Ah, no problem, I'll explain... The bridge is on "Deck 1" which is also sometimes called "A-deck." The teardrop-shaped superstructure underneath that is made up of decks 2 and 3, sometimes called "B-deck" and "C-deck." I've always referred to the "teardrop-shaped superstructure" as the "B/C-deck superstructure," for lack of any better term. The TMP ship has a ring around her B/C-deck superstructure. I think of that as the main subspace antenna, personally, though there's no "canon" reason to think that of course. The exposed "inset ring" is a feature added in the TMP ship to improve communication capabilities, as far as I'm concerned. On your ship, it doesn't seem like the ship is "built around" that shape, however... it just strikes me as "graphics" without any function. The part in front, or even on the sides, seems OK, but the aftmost portion of that "ring" seems to just be a painted on "racing strip" detail with no evident function. I think that the shape could be "tweaked" to make it seem more like an integral part of the ship. Maybe the "inset ring" doesn't continue all the way around? Or maybe the trailing edge of the "teardrop" is a vertical band going from behind the bridge and aft, linking into the "ring" at some point? Vektor did a "ring" as well, but his is a bit more subtle than this one, so it doesn't "jar" me as much. Maybe just making it a bit less prominent would be enough? Anyway, that's what I'm talking about. It's your ship... your mileage may vary... I'm just telling you my own gut reaction.
Thanks, xraydeltaone and FrontLine. Ah, OK, gotcha. See this is where I part ways with some of you über-tech 'n' deck orientated Trek fans. While I do concern myself to a point, I don't sweat every nut and bolt of Trek tech 'n' deck, as I put it. There's an old saying, you can't please all the peeps all the time, and the reason for that is; everything is ultimately subjective, esp. when it comes to made-up stuff, be it canon and esp. when it's not canon, but pure subjective speculation, case in point, your concept just explained for the "racing stripe." A fair enough concept, as any-thing's OK if it's made-up (within some reason, I guess), but I never assigned any "purpose" to the stripe. It was, to me, as you called it, a racing stripe, on TMP E. And on mine own E, as there is a value in real life to making stuff look cool, for no other value than that. It's a psychologically-based reason, based in aestethics as well as image projection. Humans like to make stuff that looks cool, and often do so solely for that purpose, such as racing stripes or attractive body-lines on cars or planes, etc. etc, starships to boot. That's my thinking anywho. Thanks again for takin' the time out to share your POV, dude. Who knows, I may mull around in my head and it may take root some time (it's been known to happen), but as of this writing, I dig the stripe, adding to E's looks and style. I'm all for form following function, but at times, form is just good for form's sake itself. When form as form is its serving function. deg
Damn fine ship if you ask me. I'd be interested to see your take on the interiors, too, if you ever got time to do it.
I love it. My only nitpick is with the forward nacelle caps ... they look a little cartoonish. Like they're made out of pixels instead of something solid. I don't recall thinking that about your previous effort, however, so it must be the lighting. Speaking of lighting, I've come to agree with your notions of fantasy lighting. Technically, there should be a source for all lit areas, but such sources would look wrong on this ship. So light it with magic. Maybe it's controlled holographic lighting, or phosphorescent paneling, or maybe the light's being bent by controlled gravity. If everything else looks right, I'll forgive one or two transgressions in favor of making this queen of the stars look more regal. Stars ... Where are all the stars? I wonder what a deg3D amoeba looks like?
Thanks, gents. See, that's the exactly opposite with me regarding the bussards, Psion. I liked the last ones, but felt the were too oversatuarted, thus kinda cartoony. And the bussards are not solid, they are chambers, BTW. These I like much more. Oh, and they are pixels. Come to think of it, it's all pixels! As to lighting: film lighting is not reality-based, any more than sound or makeup in film is reality-based. Why do women that just woke up in bed have perfect makeup on, like it was applied and maintained by a professional makeup artist five minutes before? Well, because it was! That's the nature of the film business, to make things interesting and/or attractive, and reality is more often sacrificed to do so, than most peeps really know and/or perceive. We have been entrained as audiences at this point to be "used to" movie lighting, as being natural when we watch a film. Same goes for sound, and most all aspects of "reality" on film. Just pay attention to the way actor's faces are lit some time. It's rarely "natural" lighting. Speaking of unexplained Trek spotlights, did Kirk have a yeoman that held a soft-filtered bounce-light/reflector just right, to fall across his eyes for handsome dramatic Captain-y effect? Nothing lit in films is ever 100% natural lighting. Esp. in VFX. It's all about what looks good, within tolerances of course. deg
I guess if he wanted to do something more "realistic" in regards to the spotlights, he could try something like they did for the Kelvin in the new movie, or on BSG, which featured a row of spotlights above and below the name in order to illuminate the area in between them.
