Topic: X Ships Project....

[Starforce2]

there's an sto ship that has that type of boxy nacelle, I thought that was the direction you were going.
http://startrekonline.com/gallery?page=4&op0=&filter0=1

Not sure if that would work, otherwise screenshots page 5 bottom left corner.

[Centurus]

Na, never saw that before.  Not too keen on the nacelles.

[atheorhaven]

Personally, I like the nacelles better than I like the back archy section.. exactly what purpose would an arch like that serve?  Besides none and artist vision or whatever.. the implied ingame purpose is what I'm curious about.

Only thing I can think of is that two of these ships join together in a MVAM manuever to become a warp-capable McDonalds...

[Starforce2]

you've just created starship porn.

[Centurus]

Personally, I like the nacelles better than I like the back archy section.. exactly what purpose would an arch like that serve?  Besides none and artist vision or whatever.. the implied ingame purpose is what I'm curious about.

Only thing I can think of is that two of these ships join together in a MVAM manuever to become a warp-capable McDonalds...

If that's the case, I hope they're making better burgers in the 25th century. 

[atheorhaven]

Well, I suspect that meal worm burgers would be easier to make when you can raise the biomass in zero-g. 

[atheorhaven]

you've just created starship porn.

Hey, where do you think shuttles come from? 

[Centurus]

Ok, before you start thinking to yourself, "Oh here we go again, another thread resurrection", keep in mind, threads deader than this have been brought back to the front page.  :-D

Anyway, I did some more work on the warp nacelle.  I'm trying to come up with different variants of the nacelle so that the X ships don't all have the same looking engine.

Here's some updated pics...

[Centurus]

Ok, since I haven't had a chance to do much with the ship since I last posted an update, I thought I would at least post some images of what the XCA looks like.  For the most part, the XCA itself is finished.  However, seeing the ship with engines, I think I might reduce the thickness of the engines, since they look a bit too fat to me.

[FoaS_XC]

I'm inclined to agree. I would say about half to 2/3s that thickness

[Starfox1701]

I don't know. She is about the size of a Coni right? If so the engines would be about the right size since they are supose to be big and overpowered right.

[Centurus]

Starfox: Her size is supposed to be between a Connie and an Excelsior.  I have to redo the torpedo tubes on the ship.  They're too big for the ship. 

FoaS:  I was thinking the same thing, roughly around 2/3 the thickness.

[Centurus]

Finished the DN and BB nacelles.  I know they don't look any different.  I didn't bother with any fancy lighting, but maybe you can make out the differences.

[Centurus]

Ok, some renders of the DN with her engines.  Note, I haven't resized the engines.  I intend to do that when all modeling is done.

[Starfox1701]

As a Cruiser the design works but as a Dread it just doesn't look beefy enough. Engines are good but the Rest of the ship needs to be bulked up around them.

[Centurus]

It's not always about size when it comes to dreads.  The Federation Class is considered a dread, even though she's no bigger than a Constitution.  Her two primary engines are lowered in elevation, and she has an additional warp engine mounted at the top of a thicker neck.

[FoaS_XC]

Well, the Tos FDN has a longer secondary hull and a thicker saucer. Size isn't always about length.

[Centurus]

Very true, but I don't think the dread version of the ship needs to be beefier in anyway. 

[FoaS_XC]

I feel like it needs to be different - if only slightly. SFB-itis aka: Kitbash-Syndrome is not a good thing most of the time.

[Starfox1701]

Think about the practical side too. You have all the extra Equipment and crew of a Dread. Ths stuff has to go somewhere. The renforced hull segments to hold up that 3rd engine have to have room too. A true Dread is more then a 3rd engine and 4 extra phaser banks.