Jayru (JSnaith's) 3D Trek
- Thread starter JSnaith
- Start date
It is a classy look.
I've made some tweaks, I've not followed the outline 100%, added some curve to the secondary hull that wasn't there, which in hindsight should be. But aside from that, yes she is "perfect."
Of course, as I say this is going to be a jumping-off point for at least two different ship classes.
:-)
Jefferies was a genius. This ship had so many amazing angles. It’s a shame that they didn’t have the technology (or budget) to use back then to explore it a little more.
I suppose. I'm nearly 43 years old and been a fan for over 30 years. I still believe the SNW and TMP versions of the Connie are the more interesting and beautiful versions of the lineage.
Oh, I 100% agree with you, the TMP refit was always the #1 iteration of the lineage to me as well. And the technology had evolved to a level by that time that they were able to explore the design in greater detail. I just think that if they were able to do that back in TOS, we would have been able to appreciate her lines a little more, and we never would have gotten the refit without the original to start from. I’ll always give the grand gray lady her due. 
Indeed, although they did well enough with what they had back then. Of course, the remastered episodes have done a lot to make her look amazing.
Noooooo, not another person I'm older than! I'm in my mid-fifties. I can honestly say I am a lifelong fan, when we were based in the USA Star Trek was something I used to watch sitting on my dad's knee. It is my earliest TV memory (The Deadly Years, but given how upset I was at Kirk being pushed from the centre seat, I'm going to guess I'd seen it many times before to have some understanding of it).
The TMP ethos has always appealed to me, it's such a shame that the ideas from the first movie were crapped over for the subsequent films. We went from a pearlescent hull to flat white *sigh*. Still, the movies gave us a lot of new ships as well.
Big fan of SNW, yeah, it's a visual reboot - but it doesn't mess with what we know is going to come. The SNW Connie has a lot going for it. But, you just can't argue with Jeffries simplistic style. Although as I'm finding out, the ship is anything but simple!
I think that's something people miss the point of sometimes - TOS is where it all began, it's where it all stems and flows from. A lot of ideas from TOS that we take for granted, were developed on the fly and evolved over time - the UFP, Starfleet, etc. Other things were never touched on, such as the actual century the show was set. (Star Trek II is when I think it was established that TOS was set in the 23rd Century). TOS is also a show of its time, and has to be seen in that light. It's sexist, misogynistic and lot of other un-PC things that just wouldn't be tolerated by a studio today. But we can forgive it all that, because, as I say, it is a show of its time.Oh, I 100% agree with you, the TMP refit was always the #1 iteration of the lineage to me as well. And the technology had evolved to a level by that time that they were able to explore the design in greater detail. I just think that if they were able to do that back in TOS, we would have been able to appreciate her lines a little more, and we never would have gotten the refit without the original to start from. I’ll always give the grand gray lady her due.
I'm currently rewatching TOS - the remastered episodes in production order. The remastered effects aren't holding up well in places after twenty years. But for me, that just adds to its overall charm. It is what it is. Still enjoy it though, and as I have it on Blu-Rey now, if I want I can watch the original episodes without the new FX. It's all good. It's also fantastic for getting references for the current project, lol (yeah, any excuse).
Anyway, I think I've waffled enough. More tomorrow!
Personally I find all 3 versions have their own charm (and I'm early 50s). For the longest time I held the TMP version as the most interesting and beautiful version but in more recent years find that the TOS version is more interesting because of her lack of specific details. There are no visible thrusters, no visible weapons and no grooves into her skin (aka shield grid). How she functions is a visible mystery that is food for the imagination and to me that makes her more interesting than later iterations. YMMV.
Quick question for all you boffins out there:
I'm looking at the registration NCC-1708. I've checked various sources, and officially it's never been used. I've seen a few unofficial sources state it *should* be the Constitution Class USS Intrepid's reg (not NCC-1631), but I'm leaning towards using this for the Constitution I'm building.
NCC-575, which I'm going to use on the Saladin, seems to be clear officially.
Comments welcome.
I'm looking at the registration NCC-1708. I've checked various sources, and officially it's never been used. I've seen a few unofficial sources state it *should* be the Constitution Class USS Intrepid's reg (not NCC-1631), but I'm leaning towards using this for the Constitution I'm building.
NCC-575, which I'm going to use on the Saladin, seems to be clear officially.
Comments welcome.
My $.02 is that the Constitution should always be NCC-1700, which is also unofficially official. It’s your project, though. Your choice in the end.
I agree that the USS Constitution is NCC-1700, but the rest... are all over the place. The USS Constellation is NCC-1017 as seen on screen. It's not changeable. Did Starfleet reserve 17XX just for the Connies - and by extension 18XX for the Mirandas? It's an interesting idea, but screen evidence doesn't support this, and I can't pretend I haven't seen things just for the sake of sorting some numbers out, lol.
