Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

3DStar Trek Models

2

Posts

  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    Thanks a lot, everyone. :)
    I had issues with my teardrop B-C decks as well and after toying around with them for like 4 hours, I called it good enough when I saw it rendered mostly ok.

    It's hard to get right.

    I can probably make it look better. I've built the TOS Constitution so many times over the years that I know most of the tricks. I had too many verts in there before I added the Sub-D modifier, which I could fix by rebuilding it with less. I just don't think I'm going to bother.
    scifieric wrote: »
    There are also earlier versions of Blender available for use, if you want. I'm using an earlier version and I don't necessarily care to learn all over again! The version I'm using now (and have been using for a few years) seems to get the job done.

    Nice work, by the way!

    Yes, I'm aware of the Blender archives going all the way back to version 1. I'm currently using 3.3.1, which is the current long term stable version, which is fine. I just need to get back into the groove of using this software. That's why I started with something familiar.
    rojren wrote: »
    I hate learning new software. I've lost count of now-dead software that I learned. And then there's all the software I own, but haven't learned... it's a little depressing.

    I don't see how you all reproduce all these ships. I can't even remake my own stuff and have it look the same twice. And here you all are doing these complex, iconic shapes that people are incredibly picky about, and being successful with it.

    Heh, learning new software is a pain, especially as I get older. Some of the tools work the same way in Blender as they did in Lightwave, with just enough differences to be annoying.

    As for doing the ships, it's mostly a process of repeated trial and error. With lots of error along the way. :lol:
    Hunter Gscifieric
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    edited January 4 #33
    I decided to continue work on the TOS Connie because why not? I mean, it's not like it's a bad design, it's where it all began for Star Trek. Also, it's a great modeling exercise, particularly since I'm still getting used to Blender. I rebuilt the B/C deck to be much better looking, closer to how I normally build it. I also built the impulse engines.

    And, this time, real renders. :lol:

    63u1mn30eprf.png

    hlypt4cf2k51.png


    Also, I haven't decided if I'm going to keep it classic with the minimalist details or add things like modeled grid lines, weapons, thrusters, etc. I've done both in the past, so I'll decide later how I want to go with this one.
    Post edited by evil_genius_180 on
    Rory1707StarCruiserwibbleLizzy777scifiericpubliusr
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    edited January 4 #34
    Here's a quick look at the ship with modeled grid lines on the upper saucer:

    cz2so7xno6i7.png

    ks3qhu8fuwfl.png

    And yeah, I think I'm going to keep them and do the rest of the ship in that treatment. One thing I like about newer Blender is their improved smoothing options. Previously, I remember I had to add extra geometry to have a smooth saucer with these nice crisp lines. However, they've really improved that a lot to where that's not necessary. In fact, doing these in Blender 3.3.1 is faster than doing them in Lightwave 2018. This is due to Blender's better selection tools (something I've always liked about Blender) and also the fact that I can do these using only 1 tool, as opposed to the 2 tools required in Lightwave. One thing Lightwave definitely wasn't known for was its simplicity, especially in its tool sets and user interface.
    Post edited by evil_genius_180 on
    rojrenashleytingerRory1707TallguyStarCruiserCowardcaveat_imperatorwibbleLizzy777scifieric
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    Grid lines on the lower saucer.

    adhhpawa0j16.png

    mrwaihv1clys.png
    CowardashleytingerStarCruisercaveat_imperatorwibbleLizzy777Rory1707MadKoiFishscifieric
  • rwkingrwking185 Posts: 171Member
    First of all - welcome back to designing. I haven't been able to get started back as of yet. I want to learn blender but there aren't any 'In Program Tutorials" that I can watch while in the program itself.
    evil_genius_180scifieric
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    Yeah, there are a lot of tutorials available to get you started, but it can be a pain having to switch between windows. I set up a dual monitor rig a few months back, which is really handy. Not only is it good for tutorials and references, but I also tend to have YouTube playing while I'm working. Though, a second monitor may not be to everyone's liking, but a tablet would also work for the same effect.
    scifieric
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    edited January 15 #38
    Does anybody who is proficient in Blender know why this is happening?

