Bridge Commander Central
Recreational Forums => Art Forum => Topic started by: Saquist on February 19, 2011, 08:56:11 PM
-
As long as I've had Bridge Commander and played it's Epic Battles I've always wondered what it would be like to fly the Powerful Defiant or the Smart and Fast Voyager through the missions.
Thanks to 9 0f 9 we got that opportunity. Later Lint created another more detailed and smoother model that is currently the norm. Unfortunantly Defiant doesn't have a set of proper schematics and so the reproductions of Defiant have some wild varriations.
I will be making a Precise Schematic of the Defiant and an analaysis of David Schmidts Defiant, 9 of 9's Defiant and Lints Defiant in an attempt to find the truth of it's true dimensions.
So I took the best Plan View of the Defiant out of Canon.
and made a simple line drawing and mirrored the results to the shadow side
(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/1927/atruecomparisons.png) (http://img607.imageshack.us/i/atruecomparisons.png/)
This is David Schmidt's Defiant from Strategic Designs.
I recreated this design in a line drawing to over lay.
(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/3667/adavidschmidtdefiant.png) (http://img526.imageshack.us/i/adavidschmidtdefiant.png/)
I then overlayed the two and got this result.
The bold blue represents the actual Defiant from paradise Lost.
The Green & White represents the David Schmidts Defiant
It's an almost perfect match. (there are detail problems which I will illistrate later.)
-The "shoulders" just behind the nose is very, very close.
-the nacelles are slightly off but the outter angles are nearly a match .
-The tail section are also nearly a perfect match. (the sections in the tail are at the right anle AND the right size.)
(http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1756/adavidschmidtvsrealdefi.png) (http://img651.imageshack.us/i/adavidschmidtvsrealdefi.png/)
Next we'll compare to the 9 of 9 Defiant.
-
You know there was a difference between the Defiant physical model and the CGI model in the series right?
-
You know there was a difference between the Defiant physical model and the CGI model in the series right?
Yeah, I won't be entertaining any of the CGI knock offs except the ILM Defiant which is a pretty faithful reproduction.
------------------
Since David Schmidt's Defiant gets so close in the overall shape I decided to use his schematic as an overlay LINT's Defiant. (RED)
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2407/adavidschmidtvslintsdef.png) (http://img402.imageshack.us/i/adavidschmidtvslintsdef.png/)
-From the overlay we can see that the Nacelles fall short.
-The angle of the Nacelles are also just a smudge off at the sides.
-There is also a difference in width for the aft sections and their angles. LINT defines the first aft segment from the ship's mid section as a parallel extension.
-LINT seems to get the shoulders curve at the front of the ship almost precisely.
-The Nose is too thin from the plan view.
(http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9430/adavidschmidtvs9of9sdef.png) (http://img40.imageshack.us/i/adavidschmidtvs9of9sdef.png/)
-Too my surprise 9 of 9's Defiant also gets the Nose wrong in width.
-The shoulders (like LINTS DEFIANT) are almost perfect.
-The nacelles though are too far forward, to thin and at the incorrect angle and length
-The aft segmented sections are nearly a match for the actual Defiant. Deck 1's aft section is a perfect match. But the taper to the bridge area is all wrong.
-
Schmidt's schematic seems to have the nose a bit too thick
-
Schmidt's schematic seems to have the nose a bit too thick
That's my mistake.
When I first started the project a couple of months ago I believed that 9 of 9's Defiant had a better nose section than LINT'S. I couldn't have been more wrong. So this entire project started with the nose. I thought that all that was needed for LINT'S design was a NOSE JOB. I pulled every picture I could of the actual Defiant's nose and started a trace analysis of the features and contours. The blue nose in the first post is a cut paste on to the Lakota / Defiant trace drawing.
(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4066/defiantoriginalnoseanal.png) (http://img152.imageshack.us/i/defiantoriginalnoseanal.png/)
These are the original drawings above.
I believed that these traces of the actual model nose would fit the Lakota/Defiant trace. I was wrong. The model photos are likely elongated because of close perspective and actually appear thinner after the trace. I ended up finding more quirks in the Defiant model than just the nose and I realized I had to find a reliable ortho of the ship with perpendicular lines in or find out if the original nose were right or wrong. I ended up leaving the cut and paste on the proper tracing with hopes of resolving the nose issue later.
(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/1604/defiantnosetranslations.png) (http://img248.imageshack.us/i/defiantnosetranslations.png/)
So from left to right.
First is the trace drawing (nose corrected)
Second is the pulled trace drawing with the (corrected nose)
Third is the nose that was cut and pasted from the original nose drawings (which may or not be wrong, we'll find out)
(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/7172/defiantschimidtdefiant.png) (http://img705.imageshack.us/i/defiantschimidtdefiant.png/)
The above is the literal trace of the nose and body from the Lakota/Defiant image (bold blue) compared with David Schmidt's Defiant (Green & White)
I have two of these images in drawing. One trace is scaled from the tip of the nose to the tip of the rear, (Like you'd expect) and the other is scaled according to the detail (which it matches perfectly such as the sensors and torp housing) The catch is this scaling (not shown as Defiant's aft section measuring up a bit short. This means the nose might be the issue in the David Schmidt schematic as bein a bit too long.
(It's definitely a headache)
Which is why I opened the thread to get other members perspective on the issue.
-
what amazes ME more than anything is how you can actually get an image sharp enough to do this with.
-
you may be interested in this.
http://www.st-bilder.de/gallery/modelle/sternenflotte/defiant.html
-
you may be interested in this.
http://www.st-bilder.de/gallery/modelle/sternenflotte/defiant.html
MONEY!
You just did me a HUGE favor Nebula.
This may actually solve the mystery of a sloping deck one and the mystery of the Deflector Module!
My thanks, this is a huge help.
-
Hey Saquist, nice contribution to the community. I was always dissatisfied with the Defiants previously released. Now this helps explain why. :thumbsup:
I hope someone sees this thread if they decide to build one.
-
Saquist, if out of this project you should come up with a set of good schematics for the Defiant, could I please have a copy? With a good set I might be convinced to build this in the near'ish' future.
-
I hope someone sees this thread if they decide to build one.
Saquist, if out of this project you should come up with a set of good schematics for the Defiant, could I please have a copy? With a good set I might be convinced to build this in the near'ish' future.
I believe I predicted the future. Bow to your master. :funny
-
IIRC, Lint, LC and 9of9 all based their Defiants off the CGI version, hence the discrepancies. Don't fault the modders, it's the CGI model that's wrong.
-
LC based his off the Studio Model, so did 9of9 but 9of9's was very low poly and he never had good ref pics back then.
-
Yeah I remember LC based most of his canon models off studio models instead of CGIs, I saw an article about Defiant CGI model inconsistence with studio model some time ago at Ex-Astris Scientia and it's really screwed up
-
add another one to make fun of. there's even a P81 version, which looks positivly pointy-nosed compared to most of the others.
-
The top view is coming together by standards that I will consider canon from visuals of on screen evidence. It should be done soon.
However the Front view is proving most difficult to lock down and if I can't establish any relative or precise heights I fear this project will end sooner than I thought. I'd also like to get some bottom views. The problem is I don't have the proper angles in the proper clarity on YouTUBE. So I've been forced to by the DVD's in hopes of pulling real screen caps with at least some clarity other than a resolution of 300
Some of the Front views and bottom views I have found:
Season Three: Defiant (1)
Season Four: Way of the Warrior Part II (2)
Season Four: Shattered Mirror (2)
I'll post some of the sketches of those images soon.
But I will wait the few days it will take to get the DVD's before seriously creating a front view.
