Topic: Back from a recon mission [A little bit bigger project]

[Mackie]

Alright then, first time in the history ive started a little bit bigger kitbashing project because ... well.. its a more personal kitbash that i intent to give some Identity to...

Heres a little flash of what im doing:


The person who quesses what it is (or what ship its going to be) from the registry , gets a cookie and ill show you some more stuff  
(heres a little tip: http://dynamic3.gamespy.com/~bridgecommander/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=11131&start=20 )  

[Klingon Fanatic]

 A Davids class with Excelsior componants? LOL, I was hoping for an Andor, LOL!

I look forward to seeing this when its ready.

Qapla!

KF

[Mackie]

Davids -C , yep *throws a cookie to KF *
im doing this because i need a new flag ship

the complete ship lineage:

1. USS Davids,  Davids class, NCC-1788
2. USS Davids,  Davids class refit, NCC-1788-A
3. USS Davids,  Galahad class, NCC-1788-B

and now this
4. USS Davids, Ironcross class refit, NCC-1788-C

 

[Marauth]

Of course Admiral Berman was recently implicated in a plot to destroy the canon universe and was stripped of his rank and sent to rura penthe where he will spend the rest of his life massaging the 'knees' of a certain big blue alien Admiral Roddenbery is suspected in a conspiracy to cover up the existence of starships designed by an engineer named Franz Joseph, evidence is being collected in preparation for a courtmartial.

Mackie: you say it's gonna be an ironcross refit, does this mean no ent-b secondary hull? (I say Ent-B rather than Excelsior because of the first pic which shows a green 'B' saucer)

[Mackie]

lets just say that its a "little" bit different connie sec hull, even more m4d looking than the last one  

[Mackie]

here be the ship "badge" or whatever it is

[Klingon Fanatic]

So, where is the ship?

Maybe this could be the Lexington Class Refit?

Qapla!

KF

[Marauth]

BTW Mackie, are you gonna green-out the paint on the connie secondary hull? It would really help to blend the ship to look more like one design. BTW KF - look on the ship's emblem you can tell that's not a drawing, it's a screen-grab or whatever of the actual model.

[Mackie]

maybe, maybe not, thats one of the reasons why i havent showed you any full pics yet, i want the ship to be 'perfect' in a sense..  

[Mackie]

some more details

[Marauth]

K I'd better remove that before I get in trouble

(for those who didn't see it it's got that black blind musician dude with the red-crosses over his sunglasses saying 'I can't see sh*t!')

[Mackie]

having the same problem too, something wrong with the server id quess  

[Mackie]

whats wrong with the picture, IMHO it was funny

heres the USS Davids lineage to the current design , to those who wonder
 

[Captain Ron]

You sure?

Looks like the B and C should be reversed.
The C looks more between TMP and TNG, well the B looks more tolds TNG, Voyger.

[Mackie]

I know B looks somewhat more advanced but it isnt...
for example
B = photon torps, torps, ballpoint phasers, old impulse engines, excelsior type deflector
C = q torps, photon trops, phaser arrays, lakota type impulse engines, sovereign type deflector

[James Formo]

C version looks best for TNG. The B version would be too angular for TNG, which has all smooth lines for the most part.

Hey Mackie, what class would this ship be in TNG? This is where I am not sure how to fit ships out. Would it be a CA class still?

[Marauth]

Given it's size it would probably be a CL by the TNG era, they were into that whole - bigger is better philosophy then. Oh and what about the Steamrunner, or Sabre, or Akira or the Norway, or the Defiant - not all smooth lines and curves are they, even the Sovereign has its share of angles. It was only the Galaxy era ships which are early TNG for the most part, if you go by registries the Steamrunner and Akira etc. are older than the Galaxy! the Nebula and all the Wolf359 ships are also the same age as the Galaxy or older than it with registries in the 60000s so it's a bit of a phalacy that TNG ships are all organic looking curves and smoothness.

BTW Mackie - where did you get that deflector texture, I wanna put that on my TNG connie it looks classic.

[Mackie]

i nicked it from redragons sovvy

www.themackiestuff.com/wip/showcase
some more small renderings, nearly there now...  

[Marauth]

|<1(|< 455 R3|\||)3R1|\|65 |\/|4(|<13!!!1

Where can I get Reddragon's Sovvy then?

[James Formo]

Quote:
Given it's size it would probably be a CL by the TNG era, they were into that whole - bigger is better philosophy then. Oh and what about the Steamrunner, or Sabre, or Akira or the Norway, or the Defiant - not all smooth lines and curves are they, even the Sovereign has its share of angles. It was only the Galaxy era ships which are early TNG for the most part, if you go by registries the Steamrunner and Akira etc. are older than the Galaxy! the Nebula and all the Wolf359 ships are also the same age as the Galaxy or older than it with registries in the 60000s so it's a bit of a phalacy that TNG ships are all organic looking curves and smoothness.

BTW Mackie - where did you get that deflector texture, I wanna put that on my TNG connie it looks classic.  

Good points. Let me rephrase. I like the C version the best  To me all the angles in the B version are wasted energy. Like the C version goes from front to back in a graceful curve. While the B version gets there in zig-zag fashion without appearing to add anything to functionality. It does look nice in its own rugged way I guess.  

I think the later TNG designs got more angular simply because they wanted the ships to stand out more and make it look like they were all built with new advances to repel the Borg threat.

