Speculative Traders

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Fair comments all.

You're right, I do approach ship design visually first and foremost, 'kewlness' wins over realistic physics for me any day of the week. Hence the wierd bridge design regardless of the physical reality of it. I know this is a bad thing for many Traveller ship designers but it works for me.

The images I've done don't have the hull over them. They are the skeletal layout of the ship sections. It's my intention to put a smooth, curved hull over those elements making it streamlined. Well, as streamlined as any other Traveller ship anyway.

Crow

Cool, as I said, it is a better starting point for a streamlined design than my deckplan. Seeing your design, there are some ideas there that I will bear in mind when doing my next deckplan, because fundamentally they were good ideas - just not the only ones that I'll bear in mind.

Discussing how we do this stuff helps everyone, from the people involved, to the person lurking who wants to turn out great deckplans or ship designs of their own.

For an idea of what I think the Lanthium Petal class is like, have a look at the starport image in the THB, page 222. Whilst most of it is a huge wedge shaped freighter, there is a small image of a flattened sphere starship in the top-right hand corner. That's what the Petal looked like in my minds eye ... nice of Bryan to already draw it for me!

 

[fredofmars]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
It's rather shameful of me, especially being 35 but my first objective when I'm designing a ship is to make it look 'kewl' - or if not that then at least make it look interesting.
Crow

I, for one, don't consider your focus on "kewl" to be shameful in the least. One of the functions of an artist is to show us what could be and to entice our imagination. The "kewl" factor is very big in the enticing part of that to me. My deck plans tend STRONGLY towards the straight-lines-and-right-angles style.
- Joseph

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Joseph Kimball:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scarecrow:
It's rather shameful of me, especially being 35 but my first objective when I'm designing a ship is to make it look 'kewl' - or if not that then at least make it look interesting.
Crow

I, for one, don't consider your focus on "kewl" to be shameful in the least. One of the functions of an artist is to show us what could be and to entice our imagination. The "kewl" factor is very big in the enticing part of that to me. My deck plans tend STRONGLY towards the straight-lines-and-right-angles style.</font>[/QUOTE]That's right ... any good designer will also have an end in mind for their design, an intention they are serving.

One of the great futurists, Syd Mead, did a lot of design work for US Steel back in the 60s/70s. A lot of what he designed for them looked cool, but mainly it looked like it was making funky use of steel ... regardless of the practiciality of his designs. That doesn't make his designs wrong, it just means you need to understand the context of his work to appreciate why he chose to do it that way.

In Crow's case (I think) he wants to create a fun and interesting design, and he does that from his professional background of doing computer game CGI, no problem with that, but his main focus is on looking cool (and thank goodness for that). That doesn't mean he's not open to modifying a design based what he considers valid feedback about its practicality (although, like me, he may be too lazy to actually bother doing so ).

 

[Scarecrow]

Good. I'm glad we're all agreed!

Ahh. Syd Mead. (Crow crosses himself) may he be sainted. Ron Cobb is another of my design heroes.

I am actually writing an article on how I approach starship design for Traveller. After posting in this thread last night, I opened Word and it just started pouring out. However it's purely from my viewpoint of creating an interesting visual design. I think it would be nice if it were counterbalanced by a sister article written by someone taking the reality of astral physics into account for people who prefer a more realistic approach.

Crow

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
I think it would be nice if it were counterbalanced by a sister article written by someone taking the reality of astral physics into account for people who prefer a more realistic approach.

Well, clearly don't look at me! Some of the 2300AD fan stuff I've seen has been very good, both from a CGI and from a realistic design viewpoint. Part of the problems with Traveller desing is it's level of realism depends a lot on which ruleset you are designing with ... with TNE/MegaTraveller being at the extreme end and CT/T20 being at the simple end. One for T20 would be good, and would be an interesting read - isn't someone doing a thread on starship design for TNE already?

