Those deckplans are a classic, and well done in most respects, except for the hangars. For no apparent reason they gave the Neb B a capacity of 24 fighters, when there is no visible hangars on the ship, and even the deck plans show that there is not enough internal space. The racks are packed like sardines, and are about 6 meters square going by the scale ruler, which is just about enough for a TIE fighter from above, but there is not enough vertical space, with the the completely filled deck 8 only 6-8 meters below the racks that say "hangar below"

Those deckplans are a classic, and well done in most respects, except for the hangars. For no apparent reason they gave the Neb B a capacity of 24 fighters, when there is no visible hangars on the ship, and even the deck plans show that there is not enough internal space. The racks are packed like sardines, and are about 6 meters square going by the scale ruler, which is just about enough for a TIE fighter from above, but there is not enough vertical space, with the the completely filled deck 8 only 6-8 meters below the racks that say "hangar below"

I concur, even if the hanger was a double deck it would still be 1.5 meters shy of a snug fit.

although when I transferred the scale bar over I could see the TIE bay was 6.5 meters wide.

My purpose in posting them was for the systems and stats.

Just found this image that seems more accurate, I'll see what I get with it.

StarlogStarWarsTechnicalJournalVol03TheRebelForces

The deck heights are so inconsistent that the two decks could add up to the 7.75+ meters needed.

Another comparison image.

Boy it's been a while hasn't it?

The RPG group may be dead and gone, but I do come back to that deckplan now and then. Here's v7.5.

New additions are the Bacta tanks and medical areas, astromech bays. I constructed the officer's quarters (green), and the split level C&C out of bits from the workstations and crew bunks. Brig is in the front, where the primary airlock will also be. (Keeps prisoners away from sensitive areas, and being that close to the primary airlock makes inspection boardings a cut-and-dry matter.)

The box on the right is a space I put for notes to myself. Feel extra free to disregard it and its contents.

Never say I didn't give you anything.

(Edit.)

I've been hesitant to delve into the engineering areas, mostly because I have no idea what I'm doing in that regard. The tech is all speculative, and the writers of my reference leave out the specifications in most books because in all likelihood if you took the engine casing off there would be an imp with a magic Ouija board underneath. (The tech is more magic than the force. The force you know how it works, the tech is all snoke and mirrors)

Crew need to be close to their stations, and they need to have the basic comforts; that's simple house-building SIMs-types stuff. Deciding the size of fuel tanks and the placement of a hyperdrive in a future that has access to near free energy and control over gravity; that's hard.

I mean, I'm still gonna do it , but don't hold your breath.

So you have 7 decks to go?

Have you seen the CR90 deck plans out there?

http://theneverendingleadpile.blogspot.ca/2015/03/cr90-corvette-tantive-iv-deck-plans.html

DECK 1

DECK 2

DECK 3

DECK 4

DECK 5

DECK 6

I'm really not sure if there are seven decks in the Raider. In the beginning I edged on the generous side because I thought I'd be stripped for space; but it turns out a single wide deck has the about same area as the stacked decks of the CR-90 fore-section.

Here's why:

The raider is is much, much slimmer with much more pronounced triangular profile than a star destroyer. The entire center of the ship is composed of a single massive thruster, and the underbelly does little to evidence much in the way of crew space. I think that despite being roughly the same length as the CR-90, the Raider has much less volume. The slanted deck leaves large areas of space unsuitable for human use, and there there is nothing but engine superstructure and solar collectors below the waterline. The previous mockup shows the slanted areas clearly, but the lower half of the ship is obsured by the wings. It's just engine.

Speaking of engines; volume the Raider does have is also shared between crewed space and engineering in a way not seen in the CR-90. Most of these CR-90 designs don't even bother with the engines; they just cut the decks at the neck and assume that there aren't even Jeffery's Tubes inside of the stern-most third of the ship.

The way I've done it, and the way I'm going to do it is this: a single split-level deck, with turbolift access to alternate decks to be added as needed. I've already fit over 200 people on this ship, and with the astromechs onboard I'm running out of things for them to do. There is about one more deck of usable crew space left on the raider, and like the meat in a lobster it's comprised of little tidbits spread around the guts and beneath the shell. A corridor here, a block of room there, but it would end up pretty much the same.

