That is to say, if Paramount suddenly needed a Trek model to be made into a CGI model for an episode of Trek, and would be willing to pay someone to make a CGI model of a Trek ship previously not done as one (but seen on screen as a physical model), what ship would you want done?
I'm putting my vote down for the good ole' Ambassador class - I miss the old girl. Right after it comes the New Orleans, of course.
Mark
Posted by Jb (Member # 724) on :
Does the Daedalus class count? We saw a model of it, at least. Otherwise, I'd like to see the Cheyenne class make an appearance.
Regards Jb
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Well, I would like them to put a design for an unseen class, say, the Bradbury or Chimera, but if not, then I would go with New Orleans. Think about it...one of them flying in formation with the Defiant and other New Orleans-class ships. Ooooooo.....
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
definitely the ambassador class. it would be a delight to see the ambassadors in action again.
--jacob
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
I'd vote for the Proto-Nebula in Sisko's ready room. Runners up: Ambassador, Cheyenne
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Centaur.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I too would like to see the Centaur again. That or the Olympic Class from AGT. For some reason, I really dug that little ship...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I'd first like to see the New Orleans. Can you imagine a big fleet composed of Galaxies, Nebulas, and NO's?
Next up would be the Cheyenne. The Ambassador would be nice, too.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
Mmm . . . gives this some thought.
Basically all the classes that they never showed and the one's that I like and that they didn't show enough of! I mean, if they had the models for pictures in the Encyclopedia, then surely they had the models and could use them once in a while instead of being tight-fisted gits with their cash!
Ambassador - didn't see enough of this class if you ask me. One cool ship! Andromeda Antares Apollo - or have we seen one of these? Bradbury Challenger Cheyenne Chimera Constellation - didn't see enough of this class if you ask me. Deneva Freedom Hokule'a Istanbul Korolev Mediterrainean Merced New Orleans - a baby Galaxy/Nebula! Yeah! Funny looking, but kewl at the same time - deadly too! Niagara - OK, I know that we saw a wreck of one of these at Wolf 359, but I want to see a whole one flying. Renaissance Sequoia Springfield Wambundu Zodiac
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: I'd first like to see the New Orleans. Can you imagine a big fleet composed of Galaxies, Nebulas, and NO's?
Galaxy's, Nebula's and New Orlean's together? A fleet? Excuse me while I clean up my drool!
And to make most people happy . . . no smilies at the end!
[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: akb1979 ]
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Well I've built CGI models of most of the classes mentioned here, particularly the obscure ones, based on the schematics and model photos. And yes, it shouldn't be too hard, or overwhelmingly expensive for them to do this. But all we ever got to see was (mostly) CGI Excelsiors, Akiras, Galaxys, Mirandas and Defiants. A shame.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Correct me if I'm wrong all you 3d buffs, (cough MOJO! cough) but if they have the Excelsior and Miranda CGIed, would it not be a relatively simple proceedure to make CGI versions of the Centaur and the Shelley? All they are is rearranged parts from those two models with specialty nacelles.
Right?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Only the Centaur would require new nacelles. The Shelley has plain old Miranda ones (though upscaled to about twice their usual size).
And, in case you didn't know, AKB, the reason we didn't see enough of the Ambassador is because someone dropped it and it broke.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
You're right Aban, I built a Shelley (Curry) from my Miranda/Excelsior meshes in like half an hour, the Centaur though is quite different, even the saucer, I should imagine, would have to be modelled from scratch - I would anyway.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Does not the Centaur use simple Excelsior nacelles, turned all funky?
While I'm at it, I'll add the E-B Excelsior to my CGI list. Technically it's already been done (for "Generations") but has not been seen since. I wanna.
Mark
[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
I've got an Enterprise-C model (Amabassador, right?) and I plan to have a New Orleans made for the book.
More models weren't made for the show since it's not worth the expense to Paramount unless the model is going to be featured.
And even many of the ones that WERE built aren't very good... the Miranda and Excelsior spring to mind. They are going to be rebuilt for the book. The Defiant has already been redone and now, in my opinion, looks better than the studio model!
To answer the other question, yes, if a class has already been built, turning it into variations is a much easier (though not lickety-split) process. The new Miranda class will be made from the basic parts in the Enterprise-A we did for ST:TMP DVD, and several TOS ships have already been hacked together from our Enterprise.
Mojo
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Hacked-together TOS ships?!?! All we ever saw on screen were Constitution-class ships. Do you mean you're doing some of the Franz Joseph ships from the Starfleet Technical Manual?!?!?! That would make much hapiness around here.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Christ, someone asks a simple question:
quote:That is to say, if Paramount suddenly needed a Trek model to be made into a CGI model for an episode of Trek, and would be willing to pay someone to make a CGI model of a Trek ship previously not done as one (but seen on screen as a physical model), what ship would you want done?
Note the key phrases "a Trek model" and "what ship" - note lack of plural there - so waht does someone do? Post an entire fucking list. And anytime someone asks a question like this it's the same. Jesus wept, it's no wonder you couldn't elect a President, probably ticked/crossed/punched/drew lines to all the potential candidates. . .
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Mojo's got an Amby! Woohoo!
Mark
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Well given he probably already had the saucers from Jupiter Station, I don't think it's really hard to slightly modify them to make Ambassador saucers. All he then has to do is make the secondary hull and nacelles.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Yes. That's all.
Federation starship?
Personally, I would have to vote for one of Masao's pre-fed Earth ships. I would love to see one of those matched up alongside the E-D or something similiarly familiar.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
New Orleans would be my top choice but I'd also like to see more of the Centaur.
Mojo: Are you talking about the Defiant model made for "The Changing Face of Evil" or yet another new one? I thought the one from TCFoE was already pretty darn good.
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
Actually, one of the guys at Foundation made an Ambassador class ship from scratch, without ever seeing the Jupiter station.
As a matter of fact, I never even SAW the Jupiter space station until yesterday, when I was poking around online and found a few pictures of it. Very cool! I hope to include it in the book.
I hadn't seen ANY CG Defiant model that was any good. One was made for "Sacrafice of Angels" and Hutzel had his own made later on, but (in my opinion) neither were even close to the studio model. The new one I commissioned is one of the best CG models I have ever seen. You can stare at it with a magnifying glass and even *I* can't tell it's CG!
If there was a place I could show you a test render, I'd be happy to.
And yes, I have a few FJ ships built and rendered.
