Romulan D'Deridex class ships are Warbirds, not Bird of Prey types, technically they're battle cruisers. Romulans use Warbirds, it's the Klingons who utilize Bird of Prey raiders. Even the original Romulan T'Liss class is considered a Warbird, not a Bird of Prey.
Edit 2: I really shouldn't have missed this beauty from Elite: Dangerous...
I was struggling to think of "beautiful" ships, but then I saw that flying cathedral-boat from 40K in the first post, and remembered beauty is a profoundly subjective term. ;-)
I'd say a good many ships that Ralph McQuarrie helped craft would be my all times faves in sci-fi. Generally I don't like fancy or sleek designs, as they can generally just end up looking like weird, self-indulgent art projects as opposed to ships that are supposed to function in a given role.
But McQuarrie's designs for Star Wars [https://www.google.com/search?espv=2&biw=1366&bih=705&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=ralph+mcquarrie+star+wars+concept+art&oq=ralph+mcquarrie+star+wars+c&gs_l=img.3.0.0l4j0i30j0i8i30l3j0i24.6766.7024.0.7708.2.2.0.0.0.0.93.163.2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.2.162.I2GEo4sMiSw] and the original Battlestar Galactica [https://www.google.com/search?espv=2&biw=1366&bih=705&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=ralph+mcquarrie+battlestar+galactica&oq=ralph+mcquarrie+bat&gs_l=img.3.0.0j0i24.20273.21015.0.22063.5.4.0.1.1.0.147.401.2j2.4.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.5.401...0i30.5uSpV-1bkTw#imgrc=_] had a wonderful balance of lived-in utilitarianism and sci-fi romance/sentiment. To me, there's not a single artist to match his sci-fi art, either.
...wait, what? There are other Escapists who play Elite?!
I actually expected to see you link to nowt but Empire ships, as those tend to get all the aesthetic affection in Elite, but you've only gone with one - and it's not what I expected (as boring as I find the gushing over it, I do think the Clipper's a much fancier and sleeker looking vessel, even if it is just a space-Learjet [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yTOwE33IjyM/maxresdefault.jpg]).
My favourite designs in Elite are generally stuff like the DBX, Type 7 and 9's - ships which look utilitarian.
They have the most recognisable engine sound, I'll 'em that. I would like one, but I'm relatively skint at the moment and so grinding to outfit an Orca's just wasting time/creds when that could be better spent on getting a better performing role-specific ship. Heh, kinda like the idea of outfitting one as a luxury explorer... though I gather its max jump range isn't that great.
Looking forward to the Beluga and maybe the Dolphin, is it? I gather when they're added, passenger jobs will then make those kinds of ships - presumably - far more appealing.
...wait, what? There are other Escapists who play Elite?!
I actually expected to see you link to nowt but Empire ships, as those tend to get all the aesthetic affection in Elite, but you've only gone with one - and it's not what I expected (as boring as I find the gushing over it, I do think the Clipper's a much fancier and sleeker looking vessel, even if it is just a space-Learjet [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yTOwE33IjyM/maxresdefault.jpg]).
The Imperial Cutter is just a lovely looking ship, it's also less a space Lear Jet... The Cutter's best roles are contrary to the intention... It's hand's down both the best mining and freight ship in the current game, it's range makes it an amazing explorer too, even though it's insanely expensive to acquire and outfit. In combat it's pretty formidable too, so long as you don't mind using Gimbals or Turrets for the Nacelle mounts, as with all imperial ships...
Imperial ships might be nice looking, but they're inefficiently designed, which means none of them excel in a combat role, they're mostly good for courier, freight, mining, exploration, smuggling, and generalized roles. Where as the Federal ships are all really nasty customers in combat by default, while still being versatile enough to fill most other roles.
Darth Rosenberg said:
My favourite designs in Elite are generally stuff like the DBX, Type 7 and 9's - ships which look utilitarian.
It's actually a pretty nice looking little ship, it's compact design makes it look something like a space faring bumblebee. Pair that with it's surprising versatility and the fact that it's unlikely to draw much attention from pirates and raiders... It's a great ship to fly, especially as an explorer.
It's really not the most ugly ship, but it's performance isn't stellar, really it's only effective use is as a freighter... Still for Traders, it's an important stepping stone on the freighter list.
The problem with it is, it's literally got the worst performance of any Elite: Dangerous ship. It's painfully slow and has the agility of a crippled beached whale. It's got respectable cargo capacity, but that's not worth much, because it's such a juicy target for pirates, while being a sitting duck at the same time. That's why people skip it for another ship:
Taking a marginal loss of cargo space for a much better performing ship, that can also easily hold it's own in a fight. The Anaconda also boasts a better jump range, and much more mission versatility and customization options. The Anaconda and Type-9 are both beaten by the Federal Corvette and Imperial Cutter for trading and mission adaptability, especially because both ships have larger maximum cargo capacity than the Type-9. The break down of cargo capacity for the four ships in order: Anaconda: 468 tons. Type-9: 532 tons. The Federal Corvette: 616 tons. Finally the Imperial Cutter: 792 Tons. Meaning the Anaconda, Corvette, and Cutter all beat the Type-9 because they're not limited to trading and they're all faster, more agile, and more formidable.
I was tired so I confused Fer with Fur, because I said the name out loud and my French is awful. Still the Fer-de-Lance is pretty, it's also about the fastest and most agile ship you can get, especially for combat, but it's low cargo space and jump range hold it back some. It's a rich bounty hunter's personal yacht of a ship, really fun to fly too.
That ship skin is "Orange Rattler", you can find it on the third page for the Cobra Mk. III's skins, but personally I like the purple from the vibrant pack better though.
For the addition of a single small hardpoint and a 28 ton maximum increase in cargo space, the Mk. VI takes an unreasonable hit to flying performance. It's also got a much shorter maximum jump range... It's just garbage compared to the Mk. III
Darth Rosenberg said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Edit 2: I really shouldn't have missed this beauty from Elite: Dangerous...
They have the most recognisable engine sound, I'll 'em that. I would like one, but I'm relatively skint at the moment and so grinding to outfit an Orca's just wasting time/creds when that could be better spent on getting a better performing role-specific ship. Heh, kinda like the idea of outfitting one as a luxury explorer... though I gather its max jump range isn't that great.
Looking forward to the Beluga and maybe the Dolphin, is it? I gather when they're added, passenger jobs will then make those kinds of ships - presumably - far more appealing.
The Beluga is upcoming, the Dolphin is being considered for addition after that, potentially the Narwhal too. Although the Orca has really insane mass for it's size.... Because of that, even without shields versus a fully shielded and full hull Clipper, the Orca can pull a ramming maneuver on said Clipper... Which will knock the Cippler's shields out, take it down to 45% hull, and that only costs 5% to the Orca's hull. The Orca is a surprisingly good combat ship because of that.
Imperial ships might be nice looking, but they're inefficiently designed, which means none of them excel in a combat role, they're mostly good for courier, freight, mining, exploration, smuggling, and generalized roles. Where as the Federal ships are all really nasty customers in combat by default, while still being versatile enough to fill most other roles.
I'm broadly RP'ing Elite, and loyalties to the Federation/FNA mean I'll likely never fly Imperial vessels.
'Space Khaleesi' is a possible option down the line, but you'd still be ranking for various Empire loyal governments/economies/factions, and it'd be too hard to stick to work my character would wish to take.
It's actually a pretty nice looking little ship, it's compact design makes it look something like a space faring bumblebee. Pair that with it's surprising versatility and the fact that it's unlikely to draw much attention from pirates and raiders... It's a great ship to fly, especially as an explorer.
Pft, "little ship"? It's the biggest damn ship I own! ;-) Being able to land on small pads is always handy, so yeah, its relative size is also a bonus.
