I tend to agree with the old man here..
In Trek-Science, subspace behaves much like a fluid, so vessel should be designed with a best possible streamlined form in mind. While the bow of the engineering section does look a bit too far bent backwards even for my taste, it certainly raises the steamlined features to a new level.
Unlike your current 3D design, I made the following changes to make the moc up look nicer:
- Saucer section is bigger, based on your first version, as that larger saucer gives that "Galaxy-Class" feel to it (the versio you have didn't look right in lego ^^).
- Different phaser bank layout (in gray parts).
- Bigger Bussard collectors to give it a more "organic" feel.
- Two additional cargo/shuttle bays on the back sides of the saucer near the neck.
I think the best parts of the ship are the saucer and nacelles, with the nacelles being particularly excellent. They're robust and dynamic, respectively.
However, I don't like the hammock like engineering section, or how the neck strikes me as hanging off, or draped from, the saucer, rather than supporting the saucer structurally. It looks like it would fold in on itself when pushed by the nacelles to the saucer (I don't necessarily mean that literally). From the back and front these aren't issues, the neck looks strong from behind thanks to its flat width, and clean cuts on the sides, and looks non-draped from the front. In fact, it is extremely good looking straight on the front, but from the direct sides it is an issue. Yet, even a bit off side, or from an upward angle, it's hard to see the swoop as bad at all, and balance issues are completely non-apparent.
What I'm left concerned with is the weaponry. I can see where the secondary phasers will be placed, and they're okay, but let's consider the concept of the Galaxy class separation. Drop civilians in the saucer, fight with the engineering section. Now, the phasers, presumably longer arrays are more powerful, otherwise what's the point in a long array, when two or three very short arrays could do the same exact work? Pure redundancy? Why bother connecting them in a continuous strip when they would need redundant power connections anyway? I've never been a fan of split arrays. My point is, if the secondary hull is the primary combat hull, and if longer phasers are more powerful, and presumably the combat section has the better power generation, why doesn't the combat section have at least as much array as the saucer, and a continuous phaser array as long, or longer than the longest one on the saucer?
If a single phaser array could be run along the port and starboard seams, and around the nose of the secondary section, where it docks to the saucer, then it would have complete phaser coverage, and a phaser more powerful than the phasers combined on the saucer. That's not quite practical, but following those lines would give good coverage, and long arrays; same for the rear most edge of the secondary hull.
As for torpedo tubes, more of them (but in the subtle Galaxy style), and each able to burst out more per salvo than the Galaxy (perhaps 20 each, or able to fire significantly larger torpedoes) would make sense, as would having them as more than just chase weapons. It seems apparent that their original intent was for them to be the only warp capable weapons, thus only used in chases, but we've seen phasers used at warp, and we've seen torpedoes make some pretty good turns. They're also both used in non-warp combat all the time.
My concern for the weapons and defenses really goes deeper, as the story goes, it hasn't changed in centuries any appreciable degree, but this isn't the place to brainstorm a new Trek combat dynamic. Besides which, I think the ship will end up looking very good regardless of this set of details. Although, something I've wanted to see for years now are impulse engines used as maneuvering thrusters.
Then there are the sensors, though I'm not worried. It looks like this will do the usual thing, with a trench of sensor greebles along the saucer edge, and maybe along the tail edge? I would hope to see some hefty downward facing pallets.
The Galaxy and Intrepid classes have downward facing cargo bay doors which have never ever been used in the shows. One reason is probably because they don't make sense. They involve removing the floor from the cargo bay, but who is going to do that when cargo is always shown as organized on the floor? The movies got it right with handling cargo through the shuttle bay. Dedicated cargo doors make more sense from the sides or top, but with transporters, what's the point? That's true of shuttles, their importance should be diminished as illustrated with the one, perhaps smaller, shuttle bay. I don't know, it looks somehow small to me.
Anyway, the new skin looks great, and I'm looking forward to this project's completion.
VMBlast, how does my lego moc look? did I get it right?
Hehehe, nice one. Really nice good job. And because its lego, it looks like a pixel art
My opinion is that its a really great work, concerning the medium. Dont know what would Andy say -probably some similar comment.
However, about the changes. I dont think that they would work in the global sense.
Also I can see a lot of negative comments on this post (not you Sakara). The thing is that (unfortunately), uneducated people are making them and they dont know nothing basically about the design, form, shape, volume, color, art, history of art, theory of the form, concepts, visualization, practicality, logic etc. You know, the things that you actually learn during years of training in art school/college and than the apprenticeship. A lot of people have shallow perception, view and understanding of the things around them (life). Making a good design is not about making it -bigger- or cluttered with a ton of unnecessary details, but making it were it counts and where every line and detail have its story and meaning. Simplest solutions in majority of cases are way better and will echo through time.
