Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
01-09-2011, 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
I'm the type that likes accuracy, so I decided to use real-scale measurements on the computer. (1:1 Ratio)

After my intiital Sketch, I did some extrapolation on ship lengths that would be for the future Enterprises from the F to the J and determined somewhere between 900m to 1400m is acceptable, which is coincidentially the same sizes for the Romulan D'Deridex Warbird and the Klingon Vo'Quv. So I determined that 1000m was a nice length.

The ships width and height was trial and error from the initial sketch and the deck height used the traditional 3m standard.


Should be done in the next few days. /crosses fingers

Methinks you (and a lot of other people well, so don't feel bad) are beginning to fall prey to the "bigger is better" fallacy, otherwise known as the trope I mentioned in another thread "xxx Have No Sense Of Scale".

For comparison:

The largest aircraft carrier in the US Navy currently is the CVAN-65 Enterprise. It's length is 335.64 m, or 1,101 feet. It's beam (width) is 75.6m (252 ft) at it's widest point. That's about the same size lengthwise as a Constitution-class, though a Constitution can hold more people due to it's arrangement (it's not a simple rectangle, the way the CVAN mostly is). The more common Nimitz-class is nearly the same size, at 332.85m length and 75.6m beam. (Source: US Navy fact page on current carriers)

Have you ever been up close with either one, or anything near their size? They're pretty big ships, and when yiou start talking about ships that are 1000m in length, you're breaking believability in ANYONE that knows what those lengths actually mean, or even having a close inkling.

To get one, if you live in Southern California you can get a inkling of just how big these distances are by going to Long Beach Harbor, and visiting the permanently-docked Queen Mary. She clocks in at 1,019 ft (310.74m) with a beam of 118ft (35.97m). Walk her decks for a bit and you'll begin to get a idea of just how immense what you're talking about is (your ship would be 3 times the length of the Queen Mary by your calculated size). (Source: Queen May factoid sheet on the QM promotional site)

Again, anyone can throw numbers around - it's recognizing what they mean that can lead to utilizing them effectively, and there's nothing like personal experience to help you get a sense of scale.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
01-09-2011, 11:10 PM
Since my entry was my first attempt at 3D modeling and has VERY little detail I say it's as big as the Enterprise D. That is about as much thought as I put into it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
01-10-2011, 12:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LotD
Still, I'd say you did rather well. I know the feeling though. This was my first time designing something in this manner, which is one of the reasons I was curious about how people handled scaling. Usually my design work is confined to UIs (work) or maps for FPSes (fun). I've always been more of a programmer than an artist. I could probably script my ship to fly a pattern and fire phasers and photon torpedoes in 1/10th the time it took me to make it.

Then again, even though nobody has really taken an interest in my design, I'm still pretty impressed at how good it ultimately came out all things considered. (Links in my sig for reference.)
Thank you

I don't mind your design, you did quite well, but my only issue is that it looks like its from the TOS or movies period rather than a 25th Century design. But then that seems to be a matter of opinion on this forum it seems.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
01-10-2011, 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LotD
So to all my fellow Enterprise F entrants, how much or how little did you take scale into account when designing your ship? Did you go with aesthetics and worry about that later? Did you come up with a number and work towards it? Did you stick another ship next to it and work off that?

Since I ultimately ended up putting windows on my hull, I had to at least get a rough scale to figure out how tall they could be and how many rows could fit, so my ship would be somewhere between 730 and 760 m long depending on how tall the windows would be (I figured between 4 and 6 ft based on what we've seen in the show.) That makes her significantly longer than the Enterprise E, and marginally taller and wider. The width is mostly due to my having a more rounded saucer.

However, I did make some adjustments for the aesthetics of taking my still shots, which sometimes made it look as though the nacelles were slightly under the saucer because of the perspective and the program I was using etc. So if I adjusted to them back down to where I wanted them to be on the grid, my ship would actually be about the same height if not a little shorter than the Enterprise E.
So.. why does your Ent-F entry look like its from 150 years in the past? While I enjoyed the aesthetics of the previous series/movies as well, the simple fact is that we are going forward, not backwards.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
01-10-2011, 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmGillis View Post
So.. why does your Ent-F entry look like its from 150 years in the past? While I enjoyed the aesthetics of the previous series/movies as well, the simple fact is that we are going forward, not backwards.
I don't necessarily think that it does look that way, but the shrunken, compressed image the site generated does me no favors because the differences are not as pronounced as the Enterprise E variations.

The main thing that really resembles those ships is that mine has a neck again, but even then, her neck is very small and extended considerably, as well as tapered to the front. In the back, it's just as thick as the secondary hull. Two decks lower and the saucer would be flat even with the secondary hull. The secondary hull lacks the trademark rear-hook pattern of all the ships to date and instead is a gradual slope to the shuttle bay. It is also tilted down and forward, whereas previous ships have had a straight back. Their saucers were practically squared off, whereas mine has a very sharp angle. My pylons are tapered to the back, thicker in the front and thinner in the back like airplane wings, and my nacelles are designed to be similar to those on the USS Aventine, albeit smaller.

Of course, I did intend for it to evoke thoughts of the older ships, but many of the elements my ship returns can be found on the Enterprise J. The J's saucer is round again, and her pylons are back to being straight protrusions at a 45 degree angle etc.

Not that looking like a Constitution-class has been much of a problem for Chris Madden's ship though.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:24 PM.