# TOS K-7 Space Station, the Four Mad Men Version



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Here's a little over 1 hours worth of effort. Perhaps not terribly accurate just yet but hopefully one day. I'll be adding to this as I find more reference information. So without further delay...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Looks fantastic!
I just bought a bunch of sheet styrene(from a wholesaler in 4' x 8' sheets) for the Class F shuttlecraft. 

Don't think I'm going to be buying a ton of spheres anytime soon...
I don't think...
probably not...
well maybe...
who knows?...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Would love to see someone build a collapsing mechanized version!!!
Now that would be a kit to have!!!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Very impressive! When does this model hit the stores? LOL


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Would love to see someone build a collapsing mechanized version!!!
> Now that would be a kit to have!!!


I second that! I'd love to see the whole thing collapsed and ready to transport to it's final destination.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Your hooked *Chuck*, and we both know it. It would be a shame to build it in a different scale than the shuttlecraft.

This model will be available in stores March '05. For now this (492KB, DivX) will have to do.


----------



## vinyl fan (Jan 1, 2005)

Lookin' real spiffy !!!!!!!!!!!!! :dude: :dude:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Very good video!! I will have to look for the model in March.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Your hooked *Chuck*, and we both know it. It would be a shame to build it in a different scale than the shuttlecraft.


Hmmm... 1/24th? That would be a BIG kit!

One of my checks was WAY lower then it should have been. But as soon as I can I'll see if I can get The Trouble with Tribbles(is it in the second series pack or the third?) and especially get some interior screenshots of the station windows to help with scaling... Unless someone else already has some grabs of that...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

That's from season 2. I'm not much for going through all the scale calculations but I'll trust you to do as well a job on that as with the shuttle.

I'd sure like to find some outer hull details, especially in regards to the lower sections.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

A small update. I know it's not much but here it is anyway...










_Click on this image for a small animation that shows one of the "cargo pods" opening. I haven't quite decided if I'll be splitting the first section in two and having both sides open in the opposite direction._


----------



## BATBOB (Jul 14, 2003)

Is that a real model or CGI. Looks fantastic.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

That is perfect! That is the way I've always pictured the modules would operate. By far this is the most interesting CG project I'm following. :thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Impressive as always!!! It is a shame that when you finish a model in the computer, that you can't push a button, and out pops a plastic model. I hope that Thomas can give us some more information on the K-7, like photos.

I like the video. Makes you think what could have been done, if they had the money back then.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Wow, thanks guys. Yes, the "Render Physical Model" feature in Blender is sadly missing.

I've decided that the first double-size "door" (I need a better name for these things) should be split in half. It's more in keeping with the original 50s Douglas design. And the TOS screeshots I have show a light at the center and when opened I'd still like to have the light visible.

You'll notice that the thickness of these hull sections are not nearly as thick as the Jein model. This was done purposefully for two reasons: 1) The original model did not seem to have such thick sections (or if it did they did not show that way when filmed back in the 60s) and 2) I just simply don't think the need to be that thick given the technological capabilities involved.

So, how do you suppose the internal space is used? I'm envisioning modular compartments that simply plug into the inner core. This gives protection to them (when the pod is closed), while allowing easy access for removal and transportation to other places. What do you think? Any other ideas?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Four Mad Men said:


> I've decided that the first double-size "door" (I need a better name for these things) should be split in half. It's more in keeping with the original 50s Douglas design. And the TOS screeshots I have show a light at the center and when opened I'd still like to have the light visible.


Hehehe, I was going to suggest that


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Impressive as always!!! It is a shame that when you finish a model in the computer, that you can't push a button, and out pops a plastic model.


Man! Wouldn't that be nice!!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Four Mad Men said:


> I'm envisioning modular compartments that simply plug into the inner core. This gives protection to them (when the pod is closed), while allowing easy access for removal and transportation to other places. What do you think? Any other ideas?


The inner core could rotate, like a lazy susan, so that what ever module needs to be accessed can be aligned with the main door opening. This would mean the doors would only need to open as wide as the module being removed.

Mark


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

If they are bulk storage, say for grain, then the centers could house work areas and bulk material transfer machinery.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

MGagen said:


> The inner core could rotate, like a lazy susan, so that what ever module needs to be accessed can be aligned with the main door opening. This would mean the doors would only need to open as wide as the module being removed.
> 
> Mark



THAT is a very cool idea! :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yes it is. A very fine idea indeed. I will most definately attempt to do something with that one.

*Stimpson J. Cat*'s idea is a good one as well. The connecting arms can be (among other things I'm sure) a transfer conduit for the storage compartments (Storage Compartments? Storage Compartments?). It get's loaded into pod #1 and for whatever reason needs to be transfered to pod #2 or even the main central cargo area. Certainly worth thinking about. Stay tuned...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> Hehehe, I was going to suggest that


Yes, I had been debating that with myself eversince my first test animations. And if I'm not mistaken the Jein model suggests this very idea (although I guess it could just be an extra heavy grid line).


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Ok, one problem I see with that animation - it doesn't act like a physical model. If those doors were solid, the "big" door that opens initially would end up slicing through the section of support arm that goes from the back edge of the pod to the pod core.

I'm sure that if you watch your animation from the inside of the pod, you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Good call. You are correct. And infact not just the "doublewide". They all cut through the end of the arm. However even if that part of the arm remains as it is now and with the splitting of that double door there is enough room to get a 200 degree opening without breaking any physical laws.

Having said all that and with Mark's idea of the core rotating, I think what will end up on the interior will essentially be just a core cylinder. So at this point the end of the arm will exist (for the most part) only on the exterior.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I've been sitting here thinking about space usage. Those pods are just not the shape I'd have chosen. At first I was thinking about some sort of horizontal arrangement where the compartments would attach directly to the core. But then my mind hit on some sort of honeycomb like network of scaffolds (?) where the compartments would be held vertically. Of course all the containers would be of standard federation sizes. Larger one towards the core and smaller one towards the rim. Anybody care to take a stab at some sketches for this aspect of the design?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Split the "double-wide" and the next thing I know...

_That's no moon..._


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Watch out for them thar TIE fighters, they just might get ya


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

STAR TREK WARS! That a good one 4MM! I like the Falcon in the hanger.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Nova Designs said:


> THAT is a very cool idea! :thumbsup:





Four Mad Men said:


> Yes it is. A very fine idea indeed. I will most definately attempt to do something with that one.


Thanks, guys.

One other issue to consider. Space is a vacuum. Is the internal storage area pressurized when the doors are closed, or are only the storage units themselves pressurized.

If the entire module is pressurized, is it divided up in some way so that only a given compartment must be depressurized when the doors open? If not, that's a lot of air to waste for a "deep space" station.

Or perhaps the interior remains a vacuum and each cargo container "plugs into" others which are in turn plugged into the pressurized core. Then the doors can open at any time and atmosphere is maintained in the network of cargo pods. You seal off whichever pods you are removing before you disattach them.

I'm getting a picture of an internal arrangement like the blades of a riverboat paddlewheel stood on end. Picture an extruded asterisk: Each blade is plugged into the rotating core and is thick enough to have decks of corridors inside like the one Kirk is in in Tribbles with doors opening on to modular storage modules. Cargo can be accessed from inside the station in this manner.

More often, though, I picture a visiting ship parked outside the open storage bay doors while swarms of workbees cherry pick various cargo pods from the station interior and carry them into the starship's hangar deck.

Mark


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Yeah I was thinking something similar. The doors open only part way, and then the interior pod section that is being dealt with would rotate to face the opening where it could be accessed by work bees or a gangway of some kind. There could be multiple levels too, it seems tall enough.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I just noticed a little detail on the TOS K-7 I hadn't seen before.
Check out the posts and pictures in post #118 here:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=100950&page=8&pp=15

at first I thought it might have been a shadow, then I noticed it dipped on the left a little. When I downloaded and blew up the pic, I noticed the "shadow" had it's own shadow towards the right half. Indicating it is unlikely to be anything but a raised surface.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Split the "double-wide" and the next thing I know...
> 
> _That's no moon..._


ROTFLMAO !!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Phil Broad(X-15-A2) has just posted some pics of the original model created by Douglas Aircraft which, according to Datin who made the final K-7, he simply modified to come up with the final K-7.

Datin modified the exact modules pictured below to make the actual on-screen K-7!

Here they are!

Thanks again, Phil!



http://www.cloudster.com/RealHardware/SIVBStage/Models/Display10.jpg



http://www.cloudster.com/RealHardware/SIVBStage/Models/Display09.jpg



These pics are the first ones I've seen that seem to completely solve the number of segments and segment overlay size questions!



Also makes it look as if the squared off parts of the AMT kit may not have been that far off after all.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

It it good to see the original design. This answers alot of questions.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

capt Locknar said:


> Watch out for them thar TIE fighters, they just might get ya


I feel a great disturbance in The Schwartz



Lloyd Collins said:


> STAR TREK WARS! That a good one 4MM! I like the Falcon in the hanger.


Thanks for noticing the Falcon, I spent the better part of 45 seconds painstakingly recreating for your viewing pleasure.

Hey Chuck, this can't be the first time you've seen those pictures on Phil's site?! Can it? To be truthful I've never taken a close look at them in terms of counting the segments but they are a nice bit of history.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

MGagen said:


> One other issue to consider. Space is a vacuum. Is the internal storage area pressurized when the doors are closed, or are only the storage units themselves pressurized.
> 
> If the entire module is pressurized, is it divided up in some way so that only a given compartment must be depressurized when the doors open? If not, that's a lot of air to waste for a "deep space" station.


I'm thinking only the storage units are pressurized. The actual interior of the pod (much like the starbase "caverns" we've seen) is vacuum.



MGagen said:


> I'm getting a picture of an internal arrangement... is thick enough to have decks of corridors inside like the one Kirk is in in Tribbles with doors opening on to modular storage modules. Cargo can be accessed from inside the station in this manner.


Well now, aren't you just full of good ideas.



MGagen said:


> More often, though, I picture a visiting ship parked outside the open storage bay doors while swarms of workbees cherry pick various cargo pods from the station interior and carry them into the starship's hangar deck.





Nova Designs said:


> Yeah I was thinking something similar. The doors open only part way, and then the interior pod section that is being dealt with would rotate to face the opening where it could be accessed by work bees or a gangway of some kind. There could be multiple levels too, it seems tall enough.


I'm on the same page here.

While it's probably easy to extrapolate a TOS cargo container based upon what we saw in TMP, I'm fast approaching the $64,000 quiestion: "What's the size of this thing?". It's been asked before but for what I want to do it's really getting down to being a necessity.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Primary module diameter 353.7 ft (107.5 m)

Secondary module diameter 188.3 ft (57.4 m)

Overall diameter 1055.55 ft (321.73 m)

Overall height 528.3 ft (161 m)

Secondary module height 112.98 ft (34.44 m)

--was my take, circa 1987. This assumes a 947 ft Enterprise in a circular "orbit" about K-7 in "The Trouble With Tribbles," and is a no-doubt-faulty guesstimate based on episode scenes in which the ship was in roughly the same relative (opposite) positions in front of and behind the station. I'm sure someone could get a more accurate take with computer modeling, but I think this is about right (though not to the post-decimal numbers...).

Recall that the ship as seen through K-7's office windows was in fact an AMT kit, and given the apparent small size of the Douglas station from which K-7 was kitbashed, my guess is the AMT kit & station were shot as one (rather like the 11-ft E & Botany Bay).

Does this match the size of Jein's K-7, as vs. that of the hangared shuttlecraft? Who cares...first canon is MORE canonical.

Phil, did the K-7 blues I sent you (along with my Galileo plans) include a "blueprint" of the Douglas module as reference? If so, feel free to post it here, for to provide a (really) canonical outline of the smaller module(s).

David Winfrey


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Hey Chuck, this can't be the first time you've seen those pictures on Phil's site?! Can it? To be truthful I've never taken a close look at them in terms of counting the segments but they are a nice bit of history.


Yep! Sure is.

Never bothered to check out his "real space" collection!

Now that we know that Datin used those models we have some very clear shots to work with!

Thanks again Phil!

May the Schwartz Be With You!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> While it's probably easy to extrapolate a TOS cargo container based upon what we saw in TMP, I'm fast approaching the $64,000 quiestion: "What's the size of this thing?". It's been asked before but for what I want to do it's really getting down to being a necessity.


If you can get the main cone and it's windows/levels done to a high degree of accuracy and get the module widths roughly close I can scale it for you based on interior viewed window size.

I would say the cone has 11 rows of lights(both the Jein and TOS version).
I'm assuming you are more interested in a TOS interpretation so I would recommend you use Phil's one page screen capture sheet linked to in the other thread. The Jein model has the same number of rows of lights, though the rows between them are wider on his then the original model. The rows of windows on the original model seem to have rows underneath them about 40% as high as the windows themselves(whereas the Jein models has rows about 66% or a little more). The lowest row has a thinner row under it then the ones above. Also, the TOS "cones" are more triangular, less bulbous. You might want to refer to the Jein photos for referencing the "seams" and general window placement, however. I'll email you both so you know what I'm talking about.

Get that done orthographically and the general sizes of the other modules down and I can scale it for you!

P.S. Any chance of trying that backface-removed wireline routine?
The wirelines are much more precise to work with.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

trekkist said:


> Primary module diameter 353.7 ft (107.5 m)
> 
> Secondary module diameter 188.3 ft (57.4 m)
> 
> ...


Kewel! Thanks for posting that info, David. I appreciate it! 

So, I wasn't off by too much when I said the diameter was somewhere around 350m. I must've gotten that from your sheet - which I own a copy of, however due to wall space considerations, it's one of many posters that are rolled up and in the closet. 

A diameter of 321m yields a radius of 160.5m, right? That comes out to 2.53"/6.42cm in 1/2500 scale. Means it would make for a relatively respectable sized model in that scale..... 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

It's been a busy couple of days and I'm sure I'll have more replies to recent posts but now that I've sparked Chuck's participation I'll need to dig up my reading glasses :wave: 

Big, Big thanks to *trekkist* on those size figures. I'll start with those and see where that leads. It's nice to have a starting point, Thanks again Dave.

And it just so happens that the latest daily builds have a new feature for Blender that will come in most handy... measurements.

