Guys let me know what you think
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Cool. Are those "hand-drawn" (scratch-built) or did you create them by drawing another layer over the CGI-image?
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
took the enterprise b Schematic and the Miranda schematic and combaned them and hand drew the rest on the cpu
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
EDIT: It seems I made a common mistake; perpective. I compared the top view after posting, and it seems the nacelles only appear to be larger than they really are. This leads to another question: Should the drawing be "real" 2D, meaning if component A is 1/1000 of the original size, component B has to be as large, without any perspective, or should I include the perspective. To be honest, the smaller nacelles looked even uglier than the larger ones. And because my drawings are always much more of a "drawing" than a real "schematic", I guess I should leave it like this, despite the error.
How did we handle this usually? I tried to think of any other ship where prespective made such a difference, but I don't think there are many because I can't remember a single one. Any suggestions?
Original post:
[Where do the nacelles come from? I'm talking about the model kit here. I thought they used the Reliant and Excelsior AMT-kits for the model. But it seems the nacelles are larger than they should be. Since I'm absolutely sure there has been only one Excelsior kit (besides the E-B, which was the same scale), and I'm quite sure I made no mistakes (I tried Bernds officially corrected schematic and my version - which is based on the dimensions of the model itself.). The nacelles are definitely not based on two Excelsior-nacelle-bottom parts. Could they be parts of the Reliant-kit? I didn't try it yet, but I think the nacelles are actually parts of the Constitution-style Reliant engines.]
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Schematics are, by convention, orthographic and without perspective. Once you try to add perspective to drawings, you open up a whole can of worms since we then have to assume that anything nearer the viewer appears larger. I guess they rendered the pictures to mimic photographs of a model (which usually show some perspective), but doing so makes them harder to use for the usual things orthographic schematics are used for.
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
ok im lost have i made a mistake? the nacells are to bowwom peices trust me look at the model i studdied it for ever. If i have made mistakes please let me know so i can correct them.
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
you've made several mistakes, they all stem from your spelling.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I like your Centaur schematics, Akira. For the most part they are really good. One nitpick I have is that, going by the top view photo of the original kitbash, the Miranda rollbar should be further back.
I don't know what's going on with that new CG Centaur. The side view seems to show the correct proportions, but the top view shows a oversized saucer connected to shrunken nacelles -- shocking perspective on what's supposed to be schematics.
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
yes i must say i suck at spelling but i wont get into that again.
well i tried my best to make them as close as possable i might try to correct that. if anyone else has any other misstakes please let me know.
BTW: i really need a a good high res. side view of the torp bay so if anyone has one please send it my way and ill finnish the centaur side view (need the front and rear view also)
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
And this proves it! The bridge is the larger variant here! The ship must be 200 m long!
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
you guys are crazy lol Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
The top view is inaccurate, Mike. It shouldn't use the NX-2000 single impulse crystal. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
And it's missing the shuttlebay.
Posted by Felix the Kzin (Member # 646) on :
It also seems to be made of dots and dashes...
Dax: Doesn't the Centaur CGI model pic show perspective because it is, in fact, a 3D model, rather than a drawn schematic?
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
that is possible to get around.. most of the other CGI schematics we've seen use the camera lens adjusted to NOT show perspective (Nova, Prometheus). Its a camera feature that is easily adjustable in modeling software I use. For whatever reason though, they chose not to.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Akira62497: ok im lost have i made a mistake? the nacells are to bowwom peices trust me look at the model i studdied it for ever. If i have made mistakes please let me know so i can correct them.
Sorry, it has nothing to do with your schematic, but as soon as you draw a sideview (this is what I do at the moment), you'll encounter the problem.
The ship with the large nacelles has a perspective (like all of the images of this hip I found on the net, including the .gif I used here, the DS9TM-drawing and other schematics), and this is what I wanted to do, too. Below you have another Centaur, this time the nacelles and saucer are scaled 1:1, without any perspective.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
By my calculations the CG side view shows the nacelles and saucer 1:1 (no perspective). I'm concerned though that in reality perspective is being employed, since it seems to be in all the other views, meaning that Mojo and co. got their dimensions wrong.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Compared to the topview maybe, but you have to take into concideration that the nacelles are completely redone, meaning you cannot compare the original model with the CGI. Otherwise you're probably right though. Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Well the nacelles should be the same length as the Excelsior's.
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
when i do the side view the trusters will be the same perspective as the saucer
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
i have the side view done except for the miranda roll bar that cant find anywere i need it by 612x265 i have tried drawing it but cant get it to look right
[ September 04, 2002, 08:00: Message edited by: Akira62497 ]
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
meanwhile, im plugging away at the cutaway.
Excelsior scaling puts two decks in the one-deck Miranda bridge, the shuttlebay works and the ship comes out to 12 decks, 11 in the saucer
comments?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Fascinating, Mike! I never liked Bernd's original suggestion that the ship be scaled to fit the Miranda bridge and rollbar. But it looks like the double-deck hemisphere idea actually works.
My only question is whether the shuttlebay "doors" are actually big enough. From what I can tell, a shuttle would actually have to take off at a 45� angle in order to get through those doors! Not impossible, of course, but contrary to all the other straight-out configurations we've seen.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Hey Akira, the gangway hatch should actually be either at the upper half or lower half of the rim. The rim is two decks thick, not one.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Akira: Good start. But you need to thicken up some of the detail lines around the bridge module and adjust the perspective on the saucer windows. You may also want to retrace some of the other lines in the saucer...they're looking kind of blurry. Other than that, it's looking good.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dat: Hey Akira, the gangway hatch should actually be either at the upper half or lower half of the rim. The rim is two decks thick, not one.
I didn't think the Excelsior had the gangway hatch at all. And it is centrally located on the Connie-refit.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Akira and I had been discussing his works in progress outside of Flare and I suggested to him that he should add a gangway hatch or an airlock for access to the ship other than from the shuttlebay and transporters. He is taking some creative liberties here, but is mainly basing his work off the kitbashed plastic model.
And it makes better sense for the hatch to be at a deck level and not between decks when the saucer rim is two decks thick.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Great graphic-in-progress! I'm really liking this. Looks like the Centaur/Baracus is shaping to be the most fan-obsessed ship since the Prometheus!
Methinks I'm going to design the bridge module for the ship. Perhaps two versions - one for the variant (?) with the Miranda bulge, and one for the CGI version...
Mark
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
my aim is to do a website illustrating the differences between the war-era centaur and its postwar refit, which would be the CGI.
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
my thesis: Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
How do you know that the CGI version isn't what it looked like before being refit?
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
well, i assumed that its postwar since Mark said that Mojo and Giddings were going for a Sovereign-esque effect on the saucer.
its just an assumption, but the ship basically looks like it just got smoothed out
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Definitely like the filming model better. If someone builds a 1:1000 scale Centaur in pristine condition it would be great. Either way, it is definitely a Excelsior sized saucer. Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Supposition - the "modifications" that we see in the studio model are wartime-only? I don't think that the Sovereign-esque modifications that Ed did explicitly mean it to be post-war. Part of a refit, possibly. However, for all we know the grey shapes were first on the Baracus class, then incorporated into the Sovereign...
Mark
[ September 05, 2002, 22:10: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
true enough. but my assumption is also based on the fact that, purely instinctually, the raised gridline deflectors on the saucer and the bridge module (even after denying its miranda-ness) LOOK older. besides, the briefing seems like it may have been done after the fact of the Centaur's war exploits.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Then again, if the vessel did not survive those exploits, the writer would only have photo material of her former appearance, back when holographing a Starfleet vessel wasn't forbidden...
And some people want to argue that the Miranda bridge isn't a scale-defining feature since it was never canonically seen. Well, those other upper-surface details were never seen, either - so perhaps the ship always sported the dark triangles and never featured any dorsal portholes or gridwork? Perhaps those parts of the model are just as ignorable as the mounting point for the motion-control arm is?
(Incidentally, where IS that point? I'd suppose the ship would be mounted from above and/or behind for most of the shots, but we see no obvious attaching point above OR behind. Were parts of the model built to be neatly removable for mounting? Or are the photos pre-mount?)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
I just like the studio model better than the CGI and wanted to explain it. I dont think it matters a hell of a lot anyway, so i'm going to go ahead and say 'I'd agree with you, if you were right.'
Its my assumption, and I'm running with it. And the reason the article, written after the war, would show the post refit Centaur, would of course be the same reason, that holography was forbidden in the wartime days when Centaur existed in the previous configuration.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Here's a crazy theory... The Centaur was seen on screen and therefore exists in the Trek universe. The CGI model is 100% irrelevant.
Posted by Felix the Kzin (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: And some people want to argue that the Miranda bridge isn't a scale-defining feature since it was never canonically seen.
No, some people want to argue that the Miranda bridge isn't a scale-defining feature because the scale-defining details of the module have been altered. The back of the bridge mount, where the docking port would be, has been encrusted with gold greeblies and such. The ship has an Excelsior saucer with an Excelsior shuttlebay and Excelsior nacelles. It has a secondary hull that resembles a Miranda rollbar and a bridge that does not have any specific scale-defining features.
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
BTW, i realize the studio model is the definitive canon here. i'm just trying to respect the work that Mojo, Giddings and Mark did to get this CGI off the ground, at our request. I could disregard it, and it would be easier to do so, but i feel a little indebted to them for actually doing it.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Definitely like the filming model better.
TSN's comment aside, the "filming model" was a hastily-built, awfully painted, crappy kitbash that a 10 year old kid could have done a better job building. The CGI model was an extrapolation of the physical model, with attributes making it more believable as a "real" Starfleet vessel. If you like the physical model better, that's your opinion, but I think you're nuts.
I happen to really like this CGI model. I think Mojo made some good choices with what liberties he took, and what to ignore & change. And at the least, I appreciate the fact that he did this because of the points we made when we first saw the physical model pics.
Hey, I just realized that this post is the exact polar opposite of what my status line says. Ironic...
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
Theres a lot of stuff online thats superior to the work that went into the actual shows.