Whilst a little wasted in an exploration role, its lateral/vertical thrusters are excellent. A major downside is the internals, especially post-Horizons (I'm on console so I only recently got it), but for a reason I'll mention further down I stuck with the Diamondback as opposed to hold off for, say, the AspX.
It's really not the most ugly ship, but it's performance isn't stellar, really it's only effective use is as a freighter... Still for Traders, it's an important stepping stone on the freighter list.
Barely anyone would buy it for any other reason, so being role specific is completely fine by me. I really like its design, and generally always give it a look if I pass it whilst docking at stations. It and the T9 just feel like proper, functional haulage ships and I love that.
The problem with it is, it's literally got the worst performance of any Elite: Dangerous ship. It's painfully slow and has the agility of a crippled beached whale. It's got respectable cargo capacity, but that's not worth much, because it's such a juicy target for pirates, while being a sitting duck at the same time.
It has woeful baseline shields and decidedly unimpressive armour, so yeah, it has its issues.
But to me its handling is a feature - ED's sense of mass and momentum is well realised, and a large trader should feel cumbersome. For combat, pitch speed and being able to pull off decent FA-off boost turns is either very welcome or downright essential given the tweaked AI and how higher end instances are now populated. But personally, I'm not keen on fast pitching, zippy ships, as they just feel too lightweight and almost arcadey. If I was a dedicated fighter throwing myself into CNB's, HazRES's and such, sure, I'd greatly value those attributes.
The Type 9's a far cry from any sense of agility, and I love that. Or will, when I can damn well afford one. ;-)
Taking a marginal loss of cargo space for a much better performing ship, that can also easily hold it's own in a fight. / Meaning the Anaconda, Corvette, and Cutter all beat the Type-9 because they're not limited to trading and they're all faster, more agile, and more formidable.
The same reason I bought a DBX (I skipped the Scout) instead of holding off for a vastly superior explorer is why I'll be going for a T9 well before an Anaconda; Elite's not just stats and performance - it's also about simply buying ships you love the look of and wish to fly. Generally, sentiment > stats/performance for me.
...if sentiment keeps getting me killed or frustrated, I adapt, sure. And I might come to even dislike the T9. But that'll just be a part of enjoying all ED has to offer. People rush headlong to get an Anaconda, and then seem to be at a loss as to what to do next.
And regardless of how clearly capable the Anaconda is, I've never liked its design. Whenever I have enough to buy one, I'll hold off for the Corvette. And proceed to keep that in dry dock as I work to cope with outfitting and then having a rebuy or two in the bank. ;-)
That ship skin is "Orange Rattler", you can find it on the third page for the Cobra Mk. III's skins, but personally I like the purple from the vibrant pack better though.
The Vibrant pack's what I use, though I keep it to yellow. That Cobra really does have a daft amount of good skins compared to so may others.
For the addition of a single small hardpoint and a 28 ton maximum increase in cargo space, the Mk. VI takes an unreasonable hit to flying performance. It's also got a much shorter maximum jump range... It's just garbage compared to the Mk. III
I kept on hearing that, but I don't see it. Sure, if someone's already mostly A rated a III (as I had), there's almost zero reason to outfit a IV other than sentiment. But its increased internals are very welcome, and it has well placed hardpoints as well as a slight baseline boost to shields.
There aren't many ships in that price range, either, so for new players it could be a very handy and hardy ship.
I'm broadly RP'ing Elite, and loyalties to the Federation/FNA mean I'll likely never fly Imperial vessels.
'Space Khaleesi' is a possible option down the line, but you'd still be ranking for various Empire loyal governments/economies/factions, and it'd be too hard to stick to work my character would wish to take.
Faction power power play is a pain in the rear, especially because I more or less stick to being as independent and mercenary as possible. I've had the chance to test fly ships on friend's accounts. So that's where I get a lot of my impressions. The only thing worth conning the Empire into giving you is access to Imperial Hammers, which are fantastic railguns.
So if I have to favor anyone, it's the Federation, because the faction ships are objectively fantastic, though I still strongly favor non-faction ships.
