Latest iteration, nacelle changes made as requested and the main body placeholder replaced with the first pass at a real body. Another couple of tries and hopefully I'll be able to begin detailing the thing...
USS Korolev - W.I.P.
- Thread starter The Axeman
- Start date
Again, looking good so far. You seam to have the gist of the design down pretty well.
Actually, looking at that aft view I'm wondering it really needs such bulky impulse engines...what do you think? Big chunky buggers, or something more discreet, like the E-D's saucer engines?
Actually, looking at that aft view I'm wondering it really needs such bulky impulse engines...what do you think? Big chunky buggers, or something more discreet, like the E-D's saucer engines?
Here, what do you think - chunky, or non-chunky?
Is that really necessary?Blip said:
I second the call for Non-Chunky! Chunky is for hacks like John Eaves!
Non chunky it is then, we are all of the same opinion. I'll work up some non-chunky engines and a proper deflector for it tonight and post pics before bedtime.
Professor Moriarty said:
Is that really necessary?Blip said:
I second the call for Non-Chunky! Chunky is for hacks like John Eaves!
There is a smiley at the end of that sentence, Professor; but in all honesty I stopped watching the films after ST:FC came out thanks in part to that guy, and I still find his hideous mash-job "Sovereign" class to be one of the most backward, unartistic eyesores ever to have been thrown at the fans.
So, yes.
(I even like the Ent-C better, which explains why I'm currently enjoying the engines on this Korolev interpretation. They're purty)
In fact, there isn´t. Only the Kyushu exists... 
Indeed, the not chunkies have it!
I wouldn't dis John Eaves so quickly, he's a much better pencil and ink man than I'll ever be. Besides, that notch I put in the Korolev's belly has a somewhat Eaves like quality to it. Even though the general aesthetic is vaguely Probert and the detailing is very much Sternbach.
In other news, I've added some more detailing to the 2D views.
Including a new bridge module.
I wouldn't dis John Eaves so quickly, he's a much better pencil and ink man than I'll ever be. Besides, that notch I put in the Korolev's belly has a somewhat Eaves like quality to it. Even though the general aesthetic is vaguely Probert and the detailing is very much Sternbach.
In other news, I've added some more detailing to the 2D views.
Including a new bridge module.
OK, made the basic impulse engines and cutouts...
I won't deny Eaves' drawing technique is sound Reverend (I'm quite partial to the style he uses to present his concepts); it's simply that his design aesthetic, and shall we say "treknical" abilities are non-existent!
I have to say, I like the bridge design; it works nicely as an immediate precursor to the Nebula/Galaxy module. Any ideas on what the interior might look like?
I have to say, I like the bridge design; it works nicely as an immediate precursor to the Nebula/Galaxy module. Any ideas on what the interior might look like?
OK, new versions of the nacelles. We decided to experiment with asymmetric compression coils behind the bussard collectors, since the Ambassador class only had a portion of the coils showing out of the side of the nacelle hull. What do we think, keepers or not?
Neato.
I think I preferred the previous ones TBH, and besides, if this is set between Ambassador and Galaxy then you're perfectly justified in keeping wraparound coils as forerunners. 
(Maybe if you kept the previous set of Bussard endcaps it'd look better. The new ones seem a bit.. clunky?)
(Maybe if you kept the previous set of Bussard endcaps it'd look better. The new ones seem a bit.. clunky?)
The Ambassador only had about a quarter of the compression coils visible, this has two thirds visible and the Galaxy has them completely uncovered, so I'd say that is a sort of sensible lineage.
I have to agree that these 'lidded' bussards look somewhat clunky, but they're truer to the original design drawing than the previous versions, which I made a bit swoopier without permission from Rev.
He certainly wants to keep these ones, and I have to say that the more I look at them, the more they seem to be right for this slightly odd design.
I have to agree that these 'lidded' bussards look somewhat clunky, but they're truer to the original design drawing than the previous versions, which I made a bit swoopier without permission from Rev.
He certainly wants to keep these ones, and I have to say that the more I look at them, the more they seem to be right for this slightly odd design.
Here's another update while I have the time. The nacelles have been tweaked to better fit Revs drawings and I have begun cutting in hull details and phasers, as well as the deflector.
...and along came Reverend with an updated set of drawings.
Still needs work on the fore and aft views, but everything else is close enough to done.
Note that I've added some cut-ins and airlocks on the upper saucer structure. Added some cut-outs to the saucer to accommodate the forward, port and starboard docking ports, added some lateral sensors to the secondary hull (near the top) and I've re-designed the ventral sensor array.
Still needs work on the fore and aft views, but everything else is close enough to done.
Note that I've added some cut-ins and airlocks on the upper saucer structure. Added some cut-outs to the saucer to accommodate the forward, port and starboard docking ports, added some lateral sensors to the secondary hull (near the top) and I've re-designed the ventral sensor array.
May I ask why the dorsal saucer gridlines are slanted towards the bridge? It's especially weird since the hull plating pattern is oriented towards the center of the saucer.
As it stands, it looks like a "texturing error" on a CG model.
As it stands, it looks like a "texturing error" on a CG model.
