Registered: Apr 2001
Location: The Underdark
Posts: 153

I found these size charts.


That one looks right, but there is not a Vorlon dreadnought there. So I would put it's size from where the Drakh cruiser starts to where the Omega Class Destroyers engines starts.



This one has EA ships.. =)



And this one.



And Thats a Small craft size chart.
Well I found these and thought I would put them up.


------------------

Expect me when you see me.

[This message has been edited by Galen (edited 05-01-2001).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Sheffield UK
Posts: 1913

did you find them on the other thread?

Mr Fury posted them yesterday !

------------------
---------------------------
[url="http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/babylon"]The Babylon Project[/url]: 2D effects - organisation - texturing & testing

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: The Underdark
Posts: 153

He did? Well no thats not where I found them. Well poo on me!
Edit: Well I found one he posted yesterday, but these are different than the one he posted.
------------------

Expect me when you see me.

[This message has been edited by Galen (edited 05-01-2001).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 553

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galen:
That one looks right, but there is not a Vorlon dreadnought there. So I would put it's size from where the Drakh cruiser starts to where the Omega Class Destroyers engines starts.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3194

Vorlon Star Dreadnought is 1330 meters long, so even Omega is longer than dreadnought.

BUT! Dreadnought is probably taller AND wider than Omega.

And I ask this from everyone who reads this:
Why Vorlon Dreadnought should be about 2km or 3km or 4km long? If Vorlons does not need that big ships, then why to do that big? Planet Killers are of couse huge, but that's a fact.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: good old Scotland
Posts: 120

Right i'm comfused with the Drakh mothership. the chart shows it to be way bigger than b5 and yet in a call 2 arms we see the Excab or Vic take one out with a couple of shots from its standard weapons and in the film it dosen't seem to be bigger than b5 infact it looks smaller!!! or i'm totally wrong

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: Burnley England
Posts: 177

If you watch Call to Arms again i think you'll find it's the Drakh Cruiser

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3194

You're wrong.

Drakh Cruiser was blown up by Victory's normal beams, Drakh Mothership wasn't destroyed in A Call to Arms, it was destroyed by Excalibur in Crusade.

Drakh Cruiser is about 3km long while Mothership is 52km long, so there.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Fury (edited 05-02-2001).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: The Underdark
Posts: 153

Well..... okay..... but the Vorlon Dreadnought just looks alot bigger than that! But I will take your word for it.

------------------

Expect me when you see me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Transylvania, ROMANIA
Posts: 1040

Finally someone with head on the shoulder..
Thanx Apothess...52 Km...is wery wrong guys...Excalibur shot 3 times....... compare the size of the ship with the diameter of the beammmmm......... NO WAY 52 km..another B5Tech bull****..maybe 10 km(just a little bit bigger than b5)..not 52

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3194

Tomcat, your believe does not enter into it...

59,69 km is the official size given by Tim Earls himself, we can't say anything to change it. It's official, period.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Fury (edited 05-02-2001).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: The Underdark
Posts: 153

Maybe he was drunk when he said that? Because 59km is huge! Now there is no way that it's bigger than the Vorlon Planet killer I don't care what some drunk guy said!

------------------

Expect me when you see me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3194

That's your thought. But Drakh Mothership does not have good weapons nor armor. It is built for jumping in the area, release it's massive cruiser/raider fleet and jump out from the area.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Posts: 95

Oh such a nice attitude you got there Galen!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: The Underdark
Posts: 153

ya I know.. =) heh

------------------

Expect me when you see me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Transylvania, ROMANIA
Posts: 1040

until JMS saz that is official nothing is..
52km way to big...comapare it with excalibur beams diameter

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Cold Northland!
Posts: 8392

Good point Tomcat.

The beam diameter of the Excalibur is basically that for the forward second. The beam was nearly the size of the rear engine piece of the Drakh mothership.

Which means that the Drakh mothership isn't 52km...at least according to that scene. Still, the mothership can launch Drakh cruisers from its bays, we saw that, so it is fairly big.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3194

Okay, now I want make myself clear...

JMS didn't designed those ships, he has story and much more to worry about.

Tim Earls designed most Babylon 5 ships, all Drakh ships. And thus, he is the man who says how big is the ship, in this case, Drakh Mothership.

We have already seen effect guys making serius mistakes in CGI graphics, who says Mothership was in proper size in that scene where Excalibur blows up the mothership?

Until Tim Earls says he did mistake with those size charts, I believe it's the right size. JMS can't say nothing to it either, he didn't designed it. Period.

This is my opinion. Clear? Good!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: The Underdark
Posts: 153

maybe he ment 29? Because 59km is 40 miles!!! Think of that thing landing out side your house! You would not be able to see the end of it!

------------------

Expect me when you see me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location:
Posts: 194

If the man in charge says it's 59, then it's 59. You thinking that it's too big is not much of an argument. Also i thought i read that the mothership also serves as a big construction yard. I don't see why the huge size isn't believable to some you either, the cruisers look like tiny fighters when they fly out of it, so you know the think is going to be incredably larger than b5. If someone wanted to the could find a pic of a crusier leaving the mothership, and try to do some kind of calculations.

edit

here's somthing:



[This message has been edited by LAMBO (edited 05-03-2001).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged