Topic: Opinions: Do we really need ANOTHER TOS Constitution? (Read 10418 times)

TheStressPuppy · « **on:** October 11, 2004, 10:46:53 pm »

Yea Yea I know we got so many great connie models from Anduril, Lord Schtupp, Atrahasis, Moonraker etc, and 2 of my own versions. Where im going with this is that i decided to build a version 3 of my TOS connie. While most people say theres nothing wrong with version 2, there are 4 reasons why i want to do this. 1) both the version 1 and 2 of my models (the smithsonian, and "canon" connie) are far from accurate IMO. What i get for "eyeball measuring" insted of using the alan sinclair blueprints i suppose

2) The textures on those 2 models arent exactly mine, they are bash's of someone else's. 3) I belive my modelling skills have improved enough to build a ship equal in quality, and accuracy to Lord Schtupp's, and Anduril's at 1/3rd to half the poly's. Thier ships average over 6000+, I set my poly limit at 4000+/- a few hundred. 4th and most important, Because i want to do it

The big question is... Will you guys want it when its done?

Arcanum · « **Reply #1 on:** October 11, 2004, 11:05:28 pm »

Options=good

ModelsPlease · « **Reply #2 on:** October 11, 2004, 11:13:20 pm »

IMHO I say go for it........... Why?
1) You want to
2) It's why we're all here ( I mean the love of the game and modelling )
3) There's always room for more accurate Connie's
I'd find room for it my collection.

-MP

-LB- · « **Reply #3 on:** October 11, 2004, 11:23:16 pm »

Dont model for everyone else, model for yourself first, push yourself, challenge yourself to make it the best you have ever done, then, if and or when you are satisified with it, THEN share it with everyone else

Dizzy · « **Reply #4 on:** October 11, 2004, 11:48:27 pm »

There is a reason I have collected each and every TOS Connie design. Yours will be no exception.

Go for it!

Rhaz · « **Reply #5 on:** October 11, 2004, 11:49:18 pm »

Go for it!

markyd · « **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2004, 04:45:57 am »

I'll jump on the band wagon and say do it....

I love it when I can compare shiptyeps made by two different moddelers... It means I can look at both of the strong points in their work and progress myself..

so do it... cant wait to see the outcome!

Kaenyne · « **Reply #7 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:35:11 am »

Like a broken record...like a broken record...

There is NO such thing as too many Connies.

Wolfsglen · « **Reply #8 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:46:25 am »

I say why not? Variety is always a good thing, and every modeller does something a bit different to leave a mark, so go for it

pneumonic81 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 12, 2004, 10:36:08 am »

indeed do it. it seems to me you really want to do it. you have found some things you want to try, some things you want to do better. defintly it shoudl be done if you feel strongly about it

and if you dont do it you will wish u did. beleive me.

KBF-Kurok · « **Reply #10 on:** October 12, 2004, 10:39:48 am »

can always use another kickazzz connie to blow up.Go for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

USS Mariner · « **Reply #11 on:** October 12, 2004, 04:31:23 pm »

Quote from: TheStressPuppy on October 11, 2004, 10:46:53 pm

Yea Yea I know we got so many great connie models from Anduril, Lord Schtupp, Atrahasis, Moonraker etc, and 2 of my own versions. Where im going with this is that i decided to build a version 3 of my TOS connie. While most people say theres nothing wrong with version 2, there are 4 reasons why i want to do this. 1) both the version 1 and 2 of my models (the smithsonian, and "canon" connie) are far from accurate IMO. What i get for "eyeball measuring" insted of using the alan sinclair blueprints i suppose 2) The textures on those 2 models arent exactly mine, they are bash's of someone else's. 3) I belive my modelling skills have improved enough to build a ship equal in quality, and accuracy to Lord Schtupp's, and Anduril's at 1/3rd to half the poly's. Thier ships average over 6000+, I set my poly limit at 4000+/- a few hundred. 4th and most important, Because i want to do it The big question is... Will you guys want it when its done?

Aren't the Casimiro ones more accurate? I always thought the shapes of the bottom saucer was off a bit (it almost looks like the bottom bulge of the three-footer model) than and the back of neck looked a little off... Please explain if you can.

Sometimes I really wish we could get a hold of Art Asylum and have them scan the 11 footer so they could make a toy of it (like they do with their mini-figures). THEN we'd have an accurate Connie.

E_Look · « **Reply #12 on:** October 12, 2004, 04:38:53 pm »

No question.

