/strek/ - Star Trek

First for best.

>>9819

I like the basic design, but its always violated visual canon for a warp-capable ship. It has no warp nacelles, and yet is warp capable. The farengi designs are aberrant for this reason, also. Being that close to active warp coils is supposed to be deadly.

These compact designs (as well as warp-capable shuttles) should have retractable nacelles. The Defiant class ships look like they're supposed to, but we never see it on screen to my knowledge. Even the Cochran's warp rocket had pop-out nacelles. The tight, integrated design looks zoomy but it also looks like a lot of other generic sci-fi spaceships.

>>9823

The BoP has its warpnacelle inside its central body, where its better protected but most likely also less efficient.

It could also be something to do with the size of the ship, since larger klingon ships, D7's and Vor'cha's for example, all have the nacelles on the wingtips.

>>9825

yeah i'm pretty sure the original conception was that the nacelles had to be external, in pairs, and with line-of-sight with one another. That established the design canon and by following it we get a distinctly 'trek' look. My big issue is that once we start deviating, things will devolve to a "generic sci-fi spaceship" look under the guise of giving writers and artists more freedom.

As much as I like the Bird of Prey design, they goofed by not integrating the nacelles into the wings as flat nacelles, imho. They'ld look cool as fuck with lighted cutouts in the outline of the "feathers". Warp-capable shuttles, on the other hand, were just a dumb idea from the beginning. The only warp-capable tiny ship should have been maybe the Captain's Yacht / "aero shuttle" which is supposed to be whats at the center of the underside of the top-of-the-line Starfleet ships. This would have required retractable nacelles like the Defiant should have, though.

Honestly, though, a tiny warp ship is probably a huge redundancy of resources unless your ship is some kind of carrier or true flagship that is meant to be a mobile starbase. It's easier just to canonically limit warp drive to large ships (hence the name, "starship").

>>9852

nope. the borg cube, doomsday machine, and cystalline entity as well as other "exotic" vessels could plausibly rely on unknown/non-established technology to travel at warp speeds. They aren't the issue.

The BoP was my initial point. It (as well as ships like Defiant) are designs inconsistent with what was established by Roddenberry and Jeffries for TOS. You can blame the knuckleheads at ILM and Leonard Nemoy himself for the invalid Klingon BoP design. I'm just going off the original Word of God.

Known ship designs (Starfleet, Klingon, Vulcan, Romulan, etc.) which lack the paired nacelle/pylon/ramscoop configuration are inconsistent with the original concept for warp-capable starships. The fact that whoever says its canon because it aired that way is handwaving a writing/production error.

Now consider that this element is but one small fraction of the Star Trek mythos and prepare to weep at the sad clusterfuck that is Star Trek canon. Pic related. One sympathizes.

>>9854

It was canon when TOS first aired. It was then subsequently disregarded countless times after.

>>9856

Good point about the Vulcan ships.

We know the Doomsday machine certainly moved only at speeds compatible with the enterprise. If it was some completely different way it got FTL speed, what are the chances it would be the same speeds as a warp drive?

Borg aswell, may have transwarp crap and whatnot, but they can also move like they have regular warpdrives.

And we have a lot of examples of ships with warpdrives that don't have the external nacelles.

Clearly the external nacelles are not the only way to make a warpdrive. They are just the way the federation prefers.

"All work crews report to station."

>>9853

There was meant to be at least 3 canon ones I believe. The B'rel is sort of a Scout/Raider, small with a lot of bang for your buck it actually is insanely scary how powerful these vessels are when you think about them Next is the K'vort which is a Heavy Cruiser version which for all purposes is just an oversized B'rel with fixed wings. There is supposedly a Battleship version of them as well which is even larger than the K'vort but have no idea what it is called.

Also

>All this autism about warp nacelles and canon

I like it

>>9863

> what are the chances it would be the same speeds as a warp drive?

>Borg aswell, may have transwarp crap and whatnot, but they can also move like they have regular warpdrives

I don't think we were supposed to know what made the Borg vessels go… and we were better off for it. Provided that the rules for the Borg are established early and honored consistently, I think most fans can roll with it without having to know the details. However, problems arise when the writers start springing new rules on us for plot expediency or worse yet, simply ignore prior canon.

I like the middle ground established by Roddenberry and Jeffries early in TOS, where they sort of give guidelines and orienting generalizations (mostly aesthetic-focused) but stop short of trying to over-explain or rationalize. Seems like they knew they weren't creating hard sci-fi. But, those initial aesthetic guidelines masquerading as technical background are priceless because they create a design language. That chart you posted shows some cool later designs, but many of them lack distinction. They just scream "generic sci-fi spaceship". I blame the weak state of Star Trek canon.

Excelsior looked comfy as fuck.

>>9930 - clarification

If you could clarify the canon rules about warp nacelles it would help, I don't know whether it would apply or not. I guess the warp on a runabout is roughly equal to the warp on Kirk's Enterprise. Is it conceiveable it was pared down to smaller engines by that time? To their credit, it does appear as though runabouts had two external nacelles of some kind.

As comfiness goes, runabouts and Enterprise-D shuttles always struck me as objectively the comfiest. They're reasonably safe for deep space flight, just stick it into auto-pilot and listen to some Klingon opera. I would probably look into having it retrofitted with a holosuite of some sort. Not a lot of room, but as the simulation doesn't appear to be confined by the size of the holosuite I don't know whether there's a minimal space requirement to the holo-chamber itself aside from accommodating the subjects, or the size of the "generator." Gotta be careful about losing touch with reality I suppose. I mean if you have a warp-shuttle on auto-pilot on a long-haul path running off a dilithium crystal, sitting inside a sufficiently complex holo-sim, then there's some perma-neet risk; or being easily overtaken by pirates or hostiles; or catching bacterial infection from the accumulation of fecal matter that the system can't adequately scrub out of your holo-closet.

If you guys are so anal about the runabout, what do you think of the Ferengi ship?

I decided to perform some autism and make a ship chart through the eras, in particular what each class designation was and what eras they were in service from. Sadly only Fed garbage scows at the moment.

Updated chart

>>11226

It's kind of weird. Early TNG era they are considered Cruisers and actually relatively weak for their size. Towards the end they begin getting called "Warships" and "Destroyers" along with a power boost. I'd chalk this up more to writers being retarded honestly.

Warbirds and Romulan ship designations in general are a bit of a pain in the ass since they and everyone else seems to refer to their ships as Warbirds.

Here's an updated chart and yes every ship you see here is actually considered canon.

>>11250

>what are you basing your classifications on?