Believe me when I say this. Andy's Enterprise F is looking the way it does, because every line, curve, detail is carefully weighted and put there with great deal of logic and answering questions (why its there). Andy is very thorough and precise industrial designer and Im sad that most of the people here are not recognizing that he is actually the Starfleet and federation. I perceive his -Federation- designs as a Starfleet canon through the more than 30 years of design.
I dont want to sound like Im defending him, Im just sad that people dont see what I was able to see and recognize. Majority of the viewers are just brainwashed through the years of Corporate Star Trek (from 90's) and its design. Unofficially Ive got the comment, that poor Gene must have been spinning in his grave (in the warp speed), when he is seeing what they did to his vision of peaceful, exploratory, human loving, and sleek ST. Andy understood and recognized that from the start and pored it into his ST designs.
Ooh. That won't win you any friends. (You equate a difference in taste as a lack of education, experience, sophistication etc. That comes off as a bit pompous.)
Ooh. That won't win you any friends. (You equate a difference in taste as a lack of education, experience, sophistication etc. That comes off as a bit pompous.)
Maybe just ignore them?
'Love the ship.
He's not wrong. It's not pompous at all.
Your right to an opinion does not make your opinion valid.
well i'm gonna jump in as a nay sayer here but this design isn't cannon and while andy has produced some star trek ships he didn't produce them all and hes just following design cues of those that came before - now the enterprise d was a masterpiece this one not so much - there are parts of this design that are good and some not so much
now the enterprise e is a cool looking ship sleeker and faster looking - in terms of design there is nothing wrong with it - story wise yes its more militaristic - would gene roddenbury approve of that well perhaps not, but frankly he started it, the original series was full of hostile aliens and the enterprise had guns - and as controversial as this is - i think star trek improved after gene roddenbury died, stuff like the uniforms, but thank god patrick stewarts doctor said NOOOOOO to those tight one piece uniforms that roddenbury was so keen on - yes he would turn in his grave at enterprises overall type work suits with pockets but they were the best uniforms ever seen in star trek because they made sence
to me this design is close but there are some issues i have with it - its not beautiful from all angles - and vmblast seriously look at that lego model its proportions look better than your one - cant quite define it but to my eyes it looks better - but i could see a version of this as the galaxy class replacement in the pre dominion war and pre borg invasion federation, a big ship and mobile starbase - a mobile representation of human society - as you said maybe what gene roddenbury would have liked but those war story lines are cannon and the federation has a much more militaristic outlook currently and its ships need an edge, they need to be more than just pretty lines
from a story point of view frankly you need them too - and as i said even gene roddenbury knew that as just about every episode of star trek from the original series through tng had conflict of some sort in them - dispite his dream of a perfect human sosiety where everyone lives in peace simple fact is that that is not how human beings are - thats why i loved a couple of episodes of ds9 so much - one was called in the pale moonlight and the other was the seige of ar&*(*Aï¿¡$ (cant remember the actual number) but both showed that the human race in star trek was still the human race we are today, just with better base situation
anyway kidna off topic - need to see more of this with all the detailing done for it to start to look more solid more massive and not look like a plastic toy
The thing is that (unfortunately), uneducated people are making them and they dont know nothing basically about the design, form, shape, volume, color, art, history of art, theory of the form, concepts, visualization, practicality, logic etc. You know, the things that you actually learn during years of training in art school/college and than the apprenticeship.
Yeah, no.
Some of us did go to art school and have experience as professional artists. I still think this design lacks a lot of the grace of Andy's other work. That's not on you, vmblast, and I applaud you for wanting to remain faithful to what Andy's designed, but that people are critiquing the aesthetics of this design in no way reflects some inferior artistic understanding. You don't need training to know when something looks off; training helps you know why.
This design looks off. Almost everyone is reacting to that.
I have to agree that the Lego version looks better. I also agree that it's quite insulting to be told that I need years of specialized training to have an opinion on whether something looks good to me or not.
Making a good design is not about making it -bigger- or cluttered with a ton of unnecessary details, but making it were it counts and where every line and detail have its story and meaning. Simplest solutions in majority of cases are way better and will echo through time.
Oh, I absolutely agree. That's part of the reason I like the Lego version better.
Some of us did go to art school and have experience as professional artists. I still think this design lacks a lot of the grace of Andy's other work. That's not on you, vmblast, and I applaud you for wanting to remain faithful to what Andy's designed, but that people are critiquing the aesthetics of this design in no way reflects some inferior artistic understanding. You don't need training to know when something looks off; training helps you know why.
This design looks off. Almost everyone is reacting to that.
While I find the design interesting for its conceptual nature it does seem a bit off with its proportions. The visualization here is excellent on vmblast's part and he's done Andy's work great justice in its execution. This is one of those ships that reminds me that while every design has its bad side per se, there's usually a good side to be found somewhere. The majority of the time I can find well over half of the views of a given model that look great, but this design is more of a 50/50 good/bad ratio, IMHO.
Sorry to be buzzkill, and not that my opinion matters anyway, but this thing is very... unattractive. It looks like the Enterprise D's down syndrome brother. It seems like trying way to hard to capitalize on what makes the Galaxy class good, and ends up loosing all of it's charm and character in the process. But... like i said, that's just me.
