Donny's TOS Enterprise Interiors

[Donny]

That Miranda is a thing of beauty. I was using the original in STO for a long time because I love the shape so much.
Are you given a lot of freedom when designing ships, or are you limited to a strict design spec?

Yeah, ships in STO basically need to be around 20,000 polys (give or take 5,000) and have to be primarily mapped to one texture/material. All ship materials use the same template so that they can easily be interchanged (for instance, the texture map for all ships has it's deflector in the same spot). It's far more limited than I usually like to work, but what we're able to pull off given those limitations is pretty impressive.

I might suggest using some of David Shaw's studies of the filming model and the original 1964 blueprints. They're invaluable resources.
1964 Plans Reconstruction:
http://shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/plans/jefferies_1964_sh1-preview.jpg
http://shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/plans/jefferies_1964_sh2-preview.jpg

Filming Model Studies:
http://shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/plans/1701-11_structure_01.jpg
http://shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/plans/1701-11_structure_02.jpg
http://shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/plans/1701-11_structure_03.jpg

Yes! Thank you. I was searching for the depository of all of Shaw's work!

Yes, even ten years ago when I did my cross section, I could see upon close inspection and comparison with the model itself, that both Sinclair and Casimiro were a little off here and there. (IIRC there were subtle differences centered around the dorsal and impulse areas) Of course these days it is Gary Kerr who had access to the model in the flesh, so whatever drawings of his you can find are the current standard. Though David’s are as good as they get for anyone working from the flat images.

Casimiro's plans seem to be a little more accurate in a few places I've noticed, namely the ends of the nacelles and the curve of the lower saucer, which is why I went with his over Sinclair's. I'd love to use Gary Kerr's, but I haven't been able to find any scans, just a profile view seen in some Smithsonian restoration shots on Trekcore. Although I can prespective-correct that photo, not having a complete set of plans make that one profile view moot for using it as a basis for building a model.

However, as stated before, Casimiro's plans are just serving as a guide for the shapes, but I’ll be checking everything against photos of the model and making corrections where I see fit.

 

[Donny]

Done blocking out the shapes. Starting on detailing and texture tests tomorrow.

 

[Bernard Guignard]

Wow that is nice

 

[GNDN18]

Can you put it in a block of lucite, as is?

 

[captainkirk]

The first two links, about the 1964 model, were interesting. I wasn't aware that they'd changed art directors while working on "The Cage", and that the Enterprise had been scaled up to address the change in how the bridge was going to be designed. With that scaling up in mind, I wonder if that's the source of Pike's line implying the ship has a crew of ~200, whereas by the time they went to series it's a crew of 430.

So even TOS isn't immune to a ship size argument?

 

[StarCruiser]

^ Never was immune...

The original idea was for a ship of about 540 feet in length (~164 meters). Gene Roddenberry decided that it was too small (and the bridge design was part of that issue - it got larger). Matt Jefferies simply doubled the size to 1080 feet (~329 meters) but, Gene thought that was too big and they worked it down to 947 feet (288.6 meters) - which is the OFFICIAL size - despite Disco and JJDrek...

 

[feek61]

^ Never was immune...

The original idea was for a ship of about 540 feet in length (~164 meters). Gene Roddenberry decided that it was too small (and the bridge design was part of that issue - it got larger). Matt Jefferies simply doubled the size to 1080 feet (~329 meters) but, Gene thought that was too big and they worked it down to 947 feet (288.6 meters) - which is the OFFICIAL size - despite Disco and JJDrek...

Which is why they added a second row of windows around the saucer section and other areas because of the expansion. I think the original crew size was in the low 200's and they doubled it to 430. So the added decks were simulated using the additional windows added to the miniature.

 

[Mytran]

The Bridge set alone would dictate a minimum length of 947' if applied to the Enterprise model seen in The Cage. If I recall Shaw's research correctly, the size of the ship was ironed out at quite an early stage and the only telltale signs are Pike's reference to 203 crew and the watermark numbers on the hull (which were only added because Roddenberry wanted more details on the miniature; also why more windows appeared after the pilot)

 

[Donny]

Here are the results of the preliminary texture tests, using the bridge module. Sorry, no decals or markings yet. Also, the windows will not be modeled into the mesh. I’m going to rely on baking them into the textures, as seen below.

