Topic: Chandley retex/remodel...updated!!!! (Read 10508 times)

DestinyCalling · « **on:** January 28, 2004, 03:03:43 pm »

Ok, on another post I mentioned a remodel of the superb Chandley Class Heavy Frigate (FASA) / Heavy Cruiser (everyone else)....

So, here's a quick WIP..... Early days though

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #1 on:** January 28, 2004, 03:08:24 pm »

Yeah Baby! Excellent work so far. A MUST have upon completion. Nice take on the rear firing torpedoes. Well done!

I hope you will consider adding a phaser bank to the rear and each of the wings. It always bugged me that they didn't have at least one phaser bank there at least as a late TMP upgrade.

Qapla!

KF

Khaliban · « **Reply #2 on:** January 28, 2004, 09:57:15 pm »

I have a problem with the Chandley. Why does it have such a huge aft? Really, it does. Why are the engines so low? Lately, I've been thinking about starships, especially FASA ships, in relation to their role and design. Form follows function. I don't think the Federation would design any other way. So, what's with all the trunk space on the Chandley? It's a transport ship, designed to carry a large amount of assault troops. The large back end gives it the maximum amount of maneuvering room for shuttles. I think the Chandley should have about six Miranda style shuttle bays, four straight across and two on those raised sections.

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #3 on:** January 28, 2004, 10:11:23 pm »

I take it you're ok with me using your bits... i'll get some WIPs up tommorow... see what you think

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2004, 12:04:07 am »

Ok, a few more WIP's for you... All the bits are in place, I've added a rear phaser bank plus a twin photorp launcher. Round the front there are two more launchers plus two additional single phaser mounts atop the main hull... All I need to do is texture the pink bits... Which of course takes the longest.

All screengrabs use 512x512 textures.

feedback appreciated if you feel inclined....

Marauth · « **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2004, 12:09:09 am »

It looks cool but I must point out that the pink bits are infact P81's second generation parts and don't even compare with his final SFC work let alone Khalibans parts, the textures will do a lot to remedy that but there will still be a ver noticeable difference in the quality of the meshes. Nice work so far though

look forward to seeing some textures on the arse of that thing...

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2004, 12:12:06 am »

Quote:

It looks cool but I must point out that the pink bits are infact P81's second generation parts and don't even compare with his final SFC work let alone Khalibans parts, the textures will do a lot to remedy that but there will still be a ver noticeable difference in the quality of the meshes. Nice work so far though look forward to seeing some textures on the arse of that thing...

Oh I agree completely... Thing is though, I'm no modeller and no one (so far anyway) has done a detailed Chandley mesh... It is a cause for concern for me... I wonder if there's some plugin I can use to smooth it a little.

Anthony_Scott · « **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2004, 11:18:26 am »

Wow...one of my very favourite FASA ships being redone...I still have one of the metal miniatures they released way back when of the Chandley...

Semper Fi, Carry On

Core · « **Reply #8 on:** January 29, 2004, 11:30:42 am »

i still say 32 bit textures are to low on cuality

but it looks grat

Khaliban · « **Reply #9 on:** January 29, 2004, 06:01:18 pm »

I'm not sure about the phasers on top of the shoulder pads, or whatever you call them. That looks more like a place for running lights. But the real trick is finding a good place for the sensors and the blue section. Constitution refit variants have three forward sensors (see below) and a section of blue hull along the engineering section. FASA didn't go into the kind of obsessive-compulsive detail that we do. Then again, they were making inch-long pewter models. They didn't have the room we do. Look at the Phobos model for inspiration. Even if he did put one of the sensors on backwards.

Sensors:

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #12 on:** January 29, 2004, 09:41:02 pm »

Now there's a thought.....

I dont work mega quick though so dont hold your breath

Bernard Guignard · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2004, 05:03:30 am »

Might I suggest that the sensors Kahliban has mentioned could be put on the leading edge of the wings and one on the ships centerline at the lowest point.

Nice work by the way

Khaliban · « **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2004, 08:02:38 pm »

Phasers on the Chandley are difficult to figure out. On one hand, it does have a lot of potential blind spots. On the other hand, it's a troop transport. Weapons are not of paramount importance. I don't think it would even have your aft torpedoes. In combat, it would likely have escort. A Baker or Loknar would make most sense. With it's overall design and engine placement, it would have horrible maneuverability. The worst in the fleet or close to it. The Brenton might be slightly worse, but it's a close call. I'd say minimal phasers. Just enough to cover blind spots. Fewer emitters than either the Enterprise or the Miranda.

I still don't know where to put the blue part.

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #15 on:** January 30, 2004, 08:33:33 pm »

In he FASA Trek universe the Chandley had two forward and two rear torpedo tubes for the class from its introduction to its subsequent refits. IN TNG times I agree that it would be a second line ship as it might not have the phaser arrays or uber modern tech required to keep up with even a Nova class.

Again FASA Trek FEDERATION frigates are really cruisers (as in the 17th-18th Century definitions not SFB definitions). Why SFB/SFC chose to make frigates the smallest warships is beyond me. It clearly defies modern naval terminology.

Frigates in Modern navies are designed to operate alone ( a la heavy Cruisers). Personally any ship carrying more weapons and marines than a heavy cruiser should NOT be called a scout ship or a frigate.

Brad R. Torgersen writes a wonderful peice on Naval vs FASA Trek terminology that is worth reading:

http://www.sub-odeon.com/stsstcsmua/

A selected quote from his article "SHIP TYPE: A DETAILED EXPLANATION " Written by Brad R. Torgersen, 2002

" Frigates of the STSSTCS [Star Trek Starship Tactical Combat Simulator] game system are more powerful, massive, and better armed than most Destroyers, and indeed some of the largest Frigate designs like the Northampton or the Klingon L-9 can hold their own against all but the largest and most powerful Cruisers. In this sense, a Frigate might be thought of as a Light Cruiser, with less emphasis on exploratory duties and more emphasis on combat and patrol duties. Most Frigate designs in the Trek universe sport contingents of marines for boarding actions, and it seems obvious to me that a Frigate is not likely to blunder into an unexpected fight. A Frigate is going to be on the scene when somebody knows trouble is brewing, and Frigates may accompany Cruisers as heavy escort in scenarios where combat is seen as inevitable.
Again, for Star Trek purposes a Frigate may be thought of as a Light Cruiser without many of the scientific or exploratory frills. These are warships first and foremost, and they ought to be played as such any time you use them."

Here are Mr. Torgersen's comments on the Chandley:

"BRAD'S COMMENTS: Of all the non-canon ships that were created for the original STSSTCS, the Chandley is far and away the most beloved. Over the years I have seen more positive comments about the Chandley from more fans than just about any other non-canon ship in the entire game. People just LOVE this ship, and rightly so.
The Chandley is a complete package. Aesthetically gorgeous, statistically formidable, the Chandley is one of those well-designed vessels that even non-gamer fans have heard of. Which is a testament to how nicely this ship fits into the TMP-era mythos of the Trek franchise. Fan fiction aplenty has been written around this class, and it has been adopted by not just a few fan "starship" clubs. What else can be said? This class is well known and well adored by gamers and non-gamers alike, and just once before I die I'd love to see somebody involved with the movies or TV shows make SOME official mention of the Chandley. That way it could truly attain its proper place in the Trek canon.
In game terms, there are few ships from the STSSTCS that can match the Chandley one-on-one. It can beat just about any other frigate, friendly or enemy, and bests all but the largest cruisers and battleships. Possessing powerful multiple torpedoes both fore and aft, plus strong phasers and power to energize them, the Chandley can cripple all but the largest enemy vessels with only a few well-placed shots. When playing the Klingons or Romulans versus a Chandley I have only ever been able to beat the Chandley by using a Romulan V-30 or a Klingon D-10, both of which are heavy cruisers. Otherwise, it comes down to overwhelming the Chandley's strong offensive and defensive capability with multiple ships.
The backstory is lengthy but well written. The reference to the fictional Admiral Chandley who blockades the Soviets in 2003 is amusing considering modern history in the real world. Back in the 1980's few of us in America could conceive of the idea that the Soviet Union would fall apart before the turn of the century. Certainly we never imagined that Russia would wind up as a democratic ally at the start of the new millenium."

And the bulk of the information on the FASA Trek Universe ships is there also.

I am So looking forward to the release of this version

KF

Khaliban · « **Reply #16 on:** January 31, 2004, 12:15:59 am »

I can't agree with that interpretation. "Cool looking" should never be the basis for combat effectiveness. From a pure design standpoint, the best combat ship among the Con-Refit variants is the Miranda. I explain why in another thread. I agree the Chandley is a great design, but it's a great transport design. It's not a fighter, not even in TMP era. It's mass is spread out, reducing it's turning speed and increasing it's target size. Slow to turn and easy to hit are not a good combination. The other FASA frigates, the Loknar, Kiev and Baker, are much better combat designs. Even if it had the power of the Enterprise or Miranda, which is possible, it can't match even their maneuverability. Heavy armor and shields might help, but at a cost of speed and phaser power. This is nothing personal. It's just physics. The Chandley may be a popular design, but it would never be a match for a heavy cruiser. Shield power might balance it against another frigate, but that's the best it could get.

Marauth · « **Reply #17 on:** January 31, 2004, 12:43:20 am »

Actually with such widely spaced nacelles it's warp manoeuverability would be second to none and as for sublight - it's engine is in the same place as pretty much all the other Enterprise-variants being in the middle at the rear of the saucer.

The large target area is the price they pay for the manoeuverability it grants. Think about it, in ST the ships turn by sending more power to one nacelle than to the other - kind of like paddling harder on one side of a canoe to turn it so the closer the nacelles the more effort is required to turn the ship and vice versa.

Dizzy · « **Reply #18 on:** January 31, 2004, 12:46:10 am »

Did you make brk mods for those 2x Connie ships you made? The khaliban and khambatta?

And I must argue with you about 'center of mass' and such for turning radius on the Chandley. There are several different ways the physics of it work, and none of them really work in OUR real life physics. The ships impulse manuevering is impossible the way its done in ST.

The best explanation I can come up with is the use of warp engines creating a warp bubble where space is transported around the ship allowing it to change directions w/o having to endure the forces of inertia while manuevering. This doesnt mean its gonna 'go' anywhere creating a mere bubble, but attitude and direction can be changed on the fly w/o going into warp speeds, thus allowing the impulse engines to 'push' the ship forward. I don't know how the ships stop. Apparently conventional modern aircraft engine 'thrust reversers' were used on the Reman ship in Nemesis which made it go in reverse.

Very silly stuff to be arguing about. Lets not even go into how artificial gravity and inertia dampeners work. Hehe.

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #20 on:** January 31, 2004, 02:15:15 pm »

Well all your comments are great... We seem to have a lively debate here... No update today as I have decided to remodel the rear hull (which should be fun since I'm not a modeller) to bring it more up to standard with the Khaliban Saucer and Nacelles.... Ought to have some pics up soon...

Just one thing I will add... This is a FASA designed ship and they hardly took the time to worry about warp dynamics, centres of mass and maneuverability, and as for voume and deck space, I dont think it has much more than a Miranda. It's appearance is a little deceiving on the 3 view that FASA produced, which by the way, is horribly inaccurate. That said, 9 times out of 10 I used a Chandley in the game...

