Author Topic: USS Falmouth Design  (Read 12556 times)

Offline cinqnic

  • Starforce Productions
  • Posts: 339
  • Cookies: 246
  • Cinqnic Member of Delta Force M.A.C.O. STO
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #80 on: February 08, 2010, 04:21:03 PM »
this post is mainly for Arse, torpode placement let me know

Offline JamesTiberiusKirk

  • Johnny Walker... one of my best friends! Cheers!
  • Posts: 584
  • Cookies: 33
  • Cheers!
    • My Myspace Page ->
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #81 on: February 08, 2010, 04:52:45 PM »
I would go with neck. That would still be a little more like the excelsior.

"And this... is... to go... even further beyond!"

Offline cinqnic

  • Starforce Productions
  • Posts: 339
  • Cookies: 246
  • Cinqnic Member of Delta Force M.A.C.O. STO
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #82 on: February 08, 2010, 05:19:32 PM »
just more picture, just the torpodes placement to do

Offline ARSE

  • Posts: 42
  • Cookies: 1
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #83 on: February 09, 2010, 03:57:26 AM »
Right Torpedo placement first...

Fwd all 4 points that I have marked, the neck torpedoes are to go side by side similarly to the constitution neck, if you build a solid bit of the neck up around that section rather than the grilled neck just across the lower end.  Then flare this bit out just enough at the angle shown in the pic.  Insert the same style launcher beneath the nav deflector as well.  Finally add in the nacelle pod torpedoes.

In the next picture the Aft placement just before I mention the torpedoes, please add in the central impulse engine about a decks height above the base of the neck and in the solid section either side of the neck please add a airlock. The aft torpedo launchers either side of the neck above or beside the impulse engine fires 3 torpedoes each. The launchers beneath the bay fire 2 each as do the ones on the lower hull. The lower hull ones to be twin launchers like the neck and beneath nav deflector at the front. The aft launchers beneath the aft shuttlebay are to be spaced apart about two launchers width between them so imagine that there are four launchers under the bay mounted into the step down and then remove the two inner ones and you have the gap between the two outer ones that the distance desired.

Whilst looking at this picture you will see that I have continued the torpedo launcher step down under the aft shuttlebay because that looks more excelsior like and it actually put the nacelle pylons where they are in the original design.  Also if it is not to much of and issue could you make the nacelle pylons a fraction thinner they look just a fraction chunky.

The two forward phaser arrays need to be moved further around the saucer and a central forward one added so that they are equally spaced. Also instead of a belly phaser athwartships could we have two smaller ones either side of the centre line in a fore to aft orientation instead mimicking the placement of the older style ball turrets on the underneath of the excelsior and constitution.

The two airlocks on the inside of the flight deck mounted on the side of the impulse engines I think need removing because I just have visions of walking in and then getting toasted by the impulse manifolds as there doesn't appear to be enough space for a corridor, unless you intended them as maintainence hatches for in dock??

Finally I've realised with only using the impulse engines as steerage this baby is only going to be able to go straight and very fast, shes missing thrusters I suggest 1 in the centre of each quarter of the saucer some smaller ones on the aft corners of the nacelles and a couple on the underneath of the secondary hull.


Offline ARSE

  • Posts: 42
  • Cookies: 1
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #84 on: February 09, 2010, 04:00:58 AM »
Sorry for double post just had an idea... For the aft lower shuttlebay instead of the bay doors splitting down the middle and opening sideways, like a connie, why not put a single door in with the slats going sideways and it opens bottom to top so it swivels open like a swivel top bin ("trash can" for our puddle jumping bretheren lol) or like a clam shell.

Offline cinqnic

  • Starforce Productions
  • Posts: 339
  • Cookies: 246
  • Cinqnic Member of Delta Force M.A.C.O. STO
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #85 on: February 09, 2010, 11:33:45 AM »
I TRY the torpodes around the def and it didnt look right too Enterprise A look, so what do you think of this set up 
it will have 5 FWD lauchers

Offline JimmyB76

  • Posts: 6423
  • Cookies: 421
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #86 on: February 09, 2010, 01:45:52 PM »
quick question - is that p81 ambassador?  if so, are you going to do anything about the ship's textures?  perhaps not so much purple for nacelles?

Offline ARSE

  • Posts: 42
  • Cookies: 1
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #87 on: February 10, 2010, 03:34:37 AM »
Good idea but I have noticed a slight problem, size those launchers would be launching photons the size of shuttle craft nearly, given that the saucers edge contains atleast 2 decks on an excelsior this thing would logically have atleast that if not three, there for there needs to be a lot more decks textured into the secoindary hull and the saucer windows made smaller and more of them, could you make this ship a fraction larger, I don't mind if it is longer than the ambassador it still wont have as much internal volume as her, the saucer is meant to be only a fraction smaller than the ambassador when i say fraction I'm talking a matter of 5 or 6 meters so she would fit her saucer in the ambassadors with room for a cabin between her saucer and the ambassadors all the way around.  I'm working on a picture now to show what I had in mind for the launchers.