Oh, hot off the press: An Oberth class vessel has just been completed. It looks great and you should see a lot of it in the book. It's currently named USS PEGASUS, so make of that what you will :-)
Come to the GALLIFREY con in LA in February and you can see all!
MOJO
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Rejoice!
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
Hey Mojo, where do you buy the tickets for the Gallifrey this Feb? My birthday is coming up and I might go as a birthday present to myself.
Oh, and did you get my private message?
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Hey Mojo, you want a Jupiter Station and a New Orleans? I've got these if you wanna take a looksee.
have most of the others mentioned too.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
That's pretty funny.
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
What's funny?
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
I don't know what's funny.
I do know that whoever dropped the Ambassador model should be punished - very careless.
Vogon Poet: stop whining about the lists. It's not our fault that Paramount left so many classes unseen!
Mojo: What's this book that you keep referring to?
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
Well, whoever dropped the model and whoever decided to keep the thing afterwards should be both punished. I have a lot of time before school and an assortment of sex toys that I've been dying to try...
I'd like to see the Voyager prototype be made into a CGI, perhaps to be a class never before seen only heard.
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
Who dropped what? I don't know this story...
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
It's a story about the reason why the Ambassador Class model dropped out of site in the Trek universe. Apparently, someone in the art department dropped the model which broke a nacelle support. And then I heard that some executive decided to have the model be displayed in his office.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I think I heard a twist on the story somewhere that the Northridge earthquake was the culprit.
There's a photo floating around online of the damaged model sitting on a desk. I think it was at a model shop, though, perhaps Image G, and not some executive's desk.
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
I can relate - the reason we didn't see the Borg on Voyager for so long after "Unity" was because we blew the model up at the end of the show!
Seriously, though, believe it or not, CG models can actually be 'broken.' After many years of doing FX work, the servers at a company can get pretty hairy - files are removed, deleted, backed up (hopefully), moved and renamed so often, people often find that after a few years, loading up old scenes and models can actually be quite a challenge. It can litteraly take days (or longer) to locate every file in a model and reassemble it if pieces are missing or renamed.
Here's a good horror story:
Years after Foundation finished Babylon 5, we tried to restore and load up some old scenes to do a few tests and made a horrifying discovery - the backup software had TRUNKATED EVERY FILE NAME TO EIGHT CHARACTERS. So, for example, an image that had been called "station-top-sepecular" was now named "station~"
This, of course, was a nightmare. The prospect of having to load each and every image and model section to figure out what it was and remember where it went was so daunting we just gave up - effectively meaning that almost everything we had done for the first two and a half years of B5 had been lost.
I'm sure there are many similar stories floating around CG companies.
Of course, Foundation was the first, so we learned many lessons the hard way. Now that people are a little wiser, I'm sure there are more rigorous schemes of structure and organization to keep things tidy.
Then again, having a good plan and rigorously following it are different beasts altogether...
Mojo
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Maybe that's what must have happened to the Norway class?? Did you ever come across the Norway while working on Voyager Mojo?
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Mojo: Would it pe possible for you to send me an email with a picture of the new CG Defiant? I could then upload it to my ISP's server and post a link to it here. I understand if you're not allowed though.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The Norway's problem isn't that the model is broken or unavailable, as I understand it. It's that the ship was only intended to be in the background and thus is built at a low resolution, unsuitable for closeups.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And it looked rubbish.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I disagree - the shape, while comparitively ordinary to most, is elegant in that simplicity to me. I especially like the notion that the ship may have been designed with a variable-geometry nacelle configuration. Personally, this one would be high on my list of ships to re-do.
Mark
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I'm sorry but I personally hate the Norway class. Easily the worst of the First Contact ships IMO. I'd be quite happy if I never saw it again.
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
So far you have gotten your wish Dax.
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
I'd be happy to send Dax an image of the new Defiant to post on his site to show all of you, but I sort of need a general concensus that it won't be placed on 'public' view.
That also means I'd appreciate it if all of you would keep it to yourselves and not email around or link to it from anywhere other than here. And after a week or so I'd like it taken down.
I don't mind showing all of you guys some advance material, but I'd like to keep it as private as possible!
Mojo
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Although I can't vouch for everyone, you have my word, Mojo. I would not put any image you send me on my website. I could just temp upload it to the same server. From their I could post a link to it here (and my server doesn't require that copy/paste BS either:)). After a week, or whatever period you prefer, I would then delete the image from the server.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I'd love to see your new Deffie Mojo... so the nose shape is corrected!?!
I'm putting in my VOTE to see the NORWAY again - I thought it was a different design - and I LIKED it. the only clear view (of what ever this is) is this:
So what if the norway wasn't built with a lot of detail... what is to say you can't ADD detail - there IS the schematics from the Encyclopaedia to go by too.
Andrew
[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I've always thought the Steamrunner rocked.
Hey Mojo, as always, it's great to get some background stories like that.
Back on the first page, I think, someone said they'd have to model the Centaur's saucer from scratch instead of using the Excelsior's. Untrue. There are some little greeblies on the bottom, but it is otherwise an unaltered Excelsior saucer from an AMT kit, AFAIK.
Not sure about the nacelles. I think each nacelle is two bottom halves of the Excelsior nacelle glued together. But even that's a guess. It's definitely not just an Excelsior nacelle.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
I can't wait to see that new Deffie pic. Great that you came across our forum, Mojo! (By the way, may I ask why you chose that Nickname? Just a personal interest ;-) )
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
There was Mojo - Homer's helper monkey on the simpsons ;o)
"Pray for Mojo"
I liked the Steamrunner too... The Federation's dabble in steam-powered starships ;o)
BTW - I fixed my html error in my previous post - if anyone noticed ;o)
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
crikey.. somebody stole me mojo!
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I think the Norway could be decent with a little sprucing up. I mean right now, it looks like one of the "quick and dirty" mockups they make out of styrofoam. But you put a little detail on that puppy and start defining some tech and it just might look ok.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Aban, it was I that said I'd build the Centaur saucer from scratch. Yes there are certain elements on the underside which would need modelling, but I don't think the top of the saucer is quite like the Excelsior. Not to my knowledge anyway.
Also I do have a Norway mesh that I built, it's not the greatest of starship designs, and it isn't at all one of my favourites, but it looks ok.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
They may have added things to the top of the Excelsior saucer like they did to the bottom, but as far as I know, they just used AMT's Excelsior and Reliant models to build the Centaur. If that's the case, which I believe it is, then the Centaur's saucer is going to bear a distinct resemblance to the Excelsior's, even if there are minor differences. Let's see if we can find some pics, shall we...
