BTW, I have yet to find D-7 plans, from Jeffries to McMaster (and everyone else seems to have just copied McMaster for the last 30+ years) where the front and side views match up. It's aggravating to say the least.
BTW, I have yet to find D-7 plans, from Jeffries to McMaster (and everyone else seems to have just copied McMaster for the last 30+ years) where the front and side views match up. It's aggravating to say the least.
OK so it WASN'T just my imagination! I have kind of thought that I would refine and refine and refine this model until It looked like it was exactly right, and then post orthos and some orthos of difficult pieces for others to take a whack at, and see if we can't come to a consensus for some more authoritative top, bottom, side, front and rear "plans." I know exactly what you mean, Tall guy.
OK so it WASN'T just my imagination! I have kind of thought that I would refine and refine and refine this model until It looked like it was exactly right, and then post orthos and some orthos of difficult pieces for others to take a whack at, and see if we can't come to a consensus for some more authoritative top, bottom, side, front and rear "plans." I know exactly what you mean, Tall guy.
Oh please tell me it isn't the same case with Kimball's Star Trek: The Motion Picture plans!
Oh please tell me it isn't the same case with Kimball's Star Trek: The Motion Picture plans!
After I wrote my last post, I thought about the topic of "plans" for actual physical models. To me, here's the most likely scenario. Someone draws a plan, it gets approved, and then model builders tackle it. They follow the basic dimensions but it is not possible (or necessary) to exactly follow the plan. The builders take liberties. They look at the model from different angles and see problems once it is built. They make adjustments and add detail. I rather doubt the plans are redone to match the physical model. We may be stuck trying to reproduce the physical model in spite of the plans.
As one adjusts things, it becomes clear other things need adjusting. The side gussets really needed to be reduced in size. Other things fell into place as I did so.
So I'm being a fanatic about getting proportions right and have compared images of the real models with my mesh. I nearly concluded that the model builders ended up departing from the original Kimble plans. The main reason is the angle of the pylon from the "wings" to the engine. If you look at the overlay of my mesh (3rd image) with a top shot of the Motion picture model, the engines appear further apart. This could have been due to Ortho vs perspective differences. However the main hull and its "wings" are pretty flat. When you compare this to the back image (both perspective views) it comes out pretty close. The side view depicts that the pylon from the wings to the engine is not too long, a possible reason for the engines being further apart in the 3rd image (if the angled pylon was supposed to be shorter, it would pull the engines closer together - if anything mine are too short). Look at the Kimble plans and the angle of the pylon from the wings to the engine is not nearly the same. Looking at photos of the Undiscovered Country Quonos model convinces me that they departed from the plans on this angle.
Edit: It just occurred to me that the angle difference may come from hanging the model so that the weight of the engines pulls the Wings and pylons down, vs when it is sitting on a flat surface and the engines are not hanging.
To double check myself, I did a perspective camera on my mesh and the engines came together more than I thought they would. The image makes sense with other things I have noticed about comparing my mesh with pictures. I'lll get this yet.
Once again, a few things in there I REALLY needed. Thanks EBOLII. I am still reworking relative sizes (had to reduce the bridge area 2%), have to rework the taper of the neck, and have to sweep the wings of the hull back a bit. I keep re-rendering it and comparing it to images, trying to perfect the dimensions so that it will be a reference ortho that is (hopefully) better than the blueprints out there. Wish me luck.
Wonderful reference shots there, but really shows how excessively busy they made that model, over egging it somewhat. I much prefer the simpler original version.
Wonderful reference shots there, but really shows how excessively busy they made that model, over egging it somewhat. I much prefer the simpler original version.
By original version, do you mean the Motion Picture version? Some shots of that also have a smooth bridge and sensor dome - others have the greeble detail.
Yeah, I don't mind the Greeble heavy look, it is more the gold etched detailing they've added. It just seems a bit much. Prefer the look of the old engines/nacelles too.
Well remember, that version was specifically given the extra decoration to indicate its status - this was Qo'nos 1, the Klingon Chancellor's flagship, not just your run-of-the-mill battlecruiser!
TALON_UK and EBOLII: I really agree about the extra brass etched pieces. And not just because it makes it easier for an artist to leave them out. If anything the Klingons were practical. It was about battle. Once you get past designing with "birds of prey" in mind, they emphasized function over form. But I can see why the modelers tried to make the Chancellor's ship unique.
