Topic: Even Santa needs a new Sleigh... (Read 6408 times)

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #20 on:** January 08, 2008, 12:55:35 pm »

the mesh is looking good!
you might want to reposition the secondary hull a bit as it is actually a bit off centre in my pics

Antivyrus · « **Reply #21 on:** January 08, 2008, 07:21:31 pm »

Quote from: Atolm-Rising on January 08, 2008, 12:55:35 pm

you might want to reposition the secondary hull a bit as it is actually a bit off centre in my pics

You wouldn't happen to have a top view available would you?

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #22 on:** January 08, 2008, 07:33:53 pm »

I can make one available...

Major A Payne · « **Reply #23 on:** January 09, 2008, 02:37:59 am »

Looks wicked. Very different from the norm.

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #24 on:** January 09, 2008, 01:36:24 pm »

Antivyrus · « **Reply #25 on:** January 19, 2008, 10:22:02 pm »

NO the ship has not been forgotten lol
just had a lot on my plate heres what I got so far and I believe its about finished mesh wise

Dizzy · « **Reply #26 on:** January 19, 2008, 10:23:42 pm »

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #27 on:** January 20, 2008, 07:55:33 am »

I'll double that mate.
looking sweet(glad that top view helped out some)

Antivyrus · « **Reply #28 on:** February 24, 2008, 11:15:36 pm »

Wow! I found this one on page 3.

Anyway, just to give an update, I got the carrier mapped and I'm working on the paint job currently.
Hopefully I'll have some updated pics soon.

Antivyrus · « **Reply #29 on:** February 25, 2008, 10:30:25 pm »

Atolm

I was wondering if you had a particular registry in mind for the carrier and if so what might it be.

Thanks

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #30 on:** February 27, 2008, 08:17:00 am »

Hmmmm...you might want to opt something in the 1800's or 1900's at most...I also don't have a class or name for her, maybe the guys here can help me out with that...
I was thinking something Russian, German, or Japanese from WW2 carriers as a class name though...

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #31 on:** February 27, 2008, 09:20:13 am »

lol...no no

Antivyrus · « **Reply #32 on:** February 27, 2008, 09:20:42 pm »

My personal choice for the carrier name:

Hiryu ("Flying Dragon")

Built by Yokosuka Navy Yard. Laid down 8 July 1936, launched 16 Nov 1937, completed 5 July 1939.
Participated in the Sino-Japanese war, Pearl Harbor raid, Indian Ocean raids in 1942. Bombed by US aircraft at Midway 4 June 1942; munitions and fuel exploded on the flight deck and hangar deck, leading to uncontrollable fires; ship was scuttled 5 June 1942.

Displacement: 21,900 tons full load
Dimensions: 731.5 x 73 x 25.5 feet/223 x 22.25 x 7.8 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 746 x 88.5 x 25.5 feet/227.4 x 27 x 7.8 meters
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 8 boilers, 4 shafts, 153,000 shp, 34.3 knots
Crew: 1101
Armor: 3.5-5.9 inch belt, 1-2.2 inch deck
Armament: 6 dual 5/40 DP, 31 25 mm AA
Aircraft: 64 (73 maximum)

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #33 on:** February 28, 2008, 09:44:00 am »

That's Cool
Go for that

you can even use the completed date of 1939 as the reg

Scottish Andy · « **Reply #34 on:** February 29, 2008, 10:40:57 am »

I like the design of this ship as it is indeed not a cookie cuter Fed ship. She looks really pretty in your sketches.

Edit: removed all my previous comments after another look and it making more sense. I have since decided I totally agree with Dizzy when he says:

Quote

I totally love this idea. It reminds me of the Navy Carriers with the Angled Fight Deck. What I see that this design needs is a very large on one side fighter bay and door structure to warrant such an unusual side pylon config. I think the offset bridge command structure is the way to go too. One thing that always irked me about fed carriers was that many of them had bay doors that opened right up into either impulse exhaust or warp pylons. This design would solve all that. Brilliant. Why no one thought of something like this before, I dunno. Brilliant.

This is a very well thought out piece of kit! That'll teach me to look more closely next time. Excellent work as always, Atolm!

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #35 on:** March 01, 2008, 07:12:52 am »

NP, some designs don't hit you right away, and need to be seen in 3d to "get it" fully/properly.
That's why a say a schematic can look bad, but the ship can look sweet in reality. The inverse is also true of the schematic looking sweet, but in reality, it will look generic or bland.
Very few times do both the schematic and the actual, actually look sweet.

News: