BLSSDWLF's TOS Enterprise WIP

[Robert Comsol]

Back to the issue of this thread, I found the top view of the engineering hull very interesting, where the dorsal's stern is wider than the bow, which is apparently correct.

You should look at Slice #2 on the dorsal as the dorsal's stern at the base is about the same width as the bow. Are you looking at Slice #1 where the "torpedo vent" has been omitted thinking that the dorsal stern (at the base) is wider than the bow?

That explains my premature conclusion. I took another look at the dorsal stern view in Slade's plans and compared it with the dorsal stern view of the VFX model.
I can't help but have the impression that Slade made the stern of the dorsal a little too narrow. That would explain a thing or two.

OTOH the lack of relief at the front part of the torpedo bay (which the VFX ship model has) in Slade's plans could have a simple explanation:

I think that the enlarged engineering hull section they built for TWOK didn't have the relief but was rather "straightforward".

At this point it gets interesting and philosophical, IMHO. Does the enlarged section and the popular close-up view determine the ship's appearance "in-universe" or is the shape of the complete VFX model the base for reference?!?

We have the same issue with the enlarged port side section of the engineering hull with the docking port and the extra window.

Since it's possible to find fault with either of these, I'd say that both interpretations are legitimate.

Bob

 

[Maurice]

 

[blssdwlf]

I think that the enlarged engineering hull section they built for TWOK didn't have the relief but was rather "straightforward".

At this point it gets interesting and philosophical, IMHO. Does the enlarged section and the popular close-up view determine the ship's appearance "in-universe" or is the shape of the complete VFX model the base for reference?!?

Regarding influencing the shape of the hull, it would depend if the visible close-up view has a measurable difference to the shape of the hull. As far as I'm concerned if it's visible, it should count.

For example, in your close-up link it is difficult to impossible to discern that the side tapering is absent. This example can affect the shape of the ship.

We have the same issue with the enlarged port side section of the engineering hull with the docking port and the extra window.

Actually it's a different issue. The section is also missing a window portal below the last "E" in the word ENTERPRISE. We have one window too close (the extra) and one window missing. This would count as window portals that can be shuttered and unshuttered flush with the hull, like the TOS Enterprise windows.

Since it's possible to find fault with either of these, I'd say that both interpretations are legitimate.

It's interesting that you're willing to consider these two miniatures, warts and all legitimate while not giving the same consideration to the DE Enterprise that was also onscreen...

 

[blssdwlf]

Very cool. Thanks Maurice

 

[bigjimslade]

Back to the issue of this thread, I found the top view of the engineering hull very interesting, where the dorsal's stern is wider than the bow, which is apparently correct.

You should look at Slice #2 on the dorsal as the dorsal's stern at the base is about the same width as the bow. Are you looking at Slice #1 where the "torpedo vent" has been omitted thinking that the dorsal stern (at the base) is wider than the bow?

That explains my premature conclusion. I took another look at the dorsal stern view in Slade's plans and compared it with the dorsal stern view of the VFX model.
I can't help but have the impression that Slade made the stern of the dorsal a little too narrow. That would explain a thing or two.

OTOH the lack of relief at the front part of the torpedo bay (which the VFX ship model has) in Slade's plans could have a simple explanation:

I think that the enlarged engineering hull section they built for TWOK didn't have the relief but was rather "straightforward".

At this point it gets interesting and philosophical, IMHO. Does the enlarged section and the popular close-up view determine the ship's appearance "in-universe" or is the shape of the complete VFX model the base for reference?!?

We have the same issue with the enlarged port side section of the engineering hull with the docking port and the extra window.

Since it's possible to find fault with either of these, I'd say that both interpretations are legitimate.

Bob

If I am interpreting the question correctly, it sounds like you are wondering why the spine along the top is as narrow as it is?

This is how I arrived at that; for better or for worse.

