Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: Omniscaper on January 17, 2005, 02:48:39 am
-
Mesh/Textures : Scotchy, P81 and scottpkeene
I just needed to silence Trashman's obsession ;)
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/WIPS/Gx.jpg)
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/WIPS/Gx1.jpg)
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/omniscaper/WIPS/Gx2.jpg)
I found a sloppily put together model of the Galaxy-X created using Scotchy's Galaxy mesh. Once I finish with the TMP models, I'll work on the textures for the Galaxy-X textures.
PS: If you are impatient and have 3dsmax, I can hand over this side-project to you, Trashman.
-
Whoever decided that was a good design in the first place needs to be shot, though.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Whoever decided that was a good design in the first place needs to be shot, though.
it certainly did spawn a lot of user created fugly starship vesses with nacelles growing out of it's arse like warts.
-
according to the startrek technical manual (yes i own one) nacels need to generate intercecting warp fields to warp space. they have a positive negative relationship so a starship must have an even number of nacells for the warp fields to be symetrical otherwise no ftl would be induced. but all these new treks have to be sacriligous to gene rodenberry's original vision. total herasy.
-
I secretly suspect they had a brand new model, but dropped it on the way to filming and ended up having to stick the leftovers onto the old model.
-
Amen to all your posts. I never did warm up to that design, despite its appearance in the last episode of TNG. I think Roddenberry would have objected if he saw his Enterpise-D mutate into this, especially with that huge canon.
Brace yourselves for Trashman's rebuttals! :)
-
Originally posted by Nuke
according to the startrek technical manual (yes i own one) nacels need to generate intercecting warp fields to warp space. they have a positive negative relationship so a starship must have an even number of nacells for the warp fields to be symetrical otherwise no ftl would be induced. but all these new treks have to be sacriligous to gene rodenberry's original vision. total herasy.
from what i've heard, nacelles warp coils need to be arranged in pairs... and the top nacelle on the X, has two... :wtf:
anywho... http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/design.htm
the Galaxy X was made 'cuz they didn't wanna make an entirely new ship for just an episode or two (for upclose shots, too...tsk tsk)
-
Besides, when "All Good Things" was concluded the timeline that originated it ceaced to exist. They went from the normal Galaxy design to teh Soverign so logically you would eventually get the Soveriegn X (which I saw on BC files). It's not that I don't like the Gal-X, but it was a one shot.
Omni, now satify my obsession SOULWOLF! He he he, actually we need DS9 now more...
-
Nice, in a modelling way. I never objected that much to the X since it was supposed to be something battered together in a time of conflict by Starfleet.
-
The extra nacelle and n00b cannon aren't what bother me about that thing. Its the "antennae" and those stupid.. things sticking off the nacelle struts.
-
Antannae = Phaser cannons.
-
it's okay because the ship never existed.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
but all these new treks have to be sacriligous to gene rodenberry's original vision. total herasy.
a believer like me!
-
Those little things on the top make it look like My Favorite Martian :D
-
Originally posted by Getter Robo G
Besides, when "All Good Things" was concluded the timeline that originated it ceaced to exist. They went from the normal Galaxy design to teh Soverign so logically you would eventually get the Soveriegn X (which I saw on BC files). It's not that I don't like the Gal-X, but it was a one shot.
Omni, now satify my obsession SOULWOLF! He he he, actually we need DS9 now more...
The SoulWolf!!! I love that design!!!! I'm ON IT!!!
-
Make us a Star trek ship pack omni.
-
I already resized it. It sports a crew of 1,000+ and has fighters
I just need you to arm it and make it glow.
give me to tomorrow and I'll post a dl I need to get ready for work. I spent the last few hours finishing and proof reading my latest chapter of fan fiction I have horrible spelling and frequently misspell 'teh' like almost every instance lol! See you guys in 16 or so hours!
There is also another version of the design trend just the naclels and the bridge called the North Star (no main body) I will post that as well.
Wonder if you consider that a gunboat and not a battleship.
-
somebody make the nebula!
-
Hmm.....I completely forgot about the Nebula!!! Sorry, Getter, your Soulrwolf have been bumped into the backburner!!!....
-
Plan on making both variants, or just one?
-
I'll see If I can hunt down the AWACS version of the nebula and secure permissions for it. Pneumonic made a weapons pod version of the Nebula and I will convert that first, since Pneumonic has a general rule of free use with proper credits.
