4.8 33 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
48 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eakwrfdesgtg ref
Eakwrfdesgtg ref
1 year ago

Y iz there so much wh hate?

Last edited 1 year ago by Eakwrfdesgtg ref
Max Lehmicke
Max Lehmicke
1 year ago

Your work never fails to impress me, Mr. Hsiao. Is there any chance you might have a render of KotOR’s Centurion-class Battlecruiser in the pipeline? Because I’d love to see your take on that ship.

Zayl
Zayl
1 year ago

I’ve been seeing a lot of Star Trek Vs Star Wars fights on youtube, and there are some people stating that there was a adjustment when Disney took over in firepower. Now, bear with me… some people have stated that Star Wars no longer is capable of Teraton-level firepower since the EU was canned. I’m a huge fan of the EU and I HATE Disney, but there was a site by a guy called Mike Wong back in 2002 or something that argued that the basic TNT Equivalent Yield of Ship-board weapons in Star Wars was low-level Teraton to high-level teratons. FractalSponge? If I may humbly ask, what is your opinion on the level of firepower in nuclear TNT equivalent yield for Star Wars capital ships? Again. I’m not bringing drama here or trying to start a fight. I’m just confused with this so-called edict that Star Wars suffered a dip in firepower.

Eugene
Eugene
1 year ago
Reply to  Zayl

This here ship has a main battery of 70tt guns, so, while Im not Fractal I can assure you with reasonable confidence that he’s firmly in that camp.

Also, Disney had put Death Star levels of firepower in a hull about 1,5 size of an Allegiance on the big screen so whatever they say on the matter, they can shove it pretty damn far.

DarthCatius
DarthCatius
1 year ago
Reply to  Eugene

Well said! πŸ˜‰ Plus, I never like the verses stuff, different universes/different technology. While more of a Star Wars fan, I like Star Trek too. Just let them exist separately. πŸ™‚

Zayl
Zayl
1 year ago
Reply to  Eugene

Thank you for getting back to me. That makes a lot of sense.

phoenix
phoenix
1 year ago
Reply to  Zayl

Fractal does hang in the terraton firepower camp.

Zayl
Zayl
1 year ago
Reply to  phoenix

As do I. I follow what Mike Wong wrote about Star Wars Vs Star Trek back in 2004 on his fanfic sites. Dude is a mechanical engineer and has several degrees in science. While I understand and respect several of you replying to my question, I’m of the old mindset that Star Trek will get WIPED off the face of the Earth in a universe versus match unless the Q get involved. Thank you all for your answers.

Nick
Nick
8 months ago
Reply to  Zayl

Star Trek stands no chance again Star Wars. One is for Exploration and one is military. Let’s keep the versus stuff to a minimum, no need for a BBS Star Destroyer brawl here as thats what that website’s for. I’m familiar with Mike Wong’s work. Your statement is correct about his degrees and how he goes into detsil why Star Trek would lose by explaining the gap in technology and science. And yea, he is an engineer. A lot of people including some guy on YouTube called Resurrected Starships get the wrong idea about the nature of weapons systems in Star Wars and naturally assume that turbolasers have nothing on some magic space sonic frequency/harmonic weapon which what you get when you break down a phaser and how it supposedly works. Anyways. Just don’t mention the whole versus thing again. Whilst I second your opinion… We’re here to admire Fractal’s jaw-dropping work. Not fistfight over universe vs universe.

Zayl
Zayl
8 months ago
Reply to  Nick

Gotcha. Yeah. I get your point. Also I know who Resurrected Starships is too, and he’s done great work on analyzing Star Trek, but he lacks total understanding that star wars weapons are not in the WATT range (as ST shields and phasers are) in his vs and technical videos, rather they’re in the teratonnes.
And yes, Fractals’ work is worthy of the descriptor ‘jaw-dropping’. And wow! Another purveyor of Mike Wong’s work! That’s rare.
Alright. Yup, I’m dropping the universe vs universe stuff. Read you loud and clear.

