Unlearning how ships are built, for all you creators.

[Cook]

Hello all,

Many of us have seen Star Trek, Star Wars, all manner of science fiction. Some of you have probably read a fair amount of sci-fi. I too can claim all of the above, and then some, and so I wonder if we've all pigeon-holed ourselves without knowing it.

THE POINT: We've been taught how ships and structures should look by these forms of media. Go through your blueprints and ask yourself, do ships need a front or back? Besides landing capability, do they need to be asymmetrical along a horizontal plane? Consider a ship that has no logistical business within an atmosphere, does it need to conform to laws of aerodynamics?

THE HOPE: To see some goofy-looking but completely feasible atypical ship structures popping up in the Steam Workshop.

Cheers, happy building!

(Feel free to brainstorm/tear me apart in the comments section)

EDIT: Thank you everyone that has posted thus far, this thread has become exactly what I wanted. I have so many new ideas now courtesy of you all and the sources that you yourselves have drawn upon. I hope others can take away a sense of anticipation for further construction, as I have, and hopefully this post continues to cause people to reevaluate their creative endeavors, even if it simply means changing their perspective, instead of their literal build. (In no way am I saying "okay stop posting") ;)

[Sovereign]

I think that ships will always have a front and back, even ones not deigned to enter an atmosphere. The reason being that there will always be a set of main engines pointed in one direction and the cockpit will likely be at the opposite end of that direction. You might say that you can design a ship that has equal thrust in two directions or every direction and, sure, you could, but you wouldn't for two reasons. 1) More engines are expensive. 2) More engines means more weight and more weight is always a problem for usually many reasons. So, that is why, in my opinion, ships will always have a front and back and will always just change attitude to point their main engines in whatever direction they need to be in when they need to accelerate.

[E-Man720]

Originally posted by Sovereign:

I think that ships will always have a front and back, even ones not deigned to enter an atmosphere. The reason being that there will always be a set of main engines pointed in one direction and the cockpit will likely be at the opposite end of that direction. You might say that you can design a ship that has equal thrust in two directions or every direction and, sure, you could, but you wouldn't for two reasons. 1) More engines are expensive. 2) More engines means more weight and more weight is always a problem for usually many reasons. So, that is why, in my opinion, ships will always have a front and back and will always just change attitude to point their main engines in whatever direction they need to be in when they need to accelerate.

Well i made a battle cube once, but because it didn't have a defined front, back, top, bottom, left, right. It was very hard trying to locate the door to get inside the damn thing.

[Sovereign]

Originally posted by E-Man720:

Originally posted by Sovereign:

I think that ships will always have a front and back, even ones not deigned to enter an atmosphere. The reason being that there will always be a set of main engines pointed in one direction and the cockpit will likely be at the opposite end of that direction. You might say that you can design a ship that has equal thrust in two directions or every direction and, sure, you could, but you wouldn't for two reasons. 1) More engines are expensive. 2) More engines means more weight and more weight is always a problem for usually many reasons. So, that is why, in my opinion, ships will always have a front and back and will always just change attitude to point their main engines in whatever direction they need to be in when they need to accelerate.

Well i made a battle cube once, but because it didn't have a defined front, back, top, bottom, left, right. It was very hard trying to locate the door to get inside the damn thing.

I mean in real life, not in a game where nothing matters :D

[ZAToM]

Originally posted by Sovereign:

Originally posted by E-Man720:

Well i made a battle cube once, but because it didn't have a defined front, back, top, bottom, left, right. It was very hard trying to locate the door to get inside the damn thing.

I mean in real life, not in a game where nothing matters :D

mabye he means rl too?

[Out0fAmmo]

I agree that a lot of sci-fi designs are not done by engineers or people with technical knowledge, but just "because it looks cool". There's nothing wrong with that (it is science FICTION, after all), but it can hamper some designs or introduce unnecessary complexity or inefficient aspects. One of my pet peeves is huge, exposed cockpits/control rooms with lots of windows. I prefer control rooms to be in the center of the ship and use cameras or 3rd person view to fly.

I have some ships that are purely aesthetic and some that are functional but ugly as sin. The best ships combine both function and efficiency with an eye for beauty.

[Mightylink]

Your basing this off star trek? Those ships would never land with their weird shapes and they would snap under the gravity.

[Cook]

I'm not basing this off of anything specific, I merely employed the two most well-known examples that people could draw upon for visual reference, and that ability to reference them at all is the underlying "indoctrination" that I was hoping to draw attention to. Aesthetics are purely subjective, but functionality need not be.

