Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by Reverend, Dec 10, 2007.
I actuclly had this as my PC Desktop backround for awile last summer
The Klingon Defense Force one really caught my eye. Awesome work on all of them.
This shows one of the problems I have with some fan-made Dev. Patches: They use the actual ship in the patch. Logically, wouldn't that only be finalized at the end of the project? Most of your work doesn't have this problem, but it does irritate me when I do see it.
That's the only error on that patch, BTW.
however, since the akira is apparently based on the NX-01, they already had a pretty good idea of how it would look. :thumbsup:
It's possible that a general visual concept of the project would have to be developed for when it is "pitched" to the Federation equivalent of the Armed Services Committee before the project would be "funded." I imagine projects wouldn't get an actual patch until after that happens and everyone has a general idea of how something is going to turn out.
That and I'm sure patches can be revised as the project changes shape.
Anyway, it's a subtle dig at the NX-01 so I'm all for it. Well done Reverend!
In this case it's a bit of an NX-01 joke, so it's only half serious.
Usually, if I show the actual ship in one my development patches I make a point to have it look not quite like the final version, as if it was based off an earlier design phase or the Pathfinder model. Either that or just simplify it to the point that it just shows the basic shape with no details to speak of.
Here I intentionally use the Phase II design, instead of the TMP one and if you go over to my Antares thread, you'll see the development patch on that features a version that's closer to the original concordance drawing.
I never noticed that. Cool.
Still, I do like the concept of using a "symbol" of the class, even though with some ships (Constitution, Sequoia, Sovereign,) the line between artistic symbolism and ludicrous garbage gets quite thin. There's only so much "artistic license" you can pull off for a piece of paper.
Yeah, I try to use symbolism for these things wherever possible, but some names are just to abstract for it to work.
Ambassador-Class for instance, I wouldn't have a clue how to approach that without using an image of the ship itself (and then probably the original Probert version.)
However, since you mention Sequoia...
It has the tree, the skyline of the National Park, the name of the guy in the alphabet he invented and a very vague shape of the ASDB design.
As for my Constitution Patch...
If you look closely you'll see it's the FJ version. I think I even traced it from one of Vektor's renderings.
Very nice Rev.
What software are you using?
Corel PSP X.
Thanks -- is that a vector or bit-mapping application?
For my Constitution patch, I tried some to incorporate the large "We, the people" script and various symbols of the rule of law/democracy, but never came up with anything I liked. I finally just used a drawing of the sailing ship. For "class development" patches, I think having an image of the ship isn't a terrible thing (certainly the US military sometimes uses equipment imagery on its development patches), although I'd rather use symbolism. But, as you say, it's not always easy.
I thought it was a straight forward question -- sorry for not being clear.
Yes and I gave the correct answer. It is indeed a vector or bit-mapping application.
I think the correct conjunction would be "and" rather than "or," meaning that it can do both vector drawing and bit-mapping.
Perhaps, but I never turn down a chance to answer a question in true Vorlon fashion. *looks cryptic and sidles away*
...whatever flips your rocks...
Here is a logo I did recently for my own amusement:
Separate names with a comma.