SevenofThr4wn
SevenofThr4wn
1 year ago

It looks amazing

Mark Booth
Mark Booth
1 year ago

I would love to see a ISD with the recessed shield generators like this makes so much more design sense

Nicholas Brown
Nicholas Brown
1 year ago

What a beautiful beast of a ship. I prefer this design over the official design. I love the shield-generator domes.

DarthCatius
DarthCatius
1 year ago
Reply to  Nicholas Brown

It makes me like the Venator even more than when I first saw it. πŸ€©πŸ‘ This would look awesome in Imperial dress… πŸ‘ŒπŸ˜Ž

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply to  DarthCatius

Oh, man stop… I can only get so many nerd boners. JK. That would be amazing to see a Imperial Venator coated in their colors.

Eakwrfdesgtg ref
Eakwrfdesgtg ref
1 year ago

That photo is a cropping of your secutor model

Eakwrfdesgtg ref
Eakwrfdesgtg ref
1 year ago

I meant to post this

428F6BFB-15E0-4201-A059-316DA168A80E.jpeg
Eakwrfdesgtg ref
Eakwrfdesgtg ref
1 year ago

Like this

Eakwrfdesgtg ref
Eakwrfdesgtg ref
1 year ago

The venator bridge look very similar to the Secutor one.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
1 year ago

They should since I believe they are interchangeable

Alex
Alex
1 year ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

no, Secutor bridge is much larger

Eakwrfdesgtg ref
Eakwrfdesgtg ref
1 year ago

Pls do some warhammer ships.

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

As much as I would like that, Fractal is a Star Wars guy.

Jason Barrios
Jason Barrios
1 year ago

I feel like this is more realistic than the ones used in the movies.

DarthCatius
DarthCatius
1 year ago
Reply to  Jason Barrios

Fractal’s models always do. πŸ™‚

Jonarus_Drakus
Jonarus_Drakus
1 year ago

Oh man… This looks so good!

Makes me want to dig up and actually MAKE my “Imperialized Venator” concept!
Might as well talk it out a bit here, might actually get some feedback!

Suffice to say, the big obvious change would be the removal of the ‘dual bridge’ set-up, and its replacement with a new more Imperial looking single bridge module, I’m thinking the “Victory” style shape rather than the “Imperial” shape though.
Total hanger space would be reduced slightly and the huge (near) full-length doors would be sealed up permanently to significantly improve the armour, but the side, bottom, and smaller top doors would be retained.
I also see it being up-gunned somewhat with more advanced, energy-efficient, Imperial spec weapons. It would keep the four a side batteries, but would get at least two a side more on the underside of the hull (The new starfighter bridge would be in a now ‘sticking down’ protrusion just aft of the bottom hanger opening, and the new guns would be either side of this structure to ‘protect’ it). But most significantly, at the rear end of what used to be the ‘full length’ hanger door, just forrad of where the superstructure starts to rise up, there would be a single ‘super-heavy’ turret. Mounted on the centerline, it could easily fire either forward or to either side. I see this turret being a slightly simpler ‘prototype’ of the Octuple barbettes of the ISD2, maybe a 6-barrel rather than 8-barrel version or something like that, with a dedicated ‘secondary generator’ (from a corvette or small frigate), just for it.

Anyway, thats the “concept” for the design at least…

~JD

phoenix
phoenix
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonarus_Drakus

I personally see no point in doing that because if your gonna get rid of it’s main advantage, cut off one of it’s bridges and replace it’s main guns or add more rather then doing that and turning it into a full warship you miles well just use a victory, a tector or a imperator. Which already fill the roles you’d put the Venator into.

Especially when the Venator was already pretty amped up when it comes to weaponry.

