Also, the aztec plating looks like the Enterprise-E Tetris shapes style. Not sure if that's how they did the CG version but not a fan.
Best photos yet of the new Discoprise - Studio Model
- Thread starter wayoung
- Start date
Also, the aztec plating looks like the Enterprise-E Tetris shapes style. Not sure if that's how they did the CG version but not a fan.
This reminds me of a typical kind of problem that would crop up in fellow grade-schooler's attempts to draw the original NCC-1701 that I saw every now and then while growing up in the 1970s. It occurs when you focus too much on the individual parts and commit and fill them in before checking that all the parts are in proportion with each other. You'd often get over-sized nacelles projected out and above the saucer just. like. that.
The nacelles are nearly the same size as the originals
More I see of this ship, less I like the altered proportions, they just do not work as well as the original. Even though they altered the shapes and details of the parts, they should have left the proportions alone, it is obvious that the flattening doesn't really work except from the side angle, from other angles it makes the ship look worse. And while I really never particularly cared about the bridge window issue, that particular window is just hideous.
I'm going to have to go with a big fat "no" on that one.
Even if their length happens to be "the same" or nearly "the same" in-universe, the proportions are clearly different. The new nacelles have a bulging convexity that makes their maximum cross-sectional diameter noticeably larger in proportion to the dome cap diameter than the corresponding proportion on the original.
And I was discussing mutual proportions, anyway. Like saucer diameter in proportion to nacelle diameter, saucer height above the engineering hull in proportion to nacelle distance from engineering hull, etc.
They did keep the proportions roughly the same except for the height.
I see what you mean now, I was thinking too much about the length.
'It is the same except in this one massive way in which it is completely different'.' It is huge chance, and only now that I can see it from several angles, I realise how much it affects the overall look. It also pushes the pylons off from the comfortable 45 degree angle. Not an improvement.
So, yeah, the squashed height seems probably the most responsible single factor for all the differences in proportion.
here are some comparison images @ITDUDE screencapped from a Trekyards video. Just to note, this model is from a mobile game, so 1. The quality isn't great and 2. there are some inaccuracies
Classic Eaves. Looks like someone stepped on it.
The Discovery version does not hold up well at all when put next to the original 1701.
Yeah, it looks way better.
My favourite design since the TMP Refit.
Also you realize all of the flat Federation ships in the TNG movies were not Eaves right? They were all from a designer at ILM. The Sovereign class is like the only one he did.
And having flat ships in Discovery were a design directive from Fuller.
So? Whats your point.You mean the major one that got more than a second of screen time?
According to him, it was to match Voyager which was already a flat ship. So John didn't start the trend, he just continued it.
https://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Sovereign_class_model#Design
More i look at it... the more it looks like the that Uss Kelvin kitbash thats out there thats made up to look like the enterprise with a neck and pylons.. the proportions are just.. Off.. I like the general design of it, big John Eaves fan here.. but they shouldn't have squashed it, and the potato pealer pylons.. ugh.. just ugh.. and why split impulse deck??.. Huh??
More I look at these Disco designs, and even the JJ stuff.. is that there's nobody to slap anybody over the head saying.. NO! We're not designing some fanboy crap here.. be reasonable.
well.. as GKar says.. Accept the miracle, and move on.. so.. moving on..
More I look at these Disco designs, and even the JJ stuff.. is that there's nobody to slap anybody over the head saying.. NO! We're not designing some fanboy crap here.. be reasonable.
well.. as GKar says.. Accept the miracle, and move on.. so.. moving on..
I still think shortening the original neck a bit might not be bad. The Discoprise just goes too far.
I also wonder if tinkering with the angles of the original neck (as seen in profile) would make a difference. Maybe a little less taper?
I do like the Discoprise deflector dish detailing and the lights at the rear of the nacelles. I can live with the stripes on the saucer. I'd probably even like them on a different ship.
I also wonder if tinkering with the angles of the original neck (as seen in profile) would make a difference. Maybe a little less taper?
I do like the Discoprise deflector dish detailing and the lights at the rear of the nacelles. I can live with the stripes on the saucer. I'd probably even like them on a different ship.
