Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Live Sex ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

The Invictus - Fresh out of Olympus Shipyard! (Patreon)

Published:
2017-04-15 12:14:14
Edited:
2017-11-07 12:24:20
Imported:
2021-01

Content

Hey everyone!

I sketched this out a few months ago, to give to a friend of mine who does 3D modelling. He's mocking up a model of the Invictus for me, so I hope I'll have a professionally rendered version to show you soon.

Tefler

Files

Comments

Anonymous

did he finish ch123 yet? said he had more scenes

Anonymous

Sooo, this is the before pic? Will you have an after pic for the completed ProGen refit?

Terra_Lupis

Then according to these rough sketches Alyssa in her early days forgot about Pythagoras' Theorem when calculating how far she could hear John's thoughts.

Tefler
>>4712057

I'm fairly sure I took that into account (erm I mean, she did!), but it's been ages since I last looked at those early chapters, so I can't remember the figures I stated.

Anonymous

Just wondering if it's possible to get one of those 3d models my father would love one

ringill

That's excellent thanks for posing it There is a slight issue with the description in chapter 7 but a lot of parsecs have passed over the hull since then.

Jedi Khan

Looks like a variation of the Venator-class Star Destroyer from Star Wars (the Republic warships seen at the start of Episode 3).

Anonymous

100 m high wow I didn't expect that.

Terra_Lupis

Is it weird that I imagined something different. The reason I bring this up is that on second or third visit back to Olympus (Jade's first visit), Jade has a flashback when looking out at the Invictus and the flashback is of a collector master who had a Terran Shark. Now based on that slight description, I envisioned the 'wings/fins' and the command deck being further to the middle and the 'wings/fins' angling down slightly.

Tefler
>>4712983

No, that's not weird at all. Everyone imagines things slightly differently, and without giving you extremely detailed descriptions, your mind is going to fill in the blanks. The problem with bringing the wings and fire control tower forward, would be that the ship would look quite ungainly with the largest/widest sections that far forward. From a side profile of a shark: <a href="http://www.floridasportsman.com/files/2010/09/great-white.jpg" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://www.floridasportsman.com/files/2010/09/great-white.jpg</a> The dorsal fin is actually in the front half of its body, with the last third thin and narrow, before fanning out for the tail. Designing the ship that way would drastically alter the shape of the topdeck.

Morningfrost
>>4712596

My first thought was actually one of the capital ships in the old Star Wars: Empire at War game lol. Of course, any wedge-shaped ship is going to bring up thoughts of Star Destroyers for any sci-fi fan, so can't exactly be surprised about that lol. ~Morningfrost

Morningfrost

I like it Tefler! Also, I'd second Roy Lewis' question, and see if there wouldn't be some way to purchase a 3D model. ~Morningfrost

bigdawguw65

I have a seemingly dumb question for any &amp; all , why does the fire control have to be in a tower externally located making it so vulnerable ? We seen in many of the Space Battles so far of them being knocked out , rendering the ship noting more than a sitting target ? Is it because of the shields or armor? Is it some sort of antenna ? Just seems to be foolish to have such a important piece of your tech hung out with a big bulls eye on it . Thanks for any enlightenment .

Lord Winter
>>4715415

I have to say, I've been curious about that as well, both in this story, and in the past.

Anonymous

I have to wonder why bridges are not in the center of ships. We aren't looking out windows... As Legion says in Mass Effect 2, those are just structural weaknesses.

Jedi Khan
>>4720047

Well, the Invictus does have the Combat Bridge buried deep in the center of the ship now. I guess the reason why bridges with windows have always been on the surface of ships, rather than inside looking through cameras, is because of the field of vision. Our eyes have a much larger field of view than most cameras do, plus they happen to be a lot more mobile than cameras given our ability to move our eyes and head around. There is also the fact that if the power were to go out, you still want to be able to look outside, and windows don't use power.

Anonymous
>>4720047

I am calling BS. The distances involved don't allow for the naked eye to be used. Not for movement around a dock (hundreds of meters from either end) or in the emptiness of space. Cameras, sensors and positioning systems are what is used.

Jedi Khan
>>4720047

Yeah, sure, at the kinds of ranges for space, but what about close quarters, such as docking ship to ship, and are you saying your eyes can't see something a few hundred meters away? You might not be able to see a whole lot of detail at that distance, but you can definitely see movement that far, as well as any objects large enough to be an obstacle to a ship. Besides, as was also pointed out in Mass Effect 2, all someone needed to do to spot a ship coming in under low power so as not to be picked up by sensors was to look out a window. Granted, technology may be better in some regards, but really, it can't beat nature. The human eye may not be able to see as far, but as I said, it has a much better field of view (read, width not distance). It is possible for the human eye to spot things, like movement, on the edges of its vision that would be outside of a camera's angle, and then focus on and track whatever it was. Even if the movement did occur in the field of view of a camera, the camera is not going to focus and track it like a human eye would. Also, watching things through a monitor all the time is not exactly the best for human eyes. Take a look at current VR tech, and the various issues people are facing with that, all related to vision.

Anonymous
>>4720047

Even today we prefer backup cameras so no a window hundreds of meters away around the corner from the airlock is not good enough. "Looking out a window" can be substituted with a camera pointed in that direction.