Keep in mind I don't model these ships. I am more than capable, but just don't have THAT much time to do it.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
from what i've heard, nacelles warp coils need to be arranged in pairs... and the top nacelle on the X, has two... :wtf:
anywho... http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/design.htm
the Galaxy X was made 'cuz they didn't wanna make an entirely new ship for just an episode or two (for upclose shots, too...tsk tsk)
the warp coils are quite large an a nacel has only enough space for one. there was an episode in season 6 i believe that showed the inside of the nacel (contrary to rodenberrys original idea on how warp drive worked, the reason the nacels were on struts was so that the emense radiation wouldnt vaporze the crew). if somhow starfleet managed to fit 2 warp coils in there, if one coil was negative and one was positive, they would cancel eachother out and not encompas the ship. if they were both negative or positive and the others were the opisite they would produce an asymetrical warp field. simply put they break the rules.
now you understand why i dont watch trek anymore.
-
This whole even-numbered nacelle thing goes beyond ST science. Gene Rodenberry specifically said that no ST ship was to have an odd number of nacelles. It was only after he died that they could get away with this sort of thing.
(Same thing with phasers, he wanted them to be as small as possible, which caused the 'cricket' phaser to appear at the start of TNG. Then what do they do? They build huge rifles for ST:FC.)
-
personally, I preferred to have a bastardized version of the ent-d, where you can recognize the original design than having a completely different ship like a sovereign or a refit like the constitution of the movies compared to the constitution of the TOS.
The last episode wouldn't have been the same with a ship not recognizable as a galaxy in the vortex.
But I agree that it suck as a design and that it isn't completely coherent.
excellent model btw
-
Originally posted by Nuke
according to the startrek technical manual (yes i own one) nacels need to generate intercecting warp fields to warp space. they have a positive negative relationship so a starship must have an even number of nacells for the warp fields to be symetrical otherwise no ftl would be induced. but all these new treks have to be sacriligous to gene rodenberry's original vision. total herasy.
suprise, suprise - ene was no nuclear physicist or a genious, so he made some erros (I recall he was unable to explain how a stardate works). He wrote all TNG episodes, so the G-x is his baby.
On another note the Galaxy-X appeared 25 years in the future - God only knows what tech they have then. We don't even know if it uses a normal warp drive, or even if it has one or more warp cores.
What those antennas are, i do not know (my best guess - either enhanced sensorsr or Pulse phasers).
The Galaxy-X screames "I'm a friggin warship, get outa my way", and in fact is a pure warship, not an explorer.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
He wrote all TNG episodes, so the G-x is his baby.
On another note the Galaxy-X appeared 25 years in the future - God only knows what tech they have then. We don't even know if it uses a normal warp drive, or even if it has one or more warp cores.
What those antennas are, i do not know (my best guess - either enhanced sensorsr or Pulse phasers).
The Galaxy-X screames "I'm a friggin warship, get outa my way", and in fact is a pure warship, not an explorer.
How did he write the last episode to include the Galaxy-X? From his grave? :wtf:
Twentyfive years isn't a lot of time for Trek either, save for future episodes that are finales (TNG, Voyager) -- Look at the difference between the Enterprise-C or the Constellation bersus the Enterprise-D / Sovereign. True, the latter two are stronger ships, but they aren't bounds ahead in terms of technology, save for holodecks, which were apparently new in TNG, contrary to what Enterprise wants to say.
And the "antennae" are Pulse Phasers, yes.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
The Galaxy-X screames "I'm a friggin warship, get outa my way", and in fact is a pure warship, not an explorer.
and yet, it still screams.. "i'm a hastily rebuilt ship, shootme!" the fact that the Galaxy X has all those guns and all, still doesn't cover the fact, that /all/ starfleet vessels, with the possible exception of the defiant, are /not/ suited for combat.. i can pick various vulnerable spots on the pratically all starships seen in the shows and movies.. the most /notable/ vulnerable spot, is the bridge, perched in a neat little bubble right ontop of a starship's saucer section.. rear the ship up.. you have deflectors and engineering exposed, as well as the nacelles.. depending on configuration of the ship..
on the top, engineering, impulse drives, nacelles, and the bridge.. sure a starship has good firing arcs for its phaser weaponry, but, for a ship that's so overwhelmingly exposed to it's vital areas, it's not typically combat worthy...