Offline ARSE

  • Posts: 42
  • Cookies: 1
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #88 on: February 10, 2010, 04:29:08 AM »
OK I have done my doodles, in this post is the correct resize for the ship. (Guys please don't say its too big because don't forget the Yamato class battleship is actually around this size and so is the missouri all built before this this construction tech is there to do it. The Yamato dwarfed the excelsior, hell one of its secondary hulls were a lot larger than the excelsior secondary hull. Therefore it is feesible that starfleet would build a ship this large in the more squat a more excelsior stretched out design just prior to the ambasador going for the more taller chunky design which leads on to the galaxy class)

Now you can see why there is a need to make the windows a lot smaller and that the previous launcher design would be launching torpedoes atleast the size of a shuttle, which I don't mind lol but wouldn't have much space for extra shots lol

Seriously now the pictures beneath that show the forward launchers the upper one in the lower neck is just a ever so slight build up around the base of the neck to allow two launchers in there, the lower launchers beneath the nav deflector jus need a space similar in size to the neck launchers, (see the need to scale down the launchers and scale up the size of ship now?) but just a recessed cut out into the hull no build up around the the launchers required they can be set into the hull as much as necessary to fit in.  In the side on view it just shows the neck launcher as the beneath deflector launchers would be recessed into the hull you would not actually see them from this view. not the position of the airlock at the rear of the neck.

Finally I have drawn up the position of the neck aft launchers and impulse in the lower picture.

Offline ARSE

  • Posts: 42
  • Cookies: 1
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #89 on: February 10, 2010, 04:57:15 AM »
Here is a new idea I've had for the additional torpedoes and an adjustment to the nacelles to make them look even more like the original design.  Now all torpedo tubes are restricted to 2 STVI style torpedos each giving the FWD arc a maximum of 16 Torps in one barrage and 12 in the AFT.  More than two each and it is silly over power, I believe it is just right considering her role and the fact that she is meant primarily for taking on the cardies who fight in packs of ships it makes tactical sense.  Cinqnic twin torp launchers in all FWD positions please???!!! lol! I thought to put the launchers here because there is a large empty grey space looking forward at this section of the nacelle.  Thats why I thought to lower the collector and plasma grill section forward of the auxilliary impulse engines and insert torp tubes it gives this previously non functional section of ship a smaller non functioning area and a section to insert the tubes, it also takes them away from a thin section of hull, i.e. the pylons, this move to also makes structural and tactical sense.  The torps are not stored in this section for these launchers for two reasons one not enough space, two too dangerous to have a stash of torpedoes right next to warp nacelles or impulse engines they are instead fed along the nacelles from inboard armouries in a belt system rather similar to belt fed machine guns or a factory carousel.

Offline GMunoz

  • Posts: 466
  • Cookies: 139
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #90 on: February 10, 2010, 09:11:26 PM »
Weapons placements are looking good.

Offline deadthunder2_0

  • Posts: 1181
  • Cookies: 39
  • Tech, Nonstop, General- Modders Of Steel
    • Modders of Steel Home page
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #91 on: February 10, 2010, 10:42:48 PM »
More than 2 is an overpower, 8 torps is a overpower, when do you have time to launch that may torps in the heat of battle?
Support the Post TNG Ship Pack

Tech, Nonstop, General- Modders Of Steel,
We are the Modders that take everything to the next level, We are the Modders of Steel

Offline ARSE

  • Posts: 42
  • Cookies: 1
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #92 on: February 11, 2010, 05:39:07 AM »
Given the fact that the ambassador had at least 8 tubes in total that were salvo capable quite easily, that fact is cannon from reading the lost era books by the way, its endorsed by paramount so its cannon.