Except... what's wrong with refining a good thing? Go for it!

Don Karnage · « **Reply #13 on:** October 12, 2004, 06:19:42 pm »

Go for it, since you want to do it, but just one think don't call it enterprise, there a good 13 constitution ship commission so tthat give you 12 names to chose for

, its bether to have other name for variation of the ship (improvment like the CA+, CAR, CC, CB), anyway its your choise

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #14 on:** October 12, 2004, 06:33:18 pm »

The New version im making I am using Alan Sinclairs cad drawings and measurements for my reference. He supposedly has taken these measurements directly off the 11 footer at the smithsonian. I also have tons of photos of the studio model post 2000 restoration to use if the blueprints aint right. The lower saucer bulge is correct on the drawings also the lower saucer has no flat area near the edge that i can see anywhere. its a smooth curve all the way to the edge. Least on the studio model it seems that way. and the blueprints sorta back it up.

Some WIP's The colored areas represent whats new on the model. the grey is whats left of version 2

I know polys are showing in some areas. im not finished optimizing or re-smoothing. My goal is a low poly ship that is almost the same quality of a high. Some of the low poly flaws more than likely wont show after its textured. This version is my "great experiment" in optimization. . The old version 2 nacelle had a poly count of 1200. The new nacelle has twice the detail of the old one and is 800 polys

The secondary hull of the older ship was over 1400, Version 3's is sporting 950 at the moment with more work yet to do.
Don i intended to put 1700 markings on her im also making blanks so you can make yer own names

markyd · « **Reply #15 on:** October 12, 2004, 06:43:01 pm »

Keep it up bud... looks gr8 so far.....

-LB- · « **Reply #16 on:** October 12, 2004, 10:20:07 pm »

Quote from: DonKarnage on October 12, 2004, 06:19:42 pm

Go for it, since you want to do it, but just one think don't call it enterprise, there a good 13 constitution ship commission so tthat give you 12 names to chose for , its bether to have other name for variation of the ship (improvment like the CA+, CAR, CC, CB), anyway its your choise

I couldnt agree with this statement more. I made a Connie afterall, and I called it the Lexington NCC 1709, because I felt we didnt really need anymore Enterprises! But the more Connies we have the better for some cool Fleet wallpapers and game battles, and no 2 ships having the same name always rocks!

Centurus · « **Reply #17 on:** October 13, 2004, 04:22:56 am »

Beautiful work done on this Connie. Personally, variety is the spice of life. Everyone has preferences, so you'll be giving people another choice, which is always good.

Also, when this model is done, which version of the game will it be for? Maybe an SFC3 version?

Don Karnage · « **Reply #18 on:** October 13, 2004, 04:55:16 am »

i remember something from the old forum, some one was making a constitution class tmp and there was a blue print under/around it to show the progress but i don't rember who was making it, anyone remember that??.

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #19 on:** October 13, 2004, 05:10:13 am »

Maybe P81 im not sure. He is redoing his TMP connie at the moment.

Progress: At this time the count stands at 3773 with more optimizing left to do, and some minor details left. Im considering adding another cap segment to the lower saucer cause the curve near the edge doesnt quite look like it should, but it will push the count over my self imposed limit of 4k. whatcha think.. Oh, i am gonna add all the christmas bulbs in like i did with version 2

heres latest pics. the saucer is gray cause i took the texture out. theres nothing left of the version 2 model on here

markyd · « **Reply #20 on:** October 13, 2004, 07:24:39 am »

Thats gonna br good when its done.. cant wait

Rhaz · « **Reply #21 on:** October 13, 2004, 01:02:57 pm »

Lookin' good - I can't wait to see this with textures!!!

To answer the question - If you're not happy with it then add the extra polies.

Bernard Guignard · « **Reply #22 on:** October 13, 2004, 05:13:25 pm »

Hello StressPuppy

That is very nice work

looking forward to seeing the final product.

Kaenyne · « **Reply #23 on:** October 14, 2004, 09:00:02 am »

Simply Splendid!

Don Karnage · « **Reply #24 on:** October 14, 2004, 11:57:22 am »

Quote from: TheStressPuppy on October 12, 2004, 06:33:18 pm

The New version im making I am using Alan Sinclairs cad drawings and measurements for my reference. He supposedly has taken these measurements directly off the 11 footer at the smithsonian. I also have tons of photos of the studio model post 2000 restoration to use if the blueprints aint right. The lower saucer bulge is correct on the drawings also the lower saucer has no flat area near the edge that i can see anywhere. its a smooth curve all the way to the edge. Least on the studio model it seems that way. and the blueprints sorta back it up.