-
ya know people want to use the MSD for the number of decks this ship has but I've always fought that... IMO it's more like 5 to 6 decks.
btw have you ever checked trekcore? They have some great screens for the Defiant from DS9, you just have to find the best eps for the Defiant and look em up there.
Also the link I provided should get ya some ideas... btw I suggest DLing them, not all the pics there will open up to their full size on the page.
-
also, netflix is supposedly going to start streaming episodes of all the trek series.
-
also, netflix is supposedly going to start streaming episodes of all the trek series.
If you keep dropping helpful sites like that I might have to give you half dibs on this project, Nebula.
Didn't know about Trek Core. I wish I new about it before I started an episode by episode search on YouTUBE. (arggh)
------------------------------------
I spoke with Alexander Richardson on Sci Fi Meshes and Star Trek Official Movie Forum about the 4 deck Defiant vs the 6 Deck Defiant.
-Canon says 5 Decks (per Worf)
-He pointed out the turbolift says 6 decks
-It would make sense in Starship Down if Engineering wasn't on deck one but a lower Deck if Work couldn't get to it from the Bridge.
-The MSD on the show is horribly wrong (which is why Richardson remade it) which shows a shuttle floating in the Nacelles or out side of the ship. Same goes for the Landing Gear.
So far I'm of the opinion that the Defiant can't be 120 meters long.
Last time I did the Defiant/Galaxy/ DS9 comparisonl it was absolutely impossible to put Defiant at the Dock Ring as it looks in the series with DS9 being big enough to fit a Galaxy Class ship between it's 3 Pylons. (IMPOSSIBLE) So Defiant has to be at least 170 Meters, a max of 200 meters.
So...I might as well make it matter of record of how ridiculous a 120 meter Defiant would be.
(http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3415/defgalds91.png) (http://img219.imageshack.us/i/defgalds91.png/)
Okay: So this is DS9 scaled to the 120 meter Defiant and the 642 meter Galaxy. This image assumes that it's DS9 that is scaled wrong.
(It's actually smaller than this as Defiant's Nacelles should fit right inside the stations thrusters at either side.)
(http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/1182/defgalds92.png) (http://img146.imageshack.us/i/defgalds92.png/)
In this image DS9 is scaled up just enough to fit the Galaxy between the 3 pylons.
Defiant remains at 120 meters.
Galaxy remains at 642 meters.
The Station is at 1683 meters
We never see this sort of size comparison between Defiant and the Station.
(http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/6113/defgalds93.png) (http://img35.imageshack.us/i/defgalds93.png/)
Assuming this is the minimum a Galaxy Class ship could fit in between I used 3 different Defiants. 120, 170 and 200 meters long.
So obviously the Galaxy wasn't designed to fit between those pylons. That was wishful thinking on the part of the FX people
Defiant was (in some ways) designed for this station. Effect wise this ship had to be a certain size during design just like the Danube Class runabout. The runnabout still fits on the DS9 pad at 23 meters with the station scaled up to 1.683 Km but much larger (Like 2.5 km that some shots show) and the Runabout becomes a bit of a spec on the same pad.
So essentially the minmum size of Defiant is around 170 meters
It justifies turbolifts
It justifies several effect shots Galaxy vs the Defiant, Defiant vs Mirandas
It justifies 6 decks
It justifies the shots of it dock at the station (but requires more)
It justifies the size of the escape pods
It justifies the windows on the Defiant (which could never fit four decks.)
I think this is a case of another bad MSD
The majority of reasonable data seems to say 200 meters and 6 Decks
-
actually if you read the article on Ex Astris Scientia (I think it was linked to earlier in this thread) he gives some pretty convincing evidence to support a 120m Defiant. The station doesn't work very well as a scaling guide, since it was massively overscaled to fit the Galaxy class the few times we saw it there, and potentially shrunken in shots involving the Defiant. Obviously this is because the models were never meant to be shot together and are themselves made at massively different scales. whenever we see either of these ships docked, it's a composite shot, and the two models aren't physically connected. If you went by something more reliable, however, such as the physical sets meant to represent the interiors, they also appear to support a smaller Defiant.
here's the link again in case you missed it:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/defiant-problems.htm (http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/defiant-problems.htm)
-
I've read the Ex Astris Scientia article. He concludes 120 meters on popular scaling.
I'm a drafter however. I use the comparables to define the likely and proper scalings. I remember the area where he notes the port on the underside of Defiant but then disgards that evidence.
Speaking of external details that may tell us something about the ship's size, there are none. Omitting all the details like windows, docking ports or lifeboat hatches may have been intentional, since the ship's size was apparently never definite in any stage of its creation. There are two rows of lights (image) facing the interior of the ship which may be some kind of windows, but which wouldn't make much sense on these lower deck(s). Moreover, this would mean there are either 8 decks altogether if we understand the light distance as deck height, or the lowermost deck 4 or 5 would have two impractical window rows close to the ceiling and close to the floor.
The problem is he's using a plan view to decided a Deck of Viability. That's wrong. He's doesn't appear to be thinking 3 Dimensionally The proper use of this space with artificial gravity is just as is shown. There is a Greater amount of Vertical height Diagonally as this section slants into the Primary hull above. On a 120 meter ship that is 5.1 meters of vertical height. That's 16'...Tight for a split level. But on a 170 meter ship that's 7.32 meters or 24.015748 feet. That's more than enough. Everything about the shape of the hull in this section says angled or slanted floors on two levels. And these windows are the only thing, CGI or otherwise, that is most consistent about the ship. Also look at the level areas of Defiant like it's underbelly. Look at the curved vertical edges where the torpedoes launchers are located. That area indicates one level. Deck one has a similar feature of similar height it also indicates one level and when stacked and filled with other decks the total comes out (marginally) as 6 Decks. These are design ques that signify a standard height.
So this goes to the argument that at 120 meters the Defiant would have an enormous amount of excess and unusable space on Deck One and on this level between the Warp Engines. Areas where head height diminishes to nonviable points very quickly. This is because Defiant has so few extruded forms. It's very organic as Designs go.
-
Bernd uses the exact same methods to accurately determine the size of every other ship he's analyzed. Besides there is no precedence for non-horizontal decks on screen, and since these spaces are in the warp nacelle housing, there would be little room or use for any large compartments of the scale you suggest. Anything in this area would undoubtedly be service spaces, which complies with Bernd's deck arrangement. I'm with Bernd on this one, those "windows" must be some other type of structure, they couldn't be actual windows, as they do not correspond with crew quarters or any other major habitable area.
If you assume the scene in Starship down is a gaff, and go with the intended design, placing Engineering on decks 1 and 2, immediately aft of the bridge then the shape of deck one makes sense, the deck 2 engineering spaces take up both decks.
The defiant is the worst possible candidate to analyze scale based on screen evidence alone due to the studio's constant miss-scaling. If you want to compare it to something you need to find something that is much more solidly scaled than Deep Space Nine, that's why Bernd dismissed DS9 for scaling purposes.
-
I'm with Bernd on this one, those "windows" must be some other type of structure, they couldn't be actual windows, as they do not correspond with crew quarters or any other major habitable area.
I'll have to disagree here, there is no other thing they could be but windows.
There are also instances in the show where we do see windows in Defiant rooms.
The ship has at most 6 decks no matter how you slice it really IMO.
I can't see it having 4 decks at all.
-
yeah, but those few rooms are all in the main hull, and the crew quarters don't have windows. I think the only confirmed windows on the sets were in the wardrooms, which are on deck 2 IIRC.
Again, the only viable compartments there would be service spaces for the warp engines, why would they need windows?
-
I'm going to come right out and say this:
Saquist, if you come up with a set of blueprints, I'll build the ship.
-
A DJ Defiant... now that's an interesting concept.
Thou, with your excellent Sovereign Class, what scale would you reckon the Defiant should have? *hints to First Contact intro, with the Ent-E zooming past the Defiant*
-
I'm going to come right out and say this:
Saquist, if you come up with a set of blueprints, I'll build the ship.
Well, it's a little too soon, DJ.
I'm confident about the top view I have. I love it, infact. From the top view I can extrapolate the bottom view easily.
But it's the front view that will make or break these orthographic projections. I'm probably shooting for an unrealistic standard of precision but I really don't want to end up with another flawed interpretation. Ebay has my DVD's coming between 3/4/11 through 3/12-11. There are front views I can use, I just need good resolution. We'll see what happens
-
I'm not in any rush. I'd scale it to whatever you told me to.
-
Saquist man, you deserve a cookie just for sheer commitment :thumbsup: And I'm sure I'm not alone in anticipating a DJ Defiant.
-
Saquist man, you deserve a cookie just for sheer commitment :thumbsup: And I'm sure I'm not alone in anticipating a DJ Defiant.
I appreicate it but I haven't succeeded yet.
@ DJ,
For Bridge Commander the scale should be appropriate to how we most often see it so the Pictures of the Days are just as we seen on the show.
----Just got the DVD's in----
Here are some of the the screen caps I need. The rear view is especially good. I also began a surface model of the nose for comparison. I'll post pictures of that later. But it looks like these will be able to confirm some heights from the specs. (I'm most happy) I may order season seven for some of those shots as I would like to do the same specs for the Jem'Hadar attack cruiser at some point.
(http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/6279/defiant78.png) (http://img846.imageshack.us/i/defiant78.png/)
(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/3271/defiant77.png) (http://img84.imageshack.us/i/defiant77.png/)
(http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/5959/defiant76.png) (http://img121.imageshack.us/i/defiant76.png/)
(http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/4910/defiant75.png) (http://img822.imageshack.us/i/defiant75.png/)
-
good luck with the cruiser, IIRC there are like 3 or 4 different variants that they seemed to use interchangeably on the show. It's certainly going to be a challenge.
-
The XPS 1730 is officially in the shop and this project on hold for now.
-
Looks like the Cygnus Site has released David Schmidt's Defiant Design, at least the orthographic views are available in full size...the deck plans are still inaccessible. I'm posting them here because the site has been unreliable for a year or so.
While these can be useful I haven't corroborated whether his plans are truly good.
He does show the proper reveal from the rear on the sides of the nacelles but I'm concerned about the deck one profile from the rear. It doesn't look as wide as I projected the last time I worked on the view.
These images are LARGE
(http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6922/sddefiantsheet2x.jpg) (http://img15.imageshack.us/i/sddefiantsheet2x.jpg/)
(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6403/sddefiantsheet1x.jpg) (http://img14.imageshack.us/i/sddefiantsheet1x.jpg/)
I can already see that he makes the error of believing that all of the underside of Defiant from just behind the nose to the tail is one flat plane when I believe I've discovered that the aft underside actully angles up to the tail.
Right now these are the best orthos on the Defiant anywhere on the internet.
-
I take it this means you got your PC back?
-
Or he's become one with the internet. O.o
-
Or he's become one with the internet. O.o
now thats a scary thought :eek
-
Drexfiles just did a pictorial on the type 10 shuttlecraft Chaffee, in case that helps at all, and it includes an explanation of the scaling issues related to it.
-
I take it this means you got your PC back?
Unfortunately not.
The motherboard had a blown capacitor. I got it replaced but the surge scrambled the Master Hard drive. Windows refuses to reboot. I just dropped it off at another shop to see if they can restore it with their disk (since I don't have them). Hopefully they can do a do a repair of windows instead of a system wide format. There was only these drawings on the hard drive and music.
It sux that I lost that drawing. That was months of hard work. Maybe it's somewhere else but it will never be as far as I got. The most I can hope for is the David Schmidt redraw and some of the photo tracings I had at the start. I've already started a retracing of the Front of Defiant to compare on the photos but if I have to draw on this fossil of a computer....1.21 Giga Herts, 2 Gigs of Ram and a 125 6150 NVIDA Card...then I'm in trouble....
If I have to restore I'll likely upgrade to windows 7.
-
Got the computer back from the shop for a restore.
Of course I have no Programs So I'll spend a couple of days reloading every thing.
The Good News is that I had two hard drives. I had them reoad on the second Drive and that means my drawings look like their intact.
So no restart from scratch.
-
More Analysis-
Deck One
Deck One of Defiant is one of the biggest mysteries.
Typically top is rendered as a Flat even and level surface from bow to stern.
We can see that 9 of 9's Defiant makes this translation
(http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/2168/defiant90f9side.png) (http://img813.imageshack.us/i/defiant90f9side.png/)
We can see that Lint's Defiant makes this translation
(http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/7609/defiantlintside.png) (http://img203.imageshack.us/i/defiantlintside.png/)
We can see that David Schmidt's Defiant and the Fact Files also make this Translation
Post #33 For David Schmidt.
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/gilso/defiant-schside.jpg
---------------
However there is a simple method of Determining if that is true. Even 2 Dimensional Picture will tell you if a line is straight curved or angled by means of a 1 Dimensional Line. And given the number of angles we see Defiant we begin to get a better idea of the geometry of Deck One.
Because of the sharper DVD image We can see that from directly above Defiants Bridge Area is pretty much a perfect circle. (Blue lines represent a Perfect Circle Over lay. So we're not dealing with some sort of ellipse on Defiant.
(http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/7892/sdeck14.png) (http://img863.imageshack.us/i/sdeck14.png/)
However From the Side View we get something Entirely Different....
(http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/7128/sdeck11.png) (http://img860.imageshack.us/i/sdeck11.png/)
As an example Look at the Thin Red Lines on Defiant's Nacelle. These are traced over what should be straight lines (as we see from the Lakota/ Defiant Overhead) Yet from the side view many of the lines on top of the Nacelle exhibit an arc until you get to the side of the Nacelle. That means the top of Defiant's Nacelle actually Bulges or Dips in places. (more on that Later) Back to Deck One. The Bold Green Circle signifies that perfect circle we Identified earlier But there is a problem...The Thin Blue line just above the Bold Red line signifies the continuous line of the rest of Deck One and they clearly aren't on the same X/Y plane. It seems it's angling into circular Bridge Plane and descending down as it goes to stern. Above the Bold Red line where the Aft Deck One Transitions into the Circular Deck One We get another angle (some sort of transitioning angle represented by a slightly different Blue line) While likely curved. But it gets Better. Apparently the Deck One's Circular portion isn't flat at all.
(http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/3821/sdeck12.png) (http://img816.imageshack.us/i/sdeck12.png/)
The Whole Image is wrought with peculiarities. But Focus on the two short red lines just behind the Bridge. Check out that angle... and compare it to the red center line (which also has it's issues Seems to curve up). Those do not match up at all and if you think it's just that the aft part of Deck One slopes toward the rear....then the next image will really cause you fits...
(http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/8053/sdeck13.png) (http://img813.imageshack.us/i/sdeck13.png/)
(http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9501/sdeck16.png) (http://img684.imageshack.us/i/sdeck16.png/)
From this angle those yellow panels whose parallel lines have been tagged by my red lines (second image up) are definitely launching up (front to back) at a greater incline than the rest of the aft section of Deck One. More odd is that the Bow half of Deck One's circle doesn't match that aft angle we see represented by the 2 red lines like one would expect. Instead of even being flat there seems to be an angle between the bow outer circle and the inside circle (essentially the space where the ships name is place upon) So the front half of the circle has a shallow down angle and aft end of the circle has a steeper angle.
So other oddities. In Image 6 of this post.
#1 Notice the Inside edge of the nacelles. The front end of those lines angle sharply to meet the Top Surface of the Primary Hull.
David Schmidts gets that right but Lint and 9 of 9 Translate as one even and straight line (as it looks from the top but from any other angle)
#2 It's questionable if the entire back side of Deck on is one Angle too.
Notice the red trace line at the far back that leaps over the gap in between the two aft prongs. That the actual lines angle above my red line either implies that there is an arc to this aft section or that but prongs are slightly angled according to the hull beneath. So right now I'm looking to define the area between the Aft Circle and those large vents which seem to have something going on other than straight lines. These lines have to be figure out first because we can no longer just assume that Deck One has a completely Flat ceiling. So now we have wonder if there is any level surface on top of ship that matches the level nature of the shoulders of ship were the Torpedo Launchers are housed. What's the relationship between them? Are they still level and it's just the very top where the ships name is that's has the angle or is the entire top of deck slightly tipped upward?
-
it looks like the outer hull starts to angle down aft of the bridge centerline. It's worth noting that this complies with the original internal arrangement as depicted in the DS9TM, since deck one would gradually lose clearance towards the stern, a two deck high space (such as engineering) would take the most advantage of this area without having to compensate for a lower ceiling.
-
Indeed.
I've highlighted the portion of the Aft part of the circle seems to follow the the rest of aft Deck One in a rudimentary surface model.
(The Green potion)
(http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5860/sdeck17.png) (http://img69.imageshack.us/i/sdeck17.png/)
(http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/2933/sdeck18.png) (http://img859.imageshack.us/i/sdeck18.png/)
(http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/2988/sdeck19.png) (http://img683.imageshack.us/i/sdeck19.png/)
Of course the illusion is that from the perspective views there is no discernble declination of the circle or the rear Deck One but from the Ortho there is a 1 degree angle. Notice though the black (or shaded gray) shows the perfectly top areas. I wonder if the outer perimieter of the outer most gray ring doesn't follow the angle as well. I but it does...that area looks particularly smooth not angular.
-
The Lakota DVD proved extremely difficult to pin down so I shifted to First Contact Damaged Defiant view of the model produced and finished the first detailed version of the Defiant's Top Ortho.
(http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/3160/firstcontanctovertrace.png) (http://img847.imageshack.us/i/firstcontanctovertrace.png/)
(http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/5996/defianttoporthoversion1.png) (http://img848.imageshack.us/i/defianttoporthoversion1.png/)
I was able to narrow down some fine detail on the phaser canon, some of the trim at the rear and color coded the drawing blue for external form lines and black for detail lines. I also added the fine detail on the nose that was seen in one little ship.
This is only version 1 as I will continue the series for the remaining four orthos and then I'll make a final version base on the necessary corrections after all orthos are created.
-
I thought whenI laid out the lines of the bottom rear section that I saw some sort of strange angle that differed from the rest of the flat bottom section. I hadn't seen that trace in so long I was beginning to wonder had I been seeing things.
But I did it again with a few trace drawings and found the perfect depiction of the up angle of the rear section.
(http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7492/defianttail.png) (http://img10.imageshack.us/i/defianttail.png/)
So many things are falling into place after the top view it's almost laying itself out.
So far the is a good premilinary TOP, FRONT and a mostly complete Bottom View. But I can't imagine why they would angle this section. I really does cut out a bit of level format that most Federation ships have, it really must be engineering space.
-
The Bottom view was more difficult to confirm and I'm not all that confident on the detail on the nacelles.
I was able to confirm above an incline on the bottom tail.
The Warp engines are flared as they meet the fuselage so while they look like the same width all the way from out board to in board they are not.
Not all detail is included on the nose sides seen from this angle. (felt at this moment with no side view I can't have get close to accurate)
The curvature of the inner forward section along the flat bottom is directly traced from an underview of an unfinished Defiant model so I know it's right, however I'm not sure how well I've matched the subsquent curves progressing outward toward the torpedo launchers because where they meet the nose looks a little to sharp. I'll see If I can address that in the next version.
(http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/8720/defiantbottomversion1.png) (http://img847.imageshack.us/i/defiantbottomversion1.png/)
Next is the side view
-
hmm interesting. are ya still using those imgs I gave?
-
Most definitely. They've been invaluable up to this point but the underside isn't one of the well photographed portions so I may have to lean on the Fact files, Davide Schmidts designs and what ever I can make out on the DVD's.
-
they probably didn't shoot it much because I think that's where they usually attached it to the MoCo rig for filming.
-
Which means I won't be able to discern from the model what that tech cluster looks like where it fired a tractor beam and launched a shuttle from.
-
yeah, I can only think of a couple of shots where we see that part of the model, and I don't know if they are decent enough for your project, or even if they were done with the physical model.
Edit:
I did a quick search on trekcore, and I found a couple in the Defiant gallery, but I don't know if they'll do any good because I couldn't tell which model was used and they're all kinda odd angles:
http://trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=6&page=1 (http://trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=6&page=1)
-
Well the one with the tractor beam on the Runabout is definitely the CG version...I remember that because we see her exiting Warp in the system (And I don't mean the old Next Gen way of showing the starfield turning to normal). IIRC They only used CG for those shots.
EDIT: THe others I'm with you on that one, I can't tell whether they're CG or studio model.
-
yeah, I can only think of a couple of shots where we see that part of the model, and I don't know if they are decent enough for your project, or even if they were done with the physical model.
Edit:
I did a quick search on trekcore, and I found a couple in the Defiant gallery, but I don't know if they'll do any good because I couldn't tell which model was used and they're all kinda odd angles:
http://trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=6&page=1 (http://trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=6&page=1)
Yeah, looks like the Star Trek Fact files defiant didn't even bother with the tech cluster either (shocker)
and all of my model shots have a pole though it. The best shots I have are fuzzy like some of these. I'm just going to have to "fudge" it.
The Side view is going to take some time. Looks like not one got it right.
I'm using the inside of indention for the nose to figure out the true profile of the ship shoulder section between the Nose and the Bridge.
It doesn't seem to be as thick as everyone is depicting it.
-
Hey Saquist,
I found a link that shows a bunch of studio model shots. If you already have it then my apologies.
http://starshipmodeler.com/trek/ds9tech.htm (http://starshipmodeler.com/trek/ds9tech.htm)
^scroll down to the Defiant's section and there's like 20 pictures with some quite obscure angles.
-
Indeed I do have them. But I appreciate it anyway.
~I'm taking a little time to learn Solidworks to help for the side view since it's more intuitive than AutoCAD. If I make a mistake with Solidworks I can make edits to solid model and work with dimension. AutoCAD is too final. I'm trying to determine if the front "shoulders" (the section between the nose the nacelles) slopes down from underneath or is is straight. There are no true side views so I'm going to attempt to match what I see in the perspective views we have.
May take time.
-
Sorry for the delay on the project.
Work interferes with Hobby...
This week I was finally able to find a reliable solve for the height of Defiant's Primary Fuselage. Thanks to Google Sketch Up's photo match I was able very accurately plot the nose slot and gather some useful numbers that I immediately dumped into CAD. The results were very, very satisfying. After I rescaled the findings to my drawings I found my "guestimations" were really close but not quite. Moving lines to sync up with the new parameters lead to very close approximation of Defiant's side view. (not necessarily the nose though) which is another project in-itself)
I had hoped the DVD's would give me the forward view data I needed but it turns out the Photos are a far better resource. This near completion of the side view turns out to be good work-around for the height data. My hope is within 2-3 weeks I might finish the side front and aft views of Versioin One and begin the fine tuning process.
-
This the Sketch Up phot match.
This photo displayed some interesting perpendiculars that were useful in determining the goings-on within the Nose Notch.
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/8590/nosenotch.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/nosenotch.jpg/)
It's still a guestimation on the vanishing points but this was extremely close to what was neeed.
