Topic: Chandley retex/remodel...updated!!!! (Read 9459 times)

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...

Klingon Fanatic · « **Reply #21 on:** January 31, 2004, 03:25:40 pm »

Quote:

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...

The FASA Chandley and Miranda [Reliant] Class size comparison are as follows:

Miranda 233m long x 140m wide x 64m high weight between 161,000 - 169,600 tons

Chandley 315m long x 262m wide x 90m high weight between 173,300-177,500 tons

The Chandley is Bigger, LOL. FASA Weight listings are kind of wacked at times though especially when compared to actual naval vessels that fall within the same physical dimensions (i .e., LxWxH)

Thanks for the WIP update DestinyCalling.

Qapla!

KF

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?

News:

Topic: Chandley retex/remodel...updated!!!! (Read 9459 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

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

Topic: Chandley retex/remodel...updated!!!! (Read 9459 times)