[edit]Although of course things had size before (in blender units) but segment lengths and things are now displayable[/edit]


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I kinda figgered the whole thing at about 1500 feet in diameter, or about a 750 foot radius . Give or take about 20 feet.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Who would have thought something simple like the length of an edge and the angle between two edges would taste so very sweet?

I calibrated my measurements based on David's secondary module diameter. My measurements will show two numbers for these (min. and max.) given the overlapping hull structure. Here's how they compare (David's numbers are in parenthesis):

Primary Module diameter: 366.121' min/377.423' max (353.7')
Secondary Module diameter: 182.563 min/*188.3'* max (188.3')
Overall diameter: 999.924' (1055.55') -- the length of the arms can, of course, greatly affect this number so hopefully some module to arm-length ratio can be determined.

Since the model is not finished these two numbers don't mean much right now but here they are anyway:

Secondary Module height: 103.343' (112.98')
Overall height: 490.263' (538.3')

Nothing's in stone so it's all up in the air. Sure wish there was one feature that we knew the "true" size of.

So based on that let's look at some pictures...

The red box (what's a 3 dimensional rectangle called anyway?) is 32' long x 16' wide x 10' high. The bay opening is 71.269' wide x 24.562' tall.










_Still debating a full or even partial through deck situation here._


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ sent you an email too.

And I really did just post a few pics in the Galileo thread.

That front upper orthographic I was talking about to do the front windows of the Galileo sure would come in handy about now...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Like I was saying earlier, I think doing the center major cone properly will be the best key to scaling the station, whether that makes it bigger or smaller is yet to be known...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'm assuming you are more interested in a TOS interpretation


Not precisely. I think Jein's vertical spacing on the windows is more realistic. The TOS filming model has them way too close together. And as much as I've enjoyed modeling the shuttlecraft I don't think I'm going to slave myself to getting every shape "just right". Partly because the two filming models differ in many ways. So I think I'll go with the Four Mad Men interpretation with leanings towards the TOS (first canon) interpretation as much as is acceptable. Scaling to the windows distrubs me somewhat as they are some of the smallest details on the thing, but I can see them used to scale the TOS model which can then be applied to my model (as opposed to scaling my model from the windows directly, if you see what I mean).

Once a decent size is determined I can get a better start on the parts that interest me the most. Those being the cargo container configuration and the shuttlebay(s). There's some really nice animation potential here with the station and the shuttle.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Whether Jein or TOS(do agree that the Jein 66% or so spacing between rows of window is more logical, though I think the more triangular, less bloated/less bulbous cones of the TOS design look cleaner) if you could do your major center cone so I could do a rough scale estimate of my own I'd appreciate it.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

While I much preferer the saucer shape of the latter model, I'm undecided on the cones. Chuck, your comment comes at the perfect time. I like both for different reasons so I'm putting it out here to see what everyone thinks. Can the old cones go with the new saucer? So here it is...

Which do you prefer?


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

1st one. :thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I prefer the old cones, or the first picture. I like the way it looked in TOS. Chuck, I better get my way!:lol:


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

The TOS cones for sure.


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

I gotta go with the curved cones. Artistically, it keeps in with the design style of the modules. The flat cones look better on the AMT kit, as those modules are designed with flat surfaces.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I prefer the old cones, or the first picture. I like the way it looked in TOS. Chuck, I better get my way!:lol:


I agree with you on the straight-sided cones(especially since the bulbous ones would be a *bitch* with a capital B to match for scratchbuilding), but talk to FourMadMen, it's his model. I just volunteered to help him scale it.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'm seeing a lot of you prefer the TOS cones. *Ziz* however is completely correct when he says the newer cones are more in keeping with the saucer profile. But I thank you all for you opinions on this (even if *Lloyd* is something on the demanding side :tongue: ). The TOS cones strike a soothing nerve in me but I do like the new ones as well. Decisions, decisions.

Now going back for a minute to the most recent renders. That red box is a decent enough approximation for the upscaled shuttlecraft (ala Chuck). Any thoughts on this? Seems just a tad too large to me, but time will tell.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I agree that I am demanding.LOL
Also, I agree that the red shuttle does look too large. If what Thomas said and there are three bays, and if two shuttles can dock as seen in DS9, then not many shuttles could visit. I think that about three shuttles per bay, but I am just guessing. You could try different renders to see what works. I will use all info when I rework the AMT model.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well even if the proportions don't change dramatically, I see the open area as a landing strip for the most part. A good portion of the rest of that section (the interior which you don't see) would actually house the visiting craft. I suspect there are three myself at this point. I can't remember which image it is but it's here some where with one of the openings labeled "3". It's too bad to because 2 really makes it easier to come up with something "real". I may stick with 2 anyway, just because I'm hard headed like that.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I'm seeing a lot of you prefer the TOS cones. *Ziz* however is completely correct when he says the newer cones are more in keeping with the saucer profile. But I thank you all for you opinions on this (even if *Lloyd* is something on the demanding side :tongue: ). The TOS cones strike a soothing nerve in me but I do like the new ones as well. Decisions, decisions.
> 
> Now going back for a minute to the most recent renders. That red box is a decent enough approximation for the upscaled shuttlecraft (ala Chuck). Any thoughts on this? Seems just a tad too large to me, but time will tell.


I've seen conflicting hanger sizing info. On IdicPage's website two very big craft are crammed into the bay. In a screengrab I've seen there is a Class F shuttlecraft's outline visible that is about 1/6th the size of the one clear shown on the IdicPage's site.

That, plus the fact that windows have been seen of a certain size from the interior leads me to want to use the windows for scaling - bulbous or not bulbous cones aside.

I favor the non-bulbous cones not just because I feel they look better, but also because if I decide to scratchbuild one it will be doable, the bulging cones - not so doable.

As far as keeping with the design of the rest of the station, I can't really agree with the more rounded cones being more compatible. One is a cone, the other two inverted ellipses. Also even the cones done originally by Douglas Aircraft were like those in TOS rather then Jein's.

But again, that's a matter of personal taste.

If you could do a detailed center cone, whatever the design of the cones' slants, I could do some scaling for you. That scaling will be based on window size and wouldn't be affected by whichever design you decide on.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Well even if the proportions don't change dramatically, I see the open area as a landing strip for the most part. A good portion of the rest of that section (the interior which you don't see) would actually house the visiting craft. I suspect there are three myself at this point. I can't remember which image it is but it's here some where with one of the openings labeled "3". It's too bad to because 2 really makes it easier to come up with something "real". I may stick with 2 anyway, just because I'm hard headed like that.


Again personal preference, but according to the article I read and something Thomas said there are 3 landing bays set every 120 degrees apart.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Four Mad Men said:


> Well even if the proportions don't change dramatically, I see the open area as a landing strip for the most part. A good portion of the rest of that section (the interior which you don't see) would actually house the visiting craft. I suspect there are three myself at this point. I can't remember which image it is but it's here some where with one of the openings labeled "3". It's too bad to because 2 really makes it easier to come up with something "real". I may stick with 2 anyway, just because I'm hard headed like that.


The image of the Jein station that shows the shuttlebay containing the TOS Shuttle and Cyrano Jones' ship is labled "2", which tells me that there's at least two bays. I've never seen one with a "3", tho. The angles of most of the shots don't lead me to believe that there is any more than two bays in that module, tho. 