Because of that:

The bridge (C&C) is above the engine, and so is the main hallway. The bridge has two access ramps up from the crew section, and two down to the officer's quarters. I'm not sure how to indicate ramps from above, but I've done my darnedest. After I finish the main split-level deck, I might go about and fill in the little areas of space with their own function: the prisim under the bow in front of the engine, the areas hugging the engine in the aft section, maybe even a few of the less severe slanted areas.

Until then, I'm assuming they are made up of power distribution conduits, droid access areas, fuel lines, fuel tanks, plumbing (water, sewage, bacta), control systems, power regulation systems, damage control systems, shield generators and associated apparatus, hyperdrive generator and associated apparatus, armor, atmospheric ducts, a hefty, hefty, hefty atmospheric purification system, and redundancies of all the aforementioned systems. Not to mention escape pods, but I do need to add at least access ways to those.

(But we never do see escape pods launching from Imperial ships do we? Long live the Empire.)

We're left with only about 1.5 decks of space left, is the thing. If you think there is more space, let me know where - I'll add a cantina. =P

The raider is is much, much slimmer with much more pronounced triangular profile than a star destroyer. The entire center of the ship is composed of a single massive thruster, and the underbelly does little to evidence much in the way of crew space. I think that despite being roughly the same length as the CR-90, the Raider has much less volume. The slanted deck leaves large areas of space unsuitable for human use, and there there is nothing but engine superstructure and solar collectors below the waterline.

Bear in mind that with how trivially gravity is manipulated in Star Wars, there's nothing to say that the insides aren't "banked" parallel with the outer hull, eliminating the weird void-spaces a flatter deck plan would leave under more traditional gravity.

The void from the angled decks might well contribute to the space the engines and reactor core require in the center.

The raider is is much, much slimmer with much more pronounced triangular profile than a star destroyer. The entire center of the ship is composed of a single massive thruster, and the underbelly does little to evidence much in the way of crew space. I think that despite being roughly the same length as the CR-90, the Raider has much less volume. The slanted deck leaves large areas of space unsuitable for human use, and there there is nothing but engine superstructure and solar collectors below the waterline.

Bear in mind that with how trivially gravity is manipulated in Star Wars, there's nothing to say that the insides aren't "banked" parallel with the outer hull, eliminating the weird void-spaces a flatter deck plan would leave under more traditional gravity.

The void from the angled decks might well contribute to the space the engines and reactor core require in the center.

I also don't agree that the ship should be slanted from the top.

The bridge follows the same line as the top of the ship.

How bad would it be if the only the bottom of the ship

deck-wise was slanted up at the front?

The void from the angled decks might well contribute to the space the engines and reactor core require in the center.

Like this, which suggests 8 decks if they are the same height as the CR90's:

The raider is is much, much slimmer with much more pronounced triangular profile than a star destroyer. The entire center of the ship is composed of a single massive thruster, and the underbelly does little to evidence much in the way of crew space. I think that despite being roughly the same length as the CR-90, the Raider has much less volume. The slanted deck leaves large areas of space unsuitable for human use, and there there is nothing but engine superstructure and solar collectors below the waterline.

Bear in mind that with how trivially gravity is manipulated in Star Wars, there's nothing to say that the insides aren't "banked" parallel with the outer hull, eliminating the weird void-spaces a flatter deck plan would leave under more traditional gravity.

The void from the angled decks might well contribute to the space the engines and reactor core require in the center.

Two arguments against this:

1) Shipbuilders, especially Imperial ones, are highly traditional, and the Raider is specifically meant to emulate the lines of a Star Destroyer. This means much the same deck configuration.

2) Corvettes are traditionally designed to land on planetary surfaces if need be.

Also if you hold the ship itself 'level' (with the back engine vertical) it's clear that it does not really have that much of a slope vertically; the top line is almost horizontal. The decks DO slope off sharply on the sides, but that still gives at least 2-3 decks of room with no engine cluttering up the back half of the ship and easy access to the bridge.

It's quite possible that at least one Deck (4? 5?) wraps around the engine itself in a filled-bottom V-shape. That would make the most sense for the engineering deck, as it would have the shield generators as well as the greatest access to all of the ship. It also would give access to the docking ports on the side (more on that below).

