Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Arts & Talents => Topic started by: Shrike on December 31, 2002, 07:02:05 am
-
Done in MAX 4.0, it's currently sitting at 87,199 polys which will get trimmed by the elimination of several more or less unseen parts. It's more or less completed as a model, there's a few things left to add such are the recon drone bays along the top and bottom, but that's minor.
Isometric, side and top, in order.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cyclone1.jpg)
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cycloneside.jpg)
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cyclonetop.jpg)
And as a bonus feature, a look at the weapon loadout of the Cyclone! The purple cluster you see floating around is one rotary's worth of missiles done as higher-poly models. The first image is a single missile. The blue hexagons are decoys and the rod is marked in one-meter intervals. The second image is a cluster as they would be attached to the rotary spindle (which hasn't been modelled). The final image is a wireframe showing the location of the 60 rotaries, in light blue.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/missile.jpg)
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/missile2.jpg)
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cycloneguts.jpg)
Thanks for looking.
-
Well, I've already replied at one of the other forums where you posted this, so I think I don't have to repeat myself.
:D
-
[Darth Vader]Impressive..... most impressive....[/Darth Vader]
Pretty good :yes:. Its gotta lotta guns (and hell, that's good :D)
-
Looks good, but too many fiddly bits. ;)
Seriously, 80k polys is a bit high for the detail I'm seeing. How many subdivisions are you using in the fillets and rounds?
-
niiiiice
-
rotary missle launchers = :yes: Top idea there, Shrike. What sort of scale is it comparable to? Corvete size?
-
damn those be ugly missiles :D
Cool idea...looks like it needs to be animated :D
-
That is one sweet ship. :yes:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Seriously, 80k polys is a bit high for the detail I'm seeing. How many subdivisions are you using in the fillets and rounds?
The point defense turrets have a higher poly count than they probably should, that's where a fair bit of the poly count is coming from.
Originally posted by beatspete
rotary missle launchers = :yes: Top idea there, Shrike. What sort of scale is it comparable to? Corvete size?
The hull length is about 300 meters.
-
You should be able to take it way down for distant shots, or even medium closeups. What software are you using (Max, I assume)? And what are you intending to do with it?
The missile system rocks big time. Are the apertures big enough to launch the entire magazine (obviating the need for such a nice system) or are there single missile tube apertures that we can't see?
Also, good job on the missiles themselves. Its good to see people break away from atmospheric designs. :D
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You should be able to take it way down for distant shots, or even medium closeups. What software are you using (Max, I assume)? And what are you intending to do with it?
Renders.... I suppose at some point I'll make an animation, but I've never done that before, so that's not a big concern at the moment. And it's done in MAX 4.0
[q]The missile system rocks big time. Are the apertures big enough to launch the entire magazine (obviating the need for such a nice system) or are there single missile tube apertures that we can't see?[/q]It's single tubes, if you look at the top pic and the rearmost launcher you can see the tubes (the armored cover is open). I've done VLS-style designs, I wanted to do something else.
[q]Also, good job on the missiles themselves. Its good to see people break away from atmospheric designs. :D [/Q]Weellll....... It's based on an atmospheric missile (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/alcm.htm). Although the lack of streamlining is obvious, it's not meant to be fired into atmosphere. Plus, I got an extra 2 missiles per launcher by going to space-optimised instead of the round ones I had before.
The little launchers will have missiles that are off-square in cross section, I'll do up a detailed model of those and post 'em - next year.
-
As always another kickass model
I do see two flaws now though :
You never make anything FREESPACE MOD ABLE!!!!!!! :p
Worse.........oh so much worse :
You've still not done the two models for me in like 8 months :P lmao (The fighter and saber hilt,...yea I knew you forgot lol no biggy)
Ok I'll go hide now :lol:
-
Very nice, I like the missiles in particular. Like Analazon said, I think it would look great animated - think that's within your reach? :D
Oh, and do you plan on texturing?
-
I only have 1 word........w00t:cool:
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Oh, and do you plan on texturing?
Oh, the forbidden question has been asked! :D
-
*cough* lvlshot please *cough*
Oh great, now I got KT's cough.:D
-
Textures! Ohmygod!!!!
