Author Topic: U.S.S. Excelsior NCC-2000-A (Read 23497 times)

Locke · « **Reply #100 on:** November 12, 2010, 02:02:39 PM »

Getting pretty darn good, but if I were you I would revise one of two things: the layout of the windows or the paneling. Because when the windows sit on top of the panel edges, it looks like they're "floating" above the actual surface, without depth.

MarkyD · « **Reply #101 on:** November 12, 2010, 02:15:11 PM »

Quote from: Locke on November 12, 2010, 02:02:39 PM

Getting pretty darn good, but if I were you I would revise one of two things: the layout of the windows or the paneling. Because when the windows sit on top of the panel edges, it looks like they're "floating" above the actual surface, without depth.

I disagree mate, granted at the minute at this stage of texturing the windows are not 100% and the paneling may still be a little too prominent, but I do not think you should let the panelling dictate your window placement. Instead i think we should think that the port holes are cut out of the main shape and as such are as shown.

But i do see where you are coming from.

Vortex · « **Reply #102 on:** November 12, 2010, 05:23:37 PM »

Cookied!! Love this ship.

moed · « **Reply #103 on:** November 12, 2010, 10:38:57 PM »

Looking real nice DJ.

DJ Curtis · « **Reply #104 on:** November 12, 2010, 11:46:58 PM »

Thanks.

Work progresses. The name is more or less a placeholder until I come up with something, unless you guys figure it should stay.

Darkthunder · « **Reply #105 on:** November 13, 2010, 12:24:10 AM »

What the hell, I say go for it. The original Excelsior was a testbed of sorts, maybe this one is too? Besides, the Excelsior would be around 90 or so years by now (2370-ish), so it would be about time to replace her.

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #106 on:** November 13, 2010, 12:29:44 AM »

TBH, until you slapped the name on there, I was wracking my mind to see if this would replace something. I think it would be the perfect successor to the Excelsior class. She has the general build, but with far sleeker lines to her.

Vladko1 · « **Reply #107 on:** November 13, 2010, 01:37:58 AM »

I wish I can make ships like that

It's awesome!

Dalek · « **Reply #108 on:** November 13, 2010, 07:34:00 AM »

You know, I generally don't like any ship named "Excelsior - A" but somehow it just fits that ship.

kitkat27 · « **Reply #109 on:** November 13, 2010, 08:08:17 AM »

Awesome ship!!

-I agree the name Excelsior works for this ship. It seems very reminiscent of the excelsior in many ways, like the forward torpedo launchers. I do, however, feel that any ship calling itself excelsior ship be a large ship...idk if that's just me. Do you have an idea on how big this ship will be compared to a sovereign class?

deadthunder2_0 · « **Reply #110 on:** November 13, 2010, 10:54:07 AM »

Excelsior all the way!

Lionus · « **Reply #111 on:** November 13, 2010, 12:10:55 PM »

Mmm.. Perhaps Excelsior - B or Excelsior - C?

Dalek · « **Reply #112 on:** November 13, 2010, 12:40:09 PM »

The original Excelsior (or so we are led to believe) was still operating during TNG, a B or C might be a bit much.

JimmyB76 · « **Reply #113 on:** November 13, 2010, 02:25:20 PM »

i dunno, i disagree with everyone here lol
it just seems very difficult for me to get used to any ship being called Excelsior if it is not from that class or a kitbash/style of that class...

mckinneyc · « **Reply #114 on:** November 13, 2010, 02:28:18 PM »

I agree with Jimmy, so many great names out there plus I feel that the Enterprise should be the only ship with a letter prefix. If you are going to call her Excelsior it should be in honour of Sulu's ship with a standard registry. I think she looks like a Majestic, the name is free thanks to the Dominion.

DJ Curtis · « **Reply #115 on:** November 13, 2010, 02:35:18 PM »

I'll take all the suggestions under advisement. I do like the name, Majestic. I also like Fearless. Like I said, the name is more or less a placeholder for the moment. It's always interesting to me though how the name of a ship can sort of make or break it. For example, on JOAT there is a really well designed ship, not always pretty, but well designed and detailed... and it's called the USS Arrogant. To me, the name wrecks the ship.

Anyhow, did some work to the bridge module and the underside of the saucer.

mckinneyc · « **Reply #116 on:** November 13, 2010, 03:36:49 PM »

Looking so sweet DJ!!

Seeing as it is Remembrance in the UK and Commonwealth how about naming her after a famous ship in any of the Royal Navies? I have a roundabout connection to the Canberra, a Belfast built liner which was used as a troopship in the Falklands War. She was right at the heart of the action alongside HMS Fearless. My parents met in the Falklands and I was born in Belfast.

Or for something quite topical here in the UK what about Nimrod or Ark Royal?

Anyway DJ keep up the great work. Every ship you do I think how can he top that and you always do!

Dalek · « **Reply #117 on:** November 13, 2010, 03:46:52 PM »

Quote from: DJ Curtis on November 13, 2010, 03:35:26 PM

Eerie? How do you mean?

I guess I'm bored of saying "It doesn't look right".

Nihilus · « **Reply #118 on:** November 13, 2010, 04:14:26 PM »

Judging from the Starfleet Insignia you have chosen, this ship fits into the Era with your 1701-G? She's looking good, and Majestic sounds like a good choice over Excelsior.

DJ Curtis · « **Reply #119 on:** November 13, 2010, 05:29:02 PM »

Underside of the saucer is progressing.

Nihilus--> Used the wrong one. I took it out. This ship is somewhere in the 2380s I think.

Dalek--> I'm in too deep. That's not changing.

Mckinneyc--> Thanks for the suggestions.

Toa_Kaita--> Not crazy about that. Neb's suggestion neither. I like to go with pretty traditional western names. British ships often have the best sounding names to me. Though, Nimrod isn't one. Lol.

News:

Author Topic: U.S.S. Excelsior NCC-2000-A (Read 23497 times)