Lore that's considered "canon" so mainly shit said in shows with some background tech manuals if there is a slight gap.

Anyway here is a new version of the chart, need a break before adding kitbash shit I just added the Keldon Class which might explain slightly the Galor being reduced to DD but my money is really on writers being retarded. Galor was pretty much a Cruiser all the way till the Keldon Class was introduced then from then on gets referred to a Warship then Destroyer.

Also fuck Romulans and their giant ship autism, I added /strek/ logo due to all that empty space.

I'm the anon who has been working on most of the banners lately. I've been slowly putting together a tribute to the Oberth class. Is the consensus that the Oberth should properly be considered a scout vessel? Not sure "science vessel" really means much.

fwiw, i always imagined the oberth as one of the oldest, longest serving spaceframes in starfleet (on account of the low hull numbers we've seen). The model from the movies and TNG would be the result of numerous refits, with the original design looking somewhat like pic related and being around during TOS. never researched it further, though.

>>11321

In some non-canon fluff that bottom section of the hull can be removed and replaced with other modules such as cargo pods or even become a tug for moving ship parts.

>>11326

yep. i've been doing a bit of research today and it looks more and more like the reason that the Oberth is such a ubiquitous, long-lived workhorse is that its basically the "big rig" of starships. The tiny saucer and nacelles sit atop a flat engineering section "plate" that's maybe 1 or 2 decks tall. on the underside of this are 3 hardpoints, 2 under each nacelles and 1 at the centerline. The 2 under the nacelles appear to be mandatory, but are indeed too thin and awkward to contain a turbolift. That's why on some Oberth variants you see a "neck" which is what the middle centerline hardpoint is for. It contains a turbolift shaft.

The hardpoints are what the modules attach to. The typical "pontoon" secondary hull (as seen on the Grissom in ST3 and most of TNG episodes) is probably unmanned (since no neck) and contains scanners, cargo, or other equipment for a "science" load-out. However, the types of modules could be anything.. which is really intriguing.

I could be off on some of my speculation and a lot of fan images and secondary source material deviate from this, but it could probably be consistent with everything we've seen on screen so far. It looks like the general idea is of a modular ship that really isn't meant to fit into any one category. So, i'm back to square one in terms of what to consider it. Cool ship, though. Criminally under-appreciated. I regret calling it the "faggot of starships" when i was younger and more foolish.

>>11274

well, i do appreciate your honesty. i can understanding wanting to stick with canon classifications, even appreciate it, but i still feel like the writers didn't know what to do about naval classifications of ships and things end up not making sense when we take the writers' direct wording. at least, i would encourage you to change "warbird" to something that makes sense in comparison to other ships (or, maybe call them "warbird" but put a comparable naval class in parenthesis after it).

making two versions seems like a good compromise if you feel you have the aut's for it.

>>11271

i forgot about that, Nebula is supposed to be configurable. CA or BC seems appropriate, depending on how a given ship is armed or configured.

i do know there are other ships similar to Nebula in structure (galaxy-type saucer with two very close nacelles), but i'm not sure how they differ in armament or role. i can't remember what they are offhand, does anyone know what i mean?

here's a cutaway of the oberth i found somewhere here. it seems indeed like a specialty ship that is configured for each mission, since it is mostly machinery and other parts that can be changed as needed.

as far as traditional naval ship classifications, it seems like Corvette could work. it doesn't really seem like a "blue water" type ship that would sail in a fleet, but it can probably be armed to be a useful warship in limited situations.

>>11337

thanks for the diagram. I don't buy those turboshafts running down the pylons, though. That's just someone trying to hang a lampshade on another of ILM's wacky Star Trek III designs. If we're going to do that, i'm way more partial to the idea of the secondary hull being entirely unmanned in the absence of a "neck" on Oberth class ships.

Don't get me wrong, I love the designs introduced in ST3, but they did a bad job of thinking them through and making sure they were plausible and fit into established canon.

>>11422

>Defiant class was "inspired" by borg and klingon designs, remember?

Defiant class was inspired by Rick Berman wanting zoomy, banking, "starships" for fighter battles in space, subverting the very essence of trek ship lore since it had always been about submarine warfare in space more than Star Wars-esque dogfighting. The entirety of Reliant vs. Enterprise hinged on "exploiting" the z-axis for fucks sake…

Beginning in late-TNG and kicking into high gear with that ill-begotten Defiant ship, we've been subjected to stupid-tier cartoon action "battle" scenes, with nothing suffering more than the Star Trek video game scene. "Exciting" space combat was a mistake.

>>11503

"zooming around" doesn't happen in space, anon… The maneuverability of shuttlecraft and shuttlepods in much of Star Trek is highly suspect as it is, but some of it is plausible with sophisticated thruster technology. That they started doing "dogfighting" with starships is just absurd, though.

The Defiant could have been an up-armored Oberth-class ship (inb4 enough with the Oberth), with flat "weapon decks" attached to the top and bottom centerline hardpoints on short standoffs, these decks also acting as armor protecting the main deck of the Oberth which (probably) contains its engineering section. It would have meant that the ship is relatively agile, but also vulnerable (but not as vulnerable as standard Oberth).

…but then you wouldn't have cheap and easy Action Scene with ExciteShip! I get that its possible to handwave the decisions made by the showrunners, but at some point your suspension of disbelief just breaks. I can accept forehead-of-the-week aliens and I can pretend that there is some logical reason why the bridge is this exposed bubble on the top of the hull with no front window, but zooming, banking, space fighter ships and fidget spinners in space, when you sold me on a slow, ponderous naval metaphor for years?

The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.

>>11508

I started a tribute banner for the Oberth that was meant to be ironic, because i thought the ship was lame. However, I wanted to know what the specific role/classification for the ship was, since it hasn't been consistent on screen. The more research I did, the more I came to admire the design and I realized that it indeed wasn't a faggot ship, just misunderstood and mishandled by the writers.

I am considering learning 3D modeling so I can include this under-utilized ship - in its true glory - in future Star Trek projects I may pursue.

>>11516

>just misunderstood and mishandled by the writers.