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/procedural.jpg)
-
Eew. Change it back.
:p
-
Looks vaguely b5-ish...
-
I like the green touch.
-
Bit more playing, with lights. I'll have to get back to modelling in more details soon.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cyclone.jpg)
-
Maybe a LITTLE better. Need more variety in the texes.
-
Variety in the textures themselves or just more textures?
-
more more more
or paint the ship pink :D
i love that cycloneguts pics :)
-
Originally posted by Fetty
or paint the ship pink :D
and you are high on what now?
-
Shrike: Probably both. You need some, I've got about 70 or so for metals (some repeats)...
-
And because I'm a lazy SOB who should be modelling but isn't, here's a cel render.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cel.jpg)
-
Give some weight to secondary lines. That's just too flat for even cel/manga shading.
-
I know, it looks weird. I just downloaded the shader, so I haven't really looked into its capabilities yet.
-
Niiice..
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Textures! Ohmygod!!!!
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/procedural.jpg)
those maps ruins the sense of scale.
-
anala
imagine u meet a pink missle carrier in space :D
-
...Launching the old GTCv Dildo as missiles?
-
Updates on the main turrets. Changed them from pulse to beam; yes the turrets look differently depending on what kind of weapon it contains.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/turret1.jpg)
-
Is the entire beam projector in the hinge cylinder? Right now, it looks like the barrels have no machinery for generating anything behind them.
There's something wrong with the metal procedural too. I'm thinking the pockmarks look too deep. Something to do with the scale anyway. Something just isn't right there.
Otherwise, nice design.
-
It's actually a U-Bend sort of dealy. The muzzle is just for final vectoring and to strip the acceleration charge. Most of the length of the acceleration ladder is 'below deck'.
-
if it looks cool keep it comin :)
-
Originally posted by Shrike
It's actually a U-Bend sort of dealy. The muzzle is just for final vectoring and to strip the acceleration charge. Most of the length of the acceleration ladder is 'below deck'.
How vulnerable do you suppose it would be for weapons where the barrels were completely above-deck? (That is, like the big turrets on the Orion, and unlike the little spot turrets on the Deimos.) Unshielded, do you suppose they'd really stand up to much?
-
Shrike, try that for materials:
shader basic parameters, replace blinn with metal
dunno how bright you want it, but for a nice dark color:
ambient: 44.44.44
diffuse: 146.146.146
put specular at about 80
glossiness map, use a smoke material ( set up th size/iterations/exponant as you want, but keep black/white colors )
add bump etc as you like
that's my favourite setup for maps.
you can make it lighter of course, but I think it might look as good.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
How vulnerable do you suppose it would be for weapons where the barrels were completely above-deck? (That is, like the big turrets on the Orion, and unlike the little spot turrets on the Deimos.) Unshielded, do you suppose they'd really stand up to much?
Depends on how big the weapon is, and how much armor you can put on. In the particular tech background for that ship, pulse cannons (ie some sort of plasma weapon) have most of their internals in the turret itself, whereas beam weapons which are some sort of particle accelerator have the main accelerator itself underneath the turret. It's all under armor, of course, but the less you have actually moving, the faster you can make it move. Either way they've got armor, but a big turret makes an awfully inviting target.
Originally posted by venom2506
Shrike, try that for materials:
shader basic parameters, replace blinn with metal
dunno how bright you want it, but for a nice dark color:
ambient: 44.44.44
diffuse: 146.146.146
put specular at about 80
glossiness map, use a smoke material ( set up th size/iterations/exponant as you want, but keep black/white colors )
add bump etc as you like
that's my favourite setup for maps.
you can make it lighter of course, but I think it might look as good.
I'll try this in the next iteration of the model and see how it comes out. Currently I'm using some metal and some strauss shaders.
-
Originally posted by StrykeIX
...Launching the old GTCv Dildo as missiles?
*thwack*
-
A bit more work done, I got the beam turrets more or less completed to my satisfaction. I may go back and add a bit more detail later, but it's time to move on tomorrow.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/turret2.jpg)
And an updated render of the ship itself. I haven't tried Venom's suggestion yet, I'll play around with that when I have a bit more time.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cyclone2.jpg)
-
Nice detailing on that turret. :)
-
S'more updates. Redid the PD mounts entirely.
