I accuse you of inadequate skill with the English language, and challenge you to prove me wrong. I suggest beginning with your next post in this thread. You keep arguing against points that I haven't even made.Jericho wrote:(Drops monocle) "Why i never..."Let's start with this. Here, I'm basically accusing you of the same thing that you're accusing "battleship lovers" of: thinking about aesthetics to the detriment of design. What you need to do is:
I accuse you of straw manning and nitpicking. And i challenge you fisticuffs.
And where, anywhere in this, did I mention anything about aerodynamics? I don't give a damn about the aerodynamics of the things, they're spaceships after all.Jericho wrote:This argument says nothing about what i actually said. I was making a point about the superiority of non aerodynamic "box like" ships given the futility of aerodynamics in space. We are not flying in atmosphere now are we for most part right?1) break the design down into it's core components:
1 i) In the case of the Omega (and the Nova), if you ignore the rotating segment (which, if you go back and read starting at "from the Omega's basic hull form", you'll see that I explicitly did) then you have a big box up front, and a little box in back. A hammer, in essence, which you'll notice I already referred to the design as.
And, let me be frank, how is two pyramids with their bases stuck together any less of a box than a cube is a box? Explain. If you can.
I would recommend that you spit on your idea of what you think I said, and actually pay attention to my words. Subtlety does not adequately travel in a text form, and I am fully aware of this, and thus I do not use subtlety. If you think that a particular passage that I've written in this series of posts has some hidden meaning, then you should go back and look at the words.
The description that I gave of "Spire" designs is just as much of a "box" as the "Hammer" design is. If you actually have some grounds to say otherwise then state it.Jericho wrote:Here's the thing a boxlike ships doesn't necessarily mean that it has to look exactly like the nova or omega. there are plenty of examples of boxes out there so nitpicking about the particular shape of those ships are besides the point. If you wish make your box by placing a spire on the center of another box that's fine. the point is that it's cheaper easier and less expensive to make a ship if it consists of only utilitarian equipment and straight armor plates (gay ones are not allowed to be fitted on warships or marry).1 ii) In the case of the "battleship" design, the design simplifies down to either two cones with their bases stuck together, or two pyramids with their bases stuck together. Pay no attention to the conning and whatever-else towers, they're a distraction at this point (after all, do you really think that people would normally stick an Omega's docking bay at the front, where it's most likely to gather debris? why then stick the bridge outside of the deepest portions of the ship ).
And as for "doesn't necessarily have to look like an Omega", pick a design. If you want to discuss something, then you must have something to actually talk about. If you aren't supporting a "Hammer", then either describe the generic form of the hull shape that you are supporting, or drop the subject. Your arguments thus far have little more material than "your design looks aerodynamic to me, so that means it's bad".
Acceleration? Go back and read that: where did I mention acceleration? In that entire post I was trying to assume equal volumes, equal masses, and equal accelerations, for the sake of more accurately comparing the actual designs.Jericho wrote:The box is superior because space is a vacuum. Therefore you don't need to worry about acceleration that much unless your planning to travel through a gas cloud or an atmosphere. Aerodynamics doesn't apply that much otherwise so why use them? Also you're not traveling in an ocean so using a naval vessel as a model for a futuristic star-ship is just plain... um ... (sorry i have no nice way of saying it) and the only reason why you would do it is because the rule of cool (space battleship Yamato is a prime example)2 i II) Unfortunately, any weapons that are mounted on front of the ship will not be able to reach behind the ship. You can locate them on the sides of the hammerhead instead of the front, but that doesn't provide any improvement over the mounting options of a "battleship", raising the question of what makes the Hammer so superior in the first place.
Aerodynamics? I DID NOT MENTION AERODYNAMICS AT ALL. Abandon all thought of aerodynamics in this conversation. YOU might be obsessed with the subject, but I am not.
Naval ships as a model? I already tried to point out in the beginning of that post that I don't actually have enough knowledge of naval ships to actually use them as a genuine model, I am neither David Webber nor David Drake. This entire post was about the advantages and disadvantages of actual hull shapes.
Did I describe a bottom-heavy vehicle with a bulbous nose and a distinctive upward sweep of the lower sides? No? Then how did I describe something that has any business being on the water? Pay attention to the hull form that I described: two pyramids with their bases stuck together.Jericho wrote:Basing your star ship design on naval vessels is plain wrong because of the simply reason that one is designed to float on water.
The only points that you seem to have made are "Boxes!" and "Aerodynamics are bad". This is sufficiently close to saying "Cars!" when people ask what you like to drive.Jericho wrote:Again you're not addressing my point. You're nitpicking about the particular shape of one example i used for visual effects, not answering the argument i am making.2 i III) Also, the most obvious use for the hammerhead is to stick most of the armor there so that you can keep almost ALL of your armor between the ship and the enemy. Given the Hammer's nice maneuvering this can work for one adversary, but what if there are two, and they engage in a joust with you? Even the most straight-forward of tactics will lead them to pass on opposite sides of you, making it impossible to defend yourself from both. A fleet joust is likely to be at least as bad, and if they actually try to mix in with your forces then it'll be much, much worse.
