Modeling Challenge Thread

[knowles2]

Spoiler:

I don't like how the wings look from the top view, I'll be fixing that later but it's much too late to bother right now and I need to sleep.

But yeah, it'll be about 250m long (I think I'm going to be stretching the middle out a bit to make a bit more room for the superstructure, which will make it about that length). Right now I'd say it's more like 200m.

It'll have 12.5" naval guns coupled with the railguns that we see on the Daedalus. The idea is that the railguns can be used for point defense against fighters or secondary targets that are farther out, can engage moving targets or hard to reach emplacements, or can contribute to the destruction that the 12.5" guns would certainly inflict.

It'll be protected by a decent shield, similar to that of the Prometheus. Nothing all powerful like the Odyssey or a toilet ship, but enough to withstand heavy fighting for the time needed to engage its targets and leave the scene. Given that this would be smaller but still close in size to the Prometheus, I don't think that that's asking for too much, especially since Alkesh have shields that can withstand brief but sustained fire from Ha'taks.

This would orbit its target from a few kilometres out, at as high of an angle as possible. It would be downright devastating to any unshielded targets save for something enormous like a Hive. And even still, it would be able to get in close for a brief amount of time and I'm sure it could inflict some damage. Being swarmed by a squadron of these would be no fun.

Shielded targets, unless they were weak, would have to be left for larger ships with the Asgard pwner beams. It's not very realistic for even a group of bombers to overcome a formidable ship's shields without help from larger, more powerful ships.

It'll have a bay in the bottom for deploying bombs or weapon systems like the Horizon, although this would be for widespread destruction only.

There will also be several missile bays for deploying air to air (or ship to ship, whatever) missiles and air-to-surface missiles.

I am not convince about the weapons design does not seem very bomberish to me, it more like a battler ship model than a bomber model.

[Merlin1701]

A quick update.

I still plan to use the horizon system just need to find out how big it is.

[Finger13]

I am not convince about the weapons design does not seem very bomberish to me, it more like a battler ship model than a bomber model.

Are you saying you disagree with the design or the function?

What defines a bomber to you? My ship's design does the exact same thing that a more conventional bomber would do, only I'm inclined to say that it's better.

I explained it earlier. A bomber doesn't have to dump a bomb on something to achieve the same effect. Theoretically none of us are designing conventional bombers, since everyone is throwing huge yield missiles and Horizons onto their ships.

So if it's fine for a bomber to do a missile run or to fire gatling guns at its target, both of which would require fairly close proximity to the target and aen't very bomberish either, then it's just as justified for me to build a ship that shells its targets from a reasonable distance.

Designs like the Spectre gunship are superior to conventional bombers, because they can loiter in an area to provide support, and they can stay a mile or more away from the action while still obliterating the target. Add railguns and a shield to that, and you have a very capable design.

I'm not trying to prop up my design over anyone elses, I'm just saying that my design achieves the exact same thing that everyone else does. And a bomber's function is more often surgical than all out destruction, so naval guns and railguns are more realistic than these huge yield nukes IMO.

And like I said, it's modelled after a battleship.

[Finger13]

in metres????

Sorry, here in Canada we switch from metric to imperial without thinking lol.

Just divide the figures that I gave you by about 3.3 to get their metric values.

[knowles2]

Are you saying you disagree with the design or the function?

What defines a bomber to you? My ship's design does the exact same thing that a more conventional bomber would do, only I'm inclined to say that it's better.

I explained it earlier. A bomber doesn't have to dump a bomb on something to achieve the same effect. Theoretically none of us are designing conventional bombers, since everyone is throwing huge yield missiles and Horizons onto their ships.

I am not doing that. My is a more 21st century bomber. Design for a range of tasks.

So if it's fine for a bomber to do a missile run or to fire gatling guns at its target, both of which would require fairly close proximity to the target and aen't very bomberish either, then it's just as justified for me to build a ship that shells its targets from a reasonable distance.