Poly count is now 108,567. Damned round bits. :D
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/gatling.jpg)
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cyclone4.jpg)
-
Pretty cool stuff there, even though you could use less segments on the round bits, you know? :D
-
yup :)
I can't decide if I like the design of the minigun turrets or not tho...
-
[Darth Vader]My father you is[/Darth Vader]
I see you pimping your stuff Shrike.. meh likehy... now get those fugly turrets colored prefably in an transparent color... you knwo witch ones I mean;)
-
Shrike, those CIWS-like weapon turrets are ugly as sin. I hereby request that you replace them with something sexier, and preferably with more fiddly exposed bits. Thank you.
-
Yeah, I don't like that color on the rear. Use green instead.
-
i think the front should be more rounded, it just doesn't look right
-
Some updates.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cyclone5.jpg)
-
The front end is getting a bit busy there, but I like it. What is that thing floating in the upper right?
And the Artoo units are still out of the droid pen.
-
There's multiple modern-day point defense mounts that look like R2s, so I feel like I'm in good company. :p
And the gold thingie is a recon drone. No, it's not anywhere close to done, I just knocked it together for scale when I get around to building the drone bays.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/drone.jpg)
-
the R2 type guns that are modern are known as Phalanx turrets I believe...
Anyways, cool drone, cool ship. Has a B5-esque feel to it...
-
The Russians have some turrets that are similar, in fact I used them as the starting point for my PD guns.
(http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNRussian_30mm-54_ak-630_Roy_pic.jpg)
-
Don't get me wrong, Shrike: they're very nicely done, and properly ugly.
They also completely do not match the rest of the model. They look completely out of place. They're entirely too wet-navy for them to look right on your nice blocky vacuum frigate.
-
Becauase they're domes? Have you looked at a modern warship? They're as boxy and angular as mine!
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Becauase they're domes? Have you looked at a modern warship? They're as boxy and angular as mine!
Originally posted by mikhael
Don't get me wrong, Shrike: they're very nicely done, and properly ugly.
They also completely do not match the rest of the model. They look completely out of place.
They're entirely too wet-navy for them to look right on your nice blocky vacuum frigate.
I didn't say anything about the domes. I said that the turrets themselves, whilst looking very well done, don't match the rest of the ship. That's it. You can put domes all over it, but wet-navy turrets on a vacuum navy ship don't look right.
Did you somehow forget that I was a US Navy sailor before I became a civilian sysadmin and cableguy? OF BLOODY COURSE I'VE LOOKED AT A DAMN MODERN WARSHIP. :D
-
So what makes them 'too wet navy' then?
-
Probably the fact that it looks like your vacuum navy sailors took a shuttle down to earth, absconded with a CIWS turret from a wet navy vessel, carried it back up to the orbital shipyard and bolted it on.
Your turret there is tall, with a small diameter. By contrast your other turrets are squatter with large diameters. They also look like they're made of the same hull material as the rest of the ship. If redesigned your Artoos to look fall more in line with the other turrets (after all, there is no reason for you to retain a wet navy design, just because you're using a wet navy concept), the overall look of the model would be more unified.
Its somewhat akin to all the whinging and moaning about Ryx's turrets for his Orion: no one said they weren't good turrets. Everyone said they didn't fit with the Orion. As with the Orion, so with the Cyclone.
[edit]
Oh, and your recon drone gave me a great idea. :D
[/edit]
-
The reason they're tall/small is because they're designed to have a very wide arc of fire, something that is much more difficult with a squat turret. They have 25' depression, whereas the other turrets only have 10'.
-
Do you mean they have a wider angle of fire (and thus a greater negative deflection from true)?
That makes sense for the height (it is, after all, why CIWS turrets the world round are tall). That does not address, however, why they look completely different in manufacture than the others (and the ship as a whole).
-
Because I wanted them different. Different subcontractor, perhaps. And it's not like the ship completely lacks other round objects either.
-
Turret *****ing!:D
*runs*:p
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Because I wanted them different. Different subcontractor, perhaps. And it's not like the ship completely lacks other round objects either.
