WIP - TMP Enterprise, deck by deck

[Cary L. Brown]

Only two pics tonight. I realize that I need to build the Saucer as a separate file for now - things are getting too big to manage with it. I won't say I finished the neck, but I did get it roughed out. There will be significant changes on it before it is finalized.

Yeah, well, I coulda told'ya that...

Seriously, even if you DON'T overwhelm your machine when doing this sort of work, it's always a good idea to break it down into "bite-sized pieces" as you work on it... otherwise, you WILL go insane. (I speak from personal experience here... BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!)

 

[Praetor]

Oh, no... Cary's gone cwaaazy.

 

[CTM]

Only two pics tonight. I realize that I need to build the Saucer as a separate file for now - things are getting too big to manage with it. I won't say I finished the neck, but I did get it roughed out. There will be significant changes on it before it is finalized.

Yeah, well, I coulda told'ya that...

Seriously, even if you DON'T overwhelm your machine when doing this sort of work, it's always a good idea to break it down into "bite-sized pieces" as you work on it... otherwise, you WILL go insane. (I speak from personal experience here... BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!)

I had tentatively planned to do that anyway, but it was only when my renderings started generating Heap Overflows because I'm running on a 32-bit systems and need more memory than the OS can provide....

It's only a problem when I have the whole thing up for render. For the most part, it is entirely manageable.

 

[Ziz]

I mentioned this earlier but I think it got glossed over - if you're trying to make this look as functional as possible, you don't want to have decks going all the way to the inside edge of the deflector dish. Clear that out and dream up some hardware for that area.

 

[CTM]

I mentioned this earlier but I think it got glossed over - if you're trying to make this look as functional as possible, you don't want to have decks going all the way to the inside edge of the deflector dish. Clear that out and dream up some hardware for that area.

Actually, the deflector dish goes ahead of what is there. I left room, and have not yet modeled it. I have modeled the interior to immediately aft of the deflector dish. I suppose I ought to put it in there to clear up this optical misconception.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Only two pics tonight. I realize that I need to build the Saucer as a separate file for now - things are getting too big to manage with it. I won't say I finished the neck, but I did get it roughed out. There will be significant changes on it before it is finalized.

Yeah, well, I coulda told'ya that...

Seriously, even if you DON'T overwhelm your machine when doing this sort of work, it's always a good idea to break it down into "bite-sized pieces" as you work on it... otherwise, you WILL go insane. (I speak from personal experience here... BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!)

I had tentatively planned to do that anyway, but it was only when my renderings started generating Heap Overflows because I'm running on a 32-bit systems and need more memory than the OS can provide....

It's only a problem when I have the whole thing up for render. For the most part, it is entirely manageable.

Well, it's rapidly coming up on a point where "64-bit" is actually practical. 64-bit XP really isn't all that great... primarily because of a lack of specialized software revision availability. On the other hand, 64-bit Vista seems to be pretty well-supported (and is the sole argument I can see for using Vista). Of course, you have 64-bit Linux-y OS's all over the place, but that's not really suitable for most people as a "general purpose machine."

If you're gonna go "Vista," though, you might as well go 64-bit. Stuff that won't run on 32-bit XP also won't run on 32-bit Vista, after all... but there's plenty that won't run on 64-bit XP that WILL run on 64-bit Vista. And pretty much anything that will run on 32-bit Vista also runs on 64-bit Vista. I can't see the downside... IF you're willing to deal with Vista, that is.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Nah, wait a few more months - Windows 7 is basically an enormous Vista service pack to get all the kinks out of things people were complaining about. Full 64-bit support, improved memory management, scheduler, etc., etc. Everything will start to scream.

 

[Birdog]

There's one little problem with going to 64 bit for him. He's using a version of Autocad that was designed for Win3.1 and Win95.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

I, for one, am really looking forward to seeing how you interpret the primary hull, deck seven in particular! Keep up the great work!

 

[CTM]

There's one little problem with going to 64 bit for him. He's using a version of Autocad that was designed for Win3.1 and Win95.

ding! ding! ding! ding! we have a winner!

My solution will be to convert to the DOS version (I have both DOS and Windows version) on a dedicated box - which will allow it sole control of the system, allowing me to go up to the max of 3.6GB RAM. 32-bit hardware maps a I/O into the 32-bit memory space, so even with 4GB of physical memory, only about 3.6GB can actually be accessed. Windows reserves an additional portion for the OS that applications cannot touch, so the practical ceiling for available memory to applications is 2GB, even if you force a larger swap-file, the 32-bit architecture will not permit addressing above that limit.