The starting point of the engineering hull was published figures for the length and diameter. Photo analysis was use to establish frames at vertical grid locations.

Notice in photographs the last vertical grid line intersects the spine near the end of rectangular details that emerges from the spine.

Combined with the placement of the cab over the hangar, that gives a rough length that the stern phasers, strobe, and the rectangular panel fit into.

I have a number of top view photos of the stern end of the spinewhich I could get the relative offsets of all these details.

Combining those relative offsets with the offsets of the grid and hangar cab gave the width of the spine. I know it is narrower than in most plans but that is what I came up with.

I change things as I get better references or see that I made a mistake. If I saw how a wider spine could fit the physical reference points I would consider making it wider.

I'm not sure what is being referred to in regard the torpedo area. If you are referring to the front, that is one of the areas of artistic license in the plan. I have details there that do not exist in the physical model. I simply made stuff up there. There are not a lot of places where I did that but this is one of them.

If you have any why questions I will try to answer them. Some of the things were done years ago so I may not remember what I was thinking at the time.

If you see anything you think is wrong, I will consider changing it.

 

[blssdwlf]

Hi bigjimslade - Thanks for replying!

Long story short:

We were looking at how much interior room there is in the dorsal and torpedo bay for putting interiors in and came to a stop where we didn't have any accurate data on the size and widths of the structure.

The torpedo bay in particular is challenging because of the curves it has making a measurement difficult from any photo with perspective from the front or rear.

At the time, the CGI TMP Director's Edition Enterprise was published at Drexfiles and I used that as a basis for sizing because I thought it was a good ortho view but BK613's eagle eyes spotted some perspective discrepancies so we're back to square one as it wasn't a true ortho.

Shaw believes that your data is the same as Gary Kerr's but because there are some discrepancies on the shape of the torpedo bay, particularly the lack of tapering (narrowing) towards the front, it's given me pause on how they were measured or derived.

Your drawings are very detailed and if you don't mind I'm going to try and work off them from cygnus as a good starting point.

 

[bigjimslade]

Hi bigjimslade - Thanks for replying!

Long story short:

We were looking at how much interior room there is in the dorsal and torpedo bay for putting interiors in and came to a stop where we didn't have any accurate data on the size and widths of the structure.

The torpedo bay in particular is challenging because of the curves it has making a measurement difficult from any photo with perspective from the front or rear.

At the time, the CGI TMP Director's Edition Enterprise was published at Drexfiles and I used that as a basis for sizing because I thought it was a good ortho view but BK613's eagle eyes spotted some perspective discrepancies so we're back to square one as it wasn't a true ortho.

Shaw believes that your data is the same as Gary Kerr's but because there are some discrepancies on the shape of the torpedo bay, particularly the lack of tapering (narrowing) towards the front, it's given me pause on how they were measured or derived.

Your drawings are very detailed and if you don't mind I'm going to try and work off them from cygnus as a good starting point.

If you saw how I build the torpedo section you might be surprised how it is done. My model has no drawing per se. It is a solid. What you see in those JPEGs is a computer generated representation of the solid. That ensures all the views and cross sections are consistent with each other.

Some of the parts start out as shapes but some, like the torpedo section and impulse engine, are largely machined. So changes it shape depending on how I machine it on any give day. It is a work of fiction after all. :-)

If you need some custom cross sections I could probably generate that for you--I say probably because sometimes the CAD program has fits. I have been thinking about doing a cumulative update to the drawings to incorporate all the changes of the past 18 months. If there are things that people would like to see (different cross sections, other details) I could add them.

I eyeballed the thing from pictures--a lot of pictures. I never had access to any of the originals. In most cases, I can adjust things in real time with a rendered version of the solid so that I can adjust it to match what I see from different angles.

I base my version on English measurements. In general, I presume the original designers had plans that had things in increments of X-1/2**n". However, they clearly eyeballed a lot of stuff. For some things I had published measurements to start from.

