Let's talk Star Destroyers!

[Mojomoe]

That's kind of where I'm at with it. There's no clear-cut answer, everything involves some supposition.

The facts are that there are two fictional in-universe models, the ISD I and the ISD II.

There were also two production models, one for Devastator in ANH and one for Avenger in ESB (and presumably ROTJ), with noticeably different details, beam, hangar bay placement, neck structure, and depth of side cuts.

So, what can this tell us? We have three options:

* the changes in filming model equate to different fictional models.
* the changes in filming model do not equate to different fictional models. The Devastator from ANH is the true ISD frame, and we should consider the Avenger "wrong."
* the changes in filming model do not equate to different fictional models. The Avenger from ESB is the true ISD frame, and we should consider the Devastator "wrong."

(I'm just being thorough...)

While it DOES make logical sense to equate the two filming models to the two ISD classes directly, that doesn't seem to be the case from my findings. As with everything, it appears to be somewhere in the middle. While Devastator and Avenger had prominent structural differences (the subject of our focus here), the universe is mostly concerned with their different armaments and sensor structures. From Wookieepedia:

Several variant designs and refits were made using the Imperial-class as a basis. The most famous and widely produced, was the Imperial II-class Star Destroyer, the second iteration of the class. It included improved armor and weaponry, a different sensor tower and other cosmetic differences.

You'll note that this does not mention large structural changes, and both classes are listed as 1600m. My interpretation is that the ANH model is to be considered "wrong," that the Avenger is the "true" basis for the ISD, both models I and II, and that the differences between the classes are purely cosmetic (weaponry, etc), and not structural. (at least in-universe).

However, that's just MY interpretation. What say you? After all, that's the reason I'm trying to get outside opinions!

Also? There's this image I found floating around the web, which only serves to cause confusion.



It appears to show the two classes as having DIFFERENT overall lengths, and some other differences I can't for the life of me pick out. I have no idea how canon this image is, but there ya go - more fuel on the fire!

[Mojomoe]

Again for my own record-keeping, I want to note that we can get a good idea of the internal structure of the ship simply by taking the sheer number of crew supposed to be barracked, figure the correct amount of stacking-up (as stated in the Death Star Technical Manual, soldiers and crew often had 3-tiered bunk beds, while officers had singles and senior officers had multi-level apartments), and divide that among the decks. That will tell us, at a MINIMUM, how much space was devoted simply to BEDDING.

Again according to Wookieepedia:

According to officially available statistics, Imperial-class Star Destroyers had at least 37,000 officers and crew. Counting the stormtrooper complement (one division or legion, 9,700 men) would total 46,700. This would include a stormtrooper detachment, starfighter pilots, and support craft pilots. Differing from many other Imperial vessels, recreational facilities provided entertainment for off-duty personnel and "guest rooms' could accommodate Imperial VIPs.

[Mojomoe]

Also in response to your earlier bridge image, there's also this:



Showing barracks. Information is on this site:

http://insd.swcombine.com/insd/isd/isd.htm

But as I've never seen those images before, I cannon comment on their accuracy. The site also says this:

We have also chosen to display a section of the personal living quarters of junior and senior ranking officers. Note that the Ship Captain's quarters, Line Captain and VIP quarters are not displayed in this section, but is triple the size of a senior ranking officer's or larger.

Then I found this image:



You can tell it's fan-made, and I'll have to verify the scale, but if that's accurate, AND it's representative of more than just the bridge level, it can tell us a lot about average deck heights, widths, door sizes, etc.

There's also a shot in the dark extrapolation - having noted the step up at the back of the bridge hallway, one might go so far as to assume the decks of the superstructure are neither level nor angled, but stepped. That's a BIG if, though...

[Mikael Hasselstein]

Excellent.