I do agree about there likely being an interior area. Just like with TOS, the shuttlecraft likely take an elevator down or a door opens up in one end or whatever, allowing the shuttlecraft or other embarked craft to free up the bay for larger, transient craft. I feel that it's likely similar the interior decks of an aircraft carrier, but that's just me. 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Not just you, I feel the same way. There's probably as docking port or two there as well.

I rechecked my images and there is a "3". However I just can't see the beginning of any other opening that would be visible if it's center is 120 degress from the center of the visible one (ramble ramble). So... Four Mad Men Type-K Space Station Decree #1: There are 2 bay openings. Someone want to start a list?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Tre....










You can't see the windows in the pod but they are there. Even in this image

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=14646

You can see the 1 but you cannot see the windows that are to the right of the 1. You can barely see the left edge of the open bay door 3. There are no windows to the immediate left of the 1 but there are a few on the far edge of the pod, what I believe is on the left side of the door that you also cannot see. There is a much higher rez version of this pic out there that shows the windows and the edge of the open door. I believe there are 3 bay doors, all equal width on that pod on center at every 120 degrees.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Maybe it's just my bad eyes but I can not for the life of me see the edge of any door along the sides. Decrees we're made to be overturned so I'll keep looking.

Now, back to the well. Two options for the windows: Equal spacing no matter which row the windows are on OR equal number of windows per row (expect for the last few upper rows where the number is cut it half).

Equal spacing...









_Note: There is one column of windows where they all line up (top to botton), it's on the other side of what you see here (it is visible in the long shot above)_


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Equal number (ish)...


















I should note however that not every position will have a window but all potential positions are shown.

I very much prefer the equal spacing option myself. As I'm sure most of you will, but I had to try the other just to satisfy my curiosity about it.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I like the bottom one best of all. It just sorta grabs me for some reason. 

This is a pesonal intrepretation, right? If so, go with whatever you feel looks more appealing. I like pretty much everything that you've come up with so far. 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I like the bottom one, also. Looking at the top one just does something to what is left of my mind.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

I Agree, you should go with the Bottom type Windows.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

I like the second one as well. They kind of remind me of Daleks at this stag.  http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Research/other_36.jpg


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Not to be contrary, but I prefer the equal spacing. Looks more like the random TOS version, plus the bottom one wastes space and seems less like a working station as a result. Just my opinion. It's your model...

P.S. The cones look great but should be a little taller I believe. Also there should be a little more non-windowed space between the first row of windows and the top...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Not just you, I feel the same way. There's probably as docking port or two there as well.
> 
> I rechecked my images and there is a "3". However I just can't see the beginning of any other opening that would be visible if it's center is 120 degress from the center of the visible one (ramble ramble). So... Four Mad Men Type-K Space Station Decree #1: There are 2 bay openings. Someone want to start a list?


No sweat...

Anybody who wanted to make it three could do so with simple cut/paste if they wanted to do plans for their own three bay version.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

P.S. Datin who built the model said there are three, but the other two are closed, and considering the poor camerawork done in the episodes they aren't visible due to a combination of being washed out and blurry...


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

WHAT poor camera work!!!???


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

You know about the bays... I was thinking that even if there are _three_ of them, as is evidenced by the numbering, there's no indication that they are all the same size or used for the same purpose. There could be one large bay and two smaller ones. Maybe one is a tug/workbee shed. There is room for interpretation here I think.


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Or maybe it's just three different entrances to the same internal "bay" area, for ships approaching from different directions.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

So many choices on those bays. I'll probably do a few different things and see how they pan out. Thanks everyone for the input.

I must say that I thought for sure everyone would like the first set of windows. The final one will probably be a combination of the two methods once I get the true placements worked out on my Dalek (I had the same thought when I saw it rendered for the first time).

This question is for anyone who cares to answer but I suspet Chuck has an idea already: What are the dimensions of one of the windows (from a 1:1 scale perspective)? Best guess I suppose as we don't really know. I'd at least like to get the Height/Width ratio worked out but a good guess on the window dimensions will really help me out.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^

I would place the windows at the same height as floor to ceiling on the interior decks - namely 12 feet high.

While a few feet of the windows seen in one shot(with the Enterprise in the background) were covered by a section of wall, I would suggest that perhaps in some rooms the window is visible from floor to ceiling, in some rooms the windows might be partially obscured... Otherwise the proportional spacing between horizontal window rows becomes problematic. There just wouldn't be enough room for bulkhead spacing, conduits, pipes, etc.

But that's just a semi educated guess, plus a personal aversion I have to all those Trek blueprints that just show unrealistically thin lines that are supposed to seperate 10'-12' decks...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> WHAT poor camera work!!!???


If you can find a clear, sharp, evenly lighted pic of the K-7 please share it with us. :lol:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

OK, 12' high. I'll see how high the windows are that I've got now. How wide do you guesstimate?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I would go with 16 feet wide windows with six feet of space between windows horizontally. Then I would recommend 8 feet of space for the blank "seams" or horizontal bands between window rows.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

OK boys and girls, now I'm really confused. Somebone's numbers are way off (or once again the interior and exterior where very mis-scaled in relation to one another). Here are my dimensions (with D.W.'s numbers in parenthesis).

Primary Module diameter: 366.121'/377.423' min/max (353.7')
Secondary Module diameter: 182.563/*188.3'* min/max (188.3')
Overall diameter: 999.924' (1055.55')

Now Chuck has estimated the windows to be 12' Tall by 16' Wide. Well here is the picture with just such a "window". You can't really miss it, it's the massively HUGE block right in the middle bottom of the main "cone".










So either the windows are not anywhere near 12'x16' or this station is much bigger.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

That is just Lurry's office, the rest is smaller.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I looked at a photo of TOS K-7, and it looks like the cone is not wide and high enough.
There should be 11 windows high. And the cone top with the beacon on it is smaller than the top of the cone you have.

The heck with it! Here is the photo.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I do have eleven rows. And a simple resizing of just the cone won't make up for the difference in the two size of windows in the above render (they are several orders of magnitude different).

Also about Lurry's being bigger. I've seen quite a few photos lately (of both models) and I'm just not seeing any one window that is substantially bigger than the others, they all look pretty uniform in size to me.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Ok, the Lurry office window was a joke. Can't you use the photo I posted to help?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Sure but the issue is my windows work out to be 7.2' wide and 4.6' tall. It's all down to proportion now. My small windows are reasonably proportional to the cone size and to the image you posted (not perfect but closer than the the massive 16x12 window). So, if Lurry's windows is 16' x 12' (or anywhere near that size) then the station dimensions as started above are approximately half of what they should be (i.e. it should be twice the size of those dimensions). Now of course 16' x 12' is what Chuck is saying but I can't believe that he's watched the episode in question and has mistaken a 7' window width for 16'.

Look at the big 16x12 window in my render. You can't possibly fit as many of those windows on the bottom row (or any row) as seen in your image (and a simple resize of the cone will not fix that -- unless you want a cone that's way way bigger than it should be). So either the window dimensions Chuck has given are way too big or the station size (as I have it modeled) is way too small.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

I would suggest that you make it look right to the eye first that then rationalize it later. Be it shuttle interior or Enterprise hallways, info gleened from interior screen shots will throw a wrench in the works.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Perhaps you misunderstood a little of what I was saying.

