TOS Enterprise 3D model - new update!

[lomitus]

Alrighty Ya'll,
Seems like it's been a good week or so since I've posted an update, so with a bit of luck, this one should make the wait worthwhile .

First and foremost, I've cut together a bit of an extended video. I was thinking I needed to get some video closeups of the ship to see how everything's going to look in animation and what better way to do that than with a nice little shuttlecraft fly-by?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Other than cutting it together, a slight tweak to the stars and the music of course, so far I haven't done ANY post processing on the video...it could use some levels, b&c and color work to be certain. There's also a number of things with the models and animation that still need to be addressed...some things I just haven't gotten to yet, a few mistakes I missed and a couple of issues that I just don't give a rat's butt about (but only a couple). That said, while the lighting and nacelles (specifically the bussards) are rather obvious, I'm not going to point out anything else as I'm curious to see who spots what with this.

Now along with the video, I also have a still here for everyone's review....as I've been sitting here the past week or so, ever so patiently waiting for animation to render...and re-render (like watching paint dry), I've been busy working on a couple of extra models for the animation...

The image is of course a comp (as the final video will be) and everything isn't exactly to scale yet...space dock and Enterprise are to the same scale, however I just threw the Earth in there as I'm still messin' with it and wanted to see how it could look. Obviously I still have a great deal of work to do on the textures of space dock...if you think those textures were a pain, you'd be quite correct...and since this comp, I've done the top over again, as I made the space doors WAY too big. That said, it's worth noting that except for the planet texture and of course the Aztec texture used on the ship, everything here was created by the artist's hand...even the star field was done in Maya.

I also got up to the local college yesterday and spoke with a couple of my former professors about using a computer lab (or 2) for doing the final renders...even got them looking into render farming for me...so that once I start into the main work, all my proverbial ducks will be all lined up and ready to go.

Anyways, that's about all for now...still have 1 or 2 smaller models to build, not to mention lots of work to do on lighting and such, but the project is progressing nicely. As always, comments/opinions/suggestions and critiques are quite welcome...even if I don't agree with them, it's always good to hear what others think of my work!

Thanks and enjoy!

 

[MarsWeeps]

Looks good but why is there a shuttle craft shadow on the Enterprise? I don't see an external light source that would cause it.

 

[lomitus]

Looks good but why is there a shuttle craft shadow on the Enterprise? I don't see an external light source that would cause it.

Why would you have to see a physical light source to know it's there? If you see a reasonably lit object in space and you see something passing in front of it casting a shadow, would it not make sense that there's a light source somewhere beyond the view of the camera? For that matter, if you see the shadow of say an airplane (or bird or anything else flying thru the air), do you really need to look up in the sky to see that the sun is what's lighting it...or do you just assume it's there?

For this animation, assume that there's a star/sun somewhere near by. One of the problems with modeling something like this is trying to decide where to draw the line between "real" and "tv". In reality, the only time that ship would be fully lit would be when it's in reasonable proximity to a star (which would in fact cast shadows), with the amount of light, the type of light, etc., all depending primarily on the star itself (a carbon star for example would likely cast a different temperature of light than our own sun would). In other words, not all stars would cast the same kind of light. The problem of course is that this is never what you see in sci-fi. Whether the Enterprise is in orbit around a planet or traveling in or out of a solar system or somewhere between solar systems, that ship generally appears fully lit. Remember the episode "Squire of Gothos"? If that was a "rough planet" outside of a solar system (let alone one capable of chasing the Enterprise)...where'd the light come from? The reality of it is that if the ship were in between solar systems, you probably wouldn't see much except the running lights and light coming from the windows, things are different from a film making stand point. After all, a star field with little more than a silhouette and a few running lights would be pretty boring visually.

So that said, think of it like this...if you look at the moon on a cloudless night, you don't actually see the sun to know what's lighting it, but obviously something is illuminating that big ol' rock up there (and certainly the Earth casts a shadow, yes?) ....we just take it for granted that it must be the sun. Same goes for the animation here...just because you don't actually see the light source, it should be assumed that it's there...and in this case, the shadows give you a better sense of depth regarding how close the shuttlecraft is to the ship, which also helps support the sense of perspective.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[MarsWeeps]

^ I think the part that looks confusing to me is when the shuttle flies by the front portion of the secondary hull. The hull is already brightly lit by the spot light on the front shining backwards. Yet the shuttle casts a dark shadow on that portion of the hull which doesn't make sense because it's not blocking the spotlight on the hull itself. Even if there was a secondary light source I don't see how the shadow would be as dark as it is.

Anyway, it's just nit picking I guess but you did ask for comments.

 

[lomitus]

^ I think the part that looks confusing to me is when the shuttle flies by the front portion of the secondary hull. The hull is already brightly lit by the spot light on the front shining backwards. Yet the shuttle casts a dark shadow on that portion of the hull which doesn't make sense because it's not blocking the spotlight on the hull itself. Even if there was a secondary light source I don't see how the shadow would be as dark as it is.

Anyway, it's just nit picking I guess but you did ask for comments.

