5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
56 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ragnrok
Ragnrok
2 years ago

I love the 3 turrets down the central spine

That chiss boi
That chiss boi
2 years ago

What power level are the octuple barbettes because they seem to be a lot smaller then the heavy dual turbos

Robert Branca
2 years ago
Reply to  That chiss boi

at least high teraton range if not more what about the super and ultra heavy turbolasers

zorg56
zorg56
2 years ago

That trench is just blows my mind.

Revan
Revan
2 years ago

I think we might need an official weapons count from mr. Sponge when it’s done, if you don’t mind mr. Sponge.

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago

Looks like it’s almost here

TheEpicDude
TheEpicDude
2 years ago

This is coming together!! Love what you do!! Cant weight tell its finished!!

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
2 years ago

Weapon Count Update:
PD Turrets: 830
Quad Medium Turbolaser Turrets: 106
Quad Heavy Turbolaser Turrets: 42
Octuple Heavy Turbolaser Barbettes: 12
Twin UltraHeavy Turbolaser Turrets: 24
Quad Heavy Ion Cannon Ball Turrets: 10
Missile Launch Tubes: 48

Corrections welcome, if you spot anything I’ve missed (see Ryadra777’s thread below for explanation of missing octuple barbettes).

Road Warrior
Road Warrior
2 years ago

Great work, boss.

PzAce247
PzAce247
2 years ago

Edit: Nevermind, now see that they’re re-oriënted neutrino radiators.

@Fractal, curiosity question: Those 8 greebles, lining the top and bottom of the quad ball turret notch in the side trench, what’s their function?

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago

My favorite example of feature creep. This old gal started out as a Star Cruiser, went straight through being a battlecruiser, and then settled down as a dreadnought. Sometimes bigger really is better.

Steve
Steve
2 years ago

Dear lord..she’s absolutely beautiful! The sheer volume of fire she’d be able to vomit out would be terrifying! A quick question about the Bellator, does she carry fighters? I know she’s not got the huge hangar of the Executor (which always struck me as weird that a ship that HUGE would only carry 144 fighters) but I would assume she carries some even if its more for point defence and bomber interception duty than anything.

LazerZ
LazerZ
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve

I believe it was a group of six wings, for a total of 432 fighters. That’s not considering potential variation based on the size of the fighters carried.

Steve
Steve
2 years ago
Reply to  LazerZ

Oh blimey! Thats more than a Executor class, but I assume the Exe’s in this setting carry a LOT more fighters than the 144 of the canon ship, with her huge size probably something on the order of about 1000 fighters and small craft like TIE Manglers, or Starwings etc

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I wonder if there’s a single individual responsible for all of these scale brainbugs. The 144 fighter figure, the 5-mile fallacy, the TIE fighters can only go 1500 kph in vacuum speed, the idea that HTL engagment ranges are measured in the tens of miles….

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

If there is, his resume probably has West End Games on it somewhere…

A lot of this stuff is the result of multi-layered “lost in translation” events. SWTC has an entire article on the History of the Five-Mile Fallacy, and a lot of this stuff likely has similar stories.

The last two, however, are most likely misunderstandings of WEG stats; 1500 kph for TIEs and ten-kilometer ranges for HTLs were only if the ship was operating deep in an atmosphere. For space combat, WEG only once proposed ranges for HTLs in the 150-kilometer range (in their old 1E Rules Companion book), then almost immediately dropped it for the non-specific Space Unit measurement, which they refused to ever clarify (which was, IMO, one of their wiser decisions for the later editions, as it allowed space combat speeds and ranges to be calculated at speed-of-the-plot).

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Thanks for summing up the whole phone-game factor so concisely. And TBH, if I had to pick between ‘max range of ~15 battlewagon lengths’ and ‘subjectively defined at the GM’s discretion’, at least the latter can be rehashed so starships aren’t being shown up by WWI-era naval antics.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

The ‘laser ranges are shorter than some ships’ nonsense *almost* seems understandable if you’re just skimming the films, but sub-Cold War-jet performance from machines that casually hit escape velocity will never, ever compute.