 I think the David class is meant to have outlasted the TMP era and been refitted for TNG.  That is portrayed nicely in The C version as the B version looks like a completely new ship rather than an upgrade.

Plus Mackie says its TNG era.

[Marauth]

Hmm, I see your points about the Galahad but there is one fatal flaw in your logic - those zig-zags are the result of a low poly model being placed next to a high poly model, for example the first change of angle on the front of the engineering hull is meant to be the cut-out for the deflector but P81 didn't use many polies on that area when he made the Odyssey so it now looks rather angular, the angle in the middle aswell is just being economic with the polies, the torpedo pod and shuttlebay also sticks out - so in both cases so far functionality has over-ridden curvy lines. at the rear end it's just the bad join between the Excalibur and Odyssey pieces - they just don't fit together.

As for the TNG ships I must disagree with you about the reason for their appearance, the Galaxy class is a product of the late '80s design when everything had to be round and curvy - as a result all the related ships - Nebula, Cheyenne, New Orleans, Springfield, Niagara, Freedom etc. share these traits. The First Contact ships OTOH are a product of late '90s design where everything must have dozens of compound angles, it's just the fashions of the real world dictating how we design ST ships. - look at the designs of modern cars and you will see all the angles I'm talking about. Especially Ford BTW - they love that sh!t.

[Captain Ron]

Quote:
I know B looks somewhat more advanced but it isnt...
for example
B = photon torps, torps, ballpoint phasers, old impulse engines, excelsior type deflector
C = q torps, photon trops, phaser arrays, lakota type impulse engines, sovereign type deflector  

Interesting but...
A photon Launcher is just that a photon Launcher you can vary the types of loads it shoots. Also the launcher under the saucer is a TOS Idea the lower part of the neck was TMP, TNG until the sov came along.

The phasers you are using seem to be applied by photoshop and not part of the model is that is so then again they can be made to match. So any era can be used to support either ship as the B could just as easily be redone with more advanced looking textures.

Quote:

Quote:
Given it's size it would probably be a CL by the TNG era, they were into that whole - bigger is better philosophy then. Oh and what about the Steamrunner, or Sabre, or Akira or the Norway, or the Defiant - not all smooth lines and curves are they, even the Sovereign has its share of angles. It was only the Galaxy era ships which are early TNG for the most part, if you go by registries the Steamrunner and Akira etc. are older than the Galaxy! the Nebula and all the Wolf359 ships are also the same age as the Galaxy or older than it with registries in the 60000s so it's a bit of a phalacy that TNG ships are all organic looking curves and smoothness.

BTW Mackie - where did you get that deflector texture, I wanna put that on my TNG connie it looks classic.  

Good points. Let me rephrase. I like the C version the best  To me all the angles in the B version are wasted energy. Like the C version goes from front to back in a graceful curve. While the B version gets there in zig-zag fashion without appearing to add anything to functionality. It does look nice in its own rugged way I guess.  

I think the later TNG designs got more angular simply because they wanted the ships to stand out more and make it look like they were all built with new advances to repel the Borg threat.

 I think the David class is meant to have outlasted the TMP era and been refitted for TNG.  That is portrayed nicely in The C version as the B version looks like a completely new ship rather than an upgrade.

Plus Mackie says its TNG era.

The last line is where it wins the model will fit where Mackie puts it.
The rest of the arguement is more on the lines of why 800 poly models don't compare well to 2500+ poly models.

[The New Guy]

Nice ship Mackie. can't wait to get it  

btw, Klingon Fanatic, I see that ship in your sig,,, um, I signed up for the group,,, is that ok?  

[Mackie]

the only phasers added via paintshoppro are on the secondary hull and if you take a look at the renderings it doesnt so old, least in my opinions.

besides , i liked the classical design more than the X design so i went for that instead  

[Captain Ron]

I liked the one you went with was going to rework it to that type if you did not so you at least made me very happy. not to mention you saved me some time, and allot of work. One thing I did notice and would like to point out is that the area below the shutle bay still says Enterprise it should be on texture 5 (Khalibans) and should say Ironcross.

[Mackie]

Quote:
I liked the one you went with was going to rework it to that type if you did not so you at least made me very happy. not to mention you saved me some time, and allot of work. One thing I did notice and would like to point out is that the area below the shutle bay still says Enterprise it should be on texture 5 (Khalibans) and should say Ironcross.  

Again, I know that. and i fixed it already...

[atheorhaven]

Quote:
I liked the one you went with was going to rework it to that type if you did not so you at least made me very happy. not to mention you saved me some time, and allot of work. One thing I did notice and would like to point out is that the area below the shutle bay still says Enterprise it should be on texture 5 (Khalibans) and should say Ironcross.  

Yes, this is definitely fixed.  These pics are from the new texture.




(edit: found out the problem.. I included the wrong texture.  Placed Khaliban's original in there instead of the modified one by mistake.  Redownload the Ironcross now, the archive is now changed and fixed with the new texture.)

Sorry about that...
 

[Captain Ron]

HeHe...

No Problem,
I went generic on the secondary hall and converted some textures over so I now have the Hood, Repulse, Thecumseh, and the Valley Forge. I also now have them for the orginal, my green and red ones. Working on the Yellow and Federation Protection Force versions now (well and custom Deflectors and engines for the Green, Yellow and FPF).