Got a source for that, or is it just based on fanon?
tng blueprinting WIP
- Thread starter AnyStar
- Start date
Got a source for that, or is it just based on fanon?
More like pulled out of his ass....
Well looking at the zoomed in shot of the side/view of the saucer section, while I don't have my resources at hand, the top part does look a bit bulgy (top heavy) as if it should be reduced a bit.
Don't forget that CAD files and such for ships, aircraft and esspecially vehicle layouts are never 100% accurate, due to perspective. Homes and buildings arn't so bad as they're mostly square and easy to calculate, but when you have something with a lot of curves and round points at various depths, things are not always going to line up perfectly.
I only know this due to the various CAD files I deal with in regards to buildings and signage.... not to mention our digital auto library files for all the vehicle models we work on have never been exact, off on a few measurements, or have parts that shouldn't be there or just not on the actual vehicle we're working on.
So in other words, you can only go by the CAD / Profile layouts so much before a little bit of human creativity is required to make it all fit...... AKA: I'd suggest reducing your top a little bit more to accommodate the known decks.
And from my memory of Ten Forward, the windows were all shaped as though it was on the bottom half of the saucer.
^ Based on the layout, it would appear to be the deck directly starting on the bottom half, and if that is considered deck 11, then something's a foot...... perhaps even an ear.
Don't forget that CAD files and such for ships, aircraft and esspecially vehicle layouts are never 100% accurate, due to perspective. Homes and buildings arn't so bad as they're mostly square and easy to calculate, but when you have something with a lot of curves and round points at various depths, things are not always going to line up perfectly.
I only know this due to the various CAD files I deal with in regards to buildings and signage.... not to mention our digital auto library files for all the vehicle models we work on have never been exact, off on a few measurements, or have parts that shouldn't be there or just not on the actual vehicle we're working on.
So in other words, you can only go by the CAD / Profile layouts so much before a little bit of human creativity is required to make it all fit...... AKA: I'd suggest reducing your top a little bit more to accommodate the known decks.
And from my memory of Ten Forward, the windows were all shaped as though it was on the bottom half of the saucer.
^ Based on the layout, it would appear to be the deck directly starting on the bottom half, and if that is considered deck 11, then something's a foot...... perhaps even an ear.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/galaxy.htm
^ Check this page out, in paticular:
(Temp Image Removed)
^ Check this page out, in paticular:
(Temp Image Removed)
Last edited:
Also, in looking at this side profile, it would appear there is an error in the series layout and the original layout of the ship:
(Temp Image Removed)
It appears as though Deck 10 was supposed to be the dead centre of the saucer section (not below centre as shown in the series.)
In the previous link that hosted these imaged (I copied them to my Photobucket account to not strain their site with link images) they explain about the dead centre of the saucer was originally supposed to be a section that everybody was supposed to be able to walk around with a full view outside the ship.... that never reall took off, so to speak:
"Fitting in Ten Forward: The answer to the question lies in Andrew Probert's original concept of the Enterprise-D. He intended the saucer rim to be a series of dim lounges and of corridors that crew members could take for walks, while being able to watch the stars. This is also the rationale why the numerous windows around the rim are always dark, the probable real-world reason being that this section of the miniature is hard to illuminate because of the internal framework that holds the model together. In an interview with Forgotten Trek the designer says, "I thought it could be more romantic or just quiet... some space away from the aluminium gray walls of the ship." In his concept there would have been just one deck in the rim, with two window rows separated by a slightly recessed sensor strip, the "belly band" as Probert calls it. Andrew Probert left the Star Trek Art Department after the first season."
Added:
What's really bad is that if you scroll down further in the original link I supplied, they show both 4' and 6' models head on and compare where 10 forward was located.... which is somehow now Deck 9, above the centre line of the saucer (not below as the windows in the series would have you believe)
So in regards to 10 forward and where it really is?
That appears to be up to you.
Additional information from original link:
So there is no other option left but to accept that the new model with the high two-deck rim is the "true" Enterprise-D, although there are some problems with the deck heights that tend to vary considerably. But there exist precedents of decks on the Galaxy class that would be either very high or very low regardless of the retconning of the saucer rim.
^ Hope some of this helps with your confusion.
(Temp Image Removed)
It appears as though Deck 10 was supposed to be the dead centre of the saucer section (not below centre as shown in the series.)