Some WIP's The colored areas represent whats new on the model. the grey is whats left of version 2

I know polys are showing in some areas. im not finished optimizing or re-smoothing. My goal is a low poly ship that is almost the same quality of a high. Some of the low poly flaws more than likely wont show after its textured. This version is my "great experiment" in optimization. . The old version 2 nacelle had a poly count of 1200. The new nacelle has twice the detail of the old one and is 800 polys The secondary hull of the older ship was over 1400, Version 3's is sporting 950 at the moment with more work yet to do.
Don i intended to put 1700 markings on her im also making blanks so you can make yer own names

seem good but how do you put a name and number on the saucer?, the last time i did was not as good as the one made when i download the mod.

markyd · « **Reply #25 on:** October 14, 2004, 05:02:57 pm »

*****sorry the question was asked off topic****

name and number on the saucer is texturing.... applied via UVW mapping or somthing simular in Lightwave or maya.....

Best to use seperate texture sheets for the saucer so the registry looks spot on im my opinion..

but thats me

Darkdrone · « **Reply #26 on:** October 15, 2004, 12:37:54 am »

Quote from: markyd on October 14, 2004, 05:02:57 pm

*****sorry the question was asked off topic****

name and number on the saucer is texturing.... applied via UVW mapping or somthing simular in Lightwave or maya.....

Best to use seperate texture sheets for the saucer so the registry looks spot on im my opinion..

but thats me

you can also model that kind of thing too man

looking great man cant wait too see her with textures

DD

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #27 on:** October 17, 2004, 11:31:42 am »

Ive ran into a bit of a snag with her

While ive managed to maintain the count at under 4k the problem is...well... you see it in the previous shots. under the saucer u can see the poly errors. I thought by applying a texture it would fade out. it did not. this is cause while the outer edge has 56 sides, the inner cap segments got reduced by a power of 2 (outer cap segment 56-28-14-7 inner segment). i cant seem to smooth these errors out without increasing the count. ive run out of other sections to optimize, and the whole point was to keep this model under 4k. any suggestions?

Greenvalv · « **Reply #28 on:** October 17, 2004, 02:22:47 pm »

Quote from: TheStressPuppy on October 17, 2004, 11:31:42 am

i cant seem to smooth these errors out without increasing the count. ive run out of other sections to optimize, and the whole point was to keep this model under 4k. any suggestions?

Bah, what's a few more polies than usual.

Greenvalv · « **Reply #29 on:** October 17, 2004, 05:49:04 pm »

Hey Lord Schtupp, the link under your username doesn't work for me, what's up?

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #30 on:** October 18, 2004, 09:16:16 am »

SCHTUPP!! Glad to see ya around!

Anyways i think i managed to smooth the lower saucer enough, i didnt add any more polys i just manipulated them around a bit. still has a slight roughness but i can live with it (even the studio model had some rough areas on it). I succeded in my goal of keeping the mesh under 4000 polys. The count stands at 3856 with the christmas nav lights meshed in, and at 3706 without them. I know i didnt need to mesh in the lights, but to me the model just doesnt look right without them. Anyways heres some shots of the semi final model. i might change things during texturing, i may not. depends on how it goes.

These will be the last shots i post till after shes textured. Im going greg jien trial and tribbulation style with her

Rhaz · « **Reply #31 on:** October 18, 2004, 03:46:37 pm »

That's *really* nice. I can't wait to see it textured!

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #32 on:** November 08, 2004, 02:29:19 pm »

Das Bump, and A "little" update. It took me from my last post just to texture the saucer, and it still isnt finished yet! :eek: The reason being is im experimenting heavily with bump, and specular mapping. Im debating on rebuilding the lower saucer again cause of poly errors showing before, and during render. I was hoping the textures would hide them. I may have to take LS's advise, and increase the count just a little.

All the grid lines, and indentations around the windows are pure bump maps. the ship is a very light grey (cant simulate 1965 chevy corviar grey)

IGNORE the red deflector dish! that was an oops on my part. The grids really stand out here with backlighting. You can see what i mean about the poly errors. funny thing is the studio model has a ripple effect on its lower saucer rings too.

