Every time I've done this kind of hull, I've gone to great lengths and personal pain to make it all one tidy piece. Upon reflection, I was like "why did I do that? I could have just stuck a piece back there that's flush to the hull and nobody would have been the wiser."
Thanks!
I did it this way because I knew I needed most of the saucer on the bottom side, but over a third of the top would be obscured, and I'd rather not have a whole saucer under there.
Funny enough, I’ve restarted the Galaxy’s saucer section, because I’ve realized that the deflector grid isn’t uniform, and the curve going down the Y-axis is not the same as across port/starboard. I tried fixing it. I gave up after 4 hours!
Even the deflector grid doesn’t match dorsal to central, so if I can get away with making the dorsal, ventral, and side different objects, that’s what I might as well do.
Funny enough, I’ve restarted the Galaxy’s saucer section, because I’ve realized that the deflector grid isn’t uniform, and the curve going down the Y-axis is not the same as across port/starboard. I tried fixing it. I gave up after 4 hours!
Even the deflector grid doesn’t match dorsal to central, so if I can get away with making the dorsal, ventral, and side different objects, that’s what I might as well do.
In Object mode, select the object. In the 3D viewport, go to the Object menu, Apply sub-menu and select "Scale." A dialog box will appear with some check boxes. You don't have to do anything with that box, but once you go back to Edit mode, your grid will be uniform. I forgot to do this on a part I was building yesterday and was having that same issue. Then I remembered it and it was easy after that.
Funny enough, I’ve restarted the Galaxy’s saucer section, because I’ve realized that the deflector grid isn’t uniform, and the curve going down the Y-axis is not the same as across port/starboard. I tried fixing it. I gave up after 4 hours!
Even the deflector grid doesn’t match dorsal to central, so if I can get away with making the dorsal, ventral, and side different objects, that’s what I might as well do.
Yeah when I was building mine I noticed that if I extrude a circle from the rim of the saucer to the top following the oval grid lines, the radial lines didn't match up at all.
Funny enough, I’ve restarted the Galaxy’s saucer section, because I’ve realized that the deflector grid isn’t uniform, and the curve going down the Y-axis is not the same as across port/starboard. I tried fixing it. I gave up after 4 hours!
Even the deflector grid doesn’t match dorsal to central, so if I can get away with making the dorsal, ventral, and side different objects, that’s what I might as well do.
In Object mode, select the object. In the 3D viewport, go to the Object menu, Apply sub-menu and select "Scale." A dialog box will appear with some check boxes. You don't have to do anything with that box, but once you go back to Edit mode, your grid will be uniform. I forgot to do this on a part I was building yesterday and was having that same issue. Then I remembered it and it was easy after that.
Funny enough, I’ve restarted the Galaxy’s saucer section, because I’ve realized that the deflector grid isn’t uniform, and the curve going down the Y-axis is not the same as across port/starboard. I tried fixing it. I gave up after 4 hours!
Even the deflector grid doesn’t match dorsal to central, so if I can get away with making the dorsal, ventral, and side different objects, that’s what I might as well do.
Yeah when I was building mine I noticed that if I extrude a circle from the rim of the saucer to the top following the oval grid lines, the radial lines didn't match up at all.
Good advice guys...if the grid lines were proportional, and matched each other dorsal and ventral. Look at these images of the saucer section.
See how the deflector grid doesn't quite match the outline of the edge of the hull proportionally? And many of the grid sections are not the same size as the rest, especially the dorsal/starboard hull sections towards the X-axis center. Those are much thinner hull sections than the ones closer to the bow and aft. So if I want the model to be accurate, I have to factor that in. And the length and width of the hull panels aren't all the same on the fore half of the saucer as the hull sections towards the aft. It's a very ununiform arrangement.
And the edge of the grids where the meet the edge of the hull don't do so in the same place on the dorsal and ventral, but unless (and even if) you view it from the side, let alone try to model one using orthos, you'd never notice.
Ah, the enlarged saucer from the crash scene in Generations. One thing to note about model references is that things are never the same from model to model. There are always differences.
Ah, the enlarged saucer from the crash scene in Generations. One thing to note about model references is that things are never the same from model to model. There are always differences.
Yeah, well, I'm using Marc Bell's model as references. And I want to make it as accurate as possible, to avoid confusion later on, rather than scratching my head, wonder why almost nothing is matching up.
By the way, I've been trying to divide the Galaxy class into different objects, like the Miranda pictures above. The neck, for example, needs a bunch of tightly grouped vertices for the forward edge of the neck. But tightly grouped vertices don't work for the battle-bridge section's semicircle, so I started that over, and made it a separate object.
But I'm wondering how to get all of these sections lined up neatly, like on the Miranda's engineering section, and the top, bottom, and sides of the saucer section?
And I've also noticed how the sensor strips are a separate object as well.
And the progress on the Excelsior class is amazing. Not to sound like a broken record, but I'm in awe. I would be hard-pressed just to get the outline of the shapes done, let alone have time for the teal hull markings, not to mention details like the aft torpedo assembly.
Use a combination of shift-D to duplicate and P to separate a selection and if you're making new geometry, vertex snapping to ensure no gaps between objects.