In regards to our class quandary, I'm inclined to adopt the first of your three options as my interpretation of which is the "truth". That's certainly what Wookieepedia has done, when they've said that the Devastator was a ISD-I and the Avenger an ISD-II

I would hazard the guess that that's why we have two ISDs classes to begin with. The film-makers just made two different models for use in the filming, and they assumed that they were close enough to each other's equivalents for their purposes. It's only OCD nerds like us who would note the difference, and the OCD nerds who made the Imperial Sourcebook (is this the first time we see mention of two classes of ISD?) just explained away the differences by saying there's two types of Star Destroyer.

My guess is that big image you pulled up is simply apocryphal.

But from an in-universe perspective (rather than trying to explain the Devastator model used in the filming of ANH), I agree that it makes more sense for the two models to be more alike, aside from the weapons placement.

Nevertheless, there are some other discrepancies. According to the Imperial Sourcebook the ISD-I has less armor but more powerful shields, than the ISD-II. Also, the ISD-II has a x1 hyperdrive, while the ISD-II has a x2 hyperdrive. (Wookieepedia contradicts this difference, referencing the Saga edition. I don't have a copy to verify. I just have the 2nd ed Imperial Sourcebook.) Also, the ISD-II (according to the sourcebook) needs fewer crew and is easier to manage on a skeleton (which is what I assume the /+20 and /+10 mean?)

Also, I don't like the idea that stating that the model from the movie is simply wrong. That said, I would be a hypocrite if I said that I have treated the movies as holy. In my nav computer it takes considerably to get from Tatooine to Coruscant than watching ANH would have one believe. So, let it be said that I'm willing to be practical - and making the decision that the ISD-I and the ISD-II are very similar is a very practical decision.

So, I guess we need to either come to a decision between your three options, or we make deckplans for the ISD-II using the Avenger as our model, and flub the idea that we're making deckplans for both the ISD-I and ISD-II. This seems to me to be the most sensible solution. That would be even more practical, and it has my vote.

[Mikael Hasselstein]

Regarding the interiors, the bridge deckplans are not really different. The SWCombine map simply shows more. Any other slight differences between them are, in my opinion, too negligible to bother with.

Regarding the steps in the bridge image, I don't think that suggests a real answer to the angle yes/no question. If there were steps to correct for the forward-sloping nature of the super structure in comparison to the main body of the vessel, then I would imagine that the steps would have the opposite slope.

Again taking practicality as our guide, I'd say that manipulation of the artificial gravity takes care of any of the angles. Also, it's my guess, looking at the cut-out image, that most of the areas where the crew (not the troopers and the flight crews) are accommodated and have their shift jobs, it is in the larger superstructure. The main structure is mostly made up of engines, reactors, hangars, and resource stores.

Your thoughts?

[vanir]

Different ISD models were used in filming for the Devastator and Avenger. The Devastator model has four sets of twin barrel 'heavy laser cannon' turrets either side of the bridge superstructure, massive in scale, the Avenger model instead has four sets of entirely smaller but entirely more numerous, 16 'battery-turbolaser' barrels either side of the bridge superstructure. Other than that the claim is they're the same hull, just a different fit to represent different classes within a ship type.

The general theme is that the Avenger is more fleet combat fitted and boarded (yes, that was a 128-gun frontal broadside with the primary weapon system), whilst the Devastator is more planetary-assault fitted and boarded (main weapons can level 16 supersize-lascannon in a frontal broadside, powerful but probably defensive). This would reflect in variations of secondary weapon systems, hangar complements, types of launched craft and cargo.




You know and well we can use IRL parallels sure. But let's think outside the box to the Soviet carriers like the Kiev and Kuznetsov classes. Actually the same hull, didn't know that did you? The Kiev is an ASW command cruiser with an antishipping capability. The Kuznetsov is thought to be a supercarrier, incorrectly. It is in fact an ASW command cruiser with an antishipping capability, and secondary fleet air defence role. The Russians call this "missile cruiser with air complement".

Different classes, same hull. One is built for ASW all up and down western Europe, the other to go toe to toe with a US carrier-battlegroup.

