WIP - Need Input

[sojourner]

OK, for anyone still interested, I am still plugging away at this ship. I decided after staring at the current iteration for a week that the secondary hull looked too much like a tin can, so I have started over on it. Here is the basic shape I have knocked out:

Tell me if this meshes better with the overall design.

 

[sojourner]

<sneaks in and posts 2 more when no one is looking>

and what's up with this image?

 

[USS Jack Riley]

<sneaks in and posts 2 more when no one is looking>

and what's up with this image?

Sojourner - I like where you are going with this. The only issue I have noticed (at I only looked at it briefly due to time constraints) is that the secondary hull seems to intrude on the field of view for the primary hull's ventral sensor dome. Of course, if that is not a sensor dome, as on the TOS Enterprise, then no problem.

Over all, though, looking good.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

You should blend the nav-deflector area in with the saucer better. It would look way cooler

 

[sojourner]

Anybody have a comment on which way the engineering hull should be flipped? (as shown in the above 2 images) I am sorta diggin both orientations.

You should blend the nav-deflector area in with the saucer better. It would look way cooler

Not sure what you part you are referring to, the sensor dome on the underside of the main hull? Or the entire engineering hull? If the former, how about I remove that structure the comes forward from the dome like this:

 

[USS Jack Riley]

Not sure what you part you are referring to, the sensor dome on the underside of the main hull? Or the entire engineering hull? If the former, how about I remove that structure the comes forward from the dome like this:

I am referring to the round dome under the primary hull. I don't have Photshop or anything like that (otherwise I would cricle it for you), but it is dead center on the ventral side of the primary hull. Again, it may not be a primary sensor (as it was in TOS), but if it were, I wanted to point it out to you.

Again, the ship looks great. Very original (and I mean that in a good way).

 

[BorgMan]

Yeah, the secondary hull needs some beef so that it looks like a real component of the ship, rather than a takced on module.

Nice ship, by the way

 

[sojourner]

"needs some beef"? Does that mean bigger? more detail?
I do plan on a new neck that better blends with the style of this hull.

 

[therealfoxbat]

Something I just noticed on your rear closeups...

It looks like the shuttle bay (which is by necessity a fairly large open area) is occupying some of the same space as the structural bracing and/or the main power conduits heading into the warp pylons. Maybe the shuttle bay and the rear torpedo tube should be switched...

 

[sojourner]

Actually, that's just a shuttlepod bay and does not extend into the area where the warp pylons are. The main shuttle bay will be in the engineering hull.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I vote for reversing the orientation of the secondary hull. The way you have it now looks very spiff, but from a functional design standpoint it doesn't seem quite right.

 

[BK613]

I am getting a strong reminder of the TNG "dustbuster" phaser from the new secondary hull...

 

[sojourner]

I vote for reversing the orientation of the secondary hull. The way you have it now looks very spiff, but from a functional design standpoint it doesn't seem quite right.

Which "way" do I have it now? I posted 2 different images. Are you saying you like this view:

I am getting a strong reminder of the TNG "dustbuster" phaser from the new secondary hull...

Not entirely unintended.

 

[MadMan1701A]

I also like where this is headed, but I think the secondary hull needs to extend back a little farther. It seems like it's not really balanced. I do like the fact that it is unusual, though.

 

[therealfoxbat]

Actually, that's just a shuttlepod bay and does not extend into the area where the warp pylons are. The main shuttle bay will be in the engineering hull.

If the main shuttle bay is down there, then I prefer the longer engineering hull. Also, I think it looks sleeker that way...

I know you've been catching a lot of flak about the underslung engineering hull. It looks pretty good, even though it seems to me like a "going around the long way" approach to warp drive. I'm thinking there should be something in or about the saucer hull that needs to be physically separated from the warp core which would make this design element necessary...

 

[sojourner]

OK, I am getting confused as to which one everyone prefers. So, here are 3 options. I personally prefer "A".

A.

B.

C.

If the main shuttle bay is down there, then I prefer the longer engineering hull. Also, I think it looks sleeker that way...

I know you've been catching a lot of flak about the underslung engineering hull. It looks pretty good, even though it seems to me like a "going around the long way" approach to warp drive. I'm thinking there should be something in or about the saucer hull that needs to be physically separated from the warp core which would make this design element necessary...

Think there may be some confusion here based on perceived sense of scale. I made this image to illustrate my thoughts a little better. The warp core is going in horizontally in the area circled in red. the bar in the right image shows my deck layouts. Those are 8 foot decks with 2 foot engineering spaces. As you can see this makes the "strongback" that the warp pylons are attached to 9 decks tall and over 250' from tip to impulse engine and 50' wide. The pylons/wings themselves are a deck and a half high. Plenty of room for a warp core and sundries. This gives a nice failure mode of being able to detach the entire warp assembly just aft of the impulse drives and also makes for some nice direct warp conduits.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Choice A is my favorite option, although I am intrigued by the massive underbite of Choice B.

 

[Ziz]

A looks the best, but the sensor dome under the saucer isn't blocked on C the way it is on the others. You really need to move that dome straight down to the bottom of the secondary hull.

 

[sojourner]

A looks the best, but the sensor dome under the saucer isn't blocked on C the way it is on the others. You really need to move that dome straight down to the bottom of the secondary hull.

Yea, I have actually been thinking about putting secondary array on the bottom.

 

[therealfoxbat]

OK, I am getting confused as to which one everyone prefers. So, here are 3 options. I personally prefer "A".

A is the one I meant...

Think there may be some confusion here based on perceived sense of scale. I made this image to illustrate my thoughts a little better. The warp core is going in horizontally in the area circled in red. the bar in the right image shows my deck layouts. Those are 8 foot decks with 2 foot engineering spaces. As you can see this makes the "strongback" that the warp pylons are attached to 9 decks tall and over 250' from tip to impulse engine and 50' wide. The pylons/wings themselves are a deck and a half high. Plenty of room for a warp core and sundries. This gives a nice failure mode of being able to detach the entire warp assembly just aft of the impulse drives and also makes for some nice direct warp conduits.

Actually, the confusion was in terminology. When one says "engineering hull" the first thing that comes to my mind would be "where the warp core is at"...