(http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2420/nosenotch1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/197/nosenotch1.jpg/)
It determins the shape of not just the nose notch but the Height and position of it's ventral section that will sweep back as the shoulders of the ship.
(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/5615/nosenotch2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/705/nosenotch2.jpg/)
The magenta sectioin circled in green is the plugged-in varriables measured from Sketchup and they fit in perfectly wants scaled to the back and front of the notch. So the magenta lines are what you would call "a sure thing" I feel more comfortable extrapolating heights by eyeballing it from here with this established information. I doubt I would be able to continue to match the image but now I can work on some of the other heights as the shoulders flow to the nacelles.
-
:thumbsup: Excellent job, Saquist! I may not reply to every post, but I'm watching like a hawk. :D
-
As am I. This is turning out to be a fantastic project.
-
A project like this definitely shows the dedication this community has to BC and Trek as a whole. Well done, Saquist.
-
Frankly, the Defiant deserves it...and so do the fans. Thanks gentleman.
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4536/theprecisedefiantportvi.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/6/theprecisedefiantportvi.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
This is a preliminary Port view with no detail just the major contours.
Not much remains of David Schmidt's interpretation in this view. Most of the black is his, like the nacelle outline. I've confirmed most of that interpretation is right with a slight dip at the front of the nacelle as it's higher rear end slopes down to the primary hull. FOR RIGHT NOW the Deflector is also his.
(NOTE: I used to draw portraits back in high school and after graduation and I noticed the easiest way to capture a persons essence is by every little detail. You just never know what understanding a small wrinkle around the nose will have once you start to draw the corners of the mouth...so add it. So if anyone is wondering why I'm adding the detail within the nose cove, it's because it's a detail that will be relevant as I figure out the nose)
The nose Deflector is tricky and it's now essentially the last part to be measured as I'm about 94% sure of everything else. In Schimidt's version the nose kinda hangs low, slightly peaking about the primary hull. But I'm looking at some side views which I will post later that imply that it sits higher...and perhaps just coincidentally some of the detail in the photos from the underside show the nose either a bit thinner or as said before...higher in the cover than Schmidt shows. You'll see a double line on the top of the nose too...I have decided if my interpretation or Schmidt's is right. There will be a struggle with finding the FULL and COMPLETE shape of the nose deflector as the rear part that joins to the primary hull has never been seen so I'm going to give it my best considering all the pictures.
The side view shows somethings we've been over.
The slope of the command deck as it falls to the rear.
The rise of the bottom as it goes aft (red horizontal line)
Haven't gotten to interpreting the port to starboard arc on the back of the command deck though
Currently the focus is the nose.
-
Defiants scaling is one of the worst in canon.
As you are already sure of most things, these will probably not help you much (or at all),
but Georg Joergens of the RissZeichnungs - Journal did draw Orthos and a Cutaway of the Defiant a "few" years back.
Ortho:
http://www.rz-journal.de/Gjoergens/Film-RZs/ST_NX-74205.htm
Cutaway:
http://www.rz-journal.de/Gjoergens/Film-RZs/ST_RZ-Defiant.htm
His work for another Science Fiction Series is usually pretty Good.
And apart from the three Impulse Engines these look reasonable to my Eye.
-
They seem to be a variation on the fact files Defiant.
I'm currently trying to get Sketch up to match up some images for me in my spare time to get a bette idea on the shape of the nose's profile.
-
Cookie for your work mate!
-
This really got me excited today when I got a chance to work on this.
(http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8766/defiantconstruction1.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/40/defiantconstruction1.png/)
I really had to struggle with the photo match but the results (I think) are spectacular. Everyone knows this famous image of Defiant. After about a week of fighting the 2 point perspective I think this is so close to perfect it's right next door. Thanks to the straight and perpendicular lines on the underside of Defiant I got a successful perspective match up and started drawing in the shapes.
I was able to confirm the height (or dept) of the flanks hanging between Defiant's Engines. The match was good enough to tell that at least from one ortho David Schimidt got them right. How I know is because I only made one side and mirrored over the other side and got these results. Fantastic...it matches with the photo with no problems.
I took advantage of some other intangible perpendiculars leading to the time of nose by estimating (by trial and error) the mid point of it's width on both the top and bottom and got a near perfect match for the front shape. Incidentally this also tells me how far down the nose is from the flat bottom of Defiant, aswell as show that David Schmidt's interpretation of the nose in the side view may not be a flat straight bottom but infact there may be a slight angle since I'm having problems placing the lines perpendicular from the bottom of the deflector going back.
Heres a half and half to judge for yourselves.
(http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3415/defiantconstruction2.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/835/defiantconstruction2.png/)
I'm going this far because I feel this shoulder section (between the nose and warp engines) is the most screw-up-able and I think can really throw off the look of the ship (that and the nose) so I want to run it through a simple 3D program to get a better idea of the lines I'll be putting in the official schematic.
-
Oh wow. I see how you were able to get such definitive results from this shot - this is one of the views where the studio model is actually lit decently. So many times in the show it is really, and I mean really, hard to see.
Good job! *cookie time*
-
Excellent work, Saquist!
-
the 1730 is out of commision again...
I'm going to half to decide whether to by an alienware or just continue on the rinky dink hp .
On hold.
-
the 1730 is out of commision again...
weak. :banghead:
-
I got the 1730 back from the shop and it's working again but supicious of the repeat board failure I decided to hold off on continuing the project. After looking up some info on line I learn that the Graphic Card could be causing the board failure. So I did so more research to diagnois the Card itself and ran this program called. Furmark, http://www.ozone3d.net/benchmarks/fur/
Since the 88000GTX has two cards in it the program tested both. While one was opperating properly the other was not pulling voltage on it's fan and the fan had zero opperation. The temperature is supposed to 61 degrees and I watched as the card raise all the way to 88 degrees. I'm going to take it back to Vic's repair shop one more time to get the fan on the card working. (I'd rather not buy another lap top so soon.)
----------
As for the project...
I started over on the Hp. And got great results. I've learned how to add multiple angles to the Sketchup's photo match process and now have most of the detail between the nose and the main body (that's normally visible) complete.
----------
The Nacelles
Looks like the nacelles aren't "who we thought they were", either. The underbelly of the nacelles seems to have twist as it meets the different profile of the aft end of the nacelle. I'm busy analyzing the effect in AutoCAD to find some rhythm and reason. but I think I have the front cowlings of the nacelle at the right shape which DO show a slight curvature an not a straight line profile....
Defiant is truly more organic than one would have initially have thought.
This is not a true return to the project. I after I drop off the computer today it should take about 3-4 days to get back and I've also taken a new position in two week that may require all my free time for study but I do plan on getting some results once I get my baby back between then and Oct 10.
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9315/defiantventral1.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/defiantventral1.png/)
Even though the curvature surfaces are faceted Sketchup renders it smooth but some things couldn't be avoided (which are currently visible) regardless the wire frame perpendiculars that I used to capture this are quite sound so when I transfer this to CAD that's capable of single line splines the effect will be smoother.
(http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/9537/defiantventral2.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/694/defiantventral2.png/)
The reason I started all over is because I was having problems with these shoulder areas matching up ones the other curves where in place. When I mirrored I didn't get the proper effect on the other side no matter what I did. Here too the Torpedo area comes out right aswell when before it did not.
I haven't decided if the nodule hanging on the bottom back of the nose is at the right angle but I'll play with it to find out.
(http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/323/defiantventral3.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/69/defiantventral3.png/)
Right now I'm getting indication that the nose maybe too long. Not sure how that could have happened.
I used CAD to give me an approxiate angle for the cowling of the nacelles at the front. It looked good at first but after creating more of the non-angle portion bellow that's perpendicular to the ship's axis it seems it's slightly off which means I maybe tweaking it anywhere from 1 degree down to 1/4's of a degree to get them to match on either side.
