I've been following this thread for a while, and, even though I'm not a huge fan of cut-n-paste starship design, I have enjoyed seeing the progression of Ian Keldon's design sensibility. A lot of these designs don't strike me as very sound from an engineering standpoint. And (maybe my biggest complaint towards this sort of design thought process) does Starfleet really need thousands of ship that are odd re-arrangements of cruiser parts? That said, I do like several of the more utilitarian designs you've got here. Most recently the Saint Christopher. I like the Lafayette and the George Washington, too. (Though the Lafayette seems too big to be an escort, judging by the windows...) The DVD set of TOS contains an interview with Matt Jefferies from shortly before he passed away. In it, he tells a story of a time when he was at some sort of convention and was asked to judge a contest of people's original Star Trek models. He made a bunch of people upset because the model he picked as the winner was built by a clear amateur who probably hadn't even discovered sandpaper yet. And this over many very beautifully assembled Enterprise kitbashes. When asked why he picked that one, he replied that it was the only original one, the other were just reassembled parts. Besides her sister ships, there are not really any ships on TOS, Federation or otherwise which feature any Connie parts. I really like fan designs which show us something really new. Though, as has been said, cut-n-paste is a good beginning. I know I've made my share of them as a kid myself. So, Ian Keldon, keep up the good work. --Alex
to be honest id also Question his Logic... Refit looks nice but if it performed worse than the original then i wouldnt bother to refit them..
Well, Wainright was taking a bit of a cheap shot at the good Captain with that remark. To say that of a Vulcan is something of an insult as it implies he's letting his emotions get the better of him. New one testing out a "harvested" part from a Vance ship. USS Ramius
Design wise, the Ramius is a bit sub-par. That flat-bottom saucer eliminates the usual emplacements. I had to include those broadside banks (more aft banks with some broadside coverage really) to help cover the ventral firing arcs. She still has significant blockages, unfortunately.
One more...this one has one of my first serious attempts at doing a part myself with any detail to it (the nacelle pylons). I did borrow some of the detailing from a Vance part. Dallas-class perimeter action vessel
A cross between Valhalla and the Galaxy class would be nice. The super saucer and the nice big secondary hull, but with raised nacelles of the Valhalla. I don't mind kitbashes at all--the only thing that needs original drawings are the nacelle support pylons. There needs to be some new mersions of those so as to keep things organic. Cranked arrow designs where the nacelles either emerge from where they do on the Refit--or a bit lower down and back from that extended secondary hull. The nacelle pylons then flow back, then up and back at a different angle, so as to keep the rakish look. Simple triangular nacelle suports clash with the fluid secondary hull. Those are best for Stargazer designs whereoriginally seen--in their industrial setting.
This little attempt is a significant step. Making a new part, even a simple one, is a very important step. I have also noticed that in the last couple of works, there seems to be more of an attempt to get rid of any signs of copy and pasting, which I consider to be essential. And I also appreciate how you are also adding smaller registry markings the the nacelles ends. One of the next steps that I would focus on is the shade of the color you use for your parts and registries, so that they are too light or, specifically in your case, too dark or bold. I like how the registry for the Valhalla isn't too dark for example. I would also try to notice the details of the parts that you use. What I do as I look at other people's works is play around with the details in my head, and try to come up with variations. I draw details and curves that draw my eye in the air, and try to think of new details for future designs. They are usually similar, but not identical. Depending on how good you are at drawing, you might even want to try to brainstorm ideas by sketching. The harder part might be figuring out how to apply your ideas in-program within a reasonable amount of time, so I would pace yourself, and try to improve your attention to detail little by little, for either every ship you do, or every batch.
The contrast issue is something that crops up from time to time...not sure how it happens or how to fix it. I think it may have something to do with downconverting to jpeg on some big files, or some weird thing Photobucket is doing to them on the upload. I just don't know. Tonight's entry is the Mosby class scout. I know on the surface it seems like a simple modification of the bog-standard Ranger class from FASA, but it took me a LOT of work to put together from parts I'd "salvaged" from the Vance Ranger. I had to rework the pylons a bit to make them larger to fit the configuration I had in mind. I moved the phaser emplacements and added to them, and I did a resize of the bridge dome to bring the hump more in line with the rest of the ship scale-wise. All in all, it took the better part of 2 hours and ~30 layers to get everything the way I wanted it. Mosby-class scout
Vance gets all the credit for the basic parts of course...all I did was redraw a few bits here and there (such as making the pylon a bit longer than it was before). Because pulbisur asked, and I had nothing better to do, here's a Galaxy/Valhalla hybrid. I went ahead and labeled it the Galaxy. Not sure I agree that she looks better with her nacelles "up"...
Thank you for that. It looks more even and balanced to me. It might look better with different nacelle supports. BTW The Mosby is far better than the stock Ranger, which looks more like a tiny SFB Fast patrol boat than anything else....