The Cophuranee main warship has now reached its final stage of modelling.







Weaponry:
Primary: 16 Heavy Dual DIP Turrets(10 forward, 4 starboard, 2 rear)
Secondary: 20 Light Quad Defense Bateries

Very, very nice. Work of art.

...Something tells me that in combat, it wouldn't stand up to one of the Empire's 25,000+ Imperial-class Star Destroyers at all... Let alone one of Massassi's 16-odd Death Stars :p

Anyway, it looks great, though it's design (and size) suggest something more along the lines of a battle cruiser; while it does look like it packs some serious firepower, it just doesn't look as intimidating as a Destroyer-level capital starship (perhaps without textures, it looks too low detail). Was the design for that inspired, in any way, by the Orion-Class Terran Destroyer of Descent Freespace: The Great War?

Nope, I think I made the first drawing of it several years before Freepsace even came out.

Concerning the cruiser/destroyer thing, I was under the Impression cruiser clas was more powerful than the Destroyer class, that's why I chose it to be a destroyer, eventhough Inferno Cruiser would sound better

Size Comparison: Inferno Destroyer(900m) vs Phoenix Cruiser(1400m)

Normally, yes, the destroyer class of warships is the smallest of the capital ships... And cruisers are the largest (with frigates in-between). However, it seems to be there is becoming a clear precident for the destroyer class to be the biggest. It is the most intimidating sounding. First was Star Wars, with the Imperial-class Star destroyer hopelessly overpowering any other stock ship. The destroyer class in Descent Freespace followed suit. However, it does make sense, once I started thinking about it; deep-space battle is not the same as sea battle. For one, starfighters and bombers in space act very much the way that submarines do. Carriers on their own are even weaker in space, so they need aditional protection. since you don't need a long runway on a deep-space carrier, it wuld make sense to cover it in weapons emplacements. Hence, the "destroyer". The original sea-based destyroyer's function (very fast strong weaponry) is lergely fulfilled by starfighters, so that effectively frees the class name up. And yes, the Inferno-class cruiser would sound better, just as would the Phoenix-class destroyer.

BTW, what modelling software are you using?

Rhino 3D (old v2)

I've been intently watching your progress on various models for a while now, and I must say they are all very detailed and well thought out. I love some of your designs, and this latest ship, once it has textures, should be another welcome addition to the collection!

I like this explanation. Before that, I always hated Homeworld (not really, I love it) and other space games for their navy-unlike destroyers. Now I can live with it.

I like!

Holy waffle.:eek:

Great as usual.

At least he hasn't textured them yet... Then I'd have to buy a new keyboard to replace this one (which would have been corroded by drool)

THWOOOM! I made a final update to the model adding an actual barrel to each of the Defensive cannons.

See upgraded screens above!

Looks even more impressive... Just bristling with weaponry!

Actually, the Imperial Class Star Destroyer is not a destroyer. If it were, it would be a Destroyer Class Star Destroyer. "Star Destroyer" is the name of the line, the model so to say - it's like the make and model of a car. There are other kinds of Star Destroyers. They can't call be Destroyer class ships, especially ones as massive as the Eclipse class.

Excuse me please then, I mean the destroyer category. Of course there are no destroyer-class ships, just as there are no cruiser-class ships. the ISD is a vessel of the Imperial class, of the destroyer category.

Mm, Eclipse.

I always assumed that Star Destroyers were named not because they functioned as Navy-Style Destroyers or a modified version thereof;
I assumed that it was because, unlike the Corellian made battle cruisers which were all business and Naval pragmatism, Star Destroyers were mostly for the look, and the name just an extension of this theme.

-In other words, Destroyer because it sounded cool, not because it was one.

Star Destroyers cannot be in the destroyer CATAGORY, for the exact same reasons I posted earlier. You cannot tell me the victory and the eclipse classes are both DESTROYERS.

Actyually, I can. both of the above, while substantially different in scale, power, and technology, fulfil the same purpose: a multi-purpose massive capital ship meant to serve as a highly mobile base of operations, capable (though not necessarily used for) of fielding large ammounts of forces for a variety of missions including border guarding, ship-to-ship combat, and planetary invasion, and do all of those well. It is quite obvious that the Destroyer category in space is not the same as the Destroyer category at sea; starfighters are the small, fast, heavily armed vessels of deep space, so having a small capital ship class purely for adding offensive guns would be a waste, and dangerous; corvettes (which closest resemble water-bound destroyers, of all space vessels) are not good for providing main offensive firepower, even though that's all the rebellion had. Instead, they were meant as flexible escort to much larger capital ships, as well as well armed transports (a la the "blockade runner"). Destroyers in deep space, on the other hand, seem to be a combination of aircraft carriers, troopships, and battleships (which are an extinct category in the water). Even though the Victory-class star destroyer is but 900m long compared to the 17,800m of the Eclipse-class star destroyer, both perform the same deep-space function of covering all the bases expected for various capital ships with a single massive (from somewhat massive to massive beyond belief) ship.