Original Starship Design Thread

[Saquist]

ScalingOne
is based off of Carter.
The scaling on one is good for Carter on the first image. Yet, once you apply it to the second image that has a great degree of perspective on the ship that measures the vertical, the depth is now suspect. The scaling breaks down here.

Scaling Two

Scaling is based from your original Carter measure and the pixels that you've sized by proportion from images I can't see but Likely you're still using Perspective images. (1)The problem is the lack of knowledge of Sam Carter's posture in the suit. Legs are doubtful to be fully extend as floating allows for any posture. The bend could be as much of a loss of a half a foot or a foot.

at .5" the 41 meters not 50
Which means that the length would be 487.5 meters not 582 meters.
HALF a FOOT created a difference of 16% possible error.

Both Scaling One an Two are based from Carter.

The Third Scaling

This is a Hive Scaling that is based of the same Carter Scale.

Scaling Four

This is more reliable but I didn't realized you used perspective images to scale the distance in pixels from door to door and then from nose to tail. The picture you use is rather shocking. You're still using perspective images on a real world object that has far more reliable orthographic diagrams on the internet. (I don't understand why you'd do this) You might be robing yourself of meters of length.

I don't have a problem with these far off shots of the Daedalus being used. CGI is best measured from a distance because it will have a tendency to be parallel at a distance as the 747 with the 302 shows.

The point is you've don't great scaling work but in just one area you've made an unnecessary mistake of relying on POV images when you had better more trust worthy projections. The second point is Carter (or rather the first) room for 16 percent error on all your estimates is now a given with what I've seen.

This analysis only includes the least common gauge of height or length and none of the scalings that judge the rear the front or other images that relying on the Carter scaling.

Whether ALX knows it or not, there is sufficient reason to doubt them.
I think these scaling went to alot of trouble but I can't call them as accurate as they could be.

[Experiment 442]

I'm back with avengence.

[Alx]

welcome back "Lil'Willl"

[boberth2o]

ScalingOne
is based off of Carter.
The scaling on one is good for Carter on the first image. Yet, once you apply it to the second image that has a great degree of perspective on the ship that measures the vertical, the depth is now suspect. The scaling breaks down here.

Scaling Two

Scaling is based from your original Carter measure and the pixels that you've sized by proportion from images I can't see but Likely you're still using Perspective images. (1)The problem is the lack of knowledge of Sam Carter's posture in the suit. Legs are doubtful to be fully extend as floating allows for any posture. The bend could be as much of a loss of a half a foot or a foot.

at .5" the 41 meters not 50
Which means that the length would be 487.5 meters not 582 meters.
HALF a FOOT created a difference of 16% possible error.

Both Scaling One an Two are based from Carter.

The Third Scaling

This is a Hive Scaling that is based of the same Carter Scale.

Scaling Four

This is more reliable but I didn't realized you used perspective images to scale the distance in pixels from door to door and then from nose to tail. The picture you use is rather shocking. You're still using perspective images on a real world object that has far more reliable orthographic diagrams on the internet. (I don't understand why you'd do this) You might be robing yourself of meters of length.

I don't have a problem with these far off shots of the Daedalus being used. CGI is best measured from a distance because it will have a tendency to be parallel at a distance as the 747 with the 302 shows.

The point is you've don't great scaling work but in just one area you've made an unnecessary mistake of relying on POV images when you had better more trust worthy projections. The second point is Carter (or rather the first) room for 16 percent error on all your estimates is now a given with what I've seen.

This analysis only includes the least common gauge of height or length and none of the scalings that judge the rear the front or other images that relying on the Carter scaling.

Whether ALX knows it or not, there is sufficient reason to doubt them.
I think these scaling went to alot of trouble but I can't call them as accurate as they could be.

I'm in class, I'm going to fully answer your statement later because I'm on a blackberry and I do not have the same capabilities..

[thekillman]

i'll respond first.

obviously a few meters isn't gonna change a whole lot. wheter it's 480 or 520 meters does not matter. it's about the range of lengths. some say 200m. others 300, others 500, 600, or 700 meters. a meter of 30 won't matter that much. there already is enough difference between 500 and 200 meters

[Dr Lee]

For me...

Prommie- 250M (ish)
Daedalus - 600M

[Experiment 442]

daed about 550m-600m prommie about 250m-300m.

[Merlin1701]

For me...

Prommie- 250M (ish)
Daedalus - 600M

agree with dr lee and 442

[Alx]

here we go again...
IMO you are all wrong.
but please keep fanwanking

personnaly im DONE with this argument it NEVER leads any where,
so i say scale your stuff anyway you want i migt rescale my 304 to 24000m just for the hell of it

[titan_hq]

here we go again...
IMO you are all wrong.
but please keep fanwanking

Bleh, I agree that while I liked the 550-600m Daedalus to begin with (I have always maintained that it is so), having seen these estimates I like the 300m one better, so... I agree with Alx.

As long as you state how long YOUR Daedalus is when comparing other ships to it, it doesn't really matter anyhow.

[Alx]

Bleh, I agree that while I liked the 550-600m Daedalus to begin with (I have always maintained that it is so), having seen these estimates I like the 300m one better, so... I agree with Alx.

As long as you state how long YOUR Daedalus is when comparing other ships to it, it doesn't really matter anyhow.

Agreed!

[thekillman]

i think several people posted that ages ago already.


i think that perhaps 600 meters is a bit too much. but it's definately around 500 meters.


also, ALX, remember that this is no ordinary ship. it's hyperdrive, shields, powersource, engines, it all takes up a HUGE chunk of space that isn't filled with crewmembers. then two HUGE hangars filled with F-302's. the neck has a HUGE amount of space devoted to missiles. you don't need thousands of people, because they're designed not to run on so many people. the asgard helped design these things. goauld tech is incorporated. i don't even know what all those thousands of people on an aircraft carrier do. the very fact that 4 people can fly the Deadalus shows how efficient it is with crew.


for crying out loud stop comparing it to a normal ship. space is not an ocean.

[titan_hq]

i think several people posted that ages ago already.

I just posted it again then didn't I?

It IS a normal ship though. I mean, it has space-counter parts of normal things, and the writers use it like a normal ship... so it is right?

[Alx]

i think several people posted that ages ago already.


i think that perhaps 600 meters is a bit too much. but it's definately around 500 meters.


also, ALX, remember that this is no ordinary ship. it's hyperdrive, shields, powersource, engines, it all takes up a HUGE chunk of space that isn't filled with crewmembers. then two HUGE hangars filled with F-302's. the neck has a HUGE amount of space devoted to missiles. you don't need thousands of people, because they're designed not to run on so many people. the asgard helped design these things. goauld tech is incorporated. i don't even know what all those thousands of people on an aircraft carrier do. the very fact that 4 people can fly the Deadalus shows how efficient it is with crew.


for crying out loud stop comparing it to a normal ship. space is not an ocean.

since you decided to keep badgering me for no reason at all im going to adress this post.

1st, yes i know its a makebelieve "spaceship" that has little to no base in reality, however have we seen anything of the internal layout and how big internal components are in relation to the outside? NO we havnt so your claims that all that crap would take up a huge chunk of room is purly "theoretical" speculation is it not? to me its a load of crock you made up in your head as it fits with what you "believe" i can respect that you do not accept or think similar to me can you do the same? or is makebelieve and fantasy more important to you then real life?

2nd. i do not care, i do not care, I DO NOT CARE does that spell it out for you? or will i have to spam the page with several more "i do not care posts"?? as ive said countless times during this discussion you are free to "believe" what you want to and i am not trying to sway you or anyone else to my point of view they are free to make up their own minds.

3rd for crying out loud!!! I DONT CARE! i belive what i want but as thats not accepted by then ill scale my 304 to 36000m (thats 36km) happy now? or do you want to argue trivial minusia some more? if yes dont aim your comments at me as i will be ignoring them.

[boberth2o]

ScalingOne
is based off of Carter.
The scaling on one is good for Carter on the first image. Yet, once you apply it to the second image that has a great degree of perspective on the ship that measures the vertical, the depth is now suspect. The scaling breaks down here.

Scaling Two

Scaling is based from your original Carter measure and the pixels that you've sized by proportion from images I can't see but Likely you're still using Perspective images. (1)The problem is the lack of knowledge of Sam Carter's posture in the suit. Legs are doubtful to be fully extend as floating allows for any posture. The bend could be as much of a loss of a half a foot or a foot.

at .5" the 41 meters not 50
Which means that the length would be 487.5 meters not 582 meters.
HALF a FOOT created a difference of 16% possible error.

Both Scaling One an Two are based from Carter.

The Third Scaling

This is a Hive Scaling that is based of the same Carter Scale.

Scaling Four

This is more reliable but I didn't realized you used perspective images to scale the distance in pixels from door to door and then from nose to tail. The picture you use is rather shocking. You're still using perspective images on a real world object that has far more reliable orthographic diagrams on the internet. (I don't understand why you'd do this) You might be robing yourself of meters of length.

I don't have a problem with these far off shots of the Daedalus being used. CGI is best measured from a distance because it will have a tendency to be parallel at a distance as the 747 with the 302 shows.

The point is you've don't great scaling work but in just one area you've made an unnecessary mistake of relying on POV images when you had better more trust worthy projections. The second point is Carter (or rather the first) room for 16 percent error on all your estimates is now a given with what I've seen.

This analysis only includes the least common gauge of height or length and none of the scalings that judge the rear the front or other images that relying on the Carter scaling.

Whether ALX knows it or not, there is sufficient reason to doubt them.
I think these scaling went to alot of trouble but I can't call them as accurate as they could be.

For Scaling One and Scaling Two I told you that it was controversial so I threw them out. You should not be commenting on them.

Scaling Three has nothing to do with finding the over all dimensions of the Daedalus. And once again I said I threw this out for various reasons no comments are needed here.

For Scaling Four your comments are unfounded and you have no ground to stand on to argue. They are just as accurate as my latest scales are. I even did the math to show that you have no purpose commenting.

You said everything was fine up until the width and length shots. So I took the width and length images in the fourth one out and I re-did the scale with the orthographic image from above in the fifth one.

Width of Bay to Width and Length of Ship

Width of Bay = 112.17 feet

8 pixels/112.17 feet = 0.071320

55 pixels/ 0.071320 = 771.2 feet

132 pixels/ 0.071320 = 1850.8 feet

Length of Ship is = 1850.8 feet, 564.1 meters

Width of Ship is = 771.2 feet, 235.0 meters

If you do the math there is a 2% relative error in between the two scales. That is why I used that image, it is the closest image to orthographic that there is outside of screen schematics. 2% is negligible, please do your math before you ridicule my work.

For your Carter argument there is one major flaw that you don't see, and that is why I said it was controversial and not being used. Carter is not right next to the edge of the hull that I scaled, If you look in "Flesh and Blood" they put her right in the center of the hanger door. Which means that she is far away from that surface and cannot be used to scale because of the hidden perspective distance. You should not be using Carter for anything in the future.

Once again do your homework before you begin criticizing anything here.