New Honorverse renders uploaded

kzt wrote:Are you only showing part of the outer layer, or is the pod bay much narrower deep into the ship? I'd assumed it was the reverse, with it narrower as it passes through the machinery spaces and wider past that.

For all practical purposes, the Agamemnons don't have ANY machinery spaces (other than pod handling of course) between the aft impeller ring and the forward broadside. The reactors, life support, hyper generator, core hull and everything else is all crammed forward of the pod bay bulkhead, which is one of the reasons the design is so fragile.

kzt wrote:Are you only showing part of the outer layer, or is the pod bay much narrower deep into the ship? I'd assumed it was the reverse, with it narrower as it passes through the machinery spaces and wider past that.

That's all 360 pods in the render. There's no room to add any more in the outer layers once the pod bay goes into the taper.

All machinery spaces are located in the tapers fore and aft, the hammerheads (where there's room in the aft hammerhead) in the center hull forward of the pod bay, in the spaces between the pod rails (like the aft grasers), and in the small core "square" visible in the aft view render I posted earlier. The square core widens out to match the normal core hull forward of the pod bay.

Like I said, there's very little room for much of anything else around the pod bay.

Do these pics help show why there's no room for much else or for arranging things the way you thought?

http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/A ... -486663893

http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/A ... -486663899

BTW, I know some of you are going to have a heyday counting pixels. Let me save you some trouble - the large squares are 10 meters.

Oh... Tom posted while I was setting up those screenshots.

Yeah, what he said.

Thanks for the follow up render. Now I see I had the bow/stern flipped in the first picture, and the single stack run through the impeller ring

How do you fit the impeller rooms in that?

I can think of trivial ways to deal with crew passages (essentially surface mount them) but the impeller ring seems harder. It also seems to suggest that you can only have PDLCs (at most) over the pod bay.

Yeah, I have to agree this looks a bit too over-optimized.

kzt wrote:Thanks for the follow up render. Now I see I had the bow/stern flipped in the first picture, and the single stack run through the impeller ring

How do you fit the impeller rooms in that?

I can think of trivial ways to deal with crew passages (essentially surface mount them) but the impeller ring seems harder. It also seems to suggest that you can only have PDLCs (at most) over the pod bay.

Yeah, I have to agree this looks a bit too over-optimized.

Yeah... if we ever get around to doing detailed interiors, it's going to require a major redesign of the impeller room(s) from what we (very roughly and back-of-the-envelope sketches) have currently for more normal ships.

PDLCs and CM tubes/magazines fit in the spaces between the corner pods and the "plus" pods. That's why the corner pods won't be able to rotate to the vertical locations - only to the horizontal.

I suspect SD(P)s are going to be just a little easier to deal with <crosses fingers>.

MaxxQ wrote:I suspect SD(P)s are going to be just a little easier to deal with <crosses fingers>.

I'd hope that having 170% the max beam (201m vs 118m) would make it easier to fit stuff in without trying to cram a quart in a pint pot.


Thanks again for the amazing renders

Jonathan_S wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:I suspect SD(P)s are going to be just a little easier to deal with <crosses fingers>.

I'd hope that having 170% the max beam (201m vs 118m) would make it easier to fit stuff in without trying to cram a quart in a pint pot.

Yeah, but remember that I have to go with a hex pattern for the pods, rather than a cruciform. Those are going to be just a tad bit wider/taller. Still, I can't see things being quite as cramped as the Aggie, and at least now I have a baseline to work from that will hopefully scale up not only in size but also in the pod salvo count.

<shrug> I'll figure something out, one way or another.

Jonathan_S wrote:Thanks again for the amazing renders

You're welcome.

Looking at the aggie renders, it certainly looks like there isn't anything important that would be covered up if you tiled the flanks of the pod bay with flatpacks. Is that just that nothing is shown or is are they as empty as it looks?

kzt wrote:Looking at the aggie renders, it certainly looks like there isn't anything important that would be covered up if you tiled the flanks of the pod bay with flatpacks. Is that just that nothing is shown or is are they as empty as it looks?

Are you meaning inside or outside? If inside, no there's no room to pack any more in, and even if you could, the equipment needed to get them into position would also take up a lot of volume.

If you mean on the outside... well, the only things on the outside are what you see: radar, LIDAR, EW panels, PDLCs, CMs, grav arrays, and so on. Sure, you could tractor pods on the outside for a little bit of an extension in combat time, or a larger initial salvo. There's tractors on each pod, which you can see easily enough in the end view (the "+"-shaped item).

As long as you avoid parking them where they would block any of the listed items, there's no reason why you wouldn't be abl to. Just please don't go on about power cords. TBH, that's starting to sound like a broken record.

Okay, several things raised in this thread over it's life i'd like to address.

1. Grav drivers in missile tubes and structural issues raised where an area i wanted to address.

First and foremost even with structural material a thousand times stronger than modern steels and a 10KM grav tunnel a Sagi-C would snap in half firing just one missile tube. The recoil is just that extreme. So the issues a split design missile tube might represent aren't really an issue by comparison.