Different is one thing. Completely out of place is another.
Ah well. Its your model. I'll shut up now.
-
actually, those turrets would look cool on a warammer40K ship :) ( tho nowadays they tend to make stuff look realistic rather than fancy. Dunno if I like that trend actually, I don't like 40K coz it's realistic, but because it's fancy :p )
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Different is one thing. Completely out of place is another.
Ah well. Its your model. I'll shut up now.
You know, sometimes I want to say what you say to Shrike, but I don't have the knowledge to sustain that kind of argument. :D Darkage summarised it beautifully, though. ;)
-
Just to make Mikheal happy, I did a angular version of my PD mount as a test. At first I went down a wrong road.....
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/gatling1.jpg)
But I turfed that one pretty quickly, and based a new one more solidly on my beam turrets.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/gatling2.jpg)
Not too bad, but it got a little bit too chunky for my tastes. I wanted something that looked light and easy to spin. So I might redo this one or just stay with the old turrets. The good thing is that the poly count is roughly halved with the angular design, a saving of about 20,000 across the entire model.
-
I'm not going to say anything, after seeing Styxx's needle-looking guns, anything else kinda pales in comparison. :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Setekh
I'm not going to say anything, after seeing Styxx's needle-looking guns, anything else kinda pales in comparison. :nervous:
THOSE ARE NOT GUNS!!!
* ahem *
:D
-
BTW, Shrike, I like the new ones. I also think they "fit" a lot better with the model, dunno.
-
The new PD turrets look good. Both versions you did look good actually.
-
Actually, the controversy over those damn turrets led me to post a little rant over at Scifi-Meshes.com on the topic of constructive criticism.
[q]Originally posted by Tolerate
I have noticed that generally, and i emphersise generally, that unless people post mainly trek images here they don't get many replies.
I haven't been here long, but I have to agree. Unless they are extremely good models, original stuff doesn't seem to get as many replies as the Trek stuff, and it seems a lot more of those replies tend to be 'that's cool' or variations as opposed to actual constructive criticism. That's possibly because you have nothing specifically to compare original work to as opposed to 'another NX', but still..... you don't need a studio model to exist to comment on style or features or detail.
Give me criticism dammit! I may not follow it - it's my model after all - but if you provide an argument as to why something is bad and why I should change it I will certainly read and consider what you posted.[/q]
You can read the full thread here (http://forums.scifi-meshes.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5291)
-
Perhaps we could get comparison pictures with the turrets on the ship? old turret vs new turrets...:confused:
-
Originally posted by Styxx
THOSE ARE NOT GUNS!!!
* ahem *
:D
Uh-oh... well, they are now. :D (See your thread.)
-
:lol:
they have been Steakified™
-
More updates on the prow detailing.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cyclone6.jpg)
-
What's that cylindrical thingy?
At first glance, I thought it was a docking ring (thing, really), but now I don't know.
-
Sensor..... thingiemajig.
-
That view is nice. What does that front turret fire?
-
It's a beam turret. Secondary weapon to the main armament of long-range antiship missiles, it's designed to engage both warships and strike craft.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Uh-oh... well, they are now. :D (See your thread.)
Bah, you and your... bah. :D
Oh, and Shrike - that's getting better every pic you post. I like the new thing on the front. :D
-
Ripped it off the Kuznetov. :D
The Russian carrier for those who are wondering. Some nice pics here (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/1143_5.htm)
-
pfff Kirov Battlecruiser much nicer;)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/1144.htm
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kirov/index.html
-
The Kirovs don't have the kind of sensors I was looking for though, they've all got dishes, which I was trying to avoid.
-
What programs do you and Styxx use? Im thinking of moving away of TS5, cos its limited and generally annoying IMO.
-
Until just recently, we've both been using MAX4. Syxx got MAX5 about two days go, so expect him to spend time learning that.
-
So, that's to say there's a copy of Max4 floating around that someone's not using?;7
Oh Styyyyyxxx... I ever mention how cool you were?:D
-
Not to drive this off-topic, but sheesh, Brazil is practically the Land of Software Piracy™.... I'm not kidding, I was at multiple open-air malls there.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Ripped it off the Kuznetov. :D
Yeah, but the Kuznetov's doesn't look as good as yours. I have to agree with Ryx: it looks like a docking collar (which wouldn't make sense, considering the obstacles you have sitting around it).