I do a lot of mix-and-matching between the different models. However, I focused on the 100". In other words, make it the 100"+. I did not find the CGI version to be particularly useful for my work. I found that it deviated too much from the 100". For example, the grid lines at the back of the engineering hull are different and the three details around the nose flare out way too wide.I do like its torpedo shape better--less rounded (and tapered as you like). The amount of roundness on the 100" bothers me. I reduced the fillet radius on my latest changes. I could be convinced to go more to be closer to this.

I looked at a lot of reference pictures. The CGI clearly has a taper. I don't see that in either the enlarged neck or the 100". As I said, I found the CGI model tended to deviate widely from these.

 

[Robert Comsol]

It's interesting that you're willing to consider these two miniatures, warts and all legitimate while not giving the same consideration to the DE Enterprise that was also onscreen...

I think the actual VFX model is the reference because it appeared in a total of 6 movies, available in HD resolution.

The enlarged sections appeared in a total of 2 movies each, equally available in HD resolution.

The retroactive CGI DE Enterprise appeared in one film along with VFX shots of the real model, only available in standard definition resolution.

What stands against the CGI DE Enterprise is original quality and quantity, IMHO.

But since you are highlighting actual "onscreen" material I'd like to see some screencaps which tell us that the CGI DE Enterprise is actually different from the VFX model.

In all your posts you emphasize "onscreen" evidence and put that before behind-the-scenes materials and knowledge (e.g. that there is a botanical section, which you feel free to interpret as some blue reactor glow). OTOH these Foundation Imaging renderings you use are such behind-the-scenes materials.

Bob

 

[Robert Comsol]

That explains my premature conclusion. I took another look at the dorsal stern view in Slade's plans and compared it with the dorsal stern view of the VFX model.
I can't help but have the impression that Slade made the stern of the dorsal a little too narrow. That would explain a thing or two.

If I am interpreting the question correctly, it sounds like you are wondering why the spine along the top is as narrow as it is?

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate that a lot. Based on the aforementined stern view of the VFX image the dorsal is rather thick at the stern with "soft" edges. In your orthographic stern view it looks like a "hard" edge which seems rather thin. Looking at your cross-sections of the dorsal the stern also looks thinner than the image of the VFX model does suggest, IMHO.

If you see anything you think is wrong, I will consider changing it.

Except for the stern of the dorsal and the levelling of the windows in the dorsal, the botanical section windows have been mentioned (and the forward sides of the torpedo bay "mouth" which I personally couldn't find fault with if this reflects the proportions of the enlarged forward section built for TWOK ).

I definitely need more time to examine your fine orthographic drawings in detail, it's really a great work of passion and the best blueprint of the ship I've seen thus far. Your sensor array at the bottom of the saucer looks perfect - something neither David Kimble or the guys from Foundation Imaging could seriously claim.

Bob

@ Maurice

Fascinating picture! Looks like we can use some more shuttered windows on a deck below Docking Port 5.

 

[Maurice]

^^^I think you can safely disregard all the windows on that oversize section that don't actually appear on screen.

 

[blssdwlf]

It's interesting that you're willing to consider these two miniatures, warts and all legitimate while not giving the same consideration to the DE Enterprise that was also onscreen...

I think the actual VFX model is the reference because it appeared in a total of 6 movies, available in HD resolution.

The enlarged sections appeared in a total of 2 movies each, equally available in HD resolution.

The retroactive CGI DE Enterprise appeared in one film along with VFX shots of the real model, only available in standard definition resolution.

What stands against the CGI DE Enterprise is original quality and quantity, IMHO.

That's an inconsistent argument, Bob. Those enlarged sections are arguably more inaccurate which goes against your "quality" argument. "Quantity" is laughable as well as they only appear briefly onscreen.

But since you are highlighting actual "onscreen" material I'd like to see some screencaps which tell us that the CGI DE Enterprise is actually different from the VFX model.