I disagree with the previous comments. The design is solid and it it reflects a more peaceful future federation. It is a very fluidity design that you would expect a collection of 150 member world to create. The proportions in space... we have to be a bit more imaginative instead of the same flatten continuation of saucer and nacelles and no necks. This design is push forward with the concept of the Enterprise into something in the vein of exploration, and design also reflects the uncluttered sleek trek look. Since the nineties and beyond trek design went a little backwards with the cluttered colors schemes shortened forms and shapes.Look at Enterprise refit and ships after the Enterprise E. In this future the thin neck has be resolved by a wider flush sculpted connection.Tradition is great but after awhile it becomes stale and moot, this deign jump-starts to a beautiful reconfiguration and reinterpretations of Gene's vision, it is very well done and I look forward to is completion.
First off, I like to say thank you for your comments on my LEGO moc version.
Anyways, to answer Major Diarrhia's concerns on the weapons placement, well, to put simply, I was limited on the lego parts I had available to me - I only had a handful of gray plates to make the phaser banks, as most of my gray parts were being used on another LEGO moc up - an Andrew Proberts Bridge design I made to go with the moc - http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/381772. Also, I was following the Galaxy-Class weapon layout as a reference. So, I apologies if my moc up isn't good, weapons-wise.
As for VMBlast's comment, well, I kinda support Andrew Probert's version as well, in keeping Gene's original peace-loving vision alive, as I too kinda feel that Trek went too militaristic after Gene's passing. But at the same time, Part of me likes where the official canon went, as it gives Trek a more action-pack vision. So in short, I'm "neutral." I follow canon, yet I also follow what Andy and VMBLast are doing here, which is why I built my lego moc up in the first place. Hell, I sometimes prefer the first two seasons of TNG to the rest of the series. But I still love the overall canon as it is today.
Anyways, again, I know my LEGO moc ain't up to specs with what VMBlast has built so far, in terms of the differences I made. But as said, I'm limited to the parts my have, and I don't have the money to go on bricklink and buy the needed parts to make it look exact. Plus, I like to improvise. ^^;
Since taking the pictures, I have a made a few small improvements, just on the "strip" on the neck and saucer, and the impulse engines. But I'll post pics of those once I have them...
Anyways, again, I know my LEGO moc ain't up to specs with what VMBlast has built so far, in terms of the differences I made. But as said, I'm limited to the parts my have, and I don't have the money to go on bricklink and buy the needed parts to make it look exact. Plus, I like to improvise. ^^;
You did great job concerning the limitations of the medium you were working with, so dont beat yourself to it -its looking great And its really great to see model (any digital model) as a real life maquete, even if its in rough pixelate (lego) form. Im sure that Andy would love it as well. Im also for the practical stuff as well. In ideal solution I would 3D print it out (digital F), to have it as miniature model in my room lol
Anyone who thinks that (now) the D is a great design and F not (dont want to quote), I would put a little reminder that when the TNG came out, majority of the viewers and trekkies were appalled by its design. At that time there were no internet nor forums and there was no viewers/makers relationship like today. The D just came out as a slap on a face. If then you had similar situation like today (net/forums), Im sure that ppl would bitch and moan about the D as well, saying that the A or the original is far superior because this and that. After a period of adjusting and settling and watching episodes, ppl started to appreciate the D, its beauty and visual message. Aside the design, it was good because its was working in the context of a story and shows as well. Im sure that if you could watch the F in new ST episodes every week, you would start to see it as good designed ship that follows the ethos of Genes vision of ST.
would gene roddenbury approve of that well perhaps not, but frankly he started it, the original series was full of hostile aliens and the enterprise had guns - and as controversial as this is - i think star trek improved after gene roddenbury died, stuff like the uniforms, but thank god patrick stewarts doctor said NOOOOOO to those tight one piece uniforms that roddenbury was so keen on - yes he would turn in his grave at enterprises overall type work suits with pockets but they were the best uniforms ever seen in star trek because they made sense
I do agree that the overall looming threat is beneficial to the storyline of the multy-year show (as well that you need to have some form of conflicts). Gene tried to achieve that with the Borg and it was doing great...before they washed it out with the later seasons episodes like "Desent P1,2". The "I Borg", is a bit pale, but I really loved it. I loved the story of regaining self, humanity and redemption. You dont need big galactic wars nor militaristic mentality in the storyline to make it good and interesting. If not, that dumbs it down. Because you dont seek (and show viewer) other elegant solutions to the problems and conflicts, but only one heads on way -you draw your BIG guns and say "Ye kill 'em all, gud damn aliens!" and start blasting...c, c, c. I am huuuge fan of Star Wars and this is one of its strength (the adventure, action, heroes journey), but not for Star Trek.
