Dynaverse.net
Taldrenites => Starfleet Command Models => Topic started by: Scottish Andy on February 05, 2007, 09:54:32 pm
-
Hi all, welcome to Baby's First Quality Kitbash. Many thanks go out to the people who contributed to my 'Advice for a Beginning Modeller' thread and made this possible, and I'm certainly looking forward to hearing the reviews on this one. MP will I'm sure be perfectly relieved that I'll stop pestering and nitpicking! ;)
Hopefully I'll soon be able to bash as well as well as you do, MP!
Extra special thanks go to LC Amaral for making such beautiful ships in the first place.
Clyde Fleet Shipyards
USS Yorktown NCC-61137
Zodiac class cruiser.
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac-13s.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac-11s.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac-09s.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac-08s.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac-03s.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac-02s.jpg)
Owner/Operator: United Federation of Planets/Starfleet.
Type: General purpose cruiser.
Availability: Widespread. In service from 2347
Production Run: 2347-2367
The Zodiac-class can trace its design lineage all the way back to the Baton Rouge-class ships of the 2220s, through the Belknap class of the 2270s, and the Renaissance class of the 2300s. Her design replacement in the stables of Starfleet has already been introduced in the form of the Intrepid-class light cruiser of the 2370s, enshrining the viability of this design lineage and securing its place in t he annals of Starfleet history.
The Zodiac-class cruiser was developed in parallel with the New Orleans-class heavy frigate, with both classes entering service beside one another in 2347. While the New Orleans was a frigate built into a cruiser hullform and as such proved itself to be a very capable and somewhat versatile long-range escort vessel, the Zodiac class was imagined from the outset to be a general purpose cruiser and as such she was to include cargo bays, VIP quarters, vastly expanded (over the New Orleans class) scientific facilities, more comfortable crew quarters and recreational facilities, and other such equipment that would not be found in the design for the tactically-oriented New Orleans class.
From the outset it was decided to link the two projects together in the same manner as the Avenger-class heavy frigate and the Miranda-class light cruiser of the 2270s, and to simplify hull construction many of the same elements were used in both classes. The planned engineering hull and warp engines of the New Orleans was deemed entirely suitable for the proposed Zodiac class, but the small saucer section planned for the New Orleans class was obviously too small for the extensive facilities that the Zodiac class’ fleet role necessitated. It was decided to utilise the same main section design as was used for the failed Niagara class of large exploratory cruisers, as the vastly greater internal volume of that ship’s saucer section provided plenty of space for the scope of the Zodiac-class’ missions, as well as room for any foreseen future upgrades in equipment. It was also decided not to upgrade the Niagara class saucer design with full arc phaser strips as the Zodiac class’ role was not as primarily defensive as the New Orleans was. The time and resources this saved in reworking the saucer section allowed the rapid progress from design to prototyping stage and allowed the class to enter production a full year earlier than projected.
With this greater mass and the vastly different warpfield profile that the larger saucer resulted in, simulations showed that the most efficient position for the nacelles would be located more centrally to the ship’s centre of balance. The optimal position was decided as close in and level with the engineering hull, and the shortened nacelle pylons rendered the Zodiac class every bit as manoeuvrable as her smaller companion.
With this positioning of the warp nacelles, the phaser strips on the lower aft saucer surface were removed as the engines blocked off the majority of their arc. An array was fitted amidships to the underside of the engineering hull, larger than on the New Orleans class, to compensate.
This class has proven so successful that it enjoyed a twenty-year production run, unbroken in only two shipyards but when the need for a reliable cruiser design to fill out Fleet support roles was needed, as many as ten shipyards were involved in construction of this class. Over one hundred of these solidly-performing cruisers were built, and notable ships include the USS Leo NCC-59583 and USS Emerald NCC-61274, both lost at the Battle of Wolf 359, the USS Capricorn NCC-59617 and USS Gemini NCC-61051, both lost in the unsuccessful attempt to hold Starbase 310 against superior Dominion forces in January 2374, and the USS Yorktown NCC-61137.
