RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,219
Posts: 5,347,066
Members: 24,607
Currently online: 720
Newest member: lueth2048

TrekToday headlines

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 2 2009, 07:40 PM   #61
CuttingEdge100
Commodore
 
CuttingEdge100's Avatar
 
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

How did you arrive at 1067 feet? I thought you were using 1080?
CuttingEdge100 is offline  
Old May 2 2009, 08:40 PM   #62
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

CuttingEdge100 wrote: View Post
How did you arrive at 1067 feet? I thought you were using 1080?
Go back and re-read my first post in the thread. I started off using 947'... and immediately ran into so many problems that I abandoned it and tried 1080', which worked pretty well. But as I fine-tuned things, I determined that the ideal length was actually 1067'. In fact, I'm still open to revising this further, though I can't imagine why I'd do so. Everything has worked out so perfectly at this scale so far that I think I've pretty much locked in on the new number.

The point of this exercise, after all, isn't "to prove one side right and the other wrong." It's to determine what the best possible "real life" configuration for the ship that I can come up with would be. And so far, 1067' is looking really, really good.

Make sense?

Now... a bit more progress this afternoon...

I've completed the last details on the top side. I might add in ship's ID markings later, but for now I'm leaving that off (and if I do, they will be the very last features in the model).


I still haven't done the rim windows or sensor portholes, but those are the sole remaining external features. Everything else is done. (No ship's ID markings down here either, for the same reason.)


And a closer look at the separation. This is now, formally, an independent model!
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 2 2009, 08:43 PM   #63
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

^^ Could you clarify why you consider 1067ft. ideal as opposed to 1080ft? I know it's only a difference of 13ft. but what was the determining factor rather than just take as much space as you can get to cram all the stuff in there?
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline  
Old May 2 2009, 09:01 PM   #64
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Warped9 wrote: View Post
^^ Could you clarify why you consider 1067ft. ideal as opposed to 1080ft? I know it's only a difference of 13ft. but what was the determining factor rather than just take as much space as you can get to cram all the stuff in there?
I downsized a bit to make the bridge match up slightly better and to make the various decks line up slightly better with the local window locations.

Either can work, but based upon my efforts to make sets (or in the case of the bridge, McMaster's prints) match up with the various external drawing sets, I just ended up tweaking it up and down slightly until I converged on a "best fit."

Truthfully, I didn't even pay attention to length when I was doing this. I just tweaked the image scales up and down. Once I had everything lining up nicely, I created datum planes which represented the leading, trailing, pore and starboard edges of the primary hull, created datum planes representing the primary hull decklines, and representing the centerlines of the nacelles and secondary hull. (I actually ended up very slightly adjusting the secondary hull centerline later once I recognized that the axis of the secondary hull is at the exact convergence of the nacelle pylons by design... a key reason I decided to do the "pylons through" approach.)

It was only once I had the full thing worked out that I measured the distance from the nacelle trailing-edge datum plane to the saucer leading-edge datum plane. I had not measured this... at all... prior to that. The reason was that I didn't want preconceptions to guide my work. My entire purpose was to make the sets we know fit into the hull we know.

I actually expected the final number to be closer to 1080'. But that's not the number I arrived at, and I'm not going to try to "drive my results to meet my expectations." That's the sort of thing that bad scientists and bad engineers do.

I let the process give me my results, not vice-versa, in other words. Make sense?
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 3 2009, 02:47 AM   #65
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

I'm curious about how the shuttlebay fits in. I always wanted to see how big the ship would need to be if you took the width of the shuttle set piece and compared that to the width of the model shuttle photographed with the shuttle bay model and use those stills to arrive at a scale size for the shuttlebay if built to the same scale as the set piece shuttle. Then how big would the ship need to be to fit that inside it?

--Alex
Albertese is offline  
Old May 3 2009, 04:20 AM   #66
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Albertese wrote: View Post
I'm curious about how the shuttlebay fits in. I always wanted to see how big the ship would need to be if you took the width of the shuttle set piece and compared that to the width of the model shuttle photographed with the shuttle bay model and use those stills to arrive at a scale size for the shuttlebay if built to the same scale as the set piece shuttle. Then how big would the ship need to be to fit that inside it?

--Alex
That's definitely one of the things that's always driven me towards the 1080' number in the past. You really can't fit the shuttlebay as shown on-screen with the 947' ship, in my opinion, regardless of whether or not you put it under the pylons or behind them.

Well, I got sort of carried away today, and so I've accomplished my "big goal" for the weekend already.





