posted
To be honest, I vas never very thrilled about all those organic-looking Alien-of-the-Week VOY ships. Apart from the Malon and the Kazon, few DQ races have a very distinctive look.
posted
Ships really "smoothed" out after TNG didn't they.
Even the Relativity went in that direction.
So what does this mean about the majority of Delta Qaudrent races? Why do they use more organic ships[despite the Borg whose ships looks anything but organic]
[I know they were done in cgi by more or less the same guys, and if the show was in the Alpha Quadrent it would be the same pattern]
Sure its feasible becuase they all exist in the same Quadrent, and more or less around the Borg, their tech all resemble each other?
Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
It's possible - it's also possible that in the visual sense, ships are supposed to be visually distinct from our heroes' vessel, and again distinct from the big, klunky Borg. What's left but large organic shapes?
It does follow however that current-day aircraft design grows ever more sleeker and curvier - it's likely that Sternbach and the various VFX design teams were just following that sentiment. I mean, right now the Pre-E is arguably more organic-looking, and coloured, than its predecessors (with the obvious exception of the Enterprise-D).
posted
I have noticed (since the beginning of B5) that ships that were not specifically made to be a physically shot model - that existed solely (usually) in the computer - i.e. were built in the Computer ended up being more 'curvy' or 'organic'. I don't know if it is easier to use curves on graphics programs - but so many curves in the real phyical world is a pain to build... notice our houses aren't so organic etc. The Enterprise (TOS) and more so the E-D were 'curvey' in their own right - but that was a conscious decision - and that they are still more blocky than a lot of original CGI ships. I DID notice a trend towards the end of Voyager with AotW ship - they did have more... right angles - than earlier CGI only ships. I believe the Breen ships might have been quite different if they existed first as a physical model. I think that the 'organicness' of ships seen when made as CGI originally and totally makes them look more fake... sorry Mojo.
[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Andrew: It is definitely easier to do curvy shapes on the computer than it is in the real world because any program worth it's mustard will let you mirror objects to get precisely symmetrical curves. I wouldn't say, however, that they are easier to do than angular designs, since hiding seams while texture-mapping organic and involved shapes is so much more complex. I'm finishing up the modelling of an NX-01 this week, and while the comparatively simple parts of the saucer and nacelles went pretty smoothly, those catamaran bits took my while to get right. I tend to agree on the organic vs. angular thing. I think any ship will probably have a fair amount of both, and to shift the balance one way or the other comes off as somewhat artificial.
[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'll tell you right now that it's still easier to make a ship out of a bunch of blocks than it is to do complex curves - even on a computer.
The designs for B5 had nothing to do with the tools of CGI - it was simply a case of Ron Thornton being sick and tired of grey, blocky spaceships.
Mind you, that's the way all the EA ships were - but he wanted to alien races to be more distinct and different - hence, more organic looking.
Star Trek also did not take the tools being used to make a ship under consideration when designing them. I'm sure it was also a case of the artists wanting to make a departure.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