Ok...well, I looked for some pics but the only ones I could find of the top of the ship are models other people have made...nothing from the show. The ship was never seen from the top...
Oooh...Norway mesh? Norway mesh you say? I don't have many reference pics of that ship...care to post some renders?
[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Aban Rune ]
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
Ok, I sent Dax a test image of the new Defiant, plus some pictures I took of the Enterprise-A model while it was at Foundation. One of them is the shot I based the picture from the calendar on.
Again, please do your best to refrain from distributing them!
Thanks Mojo
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Hmm, almost makes me wish I'd not taken the piss out of some of the tech-heads round here so much, I'm never going to get to see this image as none of them will send it to me. Almost. 8)
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
(joke)You guys should refrain from the Austin Powers stuff, we might scare off Mojo(/joke)
On to something more serious. I've realized that I would want to see 1) that four nacelled Defiant-pathfinder mentioned in the early part of the DS9 TM and 2) the Type-18 shuttle from the DS9 TM.
But in the end, I would give up CGI of almost every other class just to see Ambassadors!
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
EA images: These are shots I took of the Enterprise studio model when we had it on hand for the DVD of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Note that the 'lines' image served as the inspiration for a shot in the 2002: Ships of the Line calendar.
Thank you so much, Mojo. This is very much appreciated by me, and I'm sure everyone else here at Flare.
Remember people. These images are for our eyes only. They are not to be distributed or placed on web sites. Mojo has placed trust in us - please do not betray that trust.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
HOLY HANNAH!
Those are great! Excellent job, Mojo!
Mark
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Sweet, Sweet Christ.
Wow.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
In all the excitemeant I forgot to mention - the new Defiant kicks ass, Mojo. The first time I opened the picture I was convinced that I was looking at a photo of a physical studio miniature rather than a CG model. Absolutely stunning.
For some reason it reminds me of the way the Defiant looked in First Contact, but that certainly ain't a bad thing. It feels as though it has the same shape details (especially looking at the bridge area) and overall body.
If this is an unfinished model, I can't wait to see the final product.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Very nice stuff, Thanks Mojo.
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
By the way, I have a ton of shots of the Enterprise model (and a few of the D7) that I'd be happy share with everyone. They're not as pretty, but they show off every damn detail of the model!
Anyone interested? I can send them to Dax. Maybe I'll just give them to Astris Scientia (or whatever that name is) by way of saying thanks for all the great help they've been.
Anyone know the guy who runs it?
MOjo
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
That would be one Bernd Schneider. Rattle a cow bell or proclaim how beautiful the NX-01 looks and he'll show up here within a moment.
[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I'll speed things along. His address: [email protected] Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I'd be more than happy to receive any more pictures/photos you have, Mojo. Thanks again for the earlier images.
Posted by mrneutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mojo: By the way, I have a ton of shots of the Enterprise model (and a few of the D7) that I'd be happy share with everyone. They're not as pretty, but they show off every damn detail of the model!
I heard there were images of little people in some of the windows...were yu able to identify any, if they were still there?
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
Any people in the windows had long since vacated by the time WE got the model!
Mojo
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Just out of curiosity, Mojo... Is it hideously difficult to do "paint jobs" on completed models? Pennants, streamers, that sort of stuff?
What I mean is, real-world navies tend to change their pennant styles every now and then, and real-world ships get repainted so often that the new styles are typically also introduced on older ships. It would be nice if Starfleet did that to a degree as well (even if starships don't need repainting quite that often).
The Mirandas have those stylish red stripes surrounding the pennant lettering, something the otherwise similar Constitution and Constellation paint jobs don't have. What if some newer Constitutions actually got that type of decoration? What if some had blue-and-gold lines, or a newish Excelsior had the hull colors of a Galaxy? What if flagships carried special heraldry? None of this would show in the long-distance shots of the TV episodes, so we could claim this variety was always there...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I have to agree, that Defiant looks just like a physical model. There's absolutely nothing to suggest it's CGI. Nice one. 8)
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Sweet Dreamy Lola. Very yummy. The Deffie model is awesome and the shots you took of the E-A are just beautiful.
I'd definitely be interested in seeing whatever you have of the D-7. Or anything else.
As you know, I'm a huge fan of behind-the-scenes stuff when it comes to the creative process, so any little tidbits or anecdotes you have to share in that area are also always fun to read.
You da man, Mojo.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
My thoughts exactly. Mojo, you call this Deffie unfinished? That's really hard to believe. How can you possibly improve that one even further?
And count me in on the "I love every little behind-the-scenes tidbit" faction!
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
WOW!
Great work, Mojo! Are you sure this isn't a picture of a new secret NASA test-vehicle?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I need to change my pants.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
OH WOW! Mojo, congratulations - you have the title holder (in my book) of the first person to create a CGI object that looks PHYSICAL.
(I've got one EXCEPT... the glow on the back of the nacelles - more the right one - it could be cause it's against a black background!?! Maybe it's because it's obscuring/whiting over that little pylon in the middle of the grill area too much!?! I don't know!!)
FANTABULOUS!! Are you going to light the little "impulse" ports - the little aft circles - we see them red.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Mojo, very very impressive. An absolutely fantastic job.
Do the cloak emmitters have that pink glow to them? I don't recall ever seeing it.
And isn't there some sort of grill work behind the blue glow? Some sort of lattice texturing, I believe?
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Cloak emitters? I believe we saw in "Valiant" that those were escape pods, didn't we?
And perhaps the credit for the "first person to make a CGI model that looks real" should go to Andrew Bradbury, the guy who apparently modelled it.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
The circular things on the dorsal side of the Defiant have never been really identified... But they're not escape pods. Pods are launched in twos and threes from opening panels scattered around the ship. the round things are known to explode with lots of fire and stuff, and a really cool sound effect. I always thought they were some sort of plasma transfer thing, given how they were exploding with all the fire and stuff. I dunno - possibly the refeuling ports for Feuterium and antimatter?
Mark
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
In the DS9TM Drexler has labeled those glowy circular things as the "plasma vents". Seems reasonable, I suppose. They're certainly not escape pods.
Now that everyone's talking about the new Defiant, this may be a good time for my nitpicks. Although the new CG model is stunning, there are inaccuracies when comparing to the original physical miniature.