?? This was already pointed out by me and others where the CGI DE Enterprise differed from the large filming miniature.

In all your posts you emphasize "onscreen" evidence and put that before behind-the-scenes materials and knowledge (e.g. that there is a botanical section, which you feel free to interpret as some blue reactor glow).

There's a difference here and it emphasizes our different approaches.

I use onscreen evidence as I'm building something that strives to be "screen accurate". If behind-the-scenes information supports what was put onscreen then I will consider using it.

It's less complicated than your mixing both onscreen and offscreen content in approach.

Of course both approaches are just as viable and neither one is better.

OTOH these Foundation Imaging renderings you use are such behind-the-scenes materials.

As I replied in an earlier post the reasons those renderings were used were that at the time they were better than the blueprints you were presenting as evidence and that the model had appeared onscreen.

So are you still sticking with your 59% ratio theory?

 

[Maurice]

If I cared about such details I'd go a completely different direction than y'all, I'd just pick a primary source (i.e. the primary shooting model) and disregard contradictory details from partial, small scale and later CGI models in favor of that.

 

[blssdwlf]

If you saw how I build the torpedo section you might be surprised how it is done. My model has no drawing per se. It is a solid. What you see in those JPEGs is a computer generated representation of the solid. That ensures all the views and cross sections are consistent with each other.

Some of the parts start out as shapes but some, like the torpedo section and impulse engine, are largely machined. So changes it shape depending on how I machine it on any give day. It is a work of fiction after all. :-)

If you need some custom cross sections I could probably generate that for you--I say probably because sometimes the CAD program has fits. I have been thinking about doing a cumulative update to the drawings to incorporate all the changes of the past 18 months. If there are things that people would like to see (different cross sections, other details) I could add them.

Thanks for the offer as I'm sure one of use will hit you up for one and we'd be greatly appreciative of it!

(I use lightwave which is a polygon modeler and don't deal with solids.)

I eyeballed the thing from pictures--a lot of pictures. I never had access to any of the originals. In most cases, I can adjust things in real time with a rendered version of the solid so that I can adjust it to match what I see from different angles.

I can appreciate that work you've put in as I've had to do similar camera matching work for this project.

What CAD application do you use if you don't mind me asking?

I base my version on English measurements. In general, I presume the original designers had plans that had things in increments of X-1/2**n". However, they clearly eyeballed a lot of stuff. For some things I had published measurements to start from.

I do a lot of mix-and-matching between the different models. However, I focused on the 100". In other words, make it the 100"+. I did not find the CGI version to be particularly useful for my work. I found that it deviated too much from the 100". For example, the grid lines at the back of the engineering hull are different and the three details around the nose flare out way too wide.I do like its torpedo shape better--less rounded (and tapered as you like). The amount of roundness on the 100" bothers me. I reduced the fillet radius on my latest changes. I could be convinced to go more to be closer to this.

I agree, there are inaccuracies on the CG model. At this time I haven't had a chance to examine many details between your blueprints and the filming miniatures so I can't comment at this time on suggestions or changes. I'm going to take a crack at making a lightwave model out of your blueprints and try to camera match it against the filming miniature.

I looked at a lot of reference pictures. The CGI clearly has a taper. I don't see that in either the enlarged neck or the 100". As I said, I found the CGI model tended to deviate widely from these.

Yep, the CG version has a more extreme down taper but it's the forward side taper that I'm curious about. The forward taper is only visible from the front on the 100" miniature. If it didn't have the taper the front would be noticeably wider than the forward bottom cut where it connects to the secondary hull. But in most forward perspective shots its about the same width.

Close-ups on the special enlarged torpedo bay miniature tend to hide this as the camera is already zoomed in for the shot so any lack of tapering could be chalked off to wide-angle camera distortion, IMO.