 

[Ran Targas]

Crow,

What if you alter the purpose of your design from merchant to scout. Having a bridge and passive sensors on a boom could have the benefit of isolating the sensors from engineering noise and vibration. What do you think?

 

[Scarecrow]

That'd be a pretty good reason for it to be that way. To be honest, I'm not that bothered really.

Anyway:

I'm not sure that I'm happy with that disk section and the bridge isn't quite what I had in mind. But that's it with it's skin on.

Crow

 

[Ran Targas]

It's very unique, I really like it.

 

[ranger2261]

Holy Hannah!
That is so cool i really like it.
Even if it is just a sketch,
We know what you can do with cgi.
Once again you the MAN.

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
I'm not sure that I'm happy with that disk section and the bridge isn't quite what I had in mind. But that's it with it's skin on.

Very cool, I like it. You're right it fits the Traveller universe - especially with that sunburst on its side!

On the bus this morning I took some of your design's ideas and re-did the Deck A deckplan for my version of the Petal. It makes a lot more sense. I'll try to spend some time this weekend on it (or I might just spend my days building stuff using blocks for my son ... it's a toss up which is more fun, at least I get to see him destroy them ).

 

[TheEngineer]

OK, just a few (hopefully constructive) comments on the construction...

I would leave away the wing attachments from the bridge section.
As the stats show this thing is capable of flying with 4700 kph in atmosphere those wings might be an aerodynamic problem...) (Well, not for long...)

Regrading the bridge section itself, I would strengthen the connection to the main body, perhaps by two addtional connectors on each side.
It looks a bit fragile that way...
Additionally it might be nice to have a better "look around" from the bridge (ok, at tech 15 everything might be virtual anyway, but what happend if the computer goes down...).

The turrets at the top might be a bit smaller compared to the rest of the ship and perhaps located a more at the rim of the construction in order to provide a better firing angle.

Anyway, it another fabulous "scribble" of this bird

Regards,

Mert

 

[Scarecrow]

Fair comments.

I like the wings as they are. I don't think it would look as good without them. Same with the bridge connector. It would ruin the aesthetic of it to add in more support struts.
I agree about the cockpit but then I think I've also drawn the bridge too big in that illustration anyway.

Turrets at the top? There are lift tubes at the very top. Jump drives either side of the 'hump' and sandcasters at the rear of the hump. Which are you referring to?

Crow

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I agree with Mert. Either lose the wings, or make them smaller, and make attach the bridge better. I'd shrink the hump a bit, too.

Other than that, great!

 

[Scarecrow]

Is there anything left?

Seriously. I like the wings. I think it'll look too simple without them. As for the bridge connection, I originally intended it to be longer and thinner. If I make it stockier, I'd just aswell attach the bridge as a nose section and that would look pretty pedestrian. The hump I think is okay but it isn't as sloped on the sides as I intended it to be. That would probably help.
Really the only thing I do want to change is that frisbee section on the hull. It's too cookie-cutter.
What it could actually do with is some wings on the back - or maybe some 'bunny ears' - hmmmm....

Crow

 

[Ran Targas]

Don't fall to cries of the critics!!! Keep your vision as it is!!!

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I'm not totally against the wings, I just think they're too big.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Ran, Crow asked for an engineering standpoint a few post ago

Nobody dares to touch an artists freedom...

Ok. The wings...
Could You give them a shape, which might be more suitable for hypersonic flight ?
(Thats again a purely technical issue...)
Perhaps wings at the back might look cool, too.

The turrets...I mean the elements located at both sides of the spinal back, which look like cannons.
No cannons ?

 

[savage]

The wings are fine...I agree with Ran.

 

[Ran Targas]

Just remember that we are also talking about building with materials that we don't yet have either. Perhaps the shipbuilding material of choice in the future is more than capable of handling the stresses.

 

[savage]

Yeah and if that doesn't work its how you define anti-gravity in YTU.

Savage