    lhjih8dqi0im.jpg

    cl07vgzv2d7g.jpg

    kalcujdn96c3.jpg

    As you can see, the piece I built doesn't line up with both the side and top schematic. (same with the front view) Everything is in scale and the schematics are properly aligned, so the piece should line up with all views. I don't have this problem with my TOS Constitution and the schematics I'm using for it (Alan Sinclair's schematics are fantastic.) I'm guessing this particular issue with the TMP Connie schematics is due to the schematics themselves being the issue. I've noticed this with schematic sets in the past, where things don't match from one view to another, but this has to be one of the worst cases of this that I've ever seen. So, unless anyone else has any ideas, I'm going with these are just crappy schematics.

    Luckily, I'm not actually building the Refit, just a ship based on it. But this issue is ticking me off.
    Post edited by evil_genius_180 on
    scifieric
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    edited January 15 #39
    It's not a problem with the schematics. The only way to rule this out was to use the exact same schematics in another software suite and see what happened. I have 3 licensed copies of Lightwave; 9, 10 and 2018. A this point, I only have 1 computer that has Windows installed on it. It's an old Dell Optiplex that has Windows XP on it (I of course don't have this computer networked) that I use for running old software, mostly games. I knew better than to try Lightwave 2018 on it, so I dug out my Lightwave 10 CD and luckily my dongle (necessary for LW10 and prior) was right here on my desk. I copied the schematics to the computer using a flash drive and loaded up Lightwave 10. Then I put the schematics up properly scaled and proceeded to get to the exact same point where I am in Blender, with the upper saucer curve and properly scaled leading edge. And, the piece I made in Lightwave matches up consistently with all 3 views.

    rum9d9uaie52.jpg

    So, I don't know what in Blender is causing this to happen, but it's definitely not the schematics. It's really weird because I haven't had this issue with my TOS Connie I'm building.

    So, this leaves me with two courses of action. One is to continue using Blender. I've had issues with Blender every time I've tried to use it in the past 18 or so years. Lack of precision is one of the biggest issues that I hate. This issue with the part not lining up with the blueprints in all views is exactly the lack of precision I'm talking about. It irritates me to no end and is usually why I don't continue using Blender for very long. I've had multiple people over the years say "just give Blender a try." I have, multiple times. I've also heard "The problem is you're just not used to the software like you are your old software." That's also not accurate, since I can now point to a legitimate issue in how Blender displays pieces and schematics that's not present in Lightwave.

    Option two is of course to just go back to Lightwave. As I said previously, there is a question as to whether new versions of Lightwave will continue to be available, as the company that makes it is now owned by another company. However, that's not really an issue as far as using the software, as I own 3 licensed versions of it and can just use them. These are fully licensed copies, there are no restrictions on use or age limits, etc. The downside of this is that I have to reinstall Windows 11 onto my desktop. :eyeroll: But, I'm currently downloading that as this is likely to be the option I'm going to go with.
    Post edited by evil_genius_180 on
    scifiericLizzy777
  • ashleytingerashleytinger1280 Central OhioPosts: 976Member
    Are you spinning the piece up from a specific point on the mesh or the cursor? And is the mesh/blueprint lined up with the cursor?
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    edited January 15 #41
    Cursor. I had it carefully positioned to spin exactly where I wanted it to. The schematic is centered. The relative position of the object and schematic don't change from view to view and the views were set to "orthographic," so it should line up in all views.
    Post edited by evil_genius_180 on
  • ashleytingerashleytinger1280 Central OhioPosts: 976Member
    I've had Blender keep an angle or something weird in the settings. I'd try either resetting your preferences to defaults or try spinning up part of it and then check the tool settings for anything weird in then angles or where it's dropping the spin rotation
    evil_genius_180
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    I could probably do that, if I hadn't deleted the whole thing.