Darth Rosenberg said:
Funnily enough that's the skin I went for.
Pft, "little ship"? It's the biggest damn ship I own! ;-) Being able to land on small pads is always handy, so yeah, its relative size is also a bonus.
Whilst a little wasted in an exploration role, its lateral/vertical thrusters are excellent. A major downside is the internals, especially post-Horizons (I'm on console so I only recently got it), but for a reason I'll mention further down I stuck with the Diamondback as opposed to hold off for, say, the AspX.
Again I go for the Vibrant Purple, or the Military Salmon, although people seem to act like you're poisonous if you go around with Vibrant Red.
The Diamondback is small, but small ships are generally the most fun to fly, although the Diamondback does push the small landing pad to it's limit... I'd suggest waiting on the Type-9 unless you put a docking computer on it immediately. It's low performance can make getting through the mail slot on stations really tricky. For larger ships you definitely want something with a bit more go to practice lining up station entrance and exiting first.
The Diamondback Explorer, like the Asp Explorer are good multitasking ships actually... The Asp Explorer is worth it's price purely in it's versatility, you can jump from combat, to exploration, to mining, to trading, and so on with minimal effort.
Darth Rosenberg said:
Barely anyone would buy it for any other reason, so being role specific is completely fine by me. I really like its design, and generally always give it a look if I pass it whilst docking at stations. It and the T9 just feel like proper, functional haulage ships and I love that.
The biggest problem with the Type-7 is that it's too big to dock at outposts, which actually makes trading slightly more difficult on high profit low-mid game range trade routes.
Darth Rosenberg said:
It has woeful baseline shields and decidedly unimpressive armour, so yeah, it has its issues.
But to me its handling is a feature - ED's sense of mass and momentum is well realised, and a large trader should feel cumbersome. For combat, pitch speed and being able to pull off decent FA-off boost turns is either very welcome or downright essential given the tweaked AI and how higher end instances are now populated. But personally, I'm not keen on fast pitching, zippy ships, as they just feel too lightweight and almost arcadey. If I was a dedicated fighter throwing myself into CNB's, HazRES's and such, sure, I'd greatly value those attributes.
The Type 9's a far cry from any sense of agility, and I love that. Or will, when I can damn well afford one. ;-)
Well the Type-9's biggest failing is that you will absolutely need wingmates to trade with it, it's too much pirate-bait to trade on it's own.
All the Heavy/Superheavy ships are fairly cumbersome, the Type-9 is the the one that screams "I'm a civilian freighter!". For my money the Federal Corvette and Anaconda have the perfectly feeling of weight, without making you groan when turning.
Darth Rosenberg said:
The same reason I bought a DBX (I skipped the Scout) instead of holding off for a vastly superior explorer is why I'll be going for a T9 well before an Anaconda; Elite's not just stats and performance - it's also about simply buying ships you love the look of and wish to fly. Generally, sentiment > stats/performance for me.
...if sentiment keeps getting me killed or frustrated, I adapt, sure. And I might come to even dislike the T9. But that'll just be a part of enjoying all ED has to offer. People rush headlong to get an Anaconda, and then seem to be at a loss as to what to do next.
Sentiment is why I got an Anaconda, because that ship I fell in love with, was what also got me through Frontier: First Encounters(Elite III). Most people who go rushing for it, think it's some magical thing, it's just a solid ship for everything, it's probably the best way to fund a fleet of the ships you'll be flying for fun.
For the Type-9, it's a good team player for when you can get it, you'll be able to help any wingmates you pick up upgrade as you trade
Darth Rosenberg said:
And regardless of how clearly capable the Anaconda is, I've never liked its design. Whenever I have enough to buy one, I'll hold off for the Corvette. And proceed to keep that in dry dock as I work to cope with outfitting and then having a rebuy or two in the bank. ;-)
Well considering the required rank, you can usually afford the Corvette long before you're eligible to get it. At least that's the usual experience I hear regarding it, as well as the Imperial Cutter.