The grids again, the lines on the color texture are 1 shade darker than the rest of the hull. i use that as the bump reference. at a distance and with the light directly overhead you dont see any lines at all.

another view of bottom saucer

You are prolly asking "why is he using bump maps when SFC/BC doesnt support them?" The answer is because this ship is being ported into Nexus: The Jupiter Incident. A game that does support bump, and specular maps. For the SFC/BC version im gonna render the textures off these

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #33 on:** November 08, 2004, 04:23:21 pm »

I was going by my bad memory on the 65 corvair grey u r prolly right and never had a grey version of that car (Nice car BTW

) I suppose there isnt much difference between PS 15% grey and GM 1964 grey. stupid me posted old pics, i also textured the impulse engine housing not the engines themselves yet. as we all know the canon ship never lit its impulse engines...im gonna steer away from canon in this respect and light em up TMP style, but ill provide black impulse's for the "purist" out there

Its gonna be real tough to simulate the texture of the studio models impulse engine since i could only planiar map this. i tried cylindrical mapping but it turned out abismal. I did however manage to bump in the raised areas on the sides (the 11 ft studio model uses cloth and dope for the impulse detail)

The textures at the moment look pretty plain. I am going to weather the ship, but not as drasticly as the smithsonian display. more like how greg jien weathered his trial and tribbulation connie. Canon fact that the big E was at least 15 years old when TOS 1st aired (the menagerie). no way can she look as if she just left space dock, especially after 3 "5 year missions" and quite a few battles.

ModelsPlease · « **Reply #34 on:** November 09, 2004, 06:03:44 am »

I just have to ask,being a novice texturer,but how do you get the saucer lines to look indented like that?

markyd · « **Reply #35 on:** November 09, 2004, 10:41:22 am »

Thats the bump mapping... the only problem with bump mapping i find is that it bumps everything.. is there a way to selectively bump certain areas of a bmp or is it simply a case of applying a different texture to that area... Great model by the way lookibg awsome...

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #36 on:** November 09, 2004, 12:35:43 pm »

Im sorta new to the bump mapping myself. I will tell you what i understand of it so far. I dont think you can do selective like your asking.

The bump maps are a different texture altogether. they are much like illumination maps. in 3ds max the material used for say the top saucer has different slots for diffuse, specular, illumination, bump, alpha, etc... the diffuse is the color texture. what you would see normally in game. self illumination is pretty much self explanitory. The bump map is a greyscale texture. medium grey for the main color, with darker grey's for recessed areas and lighter greys for raised areas. How deep or high depends on the darkness or lightness of the area u want bumped. Specular maps are similar to bumps except that lighter areas reflect more light while darker areas have little shine. In some of the newer games like HW2 they use layered dds, or tga files with the Iluumination, bump, and specular maps as alpha layers. i dont quite grasp how thats done yet.

SFC 1,2,OP doesnt support bump, and specular mapping. SFC3 also supports neither, but has sort of a fake specular effect. Bridge Commander does support specular mapping to a point. What i am going to do is render each part of the ship with the bump and specular maps to texture the SFC/BC version of the ship to simulate the effects you see on the screens, and hope it works

It is my intention that when this ship is finished I will release the master .3ds file broken down into its 70+ groups. Along with all the master textures (including the bump and specular maps) In PSD format with all layers intact, all of the hull fonts, and templates to place the fonts, The blueprint reference i used to make her. I view this ship as a grand plastic kit only digitized

and i want to share this so that the up and comming modellers will have a guide to study for making thier own projects.

Rat Boy · « **Reply #37 on:** November 09, 2004, 12:49:49 pm »

So you're using the original series model as a source? Have you considered perhaps using the rebuilt model from DS9 to base the textures off of?

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #38 on:** November 09, 2004, 12:52:44 pm »

Im using many references, Im using the 11 ft studio model on display at the smithsonian to place things that dont look quite right on the blueprints. im using the ds9 greg jien TnT model, and the smithsonian display model as texture references. Understand that the poly count is still under 4000. it may go above a little if i decide to rebuild the lower saucer. It is not going to be 100% accurate and far from perfect. Im just doing the best i can do within a self imposed limit.

battlestar001 · « **Reply #39 on:** November 09, 2004, 04:40:07 pm »

i love it, keep up the good work

Rod ONeal · « **Reply #40 on:** November 11, 2004, 11:03:28 am »

:bump: How's she comming?

