HOME | DD

Published: 2012-09-26 19:50:45 +0000 UTC; Views: 9020; Favourites: 75; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
A very quick concept ship profile I thew together to solidfy and illustrate some ideas I have been pondering for some time for an advanced Stingray type starship.The concept draws from the current plan, the USS DAUNTLESS, nature, and other sources, such as Ace Combat's exotic R-103 Delphinus III aircraft (which strongly influenced the orthographic silhouette of core superstructures, an homage only visible in this lateral view). It is intended to be around 300m long.
The result is a rather wicked-looking, convention-breaking fleet ship with a definite aquatic vibe.
It remains to be seen if I will prepare a proper set of schematics for this, but the concept shows great promise for further development.
Related Art
Digital Vector Art
Adobe Illustrator
Related content
Comments: 49
Lucas-Stl [2025-04-19 00:19:14 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jack-Hammerquist [2022-08-14 22:06:54 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to Jack-Hammerquist [2022-08-16 00:13:34 +0000 UTC]
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Jack-Hammerquist In reply to Phaeton99 [2022-08-16 22:38:07 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ecletified [2014-09-02 20:44:48 +0000 UTC]
Finish the first one as a prototype ship like the enterprise-NX class. Then work on the refinement, a finished JOAT write up would probably catch a lot more attention and appeal. who knows the next Enterprise might be YOUR guys FAULT.......
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Phaeton99 In reply to RichTheWolf257 [2013-08-02 18:00:10 +0000 UTC]
I am tempted to make a 3D modeling project of it, eventually.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to RichTheWolf257 [2013-08-03 05:53:06 +0000 UTC]
New hardware, new software — it may take a while for me to sort things out before I can attempt such a thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
tonystardreamer [2012-11-30 21:05:48 +0000 UTC]
Cool. Looks kinda a style of ships I'm working on right now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to tonystardreamer [2012-11-30 21:10:10 +0000 UTC]
Organic ships are in vogue, these days, and aquatic cues are an obvious way to approach them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tonystardreamer In reply to Phaeton99 [2012-12-01 18:27:21 +0000 UTC]
What do you mean their "in vogue"? Sorry for not replying quickly. We had internet troubles.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to tonystardreamer [2012-12-01 20:47:58 +0000 UTC]
Organic-style ships design is a very popular direction among designers and dreamers alike. Ironically, so is heavy industrial, the diametric opposite approach. I suppose that says something about the nature of imagination....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tonystardreamer In reply to Phaeton99 [2012-12-05 00:04:09 +0000 UTC]
True, true. For the most part, I think humans still long for that natural feel and I think that bleeds through to our imagination.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to tonystardreamer [2012-12-05 01:36:41 +0000 UTC]
Arguably, it is a sign of the most refined technology that it approaches the biological in sophistication. Is it any wonder then that organic design is usually associated with the most advanced (and not uncommonly, most alien) ships in a given setting, rather than the most primitive?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tonystardreamer In reply to Phaeton99 [2012-12-05 18:57:02 +0000 UTC]
Your right, It's no wonder. Just look at the Borg from Star Trek or the Rebel ships from Star Wars.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to tonystardreamer [2012-12-05 20:31:01 +0000 UTC]
One can find example in nearly any setting — even in fantasy or real world tech, to a degree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tonystardreamer In reply to Phaeton99 [2012-12-06 18:29:13 +0000 UTC]
True. Any particular fantasy settings you have in mind?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to tonystardreamer [2012-12-06 18:55:06 +0000 UTC]
Well, take the naturalistic architecture and general design motifs of the Elves in the Lord of the Rings films, of example.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tonystardreamer In reply to Phaeton99 [2012-12-06 20:08:29 +0000 UTC]
What? Could you send a link?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to tonystardreamer [2012-12-07 01:18:13 +0000 UTC]
Granted, their style tends more toward the Art Nouveau than strictly organic.
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to tonystardreamer [2012-12-07 19:06:16 +0000 UTC]
Its stuff like this that keeps me collecting film artbooks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tonystardreamer In reply to Phaeton99 [2012-12-28 20:41:51 +0000 UTC]
I have always love the concept art for films. I could spend hours on Google looking for concept art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to tonystardreamer [2012-12-28 22:31:26 +0000 UTC]
Unfortunately, most of the stuff online is low-resolution, heavily watermarked, or only viewable in some confined gallery — nigh useless for design inspirations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tonystardreamer In reply to Phaeton99 [2012-12-29 23:05:11 +0000 UTC]
Yeah well I'm just too poor to afford the books. Heck I don't even have Photoshop, I have to copy all my line are and color it with colored pencils.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to tonystardreamer [2012-12-29 23:07:34 +0000 UTC]
One takes what one can get, as ever, as always.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tonystardreamer In reply to Phaeton99 [2012-12-30 05:51:56 +0000 UTC]
True. True.
...that's sad some times, but true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to tonystardreamer [2012-12-30 06:05:21 +0000 UTC]
At least in this era, one can find quite a bit online. When I think back to the time before... it seems so... isolating.
Granted, it was also easier to think one's ideas were original as a result, too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tonystardreamer In reply to Phaeton99 [2012-12-31 06:18:05 +0000 UTC]
What do you mean by "it was also easier to "THINK" one's ideas were original as a result, too."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to tonystardreamer [2012-12-31 15:09:35 +0000 UTC]
Before the internet, a one couldn't see that one's "original" concepts were often commonplace ideas. Those "cool" stories, character ideas, and such one invented were as isolated as oneself, and they seemed more novel sans comparison.