 

[blssdwlf]

If I cared about such details I'd go a completely different direction than y'all, I'd just pick a primary source (i.e. the primary shooting model) and disregard contradictory details from partial, small scale and later CGI models in favor of that.

That is the smart approach

However, I don't mind trying to meld it all together.

Others can (and probably should for their sanity) just pick one primary source as you've recommended.

 

[bigjimslade]

1. I see what you mean about the narrowing of the torpedo area. However, it appears to me that this might be a construction defect in the model. To me, it looks like the bottom edge takes an odd jutting out that gives the narrowing appearance. Line straightening is one of the artistic licenses I took. I have been trying to match the enlarged version more closely as of late.

2. I have been using Turbocad. I started out using illustrator but I realized I could never get things right in 2D.

3. I was looking at some of my older lower sensors from several years ago today. They were pretty back. That's been an area of improvement over the years.

4. The back of the neck has been a problem area. It's one what I have been taking my cue as being a cross between the enlarged neck (that has no rounding) with the studio model. I have tried to be a little more graceful than the enlarge neck, with its abrupt surface around the forward curve.

5. I didn't see the comment about the dorsal windows. I remember moving them around over a year ago. This might be an issue of my cleaning things up. I know that I have them at regular intervals.

6. In regard the arboretum windows, I might have the grid angle or center wrong there. Another possibility is that this is a grid line I have straightened out. I'll take a look at that.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I think you can safely disregard all the windows on that oversize section that don't actually appear on screen.

In case somebody features these extra windows in renderings of the ship we now know whom to blame... It's a little difficult, at least for me, to "unlearn" what you've just revealed to us.

But seriously, I don't consider these extra windows as "contradictions" but most definitely as welcome supplements.

From TOS we know that shuttered windows (e.g. "Mark of Gideon") is not a concept unknown to Starfleet vessels. Obviously they usually don't show up on the exterior when we get a closer look of the ships.

As previous debates have shown it's rather a question, as Donny so eloquently put it, whether we prefer to interpret the Enterprise rather as a submarine, a cruise ship or a starship.

The only true contradiction, IMHO, is the starboard side shot of the enlarged torpedo bay section in ST III which lacks Docking Port 2 (apparently, ILM only built the enlarged section for port side shots and therefore omitted this detail).

If I cared about such details I'd go a completely different direction than y'all, I'd just pick a primary source (i.e. the primary shooting model) and disregard contradictory details from partial, small scale and later CGI models in favor of that.

If I were forced to have only one choice, I'd also go with the primary shooting model, but the enlarged sections feature additional details I'd find difficult to just discard these.

Honestly I was a bit disappointed that the actual torpedo bay front view of the large model lacked detail and refinement.

But as it looks bigjimslade is considering some minor improvements to his plans, so maybe for the 35th Anniversary of TMP next December we might see some really perfect renderings that could make it to the bonus section of an upcoming Blu-ray (hopefully better than that superficial CGI tour of the TOS Enterprise on the TOS Blu-rays).

Bob

 

[bigjimslade]

But as it looks bigjimslade is considering some minor improvements to his plans, so maybe for the 35th Anniversary of TMP next December we might see some really perfect renderings that could make it to the bonus section of an upcoming Blu-ray (hopefully better than that superficial CGI tour of the TOS Enterprise on the TOS Blu-rays).

I am going to go back into passive mode here. If you have any questions or suggestions, contact me directly.

I've looked at a few things. I checked out the grid lines above the arboretum windows. I am not inclined to change that. You can see there is a slight upturn on the studio model. However, it looks to me like they may have altered the grids around the windows. It would be impossible for a straight grid line to be "straight" where the hull diameter changes. I'm sticking with the straight grid lines.

Most of the changes I made are to make the thing easier to build (fewer ACIS degenerated errors). For example, I switch to making the ramp that runs up the back of the torpedo section part of that section, rather than a separate piece. If you look casually, there should be no difference. If you line things up, there will probably be a slight difference.