Different fits. One has a full frontal superstructure with an angled flight deck for VTOL-only aircraft. The air wing is about 50. The other flush mounted all the weapon systems of the first, rebuilt the superstructure into an island, and mounted a ski-ramp to the angled deck. The Russian Flankers and Fulcrums are so advanced in STOL and rough field operations they required very little modification to work just fine from an unpowered ski ramp on a 55,000 ton fleet carrier. It's a bit overloaded, the Kuznetsovs ramp out to some 65,000 tons with the jets and ASW wings, where say a US nuclear-supercarrier sits on an easy 72,000 tons on a skeleton complement. But it essentially started off as a large surface action cruiser that carried a stack of helicopters and the weapons of a hunter-killer submarine in addition to those of a tough cruiser, to something with all that and 1-3 squadrons of front line ultraperformance jetfighters on board. And better seakeeping qualities, nobody ever figured out that part but the Kiev can't handle anything but coastal waters in nice weather before breaking out the flood-pumps but the Kuznetsov has no problem in the middle of the Atlantic riding an El Nino whilst still doing routine flight operations. It's weird but just happened with that hull type.

Anyways, the Indian and Chinese carriers they bought from Russia are converted Kievs to Kuznetsov specs. It's the same hull, you just fit it differently. One looks like a powerful heavy cruiser with a helicopter angled deck on the back, the other looks a lot like an american supercarrier, and it's the same ship type. Different classes. Different roles. Neither can do Force Projection like the US supercarriers role but their roles are different. One does ASW on high value ports, including single-handedly going out to devastate an enemy battlegroup formation too close to a Russian security port, and the other is designed to do the same thing for the Fleet itself, not its ports. Obviously the Russian philosophy was that Soviet waters were always within range of land based aircraft. Hence the primary difference between the classes is the one that goes with the Fleet into blue water operations carries its own advanced fighters. The Kievs would always have the same fighters available from ground bases.



edited to move an earlier edit on the original post to the right place doh o_O

[Mojomoe]

From this information, it's sure seeming like our real world "two models" theory is the way to go, and that instead of trying to create a deckplan that serves two masters as you say, efforts should be concentrated on the model that has the best documentation, and is the most recognized. This is the Avenger's ISD-II (although, the purist in me would rather have deck plans for an 'ISD-I,' it's simply not the model I though I was familiar with.)

That said, I actually pulled a lot from a few unlikely sources, namely the Prequels-era Venator-class! Now, let me start by saying that it is INDEED foolish to draw anything from an entirely different class, but I have a real-world and a fictional reason for doing so. The fictinal reason is that things with the same shape, from the same lineage, often have much the same function, or at leat similar enough that we can use one as an implication for the other. We can't make DIRECT parallels, but we can use details to inform our decisions.

The second reason is a direct counter the the issue with ISDs, that the designers and model-builders of the 1970s and 1980s were, aside from notables like Ralph Mcquarrie and Nilo Rodis, not generally 'world builders,' they were closer to kitbashers (after all, Star Wars wasn't supposed to be a hit!). Working as a concept artist in games, something like NINETY PERCENT of artists I come across were inspired or informed by Star Wars - and modern concept art encourages much more of that detail-finagling, world-building mentality where every detail WILL be scrutinized on the Internet. What I mean by this is, while the original ISDs were thrown together because they "looked good," the Venator class (and similar modern designs) were made by fans JUST LIKE US who studied the bejeezus out of the old designs and tried to make sense of them. Many of them have been PAID to think about the exact details we're trying to vet, and by the license holder no less!

Let's take a look at it here:



What can we learn, at least from the Venator?

* corridors, at least directly below Turbolaser emplacements, are hexagonal (not necessarily terribly helpful).
* the hull is roughly one-third the standard deck height in thickness
* there are primary fore-aft (longitudinal) life support ducts and power lines roughly the size of a standard hallway running the length of the ship.
* The equatorial trench IS a crewed area, running inboard to edge of the outboard-most plate line. It is the only part of the ship with lines running parallel to the angled port/starboard hull.
* The phrase "tower decks run parallel to dorsal ridge." The only way I can interpret this is to mean just as you say, the superstructure decks are indeed elevated to aft at an angle, running on different grav plating from the primary structure (wedge).

