New Honorverse renders uploaded

kzt wrote:The counter is that a hit on a reactor is fatal, so therefore clustering them as tightly as possible minimizes the vulnerable area and allows the maximum effective armor to be applied and therefore improves ship survivability.

This is what extensive simulation and design reviews are supposed to go through, so I don't know the answer.

Meh. Six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

Well, with the new job, it's taken me awhile to get some new stuff done. Also had to build a Keyhole and create a divot for it in the Nike. Last two weeks have been spent arguing with the Agamemnon.

So, enough with the excuses. Here's the newest stuff hot off the render engine:

http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/R ... -485503361
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/R ... -485503362
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/R ... -485503365
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/R ... -485503372
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/A ... -485503916
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/A ... -485503920
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/A ... -485503921
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/A ... -485503922
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/N ... -485504169
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/N ... -485504171
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/N ... -485504173
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/N ... -485504174
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/N ... -485504175
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/B ... -485504728
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/B ... -485504729

Over the next couple weeks, I plan to also do the Keyhole refit of the Aggie, as well as the Duke of Cromarty Royal Yacht conversion. That's the plan, anyway. I might get a little distracted by a CLAC or DN... who knows?

5 grins UP!

Very cool. It surprised me how deep the Keyholes were embedded in the carrying ship, for some reason, I imagined them to be flatter.

Which goes to show why people really don't want to stuff more than 1 Keyhole per broadside on a ship. Or, for that matter, make them significantly bigger.

An interesting point for consideration:

With the interdependency inherent in the Keyhole parameters to ship docking provisions/recess, there will be a natural inclination for any generational improvements in Keyhole to be in the direction of cramming more capabilities into a same form factor platform, rather than making the platforms smaller.

At least until there is a major new BC/SD design in the offing.

dreamrider

dreamrider wrote:An interesting point for consideration:

With the interdependency inherent in the Keyhole parameters to ship docking provisions/recess, there will be a natural inclination for any generational improvements in Keyhole to be in the direction of cramming more capabilities into a same form factor platform, rather than making the platforms smaller.

At least until there is a major new BC/SD design in the offing.

dreamrider

Still makes me wonder, why Keyholes were jammed into BOTH sides of the ship, when they could just as easily be positioned on a singular side making the effective girth of the ship greater or dumped dorsal/ventral where girth armor is not effected at all.

BCL(B)

wastedfly wrote:Still makes me wonder, why Keyholes were jammed into BOTH sides of the ship, when they could just as easily be positioned on a singular side making the effective girth of the ship greater or dumped dorsal/ventral where girth armor is not effected at all.

BCL(B)

I think the issue is that the dorsal and ventral sides are already occupied with other systems, like heat exchangers and docking bays. Putting both Keyholes into one broadside makes deploying them more awkward, and given that you want Keyholes on both sides of the ship, probably counterproductive. In addition, whatever broadside you put them into will be much weaker than the other one, both in terms of armor and weapon mounts, making it much more difficult to maneuver the ship effectively in combat (as in, you will always have to orient your strong side towards your enemy unless you particularly like having holes punched into your ship).

The E wrote:

wastedfly wrote:Still makes me wonder, why Keyholes were jammed into BOTH sides of the ship, when they could just as easily be positioned on a singular side making the effective girth of the ship greater or dumped dorsal/ventral where girth armor is not effected at all.

BCL(B)

I think the issue is that the dorsal and ventral sides are already occupied with other systems, like heat exchangers and docking bays. Putting both Keyholes into one broadside makes deploying them more awkward, and given that you want Keyholes on both sides of the ship, probably counterproductive. In addition, whatever broadside you put them into will be much weaker than the other one, both in terms of armor and weapon mounts, making it much more difficult to maneuver the ship effectively in combat (as in, you will always have to orient your strong side towards your enemy unless you particularly like having holes punched into your ship).

