• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Dissecting the image - from picture to model

navanod

SOC-12
While catching up on my COTI reading, I came across the thread Ship Recongnition: pg 80 MTJ#4 and got to thinking. Since no official stats exist for it that I'm aware of (Swiftbrooks most excellent design notwithstanding), I wondered if it was possible to work up a model based just on the image. Here's what I've got so far...

I took the original image and blew it up to 1300x1600 (give or take) to allow for more discrete measurements. I then started marking out the areas that needed measuring - length, width, and other useful distances. For this I used photoshop. (If the image below violates Fair Use, let me know and I'll take it down ASAP).

MTJournal_pg80_Markup.jpg


The next major issue is the matter of scale. With no other reference points in the picture, I needed a place to get solid measurements. Using the hatch shown on the port side (~2 meters) and the turret (~3 meters), I came up with a scale of 28 pixels = 1 meter, give or take. Those numbers were purely arbitrary SWAGs, but there's going to have to be a fair bit of slop in the process anyway, given the size of the source image. I then went back into photoshop and used the ruler to get measurements of my marked out lines, then plugged all of those numbers into a spreadsheet to convert to meters and deckplan squares.

Sheet.jpg


Once I got the measurements worked out, I started laying out the outer shape of the deckplan. Having everything converted to squares (rounded to the nearest whole number) makes this relatively easy. Note that the totals on the plan are wrong - the main deck actually works out to 324.5 tons, the upper deck works out to 72 tons (EDIT- errr, 36 tons since it's half-height), and the boat works out to 14 tons. So, according to just the deckplan spaces, with 1 boat, 1 upper deck and 1 main deck, a grand total of 374.5 dtons. That doesnt account for the sloping part of the upper deck, the curvature of the hull, etc.

MTJ_MercCruiser.jpg


Once the deckplan was laid out, I took it in for modelling. At this point it's very rough geometry, less than 1,000 polygons (as a reference, the Type C runs about 40-50,000 polygons).

Geometry2.jpg


Considerations:
The upper deck is only scaled to 1.5 m tall, rather than 3. At 3 m it just doesnt look right, and the pic looks like it's fairly short too. Possibly fuel tankage or a little taller for a cargo bay below.

The picture shows 4 turrets for sure, and possibly 6 if you count the ones blended into the forward edges of the engine pods. Therefore, it's at least 400 dtons, and 600+ if you go with 2 main decks. The argument could be made that the objects in front of the engine pods are docking ports; heck, I'd even go with ground defense turrets if it was a merc ship or frontier trader.

Thoughts, opinions, critiques, and full-on complaints are welcome as always.:D
 
Last edited:
Excellent college try!

However, it is predicated on the hope that the artist was drawing something of which he/she knew anything about. Sadly, this has been a VERY rare case in the history of traveller pub art.

But, excellent extrapolation none the less.
 
Oh, I agree. No such assumption was made; I realized that a long time ago, especially with the JG Type C project. However, a lot of these images have come to be pretty iconic (at least to me) of how the traveller universe looks and feels. I started with the premise "This is what they drew, now how can I make it fit into the rules?". But, it's still an interesting exercise.
 
Well done. Minor quibble, I'm pretty sure from the picture that the two blisters you have marked as turrets along the midline to port and starboard just forward of the bulge in the saucer section are in fact airlocks. Note the "danger stripes" and that they'd be sucky places to put turrets. EDIT: Or not, I see now in the blow up the areas just forward of that which might be airlock hatches.

EDIT: D'oh, didn't see/read the bit below the last image :o Never mind :)

Based on the picture and simple guessing I had it pegged at between 400tons (gut instinct plus 4 shown turrets) and 800tons (depending on performance required and if the 4 shown turrets are repeated on the underside of the hull). Being a streamlined design and such I'd lean towards keeping the bottom clean and making it 400tons.
 