    I appreciate your suggestion, I really do, but I just don't like Blender. I never have. It's not like I haven't given it a shot, this is at least the 4th or 5th serious go I've had at it. If it's that touchy, that just makes me not like it even more. When I'm doing work based on schematics, I switch between views regularly to make stuff match and having the views not match is a big issue for me. I don't want to have to stop what I'm doing to dig into settings and fix something that shouldn't have happened.
  • backsteptbackstept784 Posts: 732Member
    are you using images on planes? I prefer loading them in as background since it sets them up to be only visible in orthographic views. Maybe its just my tired self but things don't look too off to me.
    evil_genius_180scifieric
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    I had them attached to null objects. For the top view, the edge of the saucer object extends slightly past the edge of the schematic. In the side (and front) view it extends way short of the edge. There were other issues that I had with how tools work in Blender both with this project and the Constitution I was building, but I'm not going to go into them because this isn't a discussion thread about Blender. ;)

    So, I reinstalled Windows on my desktop (ugh) and I installed Lightwave 2018. I started over on the project, which I hadn't really done much of in Blender anyway. For those who didn't figure it out from the name of the Blender file, I'm building a Constellation class. There aren't any accurate schematics of that class, so I'm using Constitution refit schematics for the bits that line up with that ship. Then I'll use a combination of inaccurate schematics and photo references, of which I have several, and screenshots to build this ugly beauty. There's not enough here for a real render, but here are a couple screen grabs:

    bxux4kwgv02n.jpg

    ymdbqdtah6xi.jpg
    StarCruiserbacksteptscifiericLizzy777Starshipwibble
  • backsteptbackstept784 Posts: 732Member
    Best to go with what you know!
    evil_genius_180scifieric
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    backstept wrote: »
    Best to go with what you know!

    Yeah, sometimes I think I only try things to remind myself how much I love the stuff I've been using for years. :lol: Lightwave may not be perfect, but it's certainly a suite I know well and it was once industry leading software.
    scifieric
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    edited January 18 #48
    y3b4iruxckzd.jpg

    7szetrgzkvak.jpg

    A bit more work on the Constellation class. I did the cutout in the back of the saucer for the greebles that appear there:

    ks56xdum4nvb.jpg

    I had to eyeball the size and placement of the cutout, but I think it's pretty accurate. (close enough, anyway) I also added the phasers to the upper saucer. Both the upper and lower saucer have phasers in the same place as the Constitution refit, due to Rick Sternbach using two refit model kits to build the ready room model, upon which Greg Jein based the filming miniature. However, Jein also added 5 extra single phaser emitters to the saucer perimeter that aren't on the ready room model. I don't know why he did this, unless he was compensating for the ship not having an engineering section, where the refit had more phasers. Or maybe he simply wanted to give the ship more "teeth" and the VFX people more options in case the ship ever fired weapons, as it did in the battle simulation in "Peak Performance." Why they're there isn't important, but my model has them.

    I also added windows to the teardrop structure. They're the same windows that are on the Constitution refit. I also added the squares to the front of that structure from the refit. The Constellation class studio model doesn't have these, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to add them.
    Post edited by evil_genius_180 on
    xiaorobearscifiericStarCruiserStarshipRory1707wibble
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    edited January 19 #49
    So, one of the things that bugs me with the Constellation class is the bridge. This is the bridge module on the model:

    ri9mrs8abjz1.jpg

    The problem with this is, the bridge of the Stargazer has two turbolifts:

    5f07rff5rloe.jpg

    Now, as some people know, the producers originally wanted the Stargazer first seen in "The Battle" to be Constitution class. Thus, they redressed the battle bridge set to be the bridge of a Constitution class ship as seen in the movies. This was actually perfect, as they'd used the bridge set from the first four movies to build the battle bridge. The decision to make a new model based on the design cooked up by Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach and the ready room model built by Sternbach came well into production on the episode. So, they suddenly had a Constellation class ship, not a Constitution class ship. Greg Jein built the four foot filming miniature based on Sternbach's model, including the somewhat TOS-style bridge. But that bridge module looks like it could have a single turbolift, not two of them due to the size of the piece that sticks out of the back. Of course, the Hathaway is even more of a problem since its turbolift doors were at the side, but that's not a problem I'm looking to solve.

