Yours are good points.
1) Conceptually, to have an homogeneous protection and perfect mass distribution, the ideal shape would be a sphere. But in practice it is a very inconvenient shape for many reasons. From old tanks to modern fighters, the idea is to try to maximize the effectiveness of some aspect of the vehicle. Tanks heavy plating is on the front and it s full of ridges to better deflect; helicopters are often reinforced on the low part of the fuselage.
The mass is always wisely distributed, but the shape could very well be asymmetrical. Like with a crane for example.
In few word, how mass is balanced depends on what do you expect the ship to behave and fight. A broadside specialist would have heavy armor on the sides, and so on.
2) this is true assuming each side is the exact copy of the other. This is admitting a lot of redundancy, to the point of luxury. It is true a modular ship, built with industrial standards in mind, is easier to repair and rig out. But this is not related to being symmetrical or asymmetrical. The shape is just the outer layer design, what matters are its minute components and their standardization.
Also you do not need to be symmetrical to have redundancy for meaningful subsystem.
3) this is a bit pushing. when half of your ship is gone, are you really telling me the other half can just be meh and keep going? this is a bit strange to say. Maybe, with many layers of subsystem, should half of them go dead, the other half can still manage to keep going for a while. But should half of your ship blow away, the other half is gone as well.
Again, redundancy is needed for some system, and it is not shape related.
4) this si the best point. Nothing to argue there. Should a ship be able to reentry, it shape cannot really go that wild. It depends on the size I think. Huge capital ships do not truly require to be aerodynamic, since they are slow moving anyway. As long a bulk front shield is able to absorb the atmosphere attrition, any shape is valid. Instead, frigates and fighters could do some aerodynamic treatment
.
1) Yeah beauty is judged in symmetry. That is true.. in half. Round faces are not considered that beautiful, cause it is just one axis of symmetry, not just all of them... even now, here, symmetry is ok for one axis, but the others are not considered at all. No one proposed a ship completely symmetrical, no one cares about symmetry for the sides or non conventional axises.
Common sense beauty is pushed by media and trends. Truly this is actually a huge point of debate.
Is beauty related to how we perceive normality to be? is it a way to link beauty to order, chaos = ugliness? Nature is not symmetrical but it is beautiful, why is it so? Maybe is just a matter of balance.
Aesthetics is hard to discuss, in architecture we are now in the age of symmetry hating, but we will return to it in few years. Figurative arts already shifted many times between symmetric and asymmetric approaches. No one is right, no one is wrong. The zeitgeist is always changing, and you can say that many artists are creating symmetrical shape here, cause now... this is the flow.
2) Actually I find a lot easier to represent asymmetrical shapes. You know, they do not require a lot of precision, and you can easily adapt them to your mood. But that is just me. I think there is not a rule here, symmetry or asymmetry... it is all a matter of method and how do you approach a problem.
3) symmetry in our world's vehicles is required, as we already stated many times. And yes I'm nobody, I'm sharing my opinion cause I'd like to discuss about, maybe stimulate a reaction of sort. Nice to meet you
.
True enough I've not created a single design, defacto I do not want to criticize anyone for their works. On the contrary, I loved much of what I've seen here.
In the end, there ARE some technical arguments against symmetry, while asymmetry is not much a requirements but a consequence.
I would like to point out, that the perfect design does not exist. Unless we are speaking of a ludicrous sphere, crafts will always be built around weak and strong sides, in agreement with how such craft is supposed to fight.
In matter of structural stress, why bother with symmetry? without attrition you have simply to balance the masses and avoid creating strange momentums with them.
There always be exceptions and special cases. Symmetrical shapes may very well works with specific intents. For example the Paragon is a marvelous symmetric ship, with a neat 270° of good engagement angle. You could also go for the fantastic frontal engagement angle, but it is clear the ship is designed to be able to exchange blows even from its weaker sides.
peace
Author
Topic: Spriters judgement thread [non-sprite art allowed] (Read 2223258 times)