This is a render I did to test how the bussards look, and I think I finally got them were I want them. I also got the color map done for the saucer top. I'm probably going to lighten the grid lines a lot. They're correctly colored for graphite, though, which is a nod to them being put on with pencil on the original ship.
I got the color maps done. For the most part, this is all easy stuff to do. Though, some things are more of a pain, like getting the stupid little numbers on the engineering hull close to where they needed to be. But, stuff like that happens when you put stuff onto a tube and you’re working from flat images.
All that’s left to do on this one is the spec maps, which shouldn’t take too long. I can usually knock out some paneling rather quickly. Also, I need to add a material to my window boxes to make it look like the ship has an interior. I’ll probably do a procedural texture for that.
(Seriously, I don't know how you did such a great job so quickly)
I'm on vacation. (staycation) I have to go back to work Sunday night.
I decided not to do any paneling on the ship. It’s not hard to do or anything, I just really like how the ship looks. Besides, I went through so much to try and match the colors of the ship in the Smithsonian, why make it look totally different with some hull panels? So, I’m calling this done (for now.) I decided to render some beauty shots. I did a few renders with a single light, and a pass from each camera with the light turned off to use as illumination passes. I had the ship shots saved to .png files, so I dropped those against a starfield I made in GIMP a couple years ago, comped in my illumination passes, and we have some beauty shots:
For those who are wondering, I took the blueprints and selected the ship only, then took the dimensions of the sheets, converted the pixels to meters, then created a cube with those dimensions. I then scaled the ship up to the canon length of 288.6 meters. That means the generally accepted canon width of 127.1 meters is slightly off, and the height of 72.6 meters is significantly off. And, it’s not a symptom of the blueprints I’m using, I’ve done the same thing with other blueprints, all of which were created by taking measurements of the model, and I always get a height of over 69 meters, but less than 70. So, I don’t know where the 72.6 meters came from. (and I don’t really care)
371,802 polygons
9 texture maps (least amount I’ve done on a model in ages)
All told, I’m pretty happy with how it turned out. Aside from not thinking the panels were going to look right, I also concluded that there’s no reason you can’t paint a ship in solid colors. If you look at real world examples, Navy ships are typically solid gray. I decided to keep the shine levels low, but not quite flat like the paint on the original ship. It’s got a kind of satin finish to it. The only really shiny bits are the glass domes and metallic parts.
Anyway, that’s what I have. I’ll be kitbashing this thing to create more models.
What I always wonder about electronic "Blueprints" is whether somehow the display of pixels gets distorted on screen. It may come down to the monitor. Are they really calibrated down to fractions of an inch in height and width. When I did my NX-01 it was soooooo frustrating because the saucer was NOT round in the ortho projections posted by the modeler himself. The distortion was subtle enough that I couldn't believe he decided to make it a tiny bit oval.
What I always wonder about electronic "Blueprints" is whether somehow the display of pixels gets distorted on screen. It may come down to the monitor. Are they really calibrated down to fractions of an inch in height and width. When I did my NX-01 it was soooooo frustrating because the saucer was NOT round in the ortho projections posted by the modeler himself. The distortion was subtle enough that I couldn't believe he decided to make it a tiny bit oval.
It's funny you mention that, because every time I dropped the blueprints into Lightwave sized to a cube at 72.6 meters tall, I found that the spheres were ovals on the front view. Stuff also didn't match sizes between the side and top and bottom views. This was my first indication that those dimensions were off. Snapping them to a cube at 69.3, everything that should be a sphere is one.
I've come across this in Blender too. That was actually where I first got the "correct" dimensions. You can just drop a blueprint sheet into Blender and increase or decrease the size and rotate it, so it displays properly. Then you can line up a cube to that to get the correct size. That was where I first got the height of between 69 and 70 meters. I got consistent numbers (within a few centimeters difference) using blueprints by both Alan Sinclair and Charles Casimiro. I may have done it with Shaw's 33-inch plans too. Since I got consistent numbers using more than one program, I think it's fairly accurate. I also have done this on different computers and monitors.