Ahhh...I see your point...and nothing wrong with nitpicking at all (I'm actually grateful)...I had been thinking the shadow the shuttle casts across the primary hull (which I really like). I have actually had a bit of an on-going problem with that specific issue...lights cutting thru shadows. My wife had made a comment about the shadows cast from the keylight/primary hull also cutting to hard thru the secondary hull and that the running lights should have eased those shadows. Unfortunately, I think that's something that I may end up letting slide as I just haven't been able to fix it in Maya.....at least not without seriously kicking the crap out of my render times (caustics, photo mapping and all that sort of fun stuff). If it were -just- the ship, I'd probably give it more effort, but the scene I'm working on now is the opening scene with that space dock (not to mention an orbital tug, a starbase shuttle, lots of blinking lights, etc., etc) and while my system does ok, it just doesn't have THAT much horsepower.

That said, I also spoke with the head of the computer labs up at the college about getting some render farm software up and running, so -if- they're able to do that, I may go back later, fix the issue and re-render...I'm already tapping them for a Nike render (running from computer to computer firing off 100 frame or so at a time), so we'll have to see how it goes.

Anyways, sorry for the confusion and thanks for the comment...again, I'm grateful!

 

[Mytran]

Logical justifications for the shadow aside, it looks great running along the bumps of the forward secondary hull.
Also, love the way you've made the forward end of the nacelles look like an INFERNO of heat inside - exactly right, given what's going on there!

 

[lomitus]

"Logic, logic...I'm stick to death of logic!"

"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad"

Sorry...just couldn't resist :-)

Thanks for the kind words. I've actually backed off the glow on the bussards a bit for the final production, not to mention adjusted the color a bit and got the inside lights blinking more like they should. Trying to get those stinkin' bussards to look right has just given me a serious rash...and I'm still not completely happy with them.

Anyways, as the artist who created this, here's the nitpicks that I see (I'm putting there here so I can reference them later if need be)...

In the opening scene, there's a "bend" in the walls of the hanger bay which is very noticeable around the doors (fixed by the end of the animation for the final production). Doors also lack any "depth" (fixed up a bit by the re-entry scene).

There's a "V" at the top of the arch of the exit of the shuttlebay.

The observation windows on the inside of the shuttlebay are just bad...

The flares on the aft end side of the shuttlecraft are sticking in instead of out (a deficiency due to my lack of modeling skill at this point...couldn't figure out how to fix that without totally screwing up the geometry).

The rotation of the shuttlecraft as it exits and enters the bay is a tad off (something a couple of my fellow academicians also caught).

In some scenes, the primary hull running lights are blinking/alternating, in some scenes they're just on (I re-rendered that one scene 3 times and STILL screwed it up, LOL!).

The perspective of the stars seems off in a couple of shots (was going for that handheld camera look, but it makes me a bit sea-sick).

The bump maps (lines) on the secondary hull as the shuttle passes are way too thick (fixed for the final production).

The bussards... (banging head on desk....).

There's an awkward line on the rear nacelle caps (fixed for final production...I think).

There's a few detail issues with the detail on the inside of the nacelles (mostly fixed for final production).

As the shuttlecraft heads towards to the front of the ship after passing the inside of the nacelles and starts to head over the primary hull, one of the portals on the bridge is sticking out (fixed for the final production).

There's a slight jerkiness to the camera...possibly the result of converting from 24 fps to 30 fps then back again (although it could be something in the animation itself).

The shadows really do need to be a bit softer I think...

Over-all the scene needs a bit more contrast...a few things look just a tad washed out.

Over-all, the scene still looks very CG...something I'm having a serious problem getting away from (still need to do a lot of research on post production stuff).

....and yea...there's a few other things too.



So seriously...I do appreciate the kind words, but please don't be afraid to nitpick! LOL!

 

[MarsWeeps]

So seriously...I do appreciate the kind words, but please don't be afraid to nitpick! LOL!

The more I watch, the more I like! One other question, the end caps on the nacelles look smaller than what was shown on TV. Was that intentional?

 

[lomitus]

The more I watch, the more I like! One other question, the end caps on the nacelles look smaller than what was shown on TV. Was that intentional?

It's kind of funny as one of my former teachers and a couple of his students had questions on the nacelle bulbs as well (no clue what they're called)...there was some debate about whether she even had bulbs...my reply was "depends on which episode you watch" (I also seem to remember some shots somewhere where those ends were just smooth), LOL. In any case, I think what happened there was that I had originally made them to scale with the reference blueprints/schematics I was using, but it didn't look quite right to me (the slope of the end pieces), so I actually made the end pieces a bit longer on the top. In other words, very technically speaking, the bulbs are actually the correct size, however they ended up being sunk deeper into the end cap than the original. That said, I did notice that the bulbs were bigger on the original model while looking at the Smithsonian reference images and decided to leave mine "as is", so we'll chalk that one up to artistic license...not specifically deliberate, just worked out that way :-).

 

[lomitus]

BTW...here's a quick a dirty render for a better comparison (comped with a few quick tweaks in Photoshop)...

