Looking great. The Bird of Prey is probably one of those ships that's hard to get a set of fully accurate schematics for, given the moving wings and whatnot.
Schematics -
Pictures -
All the organic shapes -
All the greebles and greebles and greebles - fun but
Plating on organic shapes -
Worth doing? (If you enjoy swearing)
Schematics -
Pictures -
All the organic shapes -
All the greebles and greebles and greebles - fun but
Plating on organic shapes -
Worth doing? (If you enjoy swearing)
I've started doing comparison renders. It helps me a great deal with accuracy. Eventually I will render them the same size and overlay one above the other. Then I fade upper layer in and out to spot differences. The difference in direction of the disruptors has to do with my camera not being back far enough. Right off the bat it looks like I toned down the lower part of the main hull too much. Also the disruptors are not wide enough. I see lots of other problems.
@Coward - Man. A big thanks. I had not seen those images before (and have them all now). Something I noticed (I hope I am seeing it right) is that the final extension of the bottom of the main hull isn't a round dome in those images.
One of the frustrating things is going to be trying to interpret size differences due to perspective. Unlike the computer or blueprints, a camera can't do orthographic imaging.
As far as I can tell, the model appears to be the same model as the images I have of it on blue screen. I'm especially sure of that as I look at the bridge and neck. So the bottom round dome versus the "suitcase-shaped" structure I see in those images is a head scratcher.
One pleasing thing is that I think I came closer to some of the internal greeble detail on the wingtip guns, from what I can see in those studio pictures.
That "suitcase-shaped" structure is definitely interesting. I did a bit of research and from what I could see it was an extra bit of detail added for Star Trek IV that was possibly never used in any shots afterwards.
Schematics -
Pictures -
All the organic shapes -
All the greebles and greebles and greebles - fun but
Plating on organic shapes -
Worth doing? (If you enjoy swearing)
A good rule of thumb is, If you're swearing over it, and yet you still want to do it, it's worth doing. (Except Dark Souls, that's just an ulcer maker)
BTW, which version of the BoP are you using?
If it's the ST:III & IV version, which is the one most of us probably think of, those wingtip disruptors you currently have are 100% fine.
But if you're using the one from ST:V, it's wingtip cannons have a much more detailed configuration with more components. There is a scene where when they fire, it has a close-up of the cannons and they're completely different.
One of the frustrating things is going to be trying to interpret size differences due to perspective. Unlike the computer or blueprints, a camera can't do orthographic imaging
Try using something like fspy. If you can guess the focal length of the studio model, it can use hand-drawn straight edges on a photo to align blender's camera to the photo you're referencing exactly. In theory you could do a perfect overlay of your BOP model against the studio photos, seems to have enough straight edges to pull it off.
I've never tried it on something like a model (only architecture), but it beats beating your head against perspective photos, i suppose.
There wasn't a 2nd BOP model, there's this note on Memory Alpha: For Star Trek V, a separate, enlarged model of one of the Klingon ship's wings (including one of the craft's wing-mounted disruptor cannons) was built, so that the wing could be shown in close-up. This miniature measured 36" × 40" and was rigged so that, when the disruptor cannon fired, the weapon's firing mechanism would move. This was shown in the first scene that features the Bird-of-Prey, wherein the craft destroys the Pioneer 10 probe, and in the film's climactic moments, when the Klingon vessel annihilates the God of Sha Ka Ree.
Yup, that's the one.
The outer piece, what looks like a dual barreled turret, is exactly the same, but the main disruptor has a lot more piping on it in the ST:V version (the image above). The original BoP, which I believe is what you're working on, has only a single pipe 'droop' under the main barrel, paralleling it, until you get to the rectangular 'muzzle' bit.
Thanks @Barricade
Yeah, everything forward of the cowling is different. I have mixed feelings about whether I like it better or at all. They also added a lot of greebling to the front edge of the piece that connects it to the BOP wings.
In the render below, besides backlighting it, there is a LOT of work on the neck. You had made a comment that the neck always appears shorter in 3D models vs the real thing. I wonder if it is an optical illusion. I realized that the neck isn't a single square girder from the bridge to main hull. It is a series of progressively smaller girders as you go from top to bottom. I changed mine to be the same. To my eye it seems to make the neck seem longer.
In some of the pictures I have, you can see the hinges. Chris Kuhn modeled them in his model. They aren't much, (Just 2 per side and not like a piano hinge or anything) if I am understanding them correctly.
Interesting. Am I correct that there was only one BOP ever made? It got a lot of use across the different series and movies?