I was about to say "don't forget that these ships go on extended deployments and need LOTS of supplies" but really, they don't.

(Navy man here, even if my thing was airplanes)

Their job is much like the destroyers in a carrier battle group: to circle around the main ship and protect it, quite possibly with their lives. Because they're anti-fighter ships meant to destroy Rebel bombers on the way to attacking Star Destroyers, that profile makes perfect sense.

That means they don't carry more than enough supplies and fuel for a single battle and maybe a week or two of (palatable) food, because they'd be resupplied by the larger ship and/or the tender frigates. Likewise, room for a bunch of spare parts aren't needed, the tender frigates will have those. Less room for those means more room for shields and guns and engines! So the V-deck mentioned above would possibly be a combined engineering/storage deck.

That is unlike the Corellian Corvette, which had a completely different design profile of a long-range versatile ship.

In looking at its model, I'd say that the indentations on its sides where the superstructure is exposed are likely points for external connection, both refueling and resupply. They're also big enough to accept a TIE fighter eyeball (once you consider that the Raider is 1/430 and the TIE is 1/270, meaning the Raider SHOULD be bigger) making them ideal docking points.

From most deck plans, WEG-era games and more modern, I'd say that about 3-5% of a ship's volume is dedicated to hyperdrive, with that covering both regular and backup. On smaller ships, it's more prominent, with the largest ships (the Star Destroyer) dedicating a bare fraction of their space to the hyperdrive. The area of the keel just fore of the big engine would probably suffice for that, though the backup might be buried a little better than that.

The raider is is much, much slimmer with much more pronounced triangular profile than a star destroyer. The entire center of the ship is composed of a single massive thruster, and the underbelly does little to evidence much in the way of crew space. I think that despite being roughly the same length as the CR-90, the Raider has much less volume. The slanted deck leaves large areas of space unsuitable for human use, and there there is nothing but engine superstructure and solar collectors below the waterline.

Bear in mind that with how trivially gravity is manipulated in Star Wars, there's nothing to say that the insides aren't "banked" parallel with the outer hull, eliminating the weird void-spaces a flatter deck plan would leave under more traditional gravity.

The void from the angled decks might well contribute to the space the engines and reactor core require in the center.

Two arguments against this:

1) Shipbuilders, especially Imperial ones, are highly traditional, and the Raider is specifically meant to emulate the lines of a Star Destroyer. This means much the same deck configuration.

2) Corvettes are traditionally designed to land on planetary surfaces if need be.

Also if you hold the ship itself 'level' (with the back engine vertical) it's clear that it does not really have that much of a slope vertically; the top line is almost horizontal. The decks DO slope off sharply on the sides, but that still gives at least 2-3 decks of room with no engine cluttering up the back half of the ship and easy access to the bridge.

It's quite possible that at least one Deck (4? 5?) wraps around the engine itself in a filled-bottom V-shape. That would make the most sense for the engineering deck, as it would have the shield generators as well as the greatest access to all of the ship. It also would give access to the docking ports on the side (more on that below).

I was about to say "don't forget that these ships go on extended deployments and need LOTS of supplies" but really, they don't.

(Navy man here, even if my thing was airplanes)

Their job is much like the destroyers in a carrier battle group: to circle around the main ship and protect it, quite possibly with their lives. Because they're anti-fighter ships meant to destroy Rebel bombers on the way to attacking Star Destroyers, that profile makes perfect sense.

That means they don't carry more than enough supplies and fuel for a single battle and maybe a week or two of (palatable) food, because they'd be resupplied by the larger ship and/or the tender frigates. Likewise, room for a bunch of spare parts aren't needed, the tender frigates will have those. Less room for those means more room for shields and guns and engines! So the V-deck mentioned above would possibly be a combined engineering/storage deck.

That is unlike the Corellian Corvette, which had a completely different design profile of a long-range versatile ship.

...

I'm not sure what image of the Raider you're looking at but I don't think keeping the main engines perpendicular really matters considering anti-gravity, or is particularly space efficient if you keep it perpendicular.

Also, the Raider was not designed by Imperials it was designed by Lucasfilm as a match for the Corellian Corvette at the request of Fantasy Flight Games. It doesn't have to have anything in common with any wet navy precepts, like wet navy destroyer or corvette intentions/objectives.