Is there some plan to your forward detailing, or is it just random things you think look good?
-
Most of the stuff there serves a purpose, I could tell you what the majority of the doodads do - generally anyhow.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Not to drive this off-topic, but sheesh, Brazil is practically the Land of Software Piracy™.... I'm not kidding, I was at multiple open-air malls there.
Sshhh... :nervous:
-
Some further developments, should I go with the indented hull or not?
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/bow.jpg)
-
doesn't really make much difference honestly
-
IMO, the indentation makes it look somewhat.. erm.. cleaner (for lack of a better word)
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Some further developments, should I go with the indented hull or not?
I would go with indented, except that I don't know why anyone would make such a sharp edge (the one created from the diagonal faces to the inside of the indentation) on a space-ship. Not that there's anything wrong with it, I've just never seen anything like it before; I dunno, really. Maybe you can cut that edge, chamfer it or something.
Oh, and I like the new imitation docking-ring, but I like the old one too... wanna have two? :)
-
The new sensor drum looks like a sensor drum. :D
I like the new details a lot. Adds much to the overall look.
-
And now, with bevelled edges, just for Setekh! Sorta..... this is what I was planning to do anyhow, last night was merely a mockup, if you will. Doesn't look much different, most of the changes involved cleaning up all the crap involved with adding those booleans. The detail will come later today, when I come home from school.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/bow2.jpg)
-
Cool, adds a lot to the sense of realism. :)
-
Side and front of the forward hull is now complete, I'm still deciding on what to put on the dorsal and ventral surfaces, probably either some sort of docking latches for towing small craft between systems and/or drone bays of one sort or another. I'll probably work on the rear hull next, until I decide on what I want to put on.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cyclone9.jpg)
-
Ok... what is the deal with the green? It makes all the front bits look just glued-on, not actually part of the ship.
-
Uh...... paint?
-
Now with drone bays! Still a WIP design to them, I'm split between keeping a pivoting hatch or going to a sliding hatch.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/bow4.jpg)
-
I think sliding would look better with the style of the ship..
-
well, the pivoting ones might go in the way f the turrets, are more fragile or prone to malfunctions, etc.
go with the sliding ones I guess.
-
Have a break from continual WIP pics. I also did one with lighting from the missile drives against the hull, but I preferred the overall darker feel in this one.
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/missilelaunch_s.jpg) (http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/missilelaunch.jpg)
-
Now THAT'S cool. Missile flares are for **** on the right, but the rest is excellent.
-
Damned if I know why it does that... each of the missiles (including volumetric flares) are exactly the same. I have to find out.
-
Coool... I'd just use video post instead of volumetrics, but that's just me.
:D
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Damned if I know why it does that... each of the missiles (including volumetric flares) are exactly the same. I have to find out.
check the exhasut shape of the missile, volumetric stuff will follow it.
btw, motion blur would be nice there.
-
Shrike: You sure those are volumetrics? Looks planar to me... Maybe if you added a little thickness to the flares, nein?;)
-
what does the back of the missle look like it may be a raytracing/shadow issue.
-
One little qualm about the render. the engine glows are light gray in the center.
-
Cyclone missile cruiser at top
Drake gun cruiser at bottom
6 pixels roughly equals a meter.
you can tell which has been worked on more. ;)
2000x800 side shot (http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cycloneside1.jpg)
-
W00t! They're both built over the same platform then?
-
Yeah, they share the same drive/engineering components, as well as identical beam weapons - the Drake uses somewhat larger triple turrets, whereas the Cyclone uses twin turrets.
-
Now, in 99% completed form! Just a few more faces to detail, plus some crap for the engine face, and it is complete. That'll be a first for my high-poly models. :p
http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cyclone11.jpg
http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/shrike/cyclone12.jpg
-
As I said on ICQ, the "sticks" are a bit odd. They look like big toothpicks coming out of your ship. Make them either turrets or give 'm a more antenna like feeling.