    To make it work, I was going to just build a TMP style bridge module. However, I forgot how much of a pain that thing is to build. After two failed attempts to get the shape right, the second of which failed when Lightwave crashed and I lost my work, I decided to alter my strategy. I built a bridge that has a shape more similar to the Constellation class, but with a rear section based on the original bridge module that was on the TMP model, before the model was damaged and the bridge and teardrop were replaced. This is my solution:

    ql7twfhi1vg1.jpg

    This workaround allows two turbolifts in the same position as they are on the TMP Constitution, so that makes my brain happy. But it also retains the look of the Constellation class bridge module, as opposed to using the incorrect refit bridge. I'm also going to add a docking port to the back, like the Connie refit.

    Between the crash that nixed my second attempt at the TMP bridge and me coming up with my workaround, I was messing around with materials:

    r7kdtqjjofki.jpg

    izj4ldmq1gx5.jpg

    yi19fgw5c3j6.jpg

    No texture maps were used. I took a page from Backstept's book and did it all in Lightwave. Lightwave allows you to select faces and assign different materials to them. So, I selected faces in a somewhat Aztec-like pattern and gave them different materials. I then played with specular settings on the materials to give the ship its signature paneling look, but only visible when the light is at certain angles. (as it should be) Then I added procedural layers into the color, brightness and roughness channels to add grime to the ship. I went heavy on the grime because it's a Constellation class and they always look rough and dirty. Picard described the Stargazer to Scotty as being an overworked ship, so I'm guessing they got a lot of the dirty jobs in the fleet. The great thing about using procedurals is that the whole ship will look consistent and I can easily alter the procedurals for a cleaner look or for different ships.
    Post edited by evil_genius_180 on
    ashleytingerStarCruiserStarshipxiaorobearLizzy777wibbleWarp Propulsion LaboratoryRory1707backstept
  • StarshipStarship383 São Paulo - BrasilPosts: 1,917Member
    No texture maps were used. I took a page from Backstept's book and did it all in Lightwave. Lightwave allows you to select faces and assign different materials to them. So, I selected faces in a somewhat Aztec-like pattern and gave them different materials. I then played with specular settings on the materials to give the ship its signature paneling look, but only visible when the light is at certain angles. (as it should be) Then I added procedural layers into the color, brightness and roughness channels to add grime to the ship. I went heavy on the grime because it's a Constellation class and they always look rough and dirty. Picard described the Stargazer to Scotty as being an overworked ship, so I'm guessing they got a lot of the dirty jobs in the fleet. The great thing about using procedurals is that the whole ship will look consistent and I can easily alter the procedurals for a cleaner look or for different ships.

    Interesting way to make the painting. Therefore, I imagine that you took sometime to manually select the desired pollys before to assign the colors. :)
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    edited January 20 #51
    Starship wrote: »
    No texture maps were used. I took a page from Backstept's book and did it all in Lightwave. Lightwave allows you to select faces and assign different materials to them. So, I selected faces in a somewhat Aztec-like pattern and gave them different materials. I then played with specular settings on the materials to give the ship its signature paneling look, but only visible when the light is at certain angles. (as it should be) Then I added procedural layers into the color, brightness and roughness channels to add grime to the ship. I went heavy on the grime because it's a Constellation class and they always look rough and dirty. Picard described the Stargazer to Scotty as being an overworked ship, so I'm guessing they got a lot of the dirty jobs in the fleet. The great thing about using procedurals is that the whole ship will look consistent and I can easily alter the procedurals for a cleaner look or for different ships.

    Interesting way to make the painting. Therefore, I imagine that you took sometime to manually select the desired pollys before to assign the colors. :)

    Yes, that's exactly what I did. It's somewhat time consuming, but not really any more than making textures. In fact, it's probably faster in the long term.
    Post edited by evil_genius_180 on
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    Well, it's snowing today and I was off work anyway, so it's a good time to work on the Constellation class. I'm getting the saucer edge sorted. I have to use a combination of references to get this part where I want it, because this is one of the most inconsistent parts of the ship when it comes to online references. None of the schematics for this ship are correct, the best ones (used in Star Trek: The Magazine back in the day) aren't correct. They don't have anywhere near enough space between the edge of the Connie refit saucer and the edge of the actual saucer. The other set of blueprints available won't even be mentioned, they're so inaccurate that they aren't useful for anything. Though, funnily enough, that one actually is more accurate in the spacing issue that I was talking about. Both are available here:

    https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/uss-stargazer-ncc-2893.php

