"Klingon D-10 in Starline 2500 scale" Topic

I'm still on training wheels, but whilst undergoing chemotherapy, I have been teaching myself to use some digital sculpting programs (hands shake too much for proper painting.)

Behold the mighty D-10 Riskadh class heavy cruiser!

Easily my favourite of the old FASA Klingon designs. But I've made some changes, including increasing the clearance of the warp nacelles, beefing up the impulse engines, and adding a 'deckhouse'at the stern.

I'm of the impression that the 'deckhouse' has something to do with the warp drive (I mean, on the original D-7, just what is it for??) maybe it can be detached in an emergency… who says warp cores are all long and vertical?

Something I've always wanted to do was recreate some classic FASA Star Trek designs in the same scale and style as the Starline 2500 range, as well as make some accurate saucer sections for the Federation ships (without the canyon-like deflector grids).

So, I'm working on things like the Loknar and D-18 classes… keeping it original series timeline, so I can use my existing Starline 2500 ships.

Off to Shapeways to be printed next month, hopefully the results will be worth sharing here later! :)

My intention is to host a very big battle, in honour of Trek's 50th Anniversary (better late than never!) with rules that provide a pretty canonical vision of starship combat in the Star Trek universe.

I'm working on a mesh of Firestorm Armada and A Call to Arms Star Fleet / B5 for the rules. There's lots to like in both systems, once the non-canon Star Fleet Battles stuff is thrown out the airlock… ;)

I like it!

The deckhouse IIRC had the impulse engines and the shuttle hangers.

Looking forward to the Loknar and other FASA ships. I love the SL 2500 line, and I'd love to get my hands on some of those old FASA designs…

Damon.

That's really nice work. For our big Trek game with the 18inch models many years ago a mate of mine converted a D7 into a D10 – it's a great design (one of FASAs best, IMHO).

I look forward to a report on your 50th anniversary game!

John T

Nice! 'Really like the FASA designs, Klingons especially.

Cheers, RC.

Goodness, John T, that must have been a big ship at that scale!

Interestingly, one of my friends has already started hinting about scaling this sculpt to 1/1000 or even 1/650th… Not a simple case of merely pressing the 'enlarge' button, alas.

The Loknar is done, as are a couple of TOS-style fighters. I know fighter craft never appeared in the original series, but they feature in the battles against the Dominion, and I figure they had to have a start sometime…

On that theme, I designed the D-10 with big hangar doors in both the dorsal and ventral positions of the 'wing' sections. I may sculpt an optional 'flight command bridge' to allow the D-10 to be converted into a carrier… :)

Thanks for the comments so far, folks!

Yes, nice work, MacrossMartin.

Yes the D-10, like a D-7…ON STEROIDS!!! ;)

John, is the game you're talking about by any chance featured in one of the Wargaming magazines of the time? I was talking about a game I saw in one magazine I thought I still had over on Brad Torgersen FASA STSTCS forum a few nights back, and would love to see pics of that game again!

Mark

I really like the changes you made. Did you widen the engine nacelles as well? The back looks alot better with the notch and extra detail.

Sitzkrieg – Yep, well spotted. The nacelles are bigger, proportionately, than those of the original FASA design. This was to give a better impression of power, and also because I want them to be the same size as those of the Starline 2500 C7 battlecruiser.

Glad you like the notch out of the stern. I always thought the original D-10 broke a few of Matt Jeffrey's design rules, including reducing the mass at the rear of a ship, to keep the balance towards the centre. Hence, the change on my re-design.

Currently working on a Federation carrier, but that big beastie is proving a much longer build. Pics later this week (I hope!)

Thanks for the reply. In my case, liking the notch out of the stern was purely for aesthetic reasons as I wasn't aware of Matt Jeffrey's design rules on mass. I just thought the flat relatively featureless back didn't go with the rest of the ship's asthetics and (on a similar note) the tiny engines in the original FASA orthos didn't go with the rest of the ship's relative bulk (compared with a D-7).

I don't have any artistic skills myself but I've been putting up some free FASA ship stat sheets on my blog (sitzkrieg.blogspot.com). With your new update on the D-10, would you mind if I used it for a "refit" to the original D-10 similar to the Enterprise/Constitution refit? I always give credit to the artist and I've been looking to do some non-federation designs. If you're interested, I'd only need you to post a pic with the top, side, and front views (either in one pic or several) on a white background (no grid) similar to how they did in the old FASA books that I could then modify for use on a stat sheet. If not, no worries and I'll stil be following here for other fresh designs.

Sitzkreig – Can do. Throw me an email at macrossmartinATyahooDOTcom, I'll see about drawing up my D-10 in Illustrator as a 3-view.

It won't suffice to simply capture the views from the 3D file, as the details become lost without a texture overlay. (And it'll be faster to draw line art in Illustrator than to re-render with a full texture file.)

I should clarify that I don't claim any inheritance to Matt Jeffries' work (and shame on me for the earlier mis-spelling); I probably shouldn't describe his design touchstones as 'rules'. They are only observations based on what he and Gene Roddenberry both stated in interviews over the years.

Jeffries would reduce the rear mass of a design (such as 'scooping out' the tail of the Enterprise's secondary hull, and cutting a crescent out of the aft of the Romulan Bird-of-Prey), for aesthetic reasons – he was always conscious of the need to get away from the 'rocket ship' look of earlier sci-fi.

Roddenberry did stipulate strict rules for starship design, which have been flagrantly ignored by both fan and canon designs over the years, but I dropped the nacelles on my D-10 to address one of those rules. (Nacelles should be able to 'see' one another, without any part of the hull blocking their 'view'.)

There's a good Trekyards youtube episode about the Roddenberry rules including not completely blocking nacelle LOS (although partial is fine apparently according to the designer interviewed there). Thanks for the D-10 refit help and you should be getting an email from a fellow macross fan later tonight. :)

Hi Macrossmartin, that ship looks fantastic. I'd love one but I'm putting together a couple of Starline 2400 scale fleets. Any chance of you scaling this down when its ready? You may get more buyers.

Sitzkreig – yep, seen that episode. That's Andy Probert laying down Roddenberry's Rules, and he's quite a zealot! He hates three-nacelled designs. Considering he's the only person to design THREE canon Enterprises (A, C and D) I'll take his word as Gospel. :)

Also – email received, I'll get back to you regarding changes.

EB – I should have clarified in my OP, I'm not currently planning to sell castings of my designs, these are really for my own enjoyment. My objective is to flesh out and fix up my Starline 2500 fleets, adding FASA designs as well as my own.

Having said that, I might look into selling castings if there's enough demand. However, I'd need quite a lot of 'pre-orders' before I'd consider re-sizing designs for SL2400. That would involve a lot of re-working (due to printing tolerances) the printing of a new master, new moulds, etc.

On the upside, I've scaled the Loknar to be about 65mm long, so that should be tolerable in an SL2400 fleet. (she's only meant to be a Frigate, but is usually sized larger, because she appears to have the same primary hull dimensions as the Constitution class. The real reason for the similarity is, of course, the FASA designer just cut-and-pasted a Connie saucer to a new secondary hull.)

Not to sew too much controversy, but Rodenberry's rules did not exist from the outset and seem more a sort of off the cuff decision he made later in the game. There is even some suspicion that they were created to invalidate many of the earlier fan-made/expanded universe designs. He was a bit of a control freak.

There are plenty of ships in the universe that break those rules too.

-Eli

LOVE it; the basic D-10 design is sound but a bit boring; your redesign adds some much-needed pizzazz. I've also thought it would serve as a good base for a Klingon carrier/assault ship. Also highly highly interested in a SL2400-ish scale ship if you decide to cast it. Heck, I'd take the SL2500 model as well.

I'm of the impression that the 'deckhouse' has something to do with the warp drive (I mean, on the original D-7, just what is it for??) maybe it can be detached in an emergency… who says warp cores are all long and vertical?

Most blueprints I've seen have the 'deckhouse' contain the Impulse Drives and the shuttle bay.

Not to sew too much controversy, but Rodenberry's rules did not exist from the outset and seem more a sort of off the cuff decision he made later in the game. There is even some suspicion that they were created to invalidate many of the earlier fan-made/expanded universe designs. He was a bit of a control freak.

There are plenty of ships in the universe that break those rules too.