I believe the deck height to be about 12 feet.

The windows do not technically need to be 12 feet high.

As I said earlier, I believe that in Lurry's office(anybody got a screen grab please)
that window is not visible from the interior at it's full length(about a third of it from the floor up is obscured by a wall.

But the window itself goes done further behind the interior wall.

Two reasons for this reasoning:

1) If it's not, and all the windows were that short vertically they would be in about 4:1 ratio(look at how much wider the window is then tall) rather then an approximate 4:3 ratio.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

OK, just sat down with some TOS images and Photoshop. My number are based upon a quick look and I'm sure are not exact but I am convised of the ball park we're playing in.

The primary module of the staion (the saucer) has a diameter that's is somewhere in the 650' to 700' range. Now I freely admit (again) that it's was a quick check and the whole perspective thing has not been factored in but I don't believe the margin of error is so large as to turn my suspected 700' into 350'.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Oops!

reason 2) if the windows are only as tall on the outside as seen in Lurry's office then the twelve foot decks would not fit properly between the deck space given.

If you measure from the top of one horizontal row of windows(ceiling of interior decks) down to the next lower top of horizontal windows, then try to fit it proportionally that won't work either with the height of the interior decks seen onscreen. 

...Unless you believe the way that some have drawn poorly designed Trek blueprints in the past and want to represent the space between decks with a thin line of ink rather then a practical amount of space.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

4MM, I looked at photos of the office, and I believe your windows are about the right size. But on the cone, I see what you mean. I think you are on the right track. It is a shame that there are no drawings from the series. I will keep on looking for information.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> 4MM, I looked at photos of the office, and I believe your windows are about the right size. But on the cone, I see what you mean. I think you are on the right track. It is a shame that there are no drawings from the series. I will keep on looking for information.


The cones should be a little taller, and there should be at least two more horizontal rows high space above the top row of windows(unwindowed space).

But 4MadMen is correct that that won't make up the difference...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Height right now concerns me less than width. It's the window width that I'm using to figure out a suspect main module diameter.

*Math correction. I factored in 20' width for window on my first run through, not 16'. So overall main module diameter is now suspected at around 550' to 600' (larger than it is now but no longer a factor of 2). My apologies.*


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Stimpson J. Cat said:


> I would suggest that you make it look right to the eye first that then rationaize it later. Be it shuttle interior or Enterprise hallways, info gleened from interior screen shots will throw a wrench in the works.


Actually that's the best way to start!

No point in getting very deeply into the project only to find out that everything you calculated and worked on just will not fit right. Just my opinion...

Start with your known factors and find the unknown.

That was Dave Winfrey's approach(Trekkist) to the Galileo and it's the only logical way to approach it I can think of.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Did I not say earlier the whole using a window to scale a space station disturbed me? This just drives it home. I hate things being inaccurate and it's sucking all the fun out of this. BOOGERS! Yes, that's right I said it (and I think I'll say it again) *BOOGERS!!!*


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Did I not say earlier the whole using a window to scale a space station disturbed me? This just drives it home. I hate things being inaccurate and it's sucking all the fun out of this. BOOGERS! Yes, that's right I said it (and I think I'll say it again) *BOOGERS!!!*


How so?

Just upscale the exterior.

You do have some experience doing that, don't you?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

There is no onscreen, canon statement of how big the K-7 is. So I'm not sure why you feel more tied to the size being the same as someone else's opinion. 

No disrespect to anybody's preheld opinions about size, but your aim, like Phil Broad's aim with his TOS E 3-D model, should be to make the thing look right functionally.

You have an advantage that he didn't with the TOS E. There is no truly "canon" reference to the size of the K-7 station.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Big. Fat. Green. Hairy. Boogers!

Sure I can upscale it, but to what? 600' for the primary module? 700'? So until a good number for the window comes up I'll move on. Perhaps try some different bay arrangements.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Think about the station's function.
It is a Deep Space Station with tons and tons of storage space.
Also, it's a weigh station, bar, entertainment post capable(until the barfight that made them restrict the number of Federation and Klingon crew allowed aboard) capable of having about a third of the crew of two starships take "shore" leave AND still carry out everything else they normally do.

This thing had to be huge! Just because we only saw one bar doesn't mean that's all there was in terms of recreation! It couldn't have been! Is that all that you would build such a station in the middle of nowhere for?

Also, think of all the space needed for commerce!

Just plug the numbers in and calculate the size.
Numbers don't bite you know...
The renders will probably still fit without breaking out of the top of your monitor. :lol:
What's so frightening?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Just sent you the IdicPage interview of Datin, 4MadMen(courtesy of Lloyd who sent it to me, don't worry Bill, it won't be posted anywhere.)

You've got mail!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Big. Fat. Green. Hairy. Boogers!
> 
> Sure I can upscale it, but to what? 600' for the primary module? 700'? So until a good number for the window comes up I'll move on. Perhaps try some different bay arrangements.


P.S. The Datin interview that IdicPage did includes a reference to the bays...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Height right now concerns me less than width. It's the window width that I'm using to figure out a suspect main module diameter.
> 
> *Math correction. I factored in 20' width for window on my first run through, not 16'. So overall main module diameter is now suspected at around 550' to 600' (larger than it is now but no longer a factor of 2). My apologies.*


So basically you're talking about a 59% increase in size(377ft to 600ft).
Seem reasonable. Plus makes for more believable landing bays(at least more believable to me.  )

Boogerlicous!!!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

See what I miss by not checking in over the whole weekend. Great discussion guys!



Chuck_P.R. said:


> ...Unless you believe the way that some have drawn poorly designed Trek blueprints in the past and want to represent the space between decks with a thin line of ink rather then a practical amount of space.


I feel this misses the point. What's unrealistic is the lack of _head room_ designed into many blueprints, not _deck thickness_. Surely by the twenty-third century materials won't need to be very thick to be strong. That's true even today. It's also unrealistic to buy into the notion that there are crawl ways between each deck (_a la_ later trek incarnations). Talk about wasted space!

TOS gives us a very reasonable picture of how starship decks are layed out: Overhead is a space with visible structural members supporting a fairly thin deck surface. Running through this support structure is all the cabling and heating ductwork-type stuff that always falls on peoples heads in a shower of sparks every time the Romulans (or villains du jour) attack. :tongue: This kind arrangement not only heightens the drama of tense situations, but also allows key ship's components to be accessed by merely lifting a deck plate and reaching down from above, or reaching up from below while perched on an anti-grav platform. No wriggling like a worm through crawl ways needed.

That said, I think the key to scaling the station is the one detail visible from both inside and out: The windows. Given that it has been pointed out that the only ones we saw in the sets were nearly floor to ceiling, I think the criticism of the original Datin version used in the series as having the windows "way too close together" is off base. It the windows are as tall as we have seen, they would of course look pretty close together from the outside.

I'd also pay heed to Thomas about the landing bays. He usually only pipes in when he has some definite knowledge to share. He's not always at liberty to name his sources.

I do have a question: The "IDIC interview with Richard Datin" that was mentioned earlier... We are talking about the two part interview by IDIC founder William McCullars published in _Communicator_ aren't we? Or is there another one that was once published online at the IDIC page? (I just want to know if I missed something.)