    Oddly enough, this cutaway view that I nabbed from Ex Astris Scientia (also from Star Trek: The Magazine) seems to be the most accurate when it comes to that space:

    15tb0ccsmdsj.jpg

    I used a combination of that cutaway view for the front and a top view orthographic view of Doug Drexler's CGI model to get a shape that should be mostly accurate. Close enough, anyway:

    27f6j6skc4mx.jpg

    e2gpme44x7ol.jpg

    5ke1hav64918.jpg

    hqsx2ckkcput.jpg

    Drexler's CGI model was a kitbash that he did for a novel cover by kitbashing the Enterprise from the Director's Edition of TMP. It has a large number of accuracy issues, likely because he built it in a hurry. It was used for the basis of the "Official" Starships Collection version from Eaglemoss (RIP) but the model was worked on by an artist there. That artist added more detail where it was lacking because Drexler didn't need to put details there for the one angle that he planned to render the ship or for its subsequent appearance in the Ships of the Line calendar. That artist seemed to have fixed the spacing issue between the edge of the Connie saucer and the actual saucer, as well as fixed a few other issues, but they also left plenty of inaccuracies in the thing and even introduced one of their own, they made the edge of the saucer too thin. (I have the Eaglemoss model sitting on my desk in front of me)

    So, when I say that I have to piece together bits from inaccurate references to build this ship, that's a great example of what I mean. Luckily, I have plenty of photos of both the yellow ready room model and Greg Jein's motion control filming model for references.
    scifiericStarCruiserwibbleashleytingerpubliusrLizzy777Rory1707
  • scifiericscifieric1068 Posts: 1,440Member
    Lovely!
    evil_genius_180
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    scifieric wrote: »
    Lovely!

    Thanks bro. :)
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    Not too much to report since earlier. I did a bunch of cleanup on the saucer, some edge rounding and assigned materials to continue my paneling pattern. Not much that would make renders worthwhile. Then I took a break and watched Star Trek: The Motion Picture Director's Edition in 4K. And then I just sat here and made this thingamajig:

    dx2uiy3e2jhl.jpg

    On the Connie refit, that's of course where the torpedo launchers are. They're absent on the Constellation class ready room model and filming miniature. I don't know why.

    ygp6wn0yghyq.jpg

    I always just figured the tube looking thing above it is supposed to be the torpedo launcher. Either way, this part is mostly accurate to the Connie refit, but not totally. The parts Greg Jein made for the Constellation aren't 100% what's on the Connie Refit, but more or less very close approximations. After all, he built the thing on the TV show schedule.
    scifiericLizzy777StarCruiserRory1707wibble
  • publiusrpubliusr415 Posts: 1,570Member
    edited January 23 #56
    Well, it's snowing today and I was off work anyway, so it's a good time to work on the Constellation class. I'm getting the saucer edge sorted.

    Oddly enough, this cutaway view that I nabbed from Ex Astris Scientia (also from Star Trek: The Magazine) seems to be the most accurate.

    Love the mottled stone look…like Arrival as it is.
    A concave TOS saucer and/or a convex TMP saucer swap might be interesting.

    Instead of doing the kitbash…maybe a new build TMP design half way between PICARD’s new Stargazer and Krause’s Lost Years/TOS model.

    There, you could extrapolate the TMP’s gentle curve all the way to the edge of the hull…eliminating the “I glued a 1/537 saucer to the top of a wider paint lid” rim…or chamfer/bevel that join at least…like that little “step” atop Excelsior’s saucer.

    More organic that way.

    Flip the nacelles maybe?

    So the upper pair have a spearhead look.
    Post edited by publiusr on
    evil_genius_180
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    edited January 23 #57
    publiusr wrote: »
    Well, it's snowing today and I was off work anyway, so it's a good time to work on the Constellation class. I'm getting the saucer edge sorted.