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #41 on:** November 11, 2004, 02:20:13 pm »

Shes comming along quite well so far. I screwed up and collapsed all the layers of 1 texture and saved it by mistake, so now im gonna have to redo that texture in reverse from the model bmp. I got the dorsal base texture lite and bump finished. and i put the TMP style impulse glows in, and i corrected my red glowwy texture error on the dish.

Its gonna be a while b4 this model is finished. theres ALOT of experiments i want try out, and to do with it still. once the base texture is finished then comes the fun part of weathering the ship

as i said before theres no way that a approx 15 year old ship will look like it just came off the assembly line. After that im gonna make specular maps. this is gonna be the great experiment. im gonna try a faint aztec pattern for this ship using the TMP connie as a guide. it will almost be invisible to all but the steepest angles.

Heres some recent shots. I still need to bump map the deflector dish, and play with the bumps on the dorsal to make em stand out more.

USS Mariner · « **Reply #42 on:** November 11, 2004, 02:32:03 pm »

Neat impulse textures. Any chances for a blue version? It may be just me, but blue impulse engines give a little variety, especially since they'll be sitting near giant orange bussards. :p

Anyway, speaking of variety, is they by any change you would consider having an "armed" version of the Enterprise, with visible weapon ports (or hatches would do, not necessarily the phaser blisters of TMP or on LS's, but that works too.) Also, seeing this thing with a set of backlit warp grills and deflector (both of which Roddenberry originally wanted) would rock. You wouldn't need to change the mesh for the latter variant, just map the deflector housing to glow and then an effect on the back of the deflector itself. That's always something I've always wanted to seen done on a higher poly Connie, and so far only Atra's USS Potemkin has both features.

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #43 on:** November 11, 2004, 02:58:28 pm »

Quote from: Mariner Class on November 11, 2004, 02:32:03 pm

Anyway, speaking of variety, is they by any change you would consider having an "armed" version of the Enterprise, with visible weapon ports (or hatches would do, not necessarily the phaser blisters of TMP or on LS's, but that works too.) Also, seeing this thing with a set of backlit warp grills and deflector (both of which Roddenberry originally wanted) would rock. You wouldn't need to change the mesh for the latter variant, just map the deflector housing to glow and then an effect on the back of the deflector itself. That's always something I've always wanted to seen done on a higher poly Connie, and so far only Atra's USS Potemkin has both features.

I wasnt gonna say anything, but once i complete the base texture set, I intended to make another texture set to "modernize" the ship.. the semi-canon version is what you see here, and i hinted in my last post about the aztec patterns, so yes im gonna do an "enterprised" version with glowwing warp nacelles, self illumination, aztecs, visable weapon emitters, thrusters, and a glow behind the main deflector

(been wanting to do this for a while just never got to it). I may also alter the model itself for the "modern" version. theres things that dont quite make sense like the waifer thin nacelle pylons. they may need some re-enforcement where they connect to the hull and nacelle. just a minor rounding out at the connections and i may add a small protrusion on the nacelle where the pylon meets like on the tmp ship. I dont know about the blue impulse's tho dont look right to me.

Kaenyne · « **Reply #44 on:** November 11, 2004, 03:17:54 pm »

I say do as many variations as you feel you need to do. And now I'm very curous as to how this "modernized" version is going to play out.

And by the way, your current work is jaw droppin' good!

ModelsPlease · « **Reply #45 on:** November 11, 2004, 03:23:54 pm »

-MP

Rod ONeal · « **Reply #46 on:** November 12, 2004, 12:42:15 am »

She's looking so sweet, man. Thanks for the update. It's tough to be a TOS junkie these days.

Chris Jones · « **Reply #47 on:** November 12, 2004, 12:10:46 pm »

Stress -

This looks really nice..

Unfortunately I don't have suggestions on your 4k problem - this is a show of support for your efforts and longevity in the community.

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #48 on:** November 16, 2004, 08:29:30 pm »

Its comming very VERY slowly, but its progressing. I managed to rebuild that botched up texture, and bump the deflector dish. without the bump map the dish is just a plain bronze disk (least untill i weather it). Im going for the smithsonian display look on the dish itself. where the dish is bronze, but the antenna itself is gold. I also enhanced the bumping of the dorsal so it stands out even in direct lighting. Starting on secondary hull texture 2 nite

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #49 on:** November 17, 2004, 06:23:06 am »

I dont think SFC Support Bump mapping....

S33K100 · « **Reply #50 on:** November 17, 2004, 09:37:21 am »

He said earlier in the thread that this is not for the SFC version, the SFC version textures will be done from renders of this one or some such.

