It looks nice. Although I do have some suggestions (mainly matters of taste), I'd rather not state what they are this time as it's your ship and it's being made in your image, OlBuzzard.
please don't feel this way ... I'm still learning ... I try to evaluate most (if not all) suggestions. You may be seeing something I don't. If I were as experienced as someone like WZ or P81 ... that might be a different story.
For example: there are three things I'm not 100% on :
1. the way the 2nd set of nacelles are mounted.
2. the over all size of the primary hull.
3. the rear taper around the shuttle bay (already being cleaned up and corrected)
and yes ! I challenge my self every time I look at something I work on to see if there is something I can do different ... or better in order to get the best possible results. I know my work is limited to bashing right now .. but the harder I push to make the few models I do get done ... the better chance I stand of understanding what it takes to produce a quality product for everyone to enjoy.
Please ... feel free to offer your suggestions. I can not always guarantee the final out come ... but I can and will read them.
I didn't feel like replying until now; When your final mesh is done. She's made in your image, and that's what I wanted, whether I critiqued about it or not. Seeing as how the final mesh is almost done, I'll post what pet peeves I had while the model wasn't finalized:
1. The cliche/tradition of four nacelles. Sure, Trek canon had done 'em before--though not as battleships--but one tradition was that--for the most part--ships had a pair of nacelles and nothing more. That doesn't always mean one engine for each nacelle though, but two nacelles and two for each one nacelle, as the nacelles are the outer casings for the warp engines, not the engines themselves. I remember WZ's reminder of that when he was working on his own TMP Battleship design, the
Carolina-class U.S.S. Arizona (WIP).
I figured that the best way to go was to remove the engines, all of 'em, and maybe scratch-build new ones differing from Constitution-class engines while being similar in lineage to that era, similar to what was done with the recently-built Yamato-class BB model, or
ASDB's Antares-class (refit) design that was made where the engine design remained in the TMP-era, yet was unique.
Or if the Constitution-class (refit) engines were a must and four was a must, follow
Lord Schtupp's TOS Galaxy-class's design of warp nacelle structure and put two together "wrapping" or connecting them together and putting two nacelles on one pylon, therefore two pylons are used and traditional design stays normal.
2. The "rollbar" I didn't fancy too much. The design may be inspired from the Alabama battleship here in the U.S. but seeing as how it's in the TMP-era, couldn't Starfleet afford to build a curvy rollbar? It'd be similar to the Yamato-class and Ulysses-class starship designs where the rollbars were curvy. I also feel it's too tall a rollbar; perhaps it could've been shortened a bit?
3. Not as much a gripe as I'm okay with it, but I wonder if a two-neck/pylon connector for the primary and secondary hulls are necessary, versus one thicker neck like on the Excelsior-class... More of a ponder, but still, I'm alright with the two-neck design as I never had too much a trouble on it when I saw the Ulysses-class DN design for Klingon Academy. Just opening more options, that's all.
4. Not as much a nitpick as it is a preference and/or a compliment; The design seems to scream "2270s" to me, a pre-Excelsior, pre-Oberth(
?) era where the sleeker designs weren't built/completed yet, and my preference on designs of that decade are not to approach the two designs too much or kitbash using parts from those Starship classes until around the mid-2280s, yet still wonder why sometimes people prefer to assume it'd be totally 100% compatible...
I therefore compliment you on (so far) keeping the battleship using parts consistantly that would make the Starship more traditional in Federation design than most others were.
Putting it basically, the model you've built looked nice so far, but reminded me of Models Please's works that he recently have done, and though they may be strange or "cool-looking" (
and he does a nice job at making his kitbashes), they just don't suit me or fit me, and would probably never leap off the drawing board, unless it probably was for laughs amongst the Starfleet Corps of Engineers... No offense to MP though, but to each his own, and as I grow older my taste differs from time to time.
Basically, while I don't mind kitbashing, I prefer the kinds that make sense when viewed in a "cutaway"/Master Systems Display sort-of sense, where you compare MSDs of starship classes and then determine what goes where in your design and if it'd work. Yours can work, but the way the second pair of nacelles are mounted
especially makes me think that maybe the design is pushing it as far as sense goes... But then, maybe I'm growing too insane and too old at my young age of pre-twenties (
some months away from that two-digit change, by the way, for me at least).
And I believe that's another reason why I was hesitant on expressing my pet peeves. Still, the design is plausable and the model is still fantastically done in your image, and I wouldn't have it done any other way. If you're looking for advice, then maybe you've found it. Just wait until the next model for using it though, I prefer to see how the Alabama is being done in your image.
Topic: USS Alabama new BB WIP 11/26 (image heavy) (Read 8935 times)