Khaliban · « **Reply #22 on:** January 31, 2004, 04:01:37 pm »

I don't know how engine placement affects warp maneuverability. You don't fight at warp, so it's largely irrelevant. With a downward facing main deflector, the Chandley would have a low warp speed, like the Miranda. At impulse, however, Newtonian mechanics applies. Hold your arms out, you turn slowly. Pull them in, you turn fast. That's high school physics. The Chandley is not design to maneuver. I maintain the warp engine placement is to maximaze maneuvering space for shuttles, a logical design in a transport.

In the FASA game, the Chandley may have been devastating in combat. However, its numbers did not reflect its actual shape. There was no reason why they should. FASA ships were designed to look cool. They did.

I'm not trying to attack a much beloved ship. I'm really not. I'm trying to reverse engineer the abilities of the FASA ships logically. The Chandley is a good transport design. It is not maneuverable. In fact, reduced maneuverability is a benefit for a trasnport. It makes it a more stable platform. The same reason tightrope walkers carry a pole. Any technology you add to compensate for its shape would just make the other ships that much better. Why would the Federation give such technology to only one ship? And don't say "test bed". That's lame.

If you have the models, dangle them from a string and spin them. Tell me which ship spins the fastest. I'm fairly certain it's not the Chandley.

And I do like the design. Really.

Here's a texture blank you can use.

Dizzy · « **Reply #23 on:** January 31, 2004, 05:21:29 pm »

You didnt read my post, Khaliban? Read up. 1st page at the bottom mb.

Oh, and again to argue silly with you, but if you used newtonian physics as you are so fond of, the Connie class ships would lose a warp engine if they pulled more than a couple G's. Do the math and tell me at 120k miles a sec, how tight would you're turning radius be staying under a G speed that would break off the Warp pylons? Perhaps you may be able to orbit the sun 4 or 5 times the orbit of Pluto. Now enter in Einsteins general theory of relativity and tell me how much extra mass the Connie ship would have at 120k miles a sec? Oh and 120k miles a sec is what... three-quarters impulse speed or thereabouts?

If you dont use a warp bubble to change attitude and direction, your theory on the placement or distance of the warp engines to the center of mass is a moot point. If you think a starship would have better tactical manuevering with a closer center of mass, they'd all have ice skates on instead of Warp Engines...

"Captain! Warp engines are retracted into the hull, we can now perform the piroutte manuever!" The happy ensign exclaimed as he prepared to try out the new Khaliban class vessel.

"Belay that order, ensign. We will start off with a bang and nothing else shall suffice. Prepare the Tripple Axel manuever!" The captain confidently twisted in his chair. 'With this new ship center of mass design philosophy, the new Federation ships will out turn all their enemies', he happily thought to himself...

The ensign pushed the appropriate tripple swirled button on his circular console and then huddled with the rest of the officers in the middle of the bridge.

"This is the Captain speaking. All hands prepare for the Triple Axel manuever. Keep it tight people..."

The crew responded and quickly cramped together shoulder to shoulder in all the central rooms of the ship...

to be continued...

Again, silly argument. I just had to point it out.

Khaliban · « **Reply #25 on:** January 31, 2004, 09:42:07 pm »

What you're talking about are the oft refered to "inertial dampeners". That effect cannot be generated by the warp engines or saucer separation would not be possible. Technically, you could separate the saucer, but then it would rip to pieces. Saucer separation is possible in the Ent-A, so the warp engines must not be required. Most likely, it uses the same system that generates the artificial gravity. Shifting the crew would have a negligable effect. They don't weigh enough. The term "dampener" implies some inertia still remains. That's why the crew jolts to the side when the ship is hit. If you have inertia, Newton once again rears his poncy head, and the Chandley is still the least maneuverable ship in the fleet.

As for warp engine placement, I theorize there is a sweet spot optimal to warp speed. Too far apart and the field loses strength. Too close and the engines interfere with each other again weakening the field. Placement on any individual starship is determined by its role. The Constitution Refit, a long range exploration ship, would have the best possition.

And where did "Khaliban class" come from?

Captain Ron · « **Reply #26 on:** January 31, 2004, 10:14:54 pm »

In space though if you place thrusters at the ends and far apart you can generate a faster spin then if they are close togther.

Khaliban · « **Reply #28 on:** February 01, 2004, 01:44:36 am »

The Kieth I'm not so sure. It's a scout and a third the size of the Chandley. The rest of them are what happen when you run out of ideas. Most of them would never make it off of a Federation drawing board let alone see combat. It's comparing apples and apple wannabes. The Chandley, as I have said, is a good design. It's a very logical design for a troop transport. But design is a give and take and the Chandley design takes maneuverability.

I will agree with you on one thing. The Chandley does not, in fact, have the worst maneuverability in the fleet. That distinction belongs to the Babcock, a freighter masquerading as a frigate. Of the original FASA designs (those in the Recognition Manual) that ship has the worst shape for maneuvering. That ship, however, will never be a part of my fleet, so I'm not really worried.

So, I will amend my statement. Of the good designs from FASA, the Chandley has the worst maneuverability. The Miranda, the Enterprise and the other frigates (Babcock excluded) would fly circles around it. Maybe not the Brenton. But, as I said, of the good designs.

DookeyKing · « **Reply #30 on:** February 01, 2004, 09:26:03 am »

OK, maneuvering at sub light speeds is what we are talking about here. Warp engines have nothing to do with sublight propulsion. With the impulse drive being located along the x axis, IMO, it would be more difficult to turn a ship(the Thurfir class comes to mind) that is narrow and long, yet still has the impulse drive on the saucer section. The Chandley's impulse drive is fairy close to the rear and the great part of the ship mass is realtivley close to the x axis. I would expect the Chandley to outmaneuver the Thurfir pretty easily. And regardless of what Star Trek canon says, the idea of FTL combat is idiotic. Assuming you weapons are FTL( and come on , that's just stupid), targeting a vessel travel 10 times the speed of light at ranges of 100,000 km is pretty improbable. Just my 2 cents.

Scott

Dizzy · « **Reply #31 on:** February 01, 2004, 12:23:29 pm »

Thats why I'm saying its all ridiculous.

