computer models of ships from the Honorverse.

cthia wrote:IMHO, I think it would be mostly a male thing about the dildo connection.

For whatever it's worth, I'm male and the dildo comparison never crossed my mind until I heard it on this forum, even though I'd been reading the books (and looking at the art) for years.

MuonNeutrino wrote:

cthia wrote:IMHO, I think it would be mostly a male thing about the dildo connection.

For whatever it's worth, I'm male and the dildo comparison never crossed my mind until I heard it on this forum, even though I'd been reading the books (and looking at the art) for years.

Neither did I. But I think we're in a minority.

cthia wrote:

MuonNeutrino wrote:For whatever it's worth, I'm male and the dildo comparison never crossed my mind until I heard it on this forum, even though I'd been reading the books (and looking at the art) for years.

Neither did I. But I think we're in a minority.

I never made the connection until someone once mentioned it over at the Bar. That was sometime after I had finished reading up through AAC, so I *had* seen the artwork, both by Mattingly and Isler, but just never really saw them that way. My biggest issue with the designs were that after being used to the more complex and detailed ships from things like Star Wars and Trek, and Babylon 5, I thought they seemd a bit simple in shape and very low on detail.

Which is odd, because even before that, I had been complaining for years that "real" warships wouldn't have so much... stuff... on the outside. Once I got over that, I realized that for the Honorverse, the design fits very well with David's idea of gravitic-based propulsion, and age-of-sail-style combat tactics.

Of course, the lack of "stuff" on the ships makes them much easier to model, as well.

Me neither, that's why I was just so ...wow ... about it. Maybe it's just one of those infectious memes. The question then us whether we want to propagate it. Or, I suppose, whether we have enough group self control to choose. Evidence to date is not encouraging.

I'm with you guys, I never equated the 2 until it was mentioned on the bar - My mother-in-law and several friends of mine have large looms so my mind immediately went to the various shuttlecock designs used on looms (as well as spindls, but the shuttlecock match is best).

3d printing is about making some thing for oneself. One cannot affordably mass produce something with a 3d printer. Not yet.

That is what a factory is for and mass production of parts.

One could technically scan a DW book but it would cost more than 10/15/25 dollars to print it up. Plus all the time scanning it. Although EBooks might solve that if you buy enough books. Need to pay for the reader, assuming it isn't a multipurpose tablet. A 3d printer is luckily the opposite of the EBook.

One might need to consider the no glasses 3D tablet though. Your mesh might just be all that needs be done. Which is why one would suggest making and selling the mesh.

Then like an EBook people can print them up if they want or spend a lot less, unless you maker your own printer from recycled bottles, and 3D tablet your own EModel.

Is the movie going to be 3D? I might just have to pickup a 3D tablet from Hammacher Schlemmer.

http://m.hammacher.com/Product/83344?promo=search

MaxxQ wrote:I never made the connection until someone once mentioned it over at the Bar. That was sometime after I had finished reading up through AAC, so I *had* seen the artwork, both by Mattingly and Isler, but just never really saw them that way. My biggest issue with the designs were that after being used to the more complex and detailed ships from things like Star Wars and Trek, and Babylon 5, I thought they seemd a bit simple in shape and very low on detail.

Which is odd, because even before that, I had been complaining for years that "real" warships wouldn't have so much... stuff... on the outside. Once I got over that, I realized that for the Honorverse, the design fits very well with David's idea of gravitic-based propulsion, and age-of-sail-style combat tactics.

Of course, the lack of "stuff" on the ships makes them much easier to model, as well.

I also never got that idea from just the descriptions in the books. Yeah, the problem comes from some the drawings of the ships being too smooth on the outside, with a lot of curvy surfaces. If the hulls were more anguluar with say an octagonal cross-section and the hammerheads more blocky and lots of things or "stuff"" (like weapons and sensors) sticking out everywhere, the connection probably wouldn't have been made.

MaxxQ wrote:I never made the connection until someone once mentioned it over at the Bar. That was sometime after I had finished reading up through AAC, so I *had* seen the artwork, both by Mattingly and Isler, but just never really saw them that way. My biggest issue with the designs were that after being used to the more complex and detailed ships from things like Star Wars and Trek, and Babylon 5, I thought they seemd a bit simple in shape and very low on detail.

Which is odd, because even before that, I had been complaining for years that "real" warships wouldn't have so much... stuff... on the outside. Once I got over that, I realized that for the Honorverse, the design fits very well with David's idea of gravitic-based propulsion, and age-of-sail-style combat tactics.

Of course, the lack of "stuff" on the ships makes them much easier to model, as well.

Yah, I didn't get it from the discription in the book, but the first time I saw a picture was in Jaynes, and the first thing I said was "Hay baby, what does this look like to you?"