›

Greetings!

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

Sign In Register

Quick Links

3DU.S.S. Constellation NCC-1017

uniderthuniderth1 Posts: 0Member
edited May 2014 in Work in Progress #1
I was unimpressed(but not surprised) with the reuse of the Enterprise model in the remastered Star Trek. I think that the Constellation should have been based off of the 1966 AMT model so that it would look the same as in the original footage. Sooooo. I'm making my own remastered version of the Constellation.
105759.png
Post edited by uniderth on
Tagged:

Posts

  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804607 Posts: 11,186Member
    #2
    Why would they base it off of a woefully inaccurate model? The Constellation was really supposed to be identical to the Enterprise. The only reason the AMT kit was used originally was because they needed an inexpensive model that they could damage.

    Having said that, your model is looking good so far.
  • uniderthuniderth1 Posts: 0Member
    #3
    The way I make it work in universe is that the Constellation had different modules installed. Like the difference between the pilot bridge module and the series bridge. So with the Constellation we are seeing a fourth Bridge exterior variant.
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804607 Posts: 11,186Member
    #4
    Actually, it does add a realism factor that's often not seen in Star Trek. Realistically, ships of the same class aren't exactly the same. Navy ships of the same class are often different dimensions and have different parts. Heck, with designs like the Excelsior and Miranda classes that spanned many decades, we should have seen more than a few variations. However, budget constraints made them just grab the same models out of boxes ever time. (except when they switched to CGI, then they just copied and pasted ;))
  • uniderthuniderth1 Posts: 0Member
    #5
    Updates:

    23u6ams.jpg

    1zfsrgm.jpg
  • McCMcC373 Posts: 704Member
    #6
    I haven't done the in-depth study of the variations between the filming models and the various kits to know what differs, but the modeling looks top notch so far! :thumb:
    WIP: [ SDF-1 Macross ] Done: [ Coronado | Ambassador (original) | T'Varo ]

    Books: [ Ashes of Alour-Tan | Embers of Alour-Tan ] | Blender Tutorials | Blog
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804607 Posts: 11,186Member
    #7
    It's looking good so far. I forgot to ask before, what are you using for references? Do you have one of these models and/or the assembly instructions?
  • scifiericscifieric1123 Posts: 1,498Member
    #8
    Even the AMT models changed over the years. I know I have seen a list of the changes somewhere ... it might have been Shaw or Tallguy. They keep excellent records of such things.
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804607 Posts: 11,186Member
    #9
    That's what I was thinking too, which is why I wonder if he's using one of the original models or building instructions for reference, or just winging it.
  • uniderthuniderth1 Posts: 0Member
    #10
    I looked online for photos of the original version (1966) of the model. I found some youtube videos that details the parts on the 1966 kit. From that I was able to learn what elements the original kit had. So when looking for reference photos I could tell if it was an actual '66 model or not. One of the main differences is that the '66 model has greenish transparent domes one the bridge and lower sensor domes. Also the nacelle caps have those three boxes attached to the dome portion.

    My biggest issue right now is finding the original nacelle positioning. I have the height but I don't have any references for the side to side positioning. I can't use the screen cap because the damaged Constellation's nacelles are askew.
  • uniderthuniderth1 Posts: 0Member
    #11
    I didn't have my hard drive with the Valiant on it with me today so I did a little work on this bad boy.

    constellation5_zps30922dc6.png

    constellation6_zps05a0dcb0.png
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804607 Posts: 11,186Member
    #12
    It's always nice to see more work on this. :)
  • uniderthuniderth1 Posts: 0Member
    #13
    Not much modeling, but I've been working on some textures and render settings.

    constellation7_zps54e5f5b4.png

    constellation8_zps0e6b6c1e.png
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804607 Posts: 11,186Member
    #14
    That's always important stuff. Man, that raised grid takes me back. I remember building a re-issue kit back in the '90s and not realizing at the time that that was wrong. ;) As a reconstruction of said incorrect kit, I think you're nailing it. The weathering streaks look good too.
  • uniderthuniderth1 Posts: 0Member
    #15
    It took me a couple hours to get the basic hull paneling drawn. It's still need's a lot of work so it isn't as repetitive. But I just couldn't wait to post pictures. I'm still adjusting the weathering.

    constellation11_zps4a439d4b.png

    constellation10_zps476959e0.png

    constellation9_zpsbecbd779.png
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804607 Posts: 11,186Member
    #16
    It's looking good. :)
  • BolianAdmiralBolianAdmiral1188 Torrance, CaliforniaPosts: 2,629Member
    #17
    Very nice work on this! Are you using Blender?
  • uniderthuniderth1 Posts: 0Member
    #18
    Yes. I'm using Blender with the Cycles render engine.
  • publiusrpubliusr555 Posts: 1,753Member
    #19
    Now, according to Shaw--who was working on AMT blueprints--the B/C deck is a bit more rounded up front. The vertical face was to be found on later versions...

    http://www.therpf.com/f10/amt-enterprise-filming-model-104884/
    http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/models/AMT_1966_project/1966_test_assembly_003.jpg
    http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=388623&page=15
  • uniderthuniderth1 Posts: 0Member
    #20
    Yeah, that's one of the changes I need to make. I had some incorrect references when I modeled that bit.
  • publiusrpubliusr555 Posts: 1,753Member
    #21
    That's fine, do both AMT versions.
Sign In or Register to comment.