Since the connie ships have the impulse in the back of the saucer, when they lite it up, it would pitch down. The impulse isnt located in the center of mass. The warp pylons would rip off trying to change directions... An object in motion continues in motion unless an outside force acts upon it. So the Connie could just travel in a straight line... spin on her axes and fire in all directions.

Slowing down would require her to face the opposite direction she came in and fire an amount of thrust equal to her acceleration in order to stop. Changing directions would be physically impossible du to the fragility of the ship design. Even starting and stopping would put too much stress on it.

Only ship imo that can handle real would physics of impulse combat would be the Paladin class DN's from SFC and the Gorn ships from FASA. They have relatively straightforward designs and look as if they could handle the stresses involved in changing directions and speed.

Its all very silly, really. Star Trek was never big on real world anuthing. Its a fantasy. And most of the ships were designed by form, not function. Form follows function in everything in the real world, but not in ST. Sorry. It's all eye candy.

Khaliban · « **Reply #32 on:** February 01, 2004, 03:03:37 pm »

It's not preposterous. It's logic and physics. Form may have come first, but there's no reason function can't be derived from it. Form does affect maneuverbility. The Sydney class could outmaneuver the Galaxy class even though it was 75 years older. We can't know the purpose of engine placement if we don't know the exact mechanism of the engines. We can't know if the warp engines would get ripped away if we don't know the stress load of the pylons. We can say some ships move one way and some move another and the only difference we can see is mass and design. If those had no effect, the Enterprise would move like a Bird of Prey. It doesn't. The only thing left is moment of inertia, how fast one shape turns relative to another. Star Trek may be science fiction, but it is not immune from physics. I see nothing wrong with extending the verisimiltude of the universe by beefing up the logic behind some of the ships. I looked at the Chandley with apparantly the only unbiased eye on this board and made a comment about it's design. I have no ulterior motive. I have no desire to a favorite ship made better than a less liked ship. I interpreted it's design in the only way that makes sense.

Were the ships originally eye-candy? Yes. Did they need to make sense? No. Does that mean they can't make sense? No. I see nothing wrong with wanting to bring the ship into a more logical perspective.

The Chandley could not not turn as well as the Enterprise, the Miranda, the Loknar, the Baker, the Northampton or most of the other ships in that book. No plea to the gods of warp bubbles or fantasy universes will change that. Putting the Chandley into combat against a Loknar is like throwing a B-2 against an F-15. I'm sorry if your favorite FASA ship is not as good as the game claims. But that's not my fault.

For the record, among the FASA Federation designs, the Chandley is my favorite. I still wouldn't take it into combat.

Mariner · « **Reply #33 on:** February 01, 2004, 03:37:29 pm »

I kind of agree, now that I look at the schematic. Those side pseudo hulls would probably rip off by the looks of it...

It would make more sense it those hulls stretched up more toward the front of the saucer, so they could have a better "grip" on the hull so to speak. The pylons could also be lowered and bent in a little, more like a BoP. The would give it a more compact profile, and less distance for the warp plasma to travel to get to the nacelles (faster 0-.99c acceleration). Oh, fixing the stupid pylon conncetion to the pseudo hulls would be good too, as they look...strange

The way FASA shows it, the Chandley looks...bizzare yet classic. I'd personally like to see a version that would correct those issues. Thankfully, the FASA schematics are very poor, so we could accept the corrected look (unless you'd rather snap off your nacelles trying a HET

)

Anyone care to try THAT?

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #34 on:** February 01, 2004, 03:38:03 pm »

Well Khaliban that is YOUR opinion.

I still think the Chandley could out manuever your FDNH USS Odysseus (my FBB in OP).

To me the Chandley would be a heavy cruiser if it were included in a FASA Trek game made today made using today's uber-attention to detail that didn't seem to exist in the 1980s. Again, to me, this is no more ridiculous than what CANON Trek writers have done to certain ships (e.g., B'rel KVort, or even some spacestations). I believe if FASA Trek were made today the Chandley would be a FAR better ship than it currently is.

However, the great thing about SFC is we can tailor our game to our own personal tastes; I don't use any canon Trek warships in my game for instance.

It has been said before, Trek is really 'fairy tales in space' and I will concede on that point. Trek writers barely obey Trek CANON background material never mind the laws of physics [whoever's you chose to apply given the circumstances in question]. This discussion is about as silly as the one that took place over three years ago regarding why Taldren chose to paint its Klingon ships green in a TMP setting....

I love this ship and this community and I really am looking forward to this version of the Chandley whenever its released.

INFINITE DIVERSITY IN INFINITE COMBINATIONS

Now get back to showing us what's next off your assembly lines

Best wishes Khaliban.

KF

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #35 on:** February 01, 2004, 03:48:53 pm »

Well it looks like this will go on for a while... In the meantime, 2 more WIP (and yes that is a new mesh, made solely by me... a non modeller

)... Still have the pylons to do though......

Enjoy

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #36 on:** February 02, 2004, 01:42:24 pm »

Ok chaps... With the help of Khaliban (texture provide), here sre some more wip's... Now, I chucked the old mesh and started a new one as I wasn't happy with it. This new one sweeps better and has a kinder shape and is more like the original FASA three view (did I mention that THAT is terrible inaccurate!!!!

)... The texture has been applied fairly liberally but it gives an idea of what it should look like upon completion. I'm pretty happy with the basic mesh form so will begin detailing this evening....

Enjoy!!!

Mariner · « **Reply #37 on:** February 02, 2004, 03:11:54 pm »

Hmm, I'd suggest that you extend the pseudo hulls forward more, they still look fairly odd only grabbing onto the back half of the saucer like that. I think that the end of the hull near the impulse engine could probably be less curvy, doesn't look right.

The pylons and pylon connections look fantastic though. Niice job otherwise.