Last edited:
Just for experimentation, rather than spend days modeling and texturing, I decided to see if doing a rather simple model in a day was possible. Turns out it is, but would definitely see improvement by adding all of the little details - greebles other than the turrets were omitted, and I skipped the hull plating bump map. I knocked out a texture (not my best work by far, but I think passable) and did some test renders. It should work good as a background ship (and probable victim in a pirate video, when I get around to it). The lighting is intentionally on the dark side; when it's brightly lit it looks significantly worse.

I made this the 800 ton brother of the ship in the pic, and am going under the assumption that it's a merchant. I'll probably whip up some deckplans and stats for it, and put it out in LBB format pdf as a test bed. I had an idea to do LBB-style Technical Manuals for the ships I've done so everything you need for that ship is all in one place.

MTJ480_1.jpg


MTJ480_3.jpg
 
My 2 credits...

She's probably 1000 tons with 10 turrets. 4 topside, 4 on the bottom, and 2 on the side. Otherwise this ship would be very vulnerable to attacks against her underside. She would also need to unmask those top and front turrets to attack, which would greatly expose her hull. Where as with 10 turrets, she might reasonably bring 6 to bear (the majority of her firepower), while accelerating toward a target (both side turrents, the forward top and forward bottom turrets as well). This would minimize her cross section against enemy fire, while maximizing her offensive capability (while also preserving good turret coverage to handle enemy small craft attempting to flank her).

I picture her as a blockade runner or a frontier (like warzone frontier)/'controlled cargo' merchant. With the first part of the hull armed and armored to help protect the large cargo bay in the back. The Brinks armored truck of the space lances so to speak. Ships like this might come out of a Naval architect shop in Reaver's Deep, or the Marches, but not well protected areas in the core.

In any event, having originally posted the ship recognition thread (misspelling and all) I call dibs on her in any navanod run PbP or PBEM game… :rofl:
 
Last edited:
The picture shows 4 turrets for sure, and possibly 6 if you count the ones blended into the forward edges of the engine pods. Therefore, it's at least 400 dtons, and 600+ if you go with 2 main decks. The argument could be made that the objects in front of the engine pods are docking ports; heck, I'd even go with ground defense turrets if it was a merc ship or frontier trader.

Thoughts, opinions, critiques, and full-on complaints are welcome as always.:D

Here they come;)

Opinions/thoughts: The 'turrets' blended in with the forward edges of the engine pods are just that: turrets. If I recall correctly Tom Peter's did a picture in "The Flaming Eye" with a Villani Cruiser docked with a Far Trader. There were a range of types of turrets, including the ones in question - and oblong airlocks - one of which was connected to the Far Trader mentioned. I can't see the need for two different types of airlocks (...well, in a game anyhow).

The turrets, as they are in three different styles could also fit with the Traveller Missile/Laser/Sandcaster/Damper turret differentiation. Sandcasters or Dampers may even warrant visible warning stripes around them - because of the way they operate: using forces to manipulate/modify matter.

As for the size of the ship: I would think that there would be coverage of the bottom of the ship - and it makes sense to me to have the upper turrets have partners on the lower section of the hull. This would suggest a minimum displacement of 1000dT. (EDIT: or I should say I am in agreement with Bruce Edwin Morrow. Must remember to refresh my browser regularly!)

Any ideas on the cylindrical structure sticking out from between the two rear prongs?

IMHO, as previously mentioned on another thread I think it's at least a bipartite craft: armoured front half, less combat-worthy rear (though not necessarily defenceless)
 
Last edited:
While I can't fault the opinions that it is bigger, it just looks wrong to me. The quick upscaled take navanod did makes the turrets look too small and the hull to bulky compared to the original drawing. I think the earlier tonnage assessment is closer and it is likely 400tons. Possibly up to 600tons, as I kind of like the idea Starviking made about the waist turrets with the danger stripes.

One thing I don't get, but meh, is figuring this is any kind of merchant with that much armament :) (...well, at least not an "honest" one ;) ) but a heavily armed merchant game could be fun :D
 
How about looking at the windows in bow too? You count turrets and discuss what is a turret or not, but those windows make the ship seem smaller to me than larger.

