TOS Enterprise WIP

Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by blssdwlf, Apr 24, 2010.

  1. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Absolutely true...

    I've been noticing this becoming more and more of an issue on the 'net over the past couple of years. There's a real sense that DISCUSSION isn't permissible, and that "conflicts of ideas" are just plain wrong.

    Of course, that's the one idea that someone can toss out that I WILL fight tooth-and-nail over.

    I love Aridas' work, and have been following what he's done for most of my adult life. I consider much of what he's done to be among the best Star Trek work put out. But that doesn't mean that we have to be in 100% agreement about every possible element of every possible topic.

    In real life, if two different positions are out there, the best thing to do is to toss those ideas into the "arena" and let the ideas... NOT THE PERSONS PROMOTING THEM... "fight it out." Realistically, most times neither position is 100% accurate, and what comes out of the discussion is a conclusion which incorporates elements of both, but which is closer to the TRUTH than either was originally.

    A fair, honest, and yes, dispassionate, argument about a disputed point is one of the best learning techniques in existence.

    That's why I cringe when I see supposed "scientists" making points about how some disputed scientific concept is "settled" by "consensus." That's about as anti-science as any position could ever be... because actual science includes many characteristics, but foremost among them is that EVERYTHING CAN AND MUST BE OPEN TO CHALLENGE AND QUESTIONING.

    The concept of "forced consensus" by silencing opposing voices has been promoted in a variety of realms, and it's becoming more and more common these days. There are those here, and on other related boards, who actively try to silence ANYONE who dares question the "consensus" on any given point... whether it be a matter of politics, of social discussion, of engineering techniques, of model-building techniques, or just conversation about a series of TV shows and/or movies. "Agree with the 'in-crowd' or be silenced!" is becoming more and more common online... in a realm, the 'net, which used to be the single most free medium for unfettered personal expression.

    Let's be clear... I consider Aridas a friend, and there was not even the tiniest hint of disrespect, shown from him to me, or from me towards him, in this interchange.

    I'm disturbed that anyone would try to infer otherwise, even if some of those comments were clearly "tongue-in-cheek."

    We were discussing, and that's all. This is a FORUM... which, by definition, is a "location set aside for the free exchange of information and ideas," now, isn't it?

    Now... back to your regularly scheduled discussion. :vulcan:
     
  2. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    A followup on the Reliant. So matching the bridge tops up it would seem that the Reliant could be about 6% less wide than the Enterprise. After re-scaling my model, now the Reliant's volume comes in at about 210,000 m3. What's interesting, when scaled smaller, the phaser mounts and decals are much closer to the same size between the two ships...

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Redfern

    Redfern Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    That's why I included a winking smilie, because I was making a joke.

    How about this, anyone who genuinely feels my quip was inappropriate, I invite you to this thread...

    http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=34999

    ...and call me anything from "sick furry" to "perverted skunk f***er " without concern of reprisal. Ptrope? Please, note; I am granting formal permission to any offended members to openly insult me without fear they will be banned or given official warnings.

    I hope this will be adequate restitution.

    Sincerely,

    Bill
     
  4. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    For what my tuppence is worth, I didn't think there was any malice intended by anyone - it was a civilised discussion (at last! Why can't all threads be like this?) followed by a humorous quip.
    But I can certainly empathise with the misinterpretation - there's too much ill feeling in Trekbbs-land a lot of the time :weep:

    Fascinating discussion though from different approaches to mapping the Enterprise, a real testament to IDIC.
    And Blssdwlf- lovin' the latest revelations about the Reliant!
     
  5. Science Officer

    Science Officer Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Out of curiosity, what happens to the scaling if you work from a side profile accounting for the two decks of the saucer?

    Cheers,
    S.O.
     
  6. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    @Mytran - Thanks!

    @Science Officer - Here's a side profile comparison but I calibrated to the top bridge module/dome rather than the edge of the saucer.

    Note: The only comparable items are on the centerline plane as the nacelles and even the rim of the saucer closer to the camera would be enlarged differently by camera perspective.

    (The image is really wide! so apologies up front.)

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2011
  7. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Reliants saucer also loks fatter/taller from top to bottom
     
  8. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Yeah, it does. Although it could be because Reliant was shot from slightly below the saucer and the Enterprise slightly above.