Mark


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Mark, the IDIC interview is the same from the Communicator. I hated I miss the first part.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Thanks for the article Chuck (and Lloyd). Sorry to hear that the first part is unavailable.

Anyway... Turns out my first calculation was (as far as I can dtermine) the more correct. Final scaling factor is on the order of 2.18 times. So, primary module diameters are 799.916' min. and 824.686' max.

_Now those bays can really hold something..._


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Thanks for the article Chuck (and Lloyd). Sorry to hear that the first part is unavailable.
> 
> Anyway... Turns out my first calculation was (as far as I can dtermine) the more correct. Final scaling factor is on the order of 2.18 times. So, primary module diameters are 799.916' min. and 824.686' max.
> 
> _Now those bays can really hold something..._


That actually looks way better, at least to me. Doesn't make sense that a *Deep Space* Station, designed to be in the *middle of nowhere* would be anything but big. To make spacious interiors and then teeny tiny crampt landing pads just makes little sense, in my opinion(not that even this one looks big for something that is supposed to be a center of commerce. I see the scaling done for Babylon 5 to be more realistic for such a hub, but I can live with this one  ). Plus, there is no truly canon statement of size anywhere anyway. Can you perhaps do some high res orthographics and link out to them?

Also, do you have any copies of that hexagonal pattern I once drew for your 3-D panel lights? I could use a copy if you could email me one. Seems that I somehow deleted it.

I'm cooking up something in the back of my mind for an overhead crossection view of the three hanger decks that would align with that hexagon pattern. Don't really know how it will look, just a germ of an idea I have turning over in my head...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

MGagen said:


> See what I miss by not checking in over the whole weekend. Great discussion guys!


I agree, though for a moment or two it caused 4MadMen to suffer visions of boogers dancing in his head. Can you tell he has kids or what? 




Chuck_P.R. said:


> ...Unless you believe the way that some have drawn poorly designed Trek blueprints in the past and want to represent the space between decks with a thin line of ink rather then a practical amount of space.





MGagen said:


> I feel this misses the point. What's unrealistic is the lack of _head room_ designed into many blueprints, not _deck thickness_. Surely by the twenty-third century materials won't need to be very thick to be strong.


I have to both agree and disagree with you on that. I do agree 100% that many blues _*also*_ had the problem of lack of head room. But I disagree that the simple lines used to seperate the decks are realistic, 23rd Century materials or not. Let's also remember that 23rd Century materials are also subject to being attacked by 23rd Century weapons.

Again, I agree that many blues had problems of not enough headroom(which in the case of TOS subjects meant they were inaccurate compared to what was seen onscreen). But I was just referring to one type of inaccuracy: simple thin lines used to seperate decks. 



MGagen said:


> It's also unrealistic to buy into the notion that there are crawl ways between each deck (_a la_ later trek incarnations). Talk about wasted space!


I agree on that too. While the proportions of 12' high decks and 8 feet of space between deck floors and the top of the next row of windowed decks might imply enough room for such a crawlway, my opinion about those dimensions are simply drawn from observations of the model's windows and an extrapolation of what was seen from the interior. Plus the unlikelihood of having alternating 12' and 6' decks.

The four feet above ceiling and four feet below floor room could be taken up by a lot of things. First, perhaps each deck was built modularly, and there is some space taken by an interlocking mechanism.

Also I envisioned, as not a lot of hanging pipes, etc. are visible in K-7 interior scenes that perhaps in the case of the station they took the time to just have a lot of the pipes, conduit, etc run through the ceiling and below removable plates in the floor. Just like on a submarine there is stuff visible everywhere, yet in the Pentagon you don't see a lot of that going on.



MGagen said:


> That said, I think the key to scaling the station is the one detail visible from both inside and out: The windows.


*You are definitely 100% right about that!* 




MGagen said:


> Given that it has been pointed out that the only ones we saw in the sets were nearly floor to ceiling, I think the criticism of the original Datin version used in the series as having the windows "way too close together" is off base. It the windows are as tall as we have seen, they would of course look pretty close together from the outside.


You have a valid point about that. But with the windows being approximately 12' x 16' whether one uses the approximate 40%(Datin) or about 66% spacing(Jein) between windowed rows either can be made to be believable, though the 40% spacing would result in a little less wasted space(2.5 feet above and below floors and ceilings, as opposed to 4 feet).

But heck, it's not my model. Whichever one 4MadMen goes with is up to him.
Plus, I'm willing to believe that in the early days of the Federation they chose to sometimes overbuild and overengineer. Plus, those interlocking modular whatcha-ma-call-its can take up some of that space if necessary. 



MGagen said:


> I'd also pay heed to Thomas about the landing bays. He usually only pipes in when he has some definite knowledge to share. He's not always at liberty to name his sources.


No question there. Didn't he once work for AMT? If so I'm sure he had a lot of TOS contacts...



MGagen said:


> I do have a question: The "IDIC interview with Richard Datin" that was mentioned earlier... We are talking about the two part interview by IDIC founder William McCullars published in _Communicator_ aren't we? Or is there another one that was once published online at the IDIC page? (I just want to know if I missed something.)
> 
> Mark


Yep! That's the article. Specifically part two.
Part two is the one with the interview of Datin in which he talks about the K-7. Part two is no longer available in print(via StarTrek.com at least), but Lloyd was gracious enough to send me a copy.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I certainly respect Thomas' opinions and his background knowledge is certainly worth considering as well. However I'm now entirely convinced that there are 3 bays. And this is because of 2 things:

1) All of you. I actually rebuild the lower section with 3 bays just before starting the window work. In fact the last several renders actually contain the other 2 bays and...

2) The first render I did with 3 bays. The angle I choose turns out to be a serendipitous choice. My bays are completely open and you absolutely can not see them from that angle.

So, for anyone wondering how big this thing is (my version anyway) I have a new render. I know it's hard to tell because with the exception of three "shuttle boxes" there really is not that much difference in what you see. The cone shapes have been tweaked a little and the spacing of the core components has also changed somewhat. None of that is liable to slap you in the face though. Here's the new render that will help establish what the new size is (and gives a new look to the NCC-1701 Refit)...

_Enterprise mesh scaled to 1000'._









_Original Mesh by Eric Peterson.
Conversion to Lightwave by Andy Marrs.
Conversion to Blender by Four Mad Men.
_


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The three bays thing I would base on Datin's comments, not just Thomas'. After all, that's the guy who built it. I think that the bays being closed and the fuzzy as heck camerawork done on the shots in the TOS episode could be the reason they aren't visible in TOS.

Nonetheless that looks Gorgeous!!!

Even with the tricked out E! :lol:

I'm attaching a very crude low res copy(of the just as crude higher res one) of a file I'm emailing you. It's a photo-based outline of TOS primary K-7 cone to help tweak the dimensions. 

Please ignore the lamely out of whack vertical window seperators. My wholely 2-D tools wouldn't allow me to fix that.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

If you could do some orthographic measurements of the Primary and Secondary Cones and Modules I'd appreciate it. Want to figure out how big this thing would be in 1/350th scale. :devil:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I like the direction you are going with K-7. 