The most noticeable change will be the hangar doors are going back to being circular rather than an ellipse so the grid lines there will be quite different.

I have switched from using Bezier curves to splines on the pylons.The pylon cross sections will be a bit fuller because of this.

There are some smaller detail changes. For example, I moved the lower, front edge of the pylon forward a bit where it intersects the warp engine (I see a photo that shows a discrepancy and I just have to fix it!).

Some old parts crept into the last version. Those will be replaced. I don't think there are many of them. The docking port details were one of those. The version out there does not show the opening for the shuttle doors to slip into.

I am going to be more artistic with the busy detail on the ship. I don't know how much of that will make it into the next version. The only thing I really dislike about the look of the refit is the busy detail.

I have not moved any windows so if you have window issues, let me know.

There are about 200 3D parts in the model. These combine to form 17 major sections. These then get combined to form the assemblies shown in the plan. An assembly might be the entire ship, parts of the engineering hull (for the cross sections), or just the bridge (one assembly).

Then I define the views of those assemblies (angle, perspective or other, cross section). Turbocad creates the views that you see on Cygnus from the assemblies. I don't draw them at all. A drawing of the entire ship takes several hours for Turbocad to create.

In fact, I have no drawings per se at all. If you look my files, in most cases it is impossible to tell what the finished part will be. The files just contain shapes and building instructions.

Then I take the TC-created drawings and lay them out on sheets in Illustrator.

You can see it's a long process. A simple change is not a matter of moving a line on a drawing. A simple change means restarting the production line.

The down side is complexity and management. The up side is that there is something to do 3D printing with and all the views are consistent with each other. In other words, the 3D model has all the information available that you need to create your own physical model. It's just a matter of extracting the information from the model.

FWIW. I'm looking for a good picture showing the strobe light on the warp engines. I have not seen a mounting there, just a bare light. Certain other plans show a mounting there but I'm not putting one there unless I see it. However, it is the kind of improvement I'd like to do.

Contact me directly if you have issues I might miss it if you post here.

 

[B.J.]

Then I define the views of those assemblies (angle, perspective or other, cross section). Turbocad creates the views that you see on Cygnus from the assemblies. I don't draw them at all. A drawing of the entire ship takes several hours for Turbocad to create.

Whoa, really? I use NX and CATIA at work, and they create drawings in just a few seconds from assemblies significantly more complex than this. I'm guessing the reason for the time difference is a combination of the programs' abilities and the computers we're using.

 

[Maurice]

But as it looks bigjimslade is considering some minor improvements to his plans, so maybe for the 35th Anniversary of TMP next December we might see some really perfect renderings that could make it to the bonus section of an upcoming Blu-ray (hopefully better than that superficial CGI tour of the TOS Enterprise on the TOS Blu-rays).

I never wrote that. Please be more careful when editing quotes so as to not misattribute them.

 

[Robert Comsol]

^^ Of course you didn't write that because it's obvious from the top post of this page that it was me. Anyway, it has been corrected and hopefully you are happier than before.

Back to the issue at hand (dorsal width) I calculated the maximal width of the impulse engines' exhaust casing which is 13% (Kimble) or 13.2% (Big Jim Slade) of the saucer width (P/S) and therefore would be 18.4-18.7m wide on an Enterprise at 305m length or 21.4-21.8m on an Enterprise at 355m length.

According to pictures like this one the space between the "surfer" skegs has a width of 39% of the impulse engines' exhaust casing, on a 355m Enterprise the width of the dorsal's stern up there and including the skegs would be 8.5 meters / 27.9 feet (which is a max. dorsal width figure I had estimated previously).

Where it gets interesting is the ovoid, convex shape of the dorsal in general and the fact that it is "sandwiched" between those skegs.
Looks like the stern end of the skegs is the maximal width of the upper dorsal's stern, but there is also the departure screenshot from TMP to consider.
Happy Holidays
Bob