Final Render - Colony Ship
-
Bryan,
I've been following these. Great SF scene. I think a couple scout ships near the bays might help to give it's (huge) scale.
Peter
-
Shuttles on final approach.
Last image to show scale.
-
Thanks Liam and Peter.
I will do a close-up of a shuttle near the hanger after this post. You really can't even see them from this range as the ship is so large, but there is one in the shot if you know where to look.
There is also one in this post as well. It's between the engines. Like I said, this ship is huge.
-
Schematic poster
-
great images Bryan!!! congrats
-
-
I have a question about your ship (nice work, by the way), and a lot of other "space" ships I've seen here on the forums.
I'm assuming your ship was built in space, and given it's size I assume it is intended to operate only in space and never enter a planet's atmosphere. If that's the case, why did they go to trouble of making it aerodynamic? Other than just aesthetics. If it's never going to encounter air resistance, it could be any shape (the Borg had it right, just a big cube).
Same question about the trusty Enterprise. It was never meant to enter an atmosphere or land on a planet (the few times it tried didn't work out so well), yet it was sleek and aerodynamic. Why?
This is just something that bugs me, thought I would get it off my chest.
i'll go away now
-
@hellnbak said:
I have a question about your ship (nice work, by the way), and a lot of other "space" ships I've seen here on the forums.
I'm assuming your ship was built in space, and given it's size I assume it is intended to operate only in space and never enter a planet's atmosphere. If that's the case, why did they go to trouble of making it aerodynamic? Other than just aesthetics. If it's never going to encounter air resistance, it could be any shape (the Borg had it right, just a big cube).
Same question about the trusty Enterprise. It was never meant to enter an atmosphere or land on a planet (the few times it tried didn't work out so well), yet it was sleek and aerodynamic. Why?
This is just something that bugs me, thought I would get it off my chest.
i'll go away now
Linear and maneuvering stresses. It's not that it's aerodynamic, but structurally stronger. Curves are stronger than straight lines and distribute load stresses far better.
This particular shape also centers the mass, making it more controllable. In space, velocity of mass stresses the structure. Structural balance is the most important design consideration of moving craft. Even more so in space.
-
Oh, and you have to realize that ship is a mile long and the center slots walls are 250ft tall. Basically a 25 story tall building.
Not very aerodynamic.
-
@bryan k said:
Oh, and you have to realize that ship is a mile long and the center slots walls are 250ft tall. Basically a 25 story tall building.
Not very aerodynamic.
The scale throws everyone off.
Yeah, it's BEEG!
-
@bryan k said:
Linear and maneuvering stresses. It's not that it's aerodynamic, but structurally stronger. Curves are stronger than straight lines and distribute load stresses far better.
This particular shape also centers the mass, making it more controllable. In space, velocity of mass stresses the structure. Structural balance is the most important design consideration of moving craft. Even more so in space.
So wouldn't a round shape accomplish all that? Perfectly balanced, one big curve, and the most compact shape possible.
-
@hellnbak said:
@bryan k said:
Linear and maneuvering stresses. It's not that it's aerodynamic, but structurally stronger. Curves are stronger than straight lines and distribute load stresses far better.
This particular shape also centers the mass, making it more controllable. In space, velocity of mass stresses the structure. Structural balance is the most important design consideration of moving craft. Even more so in space.
So wouldn't a round shape accomplish all that? Perfectly balanced, one big curve, and the most compact shape possible.
This is the common thought, but round shapes have been proven to deform. The arrow shape is far more structurally balanced for acceleration/deceleration.
-
But didn't the ships of the future all have some kind of "inertial damping" or something that kept everything from stressing when sudden changes in course/speed were made? Wouldn't that take care of the problems you mention? And what about the force fields they could generate around the ship?
-
@hellnbak said:
But didn't the ships of the future all have some kind of "inertial damping" or something that kept everything from stressing when sudden changes in course/speed were made? Wouldn't that take care of the problems you mention? And what about the force fields they could generate around the ship?
Sure, but they would be more efficient if the shape is good to begin with.
And what if they fail?
-
You're just not going to let me win this argument, are you?
-
@hellnbak said:
You're just not going to let me win this argument, are you?
Honestly, the beauty of sc fi is that it's open to interpretation.
Spaceships can look like whatever you want. I just chose this design. The next one will probably look very different.
-
@bryan k said:
@hellnbak said:
You're just not going to let me win this argument, are you?
Honestly, the beauty of sc fi is that it's open to interpretation.
Spaceships can look like whatever you want. I just chose this design. The next one will probably look very different.
I know.
I'm just not happy unless I'm annoying someone
-
Now let's write a movie to go with it and build it in 3D Animation?
-
@krisidious said:
Now let's write a movie to go with it and build it in 3D Animation?
Simple SketchUp animation.
-
Not quite star wars but you're on your way.
Advertisement