You right but then it would make more sense to put the weapons on the bottom of the craft as you can target the ground easier and this would also makes sense in that is allow gravity assess you rather than work against you.
Plus to me the weapons look like normals cannons you can get on a 1st world war vessels and not rail guns.

Designs like the Spectre gunship are superior to conventional bombers, because they can loiter in an area to provide support, and they can stay a mile or more away from the action while still obliterating the target.

I have agree if we were design a gun ship but we are designing a bomber vehicle. And most modern bombers are equip with missiles anyway and can be fired miles away.

I'm not trying to prop up my design over anyone elses, I'm just saying that my design achieves the exact same thing that everyone else does. And a bomber's function is more often surgical than all out destruction, so naval guns and railguns are more realistic than these huge yield nukes IMO.

I agreed the huge nuclear arsenal that many people are equipping their ships are a bit silly and severely limit the use of such craft.

My own craft is actually design to use a range of weapons and not specific weapons.

But the key point is that unless the model is very good it should not beat anyone else designs anywai, it all the model.

And your model is cool looking I am just not sure if design wise it fits with SG universe at the moment from looking at the look of the craft. I am avoiding reading specs because I feel that irrelevant with the thread as the model should tell every thing you need to know.

[Ed]

Thats cruise missile scale

[Finger13]

First off, I'm liking the diversity in the ships being posted here. I think that it's cool that we're all pursuing quite different approaches, this should make for an interesting competition.

I am not doing that. My is a more 21st century bomber. Design for a range of tasks.

No no, I wasn't singling anybody out. My post might have seemed kind of harsh, it's because I was in a hurry and didn't have time to reword it.

You right but then it would make more sense to put the weapons on the bottom of the craft as you can target the ground easier and this would also makes sense in that is allow gravity assess you rather than work against you.
Plus to me the weapons look like normals cannons you can get on a 1st world war vessels and not rail guns.

The ship would roll towards its target. Think of the Galactica in the battle of the resurrection ship. Its main batteries are topside, and it rolls to a 30 degree angle or so to engage enemies. You have to remember that the ship will be orbiting its target, so it's logical that the ship would be leaning that way anyways. So since the ship will be on an angle, the guns won't be working against gravity, and it makes aerodynamic sense that the ship would be leaning.

And the cannons you speak of are in fact just that, well naval artillery but same thing. They fire conventional rounds. If you've seen the gun camera footage from Spectre gunships firing 105mm shells against ground targets, imagine a shell several times larger. And that's tech that we've had since WW2. Yes, huge naval batteries were largely replaced by missiles, but that's because of the range limitations of naval artillery on the surface. The huge rounds like the 12.5" ones on this ship were still capable of travelling something like 30km, and the Japanese could hurl them even further. I'm only talking ranges of 1-5km's, meaning they would be well within their range.

The railguns that I mentioned are yet to be added, and won't be that big.

I have agree if we were design a gun ship but we are designing a bomber vehicle. And most modern bombers are equip with missiles anyway and can be fired miles away.

Modern bombers rely on stealth and speed to achieve success. Slip in without being seen, destroy your target on the first shot, then escape without being detected if possible. That's because of the capabilities of AA batteries and SAMs, as well as other fighters. Shields negate that necessity, and we must assume that our enemies are advanced enough to detect anything but a cloaked ship. Therefore none of us are building conventional bombers.

And exactly, since some bombers can already shoot missiles from miles away, why can't they just shoot shells instead? Shells would be a hell of a lot harder to intercept, cost less and are easier to store, and still travel pretty fast and pack a large punch. And lets not forget a few railguns raining down too.

I agreed the huge nuclear arsenal that many people are equipping their ships are a bit silly and severely limit the use of such craft.

My own craft is actually design to use a range of weapons and not specific weapons.

But the key point is that unless the model is very good it should not beat anyone else designs anyway, it all the model.

