1 hour ago, Kharnvor said:

So much wasted space in those hangars!

Those bombers should be wing to wing and front to back. It's a theme I find frustrating in Rebels - they only ever show like a third to a tenth of the ships they should. Phoenix squadron is what, 4 A-wings? I guess if you lose all four every battle you'd hesitate to field a full squadron, but since they never seem to have trouble getting replacement pilots and ships, why not field more and increase your chances of not losing them all?

render times and TV budgets

I wish the artist had tried harder. Gozantis look worlds better than that thing.

1 hour ago, Kharnvor said:

So much wasted space in those hangars!

Those bombers should be wing to wing and front to back. It's a theme I find frustrating in Rebels - they only ever show like a third to a tenth of the ships they should. Phoenix squadron is what, 4 A-wings? I guess if you lose all four every battle you'd hesitate to field a full squadron, but since they never seem to have trouble getting replacement pilots and ships, why not field more and increase your chances of not losing them all?

It's probably not carrying a full compliment at that point. To be fair, though, the whole thing is wasting the front 5/6 of its wedge space. They would've been better to make it a hollow wedge that the TIEs could drop-launch straight out of, or at least carry the fighter bay space all the way forward. If I were a Y-Wing pilot, I'd like my fangs and smile at those big, easily targeted bays that are just begging to swallow a full load of torpedoes.

Okay, that sounded crass at the end, but you get the idea.

50 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Slightly related, I preferred the old lore where TIEs could not land without docking clamps without destroying their wings and crashing. It was a way for the Empire to dissuade theft and defection, since without Imperial docking facilities you wouldn't be able to land the ship.

Yes that would have been a good idea.

6 minutes ago, BenderIsGreat said:

I wish the artist had tried harder. Gozantis look worlds better than that thing.

They've got an actual shape to them and guns in logical positions!

2 hours ago, Ken at Sunrise said:

The thing I thought was foolish about the FO Carrier was that the TIE Fighters were not beneath or to the sides of the carrier. People somehow forget that this is space and the TIE fighter is entered from above. So why not have racks of them beneath the carrier.

Because if it really is a ground assault supporter, then hanging them on the bottom just hangs them in front of any incoming fire from enemy ground units.

I would think the bombers as well as the TIE fighter show be rack mounted. And yes, wing to wing, front to back.

They did both back in the EU.

32 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

render times and TV budgets

And pacing too, I'm sure. Can't have things happening too fast for the intended audience to follow. Though I wonder if they aren't underestimating their audience a bit.

8 minutes ago, DarthEnderX said:

Because if it really is a ground assault supporter, then hanging them on the bottom just hangs them in front of any incoming fire from enemy ground units.

With Star Destroyers have atmospheric flight capabilities, plus an open deck carrier is far too Marvel Comics for me. Star Wars has had shielded hanger bays since the original Star Wars. What about ships just sliding off as they take fire from above or below. Plus I would guess this ship would be extremely vulnerable to any air attack so it could only support ground assaults after air and space superiority is assured. If the TIEs were in racks, either beneath or in hangers that would make so much more sense and the launch to would be a fraction of the time from that appearance.

I know, things that make sense and sci-fi seldom mix. But sometimes it doesn't take much effort by the designer to have made a more realistic and functional design. Too bad really.

13 minutes ago, Ken at Sunrise said:

With Star Destroyers have atmospheric flight capabilities, plus an open deck carrier is far too Marvel Comics for me. Star Wars has had shielded hanger bays since the original Star Wars.

Yeah, but I'm guessing this thing doesn't even cost a fraction of what a Star Destroyer costs.

Just because better equipment exists doesn't mean it's available or on hand.

13 minutes ago, Ken at Sunrise said:

Plus I would guess this ship would be extremely vulnerable to any air attack

So are AT-ATs. But that doesn't stop the Empire from using them.

Those fighters on the deck are what's supposed to make sure it doesn't suffer an air attack.

Sorry, I can't seem to make my point very clearly.

