I've been following the Thread now for 3 weeks and I like most here find this an incredible undertaking. I've Worked on AutoCad since I was like 14 year old From R-12 and It's truely an amazing program. I recognized CAD renders immediately. I currently work on 2007, yet I'm just a draftsman, no engineering experience.
This is truely a project that puts you to the test.
I've used CAD to create a solid model of my personally designed ship and I have created an MSD of my ship...but I think this project takes the cake. I can't imagine designing an entire ship inside out or even constructing one like this inside and out.
Do you think it will match it's dimensions as layed out or is it already breaking that model. Might be an intresting analysis of Andrew Probert's work.
Welcome to the board Saquist. If you've progressed from R-12 you have a reasonably good idea of the environment I am doing this work in. I was about 15 when I started working with R-10. I actually learned how to type quickly using R-10 especially (before the windows slowed you down in R-12 I could actually fill the keyboard buffer with commands and be operating several pages ahead of the computer. Not so much anymore - both because of larger buffers and faster computers, and the GUI add-ons starting with R-12).
If it weren't a test of my abilities, I probably wouldn't be attempting it. I live for the challenge. As far as shipbuilding in general, I have the benefit of having spent a decade or more building 1:144 ships from WWI and WWII, so I have reached the point of having the intuitive understanding of how line-drawings convert to actual ships - and the associated problems with that.
I have not really paid attention to the actual dimensions provided, I'm just trying to fit things in where they have been shown to be. Some things do not fit well (the Cargo Bay, for example), and others simply have to be ignored (such as the corridor in front of Main Engineering). The Photorp Deck is so far being a horrid pain in my ___. The whole neck just doesn't want to fit together right. I'll get there, but I make no promises about how accurately it will reflect Probert's designs. While he did a great job fleshing out the ship, actually fitting things together in that hull is a whole additional task - one which until the advent of CAD modeling for ship design actually made shipwrights change things on-the-fly because the design as provided wouldn't quite fit in the space available. This is why US Aircraft Carriers and Battleships of the same class are really very different inside. Only the modern SSN-21's (Seawolfs) and newer ships were fully designed on computer allowing the designers to fully understand the space, and leading to fewer (note: not eliminating) builder's changes.
FYI - Mr. Probert has actually been known to post on these boards from time to time. I don't know if he has actually looked at this thread, or my implementation of his designs in here, but you can find quite a few of his perspectives on other projects around the franchise if you poke around.
You sound about my age.
I can only imagine what Mr. Probert would have done with CAD at his disposal. I knew there was only so much that could be done On 2D. 3D is a great error check for intruding objects.
I had high hopes for the Seawolf...heck I had high hopes for the Pegasus ships but let the budget pushers free and it's all just grandiose expenditures. In comes the Virginia Class. I assume similar work occured with the Los Angelos Class moving 2D plans to 3D...(perhaps that was too big of an expenditure who knows)
I know some have already talked about design already but I have say my biggest problem with the Excelsior and Enterprise Class starships was the ill placed Power unit in the Spine of the Secondary hull. It was far too vulnerable. (Then again it made for a great sequence)
You chose the best best ship.