Haven't posted anything in ages, but felt like a new wallpaper so I put my Connie into action against a (low poly) Klingon Battle Cruiser. Came out ok. Still can't quite nail that warp streak though.
One thing though: shouldn't the lights above the shuttlebay be red?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Nice. Is there that much of a 'dip' into the side of the Engineering section on a Connie? Following the deflector grid lines - behind the nacelle they appear to dip in a bit.
Oh, and it might be just an artifact of the program you use RA, but I've noticed your hulls always seem too... dull - as if they don't have the right type of sheen on them to make them look... physically "real".
Nice though.
Andrew
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
As far as dimensions and shape goes the model is spot on in accordance to the schematics, and model photos etc, I'm quite positive of that. I was meticulous to the nth degree to get it right. As for the hull being dull, it wouldn't be down to the program (Lightwave), as it can do anything, probably down to the idiosyncrasies of the artist (ie me). To what are you specifically referring, diffuse settings, specularity (shine), textures?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Tis nice. Although if I'm going to be anally nitpicky, isn't there a decal saying "ENTERPRISE" just behind the sensor dome on the bottom of the saucer?
And would it perhaps be better if the torpedo produced some glow on the Enterprise? That would make it look more "attached" to the scene and also make it look as if it's just come from the Enterprise.
Nice though. It's my new work wallpaper.
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
Not bad at all, I only ever made a low poly Enterprise myself as it seemed to already have been covered pretty comprehensively by perfectionists like yourself. I can also sympathise with the warp streaks, I made an animated version so that I could show my ships going into/dropping out of warp and it was a bitch to get looking anywhere near right.
Psyliam, if you look at the underside of the saucer there is a red glow caused by the torpedo already. I think the only thing stopping this picture being superb is the lighting though, I think what people are looking for here is a somewhat more dramatic take that can only be acheived by dramatic lighting. I think that would fix the complaint about the sheen on the hull to, as right now the lighting is fairly uniform and not showing up the specularity maps to best effect. I would advocate underlighting the side facing the camera, outlining the ship with a key light high and far off in the distance, boosting the red light from the torpedo and giving the Klingon engines more of an obvious glow.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Points taken. Yes indeed I did miss the 'Enterprise' decal on the saucer underside when I first modelled it, I've also addressed the shuttle bay lights which should, you're right Jason, be red. Also I've corrected the flaw with the deflector grid lines, which do dip in this way - as this image illustrates. I used it as a source when I modelled the ship.
Finally, Kenny, you're right with the lighting. It is my weakest area. Sometimes people say my images are too dark, but this time I guess the ambient light levels were too high. Hopefully this is better now:
Why are you using the blue color for the impulse glow? It was blue for about a third of TMP but an amber-orange in everything after that.
Just wondering is all: I think a warm glow back there would attract the eye more and unify the image.
PLus, you seem to be missing the four formation lights and the four phasers at the secondary hull's ventral apex (where the model's stand attaches on the studio model).
Finally, the saucer's windows on the starboard side of the impulse engines are large square windows (while you've got it perfect on the other side). Why this one set of windows is diffrent is a mystery to me, but they are. Here. And this is almost the exact same shot but with the studio model. Starshipmodeler.com is where I'm getting all this from, BTW. Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
You are a picky sod, but kudos, because without it I wouldn't be able to aspire to the perfection I covet with this, which is my favourite all time trek ship. Any shortcomings with this model stems entirely from an inherent lack of source material. I had numerous model photos, but not covering every possible angle. I've since acquired more from the site you quoted above, thanks. I will attempt, over the next few days to make any necessary additions to the model.
[quote]PLus, you seem to be missing the four formation lights and the four phasers at the secondary hull's ventral apex (where the model's stand attaches on the studio model).[/url]
They're there, just not quite visible here, although I failed to light the nav light in this scene.
The impulse engines are blue BTW because I prefer it that way. Also, this is the 1701 refit, not the 1701-A, and many of the model pics I have are of the Ent-A. What differences are there (if any) between the Ent-A and the original refit? (because I've not really noted any).
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Damn fine ship if you ask me. B)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: You are a picky sod, but kudos, because without it I wouldn't be able to aspire to the perfection I covet with this, which is my favourite all time trek ship.
I'm amazed by even the first image (your stuff has dramaticaly improved since I first joined flare and saved all the BOBW ship images from your website), but you asked so...
quote: The impulse engines are blue BTW because I prefer it that way. Also, this is the 1701 refit, not the 1701-A, and many of the model pics I have are of the Ent-A. What differences are there (if any) between the Ent-A and the original refit?
Nothing but the additional letter on the registry as far as I know. It's the exact same studio model after all. It's often more brightly lit than the nil though- mainly because STV did not have ILM doing the SFX and the lighting trend was kept in STVI. It makes the ship look more white than grey onscreen. Makes it look like a new paintjob.
The real question for me is: is that torpedo being fired from the Enterprise or has a wily Klingon weapons officer fired his aft-torpedo with pinpoint accuracy at our heroes?
Could be a baaaad day to be on duty in the torped room. Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
quote:I'm amazed by even the first image (your stuff has dramaticaly improved since I first joined flare and saved all the BOBW ship images from your website), but you asked so...
Yes you're right a lot of the old stuff from the late 90's through to '01 is quite poor by what standards I can achieve today. (and BTW I rebuilt a few of those BoBW ships). But as with any art it's a learning process (self learned too). That's why I'm slowly going to rebuild the most important models (the canon ones).