So, I'm confident that my dimensions are good. Besides, we're talking about a three meters, which doesn't make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things, but it does help get everything lined up and sized properly when you don't have stretched views. Then you just have to deal with the usual problem of stuff not quite lining up between views.
Im curious about your lighting setup ... but looks awesome!
I only have one actual light in the scene, to simulate a system's star. The ship has a number of luminous materials that also cast light, but that's it. I rendered against a solid black background.
What I always wonder about electronic "Blueprints" is whether somehow the display of pixels gets distorted on screen. It may come down to the monitor. Are they really calibrated down to fractions of an inch in height and width. When I did my NX-01 it was soooooo frustrating because the saucer was NOT round in the ortho projections posted by the modeler himself. The distortion was subtle enough that I couldn't believe he decided to make it a tiny bit oval.
It has nothing to do with monitors unless your sporting a CRT or forcing a non native rez. Everything should be square pixels. If anything it is the scanned blues, the render (not pure ortho, some software does not have a true ortho output.) But it could very well be done on purpose.
Also I would chalk up a lot of display issues in software to the software. Especially in the 3d modeling software. You will usually always have to fiddle with things to get those "images" to a square pixel. So at some point you'll have to do the pixel to height/width of the image. I have more issues with getting the detail out of the images as max always scales them for performance.
I have to agree with EG about the width height thing mine is pretty close to those same stats (within a few feet) if scaled down to 288.6m, mine I made 292m to get those dual decks and a few other goofy things to sorta work out. BUT given this was designed in the mid 60s on paper then changed in scale repeatedly and altered on the fly by people not the designer it holds up a lot better than many modern designs or plans.
So, I don’t know where the 72.6 meters came from. (and I don’t really care)
Actually, that was a fib. I know exactly where those numbers come from.
The above image was done by Matt Jefferies in 1967 for AMT, so that they could produce model kits of the ship. People who have the Star Fleet Technical Manual by Franz Joseph from 1975 should also recognize it, as it's the same image he used for the ship (and the kitbashes) for that book. 947 feet is 288.6456 meters, so you round that down. 417 feet is 127.1016 meters, also rounded down. You use the scale thing on the sheet to establish the height of the ship. Easy peasy.
These numbers just seem to be copied and pasted everywhere. You'll notice that the image as drawn by Jefferies isn't accurate to the models built for the TV series. This is how the numbers got slightly off. So, using those dimensions on a set of blueprints created by making measurements of the actual physical models will yield different results. Even this final sheet attached to Alan Sinclair's blueprints has those numbers on it, even though he did the work to (mostly) accurately reproduce the 11' model:
Someone has 238 feet as the height, which converts to 72.5424 meters, you round that up to 72.6. I say "someone" because I don't believe Alan did that sheet. That's sheet 11 of his blueprints on Cygnux-X1, but he only has sheets 1-9 on his website. It looks like someone did that sheet based on his blueprints, so it got attached to his stuff. Whoever did it just stuck the "official" numbers on it, instead of doing the minor bit of work required to verify their accuracy. Memory Alpha, which is only supposed to be based on only canon information has those numbers.
So, yes, those numbers are off because they're based on what Jefferies drew, not what was actually seen on the TV show.
I'm working on converting my Klingon D7 to Lightwave 2018.
Basically, this just involves redoing the materials to Principle BSDF materials. All I've done in the above screenshot is the main hull. You can tell a difference in the materials by comparing that to the neck and head, which are still using the old materials.
It's just irritating to me that, rather than do 5 minutes of work, people seem content to just copy and paste numbers. I like accuracy in my numbers. While the sheet I showed was done by Matt Jefferies, it can hardly be considered canon information. But, it's not Matt's fault that those numbers are unquestionably accepted. It's not Franz Joseph's fault either. He was working from what he had available in the mid 1970s. As that was a licensed book, he was probably provided that image to work from. It's also what his blueprints are based off of. After all, it's not like he had access to the model. Star Trek was on in reruns, that would have been his closest resource to the original model.