The ones up front look fine though.
Overall a very nice ship :wink:
-
Cooool. Just add detail to the antennae and to the engine exhaust too. :D
-
[Darth Vadar]The ability to lanch hundreds of missiles at an enemy is insignificant next to the power of the Force[/Darth Vadar]:D
Seriously, if a shot accidentally hits those missile racks, you know where the crew will be heading to.
-
to the repair shop? a missile doesn't go bang if it's not armed :p
-
You do have a point there.
But if a ship gets damaged, you don't go to no freakin' repair shop. You go to the space shipyards!:D
-
Originally posted by NeoHunter
Seriously, if a shot accidentally hits those missile racks, you know where the crew will be heading to.
It's called a magazine explosion and that's plagued warships for as long as they've been warships. But luckily the missiles aren't even explosive until they're armed, because they use capacitor systems. That means they only get charged right before launch, and before that are merely flammable/meltable.
Haven't decided if they're going to have nuclear tips as well, that's another 'safe' munition type - nukes don't go off unless they're detonated, if they're hit they simply don't work.
-
How come half the thruster glows sort of look like buttlefly wings ? ;)
Seriously though....she's coming along nicely :D
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Haven't decided if they're going to have nuclear tips as well, that's another 'safe' munition type - nukes don't go off unless they're detonated, if they're hit they simply don't work.
You know, now you are going a bit to the "overkill" section. What you want the missile cruiser to do? Planetary bombardment?
-
I'd assume that'd be the plan. Nukes suck when detonated in space- you practically might as well roll up a spitball and get a straw.
-
Originally posted by NeoHunter
You know, now you are going a bit to the "overkill" section. What you want the missile cruiser to do? Planetary bombardment?
Engaging enemy vessels with ultradrive missile is the plan. Each of those missiles is half the size of an SLBM. A damn big missile for how much bang they actually carry.
And despite whatever erronious information Stryke is feeding you, nuclear weapons do not suck in space, they merely have no effective blast radii, like any other weapons in a vaccum. They're still highly effective in dumping energetic particles into a target. You won't kill them with overpressure, but the ability to fry them with radiant energy not lessened by the vaccum.
-
stars are an excellent case-in-point
-
Not really. Assuming that spaceships a century or so down the road are built to withstand direct sunlight from a star slightly larger than our own, shouldn't really be a problem. See, it's not filtered out by an atmosphere at all, and when you're dealing with something as utterly lethal as gamma radiation, you don't **** around and not make the shielding several times stronger than it would need to be under normal circumstances. That'd be like saying that, under normal operation, your car wouldn't need to hold up to much more damage than a stray piece of gravel would make, so it's okay to build the frame out of paper mache.
Now, if you could get the nukes to penetrate the hull before detonating, you'd have something going. Given the limited atmosphere of the inside of a ship, there'd be enough for a good-sized fireball and a nasty shockwave that would utterly wipe the inside of the ship but wouldn't do too much damage to anything outside of it, assuming there's enough armor to withstand **** like plasma and hundred-terawatt laser beams- it would largely hold the explosion in. Try that instead, why not.
-
There is a very big difference between a star at 150,000,000km and a 1 MT nuke at fifty meters. The later has a flux intensity of 133 gigajoules per square meter, delivered at a very high wattage.
If you're using multi-hundred terawatt energy weapon, you're already in the nuclear ranges anyhow... 100 terawatts is 24 kilotons/s.
Never mind if you start using shaped blast nukes or bomp-pumped lasers.
-
Well, but that's the thing- I seriously doubt a spacefaring warship would burn up if it got closer than 150 million kilometers. ****, in the FS and most other universes, they're built to handle burning balls of plasma that are several times as big as a person- that's a small sun right there, and one hell of a lot hotter than a nuclear fireball besides.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Well, but that's the thing- I seriously doubt a spacefaring warship would burn up if it got closer than 150 million kilometers. ****, in the FS and most other universes, they're built to handle burning balls of plasma that are several times as big as a person- that's a small sun right there, and one hell of a lot hotter than a nuclear fireball besides.