    @Everyone - I posted this in another thread in case I wasn't clear with my explanation...

    I used the top of the bridge dome (the only circle in the middle) to calibrate against. Then I cross-checked with the profile view using the same dome and compared the radius of the saucers. Why the bridge? Because of all the things that might be scaled weirdly, I am assuming that the circle docking port present on the back of the Enterprise bridge would be the same size as the Reliant bridge and thus the two bridge tops should be very close in size or identical. Once that reference point is established, I can scale my 3D models appropriately :)

    [​IMG]
     
  9. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Its a tough thing to photograph a model from the side. I wonder if anything has been done in photography similar to what a photocopier does, so you can get an undistored side view of a model to blueprint back to perhaps...
     
  10. malchya

    malchya Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    This has to be the single most fascinating thread I've read on any board at any time. The feel of the propulsion plant as seen "hanging" in three dimensional space is simply incredible. I came to my love of science fiction in general and Trek in particular through my love of all things nautical. For the first time ever in my 45 years of being a Trek fan, the grand old lady finally feels like a real ship, designed by naval architects, rather than something thrown together by a group of set designers and science consultants whose closest approach to an actual vessel is either flying in an aircraft or watching one pass while drinking Mai-tais in a beach chair!

    My hat's off to you! Please continue. I eagerly await what ever may come next.
     
  11. Science Officer

    Science Officer Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    FYI - Tobias Richter is at it again! He's working on a model of the Reliant and posting updates over at ScFi Meshes.

    http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/showthread.php?78076-NCC-1684-USS-Reliant

    What is interesting is that he is reusing parts from his Enterprise model - the saucer and warp nacelles. I'm keen to see what the end result will be.

    My comment from 26th August concerned scaling the model based on the deck spacing of the saucer rim. If I remember correctly, the Reliant physical model was smaller than the Enterprise (was it 2/3 scale). So given different parts and a smaller model, whether there is a certain amount of flexibility in how you can interpret the scale. Could it be that Enterprise and Reliant have the same saucer diameter?

    So when Tobias finishes his model, we could end up with two sets of blueprints from which to work out relative sizes.

    Cheers,
    S.O.
     
  12. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Thanks malchya :)

    @Science Officer - cool beans. And they seem to have some more reference material too :) Should be interesting to see how accurate Tobias makes it.

    It's entirely possible that the Enterprise have the same saucer diameter. I did a comparison and posted on a different thread but will copy over here soon where I did a top-view matched-diameter comparison. The only catch on that one is that perspective on the two ships could be off enough where the bridge modules might appear to be different sizes.

    If they have the same diameter saucers, then the Reliant ends up with ~6% more volume than the Enterprise. If I can find good pics where the docking ports are clearly visible on both ships I think it'd point to roughly how large the Reliant is.

    Interestingly, in a post by one of DS9's production crew, they scaled their CG Mirandas to 560' which is alot smaller than the roughly 700' or so if they had matched diameter saucers...
     
  13. mephit

    mephit Ensign Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2011
    I just want to say that your TOS Enterprise is looking absolutely fantastic! I truly hope you are able to finish it. Thanks for sharing with us!
     
  14. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Thanks mephit :)
     
  15. mattpiper

    mattpiper Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Location:
    Carrollton, TX
    If we assume the nacelles on the two vessels were supposed to be the same... If scaled to the nacelles, the Reliant would be even smaller (as currently at the given scale, the Reliant's nacelles are all around bigger than the Enterprise)...
     
  16. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    @Mattpiper - I don't think that would work from the side profile since the Reliant's nacelles are further out than the Enterprise's which would cause them to look larger due to perspective.

    On that note, I'll be back to modeling the TOS E for a while as the Reliant was a sidetrack :)
     
  17. malchya

    malchya Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    I can hardly wait to see what's next!
     
  18. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    By chance a business trip to DC gave me a brief opportunity to see the Big E up close at the Smithsonian :)

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Kaiser

    Kaiser Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    Boyertown, PA as of July 2011
    All these years later shes still a buet :) :techman:
     
  20. Tallguy

    Tallguy Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Location:
    Beyond the Farthest Star