That one was a particularly good one. I'm sure the novelty of the disintegrating keyboard gets old fast when you're the one using it.
An idle moment. Here is a quick outline of my current thinking about the Independence-class. Instead of trying to reconcile a version of the Daedalus concept (which I could never be satisfied with) I've opted to try for something bridging between the Hercules-class star clipper and my current Discovery-class cruiser. The problem I have with the Daedalus idea is the mostly the sperical main hull. I find it an ugainly looking thing to tack on to the front of the ship and it always ends up looking clunky. I've actually had something of this idea before, but now it's becoming more crystalized. When will I get around to fleshing this out and modelling it? Good question because I have a number of other projects in mind all waiting to be tackled and some are non Trek.
That has a good profile to it. There seems to be an indented line in your 3D model on the secondary hull. I realy like that. You think you might have that line slant downward as it moves toward the defelector dish, as a detachable section perhaps?
To the subject at hand and some more incremental detailing. I've added some detail to the secondary hull and the dorsal. I like seeing different angles of the model to get a better feel for it and for what detail will add to and compliment the design. I have to say that I often do a bit of a double-take when I come back to the model because for a second I wonder where the nacelle support pylons are.
Lookin good, I like this approach. Too many pre TOS fan designs look like tupperware containers that were fused together in a horrible accident - including some of my own lol.
Wow, that's looking great! Wonderfully evocative of the 1701, but without being derivative. My only word of caution would be to detail it so as to distinguish it a bit more
Yep, I'm mindful of that. I've got some detailing in mind that will set it apart more, but it is indeed a balancing act. I'm also thinking of what I will christen her: Valiant, Eagle, Challenger or Vanguard.
I mentioned somewhere upthread I think these 3D models sometimes look like plastic model kits before they're painted. Hmm...maybe a young Jim Kirk and possibly a young Montgomery Scott played with toys of this ship when they were kids. Their imaginations ran riot and each in their own way dreamed, "One day I want to go to space aboard a starship.!"
It can be challenging and sometimes frustrating, but when it comes together there is a bit of elation and an "ah-ha" moment. I'm also gratified on feeling more competent with SketchUp so that I don't feel seriously daunted undertaking certain projects. Part of me has long wanted to model the TOS E in 3D and now I'm beginning to feel I'll be able to do it. It's now one of the planned subjects on my "to do" list.
I don't think it's as bad as it used to be, but too often I've seen designs that are basically a rearranging of existing parts. I could see how that got started seeing as how Franz Joseph basically did just that in his Star Fleet Technical Manual. But it really isn't a credible or interesting way to design. But, hey, in fairness you've got to start somewhere before you gain the confidence of your own ideas.
I think you said you made the neck a bit longer from the sketch on purpose, but looking at it with all these pics. I really think it would benefit from reducing the neck, make it more compact. It looks a bit ungainly, especially in the bottom left picture.
I tried it with a shorter neck (and the current one is really moderately longer than the sketch) and I didn't care for it that's why I went with the one I have presently. The design meant to precede this (yes, I'm planning on building that one) will have a much shorter dorsal between the secondary and main hulls.
Okay, fair enough. I often hate giving guidance to people on their designs. For I think that it often just steers them away from what they intended. However I just loved that initial sketch so much and I know when you translate to CGI often things need to be changed.
When you sketch out an idea in 2D it doesn't always translate the same in 3D so then you make modifications. It happens in reverse as well in that some 3D objects drawn in 2D don't seem to look right. Part of the reason is that in 2D you lose the dimension of depth and thus perspective. I slimmed the nacelles on the model from what they were on the sketch because I felt they were coming out too thick. Also, in general I'm not found of ship designs that lean toward being too short in the vertical dimension. Of course, there are exceptions. I like the Reliant design and the Defiant from DS9, but I'm not overly fond of a lot designs like the 1701D and 1701E because they tend to be on the flat side.
It began with playing with the concept of a MJ sketch where you see the familiar shape but with the nacelles fixed atop the saucer. I figure that was a stepping stone idea before MJ fixed them to the secondary hull. It does kind of work with my clipper design in terms of evolution. If you look at the clipper you have this long aft section extending back from the saucer and ending with the impulse section. The space warp nacelle is slung underneath. The next step (not yet modelled but I posted a sketch upthread) shortens the aft section dramatically and the impulse drive gets smaller and a lot of the support facilities go into a secondary hull slung underneath. In keeping with the impulse section also being Main Engineering the space warp nacelles stem out of the engineering/impulse section. The next step (which is my current model) makes the engineering section even more compact as the impulse drive gets smaller even as it gets more powerful due to advancing technology. Finally the impulse drive is compact enough that you can mount it right into the aft end of the saucer and most of the engineering/support goes into the secondary hull, and as an outgrowth you now mount the space warp nacelles right to the secondary hull just as we see with the Constitution-class. In a sense the nacelles fixed to the upper hull area isn't really phased out because you have the frigate designs, only those nacelles are slung underneath the main saucer body rather than above. And in a way the destroyer/scout concept is also a descendent of the clipper design because the single nacelle is slung underneath the main hull. Of course it isn't a totally smooth evolution as new ideas are tried of which some succeed and evolve further and others are abandoned in favour of better ideas, but it does seem to work as a general evolution in design. I think it basically comes down to the individual deciding when they think the familiar 1701 design concept came into being. The 1701 design isn't likely to have just sprang into being whole cloth and completely different from what came before. It's more likely it sprang from earlier ideas now pushed further in development. The 1701's impulse section is really compact for a ship its size. The whole design has a certain elegance to it that belies how strong it must be constructed to endure the stresses it's subjected to. Note my current model also has a measure of elegance to it, but it's also more compact and support pylons and dorsals are generally heftier in relation to the adjacent sections. My general approach in working backwards is that while design can get less elegant or exotic (so to speak) it needn't get clunky and awkward. To use a rough analogy: a classic car or plane of decades past bears little resemblance to modern cars and aircraft in appearance and capabilities, but many classic cars and aircraft do retain a meausre of beauty and aesthetic integrity in their own right. They are decades out of date and obsolete, but a Sopwith Camel, a P51 Mustang, an F86 Sabrejet and an F104 Starfighter are all still great looking aircraft. There are classic cars of the 1930s-'60s that are all obsolete but remain things of beauty in their own right. That's the overall approach I try to take with design of this kind.