I feel that is par for the course with Trek. Speaking of which here is an updated version of the ship autism chart

Things I still need to do

>Tidy the chart up; split groups into Fed, Klingon, Cardassian and Romulan subsections

>Put ships in alphabetical order

>Make a non-retarded version with logical ship labels

I did discover a few things when making this. Chief of which is that the writers have no clue about consistency with ship designations. Next that the term "Warbird" is vaguely implied to be what Romulans call their "Battlecruisers" and the writers can't decide whether the Bajorans are using old Cardassian ship designs or if Cardassians are using captured Bajoran ships. Also the Federation label their "Battleships" as "Explorers" it seems as "Battleship" is not politically correct this also hilariously explains a lot about Voyager

>>11525

clever, but that doesn't really get us anywhere. "Cargo ship" implies a logistics vessel. Trucks - generally speaking - can pull lots of things besides stuff being moved from point-a to point-b. ICBM launchers are mounted to trucks. FBI mobile units (like the one outside your house) are pulled by trucks. Structures can be permanently, semi-permanently, or temporarily attached to a truck chassis.

a "truck ship" then might be one that is designed in a modular fashion to be an IRL kitbash. That's what i suspect the Oberth is. A Connie or Ambassador class might be an "all-purpose" vessel, whereas an Oberth is a "repurpose" vessel.

pic attached is the earlier image with background removed - a quad-nacelle oberth with no secondary hull - lean, fast, and short-range.

>>11529

>well, strictly speaking, anon…

this makes me tired

>but i get what you're saying

this makes me happy

>modular general purpose vessel

much better than "cargo ship", which we both agree is insufficient, despite the pedantry. I'm sure there is a simpler term for this type of platform, though.

Here is an Oberth with a massive secondary hull and larger nacelles. The only thing I take issue with is the apparent lack of "neck" for the turboshafts. I'm going to download some meshes and see if I cant do a mockup of what I have in mind.

>>11534

>It's not pedantic

dunno what had you miffed. i "goofed" in the sense that I assumed I would be understood despite using less-than-precise language… which was the entire point of the discussion and practically unavoidable since I didn't know what term to use, only how to describe it in more general terms until somebody offered something better, which "cargo ship" isn't despite being a pithy quip.. which i thought i acknowledged. Apologies if you took it as me picking on you.

Just so you understand, I'm not "claiming" anything other than general, generic terms - as technically accurate as they may be - aren't going to suffice in this case. Is anything that moves anything a "logistical" vehicle? Yes. That gets us nowhere, though. My neighbors RV is a truck, technically. It is also a logistical vehicle, technically. It is also a cargo carrier, technically. However, using those terms and only those terms, isn't helpful.

>You basically tried to claim oberth's aren't logistics vessels by claiming trucks aren't logistics vehicles, when that's exactly what trucks are.

I believe i implied that trucks can be more than mere logistics vehicles when "logistics vehicles" in this case is understood to mean a specialized vehicle which is meant to transport general cargo or parcels… which most people who aren't being pedantic take as a given. Of course, you knew that.

strek is probably only like 4 anons, if we're being honest. Is this meant to be revenge for some of my autism further back in the thread? You can share your pain with me, anon. Let's explore it together.

>>11539

your pain is no longer a secret pain. you've gained strength from the sharing!

>>11540

>tugs

yeah, i'm sure it could be used as a tug vessel, and referred to as such when rigged for that, but i need something more meta.

Just looking at some naval ship classifications and it looks like the generic term for American auxiliary ships is simply "AA", with the specific purpose like cargo, oiler or hospital ship being given another 2 or 3-letter designation. The first "A" in AA is probably for "auxiliary", but I dunno what the 2nd A denotes, except perhaps "armored" since that's what the A in CA (cruiser, armored) means.

Another anon mentioned "corvette", but i dunno if that designation fits since the ship may not necessarily be a warship. Auxvette?

Since Starfleet's mission is exploration and not primarily war, i'm a bit reluctant to classify the backbone of the science fleet as an "auxiliary" ship. I'll probably just have to invent something like "adaptive ship" or "modular vessel" as anon suggested.

I feel like Star Trek Armada is the only source of non-canon ships that have some thought at least put into their designs rather than being what normally happens with non-canon ships and that is to be simple kitbashes with no regards to aesthetics.

>>11553

post it if you find anything. i only recently went through all the cut scene videos but i havent actually played any Trek games in years. STO never appealed to me because it looked like a re-skinned generic MMO and ship handling was arcade-y. As usual, the most interesting Star Trek games are unlicensed projects from autists.

For now, I'm going with "corvette" or some variation of that for my modular Oberth-class re-imagining. Getting bogged-down in etymology at the moment. Later, I want to collect some assets from trekmeshes.ch and other sites and try to into 3D modeling next.

pic related is some shipfag with a similar idea, although giving each load-out a different named class implies that the ship isn't modular. Some of the designations like "destroyer" are suspect as well.

It's time to correct a grave injustice from both this thread and the previous ship thread. It astounds me that nobody has yet posted what is objectively the most aesthetic, most structurally sound, most well-thought-out ship ever to enter Star Trek canon.

I think everyone should take the time to appreciate Doug Drexler's masterpiece: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701-J)?direction=prev&oldid=2030185#Speculations

>>11832

>Two Human females observe as the Enterprise-J departs Spacedock.

>>11840

>>11853

ALL HAIL J

>>12014

>Why are you so obsessed with age of sail naval combat?

why are you here if you aren't?

>>11426

this is pretty good

>pic related

wew

>>12026

i just noticed that

this is a funlist

>>12048

>I never see anyone bitching about Orville's acrobatic ship fights not being trek like enough.

that's like complaining about unrealistic critical mortality statistics on MASH. I don't mean to shatter your suspension of disbelief, but The Orville is a comedy. A beloved comedy around these parts, but a comedy nonetheless. Anons tend to cut it some slack…

Despite a lot of obviously implausible and unscientific nuttery on Star Trek throughout the years, it's expected to adhere to it's own conventions, especially with the big stuff… like how ships generally work. You can fudge some of the relatively minor show details and most fans will roll with it (it's soft sci-fi, after all), but when you start arbitrarily changing the nature of major storyworld elements (like what starships should and shouldnt do) for whatever reason (usually dumb reasons), autists are going to reee.

One of those guiding principles from the very beginning is that starships are basically big, slow, boats in space. They aren't zoomy space fighters. I'm sorry Rick Berman. You fucked up.

>>12054

>Are space battles in Star Trek supposed to happen up close or far away?

further away than they appear on screen, but probably still not "realistic" distances. they're typically portrayed as absurdly close-up in sfx shots for dramatic and cinematographic reasons.

as for the flight stick, i have good news for you.

Anyone know why the writers had such a boner for the Akira Class?

>>12196

>>12572

>I am curious about drawfag.

I'm still here, but I've mostly been lurking the last couple months. October was a very busy month and I'm only just getting over the burn-out from that.

Reposting my most relevant stuff from the last thread, since the final update on U.S.S. Atalanta didn't get posted until the thread was past the bump limit.

