5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
55 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Salem
Salem
6 months ago

What is the exact weapons mompliment on this model?

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
6 months ago
Reply to  Salem

I count:
9 DBY-827 Heavy Dual Turbolaser Turrets
10 quad medium turbolaser turrets
28 twin light turbolaser turrets
80 heavy ordnance launchers (typically armed with appropriately sizes concussion missiles)

I may have missed some of the light turbolaser turrets.

sdfhg
sdfhg
3 years ago

What do the things that open up on the side do?

x1Wolf101x
x1Wolf101x
3 years ago
Reply to  sdfhg

I believe that they hold missiles

Anonymous
3 years ago

So in Wookiepedia the Victory 1 was also known as Victoria 1 but nobody know where the source reference for the name is.

9th-Stormtrooper
9th-Stormtrooper
3 years ago

Hey Fractal,
i have a question about the firepower of the Providence class. It has 14 Quad TL of 1terratons each, right? But how is it possible that the ship can counter the Victory’s 9 TL of 70terratons?
Sry for my very bad english.
Lg Stormi

Anonymous
3 years ago

So fractal what is the diameter of one of the 80 heavy missile launchers?

Anonymous
Anonymous
4 years ago

How does the Victory class star destroyer fair against the Procursator class star destroyer?

Anonymous
Anonymous
4 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Yeah the biggest flaw for the Victory I is the engines which they fix it for the Victory II.
By away is this Victory Star Destroyer you created have the armament of the Victory I while having the engines from the Victory II?

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
4 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Victory I class Star Destroyers, especially Imperial ones, can also have the three-engine design known mainly from the Victory II because they were retrofitted.
The two-engine variant of the Victory I class are those originally used by the Old Republic during the Clone Wars which didn’t get any upgrades.

Anonymous
Anonymous
4 years ago
Reply to  Sephiroth0812

Interesting fact but I wasn’t talking about the engine design but more about how underpowered the Victory I’s engines was (which is the LF9 ion engines as seen here at the Propulsion systems parthttp://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Victory_I-class_Star_Destroyer ) so they replace it with the new superior engines of unknown name for the Victory II.

Anonymous
Anonymous
4 years ago
Reply to  Sephiroth0812

My bad didn’t put the link there properly so here is the link:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Victory_I-class_Star_Destroyer

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
4 years ago
Reply to  Sephiroth0812

As far as I know the engines of the Victory II were Hoersch-Kessel Drive manufactured units, but I don’t know if the Empire actually retrofitted some of those into actual Victory I-class vessels (read: those with the massive missile batteries).
It is also possible that those Victory I’s with the three engine design had just a third LF9 ion engine (which may have been leftovers from scrapped or heavily damaged VSDs from the Clone Wars) added to at least improve their speed a little compared to the original Republic model.

I doubt this discrepancy was ever firmly explained in the Legends-canon at all, although I did read somewhere that some people designated the two-engine variant as a completely different subclass which also sounds a little fishy.

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
4 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Even if the VicStar doesn’t have any missiles left, the ten Heavy Quad Turbolaser turrets can blow the Procursator up easily if it stays in range too long.
The Procursator was described as a sort of “War emergency program”-destroyer which is quick to build and holds medium weaponry with three heavy axial turrets and around eleven medium batteries across its hull and as such it is more like a light star destroyer.
Even the Venator, which counts as a medium destroyer/carrier hybrid, is likely stronger in terms of overall firepower and shield strength compared to the Procursator.
The Victory I however counts as a heavy destroyer/space artillery with superb armor (which outclasses the Venator), it’s only weaknesses are its terrible sublight engines which make it slow as a snail and its ridiculously low fighter capacity (as it can carry only 24 fighters/2 squadrons).

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
4 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Which means that a battlegroup comprised of a Procursator, a Victory and a Venator would actually make an effective team which supplements each other well I’d say.

I also remember some claims made on the net that the Venator and Victory are actually “sister designs” of some sorts and make a good “tag-team” when used by the Old Republic cause the Victory with its bigger and stronger armor can shield the Venator (whose armor is strictly spoken mediocre for a capital ship) while the Venator can help remedy the lack of speed and fighters of the Victory.

Tanz
Tanz
4 years ago

The Victory looks beautiful. Such great work.

PanchoRad
PanchoRad
4 years ago

I started to remake this one in Blender from the pictures… The Victory Class 2 is larger, right? Trying to make them in 270:1 scale…

Chris
Chris
4 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

IIRC….engine upgrade and no missiles…but added ion cannons.

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
4 years ago
Reply to  PanchoRad

Both classes are 900 meters long and have very similar hull design just like the ISD I and ISD II have only minor differences appearance-wise.

The main differences between the Victory I which was also used by the Clone Wars-Republic and the Victory II which is an Imperial-only ship are in terms of armament, engines and armor.
The Victory II doesn’t have the massive missile batteries but some Ion Cannons instead, better armor (due to less storage room needed with no missiles) and most importantly better engines.
The main “weakness” of the Victory I are its undepowered sublight-engines which make it very slow so most other ships can outrun it if they can’t take it head on.
The Victory I is very effective though in roles that don’t need speed like i.e. planetary defense, space artillery (with the missiles) or escort duty with slow transports/an Interdictor cruiser.