The second source is this diagram of the Victory class, from Starfall:



What can it tell us?

* engineering occupies the entirety of the aft lower section, possibly even without crewed areas (equipment only?)
* the "neck" is primarily systems control.
* the second-most superstructure is Officers Row
* Combat personnel are barracked just abaft of the hangar bays, presumably for quick deployment
* the detention area is aft, just above engineering, running to the outer hull (this seems like a very stupid idea).
* the space above the hangar bays is occupied almost entirely with vehicle storage.

[Mikael Hasselstein]

I think you're right - about the two deckplans being significantly different. Though I wonder if they are similar enough that once we work out the one, it wouldn't be too difficult to work out what the other would be - precisely because of your second point: that these are variations on a theme - from Venator to Victory to ISD-I to ISD-II

I also found the Victory from Starfall last night after theforce.net mentioned it.

You give me confidence with the world-builder case you make - not that this will be easy, because, as you say, they were designed by kit-bashers, but I like the idea that designers have become world-builders.

Anyway, to the lessons-learned (stuff we're in agreement on):

- Corridors are hexagonal just like what we see in the movies.

- Powerlines and atmospheric ducts are roughly the size of the corridors, if not slightly larger.

- The equatorial trench IS a crewed area, and it does run parallel to the main structure.

- The 'dorsal ridge' (though it is flatter) and the tower are at an angle to the main structure. They're on a different artificial gravity plane.

- Most of the aftward main structure is for engines and reactors.

- The upper flat dorsal ridge is for officer accommodations.

- Enlisted crew are accommodated forward and lower than the officers.

- Troops are housed lower still than the enlisted crew, just aft of the hangars and vehicle storage.

- Detention areas are aft-ward near the engines and reactors.*

- Vehicle storage is above the hangar - where the flight decks are on the Venator

Also, vehicle repair bays are below the hangars.

*If memory serves, in Dark Force Rising (or Heir to the Empire), when Luke and Mara go to break Talon Karrde out of detention from the Chimaera, Luke thinks about how the detention facilities on board an ISD are like those that were aboard the Death Star from whence he rescued Princess Leia. The commentary is that Imperial designers like to recycle their blueprints. So, the waste dump (which we see being dumped in ESB) and the detention facility are nearby one another, just like on the Death Star. That seems plausible to me.

Regarding the hull thickness, It would be my guess that you're right, but that there would be certain places where that hull thickness would be thicker, especially for the ISD-II, which we know relies more on armor than on shields. My guess is that this was in order to reduce energy consumption. At any rate, I would say that we need not worry about that too much, so long as we leave plenty of space for the hull - as in, make our decks fit comfortably into the hull and superstructure.

Some other things that I think are worth noting: The Victory has a three-tiered hangar bay. The image on there (omitted in your picture) says that there is a maintenance section below the hangar bays, though this would have to be fairly narrow in the 'keel' (for lack of a better term). Also, the hangars are also port and starboard of the hangar entry port. I'm not sure why, but I only ever thought of them being fore and aft.
the TIE racks are behind (both fore and aft) the main bays (where the shuttles land), and thus launch through those main bays.

Anyway, let's start talking modularity.

I like the idea of the ships being parallel, so that we only have to design half the ship, after which we essentially copy, paste, transform: flip. (or, even omit doing that, just saying that the opposite side is the mirror image, and thus cut down on the file-size by half.

I think we should go section-by-section, though I'm agnostic as to the order. Also, how do we want to collaborate? Since you want to do the actual drawing, should I just get you sketches that you can use for inspiration?

[Mojomoe]

I think you're completely right on mirroring or longitudinal symmetry - the ship should be, roughly, mirrored port to starboard. I am, however, reserving a swatch of deck down the longitudinal axis for rooms that are not necessarily symmetrical, say a couple dozen meters right in the middle. Either way though, I think with many duplicate decks (or roughly duplicate decks), and with the symmetry, AND the repeated mention of modularity in Imperial design, I think there's a lot less to design here than people would assume!