Bingo; the 'Roddenberry Rules' were invented sometime during the movie or TNG filming era purely to discredit the work Franz Joseph did in the original Tech Manual (this despite the ships appearing on background monitors in the movies). Everyone basically ignores them since they are arbitrary and pointless. I love three-nacelle designs personally. :)

Good luck with your treatment MacrossMartin!

-Will

I will seconf the Deck House being part of the Impulse system. This gets muddied on some of the D-7 and other designs where they move the Impulse exhaust ports to the bas of the wings.

Don't forget those little single-nacelle designs too. There are some great little designs there as well

-Eli

Yep, the Franz Joseph designs (or close derivatives) are always 'canon' in whatever Trek Gaming I do!

-Will

Thanks for the comments and good wishes all, although I seem to have provoked some controversy here, which I will address, to give some insight into my design process:

Eli – I never said 'Roddenberry's Rules' existed from the beginning of Star Trek's origins. As far as I know, the term was coined by Andy Probert when he came on board for the Motion Picture in 1977. Gene set them out by way of explaining why the Enterprise is the way she is, and couldn't be substantially changed. He didn't want Matt Jeffries' re-design for Phase II (the cancelled series that made way for TMP) to be significantly altered. Jeffries and Roddenberry, both former B17 pilots, had a lot of time for one another, and Jeffries was always quite protective of the Big E.

I'd suggest that's hardly the behaviour of a 'control freak', given that Gene didn't have to explain or justify his design choices to anyone – he was the boss!

As for the Rules existing to wipe out the Franz Joseph designs – well, no. I've never seen any evidence of that, and it ignores the fact that Lincoln Enterprises (Roddenberry's production company in the 60s and 70s) signed off on the Technical Manual. The Manual was re-printed at least three times after TMP, (I know, I've got one of those reprints!) and each required the ok from Lincoln, and after, Paramount. Gene could have simply pulled the licence, and that would have left the Dreadnought for dead. He didn't.

I do believe that Roddenberry didn't like the Dreadnought, but I do wonder if that's because in TOS, the Constitution class was supposed to be the most powerful class in Starfleet. Also, I doubt that Gene liked the idea of Starfleet producing warships.

All of which leads to how this ties into my designs. I enjoy working within self-imposed parameters. It's much more challenging to impose a limit on one's creativity, and see which way you can push the envelope without breaking it. If you just go crazy, you wind up with hideous fan-builds that are all extra nacelles and torp pods, like this:

:D

So, to avoid such lunacy, and preserve my sanity, I use a version of Roddenberry's rules:

1. Starships must have paired warp nacelles, or at least, paired interfaces to create the warp field.

2. Nacelles must have clear line-of-sight between them, or at least, between the warp field emitters.

3. Starships must have navigational deflectors, at least 70% unimpeded by any part of the vessel.

4. Bridge modules go on top. This is partly to establish the scale of the ship, and to provide a visual focus. (It's also because the real brain of a starship – it's main computer – sits directly beneath the bridge, running down several decks. Those things are BIG!)

I'll confess that I am no fan of Joseph's Dreadnought. I think it's a very lazy bit of design work, being essentially a Connie with a third nacelle whacked on top. But, in his defence, Joseph was working with very limited information, apparently hypothesising that the nacelles are power-generating units (then why are they outside, vulnerable to enemy fire?) rather than power-consuming ones. Post-TNG, we now know that a ship's power comes from its warp core, buried deep inside the hull, and the nacelles are there to push the ship through the FTL barrier.

I might have a crack at the Dreadnought myself sometime, see if I can make it fit my design 'envelope' and still look like a Dread'.

On the point of the Klingon deckhouse:

Here's a multi-view shot of the second shooting model of the original D7:

link

There does indeed appear to be a hatch of some kind on the aft face of the deckhouse, but what it's for is anyone's guess. The shuttlebay seems a good supposition. But I don't think it's the impulse engine, because I have a production drawing of the D7, by Jeffries, that shows distinct openings in the rear of the main hull, exactly where the impulse engines are on the D7 model from the Motion Picture. The TOS models were never finished with 'engine glows' because they were so rarely shot from behind, so we really have to rely on the Motion Picture K'tinga for a canon reference.

