Topic: Stop me if I'm wrong - but didn't smomeone model this? (Read 8372 times)

atheorhaven · « **Reply #40 on:** May 19, 2009, 02:40:44 pm »

Hey, just to ask (because someone will want to do it sooner or later..

How kitbash friendly will this be?

Major A Payne · « **Reply #41 on:** May 19, 2009, 04:40:06 pm »

Well to be honest I am tempted to just release the untextured mesh. Its in about 12 sections at the moment so would be pretty easy to kitbash. As it stands with one deletion I can give it a similair deflector to the 1701-A. Perhaps once this beast is textured I could whip up a "parts" pack for it with different nacelles, supports, engineering hull, etc.etc.

Norsehound · « **Reply #42 on:** May 19, 2009, 04:42:06 pm »

Were I a modler, I'd try kitbashing the saucer and nacelles into some kind of Destroyat variant... or maybe a Kelvin.

Alas, there are no places to give me training in 3D modeling :\

Starfox1701 · « **Reply #43 on:** May 20, 2009, 01:59:15 pm »

In my experiance the best training is OTJ. Pick up milkshape and start tinkering. Some of the best modelers I know of in the Star Trek Gameing communities have little or no formal training. They are basicaly self taught and have the courage to come to places like this and ask alot of questions.

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #44 on:** May 20, 2009, 02:31:59 pm »

Very much so. I have had no professional training in anything 3D - I am entirely self taught, so is atolm, and I believe so is WickedZombie.

Spartan-039 · « **Reply #45 on:** May 21, 2009, 12:12:55 pm »

That gave me an idea... I ought to follow up on it. Does anyone know the class name for the cruiser that looks like an updated Constitution class, but has it's nacelle's braces-things starting on the bottom of the engineering hull? I want to be able to create a sort of "new" version of it.

Starfox1701 · « **Reply #46 on:** May 21, 2009, 12:29:26 pm »

You refering to the Belknap Class Strike Cruiser?

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #47 on:** May 21, 2009, 12:52:37 pm »

That is indeed the Belknap - but I never really got head over heels for that ship - and I have enough TMP ships.

Norsehound · « **Reply #48 on:** May 21, 2009, 03:43:13 pm »

Personally I don't understand starships like the Belknap and the SfB Battlecruisers. All they are is a constitution with it's components rearranged. No cutting down on components (Saladin), nothing expanded upon (Federation class), or re-designed (Surya, Miranda). With a little kitbashing you could turn an Enterprise kit into a convincing Belknap and nobody would know the difference! I mean, what's the difference between them other than the parts being re-arranged?

Back on topic, what's the status of the model? Will it be released/sent somewhere soon?

Locutus · « **Reply #49 on:** May 30, 2009, 08:56:20 pm »

Quote from: Norsehound on May 21, 2009, 03:43:13 pm

Personally I don't understand starships like the Belknap and the SfB Battlecruisers. All they are is a constitution with it's components rearranged. No cutting down on components (Saladin), nothing expanded upon (Federation class), or re-designed (Surya, Miranda). With a little kitbashing you could turn an Enterprise kit into a convincing Belknap and nobody would know the difference! I mean, what's the difference between them other than the parts being re-arranged?

The difference is the internal design of the ship. Try thinking from a starship design perspective instead of a modeller's perspective-- if you can build several different ships with different fleet roles that share most of their components, you have a much more efficient fleet.

I recommend playing a bit of SFB (not Starfleet Command; the original boardgame) and then ask yourself if the BC and the CA are the same ship. Or the Klingon D6 and the Romulan KR.

Norsehound · « **Reply #50 on:** May 30, 2009, 10:14:42 pm »

Then why not just up-gun a constitution instead of it's only the insides that are different? What's the purpose of these subtle rearrangements if the same thing could be accomplished by building a constitution with different internals?

I can't see how re-arranging the nacelles makes these ships different. If it's supposed to be interior component placement, then surely it would be more obvious than how it is on the current classes.

Czar Mohab · « **Reply #51 on:** May 30, 2009, 10:57:14 pm »

Lowering the nacelles gave better arcs to the P/S saucer phasers.

Lowering the nacelles also allowed for better space management in the secondary hull (more stuff) since things were, overall, lower.

Not so much different, as is a new class, and new ship, not a Star Fleet kitbash.

Belknap is larger, thus more overall room for stuff.

Connie is smaller, so less room for "up-gunning".

Connie with different internals in SFB/C: F-CA, CC, CVA, CVS, GSC, and all refits non-X. (may have missed a few)

Belknap with different internals in SFB/C: F-BCG, BCV (and variants), BCF, BCJ. Note, here the Belky represents the class as a whole, while the game spreads the BC over different classes.

Czar "Knowledge is power, and is half the battle," Mohab

P.S. and now you know!

Starforce2 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 30, 2009, 11:40:09 pm »

Quote from: Major A Payne on May 19, 2009, 12:24:33 am

.....and so after just under 36 hours of modelling time and probably one of the hardest meshes I've attempted, the model itself is finished. As was suggested the engineering hull is now much shorter and looks to be correct to the originals rendered images. Deflector dish has been changed and phaser pods added. Also after rechecking the height in my side render against the original its as close as I can get it. Final poly count is 9275. Next up will be to try to give it some clothes.

I'd say it's also one of your best peices, if not your best.

Locutus · « **Reply #53 on:** May 31, 2009, 11:03:24 am »

Quote from: Norsehound on May 30, 2009, 10:14:42 pm

Then why not just up-gun a constitution instead of it's only the insides that are different? What's the purpose of these subtle rearrangements if the same thing could be accomplished by building a constitution with different internals?

I can't see how re-arranging the nacelles makes these ships different. If it's supposed to be interior component placement, then surely it would be more obvious than how it is on the current classes.

According to Steve Cole, better arcs for the phasers on the primary hull. If you compare a CA to a BC (or a CS, for that matter), you'll notice that the left and right banks of phasers on the saucer are 120-degrees on the CA (blocked by the warp nacelles), and 180-degrees on the BC.

Another reason (probably the more important reason) is that every time they use the CA on the cover of a module, ADB needs to pay royalties. So, they came up with an in-game reason to modify it just enough to be considered a derivative design, but still easily recognisable by Star Trek fans.

Norsehound · « **Reply #54 on:** June 01, 2009, 02:23:28 am »

OK, so lowering the nacelles and making the ship a little bigger means it's a different class. Well... I guess they did the same thing with the Klingon Bird of Prey so I guess that means the Belknap flies too...

but all of this is horribly off-topic. Who has this version of the constitution and how far is it to completion??

Major A Payne · « **Reply #55 on:** June 02, 2009, 07:41:35 pm »

Currently Norsehound, I'm the only one who has the mesh I've pictured. The mesh itself is completed as far as I want to go with it. I will be sorting out some textures for it fairly soon as well as kitbashing/building a couple of variants. I do intend to create a Kelvin sub variant as well as perhaps a miranda style. I'll be texturing it first though so that doing the variants will be a tad easier.

Spartan-039 · « **Reply #56 on:** June 03, 2009, 11:30:57 am »

Yes, the Belknap class was the one I was referring to. I have one a model of it that my older brother bought me a long time ago. I always thought it was some sort of light cruiser. I just didn't know the name of the class at the time. I've never seen one in the games though.

News: