Are you ignoring the "line of sight" thing that many people think is a requirement for the nacelles? (cowlings in this case maybe?) Either way is fine with me. I dont remember anything in the show saying there HAD to be line of sight, I was just curious.
Niiiice! I'm only quoting so I can see the ship again! The option couple be to have the nacelles pop up or down. But you're right- there's nothing on the show that said LoS is a rule. And the Defiant and Nebula classes have defied that concept. The only reason I'd have said it was a rule was because an authority in Star Trek proposed that rule. That falls under the definition of Canon. But that conflicts what we've seen as I mentioned above. So- LoS can be considered a rule for earlier ships. Advances in treknology has allowed this rule to fall out of requirement. I don't mind so much, and this design keeps the gig looking clean and in the spirit of pre-greebled out ships.
the LoS rule was also broken with the Phoenix, the first human warp vessel. so it apparently only applied to mid-era generations of warp technology.
What line of sight? The captain's yacht of the Galaxy/Nebula class doesn't have warp drive, only impulse drive and atmospheric thrusters. The yachts for the Intrepid and Sovereign class do have warp drive.
^If you look at the images above you'll see details consistent with tiny bussards and intercoolers on the "wings".
In this version, maybe, but not the original. http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_STORE/Folder_PRINTS/CaptainArriving.html And Ex Astris Scientia agrees: no warp with the Calypso. http://ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/starfleet_shuttles.htm
I was going to jump all over that and say that in chronological appearance, the Nebula class was first. But I concede defeat none-the-less... Even the original concept of the Pheonix from the Star Trek Encylo doesn't have LoS... sigh... I thought that would have been a nice explanation for it- give some consistancy and show the evolution of the technology. Maybe... Is it actually stated somewhere offical that it's impulse only? I mean, I don't want to get into a pissing match over who has the right information. I'm just curious. Is it in TNG's Blueprints for the Galaxy Class? I have it at home, but I'm at work now, so can't look. The probert image shows a glowing blue strip, with two blue ones below that. If there's one on the other side too, that could be a nacelle?
Regardless of the LoS debate...you've created a very nice model. Like others have stated...it shows a technological advancement and also, IMHO, has the look and feel of a ship the captain would use on both official and personal excursions. Really, really nice work. :-)
Thanks, guys. Regarding the LoS issue, I'm not a fan of these sorts of rules. You'll notice that the yacht also does not have an evident nav deflector, and neither does the yacht's mothership: I'm not really sure how the various reference web sites would know whether or not the Calypso had warp drive since we never saw it, but since I'm not building the Calypso it doesn't matter. Then again, I would probably argue that most of the shuttles we've ever seen going all the way back to TOS, except for that tiny TNG shuttlepod, have warp drive.
Thanks. Today I worked on the bump map for the upper hull and the sensor dome. I also added an appropriate pilot. I think I might be done for now. As I render images I'll probably think of more things to do to improve it, but as of now I can't think of anything.
I originally built the Eternity model with sort of a dummy fake captain's yacht shape stuck on the bottom since I never planned on actually building a yacht that was detachable and usable for renders. But now that I have a yacht, if I ever wanted to render a picture of it docking/undocking, I'd have to modify the Eternity. I poked a hole in the hull and installed a docking facility that the yacht sockets right into.
Well done! It feels futuristic! Looks great. I really wish we got to see the Galaxy Class gig. I was looking at the TNG blue prints, and it shows the top- in that version, it looks like it's flight orientation is different then yours- and probert's painting. I like both none-the-less. My one critisism invloves the RCS. I don't get the "X" patern. Byt whatever.
If the craft were perfectly "round" when viewed from above, you'd have the perfect "Next Gen'" interpretation of the Jupiter II! Sincerely, Bill