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

Almost understandable? The big plot point of ANH comes from a laser that can engage heavily shielded planets from halfway across the system. I don’t think anyone who saw Alderaan explode in theaters can forget that.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

Without seeing Alderaan and the Death Star in the same shot, it’s difficult to make an accurate guess at the range. However, the film adaptation novel states that the Death Star was within six planetary diameters (which was the point where repulsorlift would begin to function). That’s roughly 75,000 kilometers for an Earth-like planet.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

True enough, but I get the distinct impression many fans just handwave (much) lower-wattage conventional SW lasers as that much shorter-range. A depressing number of Disneyboot-compliant types certainly seem to be rolling with the ‘TL bolts attenuate so fast you need age-of-sail effective ranges in or out of atmo’ concept.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

SW starfighters have always been surprisingly slow (funny when warships like an ISD flies faster than a commercial jet at cruising altitude) but I always assumed the escape velocity is aided by repulsorlifs and the real star of the show being sheer maneuverability thanks to inertial compensators.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

I’d be amazed if repulsors were *that* competitive with ion engines thrust-wise; it’s sorely tempting to chalk up fighters’ lack of gone-in-1/48th-of-an-eyeblink speed demonstration as FX limitations (both conceptual & audience-based).

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

More likely that repulsorlifts require ion drives or some sort of auxiliary boost thrusters to achieve high speeds. Even Luke’s PoS speeder on Tatooine has three of them.

It’s been my theory for a while that actual repulsorlifts just provide lift, not thrust, and are dependent on some other method for locomotion.

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

That makes intuitive sense to me, but there are plenty of SW vehicles that don’t have visible thrusters like the AAT, MTT or Imperial Probe Droid and nothing in the ICS that is described as a thruster either for those vehicles.

> Fury: From film evidence like the Endor approach, we know pretty convincingly that fighters are capable of ludicrous accelerations and absolute speeds. They just slow down to engage, possibly because they’re operating in spatial jamming fields projected by capital ships and battle stations.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

That’s a fair point, but consider how slowly all of your examples move relative to thruster-equipped platforms.

I see two possibilities. One is that repulsorlifts provide both lift and a limited movement function, with greater speeds necessitating booster engines of some type. The other is that repulsorlifts provide lift, and some additional system supplies thrust at relatively low speeds, augmented by boosters for the fast ones.

Of the two, the second is my own invention as an attempt to explain the difference between landspeeders and airspeeders (specifically, their differing performance envelopes despite both being nominally repulsorlifts). So, both are equipped with repulsorlifts to offset their weight, but landspeeders are equipped with a ventral traction field (effectively a diffuse, off-angled tractor beam projector) that “pushes” against the ground at an angle to propel it, while airspeeders are equipped with an “etheric impeller” (for lack of a more satisfactory term) that uses the same principle as etheric rudder to provide propulsion.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

I think the traditional sense would indicate landspeeder being low power repulsorcraft that have max altitude of only a few meters while airspeeders have capabilities to reach high atmospher (ignoring that Crait scrapbucket salt-draggers are classified as the latter despite scantly flying higher than its visual effect making arm can reach). But back to topic at hand, I always see repulsorlifs as a method of thrust and yes, I know starfighters can pull off an insane amount of acceleration of thousands of G’s, but I always assume those slow constraints of atmospheric speed has less to do with the capability of the engine, but rather the structural integrity of the ship itself. After all, while the pilot of a TIE interceptor can go from 0 to Mach 1 in like 2 seconds, the to bank away with that much power against air resistance will put a strain on its titanium hull to a breaking point. And with SW dogfighting often boiling down to WW2/Russian-ideology of outmaneuvering opponents to get out of their line of sight laser cannons instead of beyond-visual-range warhead strikes, the strain would quickly add up. This combat ideology would probably explain their “slowness” in space too, for people can only react so fast, even with targeting computer assistance.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