>>12646

Probably the same reason that so many people like the Defiant- it's a very conventionally attractive design. There are a lot of Fed designs that look superior to the Akira (Nebula, Excelsior, Oberth, Classic and Refit Connie, off the top of my head), but they're more of an acquired taste. The Akira is cool, but it's cool in a very safe, predictable sort of way.

pic attached is a real Star Trek ship bullying and chasing-off two fake ships crewed by fools and shills. This one weird little cutie is feisty and full of energy with no time for jewish tricks. The fake ships basically went and committed suicide.

>>12646

same reason the studios demanded they wreck the Enterprise-D in Generations: so they could move forward with a new ship that looks "fast" and "zoomy" and "exciting" on wide screens and in promotional materials. I'm not a designfag, but as this anon >>12711 suggests with his dubs, most traditional Trek ships employ an ideosyncratic design language. They're not bad, but they're what you get when you start with a flying-saucer and a submarine and then add some other stuff and arrange it all to make it distinctive and fill-up a square tube-tv screen in the late 60's. TNG-era ships are a pretty radical take, but they're still an iteration and an evolution and the show went to great lengths to tie it all together with the Ambassador class design. The fact that the show was shot for the same 4:3 broadcast TV format probably meant that the original design ideas were safe for the time being.

Whatever the rationale, though, the original designs - started in TOS and (in my opinion) perfected in the original films - embody real Star Trek ships. They have a particularity and use a language that is iconic and easily-recognizable as well as being supported by decades of in-universe canon. They're supposed to function like boats or submarines and their looks should be suggestive of that. Excelsior-refit and Oberth "get it". These other fakers don't. They disrespect canon with every pulsing of their warp-cores.

You fuck with established canon at your peril. The aptly-named Defiant design is pretty much what you would get when studio-meddling meets design-by-irreverence-and-conventional-thinking. It's an okay and perfectly usable spaceship design for a show with exciting space-fighter battles. It's a bad for a Starfleet vessel in Star Trek, though. Akira and it's derivatives have no reason to exist. The saucer section in the original ships can separate. There's your exciting action sequence. In fact, a separated Oberth has a profile very similar to the Akira-derivatives and has the advantage of being fundamentally loyal to the show. All this late-TNG and after shit is mostly the product of people who either secretly hate the show, are narcissistic and need to "make their mark" on an existing franchise, or are just bored and probably have low IQ.

>>12831

I could get behind movable nacelles if it was justified with some buzzwords about how it continually adjusts position of the nacelles depending on warp speed and [insert pseudo-science here], but one position for impulse, other for warp seems like a stupid trade-off, considering that moving shit is bound to require more maintenance. Especially on an exploration vessel.

>nacelles that are too small for the size of the ship

Eh… I could accept the "we managed to increase effectiveness enough" argument. Especially if they bothered to do the moving nacelles properly.

>>12832

sure, it's obviously all plausible in a soft sci-fi show like Star Trek - big/small, moving/fixed. The Intrepid nacelles just seem particularly out-of-scale, thus compounding the problems I already have with post-Roddenberry starfleet designs and an all-around odd choice. Do they just move up and down for speed or do they retract as well? I don't remember. Retracting for re-entry would actually make me happy as a thoughtful consideration. The other movement is just Knight Rider Super-Pursuit Mode-tier gimmick though.

>that meme

kek

>>12835

I've never really seen the Voyager in space. What the fuck was the person who designed it thinking? It looks like someone blew a whales head way out of proportion.

>>12766 (Checked)

>Made any Cardassian Ships?

Not previously. Partly because I'm a Federation fag, and partly because Cardassian ships just have a generally weaker aesthetic than Fed ships. Today marks my first attempt. I'm not particularly happy with it, but I'm not sure what else I can do with it. With Fed ships, they've got a lot of distinctive surface details that can be easily adapted to a wide variety of hull configurations. With Cardies, it's kind of the other way around- the (admittedly really cool) distinctive hull shape is all they've got. When you get down to the specific details, it's all just generic "this is a filming model" boxes and rectangles. With my attempt here, I think I let way too much of my own design sensibilities bleed through into the detailing.

>>12826

>>12831

>>12835

>Intrepid Class

My biggest issues with the design are the tiny gimp nacelles with their pointless variable-geometry gimmick, and the overly dark color scheme. Otherwise, I actually like the overall shape of it. I think it wears the blended-hull look far better than the Sovereign Class, which always felt to me like a design that was just trying way too hard to look cool. The Sovereign looks to me more like a luxury liner or a yacht than the dedicated Borg-hunter that it's ostensibly meant to be.

>>12832

>that image

Saved.

>>12863

tbh i like it. looks kinda like cardie birb of prey

>>12856

>I've never really seen the Voyager in space. What the fuck was the person who designed it thinking? It looks like someone blew a whales head way out of proportion.

Giving the designer the benefit of the doubt, the best I can guess is that they were trying to do a subtle evolution on the TNG ships, but it just didn't work. I get the idea of rotating the oval saucer to make it look longer and sleeker, even though I wouldn't do it. They did the same thing with the Enterprise-E. I just don't get the squashed, blended look where they basically eliminate the ship's "neck". And the nacelles are just totally fucked and inexcusable… almost like it's done as a joke.

I was looking at other pictures and actually the Galaxy-class and Ambassador-class before it both have scaled-down nacelles, though - at least as far as their length (which is the issue here). They're just not nearly as extreme as Intrepid in being shrunk. They're more just stubby and only really noticeable from certain angles. What really fucks over that design of Intrepid-class in the end, I think, is the rotation of the oval saucer to go lengthwise. If they would have kept with the Galaxy-class port-to-starboard "wide oval" approach to the saucer, the ship would have looked like a cute, scaled-down Galaxy with side-mounted nacelles, not some kind of retarded abomination with atrophied limbs.

no offense to 8chan staff

>>12899

>>11518

Were the ships starting to get too big, as in ship-of-the-line and dreadnought/battleship "what the fuck are we doing" tier of big and not worth it?

>>13410

i'm sure there is some ass-pull in-universe reason for the downsizing, but basically it has to do with the shift from 4:3 broadcast tv ratio to "widescreen" aspect ratio used in HDTV and cinema, which they began moving to in the late 90's with the TNG films. Galaxy-class was designed to exploit square TVs. Sovereign-class was for wide formats and also to stand-out in promotional materials generally, which explains it's obnoxious CGI ugliness. It's the sweaty tryhard of starship designs, basically, which is why my heart will always live in a timeline where 1701-D lived on for literally generations with only minor changes.

Killing-off the ship is even more infuriating when you consider that the problematic parts on a Galaxy-class design were always swappable. They could have mothballed the family-friendly "explorer" saucer and swapped it for a longer, lean combat-specialized saucer. Pic attached is that sort of concept, although the integrated warp engines are dumb. They could have refit the Enterprise-D for the movies - maybe updated the nacelles and hull plating a bit (but not too much) and just left the original saucer hanging-out in a starbase somewhere.

The retards didn't need to destroy the ship and burn their bridges, and our memories with it.

>>13600

Don't they already have escape pods? Why would you use the entire saucer section as a lifeboat, unless you plan is…

>Oh shit, we're about to walk into trouble. Let's send off the saucer section (with half our shields and weapons) while we stay behind to hold them off.

>>13604

If both the Saucer and the Stardrive section are fully independent with shields, weapons, warp drive, and so forth, then why not just build two ships? Better yet, why not build a number of impulse-only corvettes that dock with a larger mothership for warp travel?

>>13600

the Galaxy-class supposedly already has a luxury yacht on the underside of the saucer, we just never got to see it. My take is that a better use of the detachable saucer on Galaxy-class ships might be as a pop-up starbase, particularly for extended local ops, where features like the big giant shuttle hanger might come in useful.

You could have mission scenarios where the saucer remains in orbit with top-rate fascilities (minus torpedos and warp drive) while the stardrive section fucks off to ferry cargo or survey the surrounding area.

>>13712

>In my opinion, the Runabout is supposed to be the space equivalent of an RV

why is there no ship with 2 pylons holding nacelle section like pic related?

and why is spade hull not used at all? it looks cool

>>13724

That's kind of a shit design. The spade hull is not too bad, but it it needs high efficiency spherical nacelles. With these they can merely be added on to the side of the ship, without long pylons to waste building materials,

>>13726

how can you even waste materials in space? this shit flies everywhere

also oekaki is so fun. i forgot we even had it

>>13728

You could crank out 50 ahuttlecraft from all the materials in a pylon. They're fucking wasteful.

>>13751

no

first of all if you used 2 nacelles you could make them smaler then 1 big one, possibly even using less materials per both pylons when having more stable structure thats more resistant to hits

secound, pylons can be hollow and only resources needed are steel/titanium/aluminium/whatever they use and something to transfer energy and data, so copper or gold cabes.

all of this is easy to find in a random asteroid, and you can make all this en masse

third, you dont need 50 shuttlecraft, you need 1 real ship. thats like complaining that from all this wood in a main mast you could make 3 rowboats.

fourth, it looks cool

>>11518

So I had a thought about my non-retarded logicial edition of this with ship designations that make somewhat sense so they therefore won't follow exacctly what the lore calls them but what they actually make sense to do as well as their relative power for that era

I did look into Starfleet Battles, Starfleet Command and Klingon Academy which are surprisingly logical in how they class ships and came up with a few categories:

From smallest to largest

>Escort

>Frigate

>Heavy Frigate

>Destroyer

>Light Cruiser

>Heavy Cruiser

>Battlecruiser

>Dreadnought

>Battleship

Quick example of what the changes would become in pic related. If you are wondering why I did what I did here I'll explain it in the following autism:

While the Miranda is larger than the Defiant Class the Defiant is much newer and is far more capable warship and it tends to lead wings of Mirandas rather than the other way round. While the Galor and Excelisor are roughly the same size, again the Excelisor is like the Miranda; a much older ship at the end of it's service life while the Galor albeit a tad old still has a lot of life left in her. The B'rel is to give reference that ships may be similarly sized but have different designations.

I am still likely to adjust these and may condense the categories if needed but feel free to bitch away all you want. Better I get an idea now rather than having to edit it later down the line. The wonders of not being able to sleep so you make a chart about ship autism.

>>18944

Freighters in the Federation were automated so they likely didn't have much room to move around in. I expect one that had room for a crew would probably be not to different from a Danube class in terms of comfort.

All depending on the era you're in, of course.

>>18234

Quark served on one and always kept a phaser on him. And he was just the ships cook.

>>19051

If it's like any of the cruiser designs they used in STO, hell yes and I'd totally deck it out like Harrad's with the whole Persian palatial look too. Though I'd leave any kidnapping to the obligatory Orion crew.

This thread really needs a bump.

Also why do people like the Hutet so much from Dominion Wars game?

What do you think of the STD nuBoP?

>>22224

That is vile. Spoiler that shit, please.

>>22234

>WarHammer shit

Hey, it may be a bit tacky but at least BattleMallet has its own charm to it; don't compare it to this festering abomination.

What do you guys think of my Nacelle proportions?

be kind, there's only so much weight the technic beams can bear

>>22868

i'd be more concerned with your diminutive saucer relative to the secondary hull, tbh anon. There is a precedence for stubby nacelles in Trek (Ambassador and Galaxy class are prime examples) and they generally aren't problematic provided you don't go full pakled a la Voyager. You have two; they have line-of-sight. This is fine from an aesthetic and technical standpoint assuming it's supposed to be a concept ship or fanfic. You have other problems, but i'm assuming this isn't supposed to be a canonical connie.

I think my favorite ship design remains the Saber class, as it's basically a Defiant, but designed to be at least *a little* recognizable as a Fed ship. And lacks the god awful tail spoiler shit of the Akira, or the down right cartoonishly stupid 'splits into tinier ships' gimmick the Prometheus has.

Sadly, it's forever stuck as being background ship fodder.

>>22942

Not in so many word, but it was described as a light, maneuverable escort ship and produced in the *second* wave of star fleet's line of anti borg ships… so yeah, it's basically the Defiant Mk.II

>>11507

I can't not see one of these when I look at that Oberth.

>>23342

understandable. personally, i don't get quad necelles, although they make more sense than a single nacelle. maybe there is a in-universe rationale for 2x nacelle = 2x speed as-in the case of that oberth variant but it seems more like a cheap aesthetic gimmick than anything else. probably same for constellation class, too.

wouldn't the only reason for extra pairs of nacelles be that you needed to expand the size of your warp bubble beyond that which can be achieved with longer nacelles? …and it would only come in to play with exceptionally long ships such as the first pic related (tug, freighter, "train" or something?) which if this makes sense should have a "caboose" pair of nacelles. Contrast with the 2nd pic which should be able to project an adequate bubble. This is supported by the celsi's have longer nacelles to support the overall longer ship and also suggests that the bubble's 'center' can be shifted forward or aft, as long as it contains the nacelles that are generating it. It's not about speed or mass, it's about the ability of nacelles (necessarily paired and off-board) to project a sufficently large bubble.

In canon, they only seem to achieve greater speed improvements through technological advancement, not adding extra nacelles.

>>23348

The problem I have with BoP is it's just too small. Spending many years with just a dozen other people is going to be a problem. Maybe it's not a terrible choice if it was <10kly, but anything more than that, not so much. It's not suitable for a generational ship, and dozen people can hardly sustain a colony, so if you decided to settle somewhere, you'd most likely have to assimilate (well… unless you found some pre-warp society unprotected by space communists and installed yourself as a benevolent dictator) and a vulkan waifu probably wouldn't appreciate the stench; complete deal-breaker. Vor'cha wouldn't have these problems and is still sturdy and probably not as over-engineered as most fed ships. Or Saber class, but being a fed ship, you'd have to wait at least 50 years to see how that design does, before choosing it. If only there was some Oberth variant that didn't have piss poor weaponry.

>>23346

>quad nacelles for redundency, not speed

This seems plausible for survivability in wartime for scouts, blockade runners, critical transport ships, and other ships whose missions simply involve reaching a destination intact. I'll allow it.

>>23347

well, you didn't specify it had to be canon so i'd say something like the first concept Oberth here >>11530 - a tough, proven, venerable spaceframe mated to a secondary hull full of goodies in its vast cargo holds as well as weaponry possibly. The TNG-era and later ships are all off the table for me since you run a high risk of the ship becoming aware and then trying to kill you or any number of random problems developing with the ultimately unproven designs, as you state with Intrepid-class. Constellation-class ships always struck me as very tough, simple ships with more cargo space than a Miranda but less overhead than ships with a proper secondary hull and if the extra pair of nacelles are indeed meant to be redundant backup, all the better.

>BoP is a solid choice

not sure how canonical this is, but it's commonly believed by many ship autists that the BoP is a massive health hazard, particularly to crew who spend the majority of their time aft, due to the integrated warp engines. A simple retcon to place the engines within the "wings" of the BoP could plausibly address the issue, but as it stands that ship seems to be a bad choice for extended tours.

>>23357

>Sabre and Defiant

Defiant is a meme-bait ship with too many unTrek-like features. Even if it wasn't, you'ld be forced to confront the same problems as the BoP has. Erasing it from canon would be the second thing i'd do after I erased the 75-year timeskip between TOS and TNG, although admittedly this turns many of my favorite 80's film era designs into much younger ships, thus negating their status as proven and venerable designs. Sabre is ugly, but possibly a contender, in this case, since it's probably as good as any other canon ship.

>>23347

>>23348

>>23354

>>23357

Gentlemen, I give to you the K'tinga.

>>23363

>Constellation Class

You mean the overengineered underpowered rust bucket? The ship did it's job I guess but it was considered obsolete when it came out. It also has hefty crew operating requirments.

>BoP

Which one? There is the B'rel Raider which only needs 6 to operate and most of the time you spend your time at the front of the ship or the K'vort Heavy Cruiser which is an upsied B'rel with much more space aboard.

>Defiant

I feel like we should make an alert signal called "reddit alert" whenever likes that ship. It's a very boring Mary-Sue ship.

>>22237

STD is literally Warhammer

>>23373

I can only assume it's so a ship can't risk directing all of it's shield power to a single side in a fight, or because somehow 25th century targeting computers can't track more than one football size object at a time. But that effect could have just as easily been accomplished by just building larger shuttle craft bays on starships and then designing some runabout sized attack craft, that is basically just a shield generator and torpedo launcher connected to an impulse drive, that a full size star ship can launch to harass targets. Multi-vector attack ships were one of the stupider concepts Voyager introduced, and that's saying a lot.

I love this little thing.

>>23395

>travel pod

it's a cute, i suppose… but it's more of a fully automated "docking shuttle" than any kind of piloted craft. Pic related is the truest form of shuttlepod, realized in the truest of Star Trek films. Warp-capable only via a sled and designed to do sweet backflips when docking.

>>23365

>Constellation class is over-engineered, underpowered and obsolete with high crew requirements

how many did Riker need to get his underway in TNG for full legit wargames with Enterprise? Also, i'm curious about your sources for Constellation being over-engineered and underpowered. It - along with Miranda - are exceptionally long serving spaceframes. As for being "obsolete", that may be technically true, but it's the technical complications arising with state-of-the-art (or even early lifecycle) designs that would concern me on this kind of mission.

>>23399

When the Constellation came out the Excelsior came out which flat out outclassed it. Constellation supposedly can be operated by a skeleton crew of 40 but that doesn't say much when the Constitution was manned with less than a dozen during several points in it's career. In fact it's slated that the Constellation operates with something like 500 crew while the Constitution operates with around 200.

As for source on it being a bit of a shitbucket, Picard himself commanded one. Webm related is just a few of the times he looks back fondly on the pile of s-crap he commanded.

>>23403

do you think he (or any other Starfleet officer save Data and Worf) have positive things to things to say about life aboard a Klingon vessel? During his voyage, if Picard would have slept at all, it would have been on a metal slab. How do you think the others would describe the amenities of a Klink boat particularly while being stationed onboard a space cruise ship like the Galaxy-class Enterprise? Probably similar feelings about ships as old as Constellation and Miranda. One might refer to the Klingon ships as "buckets" too, but thats merely because they look, feel, and smell like it. As for crew requirements, i suspect that it was highly mission-specific. Constellation-class saucer sections are basically hollow (despite what most diagrams suggest). I suspect the ships could be repurposed wildly and often at starbase as opposed to a refit at the shipyards. This probably leads to stated crew requirements all over the place.

Keep in mind in the scene you posted Picard remarks specifically that it was "overworked and under-powered", meaning he felt it was underpowered vis-a-vis the kind of workload his crew was tasked with. Not surprising given the fact that it was a literal workhorse of the fleet. I still fail to see how such a flawed ship could have had the longevity it had.

Contrast this with the few Galaxy-class we saw, which outside of a crisis, were on easymode of diplomatic missions and charting gaseous anomalies. the reason for this is that they are unproven platforms. They're being tested. At this time, Excelsior-class ships are doing all the important stuff and are the actual flag ships (they carry flag officers). Same reason the Enterprise-B and Excelsior are captained by literal and figurative faggots during the first few years of their the Excelsior-class service. Same reason Yamato was captained by a nigger who was too buy muh dicking the counselor and bix nooding at the computer to realize the danger his was in. He was another weak captain put there to babysit the extended shake-down. Picard wasn't a faggot or racially-impared, but he was an officer on the back-side of his career coming off a court martial for losing his important, relied-upon "rust bucket". Stands to reason he'd fail up to a cozy, symbolic "flagship" like the Galaxy-class Enterprise. Rinse and repeat for Sovereign-class and probably 10x the retard staffing for 10x the uncertainty with the Intrepid-class Voyager. Stargazer may have been Battlestar Galactica-tier spartan, but the ship never tried to kill him and the workload, while miserable at the time, was likely an important experience that shaped who his was.

