Let's start by clarifying where we are.
It was suggested that this pylon lacks the small triangular vent on the outboard pylon up near the nacelle. Besides issues of having to have a custom or customized model to make that so, there was the counterpoint that it was an issue of visibility. That counterpoint ran something like:
As we see with the larger vent, the lighting and compositing in the scene has led to the vents being much lower in contrast to the hull . . . i.e. they're lighter than usual. That plus the angle of view where most of the vent is wrapped around the back side of the pylon is where the claim of no vent originated.
There remains a lot of nitpicking of evidence, for some reason, but the fact is that the presence of the vent is now acknowledged, an improvement on the previous view expressed was that it was not there.
That is exactly the view that I was hoping to change.
That said, I do want to address some of the ancillary things:
If SketchUp or any camera matching software is randomly throwing the whole model out of position and orientation when attempting delicate movements and you can eliminate user error then the model is not accurate enough for what you are doing.
Huh? Sorry, I must have been unclear. This is a manual process and user interface issue, not a model problem. SketchUp does have a camera match mode but I've never found it useful for anything not a rectangle so literally I am manually turning the model, "moving the camera" by various maneuvers, changing the field of view, et cetera, individually. One maneuver type requires turning the model with 'gravity' off to achieve pitch and roll, but as often when one does this the UI messes up and the entire model ends up *way over there*.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the model. I could literally be trying to replicate one of my own SketchUp screenshots with the very same SketchUp model and have the same problem.
The issue is akin to a more familiar sort of problem of drawing a box in the paint program of your choice, moving a piece of the image, then trying to put it back precisely but as you get close the box jumps on you. It does not mean that the piece of the image is somehow out of proportion or whatever. It's literally the same image, just there's a UI issue getting it matched back up manually.
I know you really want to be able to say there's something majorly wrong with the Wiley model, but there's not.
Here is the funny part. The small vent is already present in your screencap above (highlighted with red dots below). Still practically invisible to casual inspection.
Yes, I already pointed out that it was visible with my overlay shot of what appears to be the same frame. It is just that, from this angle, there's not a lot visible because the rest of it is either behind his head or curved around the pylon.
The visibilty of the front pylon edge gives a good spatial cue for positioning. I tried to maintain the angle and 'fly by' the Wiley 1701, but in any case you can see that, at a roughly proper angle, there's simply not a lot of that vent visible.
That is a far away shot and not like the close-up from TVH which is a different reason why you can barely see it.
No, the issue is of view angle and contrast, not distance. If you look at my shot, you can clearly see that there's a slight bit of angle change of the rear of the pylon as it approaches the nacelle. That's simply what the vent looks like from this angle . . . skinny, effectively invisible.
Other pics from other angles don't disprove that point, though I will admit to being amused at this shot from a much lower angle (and thus showing the vent area better) where the contrast is so low it is almost as bad for the purpose of vent visibility as the TVH shot:
but move the camera closer you can start to see it...
In any case, I think it is obvious at this point that this is a shot of the Constitution model. That said, all of this was based on arguing whether pieces of the Constitution model should be taken to represent an entire Constitution Class ship.
I am certainly happy to join in that argument when it comes to random saucers or pieces of saucers, nacelles, and even the BoBW secondary hull. I would prefer not to assume these are Constitution Class, especially given the re-use of designs of such large elements in that era for other known classes and ships.
However, here it is harder simply because there are more parts. It is not just a nacelle but also the pylon, and the pylon and its angle would tend to imply something to connect to that, for commonality with other Starfleet designs, would most likely be so close to a Constitution as to make it easier to just say it is one.
That said, I do not believe that was the intent of the effects team. In my opinion, it would not make sense to have the crew fly so close to a Constitution in this story context. They were simply flying by a random ship, visually demonstrating a busy Spacedock as with the other shuttle going the other way, and when they were planning to make the shot the earlier Miranda shots were probably done or had proven unsatisfactory. Only a review of the storyboard and/or making-of would confirm this sort of reasoning.
Then again, by only showing the slightest sliver of a Constitution, even that point can go either way.