Enjoy :-)

 

[ItIsGreen]

Yeah the round things are definitely smaller on yours, but I don't think it hurts any. I always preferred the smooth version with the perforated holes anyway. I like the glow coming from them, makes it seem like there's more power going on in the nacelles.

When I watched the show as a kid I didn't understand that the smooth version was from the pilot(s) and the bulbous version was a change made when it went to series and they just mixed up the stock footage as required, so the two different appearances confused me. From what I remember the pilot version appeared quite a lot when the ship was 'in flight', and the round things were very prominent when in orbit as in the picture above, so in my 10 y/o head canon they were 'orbital stabilisers' that stopped the ship falling from orbit, and they somehow retracted when the ship flew away.

 

[MarsWeeps]

I always preferred the smooth version with the perforated holes anyway. I like the glow coming from them, makes it seem like there's more power going on in the nacelles.

Are there any pictures of that? I never remember any glowing coming from the perforated holes, are you sure you aren't talking about the front nacelle caps?

 

[ItIsGreen]

Are there any pictures of that? I never remember any glowing coming from the perforated holes, are you sure you aren't talking about the front nacelle caps?

No, sorry I clearly didn't phrase that very well. I meant I liked the glow on the round things on the OP's render. There never was any glow from the perforated holes on the pilot configuration Ent... Though it'd look pretty cool if there were!

 

[lomitus]

Ya know...sometimes it can all get rather confusing, LOL! Not only did they mix and match footage here and there in the show (a money thing I'm sure), throw in all the "non canon" stuff like the tech manuals and blueprints, not to mention all the stuff you find on the internet these days...yikes. Then there's the old AMT models...I've had one sitting next to me while I've been working (yea, those bulbs are REALLY small). Perhaps it could just be my mind playing tricks on me, but I seem to remember that some of the early kits didn't have the bulbs at all.... and goodness knows I pretty much wrecked the whole fleet at one time or other when I was a kid. I've actually said this a few times - my father could have saved a TON of money on model kits had I of had a computer and software like Maya back then, LOL!!!!!!!

Come to think of it....I think that's why I extended the end pieces a bit. As I'm sitting here talking (typing) about this, I'm looking at one of the Smithsonian pics and comparing it to the AMT kit, the ends of the nacelles on the kit are indeed a tich longer. Me thinks that might be why I thought they looked wrong on the 3D model...

Anyways....back to the animation.

 

[Albertese]

Seems like I recall reading someplace (perhaps TMoST... but I can't recall for certain) that Roddenberry did want to light up the inner tracks and aft globes of the nacelles when they refurbished the 11 footer for production, but it turned out to be too much time and expense so they only lit the front ends.

My personal taste is that the inner trench should remain dark (every time I see a fan version that is lit I pretty much hate it) but I do like having the aft ends lit. Every time I build a model of the E I usually paint those aft globes wite, even though technically they should just be the hull color.

--Alex

 

[lomitus]

While I'm sure this question belongs in the Tech forum, since it's gotten so much attention here; anyone know what those silly globes are called anyways?

 

[Albertese]

The only official name I've heard is from the FJ Tech Manual. He identifies them as the SPACE ENERGY/MATTER SOURCE (FIELD RESTORATION).

He also calls the forward domes (what latter day Trek calls the Bussard Collectors) SPACE ENERGY/MATTER SINK (ACQUISITION). It was put together under the assumption that warp engines work by sucking in the fabric of the universe itself and ejecting it out the back end. Since these terms were heard in the background of TMP, they are even canon.

Fun times!

--Alex

 

[lomitus]

The only official name I've heard is from the FJ Tech Manual. He identifies them as the SPACE ENERGY/MATTER SOURCE (FIELD RESTORATION).

He also calls the forward domes (what latter day Trek calls the Bussard Collectors) SPACE ENERGY/MATTER SINK (ACQUISITION). It was put together under the assumption that warp engines work by sucking in the fabric of the universe itself and ejecting it out the back end. Since these terms were heard in the background of TMP, they are even canon.

Fun times!

--Alex

Hhmmmmm...... I'm not sure where I heard (or read) this and admittedly my 50 year old memory could be playing tricks on me (it often does these days, LOL), but I thought the purpose of the nacelles in general was to generate the warp field ("bubble") around the ship...the theory that this is what allows the ship to travel faster than light (at least without all the adverse effects, like time displacement)?

A discussion for the Tech forum I'm sure and doesn't really affect anything as far as my animation goes...just curious more than anything.

 

[Richard Baker]

The only official name I've heard is from the FJ Tech Manual. He identifies them as the SPACE ENERGY/MATTER SOURCE (FIELD RESTORATION).

He also calls the forward domes (what latter day Trek calls the Bussard Collectors) SPACE ENERGY/MATTER SINK (ACQUISITION). It was put together under the assumption that warp engines work by sucking in the fabric of the universe itself and ejecting it out the back end. Since these terms were heard in the background of TMP, they are even canon.

Fun times!

--Alex

I always thought that was such a cool concept- taking space and forcing it through a distortion along the nacelle for propulsion.
I think it was not until TNG they came up with the warp bubble idea with the engines being large field generators.