Kuat Drive Yards began manufacturing the Raider-class corvette in 6BBY as a dedicated anti-fighter vessel after it was successfully pitched by Lira Wessex, the designer of the Imperial-class Star Destroyer. She recognized that the Imperial Navy lacked a small, modern craft to reinforce the TIE fighter squadrons deployed by Star Destroyers, and she designed the Raider-class corvette as a durable, 150m vessel that featured multiple hardpoints and would excel at suppressing Rebel fighter attacks.

A dedicated anti-fighter vessel designed by Lira Wessex, the woman responsible for the Imperial-class Star Destroyer, the Raider-class corvette is a durable, 150m vessel that features six dual heavy laser cannons. These cannons are more accurate against snubfighters than the turbolaser batteries of its Star Destroyer cousins, and along with the disruptive effects of its ion cannon emplacements and the efficiency of its localized command, they make the Raider an intimidating addition to any Imperial strike force.

It definitely does NOT have the same duty as a modern destroyer - they're meant to intercept missiles, detect submarines, and possibly suck down a torpedo meant for the carrier.

However, the basic concept of being a close escort to a much larger capitol ship remains the same. It wasn't designed to be a long-range patrol ship, or a leader of a small-ship flotilla; it was designed to stay close to a Star Destroyer. So the focus would be engines, guns, and shields, not long-range supplies.

The main problem with your deck plan compared to the Raider is the placement of the engine itself. Look at the bottom of the Raider. The main engine extends outside the keel itself, and starts about one deck or possibly two lower than you have on your plan. It also extends to almost amidships, to the near the middle of the bottom set of not-solar panels. It's basically one long tube, not a series of spheres.

Also, all the current deck plans we have, and even the now-obsolete WEG materials, have the decks on a 90 degree horizontal plane from the engine - from the Falcon to the Star Destroyer. That implies, if not directly states, that the antigrav commonly used has to be at that angle - either mechanically or for tradition's sake. The picture of the Raider you used actually has the ship itself pointed slightly downward, and the engine aimed perhaps 10-20 degrees upward at a slant.

I mean, I wish I had had seen this thread to offer these observations earlier, because that implies some... significant problems... with your work thus far, which has been inspired. But a spade's a spade.

As far as staffing goes, there has to be enough crew on hand to man the ship at all times, and that means 3 crews at 8-hour rotations. That probably means less staff than you'd think to man each post, but more overall; the goal is to have all positions staffed, but not necessarily at optimum levels, just enough to start a fight without having pants caught down. My (personal) estimations would be 1-2 per gun (little lasers instead of big turbolasers!), coordination officer to coordinate targeting on the bridge (probably doubles as sensor officer on routine shifts), a comm officer (which might just be the former person as well), an overall commander for the bridge (that may be the XO and a junior officer for secondary/tertiary shifts), a thin engineering crew (enough to monitor and do routine maintenance, probably 3-5). Galley and medical would probably be droids on a ship that size.

Other people have said similar before, but I don't think I spotted anyone making the observation that it'd have to be manned at all times.

What I have read is that the Raider was created for the Outer Rim where ISD don't have to bother. So escorting ISD isn't in line with what I've read it was designed for.

The image with the decks perpendicular to the engines is not mine, it belongs to the OP, and I reposted a cropped version as it was what I thought you were saying it should look like. My version of the deck layout is the one that starts with the deck parallel with the top and the bridge deck.

You can generalize about decks and alignment to engines but there are exceptions even within your examples, the Falcon's gun wells' gravity are both perpendicular with the main floor.

If it is meant for long-term independent operations, it definitely needs a decent sickbay with a surgical unit and bacta tank(s), as well as some spare crew. Same goes for maintenance/engineering, machine shop and spare part storage.

Also, the guns being remotely operated does not mean there is one person doing it. It has the primary weapons (I'd guess multiple, as it can double-tap) + 3 hardpoints (represented by 6 extendable turrets); there's also an artwork showing it launching ordnance from the midsection between top and bottom layers. This requires several people to operate, as one person will not be able to effectively use so many weapon systems. Note there are two team slots in the aft section (and Gunnery, Sensors and Engineering team cards), so I'd expect the weapons control to be a sizeable section, with at least 4 people manning the gun controls.

