Author Topic: FarShot's WIPs - The fire in which we burn... (Read 92330 times)

Toa_Kaita · « **Reply #420 on:** December 30, 2012, 12:58:41 AM »

Neck looks fine to me too. Nice design

FarShot · « **Reply #421 on:** December 30, 2012, 01:05:42 AM »

Did a test mapping to see if the color palette of Wiley's Galaxy class would work on her. What do you guys think? (No smart comments on the windows and such.

)

CyAn1d3 · « **Reply #422 on:** December 30, 2012, 01:08:53 AM »

Quote from: FarShot on December 30, 2012, 01:05:42 AM

(No smart comments on the windows and such. )

fine, ill shoot for dumb ones.

y r da windurrs sew big on that thur outur rim thingy??

and yes. the color palette fits actually.

Vortex · « **Reply #423 on:** December 30, 2012, 05:31:42 AM »

Yup, that works. I kinda like the big windows. Would be a very nice view.

Phoenix Bondi · « **Reply #424 on:** December 30, 2012, 06:43:15 AM »

actually i like it with big windows, makes it look a small sleek ship, colour palat works wonderfully too

captain_obvious · « **Reply #425 on:** December 30, 2012, 07:23:29 AM »

I'm not too fond of the big windows tbh. Makes her look like a passenger ship or a private party boat! (maybe you should name a variant "USS Partaaaaay boat" for a laugh

)

Those textures look pretty decent already mind you. Although they do need some adjustments (anyone else see the uber-escape pods near bridge?)

Vortex · « **Reply #426 on:** December 30, 2012, 09:08:34 AM »

Quote from: FarShot on December 29, 2012, 07:49:33 PM

Every Constitution-ish ship I've made, everyone tells me the neck is too thin. On each, the neck has definitely been thicker than either that of the TOS or the TMP Connies.

Probably just me, then. I always felt that the Connie's neck was too thin to warrant any usable decks.

Don't forget the impulse engines, else she won't be going anywhere very fast. :p

King Class Scout · « **Reply #427 on:** December 30, 2012, 12:15:13 PM »

I thought those pylons would look better from different angles, that's why I asked.

and it DOES look like all you'd have to do is some minor tweaks to the test-fit textures. looks great already.

andyp · « **Reply #428 on:** December 30, 2012, 12:56:52 PM »

Quote from: King Class Scout on December 30, 2012, 12:15:13 PM

I thought those pylons would look better from different angles, that's why I asked.

I agree, currently the ship design looks more like a TMP era refit to TNG levels of technology, like constitution MK3. could be the case what farshot is going for. If its more of a lost era, TNG era you are going for then i would say make the pylons more like the excelsior / ambassador / galaxy, as ship designs of that era the warp nacelles go from above the saucer, to same level, to below with the galaxy. Recently watched some documentaries around designing and redesigning the ships between the series.

And i actually think the big windows look pretty cool! with the TNG era the look that starfleet was looking for was less militaristic, and more comforting since they started to bring on families.

King Class Scout · « **Reply #429 on:** December 30, 2012, 03:01:03 PM »

either way, it works. farshot got his idea out in a model. if i thought I could get my old desktop working again, I'd DL in a new york minute (i collect connie variants) *sigh* i miss my starships.

FarShot · « **Reply #430 on:** December 30, 2012, 03:47:18 PM »

2350 puts her right in the middle of the Galaxy class development phase. Ambassador was 2320-ish, so that puts this ship a good twenty-plus years newer. That's why she's much more Galaxy than anything else.

I did my best to have as much different between this and the TMP Connie as was different between the TOS and TMP Connie. In the change between the two, all that really remained the same were the positions of the individual parts - the saucer, secondary hull, and nacelles all had roughly the same X,Y,Z coordinates, with almost every part having different coloring, contouring, and profile. I see too many "refits" of the TMP Connie that just change the paneling, add red bussard collectors to the front of the nacelles, or tack on phaser strips.

andyp · « **Reply #431 on:** December 30, 2012, 04:16:57 PM »

ok well then it looks spot on for what you were going for.

FarShot · « **Reply #432 on:** January 01, 2013, 08:01:56 AM »

And a little something else in the works...

"Little?!?"

flarespire · « **Reply #433 on:** January 01, 2013, 08:44:55 AM »

Sao Paulo or Defiant?

anyways its looking good cant wait to see more!

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #434 on:** January 01, 2013, 11:39:26 AM »

Hard to say which it is so far, but looks like a good start.

FarShot · « **Reply #435 on:** January 01, 2013, 05:50:02 PM »

Given the Sao Paolo is a Defiant with stuff tacked on... both.

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #436 on:** January 01, 2013, 05:59:51 PM »

Not really, the deflector pod and warp engines are completely different.

FarShot · « **Reply #437 on:** January 01, 2013, 06:22:01 PM »

No, the warhead is the same as the Defiant with some glowy indentions, and the nacelle pods are the Defiant's with a stretched bottom, tacked on side grille, and different bussard. Trust me, I'm the guy who gets ripped models to check references.

Darkthunder · « **Reply #438 on:** January 01, 2013, 07:52:54 PM »

Are you guys talking about the canon Sao Paulo (which was identical to the original Defiant), or the Cryptic version called the Sao Paulo Class (Tactical Escort Refit) in STO?

flarespire · « **Reply #439 on:** January 01, 2013, 08:11:00 PM »

Quote from: Darkthunder on January 01, 2013, 07:52:54 PM

Are you guys talking about the canon Sao Paulo (which was identical to the original Defiant), or the Cryptic version called the Sao Paulo Class (Tactical Escort Refit) in STO?

STO

News:

Author Topic: FarShot's WIPs - The fire in which we burn... (Read 92330 times)