The ship is interesting, but where you trying to see how many different ways you could misspell words on the image?
oh my... yes... er no lol how embarrassing, some of my keys stick, I'm using an older keyboard, and it was late, like 4 in the morning actually... so I got around to labeling this thing, I was struggling to keep my eyes open, at a glance, it looked ready to go..... no wonder I haven't gotten much of a reply on this.... worst part is, I already uploaded it to DA, so I'm not sure if I can simply remove the pic and keep the comments, not that it has any now...
Ok, hehe, had a post written up then accidentally left page before actually posting, so here goes again. In the side view the engineering hull is portrayed as much longer than shown in the top view, reaching all the way to the intercoolers. In the top view your pylons give the impression that they are angled up which by association gives the impression that we should be able to see at least part of the engineering hull below the nacelles. So, your drawing makes me think of the pylons in green on the below image when I think you intended something closer to either the orange or yellow pylons.
There are numerous things wrong. First, when doing this, you should credit where you got the original work from. This is an obvious cut and paste from images on www.starshipschematics.net , and is kinda rude to throw this up there as if you drew the whole thing, when, in truth, there isn't a single original line in it. Second, your lines don't match up in the two views, at all. This is most obvious in the engineering hull. Your port view is much, much longer than your dorsal view. The deflector mounting is completely different, etc. Third, the engineering hull, as shown, is structurally impossible. You do realize that the hangar assembly is an inverted 'u' shape, while the FRONT of that assembly is not inverted. Exactly how are these things supposed to match up? They can't. Last, pretty much everything in the text is either misspelled or just bizzare. It's okay to have a typo, everyone here is fluent in that language. This is just pretty sloppy all around. I'm going to strongly recommend that when you do a 'fan ship', you spend some amount of time on it. To be frank, this is just bad work. Everything that you could have done wrong here, you pretty much did. In the future, take some time, and put in more effort. It may suck, at the moment, to go through the 'pain' of the actual work, but you'll never regret having having done it. You will regret half-ass measures like this one.
oops, thanks for pointing that out, I was looking at the engineering hull to the saucer and forgot about the nacelles :/ yeah the pylons are supposed to be straight, the pylons don't look raised to me though, especially when the nacelles are below the saucer but.... since there was a slight upward curve on the original pylons, it makes sense, allhough I always felt they looked flat from that angle.... I'll hopefully have an updated version later... excuse me, half-assed? maybe compared to your work, how do you know I didn't put in the effort... this is a very rough draft to get the basic concept down, it's a concept sketch, it's not oing to be perfect you know.. allot of my concept sketches are very simple, at first, if I choose to really work on the ship, that's fine, but I don't want to go and get to the point where I find out I never really liked it, or should have done something different. It says concept on the image but perhaps I should have put WIP in the title... secondly, for your information, before you accuse me of not giving credit, I found this on google, not starshipschematics, (although that would have been a good source to look for parts) with no indication of who it was by, but honestly, you talk about obvious, 99% of the stuff on starshipscematics is copied from various cannon and non-cannon tech-manuals and the like, as this one appears to be, I have a book with the same exact parts, quite a few actually.... where this came from, unfortunatly will probably always be a mystery.... and for that matter, any ship that uses a trek configuration could be considered stolen from paramount and the original designers if you want to get technical.... but as seeing how I've never heard of them or any franchise suing fan-work that's non-commercial, I've come to the conclusion, they really don't care.... why would they, it boots the franchises popularity.. I've already mentioned why the text is so bad , read my previous post on that, now, as for the U-shape of the secondary hull, I don't see your point, are you talking about the width of the back part not being the same as the front so the two parts don't line up? did you ever consider it slopes? or perhaps you mean that te shape of the haner isn't vissable on the side view, which looks square? I planned on having the hanger behind the nacelle, for protection.... so as for bad work, other than the spelling, the nacelle struts and the engineering length, I don't see anything wrong here... if you don't like the design, fine that's your opinion, why be so rough on it though? it's not final, its a quick concept.... so before you simply call it bad work, maybe you should keep that in mind, or perhaps you should be a little more suggestive and not so much a high and mighty critic oh and you can bet, if I had my scanner working, it would be a pencil sketch, I'm much better at drawing than MSpaint for some reason... and like my keyboard, my mouse has problems as well.... :/ if I took my time and did a real drawing.... like so... and that reminds me, I deleted the Independence from my DA untill I could get an updated version... why is she still showing up here o.0