Darth Rosenberg said:
The Vibrant pack's what I use, though I keep it to yellow. That Cobra really does have a daft amount of good skins compared to so may others.
That's because it's one of the most popular ships, so there's a huge demand for paint schemes.
Darth Rosenberg said:
I kept on hearing that, but I don't see it. Sure, if someone's already mostly A rated a III (as I had), there's almost zero reason to outfit a IV other than sentiment. But its increased internals are very welcome, and it has well placed hardpoints as well as a slight baseline boost to shields.
It can be a good ship, depending on your flying style and what you use it for. Mostly I'd run with it for mining, exploration, and trading, but other than, it's a bit of a liability compared to the Mk. III.
Darth Rosenberg said:
There aren't many ships in that price range, either, so for new players it could be a very handy and hardy ship.
After getting the Cobra Mk. III, the Mk. IV wasn't enough of an improvement in most respects to justify it's cost, so I put it on the back burner in favor of the Keelback, which is still one of my favorite ships. The Keelback paid for itself and the Cobra Mk. IV really short order. Fantastic investment, the Keelback is amazing for it's price, and really once you have a Cobra Mk. III, getting the funds for the Keelback isn't difficult.
I know rule of cool usually takes effect for fictional spacecraft, but I have a problem with believing any ship that was designed solely for space flight would look like anything other than a big rectangle - or have those large rotating rings to produce an effect similar to that of gravity.
There is no friction in space, we don't need all those swooping lines unless we are designing a craft for atmospheric flight. Rectangles and squares are therefore the most efficient usage of interior space.
Think Borg ships from TNG.
More likely we would want to produce a gravity like effect, the easiest way would be to rotate the ship which would then act like a centrifuge allowing people to walk on the interior of the outside edge.
See also: The Martian's Hermes
Every space station in Elite
I know rule of cool usually takes effect for fictional spacecraft, but I have a problem with believing any ship that was designed solely for space flight would look like anything other than a big rectangle - or have those large rotating rings to produce an effect similar to that of gravity.
There is no friction in space, we don't need all those swooping lines unless we are designing a craft for atmospheric flight. Rectangles and squares are therefore the most efficient usage of interior space.
Think Borg ships from TNG.
More likely we would want to produce a gravity like effect, the easiest way would be to rotate the ship which would then act like a centrifuge allowing people to walk on the interior of the outside edge.
See also: The Martian's Hermes
Every space station in Elite
The big destroyer makes sense to me, hell, it's both rectangular and rotating.
The smaller ships are odd though, why are their engines out on those arms so far away from the cockpit? Unless I've got the scale all wrong I don't think those wings could store much in the way of cargo.
The big destroyer makes sense to me, hell, it's both rectangular and rotating.
The smaller ships are odd though, why are their engines out on those arms so far away from the cockpit? Unless I've got the scale all wrong I don't think those wings could store much in the way of cargo.
The small ships in the foreground are single-man fighters called Star Furies. The engines are put out on the arms for maneuverability as they can each be fired independently in order to spin the fighter in any direction the pilot chooses.
Because of the angle, it's really hard to get a sense of scale from the picture. For some perspective, the red rectangular entryway in the front of the capital ship is the main exit port for the fighters and is about three times as wide as the fighter itself.
Most of these designs look like the designers still think of navigating space as movement on a strictly 2-dimensional plane, or as airflight, with a clearly defined up and down and the need for wings to push the craft up.
Those large 2-engine designs especially make no sense at all. Do they only have to make turns along one axis in their universe?
Only the smaller craft that might operate in planet atmospheres as well as in space, could look a little like earthy jet fighters.
A somewhat believable interstellar spaceship would be rotational symmetrical along it's main axis.
If it has any engines needed for steering, they will be facing in more than 2 directions and perpendicular to the main engine, because it has to be capable of more than just left or right turns.
You would always end up with a cylinder-shape, a sphere or something in between those two shapes for the main hull, and any little turrets or side-thrusters or other small, glued-on crap would be pointing in all directions, because anything can come from all directions in space.