I'd like to wind your memory back to nemesis how many torpedoes did the E fire? 10's of them and that was only against a single target, how about First Contact all ships fire 10's and yet again a single target. The new Star Trek Movie many torpedoes from several of the ships in film (Enterprise, Narrada) fired yet again at a single target.  The Falmouth is designed to take on many targets at once. Each tube is only supposed to fire 2 each now consider what I said earlier it is designed to go up against the cardassian hunting packs of the era more or less on its own, that means at least 3 or 4 ships at once, so you spread your torps across the attacking wolf pack its simple logical and makes tactical sense, you knock out or down shields at a longer range with torps and then let the phasers do the rest when in close again the most logical and tactical move to make the enemy think twice before firing as they may hit their own when in close proximity mixed up in the pack, this too is the reason for large impulse engines. Rather than putting a salvo in one or two tubes which takes a long time to load and one direct hit and you entire forward or aft torpedo offensive ability is destroyed it is also laid out as such to enable longer lasting weapons placement meaning that the enemy has to target many areas to destroy her offensive ability again for anti wolf pack tactics if there are launchers it cant see in a direct line of sight, hence weapon arc shadow caused by the ship itself, then the cardy can't destroy your other launchers until it maneuvers through your other weapon arcs thus opening itself up for attack from your others arcs.  Note also I said STVI type torpedoes not the current Enterprise C torpedoes that could would possinly be in use around this period, reasons easy to build from spares (older more understood technology) replicators are only now being introduced in this period therefore torps would have to be made from scratch if you didn't have replicators and secondly the more modern torps are designed for the more modern launchers in the ambassador class and onwards which use larger salvo's which the older style launchers couldn't. I request you cast your memory to ST6 both the excelsior and Enterprise only fired a maximum of 2 torpedoes from each tube before reloading.  Hence the more torpedo tubes because the technology of the era wasn't capable of firing large torpedo salvos.

I have thought this through thoroughly and have played the devils advocate with the entire design so I have asked myself this question more than once but I can warrant the amount of torp tubes by the evidence provided above using the cannon examples and just evolving the amount of tubes and lessening the salvo amounts keeping the amount of torpedoes.  Enterpise-D could fire up to 12 or 16 of her much more advanced and destructive photons from one tube FWD and one tube AFT if I remember.

Offline deadthunder2_0

  • Posts: 1181
  • Cookies: 39
  • Tech, Nonstop, General- Modders Of Steel
    • Modders of Steel Home page
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #93 on: February 11, 2010, 10:09:48 AM »
Given the fact that the ambassador had at least 8 tubes in total that were salvo capable quite easily, that fact is cannon from reading the lost era books by the way, its endorsed by paramount so its cannon.

I'd like to wind your memory back to nemesis how many torpedoes did the E fire? 10's of them and that was only against a single target, how about First Contact all ships fire 10's and yet again a single target. The new Star Trek Movie many torpedoes from several of the ships in film (Enterprise, Narrada) fired yet again at a single target.  The Falmouth is designed to take on many targets at once. Each tube is only supposed to fire 2 each now consider what I said earlier it is designed to go up against the cardassian hunting packs of the era more or less on its own, that means at least 3 or 4 ships at once, so you spread your torps across the attacking wolf pack its simple logical and makes tactical sense, you knock out or down shields at a longer range with torps and then let the phasers do the rest when in close again the most logical and tactical move to make the enemy think twice before firing as they may hit their own when in close proximity mixed up in the pack, this too is the reason for large impulse engines. Rather than putting a salvo in one or two tubes which takes a long time to load and one direct hit and you entire forward or aft torpedo offensive ability is destroyed it is also laid out as such to enable longer lasting weapons placement meaning that the enemy has to target many areas to destroy her offensive ability again for anti wolf pack tactics if there are launchers it cant see in a direct line of sight, hence weapon arc shadow caused by the ship itself, then the cardy can't destroy your other launchers until it maneuvers through your other weapon arcs thus opening itself up for attack from your others arcs.  Note also I said STVI type torpedoes not the current Enterprise C torpedoes that could would possinly be in use around this period, reasons easy to build from spares (older more understood technology) replicators are only now being introduced in this period therefore torps would have to be made from scratch if you didn't have replicators and secondly the more modern torps are designed for the more modern launchers in the ambassador class and onwards which use larger salvo's which the older style launchers couldn't. I request you cast your memory to ST6 both the excelsior and Enterprise only fired a maximum of 2 torpedoes from each tube before reloading.  Hence the more torpedo tubes because the technology of the era wasn't capable of firing large torpedo salvos.

I have thought this through thoroughly and have played the devils advocate with the entire design so I have asked myself this question more than once but I can warrant the amount of torp tubes by the evidence provided above using the cannon examples and just evolving the amount of tubes and lessening the salvo amounts keeping the amount of torpedoes.  Enterpise-D could fire up to 12 or 16 of her much more advanced and destructive photons from one tube FWD and one tube AFT if I remember.

Quote
As Star Trek grew in both size and popularity in the 1980s, fans considered how to treat the ever-growing collection of episodes, movies, novels, comics, technical manuals, and more.