Anonymous
Anonymous
4 years ago

so do you think of making a victory 2 class star destroyer which is like this ship but without the missiles tubes and have more turbolasers and ion cannons?

PanchoRad
PanchoRad
4 years ago

Is the 3d model available? I am tempted to try creating a large papercraft model out of it…

Jacob
4 years ago

Have you ever considered building a Venator Star Destroyer? Just a thought.

Xeno
Xeno
4 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

this is awesome!

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
4 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Certainly looking forward to the Venator.
Design-wise, it’s my absolute favorite capital ship of the Star Wars universe.
Not overpowered, but very versatile and still packing quite a punch nonetheless.

Hayabusa1138
Hayabusa1138
4 years ago

Nice work, but it looks a bit off, to be honest. That said, that feeling could very well be from seeing it in a realistic way compared to comic pages, etc.

Joannes808
Joannes808
4 years ago

I absolutely love it!

Would it be possible to have an updated set of orthos posts from Assertor down to Intersector-class on different scaled images for better size reference with the new additions?

Xeno
Xeno
4 years ago
Reply to  Joannes808

I’d want that!

someone
someone
4 years ago

you should do an eclipse class star destroyer

Arvenski
Arvenski
4 years ago

Wow. That’s amazing. I love how the protruding covers on the missile tubes make the outline of the hull reminiscent of that of the Venator. Even if unintentional, I think that’s a nice little nod to the Victory’s Republic heritage. 🙂

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
4 years ago

Snazzy missile-support & guidance structures, solid energy-weapon battery, evenly-distributed antennae, distinctive bridge & even hull shape (distinctly less bow taper than Impstars), sensibly-proportioned ventral hangar, and some especially neat thruster-nozzle detailing. Successful revision indeed-can’t thank you nearly enough for sharing.

Daniel Shenise
4 years ago

Still trying to get over how good it looks in shots 2, 16, and 19. It’s an exceptionally good representation of this ship. Really nothing else has come close to looking this good.

Chris
Chris
4 years ago

Amazing work. As always. But I think something is missing….a Gladiator-class to escort her.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
4 years ago
Reply to  Chris

Methinks a quartet of our host’s Kontos frigates would do at least as well. In the event anyone gets around to rendering that FFG product, I’d strongly suggest some bow-taper revision; as is, the Gladiator’s dorsal/ventral profile seems far too rectangular for my tastes.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
4 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Oh, right, Gladiator was introduced by that ‘Droids’ cartoon where some pirate band’s using one. I’ll give FFG props for adding some visible turrets, but their sundry Imp daggership molds have wound up somewhat…well, anorexic (and thruster-sparse in the Immobilizer’s case). At least their OT Mon Cal ships didn’t turn out too bad, though I still think Home One wound up heinously undersized.

Chris
Chris
4 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

Not sure who did the art…but the pic on the wook has turbolasers based off the Venator’s that It looks like FS used on the Vic. Nice tie in for the ships of the same era.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
4 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

Ah, good eye. I do like the prospect of at least one medium (Gladiator) & economy-size (Impellor) prow-hangar carrier design.

Chris
Chris
4 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

I would like to see him finish out that era of ships….Gladiator, Venator, and Acclamator (possibly variants….I see the Imperial II class frigate from Darklighter as a variant of the Acc.)

Adm. Drakkmar
Adm. Drakkmar
4 years ago

I like the inclusion of the axial turret emplacements.

Astro1derboy
Astro1derboy
4 years ago

Holy crap this is awesome!! Again . . . VERY well done!!

Daniel Shenise
4 years ago

Best representation of this ship I’ve seen. Well done. The turbolift maintenance department might get a lot of overtime with that change plane from main hull to the neck/superstructure though. 😏

slowsmerf
4 years ago
Reply to  Daniel Shenise

I noticed that too, but I would guess he did it intentionally. It’s the same on the Star Destroyer in the logo above.

gejemica
gejemica
4 years ago
Reply to  slowsmerf

It’s actually like that on *every* Star Destroyer 😉

gejemica
gejemica
4 years ago
Reply to  slowsmerf
slowsmerf
4 years ago
Reply to  gejemica

Not according to these blueprints: http://theforce.net/swtc/isd.html#dimensions

slowsmerf
4 years ago
Reply to  slowsmerf

Looking at some photos of the original model I tend to agree (google ‘star destroyer original prop’).

jonathan
jonathan
4 years ago

its beautiful.

slowsmerf
4 years ago

Finally a befitting representation of the Victory Star Destroyer! I do like the idea of the ‘wings’ as protective cover for its missile armament. On my wishlist would be a variant that brings back that elongated feature on the bridge tower, although I have no good explanation of what function it could have.

Anditesh Ordo
Anditesh Ordo
4 years ago

Awesome. Can’t wait to see other ships of your genius!!! Hoping for some EAW FOC ships!, Heck even a Venator or Acclamator would be awesome.

Xeno
Xeno
4 years ago

Absolutely glorious.