Also I would argue that Gene was already very ill by the time that they (studio and Berman) started the production of DS9, even before TNG ended. He was in no condition anymore to control ST nor to be of any influence. When they realized that, Studio just started to rage on and chase % and do anything to please mass audience (oh statistics shown that if we want to increase and broaden up the audience, we need to have more shooting in space -no prob, give 'em that!) ...but this is just my view, I wasnt there and I havent asked Andy about it. But one thing for sure is that he don like cbs and you can only imagine why. Andy is really keeping Genes vision alive (ffs he worked closely with him since '78).
To someone who mentioned that E is streamlined because of "fluidic nature of warp".......whaat???!!!! loool. Ok ST was always been science-fiction, not science-FANTASY. I saw that documentary when Eves talks that E is streamlined because of that. What a bunch of BS! That there is pure fantasy and crew's way to justify the new design of the E and to sound like its "intelligent" decision. Dont get me wrong John Eves is really great artist and designer, but Im sure that this was just a commission for him and those words are put into his mouth. ST was always been science-fiction and I would argue now days science-fact, as we can see that we can now (at the moment) in theory have real warp drive. You could have cubed ship (wink) and it would fly at the same warp speed as any other shaped vessel.
Oh yeah I just got it, I think most of the confusion comes from the fact that people was able only to see just static one angle images of the F. On the other hand I am able to see it in real time in 3D software all the time.
Ill try to put up a small turntable, so you can see it more clearly in the motion and from all angles
actually the current warp theory as it stands has ships that would look very like the vulcan ships from enterprise (entirely possible they were designed by someone who read up on it - so no a cube shaped warp ship as it stands at the moment would be unlikely instead you get a football (american) surrounded by a torus - yay the vulcans are always right!!!!!!
another subject
yes the ent-d was a shock to many but thats because it was a change - we are used to change now and can just descide if we like the look of things and the ent-d is good from most angles (still has afew not quite so good ones though) - and about the ent-a sorry but your glib comment is ohhhhhhhhh so true - its the best enterprise there has ever been - think someone did a survey on here once and vast majority of people agreed that NCC-1701-A was the best design of the lot
Am I the only one who's really curious about what the interiors of that place look like? I keep picturing the faucets looking just like it, then tilting my head up to see a room, then a hall, etc
I appreciate your taking the time to show the turntable, vmblast, as it helps to better illuminate the design issues.
To be clear, I think having a smooth and unadorned design is perfectly fine. None of my issues stem from that, thinking it needs to be more greebled, more weaponized, or anything of that sort. My issue with it is the fundamental structure of the shape itself, which does not look aesthetically balanced in the way that the original Jeffries Enterprise or Andy's Galaxy design are. As Stormcloud says, we are all well-accustomed to different designs at this point and your contention that people are simply reacting to the "shock" of something new falls very flat in the face of the radically different designs that have been produced since Andy designed the Galaxy.
Since you seem to think that those with "years of training in art school/college" have a better sense of "design, form, shape, volume, color, art, history of art, theory of the form, concepts, visualization, practicality, logic etc.", I'll go ahead and give you the same sort of critique that I would have given to a peer in any of my art classes were they to present this design.
The primary problem with the design is the neck and stardrive. The saucer and warp nacelles are fine, as are the pylons leading to the nacelles (though modifying the saucer might address some of the balance issues in the secondary hull). However, because of the slope of the neck and the subsequent bulge in the stardrive, you end up with a shape that has one design aesthetic on the "top half" and a completely different aesthetic on the bottom half, resulting in a discordant juxtaposition that leads the viewer to feel put off.
One of the great things Andy did with the Galaxy design was echoing curves throughout the design, from numerous orthographic angles. The shape of the nacelle pylons from the side orthographic view echoes the shape of the slope of the neck, for example, leading to this appearing balanced. You don't have this echoing of form in your design, but neither do you have complementary shapes to compensate for that. The overall curve of the stardrive, starting from the middle of the saucer and extending into the rear of the warp nacelle, needs to be revisited.
CaptRicoSakara indirectly fixed a lot of the issues with his Lego design, which couldn't exactly replicate your shapes and was actually significantly improved as a result. The shallower curve of the ventral bulge significantly improves the overall shape balance and the slightly enlarged saucer provides a better sense of "front half" and "back half," since the saucer and rear portion are roughly 50/50 instead of the uneasy ~60/40 you have now.
I knocked together a very rough example of one way to fix the shape issues, but I actually prefer CaptRicoSakara's LEGO solution to my own.
One of the great things Andy did with the Galaxy design was echoing curves throughout the design, from numerous orthographic angles. The shape of the nacelle pylons from the side orthographic view echoes the shape of the slope of the neck, for example, leading to this appearing balanced. You don't have this echoing of form in your design, but neither do you have complementary shapes to compensate for that. The overall curve of the stardrive, starting from the middle of the saucer and extending into the rear of the warp nacelle, needs to be revisited.
