(slightly) Updated E "blueprint" obsession

[judexavier]

Still not finished .

At this point, the results are even further away. The saucer is huge.

Anyway...

I got bored and decided to rough in the decks...interestingly enough, (dumb luck) most all of the windows lined up, only the neck port really not fitting in (it appears it would exactly straddle two decks, as originally drawn).
Right now it seems to fit 23 full decks, and one partial in the lower "belly" of the secondary hull.

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg178/judexavier/STXIEnterpriseNCC-1701Conjecture-1.jpg

 

[PixelMagic]

Make the nacelles about 120% larger, and the proportions would be alot closer to correct. The nacelles on the new E are huge for some reason.

EDIT: Like this...

 

[Tom Servo]

Honestly, with this design, the huge saucer is not bothering me at all. i quite like it, even though I do agree about bumping up the size of the nacelles. But other then that, I think she is a beauty.

 

[ancient]

That's some great work. I think your proportions are about right. I'm not sure why people think the nacelles are crazy long, since they don't appear that way in any of the views we've seen.

As a matter of fact, I even did an almost scientific analysis of it in the Trek Tech forum:
http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2382449&postcount=450

So I think you've got it pretty darn close.

 

[judexavier]

That's some great work. I think your proportions are about right. I'm not sure why people think the nacelles are crazy long, since they don't appear that way in any of the views we've seen.

As a matter of fact, I even did an almost scientific analysis of it in the Trek Tech forum:
http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2382449&postcount=450

So I think you've got it pretty darn close.

Oh yes, I saw that thread. You know in all these years I never saw that divided rectangle "ruler" thing with the vanishing lines...very cool. thanks.

I did try the enlarged nacelles, (well, it looked like Pixel's pic) does help the proportions, but then, it starts to drift away from the screencaps (to my eye)...

then again, wasn't there somebody on these boards who's actually seen the thing? (Besides Mr. Sternbach and Mr. Probert ofcourse) Was it Pixelmagic?

Perhaps that was a subtle insider spoiler hint. I can't remember that far back.

I wonder if making them longer (not just a scale-up) might be better?

Another thing I was thinking about (perhaps I'm insane...).
In current filmmaking, all the CG elements; now that they are not "limited" by a solid physical filming model, how likely is it that a director might distort a mesh to enhance the dramatic impact of certain FX shots?

Which would indeed throw people way off, in trying to analyze screencaps. The reason I wonder is that, that enterprise really seems to...I don't know...change shape, beyond just virtual lens distortions.

Plus I would still swear before a Grand Jury that the 1st trailer E is quite different from the revealed ship.

But, my old eyes ain't what they used to be...

 

[PixelMagic]

I have not seen the Trek XI Enterprise except for the public pics. However, someone who does work on Star Trek XI posted a profile outline of it. It was a white silhouette which was traced over a production blueprint.

The nacelles shown on that still were larger than in your drawings. Maybe someone still has it saved somewhere.

 

[Tom Servo]

I believe that is has been concluded that that profile outline was wrong, because that profile in no way matches the proportions of the ship in the trailer. Comparing the diagrams to the ship in the trailer, it seems to me that the ship's nacelles are about halfway between the original size, and the upscaled one.

Hopefully another photo of the ship comes out soon, because figuring out what this thing looks like is driving me nuts.

 

[ancient]

If you mean that siloette from hobbytalk, a quick glance reveals that the saucer size is completely wrong, the deflector is the wrong shape, and the nacelles are far too long. It's worthless.

 

[PixelMagic]

If you mean that siloette from hobbytalk, a quick glance reveals that the saucer size is completely wrong, the deflector is the wrong shape, and the nacelles are far too long. It's worthless.

Yes, that is the one I'm refering to. However, it was made by someone working on the film, so I wonder why it was inaccurate.

 

[judexavier]

Yeah it's driving me nuts too. On the other hand, I think we all have it pretty much figured out, besides specific details (shuttle bay, impulse, etc.)

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Sorry, PixelMagic, your nacelle size is nonsense. The OP's image (and Ancient's for that matter) are far more accurate.

The problem is that you, like most people, are trying to force the "new" design into your preconceptions. You're thinking that the aspect ratio (length to diameter) of the nacelles should be the same as what you've seen on the 1701 and 1701(r) in the past. But that's not the case. These new nacelles are simply short and chubby...

See Ancient's rather effective size-estimation technique (linked to in his post, above) and you'll see the problem more clearly.

Make the nacelles about 120% larger, and the proportions would be alot closer to correct. The nacelles on the new E are huge for some reason.

EDIT: Like this...

If you mean that siloette from hobbytalk, a quick glance reveals that the saucer size is completely wrong, the deflector is the wrong shape, and the nacelles are far too long. It's worthless.

Yes, that is the one I'm refering to. However, it was made by someone working on the film, so I wonder why it was inaccurate.

There's a difference between someone CLAIMING to work on the film (nobody who does will release anything like this, else they'd be fired immediately and possibly even charged with a misdemeanor crime, depending on the terms of their employment), someone working at the film studio or the FX studio (but not on the project), and someone who's just talking out of their rectal cavity...

I think that the fact that it's been proven, almost incontrovertably, that the image seen at "Hobbytalk" has nothing in common with the REAL images we've seen, so whoever claimed it was "real" was simply making it up and thus fits into that third classification.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The source of the hobbytalk pic works for the company that did the trailer, which is not quite the same thing as working on the movie itself.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The several folks who accurately described the Enterprise to me in the months previous to the design's public release all described the engines as "huge."

 

[judexavier]

Man, with the giant saucer and huge nacelles, the only thing the poor little mis-shapen secondary hull has going for it are some greebles and pleasure-ribs.
Perhaps in this revision it is exclusivly a powerplant container, with a shuttlebay in the back, nothing else. The fat saucer holds everything "important" (that is not specifically engineering).
The eventual deckplans will be interesting.

 

[ThunderAeroI]

I do wonder why they would put them sized so differently from the 'norm'. It just seems odd. But if starship is right and she has the contacts then so be it. I just find it silly..

 

[judexavier]

Yeah, I don't know. !?!?!? I realize that art is subjective, but, ***just to me***, the "huge-er" nacelles don't seem to fit with the rest of this design. In messing with this damn thing so much , and seeing/inspired by others doing the same thing, there seems to be a nice "sweet-spot, visual "flow-line" curving up over the saucer into the nacelles.
Even with an enlarged saucer, this still works with the nacelles sized according to the screen cap "analysis". (And Ancient's cool vanishing point technique thing- yeah I'm using that now ).

Not to mention that series of pics he did with his orthos over the "warping" screencaps...man they were close.

The bigger ones just don't seem to fit in any way...even divorced from any "star-trek" ethic, it just looks wrong...like a car with 3 ft. headlights.

I do not know. And I hate that.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Dennis, you might want to clarify your gender for the newbies...

 

[davejames]

Man, with the giant saucer and huge nacelles, the only thing the poor little mis-shapen secondary hull has going for it are some greebles and pleasure-ribs.
Perhaps in this revision it is exclusivly a powerplant container, with a shuttlebay in the back, nothing else. The fat saucer holds everything "important" (that is not specifically engineering).
The eventual deckplans will be interesting.

Actually I'm liking the secondary hull more and more everytime I see it. It's got a nice, elegant flow to it, which the OP's diagram shows off really well.

It might be a little small in comparison to the saucer and nacelles, but that's my only minor quibble with it.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Dennis, you might want to clarify your gender for the newbies...

This is the internet, silly. It's like a giant Schrodinger's Box for gender.

 

[Captain Robert April]

So, we're all a bunch of hermaphrodites here?