(I wouldn't have gone this far today, except that the secondary hull started collapsing when I tried to make it a separate model... and having problems like that pop up always grabs my full attention.)
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 3 2009, 06:10 AM   #67
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

One more picture before calling it a night.

I decided to give the landing bay and hangar deck a quick once-over... It became necessary to tweak deck levels a bit more, but interestingly, Warped9's shuttle actually fits, IF I adjust the deck below to exactly match the hatch (I'd left some margin around the hatch previously).

Here's a side-view of the whole ship, in section. You can see the landing bay. Note that the bay itself does not run to the exterior hull. There's actually a fair amount of space between the two. This is well-established by the TOS filming minature of the deck, which clearly shows that the doors are significantly larger than the interior structural ring inboard from them... and when comparing the doors themselves (on the 11' model) to the opening in which they sit. I've only "eyeballed" the size of the opening in that aftmost bulkhead, so far. But I'll be doing a bit more analysis as I move forward.

Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 3 2009, 07:05 AM   #68
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Wow, Cary. I can't wait to see the engineering section get filled in.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline  
Old May 3 2009, 12:42 PM   #69
Bernard Guignard
Captain
 
Bernard Guignard's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

very interesting and very nice work there
__________________
Live Long and Prosper Technically
Bernard Guignard
Project Manager TreknoGraphx
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trekno...yguid=89237652
Bernard Guignard is offline  
Old May 3 2009, 04:41 PM   #70
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Indeed a fine job.
__________________
"Sword is personal, brings slicing to a man, you getta that personal feedback, nuclear weapons?.. Meh, goes off big bang and you don't get any feeling.."
Santaman is offline  
Old May 3 2009, 08:02 PM   #71
UssGlenn
Captain
 
UssGlenn's Avatar
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

This is really great work. You're just a few inches over 325 meters (325.2216 to be exact). That number seems a bit less random than 1067'. How does the diameter of the saucer at 1067' compare to the one on the 1000 foot refit?
__________________
"What are you going to do?"
"I don't know. I'm making this up as I go."
UssGlenn is offline  
Old May 3 2009, 11:50 PM   #72
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

The question of 'rescaling' the refit to match this new size for the classic is a provocative one.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline  
Old May 3 2009, 11:58 PM   #73
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

UssGlenn wrote: View Post
This is really great work. You're just a few inches over 325 meters (325.2216 to be exact). That number seems a bit less random than 1067'. How does the diameter of the saucer at 1067' compare to the one on the 1000 foot refit?
That's not been lost on me (since I'm using meters as my default unit, and only talking "feet" because that's the nature of the conversation, normally, on this topic). Once I have everything worked out, I may do a comparison of 947'/1080'/1067', and the "refit" along with it.

For now, I haven't done any "secondary hull" work today, and I'm done (only spending a few hours on it today).

What I did today was finish the windows on the primary hull (turns out I found my second major error in Sinclair's prints, by the way... the first was that the upper running light locations aren't the same in all views, and this one is that the aft saucer rim windows aren't the same in the bottom and starboard views).

I also put in a couple of details I'd forgotten about (damn, why'd nobody remind me? What am I paying you guys for? ) Specifically, the three little "knobs" around the lower sensor platform, and the "rim" at the back of either of the triangular shapes. Both are there now, though.

The only external features I've been stewing about might be some subtle indications of RCS thrust ports (either covered or with a screen over them, so that we could accept that they wouldn't even be visible in 1966 TV terms), and slide-back hatches for the phaser and torpedo firing ports. I won't give any indication (externally) of my lifeboat positions, and while I've been thinking about a "gangway hatch" on the port side, behind a slide-panel, I've largely decided against it, though I could change my mind.

This time, with my renders, I put sources inside of the running lamps. It's not really surprising to see how it turns out, but it IS curious that we never saw any indication of this on-screen... we really ought to have, don't you think?

And... well... "festive," isn't it?





Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old May 4 2009, 12:16 AM   #74
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
This time, with my renders, I put sources inside of the running lamps. It's not really surprising to see how it turns out, but it IS curious that we never saw any indication of this on-screen... we really ought to have, don't you think?
That depends. Do your light sources have falloff on them (e.g, are they decaying with the square of the distance)? If not, then the light hitting the bridge module going to look much, much brighter than it would in reality.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline  
Old May 4 2009, 12:33 AM   #75
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

^^Also, how do you feel about strobes or slowly revolving 'siren' style running lights? One of the things I liked about the original FX for "Space Seed" was the way the starboard runnig light seem to revolve, sold the whole scene IMHO, but was sadly lacking in the remastered version.

Last edited by TIN_MAN; May 4 2009 at 06:17 PM.
TIN_MAN is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.