Statistics
Length: 375m
Beam: 310m
Height: 76.5m
Armament
Phasers: Nine (9) Type-IX arrays giving 720 degree arc;
Torpedoes: One (1) forward and one (1) rear Type 70 photon tubes; Firing rate: 2 per second; Burst fire: 4 simultaneously
--------------------
Kitbasher: Scottish Andy
Minor Retexturing: Scottish Andy
Scale: Scottish Andy
Hardpoints & Damage Points: Scottish Andy
Models & Textures used: LC Amaral’s New Orleans class, LC Amaral’s Niagara class, Rick Knox’ (a.k.a. Pnuemonic81 or p81) Nebula class
Build time: 9 hours (7 on Sunday, 2 today)
Additional retexturing and HP/DP mapping & testing: 4 hours
-
Excellent work for a first timer! Truly superb, your Scottish engineers would be awfully proud of you.
When are you going to release it?
Semper Fi, Carry On
-
This certainly good enough that I'm asking for the download link! :thumbsup:
-
The bridge area looks way too big for the ship, also I would get permission from LC Amaral since you used his ships, prior to a release.
-
Very nice design. A good "inbetween" class of the Intrepid to Galaxy Class. Actually, now that I think of it, is this ship smaller then an Intrepid? 350 meters is about the same length. Was the Interpid actually a replacement to this class per say?
Does it have a photon launcher? I can't seem to see one in the pics.
-
Good job! It looks very clean and uniform.
-
Thanks for the replies, Guys!
Anthony, I hope my shipbuilding ancestors/heritage is proud of me, because I'm certainly proud of this ship. ;)
E_Look (& others): I made this ship primarily for my own gratification. I hadn't really thought of releasing her for general download--or, at least until I'd managed to figure out how to properly hard-point and damage-point her, but MP and Warrior are right that I need LC Amaral's permission before releasing her. Like I said, I'll ask him/her when I feel she's ready to leave spacedock. ;D
MP, the bridge area is exactly the same size relative to the saucer as on LC Amaral's Niagara-class ship, which is itself based off of the Niagara class reconstruction (http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/niagara.htm) at Ex Astris Scientia. I found that Amaral's ship was scaled way too small compared to the stock SFC Constitution, so I upsized her to be approximately the dimensions I quoted, which are based on measurements from a meticulous composite image of hull pieces of known dimensions.
Here's a comparison pic:
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac-Constitution comparison.JPG)
Here's a pic of the original bridge structure for the Niagara: (http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Niagara-Top & Side.jpg)
Basically, MP, the bridge is exactly the size it should be. :D
Magnum, this ship has the same photon tubes as the New Orleans class; that is, the same tubes that were on the stretched and down-scaled Galaxy-class engineering hull she was originally bashed from. Here is her forward tube:
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac Fwd Tube.JPG)
Here is her aft tube:
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac Aft Tube.JPG)
As to the Intrepid class being a replacement for her, that is a good supposition but I kinda feel that the capabilities of the Intrepid class (relatively speaking) are far in advance of the Zodiac. I see the Zodiac as the "real" TNG equivalent of the Miranda class--that is, in mission role and capabilities, not because her hull components are arranged in a similar way a la Constitution & Miranda!
My Zodiac is a general purpose cruiser with enough weaponry to take care of herself, but with enough hull space to hold a bunch of labs, rec decs, cargo bays, etc. with Fleet duties like patrol, colony resupply, outpost defence in low threat areas, ambassadorial transport, etc. I see the Intrepid class as more of a Light Explorer--an incredibly capable ship in a small package. My Zodiac is 375m long, the Intrepid is 344m long.
Warrior and ISM, thanks for your critique! It's good to know she looks that good, that... sound. The saucer looks that way because it was custom-made piece for a destroyed ship at the Battle of Wolf 359. As I said to MP, the saucer is unchanged in shape from Amaral's original Niagara class, so if there is something wrong with the saucer I'm not skilled enough to fix it! I am proud of my textures, though. I have Photoshop 7 so I'm able to touch up the bitmaps without ruining them. When (if) I finally release her, I can add in any name and registry you want for her. Zodiac class, so think astrology or constellations! :D
I myself am leary of the "Heavy Cruiser" designation as well. I've only called her that because a LUG Trek play guide--'The Price of Freedom: United Federation of Planets Sourcebook', which itself included the 'LUG Trek Spacedock Supplement'--called her a "heavy", despite there being no canon details on the ship at all.
