Author Topic: TOS Oberth Class (Read 3921 times)

GMunoz · « **on:** August 21, 2009, 04:45:30 PM »

Thought I would put this up for some comments and feedback:

Dalek · « **Reply #1 on:** August 21, 2009, 04:46:40 PM »

Well, the reg is the wrong way round on saucer and nacelles.

Otherwise, most intrigueing idea.

majormagna · « **Reply #2 on:** August 21, 2009, 05:00:50 PM »

A good idea, although some of the proportions seem off; nacelle placement for example; however I can see the placement as being workable.
The 'sensor pod', in my opinion should have no windows, as with the TMP counterpart, possibly moved further back, so it projects a little further back than the nacelles.

Very good work though, the windows could stay if this was an Oberth variant, or perhaps these 'pods' are interchangable (Extremely likely knowing Starfleet).

GMunoz · « **Reply #3 on:** August 21, 2009, 05:04:33 PM »

I used the TMP Oberth as a guide and the nacelles are placed pretty much the same as the TMP counterpart. I will slide the sensor pod back some as I was not happy with the placement either. Maybe reduce the number of windoes on the pod would work.

GMunoz · « **Reply #4 on:** August 21, 2009, 05:12:06 PM »

Here is an in-game shot in current confuguration

majormagna · « **Reply #5 on:** August 21, 2009, 05:24:04 PM »

I've just thought, if this is indeed a sensor pod, then I'd have made it a bit bigger, with a larger deflector.

And it's cool that it's already in game.

King Class Scout · « **Reply #6 on:** August 21, 2009, 05:35:14 PM »

is it me, or does the eng hull need chopped off after the last of the windows?

ACES_HIGH · « **Reply #7 on:** August 22, 2009, 01:40:09 AM »

yeah, I'd have to agree, you should shorten that secondary hull, I would chop it in half, and maybe move it a bit more aft.

Starforce2 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 22, 2009, 02:29:33 AM »

The sec hull should be shorter and fatter, and perhaps feature an aft deflector dish as well.

Vortex · « **Reply #9 on:** August 22, 2009, 10:41:48 AM »

I never understood the point of an aft deflector dish.

mckinneyc · « **Reply #10 on:** August 22, 2009, 10:44:46 AM »

Nor me unless it was used as some longe range sensor array.

Dalek · « **Reply #11 on:** August 22, 2009, 10:45:46 AM »

Perhaps...a shuttle bay should go there! :lol:

captain_obvious · « **Reply #12 on:** August 22, 2009, 11:00:32 AM »

Quote from: Dalek on August 22, 2009, 10:45:46 AM

Perhaps...a shuttle bay should go there! :lol:

It already has a shuttle bay.
I think that the bottom half could be some huge payload bay (a la the space shuttle). The rest is some engineering module.

Dalek · « **Reply #13 on:** August 22, 2009, 11:07:57 AM »

Oops.

Although in my mind a shuttlebay would look better there. The Kelvin is a good example of that.

Vortex · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2009, 02:18:30 PM »

Quote from: captain_obvious on August 22, 2009, 11:00:32 AM

It already has a shuttle bay.
I think that the bottom half could be some huge payload bay (a la the space shuttle). The rest is some engineering module.

The Galaxy class has three shuttle bays. Why not have two on this?

Dalek · « **Reply #15 on:** August 22, 2009, 02:22:02 PM »

Cos the Constitution only had one shuttlebay. How stupid it must look if its smaller sister ship had 2.

captain_obvious · « **Reply #16 on:** August 22, 2009, 03:39:21 PM »

Quote from: Dalek on August 22, 2009, 02:22:02 PM

Cos the Constitution only had one shuttlebay. How stupid it must look if its smaller sister ship had 2.

Indeed. what's the usable internal volume of the connie compared to the oberth?? quite a bit bigger I'd imagine. Now throw in the usable volume of the galaxy class into the equation.
what's the usable internal volume of the galaxy compared to the connie?? A hell of a lot bigger!

the usable internal volume of a galaxy compared to the tos oberth = quite a bit bigger+A hell of a lot bigger. squared.

I'd imagine the lower pod is a payload bay as I said earlier.
I can just imagine a load of these little things each carrying a piece of epsilon 9 station or something as well as being science vessels.

What's better than a small cheap quick and dirty science ship? a small cheap quick and dirty science ship that can also act as a freighter built for carrying outsize loads and do other funky stuff too!

Phaser · « **Reply #17 on:** August 22, 2009, 08:25:59 PM »

Quote from: captain_obvious on August 22, 2009, 03:39:21 PM

What's better than a small cheap quick and dirty science ship? a small cheap quick and dirty science ship that can also act as a freighter built for carrying outsize loads and do other funky stuff too!

That exactly the purpose of the Ptolemy Class!

I like where this concept is going. It could use some refinement, though. For example, the "pod" could use a bit more interesting profile than a simple taper. Maybe just adding more details to the textures would cover it. The plain rectangular area just below the saucer should be made more detailed, model-wise. It currently looks like a placeholder for something more detailed.

Good start! Not a bad texturing job, too.

Maxloef · « **Reply #18 on:** August 23, 2009, 06:30:31 AM »

its a bit overscaled for an oberth as well if you look at the windows on the saucer and also the bridge. otherwwise i really like the design ^^

Shao · « **Reply #19 on:** August 23, 2009, 12:48:17 PM »

I think it looks good, but I'd agree with the others here who say that the engineering section/sensor pod should be shortened quite a bit! Apart from that its a cool idea!

News:

Author Topic: TOS Oberth Class (Read 3921 times)