The Star Trek canon is generally defined as all live-action television series and feature films released by Paramount Pictures. With the release of Star Trek: The Animated Series on DVD, the studio appears to have changed its stance, and is now listing the cartoon series (aired 1973?1974), as a part of established canon. [1] [2] [3] The various "official" references (such as the Star Trek Encyclopedia or the Star Trek Chronology) may be used as a guide to canon information, but are not canon in and of themselves.

The definition of Star Trek canon may vary for different fans, and therefore for a reference source like Memory Alpha, the question may become especially difficult.

In those cases, the term fanon is used to refer to "fan canon" (of which the term is a portmanteau). It applies to certain "facts" that may have been accepted as a truth by a large number of fans, and thus either replaces an established canonical fact in the minds of those fans, or fills a plot-hole.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Canon

Quote
Affiliation:    Federation Starfleet
Type:    Heavy cruiser
Active:    24th century
Armament:    Ten phaser banks; two photon torpedo launchers
Defenses:    Deflector shields
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Ambassador_class


must i say more
Support the Post TNG Ship Pack

Tech, Nonstop, General- Modders Of Steel,
We are the Modders that take everything to the next level, We are the Modders of Steel

Offline ARSE

  • Posts: 42
  • Cookies: 1
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #94 on: February 11, 2010, 11:04:42 AM »
I'm not getting into an argument with some one all I'm saying is read the books THAT ARE ENDORSED BY PARAMOUNT! Therefore to be considered as CANNON! Time and again the star trek encyclopedia has been found to contradict itself, read the arguments for the excelsior class size on memory alpha.

Besides it says launchers, what isn't mentioned is how many tubes the launchers have there is nothing to say that they have more than one tube, for example when the enterprise d fires her spreads eg the four torps coming out at once they come out simultaneously therefore suggesting one launcher many tubes.

The same could be said for the Enterprise C, again they are salvo firing launchers the torpedo launchers on the Falmouth are only capable of firing two torps like the connie and excelsior again (I'm getting tired of repeating myself for the benefit of those who can't read previous posts) to get around being only able to fire 4 torpedoes a requirement to engage the cardies on a better playing field you install more launchers, to keep you happy I will say there are four launcher systems each with two tubes capable of firing two torps in each in the forward arc and five aft 4 with one tube firing 2 each and 1 with two tubes firing 2 per tube.

Offline Psyco Diver

  • Posts: 355
  • Cookies: 3
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #95 on: February 11, 2010, 01:27:54 PM »
Well if it had more torpedo launchers, esppecially aimed in different directions, it would be surmised that the ship is a Dreadnaught, and thus slow turning, which is why theres a new for more weapons pointing in different directions, to make up for the slow turning of the ship

Offline deadthunder2_0

  • Posts: 1181
  • Cookies: 39
  • Tech, Nonstop, General- Modders Of Steel
    • Modders of Steel Home page
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #96 on: February 11, 2010, 01:53:48 PM »
exactly, i think it needs port and starboard torpedo tubes, not a massive fore salvo, it is necessary to balance the ship to other ships of the era (for god's sake, the JLS Ambassador has NO torpedoes).
If you do use that many torp tubes i recommend a weaker projectile(250-400 damage points)
Support the Post TNG Ship Pack

Tech, Nonstop, General- Modders Of Steel,
We are the Modders that take everything to the next level, We are the Modders of Steel

Offline Dalek

  • Posts: 1529
  • Cookies: 206
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #97 on: February 11, 2010, 01:59:55 PM »
(for god's sake, the JLS Ambassador has NO torpedoes).


It has no "visible" torpedo tubes, just like it was on the original model. You can still fire torpedoes.
"To live on as we have is to leave behind joy, and love, and companionship, because we know it to be transitory, of the moment. We know it will turn to ash. Only those whose lives are brief can imagine that love is eternal. You should embrace that remarkable illusion. It may be the greatest gift your race has ever received."

 - Lorien

Offline deadthunder2_0

  • Posts: 1181
  • Cookies: 39
  • Tech, Nonstop, General- Modders Of Steel
    • Modders of Steel Home page
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #98 on: February 11, 2010, 02:24:03 PM »
ok, but still, 16 fore is overkill, 8 fore, that is ok.
Support the Post TNG Ship Pack

Tech, Nonstop, General- Modders Of Steel,
We are the Modders that take everything to the next level, We are the Modders of Steel

Offline cinqnic

  • Starforce Productions
  • Posts: 339
  • Cookies: 246
  • Cinqnic Member of Delta Force M.A.C.O. STO
Re: USS Falmouth Design
« Reply #99 on: February 11, 2010, 06:08:07 PM »
here the new torpodes points,
plus new window set up, plus shell i put escape pods on the hull so the are visable or leave it like an ent b where you cant see them