And Lastly – in the end, however you choose to visualise the Star Trek universe and its vessels is entirely your decision. I'm not interested in attempting to dictate to others how they should or should not approach such flights of fancy. I am merely describing the limitations I impose on my own flights, because in 'my' Star Trek, that's how things are. Your warp speed may vary. :)

End of long, opinionated, nerdy diatribe! ;) And now, if you'll excuse me, I have a Federation carrier to build, and it's being a so-and-so… stupid Tellarite stembolts won't fit…

@MacrossMartin- Definitely did not mean to imply your interpretation of trek-nology was wrong; I absolutely agree that there's a wide variety of possible interpretations of the whats and hows for Star Trek vessels.

The information about Gene later deciding he wanted to make it clear that the Franz Joseph designs were not canon is based on several statements made by people close to the issue; but there is absolutely an element of he-said, she-said to the entire affair.

Anyway, I love your take on the D-10 and can't wait to see what else you turn out!

-Will

Actually, I thought the main issue with the dreadnought was the tri-nacelles. I seem to remember in the Making of Star Trek Roddenberry definitely was against same.

Kind of weird, because he supposedly used his knowledge of flying, but Ford Trimotors and Junkers J52 was damn successful, as well as a number of later tri-engined jet airliners. *shrug*

I know that the Tritium-class from the Spaceflight Chronology was referred to as 'the great experiment' that failed. Sound familiar? ;->=

Ooo, just remembered thinking, when talk turned to conjectural early Fed ships, if anyone would take that book on…

Doug

Cheers, Will. Fear not, we're on the same page when it comes to libertarian interpretation of Treknology, its only that I become fairly zealous regarding my own interpretation! :)

Yes, I think I've had business dealings with one of those 'people close to the issue'… Takes all kinds…

Doug – I've sometimes thought about having a go at some of the early concepts for the pre-TOS fleets, such as the Marshall and Baton Rouge classes. Being Sternbach designs, they're not the prettiest things!! But the Chronology was a big influence on my childhood, so it would be nice to pay homage.

With the fan film Axanar probably dead and buried, it might be nice to revisit the pre-TOS Four Years War, and the ships that fought in it. The D-10 and Connies just make it in at the end, the D-7 is a monster in that era… fun stuff.

MacrossMartin the lawsuit is still going on so I for one still think that Axanar might not be dead and buried as you say to me the issue is still in doubt so I still have hope.

Cheers, Will. Fear not, we're on the same page when it comes to libertarian interpretation of Treknology, its only that I become fairly zealous regarding my own interpretation! :)

Yes, I have my own very particular interpretation of how combat works in Trek that I adhere to but it appears I'm a party of one in this case. So I definitely hear you. ;)

Yes, I think I've had business dealings with one of those 'people close to the issue'… Takes all kinds…

And to be fair the entire thing started when Trek was in its' infancy and no one really knew what direction it was headed. There were all sorts of unknowns, unanswered questions, and folks wanted to fill in the blanks. But later Gene needed to fill those blanks with something else, and that was his prerogative.

Doug – I've sometimes thought about having a go at some of the early concepts for the pre-TOS fleets, such as the Marshall and Baton Rouge classes. Being Sternbach designs, they're not the prettiest things!! But the Chronology was a big influence on my childhood, so it would be nice to pay homage.

Based on your work with the D-10 and Loknar I suspect they would turn out great!

With the fan film Axanar probably dead and buried, it might be nice to revisit the pre-TOS Four Years War, and the ships that fought in it. The D-10 and Connies just make it in at the end, the D-7 is a monster in that era… fun stuff.

While the Axanar crew lifted the concept of the Four Years War from FASA they changed nearly all the details; A fresh look at the FASA-created material would be quite cool.

-Will

No implication intended.

I was just sharing info I had heard in various discussions on the topic. There are a lot of "my way or the highway" fans out there. And the "rules" get shouted nearly any time non-pairs ship design comes up.

I can also see issues with the Dreadnought being a "warship".

If you do make these available, I'd love to see one in scale with the old FASA ships.

-Eli

Just found this thread – love your update to the D-10.

I took mine in a different direction, but added the 'deckhouse', too.

I agree that the design doesn't look balanced without it.

In case anyone is interested the Baton Rouge which is a Four Years War Era ship is available on Shapeways.