So, yeah, lazy people not using available materials to correctly size the model irritate me and I don't like to acknowledge them.
True. It's all about what you want to make. You can make a quite nice looking model based on that schematic sheet by Matt Jefferies, or the blueprints by Franz Joseph. I fact, I've considered doing a model based on those blueprints, but I haven't found a decent set on Ebay for sale (I haven't looked in a while) and Cygnus-X1 doesn't have all of the sheets scanned due to copyright issues.
HOWEVER, when a set of schematics based on the 11-foot model is made, then that is a drawn representation of that model. When you just slap numbers on it based on another set of drawings, those numbers are incorrect. It's a simple matter to find the correct numbers, people just don't want to do the work. There's really no excuse for it in the digital age, as the
computer does the work for you.
Posts
This is a render I did to test how the bussards look, and I think I finally got them were I want them. I also got the color map done for the saucer top. I'm probably going to lighten the grid lines a lot. They're correctly colored for graphite, though, which is a nod to them being put on with pencil on the original ship.
I'm excited. great
All that’s left to do on this one is the spec maps, which shouldn’t take too long. I can usually knock out some paneling rather quickly. Also, I need to add a material to my window boxes to make it look like the ship has an interior. I’ll probably do a procedural texture for that.
Thanks a lot, that means a lot to me.
I'm on vacation. (staycation) I have to go back to work Sunday night.
I decided not to do any paneling on the ship. It’s not hard to do or anything, I just really like how the ship looks. Besides, I went through so much to try and match the colors of the ship in the Smithsonian, why make it look totally different with some hull panels? So, I’m calling this done (for now.) I decided to render some beauty shots. I did a few renders with a single light, and a pass from each camera with the light turned off to use as illumination passes. I had the ship shots saved to .png files, so I dropped those against a starfield I made in GIMP a couple years ago, comped in my illumination passes, and we have some beauty shots:
For those who like specs:
Length: 288.6 meters
Width: 127.8 meters
Height: 69.3 meters
For those who are wondering, I took the blueprints and selected the ship only, then took the dimensions of the sheets, converted the pixels to meters, then created a cube with those dimensions. I then scaled the ship up to the canon length of 288.6 meters. That means the generally accepted canon width of 127.1 meters is slightly off, and the height of 72.6 meters is significantly off. And, it’s not a symptom of the blueprints I’m using, I’ve done the same thing with other blueprints, all of which were created by taking measurements of the model, and I always get a height of over 69 meters, but less than 70. So, I don’t know where the 72.6 meters came from. (and I don’t really care)
371,802 polygons
9 texture maps (least amount I’ve done on a model in ages)
All told, I’m pretty happy with how it turned out. Aside from not thinking the panels were going to look right, I also concluded that there’s no reason you can’t paint a ship in solid colors. If you look at real world examples, Navy ships are typically solid gray. I decided to keep the shine levels low, but not quite flat like the paint on the original ship. It’s got a kind of satin finish to it. The only really shiny bits are the glass domes and metallic parts.
Anyway, that’s what I have. I’ll be kitbashing this thing to create more models.
It's funny you mention that, because every time I dropped the blueprints into Lightwave sized to a cube at 72.6 meters tall, I found that the spheres were ovals on the front view. Stuff also didn't match sizes between the side and top and bottom views. This was my first indication that those dimensions were off. Snapping them to a cube at 69.3, everything that should be a sphere is one.
I've come across this in Blender too. That was actually where I first got the "correct" dimensions. You can just drop a blueprint sheet into Blender and increase or decrease the size and rotate it, so it displays properly. Then you can line up a cube to that to get the correct size. That was where I first got the height of between 69 and 70 meters. I got consistent numbers (within a few centimeters difference) using blueprints by both Alan Sinclair and Charles Casimiro. I may have done it with Shaw's 33-inch plans too. Since I got consistent numbers using more than one program, I think it's fairly accurate. I also have done this on different computers and monitors.
