Greetings!

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

3DSovereign Suggestions?

24567

Posts

  • lennier1lennier1509 Posts: 1,179Member
    Yes, you can even use their iTunes URL or the "Subscribe" URL (standard RSS feed) to add it to a podcast app and receive their new episodes automatically.

    Speaking of Trek audio drama podcasts that are worth a try, don't forget to check out these as well:
    http://www.giantgnome.com/our-shows/audio-drama/star-trek-outpost/
    http://www.darkerprojects.com/section31.php
    http://www.darkerprojects.com/lostfrontier.php


    [edit]
    BTW: John Eaves just posted this on Facebook: http://www.propstore.com/enterprisee.htm
    [/edit]
  • jrhotteljrhottel9 Posts: 0Member
    Wow, I would have loved to have had those pictures from the beginning. What a resource!
  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    Amazing!
    The craftsmanship is just ...stellar. Sovereign has such a great shape when you see it in such detail. It's unfortunant it loses so much in the functionality of it's purpose.

    -look at the detail on the aft Shuttlebay doors
    -There does seem to be ports lined up along the spin for power connections at Spacedock or ship yards just never properly detailed like this.
    -Now I'm wondering if the Quantum turret is two tubes or one tube on either side of the center object. (Where is the light that Nemesis says is there?)
    -There might even be aft arrays in the back of the pylons...(not sure thought but NO puts that on there model) More likely they are edge vents like the Refit had. The have the red warning labels next to them so likely no sensors.

    Untill now I've never understood why fans love this design so much. When I first saw the film First Contact I wanted to like Sovereign but while the top of the ship was smooth and simple the bottom of the saucer was blocky mess of forms and shapes. I still don't like that area but WOW the detail here is fantastic, I bet with some effort I could redesign the separation plane from these shots.

    I almost fell in love looking at these shots...
  • AdlerAdler0 Posts: 0Member
    Man... you really got to fix those mesh errors before going forward... They make this whole thing look horrible and badly built.
  • jrhotteljrhottel9 Posts: 0Member
    Soveriegn_Hanger.jpg
    I'm still working on this sovereign. Here's the hanger bay configuration, large enough to handle runabouts. Not the best image but I'm learning. With respect to mesh errors, after I finalize the design, I'll re-topologize the whole thing into a lower poly mesh and take it to Mudbox. I'm not sure it is the best use of time to fix the mesh errors. Actually for the most part the problems are with the normals and my showing incomplete work. It's probably very inefficient way to work but that's the plan. I introduced a lot of errors by slicing the mesh by desks but it's proven useful. Work continues!
    100822.jpg
    JES
  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    I know this is a revamp John but if you make the shuttle bay that size on a sovereign there is no room for the computer cores and if you stuck em in there like turbo lift shafts used exposed a critical system to being taken out by flight operations.

    -Flight operations (of this size) is a component of carriers that requires more than one exit and egress.
    -Structural concerns would increase the number of support columns in the hanger or increase the rigidity in the areas around it

    I experimented with two opposites of this concept. A ring of shuttle bays around the saucer that had connections (thus leaving vital area secure or creating large hanger operations in the Stardrive with the aft shuttle bay and stacking shuttles in coves along the wall for the best use of space. But to reduce the amount of fine maneuvering a pilot must endure to reach open space (which is another benefit of smaller shuttle bays close to the hull.

    What program is this again?
  • spacefighterspacefighter1 Posts: 0Member
    nice but isn't the shuttle bay a bit big, it seems to take up most of the saucer. saquist mentions computer cores but i should think that that far in the future the neccessary computers for interstellar travel may only be the size of modern desktops, however there are surely many other systems that need to be on your ship. if the shuttle bay is that big why not dispense with as ship entirely and have several large warp capable heavily armed/armoured shuttles? try either fitting more shuttles into the bay or making the bay smaller as it seems larger than neccessary for only a few shuttles. on another note i rather like the ship and think it is good that someone wants to model an interior.
  • BlueNeumannBlueNeumann353 Posts: 1,094Member
    "Yeah, boy, eh, you got a real problem there, you see, dere's supposed to be a roof over that. Now you're gonna wanna get that patched as soon as possible cause winter's comin' up and we're in the vaccuum of space. I can get my guys over here but yer looking at a couple hundred skilled laborers on golden time, in spacesuits, and that's gonna add up pretty quickly."