Goodness gracious, I like it a lot. The only critique I have is that all of your RCS thrusters are on.
No, no, no. The surface of the "bussards" doesn't look right. The inner mechanism looks fine, but the surface looks like a skin with no thickness. There's no sense one could walk up to these and knock on them, hence they don't look solid. Capiche, dude? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I already said I agree with you on that part.
Thanks, dude. Thanks, Horizon. Take a look at TMP E leaving dry-dock, they're all "on." I see that basic lit state as just on (active), yet not firing per se. Gotcha. They (the bussards) are still a WIP as per the animation effect I am working on now. I will take your observation into consideration, thanks. Taaaake it eeeeeeasy (coffee much?), just chattin' about it in general, dude. Thanks again, guys! deg
Missed this. This is strictly a model shot, for the model's sake. And a WIP shot at that. This is not scenography by any stretch of the imagination (I supposed she could be in a void, LOL). (And the "pose" did remind me of something, for a shot to be created in the future.) There is so much composting and added efx, blooms, film-grain, chromatic aberration, etc., what-not, that goes into actually placing a model into a composed scene to make it look real. This is not meant as anything other than a test render actually, to look at the light-rig as I was building it. Oooo, space amoeba... yeah... deg
Oh, I think we're actually on the same page now. And, really, your renders of the 1701 are breathtaking. Just 'cause I fuss about minutia, doesn't mean your work isn't appreciated on this side of the keyboard.
Oh I know, dude, just givin' ya some back-and-forth friendly ribbin' (there goes that loss of inflection via typed word again). My wife and I constantly say that to each other sarcastically (Hey, teeeake it eassssy, crazy much?...), as we have an odd sense of humor between us. And thanks. Like I said, this isn't even tryin' to make her look good, ala proper scenography set-up. She looks this good now and I am quite happy the way she's came out, but I can't wait to get to the real nitty-gritty VFX phase with her. And you got the space amoeba stuck in my head now, and as I always loved that efx originally, so it'll be comin', eh. deg
outstanding job deg3D. As for hull areas illuminated without a apparent light source, I remind everyone of the large white rectangle in "The Return of the Archons" that Spock recognizes as a "lighting panel." Perhaps this is a similar technology.
Molecular-level controlled area luminescent steel? SCIENCE FICTION Ladies and Gentlemen! Sure, I guess that works for me if it works for you. The thing with the lights on the TMP E was that they all seemed plausible. Every pool of light had a corresponding light source. OK, actually some didn't, but they were few enough that the ones that were explicit justified those that were not. Also, most of the unjustified spotlights were while the ship was in drydock. The audience could assume the framework was the source of the lights. The way the registry was lit on the Kelvin or the Galactica is pretty much my favorite way to do this sort of thing. More smaller lights lend a feeling of hugeness, while big soft lights make it appear more toylike. If you'd feel up to the trouble of making that change, just to see how it looks, I'd love to see it. I do agree with your point that ships on TV ought to be lit artistically, like actors. In that vein, I love how Vektor lit his E: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=58313 While this set up feels naturalistic, it is really quite fake. The strong key light mimics the sun realistically enough, but the ship's shadow side would, in reality, be totally dark (except of course, the onboard lights. He's added a fill light to reveal detail in a "beauty shot" style the works great visually. Also, notice that his has a second fill light coming up from beneath the ship that shines a bit redly. Nothing in space ought to provide that effect, but it does look great. I guess I'm saying that, for my money, the big foodlights effect makes the ship harder to buy into as "real". Of course, my money amounts to exactly $0.00 since this is, after all, your baby. Don't let me tell you how to play with your own toys. I do like your take on this ship. --Alex
Well, I hate to bring reality into it... But the above sentence is a complete piece of nonsense. Not because it's "made up" but because it contradicts itself. See... "metallic" materials do not have molecules. Not at all. If you make a molecule... even one which contains atoms of metallic elements... it is in no way whatsoever a metal anymore. Anytime someone shows you a "molecule of metal" in science-fiction... they're simply demonstrating that they have no real grasp of even the most basic elements of materials science. Steel is a metallic matrix, which in some forms has some small amounts of covalent iron compounds present along grain boundaries (resulting in a harder, but more brittle, state). Then again... Aluminum is a metallic material, which (due to the same free electrons which make it metallic in the first place) is inherently, and incontrovertably, opaque. So I guess basic materials science doesn't apply in Trekkiedom. Carry on.
^^^ Very true CLB. I wish I could remember who said it first; someone on this board said something to the effect of: "Star Trek often is sci-fi that stresses the 'fi' over the 'sci'. Sigh." I love that. --Alex