[E-Man720]

Originally posted by Cook:

"indoctrination"

"We are the Harbingers of your destruction!"

(Hehe, ancient, giant, biomechanical, evil, space cuttlefish.)

[Cook]

Originally posted by E-Man720:

Originally posted by Cook:

"indoctrination"

"We are the Harbingers of your destruction!"

(Hehe, ancient, giant, biomechanical, evil, space cuttlefish.)

I was hoping someone would pick up on that ;D

But Out0fAmmo's example of a glass ♥♥♥♥-pit in a place of prominence is a perfect example of design malfunction for the sake of visual pleasantry. Right on.

[Cook]

>can't say ♥♥♥♥-pit

[Ex-Mørtis]

Any ship that enters an atmo now, needs more thrusters on bottom than on back (or at least hydro 'air breaks' and atmo turbines)...so designs are changing, at least designs meant to be more versatile than be creative warrior blueprints that make better paperweights than useful ships.

[E-Man720]

Originally posted by Cook:

Originally posted by E-Man720:

"We are the Harbingers of your destruction!"

(Hehe, ancient, giant, biomechanical, evil, space cuttlefish.)

I was hoping someone would pick up on that ;D

But Out0fAmmo's example of a glass ♥♥♥♥-pit in a place of prominence is a perfect example of design malfunction for the sake of visual pleasantry. Right on.

Good old Reapers.

Also with the cockpit, a non-military ship may benifit from a large veiwing, pagola, if you will. As then you would be preserving power not having to run a larger amount of sensors and cameras.

[Puppet #7]

First thing i thought to myself when i browsed the workshop was how crazy it the trend seemed to be only orienting a build mainly down the Y axis- basically boats/planes in space.

For what ever reason i prefer building using the X axis rather than Y depth- i think just because it look so unnatural compared to usual aerodynamic aesthetic.

I’ve also enjoyed trying to blend the two build types of small vs. large a bit.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=565460290
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=565459975

This is literally the first thing i ever made in SE, a small Fighter that is mainly oriented Primary X axis rather than front to back Y.

I also tried to make it feel more in-between the roles of Light and heavy and gave it a first person feel more along the lines of what a large ship would offer.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=565460722
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=565460758

Is this thing some grand innovative design- not by a long stretch, but its way more immersive and unique than the stock small cockpit welded to a "space plane" ;P


Since this one ive been building a much larger vertical/asymmetric ship. There's just something about breaking the expected visual and including asymmetry that screams sci-fi to me.


So yes- i agree, there's many amazing builds out there but only a few really break the mold.

[GenJackO]

Originally posted by Out0fAmmo:

I agree that a lot of sci-fi designs are not done by engineers or people with technical knowledge, but just "because it looks cool". There's nothing wrong with that (it is science FICTION, after all), but it can hamper some designs or introduce unnecessary complexity or inefficient aspects. One of my pet peeves is huge, exposed cockpits/control rooms with lots of windows. I prefer control rooms to be in the center of the ship and use cameras or 3rd person view to fly.

I have some ships that are purely aesthetic and some that are functional but ugly as sin. The best ships combine both function and efficiency with an eye for beauty.

cockpits that are protected from damage are ideal but they just dont give the feel of being important ... they look like any other room on the ship .... i wish camera feeds could be put to monitors so you could make wrap around display for protected cockpits

[Cook]

Originally posted by Puppet #7:

First thing i thought to myself when i browsed the workshop was how crazy it the trend seemed to be only orienting a build mainly down the Y axis- basically boats/planes in space.

For what ever reason i prefer building using the X axis rather than Y depth- i think just because it look so unnatural compared to usual aerodynamic aesthetic.

I’ve also enjoyed trying to blend the two build types of small vs. large a bit.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=565460290
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=565459975

This is literally the first thing i ever made in SE, a small Fighter that is mainly oriented Primary X axis rather than front to back Y.

I also tried to make it feel more in-between the roles of Light and heavy and gave it a first person feel more along the lines of what a large ship would offer.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=565460722
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=565460758

Is this thing some grand innovative design- not by a long stretch, but its way more immersive and unique than the stock small cockpit welded to a "space plane" ;P


Since this one ive been building a much larger vertical/asymmetric ship. There's just something about breaking the expected visual and including asymmetry that screams sci-fi to me.


So yes- i agree, there's many amazing builds out there but only a few really break the mold.

This. Completely. A man after mine own heart. I love building along the vertical, if only to go counter to what is most often constructed.