Also, automated systems would probably have backup manual control stations near the guns to be able to keep firing in case of bridge hit/malfunction.

I would also think it would have a small detachment of Navy troopers (Stormtroopers only on special missions) for guard duty, defence against boarding actions and the "power down your engines and prepare to be boarded" situations. It definitely does not have boarding action capabilities, as that would require a hangar and boarding craft of some sort. The troop quarters would be in the fore next to the brig and armory.

I would assume it has extendable docking rings in the side cutouts and maybe a small hangar capable of holding 1-2 small shuttles/landing craft (for messenger duty/passenger transport, not combat) and launching probe droids somewhere in the lower decks.

The bridge is typicall the last line of defence in case of being boarded, so I would expect it to have some solid blast doors and maybe a weapons locker for the bridge crew and guards. Also, as it is the heart of the ship and exposed to the outside, it is probably heavily armoured on all sides (also because it sits on top of the engine, so it needs to be properly shielded and also the engine has to be protected against bridge explosions.

A secondary CIC somewhere in the bowels of the ship? Let's not repeat the Executor idiocy...

One more thing to take into accout are the escape pods. While the Empire doesn't care much about people, at least some pods are probably present to evacuate the command crew at the very least.

What I have read is that the Raider was created for the Outer Rim where ISD don't have to bother. So escorting ISD isn't in line with what I've read it was designed for.

The image with the decks perpendicular to the engines is not mine, it belongs to the OP, and I reposted a cropped version as it was what I thought you were saying it should look like. My version of the deck layout is the one that starts with the deck parallel with the top and the bridge deck.

You can generalize about decks and alignment to engines but there are exceptions even within your examples, the Falcon's gun wells' gravity are both perpendicular with the main floor.

Uh.

Didn't you read what you posted about the design statement of the Raider?

I'll cut and paste the relevant quote: " small, modern craft to reinforce the TIE fighter squadrons deployed by Star Destroyers." In other words, it's part of the screen around a Star Destroyer, meant to shield it from Rebel bomber fighters while the Star Destroyer conducts the important business of ruining enemy capitol ships. Its titles in Armada also bear that out: one lets it shoot twice at squadrons, the other prevents them from moving freely. It also has some of the heaviest anti-squadron firepower available in the game.

The Imperials already have the Arquitens for long-range projection of power where a Star Destroyer would be inefficient, and we've seen it being used multiple times in Rebels for just that purpose.

Naming it the Raider is a misnomer, as it's more of a Protector. It might escort other ships at some point, like an Interdictor ambush where they expect a lot of enemy fighters, but it's an escort craft, not a patrol craft. Therefore things like supplies and stormtroopers aren't necessary.

If it is meant for long-term independent operations, it definitely needs a decent sickbay with a surgical unit and bacta tank(s), as well as some spare crew. Same goes for maintenance/engineering, machine shop and spare part storage.

Also, the guns being remotely operated does not mean there is one person doing it. It has the primary weapons (I'd guess multiple, as it can double-tap) + 3 hardpoints (represented by 6 extendable turrets); there's also an artwork showing it launching ordnance from the midsection between top and bottom layers. This requires several people to operate, as one person will not be able to effectively use so many weapon systems. Note there are two team slots in the aft section (and Gunnery, Sensors and Engineering team cards), so I'd expect the weapons control to be a sizeable section, with at least 4 people manning the gun controls.

Also, automated systems would probably have backup manual control stations near the guns to be able to keep firing in case of bridge hit/malfunction.

I would also think it would have a small detachment of Navy troopers (Stormtroopers only on special missions) for guard duty, defence against boarding actions and the "power down your engines and prepare to be boarded" situations. It definitely does not have boarding action capabilities, as that would require a hangar and boarding craft of some sort. The troop quarters would be in the fore next to the brig and armory.

I would assume it has extendable docking rings in the side cutouts and maybe a small hangar capable of holding 1-2 small shuttles/landing craft (for messenger duty/passenger transport, not combat) and launching probe droids somewhere in the lower decks.

The bridge is typicall the last line of defence in case of being boarded, so I would expect it to have some solid blast doors and maybe a weapons locker for the bridge crew and guards. Also, as it is the heart of the ship and exposed to the outside, it is probably heavily armoured on all sides (also because it sits on top of the engine, so it needs to be properly shielded and also the engine has to be protected against bridge explosions.