Oh, oh, no! You misunderstood me (maybe all), it isnt in any what so ever case, my design. I maybe contributed a little during a process of 3D modeling. This is a 100% Andy Proberts design. His vision, which I really wanted to follow to the letter. We bounced back and forth this model until he was completely satisfied at the end (and its even not yet finished lol).
And Im sorry, but I have to disagree with that drawing. The thing here is that you can push those lines endlessly, until you satisfy your inner self (eye of the beholder right) and get to the point that it will look exactly like the E. There's nothing wrong with it, its just your taste. However this is different ship and not every ship should look like the E. Also there is a very good reason why the F looks the way it does (I tried to explain this many times over -every line, curve, detail and positioning on this ship is purposely and carefully made to be in a that way and I dont want to explain the details and reasons made for this ship during a year and a half work on it).
Oh, oh, no! You misunderstood me (maybe all), it isnt in any what so ever case, my design. I maybe contributed a little during a process of 3D modeling. This is a 100% Andy Proberts design. His vision, which I really wanted to follow to the letter. We bounced back and forth this model until he was completely satisfied at the end (and its even not yet finished lol).
Yes, I understand that. When I say "your design" I mean the design you are presenting in this thread. I acknowledged elsewhere that I recognize you are simply creating a model of Andy's design.
And Im sorry, but I have to disagree with that drawing. The thing here is that you can push those lines endlessly, until you satisfy your inner self (eye of the beholder right) and get to the point that it will look exactly like the E. There's nothing wrong with it, its just your taste. However this is different ship and not every ship should look like the E.
I don't have any particular affinity for the Sovereign class, which you seem to be intimating. I don't care about it looking like some other ship. I'm trying to explain to why this design itself has issues that I and others in this thread are reacting to.
Also there is a very good reason why the F looks the way it does (I tried to explain this many times over -every line, curve, detail and positioning on this ship is purposely and carefully made to be in a that way and I dont want to explain the details and reasons made for this ship during a year and a half work on it).
That's fine and you (and Andy) are certainly entitled to design whatever sort of ship you want.
What's not fine, and what I was/am reacting to, is the tone you struck about people's critiques of this design being misplaced because they didn't have proper training. That is entirely bogus and an absolutely unacceptable, stuck-up attitude to use to defend a piece of art. "They don't get it," is a load of tripe. It's the job of the artist to make his audience get it and if they don't, then that's on the artist. And as someone who did spend years in art school and then did spend years as a professional artist, working every day with professional artists, I couldn't let a statement like that go unchallenged.
Posts
In Trek-Science, subspace behaves much like a fluid, so vessel should be designed with a best possible streamlined form in mind. While the bow of the engineering section does look a bit too far bent backwards even for my taste, it certainly raises the steamlined features to a new level.
Its Halsey class, according to Andy.
Named after Fleet Admiral William Frederick Halsey, Jr.?
Aye, that'll be the one. :P
Unlike your current 3D design, I made the following changes to make the moc up look nicer:
- Saucer section is bigger, based on your first version, as that larger saucer gives that "Galaxy-Class" feel to it (the versio you have didn't look right in lego ^^).
- Different phaser bank layout (in gray parts).
- Bigger Bussard collectors to give it a more "organic" feel.
- Two additional cargo/shuttle bays on the back sides of the saucer near the neck.
Here's some of the photos:
1393591238m_DISPLAY.jpg 1393591241m_DISPLAY.jpg 1393591243m_DISPLAY.jpg 1393591245m_DISPLAY.jpg 1393591248m_DISPLAY.jpg 1393591251m_DISPLAY.jpg 1393591253m_DISPLAY.jpg 1393591428m_DISPLAY.jpg 1393591701m_DISPLAY.jpg
I hope they look good. ^^;
Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found.
If anyone wishes to look at more photos of my model, just go here: http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/382334
However, I don't like the hammock like engineering section, or how the neck strikes me as hanging off, or draped from, the saucer, rather than supporting the saucer structurally. It looks like it would fold in on itself when pushed by the nacelles to the saucer (I don't necessarily mean that literally). From the back and front these aren't issues, the neck looks strong from behind thanks to its flat width, and clean cuts on the sides, and looks non-draped from the front. In fact, it is extremely good looking straight on the front, but from the direct sides it is an issue. Yet, even a bit off side, or from an upward angle, it's hard to see the swoop as bad at all, and balance issues are completely non-apparent.
What I'm left concerned with is the weaponry. I can see where the secondary phasers will be placed, and they're okay, but let's consider the concept of the Galaxy class separation. Drop civilians in the saucer, fight with the engineering section. Now, the phasers, presumably longer arrays are more powerful, otherwise what's the point in a long array, when two or three very short arrays could do the same exact work? Pure redundancy? Why bother connecting them in a continuous strip when they would need redundant power connections anyway? I've never been a fan of split arrays. My point is, if the secondary hull is the primary combat hull, and if longer phasers are more powerful, and presumably the combat section has the better power generation, why doesn't the combat section have at least as much array as the saucer, and a continuous phaser array as long, or longer than the longest one on the saucer?