-
But it looks l33t! ;7
-
trek ships are really dependant on their shields for protection, because the weapons they got are so damn powerfull. like in st:g, when a tiny little bird of prey took down the mighty galixy, resulting in data saying the first bad word in the history of star trek and using the emergency landing procedure specified in the technical manual which i bought at my first trek convention 10 years ago. if worf woulda had his finger abit closer to the photon torpedo button maybe he coulda iced the bop a little bit faster. leave it to the borg to convert a happy peacefull federation into war power to be reconed with. and of course the thing with the dominion. im sure roddenberry is turning in his grave after what they did to his baby. i for one wont spend much time watching another trek series. maybe, if i feel like it at the time, il catch the next movie.
-
Well, the whole Nexus thing was just an excuse to have Picard meet Kirk, which was kind of dumb anyway.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
The Galaxy-X screames "I'm a friggin warship, get outa my way", and in fact is a pure warship, not an explorer.
To me it screams 'look, we have half a model left, stick it onto something'.
It's really stupid because it's as if they said 'how can we make it better? I know, lets add another engine!" - which is of course horribly lazy. If I did that to one of my models, it'd be given a bollocking for it and rightly so.
(Then again, I don't think any Star Trek design has ever looked like a proper warship)
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
How did he write the last episode to include the Galaxy-X? From his grave? :wtf:
You do realise it is possible to write a series episodes in advance, do you? That is how things usually work, as you don't write a episode 1 day before shjooting starts.
and yet, it still screams.. "i'm a hastily rebuilt ship, shootme!" the fact that the Galaxy X has all those guns and all, still doesn't cover the fact, that /all/ starfleet vessels, with the possible exception of the defiant, are /not/ suited for combat.. i can pick various vulnerable spots on the pratically all starships seen in the shows and movies.. the most /notable/ vulnerable spot, is the bridge, perched in a neat little bubble right ontop of a starship's saucer section.. rear the ship up.. you have deflectors and engineering exposed, as well as the nacelles.. depending on configuration of the ship..
on the top, engineering, impulse drives, nacelles, and the bridge.. sure a starship has good firing arcs for its phaser weaponry, but, for a ship that's so overwhelmingly exposed to it's vital areas, it's not typically combat worthy...
In that alternate future the Alpha quadrant is a constant state of war and tensions are high, so I would expect the Federatio to have more warships.
The overall ST ship design leaves many vulnerable spots. All ship, even klingon ones (that should be pure warships) have too many weakspots to actuayyl make them belivable. But that's beside the point. You think the Definat is suited for combat just couse they say so in the series? Christ, it has all the standatrd ST flaws - forward fixed weaponry, exposed bridge, exposed nacelles (less than other ships, but still)....
-
Originally posted by Nuke
trek ships are really dependant on their shields for protection, because the weapons they got are so damn powerfull. like in st:g, when a tiny little bird of prey took down the mighty galixy, resulting in data saying the first bad word in the history of star trek and using the emergency landing procedure specified in the technical manual which i bought at my first trek convention 10 years ago. if worf woulda had his finger abit closer to the photon torpedo button maybe he coulda iced the bop a little bit faster. leave it to the borg to convert a happy peacefull federation into war power to be reconed with. and of course the thing with the dominion. im sure roddenberry is turning in his grave after what they did to his baby. i for one wont spend much time watching another trek series. maybe, if i feel like it at the time, il catch the next movie.
actually, speaking to a friend whose knowledge about weaponry, both real and sci-fi, scares me, he once noted that ST starships were woefully underpowered in terms of firepower, and noted that a babylon 5 starfury's weapons energy output surpassed that of your average phaser bank.
i'll try to drag him here sometime.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
To me it screams 'look, we have half a model left, stick it onto something'.
It's really stupid because it's as if they said 'how can we make it better? I know, lets add another engine!" - which is of course horribly lazy. If I did that to one of my models, it'd be given a bollocking for it and rightly so.
(Then again, I don't think any Star Trek design has ever looked like a proper warship)
It's not stupid. It actualy makes perfect sense.
The Galaxy class was said to be the most sucessfull starship class in Fed history.
Doesn't it make sense then, that if you want to make a new warship, to base it on a proven design?
First, you know it will work, second you can re-fit older galaxy ships! It's a win-win situation.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
It's not stupid. It actualy makes perfect sense.
