The green marks on the pods look more like a variation in colour like mottling rather than windows. What some of them might look like if the ship were fully operational is anyone’s guess. I see what is onscreen as executed rather randomly and with little thought of how this might actually look like as a physical object. And as I said earlier there is room for interpretation here rather than slavish replication of something conceived of strictly in two rather than three dimensions. I admit I’d forgotten about the windows since they’re not visible from a distance in the prominent image showing the entire ship.
I had endeavored to build this ship back in 2015, here are some aspects of how I was approaching it... First, I assumed that the overall shape was also damaged. Not just the pods themselves, but also aspects of the connecting structure. This is based on the idea that the captain/crew weren't just trying to make the ship unable to support life, but also beyond any attempts to repair it. This gave some freedom to arranging the pods. Second, I looked to nature for fleshing out some of the details. I collected images of lotus and poppy pods, nepenthes ampullaria and Chinese Lantern plants, adding to other crystal and insect based references. I look forward to seeing how yours turns out, best of luck!
It looks like the original species might be insectoid with wings (bees?) in able to maneuver through the connecting tubes and look out the windows, plus the honeycomb ground features. Just a thought.
The ship does look bent or warped in the middle almost like a living thing contorting in pain. I am going with that rather than trying to straighten the structure out. And while the vines are not exactly as I wish I think they still capture the overall idea sans the small irregularities seen on the onscreen image. Seeing the other images showing some of the close up detail is appreciated. There we see the green mottling is actually recessed. Mind you at the scale I’m presently working at that small detail could be overlooked. But when or if I put the Enterprise model alongside the alien ship I would have to enlarge the alien vessel about fifteen times to keep everything in scale.
Looking more closely, I don't think it is random at all. If you compare the pod placements and conduit shapes in this image to the ones in the wide angle, they agree pretty well. On the left side of both images are five pods that connect to one conduit each, and the highest and lowest conduits are the twistiest while the others are straighter, and the two places where conduits branch off of each other seem to agree too. Then the next closer pod has two conduits connecting to it on opposite sides forming a sort of U shape. And the one further forward has a conduit leading right up to a blasted-open portion, and that's where the landing party is standing. So the camera angle on the closer shot is clearly intended to be from in front (to the right) of that uppermost pod in the middle cluster (the rightmost one of the upper seven), looking back/left toward the more isolated pods. I'm not sure the other backgrounds in the scene correspond as well to the wide shot, but that one agrees far better than I expected. So you've got two more-or-less consistent perspectives on those upper seven pods from roughly right angles to each other, which should allow modeling them in 3 dimensions. And now that we know which pod the landing party is standing next to, we have a scale reference for it as well, since we know the heights of Kirk, Spock, etc.
Given what we’ve seen of how the Enterprise interiors and exterior were done as well as the shuttlecraft and hangar deck I don’t put much stock in how scale is depicted in TAS beyond crude representation. I can also say at present I’m challenged to know how to model the ruptures on the pods with SketchUp.
Whether the scale corresponds perfectly is beside the point. That can be finessed, obviously. What matters is that the two images are clearly intended to be the same structure from two different angles, and that is usable data. It makes sense to at least try using it rather than pre-emptively assuming it can't help. I mean, I didn't expect it to work, but just a few minutes' inspection proved there's far more useful information there than it seemed. Half of what I do as a Star Trek novelist is taking things that fit together poorly and finessing them into a more consistent whole. It doesn't have to be perfect to start with. It's data that can be used and adjusted. The first step is to gather every bit of data you can find, then assess what parts of it are usable/reconcilable and what parts have to be glossed over. You often find there's more in the former category than you expect.
For scaling, one option is to assume the Enterprise is behind the hive ship instead of even or in front of it...hence the hive ship is smaller than its first impression on screen.
True. As I said earlier the vines look to be somewhat the same thickness as the Enterprise’s warp nacelles, but that can be fudged with seeing the landing party standing on the exterior of one of the vines. One criticism I have with my model is the vines might be a smidgen too thick, but then again I am maintaining a uniform thickness throughout while it looks to vary with the onscreen version. Then again that could simply be a lack of rigid consistency in the drawing. You can interpret it either way. I am also assuming (for simplicity) a circular cross-section to the vines when they could just as easily be ovoid.
I’m not happy. More accurately I’m not satisfied. Generally this model os okay, but I think I can do better. So I am rethinking it and I am seriously considering scrapping what I’ve done so far and restarting from scratch.
After starting again from scratch I have made some decent progress. My present approach is to make all the pods (I have 7 of the 12 done so far) and then I will add the vines. I will make the vines a smidgen thinner than my first effort. I am varying the size of the pods as well as the pod markings or mottling. Looking at the far end (on the right of the original oscreen image) the arrangement of vines is daunting, looks just plain nuts and makes zero sense. At that point I might try to simply that to some degree.
Finally an update. This is about 2/3 of the way done. There are still five pods and a heap of vines to be done.
Studying the original onscreen images reveals there isn’t much consistency in how these pods are depicted in size and shape. But the main long shot image more clearly depicts these pods are not all the same size or general uniform shape. Hence the direction I’ve taken in having three or four basic shapes and modifying them accordingly. Following the paths of the vines is also challenging in that it can be a matter of interpretation whether a vine is attached to a pod or passing behind it. That said I am trying to make the vines look somewhat less “rigid” in form and a bit more organic. I think the vines should also have more of a bluish hue to them.
I agree with the observation that the pods should be more egg-shaped, in other words each closer to an elongated ellipsoid with a circular cross-section (or an ellipsoid of revolution, or prolate spheroid) than an ellipsoid with three distinct axes (or tri-axial ellipsoid). I also agree that it's possible that the frame got "bent" by the self-destruct, and that the pods are out of their operational relative positions. I also think it's possible that each pod was individually warp-capable. That would explain why it was necessary to damage all of the pods.