Fortunately Missile tubes aren't the only thing that has this issue. Pulsar weapons fire Pulsar dart's, but we saw Solid shot used all the way back in Basilisk Station. And the effects are way beyond what 5.56 can do, and probably beyond even 7.62 with frangible ammo. Even with a 2KPS firing velocity the KE and especially momentum requirements to do that kind of damage basically dictate a similar weight dart to a 5.56 round at the minimum, maybe more, (though it would still probably be less than a 7.62 at a guess, and probably no heavier than a 5.56 once you include brass and powder charge, plus mag weight savings. At that kind of mass the accelleration force required starts to get very extreme to hit 2KPS. For an M16 length barrel you'd be comfortably beating out the average recoil force of an M16, and even that of the higher caliber, longer barreled M240. Go down to an M14 style Barrel and it gets even worse.

Given that Pulsar's have if anything been shown to have much lighter recoil than modern weapons, (in fact i can't recall pulsar's ever being depicted with measurable recoil), i'd say it's a fair bet that the "equal and opposite reaction" that newtons third law dictates is occur as non-physical force. I.e. feedback in the grav driver energy systems.

This also suggests firing a broadside won't punt the ship sideways at a couple of hundred m/s.


2. Regarding the Keyholes. Given that they'd probably be targeted at energy range, Have no armor to protect them from even simple shrapnel at energy range, and modern combat doctrine has hardened towards missile combat which gives more reaction time to surprise attacks, i have to ask why the thing needs to be kept recessed. It probably does have some minor advantage's, particularly in not blocking LoS at extreme angles for certain sensor systems. But i'd think at least in the Aggie's case that mounting them in a dedicated external cradle would be better than making a mess of the internal's that way on a design allready light on armor and the like. Cutthroat allready provides a valid example here to inspire someone to think that way...

3. That image of the after hammerhead, do you think you could yank up your pod design and place one in front of one of the missile door, those doors look to be as wide as they are tall whilst your pods are noticeably thinner in one dimension than the other. Of course Aggie and co where probably designed with the old style round pods in mind which would have required that kind of release door and all the issues it creates in terms of rail layout and how that feeds into internal layout. Which is quite different from how i imagined it as well tbh. Then again i had the boat bays figured differently.

4. Talking of boat bay's, I've noticed their on the underside, i always had the impression from the text they where side mounted, have i missed something in the text or did the great re-sizing I've heard about require a change in that?

5. Talking of the Sagi-C's again, there's an offhand comment in At All Costs that mentioned Mantie cruisers firing rolled on their side, and the Sagi-C's are supposed to be able to fire both broadsides together, but without keyhole i don't see how that can work, was that ever explained?

Think that's all for now.

Carl wrote:5. Talking of the Sagi-C's again, there's an offhand comment in At All Costs that mentioned Mantie cruisers firing rolled on their side, and the Sagi-C's are supposed to be able to fire both broadsides together, but without keyhole i don't see how that can work, was that ever explained?

Think that's all for now.

Technically, ships have been able to do this for a long time, it just wasn't a very good idea. The reasons why this has become SOP for Manticoran designs are as follows:
1. Better sensor drones. Before Ghost Rider, ships were limited to what their shipboard sensors could tell them, and while it's possible to look through your own wedge, the information you receive is still distorted by it, making it not as useful for targeting purposes (meaning, in this case, your ability to observe the opponent's EW and adjust your missile seekers)
2. Better missile drives and launchers. Before the advent of the MDM, the missile launchers imparted a great deal of velocity on the missiles. Overcoming that particular vector and making a 90-degree course change would cut the effective range of the missiles by a lot. This, needless to say, is no longer an issue with MDMs.
3. Better missile seekers. Before Ghost Rider, missiles were pretty stupid. They still are, compared to missiles that are tethered to the launching ship's fire control, but they're a lot more capable on their own, making it possible to launch a largely autonomous salvo while still getting acceptable hit ratios.

Keyhole basically addresses point 3. It extends the envelope in which the ship can exert direct fire control, making the off-bore fire as accurate as regular fire.

4. Talking of boat bay's, I've noticed their on the underside, i always had the impression from the text they where side mounted, have i missed something in the text or did the great re-sizing I've heard about require a change in that?

They have always been on the underside. Think about it: Putting a hangar bay on the sides means putting a great big hole into your main armor, no warship designer will do that unless the payoff is enormous (see also: CLAC design).

2. Regarding the Keyholes. Given that they'd probably be targeted at energy range, Have no armor to protect them from even simple shrapnel at energy range, and modern combat doctrine has hardened towards missile combat which gives more reaction time to surprise attacks, i have to ask why the thing needs to be kept recessed. It probably does have some minor advantage's, particularly in not blocking LoS at extreme angles for certain sensor systems. But i'd think at least in the Aggie's case that mounting them in a dedicated external cradle would be better than making a mess of the internal's that way on a design allready light on armor and the like. Cutthroat allready provides a valid example here to inspire someone to think that way...

My guess? this is because of the compensator field. The compensator effect does not extend that far away from the hull; something the size of a Keyhole (to say nothing about the KH2) may be too large to fit inside the compensator envelope, making it vulnerable to acceleration stress while the ship is under way.