Outside of TOS and DS9, we really don't see much of proven crews being assigned to important work with proven equipment. There's a lot of wiz-bang and cutting-edge shit, but most of the time it fucks something up. It's sad really, because that's what a post-Voyager series probably should have been… a series on an Ambassador-class refit or previously-unseen ship from the Ambassador-class era. A stalwart ~50 year old ship (mid-lifespan) with a good, experienced crew doing the hard work. Another Galaxy would be redundant, but even a previously-unseen or underutilized ship from that era might even work, being ~20 years into it's service.

>>23448

>Constellations barely served a maximum of 80 years with only like 8 of the ships built

based on Sternbach's old column from Star Trek magazine back in the day. He always included a disclaimer to the effect that it was not-quite-canon information. More legit than novels, comics, and vidya, i suppose (considering the source), but I wouldn't be too sure of a stat like # of ships produced and likely neither would he.

>Mirandas were well over 100 by TNG and were a full on workhorse.

Please don't infer a criticism of Miranda from an endorsement of Constellation. I would go with Miranda for the reasons you cite, but Constellation is simply a more diehard vessel with vastly more mission configurability (outside of maybe weapons) than Miranda, with the ability to keep the overhead low.

>Constellations were just flat out outdated when they were being built

This is brought up repeatedly as if it's a negative as-per anon's scenario. It's not. You don't want state-of-the-art in this case. There are a lot of ships that on paper render older ships obsolete but in practice carry unacceptable risks due to unknowables and unnecessary complications.

>newer ships like the Ambassador and New Orleans Classes

I'm very interested in this era and would gladly consider one over Constellation, but we don't know enough. Every canon ship i've seen appears to have prohibitively high crew requirements and judging by the abundance of Mirandas still in serving by TNG, it can be assumed that that era did not produce a new spartan, "workhorse" vessel capable of long-range, long-term deployment. They were all wiz-bang or heavy cruisers (probably since they kept churning-out Oberth-class the entire time and beyond judging by hull numbers). If we can consider non-canon, I'm all for conceptualizing a ship from this era that fits the requirement and like i stated above, i think a previously-unseen ship from this era would have made an excellent scrappy older ship for a post-Voyager/Nemesis series (inb4 stealing BSG ideas)

>On the other part of your post anon I really like your autism.

the respect is mutual, anon. good to know the dream is still alive in these times of increasing anti-autistism

>>23463

I envision Miranda, Oberth, and Constellation as occupying 3 niches in the fleet. Constellation is a blue water ship meant for quick internal reconfiguration, hence the tall saucer with multiple large bay doors with clear access. Miranda is also a deep-space, extended-deployment starship but with more extensive standard internals and amenities, but greater external reconfiguration, hence the "roll bar" at the top and why i believe that Miranda has greater potential weapons capability since the standard loadout of extra weapons seen on screen sports dual photon tubes front and rear and two giant fucking phaser canons in addition to whatever the standard armament of the base ship is, which i don't think we know for sure aside from a few phaser banks and at least one photon torpedo tube (probably rear). Get rid of 1 of the twin aft shuttle bays and replace with twin large thrusters and it would probably outclass Constellation in sub-light maneuverability, too. Constellation can probably spit out more torps at a distance and is more maneuverable at sub-light speeds, but if Ship of Peace can close the gap, it's lights-out Constellation because those phaser canons tho. Not sure how I feel about the so-called Soyuz-class since it's merely a kitbash that adds bulk to the rear section, but doesn't really solve any problems and in fact eliminates multiple weapons and negates the precious modularity meme, so i reflexively recoil.

Finally, Oberth is probably a brown-water vessel with both internal and external modular reconfigurability (outboard hardpoints and large front bay door). I also like the idea that Oberth is capable of atmospheric re-entry in some configurations, hence the weirdly-shielded nacelles mounted on top. The fly in the ointment with all of this fanfic is Constellation's quad-nacelles, which are problematic given that they appear to be standard. We may reason that Oberth can sport an extra pair in lieu of other attachments and in theory Miranda could, too. Constellation's are arranged tightly, but could probably be swapped-out with two in sort-of like the last pics related (image the the secondary hull in "Odyssey" is a cargo or sensor pod instead).

The upshot is that the only real difference between the three classes under such a regime is the size and function of the saucer, which informs everything else. these basic designs would be present before and after the TOS film era and thus there would be similar ships that fit the classic TOS-era and the TNG-era. I agree that the idea of Constellation being a replacement for Constitution makes no sense and overall the writers have been shit at reasoning ship designations (as anon back in the thread struggles with). Constitution and it's successor Excelsior would probably follow master-student strategy for heavy dual-hull cruisers. There are always two and the newest is always breaking-down outside of spacedock or an hero-ing and taking its crew with it.

been working on a sane structuring of Starfleet using the core established ship classes seen on screen. Going to extrapolate from there with the next charts. This timeline just shows where the classes sit relative to one another in inception and end-of-life using very conservative dates. Doesn't speak to when they stopped building them, since that would be conjecture (but i may try to tackle it further down the line), just the overall service-period of the class. I also took liberties with a few details like Oberth and Ambassador-class launch and Constitution-class final retirement.

Also, the class designations are mostly my own assumptions. Yellow are cruisers/heavy cruisers, Purple are light cruisers, Red are frigates, Green are "corvettes" (for lack of another term).

>>12863

I think the issue comes from the fact that their designs seem to focus around from their initial logo which coincides along my theory that whoever came up with the Cardassians really did not put any actual thought into them outside of needing a bad guy

however my thoughts on the matter is that they look like clunky stingrays and so that's what they should be designed around.

>>25562

That was already and always Excelsior. Most likely, that Constellation detail is an artifact leftover from when Stargazer was supposed to be a Constitution-class, then quickly changed to something else. Something tells me someone on the writing or art staff really wanted it to be the missing-link heavy cruiser: The Ambassador-class ship, but was overruled for the chance to introduce a new, never-before-seen configuration - or maybe there was just some confusion. So, maybe the "replacement" bit stuck around even though its appearance strongly implies significantly different mission capabilities.