It’s got the following

8 DBY-827 Dual Heavy Turbolaser Turrets

2 Medium Twin Turbolaser Turrets

Numerious AV-7 Artillery Deck Guns which fire artillery grade plasma shells

At least 10 concussion missile launchers

4 Heavy Proton Torpedo Tubes

1 Heavy Artillery Grade Composite Beam Cannon which Disney changed from being a vehicle to being an actual dedicated weapon hooked up the ships reactor and it’s one the venator has to sacrifice it’s ventral hanger to have.

Then it’s got 52 twin point defense laser cannons which actually can be swapped out for turbolaser cannons if so desired. So potentially you could have 52 turbolaser cannons instead of point defense weapons.

Combine all that fire power with the 420 fighters, bombers and interceptors it has and you have more then enough firepower.

Plus the Tector, Victory and Imperator exist which negates any reasons to use your suggestions since they already fill in the roles that your venator would and they do it better.

The tector basically is already what your venator would be with a complete lack of a hanger in exchange for heavy armor and it has very powerful main guns and a slew of turbolasers as well as a sunken bridge.

Jonarus_Drakus
Jonarus_Drakus
1 year ago
Reply to  phoenix

I go into more detail in my reply to Eugene – But one specific thing I wanted to point out here – The ‘startfighter control’ bridge wouldn’t actually be eliminated alotogether. I did make a point to specify that it was *moved* to the Ventral hull, just aft of the lower hanger opening.

phoenix
phoenix
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonarus_Drakus

I still agree with Eugene.

And honestly if you really wanted to make the venator more combat oriented then all you’d have to do is swap out it’s 52 point defense cannons for turbolasers giving it 52 turbolaser cannons.

On top of that you could put more DBY-827s on the ventral hull lining the ventral hanger something we see with some venators in the clone wars tv show.

Those changes would be a lot simpler and all you’d have to sacrifice would be point defense weapons and wouldn’t have to make drastic changes to the design.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
1 year ago
Reply to  phoenix

Exactly. A Venator with more guns and fewer fighters is a Victory. Give me a Victory (57 million credits), a Venator (59 million credits), and an Acclamator (29 million credits) for the price of one Imperial (150 million credits) every time. That way, you have more firepower, more fighters, and more ground equipment in separate ships that can be 3 places at once.

Valoren
Valoren
1 year ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

Fighters and ground equipment, yes. Firepower, absolutely not.
A single ISD is larger than all of those ships combined.

Last edited 1 year ago by Valoren
Hunter Jones
Hunter Jones
1 year ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

However, while that combination may be equal or slightly cheaper to produce, you are not accounting for the crew complement and fuel requirements as well as limited dockyard space and a whole host of other logistical issues that come from taking the role of a single imperator and splitting it into 3 separate ships. what 5 million you save in initial production will quickly be eaten up. I know we all harp on the imperial fleet for not being diverse enough but the ISD is adequate in its multirole duties even if it isn’t spectacular everywhere.

phoenix
phoenix
1 year ago
Reply to  Hunter Jones

Your probably right on everything except crew requirements. A single ISD 1 still had a higher crew numbers then a venator, victory and acclamator combined. And with the ISD 2 it’s even worse.

But personally I do find a venator and victory to be more useful then a single ISD.

And to be honest you could easily modify a venator to increase it’s firepower as it’s 52 point defense cannons could actually be replaced with turbolasers. While retaining all of it’s fighter complement.

Thus negating the need to build a single ship that cost 3 times more.

Last edited 1 year ago by phoenix
Eugene
Eugene
1 year ago
Reply to  phoenix

Ummm…May I ask, where exactly power for guns other than PD comes from?

Also, while there is a case to be made that amount of small combatants is more flexible than 1 of bigger size, I’d argue the reverse on the subject of the their worth as combatants.