I could use a 64-bit environment, assuming I could run a 32-bit app in it (I have 64-bit XP available to me), allowing the application to take as much memory as it can handle - the literature for AutoCAD r13 says it can address 4GB of RAM, but I know at the time they published it, having more than 32MB of RAM was unheard of; so I have my doubts as to the accuracy of their 4GB use claim. It will certainly run into the 32-bit address space limitations, but might still have the same 3.6GB ceiling - as in the 32-bit "sandbox" the I/O will be mapped into the 32-bit address space. Functionally, this leaves me with the best option (shy of upgrading to a newer version) being to run it on a dedicated 32-bit hardware platform with the maximum amount of addressable physical memory available.

I could go on and on and on about XP, Vista, and Windows 7. I will not be moving to either Vista or 7 anytime soon. Fedora is my OS of choice, and the only reason I still have a windows box around at all is for a few legacy apps such as AutoCAD. Eventually, I plan to learn Blender and do much more in that. I may try and see if I can run AutoCAD r13 under WINE, but I doubt the hardware dongle will work with WINE - it is a miracle it works with XP.

 

[Birdog]

There's one little problem with going to 64 bit for him. He's using a version of Autocad that was designed for Win3.1 and Win95.

ding! ding! ding! ding! we have a winner!

My solution will be to convert to the DOS version (I have both DOS and Windows version) on a dedicated box - which will allow it sole control of the system, allowing me to go up to the max of 3.6GB RAM. 32-bit hardware maps a I/O into the 32-bit memory space, so even with 4GB of physical memory, only about 3.6GB can actually be accessed. Windows reserves an additional portion for the OS that applications cannot touch, so the practical ceiling for available memory to applications is 2GB, even if you force a larger swap-file, the 32-bit architecture will not permit addressing above that limit.

I could use a 64-bit environment, assuming I could run a 32-bit app in it (I have 64-bit XP available to me), allowing the application to take as much memory as it can handle - the literature for AutoCAD r13 says it can address 4GB of RAM, but I know at the time they published it, having more than 32MB of RAM was unheard of; so I have my doubts as to the accuracy of their 4GB use claim. It will certainly run into the 32-bit address space limitations, but might still have the same 3.6GB ceiling - as in the 32-bit "sandbox" the I/O will be mapped into the 32-bit address space. Functionally, this leaves me with the best option (shy of upgrading to a newer version) being to run it on a dedicated 32-bit hardware platform with the maximum amount of addressable physical memory available.

I could go on and on and on about XP, Vista, and Windows 7. I will not be moving to either Vista or 7 anytime soon. Fedora is my OS of choice, and the only reason I still have a windows box around at all is for a few legacy apps such as AutoCAD. Eventually, I plan to learn Blender and do much more in that. I may try and see if I can run AutoCAD r13 under WINE, but I doubt the hardware dongle will work with WINE - it is a miracle it works with XP.

I forgot that R14 and below have that stupid dongle. I wouldn't waste my money upgrading because I have issues modeling a radiator in 2008 at work. Of course that's mainly graphics related because I have a lower end workstation, although you would really like some of the newer features. From what I've read 2010 will be an awesome release with 2d and limited 3d constraints and some more advanced modeling commands.

I'm still amazed at what you are doing with that antique release. I started with r14 and switched to 2000 a few weeks later. I really cut my teeth on 2004 at college and have used 2008 at work for the past 18 months. I specialize in 3d techniques and I would be hard pressed to replicate your efforts, that's assuming I could even do it.

 

[CTM]

I forgot that R14 and below have that stupid dongle. I wouldn't waste my money upgrading because I have issues modeling a radiator in 2008 at work. Of course that's mainly graphics related because I have a lower end workstation, although you would really like some of the newer features. From what I've read 2010 will be an awesome release with 2d and limited 3d constraints and some more advanced modeling commands.

I'm still amazed at what you are doing with that antique release. I started with r14 and switched to 2000 a few weeks later. I really cut my teeth on 2004 at college and have used 2008 at work for the past 18 months. I specialize in 3d techniques and I would be hard pressed to replicate your efforts, that's assuming I could even do it.