(http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/4160/defiantventral4.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/defiantventral4.png/)
This was the photo that was added to the photo match to get the nose cove details correct.
This is the one that makes me doubt the length of the nose but Sketchup expert say that certain photos will fail to be match if there is cropping and it's possible on this one. For me the cove area was matched perfectly but nothing else did.
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8097/defiantventral5.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/11/defiantventral5.png/)
This is the photo I will be using to get the rear in shape before I for the dorsal section.
I got better results with this one than the second photo match but there is still slight problems.
Well at least it's progress.
-
Currently On HOLD.
I haven't forgotten about this project. There have been a few improvements on the example 3D model that I'm using to make the orthos but not considerable. I'll come back to this at the beginning of NEXT YEAR which hopefully will bring me a system.
Looking at getting a BOXX 8550
or a Alienware Aurora
or (my favorite) Cyber Power's Black Mamba Evo Fang...
This should put my CPU woes away for good.
And even let me start modding myself....
-
Very much looking forward to next year then. :D
-
Saquist - i am going to temporarily lack the thread (to avoid spamming off offtopic debates about anything and than flood your therad) which could happen) until you have something further to post about your project...
please send me a PM whenever youd like it reopened and ill unlock it right away :)
-
Well, I've returned to Defiant (as well as other projects) for an accurate mapping of the ship's shape. The new system has really helped me avoid the lagging of surface creations and object orbiting that my poor little HP pavilion laptop was so inadequate to manipulate.
The Photomatching process got both better....and worse with the ease of manipulation. Perhaps this is where my pursuit of perfection for this model with hit a wall. Part of the Sketchup process purpose is to all me to get accurate measurements that I can input into CAD for a 2D draft of the ship that will be the "final say" on the ship's design (with pics to back it up. However I began to find a couple of glaring inaccuracies and it was hard to tell which draft to trust...the Sketch up version (which is prone to a greater amount of human error because of having to manually match the vanishing points) or the 2 Drafts in AUTOCAD that I confirmed earlier in the thread with the overhead images of Defiant. Frankly I trust the image tracings I did in CAD more.
Essentially the problem was discovered when I attempted to model the aft sections on the Defiant from the front. How I've set this up is that I should be able to use the AUTOCAD measurements from the episode images and pictures to get me close enough to work the areas that I can't see in the Sketchup file or "disconnected" with where I am in the sketchup file. In fact it works vise versa since I made them to the same scale. But Auto CAD says the aft sections are MUCH wider than Sketckup's image match drawing wants to place it at.
Fustrated...I started over but a worse problem develops matching what I already had. I've been doing some combinations of modeling exactly the plans I have so far in Sketchup to see if I can then match what I have to the image but still not getting the best results. I may have to rely on Sketchup to ONLY give me interpretations that I can then translate to CAD where the ortho's will be cut and dry. But I want to keep trying for now.
So I moved on to smaller component just to see what it looks like completely in 3D and this is where I just adore Sketchup.
(http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/8734/defiantnoseresults1.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/825/defiantnoseresults1.png/)
I fought this over the last month too.
1- I was shocked that Defiant's nose was so steep.
2- Surprised still how round it was
3-Surprised at the amount of odd ball contouring.
It's not all done and it's not currently accurate but it is a reasonable representation of what it will ultimately look like for the plans which pleases me for now.
(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/610/defiantnoseresults.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/51/defiantnoseresults.png/)
This is where the problems I spoke of may be having the opposite effect from the rear of the ship. It's barely noticeable but the Nose is a bit on the large side and the first signs of that occurred when I added more images to the match process and the nose continually tends to fall longer than it should have. So this time I looked at it and does seem to be a WEE little to big. But it's the shape that I wanted not the scale (although that would have been nice.)
-
Glad to see a return to this project! Great work!
-
I would double check your images and make sure nothing from the CGI has snuck in, I know the nose was one of the areas that was quite a bit different between the two versions.
-
I'm going to try something different for Defiant.
I'll star this weekend for creating a Defiant by the plans I've figured out so far and no really so much on the photo matched Defiant. I'll then put that Defiant in the photmatch and see how it measures up. It may serve to reveal more information on the ships shape.
------------------
I'm Adding the Space Dock to this Thread for photo matching aswell since I have a lot of work already done on it.
The simple interior photo match ups I did just to get some rudimentary proportions of the main structure.
(http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/6443/85729250.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/85729250.png/)
(http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2410/oc1.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/193/oc1.png/)
(http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/3226/oc2.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/221/oc2.png/)
The Match is pretty good. I think the perturbations in the matched are caused by perspective matching problems aswell as the likely hood that the actual structure is not absolutely asymetrical as this is actually a very large mini building that the production could actually walk through.
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1231/oc6.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/339/oc6.png/)
I started this about 6 months ago. It's pretty okay but now I have the power in the CPU to actually finish this in the detail I want.
I got the portions from a very accurate plan of the station as well as Robert Wild's images on his version of Space Dock he was doing for the Ship of the Line Calenders.
(http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/8560/oc23.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/269/oc23.png/)
(http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/7339/oc24.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/851/oc24.png/)
Obviously if this ever goes into BC...I'll have to radically scale back the model detail on the North City.
(http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2811/oc7.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/141/oc7.png/)
This shows the first version of the Dock's main Structure from that plan I spoke of earlier. It was rudimentary but not I'll add the Photo matched Dock to this Dock's interior.
(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4895/oc8.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/84/oc8.png/)
Like I normally do. I created a set of drafting plans for the detail of the floor of the station and started using Sketchup to model it exactly where I found it to be in all the shots. Recently I've found some high rez shots on the Internet in Sci Fi Meshes for Tobias Richter's Excelsior model (beautiful by the way) and noticed the amount of detail I could put on the walls too. I"ll make plans for those later.
-
Holy guacamole, Saquist! Details on ESD? Beautiful! Hurry up and get to modelling them for BC! :P
-
Interior looks amazing ! have a cookie !
-
Thats some fantastic detail, and BC loves poiles so the more detail the better! The images show just how accurate this is and im glad its the TMP spacedock, the Enterprise would look to fit in it now. :D
+1
-
I found this thread late (sucks for me :P) and I must say, your work on the Defiant amazes me! Your dedication and attention for detail blows me away. Keep going - all this hard work will pay off one day :thumbsup:
-
As someone who has build spacedock. All I can say is...
... MAN ARE YOU CRAZY THIS NEEDS TO BE IN THE MODS SECTION NOT THE ART FORUM.
Your skills are very good are if the models released in the BC world would be a worth addition as anyones.
-
Gracias,
But I'm not that good yet.
The current model is at 28,79 faces.
-
South City's 5 Towers which I named.
X ray Tower
Observatory Tower
Euridice Tower
Cartography Tower
Kirschner Tower
(http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/6233/200911021915451m18s.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/198/200911021915451m18s.png/)
(http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/1752/200911021918361m40s.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/200911021918361m40s.png/)
This stuff is simple. just cylinders and few special features like dishes and stuff but it adds much to the Station.
I'll move on to the dock area.
Mainly the space doors and their openings
The inner Dock still must be finished by joining the two models I did together properly
The last think I'll do is all the exterior bays on the station's surface.
-
Deffinitely the best SB recreation ever. I hope you'll be able to put it in game :) have a cookie !
-
Well if he does not get this in game with these refs I might take another crack at it myself.
-
Looks fantastic saquist!
-
:drool:
-
Back to Defiant.
Having more problems with the photo match perspective as I try an figure out the tail sections dept. It's not working so I'm going to have to try and photomatch the back and the front at the exact same time and attempt to keep the proportions the same. I'll let David Schmidt's Defiant be the judge of vertical vs. Horizontal proportions in perspective.