In the previous link that hosted these imaged (I copied them to my Photobucket account to not strain their site with link images) they explain about the dead centre of the saucer was originally supposed to be a section that everybody was supposed to be able to walk around with a full view outside the ship.... that never reall took off, so to speak:
"Fitting in Ten Forward: The answer to the question lies in Andrew Probert's original concept of the Enterprise-D. He intended the saucer rim to be a series of dim lounges and of corridors that crew members could take for walks, while being able to watch the stars. This is also the rationale why the numerous windows around the rim are always dark, the probable real-world reason being that this section of the miniature is hard to illuminate because of the internal framework that holds the model together. In an interview with Forgotten Trek the designer says, "I thought it could be more romantic or just quiet... some space away from the aluminium gray walls of the ship." In his concept there would have been just one deck in the rim, with two window rows separated by a slightly recessed sensor strip, the "belly band" as Probert calls it. Andrew Probert left the Star Trek Art Department after the first season."
Added:
What's really bad is that if you scroll down further in the original link I supplied, they show both 4' and 6' models head on and compare where 10 forward was located.... which is somehow now Deck 9, above the centre line of the saucer (not below as the windows in the series would have you believe)
So in regards to 10 forward and where it really is?
That appears to be up to you.
Additional information from original link:
So there is no other option left but to accept that the new model with the high two-deck rim is the "true" Enterprise-D, although there are some problems with the deck heights that tend to vary considerably. But there exist precedents of decks on the Galaxy class that would be either very high or very low regardless of the retconning of the saucer rim.
^ Hope some of this helps with your confusion.
Last edited:
*shrug* some people have a sense of humor, some don't.
I wasn't commenting on the relative humourousness of the bit, only the matter of whether it was canon or fanon; I was positing that it was neither.
But if you really need a smiley,
But if you really need a smiley,
thanks for the well thought out comments! i ended up completely re-working the engineering hull today, based largely on what Praxius was referring to about CAD files. 2d plans no matter what medium you use to create them ARE in fact only accurate to a point, you can draw them 2 ways: the right way, and the way that looks right. that's why i work in 3d dwg format, what you see is all flat on the pages, but i make everything in a 3d wireframe format.
If you re-create the secondary hull using the official plans as a guide, all you will have is a tracing of what those plans look like... they just dont match up when you investigate... its difficult using those plans because the only guide you have to the curvature or "turtle shell" is the deflector grid pattern - and that pattern doesnt even match ANY of the models. the lateral "rings" and the crossbars are both in incorrect places on all views shown.
sooo i ended up just making the thing in 3d then picking the lines i want and flattening them all out! LOL
but that and the primary geometry on the neck is done too. here's how it stands now:
next comes the exhaustive process of detailing it
If you re-create the secondary hull using the official plans as a guide, all you will have is a tracing of what those plans look like... they just dont match up when you investigate... its difficult using those plans because the only guide you have to the curvature or "turtle shell" is the deflector grid pattern - and that pattern doesnt even match ANY of the models. the lateral "rings" and the crossbars are both in incorrect places on all views shown.
sooo i ended up just making the thing in 3d then picking the lines i want and flattening them all out! LOL
but that and the primary geometry on the neck is done too. here's how it stands now:
next comes the exhaustive process of detailing it
ok, this is the point of a project where i throw out all the "official" (or whatever i have been using as a guide) references, and begin working entirely off the model(s) itself. in this case the 6 footer.
there are a couple things i will be taking into acount from set designs, but by-and-large i'm a model maker, always have been, and as such the filming models themselves have always had higher pull with me than what set designers build! however i usually try to at least make some effort to marry the 2: i will meet in the middle on things, i'm a rational guy after all, but the model configuration will win most fights with me... lol
anyway, that being said, it will probably be a couple days before the next update, as my drawings usually get very messy at this point, i also have a busy weekend in store for me...
untill then, for future plans: any of you have any suggestions on any detail sheets they would like see become a part of this? Aside from the "usual suspects" we are used to seeing?
there are a couple things i will be taking into acount from set designs, but by-and-large i'm a model maker, always have been, and as such the filming models themselves have always had higher pull with me than what set designers build! however i usually try to at least make some effort to marry the 2: i will meet in the middle on things, i'm a rational guy after all, but the model configuration will win most fights with me... lol
anyway, that being said, it will probably be a couple days before the next update, as my drawings usually get very messy at this point, i also have a busy weekend in store for me...
untill then, for future plans: any of you have any suggestions on any detail sheets they would like see become a part of this? Aside from the "usual suspects" we are used to seeing?