Jedi Khan
>>4720047

Who says there can't be a window in or next to the airlock? As for the backup camera, that's so people can see what's out of sight behind their vehicle. And, as I've said before, it does not have nearly the same field of view as the human eye does. That's the same reason why they haven't replaced the windows of a car with sheets of metal and video monitors hooked to cameras. Even with backup cameras, they always come with safety warnings telling you to check your surroundings with your eyes rather than just relying on the camera.

Anonymous
>>4720047

The airlock is on the side at the bottom and the bridge is up top. You can't see it from there... These ships are moving at such speeds the eye is worthless.

Anonymous
>>4720047

Historical reasons is also a possible explanation. Militaries are often slow to change and all ships right now have the bridge at the top. Although some have move CIC to another deck. Also, the first ships in space were probably civilian and didn't have the sensors necessary for a protected bridge. There was probably also no need for the original ships to have a protected bridge.

Anonymous
>>4720047

Several wars later historical reasons don't matter. Changes occur when a weakness is found.

Jedi Khan
>>4720047

I don't suppose you happen to be one of those people who views the world around them through the lens of their smart phone camera, are you? If not, give it a try, preferably not while driving or moving. You'll quickly realize what I've been talking about with regards to field of view. You'll realize just how much more your eyes can see that the camera does not. To make it even more obvious, find one of those smart phones that can double as a VR headset screen and see if it will allow you to use it's camera while in the headset. This way the headset acts as blinders, making it so that you have to rely solely on the camera to see. This is the same principle, and the closest approximation we can get with today's available technology, to what you are suggesting with getting rid of windows and relying solely on cameras and sensors. If you do happen to be one of those people who views the world through the lens of a camera, try the VR headset trick I just described, because I'm pretty sure that even though you are looking through a camera lens most of the time, your mind is subconsciously supplementing that camera view with what your eyes take in from outside the borders of that little screen. Hell, let's get even simpler and more old school: grab a pair of binoculars and put them up to your eyes. You can see much farther now, yes? But can you see what's slightly off to your left or right without turning your head? That is what I'm talking about with field of view.

Anonymous
>>4720047

You are justifying things based on current technology and the human eye once more. Very few space ship games have you fly solely with you eyes, usually there are positioning systems to guide the human.

Jedi Khan
>>4720047

Yes, and you'll also notice that they all have windows too for the pilot to look out through so they can see what's around them, rather than have them looking through a monitor at a camera feed. Field of view, again, is the factor. The human eye has a nearly 180 degree forward-facing horizontal field of view. Cameras with a standard 35mm focal length, have at best a 60 degree field of view on the horizontal plane. The focal length of a camera can be decreased to give it a wider field of view, but at the cost of distorting the image. In the end, there really is just no substituting the good ol' human eye. And yes, I am justifying things based on current technology and the human eye because current technology is what we know and understand, and the human eye hasn't changed in the last few thousand years and likely isn't going to in the next few thousand.

Anonymous
>>4720047

You haven't addressed the core of my argument at all. You see purely playing devil's advocate and throwing out more and more unrelated things. Yes eyes are used, but looking out windows from the bridge no. Sensors would be used and yes eyes would look at screens. The bridge doesn't need to be exposed.

Anonymous

I was reading through the last chapter on SOL and had a thought. How are they going to tell Tashana and Irillith apart? Will they always wear red and blue? Ear ring (magnetic maybe) on the left vs right ear? What trouble will they get into impersonating each other?

Anonymous
>>4720047

Would think it has more to do with the brass wanting a room with a view that any sort of tangible benefit.

Anonymous
>>4720047

Like an observatory? One of those things that Rachel didn't finish yet...

bigdawguw65

Brad...not only twins but mentally linked twins also linked to that little minx Aylssa , the mind boggles at what they might come up with . Also throw in a shape shifting Jade &amp; sexy mom &amp; Tefler could have the basis for another series while they rest of the girls relax &amp; have their babies .

Jedi Khan
>>4720047

I'm pretty sure I've addressed the core of your argument: looking through a screen at a camera feed is not going to give you the same field of view as you would if you were looking out a panoramic wall of windows. Yes, you are going to use cameras and sensors to augment your view so you can see stuff that's thousands of kilometers away, but you aren't going to have those as your only means of seeing what's outside your ship, hence the use of a bridge with windows. As I mentioned earlier, if your ship were to lose power and somehow still be intact, you'd be completely blind if your bridge was buried in the middle of the ship with (now useless) video screens as your only means to see outside. A bridge on the surface of the ship with windows would still allow you to see outside in the event of a power loss, that way you can see if another ship pulls alongside.

Anonymous
>>4733685

Twins may look alike, but they are different people, and family &amp; close friends generally don't have trouble telling them apart. Body language, speech mannerisms, etc - not to mention stuff like clothing. Unless they're deliberately playing at something, I don't think John &amp; the girls will be too confused, though guests or acquaintances who don't live on the ship may have difficulties keeping them straight.

Anonymous
>>4738021

Charles is going to have a heart attack when they kiss him together on either cheek.

Anonymous

I'm glad the Invictus got stretched out, this one looks way to fat and stubby. And like a duck's head. Makes me think of the cartoon, 'Duck Tales'...