A secondary CIC somewhere in the bowels of the ship? Let's not repeat the Executor idiocy...

One more thing to take into accout are the escape pods. While the Empire doesn't care much about people, at least some pods are probably present to evacuate the command crew at the very least.

Everything you have asked for, has already been done.

Each main gun has redundant 2-man gunnery stations next to it, (I need to add ordinance tubes though), there are at least 4 bacta tanks, and 8 surgical tables or 16 if they are doubled up, (this isn't a medical frigate, that should be plenty to keep the wounded until help arrives or the ship just blows up), there are dozens of crew I have no jobs for yet, 4 astromech bays for machine repairs and maintenance, the guns lower into their own machine rooms, there is room for 48-256 stormtroopers/navy troopers depending on how many bunks you stack, and refresher/WC/mess/shower facilities for all crew and security troops, as well as 2 CNC/navigation rooms below the main bridge. Any damge that goes deeper than that is cutting into the main engine, at which point another CNC won't help much.

Here's a a bit of translation for the top-down pixel art.

Here's a basic and not-quite-aligned sketch of how I picture the crew space sharing the interior with the engine. (Assuming there's nothing below the engine/thruster but open space.)

I may have to split the main deck into two or three decks later. If that's the case I'll fill in the over/under sections as they come up. It seems that most ships in SW are built on the ground with regular gravity, and then flown into space using their easy ground-to-orbit anti-gravity stuff.

If you look at the lines in the hanger of an ISD, it seems that the interior decks are all flat, and that the gravity is a simple perpendicular force to the line of thrust. No angles, no curving the gravity to save money or space. I'm assuming that the slanted spaces are just filled with machinery and tubes, and that the Raider has it's own slanted spaces just like its bigger cousin.

As for the purpose of the Raider: it is meant to kill starfighters. Guarding ISDs? Sure, but they have their own fighters to screen them. I wouldn't pocket the Raider into a single set role, I think it could have many uses from picketing fleets to well, raiding. It is packaged with a hyperdrive-capable starfighter and the manual mentions this (though I'll have to re-read it to see the exact phrasing.) FFG also mentions the assault carrier as being thematically sound for carrying the hyperdriveless Imperial fighters into the fray.

Personally I assume the Raider can be used as needed - it can attack and destroy small Rebel cells (which consist mostly of indevidual freighters or a single squadron of starfighters) on its own, or with the assistance of TIE/Ad TIE/D TIE/Phantom hyperdrive-equipped fighters; and it can join in fleet actions to cut down on the Rebel's typical starfighter advantage.

If you're not willing to use your blaster as a club when it runs out of ammo; then you're not willing to win. If you're not willing to use your starships in every way they can be used, the enemy will exploit your unwillingness and create tactics around it.

Do you own a Raider model? I'll take detail pictures of the exterior if you want them, along with what I'm talking about for the engine situation; I kinda thought that someone else would have by now.

That image is inaccurate; if the engines are placed vertically the top line of the ship is almost horizontal, rather than being at a slant. Since all other Star Wars ships follow that paradigm, your model is flawed right from the start - but it does make the deck plan easier, as it means deck 2 can stretch the length of the ship and the rest of the decks are the ones which get squished.

It is the sides of the decks which are slanted downwards; while Deck 2 would run the length of the ship, its width would be perhaps 1/6th of the ship proper.

The engine is also one long tube at the very bottom of the ship, not tapering at all, but terminating at where the second yellow turbolift is.

I agree that the parts where the top shell indent would be perfect for generic docking connections, and at the proper scale would fit a TIE eyeball sideways (much like how the smaller ships dock with the Corellian Corvettes in SW Rebels). But it's probably not intended to use those as small craft transports commonly, not like the Gozanti. As far as using a ship for a given role and only for that role...

The Imperial Navy, even post-EU, has an adherence to doctrine and a bunch of money to throw at highly specialized ships. The Rebellion, on the other hand, has to make every ship work at almost anything. They also already have a ship for what you're suggesting the Raider might be used for: The Arquitens Light Cruiser , with plenty of space for a decent stormtrooper contingent, able to carry three fighters, and capable of giving a decent fight to small enemy capital ships while still having quad lasers to deal with fighters.

