Author Topic: Merian-Class and Mogai-Type Warbird (Read 17117 times)

aaron067 · « **Reply #140 on:** July 17, 2011, 11:52:12 PM »

FarShot: I know what you mean. I extended the exhaust part of the engine quite a bit from what I originally did because I was thinking of that, but I guess it doesn't have the intended affect. I know exactly what I can do, and I think it'll solve another issue I'm having as well. I'll post some renders when I make the changes.

Edit: Changes made. I'm still trying to come up with a way to make that inside edge of the cutaway look better. Any thoughts, or is it fine the way it is? I'll get to work on the pylon engines in the meantime.

FarShot · « **Reply #141 on:** July 18, 2011, 01:31:36 AM »

It's kinda hard to make a judgement call about the fore impulse engines at the moment. I see the necessity for a cutout, and yet there's the issue of getting them to look right.

I have a couple ideas, but that depends on something: Are you still going to go with your original plan of a two-piece separation?

aaron067 · « **Reply #142 on:** July 18, 2011, 10:12:51 AM »

That depends. I'm not married to any one idea at the moment. What do you have in mind?

FarShot · « **Reply #143 on:** July 18, 2011, 10:50:25 AM »

Well, depending on where the separation plane is, you could work the cutout into the plane. The sketch I made is a bit rough, as from the shots you posted, I can't really make out the exact shape of the cutout, but I tried. Essentially, the cutout would form the top surface of the cobra head.

aaron067 · « **Reply #144 on:** July 18, 2011, 11:19:40 AM »

That's definitely not something I'd thought about. I'd decide long ago that the separation plane would be at the seam of the aft-facing saucer panel and the secondary hull, but I like the line you've come up with. It makes sense, and it also gives the saucer piece the same general shape as the Prometheus saucer piece. I think I'll need to rework that seam a bit so that it flows a bit better, I'll definitely look into it.

In the meantime, I've minimized the cutout even further.

Locke · « **Reply #145 on:** July 18, 2011, 01:36:35 PM »

Wait! It was better when it was larger. At this point it seems a bit awkward, since it's half-hidden behind the engine. I tell you, when I run into a problem where I just can't get used to a certain part of a mesh, I take a step back and stop going about it the way I was. If you can't get it to work right for you, try a different approach. For instance, instead of two impulse drives, why not have one single long one at the rear of the saucer? Or perhaps having them hidden by the separation plane, so that the two engines mounted on the pylons are the only ones visible when it's integrated?

FarShot · « **Reply #146 on:** July 18, 2011, 01:49:09 PM »

Well, the entire point of their current position and number is that the original Prometheus had them there. That's pretty much all there is to it.

aaron067 · « **Reply #147 on:** July 18, 2011, 02:53:17 PM »

I agree, Locke. I had intended to step back, but there were too many aspects of that area that didn't sit well with me. If it weren't for the fact that this design is intended to be a updated and somewhat more realistic take on the Prometheus and it's multi-vector assault mode, I'd scrap the twin impulse engines and saucer and turn that shuttle bay into one large engine.

As it stands, I've reworked the shape of the spine as it passes from the saucer to the engineering hull, which removed the sharp seam between those two sections. I'm hopeful that it will give me a much better starting point for creating a separation point that integrates the impulse engines and the required cutout.

Locke · « **Reply #148 on:** July 18, 2011, 03:39:07 PM »

In reference to the point about the original having them there, I would like to point out that the Excelsior class refit (Enterprise B) had a whole new set of impulse engines added to the saucer, and the Galaxy X refit had a completely reconfigured set of impulse drives as well. My point being that just because you're revamping the design does not mean you have to stick to every single design aspect of the original.

FarShot · « **Reply #149 on:** July 18, 2011, 04:07:35 PM »

But both the Excelsior class refit and Galaxy X still had the original saucer impulse engines.

Being completely straightforward, I think the new saucer impulse engines themselves look great, especially with that forked front that blends into the saucer. The only issue I see is the cutout, and Aaron's tackling that issue. I think we should wait to see what his alterations look like before we debate just how far the refit should differentiate.

086gf · « **Reply #150 on:** July 18, 2011, 04:41:39 PM »

Not really fond of the premmie styling in general but this one is starting to grow on me. Like how you did the aft facing torp launchers. Thats what they should have done with the refitted E.

aaron067 · « **Reply #151 on:** July 18, 2011, 10:59:16 PM »

Redid the cutouts to match an earlier version and added in the separation plane.

Locke · « **Reply #152 on:** July 19, 2011, 03:15:15 PM »

Looks like you have some mesh-smoothing errors there around the impulse engines, but otherwise it looks pretty sweet. I will say that it would be nicer to have some engines that blend more into the overall shape of the ship. Much like the engines on the Sovereign.

aaron067 · « **Reply #153 on:** July 19, 2011, 03:33:18 PM »

Unfortunately, that is not an option with the design of this mesh. It's something that I thought about early on and just couldn't find a design that looked right. Be that as it may, the current engines are based on the Vesta class design and give the ship a decidedly more aggressive posture, which I like.

The smoothing error was actually an unwelded vertex. Thanks for the heads up, though,

aaron067 · « **Reply #154 on:** July 20, 2011, 10:01:35 AM »

The first picture is just a little experiment I wanted to have a go at before I modeled the aft impulse engines. The other two images are, obviously, updates with the aft engines added to the mesh.

Lionus · « **Reply #155 on:** July 20, 2011, 11:21:23 AM »

I have a feeling that Klingons would appreciate this ship, as it reminds me of a dagger or short sword..

FarShot · « **Reply #156 on:** July 20, 2011, 12:43:44 PM »

Looking excellent!

On the side, is the experiment the pylons? I like the original versions, slightly swept forward, better than the experiment ones.

aaron067 · « **Reply #157 on:** July 20, 2011, 01:02:56 PM »

Thanks for the comments!

Yes, the experiment was the pylons. I had originally tried them swept back like that, but I recently found a mesh of a 25th century ship online that executed a similar design very well (from the top, anyway), so I just wanted to give it another shot. As it turns out, I agree completely with you. Not only were the original Prometheus pylons swept forward, but I think the forward angle gives the ship a more aggressive posture and balances the mesh from all possible perspectives. It seems as though the backward swept pylons are usually reserved for the explorer-type vessels, anyhow.

WileyCoyote · « **Reply #158 on:** July 20, 2011, 02:49:10 PM »

Quote

but I think the forward angle gives the ship a more aggressive posture and balances the mesh from all possible perspectives. It seems as though the backward swept pylons are usually reserved for the explorer-type vessels, anyhow.

That is what the designers of the Enterprise-E were thinking, but be careful on forward-sweeping pylons, you might get the "chicken-wing" effect.

Lionus · « **Reply #159 on:** July 20, 2011, 03:01:52 PM »

U.S.S. Hens Flight, U.S.S. Rooster..?

News:

Author Topic: Merian-Class and Mogai-Type Warbird (Read 17117 times)