Deckplan Illustrations: What is the issue??

[Gee4orce]

I'm almost certain it was Google Sketchup - which is a free download, and relatively easy to learn.

I produced some Type-S concepts with it a while back, and posted them to this forum.

 

[middenface]

I'm almost certain it was Google Sketchup - which is a free download, and relatively easy to learn.

I produced some Type-S concepts with it a while back, and posted them to this forum.

I can confirm that, though the plan is exported to Adobe Illustrator (not the model though)

Mind you the Exported models like pretty good in Byrce or Vue D'espirit

 

[Valarian]

That's an extremely nice ship and plan. With a starfield background image on the model, perfect for displaying in a book somewhere. Plan on one page and external shot with stat block on another.

 

[nats]

Oh, you're talking about exterior shape. Yes, the flying bricks are/were kinda lame. However, form follows function. As such, the Type S, with that shape would not have ever been built.

Why not? Its aerodynamic for landing on worlds off the beaten track that will have no highport.

And as for form follows function argument being an excuse for the flying bricks (and I dont agree with form follows function argument anyway - for me aesthetics are an important function of any design) one of the functions of a naval ship is to be impressive, grand and probably meant to be visually overwhelming to its foes. Cant say a flying brick give the same kind of impression as an Imperial Star Destroyer myself...

 

[hdan]

Tangental question - where is the writeup of that ship? I know I've seen it before, but I'm having trouble sifting through my various books and S&P issues.

 

[DFW]

Why not? Its aerodynamic for landing on worlds off the beaten track that will have no highport.

Because there are other aero shapes that are MUCH stronger and because of shape, have more usable interior space. Also, the surface area to volume ratio is bad for the Type S shape. (More materials needed, larger radar cross section. etc., etc.

And as for form follows function argument being an excuse for the flying bricks (and I dont agree with form follows function argument anyway - for me aesthetics are an important function of any design)

The argument was to be applied to how people design things in the REAL world. So, as I stated, the Type S would not have been designed that way if the designer was being practical and the ship REALLY had to accomplish its mission viably.

N.B. I never stated it was a reason for the bricks. In reality they would have been cylinders.

 

[barnest2]

Out of strange interest from DFW's last comment

I know that in RL, a cylinder or tapered Cylinder is pretty much the best shape for a warship in space

But what about in the traveller universe? what is the best 'combat shape' as it were? And what about for other tasks, such as scouting, or commerce?

 

[DFW]

Out of strange interest from DFW's last comment

I know that in RL, a cylinder or tapered Cylinder is pretty much the best shape for a warship in space

But what about in the traveller universe? what is the best 'combat shape' as it were? And what about for other tasks, such as scouting, or commerce?

In MGT a possible shape (rules are unclear and VERY contradictory) for a ship that needs a lifting body would be a saucer..

The Type S BTW, is not a lifting body, so it makes no sense even in Traveller.

 

[Fovean]

Tangental question - where is the writeup of that ship? I know I've seen it before, but I'm having trouble sifting through my various books and S&P issues.

The awesome Khoghue is in S&P #85.

 

[hdan]

The Type S BTW, is not a lifting body, so it makes no sense even in Traveller.

Sure it does; it looks like an Imperial Star Destroyer, minus the bridge superstructure. Therefore, Trav's lowliest starship is as cool as the Star Destroyer, and thus all other Trav ships are even k3wl3r!

Seriously though, I've always been bemused by Traveller's extremely practical boat designs on one hand, and the visually striking but impractical starships (even my beloved Empress Marava class Far Trader) on the other hand.

I guess the Subsidized Merchant is probably the most practical non-spheroid streamlined design.

Somewhere on the webz (CoTI?) are the "Erin" class free traders that are like 200dt Subbies - very cool and nicely done designs.

http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/traveller/peter/starships.html has among others the "Golfball" and "Baseball" class ships which can serve a variety of purposes and would do nicely on any world without severe weather.

Well, depending on if you believe 1G ships can take off from 1+G worlds or not.

 

[hdan]

The awesome Khoghue is in S&P #85.

Yes, yes it is! (Both in S&P#85 AND awesome)
Thanks.