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #51 on:** November 17, 2004, 03:30:34 pm »

oh well, i feel dumb.

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #52 on:** November 17, 2004, 05:12:04 pm »

Nah, easy mistake. Yes i did say that the SFC version will use rendered textures being that it does not support bump mapping. (perhaps a new SFC is in order that does support all this eye candy)

Secondary hull 50% done ill post a shot later

Rod ONeal · « **Reply #53 on:** November 17, 2004, 06:26:47 pm »

Quote from: TheStressPuppy on November 17, 2004, 05:12:04 pm

Nah, easy mistake. Yes i did say that the SFC version will use rendered textures being that it does not support bump mapping. (perhaps a new SFC is in order that does support all this eye candy)

Secondary hull 50% done ill post a shot later

AMEN to that!

The model's looking fantastic, man! Looking forward to seeing the next update.

Don Karnage · « **Reply #54 on:** November 18, 2004, 07:01:37 am »

a ship question:

what is the yellow square on the saucer behind the bridge and the big yellow circle under the hull of all fed tos ship?

S33K100 · « **Reply #55 on:** November 18, 2004, 09:48:06 am »

There's probably some really complicated treknological explanation for exactly what they do but the real reason is - they're just random details that were never worked out. I always thought the circle on the bottom was the TOS equivalent of the warp core ejection hatch thingamajig.

ModelsPlease · « **Reply #56 on:** November 18, 2004, 11:45:56 am »

Quote

According to the Franz Joseph deck plans, the yellow rectangle behind the bridge is a hatch for the astrophysics lab telescope, which I had always thought was funny because if they wanted to study some stellar phenonema, they could just go there instead of breaking out the telescope.

Perhaps it's use was in case they were on a mission and couldn't go "there" as they fly bye it would be deployed for studying said phenomena.Also with the vastness of space,they can't go everywhere so observations would probably be made on a regular basis of far off occurances perhaps the way we use the Hubble telescope today. Just a thought.

No clue about the other markings.
-MP

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #57 on:** November 18, 2004, 02:40:10 pm »

I speculate that the markings under the hull represent duterium fuel cell jettison hatches, and the antimattier pod jettison area (the deck plans have em relitivly close to that region). Problem is according to canon babble the antimatter pods were in the warp nacelles themselves. So really they could be anything. Reality is they just placed random details on with no clue what it was ment for. The shuttle bay for instance was never ment to be a shuttle bay until an episode came up where they needed one. fortunetly for the FX crew they modeled the aft area of the secondary hull the way they did, and added in the details of the bay door. if u note the early pilot episodes theres no detail on the shuttle bay area at all. Just a plain globe.

Anyways enough speculation, heres some shots of my secondary hull at 50% the deflector area, and top/bottom isnt textured yet. Once again i tried a cylindrical map that met with disasterous results (major texture stretching). so im going plainiar again :/ which means slicing the hull into 4 sections and making a texture for each section. but it still gets the results i want.

Im detailing it to look good close up, but i dont expect anyone to zoom in this close in game, Im guessing it will take 5 or 6 1024x1024 texture sheets to cover her.

Edit: After some disscussion with Lord Schtupp, and studying some studio pics, my attention has been brought back to the saucer. I may have to rebuild it after all. at least the superstructure area, may as well fix the lower saucer while im at it

To the one that mentioned that another set of blueprints exist. where can i get those prints? id like to compare them with the reference i got.

USS Mariner · « **Reply #58 on:** November 18, 2004, 04:23:26 pm »

Quote from: TheStressPuppy on November 18, 2004, 02:40:10 pm

I speculate that the markings under the hull represent duterium fuel cell jettison hatches, and the antimattier pod jettison area (the deck plans have em relitivly close to that region). Problem is according to canon babble the antimatter pods were in the warp nacelles themselves. So really they could be anything. Reality is they just placed random details on with no clue what it was ment for. The shuttle bay for instance was never ment to be a shuttle bay until an episode came up where they needed one. fortunetly for the FX crew they modeled the aft area of the secondary hull the way they did, and added in the details of the bay door. if u note the early pilot episodes theres no detail on the shuttle bay area at all. Just a plain globe.