Meanwhile, I wanted to capture what I created in sketchup for the nose in a CAD plan.
Heres a comparison with David Schmidts Defiant Nose and the nose I extrapolated on Sketchup
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2360/defiantnose1.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/339/defiantnose1.png/)
David's is Green mine is blue.
You'll recall I had some problem's with the nose being too long. Well that is not corrected here. But to me this looks more right than wrong. It think it is too slanted in the front just a tad..
(http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/2222/studiomodel9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/802/studiomodel9.jpg/)
-
Dunno why but the green is too thick IMHO doesn't feel right this way... looks more like the CGI version.
Blue looks much closer to what we can see in most shots of studio model, quick eye comparision with the photo and it's clear blue is more accurate.
-
I've been wiped out by over time the last few months and this project has frustrated me immensely.
I came back to Defiant today and did some measurements to find out if my perspectives were correct.
I started a new Photomatch (yes...again).
I can't say how good it is untill I get more of the forward hull complete and not just the bottom.
However this time I decided to literally design the Defiant giving it a set size, height and length.
I have used this defined height and length to create the new photomatch.
This has already helped to determine that my current perspective in Sketchup is extremely close.
Comparisons
Nose Width
Here I drew the sketup lines based off the Autocad lines
Autocad Lengths: 26.3220 meters
Sketup Lengths from Perspective:26.32
From the back of the nose to end of the ship
Autocad Lengths:123.7302 meters
Sketup Lengths from Perspective:124.38
-------
That's a difference of .6498!!!
In other words a tolerance of plus or minus 1 5/8 Feet of error.
That's extremely acceptable.
It's a strong indicator the perspective is correct length wise.
-
Ventral View
(http://imageshack.us/a/img22/8365/jemhadarhunterkillerven.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/22/jemhadarhunterkillerven.png/)
Dorsal View
(http://imageshack.us/a/img708/9069/jemhadarhunterkillertop.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/jemhadarhunterkillertop.png/)
I've redone this twice now. It's One of John Eaves alien designs and he certainly does aliens very well.
These drawings are preliminary. They don't include either set of nacelles and will serve to generate the Forward and Aft Views.
-
I'm not completely satisfied with the Doors roundness. There may be nothing I can do about it but for now its sufficient if angular.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img853/8738/spacedoors1.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/853/spacedoors1.png/)
-
santa madre de la vaca!
thats purdy!
u tryin to make the rest of us working stiffs look bad? :P
-
Quelle chance nous avons...
Bravo :yay:
-
Gracias, guys.
I realised I was making this alot more complicated than they needed to be. I wasn't using the layers to may advantage or making components to separate structures under construction from finished items. Making the doors was a much simpler *still difficult* task than when I first started.
Secondary Doors are next.
They were never shown in the real interior of Spacedock but I think it's important to show them since they shown on the outside. Shouldn't be to hard.
-
I consider this a beak through:
I'm extremely happy with this profile. I was able to closely approximate the side ortho of the nose of Defiant thanks to correlating details in different images. I had to abandon Sketchup. I think I went as far as I could with it for figuring out the model. I had take what knew and trust my eye. The tip of Defiant's nose was the big problem. It had to hang lower than the body yet it's top higher than Main Hull. It also apparently had a mostly straight bottom. Using some of the sketchup notes I could figure out the angle of the back end by figuring how high up the nook it reached.
I guess the proof is in the pudding..
Version 1.0 Defiant Profile. (click image shack for full version)
(http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2720/defiantprofile.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/defiantprofile.png/)
-
This is cool. Amost feel inspired to to give the old Defiant ago.
-
Just amazing...
-
I've said it in the past, I'll say it right now. Making a Defiant as I type this. Who knows, it may be done by Christmas. ;)
-
The reasons why these views take a while is that have to be confirmed (if possible) is the previous created views and the cross checked with the images I have on file. Even after I'm through with this process I'll have to create a legit 3D model to confirm the curves and then I'll "Flat shot" those complicated curves into 2D drawings. That's why All these are are only versions.
I've included as much physical detail that isn't merely paint or seam work so as not to clutter the images.
To get this nose I had drop it's bottom a bit and that of course changed the side view so there is a new Side Elevation view to be made later.
There are immediately some difference between the Davide Schmidt drawings I started with. Primary the tail section doesn't dip down as low in this view nor does it have the same shape.
I've also noticed that the model has the bottom cannon pointed in the wrong direction (outboard) instead of straight ahead. (corrected here)
I've also left out the raised stage of the Shuttle /tractor module off this view. It's not a huge difference most wouldn't notice, but I haven't decided how far off the bottom it will be.
Version 1.0 Defiant Front Plan
(http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2191/defiantfrontversion1.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/defiantfrontversion1.png/)
David Schmidt's Version
(For Reference)
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6922/sddefiantsheet2x.jpg
-
I've had the rear done for a while but as soon as I finished it I knew it wasn't right.
It's of course based on the previously made front view and side view and I don't think this is the right proportions of the engine to the ship and of course I based these drawings off of David's plans for the other views.
(http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5849/defiantrearversion1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/defiantrearversion1.jpg/)
Blue: The Finished Version 1 Defiant Rear View
Red is a trace Drawing from a photo
Green is David Schmidt's
You can a difference in the profile of the engines. The body is a bit more angular
(http://imageshack.us/a/img211/5058/defiantnacellesketch3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/211/defiantnacellesketch3.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img138/4933/defiantnacellesketch2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/138/defiantnacellesketch2.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img255/2756/defiantnacellesketch1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/255/defiantnacellesketch1.jpg/)
I then did a photomatch from a separate picture (than the ones you see above) in sketchup and made this version of the nacelles which look really good but aren't perfect.
For instance the angle seems slightly off as well as the shape. Nor does it perfectly fit the look from both front and back.
At this point I'm just using sketchup to visualize what I'm doing in 2D in 3D to see if at least the proportions are right which I think right now says they aren't.
I may go back to sketchup again with a big all or nothing view by view attempt at the ship since I know the top view is down right.
I may be looking to do a photomatch upwards of 5 different photos in the same drawing just to pin down these problems.
I really expected to much closer to done by this point because of David Schmidt's plans but if I'm going to be accurate I have to be sure.
-
(http://imageshack.us/a/img855/3632/200807262342571m1s.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/200807262342571m1s.png/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img100/7073/2008072623361456s.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/100/2008072623361456s.png/)
There are a few odds and loose ends but this is essentially done.
Views of the interior are limited.
-
:eek :drool:
-
Tobias Richter has made his first pass at Defiant today. I'm giving him my reference materials in hopes that he can made a 3D model just as accurate faster than I can. I'm adding his progress here.
http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/showthread.php?79742-USS-Defiant
-
Well Farshot it while Tobias's Defiant' is high poly it's not quite precise but I'm not going to nitpick his work on his thread. He's an extremely fast worker so many won't notice the errors at all.
(http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/726/defiantwip03.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/defiantwip03.jpg/)
His bridge area is still completely flat. I noticed that you did chamfer yours appropriately.
-
At the very least send him a PM saying the front ends of the nacelles aren't perfectly flat. :P
-
well aren't we a rough bunch of nitpickers... XD j/k
-
Shucks I know I am.
I see what you mean Farshot...I'm going to ask him about that.
-
(http://imageshack.us/scaled/thumb/502/defiantwip05.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/502/defiantwip05.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/scaled/thumb/801/defiantwip04.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/801/defiantwip04.jpg/)
He's still missing some detail under the Nose in the cavity along the side walls but this is truly epic piece of work.
He did correct the nacelles Farshot had noticed.