Yes most ground troops are susceptible to are attacks. I wasn't referring to that, so comparing a ground support craft to ground troops sort of misses the point. Also I wasn't comparing the size, fire power, troop complement,etc. which all adds to the cost of a Star Destroyer.

Let me try to be a little more clear. I was referring to that fact that most ships in Star Wars have atmospheric flight capabilities regardless of size that that shielded hanger bays are also common. I simple and far less costly solution than a Star Destroyer, since you made that comparison, would be ground support ship with shielded hanger bays. Of course the TIE are suppose to defend the ship while launching a ground assault, just as we had/have CAP fighter around our carriers. But the enemy can still get through. In the age of space flight and hyper drives having a landing strip similar to today's carrier fleet seems, to me at least, a lazy design that is far from realistic or even practical. Especially when it wouldn't be that big of a deal to employee technology that was available 30 years earlier.

That's all I was trying to say.

8 hours ago, DarthEnderX said:

This is the only carrier the Empire needs.

You know, I never really noticed it before, but from that picture, it is only carrying 8 TIE Bombers? I can only hope its actual capacity was greater than that.
Speaking of wasting space, why does a dedicated carrier have a massive part of its hull seemingly have nothing to do with its role as a carrier? The entire triangle fore of the hangars seems like it's just there to be a triangle. It interferes with the ability to launch from the hangars, and there don't appear to be any weapon mounts, so, really, this seems like a terrible design for a carrier...

I mean, I suppose it looks cool, and it fits the wedge aesthetic of the Empire, but it's completely impractical!

... which also fits the design aesthetic of the Empire, now that I think about it. Really, long legs on a narrow armored transport, resulting in a high center of gravity? Large panels on either side of the cockpits of your fighters, thus greatly reducing visibility? A complete and utter lack of railings around any drop-off? Yep, impractical definitely fits the Imperial design aesthetic!

Thank you for posting this. Looks interesting.

51 minutes ago, BenderIsGreat said:

It's probably not carrying a full compliment at that point. To be fair, though, the whole thing is wasting the front 5/6 of its wedge space. They would've been better to make it a hollow wedge that the TIEs could drop-launch straight out of, or at least carry the fighter bay space all the way forward. If I were a Y-Wing pilot, I'd like my fangs and smile at those big, easily targeted bays that are just begging to swallow a full load of torpedoes.

Okay, that sounded crass at the end, but you get the idea.

I really should have finished reading the thread before posting....

15 hours ago, Marinealver said:

I think this would be better in Armada, speaking of which, When will the Resistance and 1st Order be in Armada. IMHO they could use a 3rd and 4th faction.

At present we only really have one ship really in scale for Armada from those factions, that being the FO's star destroyer, and well nothing else. You can quibble about T-70 X-Wings and TIE/FOs but how would you make them distinct enough for players to know what they are, even when unpainted, so they don't get confused with the original X-wings and Tie fighters. At the moment the Clone Wars factions would make more sense as a 3rd and 4th faction, but as is I'm not sure we really need that, though it would be cool to get models of those ships.

Just now, Animewarsdude said:

At present we only really have one ship really in scale for Armada from those factions, that being the FO's star destroyer, and well nothing else. You can quibble about T-70 X-Wings and TIE/FOs but how would you make them distinct enough for players to know what they are, even when unpainted, so they don't get confused with the original X-wings and Tie fighters. At the moment the Clone Wars factions would make more sense as a 3rd and 4th faction, but as is I'm not sure we really need that, though it would be cool to get models of those ships.

I think Han's frigate (the one with the CGI tentacle monsters) also fits the scale, but you do got a point. If there were to be a Sequel Trilogy core set we would need at least one more small ship for the Resistance.

15 hours ago, StriderZessei said:

Why do we even have an off-topic section...

This is as on topic as any speculation is.