Elegant, convex, simple and probably smooth as well, is what we should be looking for here.
I know rule of cool usually takes effect for fictional spacecraft, but I have a problem with believing any ship that was designed solely for space flight would look like anything other than a big rectangle - or have those large rotating rings to produce an effect similar to that of gravity.
There is no friction in space, we don't need all those swooping lines unless we are designing a craft for atmospheric flight. Rectangles and squares are therefore the most efficient usage of interior space.
Think Borg ships from TNG.
More likely we would want to produce a gravity like effect, the easiest way would be to rotate the ship which would then act like a centrifuge allowing people to walk on the interior of the outside edge.
See also: The Martian's Hermes
Every space station in Elite
Strictly speaking, you're making a lot of assumptions when you claim that only squares or circles make sense. What about sloped armor to assist with deflecting space debris? Is it really a good idea to have interstellar engines and anti-matter reactors in the same interior hull as the crew? What if the 'warp field' isn't square or circular, then those are a waste of space. What if surface outer hull space is more important then internal space?
Probably the most practical design featured in this thread so far are the Battletech jump ships, and they're all almost universally giant rods that intentionally increase external surface area at the expense of internal space.
veloper said:
Most of these designs look like the designers still think of navigating space as movement on a strictly 2-dimensional plane, or as airflight, with a clearly defined up and down and the need for wings to push the craft up.
Those large 2-engine designs especially make no sense at all. Do they only have to make turns along one axis in their universe?
Only the smaller craft that might operate in planet atmospheres as well as in space, could look a little like earthy jet fighters.
A somewhat believable interstellar spaceship would be rotational symmetrical along it's main axis.
If it has any engines needed for steering, they will be facing in more than 2 directions and perpendicular to the main engine, because it has to be capable of more than just left or right turns.
You would always end up with a cylinder-shape, a sphere or something in between those two shapes for the main hull, and any little turrets or side-thrusters or other small, glued-on crap would be pointing in all directions, because anything can come from all directions in space.
Elegant, convex, simple and probably smooth as well, is what we should be looking for here.
Not really. We're looking for attractive ships, not the generic ring craft that appears in every single 'hard science' sci-fi movie. Unless you think that space ship is aesthetically pleasing, then that's what we're looking for.
She may not be the prettiest but I'm sure this Firefly class transport ship holds sentimental value for many here:
"Ain't all buttons and charts, little albatross. Know what the first rule of flying is? Love. Can know all the math in the 'verse but take a boat in the air that you don't love? She'll shake you off just as sure as a turn in the worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down...tell you she's hurtin' 'fore she keens...makes her a home."
Most of these designs look like the designers still think of navigating space as movement on a strictly 2-dimensional plane, or as airflight, with a clearly defined up and down and the need for wings to push the craft up.
Those large 2-engine designs especially make no sense at all. Do they only have to make turns along one axis in their universe?
Only the smaller craft that might operate in planet atmospheres as well as in space, could look a little like earthy jet fighters.
A somewhat believable interstellar spaceship would be rotational symmetrical along it's main axis.
If it has any engines needed for steering, they will be facing in more than 2 directions and perpendicular to the main engine, because it has to be capable of more than just left or right turns.
You would always end up with a cylinder-shape, a sphere or something in between those two shapes for the main hull, and any little turrets or side-thrusters or other small, glued-on crap would be pointing in all directions, because anything can come from all directions in space.
Elegant, convex, simple and probably smooth as well, is what we should be looking for here.
Not really. We're looking for attractive ships, not the generic ring craft that appears in every single 'hard science' sci-fi movie. Unless you think that space ship is aesthetically pleasing, then that's what we're looking for.
Some of the jet fighters in space do look nice, but those giant, cobbled-together collections boxes and shapes with all kinds of random bits sticking out, don't even look pretty to me, just silly.
All of them could also use a paint job. Icons, symbols, or even graffiti could really liven up the place.
Ideal would be an elegant, functional shape and a cool paint.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