That doesnt make it canon by a long shot.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I never said it was canon. I just said that I liked it better than the physical model.
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
ok just checking. but why does that make me nuts? (i.e. stupid TV show, not real, etc.. i explained my preference and it makes sense doesnt it?)
i just really love the studio model.. it has a lot more character than a regular looking CGI ship (that we see dozens more of, everyday).
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
There is nothing wrong with including the CG model into the picture, but liking or not liking it has nothing to do with anything. Seeing the model as realistic or unrealistic has nothing to do with anything likewise, otherwise we could throw out warp drive and transporters along with the Centaur. Being indebted to anyone has nothing to do with anything either, because that's subjective.
The show is the primary source. The model photo is a secondary source. The CG model is a less valid secondary source that has to be included into the picture defined by the first two. Given that the proportions on the CG model are different from those on the Centaur, the CG model is either a different ship, a major refit, or simply an inaccurate drawing.
As far as the Baracus-class name is concerned -- it's not even official, so I'd prefer we don't call it that. Right now, we don't even know if the ship has a class, so the most we can call it is "Centaur" or "U.S.S. Centaur", which is shorter than "Baracus-class." Creativity doesn't belong here -- we already have a forum for it.
Boris
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
As I told Mike, I wasn't debating the veracity of the models. I was stating my personal opinions about them. So what are you saying, that you don't want us to state our opinions about things unless it has to do with canon Star trek facts, because it has "nothing to do with anything" otherwise? Tough shit, buddy. I'll think what I want to think, & say what I want to say. And if I want to call the ship Baracus class, I'll do that too. Not that I would. Because I hate that name. But you get the point.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I'm merely saying that liking or not liking something, seeing something as realistic or unrealistic must not influence the analysis. There's a difference between saying "I like this model" and "I like this model, and because I like that model, I'll include it" (and true, you never said this, and I never said you did.)
I think it's OK criticize the latter stance, because it has direct bearing on the results of the discussion.
Boris
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
I gotta admit I did like that gold tint, it looked kinda cool.
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
Those are pretty nice drawings. Will you also try to make a set that includes all the little greeblies and such of the model?
To those criticizing the "look" of the shooting model, I'd like to remind them that we've only ever seen two photographs of the model, which were obviously taken under less-than-ideal lighting conditions---probably just by some VFX staff member who happened to have a handheld camera. It's not like it was a professional job. We HAVE seen the model under shooting conditions and lighting. IN THE EPISODE. And I haven't heard much criticism of the "look" of the Centaur in the episode...
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
You've got a point.. Obviously, the model had been color-corrected in post to reflect the usual Starfleet grey scheme of the time. This should be taken into account.
Mark
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
sure ill make an addition to the centaur to reflect the model a little more
Posted by Silent-Bob (Member # 861) on :
could you please make a smaller side view, so that it's in scale with your top and bottom views? i can't wait till you can do the front and back views
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
yeah sure not a problem
working on the cutaway sort of like what mike is doing but more like gilso's designs
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
if someone thinks it needs to be better please let me know any comments are welcome.
Deck1 Bridge Deck2 shuttle storage, cargo hatch Deck3 Cargobay shuttlebay 4-7 Crew Courters 8-9 Stellar C.,Crew Courters 10-11 Transporters, Crew Courters 11-13 Computer Core 14 sensors, matter injectors btw here is the smaller version (not as good quality) http://240sxs14.nissanpower.com/Centaur/Centaurside2.gif
[ September 07, 2002, 01:05: Message edited by: Akira62497 ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
What's w/ all those decks in the saucer that are about a meter high?
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Akira62497: I think I mentioned it before but the rollbar should be a little further back.
For what it's worth, I'd say a std Excelsior saucer would be 10 decks tall. 7 decks down to and including the rim, and then 3 decks below. If we assume the Centaur's Miranda-like bridge piece is 2 decks, then the entire saucer is 11 decks tall. I'd personally say that the Centaur bridge is two decks in height but is only actually counted as 1 deck (as with the Galaxy-class).
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
Dunno about the two-tiered shuttlebay, though. Suggest making it a lift down into a larger bay, a la E-nil?
You also seem to have used Jackill's E-B cutaway for the saucer... You can still see the shuttlebay passthrough at the aft end of the saucer. Similarly, the four golden doodads atop the impulse engines may have something to do with the propulsion system... After all, we are driving an Excelsior-sized saucer and nacelles without an Excelsior warp core, but WITH an Excelsior impulse engine.
Mark
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
im drawing mine from scratch because a) i dont like jackill's drawings and b) a lot of the internal arrangement would necessarily be very different from a regular excelsior
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
is this sort of what you was wanting?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Yep, pretty much; however, I'd collapse the two hangar decks into one big one - that way, you can store larger shuttles, plus visiting alien ships that can fit through the door. Besides, Starfleet shuttlebays tend to be two decks tall.
Mark
Posted by Silent-Bob (Member # 861) on :
Are you planning on doing front a back views of the Centaur
Posted by Akira62497 (Member # 850) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)