Dynaverse.net
Taldrenites => Starfleet Command Models => Topic started by: ModelsPlease on December 20, 2005, 04:34:15 pm
-
Ok here we go. I figure to give everyone a voice I'd start a poll about this idea.
MISSOURI CLASS BB
(http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~klingonacademy/forum/images/site/ships/fed020.jpg)
The Missouri class Battleship is one of the best classes of ships in the Federation. It has a very strong set of shields backed up by a strong hull and large amount of weaponry. An interesting fact about its hull design is that it appears to be a hybrid of an Oberth class ship and with a Miranda class saucer section (both sections enlarged of course). This design has allowed the Missouri to carry an unusually large amount of torpedo tubes (five) and still have enough space to mount an assault phaser on the lower pod's spine and have enough spare power for one QCB. The power drain of all of these weapons means that the Missouri class ships have a large set of fusion reactors, separate from the impulse reactor system, which constantly supply power to the main grid during battle. This means that, whenever the a Missouri class ship enters battle, it will definitely have enough power to charge all of its weapons. But unfortunately, it has an almost pathetic top speed (compared to other Federation ships) and a low maneuverability. It has three warp nacelles mounted, directly it seems, on the hull of the ship. This is a great testament to the ship’s strength because warp nacelles are put on pylons for a reason: so that when they warp space they don’t accidentally tear the ship that they are on apart.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/galaxy70637/cj-designtraitpic.gif)
SPECS:
Length: 793 meters
Mass: 2,150,000 metric tonnes
Crew: 1,100
Marines: 90
Maximum Impuse: 1,140 kellicams per second
Hull Rating: 9.4
Shield Rating: 198.3
Maneuverability Rating: .24/.06 1,300
WEAPONS:
Fore: 6 phasers, 6 photons, Quantum Carrier Beam
Aft: 5 phasers, 4 photons
Port/Starboard: 4 phasers each
This is what we have to start with, question is ......Where do we go with it, if anywhere ? Imput please folks ;D
-MP
-
The Missouri is not a carrier .. it's a BB
-
Seriously: Since when are Trek ships generally plausable enough a design, let alone one from the specific time frame it comes from? We have the NX-01, a 24th Century-lookin' 22nd-century Starship. The Constitution-class that has quite the thin neck for a saucer like that and probably wouldn't realistically hold on tight. We have a Voyager-esque shuttlecraft goin' at Transwarp speeds mutating people in 'em into reptiles. We have a class of starship where you can put torpedo launchers everywhere and it looks like performance hasn't changed a bit aside from an implausable weapons upgrade in order to face the super-fanboy ship in our last Star Trek movie...
So I wouldn't fret over the design of the Missouri-class. I'd say leave it as is and maybe make a model of it if you want. Tinker around for variants, maybe. But it's your call, you decide what you want, Ol'.
-
I think it'd be interesting to see what could be done with the KA Missouri's basic layout...
-
So far looks like the original ship just updated is winning.
-
Ok here's a first attempt WIP ...........
-
why is it latelly im finding tmp era ships likeable ROFL usually i like just tng but these latest designs the missouri and yamato im totally loving them awesome work modelsplease cant wait to see the complete version
-
Ok did 2 more nacelles varients to look at ....................
-
I like the nacelle configuration on the right the best !
-
Personally, I'd go with the X-form nacelle configuration. I just think that it fots the design better.
Also, not to nitpick, but the 'necks' look a little thin. ON the Oberth, the engineering hull is automated and only accessed in spacedock- but on this monster, it's goign to have to be manned. Unless those guys are going to beam to their battlestations, well, I think the necks would need to be a bit thicker.
Right now, they look like they'd snap the first time the ship tried a turn.
-
make it into two models then
have the one on the right from this one
(http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=163363178.0;id=6191;image)
and keep this one also
(http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=163363178.0;id=6192;image)
-
They all have a certain FASA quality about them which isn't working for me personally. And I'd have to agree with J. Carney about the "necks"--this is a battleship, f'cryin' out loud, it should be built like one. :)
-
They all have a certain FASA quality about them which isn't working for me personally. And I'd have to agree with J. Carney about the "necks"--this is a battleship, f'cryin' out loud, it should be built like one. :)
I guess thanks would be in order if you think it has a FASA quality to it because it wasn't intentional at all. FASA and SFB don't even come to my mind when I designed this one. I just looked th the original and thought...'how do I beef this ship up without getting ubber stupid with the design ?' and 'what makes sense?'. "what can I do without straying too far from the original design ?' . Like I stated earlier, I'm just throwing out ideas here, and am gladd it's getting a varied response. I'll beeef up the 'necks and post a new wip shortly ;). Personally I would like to see GAFY? retexture the original model. ;)
-
the only critique I would make might to be to change the angles of those areas that are "swept" back. They just seem a bid odd. ( Yeah .. I know .. a bit pickey). Take a look at it and see what ya think.
thanks
-
WIP Update. I thinkened the supports as everyone requested..............
-
Ooops almost forgot, do we really wanna go with the x-wing nac formation ? Or does it stray to far from the original configuration ? I'm going to make one more WIP with 3 nacelles and we'll see what the popular opinion is after that. BTW all the previously posted versions are ready to go, one we get the final tally I'll get the selected one(s) off to texture ;).
-MP
-
id keep the 2 nacelle and 4 nacelle config and keep it at that 3 nacelles dont look right
-
Ok she's ready to be towed to paint. So as soon as I can she'll be leaving OutaLance Shipyards and be towed to her temporary home at Starbase 777 for completion. ;)
-
I like the quad-nacelle config with the X, not inline. - Perhps a 4-nacelle config with two off the saucer ala Mars might be neat too.
-
Hey Fury are you going to be doing any bashing soon. I'm still wondering about the Excelsior bash I had asked ya about ways back.
-MP
-
Honestly, i have no idea, mate.
Im really burnt out on Trek, on 3d stuff in general,... on Computers in general,....... on Life in general...
-
any estimated Stardate when this ship will leave her drydock ?
-
any estimated Stardate when this ship will leave her drydock ?
Yeah as soon as I can find it :P. I put it in a folder and don't remember which one so I have about 200 to go through.
-
Success I found it !!!!!!!!! Ok I'll transfer it to AV as soon as I see him and then it'll be on to Buzz for textures ;D.
-
Message received .. I'll be looking for AV this weekend.
-
Catch me on MSN I'll be on most of the night
-
:o ;D
Looks like an Andor photorp cruiser on steroids!
Me likes, although finding a parking space might be slightly difficult! :P :D
Semper Fi, Carry On
-
The two nacelles look better......... cleaner.
Four is too busy.
Looking very good regardless. :thumbsup:
-
The Missouri has been transfered to Antivyrus. The 2 nacelle version, the X style 4 nacelle version and a X style 4 nacelle varient with an added drone missile silo container. Ol'Buzzard should have it soon for final textures.
-MP
-
Sugoi*kicks Translator* sorry about that went offline, Awesome cant wait :) loving these latest TMP designs, that reminds me why did TMP look so more futuristic interior wise than TNG/Voy and Ds9 or is it just me lol