Anyways enough speculation, heres some shots of my secondary hull at 50% the deflector area, and top/bottom isnt textured yet. Once again i tried a cylindrical map that met with disasterous results (major texture stretching). so im going plainiar again :/ which means slicing the hull into 4 sections and making a texture for each section. but it still gets the results i want.

http://www.thegamingunion.co.uk/users/forumusers/testconnie10.jpg
http://www.thegamingunion.co.uk/users/forumusers/testconnie11.jpg

Im detailing it to look good close up, but i dont expect anyone to zoom in this close in game, Im guessing it will take 5 or 6 1024x1024 texture sheets to cover her.

Edit: After some disscussion with Lord Schtupp, and studying some studio pics, my attention has been brought back to the saucer. I may have to rebuild it after all. at least the superstructure area, may as well fix the lower saucer while im at it

To the one that mentioned that another set of blueprints exist. where can i get those prints? id like to compare them with the reference i got.

Well, the blueprints I mentioned were by Charles Casmiro, who has also spent time pouring over reference material. Although I know Alan Sinclair has too, when ever I look at his set of blueprints, the whole secondary hull just seems stretched out too far, and the lower saucer bulge looks too shallow.

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~casimiro/blueprints.html

I hope these atleast point you in the right direction.

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #59 on:** November 19, 2004, 02:51:48 am »

Thanks for link

I dont really see much of a difference with ether Sinclairs or Casmiros prints measurment wise. Casmiro did however pay a little more attention to the details with his set. Which match to a tee with the 2000 smithsonian restoration model (obviously the only guide he had). I also like the 3d renders he did.

With all of the photos of the model i have and between both sets of prints im sure i can come up with a "reasonably" accurate low poly model. the only tweaking needed to the current mesh is mainly the lower saucer, and superstructure areas.

USS Mariner · « **Reply #60 on:** November 19, 2004, 04:54:10 pm »

Quote from: TheStressPuppy on November 19, 2004, 02:51:48 am

Thanks for link

I dont really see much of a difference with ether Sinclairs or Casmiros prints measurment wise. Casmiro did however pay a little more attention to the details with his set. Which match to a tee with the 2000 smithsonian restoration model (obviously the only guide he had). I also like the 3d renders he did.

With all of the photos of the model i have and between both sets of prints im sure i can come up with a "reasonably" accurate low poly model. the only tweaking needed to the current mesh is mainly the lower saucer, and superstructure areas.

The nicest thing about Casmiro's work is that he also did the First and Second Pilot variants, which is invaluable to me, since I've been taking a crack at redesigning Rick Sternbach's Baton Rouge. Once I'm done with it, it'll be clear that it is a connie predecessor, and they havent quite optimized hull shapes, which is why the original painting (not the sh*tty schematics, which aren't terribly accurate at all,) is described as "a saucer connected to an oblong block, the warp engines in stand off nacelles".

Here's the original painting, courtesy of Steve Pugh.

http://steve.pugh.net/fleet/images/baton1.jpg

The Baton Rouge page is HERE. I envision this as the actual calss of the USS Republic, which was never, EVER stated as Constiution class. Once I'm further along with my second redrawing I'll post it and see if anyone wants to do it.

Oh yeah, there's a few things I wanted to mention. First off, the shuttlebay was ALWAYS intended to be there, as it is omni present on all of Matt Jeffries sketches immedeatly precceding the construction of the First Pilot model. The fact that it doesn't have any grid lines or door lines (though there looks like something that could point to a grid on the saucer, very very lightly sketched) was merely a matter of time and money.

Secondly, Matt Jeffries originally designed the hatches on the bottom as landing gear, as part of the original plan was to land on a new planet every week. However, although the transporter had been established, both the [triangle] landing gear for the saucer and the secondary hull remained on the deisgn throught the entiety of TOS (and Andy Probert also added saucer landing gear to the Enterprise-class too.)

But eh, whatever.

USS Mariner · « **Reply #61 on:** November 20, 2004, 12:38:57 pm »

Quote from: Lord Schtupp on November 19, 2004, 05:56:42 pm

Anyway, I disagree with Mariner Class on the Sinclair hull. After referencing the best side veiws from the series (Who Mourns for Adonis, screen capture of Apollos hand holding the Eprise is the best IMO) and NASM restoration photos, it looks to me that the Sinclair secondary hull is the most accurate. Note how the hull bottom goes almost straight back from the sensor dish base to about midway under the primary hull pylon before its starts its taper back the the tail cove. The Casimiro hull starts its taper almost immeadiately behing the Sensor dish base.