 

[DFW]

The Type S BTW, is not a lifting body, so it makes no sense even in Traveller.

Sure it does; it looks like an Imperial Star Destroyer, minus the bridge superstructure. Therefore, Trav's lowliest starship is as cool as the Star Destroyer, and thus all other Trav ships are even k3wl3r!

Seriously though, I've always been bemused by Traveller's extremely practical boat designs on one hand, and the visually striking but impractical starships (even my beloved Empress Marava class Far Trader) on the other hand.

I guess the Subsidized Merchant is probably the most practical non-spheroid streamlined design.
Well, depending on if you believe 1G ships can take off from 1+G worlds or not.

Yep, the boat designs are realistic. I just use contra-grav as MGT ships can only land on prepared runways and not at all on vacuum worlds.

 

[AKAmra]

Yeah but the ships look good and looking at many other designs only perhaps IISS Ship Files comes anywhere close to the quality. I know space ships dont need to look cool to fly in a vaccuum but do they have to look like flying bricks? I love the way the Xboat tenders look and can really imagine them at work. I love the Type S scout.

Oh, you're talking about exterior shape. Yes, the flying bricks are/were kinda lame. However, form follows function. As such, the Type S, with that shape would not have ever been built.

Sure it could have, your making major presumptions. There's politics involved, greasing palms, etc. Just because it may not be the best shape doesn't mean it "would not have ever been built." S**t happens and all that, just look at any government at any time period.

Besides, I like the Type S. If I was in charge when the design hit my desk, I would have said, "Hell yes! I get the first one off the line." So there you go, the type S exists because I was a high ranking noble, without your sensibilities, at the right place at the right time.

 

[nats]

And as for form follows function argument being an excuse for the flying bricks (and I dont agree with form follows function argument anyway - for me aesthetics are an important function of any design)

The argument was to be applied to how people design things in the REAL world. So, as I stated, the Type S would not have been designed that way if the designer was being practical and the ship REALLY had to accomplish its mission viably.

You obviously havent seen the Lloyds Building or the Pompedou Centre then! But yes spaceship design would be more function over form, in the early stages, the same way that naval and space vessels are designed today. But once space ship design becomes the norm, ships will almost certainly stop being designed to be purely functional and will be desgned to be beautiful as well in order to get a sale. Theres no doubt that the Type S is one of the more aesthetic designs around, along with the Far Trader. It would have made more sense if the Type S was a commercial ship like a yacht than a scout, so I can see your point.

 

[DFW]

But once space ship design becomes the norm, ships will almost certainly stop being designed to be purely functional and will be desgned to be beautiful as well in order to get a sale.

Once sea going ships became the norm, that's what Newport News did. Sold the US navy a bunch of nuc sub that looked like manta rays. :lol:

 

[GJD]

The type S is aerodynamic, but not a lifting body. It's also a nice, simple shape for manufacturing a cheap, armored hull - five flat planes with relativly few penetrations. Curves are hard to make, and the extreme sloping of the hull would increse the effective thickness for head-on shots (although as a battle scout I might have sloped the aft armour as well...). It may also be related to some sort of inherent stealth properties as well, reflecting radiation away from instead of back at the emitter - stealthy scout.

Just some thoughts...

G.

 

[DFW]

It may also be related to some sort of inherent stealth properties as well, reflecting radiation away from instead of back at the emitter - stealthy scout.

Just some thoughts...

G.

Naw, large flat surfaces are anti radar stealth.

 

[far-trader]

Naw, large flat surfaces are anti radar stealth.

Yeah, large flat angled shapes are really bad for radar stealth...

 

[DFW]

Naw, large flat surfaces are anti radar stealth.

Yeah, large flat angled shapes are really bad for radar stealth...

Umm, the Type S has 5 slabs for the ENTIRE craft. You can't see the difference vis-a-vis radar reflection with many, smaller flat facets and a total of 5 flat surfaces? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[far-trader]

I'm sorry. I should know better by now but I'm a slow learner. You are the all-knowing, infallible, keeper of all secrets... THE DFW...

...how do you stand trying to communicate at our primitive level?