The only thing that I noticed is that the first sheet mentions NCC-1833 as the registry rather than 1800.
Ha, yep. I've found conflicting evidence on whether the Miranda is "1800" or "1833", but granted these are all from non-canon sources so I just haven't settled on which I prefer.
Also, isn't the Miranda just one big hull, rather than primary and secondary? I'd imagine the terminology is dependent on a ship's general shape and amount of components separated by pylons or "necks". For example, the Miranda or Defiant classes are just one hull, while something like a Springfield-class has a primary, secondary, and tertiary hull.
-I agree with
@Rekkert in that this is a single hull vessel. So you probably can nix the call-outs for these. If you feel the need to call out the built-up area in the back, the naval term to use is
superstructure.
Not to repeat myself too much, but these are modular ships. Whether the modules are clearly differentiated as in the case of Enterprise, or integrated as in this case, they are still modular. The saucer is the primary (habitation) area, and the extension(s) are operational (secondary) area(s). So yes, this ship has a primary and secondary hull IMO.
Yeah, I figured this might be a point of dispute. I've been studying
@aridas sofia's Avenger-class schematics as inspiration to call-outs, specifications, etc, so I did carry this over from his work. Honestly, I could go either way on this issue. Not calling them out would be a way to leave it up to interpretation to the end viewer
What's your thinking on the deflector pod? Is it routinely manned? Presumably it's accessable via ladders and catwalks for maintenance etc.
I would assume that the deflector pod isn't manned per se (which is why I did not include any viewports), but it is accessible via catwalks/ladders if repairs or maintenance are necessary. Maybe even via turbolift if we imagine turbolifts having their own independent gravity system. I figure that those rectangular decals up top could outline access hatches for external repair via manned workbee/utility pods launched from the hangar as well.
Noice! I’d ditch the l’il hollow circles at the ends of your leaders, though, or change them to small arrowheads or solid circles. In some cases, the red outlined circles appear to be a feature on the thing that you’re pointing at (for example, the starboard running light).
Good point (no pun intended
). I'll try some arrows tonight and see how that looks (probably fits more with a mid-century vibe too)
-If you nix the "primary hull" call-out, move the "sensor" call-out up to its place to provide symmetry with the "photon torpedo" call-out.
-If it were me, I would bring the call-out for the warp nacelle up to the gap between "intercooler" and "emergency flush valves" and bring "intercooler" down to replace it. This would allow the call-out for the nacelle to unambiguously hit the center of the nacelle and not cross the intercooler or any other feature (which might cause confusion,)
-I'm sure it is on you to-do list but right-justify and left-justify the call-outs on the right and left, respectfully.
You know, last night I totally intended to bring the warp nacelle call-out line to the center of the nacelle and
not cross over the intercoolers, but looks like I didn't follow through. But good ideas on all the spacing recommendations you're provided here. I've flip-flopped in wanting the call-outs to be slightly scattered, or neatly organized.
Again, terrific job! (And don't think I didn't notice the color of the nacelle nav lights
)
I actually changed this on the Saladin soon after you pointed out the rules of the road. Thanks again for bringing this issue to my attention!
The only question is whether the pod constitutes a tertiary hull or a mission pod, and I think that would depend on whether it is normally habitable. I have come to think “no” on that, but YMMV.
Yeah, since I don't see it as normally habitable, I'd have to go with "no" on calling it a tertiary hull as well. I obviously like the idea of having this pod being interchangeable for different mission configurations, so I'm going to continue to call it out as such. All that being said, I want to model alternative pods sometime later and perhaps do a sheet on the different pods as an addendum.
Love it. Text is a little small.
I made these with the plan of printing them out at 11x17 later, so while the text is still small, it should be perfectly legible when viewed full-screen or printed at this resolution. Have you tried viewing the images from my Flickr, then clicking the "full-screen" option in the upper right corner?
This is the best TOS-ified Miranda-Class I've ever seen! Well done,
@Donny!
That's an extremely nice compliment! Thank you, sir!
I don't have much to say except that it's lovely. There's something about the setting that makes it look a little more CG (as I found when I did the same thing). Even the 3/4ish view comes off as flatter than your usual work. Weird, eh?
Possibly the distributed, "global" lighting used so that all the details are visible? A "necessary evil" for the purpose of the image, schematic type presentation. I suspect Donny uses a different lighting formula for his "space" shots which makes his models "pop".
@Redfern is correct, it most likely has to do with the fact that I've employed even lighting for the renders. I'm actually going to take new shots of the renders tonight (I had to make a small correction on the registry texture), so I may try enhancing the lighting a bit. I used one of Painter's built-in lighting scenarios so it may do me some good to create my own. I also want to investigate properly taking these renders from 3ds Max instead, and there I'd have full lighting control.
I also don't think it helps that these renderings are on a white background