1) Some of the panels are missing paining. That is, they have the hull base colour instead of additional colourisation. The most noteworthy location is those two panels (one each P/S) just fore of those cavities in the engineering area. The other is those thin strips leading outwards from the main sensor palettes.
2) The diameter of the dome on top of the bridge is too small. Both the First Contact and "Sacrifice of Angels" Defiants had the same problem.
3) Those raised blocks on top of the nacelles (they look like double sided ramps) are too thin/long. The shape's not quite right, anyway.
4) I've noticed there's some very small panels/grills missing but it's pretty insignificant.
5) The red centreline "decal" pin stripe should extend further aft.
That's it for the complaints. I still can't get over how real this model looks. It's already easily the best CG Defiant. As a nitpicking Defiant fan, I'm happy. Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
I always assumed they were cloak emmitters. They look just like the ones seen on Romulan ships. I forget where I saw them on the Rommie ships though, but I think it was my plastic model. ::shrugs::
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
They can't be cloak emitters because all the Defiant-class ships have them, not just the USS Defiant itself.
You were right about something else though, OnToMars. One thing I forgot to mention in my last post is how the new CG Defiant lacks the lattice/grille on the back of the nacelles (where the actual blue glow comes from).
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
I wouldn't worry about structure or color details just yet. Remember that Mojo said it wasn't complete yet.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
where exzactly is the Defiant pic everyone was looking at?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Go back to page 4.
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
Yes, as was pointed out, please remember I didn't build this model! Andrew Bradbury did, and I expect he will go on to monsterous sucess as a model builder. He's one of the best I know and I'm glad he's a big enough Trek fan to want to contribute to the book.
That's what this project is really all about - people who want to see this stuff done 'the right way' working together. I could never do it alone, and I'm thrilled to have found a handfull of dedicated, talented and enthusastic people who want to rally behind the cause!
The Defiant was mostly finished in that pic. The pink circles have been made blue and a few smaller details have been ironed out. Keep in mind, you'll never see it in that sort of flat, bright lighting, so in a normal shot it will look much better. It will debut in the 2003 Ships of the Line calendar, coming your way in July :-)
And hold on to your hats, 'cause Andrew is nearly done rebuilding the Galaxy Class model.
After that - drumroll please - I've asked him to do everyone's beloved New Orleans class.
Now keep your fingers crossed, because any day now we're going to get Paramount's comments on the outline. I need everyone to pray for me that their changes (if any) are minor!
Mojo
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
Ooohh...a new Galaxy Class...hopefull not the Challenger but the Venture.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
A New Orleans in that quality? Great god almighty! I think that will seem like a dream come true to many around here. Certainly me for one.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Mojo, do think Paramount will let you do some of the "background" ships? The one's we'll probably never see again on screen would great to see in detail in print. The Raven. Data's Scout. The Centaur.
Obviously, this is just my opinion, but I think that would be really cool Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Here is an image of the aft of the Deffie - with the grills and the little 'impulse' vents...
Also - I have noticed in some episode the large grey masses mentioned in Dax's post - in the aft section on the top - the grill bit inside them have glowed red.
Seen here in its debut shot from "The Search Part 1" - where I think I read in the ST:DS9 compendium that the model guys/producers allowed the Deffie it's moment of glory with the use of the running lights/flood lights for its debut shot - they never used them again since it was too expensive to do the extra composite shots/passes just for those lights on the motion-control thingies - more money. SO I guess this is the 'full way' the Deffie is supposed to be lit? Here is the LINK
Also - it is included on Mojo's model - what are the 'strips' going lengthwise along the nose and then at the rear - I always assumed they were some type of phaser strip... see here
Also, who - apart from being the model builder is Andrew Bradbury? Any relation to Ray!?! ;o)
Andrew
P.S. Mojo, any chance of the Cheyenne!?! The problem is we've never seen the undercarridge - only the top part of the model - and never really the back either... many have speculated.
Andrew
"If you want him, come and claim him!"
[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Yep, the dome on top of the bridge was initially conceived as a beacon but it was later shown to be a beam phaser emitter ("Paradise Lost" and "Shattered Mirror").
I don't really know what those strips are but there are some facts on them:
In the episode the screen cap is from ("One Little Ship") the strip on the nose is the origin point for the tractor beam that holds the Runabout. I don't like it but that's the way it happened.
Now, according to the MSD, the warp core is located smack bang in the centre of the aft strip. It may be a coincidence or Drexler could have intended it that way for an as yet undisclosed reason.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Andrew, fix your link on the aft image of the Deffie.
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
Mojo, I'm usually very nitpicky, and I've talked to at least ten people that have been involved with the production of Star Trek. Given that I pointed out the faults of the old Defiant model a few times, I have to thank you now. I haven't seen anyone more concerned with technical accuracy and fan input. You're in good company with Mike Okuda and Andrew Probert.
The picture of the new Defiant reminds me of photographs of plastic models put together, which says something about the realism. I'd change the lighting, though. I notice more detail and a few modified elements -- Brian Fisher, who did the model for "Sacrifice of Angels", was the first to raise some panels here and there, give the ship some three-dimensionality. Some of those details, such as the stepped bridge module and the seemingly lower width remind me of that "Sacrifice of Angels" model -- overall, however, the ship is much closer to the studio model than the one you've used so far.
Although this Defiant feels a bit like a "reimagining" (to use Tim Burton's expression) with more detail, artistically, it's good that it adopts some of the design elements from the "Sacrifice of Angels" model. After all, the Defiant has always been the work of many people, and it's only proper that some elements from Fisher's model should be included.
I'll note that the impulse engine red lights are not always on -- sometimes they're just dark holes even when the ship is flying. I ascribe this to the secondary impulse system in the tail of the ship, or perhaps the maneuvering thrusters. Dax may correct me, but I believe we haven't seen precisely where the beam phaser originated in "Paradise Lost" and "Shattered Mirror" -- it came from the bridge area, but not necessarily from the circular hole as far as I could tell.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I was wondering when you'd join the party, Phelps.
I don't recall the circular impulse engines ever not being lit. At least not when the ship's powered. I can't say for definite though.
I have grown to accept Drexler's impulse engines. I believe the ship has two sets of impulse engines - The Drexlers in the tail and the std red glowy ones. The explanation in the DS9TM seems reasonable. That is, the red glowy engines are somehow interconnected to the warp engine/core (not unlike the TMP Ent-refit), and the Drexler engines are a completely redundant and independant backup.
