Victory-class Star Destroyer WIP#1

Commissioned piece.
I’m using the old McQuarrie and Cantwell concept designs and mixing in elements from the Venator, ISD, and existing Victory depictions.
The goals are:
1) It should bridge the Venator and the Devastator in appearance. I know the Venator didn’t exist when the first VSDs were being drawn, but we have Venators now, so I think we should use parts of that design lineage since Victories were supposed to be contemporaries of the Venators
2) It should NOT look like an underfed ISD – this is one of my biggest gripes with the VSD depictions out there at the moment
3) The extra knobbly bits that were added to the basic star destroyer archetype should look integrated and *designed* to be there. I’m talking about the wings, the projecting box holding the bridge, and the stalks off the tower and such.
vsd2 vsd3 vsd1

17 Responses

  1. Jacob

    Might you ever make a Venator Class, if not traditional coloring then maybe with imperial paint scheme. Having you make one would be epic.

  2. Burntstrobe

    different take on the bridge?

    Found this to be interesting for referencing the wings:

    As always, I am curious and eager to see how your work develops, we did not follow true cannon with our version of the Victory either, but our’s is the MK3 version at Yuuzhan Vong at War Mod:

    • gorkmalork

      That’s not a bad Vic-III at all; those MTLs(?) framing the reactor bulb seem a little close, but otherwise I can dig a destroyer with some ventral punch. Plus, snazzy bow-trench battery & extra sensor dome on the command tower’s neck.

  3. Mikeystu

    So happy! I trust you, mr fractal, to do this design the justice that has been lacking for so long. Looking forward to the results!

  4. William Parker

    Yay! I was actually just wondering what your next project would be and if it would be the Victory class. It is one of those older SW designs that goes back a long way but isn’t covered very well.

    I agree that the bridge tower of the Victory does seem rather haphazard and it doesn’t look like it was changed between the Victory-I and Victory-II class. I’m interested to see what you do with this design and look forward to seeing how you go about designing and modelling a ship.

    I actually just found this site recently thanks to Pinterest, and you got me back into 3D modelling so thank for that. Best of luck with this.

  5. Anonymous

    It will have 2 big engins or 3? I enjoy to imagine that Vic-I has 2 and Vic-II 3.

  6. Astro1derboy

    I really enjoy seeing these early-on foundation-renders. It’s nice to see that establishing a solid foundation now helps really solidify the final product. All of your work is just staggering in detail-level and contemplative design. You can tell that parts haven’t haphazardly been thrown on to fill space. Each placement is given much deliberation and consideration. Your results clearly speak for themselves. I am so going to enjoy this beauty come together (as with all the others). Great work as usual!!

  7. gorkmalork

    Solid start WRT the bridge module & ‘wing’ extensions-I take it the latter are intended to mask this puppy’s outsized warhead array, though extra repulsors/maneuvering jets *might* fit along the upper & lower surfaces. As for energy weaponry, a row of Procursator-style superfiring dorsal turrets & some heavy brim-notch ball guns (HTL? Ion?) might help to further differentiate ‘your’ Vic from its Impstar cousins. Finally, wouldn’t mind your paring the horizontal bridge antennae down five or six notches-that big one from the original Vehicles & Vessels guide looks like something kludged off a scaled-up X-wing.

  8. Daniel Shenise

    Couple thoughts. Good breakdown of a coherent design program for the ship. I’ve always thought the wings were a little small, especially from the original SD concept art. I thought it might make sense for the wings to be variable extensions of the lower hull primarily, not the upper, and that they would be mostly armored banks of repulsor drives to improve atmospheric handling. I’m thinking that as far as really big ships go, this thing should handle like a Lotus in atmosphere. I would also have more prominent ventral armament, nothing crazy, but maybe 4 of the large double emplacements from the Venstar, but on the ventral surface.

    If you’re really wanting to bridge the Venator to Imp-I, you might want to consider more of a Venator double bridge tower (with the Imp-I domes) but create a connection between the two towers. You’d still have the ship control bridge and the starfighter control bridge, but messengers wouldn’t have to go down and then up again, they could just walk around and over to the other side. Also, I hate that stupid observation perch thing, anyway you could minimize that would be great in my opinion.

    • Sean

      The venators double-bridge design was made for coordinating it’s ~492 starfighters. The Vic only carries 24 if I’m not mistaken.

  9. Chris

    just my $0.02….since it is a contemporary of the Venator…possibly the same weapons systems as the Venator….but with more missile launchers as it does not have the fighter capacity of the Venator.

  10. Sean



    After this, could you model a Gladiator-class? They were meant to be Victory-class escorts.

    Alternatively, an MC-140 “Scythe” would also be incredibly sexy with you modelling it.

    I wish I had your modeling skill.

Leave a Reply