Riiiiiiight. Care to back that up with numbers? How a plasma ball is going to be hotter than a fusion explosion? A fusion reaction is going to be solid X/Gamma rays with a bit of plasma from the casing and missile. I haven't been able to find the effective wattage, but it's at least three orders of magnitude above the energy released.
Oh, and FYI, the flux intensity at 1 AU is about 1 kW/m^2 from the sun. 8 orders of magnitude difference from our 1 MT bomb.
-
actually, pure lightning, is hotter than the surface of the sun(dunno how much tho), and the big fireball produced just on the onset of a nuclear detonation is precisely the same type of reaction that keeps the sun oh so hot and shiny (fission and fusion) plasma i think is beyond steam (when i mean by steam i mean vapor in general) and therfore by no means, hotter than a star, the trouble is however is keeping plasma contained, it has a nasty habit of destablizing without proper containment. hell energy delivered via bigass balls of plasma aint nothin compared to what hypervelocity objects could do to current spacecraft i.e a object the size of a pea travelling at several hundred clicks plus completely obliterating a satellite. think of hurling a piece of metal the size of a shipping container with a explosive warhead into a large fs stye cruiser or destroyer at near light speeds, not only would it have the power to penetrate the hull, but the warhead itself would cause a lotta internal damage to boot
-
The temperature at the surface at the sun has as much relevance to the temperature of a fusion reaction as the outside temperature of your car does to the temperatures inside the pistons as they combust.
-
point noted
-
Fusion or fission, Shrike? They're not interchangeable.
For one thing, fusion is plasma-based (the hydrogen and lithium(?) field is plasmicised at extreme temperatures) while a conventional fusion bomb hardly generates enough heat to make any plasma at all. Plasma is the **** at the core of the sun, and it is many many times hotter than a degrading uranium sphere.
The radiation from a fission reaction is estimated to be many times greater than a fusion one (only reason the sun can irradiate anything is because it's a combination of the two), and that's where the useful weapon in a nuke is- emphatically not in the heat generation, which is negligible on this scale and could be generated much more efficiently.
However, if you were thinking of some sort of fusion bomb when you said "nuclear", that'd be a very nasty antiarmor device indeed, though its spread probably wouldn't be nearly as great as a conventional nuke's.
-
depends on where or how you use it,
(eg. nagasaki did less damage than hiroshima although the yeild on both bombs were the same it was because the terrain contained the blast)
now if anyone actually succeeded in producing and containing antimatter.. (big bang theory anyone?)
-
We're talking about using it in space. Against other capships. Evidently, from outside the hull.
-
oops
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Fusion or fission, Shrike? They're not interchangeable.
For one thing, fusion is plasma-based (the hydrogen and lithium(?) field is plasmicised at extreme temperatures) while a conventional fusion bomb hardly generates enough heat to make any plasma at all. Plasma is the **** at the core of the sun, and it is many many times hotter than a degrading uranium sphere.
The radiation from a fission reaction is estimated to be many times greater than a fusion one (only reason the sun can irradiate anything is because it's a combination of the two), and that's where the useful weapon in a nuke is- emphatically not in the heat generation, which is negligible on this scale and could be generated much more efficiently.
However, if you were thinking of some sort of fusion bomb when you said "nuclear", that'd be a very nasty antiarmor device indeed, though its spread probably wouldn't be nearly as great as a conventional nuke's.
Actually, they are fairly interchangeable in end results. Fission spews out heavy radioactives and various particles, yes, but they both spike in the X/Gamma ray spectrum. I think it's safe to assume any future nuclear weapon would either be thermonuclear or straight fission, however. I don't know the last time the US or Russia built straight fission weapons. Not recently, I'm quite sure.
And I'd really like to see your data sources on fusion reactions and weapons. The entire sun is made of plasma, going from millions of degrees at the core to ~6000 degrees at the surface. A fusion detonation will have temperates in the millions to tens of millions of degrees and will plasmacise all the non-reacted material around it. This is exactly what generates a nuclear fireball.