Regarding the bridge phaser emitter: It does appear in "Shattered Mirror" that the dome is the origin of the beams. It's not perfectly clear in the VFX but it's certainly the most probable location. At any rate, there's not anything else in that area that it could be.
Posted by mrneutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phelps: Mojo...You're in good company with Mike Okuda and Andrew Probert.
Brian Fisher, who did the model for "Sacrifice of Angels", was the first to raise some panels here and there, give the ship some three-dimensionality.
You gotta be careful about that...Mr. Pronert pointed out to me that in a quest to put detail to the 4-foot Galaxy class model someone forgot to say attention to the scale and some of the seurface plates are so thick they'd stick off the full 4 feet! hahaha
Likewise, many times the painters/texture artists don't pay much attention to the scale of the object and logic...the original Excelsior paint job had parts of the hull covered with plates that would be only a meter or two across...no one builds ship hulls out of pieces that tiny.
Posted by mrneutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by mrneutron:
quote:Originally posted by Phelps: Mojo...You're in good company with Mike Okuda and Andrew Probert.
Brian Fisher, who did the model for "Sacrifice of Angels", was the first to raise some panels here and there, give the ship some three-dimensionality.
You gotta be careful about that...Mr. Probert pointed out to me that in a quest to put detail to the 4-foot Galaxy class model someone forgot to say attention to the scale and some of the seurface plates are so thick they'd stick off the hull 4 feet! hahaha
Likewise, many times the painters/texture artists don't pay much attention to the scale of the object and logic...the original Excelsior paint job had parts of the hull covered with plates that would be only a meter or two across...no one builds ship hulls out of pieces that tiny.
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
Dax: the holes aren't lit in the aft-torp-launch moment of "Shattered Mirror", and a few other fight scenes, IIRC.
mrneutron: Since you know Mr. Probert in person, I'm sure any comparison somebody makes will raise a few warning signs with you. That's perfectly understandable, but I wasn't being so specific -- I was thinking of Probert's adherence to the then-official Star Fleet Technical Manual when doing the Enterprise, which says a lot about his respect for fans and fandom.
[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
I let Andrew do what he wanted to on the Defiant. I see test renders as it's going, and I give him my input, but he's such a good modeler and Trek fan, I know he's going to do the best job possible in whatever he builds.
Anyone who builds a model is going to make is slightly differently than anyone else - each one of you would make a unique model that everyone else could nitpick if they wanted - this Defiant is Andrew's and, as far as I'm concerned, is the best of both worlds (heh heh).
I am going to ask him to add the self-lighting as seen in "The Seach," however. I didn't even realize they dumped it after that episode. All Starfleet ships should have that. I am especially fond of the look of the Enterprise in The Motion Picture, and I think it's a shame that no one since Doug Trumble could be bothered to light it quite the same ever again.
Of, course, with CG that's not an issue. If the models were meant to be lit that way but it was neglected due to budgetary concerns, I say it goes back in!
The CG TOS Enterprise that Daren Dochterman built (and I use for these projects) has a small difference - the round, white 'ping pong balls' on the back of the engines are luminous in the CG model, although they weren't on the show. Gene wanted them to be lit, but they simply ran out of time and money. It makes sense to have them luminous, as an implied power source as part of the engine, and I think it looks much better that way, so there you go.
Daren also told me Gene wanted the inside-facing part of the nacelles to have the all-familiar blue glow that was present from the Motion Picture onward, but that also was left out due to practical concerns.
Oh yea, and I don't feel like I deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance as Okuda and Probert, but I appreciate the sentiment.
Just read the reviews of the 2002 calendar - that will change ANYONE'S mind as to my standing :-)
Let's wait until the book comes out before we compare me to ANYTHING!
Mojo
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
*likes the 2002 calendar* but you already know that... I opened up at the Work Bees again - it's so simple but it WORKS! Realistic.
BTW people fixed that Defiant Rear pic link:
Deffie Rear Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
And about the out-of-scale hull details on the Ent-D: that might explain why in some (very few) epsiodes, methinks from Season 4 or 5 onward, they showed a front view of the Ent and it looked horrible. Not at all like in the rest of the series. The escape pods seemed to be raised extremely high.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
are we referring to the differences between the 6 ft. E-D model used in the first 2 or 3 seasons and the more detailed but smaller 4 ft model used season 3-4 onward? i found the differences highly notable, even though im a tech geek and probably few other people realized the switch.. i also noticed when the took out the long model again for Generations, because it was bigger for the movie cameras.
I think one of the main goals of the second model was to raise up the surface detailing more.. ill try to find a decent comparison..
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well, the thing you have to remember about surface detailing is the way it looks when you're sitting there looking at the studio model vs. the way it looks on screen. The artists who make it most likely don't care about how the model looks in a room with incandescent lighting. Their goal is to make it look cool on the screen where those hull lines and textures are going to be just big enough to register.
On the movie screen, you can be more subtle because you've got a bigger screen to work with.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Jeager's Akira-Class. I've talked to him about it several times. It turns out its not all that more complicated then mine, but others have modified it since he made it so I dunno.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mojo: Daren also told me Gene wanted the inside-facing part of the nacelles to have the all-familiar blue glow that was present from the Motion Picture onward, but that also was left out due to practical concerns.
Yeah, it really kind of bothered me when I opened up the Starship Spotter and there were no blue lights on the inward faces of the nacelles. It really should be there.
-MMoM Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
quote: i also noticed when the took out the long model again for Generations, because it was bigger for the movie cameras.
IIRC, they used the 6-foot model for Generations because its saucer was designed to be removable to film the saucer separation sequence in the pilot, whereas the 4-foot model was not built to do this.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
well i noticed. right away, because the models look different.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I liked the season 3 4' model - it looked less plain and more realistic - the added texture just made it... better! That's why it was good for Generations they stripped that 6' and gave her a nice new paint job. Speaking of those running lights, Mojo - I think they added them in for Generations - I'll have to check some pictures... cause they were never present on the E-D during the series... there were I recall the running lights/flood lights on the Hathaway in "Peak Performance".
Posted by mrneutron (Member # 524) on :
Regarding the surface detailing on the 1701-D:
I understand completely about wanting details that look right and give the object scale. My objection to the 4-foot miniature is that the surface detailing (to my eye) actually diminishes the ship's size.
A big problem with the 6-foot miniture was that in the first few seasons of the shows the effects people never lit it very well, so it rarely looked very good. I do recall a few shots where they got some interesting lighting that caused all the aztec paneling to pop out as the saucer slid by the camera, and I always felt THAT look made the ship look bigger than the raised detailing even did. Sadly, I only recall a few shots where they lit it like this.