If a single phaser array could be run along the port and starboard seams, and around the nose of the secondary section, where it docks to the saucer, then it would have complete phaser coverage, and a phaser more powerful than the phasers combined on the saucer. That's not quite practical, but following those lines would give good coverage, and long arrays; same for the rear most edge of the secondary hull.
As for torpedo tubes, more of them (but in the subtle Galaxy style), and each able to burst out more per salvo than the Galaxy (perhaps 20 each, or able to fire significantly larger torpedoes) would make sense, as would having them as more than just chase weapons. It seems apparent that their original intent was for them to be the only warp capable weapons, thus only used in chases, but we've seen phasers used at warp, and we've seen torpedoes make some pretty good turns. They're also both used in non-warp combat all the time.
My concern for the weapons and defenses really goes deeper, as the story goes, it hasn't changed in centuries any appreciable degree, but this isn't the place to brainstorm a new Trek combat dynamic. Besides which, I think the ship will end up looking very good regardless of this set of details. Although, something I've wanted to see for years now are impulse engines used as maneuvering thrusters.
Then there are the sensors, though I'm not worried. It looks like this will do the usual thing, with a trench of sensor greebles along the saucer edge, and maybe along the tail edge? I would hope to see some hefty downward facing pallets.
The Galaxy and Intrepid classes have downward facing cargo bay doors which have never ever been used in the shows. One reason is probably because they don't make sense. They involve removing the floor from the cargo bay, but who is going to do that when cargo is always shown as organized on the floor? The movies got it right with handling cargo through the shuttle bay. Dedicated cargo doors make more sense from the sides or top, but with transporters, what's the point? That's true of shuttles, their importance should be diminished as illustrated with the one, perhaps smaller, shuttle bay. I don't know, it looks somehow small to me.
Anyway, the new skin looks great, and I'm looking forward to this project's completion.
Hehehe, nice one. Really nice
My opinion is that its a really great work, concerning the medium. Dont know what would Andy say -probably some similar comment.
However, about the changes. I dont think that they would work in the global sense.
Also I can see a lot of negative comments on this post (not you Sakara). The thing is that (unfortunately), uneducated people are making them and they dont know nothing basically about the design, form, shape, volume, color, art, history of art, theory of the form, concepts, visualization, practicality, logic etc. You know, the things that you actually learn during years of training in art school/college and than the apprenticeship. A lot of people have shallow perception, view and understanding of the things around them (life). Making a good design is not about making it -bigger- or cluttered with a ton of unnecessary details, but making it were it counts and where every line and detail have its story and meaning. Simplest solutions in majority of cases are way better and will echo through time.
Believe me when I say this. Andy's Enterprise F is looking the way it does, because every line, curve, detail is carefully weighted and put there with great deal of logic and answering questions (why its there). Andy is very thorough and precise industrial designer and Im sad that most of the people here are not recognizing that he is actually the Starfleet and federation. I perceive his -Federation- designs as a Starfleet canon through the more than 30 years of design.
I dont want to sound like Im defending him, Im just sad that people dont see what I was able to see and recognize. Majority of the viewers are just brainwashed through the years of Corporate Star Trek (from 90's) and its design. Unofficially Ive got the comment, that poor Gene must have been spinning in his grave (in the warp speed), when he is seeing what they did to his vision of peaceful, exploratory, human loving, and sleek ST. Andy understood and recognized that from the start and pored it into his ST designs.
Maybe just ignore them?
'Love the ship.
He's not wrong. It's not pompous at all.
now the enterprise e is a cool looking ship sleeker and faster looking - in terms of design there is nothing wrong with it - story wise yes its more militaristic - would gene roddenbury approve of that well perhaps not, but frankly he started it, the original series was full of hostile aliens and the enterprise had guns - and as controversial as this is - i think star trek improved after gene roddenbury died, stuff like the uniforms, but thank god patrick stewarts doctor said NOOOOOO to those tight one piece uniforms that roddenbury was so keen on - yes he would turn in his grave at enterprises overall type work suits with pockets but they were the best uniforms ever seen in star trek because they made sence
to me this design is close but there are some issues i have with it - its not beautiful from all angles - and vmblast seriously look at that lego model its proportions look better than your one - cant quite define it but to my eyes it looks better - but i could see a version of this as the galaxy class replacement in the pre dominion war and pre borg invasion federation, a big ship and mobile starbase - a mobile representation of human society - as you said maybe what gene roddenbury would have liked but those war story lines are cannon and the federation has a much more militaristic outlook currently and its ships need an edge, they need to be more than just pretty lines
from a story point of view frankly you need them too - and as i said even gene roddenbury knew that as just about every episode of star trek from the original series through tng had conflict of some sort in them - dispite his dream of a perfect human sosiety where everyone lives in peace simple fact is that that is not how human beings are - thats why i loved a couple of episodes of ds9 so much - one was called in the pale moonlight and the other was the seige of ar&*(*Aï¿¡$ (cant remember the actual number) but both showed that the human race in star trek was still the human race we are today, just with better base situation
anyway kidna off topic - need to see more of this with all the detailing done for it to start to look more solid more massive and not look like a plastic toy
Some of us did go to art school and have experience as professional artists. I still think this design lacks a lot of the grace of Andy's other work. That's not on you, vmblast, and I applaud you for wanting to remain faithful to what Andy's designed, but that people are critiquing the aesthetics of this design in no way reflects some inferior artistic understanding. You don't need training to know when something looks off; training helps you know why.