    Seriously, that shuttlebay actually seems like the size it would be to hold all the "disposable" craft in the Enterprise, but I see what everyone is saying about it being too big, taking up the entire deck. I wonder if they're reacting because it's in the saucer, the "prime real estate." Would anyone care if it took up this relative amount of space at the bottom of the stardrive section? Does anyone care about the "butt" of the ship besides the one guy crammed in there playing with his iPad like we was in Voyager?
  • IRMLIRML245 Posts: 1,993Member
    I think john eaves himself envisaged the main shuttlebay to be the one in the engineering hull, much like the TMP enterprise
  • jrhotteljrhottel9 Posts: 0Member
    Saquist, you read my mind again. The computer core is a problem. I'm not so worried about the flight hazard issue but I'm inclined to have a ample sized computer core and have it in the deepest part of the saucer. Basically, right in the middle of the maintenance bay. As a place of interest I think of the core as large. I guess as a design philosophy, I'm good with outsized, hangers, computer cores, etc with other areas being more cramped than normally depicted.

    As to the size of Flight operations, mission one is still to tell a good story. A large flight department with lots of activity is interesting. The trick is always to come up with the most elegant solution within the limits prescribed. In this case we're working on a sovereign variant. Structural concerns are somewhat alleviated because the Bay is in the center of the saucer instead of near the skin. This is actually a rough. It resolves issues of shuttle elevators, pass-throughs/storage in stardrive, and is more structurally sound, all considered in modeling saucer separation. On the Star trek Wiki, as compared to the galaxy a large flight department was part of the original sovereign concept. I don't know about carriers is Star Trek.

    As to how full it is. That is the complement of shuttlecraft. I think when you add support equipment, workerbees, ground vehicles, more runabout cargo pods, and more structural elements it'll be comfortably packed.

    This is modeled is 3ds Max. Does anyone render out HDR passes in Max and if so what does your workflow look like outside of Max?
  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    nice but isn't the shuttle bay a bit big, it seems to take up most of the saucer. saquist mentions computer cores but i should think that that far in the future the neccessary computers for interstellar travel may only be the size of modern desktops, however there are surely many other systems that need to be on your ship. if the shuttle bay is that big why not dispense with as ship entirely and have several large warp capable heavily armed/armoured shuttles? try either fitting more shuttles into the bay or making the bay smaller as it seems larger than neccessary for only a few shuttles. on another note i rather like the ship and think it is good that someone wants to model an interior.

    Consider that to hold all the information of human being in data form you would need an 500 Million Empire State buildings filled with current day hard drives...

    If technology continues in memory storage as it has maybe in 200-300 years they get to the size of server rooms today. And that's just for one person. The Defiant's core was still need to hold physcial patterns of Kira, Worf, Dax and Chief O'Brian without their thought patterns which DS9's Core was used for. So apparently computer memory is advanced but not desktop size, other wise the MSD's would not show cores 4 Decks tall. Galaxy Carrier 3 computer cores (two in the saucer) and they were six Decks tall.

    John Flight Hazards:

    To put this in a more conventional understanding...the World Trade Center Towers Bases were exposed to vehicle parking. In one of the attempts to destroy the towers a Van full of explosives was used to to attempt structural collapse. This has been corrected with the new building.

    The heart of your ship will have extremely sensitive areas.
    -Computer Core
    -An Entire Deck of EPS network that is literally the heart of the ship circulatory system
    -Turbo Lift Shafts & Stairways
    -Jefferies Tubes
    -Cargo Bays

    SIZE REALITY

    Your shuttlebay is the size (or larger of the Reliant Astrodome (195 meters Diameter)
    The Super Dome in Louisiana 207 meters
    The Millennium Dome in London 355 meters

    Yours is around that of the Millennium Dome with only a capacity of 30 cars..(that's not right)
    If you're going for something that big you should be able to hold air craft carrier numbers. The WWII Carriers held 90 fighters of larger designs in a space half that size.
    It's worth it to study these things to help your art/design develop more logically.