I'm okay with 400 tons because of the turret count and the windows.
 
Just for a point of reference - the hull I used is based on 2 decks (see deckplan above) which puts the quickie version at closer to 800 tons, which is probably why my quick version seems so bulky - it is. If you use just 1 main deck, it works out to around 400 tons, give or take. So, we can go either way with it (and probably will, knowing me).

I'm still not sold on the idea of the making the front hull detachable. If the extra half-deck on the top is replicated on the bottom, where does the detachment occur? And why? If the front half is armored, etc., by definition under HG the aft section is too, if it's a single ship. If the whole works is streamlined enough to land (and it looks to be), why add the complications and failure points of making it two ships? I'm not opposed to the idea, but there has to be a logical reason to do so.
 
I'd also say the small craft speaks against it being a multiple hulled main craft.

Not if the ship is designed with one being for combat and the other for command and support: in that case the latter is going to need craft for interface, intercepting inbounds and possibly as a means of escape.
 
I'm still not sold on the idea of the making the front hull detachable. If the extra half-deck on the top is replicated on the bottom, where does the detachment occur? And why? If the front half is armored, etc., by definition under HG the aft section is too, if it's a single ship. If the whole works is streamlined enough to land (and it looks to be), why add the complications and failure points of making it two ships? I'm not opposed to the idea, but there has to be a logical reason to do so.

Generally, the area where the extra half-deck tapers off at the front seems to be the logical point for the grapples. If you look at where the 'petals' come out from the rear of the drive pods you can see they drop a shadow on the rear hull on the left - suggesting there's a bit of space between them and the top of the rear hull surface. The last straight stretch of the extra half hull also seems to drop a shadow on the petals below it - more space.

All that space suggests that it's there to allow clearance between the two hulls in docking/undocking manouvres.

EDIT: And then there's the location of the drive pods - right where the armoured hull ends, not at the rear of the ship. Very suggestive of separate hulls. In fact, the only other Traveller ship I can think of which has drive pods in a similar location is the Common Imperial Transport in the Rebellion Sourcebook - and it is modular too.

There is more shading too: the shadows between the central hull and the 'prongs' suggest there's space there too, same for the area at the end of the half-hull - shadows between it and it's interface with the forward hull.
 
Last edited:
FOUL! :mad:

Just got back to the boards and found this!

Everything you're talking about, aka deconstructing the picture, I did over ten year ago! :nonono:

I wanted someone to publish it, and it never happened. I think I even gave MWM a copy at GenCon one year. I have a wonderful MT DGP style folio created.

It's was all done in TurboCAD (2.0 ?). I can't even port it over to my current AutoCAD LT without major fixes.

Just for experimentation, rather than spend days modeling and texturing, I decided to see if doing a rather simple model in a day was possible.

Too fat/tall.

Here's a run down of my plan:
  • 1000t
  • Main maneuver drive amid ship - really cool and not typical Traveller design.
  • Four triple laser turrets two top two bottom up front.
  • Two PA barrettes in front of the maneuvering engines
  • Chin (hidden in picture) and tail (top center bump) sandcaster turrets
  • Port and starbord waist missile turrets.
  • 20t fast gig mentioned in MTJ #3
  • Two main decks and a third deck just below the gig.
If I could get permission from the artist, I might be persuaded to create a PDF of my work and post it.

-Swiftbrook
feeling like my best idea is being swiped even if 10 years later
 
Everything you're talking about, aka deconstructing the picture, I did over ten year ago!


So what?

I got write-ups from twenty years ago of planets that other people decided to write about too. Who cares what you or I did? And why should anyone care what you or I did?

Here's a run down of my plan...

Sounds good, but how do you explain the size of those windows in the bow if the ship is 1,000 tons? Aren't they awfully big? And for a warship too?
 
Back
Top