Dorsal Keyhole would be part of docking bay. Move the systems. None of them are in key areas. Radiators can be put anywhere. Besides, would think all the heat buildup will be from the impellers as this is where the fusion rooms and power coupling is. Those radiators placed on dorsal side midships makes 0 rational sense from an engineering perspective. Embed them into the spindle close to the source for all the waste heat.

Keyhole On both side. Only takes one keyhole for all of your offensive/defensive links. Engagement is an hour or more out usually. 4-6 minutes if one only deploys them when they first launch missiles. If it takes 4-6 minutes to move a keyhole to the other side or hours...

As for one broadside thinner, what a joke. Move the systems off center and split the difference. Equal armor.

As for fewer weapon mounts with both on one side. Weapon mounts take a miniscule broadside area. And none mid ships for near every class. See HoS if ya don't believe me or better yet, click on those links MAXXQ has created upthread and take a wee look. Keyhole takes up more area than all of the mounts combined. There are still acres of area left. Sensors displaced? Put them in the Keyhole bays. Keyholes leave, still have all your sensors.

Anyways, looks like BuShips placed the Keyholes on either side for emergency deployment. Dorsal would slow it down a little bit. Singular side? Only truly beneficial for BC class as their armor is vastly thinner than SDp.

Hmm "vastly thinner"... Oxymoron statement. So stupid, think I will leave it for everyone to grin<s> at.

wastedfly wrote: As for fewer weapon mounts with both on one side. Weapon mounts take a miniscule broadside area. And none mid ships for near every class. See HoS if ya don't believe me or better yet, click on those links MAXXQ has created upthread and take a wee look. Keyhole takes up more area than all of the mounts combined. There are still acres of area left. Sensors displaced? Put them in the Keyhole bays. Keyholes leave, still have all your sensors.

Not arguing with you, but just pointing out a couple things for you to consider.

There's not quite as much space for weapons mounts and other stuff as you might think. There are a couple reasons why there *appears* to be more space available on the surface:

1) Missile magazines take up a lot of volume behind all that apparently empty surface area. In fact, one of the additional reasons for intermixing energy weapons and missile mounts is to provide spacing for the missile tube magazines. Even energy weapons take up much more volume behind the armor than the weapons port might imply.

2) Weapons crew compartments. If you take a close look at the following image, you can see the outlines of "hatches" near each mount: http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/F ... -427887505 Those are crew capsules for each weapon mount. They also act as escape pods for when abandoning ship.

Now, granted, this particular image is from an old version of the Star Knight, and the later version I'm using in my group shots is the more accurate version (although I haven't bothered with actually showing the hatches with the newer version, or with any other ship), with fewer weapons mount crew capsules, per a recent revelation (internally with BuNine) that it isn't one mount = one crew capsule.

3) reason you don't see weapons mounts midships on most classes is because of the armored core hull. This takes up a lot of internal volume and is widest midships, providing less room for weapons mounts. The smallest ships - DDs and CLs - don't have an armored core hull, and therefore have the room to place the weapons mounts midships. In fact, as I was building them, placing them midships was a necessity.

Like many people, you have forgotten about volume, and only look at what's showing on the surface, not to mention that you don't get to see the insides of these models as I'm building them to realize just how difficult it is to place some of the stuff you *do* see. Look closely at many of my renders and compare them to the line art in HoS. There will be many differences, mostly minor, some major, simply because where something was drawn in the line art doesn't necessarily work when you try to do it in three dimensions, as well as fitting things inside.

You should have heard me cussing out whoever decided to add four grasers to the aft hammerhead of the Agamemnon. You know, the end with the huge hole in it for all those PITA pods? Never mind the hole... let's try the fact that the Aggie's grasers are SD-grade and as a result, were almost too long to even *fit* in the aft hammerhead. Thank goodness there was space between the pod bay hatches. Even then, I had to figure out the weapons port hatch operation. Normally, the port hatches are two-piece, splitting down the middle and sliding open to either side. In the case of the Aggie's aft grasers, the port hatches are one piece and slide outboard.

tl;dr - There's a lot of stuff behind all that apparently empty space on the surface.