Enforce Imperial Rule

With its hyperdrive and shields, the TIE Advanced makes an excellent starfighter to accompany the Raider-class corvette on its patrols of Outer Rim systems, and with its new pilots and upgrades, the Imperial Raider Expansion Pack greatly enhances the fighter's ability to enforce Imperial rule.

You can not reconcile these two images: The engines do not appear to be parallel with outer side edges. Is there any reason for the bridge to have such a high ceiling at the back when you can use the roof of the bridge as the level start of all the decks. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong and the engines shrink enough to form a cone that follows the bottom slant of the hull. But either way the deck plans should show that the engines are exposed and follow all along the bottom.

Wow never realised how externally visible the engines were. Don't suppose anyone has a picture of the raider belly without the panels on do they? That might be massively helpful for the folk doing the fine- planning.

Do you own a Raider model? I'll take detail pictures of the exterior if you want them, along with what I'm talking about for the engine situation; I kinda thought that someone else would have by now.

That image is inaccurate; if the engines are placed vertically the top line of the ship is almost horizontal, rather than being at a slant. Since all other Star Wars ships follow that paradigm, your model is flawed right from the start - but it does make the deck plan easier, as it means deck 2 can stretch the length of the ship and the rest of the decks are the ones which get squished.

It is the sides of the decks which are slanted downwards; while Deck 2 would run the length of the ship, its width would be perhaps 1/6th of the ship proper.

The engine is also one long tube at the very bottom of the ship, not tapering at all, but terminating at where the second yellow turbolift is.

I agree that the parts where the top shell indent would be perfect for generic docking connections, and at the proper scale would fit a TIE eyeball sideways (much like how the smaller ships dock with the Corellian Corvettes in SW Rebels). But it's probably not intended to use those as small craft transports commonly, not like the Gozanti. As far as using a ship for a given role and only for that role...

The Imperial Navy, even post-EU, has an adherence to doctrine and a bunch of money to throw at highly specialized ships. The Rebellion, on the other hand, has to make every ship work at almost anything. They also already have a ship for what you're suggesting the Raider might be used for: The Arquitens Light Cruiser , with plenty of space for a decent stormtrooper contingent, able to carry three fighters, and capable of giving a decent fight to small enemy capital ships while still having quad lasers to deal with fighters.

I do own a Raider, it's the one used in the photo-shopped pictures on my profile page. (I don't know how to use the program very well, so it was easier for me to make real shadows on a real model than to fake them with digital trickery.) I have set it up, measured it, and observed it form every possible angle and have concluded that:

The engines, side panels, bottom panels, central plane, and turret orientation of the ship are all in parallel, and the bridge simply has a slanted roof to keep from interrupting the ship's triangular profile.

My cell-phone unfortunately is full, and cannot take new pictures, so I'd ask you to take my word for it; except you have your own! It just makes less sense to me that the panels, deck, turrets, and engine all be off-kilter than that the bridge was sloped for aesthetic purposes. Heck, you can look at the deck pictures below. The only thing that matches the parallel lines is the bridge, even the turrets are pointing slightly "up".

Enforce Imperial Rule

With its hyperdrive and shields, the TIE Advanced makes an excellent starfighter to accompany the Raider-class corvette on its patrols of Outer Rim systems, and with its new pilots and upgrades, the Imperial Raider Expansion Pack greatly enhances the fighter's ability to enforce Imperial rule.

You can not reconcile these two images: The engines do not appear to be parallel with outer side edges. Is there any reason for the bridge to have such a high ceiling at the back when you can use the roof of the bridge as the level start of all the decks. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong and the engines shrink enough to form a cone that follows the bottom slant of the hull. But either way the deck plans should show that the engines are exposed and follow all along the bottom.

Is there any reason for the bridge ceiling to be so slanted? A flat one would throw off the cleanliness of the profile.

I however can't fathom why one would design a ship where everything but the bridge ceiling was tilted "up" relative to the viewer. The exposed compartments in the bottom of the ship are also flat, and parallel with the engines. If I use gravitics to "flatten" the upper decks, I just shunt the problem downstairs and end up all manner of things looking crooked. Or I have to add a gravimetric transitional floor so that everything is flat, and that's just not happening. One direction of gravity is enough for me thank you very much.