Greetings!

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

3DTOS Constitution Reboot

2456718

Posts

  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    All the enterprise nacelles did that, they collected interstellar hydrogen. That';s what a bussard collector does, it's named after a physicists who proposed using interstellar hydrogen as fuel.

    The 1701-D and proceeding ships had bussard scoups.
    On Enterprise and Enterprse A they were called space energy sink matter acquisition
  • SchimpfySchimpfy171 Posts: 0Member
    Saquist wrote: »
    The 1701-D and proceeding ships had bussard scoups.
    On Enterprise and Enterprse A they were called space energy sink matter acquisition

    Matter acquisition sure sounds like it acquires matter from space and as far as I've ever seen hydrogen is the matter of choice. So, it stands to reason they're the same thing. It's like in my line of work: A CRL is a common rotary launcher and an MPRL is a multi-purpose rotary launcher. Both are the same exact thing...a LAU-144. Now you're arguing that different nomenclatures of the same component means they're different. Not the case.
  • BolianAdmiralBolianAdmiral732 Torrance, CaliforniaPosts: 2,113Member
    I noticed there's absolutely no love for the 1701-B in the poll. :lol: That's probably because Bill George's original Excelsior is better. It's not that I don't like what John Eaves did but, in my opinion, he "fixed" a design that wasn't broken. (though, it did make it easier to damage the ship)

    You nailed it right on the head. That's exactly why there's no love for the B. I was SO hoping the B would be a straight stock Excelsior-Class, as per the TNG Technical Manual, but what we got was something that need not be... an Excelsior mutant. I could actually kind of tolerate the new bits on the hull... what I absolutely hated most about it was the pointless "blue/white" ramscoops they slapped onto the nacelles... that irked me then, and still irks me now. The Excelsior wasn't broke... don't frakking fix it. Rick Berman... contrary to your strong belief, we the audience aren't retards... we KNOW that a regular Excelsior is supposed to be the Enterprise... we won't be confused... trust us. ;)
  • BorklessBorkless61 Posts: 0Member
    Weren't the mods to the B so they wouldn't ruin the model? Anyway, the Excelsior herself was a test-bed prototype, and I can easily swallow that the Enterprise, as a member of a still-experimental class had some modifications Starfleet was testing out.
  • lennier1lennier1396 Posts: 1,114Member
    In my case it's a close race between the Refit and the D, with the latter winning by a slight margin, because I love Andrew Probert's style.
    The Refit holds a special place for me, because she started out as a design by Matt Jefferies (the Phase II version) and was completed by Trek's new generation of designers and model makers. Kind of a passing of the torch where the responsibility is concerned and at the same time a rite of passage for the new guys.
  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    Juvat wrote: »
    Matter acquisition sure sounds like it acquires matter from space and as far as I've ever seen hydrogen is the matter of choice. So, it stands to reason they're the same thing. It's like in my line of work: A CRL is a common rotary launcher and an MPRL is a multi-purpose rotary launcher. Both are the same exact thing...a LAU-144. Now you're arguing that different nomenclatures of the same component means they're different.

    Am I or is that speculation?
    Borkless wrote: »
    Weren't the mods to the B so they wouldn't ruin the model? Anyway, the Excelsior herself was a test-bed prototype, and I can easily swallow that the Enterprise, as a member of a still-experimental class had some modifications Starfleet was testing out.

    If the Excelsior needed volumetric expansion of of it's peripheral hull then that would be a rather MASSIVE oversight in construction especially since it's Deflector or Core did nothing special at all. The Excelsior Experiment was a failure. At most you expect the nacelles to be replaced with conventional engines...but all the areas modified were completely frivious.
    -Matter sinks on the Nacelle tips
    -Shuttle or impulse engines additions on the back side of saucer.
    -Big Oval Protrusions on the engineering hull.

    The Malinche was one of the last named Excelsior's on screen and it didn't look any more inferior to the MkII. And we only see th MKII twice in the Ent-B and the Lakota. Generations was a bad enough film on its own. Perhap I had too much of an attachment to the Excelsior but I really do think they mutilated it and I think poignant that they never made a CGI model to continue the trend of the MKII design.
  • SchimpfySchimpfy171 Posts: 0Member
    Saquist wrote: »
    Am I or is that speculation?

    Speculation based on common sense. Besides, Memory-Alpha doesn't give a specific date for when they became known as bussard collectors/ramscoops. EAS doesn't give any useful information on it either. Do you have a canon source? I'm curious to see now that the question has been raised.
  • BrandenbergBrandenberg1487 CaliforniaPosts: 1,858Member
    Wow Hunter G, you really started a conversation here. My question was going to be "What are you modeling this with?" but your screen shot showed me that it was Blender. :thumb:

    After all your disclaimers in your first post I was REALLY impressed with your work. Congratulations. I almost wish there was some way to take up a collection on this site and get you a really hot shot computer.