This design looks off. Almost everyone is reacting to that.
They're not wrong.
Books: [ Ashes of Alour-Tan | Embers of Alour-Tan ] | Blender Tutorials | Blog
Oh, I absolutely agree. That's part of the reason I like the Lego version better.
This.
Pompous, no. Arrogant, yes.
While I find the design interesting for its conceptual nature it does seem a bit off with its proportions. The visualization here is excellent on vmblast's part and he's done Andy's work great justice in its execution. This is one of those ships that reminds me that while every design has its bad side per se, there's usually a good side to be found somewhere. The majority of the time I can find well over half of the views of a given model that look great, but this design is more of a 50/50 good/bad ratio, IMHO.
Anyways, to answer Major Diarrhia's concerns on the weapons placement, well, to put simply, I was limited on the lego parts I had available to me - I only had a handful of gray plates to make the phaser banks, as most of my gray parts were being used on another LEGO moc up - an Andrew Proberts Bridge design I made to go with the moc - http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/381772. Also, I was following the Galaxy-Class weapon layout as a reference. So, I apologies if my moc up isn't good, weapons-wise.
As for VMBlast's comment, well, I kinda support Andrew Probert's version as well, in keeping Gene's original peace-loving vision alive, as I too kinda feel that Trek went too militaristic after Gene's passing. But at the same time, Part of me likes where the official canon went, as it gives Trek a more action-pack vision. So in short, I'm "neutral." I follow canon, yet I also follow what Andy and VMBLast are doing here, which is why I built my lego moc up in the first place. Hell, I sometimes prefer the first two seasons of TNG to the rest of the series. But I still love the overall canon as it is today.
Anyways, again, I know my LEGO moc ain't up to specs with what VMBlast has built so far, in terms of the differences I made. But as said, I'm limited to the parts my have, and I don't have the money to go on bricklink and buy the needed parts to make it look exact. Plus, I like to improvise. ^^;
Since taking the pictures, I have a made a few small improvements, just on the "strip" on the neck and saucer, and the impulse engines. But I'll post pics of those once I have them...
You did great job concerning the limitations of the medium you were working with, so dont beat yourself to it -its looking great
Anyone who thinks that (now) the D is a great design and F not (dont want to quote), I would put a little reminder that when the TNG came out, majority of the viewers and trekkies were appalled by its design. At that time there were no internet nor forums and there was no viewers/makers relationship like today. The D just came out as a slap on a face. If then you had similar situation like today (net/forums), Im sure that ppl would bitch and moan about the D as well, saying that the A or the original is far superior because this and that. After a period of adjusting and settling and watching episodes, ppl started to appreciate the D, its beauty and visual message. Aside the design, it was good because its was working in the context of a story and shows as well. Im sure that if you could watch the F in new ST episodes every week, you would start to see it as good designed ship that follows the ethos of Genes vision of ST.
I do agree that the overall looming threat is beneficial to the storyline of the multy-year show (as well that you need to have some form of conflicts). Gene tried to achieve that with the Borg and it was doing great...before they washed it out with the later seasons episodes like "Desent P1,2". The "I Borg", is a bit pale, but I really loved it. I loved the story of regaining self, humanity and redemption. You dont need big galactic wars nor militaristic mentality in the storyline to make it good and interesting. If not, that dumbs it down. Because you dont seek (and show viewer) other elegant solutions to the problems and conflicts, but only one heads on way -you draw your BIG guns and say "Ye kill 'em all, gud damn aliens!" and start blasting...c, c, c. I am huuuge fan of Star Wars and this is one of its strength (the adventure, action, heroes journey), but not for Star Trek.
Also I would argue that Gene was already very ill by the time that they (studio and Berman) started the production of DS9, even before TNG ended. He was in no condition anymore to control ST nor to be of any influence. When they realized that, Studio just started to rage on and chase % and do anything to please mass audience (oh statistics shown that if we want to increase and broaden up the audience, we need to have more shooting in space -no prob, give 'em that!) ...but this is just my view, I wasnt there and I havent asked Andy about it. But one thing for sure is that he don like cbs and you can only imagine why. Andy is really keeping Genes vision alive (ffs he worked closely with him since '78).