Primarily I think what I need from people is logical reasoning and buyoff on decisions made. You're a great resource, having done deckplans, as how to work with this stuff. My gut approach is to work big to small - take the largest section, section, subdivide, section, subdivide, etc. until we've got the whole thing.

Here's my rough plan - First, I need to vet my deck height assumptions with some math, and compare that to known deck heights. If that checks out (I think it will, what I've got very cleanly puts the hangar bay observation room on Deck 95 at the absolute middle of the equatorial trench, level with the center of the primary engine nozzles), we can start to divide the ship into vertical as well as lateral and longitudinal sections, figuring out how many decks in each. Then I can place known structures in those sections (things shown on the cutaway, for example. It details many large and small rooms that we can easily place), and grid out the remaining "habitable" space - power conduits, arterial hallways, lift tubes (both horizontal and vertical), hygiene facilities, etc.

Once those "minimum" areas are filled, we can next dole out space to other known quantities - with areas of deck sectioned off for crew, for example, we will need to fill that area with bedding and quarters for the total number of crew listed, etc. The remainder of THAT space can be assigned to any remaining functions that we might need, from the large down to the small.

[DougRed4]

Great project, guys. I see you referenced "Starfall", which also has all sorts of info on many systems inside of a Victory-class.

Another thing to keep in mind (that I haven't seen mentioned yet) is a brig or cell, possibly large ones for transporting a large number of prisoners.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green

[Mikael Hasselstein]

Okay, so I take it that you're going to do the following:

Plot out where the big stuff is. Once, you/we have done that, we can stuff the habitable areas in between. Big stuff includes (we should expand this list):

Engineering Section

- Primary Power Generator

- Engine Control Core(?)

- Main Engine Turbine

- Subsidiary Reactors

- Backup Engine Reactors

- Engines and thrust nozzles

- Heavy tubrolaser turret motors (2x4)

-Power Cells

-Primary Computer core

-Back up computer core

Hangar Area

- Hanger Entry Ports, Main (aft) and Secondary (fore)

- Hangar Bays

- TIE Racks

- Vehicle Storage

- Vehicle Maintenance

-Crash and salvage

-Tractor beam controls

Bow

- Raw Materials Storage

- Liquid Stores

- Auxiliary Reactor

- Tractor Beam Power Cells

- Pursuit Tractor Beams

Other:

- Detention Center

- Waste Disposal

Throughout:

- Ducting (atmosphere, liquids, fuel, materials, waste)

- Structural Supports & Struts

- Local Shield Generators

I wonder if a way to go about this is for both of us to make a layout of the big stuff, and then we compare notes. We should operate off a common file format so that you can overlay my sketch onto yours so that you can compare/contrast. I'm fine with using the ortho file as a base layer, and drawing stuff on it in other layers.

Thoughts?

[Mikael Hasselstein]

We should maybe figure out how to fileshare.

[garhkal]

[Mikael Hasselstein]

[Mojomoe]

Again, this is great! I need to start updating the first post to keep all this info in one place for easy reference.

As far as deck height, I've done the math, and at a 137 deck layout it comes out to 2.565m per deck, with a between-deck space of 0.855m. It might just be me, but this seems a little on the cramped side.

What feels like a good place to start with deck height? I need to do some pixel examinations of the Imperial structures and hallways from the movie, but I feel like 3m/1m for deck height/between decks is a good solid number.

Anybody want to weigh in? This is completely arbitrary!

Also, in response to the tractor beam question, are you specifically referencing the power cells immediately abaft of that foremost lateral wall/baffles? Or the cylindrical ones mounted outboard at the fore of the equatorial trench? Either way, I'm counting three forward power cells in total (that middle one is on the centerline), and god knows how many pursuit tractor beam cylinders (I'll check my cross-sections when I get home; that picture is just a touch too blurry to tell).