One other thing about the 4-foot model, it always looked chunkier and less graceful to me than the 6-footer. I don't think the proportions are the same. It looks like the ship needs some Ultra-Slim-Fast antimatter.
[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: mrneutron ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
the different proportions are what makes me notice the difference..
i was real lucky, tonight i got to chill at my dads and watch cable so i saw some TNG on TNN.. i watched 'Conspiracy' and then 'Ensign Ro'.. the change is very noticeable, although even as late as 5th season they were still using gobs of stock footage of the old model. The main things i notice are the 1) deflector dish.. the old one seems lighter around the edges, while the new one is more shadowed. i wonder if that makes me interpret them as differently shaped or if they are additionally actually shaped differently. 2) the saucer, specifically the underside always looks so incredibly smooth on the old model. i only saw a couple of shots where the light caught the fact that there was painted on paneling. That's why it was necessary to exaggerate the panels, even though they arent truly to scale to the depth they were on the model. it was artistic license necessary for filming.
ok i sleep now
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
I've got a couple of pictures of both models of the D that show the dramatic difference.
If someone can poke Dax for me, I can send them to him and he can post them for all to see!
Mojo
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
Mojo: just one note. There is a difference between doing something right artistically and doing something right canonically. On these forums, we've tended not to modify what we've seen onscreen just because it looks better, is more realistic, because Gene Roddenberry intended it etc. It would be great to see this approach of yours in calendars and artwork, but I believe that technical publications such as the Starship Spotter warrant an approach that follows what we've seen onscreen more closely.
[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i totally agree with that, Phelps. canon is canon, and canon is what is on the screen. things like starship spotter definitely need to show the "real thing".
--jacob
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I agree with Phelps too.
BTW, Mojo, I'm poked. Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:i'm poked
good night, everybody!!
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
In something like Starship Spotter, I agree 100% - the ships should be exactly as we've seen them onscreen.
In the calanedars and Unseen Frontier, however, which is far more of a creative endeavor, I feel justifyed in excersizing a bit more 'artistic latitude.'
I mean, it *is* supposed to be my vision of Star Trek, just as other authors who write novels lend their interpretation. My book just happens to have pictures.
That being said, I'm going to great legnths to keep things as canon-conscious as possible. In fact, most of my 'modifications' to canon will be in areas they WANTED to go, but simply didn't have the time or money to explore.
Kind of like what we did with the Motion Picture DVD!
Mojo
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
Either way the pictures should look good.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
And be nice and big too! Without any of that double page spread malarkie Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
There are going to be a LOT of double page spreads... however, I'm going to be designing them with the fold in mind, if that's what is concerning you....
Mojo
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
A question on the new Ent-D CGI: can it separate?
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
BTW, any chance you could do a B5 calendar or something also? I'd really like to see, in greater detail and from different views, the CGI interior of the Garden.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Courtesy of Mojo, "Here are 2 pics that show the dramatic differences between the 2 D models". I believe the top half is the 6' model and the bottom is the 4 footer.
Like the Defiant CGI, this picture is for our eyes only - please no spreading around! Thank you.
Once again, we thankyou for your contributions and trust, Mojo.
BTW, by Mojo's request I have now taken down the Defiant pic.
[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Dax ]
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mojo: There are going to be a LOT of double page spreads... however, I'm going to be designing them with the fold in mind, if that's what is concerning you....
Mojo
Yeah, that’s my little gripe. Its a shame when such great images recede into spinal oblivion.
Any idea yet as to how big the book will be?
Oh and the chunkier Galaxy definatly looks alot more realistic. The sleek one just looks like a plastic model....strange that.
[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Reverend ]
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
just in terms of proportion, the 4 footer looks a lot better, IMO. i was watching some early TNG episodes that i downloaded off of kazaa yesterday, and because of this thread i really paid attention to the shape of the ship. i really noticed how skinny the secondary hull was and how much rounder the warp pylons were compared to later episodes. very cool.
--jacob
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
One of the key differences between the models is that the 4' model incorporated the Ten Forward set's windows in their proper place and orientation.
Mark
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
is it just me, or does the shape of the 4 foot model's deflector dish kind of look like the original nebula class's dish (it's rounder than the 6 foot model's deflector dish)?
--jacob
Posted by mrneutron (Member # 524) on :
I don't agree that the 4-foot Galaxy Enterprise-D model has better proportions than the 6-footer. I like the 6-footer better. I don't believe that to make an object look large it has to be thick and chunky.
As to the debate over the surface detailing on the two models, I'll grant that the 4-foot model, with all its raised surface detailing, was no doubt easier to light and get detail on. I think the 6-footer would have looked spectacular if lit correctly (as it did in a few rare shots), but given the time constraints of grinding out the effects out for the show, this wasn't done.
One other thing, I've read and heard that the ILM guys didn't like the Galaxy Class model, and I suspect when they shot a lot of what became the early stock library for the show for the pilot they didn't lavish much attention on good lighting (lord knows the lighting SUCKED on a lot of those shots).
Now I'm curious about the proportions of the 22" D that ILM built for the pilot.
Hmmm...
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
Personally, I like the 6 footer myself. The 4' model looks like it just put on some weight. Kinda short and stubby.
Of course, I'm not a huge fan of the Galaxy Class ship at all! I think it only looks good from a select few angles and simply lacks the gracefullness of the Ent-A, which, IMHO, is the best of all the Enterprises.
I think most of the post-A vessels suffer from over-designing - each successive model tries harder and harder to be different and more complex than the previous - a serious problem when the design you're trying to improve on was pretty damn good to begin with!
Mojo
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mojo: Personally, I like the 6 footer myself. The 4' model looks like it just put on some weight. Kinda short and stubby.
Of course, I'm not a huge fan of the Galaxy Class ship at all! I think it only looks good from a select few angles and simply lacks the gracefullness of the Ent-A, which, IMHO, is the best of all the Enterprises.
I think most of the post-A vessels suffer from over-designing - each successive model tries harder and harder to be different and more complex than the previous - a serious problem when the design you're trying to improve on was pretty damn good to begin with!
Mojo
I like the short and stubby look
I agree that the Galaxy only looks good from certain angles, but like you said, that's true of most ships since the Conni-refit, as you said. Personally I think the worst case of an over designed and ugly ship is Voyager, although like most other 3-d objects in the universe, it does have its better angles but when you start to go into aft and dorsal views you can see just how disproportionate the ship is. If only Rick had given her longer nacelles....