If you want to invite this, and risking borderline flames here, the reason why it's obvious you didn't put in the effort is the lack of original lines, the numerous errors, and the slipshod manner in which the graphic was laid down. Then don't use it. Personally, I've given out my toolkit pieces for free and includes all the pieces you've used here. Also, starshipschematics.net has a very complete and detailed bibliography for every last image which appears there. Some of us actualy do have written permission, Cochise. But that aside, it's just common courtesy, and it takes absolutely zero effort to do. Again, if you're really strapped for parts, etc, I've given out several very detailed and complete graphics sets for free, and I know there are a few others out there. Take the rear part of the Enterprise secondary hull, and line it up so that it matches to the underside saucer dome... the shapes go in opposite directions. It's simply impossible for the two parts to line up as shown. The fact that you don't even recognize this fact re-illustrates my first point above. You assume I'm slamming the design? I've got three of them that use this very concept on my site. Heck, the ship itself is a lot like the SotL Bonaventure, without the added structure on the primary hull, for that matter.
"Take the rear part of the Enterprise secondary hull, and line it up so that it matches to the underside saucer dome... the shapes go in opposite directions. It's simply impossible for the two parts to line up as shown. The fact that you don't even recognize this fact re-illustrates my first point above." Not meaning to add any fuel to the fire, but even I am having trouble visualizing this and I consider myself very good at thinking in 3d. Are you saying if you take the secondary hull and mate it with the primary without a neck or intersecting the two hulls, that they won't fit together?
no no... take only the hangar bay section, and then smoosh it up so that it somehow follows the curves of the underside saucer dome. (As in the port view above). The outer curves go in opposide directions.
Not to be mean, but... I can't draw a stick figure without screwing it up. However, I do notice the issues with the design. For instance, where's the bottom half of the engineering hull in the side view? It looks like you just chopped the top off and used that. Also, how is the engineering hull connected to the saucer? On top of that... Aren't the impulse engines being so close to the top of the engineering hull and shown in the side view going to damage the top of the engineering hull? Also, beyond the fact that the engineering hull appears to extend further back on the side view than on the top view, it looks like the pylons for the nacelles are attached to the top of the engineering hull on the top view but there's no pylon attached in the same spot on the side view. The top view is significantly longer than the side view, too. Then there are the spelling errors...
well again it's a concept work-up, I didn't double check my dimensions, looking back, I think what happened was I put the nacelles to far forward on the side view and that messed me up, I went back and compared the two views and no, they don't line up.. as for the images used, I didn't get them from starshipschematics, so no there was no indication, and I've seen these same parts in various places, they look just like others I've seen on various sites and in many books.. so I'm not if you really could track down where they came from, they just look like generic parts honestly... nothing special.. now if you know where they originally came from and can prove it, then tha'ts another thing... but these are ust the same parts everyones been usingg time and again from the various technical manuals... I still don't know what you mean by the back of the engineering section not matchin up with the bottom of the saucer, it does, I did that before I put the nacelle there... it lines up perfectly... it's not the same as the Enterprises enineerin hull, it's smaller, and not curved on the bottom like the enterprises.. so it doesn't re-illustrate your point, because the engineerin hull isn't the same at all, it ust looks that way from the top.... and I thouht you were, because you seemed more insultive than helpfull, actually there is, the whole bottom of the engineerin hull is new , the bottom of the saucer modified, and the front of the saucer has been re-done and lentghened to incorporate the deflector... the nacells covers the bottom half, it's a very short engineering section, and if you look closely, you'll see that it's connect to the bottom part of the saucer, take the lowest point of the saucer, theres a a line going back, thats the bottum of the engineering hull as for the impulse engines, I thought about that, but it shouldn't, we never see any exhuast coming from them, and if it does, if it goes straight, and not don into the other hull it will be fine, if it where an issue of heat, the hull around the actual impulse engine would be of more concern.. besides, with material that can withstand incredable temperatures and more effective of resisting phaser fire than anything we could do, like Iron or Titanium, I'd think the hull could stand it... I'm aware of the nacelle length problem, and that of the engineerin hull, this was just a concept round to get feedback on the overall idea, and as such I hadn't edited the struts yet, I'm working on an updated version I'll post tonnight... and again, I already explained the spelling...