    Consider that each one of those shuttles represents 40 to 50 torpedoes worth of antimatter and matter all sitting underneath your command center...
    -Remember too that the more enclosed the explosion the damage to the rest of your structure is exponentially catastrophic. That's why I keeping them close to the outer hull is crucial to allow the blast to escape easily. These are just the realistic considerations.

    Drama is one thing but I wouldn't suggest doing what Abrams ...making things ridiculously big isn't how you impress. Think along the lines of Andy Probert's TMP designs...be economical. Those are always might tips for good designing.
  • jrhotteljrhottel9 Posts: 0Member
    Soveriegn_Hanger_2.jpg

    Ok, we're disagreeing on this one. You're measurements are pretty close at about 200 meters on the long axis if you include both the flight deck and the maintenance bay. The maintenance bay is about 100 meters at the widest point but we have the center structures. I'm not sure there is any comparison to be free standing sport domes. The superdome is twice as wide. I'm only looking at 130 meters from forward to aft bulkheads of the maintenance bay and again I have center supports.

    With regard to kinetic dangers of flight operations. Obviously nothing vital goes in the forward bulk head of the flight deck. Beyond that, there is only so much you can do.

    Wouldn't an antimatter explosion anywhere inside the hull be catastrophic?

    The new image shows the proposed location of the computer core, the sphere 60' in diameter.

    As for total space given over to flight operations it probably not as dramatic as it looks. My real concern is traffic patterns for people moving about the ship.

    I think what looks like wasted space will be very quickly filled but I'll look at aircraft carriers for inspiration.

    I really hope there is no comparison to Abrams. Honestly, I have always felt the Star Trek ships were too spacious inside. There is a balance and I'll find what makes sense.

    As always, I value you input.
    100835.jpg
    JES
  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    jrhottel wrote: »
    Soveriegn_Hanger_2.jpg

    Ok, we're disagreeing on this one.

    Understood. It's your baby.
    With regard to kinetic dangers of flight operations. Obviously nothing vital goes in the forward bulk head of the flight deck. Beyond that, there is only so much you can do.

    Wouldn't an antimatter explosion anywhere inside the hull be catastrophic?

    Not necessarily that depends on where that explosion occurs.
    Ships get torpedoed in Trek ALL the Time and we saw the Enterprise A take a torpedo through a thin location in the saucer. The majority of that weapon detonated in side the ship. The question is why did the blast BURST OUT instead of through the surrounding area. The answer is because of reinforced bulkheads. That's what the inside of any ship is made of, to reduce explosive damage to surrounding sections. But that only works if the explosion has somewhere else to go.


    Hold a firecracker in your hand and get burned.
    Hold a firecracker in your fist and loose a hand.

    Look at Battlestar Galactica they purpose put flight operations of that magnitude outboard of the main hull. Stargate did the same thing with the Daedalus class (because the power of naquada bombs creates a risk of dangerous potential.)


    The new image shows the proposed location of the computer core, the sphere 60' in diameter.

    I think what looks like wasted space will be very quickly filled but I'll look at aircraft carriers for inspiration.

    I really hope there is no comparison to Abrams. Honestly, I have always felt the Star Trek ships were too spacious inside. There is a balance and I'll find what makes sense.

    As always, I value you input.

    You may be right about your space and the way it looks it's hard to tell.
    Abrams basically just wanted a dramatic look and thought bigger and busier was better. That's why he had them scale up the Enterprise to 700 meters in one scene. He wanted more impressive but in the Motion picture they did ALOT with a much smaller space in the Refit Enterprise's cargo area. It's about what you do with the space not how much you use.

