Archive through February 08, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Shapeways Project: Ships for Shapeways Approval:
0-ARCHIVE: SHIPS ALREADY RELEASED:
2020:
Mar 6: Federation CX:
Archive through February 08, 2020
The strakes were decided years ago? Could someone point me to that thread?
All X1 ships has strakes is just embracing the 'cookie cutter' philosophy, imo. Also, the best of a bad choice is still a bad choice. This isn't intended as an attack comment but a candid one.
The idea that X1 ships are 'Frankenstein's Monster' hulls is being drastically overplayed, imo.
There have been many things about many of the ship designs that I didn't agree with but pretty much let slide. In my experience the purpose of miniatures is to enhance the cool of the game and maybe grab the attention of spectators. This is a design too far and achieves neither.
I don't care if the strakes stay or not. If they stay I own an X-acto knife and can apply my own refit.
I agree that the positioning of the strakes on the saucer work better than it did on the original version.
To clarify, how much volume is in the CX secondary hull (not counting the strakes) relative to the secondary hull of the CA? It looks like the CX secondary hull is shorter, but that it has more depth to compensate.
I like it with the smaller strakes plus the symmetry of how they are placed.
All scouts have sensor dishes. That's not cookie cutter.
I don't mind a commonality of strake designs across the majority of Alpha Octant empires - as noted by SVC, special sensors don't vary overly much from one empire to the next.
But then, there might be at least one empire for which an alternate strake design might work: the Tholians. Since they have hexagonal sensor dishes on their hulls, perhaps the strakes on their hulls might have sharper lines with 30- or 60-degree angles on them, and with hexagons in place of squares on the sides?
Speaking of commonality across empires, it would make sense for the Vudar and the WYN "fish ships" to use the same X-engines as would be done for the Klingons - which I continue to hope will be inspired by Adam's DX engine design.
But in the case of Romulan "X-Kestrels", would the relative degree of isolation between the Klingon and Romulan empires force the Romulans to work up a distinct X-template to that used in those empires closer to Klingon space? Or might "form follow function", in that the demands of first-generation X-technology would be such that the X-engines on a K7X would end up looking the same as those on the DX in any event?
Sensor dishes are SFU universally consistent in function.
The Federation has a history of doing things different, whether it's weapon choices, the 'Third Way' in PF deployment, and on and on.
I think Jessica is right. The design is visually different enough it doesn't need the shrikes on the primary or secondary hull. Put them on the nacelles and if they must be elsewhere make them very slight ridges and much fewer.
IMO, fandom (which includes players) likes the lines of the iconic fed ship. Try to stay there and embrace the error in the MSSB by saying that the Feds once again went a new way.
Embrace the MSSB illustrations as a happy accident.
The version 2 saucer strakes being further aft looks more balanced now.
Still think you could have the saucer strakes as just an 'Aztec style' greeble in that position, like on the Klingon K refit minis. So you could paint it differently from the base hull colour if you want to draw attention to them, or leave the same colour if you don't. Similar to how some people paint in the deflector grid, and others don't. And it would still match the MSSB book.
I hadn't noticed the secondary hull was slightly shorter, no problem though. Also hadn't noticed the B/C deck teardrop was slightly larger than the CA design. 
Each empire can have unique strakes but under current theory they all need strakes on all x-ships.
SVC, understood. On the Fed CX I'd like to see the strakes in the nacelles only or the strakes as minimal and few as possible.
The issue with empire-specific strakes is that the Fed strakes are pushing the lower limits of the Verstaile plastic. We can make them bigger, but they can't go any smaller.
The more I look at those engines the more I like the detail of them, only thing is the enormous bulb on the form of each warp engine. It could be slightly scaled back.
As for the recognition between this class and any other class it is distinct enough to not need the unpopular strakes. Let’s not get started about the scout channel 1979 size satellite dishes.
In point of fact this ship is so different from the other classes I am starting to wonder how it can even be a conversion and not just new construction only.
AW Cookson I am fortunate, I have an early MSSB that does not have the strakes. I prefer them without the strakes, but then I have enough CA/CC to do one up differently to be an X-Class.
I still don't think engines are enough and for many ships with engines on the bottom they will be unrecognizable.
Who fields X technology first, timeline wise? Do all the Empires start with their version of the CX?
SVC, it's not just the engines, On this CX it's also the pylons, the secondary hull, and the bridge pod on the top of the primary hull as well as it's cross section.
But you are noting applications for other hulls, so...
I'd add the strakes at the front of the nacelles opposite of the flux constrictor bumps (the little boxes just behind the globe), 2 per nacelle. If you want to add more, stay with the two top and bottom on the primary hull and angle them so they can outward at 45 degrees.
I know where quibbling over pseudo Vulcan science, but those locations are at least near propulsion systems and the proposed ones on the secondary hull aren't.
Angling the ones on the primary hull would help the 'lines' enough I think to help keep it looking like a fast, graceful ship.
AW Cookson
Not sure adding them to the nacelles would help in the CXs' case. Especially with those advanced nacelles. They look cool as is.
Plus, isn't there supposed to be an Engineering room near the impulse engines AND in the secondary hull? Hence, the strakes on both the saucer and secondary hulls.
I would never add them to the nacelles.
Where is the active X ship discussion?
From SVC's description on 30 Jan 2020 it would seem reasonable to put them on the nacelles. But never is never (unless you are James Bond). So how about putting them on the outer surface of the pylon?
Also, SVC, is canting the ones on the primary hull (saucer) outward at 45 degree angles a possibility?
I do not think a 45 degree angle for the strakes on the saucer hull would work (may not print, and for engineering reasons, strakes are a combination of cooling, shield generators and scanners, and techno babble)
I like the strakes straight up and down on the saucer.
I like the Federation CX, Version 2. (the 1/3788 scale miniature would paint up nice fore the table top)
I imagine the strakes will be noticeable on the 1/7000 scale X miniature (perhaps on a later sprue)
The strakes really exist to mark them as X-ships. As such, we may not really need all eight, but the two on top of the saucer have to stay (visibility). As to which of the others to keep and how many, I will consider your input.
Where is the visual evidence of the emergency center warp engine?
If splitting the difference is an option, I'd suggest keeping all four strakes on the saucer and replacing the four on the secondary hull with stripes (or grilles or whatnot).
To follow up on Wayne's point regarding scales, if or when any first-generation X-ships were to be added to the Prestige scale, would the strakes be proportionally as large as they are on this model, or might the 1:2500 scale enable a greater degree of flexibility in terms of what would work with the Shapeways printers?
I would be fine with less numbers of Strakes; if going that way, Perhaps 4/6 total on the Federation CX. The two on the saucer top , and two/four on the other hull.