View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
12-19-2010, 12:36 AM
Thank you for your thoughts.

Originally Posted by Callasan View Post
It's not a bad design, the only issues I have with it are that you've basically done a Intrepid with a triangular saucer and fixed warp pylons. From what I understand (and stated by Rick Sternbach as a technobabble explanation for the sleeker designs), the original concept for the warp field was a nearly spherical one, and newer developments in warp field theory mandate a elliptical field these days, with the saucer being elongated to better fill the volume of the new field shape. Supposedly, that's why the warp scale was reformulated - the elliptical field allowed closer approaches to the theoretical Warp 10 (the math of which is based on real relativitiy, by the way). Now, how this relates tot he Enterprise-J and it's very circular saucer is left to whoever can reconcile the two

Your saucer is a bit sharp-edged for that bit of technobabble to really be applicable - perhaps if you smoothed it a bit?
It is funny you say that, I didn't have the Intrepid in mind when I designed her, I wanted to mix the look of my two favourite ships, the Nova and Prometheus, with the previous Enterprise shape. Some how the Intrepid design worked it's way in there too (especially from a side on view). Which does say something, that the design does follow pre-existing styles.

I see you're point with the warp field, I was unaware of the limitations when I designed it. However it mentions in this site here: that triangular is the way of future development. I used that article after finishing off my design to see if it was up to standards.

That and I thought that Quantum Slipstreams would be standard at this time, and ships that are built to use them (and not retrofitted like those ingame) would use them as a primary means of transport. Which is why I put a larger deflector dish on it than most of the newer starships.

If you wanted to fit Sternbach's concept, you'd start with a ellipsis drawn on the paper, then fit your top view into that - then do the same with your side view. I like certain features of your design - it's the angularity (and the high amount of similarity to the Intrepid) that I personally have issues with. That's my opinion, anyway.
I understand your position, however I feel that the angular design is what sets it apart compared to pre-existing ships.

IMHO the decisions as to what weapons/stats/etc. should be left to the devs. After all, all designs in the contest are property of Cryptic, witht he "winner" getting paid with recognition in-game. Why use banks, anyway - banks (as in classic phaser "turrets", in pairs, located around the ship) stopped being implemented when the Federation figured out they could get the same effects from lots of smaller beam emitters arrayed into "strips" that wouldn't have the same coverage gaps that large turrets do...and in doing so made sure that no Federation ship could realistically be called a "dreadnought" (look it up to see why - it's not the reason most people think).
This is far from a dreadnought, and was designed as an Exploration Cruiser, with a long term missions in mind, reverting back to the Galaxy concept rather than being more of a "militaristic" concept like the sovereign was made out to be. I think if I had control over BoFF slots, it would be more scientific than Tactical.

Either way, nice attempt - and TBH, I really don't think that length should be a consideration in the design of the ship. Size does not equal power, as anyone who watched DS9 knows (the Defiant is one of the smallest gunships of any of the Federation races - and look what both it and it's successor did during the Dominion War for your proof) - also remember the scale of such things. The Enterprise-J, at 3000m length (9842 feet, or 1.8 miles) is more of a ark than a usable starship in the conventional sense. Such ships would be built to evacuate planets...
I did the top view first way before I bothered with measurements, I later looked at the sizes for deck and window placement (which I didn't end up adding in anyway due to the size of the image). Fortunately the numbers were rounded enough in scale that I didn't have to modify the image at all to make the measurements sound correct.