    You know, Andy Probert is on Youtube. Go to one of his video's and ask him what he would do.
    I've talked with him. If he's not busy it could be a great opportunity to pick the brain of someone that has a load of illustrative experience. I'm just a CAD Designer, I follow rules guidelines by American and International conventions. I'm not as creative and intuitive as you or he is. At some point..yes form is more important in this field that function.

    How long are your shuttles?
  • mattcmattc180 Perth, AuPosts: 321Member
    Funnily enough, based on the kit scales, the JJPrise has been scaled down to 294 meters again.
  • jrhotteljrhottel9 Posts: 0Member
    Type 9s 10m
    Type 11s 16m
    Argo 21m
    Delta flyer 21m
    Danube Runabout 23m

    I'd do a Huron runabout but have not found any reference images. I changed the Danube configuration slightly. The cargo modules now extend all the way aft. The idea is be able to slide a module is instead of lifting the runabout and to setting it on the module.

    Anyway, this has been something of a diversion. I just needed to work some interior details out before finalizing hull, which is my priority. I have 23 decks 3 are at least largely double height. My saucer has grown a little taller stills. I may do a rough MSD soon. I've been playing with Adobe Illustrator.
  • VALKYRIE013VALKYRIE013439 Posts: 1,434Member
    Im liking this! I always put a shuttle bay in my ships (Just love those things) and see how much room there is in the darn thing!

    consider.. the size of the galaxy class main bay, some add on pieces for the amt/ertl kit has the entire deck as teh bay, with a large center section and the shuttles parking around it ( like an airport)

    and for the computer core.. the shuttle bay would only take up 2 decks.. the E-E has 29 decks ( or 24 etc, etc...) so plenty of room left in teh saucer section.. even could be 2 smaller (ie vertical height) cores working in tandem.. .. but the whole thing is mute sinice if it was a real ship.. 75 % would be fuel, and the rest a hollow shell.. so.. a bit of artistic liberty is called for :)
  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    Don't get me started on fuel....
  • SchimpfySchimpfy171 Posts: 0Member
    Saquist wrote: »
    Don't get me started on fuel....

    So, what're you saying...that ships in Trek carry too much or too little fuel? I'm soooo confused. ;)
  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    meh...

    Jrhottel,
    -have you designated a dedicated entrance and egress?
    -How many of each shuttle class are there?
    -If that interior is 300 meters what are the dimension of this ship?
    -any Valykries or Peregrine Fighters
  • jrhotteljrhottel9 Posts: 0Member
    Entrance and egress? The main hanger doors are the same width as original sovereign but probably three times taller. There is a rough traffic pattern through the maintenance bay, in on the right hand side, round and out on the left. The flight-deck can easily handle three abreast with plenty of additional room for pushing them around. If your asking about personnel access I had not into that yet.

    Shuttle numbers, as determined by author:

    - Type-9 Shuttlecraft -- x2
    - Type-11 Shuttlecraft -- x4
    - Argo-type Runabout -- x1 and its associates (buggy x1, auxiliary buggies x3, emergency buggy x1). I guess Placed 2.
    - Delta Flyer-type Runabout -- x2
    - Danube-type Runabout -- x2
    - Huron-type Runabout -- x2
    - Captain's Yacht -- x1
    - Several Peregrine-class fighters. (Which are quite large) most are intended to be in aft hanger. I'd actually like to design a whole new smaller fighter). I have my misgivings about fighters in Star Trek.

    I'm not sure where you got 300 meter, try 685m 2248' in length, 237m 778' in width, and a rather tall 84m 275' in height.
  • colbmistacolbmista2 Posts: 0Member
    They need a fed version of the scorp fighter
  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    jrhottel wrote: »
    Entrance and egress? The main hanger doors are the same width as original sovereign but probably three times taller. There is a rough traffic pattern through the maintenance bay, in on the right hand side, round and out on the left. The flight-deck can easily handle three abreast with plenty of additional room for pushing them around. If your asking about personnel access I had not into that yet.