I think you're correct, but if the model with the suit-case structure is another model they did a good job matching the smaller details between the two.
According to Memory Alpha, there was one practical "hero" Bird-of-Prey built. Of course, they used smaller scale models and whatnot (even Christmas ornaments) for stuff like explosions. And, of course, a CGI model was built for the later seasons of DS9.
And, of course, a CGI model was built for the later seasons of DS9.
I wonder how close that mesh was to the original model. We probably never saw it close enough to really know.
I just know they could finally move the wings again. The motors in the studio model weren't doing that well by the time they did TNG, that's why the wings hardly ever moved.
Such a shame. I wonder who owns the model now? Probably Jeff Bezos again.
Tackled the "warp field controllers" on the top back of the wings. I am thoroughly experiencing why you (and I) were hesitant to do this model. It's soooo hard
Yeah, this is hands down one of the best Star Trek designs and the studio model is fantastic. However, the level of detail is insane and the references vary, so it's not easy at all. I think a Borg cube would be easier.
I keep having the experience of THINKING I have something right, and then I’ll see the same object at a different angle on a different picture I didn’t notice before and realize I DON’T have it right.
Posts
Pictures -
All the organic shapes -
All the greebles and greebles and greebles - fun but
Plating on organic shapes -
Worth doing?
SIGH
That sounds like an accurate analysis.
That "suitcase-shaped" structure is definitely interesting. I did a bit of research and from what I could see it was an extra bit of detail added for Star Trek IV that was possibly never used in any shots afterwards.
A good rule of thumb is, If you're swearing over it, and yet you still want to do it, it's worth doing. (Except Dark Souls, that's just an ulcer maker)
BTW, which version of the BoP are you using?
If it's the ST:III & IV version, which is the one most of us probably think of, those wingtip disruptors you currently have are 100% fine.
But if you're using the one from ST:V, it's wingtip cannons have a much more detailed configuration with more components. There is a scene where when they fire, it has a close-up of the cannons and they're completely different.
Edit. I think we posted simultaneously and I didn't see yours @Barricade
I'll try to find the alternate wingtip disruptor.
Try using something like fspy. If you can guess the focal length of the studio model, it can use hand-drawn straight edges on a photo to align blender's camera to the photo you're referencing exactly. In theory you could do a perfect overlay of your BOP model against the studio photos, seems to have enough straight edges to pull it off.
I've never tried it on something like a model (only architecture), but it beats beating your head against perspective photos, i suppose.
There wasn't a 2nd BOP model, there's this note on Memory Alpha:
For Star Trek V, a separate, enlarged model of one of the Klingon ship's wings (including one of the craft's wing-mounted disruptor cannons) was built, so that the wing could be shown in close-up. This miniature measured 36" × 40" and was rigged so that, when the disruptor cannon fired, the weapon's firing mechanism would move. This was shown in the first scene that features the Bird-of-Prey, wherein the craft destroys the Pioneer 10 probe, and in the film's climactic moments, when the Klingon vessel annihilates the God of Sha Ka Ree.
Current Projects:
Ambassador Class
The outer piece, what looks like a dual barreled turret, is exactly the same, but the main disruptor has a lot more piping on it in the ST:V version (the image above). The original BoP, which I believe is what you're working on, has only a single pipe 'droop' under the main barrel, paralleling it, until you get to the rectangular 'muzzle' bit.
Yeah, everything forward of the cowling is different. I have mixed feelings about whether I like it better or at all. They also added a lot of greebling to the front edge of the piece that connects it to the BOP wings.
In the render below, besides backlighting it, there is a LOT of work on the neck. You had made a comment that the neck always appears shorter in 3D models vs the real thing. I wonder if it is an optical illusion. I realized that the neck isn't a single square girder from the bridge to main hull. It is a series of progressively smaller girders as you go from top to bottom. I changed mine to be the same. To my eye it seems to make the neck seem longer.
Current Projects:
Ambassador Class
I think you're correct, but if the model with the suit-case structure is another model they did a good job matching the smaller details between the two.
I just know they could finally move the wings again.
Tackled the "warp field controllers" on the top back of the wings. I am thoroughly experiencing why you (and I) were hesitant to do this model. It's soooo hard
Yeah, this is hands down one of the best Star Trek designs and the studio model is fantastic. However, the level of detail is insane and the references vary, so it's not easy at all. I think a Borg cube would be easier.
Chris, are you telling me that's what I have to look forward to when I do the Constellation?
Thanks, that's nice of you.