    Oddly enough, this cutaway view that I nabbed from Ex Astris Scientia (also from Star Trek: The Magazine) seems to be the most accurate.

    Love the mottled stone look…like Arrival as it is.
    A concave TOS saucer and/or a convex TMP saucer swap might be interesting.

    Instead of doing the kitbash…maybe a new build TMP design half way between PICARD’s new Stargazer and Krause’s Lost Years/TOS model.

    There, you could extrapolate the TMP’s gentle curve all the way to the edge of the hull…eliminating the “I glued a 1/537 saucer to the top of a wider paint lid” rim…or chamfer/bevel that join at least…like that little “step” atop Excelsior’s saucer.

    More organic that way.

    Flip the nacelles maybe?

    So the upper pair have a spearhead look.

    Thanks a lot for the suggestions, but I'm just building it more or less like it appeared on the show. I think Rick Sternbach and Andrew Probert did a great job designing the ship. If I do any variations, they'll be after the canon one is done. There's a really cool variation from the comics where, instead of a pair of lower nacelles, it has a pod or secondary hull. I'm probably going to eventually find that and take a look at it.
    Post edited by evil_genius_180 on
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    edited January 23 #58
    Another day off work. My schedule fluctuates, so it's always nice when I get two off in a row. :)

    More work on the Constellation. I added the vertical pylons, or "necks," if you prefer. I'm eyeballing the placement, buy I think they're where they need to be. I'll make adjustments later. Also, the large square bit that extends from the back of the saucer is way too long, but I knew that already. I'll adjust that after I add the impulse engines. That's also when I'll do my final adjustment on the pylons, since it will be easy to see exactly where they go with the impulse engines in place. The square bit ends at the back of the pylons, so I'll just have to adjust that in relation to the impulse engines then put the pylons in place in relation to it. I also rebuilt the Connie torpedo launcher bits to be more accurate. I was working on that when my power went out for a couple seconds, just long enough to reset everything, including my computer. :eyeroll: Always fun.

    4o8sme9hwe5l.jpg

    sbnuodoj142g.jpg

    I built the pylons based on the Enterprise schematics that I have loaded. Then I realized that they're actually longer than the Constitution refit, so I had to make mine longer too. If I'd paid attention, I'd have realized this sooner, as you can actually see the seams where Rick Sternbach put extensions onto the refit model pylons that he used:

    v8rioah1vwwu.jpg

    Now it's time to take a pause from this, have some lunch and do some cleaning.
    Post edited by evil_genius_180 on
    Lizzy777ashleytingerStarCruiserRory1707scifiericwibble
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    I've gotta go to work in a few minutes, so here's a quick update. I'm working on the nacelle. I'm using Big Jim Slade's Enterprise blueprints because he has a sheet showing just the nacelle. Of course, I modified it slightly for the Constellation class, but it's a great blueprint.

    cvair5ixw17c.png

    hnlczp3uz707.png

    I like Big Jim Slade's blueprints. In fact, I may build a Constitution refit later on down the road based on those blueprints. Funnily enough, looking at his CAD version of the ship that he made based on them, I saw how he did the bridge and realized I was trying to make it more difficult than it had to be when I was attempting to make one for this ship. :lol:
    StarCruiserashleytingerRory1707scifiericwibble
  • count23count23344 Posts: 759Member
    if it helps, all my highest resolution reference images of the constellation class are on my onedrive if you want them, there's about 30 of 'em: https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=!AKh0Y2VIeOqG6WA&id=F40E192C0A6225CA!486&cid=F40E192C0A6225CA
    scifiericevil_genius_180
    Formerly Nadesico.

    Current Projects:
    Ambassador Class
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1802437 Posts: 10,224Member
    count23 wrote: »
    if it helps, all my highest resolution reference images of the constellation class are on my onedrive if you want them, there's about 30 of 'em: https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=!AKh0Y2VIeOqG6WA&id=F40E192C0A6225CA!486&cid=F40E192C0A6225CA

    I really appreciate that, but the link didn't work. It tells me the item might not exist or is no longer available.
Sign In or Register to comment.