    Shuttle numbers, as determined by author:

    - Type-9 Shuttlecraft -- x2
    - Type-11 Shuttlecraft -- x4
    - Argo-type Runabout -- x1 and its associates (buggy x1, auxiliary buggies x3, emergency buggy x1). I guess Placed 2.
    - Delta Flyer-type Runabout -- x2
    - Danube-type Runabout -- x2
    - Huron-type Runabout -- x2
    - Captain's Yacht -- x1
    - Several Peregrine-class fighters. (Which are quite large) most are intended to be in aft hanger. I'd actually like to design a whole new smaller fighter). I have my misgivings about fighters in Star Trek.

    I'm not sure where you got 300 meter, try 685m 2248' in length, 237m 778' in width, and a rather tall 84m 275' in height.

    I remember something about double tall decks but the number of decks stay at 24.
    I was betting on not using the Pergrines since they would reduce the number you could hold with that ungainly shape.

    But here are my two concepts mostly similar. One with a center runway one with a center island.

    flightdeck2.png


    flightdeck2.png

    My problem with the runway is that there is no center structure. Shelter from potential vacuum is almost 75 meters away at some point. Structurally I would need alot of support columns to support this large area in the middle of the saucer

    The problem with the center structure is that I have a really long corridor on both sides of the ship...but if I didn't like the runway version above no location for turbo lifts, stair, pilot briefing, showers flight equipment

    Both show that the curves of saucer don't make the best use of space for this storage as rectangles for footage sake

    -I did away with the computer core completely because that system requires alot of access points for Fiber optics to branch out to the rest of the ship, power connection and work rooms around the core (aka Core access) and I'm guess but Sovereign likely has two core in that section side by side like Galaxy. There is enough room bellow the flight deck for the cores.

    -I assumed with these version that the cargo opening on the front of the hull was another flight door because a space this large with this many ships need more than one entrance and exit other wise full deployment could take (each launch 30 seconds could take a full 30 mins.) Typical modern carriers using 4 catapults could launch 90 planes in the same time.

    _I also didn't know the shuttle craft number would be so small (fighters have such a limited use in Trek) I consider shuttle more useful for recovery proceedures.
  • colbmistacolbmista2 Posts: 0Member
    this concept from the jj trek would make a good fed fighter imo
    http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/hovercar-combo.jpg?w=655&h=465
  • jrhotteljrhottel9 Posts: 0Member
    You posted the same image twice. Some design considerations:
    -The turbo tubes from the bridge are pretty much a fixed feature of the design.
    -Likewise the computer cores should be in the deepest part of the saucer. I need to give a lot more though to their design.
    -Don't forget the impulse reactors are sitting only a short distance outboard of the shuttle landing area. Actual size to be determined.
    -Longitudinal or transverse turbo tubes need to run on double height decks.
    - I'm not best pleased with personnel traffic pattern and access.
    - Current design has only one deck between the floor of the shuttle deck and roof of the saucer separation cutout.
    - I don't envision having anywhere near that many fighters and that handful are going in the aft bay.
    - I had not really considered a pass-through design. The aforementioned turbo-tubes and computer cores aside the door design seems problematic.
    - I'm not sure timed launches are the order of the day with this ship but in the case of an emergency airlift, ships might have something of a traffic pattern with launches and recoveries happening simultaneously.
    I look forward to seeing the other design layout. Perhaps, you should design star trek carrier.
  • jrhotteljrhottel9 Posts: 0Member
    For a fighter, I'm thinking of a radical cockpit design, with largely virtual layout, seat and harness in full motion gimbals, variable geometry force-field flight surfaces for atmosphere, a warp pod that might be detachable, a photon torpedo or two formation fly in position. Just thinking. The writer of Excelsior may be attached to the Peregrine's.
  • spacefighterspacefighter1 Posts: 0Member
    looking forward to seeing your fighters, perhaps save space and toughen up your system by distributing the computer systems throughout the hull rather than having a central core. this would mean that whatever part of the shipo was damaged a large proportion of the computers would still work AND it would make cooling them much easier as they would have a greater surface area to volume ratio.
  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    I actually had 3 designs. The third is a CAD 3D. I plan on creating a solid model and subtracting the the subsystems you mentioned. I'd like you to see what we could actually do with the space. But from What I can see it's going to be difficult to get that large of of a shuttle bay in there.

