Original Starship Design Thread

[boberth2o]

How can you determine negligible if you're not using the best view possible?

Look at the picture I used as the accepted value for the proportions of the ship. It is an orthographic projection of the top of the Daedalus. That is the best view possible. Thats how the perspective image is determined as negligible at 2%.

You should know why.
There were 3 different ways that such a scaling could have error. Since you didn't see it at the time I have to call into question the variables that you've letting slip by. All of the problems are depth issues and you're dealing with it as though it's 2D on the level of pixels.

If you go look through Battera's thread you can see these same exact points stated.

I remember on one of your scaling rebuttals you said "it was 90 degrees" as though that justifies the view you're using that obviously shows perspective. Why did I comment?

Yes it does show perspective, 3-point perspective. The vanishing points for the vertical and horizontal axes are so far in the distance that there is no considerable difference in the outcome of the dimensions. So at the point that the perspective barely changes the figures and it should not be a factor when finding the overall dimensions.

Defending my comments:

It seems as if you didn't know that even if something appears 90 to camera that it can still be vertically foreshortened.
That's depth perception that is undetectable to the human eye and seemingly what you didn't realize in about 50% of your work in individual scaling. That is the reason why I know the orthographic view matters. It's about precision, not about negligibility. If it does turn out to be only 2% negligible the question is why not look for as closes to perfect as you can get eliminating all removable human error?

Foreshortening only matters when the object, or in our case part of an object, is at an angle that makes it appear radically different than from the parallel projected normal. In none of my last two scales have I used and image that has that.
Precision? When I do my calculations on paper I round to the nearest millionth decimal place. When I post on the forum I round the digits because it is visually unpleasant to see those decimals. Thats precise for measuring a small portion of an image. Finally I'm not going to look for an as close as it possible answer because no body cares if say the is Daedalus 1000m and 4 cm. They only care about the 1000m figure.

[Saquist]

Look at the picture I used as the accepted value for the proportions of the ship. It is an orthographic projection of the top of the Daedalus. That is the best view possible. Thats how the perspective image is determined as negligible at 2%.

On that view it's not neglible. It's Zero. or close to it. These are orthographic views and I had no problem with them. But I wasn't talking about that one.

BUT...I don't remember how you came to your length of the ship here BUT I though you said that this was a Hive ship scaling not a Daedaluus scaling....

Which is it?

Yes it does show perspective, 3-point perspective. The vanishing points for the vertical and horizontal axes are so far in the distance that there is no considerable difference in the outcome of the dimensions. So at the point that the perspective barely changes the figures and it should not be a factor when finding the overall dimensions.

Just half a degree toward the camera on the Y axis could foil your estimates and with the ship the longer the measure. That's why I can't uphold perspective measurements. I've been working on a system to assign so many measures to a degree but that would still be less effective.

Foreshortening only matters when the object, or in our case part of an object, is at an angle that makes it appear radically different than from the parallel projected normal. In none of my last two scales have I used and image that has that.
Precision? When I do my calculations on paper I round to the nearest millionth decimal place. When I post on the forum I round the digits because it is visually unpleasant to see those decimals. Thats precise for measuring a small portion of an image. Finally I'm not going to look for an as close as it possible answer because no body cares if say the is Daedalus 1000m and 4 cm. They only care about the 1000m figure.

Foreshortening always matters. If it's not orthographic it's foreshorten. Foreshorten as in angled forward and as a result shorten in overall length.

I don't know boberth. Maybe I'm wrong. It just seems ill advised to rely on these images.

[boberth2o]

On that view it's not neglible. It's Zero. or close to it. These are orthographic views and I had no problem with them. But I wasn't talking about that one.

BUT...I don't remember how you came to your length of the ship here BUT I though you said that this was a Hive ship scaling not a Daedaluus scaling....

Which is it?

When it's zero or close to it it is unimportant in the end, making it negligible. In between the two scales I don't get why your trying to say that this is so important when the end result is 7 meters away from the other. The fact that the scales are that close together is enough to say that the 557-564m estimate has a higher probability of being correct.

The scale came from the 747 and F-302.

Both, it was used in a Hive Ship scale but it is also as a nice ortho shot again in my last Daedalus scale.

Foreshortening always matters. If it's not orthographic it's foreshorten. Foreshorten as in angled forward and as a result shorten in overall length.

I don't know boberth. Maybe I'm wrong. It just seems ill advised to rely on these images.

Yes but it's at the point where the angles are minuscule and wouldn't greatly affect the overall product.

[thekillman]

in physics class i learned of "significance". a number can not be more accurate than the least accurate measurement. Bob is right in this case. as long as he rounds it right, his numbers are accurate. we don't need exact lenghts, we need rough lengths. the 100's of meters, not the 10's. 445 meters = 400 meters, 455 = 500 meters. a 10% error causes a difference of 45 or so at max. which makes 445 meters either 401 meters, or 489.

even at these humongous errors, there is still a distance error of 100 meters. there is 200 meters between 500 (lower scales) and 300 meters, and 400 meters between 700 and 300. you get at which humongous differences we're looking? it's like talking about ZPM figures, where a factor 100 off is rather accurate.

we're talking 100's of meters in lenghts, at 100 meters off we STILL know approximately how long it is, and we will STILL be able to see how big it roughly is, and we STILL can see whetere it's 100, 300, 500, 700 or 1000 meters long.