A fission bomb generates more long-term radiation by scattering various unpleasant isotopes, but a fusion reaction is entirely prompt radiation, X/Gamma rays. These have excellent penetrative abilities and will dump a lot of thermal energy effectively instantaneously. In fact, a fusion reaction is probably superior, because the radiation it emits has superior penetrative abilities compared to many of the atomic products of a fission bomb. And I don't know why you say that 133 gigajoules per square meter of surface area is 'negligeable'. It's really a hell of a lot of energy. Plus it's a much simpler delivery system then trying to dump terawatts of energy through a laser, where you have to worry about the heat generated by such a device.... and by the time you can realistically generate that kind of energies, warheads of much greater than 1 MT could easily be used. Especially if you go AM.
-
...Except that developing nuclear warheads of a significantly higher yield involves going beyond the whole critical mass problem, which last I checked effectively puts a cap on the amount of energy that can be produced from, say, a uranium reaction, despite that cap being pretty damn high. I suppose they could fabricate new elements at this point, but for the sake of argument let's assume there's no simpler way to do so than we know about nowadays, and thus it's a terrible pain in the ass. It'd be much easier to make a hundred nukes and just launch them one after the other than to make something with a really high critical mass that was reactive enough to make a bomb and stable enough that it'd have a shelf life longer than a fish on the road on a hot day (I don't know, maybe a truck carrying pet supplies had an accident or something). Antimatter would be a possibility, though it's got the whole instability and huge-containment-field thing going on, and I haven't really read up on my antimatter so I don't have much else to say there.
And I'd really like to see where you get your figures, in turn. Maybe a trade when I get to a scanner, but I'd be interested to see a reputable source claiming that a nuclear blast is tens of times as hot as the sun. Particularly since it could be extrapolated from that that what an exploding nuke is is a particularly non-dense blue microstar resting on the surface of the Earth, and the very first two detonations would likely have, if not destroyed the Earth, at least sent the island of Japan into the stratosphere and caused a shockwave to hit the coast a few hours later a good bit worse than any hurricane ever seen by man. And full of boiling vapor, too, so it would essentially pressure-cook the entire coastal population of China, and maybe even bits of California and Hawaii. Heat on cosmic scales (twenty or thirty times the amount that's enough to set some materials on fire from Earth orbit, a few million miles away) is not to be messed with. But that's just a guess on my part- such a weapon might have only fried a twenty-mile-wide crater into the area where the city once was and sent enough particulates into the air to make things a lot less bright around here for a good long while.
Once again, the radiation would be a pretty useful tool provided there wasn't sufficient shielding for it (which is all conjecture), but it occurs to me now that in a vacuum, with nothing to neutralize or buffer the particles, whatever shot that nuke would be getting a fair dose of hard gammas as well...
Anyway. We're arguing about a hypothetical missile launched from a fictional spaceship using hypothetical technology to blow up fictional enemies. Some political arguments are worse, but not many. Do whatever you like, really- this ain't exactly a proposal to the Defense Department or anything.
-
Make the missile tip out of depleted uranium or something so that it can penetrate the hull of enemy capital ships before detonating its nuclear payload.
-
btw, just to say that plasma ( as for plasma torches and such in real world ) is just ionized gaz, and I doubt it's THAT hot or anything ( couldn't use it in industry otherwise ).
-
Then when you watch the Enterprise, they say plasma cannons but the stuff that comes out resembles a laser pulse?
-
bah, lasers pulses are as improbable as plasma pulses, so why not?
-
Plasma can range from the pretty damn hot to the incredibly ****ing hot. Somewhere I heard that fire is basically just plasma, but I never checked back on that and never bothered with the practical angle of it (it's not useful to me in real life, so I treat it as a point only in fiction, where it's generally of the ten-billion-degree variety).
Basically, it's a material so superheated it goes beyond the gas state. Since everything has a different melting and evaporating point, it's reasonable to say that everything has a different plasmicising point and thus that with proper precautions you can use plasma in machinery. However, you can also use high-heat plasma in weaponry, just by using a superheated material that needs to get quite a lot hotter than whatever you're throwing it at- this'd be the military-type plasma, and that **** would burn like nothing you've ever seen. A little pin-sized bit could very well burn a two-inch hole through you and cauterize everything around it so whatever it was it hit wouldn't grow back.
Of course, with modern materials something like that would also probably cook the gun and give whoever was holding it second-degree burns.