I have been absent a while simply because I am doing iterative renders to make my model identical in shape to the movie shot. In the image below, if you superimpose the image on the left over the one on the right the two are approaching identical. The neck is tapered wrong (working on that next) and the shuttle bay area is a little too wide (a little easier to fix). What I have discovered about the overhead shot of the movie model is that the camera was a bit left of center. I think I have adjusted for that correctly.
You must have taken the render on the left and superimposed it over the photo. I wondered if someone was going to do that. :thumb: Yes, I took another look at that and it appears that the back of the ST-TMP model is not flat. It "bulges" backward. At first I thought it was the camera angle making the curve of the top of the hull fool the eye into thinking it arcs back. But the perspective shot of the bottom seems to confirm that the back is not flat. That's my conclusion at this moment anyway. Still considering.
Edit: I replaced the comparison image above with another one. The new image has fixes on the back flat portion of the bridge section (you may barely be able to see). I also tweaked the whole shuttle bay structure on the top of the hull to make it much closer to the model image. It isn't spot on perfect yet but MUCH closer.
lol, no i didnt superimposed, i just eye balled it and then used the top edge of a window on my desktop to confirm it.
This is going to take you a while to finish if you constantly seek perfection.
Two pages back, Tallguy wrote "I have yet to find D-7 plans, from Jeffries to McMaster where the front and side views match up."
I have had the same experience. I'm hoping to leave behind a set of orthos that are close to spot on with the models. Obviously they WILL match up because they were done in a 3D modeling program. This difficult ship will be a little easier for people to tackle.
Thanks, for the support. As a matter of fact, I have thought of creating a Klingon space dock and work pods. Since I am doing a hybrid ship (first pass), I thought it would be fun to depict it in space dock a little like the refit Enterprise, getting the new engines, and upgrades added. You know, bursts of intense light when someone is welding etc.
I really am obsessed with making this a reference work.
Posts
BTW, I have yet to find D-7 plans, from Jeffries to McMaster (and everyone else seems to have just copied McMaster for the last 30+ years) where the front and side views match up. It's aggravating to say the least.
Various Work: U.S.S. Constellation - Matt Jefferies Concept Shuttle
OK so it WASN'T just my imagination! I have kind of thought that I would refine and refine and refine this model until It looked like it was exactly right, and then post orthos and some orthos of difficult pieces for others to take a whack at, and see if we can't come to a consensus for some more authoritative top, bottom, side, front and rear "plans." I know exactly what you mean, Tall guy.
Various Work: U.S.S. Constellation - Matt Jefferies Concept Shuttle
http://www.automotiveillustrations.com/illustrators/automotive-illustrator-kimble.html
Various Work: U.S.S. Constellation - Matt Jefferies Concept Shuttle
Edit: Got rid of a big image
Edit: It just occurred to me that the angle difference may come from hanging the model so that the weight of the engines pulls the Wings and pylons down, vs when it is sitting on a flat surface and the engines are not hanging.
Edit: Removed image to allow for more posting
http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=15819
http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=1926
http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=1611
You can see what your missing.......Looking forward to your next post
I have been absent a while simply because I am doing iterative renders to make my model identical in shape to the movie shot. In the image below, if you superimpose the image on the left over the one on the right the two are approaching identical. The neck is tapered wrong (working on that next) and the shuttle bay area is a little too wide (a little easier to fix). What I have discovered about the overhead shot of the movie model is that the camera was a bit left of center. I think I have adjusted for that correctly.
i notice the impulse engine area is slightly more forward then the real model on the last pic.
Edit: I replaced the comparison image above with another one. The new image has fixes on the back flat portion of the bridge section (you may barely be able to see). I also tweaked the whole shuttle bay structure on the top of the hull to make it much closer to the model image. It isn't spot on perfect yet but MUCH closer.
This is going to take you a while to finish if you constantly seek perfection.
I have had the same experience. I'm hoping to leave behind a set of orthos that are close to spot on with the models. Obviously they WILL match up because they were done in a 3D modeling program. This difficult ship will be a little easier for people to tackle.
Al
I really am obsessed with making this a reference work.
Various Work: U.S.S. Constellation - Matt Jefferies Concept Shuttle
Edit: Removed old image to allow for other posting