Being an AutoCad Guy but I work with a an older version than you for my starship drawings
I can appreciate what your doing. Keep up the great work
looking forward to seeing more
I can appreciate what your doing. Keep up the great work
looking forward to seeing more
i had more time on my hands today than expected, so i got started on the detailing, 1/3 of the upper saucer is done, windows, hatches, pods, and aztecing.
my pinky is KILLING me from all the alt-tabbing back and forth from cad to pic-browser!!! LOL
on the detailing note however, i've managed to misplace my .shx autocad TNG style fonts, i used to have several in this format that was compatable with autocad... cannot seem to find them though. do any of you have any?
my pinky is KILLING me from all the alt-tabbing back and forth from cad to pic-browser!!! LOL
on the detailing note however, i've managed to misplace my .shx autocad TNG style fonts, i used to have several in this format that was compatable with autocad... cannot seem to find them though. do any of you have any?
Something that's always bugged me about those 1701-D blueprints is how deck 5 is supposed to have the phaser ring in it (according to the cross section). It goes right down into the deck, yet doesn't show up anywhere in the actual deck plan itself. If it did, it would intersect corridors so they left it out?
by my count it in deck 6 actually, but mine IS actually ecompassing the lower 1/2 of hull property of deck 5. this makes for more problems related to the earlier posts concerning the window placements. there are many many windows for deck 6, however all of them would be located in impossible to get to spaces, because, just as Felix said, the "guts" of the phaser array would prevent any access corridors (this is the case in both my plans and the reference set i'm using)
my current thinking for a solution, is to terminate deck 6 at the access point of the phasers, and loft the ceilings of deck 7 up to those windows, and make that entire portion of the saucer into common or public areas. i have already done a similar thing with deck 10 (the upper deck of the outermost saucer portion) creating a space very much like the observation areas the original design sketches called for, when it was assumed the saucer rim was a solitary deck.
here's a couple quickie screenshot (using my revised x-section profile (view is from the front)) to demostrate, i'll put up some better views in the next update
I'm still using my 'lil Lego man as an eyeball scale refernce too! he's grown up to a full 6' now tho!
my current thinking for a solution, is to terminate deck 6 at the access point of the phasers, and loft the ceilings of deck 7 up to those windows, and make that entire portion of the saucer into common or public areas. i have already done a similar thing with deck 10 (the upper deck of the outermost saucer portion) creating a space very much like the observation areas the original design sketches called for, when it was assumed the saucer rim was a solitary deck.
here's a couple quickie screenshot (using my revised x-section profile (view is from the front)) to demostrate, i'll put up some better views in the next update
I'm still using my 'lil Lego man as an eyeball scale refernce too! he's grown up to a full 6' now tho!
I don't know if this has been touched upon, but my feeling/rationalization since the sets' windows were never really lining up the way they did on the model, was that the decks re-angled near the part of the deck closest to the windows, so the windows would be more easily accessible from the inside. With artificial gravity, this wouldn't be an issue.
Did I explain that clearly? I hope you know what I mean.
I know the angle of the window in the set is different than it would be in the cross section, but careful how exact you try and make it on paper. Hmm.. I'd rather "pretend" that the angles are the same than to have parts of deck angled just for that reason.
EXCELLENT work, AnyStar... I particularly love your deck-by deck size comparison with the people... looks like you got it right. In the booklet that came with the Blueprints, Mike Okuda said that we could assume that the decks have 8-foot ceilings.
Speaking of Mr. Okuda... I'd be interested to see what he or Mr. Sternbach and Probert think of this.
Speaking of Mr. Okuda... I'd be interested to see what he or Mr. Sternbach and Probert think of this.
EXCELLENT work, AnyStar... I particularly love your deck-by deck size comparison with the people... looks like you got it right. In the booklet that came with the Blueprints, Mike Okuda said that we could assume that the decks have 8-foot ceilings.
Speaking of Mr. Okuda... I'd be interested to see what he or Mr. Sternbach and Probert think of this.
in order to keep the deck count down, my ceilings are a bit higher, floor to ceiling height is a whopping 9.5 feet, and overall centers are 11' offests (using an 18" floorbase).
on nearly all my other startship sectionals i've done the deck height is usually closer to 8' or even 7.5' to keep it more realistic, but considering the overal concept of the ship in question (i think of it as a luxury liner, considering it is a family oriented design) i think the taller ceilings are acceptable.
and as far as the "gods of the cosmos" are concerned... i certainly hope they'd like it!!! after all its certainly done in homage to them!
Similar threads