-
It occured to me that Tobias Richter is using the First Contact Defiant for reference. Look at the bridge deck area.
(http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/firstcontacthd/firstcontacthd0193.jpg)
-
And if you're curious, it looks like the Defiant MSD and DS9TM depictions were based off of a single photo taken from the side of the studio model. Those two alongside a perspective side render match very well.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/83575522/Defiant/blarg.png)
-
I think you're right!
But wait a minute!
So my side view of the underside of Defiant' front nacelle is wrong? It doesn't go straight down from the cowling but sweeps back somehow?!
-
No, it goes straight down. It looks like it sweeps back because of perspective. I'm just saying the MSD and side view aren't necessarily wrong.
-
Yeah I understood what you meant later.
More pics from Tobias Richters completed model.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img13/3170/defiantwip12.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/defiantwip12.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img195/1796/defiantwip11.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/195/defiantwip11.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img267/7684/defiantwip10.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/267/defiantwip10.jpg/)
-
That's a beauty!
-
I speaking with a CAD associate of mine and he looked at Farshot's and Tobias' Defiant and noted that his Defiant is too fat and I started looking at some differences and I think he's wrong.
-
The his and he's are fairly ambiguous in that sentence.
-
Sorry....That would be his Defiant (Tobia's model) looks on the fat side. I knew there was something more wrong with it besides minor detail.
-
This shot of the mirror Defiant shows something interesting.
(http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4x20/shatteredmirror_203.jpg)
It closely matches my proposed airlock for the Defiant.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/83575522/Defiant/airlock_002.png)
-
I can't help but notice though that you can clearly see the rim of the DS9 airlock hatch in that shot, they didn't bother to actually connect the ship to the airlock. If you look carefully, the ship isn't even lined up straight with the docking bay. personally, I prefer the canon four deck interpretation.
-
why not ?
i saw this about defiant :
(http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj566/bdfd/USSDefiantairlock_zpsbd685e68.jpg)
it's a good idea. :yay:
-
I looked at something similar. I still don't know where this is from but I couldn't find a place on the hull that big for the docking color to emerge from. There seems to be a sensor array down the middle of the nose. But this is a pretty good find because if scaled right he could be adapted to work at the very tip of the nose. This will go well with the archive. Thank you sir.
-
I can't help but notice though that you can clearly see the rim of the DS9 airlock hatch in that shot, they didn't bother to actually connect the ship to the airlock. If you look carefully, the ship isn't even lined up straight with the docking bay. personally, I prefer the canon four deck interpretation.
Only because of the MSD but that doesn't match the actual model and its windows ACES...
-
This shot of the mirror Defiant shows something interesting.
(http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4x20/shatteredmirror_203.jpg)
It closely matches my proposed airlock for the Defiant.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/83575522/Defiant/airlock_002.png)
Yeah...ya know...I like it when an artist can show a designer another way to do things. That's a great idea Farshot I was also thinking of a rising panel or a slide-in panel.
-
why not ?
i saw this about defiant :
(http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj566/bdfd/USSDefiantairlock_zpsbd685e68.jpg)
it's a good idea. :yay:
Thing about that...the MESS HALL is where the supposed "Warhead Cockpit" is. Seems stupid, but it is where it is. Don't believe me? Watch "Starship Down".
-
Tobias has finished his Defiant. Mostly very Good. However I'm convinced he did not make the appropriate correction to deck one and it is too fat. Otherwise it's stunning
(http://imageshack.us/a/img163/2503/defiant03.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/163/defiant03.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img819/8906/defiant02.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/defiant02.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img5/2189/defiant01.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/5/defiant01.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img28/4629/defiant04.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/defiant04.jpg/)
He got the angle of the nose wrong too. When looking up at Defiant it has the feeling of it looking down at you.
Farshot may not have gotten this amount of detail...but his is more Defiant than Tobias currently as a far low poly mesh.
-
shadow, i think that you think about this :
(http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj566/bdfd/USSDefiantairlock2_zpsd7bad112.jpg)
there are two different versions on the web, the most edited are with the mess...
saquist, pictures are stunning. :thumbsup:
-
Reference Pics
I don't know where Sean Tourangeau got his Terran Empire Logo but the Yellow Black Earth with the Sword is not it.
The Mirror Defiant is the normal Defiant mostly stripped down of it's red stripes, Registry and name and then using the Terran Logo as seen on Jenifer Sisko (mirror). The logo Here is black and silver. The Model sported a silver and violet blue logo in these locations.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img690/5985/87547073590135933.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/690/87547073590135933.jpg/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img829/9863/terranempire3.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/829/terranempire3.png/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img843/6530/terranempire.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/terranempire.png/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img831/2553/terranempire4.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/831/terranempire4.png/)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img593/9571/terranempire2.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/593/terranempire2.png/)
-
I thought Sean Tourangeau's "mirror" ships are of his own designed "Dark Mirror" universe, and not the canon Mirror Universe that we know?
-
I thought Sean Tourangeau's "mirror" ships are of his own designed "Dark Mirror" universe, and not the canon Mirror Universe that we know?
Indeed.
-
Reference Pics
I don't know where Sean Tourangeau got his Terran Empire Logo but the Yellow Black Earth with the Sword is not it.
The Mirror Defiant is the normal Defiant mostly stripped down of it's red stripes, Registry and name and then using the Terran Logo as seen on Jenifer Sisko (mirror). The logo Here is black and silver. The Model sported a silver and violet blue logo in these locations.
Actually I think the Yellow Black Earth came from the ENT Episode "In a Mirror Darkly"
In TOS "Mirror, Mirror" It was a (Blue) Uni- colour Earth + Sword
The Logo on Jenifer Sisko is from the Terran Slave Rebelion against the Klingon Cardassian Alliance.
On another Note: I've never Seen that the Mirror Defiant used the appropriate Markings.
Looks like i was too distracted by Worfs Giant NeghVar.
-
Looks like i was too distracted by Worfs Giant NeghVar.
*snickers*
-
Tobias Richter's Defiant fly-by. Gotta say, as much as I love some of his stuff, he missed the mark quite a bit on this ship. It's too fat and the warp engines are angled completely wrong.
-
Yup.
-
Agreed, there is something very off about it.
-
I've been thinking of doing this for a while but sketchup is making it difficult. It seems to start breaking up polygons when you cut into round surface I don't know how I'll get around it but this is the detail so far.
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5903/dockdetail.png)[/URL]
My hope is to put enough detail together to just array one feature to all four sides and the outter wall may be divided into 8 or 12 parts.
I guess we'll see. This will take awhile.
-
Yes, I'm still on it...
I've been learning a new program for drafting with parametric modeling abilities. It's easier in someways than Sketchup...or easier to correct mistakes.
This is Inventor by Autodesk.
I have to say this was difficult to create the mutiface sides of the ships main hull.
(http://imageshack.com/scaled/large/35/i77z.png) (http://imageshack.com/i/0zi77zp/)
(http://imageshack.com/scaled/large/11/m1w.png) (http://imageshack.com/i/0bm1wp/)
-
Alexander just finished the Enigma's MSD
We finalized it today aswell as it's Registry # as NCC-97571
(http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/1971/t02h.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/585/t02h.png/)
Direct link:
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/1971/t02h.png
-
Cool ship!
-
Alexander just finished the Enigma's MSD
We finalized it today aswell as it's Registry # as NCC-97571
(http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/1971/t02h.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/585/t02h.png/)
Direct link:
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/1971/t02h.png
u.s.s. epic LOLZ - I wanna see the real ship now, looks awesome :D
-
@ Phoenix
You WILL.
I've hired Tobias Richter to create a mesh for the Enigma.
If all goes well I will be posting his progress here and at Sci Fi Meshes.
P.S Few people actually catch the less than subtle pride of the name.