posted
And even worse, you removed one of my watermarks. i have two or three in there still. Please give me credit for the work or delete this thread. I will not let people steal my work.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
(He does have a point actually. How hard would it have been so say "image processed by Wes"? Removing watermarks is also dirty work).
As an aside, you'd have preferred the Daedalus class? I'm not arguing that the Daedalus class does a nice job of looking more primitive that the NCC-1701. I would argue that it's one ugly mother, and not something that's I'd want to see for 7 years.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
ive cooled down about the image but it still bugs me. As for the overall design. I think the Enterprise-nil could of been more detailed if they had the budget. mabye they even used old design elements to create the enterprise nx-01
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I kinda like the Daedalus, but I liked the design better when it became the Olympic. I think it works well as a design showing an evolution of starships with the primary hull/secondary hull/nacelles structure, but it isn't all that visually exciting. It's basically a sphere with four cylinders and two rectangular prisms attached to it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
My humble apologies, Wes. I was in a hurry when I made that, and I removed your text habitually (just like when I clean up ST:Magazine diagrams). After I had removed it, I couldn't remember which thread I found it in or who had made it.
Doesn't seem to be much point it changing it now, everyone knows who made it. I just wanted you to know it wasn't my intention to claim it as my own.
Sorry again, Wes.
-------------------- Sheridan: "Well, as answers go, short, to the point, utterly useless and totally consistant with what I've come to expect from a Vorlon..." Kosh: "Good." Sheridan: "I REALLY hate it when you do that..." Kosh: "Good."
posted
I think it would be cool to see an Earth Starfleet Daedalus with Enterprise-style hull plating and coloration... and then, when the Federation is founded, all of the starships get refits, turning the Daedalus into what we're familiar with. Luckily, Enterprise probably won't last ten seasons, so we're also free to speculate that her classmates (if they exist) and possibly the Enterprise herself would get a similar refit, with Daedalus styling and a smooth white hull.
posted
As Matt Jeffries indicated in his discussions of the design of the TOS Enterprise, lack of surface detail was intentional. He wanted smooth hullplates. He wanted everything to be able to be serviced from inside the ship, so there would be no hazerdous EVA work to replace a burnt out component. He wanted simplicity and elegance. And I agree. I know from my designs that it is possible to make a ship design that is visually exciting without being greebled out the ass.
Between Masao's designs and those created for a game called "Jovian Chronicles" ( http://www.dp9.com/tour/Jc_page4a.htm -- scroll down past the mecha), I think that is the direction they should have gone. But unlike Ryan, I do fault the producers...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
posted
I designed my ships using simple basic shapes because I think NCC-1701 is the most beautiful starship ever (also because simple shapes are easier to draw). Good ship designs are based on shape, not surface detail. I have more hull plates, but that's because my Romulan War ships are meant to be more-primitive, missile-based warships rather explorers. Also, as my friend Meshula says, a good ship is simple enough to be recognizably drawn by children.
Also, thanks for the cool link. I haven't had much interest in big-foot mecha, but those ships are neat.
quote:As Matt Jeffries indicated in his discussions of the design of the TOS Enterprise, lack of surface detail was intentional. He wanted smooth hullplates. He wanted everything to be able to be serviced from inside the ship, so there would be no hazerdous EVA work to replace a burnt out component.
And of course, this leads me to think of a possible explanation for the problem of the SS Enterprise having a rough surface and the USS Enterprise having a smooth surface. Perhaps sometime between the two time periods, the folks at the ASDB decided to try this revolutionary approach to starship design whereby the crews do not have to face the dangers of EVA. Hence, they designed new lines of starships that used this idea of crew-friendliness. Thus, the ships got smooth, the components became assessible from the inside, the controls became simpler, etc.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