Actually, my copy of R-10 does NOT have the dongle, nor does my copy of R-12.
When I started my Engineering Degree, I had already been a CAD Draftsman for years. I have been specializing in 3d AutoCAD since 1990. My Engineering Fundamentals Prof had about 4 months experience with AutoCAD (prior he had used CadKEY) at a point that I had 4 YEARS'. I did the Term Project as a homework assignment (had it done to hand in the next day). Needless to say he put me on a special assignment for my Term Project. I wound up using AutoCAD r12 to generate a 3d model of something, then plugged that into 3dStudio (note the lack of version number - it was the original) and rendered a 266s multimedia animation sequence, at 320x240. On my 486DX2-66 with 16MB RAM and 540MB HDD it took three weeks to render (That was a cutting edge system in those days).

Don't cut yourself short on what you can do. Given enough time, enough practice, you can be very good at it. The number of hours I have doing AutoCAD is simply enormous - for someone who no longer does it professionally. It will take years for a beginner to get to my number of hours, but you will eventually match and surpass me if you spend the time. If I can provide you a good example of what you can achieve in the future, then I have achieved my goal.

 

[Saquist]

Hey now,
I've been following the Thread now for 3 weeks and I like most here find this an incredible undertaking. I've Worked on AutoCad since I was like 14 year old From R-12 and It's truely an amazing program. I recognized CAD renders immediately. I currently work on 2007, yet I'm just a draftsman, no engineering experience.

This is truely a project that puts you to the test.
I've used CAD to create a solid model of my personally designed ship and I have created an MSD of my ship...but I think this project takes the cake. I can't imagine designing an entire ship inside out or even constructing one like this inside and out.

Do you think it will match it's dimensions as layed out or is it already breaking that model. Might be an intresting analysis of Andrew Probert's work.

 

[CTM]

Hey now,
I've been following the Thread now for 3 weeks and I like most here find this an incredible undertaking. I've Worked on AutoCad since I was like 14 year old From R-12 and It's truely an amazing program. I recognized CAD renders immediately. I currently work on 2007, yet I'm just a draftsman, no engineering experience.

This is truely a project that puts you to the test.
I've used CAD to create a solid model of my personally designed ship and I have created an MSD of my ship...but I think this project takes the cake. I can't imagine designing an entire ship inside out or even constructing one like this inside and out.

Do you think it will match it's dimensions as layed out or is it already breaking that model. Might be an intresting analysis of Andrew Probert's work.

Welcome to the board Saquist. If you've progressed from R-12 you have a reasonably good idea of the environment I am doing this work in. I was about 15 when I started working with R-10. I actually learned how to type quickly using R-10 especially (before the windows slowed you down in R-12 I could actually fill the keyboard buffer with commands and be operating several pages ahead of the computer. Not so much anymore - both because of larger buffers and faster computers, and the GUI add-ons starting with R-12).

If it weren't a test of my abilities, I probably wouldn't be attempting it. I live for the challenge. As far as shipbuilding in general, I have the benefit of having spent a decade or more building 1:144 ships from WWI and WWII, so I have reached the point of having the intuitive understanding of how line-drawings convert to actual ships - and the associated problems with that.

I have not really paid attention to the actual dimensions provided, I'm just trying to fit things in where they have been shown to be. Some things do not fit well (the Cargo Bay, for example), and others simply have to be ignored (such as the corridor in front of Main Engineering). The Photorp Deck is so far being a horrid pain in my ___. The whole neck just doesn't want to fit together right. I'll get there, but I make no promises about how accurately it will reflect Probert's designs. While he did a great job fleshing out the ship, actually fitting things together in that hull is a whole additional task - one which until the advent of CAD modeling for ship design actually made shipwrights change things on-the-fly because the design as provided wouldn't quite fit in the space available. This is why US Aircraft Carriers and Battleships of the same class are really very different inside. Only the modern SSN-21's (Seawolfs) and newer ships were fully designed on computer allowing the designers to fully understand the space, and leading to fewer (note: not eliminating) builder's changes.

FYI - Mr. Probert has actually been known to post on these boards from time to time. I don't know if he has actually looked at this thread, or my implementation of his designs in here, but you can find quite a few of his perspectives on other projects around the franchise if you poke around.

 

[Saquist]

Hey now,
I've been following the Thread now for 3 weeks and I like most here find this an incredible undertaking. I've Worked on AutoCad since I was like 14 year old From R-12 and It's truely an amazing program. I recognized CAD renders immediately. I currently work on 2007, yet I'm just a draftsman, no engineering experience.

This is truely a project that puts you to the test.
I've used CAD to create a solid model of my personally designed ship and I have created an MSD of my ship...but I think this project takes the cake. I can't imagine designing an entire ship inside out or even constructing one like this inside and out.

Do you think it will match it's dimensions as layed out or is it already breaking that model. Might be an intresting analysis of Andrew Probert's work.