Unlike you, at least I have pointed out some benefits of designs.Jericho wrote:Maneuvering is otherwise an incredible important aspect of outsider but it has nothing to do with the argument i am making.2 ii) "Battleships" (you know what? let's call them "Spires", to avoid undue comparisons) have their center of volume at the same point as their center of length.
2 ii I) This means that they'll have somewhat worse maneuverability than a Hammer, which is a downside, but that level of maneuverability would really only matter in dogfights, which are unlikely to last long between Outsider warships. Thus, this isn't really much of a loss. Note that I am assuming the center of thrust passes through the tips of both cones in the rest of these points, assuming that it passes through the plane of the cone's bases would produce a different analysis.
This implies that if a "box" flies with one of it's corners in front, it automatically is no longer cost-justified, because it has become aerodynamic. Now, did you mean to say that? Or did you mean to say something else? Perhaps you meant to say something about curves inherently making it more difficult to build something? Oh, wait, that can't be it, because you haven't said any such thing. If you actually had said such a thing then I could consider it in my responses, but all that you've said is "Boxes!", and "Aerodynamics are bad", without saying why. You want a conversation? Then write with intentional clarity, intentionally saying everything that you consider important. If it isn't important, then who cares, but if it is then you'll just have to explain it at a later time.Jericho wrote:And it says nothing about the argument I've made!
And here's basically my point: Aerodynamically shaped ships offer no significant advantage in space to justify the cost of making them as a standard (they belong to the exception not the rule).That is the basic form of my point:
Then actually get around to making said point so that I can write relevant responses to it.Jericho wrote:I don't get what this has to do with the argument I'm making.2 ii II) Assuming equal volumes, a Hammer will presumably have more mounting area on the sides of it's hammerhead than a Spire will along it's bases. This does have the potential to reduce the number of turrets with 360
degree
"horizontal" coverage, but the risk is actually somewhat low: the America class heavy cruisers only have four heavy laser turrets, and Loroi cruisers (with the sole exception of the Swift Vanguard battlecruisers) seem to max out around 5 primary turrets. Even then, these turrets seem to reliably carry only two weapons, so unless there's some construction issue that prevents it, it should be quite possible to reduce the number of turrets while maintaining the same firepower.
The shape I described is closer to a sphere than the one you described (or, rather, closer than the Hammer design, since you apparently haven't described anything at all). Thus, less surface area. I would draw you a picture of both, but I'm not going to bother uploading one, so there's no point.Jericho wrote:You gonna have to draw me a diagram of this cause i don't get why it would have more surface area.2 ii III) A Spire doesn't offer any quick and obvious armor optimizations like the Hammer does (they can be done, mind you, but they don't really relate to ship layout and thus apply to both designs), but it does have one advantage over a Hammer: if you maintain the same measurement ratios, Spire surface areas should increase slower than with a Hammer. Thus, a Spire doesn't offer the armor optimizations of a Hammer, but it does have an advantage of the actual surface area of the ship.
You asked me to explain another one of my posts. I thus proceeded to actually explain what I was talking about, that being a comparison of the general hull plans that we were discussing: "Battleships" (Spires) and "Omegas" (Hammers).Jericho wrote:This argument doesn't matter either as I have not made an argument remotely similar to that. I have no idea why you bring this up.2) analyze the the traits of those core components:
2 i) "Hammers" have their center of volume moved forwards in comparison to their center of length, which means that if their density is either distributed accordingly, or even in such a way that the center of mass is even further forwards, then the most effective place to put maneuvering thrusters is the very back of the ship.
2 i I) This configuration can provide good turning performance when compared to it's engine power, so if we assume a mostly inertial flightpath (or primary engines flanking the center of mass, with secondaries at the rear), a Hammer should be very effective at deciding which side of itself to present to the enemy.
And where would that Goldilocks zone be, the upper-forward quadrant of the ship? Blocking zones of fire is dubious, but the design that I described doesn't have these unnecessary obstructions (an example of a unnecessary structure: a conning tower). The turrets sit on "peaks", giving them 360 degrees visibility on their horizontal plane, and at least 180 degrees visibility on their vertical plane, possibly more depending on the design of individual ships. You aren't going to get much better than that.Jericho wrote:The other is made to fly in the vacuum of space. Just look at the Yamato it's main battery is only able to fire in a special Goldilocks zone that's so weirdly placed for a star-ship that the only logical reason why it does that is because the designer thought naval vessels looked cool. And I'm not talking about the wave motion gun.
So no i don't think i favor box design because it looks good. I think it looks good because of the utilitarian aspects of it.
At any rate, you are seemingly basing your argument on "LOL, WW2 battleship in space!" (and, lets be honest, that's a reasonable opinion, because seriously, those turrets wouldn't even stay on the Yamato without something being added to the structure to keep them from floating off... and likely running straight into the conning tower), whereas I'm basing mine on the generalized shape (wide at the middle, skinny at front and back). In other words, your dismissal is based on a specific example (in which case we can dismiss ALL spacecraft from consideration, because various space programs have had rockets blow up), while mine is based on the general shape. You're making comparisons to oranges, I'm making comparisons to spheres. Do you understand the words I have written here?