[Saquist]

no alkesh are the midrange bombers not cargoships(teltak's) the cargoships are only 15m long and the alkesh are 30m long

No I meant the Alkesh had lost 35 or 30 meters from the pictures of the Antartic battle.

[Saquist]

This is just a combination of all the parts I've assembled so far. It's not final, it's just that I wanted to see the ship put together to see if the parts would work well.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

None of the parts and shapes you see are joined together. On this image there are likely 40 + shapes so far in this image.

[immhotep]

What the hell happened?? Gw's like completely changed!
Not liking it atall

[boberth2o]

What the hell happened?? Gw's like completely changed!
Not liking it atall

I know. I'm finding myself coming here less and less

[puddlejumperOZ]

This is just a combination of all the parts I've assembled so far. It's not final, it's just that I wanted to see the ship put together to see if the parts would work well.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

None of the parts and shapes you see are joined together. On this image there are likely 40 + shapes so far in this image.

Warning message under spoiler

[Dr Lee]

Had a Very long day today, and i found i could't work on the GWMC tonight... so i decided to have a bash at an idea i've had for a quick and simple scene...



It's simply a 50x50 ft plane, cut 10X5 ft, with each section inverted then bevelled individually. the look i was going for was a concrete wall made up of numerous concrete blocks. The floor would either be concrete or asphalt (Depending on the scene i'll be doing) and there might even be a roof as well.

I'm not quite sure what happened to the three blocks on the top row atm...

[Saquist]

yep I don't know what happened.

Heres a link to the other forum
http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/...?t=8426&page=6

[Cmdr. Setsuna F. Seyei]

this is a apc i decided to do. i got the design from Aliens 2. i did however take a little artistic license

the main cannon is a twin charged particle beam cannon. the cannon is a prototype tauri version of the asgard beam weapon. however it was deemed that since the power output was so low(10% of the ABW at full output) it would be better used as a vehicle mounted ground attack weapon. It was found to be quite effective against masses of wraith and wraith darts.

the green red and gray circles on the top of the vehicle are night vision, thermal, and a regular camera.

i also changed the front turret from 2 chain guns to 4.

[gotthammer]

Ooh. Aliens' Colonial Marines' APC.
I used to love that design. But isn't the clearance of the thing from the ground too low? And isn't there a 'problem' w/ APCs/IFVs w/ main openings at the sides? I mean there must be a reason why most of the APCs/IFVs open from the rear, right? (I assume it's cover and whatnot)

I wonder, tho', what modern AFV/IFV could readily fit into a stargate? I always wondered as to why they never really seemed to use vehicles...(is a naquadah powered HMMWV 'too much'?)
If it's budget, I could understand, but wouldn't it have made sense to have at least mentioned such a thing, even in passing?

[Saquist]

Yep it looks just like the craft from Aliens.

[Cmdr. Setsuna F. Seyei]

Ooh. Aliens' Colonial Marines' APC.
I used to love that design. But isn't the clearance of the thing from the ground too low? And isn't there a 'problem' w/ APCs/IFVs w/ main openings at the sides? I mean there must be a reason why most of the APCs/IFVs open from the rear, right? (I assume it's cover and whatnot)

I wonder, tho', what modern AFV/IFV could readily fit into a stargate? I always wondered as to why they never really seemed to use vehicles...(is a naquadah powered HMMWV 'too much'?)
If it's budget, I could understand, but wouldn't it have made sense to have at least mentioned such a thing, even in passing?

ok i guess i ll answer thes questions the order they were asked.

Q. But isn't the clearance of the thing from the ground too low?
A. I modified the design so that it has a variable ground clearance

Q. And isn't there a 'problem' w/ APCs/IFVs w/ main openings at the sides?
A. Not really. The side doors provide enough cover for 1 man per side to exit the APC and provide cover with thier weapons for the rest to unload.

Q. I mean there must be a reason why most of the APCs/IFVs open from the rear, right?
A. Yes. Modern day APC's oepn at the rear to prevent "bottlenecking". And if i have to
explain "bottlenecking" you need to go back to school.

Q. I wonder, tho', what modern AFV/IFV could readily fit into a stargate?
A. Well considering the fact that we have seen at least 5 4-5 people walk up the ramp side by side and the
average human shoulder width is between 12-16inches or 60-70cm that means that the ramp is at
least 48-64inches or 240-280cm wide and has a max width of 60-90inches or 300-350cm wide. that
means the ramp is pretty much between 4ft and 7 1/2ft wide. which is not much 4 an APC.
Most modern day APC's are between 8-10ft wide. However the Gate does have an internal diameter of 18
ft so if the ram was raised and widened then concieveably yes an APC could go through the gate.

Q. I always wondered as to why they never really seemed to use vehicles...(is a naquadah powered
MMWV 'too much'?)
A. To answer this question is kinda...... well you know.....Ok think about it this way how could they get an
APC or any other type of military vehicle(jumpers dont count) into and out of the gate room????