To someone who mentioned that E is streamlined because of "fluidic nature of warp".......whaat???!!!! loool. Ok ST was always been science-fiction, not science-FANTASY. I saw that documentary when Eves talks that E is streamlined because of that. What a bunch of BS! That there is pure fantasy and crew's way to justify the new design of the E and to sound like its "intelligent" decision. Dont get me wrong John Eves is really great artist and designer, but Im sure that this was just a commission for him and those words are put into his mouth. ST was always been science-fiction and I would argue now days science-fact, as we can see that we can now (at the moment) in theory have real warp drive. You could have cubed ship (wink) and it would fly at the same warp speed as any other shaped vessel.
Ill try to put up a small turntable, so you can see it more clearly in the motion and from all angles
Note -As this is capture of realtime turntable, materials and colors are not accurate. Enjoy
[video=vimeo;88681286]
another subject
yes the ent-d was a shock to many but thats because it was a change - we are used to change now and can just descide if we like the look of things and the ent-d is good from most angles (still has afew not quite so good ones though) - and about the ent-a sorry but your glib comment is ohhhhhhhhh so true - its the best enterprise there has ever been - think someone did a survey on here once and vast majority of people agreed that NCC-1701-A was the best design of the lot
To be clear, I think having a smooth and unadorned design is perfectly fine. None of my issues stem from that, thinking it needs to be more greebled, more weaponized, or anything of that sort. My issue with it is the fundamental structure of the shape itself, which does not look aesthetically balanced in the way that the original Jeffries Enterprise or Andy's Galaxy design are. As Stormcloud says, we are all well-accustomed to different designs at this point and your contention that people are simply reacting to the "shock" of something new falls very flat in the face of the radically different designs that have been produced since Andy designed the Galaxy.
Since you seem to think that those with "years of training in art school/college" have a better sense of "design, form, shape, volume, color, art, history of art, theory of the form, concepts, visualization, practicality, logic etc.", I'll go ahead and give you the same sort of critique that I would have given to a peer in any of my art classes were they to present this design.
The primary problem with the design is the neck and stardrive. The saucer and warp nacelles are fine, as are the pylons leading to the nacelles (though modifying the saucer might address some of the balance issues in the secondary hull). However, because of the slope of the neck and the subsequent bulge in the stardrive, you end up with a shape that has one design aesthetic on the "top half" and a completely different aesthetic on the bottom half, resulting in a discordant juxtaposition that leads the viewer to feel put off.
One of the great things Andy did with the Galaxy design was echoing curves throughout the design, from numerous orthographic angles. The shape of the nacelle pylons from the side orthographic view echoes the shape of the slope of the neck, for example, leading to this appearing balanced. You don't have this echoing of form in your design, but neither do you have complementary shapes to compensate for that. The overall curve of the stardrive, starting from the middle of the saucer and extending into the rear of the warp nacelle, needs to be revisited.
CaptRicoSakara indirectly fixed a lot of the issues with his Lego design, which couldn't exactly replicate your shapes and was actually significantly improved as a result. The shallower curve of the ventral bulge significantly improves the overall shape balance and the slightly enlarged saucer provides a better sense of "front half" and "back half," since the saucer and rear portion are roughly 50/50 instead of the uneasy ~60/40 you have now.
I knocked together a very rough example of one way to fix the shape issues, but I actually prefer CaptRicoSakara's LEGO solution to my own.
Books: [ Ashes of Alour-Tan | Embers of Alour-Tan ] | Blender Tutorials | Blog
Oh, oh, no! You misunderstood me (maybe all), it isnt in any what so ever case, my design. I maybe contributed a little during a process of 3D modeling. This is a 100% Andy Proberts design. His vision, which I really wanted to follow to the letter. We bounced back and forth this model until he was completely satisfied at the end (and its even not yet finished lol).
And Im sorry, but I have to disagree with that drawing. The thing here is that you can push those lines endlessly, until you satisfy your inner self (eye of the beholder right) and get to the point that it will look exactly like the E. There's nothing wrong with it, its just your taste. However this is different ship and not every ship should look like the E. Also there is a very good reason why the F looks the way it does (I tried to explain this many times over -every line, curve, detail and positioning on this ship is purposely and carefully made to be in a that way and I dont want to explain the details and reasons made for this ship during a year and a half work on it).
I don't have any particular affinity for the Sovereign class, which you seem to be intimating. I don't care about it looking like some other ship. I'm trying to explain to why this design itself has issues that I and others in this thread are reacting to.
That's fine and you (and Andy) are certainly entitled to design whatever sort of ship you want.
What's not fine, and what I was/am reacting to, is the tone you struck about people's critiques of this design being misplaced because they didn't have proper training. That is entirely bogus and an absolutely unacceptable, stuck-up attitude to use to defend a piece of art. "They don't get it," is a load of tripe. It's the job of the artist to make his audience get it and if they don't, then that's on the artist. And as someone who did spend years in art school and then did spend years as a professional artist, working every day with professional artists, I couldn't let a statement like that go unchallenged.
Books: [ Ashes of Alour-Tan | Embers of Alour-Tan ] | Blender Tutorials | Blog