[Scotty]

Only 18 turrets for a larger than Corvette ship?  Seems a little skimpy on the smaller guns, IMHO.

Other than that, two minor nitpicks, neither actually related to the model.  1)  The "Battleship" designation would be Bb, not Bs.  2)  It's really more of a Frigate.

[Black Wolf]

Only 18 turrets for a larger than Corvette ship?  Seems a little skimpy on the smaller guns, IMHO.

Other than that, two minor nitpicks, neither actually related to the model.  1)  The "Battleship" designation would be Bb, not Bs.  2)  It's really more of a Frigate.

Bb? Based on what? There's kind of logical precedent for Ba (GTSc Faustus (Sc=Science)) or Bs (Cv = Cor-vette) but where's the second b come from?

[EDIT]ON the ship, I do actually like what's happening in terms of the modding style... but it does look kinda penisy. Maybe that shouldn't matter, but it does. Perhaps consider adding some geometry on the X axis forward of the main engines?

[PeterX]

How a bout the GTGs or GTBc class? In the prototypical russian marine is it so in ranks:
The destroyer is the smallest  fastest ship followed from light and medium cruiser. Then came the battlecruiser(heaviest cruiser is a gunship pure) after that came the corvette and frigat as command ship. The biggest classes in place there are the carriers and battleships class potts. But in Freespace is it so the cruisers are the smallest big ships followed from corvettes and then may sqaremetres nothing an d  then the destroyers and jagganauts.
For me,it ´s like a battle cruiser or a fast and heavy gunship.GTBc or GTGs (not GTGb!!)
 

[NGTM-1R]

Bb? Based on what? There's kind of logical precedent for Ba (GTSc Faustus (Sc=Science)) or Bs (Cv = Cor-vette) but where's the second b come from?

USN designation scheme. Only useful one at that; Brits designate with a single character so it would just be B, I'm not aware of any other major navy having developed a hull type designation like that. IJN didn't do it, Kriegsmarine didn't do it.

[Colonol Dekker]

It's a single letter because it's a single word.
Anyhoo, it's not GTDD Orion, it's GTD Orion. The GTVA is by deduction a non-US derivative
 
Joking aside, isn't there a standardised prefix list on the Wiki somewhere?

[Admiral Nelson]

Just in case anyone is interested, there is a reason for the double letter USN designations such as 'BB' and 'DD'.  The USN started out with single letter designations as did the RN, but quickly found that 26 letters was not enough.  Accordingly, they shifted to a two letter designation system in which the first letter indicated the primary ship class and the second a sub function.  If the class had no sub function the first letter was repeated.  Thus a battleship became 'BB', a destroyer 'DD' and so forth. 

It is quite clear that the GTA does not use USN class lettering, or even ship designations.

[AugustusVarius]

Joking aside, isn't there a standardised prefix list on the Wiki somewhere?

Yeah, there is, and it lists BS or Bs.  Remember though, this is under the 'Fan Terminology' section, so really its up to the creator of the model.
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Various_Terms#Designation_Suffixes_2

[headdie]

As for the debate on its designation I went for Battleship because it is 600 meters longer than the Iceni the only canon combat orientated frigate.  Having decided on battleship I went for Bs as it seems to me to be the closest to the canon scheme with lower case second letter while B being taken for bombers.

As for the armament it has 2 more turrets than an Orion and placement allows it to hit a capship with 4 bgreen at once when at its strongest positioning but at the same time providing vulnerabilities for Fredders to use in making missions that don't just play themselves.  for example in the demo mission if you move the Monitor back little bit you can have the situation where the Monitor can hit the Capella with 2-4 beam slash and bgreen cannons while the Capella can only answer with its forward cannon because the others are out of range giving the Monitor a chance of killing the Capella (this has happened in early experiments with the class).  Also due to positioning the Carthage stands a chance of killing the Capella if hull Integrety of the Capella drops to 70-80% again because of weapons placement and the Capella only starting with about 75% of an Orion's hitpoints

On the shape I am currently trying out ideas on the forward engine pods and looking at widening the middle hull, early experiments on the hull widening looked promising but the geometry needs cleaning up to make it work properly.  Hopefully references to a certain piece of anatomy will be less accurate in future while making the ship look better

[General Battuta]

Honestly I think you're going to have a really hard time making the ship respectable without a lot more anti-fighter coverage.

[headdie]

Honestly I think you're going to have a really hard time making the ship respectable without a lot more anti-fighter coverage.

Again something I have thought about with the revised version, especially if I widen the hull I have large areas with nothing there except for the armour plates which though pretty cool (in my book) don't do a lot for the ship overall in its combat capability so I was thinking of additional anti fighter beam cannons on the expanded sections or sticking, beam cannons where the flack is and moving the flack onto the expanded angled sections.  The thing I am trying to do here is make the ship effective while avoiding uber ship syndrome.

[General Battuta]

That sounds good. Bear in mind that the three types of primary defenses work together. Blob turrets (or PI fastblobs, or BP pulse weapons, or something like the EA's weapons in INF) are great at shooting down bombs; flak guns are good against shields; and anti-fighter beams provide long-range deterrence. You need some of each.

[headdie]

Still poking at this one between other projects thinking about the advice you guys have offered.






I am still thinking about the idea of having additional superstructure on the top and/or bottom but wanted to address issues like the triangulation on the armour plates, basic shape and armament, whats everyones thoughts on the general shape?

The armament has been boosted now by 2 additional blobs mounted towards the front and 2 aaaf beam cannons mounted again towards the front but on the flanks.

[Thaeris]

It still looks much akin to a block, unfortunately. Try blending the hull with the engine pods - that might be a pace in the right direction.

[TrashMan]

Improving...

Regarding classification, you can always use more complex names...

Battlecruiser, Heavy Frigate, Assault Frigate, Pocket Destroyer...... or invent your own
Interdictor?  Lineship?

[headdie]

Update: - This one is without the armour plates on the front of the engines while I finish altering that area.
- superstructure added to the upper surface which will be the docking point absent on the original
- started modeling details around some of the turrets
- started rounding off the engines and the general shape of the protective structure surrounding them

[Rico]

I like the design, looks like a battlecruiser or frigate to me, just needs some more weapons maybe, I'd suggest arming it with about the same as a corvete or the Iceni, and use the slopes for AAA and flack as it gives them good arcs.