Now, it seems harder to be original, since one is flooded with proof that nearly everything has already been thought already by someone — often a lot of someone's — when, of course, it was always that way.
For the creative, this just opens the door to greater inspiration, naturally, but it is daunting nonetheless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tonystardreamer In reply to Phaeton99 [2013-01-07 20:21:13 +0000 UTC]
That's why I try to use ideas that arn't used or haven't been used very much
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to tonystardreamer [2013-01-07 20:43:41 +0000 UTC]
That's the other side of the internet coin: one can often quickly see which ideas have been neglected — or possibilities in the combination that no-one has explored yet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tonystardreamer In reply to Phaeton99 [2013-01-07 21:43:10 +0000 UTC]
That's what I tend to look for.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Phaeton99 In reply to dauntless77 [2012-09-29 01:54:39 +0000 UTC]
I am actually rather surprised by how well it turned out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
markusglanzer [2012-09-26 20:48:30 +0000 UTC]
Nice design. How far in the future of Trek would you put it? Also it looks a lot like the Minbari designs from B5, but that could just be me. Maybe this will change with detail / different angles.
But it seems to be a constant repetition of the Design evolution, with Ship hulls getting more and more organic. It also feels like this could easily be a link to future designs, looking very similar to Andromeda.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to markusglanzer [2012-09-26 21:03:20 +0000 UTC]
I place this concept only a decade or two past the "present era" (non-Abrams timeline).
It would be far less exotic under its hull plates than its shape suggests, rather like the Dauntless (alien fraud though it was), and likewise would cleave closer to convention in markings and operational surface details, thus bringing its general appearance back into more familiar bounds.
As for the evolution — I suspect that overall, the tendency to move towards the organic in science fiction is to imply that the technology has become so sophisticated that it is approaching the complexity of a living thing, rather than a mere machine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
markusglanzer In reply to Phaeton99 [2012-09-27 09:46:30 +0000 UTC]
I agree, there would be more exotic shapes possible, if you take the gravity plating into account. One could actually change their direction for more than 180° in every direction and still have the sensation of walking down a straight corridor.
Also with the possibilities of TNG and beyond, you could actually build a TARDIS. Imagine Starships that actually work and look like 17th century sailing ships on the Inside (transferring controls to the holodeck happened in at least one Moriaty episode) - imagine a completely reconfigurable interior. Also simulating a Galaxy Class inside a vessel the Defiant's size would be not a problem, so the 'bigger on the inside' issue seems to be solved.
But personally I'm not really comfortable with this sort of 'evolution'. This would mainly be because Star Trek used to have one of the most iconic ship design ever seen. You need 5 lines to draw a 'stick constitution' and everyone recognizes it. This would work for every ship from the TOS era, what I would call a truly brilliant design. That's why I prefer the constitution and the excelsior over the galaxy class. (besides that I found the constitution way too big. galaxy appears to me like a cruise ship. but if you're playing sailing-ships-in-space i guess that might be ok.) That's also why I think the Sovereign class is one of the worst designs they've ever done. But 'simplistic' died with the Galaxy Class anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Phaeton99 In reply to markusglanzer [2012-09-27 18:29:01 +0000 UTC]
There is a reason I frequently return to the iconic Jeffries original to appreciate its merits. It is the heart and soul of Star Trek, and the brilliant vision it represents (cheaply executed or not) inevitably becomes diluted regardless what direction one goes in the timeline from that point.
From an in-setting standpoint, it is highly unlikely that starship design would logically cling to the same motifs the way franchise and fan designers have, with the iconic model being simply a transitory point in an unending design evolution.
But until someone manages to match or surpass Jeffries' accomplishment, the TOS Enterprise will naturally remain the point of reference for Trek design in general. As well it should.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Luced0 In reply to Phaeton99 [2012-10-03 09:58:32 +0000 UTC]
While I do beleave that there is alot of possible variations and strange or very creative possibltys for ships I think even are own naval ship/submarine develpment shows that while Ideas reach as far as is possible, implementing the ideas or advance's in technology start as a combination of mass produced base componets intill things slowly start to be built for the tech alone.
This however causes a vary visible progression in apearance that while may not be imidiatly visable at first glance if you look to predecessors of any ship there is a very clear and obvious "evelution". I find it simaler to the imiges that dipict ape evolving into modernman.
But is star trek advanced in timeline(in the setting), Technology (in both setting and production), and Configuration in design and shape (in models and CG) when itcomes to the various races. and evan as more and more things were scene in TOS and TNG rodenbarry encourged the designers to explore any kind of ship they coul think of and build in some way as long as first it was in budget but secondly he wanted the science to be visable. So there were a set of standereds developed that all star trek ships in any series (considered canon and excluding abrams...trash) wich is a primary secton (usualy the suacer), a secondary section ( usualy the drive section), a diflector dish (witch has taken so many shapes), and 2 warp "engines" (usaly presented as 2 nacels but in designs that have no Nacels or an odd number each nacel is consider to have 2 fields in side so all good things ENT has 3 nacels but 6 warp field genarators). This has made it so that you can imidiatly reconiz a ship as a star tre ship and "know" how it works with just a glance, wich was vary important to rodenbarry.
I think the most amazing designs are ones that go so far from TOS ENT but are still imidiatly reconizable at the same time. something pheaton as done time and time again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0