The “traditional sense” has some serious contradictions, however. Per official sources, repulsorlift derives lift by pushing against the local gravity field, not the surface of the planet itself. As such, whether it is low power or high power, a repulsorlift has the power to render an object weightless and lift it off the ground. And since its lift is derived from the local gravity field, and not distance from the ground itself, even a “low power” repulsorlift will still be able to generate enough lift to push said object all the way to orbit. As such, there must be some other factor that requires one type of repulsorlift to remain close to the ground while others do not.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Oops, I noticed I said “thrust” instead of lift in my post. Apologies for any confusions that might have caused. Anyway, as for the difference between power levels, I still want to say it’s dependant on the power to repulsorlift and the “load” mass? So like while a repuslor unit on a landspeeder can push, say, an X-34 the max of 1m off the ground at max power, strap it on an astromech, it probably can go up humdreds of meters – of course, at the cost of the droid’s power cell.

As for the droid vs. organic reaction time being the limitation, I do believe there are some sources that do point out this advantage, but droids often end up losing the grand stage, regardless. One reasoning I thought of is that droids in SW aren’t fully artifical intelligence entity and lacks adaptability in a timely manner. This would spring up from the clone vs droid army debate. So while the droid may aquire target, take aim, and fire before an organic could even twitch a muscle, an unexpected variable would cause it to be momentarily confused, and the eventual lack of creativity (helped by the constant memory wipe) would make it on par with organic reaction time.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

But that’s not how gravity works. The only part solid ground plays in gravity (aside from contributing to the total mass of the object generating the gravity well) is that it stops solid objects from falling all the way to the center of the gravity well. The relative difference in strength of the pull of gravity between 1 meter off the ground and 1 kilometer off the ground will be negligible, and thus any repulsorlift with sufficient power to neutralize 1 ton of weight at 1 meter will be just as capable of neutralizing that weight at kilometer. In fact, doing it at.1 kilometer will be fractionally easier due to the slightly increased distance from the planet’s core.

If repulsorlift were based on something other than gravity, such as some form of tractor beam tech that pushed vehicles off the ground, then your premise of low power vs. high power would be plausible. But since official sources state that repulsorlift pushes against gravity, the physics of gravity must be taken into account.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

You *might* have a point WRT snub structural integrity, though if organic pilot reflexes were a major limiting factor to atmo & vacuum performance alike, you’d think CIS droid swarms would’ve gained a nasty knife-fighting edge that…doesn’t quite seem to be the case onscreen. Even the non-Force-wunderkind portion of that TPM strike were able to (at least briefly) hold their own against the TF blockade’s Vultures.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

Just recalled one serious structural-strain mitigating factor: tensor fields. Their use probably goes a long way toward sundry non-aerodynamic craft even functioning anywhere near a moon/world in the first place, and almost certainly simplifies the whole ‘don’t even twitch at Mach 24 or you’ll melt’ conundrum even if more aerodynamic snubs retain some atmo-maneuvering edge. Hell, we even see one of the DSII superstructure-pursuit TIEs *ricochet* off two walls before ker-sploding (granted, still at audience-trackable speed, but any current aircraft would’ve splattered on the first hit).

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

I have no clue on how ubiquitous tensor fields are in SW universe as the only account I have of their existance in the first place from an official source comes from the Incredible Cross-section on the C-9979 landing craft to keep its wings from collapsing under its own weight. I’d suspect this to only work for large scale vessels, but your example of TIEs bouncing off the walls does make a valid point for it being possible on a small scale and perhaps put my structural failure headcanon to rest. Then it all came down to reaction time theory.
As for repulsorlift, true enough, never really thought of it that way. Guess until some refinement to mechanics are described, I really got nothing to blab about on power and stuff. Perhaps landspeeder just isn’t made for high altitude (no pressurization, or in the case of the X-34, no canopy to begin with) and is factory set to only go so high, while airspeeders got all that jazz (except for, again, Crait’s rustbucket). That said, there tot to be a reason why podracers “fall” when the terrain drops away and no one tried to fly over the course.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