[edit] not ctrl-P, just P . . . ctrl-p makes selected objects children of the active object
I like it. It looks like it could be your own Star Trek universe, or it could flex into either the Kelvin universe or the retconned TOS look. Though, more so the Kelvin universe because it's smoother than the retconned TOS look.
Quick question: how do you change the preview image for your thread?
The way I see it, my skills in Blender (such as they are) are better than when I first posted, and I’m hoping I’ll get more replies/advice if my improvements show in the preview image.
I have to ask, I'm still a beginner at 3D art...and I must ask, what shape do you use for the main drive section in the beginning?
For the Constitution class I used a circle. Others like the Essex I started with a plane or a cube.
First question I ask when starting a new model is 'what primitive is closest to the shape of the most prominent feature I'm trying to make?' so the secondary hull of the Constitution class starts as a circle and I extrude and scale it to shape. For the Essex I started with a cube and made loop cuts and moved vertices to fit the stretched hexagonal shape and extruded and scaled it to shape. I almost always start with a mirror modifier and subdivision surface modifier.
Nice!
I heard that they looked at Endurance as a possible Titan-A before they went with an updated Shangri-la.
It's becoming one is my favorites, because it's both retro and futuristic. It could easily be either late 23rd/early 24th century in trek's Lost Era or 25th century after the events of Picard.
Posts
Every time I've done this kind of hull, I've gone to great lengths and personal pain to make it all one tidy piece. Upon reflection, I was like "why did I do that? I could have just stuck a piece back there that's flush to the hull and nobody would have been the wiser."
I did it this way because I knew I needed most of the saucer on the bottom side, but over a third of the top would be obscured, and I'd rather not have a whole saucer under there.
Even the deflector grid doesn’t match dorsal to central, so if I can get away with making the dorsal, ventral, and side different objects, that’s what I might as well do.
In Object mode, select the object. In the 3D viewport, go to the Object menu, Apply sub-menu and select "Scale." A dialog box will appear with some check boxes. You don't have to do anything with that box, but once you go back to Edit mode, your grid will be uniform. I forgot to do this on a part I was building yesterday and was having that same issue. Then I remembered it and it was easy after that.
Yeah when I was building mine I noticed that if I extrude a circle from the rim of the saucer to the top following the oval grid lines, the radial lines didn't match up at all.
[
Good advice guys...if the grid lines were proportional, and matched each other dorsal and ventral. Look at these images of the saucer section.
See how the deflector grid doesn't quite match the outline of the edge of the hull proportionally? And many of the grid sections are not the same size as the rest, especially the dorsal/starboard hull sections towards the X-axis center. Those are much thinner hull sections than the ones closer to the bow and aft. So if I want the model to be accurate, I have to factor that in. And the length and width of the hull panels aren't all the same on the fore half of the saucer as the hull sections towards the aft. It's a very ununiform arrangement.
And the edge of the grids where the meet the edge of the hull don't do so in the same place on the dorsal and ventral, but unless (and even if) you view it from the side, let alone try to model one using orthos, you'd never notice.
Yeah, well, I'm using Marc Bell's model as references. And I want to make it as accurate as possible, to avoid confusion later on, rather than scratching my head, wonder why almost nothing is matching up.
By the way, I've been trying to divide the Galaxy class into different objects, like the Miranda pictures above. The neck, for example, needs a bunch of tightly grouped vertices for the forward edge of the neck. But tightly grouped vertices don't work for the battle-bridge section's semicircle, so I started that over, and made it a separate object.
But I'm wondering how to get all of these sections lined up neatly, like on the Miranda's engineering section, and the top, bottom, and sides of the saucer section?
And I've also noticed how the sensor strips are a separate object as well.
And the progress on the Excelsior class is amazing. Not to sound like a broken record, but I'm in awe. I would be hard-pressed just to get the outline of the shapes done, let alone have time for the teal hull markings, not to mention details like the aft torpedo assembly.
[edit] not ctrl-P, just P . . . ctrl-p makes selected objects children of the active object
Split this of from the other project.
It's already a great design, and also a bit of a challenge to model I imagine.
Maybe a megaphaser on the bottom..just below the dish…to draw power.
The way I see it, my skills in Blender (such as they are) are better than when I first posted, and I’m hoping I’ll get more replies/advice if my improvements show in the preview image.
It's the best design. Original or refit, they're both gorgeous.
For the Constitution class I used a circle. Others like the Essex I started with a plane or a cube.
First question I ask when starting a new model is 'what primitive is closest to the shape of the most prominent feature I'm trying to make?' so the secondary hull of the Constitution class starts as a circle and I extrude and scale it to shape. For the Essex I started with a cube and made loop cuts and moved vertices to fit the stretched hexagonal shape and extruded and scaled it to shape. I almost always start with a mirror modifier and subdivision surface modifier.
This is awesome! Glad to see someone else trying their hand at her! Here's mine atm...
I heard that they looked at Endurance as a possible Titan-A before they went with an updated Shangri-la.
It's becoming one is my favorites, because it's both retro and futuristic. It could easily be either late 23rd/early 24th century in trek's Lost Era or 25th century after the events of Picard.