How big will the file be, andd will you make lods for it or no? (PLEASE say no, as I HATE lods, take up too much filespace

)

Dizzy · « **Reply #39 on:** February 02, 2004, 04:13:54 pm »

I wouldnt mind the warpo engineos being a little closer together and shorter. Perhaps just a tad. Perhaps to accomplish this, make redo the pylons... make them a tad shorter? Relocate them closer together underneath the hull?

What I'm saying is that these models are for use in SFC, right? I mean we arnt here to use them as wallpapers or anything. They are combat models to be used in the sfc combat engine. So having a really wide ship will make the ship smaller than it needs be in the game. The model size restriction is the enemy.

However, doing so shouldnt alter the look or feel of the ship. I dunno, can it be done w/o making the ship look too different? Or maybe I am smoking something?

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #40 on:** February 09, 2004, 01:09:37 pm »

Ok, here we go with a mesh I'm happy with... It's built from scratch and is accurate as far as part of the Chandley "blueprints" go... As you will see, it's a great improvement over my previous effort.... I still need to do the pylons and throw some real textures on it but here it is with Khalibans saucer dropped in (ie impulse engine not adjusted and still carrying "1701-A" registry)

Enjoy...

Dizzy · « **Reply #41 on:** February 09, 2004, 01:19:42 pm »

It looks good. You want feedback or something? I have a cpl nit picky things...

Kaenyne · « **Reply #42 on:** February 09, 2004, 01:21:51 pm »

Looking very good there, sir!

And she is a vast improvement over the last incarnation.

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #43 on:** February 09, 2004, 01:55:34 pm »

ok... pick nits... there's no guarantee I'll listen...

besides which, this is the first one I've actually made....

Dizzy · « **Reply #44 on:** February 09, 2004, 02:40:17 pm »

Ok, the nit picks...

The blue mesh... lets call that the engineering section. I dont see how the aft section merges with the impulse engines in a way that works or looks good. Clear up that area where they meet so the impulse engines stand out more/clearer.

The cut outs you have in the R/L Pods (Bulky curved hull structures on either side of the hull) for the shuttlebay and the docking port are superb. But on the front of the pods, you have one torpedo tube per side. It looks whimpy. Increase the torp bays per side to two tubes each. We can always say since the photon bays are split, compared to a Connie, that one tube is used for only one torpedo, unlike the connie which uses 2x tubes for all 4... It would greatly improve the look. I have seen poor ass attempts at making a torp bay. And for a heavy weapon like the photon, nothing less than spectacular will do. Make em stand out. The recessed area you have sets them apart from the pod hull, and thats great. Now enlarge it and add another right next to it on @ side.

oNE LAST THING ABOUT THE pHOTON TUBES.. oops caps. it looks like they are on the saucer plane. If so, the saucer will block the shot. can the tubes be moved outward and down farther perhaps? Hell, don't be afraid to stray a bit from canon... That is after all a FASA model... If need be for the photon tubes, add a reliant class weapons pod roll bar underneath the engineering section attacked to the underside of the 2x pods. An upside down reliant weapons pod would look dan cool.

Underneath, to complete the look of the saucer and the engineering section... I'd blend the blue painted area on the bottom of the saucer into a raised mesh superstructure that rises up to meet the underside of the front engineering section.

In other words, stick on the connie neck pylon to the aft secondary hull, and chop off whatever sticks below the aft Blue mesh engineering section. That would look really pretty...

So far, this is the best looking mesh I have seen. Wtg.

Dizzy · « **Reply #46 on:** February 09, 2004, 03:58:37 pm »

Well, you are off to a splendid start.

As far as those front pod mounted 'docking collars' that I thgought were photon hardpoints... They are deceiving.

hehe.

If I understand you correctly, they are docking collars... they suck.

You dont need docking collars on the front. Just the back. Beside, thats too cramped an area with it recessed and all. I dont like it. Just a nit pick. On the plus side, having something there does break up a large piece of flat mesh...

You mentioned the photon tubes being mounted under the impulse... Good place, just dont make em look whimpy. Go for a strong look like the Connie at least. I have seen some that are added as an after thought rather than looking like they belong there and as a result... they suck. With your model looking so 'right' so far, I expect them to 'look' like they belong.

Your model is spoiling me... I expect to see soemthing other than a simple texture stuck to the back of a flat mesh... hehe.

You also mentioned the other FA tubes being mounted singularly on the warp pylon or above it? I think that will be an interesting look. Gotta stand out tho. We need to be able to see the photon tubes from a distance. Caution with the Pylons. The Chandley is a beast of a ship to look at. Its like a bully compared to other fed ships. But sometimes when you add the pylons and warp engines, it breaks the look. Makes em sissy looking. Fragile. Whimpy. Make it good, DestinyCalling!

So far i like... The Chandley, or those that have been done, I think I have 2x versions of the Northhampton as well, are almost beens. Er rather they were almost there enough in textures and mesh for me to put them in the game and use em as models. Almost been good enough. Yours looks good enough. So far.

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #47 on:** February 09, 2004, 04:17:37 pm »

Looking good DestinyCalling!

Stay your course with what you are doing.

This will be my favorite Chandley if these WIP are any indication of the quality of the work you are putting into this.

Qapla!

KF

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #48 on:** February 09, 2004, 08:46:15 pm »

Ok, last thing before I retire for the day.... The mesh is 99.9% there, just a couple of tweaks around where the pylons connect to the aux hull... Then a lick'o'paint and we're off......

Enjoy!!!

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #50 on:** February 10, 2004, 09:54:08 pm »

No Klingon booms yet but the aux hull mesh is now complete so I shall begin on the textures, which are likely to take me a while. Like all FASA designs the Chandley's plans were hoplessly inadequate. Clearly, very little thought was put into HOW it actually fits together.. Anyway more on that later...

Two more WIPs of the completed mesh and bits....

Enjoy!!

Chrystoff · « **Reply #52 on:** February 10, 2004, 10:44:50 pm »

My God, that's a good looking ship! Just keep doing what you are doing. The FASA Chandley plans are inadequate, which of course allows you all kinds of room to do whatever the heck you want to do. Who's to say what is suppoed to go where? Keep going, it looks terrific!

Dizzy · « **Reply #53 on:** February 10, 2004, 11:57:29 pm »

I agree with KF. The forward facing torps look whimpy.

If you could make em like they belonged there instead of it looking like they were glued on haphazardly...

The rest of the model is absolutely breath taking. Again, the best looking mesh I have so far seen... Perhaps thats a bit too high a praise? It might be the sweeping good looks and curvature of the Chandley that grabs me. Possibly the blue and purple colors... I dunno.

But its looking damn sweet. Glad you figured out how it's 'pieced' together. It didnt come with instructions, did it?

Fix those ugly forward torps!

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #54 on:** February 11, 2004, 07:51:26 am »

Ok a quick mockup of a possible moving of photorps... I sort of wanted them here anyway. These are a little rushed but you get the idea.....

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #55 on:** February 11, 2004, 11:24:59 am »

Now that is an interesting idea for the location of the forward torps!

I really like them embedded in the hull wherever they end up.

Its going to take me awhile to get used to the idea of a protruding forward torpedo tube though if you are going to keep them that way...

KF

Lord Schtupp · « **Reply #56 on:** February 11, 2004, 12:15:30 pm »

Lookin real good

Dizzy · « **Reply #57 on:** February 11, 2004, 12:25:19 pm »

That's interesting. I like the idea, but it still doesn't go....

I'd like to see it go there. Thats a cool idea, but I think you need to add a bit of superstructure to that part of the hull... to make it look like you didnt just stick that launcher on.

Kinda like making a slight bulge in it or something...

Right now, its too close to the warp pylon.

It sll looks good... but that torp looks to be troublesome. Doesnt it?

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #58 on:** February 11, 2004, 01:28:04 pm »

Ok this is the final word on where they are going. On the "standard" Chandley I've stuck them under the primary hull (see pic). They have a clear line of fire and oddly enough are back where they were originally. Future variants (Blackhawk, Blackheart and Monsoon) may have a different arrangment but for now they stay there. Oh, and I've ironed out a couple of creases on the underside of the hull which I'd previously missed.

Maybe now I should start the textures....

Dizzy · « **Reply #61 on:** February 11, 2004, 02:52:19 pm »

Or a mesh indentation around the torp?

Hey, i always thought the reliant engines were a bit smaller, perhaps because of the way the some of the models are scaled in the game. My bad. Didnt know.

EDIT: Oh and TVL, the reason you couldnt see pics 15-19 was because of the naked teen porn pics Desting painted on the hull... LOL, he wont be able to read this post either... hehe.

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #62 on:** February 11, 2004, 02:56:33 pm »

In answer to you both (Vampire and Dizzy) there will be a clear demarcation on the hull texturing with the grid going around the photorps (same with the docking collars). As for warp nacelles, standard Connie ones minus the "control reactor" from underneath. I may use some or your F-CAD textures Dizzy on one of the variants but for now I need to map out some textures. I think this mesh has been tweaked sufficiently now unless there any further suggestions. I plan to release a "stock" Chandley plus a variant or two with a different texture/model configurations. Any ideas for ship names??? Aside from Blackhawk, Monson, Blackheart and possibly Fife...

Dizzy · « **Reply #63 on:** February 11, 2004, 03:11:23 pm »

You out do yourself Destiny.

Ok... names... How about the 'Destiny'?

DookeyKing · « **Reply #64 on:** February 12, 2004, 11:05:22 am »

Wow man!! You've really risen to the challenge on this one. This is the first Chandley model I've liked. WTG!!

Scott

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #65 on:** February 12, 2004, 06:49:41 pm »

What? Its not released YET?

BUMP

LOL

KF

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #66 on:** February 12, 2004, 06:56:52 pm »

Hey I work slow... BUT now that I've finished faffing around with where to put stuff I can get going with the texturing.. Three more WIPs to keep on with. Firstly I have decided to change the rear photorp arrangment into two single launchers and not the twin one I had before, this was because realistically there's insufficient space in that area of the ship for a twin launcher what with engineering and so on. Second, I have added a section underneath the saucer to give it a more "supported" look and installed a VLS (which is useless in the game but a good idea anyway).... Again since this area is largely a mystery I have interpretted it the way I think it would be...

Enjoy!!

Dizzy · « **Reply #67 on:** February 12, 2004, 10:53:15 pm »

WAY cool. Nice rejob on the rea photon tubes. Very "dont mess with me" look. Likes it.

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #68 on:** February 13, 2004, 04:28:53 pm »

BUMP for news

KF

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #69 on:** February 16, 2004, 01:04:33 pm »

BUMP

Shall we send a rescue party or is this the USS Blackheart mysteriously MIA.....

"On Stardate 2/2005, one of the most decorated frigates in Star Fleet, the USS Blackheart (NCC 2327), was reported missing while patrolling the Rimward Sector. A search was made, but all that was found was a communications buoy apparently discharged by the Blackheart. This buoy had only the partial message "...small object paralleling our course...no response on hailing freq..." The remainder of the tape was garbled, and portions had been intentionally erased. Star Fleet has no more information on the fate of the ship or its crew. The Blackheart is most remembered for the large black hearts painted on each of its lower wing assemblies; such painting is typical of Chandley Class ships, making them easily distinguished on visual scan. The practice is thought to keep the crew's pride in their vessel at a peak."

Qapla!

KF

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #70 on:** February 16, 2004, 03:42:38 pm »

I've started doing the textures but no new WIP's yet... Maybe tomorrow... I think I'm waiting to see if anyone considers this project worthy enough to throw some stars at it....