The Galaxy class was said to be the most sucessfull starship class in Fed history.
Doesn't it make sense then, that if you want to make a new warship, to base it on a proven design?
First, you know it will work, second you can re-fit older galaxy ships! It's a win-win situation.
only because it was -big- compare it to the sovriegn class...
the sovy's actually a smaller ship than the galaxy in overall volume.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
It's not stupid. It actualy makes perfect sense.
The Galaxy class was said to be the most sucessfull starship class in Fed history.
Doesn't it make sense then, that if you want to make a new warship, to base it on a proven design?
First, you know it will work, second you can re-fit older galaxy ships! It's a win-win situation.
No it doesn't. It's adding a bloody massive additional strut to the rear - look at the size of it. Imagine what you'd have to do to graft that on - unseal the entire upper-middle deck of where it's attached, re-route a vast number of cables/conduits/whatever the hell they use for power, and soforth.
(And it still has a myriad of flaws and blind spots after that)
It's not just cutting and pasting a new bit onto the hull, y'know (well it was for the series model, that's obviously why they made it that way).
If it was a refit it'd be a nightmare to do (probably a bit like cutting an aircraft carrier in half and bolting a destroyer onto the side), and if it was a new design it'd be even more pointless.
Not to mention how completely sodding awful it looks.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
It's not stupid. It actualy makes perfect sense.
The Galaxy class was said to be the most sucessfull starship class in Fed history.
Doesn't it make sense then, that if you want to make a new warship, to base it on a proven design?
First, you know it will work, second you can re-fit older galaxy ships! It's a win-win situation.
It's also an ugly bastard, and gets even worse with the "Galaxy-X" :p
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
No it doesn't. It's adding a bloody massive additional strut to the rear - look at the size of it. Imagine what you'd have to do to graft that on - unseal the entire upper-middle deck of where it's attached, re-route a vast number of cables/conduits/whatever the hell they use for power, and soforth.
(And it still has a myriad of flaws and blind spots after that)
It's not just cutting and pasting a new bit onto the hull, y'know (well it was for the series model, that's obviously why they made it that way).
If it was a refit it'd be a nightmare to do (probably a bit like cutting an aircraft carrier in half and bolting a destroyer onto the side), and if it was a new design it'd be even more pointless.
Not to mention how completely sodding awful it looks.
It looks awfull TO YOU.. You allways fail to state the obvious.
And you know very little about actualy re-fits, do you?
In WW2 theay re-fitted passanger liners to carriers or cruisers and cruisers and battleships to carriers. They changed the whole friggin ship.
If they coukld do that in the 20'th century, I kinda think they will be a ble to do similar things in the future.
Oh..the G-x doesn't have blind spots... it has 21 phaser banks spread all over + phaser cannon + several torp launchers + god knows what else.
-
I kinda like the Galxy Class (it's a hell of a lot better looking than the Ambassador I think). Anyway I also like the Sovy-X because although they haven;'t shownit (yet) I can easily see it commanded by Admiral Riker in the future. Now they have abandoned the regular Gal in favor of the Sovy PLUS the Sovy has proven itself in battle (borg not counting) against the scimitar, I think it would be justified to play around with the "X" thing (as SF engineers like to do!).
If you guys have not seen the Soulwolf yet, to me it screams (I am a predator, prepare to be Royally ****ed!") ;)
-
And how many of these refitted liners et al had their seahull physically reshaped and reconfigured?
And of course, it still looks ****.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
You think the Definat is suited for combat just couse they say so in the series? Christ, it has all the standatrd ST flaws - forward fixed weaponry, exposed bridge, exposed nacelles (less than other ships, but still)....
Sure it is. It has the smallest target profile of any Star Trek ship, particularly from the front or rear, and among the best weapons and shielding.
The Defiant is a torpedo boat, really. It's meant to charge straight at the target while spewing torps at it. And for that purpose, its forward-fixed armament and very thin forward profile are perfectly suited.
-
if i wanted to blow up any trek ship, id come alongside in a runabout and beam a nuke right into the engineering section :D
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Sure it is. It has the smallest target profile of any Star Trek ship, particularly from the front or rear, and among the best weapons and shielding.
The Defiant is a torpedo boat, really. It's meant to charge straight at the target while spewing torps at it. And for that purpose, its forward-fixed armament and very thin forward profile are perfectly suited.
a lance of 5 defiants would make an effective tool