-and- Well, that particular illustration came from Todd Guenther's Ships of the Star Fleet (first published in 1988) and was most likely drawn by either Guenther or aridas sofia. The design is a modification of plans of the 11 foot model made by the late Allen Everheart. But that is just my best guess of their lineage.
Okay. Fine. Here it is. On your first post, you decided to insult a number of other fans about their designs, how stupid they were, how "we've all see them" and then present your 'own work' as this super-superior fix that, and so on. And then you present a lazy, slip-shod, half-ass design that a bunch of people have already done and done better and they didn't have to resort to swiping someone else's art and demand that they shouldn't have to give credit to the original aritst anyway. And when pointed out all the myriad of flaws in this design, you went into uber-defensive mode. Nothing you did was a 'mistake', you just.. did something off, and, yeah, that's it... you didn't screw up, really. Just a myriad of excuses about your work rather than just "yeah, screwed that up, I'll fix it." You also, several times now, basically said 'screw you' to any other artist to whom you lifted work because you just feel that entitled. It's obvious to me that you're looking for accolades, but are not interested in improving your work, or taking the actual effort requiring in improving your skills. To me, it was obvious in the tone of your first post, which you start off by insulting Franz Joseph and a myriad of other artists. Your replies proved this point. So I'm going to wash my hands of you after this.
This all reminds me a lot of an issue I've noticed in my design courses at school. There's always at least one person who continually brings in half-baked rush jobs for presentation and critique, and not only get defensive when their work's flaws are made known to them but then have the nerve to talk down to the people who have taken the appropriate amount of time and effort on their work. Obviously this isn't as irritating since we're just talking about fictional starships here, but it is irritating nonetheless. I'm tired of people making excuses for why their work is flawed and then turning around and critiquing others. BTW, I had about 15-20 to spare today so I went ahead and whipped this up to show you how I think this should have been done from the beginning.
Proof that the idea has merit and just needed good execution. However, I still think those impulse engines are going to fry the top of the engineering hull.
That depends on how impulse drive is supposed to work, and how much heat it produces. I've heard several explanations, which pretty much all boil down to the exhaust being either raw kinetic force or particles of ionized gas. On one hand, the engineering hull is in for some pretty nasty dents and/or warping. On the other hand, anyone trying to land in a shuttle would get the Carpet Shock From Hell... (At this point someone should insert a photo of Zachary Quinto with his Spock ears, his best Sylar "I'M GOING TO KILL SOMEBODY!!!" look on his face, and at least twelve inches of smoking frizz hair...)
Well, gas usually becomes ionized when it's superheated... So... Regardless, the impulse engines are powered by some very nearby fusion reactors... I'd imagine that whatever they get from the fusion reactors can't be good for the surface of the ship. That's why, I think, no other official ship design has ever had anything that close to being behind the exhaust ports of the impulse engines. Besides that... The engineering hull might possibly be blocking some thrust.
There's no official (or even clear-cut) explanation of what impulse drive is supposed to be, so we could argue in circles for days and get nowhere. However, one can conclude that exhaust heat is not a major concern. If it was, the impulse drive would by necessity be the rearmost part of the ship, and the vast majority of Federation designs would wind up looking like some variation of the Defiant class... I agree that the engineering hull is a little too high. It needs to be lowered at least to the point that the top of it is flush with the bottom plane of the saucer hull...
True... But there's always at least a little clearance behind the impulse engine. At least in all the official designs.