And your model is cool looking I am just not sure if design wise it fits with SG universe at the moment from looking at the look of the craft. I am avoiding reading specs because I feel that irrelevant with the thread as the model should tell every thing you need to know.

Well to each their own. A bomber capable of destroying every city on a planet would have been quite useful against the Asurans, so I wasn't saying that people shouldn't be doing so. I just thought that if people can make theirs all powerful, I can make mine more modest but also more efficient.

The fact that you're avoiding reading specs helps explain why you are questioning the design. I feel that I've more than justified my approach.

As for the design, I think that a battleship looks far more human than the Daedalus or Prometheus.

Anyways, I don't want to bicker over this. I appreciate the input and I'll tweak my design. Keep in mind that it's extremely rough right now, that's not the shape that it'll be at the end. But bobertho didn't disapprove of the concept when I posted it, so I went with it.

If I'm not to pursue this setup, I'd like to know before working on this more.

If a ship that shoots a missile to destroy its target is alright, then a shell should be no different. If my design approach sucks, leave that to the judges.

But really, are people going to look down on my model the way that it is now? Because if so then I will change it.

Finger, I love those guns!

Thanks haha, I was going to make them like the Iowa's main batteries, but then I thought that they could use some streamlining.

[knowles2]

well all to their personally I do care specs as long as it the best model and best looking that one should win in this thread.
As to stealth argument you use the vast majority of bombers today are non stealth. In fact their own two stealth specific air craft operational and that the B2 and the F117 which was suppose to be a fighter but it was useless at that and instead strapping the billion dollar craft it operation missions was change bomber.

JSF and F-22 are probably gonna be use to bomb targets in future as they pretty much been design carry out multiple mission object and the fact it generally not worth developing single role aircraft, especially when the only airforce that can match technology wise are your allies.

Well here my update on my ship.

Bomber side.jpg
Bomber front.jpg
Bomber bottom.jpg
Bomber back.jpg

This is just one of many possible weapon configuring.
I am still deciding whether the central section should be interchangeable, it a possible design change that could happen. The engines could be change to a different design.

If a ship that shoots a missile to destroy its target is alright, then a shell should be no different. If my design approach sucks, leave that to the judges.

But really, are people going to look down on my model the way that it is now? Because if so then I will change it.

I was not looking down on the design, Like the hull design, I just not so sure about the weapon design.
And it does not matter what people think about your design you should do what you want to. I was just offering advice and critic on your work so far.

[Finger13]

I was not looking down on the design, Like the hull design, I just not so sure about the weapon design.
And it does not matter what people think about your design you should do what you want to. I was just offering advice and critic on your work so far.

Oh no I wasn't accusing you of dissing it, I'm just trying to defend my approach. And I didn't mean I would redo it if people didn't like it, I mean if others agree that my design is not fitting the modelling challenge, then I would remodel it to a more conventional approach.

Your bomber looks promising. One suggestion I have is to rework the canopy's windows. Make them square instead of oval, and have the black constant instead of interspersed amongst the default colour.

Anyways, truce lol.

[Achiles]

I have a start on mine and can't figure out how to get it on here.

[Finger13]

I have a start on mine and can't figure out how to get it on here.

You can either upload it to another site like Photobucket and then post the link between image tags, or you can upload them as an attachment.

To upload as an attachment, just scroll down to the "go advanced" button when posting, then scroll to the bottom of the page and look for the button that says "Manage Attachments". Then you can upload the image right off your hard drive.

[boberth2o]

looking good looking good people

[RJB]

The start of my Ancient Heavy Bomber.

[boberth2o]

The start of my Ancient Heavy Bomber.

WOW, I can definitely see the ancient in it

[knowles2]

The start of my Ancient Heavy Bomber.

Very nice model indeed, I like the way you have incorporated the ancient design philosophy in the model.
The only thing I think I do not like is how far the wings coming out.