An ISD has the power to take on both Victory and Venator at once: 175×16+8×70+some amount of 40tt against (16×70+4 unknown but smaller guns in the notches)+(9×70). The gap may not appear big or important but the ISD will surely be able to widen it soon after the start of engagement. Same presumably traslates to shields. And it has volume to bring airgroup to match too (more actually, depending on how much supplies in the front you’re willing to dispence).

The above is made with ISD I in mind, II will change things a bit but not by not that much as to completely turn the table, As you noticed I didn’t take into account the firepower Victory has in its rocket batteries, but I’d argue that it’s a very situational weapon and whether or not Victory will be able to use it hinges on the exact circumstances. Don’t get me wrong, they’re within fighting chance but it’s a chance.

Last edited 1 year ago by Eugene
Kenneth Ferland
Kenneth Ferland
1 year ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

Important caveats, turbo-laser barrel counts don’t translate directly to fire-power because rate of fire is going to depend on reactor output. Second the Imperator seems like it has very little hanager capacity compared to a Venator, but this is misleading, the Venator was normally loaded with almost exclusivly small fighter craft, while the Imperator would normally carry a mix of literally ever craft the Empire had, from ATAT landing barges to Skipray Blastboats. I estimate the Imperator actually had atleast half of the Venator hangar capacity, possibly close to an equal amount depending on if the AT-AT garage areas would have been usable for fighters too.

Ultimatly a ships launch rate of fighters is going to be critical as well, the original Venator with the full sliding doors could release all thouse fighters very rapidly, but this looks to have been too vulnorable and they modified it to a smaller door, that likely had the effect of making the Venator unable to effectivly scramble it’s full complement of fighters. The Imperator fighter complement was likely just downsized to what could be resonably be scrambled in a timely mannor, the rest of the stored craft are for landing operation and can tucked ‘in the back’ of the trunk so to speak with a much longer retrival time.

Lastly the Aclamator stats have always been bonkers, given the side of the ship it shouldn’t be able to hold what it holds, nor is their any reason for it to be so incredibly fast AND cheap. It’s 2nd only to the SunCrusher in being off-the-chart OP.

Valoren
Valoren
1 year ago

I’ve been modeling the inside of an acclamator for some time now. Given the official dimensions of the ship, the carrying capacity the ICS says it has is not unreasonable (yes that includes the 36 SPHA-T and the 80+ gunships). People way underestimate the amount of internal volume available in that thing, even after factoring in reactor/fuel space.

Squerldestroyer81
Squerldestroyer81
11 months ago
Reply to  Valoren

Yes, I could see the Acclamator holding a tremendous amount of combat material but that is offset by the relatively light armament that is actually geared toward orbital bombardment/ground support and no space fighter capability. Hence why they only had ~700 dedicated crew members. 700 sounds like a lot but in a 600m-700m long warship, its tiny(US WWII cruisers had higher crew requirements in a much smaller space as an example). Crew facilites wouldn’t take much of that internal volume at all.

phoenix
phoenix
1 year ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

True and to be honest a victory 1 and a venator would be in my opinion a lot more useful then a single ISD.

Squerldestroyer81
Squerldestroyer81
11 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

And less crew requirements, which is a huge consideration in real militaries. BUUUUUTTT, each one of those ships alone can’t subjugate a world on its own. The Imperator can achieve that all on its own (if its a more backwater/tech-inferior populace I will add).

Eugene
Eugene
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonarus_Drakus

If you already accepted loss of all forward bay carrying capacity, why not move guns there? One battery on dorsal and one on ventral surface for an all round arc of fire (maybe with all baing able to fire forward but I dont know if the hull angle allows) to acquire possibly the single best main battery arc in the fleet.

The thing is however, if its a new construction the biggest issue with this design is that you want Procursator. If a rebuild I dont see it being worth the hustle.

And may I ask the purpose in the fleet you see for it, if operating as designed?