So, I'm confident that my dimensions are good. Besides, we're talking about a three meters, which doesn't make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things, but it does help get everything lined up and sized properly when you don't have stretched views. Then you just have to deal with the usual problem of stuff not quite lining up between views.
I only have one actual light in the scene, to simulate a system's star. The ship has a number of luminous materials that also cast light, but that's it. I rendered against a solid black background.
It has nothing to do with monitors unless your sporting a CRT or forcing a non native rez. Everything should be square pixels. If anything it is the scanned blues, the render (not pure ortho, some software does not have a true ortho output.) But it could very well be done on purpose.
Also I would chalk up a lot of display issues in software to the software. Especially in the 3d modeling software. You will usually always have to fiddle with things to get those "images" to a square pixel. So at some point you'll have to do the pixel to height/width of the image. I have more issues with getting the detail out of the images as max always scales them for performance.
I have to agree with EG about the width height thing mine is pretty close to those same stats (within a few feet) if scaled down to 288.6m, mine I made 292m to get those dual decks and a few other goofy things to sorta work out. BUT given this was designed in the mid 60s on paper then changed in scale repeatedly and altered on the fly by people not the designer it holds up a lot better than many modern designs or plans.
Actually, that was a fib. I know exactly where those numbers come from.
The above image was done by Matt Jefferies in 1967 for AMT, so that they could produce model kits of the ship. People who have the Star Fleet Technical Manual by Franz Joseph from 1975 should also recognize it, as it's the same image he used for the ship (and the kitbashes) for that book. 947 feet is 288.6456 meters, so you round that down. 417 feet is 127.1016 meters, also rounded down. You use the scale thing on the sheet to establish the height of the ship. Easy peasy.
These numbers just seem to be copied and pasted everywhere. You'll notice that the image as drawn by Jefferies isn't accurate to the models built for the TV series. This is how the numbers got slightly off. So, using those dimensions on a set of blueprints created by making measurements of the actual physical models will yield different results. Even this final sheet attached to Alan Sinclair's blueprints has those numbers on it, even though he did the work to (mostly) accurately reproduce the 11' model:
https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/sinclair/sinclair-enterprise-sheet-11.jpg
Someone has 238 feet as the height, which converts to 72.5424 meters, you round that up to 72.6. I say "someone" because I don't believe Alan did that sheet. That's sheet 11 of his blueprints on Cygnux-X1, but he only has sheets 1-9 on his website. It looks like someone did that sheet based on his blueprints, so it got attached to his stuff. Whoever did it just stuck the "official" numbers on it, instead of doing the minor bit of work required to verify their accuracy. Memory Alpha, which is only supposed to be based on only canon information has those numbers.
So, yes, those numbers are off because they're based on what Jefferies drew, not what was actually seen on the TV show.
Basically, this just involves redoing the materials to Principle BSDF materials. All I've done in the above screenshot is the main hull. You can tell a difference in the materials by comparing that to the neck and head, which are still using the old materials.
It's just irritating to me that, rather than do 5 minutes of work, people seem content to just copy and paste numbers. I like accuracy in my numbers. While the sheet I showed was done by Matt Jefferies, it can hardly be considered canon information. But, it's not Matt's fault that those numbers are unquestionably accepted. It's not Franz Joseph's fault either. He was working from what he had available in the mid 1970s. As that was a licensed book, he was probably provided that image to work from. It's also what his blueprints are based off of. After all, it's not like he had access to the model. Star Trek was on in reruns, that would have been his closest resource to the original model.
So, yeah, lazy people not using available materials to correctly size the model irritate me and I don't like to acknowledge them.
HOWEVER, when a set of schematics based on the 11-foot model is made, then that is a drawn representation of that model. When you just slap numbers on it based on another set of drawings, those numbers are incorrect. It's a simple matter to find the correct numbers, people just don't want to do the work. There's really no excuse for it in the digital age, as the
computer does the work for you.