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #71 on:** February 18, 2004, 07:32:02 pm »

BUMP

This is a 5 star post to me

KF

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #72 on:** February 18, 2004, 07:48:55 pm »

oooh some stars... cool... Not much further to report. All the textures are mapped out on the aux hull and I even found somewhere to put the "Space-Energy Field Attraction Sensors" though I opted for two and not the three seen on Connies and Mirandas due to the rather non scientific mission profile of the Chandley.... Still in two minds about fitting WADE deflectors on the leading edge of the primary hull though... No new pics today but I may (stress MAY) have this finished by next week...

Considering how slow I work it doesn't seem prudent announcing further projects but I may do an "X Technology" upgrade release plus I have considered releasing the class vessel (USS Chandley) kitted out "Phase II" style... Just a thought mind you...

Bernard Guignard · « **Reply #73 on:** February 20, 2004, 04:46:04 am »

Great work Destinycalling looking forward to seeing the final results.

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #74 on:** February 21, 2004, 11:33:24 am »

BUMP

Any news? Terradyne has a Klingon destroyer I want to play this against, LOL.

KF

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #75 on:** February 23, 2004, 10:29:04 am »

Ok, yet another quick update... Basic texture mapping is done so I will start on the details which (hopefully) shouldn't take too long... The WIPs here are to give a general idea of eventual appearence, which is a polite way of saying that I'm aware of photorp surround. That said, the pylons and lower engineering (between pylon supports) are as they'll be... probably. I haven't yet done the lower primary hull or assigned textures to the "Space Sensor doofers" but that will be done in time... PLUS, Isn't odd how smoothing groups change from day to day......

I told you I worked slow....

Another update mid-week and I'm working toward a weekend release (woo-hoo)...

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #76 on:** February 23, 2004, 11:35:57 am »

Oh, any suggestions on pennant placement???

Chrystoff · « **Reply #77 on:** February 23, 2004, 11:38:34 am »

Can't...stop...drooling...

yeaterk · « **Reply #78 on:** February 23, 2004, 03:17:40 pm »

all i can say is WOW!!, i all ways loved that ship, cant wait to take it out for a spin.

Chrystoff · « **Reply #79 on:** February 23, 2004, 03:43:42 pm »

"Many Klingons & Rommies will know what it's like to be roasted in the depths of the Chandley on that day, I can tell you."
Don't know why that popped into my head just now...

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #80 on:** February 23, 2004, 04:38:51 pm »

BUMP.

Looking good!

Time to start a new thread, lol.

KF

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #81 on:** February 23, 2004, 07:55:19 pm »

good call......

Timetraveler · « **Reply #82 on:** February 24, 2004, 12:19:28 am »

I like what your doing to the ship. I can see that your addming more detail to the ship. Not to bust your bubble on it. But I've already made this ship about less than a year ago. Just lost intrest in the SFC games because there is still no Offical patch for SFC III. Was looking at making it work with SFC III too. Works fine with EAW and OP. It just depends what you want for weapons on it. For moving hardpoints around for the game on the ship for the effects on were the "weapons fire" is going off the ship.

Here is a pic on the ship. If anyone is interested in using it in game let me know on the fourms here or put up a request for it and I'll set it up for a download link.

Oh don't forget to corner off the saucer section near the impulse engines. The saucer was never a complete circle. There was sections that were chopped. Due to the troops training rooms and bunks. That I read some were on that of the aft end of the ship near the impulse engines. Just a tip for your detail your adding to your ship for this class. Have fun.

Just wish I could get in the Star Trek grove again. But so bumbed on no offical SFC III patch and no updated that are really telling us Trekky gamers on some real news that we can sink are teeth in. Even though I keep seeing that Taldren is still working on the patch. But for waiting this long for the offical patch has just made me look else were for gameing. If there was a way to put Star Trek ships in Homeworlds 1 or 2 would be an awsome trekky game. Sorta wonder if us gamers could take Ativision to court for the damages they have done to this game in general to us gamers for holding up a patch because of there silly rules they have of only one patch for a game that is released under there logo. When you think on this that change the thought to like the old arcade games. Like Pac Man. They keep making new styles of the game all the time and it still sells very well on the market. Ativision griping about the low turn out on Star Trek shows and movies hurt there sales. Like come on. Pushing Taldren to have the game done before it was really done in the first place was just way off key if you ask me. Just because the movie was coming out that corrasponded with the game to be both out on the same release date. What was Activision thinking. Even to include that I'd think there would be more missions in SFC III for online and the dnya that would have gave it a much bigger boost if they were given the time to really complete the game as it was on the drawing board in the first place. It just makes me feel that somone was out to just make a quick buck on us gamers and run off and for us to feel like suckers in all of this mess. Just not right at all. (Hope this section is not out of line on the fourms? To add how I feel.)

Anyway I"ve worked on many other ships but havn't really made them public. Sorry folks.

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #83 on:** February 24, 2004, 04:39:21 am »

No worries, bubble isn't burst... This model is about where I started a few weeks ago.. The main criticism at the time was that the auxilliary hull is no where near as detailed as the rest of Khaliban bits used (see the first page of this long thread)... This prompted me to complete remake the aux hull and pylons (the progress of which can be seen).... Not sure what you mean by "squared off" and I found that keeping the aux hull where it was was leaving it too far forward... So I moved it back

Anthony_Scott · « **Reply #84 on:** February 24, 2004, 09:39:25 am »

Hey Timetraveler....go ahead and put download link for your Chandley so that I can burn it to cd..that way we can have it available for the community...and for that matter, why not let us see some of your others too.

