sci-fi catamaran design help

A friend told me this weekend about Wally... sorry, now I understand what Chris was saying.
I like the 55, 64 and 118 most esthetically, but these boats are a complete nonsense. Much more then my fiction war patrol...

 

Ehi people, still no advices for general shape/proportions?

One practical problem I have to solve about underneath hull:

The deck height was taken from what is my main reference for now:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/7217/

 

Why science fiction must be so "turdish"
You can be science fiction with elegance
Daniel

 

I have to say I'm beginning to like that boat even more. I'm no expert in boatdesign/hydrodynamics etc. but I think you could lenghten it maybe 10% more. I'd also make the bows sharp all the way to the deck level, they seem to be flat in the latest pics. The earlier pics got a waterline which looked like there aint much clearence under the tunnel roof. Extra lenght should help in that.

Just my two cents worth.

 

Also to the selfhealing hull idea, shouldn't be too hard to place chemical packs inside the hull skin. I think there are many chemicals today that would work in repairing bullet holes and cracks, something that reacts by expanding in reaction with either water or air(oxygen).

 

Arka,

You have said that this is a design process initiated by you. I'm guessing that means that there's no client other than yourself. It would seem to me that if it is not fun, then you might want to consider the purpose of the exercise.

Our world 40-50 years from now. Hmmm, let's see... what was battle technology like some 50 years ago, then? That would be the Vietnam War era, so there's plenty of stuff from which to draw comparisons. That was a military period when I was off shooting pictures of what the whole thing was all about, so I got to see all kinds of things a lot closer than I would have liked.

The US was still using propeller driven close air support for a lot of the missions with the A1 Skyraider. Laser guided, precision air-dropped munitions did not exist. Virtually no soldier wore bullet-proof vests. The Cobra attack helicopter was only beginning to appear on the battlefield. There was no personal radio communication as the squads only had single, PRC style, handsets. Infrared sighting systems for riflemen did not exist. The best stuff we had for night targeting then was the Starlight Scope and it was big and bulky. The gear harnesses for soldiers and their gear carrying ability was an ugly, heavy system made of material that could rot. The helmets were made of steel and not Kevlar. There were no armored Hummers, No Bradley Fighting vehicles and no M1 Abrams Battle tanks.

In the sky, we used the F4 Phantom as the principal air to air fighter jet. This was a plane that was great in its day, but it would easily be blown out of the sky by the fighters of today. An F35 would be able to take out a half dozen F4's from a much greater distance and the F4 pilot wouldn't even see it coming due to stealth technology in the design of the F35. More importantly, there wasn't one hint of unmanned drones with recon and combat capabilites while being controlled via satellite from 9000 miles away.

Arka, if you limit yourself by some self-imposed means, then you are really saying that our potential for technological breakthroughs is also limited. Since this is your fictional world, you have that right, of course, but it will not necessarily follow that the vessels in the future will be anything at all like the stuff you see today. 50 years is a huge amount of time for objects such as you are suggesting.

What was your computer like 50 years ago?

And yes... Have fun.

 

Nice one, Chris.
So, let's start extrapolating from what we have now (intended as technology), compared to what we've had 50 yrs ago:
1) I envision it as an unmanned vehicle.
2) The "helmstation" could as well be on the other side of the planet. The human pilot will control the boat by thought, with both feedback and output signals wi-fied directly to/from the pilot's brain. Have you read "Foundation's Edge" by Isaak Asimov? We are already heading there.
3) Hence, riding comfort is not an issue (until boat's structural strength is not endagered), so many design constrains of today's manned boats could be eliminated.
4) Shape-changing (shape memory, magneto/electro rheostatic or some other future technology) alloys might be used, which could allow the boat to assume the optimum shape for any speed or operational mode: from displacement to planing, to flying in ground-effect mode, to diving. So what is rappresented in the previous pics is just one of possible shapes.
5) The energy for the movement could be either stored in some yet-to-be-invented ultra-hi-density energy storage device (which makes a big ka-booom when hit by the enemy - the public loves that ), or could be beamed to the unit from a heavily-protected offshore support vessel (or geostationary satellite?).
6) ... you continue, I'm getting back to work.

 

Don't know the exact meaning of "turdish", but if you're saying it's not elegant, think that I'm putting the strongest design lines first (now). Then I will probably work subtractively, smoothing and straightening. But I think the main shapes are already there. So it's a taste matter..

 

arkanoid -
I studied industrial design in college in lateish 90s when 3d wasn't yet self evident everywhere. Now I work on Sci-fi 3d. Like really - I work on a company that does top of the line game cinematics, commercials and even special FX for films. Scifi is a daily business to me as much as is hard surface 3d-modeling for screen (like yours vs. cad modeling which is a little different).

I am trying to be constructive and that is how I mean my comments - advice from experience.

1. I would strongly recommend sketching. It is far faster than 3d-modeling and much more intuitive process that makes coming up with fresh ideas and shapes much faster. What I often do as my drawing skills are only so good - is doa rough layout of dimensions in 3d - print it and use somewhat transparent drafting paper on top. That way I have a good perspective laid out and drawing is easier. Right now your work reminds me of the design students of 1998 who are letting the machine rule the work vs. the designer himself.

2. With that simple of a control mesh you are not making much decisions yourself. You are bound to have a "blobby" general feel with that kind of subdivision mesh. Its awfully complex general shape yet there is no structure on how the different "panels" or surfaces meet. Each side is really just a loop with elaborate wrinkles. You have no intersecting surfaces of any kind.

3. Maybe this is something you plan on doing later - but the low definition "cage mesh" doesn't have enough points for you to have control on the shape. You need to be able to control accurately the convexity accurately - not just that is round but how tight is the curve where it tightens or loosens.

2&3 where sort of the same stuff and neither very well verbalized. In short - I think you need stronger vision off the computer and then diligently try to follow that. Otherwise you end up with a look that looks like it is dictated by the tools (and looks like bablylon5 spacecraft).

I don't know how experienced you are and what not. Don't be discouraged - but consider what I wrote.

 

Thanks Lurvio. I don't think I'm gonna lengthen more then this, because I started with a much more short and agile boat, and now it's not so agile no more.. But for the hulls, I could add height instead. And flatten more aft. It's all about those details that I feel a bit lost and need your help: for example, I don't know if the hulls can be so large aft. There's many structural knowledge that I don't know.
Now the sci-fi discussion with Chris and Daiquiri is amazingly interesting, but before to talk about this, I have to point out general correctness about the main shapes.
Let me say only that I generally agree with your statements. I think I will respond you tomorrow.

 

Ok Chris, I agree with you. I think I was bounding me a little bit too much. I can explain this with my personal inspiration about sci-fi things: William Gibson has reached a point in the vision he transmit, that he's saying we're already living now our sci-fi age. In fact he transferred his stories from a near future to the present in his last two novels. That's not to say that we're not* going to have some major tech leaps in the next 50 years at all! It's only that I was probably thinking in an even shorter tech advance, let's say 10 years. So I will now think in "real" 50 years terms.
Nano tech to me is the biggest and scariest thing we have to explore. And is already a relatively old thing. Remote control is sure another big thing about dangerous works like war.
About that, I will assume that there will ever be some need of human being to be phisically present in many situations; and if not ever at least 50 years ahead. For example, thinking of perfectly unmanned boardings of a boat full of real pirates it's not so easy if you don't want to sink the boat. Otherwise, thinking the two factions sitting home on their computers while their robot-drones and remote boats fight.. well that could also be but I don't like that scenario. And also I don't think 50 years would be enough for that. I think though that will be increasingly support with similar devices. Infact, radio or even satellite comunication has his limits as far as I know.
This work is for fun and exercise at once. In fact if it was a pure exercise I think it was already finished; no need to talk about it so much.. that is about fun And also as I said, is an effort to confront myself with technical heads, to hear about your approach and critics. The work itself in 3d is near to the start point.

 

You are very welcome here! Thanks for your advices.

In this post I explained that this is an experiment for me. Like a freeform modeling exercise.
I also like the method you described to start with simple shapes-print-paintover etc.

The topology you see in the 4 views screens (first and second version), as I said is just a sketch. I'm still working with a unique shall for all the model. I know I don't have geometry enough to retain my angles. To make the preview renders at page 2* I simply added some triple loops to hold some curves, and then I deleted those (you can see there's no double/triple edges in the last version).
I'm no automotive superexpert, but I perfectly understand what you're talking about.
The fact is that I don't want to go further in modeling because I want to improve the concept with the guys here on the forum. So first I want to estabilish if all the proportions are correct; then I'm going to subdivide all the pieces and panels and add weapons, props and all I will need.

Well, you could be right this time since my method was to go with 3d for sketching. I'll try also to go with some sketches too. That's only to be clearer in presentation though. But I'm not too warried about mesh topology now. So far I'm happy with shapes, and I'm sure that is going to evolve much when I start dividing objects.
I also know that design phase that all cars and space-ships were somehow "nurby things".. I hate it too
Thank you, and please stay here to comment out what you also think.

 

Didn't solved the main design problem: how do the tunnel between hulls have to be?
Here I can see the foredeck is much higher then the aft


Here exposed three possible solutions (red) and the main proportions marked (black). As you already know I don't know nothing about boats so the three are no doubt wrong. Can you suggest something about related to this boat or my reference A0 catamaran (the one in the picture above)?

 

sickk

 

(thanks!)