I know this will not help, but you know how I am. I looked up my set of drawings of the sets from TOS. Kirk's cabin has two windows, I can not read how wide they are, but they are 1ft and 6 inches tall. If you compare it to the windows on the outer hull, you can see they are bigger outside. Also, if you see the windows in the hanger observation deck from the episode "The Conscience of the King" they are also smaller than the ones on the hull.

So my point is, the set windows and the hull windows do not match, so trying to use the window to find scale will not work. I hope this might ease tensions. If not, :freak:.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^Luckily whether the Enterprise's set windows match the exterior windows is a different matter then whether or not K-7's do.

So really there's no issue. If in fact there was a problem with the E's windows it has nothing to do with the K-7's.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

That is really coming together. It just looks right. Kudos to you for a very interesting project.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> If you could do some orthographic measurements of the Primary and Secondary Cones and Modules I'd appreciate it. Want to figure out how big this thing would be in 1/350th scale. :devil:


Thanks for the image Chuck, I'll check those soon. I'll also try to get your renders by the weekend but at 350th scale the primary saucer would be a little over 28 inches in diameter. That's based on a primary Module diameter of 799.916' min. to 824.686' max.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I like the direction you are going with K-7.
> 
> ...
> 
> So my point is, the set windows and the hull windows do not match, so trying to use the window to find scale will not work. I hope this might ease tensions. If not, :freak:.


That's the problem with all this stuff. But it's a place to start. Besides I'm pretty happy with the scale that's been established so far. Now that I have something to work with I can start trying to figure out the cargo container issues.



Stimpson J. Cat said:


> That is really coming together. It just looks right. Kudos to you for a very interesting project.


Thanks. It looks right to me too. Not sure how they are going to seperate the E-Refit from that secondary module, but I'm sure they'll find a way. Some sort of phased-cloak mishap?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Thanks for the image Chuck, I'll check those soon. I'll also try to get your renders by the weekend but at 350th scale the primary saucer would be a little over 28 inches in diameter. That's based on a primary Module diameter of 799.916' min. to 824.686' max.


And? 28 inches isn't so big...


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Four Mad Men said:


> I certainly respect Thomas' opinions and his background knowledge is certainly worth considering as well. However I'm now entirely convinced that there are 3 bays. And this is because of 2 things:
> 
> 1) All of you. I actually rebuild the lower section with 3 bays just before starting the window work. In fact the last several renders actually contain the other 2 bays and...
> 
> ...


Oooh! I like how that scales out. Isn't that actually a bit closer to the Jein model than the 325m (or therabouts) originally discussed? I'm not the greastest at figuring scale, but that's gotta come to more like 650m - 700m diameter? Makes for an even better sized station, IMNSHO. 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Thanks for the image Chuck, I'll check those soon. I'll also try to get your renders by the weekend...


Do you mean the Galileo "on the half-shell" renders, or the K-7's?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Oooh! I like how that scales out. Isn't that actually a bit closer to the Jein model than the 325m (or therabouts) originally discussed? I'm not the greastest at figuring scale, but that's gotta come to more like 650m - 700m diameter? Makes for an even better sized station, IMNSHO.
> 
> - - - - - -
> 
> ...


I agree 100%


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> Oooh! I like how that scales out. Isn't that actually a bit closer to the Jein model than the 325m (or therabouts) originally discussed? I'm not the greastest at figuring scale, but that's gotta come to more like 650m - 700m diameter? Makes for an even better sized station, IMNSHO.


Yes, I am quite pleased as to how it looks next to the Enterprise. I haven't measured the overall diameter but a rough guess is that it comes in just under 650 meters. I'm not sure how big the Jein model is supposed to be but from the shuttle and Mudd's ship in that one bay I'd have to say, "Yes".

Oh, and Chuck. I actually meant the K-7 renders. I thought the viewport render fit your bill. Didn't realize you still needed the others. Don't you realize that I've got a new Dual Layer DVD burner to play with?! Which would you like first?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hmmm...

dillema.

Guess I can wait double-checking the interior wall angles of the Galileo model.

Guess I'd like to see the K-7 cone and station orthographics first.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Okay, couldn't sleep too much so I went ahead and scaled a smaller cone too.

This is a low res version. Ignore the pixels per inch notation as that only counts on the 600 dpi version I'm sending to 4MadMen via email.

But the pic has both cone sizes scaled correctly in proportion to one another.
Same notation as above on the vertical seperating lines between the windows, please ignore them as my 2D drawing tools have no way to accurately represent them.

The larger cone's windows are scaled as 12' x 16', the smaller cone windows at 12' x 12'. I think I got this as close as possible based on the TOS screencaps and one studio photo available, but if anyone sees something I missed please chime in!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I think that the bays being closed and the fuzzy as heck camerawork done on the shots in the TOS episode could be the reason they aren't visible in TOS.


Careful, I think you're stepping on *Trek ACE*'s toes again...

Mark


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Don't know why he would take offense, unless he did the camera work. Please explain. 

hmmm...

maybe the scenes were blurry and poorly lighted on purpose?

will that suffice?

hope Trek Ace didn't sell them the cameras or something...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Somebody render something!
I'm going through 3-D withdrawl!!! :freak:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Good thing you mentioned 3-D. I was going to render some lard. :freak: 

I could not help it. I am the one in this crowd. :tongue:


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Mmmmmmmm. . . . . . . .Lard


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yummy... Now we can have biscuts like grandma used to make.

And, Chuck, I think Mark was referring to a preivious post where *Trek Ace* seemed shocked at the fuzzy camera work. So, don't fret yourself as I believe it was meant as a joke (by Mark and TrekAce).

But then I'm down (violently) ill at the moment so what do I know? More renders soon but not right now. Back to sleep...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Get some rest and get better!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Yummy... Now we can have biscuts like grandma used to make.
> 
> And, Chuck, I think Mark was referring to a preivious post where *Trek Ace* seemed shocked at the fuzzy camera work. So, don't fret yourself as I believe it was meant as a joke (by Mark and TrekAce).
> 
> But then I'm down (violently) ill at the moment so what do I know? More renders soon but not right now. Back to sleep...


Sorry to hear you are sick. 

Hope you feel better soon! 

If your kids haven't already had their flu shots, now is the time to take the whole family. I think the restrictions have been lifted, if I'm not mistaken.

I got sick right after Christmas and still probably have an upper respiratory infection, though I'm past the flu itself. 

Get better soon!


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Four Mad Men said:


> But then I'm down (violently) ill at the moment so what do I know? More renders soon but not right now. Back to sleep...


Sorry to hear you are Ill.  

I am a bit down in the weather myself. Hurt my Knee getting up on my Truck at work. Was a grand old time trying to get back down. So I have the next couple of days off. 

Hope you feel better soon!


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

I hope you are feeling better soon.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

You still kickin' out there, 4MadMen?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Thanks everyone, I'm feeling better now. I very much appreciate the concern and I hope to get some work accomplished on the station in the very near future. See you soon...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Good to hear you are feeling better. We alway have Chuck to entertain us till then. LOL


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Welcome back!!! :wave:


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Glad you are all better!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Was it a wee bought of shore leave?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

No, no. I was sick I tell you. Sick. A very nasty (and yet simple) case of Argelian uh... flu. Yes, Argelian flu.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Did it involve great, big green hairy boogers? 

Hope you got my second email that had the smaller cone scaled too...