Semper Fi, Carry On

Timetraveler · « **Reply #86 on:** February 24, 2004, 06:21:36 pm »

You can go here to get the U.S.S. Chandley that I constructed for EAW and OP on the link I put in this post reply here. Enjoy! When I have more time for putting other ships that I have built organized for a download for the public, I'll do my best to accomadate request for the future. (LINK>>> Balance Of Wisdom <<<LINK)

Anthony_Scott · « **Reply #87 on:** February 25, 2004, 09:42:26 am »

Thanks very much! Let us know when you post your other models so that I can add them to my repository too!

Semper Fi, Carry On

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #89 on:** February 27, 2004, 04:17:21 pm »

BUMP for news

KF

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #90 on:** February 27, 2004, 09:07:03 pm »

Very nice. I just DL'd it and it's a great looking model. Thanks.

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #92 on:** March 02, 2004, 09:43:36 pm »

Never having been a chap prone to working quickly or in fact on time, I'm looking at a weekend release for the first of my Chandleys... While I'm here I'll post a couple of WIP's... Hope you all think this is going ok.....

Enjoy!!!!!

Dizzy · « **Reply #93 on:** March 02, 2004, 10:01:23 pm »

wow!

Captain Ron · « **Reply #95 on:** March 03, 2004, 07:44:22 am »

You know i always thought that was an ugly design, but the textures and work here are simply beautiful.

yeaterk · « **Reply #96 on:** March 03, 2004, 02:12:24 pm »

nice i love it great work

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #97 on:** March 03, 2004, 03:58:45 pm »

DROOL!

I dare you to make a FASA Klingon D-10 as equally gorgeous!

Qapla!

KF

Dizzy · « **Reply #98 on:** March 03, 2004, 04:49:15 pm »

The attention to detail is nuts on this model... Freaking eye candy.

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #99 on:** March 03, 2004, 05:55:00 pm »

I thank you all for your positive comments.... Most appreciated.

As for when, well I'm going to try and get this out for the weekend (this weekend) and the model released will be the first but not the last... I need to still trim some polys off and then hardpoint it (should be fun!!!!) after that it needs a game test but that should be pretty straight forward...

As I have gleaned to KF I am planning (though whether everything gets done or not is another thing) to release 4 or 5 variants across 7 or 8 different starships... Though some might argue that thats a lot of Chandleys they do make a nice alternative to the Miranda for Light Cruiser duties.... Varying degrees of alteration will be present and with some it may be no more than a spot of "vessel individuality".. Anyway more on that later...

Enjoy!!

Dizzy · « **Reply #100 on:** March 03, 2004, 06:19:57 pm »

Since you are going about the business of hardpointing... you mind doing a favorite fan request?

Take a standard stock taldren planet mesh and add a hardpoint along the planets equator outside the mesh itself.

This will allow me to put a weapon there and see if it fires from that point instead of the planets poles, which is where they are now, I believe. Point defense weapons like ADD, Plasma D and Ph3's wont fire because they are out oif range. So drones simply smack into the planet unimpeded.

If this hardpoint can be added externally to the mesh, and I hear rumors that it has been done with other models, although probably accidently, it will solve a GREAT many things SFC wise.

Please!!! Would ya huh, huh? Of course after you are done releasing the Chandley this weekend...

If you havent tried hardpointing b4, practice on the planet 1st! I can test it out... if you do it.

PUHLEASE!!!! With sugar?

Diz

Anthony_Scott · « **Reply #101 on:** March 08, 2004, 10:09:43 am »

Bump...this also belongs on page UNO!

Semper Fi, Carry On

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #102 on:** March 08, 2004, 12:51:36 pm »

A slight problem with my ISP updating it's servers over the weekend has prevented me from uploading anything. Good news is it doesn't crash the game and it's now hardpointed though as of yet I have no break model (offers to help are appreciated)...

More news to follow in due course...

Dizzy · « **Reply #103 on:** March 10, 2004, 04:15:20 am »

No break model? ::GASP::

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #104 on:** March 10, 2004, 12:45:25 pm »

Well I have made one but it doesn't break.. all the bits are seperate but they dont want to fly apart... i may be missing something really obvious.... Any suggestions

UPDATE..... THE SHIP FLIES and looks really cool in game (if I do say so myself) but I'm still unable to upload this to my homepage. Hopefully this will be sorted today. The break model still doesn't break though.

Dizzy · « **Reply #105 on:** March 10, 2004, 06:34:08 pm »

I'm in no hurry. Just hurry up, ok?

I dunno who can help with break mods, other than I'm an expert in showing other players what theirs looks like. Muhahahaha!

News:

Topic: Chandley retex/remodel...updated!!!! (Read 10508 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

DestinyCalling

Klingon Fanatic

Khaliban

DestinyCalling

DestinyCalling

Marauth

DestinyCalling

Anthony_Scott

Core

Khaliban

Bernard Guignard

Klingon Fanatic

DestinyCalling

Bernard Guignard

Khaliban

Klingon Fanatic

Khaliban

Marauth

Dizzy

Dizzy

DestinyCalling

Klingon Fanatic

Khaliban

Dizzy

Klingon Fanatic

Khaliban

Captain Ron

Klingon Fanatic

Khaliban

Dizzy

DookeyKing

Dizzy

Khaliban

Mariner

Klingon Fanatic

DestinyCalling

DestinyCalling

Mariner

DestinyCalling

Dizzy

DestinyCalling

Dizzy

Kaenyne

DestinyCalling

Dizzy

DestinyCalling

Dizzy

Klingon Fanatic

DestinyCalling

Dizzy

DestinyCalling

Klingon Fanatic

Chrystoff

Dizzy

DestinyCalling

Klingon Fanatic

Lord Schtupp

Dizzy

DestinyCalling

Dizzy

Marauth

Dizzy

DestinyCalling

Dizzy

DookeyKing

Klingon Fanatic

DestinyCalling

Dizzy

Klingon Fanatic

Klingon Fanatic

DestinyCalling

Klingon Fanatic

DestinyCalling

Bernard Guignard

Topic: Chandley retex/remodel...updated!!!! (Read 10508 times)