    A few comments:
    If you look close at the trailers, it appears that they redesigned the jj verse Enterprise for the new film. I think the fan dislike for the first one got noticed. Also model sales were probably pathetic.
    I think yours could have been the re-do as others have said.
    My favorite is still the 1701 refit / a
  • oldmangregoldmangreg132 Woodland Hills, CAPosts: 1,334Member
    Actually they didn't redesign the Enterprise. That's a different ship.

    Quote from Judge Death: All the enterprise nacelles did that, they collected interstellar hydrogen. That';s what a bussard collector does, it's named after a physicists who proposed using interstellar hydrogen as fuel.

    I was referring to the JJ Enterprise bussard being an energy field and not a solid piece like the other Enterprises. Pay attention.
    Your right to an opinion does not make your opinion valid.
  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    I've seen this same poll on other sites. The 1701 refit always wins. The Excelsior-Enterprise and the NX are always at the bottom but someone has to love them.

    What is unusual is that the Enterprise E normally gets a bit more love than this.
  • BrandenbergBrandenberg1487 CaliforniaPosts: 1,858Member
    Yeah, I actually liked all the Enterprises, the E included. The Excelsior Enterprise got such a short play that I have trouble thinking of it as an Enterprise. I guess that's kind of true of the Enterprise C as well.
  • Judge Death.Judge Death.1 Posts: 0Member
    oldmangreg wrote: »
    Actually they didn't redesign the Enterprise. That's a different ship.

    Quote from Judge Death: All the enterprise nacelles did that, they collected interstellar hydrogen. That';s what a bussard collector does, it's named after a physicists who proposed using interstellar hydrogen as fuel.

    I was referring to the JJ Enterprise bussard being an energy field and not a solid piece like the other Enterprises. Pay attention.

    To me it looked like spinning turbine blades, which I thought was something that was stupid but meant to look cool.

    Also, all nacelles on all enterprises projected an energy field.
  • Hunter GHunter G403 Posts: 372Member
    edited May 2020 #44
    Hey, great discussion guys, I actually learned some stuff I didn't know!
    Post edited by Hunter G on
  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    Taking a look...
  • BolianAdmiralBolianAdmiral732 Torrance, CaliforniaPosts: 2,113Member
    I love the 1701-E... I think John Eaves seamlessly blended all the key aspects of all previous Enterprise ships into one masterful legacy design. But when it comes down to choosing but one, the Galaxy-Class will always win out with me... I just love the 1701-D more. The D just had such a regal and gallant feel about her.
  • Judge Death.Judge Death.1 Posts: 0Member
    I have a question for the OP: I know that the fantail is the hardest part on the enterprise to do, I was wondering how he did the fantail on this one. Boolean cut?

    As a general comment, a tutorial for blender on how to do the rear section of the enterprise would be great, it's the hardest part to do right with the fantail and the shuttle doors.
  • Hunter GHunter G403 Posts: 372Member
    I have a question for the OP: I know that the fantail is the hardest part on the enterprise to do, I was wondering how he did the fantail on this one. Boolean cut?

    As a general comment, a tutorial for blender on how to do the rear section of the enterprise would be great, it's the hardest part to do right with the fantail and the shuttle doors.

    I could to a tutorial when I get the time.
  • publiusrpubliusr278 Posts: 1,369Member
    The vertical stacked tubes are the best feature.
  • Hunter GHunter G403 Posts: 372Member
    edited May 2020 #50
    BTW, for the record, my favorite canon Enterprises are:
    1: 1701
    2: 1701-A
    3: JJ's Enterprise
    4: 1701-E
    5: 1701-D
    6: 1701-C
    7: 1701-B
    Just so you know. ;)
    Post edited by Hunter G on
  • Capt.HunterCapt.Hunter171 Posts: 71Member
    for the record, my favorite canon Enterprises are:
    1: 1701 (Refit) / 1701-A
    2: 1701-E
    3: 1701 (JJ)
    4: 1701
    5: NX-01
    6: 1701-C
    7: 1701-D
    8: 1701-B
  • TralfazTralfaz295 Posts: 818Member
    I have a question for the OP: I know that the fantail is the hardest part on the enterprise to do, I was wondering how he did the fantail on this one. Boolean cut?

    As a general comment, a tutorial for blender on how to do the rear section of the enterprise would be great, it's the hardest part to do right with the fantail and the shuttle doors.

    I agree a tutorial on how to do this section would be fantastic. I have attempted the back end of the TMP Enterprise over 30 times now. Thought I had it, but am having a bit of trouble getting rid of all the triangles that were created during the boolean cuts for the windows and shuttle bay area. I've tried going low res with hypernurbs as well as higher res with pure modeling.

    And as I mentioned earlier, I love this version of the Enterprise.

    Al
  • BrandenbergBrandenberg1487 CaliforniaPosts: 1,858Member
    Ok, might as well weigh in - also enjoying this thread and discussion.