[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Reverend ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Hey, I *like* Yoyager! I believe it's one of Sternbach's best. Like essentially all starships after the Connie, it looks good only from some angles, but those some angles arepretty dang smooth. Plus, it's a better sort of sleekness than the sharper angles of Yeager's or Martin's or Eaves' designs. Spoon section rocks on!
Mark
[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Hey don't get me wrong, Voyager was one of the most thoughtfully designed ships in trek, ever! (for all the good THAT did) but it obviously suffers from PCS also known as "Plucked Chicken Syndrome". Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i think that galaxy class is gorgeous, personally.
--jacob
Posted by mrneutron (Member # 524) on :
The D is one of those love-hate things with most people. Personally, I like the D, but like Mojo I like the 1701 refit best (not the A...they mucked up the paintjob).
I think the one main thing the 1701 and refit both have over all the other designs is a general sense of balance between the components. Nothing seems out of proportion with anything else. When the ship is coming towards you, the saucer looks huge, when seen from behind, the nacelles look huge and the saucer smaller. Which is a case of the right size of elements being balanced. There's not a single angle (unless you park the lens right against one part of it) where the rest of the ship can be entirely obscured by any other part. This is not the case with most of the other ship designs including the D, Voyager, Reliant, etc, where the damned saucer can hide most of the rest of the ship if not all of it.
The Excleior is the classic case of a ship that has a few great angles and a lot of bad ones. It looks sleek and fast in a few angles, but turn it wrong and it looks like a big fat lump. Voyager's puny engines and huge inverted-spoon saucer are one of the best examples of bad proportions.
I think the fusing of saucers into engineering hulls results in a lot of similar design problems. What you get are ships that look fast and sleek from the side or above and below, but get around the front and it's Fatty Starbuckle.
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: mrneutron ]
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
The Galaxy-class is one of my all time favourite starship designs. I don't really have any great preference between the 6 and 4 foot models. I do think the 6 footer has better proportions but it's rarely been photographed well. The added surface detail on the 4 footer is nice even if overdone. I believe the 4' has a better paint job too. The 6' always looks too blue in the photos I've seen of the miniature.
As for Voyager - I consider it to be the ugliest of all the lead ships. The ship just has the most shocking proportions. It's also a bit bland looking, IMO. I may be crucified for saying this, but I just don't think Sternbach is good at designing ships. All his designs are just blah. Admittedly he is the best when it comes to the technology or blueprinting, but he's not up there with Probert or Eaves as an artist. All IMO of course.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i don't think the excelsior has ANY bad angles. that ship is beyond gorgeous *rrrraaarrrwwwwlll*. man, if the excelsior was a woman i'd.....er...i like the ship.
--jacob
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: As for Voyager - I consider it to be the ugliest of all the lead ships. The ship just has the most shocking proportions. It's also a bit bland looking, IMO. I may be crucified for saying this, but I just don't think Sternbach is good at designing ships. All his designs are just blah. Admittedly he is the best when it comes to the technology or blueprinting, but he's not up there with Probert or Eaves as an artist. All IMO of course.
Well thats just it, he's not an artist by trade and Probert isn't an engineer. Its when people like this work together that they produce a well rounded and tecnically correct ship. Sadly this is a rarity.
One of my personal favourate would be the Nova, I just have a soft spot for nippy little vessles
Oh and the worst angle on the excelsior is from directly above or directly below....it just looks like a lolly pop! But i think the E-B corrected that.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Well thats just it, he's not an artist by trade
So, wait, illustrators aren't artists? And don't work in art departments?
Next thing you'll tell me that the special effects guys aren't particularly special.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:A big problem with the 6-foot miniture was that in the first few seasons of the shows the effects people never lit it very well, so it rarely looked very good. I do recall a few shots where they got some interesting lighting that caused all the aztec paneling to pop out as the saucer slid by the camera, and I always felt THAT look made the ship look bigger than the raised detailing even did. Sadly, I only recall a few shots where they lit it like this.
I have to agree here, but I don't think that the aztec pattern really stood out until Generations. The scenes as the camera swoops around the back of the E-D as it is being pummlled by disruptor fire is really awesome - you get to finally realise the enormity of the ship - especially the view from between the nacelle and the neck.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I'd say that
my fave is the
Connie Refit, followed by the Galaxy Class, followed by the Ambassador class, then the Defiant and then the Danube class - cause I'd LOVE to have one of those babies in my garage!
Re: Sternback designs - I love the Vor'cha and the Galor ships.
And Re: the Excelsior and her angles - I just LOVE her in "Paradise Lost" and listing in "Blaze of Glory"
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Did anyone notice that the D looks like an aircraft carrier when you look at the neck of it from under the saucer?
But still it's my favorite ship. I don't like the Connie in ANY configuration or version. I think it always looked like a model and never like a believable starship. Sorry, that's just IMHO.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
aaaaahh!!
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
you...no like connie...how...you... Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Get a rope...
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
The work of the artists depends not only on themselves, but their superiors as well, and then the studio politics. Let's not forget that Matt Jefferies first redesigned the Constitution, and that Andrew Probert had to work from that, whether it helped him or not. Jeri Taylor asked Rick Sternbach to make the Voyager curvy -- his final design would've been the pointy Voyager. Finally, we have the new Enterprise which could've looked different had it not been for the higherups who introduced the Akira into the picture.
Clearly, the test of any artist is how well he works under such limitations. However, here we also need to consider that different models were built under different limitations. The refit Constitution and the Enterprise-E were built on a movie budget, as opposed to the Ent-D which was made for a TV series (and even there, the six-footer which some people seem to prefer was built by ILM, primarily a movie effects company). Then there is also the different resolution of the television screen and the movie screen to consider -- the latter requires more detail and refinement.
Naturally, this doesn't change the fact that the movie ships tend to be better liked, especially since we see them so rarely, but all of these other factors have to be kept in mind when making these comparisons.
[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
.. and that TPTB informed Drexler he had to make the NX-01 look like the Akira because they wanted it too, even if it didnt make sense. (this was the subtext of Drexler's 'don't tell anyone i told you this letter' that was posted here
which is odd because now Drexlers is going back on that and saying that he based NX-01 on a twin body plane. meh.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Subtext? He outright said it!