I do agree with Mariner Class on the Primary hull bottom. The Casmiro Plan features the very slight bell shape and is deeper than the top is tall. The Sinclair Primary hull top and bottom are equidistant(from the two main decks), so the bottom is a little too shallow, also it is almost straight tapered, where in the NASM resto shots and Series stills there definatly is a greater though still slight bell shape. Sinclair has a little too much roundness where the top of the domed part of the Primary Hull meets the straight part in the area on the NCC reg number. Casimiros looks more accurate. yea Cross-section accuaracy definately goes to casimiro on the primary hull, Sinclair on the Secondary hull.

Also I think that Sinclair has ever so slighty more accuarte warps, especially reference the top view, inside cutout, "Flux Chiller" area. Sincalir has the main shaft of the flux chiller parallel with the exterior of the nacelle, whereas Casimiro chiller is sharply divergent angle. Difficult to tell from the studio model photos, but it looks like Sinclair gets the nod here.

As far as Decks two-Three superstructure is concerned, where it meets the hull (from the top veiw) I think that it comes to a sharper point than either Sinclair or Casimiro, but not so sharp as Everhart. The Everhart Plans are what I based my Connie on BTW, but I adjusted in some areas considerably on the basis of photographic evidence as Stress Pup is also doing with his.

Damn. So it looks like we'd need a whole new set of bleuprints. I wonder if Charles and/or Alan would be willing to construct a "final" set of blueprints, taking the most accurate partrs of their blueprints and compiling them into one final image. This might mean having to recopy the new blueprints onto my harddrive, but I can handle it.

Quote from: Lord Schtupp on November 19, 2004, 06:08:15 pm

Right, I recall now that I had read that somewhere, probaly in The Making of Star Trek. I never corralated that with the markings, interesting!

Quote from: Mariner Class on November 19, 2004, 04:54:10 pm
.......(and Andy Probert also added saucer landing gear to the Enterprise-class too.)

Say What? where are they at? you mean that gear doors are visible on theTMP Eprise model?

Yes.

Although it is not exactly stated in The Making of Star Trek (which happens to be sitting in my lap as I type,) it was definetley a possibility in the design process.

Also, the following quote by Andrew Probert in the ST:MAG article about Designing the E-D will show this.

Quote

Andy knew there was a precedent for the idea of a saucer seper; in the episode "The Apple," Kirk tells Scotty that, if he has to, he should break out of orbit with the main section. In fact, Andy had always assumed that the original Enterprise had landing gear.
"Popular opinion indicates that the two triangular points on the underside of the saucer are actually two landing legs; the third one would be in the dorsal cavity, so the saucer would have tricycle landing gear for planet landing. Carrying that into the STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE Enterprise I designed the four landing pads on the underside of the saucer. When I did the D, I started to do that and was distracted away from it and that poor ship eventually paid the price!"

Even though only the saucer is said to have landing legs, I don't think it's too far fetched that the secondary hull could have them too.

As for the Enterprise-class, the four specially placed "pads" on the bottom of the saucer are Andy's version for the refit. Although, originally, the secondary hull did not have any markings that resembled landing gear, the Enterprise-A in TUC did have new markings there, smaller yet identical to the ones on the Constitution.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/factfiles/connie-r-tb.jpg

Oh yeah, "Mariner" will do.

TheStressPuppy · « **Reply #62 on:** November 22, 2004, 07:49:09 pm »

Ok, this is the last post im gonna make on this thread cause its getting way too long (and off topic). Im gonna start a new one with more WIP pics. Admin, please lock this thread.

The landing legs are pretty much irrelivent right now wether they were intended to be there or not, because After the series aired it was established that the Big-E herself could not land on a planet. It was the Franz Joseph tech manual that brought up the emergency saucer separation, where the saucer can land in an emergency if the secondary hull took catastrophic damage ( in which 75 years later in ST:Gen it was utilized on the ent-d). Still there was no landing gear mentioned. it was pretty much a controlled crash landing. We can argue, and speculate till doomsday about what is what on the original enterprise. Truth be told the FX crew didnt know what was anything, they just followed Gene, and Matt Jefferies guidlines when they built the ship, and added in what they thought would look good on her at the time. Now 38 years later she still sets the standard in starship construction tho designs have changed radically. They still bear most of the same basics as the original constitution.

News:

Topic: Opinions: Do we really need ANOTHER TOS Constitution? (Read 10418 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Topic: Opinions: Do we really need ANOTHER TOS Constitution? (Read 10418 times)