    1: 1701 Refit / 1701-A
    2: 1701-D
    3: 1701-E
    4: NX-01
    5: 1701
    6: 1701-C
    7: 1701-B
    8: JJ’s doesn’t count
  • StarscreamStarscream229 Posts: 1,049Member
    ^ What he said. My list as follows:

    1) Refit/A (preferably the A as of TUC)
    2) 1701-C
    3) 1701-D
    4) 1701
    5) 1701-B
    6) 1701-E
    7) Joint tie with JJprise and NX-01 - as far as I'm concerned they may as well not exist! :D
  • McCMcC346 Posts: 697Member
    Hunter G, out of curiosity, are you rendering this with Cycles?
  • Hunter GHunter G403 Posts: 372Member
    McC wrote: »
    Hunter G, out of curiosity, are you rendering this with Cycles?

    No, I'm not using cycles. Although I might try to make a version in cycles after I'm done.
  • McCMcC346 Posts: 697Member
    Hunter G wrote: »
    No, I'm not using cycles. Although I might try to make a version in cycles after I'm done.
    Would love to see your lighting rig and compositing node setup, then!
  • LonewriterLonewriter229 Posts: 1,064Member
    First, welcome to the forum
    Second, I can't believe your only 17 and this good.
    Third, great model, keep up the good work
    And finally here are my favorite Enterprise is order
    1701-E
    1701-A
    1701-D
    1701
    1701-B
    1701-C
    NX-01 (I thought it was a ripoff of the Akira)

    BTW, my favorite Trek ship is the Nova class refit then the Defiant and then Voyager.
  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    Hunter G wrote: »
    Ok, I changed a little on the inside of the bussard. As you can see by the screenshots, the old ones had three fans. It was a little too cluttery or whatever. The new version has two blades, and the shape is more accurate to the original.

    Also, with these close-ups you may notice that there are not too many greebles. The last thing I wanted when starting this was the Enterprise looking like a Star Wars ship. :p

    How did you come up with these designs?
    They kinda look like an impeller of sorts.
  • Judge Death.Judge Death.1 Posts: 0Member
    OK, what the hell.

    1. NCC-1701. No bloody A, B, C or D.
    2. TMP version.
    3. Enterprise C. I liked that it had a circular saucer section and decent sized nacelles.
    4. NX-01.
    5. Enterprise E. I have mixed feelings on it though. I like the ship in and of itself a lot better than the D, but I hate the fact that as soon as GR died that bastard rick vermin basically took a bulldozer to his vision of trek and replaced it with his own, and that's really what destroying the D in generations was about: Rick vermin dumping all of GR's visions in the trash and bringing in his own. Bastard!!! (Forgive me for becoming emotional, but I see rick vermin as a vulture who swooped down on trek and began tearing away at it the moment GR passed away.)

    6. Enterprise B. That lower structure may have been to protect the model but it made it look worse than the excellsior.

    That POS abrahms made doesn't deserve to be on the list. Everything about it including the scene with it being built on earth was wretched.
  • Judge Death.Judge Death.1 Posts: 0Member
    Tralfaz wrote: »
    I agree a tutorial on how to do this section would be fantastic. I have attempted the back end of the TMP Enterprise over 30 times now. Thought I had it, but am having a bit of trouble getting rid of all the triangles that were created during the boolean cuts for the windows and shuttle bay area. I've tried going low res with hypernurbs as well as higher res with pure modeling.

    And as I mentioned earlier, I love this version of the Enterprise.

    Al


    OK, maybe I can help here, I made a fantail type form sans knife cute and booleans. Maybe what I can up with will help even if you're not using blender.

    nrh6_zps40e8558e.png

    Now I made this fantail as I recall by selecting the lower verts at the end of the body, scaling them along the z axis to flatten them, pulling them up to near flush with the remaining arched rear top, adding a loop cut that went halfway between the full section loop where the fantail would begin and the rear where it ended, then using a multi loop bevel that got it pretty good without much trouble.

    Admittedly the shape of the hull is different than most enterprise designs but the idea might help you. Also using edge split or edge crease can help, at least in blender. BTW, I could absolutely not do with this guy has done with his ship's stern but am getting better at modelling in blender.

    The bevel command can create good sweeping, curved arcs in parts of some structures, BTW. Have a look at the pylons on this image:
    nrgh12_zpsbe9504f1.png

    Note that the rear of the pylons are straight while the forward section curves inward, somewhat like the enterprises fantail does in relation to the part of the ship's tail above it. I achieved this with a fairly simple bevel command after I'd manually modelled the basic shape. No booleans, no triangles.

    EDIT Here's a more recent view of the fantail, made after I'd improved it a lot by removing unnecessary loops.

    image2993-1_zps37dd244a.png

    And this is a different angle that also shows how the loop cut when applied to the x axis instead of the z axis gave the rear hull a graceful tapering effect. To limit beveling to one axic, apply a loop cut and only scale it along one axis. the bevel effect will follow that axis.

    image3015_zpsf1daa393.png

    This show shows the curve of the pylons, and hopefully how this technique could help make a fantail.

    pylons_zps35bd7950.png

    Like I said, I thought I could never fantail right but experimenting with the scaling and beveling command, especially using them in one axis helped a lot. Adding a crease or edge split might help too.

    Another thing is to download models and examine them in detail, that can help you reverse engineer successful techniques.
    99150.png99266.png99267.png99269.png99270.png
Sign In or Register to comment.