Last edited 1 year ago by Eugene
Jonarus_Drakus
Jonarus_Drakus
1 year ago
Reply to  Eugene

While I did specify a “reduction” in fighter capacity, I didn’t mean to imply complete removal of the hanger facilities. I still see my variant having a capacity of maybe 80% of the ‘standard’ Venator, so easily 350+ Depending on the size of the craft in the given loadout – Using purely Imperial craft, I’d asume a compliment of AT LEAST 12 squadrons of basic TIEs (single-hulled varients) 3-4 squadrons of Bombers (or other large TIE variants), and at least 1 full squadron of Assault Gunboats. Even with just that, you already have 204 total, nearly THREE TIMES that of an ISD2 (standard TIE compliment of which was 72, including bombers).

End result, with my varient, you get three times the fighters (if not more) of an ISD, with combat ability greater than its predecesor, and equal (if not greater) than a Victory Class, along with similar defensive capacity. Thats a ship *I* at least would take over an ISD (1 *or* 2) any day.

But that is, in the end, a ‘personal opinion’ statement – to be fair.

~JD

Eugene
Eugene
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonarus_Drakus

Oh, my bad, I misread your variant as relying entirely on the ventral and side hangars.
To a degree the point stands though, all of Venator’s hangars are interconected (I dont remember for sure but almost convinced thats the case. Its up to You to discard this part). Placing the sextuple turret in the root of the hangar is exactly where it connects to the rest of them.

And I apologise if the following comes across as rude,but you do not get direct combat capabilities on par with the Victory because a lot of VSD’s threat comes from its rocketry. The way I see it, the increase is not that great (not insignificant, certainly interesting, but not something to base the doctrinal approach on) adding 6×40 tt to 8x2x70 already in place (actually less since you put two additional 2×70 turrets).

If comparing with ISD, yes, you do get a bigger fighter complement over an ISD lugging around legion-worth of shuttles, barges, etc in the hangar, at a price of being roflstomped with turbolasers directly in a less time than fighters make themselvesf useful. It comes down to one’s perception of smallcraft power and importance in SW combat, but by my reckoning it is essentially marginal – just too dangerous to be ignored but of limited concern in the grand scheme of things.

Not that I think its a total dead end, I just think it sacrifices potential to outvenator the Venator while remaing in it’s original spot in the line. More is possible by ditching more fighters. On the far end, you can get an inverse Procursator (yes its in reverse to my original assessment), explicitly designed to engage in battles with forces of smaller tonnage/firepower which Navy could reasonably expect for most of the Rebellion era at a cheaper price than an ISD.

Well, or so I think.

Last edited 1 year ago by Eugene
Alton Dykes
Alton Dykes
1 year ago

I wish there were STLs of Fractals ships. I would love to 3D print some of these ships! I would pay good money for the files too!

ReallyBigMistake
ReallyBigMistake
1 year ago

what a beauty. hope the Acclamator gets a model as well and a lot of ships that show up in the prequels

Eugene
Eugene
1 year ago

Whis balcony on the forward face of the superstructure is for handling stuff like approach, landing/take-off, I imagine?

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
1 year ago
Reply to  Eugene

Hopefully it’s an auxiliary bridge in case someone intelligent focus fires and destroys the bridge/air traffic control towers

Eugene
Eugene
1 year ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

Secondary facilities of control is all good and well but off the top of my head, I dont remember instances were damage to ships was intentionally localised barring essentialy knife fight distances. There’s Tantive on a distance of only a few ISD hulls from the Devastator. There’s broadside exchange between Venator and the Invisible Hand (and that was probably accidental). Theres Executor over Endor but I’d honestly discout that battle entirely due to how specific the tactics were. And there’s a Nebulon over Scarif split in half, but thats not a high bar to set. Though I probably missed a lot, I not that sure that you can achieve accuracy past “in the probable sector/silhouette” level on the ranges SW dhould be capable of achieving, Well maybe better than that but something to that effect.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
1 year ago

It’s the perfect ship aesthetically and militarily.

Last edited 1 year ago by Josh Peterson