Yeah, most visual representations don't utilize the maximum number of space they can use. That Quasar Fire is engaging in terror strikes against a planet without a proper space force to defend against, so they only need like two flights of unescorted bombers, and no in-system escorts for the carrier (also Rebels has like 20 to tell a story - it's okay they don't always get into the accurate details of naval tactics). Volume wise those bays could hold at minimum twice that number in bombers, and in Legends the intended number of fighters is 48, six times that (though bombers have double hulls - so maybe that'd be a half load? That's a full squadron strength of bombers).

I'd recommend http://fractalsponge.net/ if you want to see some high-detail renders of EU ships (and some original designs). The artist actually thinks about the volume say, a TIE Fighter is supposed to have and how this reflects the complement a ship can carry.

42 minutes ago, Freeptop said:

Speaking of wasting space, why does a dedicated carrier have a massive part of its hull seemingly have nothing to do with its role as a carrier? The entire triangle fore of the hangars seems like it's just there to be a triangle. It interferes with the ability to launch from the hangars, and there don't appear to be any weapon mounts, so, really, this seems like a terrible design for a carrier...

From the Wookiepedia entry for the " Flurry ":

"Originally, the craft operated as a bulk cruiser, complete with cargo brackets secured under the main hull brace which separated the forward command pod, which contained crew bunk rooms and the ship's bridge, from the rear of the ship, where the engines and additional cargo space was located."

1 hour ago, Animewarsdude said:

At present we only really have one ship really in scale for Armada from those factions, that being the FO's star destroyer, and well nothing else. You can quibble about T-70 X-Wings and TIE/FOs but how would you make them distinct enough for players to know what they are, even when unpainted, so they don't get confused with the original X-wings and Tie fighters. At the moment the Clone Wars factions would make more sense as a 3rd and 4th faction, but as is I'm not sure we really need that, though it would be cool to get models of those ships.

Is the Finalizer in-scale? It looks like it has a length almost twice that of the Imperial class. Even with Armada's scaling, that would still be a huge hunk of plastic.

1 hour ago, Marinealver said:

I think Han's frigate (the one with the CGI tentacle monsters) also fits the scale, but you do got a point. If there were to be a Sequel Trilogy core set we would need at least one more small ship for the Resistance.

Han's frigate was little more than a cargo hauler though, and was used by an independent party, so nothing that the resistance has been shown to use yet.

17 minutes ago, numb3rc said:

Is the Finalizer in-scale? It looks like it has a length almost twice that of the Imperial class. Even with Armada's scaling, that would still be a huge hunk of plastic.

The Finalizer is twice the size of an ISD, but if they really wanted to do it they could just toss it in the Large class for Armada. And considering that TFA basically tried to make things bigger than last time I don't even want to imagine how big an SSD made by the First Order might be, and the declarations of wanting it in Armada too.

2 minutes ago, Animewarsdude said:

Han's frigate was little more than a cargo hauler though, and was used by an independent party, so nothing that the resistance has been shown to use yet.

The Finalizer is twice the size of an ISD, but if they really wanted to do it they could just toss it in the Large class for Armada. And considering that TFA basically tried to make things bigger than last time I don't even want to imagine how big an SSD made by the First Order might be, and the declarations of wanting it in Armada too.

You could say TFA took the original Star Wars and multiplied it by a factor of J^2

5 hours ago, Ken at Sunrise said:

The thing I thought was foolish about the FO Carrier was that the TIE Fighters were not beneath or to the sides of the carrier. People somehow forget that this is space and the TIE fighter is entered from above. So why not have racks of them beneath the carrier.

Or at least show some cute little roll-a-round ladder-walks for 'em to use to get into their Fo Fo TIEs...

51 minutes ago, Joe Boss Red Seven said:

Or at least show some cute little roll-a-round ladder-walks for 'em to use to get into their Fo Fo TIEs...

The Imperial Academy trains all pilots to high jump!

The First Order also trains it's pilots to space-walk. There's at least one panning shot of the Finalizer where TIEs are sitting outside the hull.

Just now, numb3rc said:

The Imperial Academy trains all pilots to high jump!

"GET IN THEM FO-FO's... YOU DOGGS!!!"

BOING-BOING-BOING!!!