This is going to be so much fun

 

[captainkirk]

Once it's finished we need a video of a shuttle landing, and then walking all the way from the shuttle bay to the bridge in one continuous shot, stopping at engineering, sickbay, and every other room you've modeled. How hard can it be?

 

[Tallguy]

Well, your materials are good enough that for a split second I thought it was Smithsonian reference.

Not sure about the alignment of the four rectangular windows, but you've studied this more recently than me. Great work!

 

[StarCruiser]

Seconded!

 

[blssdwlf]

Thirded?! I had the same reaction regarding the materials and it looking just like the Smithsonian version (especially with the too tall transparent dome.)

@Donny, how big are these textures? It seems like you got fairly close to them without pixelation...

 

[Donny]

Thirded?! I had the same reaction regarding the materials and it looking just like the Smithsonian version (especially with the too tall transparent dome.)

@Donny, how big are these textures? It seems like you got fairly close to them without pixelation...

I’m still doing tests, but the model will use 4K textures most likely. One for the saucer, one for engineering, one for the nacelles. If I can get them down to 2K I may do that, but I’m really trying to pack as much detail as possible. Either way, the game engines adjusts the quality and size of the textures based on how far away from the model you are, so those 4K textures will only be fully loaded by the PC when you’re up close to the model.

@blssdwlf Does the latest Smithsonian restoration have an incorrectly sized transparent bridge dome? I’ll admit I’ve been using photos of the latest restoration as the final call on details, since there aren’t any high-res photos I can find of the model as it existed in the late 60s. Are there any other egregious differences from the original filming model I should be aware of?

 

[blssdwlf]

@blssdwlf Does the latest Smithsonian restoration have an incorrectly sized transparent bridge dome? I’ll admit I’ve been using photos of the latest restoration as the final call on details, since there aren’t any high-res photos I can find of the model as it existed in the late 60s. Are there any other egregious differences from the original filming model I should be aware of?

Neat on the adjusting texture sizes. - that should look pretty cool in game

Ahh, don't mind me. Keep using the final restoration version as reference as that's the best I've seen

The transparent dome IIRC (according a post by Gary Kerr) was originally half that height and some point after "The Trouble with Tribbles" the dome was replaced with the one that the 2016-version of the Smithsonian Enterprise is based on. But for many years before that while the Enterprise was at the Smithsonian it had a horribly inaccurate one which was almost twice as tall. I just had a flash back to seeing that when I saw your textured version and upon a second look saw you did the restoration dome so it's all good!

Edit: Found the post about the dome

 

[Donny]

Neat on the adjusting texture sizes. - that should look pretty cool in game

Ahh, don't mind me. Keep using the final restoration version as reference as that's the best I've seen

The transparent dome IIRC (according a post by Gary Kerr) was originally half that height and some point after "The Trouble with Tribbles" the dome was replaced with the one that the 2016-version of the Smithsonian Enterprise is based on. But for many years before that while the Enterprise was at the Smithsonian it had a horribly inaccurate one which was almost twice as tall. I just had a flash back to seeing that when I saw your textured version and upon a second look saw you did the restoration dome so it's all good!

Edit: Found the post about the dome

Ah, yes. Looking at the '92 restoration photos again, I'm noticing how incorrect the bridge dome is. Man! Who was in charge of that '92 restoration?? So many egregious changes/errors!

EDIT: @blssdwlf, checking my bridge dome againt the measurements Gary Kerr provided for the bridge dome in the thread you linked to, I found that my bridge dome is exactly 3 inch diameter with a 2 inch curvature, as it was in "Tribbles". Spot on from eyeballing. "Damn, I'm good", my grandpa used to say, and I'm saying it now.

 

[GNDN18]

Damn, I'm good

Yes, you are.

 

[Donny]

Here's a rare shot before I start painting. The game-model is only 30,000 polygons (which is far less than I thought it would be). I've baked detail information from the high-poly model, which is just over a million polygons. Here I have the windows and decals masked in black.

 

[Donny]

First night of painting was a success.

Here's a somewhat eerie preview.


Unfortunately, I noticed that the curvature of the underside of the saucer is a bit off towards the edges, so I'll have to take some time to correct that before continuing, as that will require tweaking of the model and re-baking a few textures. But otherwise, I'm happy with the results thus far.

 

[BK613]

Sweet