralis on Thu 19 Oct 2017 16:44

Otterman wrote:Hm, the TFN Crusade era and RPSA ISW3 era carriers have an identical evolution in their bays. The pre-conflict versions have 24 V, then 30, then the final refit 36. Model wise, each V occupies 1mm of linear space. I declare TFN and RPSA use bays solely for launch and landing. KON or OADC may use something else.


Got it. Another reference might be the shuttle bays on the TFN cruiser and battle cruiser.

Reviewing my interpretation of RPSA ships, it seems I chose to model Wa as partially-collared holes.


VLS tube. Makes sense.

Regarding shield generators, my designs are deliberately done with (some) shield components as being represented by a central spine of rectangular doo-dads. Alkeldan designs are different, due to artwork.


I have to confess, I didn't realize those were shield components (emitters? generators?) I have a whole new perspective on your designs now!

When I'm done with these three variants I'll make a special KON BC - the Prokalhon BCV. Afterwards, their CV.


Oooooooh. I was going to say Christmas must be coming soon. But hey look! Christmas really is coming soon!
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Miniatures

Postby Otterman on Fri 20 Oct 2017 11:01

Actually, something will probably come at Christmas, given my design sloth.
User avatar
Otterman
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon 09 Nov 2009 15:16
Location: Coppell, Texas, USA

Re: Miniatures

Postby Buckaroo13 on Fri 20 Oct 2017 11:58

My only other thought is just similarity to the rest of the TFN Fleet.
The Rigelian CV has a lot of similarity to Terran ships including the placement of the Shield strip. In other words the Terran CV should look more Terran then the Rigelian CV :D

This also begs a question that may have been answered already. Why do the Rigelian ships look so similar to Terran designs? I assumed it was a call back to the original counters where everyone used the same ships but then the Orion ships are totally different in design (Love them).

The fluff, I always thought, implied that the Rigelian fleet existed before they found the Terrans, meaning that they could not have copied Terrain designs. If this is the case then organically each race developed very similar designed ships. This might imply that the squished ship design is optimal for Starfire's unique engine properties, but then it doesn't explain the bubble ships, or Orion designs.

On the other hand it could be the original artist just drew some cool generic spaceships and didn't specify who they belonged to.
User avatar
Buckaroo13
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue 29 Aug 2017 09:38

Re: Miniatures

Postby Otterman on Fri 20 Oct 2017 12:59

The Rigellian ship shapes (get it?) come from three sources:

1) The published art from Stars at War.
2) A piece of unpublished CVL art that Jack shared with me.
3) Yours truly thinking about the counters.

I wanted the Rigellian ships to be a blend of those three inputs, hence the similarity. Explaining it "in-universe" terms, the cruiser resemblance is just happenstance.

I've decided that for longer ships, the shield physics makes spinal doo-dad placement more efficient. Smaller ships (TFN DD, KON CT, etc.) just stick them anywhere.
User avatar
Otterman
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon 09 Nov 2009 15:16
Location: Coppell, Texas, USA

Re: Miniatures

Postby Cralis on Fri 20 Oct 2017 14:54

The ship counters are a huge part of it, in the original set all of the carriers used the identical silohuette. The same is true of the warships, but that is where Jack's awesome artwork comes in.

The KON ships are different because there were only a handful of KON designs in the artwork, and Otterman created the rest based on that artwork!

The same goes for Rigellians.

And until last year, we didn't have any Arachnid ship art. The Arachnid calendar and the new ISW-4 supplement cover both showcase new Arachnid ship designs from Jack Southerland!
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Miniatures

Postby Otterman on Mon 23 Oct 2017 12:57

Arrggh, the shape I did volume measurements on nagged me with it's not-quite-rightedness. I've spent more time getting the general shape more satisfactory.

I had originally assumed the ship was symmetric in two dimensions. After staring at the pic I decided that the bottom is not the same profile as the top.
User avatar
Otterman
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon 09 Nov 2009 15:16
Location: Coppell, Texas, USA

Re: Miniatures

Postby Otterman on Fri 27 Oct 2017 07:38

Damnit! Still not happy with my rough shape.
User avatar
Otterman
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon 09 Nov 2009 15:16
Location: Coppell, Texas, USA

Re: Miniatures

Postby Cralis on Fri 27 Oct 2017 08:30

I had to go stare at the artwork for a few minutes, but I see what you are talking about. It doesn't look symmetrical...the underside seems flat and a good portion of the hull extends upward from what Im sure would be the spine of the ship.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
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 5 guests