I was thinking that in light of the New Orleans being a frigate and both these ships being launched a good 10 years before the much larger Galaxy and Nebula classes that this ship would qualify as a heavy cruiser, but then I remembered this morning that the Ambassador class is referred to as a heavy cruiser and she's a good 526m long. So, I'll drop the "Heavy" in the original post and make her a "Cruiser".
Again, many thanks for the comments. It warms my heart to see she's been so well received. :D
Now, would anyone care to instruct me on the manipulation of HP/DPs using Milkshape?
-
Very nice looking model, Andy. And I see her in the same role as the Intrepid-class as well : It always seemed to be that the Intrepid was designed as a catch-all ship, too, hence her varied capabilities. There really wouldn't be much of a distinction between a 'light explorer' as you call her and a general-purpose cruiser, since explorers (in the parlance of the material you got the term from) are by definition general-purpose ships.
-
Thanks for the explanation Scotish Andy. I think I agree with many of your points about it being the "Miranda" or Light Crusier/Destroyer (which ever you prefer) and built during the same time period as the Galaxy Class was constructed. I know many people think the Nebula's are suppose to be this, but I have always figured that the Nebulas are such Massive vessels that they really are more of a Cheaper and easier way to construct a Galaxy then as a Lighter vessel counterpart (if you really want to call them "lighter" lol). This Zodiac class seems smaller then a Galaxy, so in the combat role I would imagine them being between a Destroyer and Crusier (Galaxy Class being a Heavy Crusier to Dreadnaunght in my opinion).
-
Okay, thanks to ISM and Rod O'Neal I managed to make my own hardpoints for this ship, and add in the proper damage points to the "skeleton". I also added in a texture for a shuttlebay in the standard TNG position at the lower aft end of the bridge superstructure.
The hardpoints are mapped to the Excelsior-class UI due to me wanting seperate phaser emplacements for each saucer array.
I now consider the ship ready for release, and I'm now seeking LC Amaral's permission to release her. However, the email address that came with his ships is dead. Anyone know how to get in touch with him?
-
Any news on gaining LC Amaral's permission, FW?
-
Not bad, Andy, especially for a first attempt. I really like the textures... very clean and smooth, with good detail.
-
Nice work! I've done a bit of modeling and animation in 3D Studio Max, but never built a federation starship.
I think she's a bit large for a cruiser - my opinion. Though, she doesn't seem to fit the Battlecruiser or Dreadnaught class simply due to her weaponry. Though, size wise, I think that's about where she sits. Perhaps a Light Dreadnaught or Auxiary Dreadnaught? Pocket Battleship??? :huh:
Hmmm... There's always the Super Heavy Cruiser. But these are usually outfitted like a dreadnaught on a heavy cruiser hull.
Super Light Cruiser... :o nope
Meta Cruiser! :D
Ah heck! Well, she's a fine bit of work there anyway.
Po~
<Mike>
-
Thanks, Kieran & Po, for your kind comments. :thumbsup:
Po, this little ship actually is a "little ship"--at least by TNG standards. I've recently recalculated her dimensions exactly based on my own resizing & rearranging of LC Amaral's gorgeous New Orleans and Niagara class models, but even so, she's still 392.3m long, 84.4m high, and 364.5m wide. She's shorter than the Prometheus class, about the same height, and of course (with her TNG as opposed to VOY design) her saucer is a lot wider. Coming into service in 2347, there is no way on God's Green Earth that Starfleet or any other major power would consider her anything other than a cruiser, and a pretty average-sized one at that. Are you calling her a DN because you're thinking she's a Constitution contemporary?
In other news, I had to reduce the New Orleans' components by about 7% and increase the Niagara saucer by about 18%, according to Ex Astris Scientia's latest dimensions. This has the effect of making her look a bit out of proportion so I'm not sure I want to have her released like this. Maybe I'll stick to the original 480m length for the Niagara as opposed to the new calculation of 565m. I'll include some new screenshots of the re-proportioned version and you lot can tell me which one you prefer.
-
Excellent! Thank you, FW. I really appreciate your efforts, especially as you seem so busy yourself. +1 for you.
