Jayru (JSnaith's) 3D Trek

Well, yes, I can agree with that idea… but I don’t think that would warrant naming an entire class after her, basically/IMO.

What would the follow-on ships be named, for instance? Descriptive adjectives of ADM Janeway’s character? Err, maybe it’s better to not suggest answers to that one. :lol:

If anything, I would suggest ‘flipping’ the class and ship name… So it’s the USS Janeway, lead ship of the Pioneer Class. Then you could nominally have the USS Pike, USS Sisko, etc.

(Although then you’d run the risk of having too many ships named after famous Captains and Admirals, much like what the USCG ran into with the new Legend Class cutters in RL.)

Again, just IMO. YMMV. :techman:

Cheers,
-CM-

Well, we could have a ship named the "USS Ensign Harry Kim" :hugegrin:

Sorry, I couldn't resist a bit of sarcasm.
 
I like where you’re going with the Kirk class, although the curvature on the saucer (especially in profile) really conflicts with the angularity of the secondary hull and nacelles… Thoughts?

(And you can just reply, ‘Don’t be picky!’, lol… )

Cheers,
-CM-
 
I like where you’re going with the Kirk class, although the curvature on the saucer (especially in profile) really conflicts with the angularity of the secondary hull and nacelles… Thoughts?

(And you can just reply, ‘Don’t be picky!’, lol… )

Cheers,
-CM-
LOL, I agree and am thinking about how to blend things better - when it comes to the Kirk-Constitution.

The saucer needs to be rebuilt, and I have a little time this morning to have a play with the study (and plan to). I'm not going to make her 100% like the ship is in DSC or STO, because there are things I disagree with on the design, such as the "secondary hull" which seems to have been added as a after thought, and the fact the saucer is tilted. The side profile looks wrong in terms of all of that, so am going to have a play and see what I can improve on.

The nacelles - are almost 100% spot on. I need to add a curve to one part, which should soften them, but I rather like the "exploded" design of them.

Fortunately, I have this one in STO and can have a good look at it :-)

The Janeway-Intrepid, I am still thinking about the hull name and number. I've been doing a little more research on these ships and here is the thing;

ALL the ship classes introduced for the 32c in DSC season 3 were around when The Burn happened, and are therefore 100+ years old designs. 32c Starfleet doesn't seem to have any new ship designs, and it's possible that some of the ships in service pre-date The Burn. The common reg number for the time is NCC-325XXX, with some exceptions, the Voyager-J the Excalibur-M and the Armstrong (which has a reg that starts NCC-317XXX). That fits with the idea of the Federation being on it's knees and the reduced capacity/ability of Starfleet as both organisations are badly affected by The Burn. Given all that, and the technology that was being used in the 31c and 32c for ships, I don't think we have seen the pinacol of what they can actually build.

Now the visual reality is more likely that they used the models they had when showing The Burn, and we (the audience) weren't supposed to pay too much attention to the ships classes displayed. Well, this autistic brained individual did take notice of them and the ship wreckage on display in various scenes, lol and we have the small conundrum that I have pointed out. Do I think the FX team would use existing models? Trek has a GREAT tradition of reusing models, hence the timeless Excelsior, Miranda, Oberth. Heck, the original USS Constellation was numbered NCC-1017 because they used a store bought kit to build the filming miniature. So I'm not overly concerned by the above, just making a point.

We also have the fact the season 5 of DSC may introduce newer ships, and newer tech. My work is meant to take place beyond that point, so I maybe should wait until CBS take there boots out of there bums and show the season (it's only been ready for two years now, come one CBS stop teasing and show it already!).

It's all fun, right? lol.

Anyways, will have a play with the Kirk-Constitution and shoot out some new renders of the study. More, therefore, later!
 
Refined Kirk-Constitution study model:

8bHumHN.jpg
llEPIcI.jpg
hpQXf3M.jpg
WUWr3gM.jpg
Iu3UzXM.jpg
bUWkTR7.jpg


More later!
 
Spent some more time on the study of the Kirk-Constitution - refined it further, softened the edges and corners and rebalanced elements. Happier for this to be the leaping off point (when it's time comes!)

W7eGoGd.jpg
JfQVJfE.jpg
QMxh1Vr.jpg
LdCNstH.jpg
HTxW0tL.jpg
Z3qQztn.jpg


The engineering hull is something I'll leave to my back brain to ponder, as the original design is dull and doesn't sit well with me. Still loving the nacelles on this one. Wish I'd studied this more before doing the Sulu Class. In fact, I may revisit that one.

Anyway, busy day back at the coal face at some point. As always, comments welcome - more soon!
 
It is an interesting design. The “straps” look on the saucer section particularly.
The nacelles are an interesting design. Maybe a little less pointy in the aft end??
The engineering section looks too small for the rest of the ship. Of course, it all depends on the mission of that class. For an exploratory vehicle it is fine.
These are just my opinions.
 
I wasn't to keen on the Kirk-Constitution class at first, but your tweaking has made it appear more 'together'. Which is interesting for a ship that isn't even connected. :P
 
It is an interesting design. The “straps” look on the saucer section particularly.
The nacelles are an interesting design. Maybe a little less pointy in the aft end??
The engineering section looks too small for the rest of the ship. Of course, it all depends on the mission of that class. For an exploratory vehicle it is fine.
These are just my opinions.
Thank you!

Original lines of the Kirk-Constitution -

GJ3Aa1i.jpg


To scale renders from one era to another -

ZlCWRCM.jpg
wqRUzmW.jpg
LZusT7U.jpg
JePpLVE.jpg
UWL8EsD.jpg


"Small" is a relative term with these ships. You could fit an original Connie in the proposed engineering hull I've knocked up, and rattle it around inside, lol. 32c ships are pointy with odd curves. I quite like the style, it's jarring and feels off kilter - but it's supposed to. It's not supposed to be like anything we have now. But as I said before, let me think on the secondary hull and see what my back brain comes up with ;-)


I wasn't to keen on the Kirk-Constitution class at first, but your tweaking has made it appear more 'together'. Which is interesting for a ship that isn't even connected. :P
Thank you!

It's an interesting concept, although not original to Star Trek - I first saw "floating" tech in the film "Jupiter Ascending" - another film that I love stylistically. But the peeps working on Trek have made it work for DSC, and I appreciate that 1,000 years from now technology is going to be "interesting."

More later.
 
Hiya guys and gals,

things are on hold again whilst I deal with family matters.

More, as and when.
 
Hang in there, @JSnaith … But take as much time as needed to get the family side in order. We can wait. :techman:

Interesting thought to contemplate possibly when you do return. It never dawned on me until now that the ‘straps’ on the top side of the Kirk almost line up with the nacelle ‘intakes’, but not quite. With them not lining up, it’s to the ‘awkwardness’ of the design to my eyes.

I wonder if having them line up so was the original intent, for some ‘technobabble’ reason (‘plasma flow’, etc.)? Worth contemplating, maybe?

Cheers,
-CM-
 
Back
Top