High altitude is definitely a factor, and the pod racer scene is also a head-scratcher. I have an explanation that fits with my concept (and with your low-power theorem, somewhat) to the effect that landspeeders repulsorlifts neutralize most of the vehicle’s weight (in the 90-95% range), with the rest being supported by the “pusher field” I mentioned above, with high speed landspeeders being equipped with booster engines to achieve high speeds. The pusher field would be very short ranged, with the maximum altitude and speed being a function of both power and vehicle mass. So, if a vehicle found itself above its maximum altitude for whatever reason, its repulsorlifts would no longer be supporting its full weight, and gravity would pull it back down until its pusher field was close enough to reengage with the ground. What Anakin’s pod-racer did would be an extreme example of that.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

Also, a friendly reminder, you don’t need to reply to two different people in the same comment, and breaking up your replies would make this easier to track. The settings here don’t send me notifications of a reply to my comment if you’re replying to my comment as part of a reply to someone else.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Gotcha, will do that next time. I just did it the way I did so far just to make it a little streamline for the people reading, but yeah, I get it can get confusing and not notify you. But in regards to your idea, it does sound fair enough and probably can apply to the UT-AT, replace the concept of “repulsorlift skis” with an array of pusher projectors for a more accurate definition of its usage.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

I’d rather just throw out the idea of the UT-AT being repulsorlift. It’s a fact of the canon that there are certain circumstances where repulsorlifts aren’t a viable means of propulsion. Seeing as how only walker vehicles are named like that (AT-AT, AT-TE, AT-ST, etc), I could see the UT-AT being a purely walker vehicle, but designed with a centipede or ski type leg system to distribute the vehicle’s weight over as wide a footprint as possible.

Ryadra777
2 years ago

Fractal I notice some of the Oct heavy turbolasers are missing why are they?

Ryadra777
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I’m aware of the arrangement it just those were gone on this part of the WIP.

Here the examples:
WIP#3:comment image

WIP#5:comment image
(look at the top middle of the picture)

Same for the octs near the ship’s bridge.

WIP#2:comment image

WIP#5:comment image

If they are the same then I think it must be rendering errors or something.

Ryadra777
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I am aware of the re-arrangement of the octs cannons on the spine top. it just those are missing in this WIP part including the octs on the side near the ship’s bridge.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago

I’m spotting those warhead launchers on the brim and got shivers on the potential tonnage of firepower those giants have in store.

Steve
Steve
2 years ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

*edited* Found them! Those missile tubes look like they’d do a Russian Slava class cruiser proud!

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago

I’m digging the look of that tweaked engine block/fantail region & the subtly deeper hull already. Plus, ye *gawds* the brim-greeble.

Cdr. Rajh
Cdr. Rajh
2 years ago

Missiles? Interesting… My superiors will be sure to enjoy this scouting report~

On a personal note, I believe this will be a very nice addition to the fleet, regardless of missiles!

Phoenix
Phoenix
2 years ago
Reply to  Cdr. Rajh

It’s actually always had missiles, it has altogether 96 missile tubes.

Cdr. Rajh
Cdr. Rajh
2 years ago
Reply to  Phoenix

Damn, I hadn’t noticed…

Itisknown
Itisknown
2 years ago
Reply to  Phoenix

Actually there are 108 missiletubes. 12 foreward firing at least on the original one

Phoenix
Phoenix
2 years ago
Reply to  Itisknown

O did it have forward ones to? I thought it only had flank firing ones, well even better then.

Kainexile
Kainexile
2 years ago

Damn, she’s gonna be a beauty. I hadn’t noticed the missile batteries on the older model. With the size of the ship, each projectile would have to be the size of an Intersector, right?

Steve
Steve
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

The launch tubes remind me of those on Soviet Warships –comment image

She’s an amzing piece of art Fractal 🙂

Eric Otness
Eric Otness
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve

Think you can post a new image link? The one you used is dead, unfortunately.

And yeah, the 4K redo of the Bellator’s really looking good.

Oseritzel
Oseritzel
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

You could hide a TIE-Interceptor in each tube and start 4 squadrons simultaneously.