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
...with all the subtly of a female baboon in the mating season Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
I think the Connie's a good design...except for the neck which is just too thin to put anything in there except possibly the warp core, vertcal turboshafts and vertical Jeffries Tubes. But that's about it. I don't even understand why some people need to put decks in there, even though I still accept them.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
What?! You mean. . . a female captain had to be in charge of a curvy, feminine ship rather that a pointy, sharp-edged masculine one? Jesus wept. If that's the kind of mindset they were under when they created the Voyager series, no wonder it sucked from on high for seven years.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
If what, er, someone said about ILM not liking the Ent-D model is true, then they truelly are the hardest people in the world to please. They're notorious for bitching and complaining about the Enterprise-A model for 4 films, saying it was heavy, akward, and they could never find a good angle on it. Compared to the Excelsior and Galaxy, it's a piece of cake to make the Enterprise-A look good.
Someone else (sorry, I really can't be bothered looking) was right, it was well proportioned. It became the base proportion whill all subsequent ships tried to model (as, in some ways, we are more familiar with the A than the original. The A was an upgraded version, so it replaced the original, rather than suceeded it. Kind of). The Excelsior tried to look huge by having a massive body. The Galaxy tried to look huge by having a massive saucer. And both aren't too easy to film,although they improved leaps and bounds with Ent-D shots over the course of the series.
And on the two models debate, I do prefer the 4 footer, but I wonder if that's because it was simply shot and lit better? What was the CGI model based on? And how comes the 6 footer in that pic has had it's decals taken off, whereas the 4 footer still has them? In any case, shouldn't it have the Venture's decals on it?
[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:What?! You mean. . . a female captain had to be in charge of a curvy, feminine ship rather that a pointy, sharp-edged masculine one? Jesus wept. If that's the kind of mindset they were under when they created the Voyager series, no wonder it sucked from on high for seven years.
Is that why the nacelles went up too, to prove that Janeway could make at least something go rise?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: ...And on the two models debate, I do prefer the 4 footer, but I wonder if that's because it was simply shot and lit better? What was the CGI model based on? And how comes the 6 footer in that pic has had it's decals taken off, whereas the 4 footer still has them? In any case, shouldn't it have the Venture's decals on it?
[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]
To my mind, the only ship to be as well preportioned as the refit conni has been the E-E, and that has mostly been because it borrowed heavily from the old ship.
I belive the CG Galaxy was based on the sleeker 6ft model, judging by the renders that have recently been featured in the fact files.
It depends on when the pictures were taken I suppose. As I recall the Venture was actually the AGT Enterprise, (after they had stripped off all but 2 of the new pieces, I also keep hearing that it also retained the raised bridge section, but I just don't see it) which was originally the 4 footer I belive.
So to answer your question...what do you get if you cross an elephant and a rhino?
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
Where is this "don't tell anyone I told you this letter" from Doug Drexler I've heard mentioned??
Mojo
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Could the CGI E-D be off the 6 footer because - the 6 footer was used in Generations, and this was the first time they used a CGI E-D... (So it would have had to have matched the model.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Gosh, did I pour gasoline into a flame, just because the Ent-A is not my favorite starship? Don't get me wrong, I think the model looks elegant and nice, but like someone said, the neck is far too thin. Same goes for the warp pylons. See where they are attached to the secondary hull? This bit is way too small - at a high accelaration these small joins would never be able to hold the nacelles.
And about the Voyager being a curvey ship. Well, look at the Ent-D again. Isn't she at least as curvey as Voyager? It hardly consists of ANY non-curvey elements.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
it wouldn't matter if the nacelles are thin or not. warp drive does not use standard physical accereration. the nacelles could be held on by string and wouldn't fly off because oof acceleration at warp (thought they would probably fly off if you turned a corner at impulse). besides, who knows how strong the connection on the nacelles really is? on the model, it's strong enough for motion control
--jacob
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I have a feeling that the Voyager was asked to be made curvier by the Producers, because originally the Voyager was going to be an older ship that had 'made it's name' or 'made it's mettle' during the Cardassian Wars. When that was scrapped - Voyager became a brand spanking new ship.
I like the original Voyager idea - I wish Mojo could get a-hold of it and do a CGI of it!
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Although I'm not a big fan of the proto-Voyager design, I think it would be a good representation of the yet unseen Bradbury-class. The Bradbury rego number seems perfect for the look of the ship.
It's also curious how that DS9TM kitbash so closely resembles the proto-Voyager. Just that we know most of them made it on screen.
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
WHERE IS THIS LETTER FROM DOUG DREXLER THAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT???
Mojo
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I'd like to know too. The fact that the Pre-E was more-than-superficially based on the Akira class is almost common knowledge - Eaves himself said in one interview that fans of the Akira would get a kick out of the design (can't remember the exact quote, but it was from an interview online). I haven't read anything about Drexler basing it on a twin-hulled fighter. Where's this one from?
[Edit: it was Eaves, not Berman, who proped the Pre-E as "Akira-cool". Thanks Tom!]
Mark
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
A very early Eaves interview said, re: the design, that "fans of the Akira" will be impressed.
Then cameth the show, and the bitching, and the whining, and the threats to hold one's breath until they turned blue unless the ship magically changed.
Next up was the "Broken Bow" novelization, which had a small "making of" feaurette in it, in which there was the following quote from Herman Zimmerman:
quote:"We found a ship that was in our archives - a minor vessel that had been used in a battle in one of the features that had been created by ILM. We did not use that ship, but we took ideas from it and from those ideas eventually - and this process took about four months, all week and weekend CGI work by a very talented Lightwave artist, Doug Drexler - we finally came up with a shape that everybody loves. I trust the fans will love it as well as the producers and the cast do."
Then came Doug's famed "hush hush" email to Hobbes which got posted on the Enterprise forum here.
The Eaves/Drexler interview in the current ST:Communicator (partially transcribed here) mentions that the E-nil, E-refit and "other ships from the movies" were an influence, but the principal inspiration was the P-38 (which, IIRC, was also Jaeger's inspiration for the Akira).
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Mojo (Member # 536) on :
Captain Mike's post a few posts back mentions the letter that was posted on the forum... I REALLY need to see this post!
Mojo
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Moj: Found the letter, and edited my post...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Mojo, just reguarding your deffie-in-progress... about the central 'round part' where the 'bridge' is 'supposed' to be... I don't know if it is the angle or the bright light, but is there the two 'steps' down from the circle 'rim' and then one step back up to the little 'baseball diamond'?? I've got the pic as my windows background - very nice.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
WOW!