Im not classifying it the same as Connie-Excelsior-Ambassador-Galaxy, which are heavy cruisers. Eventually, i spun-off Miranda and Constellation as two separate designations: light cruiser and medium cruiser. I think Constellation got introduced circa 2260 along with Miranda and before Excelsior. So, since this is a new ship designation, in a sense it does "replace" Constitution-class in some ways, since it's also a cruiser.. it's just not a direct replacement. It and the "light cruisers" may also be a "destroyer" or a "battlecruiser" under certain configurations… i havent gotten that far in my autism. I realized i had the opportunity to conceptualize a few missing ships and I got distracted doing that.

Here is a screenshot of one of the revised charts, expanded showing the medium cruisers. The other ship type timelines are collapsed. As you can see from the light blue, there is a lot of "unknown" ships. Some of those are presumably major refits, but there are probably several entirely new ships. If I ever finish it, I will remake it in a proper graphics program. I was just using a dedicated "timeline" app meant for brainstorming.

>>22224

That looks more like a Reman ship or post-Nemesis Romulan design than something you'd see the Klingons make. then again STD "klingons" are weird goblin things like the Remans were which is weird too, since even the Abrams films got the klingons looking alright under those helmets

>>22997

Those oddball TOS-era ships are breddy good, Found some PDFs on my HDD of them too.

Apparently I can't post PDFs, so have the superior USS Discovery I found in one of them.

>>22234

>some WarHammer shit

You wish STD had anything half as palatable as space churches.

>>25685

According to the PDF, it's the logical continuation of the Galaxy class being designed to house families as well as crew.

The name of the PDF I'm pulling this from is ASDB - Star Fleet Prototype, just in case you want to try grabbing it yourself. I've got a 1 gig folder from years ago, so I may post a link to an upload when my internet isn't dog slow.

>>25686

Yeah, I think the TOS blu-rays had either the Huron or Cargo drone put in as a CGI model in a couple of episodes.

Are you niggers ready to boldy go where no autism has gone before?

>>25689

yeah, i am indeed working on that assumption. I don't trust what the shows and films have to say about ship type designations. They're notoriously all over the place. While I could see a fluctuating scheme as useful to reconcile these disparate references - and as possibly being more realistic - in this case i'm already ignoring some canon, so i've already crossed the rubicon so to speak. Might as well visualize something more rational and straightforward. Instead of changing ship type designations at this point, i'm just starting with cruisers and adding more types over time. The chart has changed already since i posted those, though. I'm not wedded to any idea of these yet.

>>25645

>>25704

I like that it at least has a neck. To me, it is far more Trek-like than those awful vertically, squashed then horizonally-stretched post-TNG designs. That said, it looks more like one of those Ambassador refits that you see every now and then.

>>25708

>I also probably should update >>11518 at somepoint including making a rational ship designation.

please do. i would like other ideas to consider.

>>25713

?

Illogical humans. Still using nacelles instead of superior warp rings. When will you savages learn? smh

>>25728

I have to admit I like the Sovereign and Intrepid classes, since they at least follow the design language for the nacelles- and it could be argued that they're a logical evolution from how TNG ships look. Though it is a shame most of those newer designs don't really have much of a neck.

>>25732

the sled was a better looking design.

>>25740

>Don't have much of a neck.

Necks are vastly overrated

>>25740

Sovereign class is pretty meh. While I'm normally fond of the more classic anesthetic over Nu-trek, I can't help but like the Regent-class refit of the Sovereign from STO.

>>25728

>?

I thought it was self explanatory?

>>25758

>single nacelles

>vulcan technology

admit it, anon. some drawfag just thought it would look cool, but didnt do xir's homework. that's not a real star trek ship. the warp rings or whatever are cool, i guess, but vulcans and humans share technology. I could see it as a single experimental ship, but it makes for a bad creative decision if you're looking to make the vulcan ships distinctive. sternbach made a model for the vulcan cruisers for TNG that appeared to use curved nacelles integrated into an eye-shaped ring-like structure (fantastic idea, btw). Then, for ENT i guess the other faggots saw a "ring" in that somehow i guess… but it's more like the romulan cruisers, aesthetically.

vulcans are the race of based sledships as far as i'm concerned (which informs the federation's hard-on for detachable hulls. It probably makes sense to have it be detachable if you are a fan of atmospheric and good health.

>>25762

ok… thanks for sharing your template, i guess? but i dont find those arbitrary era distinctions helpful, but i might could use those cutouts

>>25803

>that's not a real star trek ship.

I realized after the fact that i'm being a bit overly-critical here. It's not the worst ship and warp rings or whatever aren't unheard of or terribly unaesthetic. You can work with them in canon (by making them bisected or quadrisected, for instance) and they might be helpful in my fanfic about the Bird of Prey's warp nacelles being integrated into the wings. It's just that I think they look too aesthetic and alien for the time period. Vulcan ship's shouldn't be that different from Starfleet, period to period, so the vulcan ring-powered ships should be very early

>>25807

>I've bitten off far more than I can chew, there's fuckloads of ships to add and these are all canon

That's why I started from scratch with figuring-out the ship type designations first and a rough time table for their introduction / refresh and then started fitting the existing ships into those slots. If some minor ships get left-out, i dont care because head canon. If ships get changed somewhat, i don't care because head canon.

>I've got an idea for a better chart but my drawfag talents are overall a bit limited. I'm going to give this a complete rethink and I will get some cutouts going.

I'm not a drawfag either and have started on some cuts, but first i had to find a comprehensive set of charts that all appear to be scaled properly and high res. I did a few using these for my New Orleans-class fix, but ideally we would have top, front, and rear view to go with sideview. Do you have better ship graphics?

We should cut from the same charts to save time and we could just post them here even though doing cuts on these is super easy by just removing the white while masking the bits on the ship

>>25809

>Cutouts

The following I am posting are models I like to use that contain canon ships.

>>25878

It contains a fair amount of ships but it sadly doesn't contain all cannon ships.

>>25879

Which is why I like to supplement it with this which contains some of the extra ones but also sadly contains a fair amount of non-canon shit so you must know what is and isn't canon.

Funny enough this is a backup image I use since at some point I have seemed to misplaced the better version I was using. I will dig for it but no promises.

>>25878

>>25879

>>25880

those have some that might be useful. Sadly, they're nowhere near to scale and that's why i was going with the ones i posted above. Yeah, there is a lot of non-canon autism and many that appear to be identical or very similar, but i just filter those… or grab bits that i like for the alterations that i'm making. I'll post the revised New Orleans-class that i did when i find it. I just wish he did top, front, and rear views.

(cont.) i downloaded all of this faggot's charts that i could find, though since at least the first set i posted were scaled correctly. not sure about these others.