Welcome to the board Saquist. If you've progressed from R-12 you have a reasonably good idea of the environment I am doing this work in. I was about 15 when I started working with R-10. I actually learned how to type quickly using R-10 especially (before the windows slowed you down in R-12 I could actually fill the keyboard buffer with commands and be operating several pages ahead of the computer. Not so much anymore - both because of larger buffers and faster computers, and the GUI add-ons starting with R-12).

If it weren't a test of my abilities, I probably wouldn't be attempting it. I live for the challenge. As far as shipbuilding in general, I have the benefit of having spent a decade or more building 1:144 ships from WWI and WWII, so I have reached the point of having the intuitive understanding of how line-drawings convert to actual ships - and the associated problems with that.

I have not really paid attention to the actual dimensions provided, I'm just trying to fit things in where they have been shown to be. Some things do not fit well (the Cargo Bay, for example), and others simply have to be ignored (such as the corridor in front of Main Engineering). The Photorp Deck is so far being a horrid pain in my ___. The whole neck just doesn't want to fit together right. I'll get there, but I make no promises about how accurately it will reflect Probert's designs. While he did a great job fleshing out the ship, actually fitting things together in that hull is a whole additional task - one which until the advent of CAD modeling for ship design actually made shipwrights change things on-the-fly because the design as provided wouldn't quite fit in the space available. This is why US Aircraft Carriers and Battleships of the same class are really very different inside. Only the modern SSN-21's (Seawolfs) and newer ships were fully designed on computer allowing the designers to fully understand the space, and leading to fewer (note: not eliminating) builder's changes.

FYI - Mr. Probert has actually been known to post on these boards from time to time. I don't know if he has actually looked at this thread, or my implementation of his designs in here, but you can find quite a few of his perspectives on other projects around the franchise if you poke around.

You sound about my age.

I can only imagine what Mr. Probert would have done with CAD at his disposal. I knew there was only so much that could be done On 2D. 3D is a great error check for intruding objects.

I had high hopes for the Seawolf...heck I had high hopes for the Pegasus ships but let the budget pushers free and it's all just grandiose expenditures. In comes the Virginia Class. I assume similar work occured with the Los Angelos Class moving 2D plans to 3D...(perhaps that was too big of an expenditure who knows)

I know some have already talked about design already but I have say my biggest problem with the Excelsior and Enterprise Class starships was the ill placed Power unit in the Spine of the Secondary hull. It was far too vulnerable. (Then again it made for a great sequence)

You chose the best best ship.

 

[CTM]

I can only imagine what Mr. Probert would have done with CAD at his disposal. I knew there was only so much that could be done On 2D. 3D is a great error check for intruding objects.

Mr. Probert makes some comments about working with computers on design in this thread: http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=34669

I know some have already talked about design already but I have say my biggest problem with the Excelsior and Enterprise Class starships was the ill placed Power unit in the Spine of the Secondary hull. It was far too vulnerable. (Then again it made for a great sequence)

You chose the best best ship.

I really only have that problem with the "Enterprise Class" (Constitution Refit). The Excelsior has a much beefier neck, allowing the VIC to fit much better, and safely. I am tossing around in my head the idea of doing Excelsior next... though it is in a tight fight with Miranda. First, I'm going to finish Enterprise.

 

[CTM]

Tonight's Neck Work sucked. I won't even bother posting the results, since I am tossing them out and starting fresh. Maybe I'll have something to show tomorrow.

 

[FalTorPan]

I am tossing around in my head the idea of doing Excelsior next... though it is in a tight fight with Miranda. First, I'm going to finish Enterprise.

Obviously the choice is yours, but a number of people have made efforts to map out the Miranda, albeit in 2D. The Excelsior is a clean slate, as far as I'm aware, which might make it more fun to work on.

 

[Probert]

FYI - Mr. Probert has actually been known to post on these boards from time to time. I don't know if he has actually looked at this thread, or my implementation of his designs in here, but you can find quite a few of his perspectives on other projects around the franchise if you poke around.

Yup, I've peeked in a few times and it looks like you're doing an amazing job. I would have liked to discuss the cargo area a bit but you were already pretty well into it. Incidentally, you might be interested to know that the turbo tube doors are curved in that area and your rectangular door enclosures are unneeded. As far as my sliding secondary deck and the adjacent lifeboat housings are concerned, those details are for another time... small points considering what all you've accomplished.

Andrew-

 

[Probert]

Ooops, I just spotted a few cargo deck lifeboats,... nice.