In truth, the NCC reg system is a mess that fans are never going to sort out or solve. The Enterprise was almost twenty years old by the start of the TOS, but she was still a top-of-the-line vessel. Starfleet could have already been in the 18XX range by the time Kirk took command.
My theory has always been that all warp-capable craft are given a reg number. The three-letter prefix details if it's a civilian ship, Starfleet, or something else. It's why we started to get larger reg numbers in TNG, because the UFP had expanded, and all ships in the UFP (warp ships that is) have a central reg number.
But that's my theory, and it too is problematic, lol.
I'll have a look at the unofficial lists again and see if there is a less contentious reg number beginning 17XX
My theory on 1017 was that the Constellation was actually a vessel from an older class, that was the first to be refit into the 1700 Connie class as a testbed experiment, much as the Enterprise was the first to be refit out of the baseline Connie’s to the next generation of late-23rd century designs. Hence, the lower number. The really odd one was the Grissom/Oberth 63x numbers. They looked newer than the refit Connie’s or Miranda’s but had the lowest canonical registry number on-screen until the USS Kelvin appeared in ST09.
Googling NCC-1708 returns a variety of fan versions with different names so it seems to be a popular number for fan designs I'm with @137th Gebirg in thinking that the Constitution should have the NCC-1700 though. Regarding Constellation's low NCC-1017 number I'm of a similar thought that she was upgraded but not necessarily of the same class as Kirk's Enterprise as Constellation can be seen close-up to have different details. IMHO, I don't think there are any blocks of numbers reserved for specific classes.
If you also include TAS, Starfleet already had ships with high numbers as well (NCC-61645) so you've got a whole range of numbers to play with.
I'm with @137th Gebirg in thinking that the Constitution should have the NCC-1700 though. Regarding Constellation's low NCC-1017 number I'm of a similar thought that she was upgraded but not necessarily of the same class as Kirk's Enterprise as Constellation can be seen close-up to have different details. IMHO, I don't think there are any blocks of numbers reserved for specific classes.If you also include TAS, Starfleet already had ships with high numbers as well (NCC-61645) so you've got a whole range of numbers to play with.
Yeah, as I say the whole NCC registration system is ripe for debate and rationalisation. BUT, that's not something I plan on doing, lol. My problem (and it's personal to me only), is that I cannot ignore the screen evidence. Remastered Trek could have sorted this out, but chose instead to keep the registrations as originally listed back in the day. If we go with the idea that ships with numbers lower than 1700 were refit to Connie stats, we have a lot of ships that were upgraded. It's possible. The idea that the Enterprise was a newer ship than most of the other Connies works as well. She was still a mature ship by the time Kirk took command if we accept her launch year as 2245.Googling NCC-1708 returns a variety of fan versions with different names so it seems to be a popular number for fan designs
If you also include TAS, Starfleet already had ships with high numbers as well (NCC-61645) so you've got a whole range of numbers to play with.
I'll stick with 1708 - officially it has never been used on screen. Unofficially it is the retconned reg of the USS Intrepid according to some sources. I'll stick with "as seen on screen" for the time being, if no one objects ;-)
I try to keep things organised - such as only posting Trek work on here, and everything else on SciFi Meshes. TBH, I find this site far more friendly ;-)
Ok, final tweaks done, just Reg and Names to add and these are done!
More later
I'd love to see your TOS shuttlecraft, first, with the interior of the shuttlebay/hangar fleshed out.
Speaking of shuttlecraft, how does one land on/in your single engine "scout" ship? Maybe its doesn't have the capability.
It's something for me to think on. I've done hanger bays before, and my shuttles tend to have basic interiors. It's not a small undertaking, but something I've found "adds" to the 3d-ness of the models, similar to the way I put "rooms" (textured lightboxes) behind the windows to enhance the way the ships look.I'd love to see your TOS shuttlecraft, first, with the interior of the shuttlebay/hangar fleshed out.
Speaking of shuttlecraft, how does one land on/in your single engine "scout" ship?
Humm, in answer to your question, having looked at various fan-plans for the Saladin Class I cannot see how a shuttle bay could be worked into the ship. A ship without a hanger bay and shuttles? Well... They do exist in the Trek universe. Ok, ok, yes, I could fit a bay into the upper part of the saucer, but honestly? I think it will be fine not to have a hanger bay for that ship.
But, I can be flexible on this, maybe there is an argument for making a radical change to the Saladin Class saucer, and perhaps there is an argument that it doesn't need to have a shuttlebay or shuttles. Comments and thoughts are welcome on that.