    I have the same concerns as you.
    But to get what you want you may have to pull a "Prometheus" and throw all the common sense stuff out the door. Right now you're in a similar position that Rick Sternbach was in when he "designed" that ship.

    I'd like to use the 3D to show a rectangular flight deck 1/2 to a 1/4 size of what you have that allows the Docking latches to dominate the deck beneath with the appropriate turbo lift umbilicals, Power and matter /antimatter umbilicals. The problem will still be that all those conncection need to go through the back of the ship right where the Flight Deck is.

    The good news is that the seperation plane for the Sovereign would be almost half the length of the saucer making it possible to shorten the Flight Deck to remove the vulnerability of these pipes passing through open spaces. This too would allow for the cores to exist in a third section.

    -Working the Docking latches will still be like putting a jig saw puzzle together but isolating these functions into sections should simplify the confusion.

    The way I see it is to leave the Cores (dual side-by-sides) where the MSD shows them as the first of these sections. The Flight Deck being the last and have a midsection between them as a cluster of hardpoints for all your umbilicals. Since the Galaxy has show that Star Fleet prefers "male" connectors on the stardrive I say make all these hardpoints female. That prevents us from having to design servos and motors to move the umbilicals into their attached position saving room for the Flight deck.

    -some exterior hatches would be nice in the umbilical area too.
    -The one deck between the other hull and the Flight deck should be perfect. This could be a reinforced deck and you could add some life pod hatches in this section that have a direct connection to the Flight Deck to evacuate pilots when separated.
    -No shuttle elevators for the bottom deck but I might be able to make use of a few Deck Risers to lift shuttles up to allow for additional shuttle storage bellow them and making the space 2x as useful.
  • SaquistSaquist0 Posts: 0Member
    This is perhaps a good example of the Hanger that John Eaves had in mind. It's by John Eaves for the Ships of the Line Calendar but it's a artist rendition yet I think it's something to go by and expound upon...particularlly Ceiling Docks. This allows for a whole other deck for staging for crew for at least this kind of boarding and we know the Type 11 has boarding through the ceiling too. I don't know about how he's secured them but it's a good start especially with the size hanger you have in mind.

    http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/the-enterprise-e-shuttle-bay-from-the-sotl-calendar/
  • jrhotteljrhottel9 Posts: 0Member
    Hi Saquist, great stuff. My first observation is wow what a design change those images represent. I had already considered the ceiling system and rejected it. I have some familiarity with large aircraft. Basically American cargo planes traditionally use a roller-conveyer cargo floor as opposed to Russian designs that have overhead crane assemblies. Popular opinion is the roller-conveyer system works better. I envision turning on anti gravity and two or three crewmen pushing a shuttle around on the deck by hand. I need not point out the inherent fragility of the overhead system, vulnerability to operations mishaps, ect. My plan is far more space efficient. You had concerns about long open spans, let's hang shuttles from them for good measure! The ceiling detail is all wrong, remember the Pillbox sitting over the doors. I think, I figured a Argo would not fit in a movie model, though the scale of the doors seemed to be inconsistent for cgi scenes to model. Oh and somewhere, I read, the original concept was that you could look out of the control box in to space or turn around and look into the hanger deck. That's what I've run with. Thanks for more great reference material. I should get some additional Images up soon. There will be lots to talk about but I'm pretty busy just now.
  • jrhotteljrhottel9 Posts: 0Member
    It been a little bit. Here's what I've been work on. First, I've been modeling more interior features. I wanted a sense of the ships layout, particularly with regard to saucer separation and shuttle bays. Now I'm working it into a Master Systems Display.

    MSD_Rough_1.jpg

    The next image gets the cart way out in front of the horse. I wanted to experiment with image based lighting. I have been doing allot of high dynamic range photography. The starfield was an attempt at using those processes on telescope data. I have learned allot since then and have much more to try.

    Soveriegn_IBL_Test_1.jpg
    101779.jpg101780.jpg
    JES
Sign In or Register to comment.