You, ah, wouldn't happen to know his current email address, would you? The one that came with his models is out of commission, which is why I was asking how to reach him in the first place. I didn't realise that he was a D.net member so I've tried IMing him, but since I've yet to see him post anything in the forums I watch, I don't know if he currently uses D.net.
Sorry to be a pest.
-
That'd be a yes. I'm not familiar with the length/width - or with the class she was built from :( Sorry 'bout that.
I do think that you have the weapons about right though. Seems like she would do well as a CA. Perhaps, because of her configuration she could be considered an Auxilary Cruiser? The Kzintis had a well built Medium Cruiser in SFB - she hed 27 warp power while the other war cruisers had 24. This was corrected sometime in the early to mid nineties (I think).
You've already done a great deal of research and work. She's your creation. I'm sure you wouldn't lead us astray ;)
Yorktown: CA
Po~
<Mike>
-
FW and Andy, how about BC port? I need a quickie I can mess with now that I have a working system again.
-
Hi All,
Sorry about the long delay... got back into my writing, and got an X-Box. I no longer have any free time. :D
Anyway, LC Amaral has given me permission to release my Zodiac, so here she is, available for DL at the location below:
http://www.starbase23.net/F-CA (Zodiac).zip
Below are some comparison pics, the first pic being of the first ship, the second similar pic being of the rescaled-saucer ship. Both versions are included in the download, so you can have which ever one you want;
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac I-02.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac II-02.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac I-03.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac II-03.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac I-06.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac II-06.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac I-07.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac II-07.jpg)
Below are some more pics showing the increased size of the saucer vis-a-vis the engineering hull.
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac II-11.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac II-12.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac II-13.jpg)
(http://www.starbase23.net/cgi-bin/Zodiac II-14.jpg)
MP, if you want her up at Battleclinic, you may place her there. Her revised "about me" blurb is in the accompanying Readme file.
Starforce, I can do a BC port (apparently) in Milkshape, as I see the format. However, the port itself will take a bit longer, as I now have to register my Milkshape and pay for it--unless someone knows a good cracker program?
Please let me know what you version you think looks better, either the original, or the resized saucer version. Either way, please enjoy playing her!
-
the second one has too much saucer IMHO. As for the port, tell me the size and I can do it in 5 minutes.
-
I also prefer the smaller saucer.
-
Okay, that's what I thought the general opinion would be, as it mirrors my own. I too prefer the smaller saucer. As I mentioned earlier on, the larger size comes from a re-calculation of the size of the Niagara-class saucer section by Ex Astris Scientia, which pushed the Niagara's size from 480m long to 565m long.
Starforce, the sizes for my two ship versions are...
Original
Length: 375m
Beam: 310m
Height: 76.5m
Rescaled
Length: 392.3m
Beam: 364.5m
Height: 84.4m
FW, that is how I have her in my own shiplist for comparison: the original is the CL, the new version is the CL+. However, that was just for comparison screenshots. The (fairly) established length for the Niagara is 480m, not 565m, so since it's all conjectural anyway, I'm sticking with the smaller saucer for a far more balanced-looking ship. In actual practice, refitting a ship with a saucer that is exactly the same shape and just 18% bigger in all dimensions strikes me as a little silly. :D
-
Interesting design, looks like to be a cross between an ambassador class and a galaxy =) Very nifty looking.
-
Thanks, Punisher. :D
-
you know you could have used the 2 notches on either side of the deflector dish as torpedo tubes rather than putting it in the same spot as the galaxy. ever though of that?
-
you know you could have used the 2 notches on either side of the deflector dish as torpedo tubes rather than putting it in the same spot as the galaxy. ever though of that?
I think I may have, Starforce, although it flitted very nebulously though my head and then fell out. My reasoning for only two torpedo tubes is that the much larger and more capable Galaxy class of 10 years later only has two tubes as well. Additionally, each of those tubes could rapid-fire and burst-fire torpedoes (check the stats I give for this in my initial post), so then-current Starfleet/Federation thinking had stated that a single tube in each arc was all that was necessary.
Also, I have the same Engineering Hull on my Zodiac as is used on the New Orleans-class heavy frigate, ostensibly "for ease of production". That hull has a single forward and single aft tube.
I'm going for those notches being "engineering sensors" like the three "blocks" surrounding the Constitution's Navigational Deflector.