I have a couple of projects in the works right now, one is building and redeveloping Bernd's Tanganyika (to achieve a plausible non-canon intermediate ship between the Galaxy and Ambassador), and second, grandest model of all is the complete rebuild, from the keel up, of the Nebula Class. For this I will be employing the same care, and attention to detail as the Connie. I guarantee it will be the best and most accurate CGI Nebula you can find (when it's done).
The saucer and the secondary hull are mostly finished. And your mission (should you chose to accept it) is to find for me all and any model photos, and schematics, from multiple angles. I have a good number already, but what's bothering me is a lack of reference pics of the hull's window pattern. Most of the photos I have either completely or partially conceal the secondary hull windows (because of the nacelles).
quote:The real question for me is: is that torpedo being fired from the Enterprise or has a wily Klingon weapons officer fired his aft-torpedo with pinpoint accuracy at our heroes?
It's our heroes who are firing the torp, not the Klings. I'm looking in to doing an animation of this sequence which will illustrate the action better. It would be relatively straight forward, except for the warp streak which may require further work..
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
That looks much better with the more dramatic lighting.
Is there a way of maybe putting a little bit of motion blue on the torp to indicate it's direction of movement. Or maybe making the launcher glow slightly?
And if we're being picky, aren't there little "United Federation of Planets" and "Starship USS Enterprise" decals on the edge of the saucer? At least one looks like it should be visible there.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
OK, I'll bite. Which *version* of the Nebula will you be building?
B.J.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
quote:Is there a way of maybe putting a little bit of motion blue on the torp to indicate it's direction of movement. Or maybe making the launcher glow slightly?
I did actually do a motion blur version of this image, of the whole ship as it warped along. But I've never been a fan of motion blur images of this kind, it may look dramatic but it ultimately impugns your artistics efforts as it obscures any clear details of the model you're displaying. But a simple blur on the torpedo would be easy enough.
You're right about the additional decals on the saucer, and it's already been addressed.
At first BJ it will be the latter Nebula-Type, ie the Leeds/Sutherland etc. But I will retro fit it eventually to make the Phoenix (and I may redo my old proto-Nebula Melbourne as well).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Just remember that the Nebula does not have all of the windows of a Galaxy class! (though I know you would never make such a silly mistake)
Any chance of sending me some images of this ship "between" Amby and Galaxy designs?
Is it the Probert version Ambassador?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: To what are you specifically referring, diffuse settings, specularity (shine), textures?
Hmmm I'm not 100% sure which aspect it is... but it's... errr - a little bit of all of those things - if I understand the terminology correctly. It might be the way the "light" bounces off the hull - or even just the monocromaticism of the hull - I'm not too sure - I'm not bagging I only want to see you improve!
In another thread someone posted a model of a connie done by someone at TrekBBS *spit* but if you can find that pic - you'd know what I'm trying to... explain - it's the "physical" feel of the hull or something.
Anyway, still nice.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Yes I do know where you're coming from, specularity defines how much shine a surface reflects. But getting the correct appearance it takes a lot of tinkering, patience, and trial and error, not to mention multiple lighting rigs to get the desired effect. I've been accused of lighting scenes with too much specularity, not enough specularity, too much ambience, not enough ambience etc. And whereas someone will say 'too much', another, on the same scene, will say 'not enough'. I guess it's all about finding a happy medium.
Yes I know about the saucer windows on the Neb. But I will be doing both Neb variants. Firstly a rebuild of the now poorly constructed Sutherland type (as seen here), and then the Phoenix, and here
Bernd's Tanganyika is a nice blend of the Ambassador and Galaxy, better I think than Probert's Ambassador. Here's some WIP images (with basic lighting and texturing - these aren't beauty shots)
The ship's hull design is not bad, but the nacelle pylons are horrible.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
RE: Connie-refit If I remember correctly, aren't the rec deck windows supposed to be visible on the starboard aft edge of the saucer's rim? It looks like you've just mirrored the 'normal' windows from the port side.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Hey Rev. Yes that had already been pointed out, and I've made the adjustments, and refined the decals in accordance with some better model photos I've acquired. This, I think, will be the final version. Some new hi res orthographicals will come later.
Looking great! The starboard ACL light on the saucer should be bright green (not white), but that's getting nix-pickey on ya.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Yeh I knew that but actually couldn't be bothered to go back and re-render it, lol. But the orphographic images (which I've since done) do have red and green lights on the underside as well. Hopefully the ship will now be completely accurate, right down to the personnel hatches and airlocks.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Bueatiful work.
Posted by Wee Bairns (Member # 1324) on :
Good god, the Connie-refit is a beautiful ship....and you've done an amazing job on her.
Posted by jesus X (Member # 1201) on :
First, it is a beautiful shot. The multicolor warp-star-streaks are great, too. Many shots just make them white streaks.
But, since we're picking nits... This is a common detail missed I've noticed. Background stars behind the torpedo are brighter than surrounding areas. They should actually be obscured, because the glow of the torpedo will wash out the light from the stars.
And if we're talking the 1701 and not the A, let's go whole hog and make it TMP's Ent., before ILM painted over the pearlescent with a clear matte.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
but if you can find that pic - you'd know what I'm trying to... explain - it's the "physical" feel of the hull or something.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)