Here's a low res version, think you got the higher one...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=14948


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hey Thomas!

Question on the TOS version of the K-7...

Was that grain bin seen on the Jein model present in any form?

Based on Phil's pics of the original, pre-Datin modified model,
(http://www.cloudster.com/RealHardware/SIVBStage/Models/Display10.jpg
http://www.cloudster.com/RealHardware/SIVBStage/Models/Display09.jpg)
it doesn't look like there was an external grain bin on the TOS model, though there was intersecting "half-blocks" on the main module and satelitte modules similar to what was seen on the AMT kits(if I'm wrong about that somebody let me know).

Know anything about that and whether the "grain bin" was strictly a Jein addition?

Anybody else that might know anything(hint Trek Ace) feel free to chime in too...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I asked this same question earlier, but haven't seen a response yet. The unmodified model really looks closer to the AMT version on this point. However, captures from the show seem to show something pretty big back there hanging down. Hopefully Thomas knows and can tell us.

Mark


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I depends on how much money you got!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I don't think money has anything to do with it.
Apparently he doesn't want to give up some of his personal construction secrets.
But this question doesn't involve any of those so I'm still hopefull we'll get an answer when he gets some free time.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

MGagen said:


> I asked this same question earlier, but haven't seen a response yet. The unmodified model really looks closer to the AMT version on this point. However, captures from the show seem to show something pretty big back there hanging down. Hopefully Thomas knows and can tell us.
> 
> Mark


I took another look at the captures, and it looks like it is there, close to the "half-block." How close seems impossible to tell.

So my *new and improved* question is how did the original attach to the hull?
Was it attached to the "half-block" too, or was there space between the two structures?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Its there.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I took another look at the captures, and it looks like it is there, close to the "half-block." How close seems impossible to tell.
> 
> So my *new and improved* question is how did the original attach to the hull?
> Was it attached to the "half-block" too, or was there space between the two structures?


A question I would like to know the answer to as well. It's the one major exterior piece I've been holding off doing.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

So any new more canonical conicals?
Did you get my email with the higher res versions of the ones I posted?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

MGagen said:


> I asked this same question earlier, but haven't seen a response yet. The unmodified model really looks closer to the AMT version on this point. However, captures from the show seem to show something pretty big back there hanging down. Hopefully Thomas knows and can tell us.
> 
> Mark


I hope so too. But if anyone else knows, please chime in.

I can't tell if the Grain Thing is there in addition to the "half-block" or in substitution.

Is Datin still with us in the land of the living?

IDICpage, TrekAce, John P or anyone know?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Anyone know who crafted the K-7 AMT master?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So any new more canonical conicals?
> Did you get my email with the higher res versions of the ones I posted?


Is that anything like "potent potables"? No, not yet. Whatever I had is now spreading to other members in the house so things are not quite back to normal yet.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Get everyone better!

Probably too late for those flu shots?
Maybe one or two could benefit?

Just got the email. That was the pattern I was talking about. Thanks!
Hope you get a chance to check out those links I sent you.

Take care and keep well!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

*K-7 screen grab*

Today I got season 2 of TOS, I did a screen grab of K-7. The grain bin looks like the one in DS9. On the picture I pointed out the flashing light on the bottom of the bin.I hope this will help. I have not finished watching the episode, so if I see anything else, I will post. :wave:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Can you tell if there is also a square block on the main module in addition to the grain bin?

Any interior screengrabs?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Not yet on the block, but I will look. What interior grabs do you want?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Just some shots that include floor to ceiling preferrably in the Station Director's office with the window, but any you can do inside the K-7 while watching that they include a floor-to-ceiling perspective would be appreciated. No need for a ton of them.

Though I'm most interested in whether or not that block that was originally on the K-7 source model was *replaced* by the "Grain-thing" and half tube that led to the cone or whether or not that was added *in addition to* the "half-block."


Thomas, Trek Ace, John P, Phil, IDICpage, Trekkist or anybody else know? Also is Datin still alive and contactible?

If you see the half-block at all that will answer the question though, even if nobody knows.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Along the lines of the TV antennae joke...

Not only does K-7 seem to have both UHF and VHF reception,
but I noticed the bands on the tops of the cones of the three satelitte modules are colored Red, Green, and Blue.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So, it's NTSC compatible then?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Yep!

Hope Lloyd has his DVD hooked up via component cables!!!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I watch my TOS DVD's on my PC, so I can grab at it.  

Here are two office shots for now. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thanks Loyd!
Was tired of relying on the fuzzy interior pics in the Photonovel!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Might consider doing a 1/1000th version.
Will probably nix a 1/350th version until I both get a lathe and the refit comes out...


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

A 1/1000 version is on my must build list. I have a long list of scratchbuild projects so it will be a while before I get to it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm really excited about having found those pics that Phil has of the original K-7 before it was modified.

Though it doesn't look like Thomas or anyone else knows whether or not that "AMT-like" half square remained on the original TOS model and it had a "grain bin" added, or whether the grain bin replaced the "half-square" on the main module.

Either no one knows or is willing to share the info.

I'm inclined to think there was probably a half-square left on the main module and the grain bin additional, or else where would the AMT sculpture have gotten the idea from?(and why would he have left the grain bin off unless he thought it a temporary add on?) 

Though I admit that's just a guess.
I could be completely wrong but there seems to be no one who knows for sure.

Anyone know if Richard Datin is still kicking around?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Check out this website guys!

http://www.startrekman.us/pages/1/index.htm

It's allegedly by Datin, but the source is unreliable, and I can't find any contact info anyway.

Nice site anyway though.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Just so happens I had a few minutes tonight to cut the windows and move in the furniture (along with just a few other things)...










The supports rings on the arms are not to my liking and will be changed at my earliest opportunity.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Nice! Gets better 'n' better every time you "tweak it", dude! 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards
 
* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

That is really starting to come together. Looks like it's almost ready to rent office space.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Very good as always! I wish that I could help with more information. In TOS episode, the view of K-7 was always the same as the photo I posted earlier. I have been screen grabbing alot of pictures from the DVDs, so if it in the series,I can post it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Nice!

Any luck on the new cone renders?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Thanks for the kind words guys, glad to see there is still some interest in this project. I didn't know if interest had grown stale or not. I know it's not much of an update but here's one more. I fixed/added some connecting "rings". Added some beveling here and there and after landing a couple of shuttles noticed that the lower "pod" (?) has some segmentation issues and will have to be completely rebuilt.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Nice!
> 
> Any luck on the new cone renders?


No, I never got around to those. And while I was going to do something with them (and I thank you for providing them), at this stage in the game I'm going to continue on with what I have and not worry too awful much about the exact shape of the cones. There will be enough, I'm sure, that I will obsess over. So why seek it out when it will just come to me eventually.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Was hoping you could use them to help scale the orthographics.
If the other pieces come out well from the 3D stuff I was thinking of trying to do a 1/1000th version via the same process.

What exactly do you mean about segmentation problems?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Ah. I don't really need them to scale the orthos unless you'd like the station's scale based on them. Right now everything is scaled to the window dimensions talked about previously.

Segmentation is when an object (in this case a cylinder) renders in a way that belies the fact that the polygons that it's made from are insufficient in number to render the desired surface. That's my 2 second definition anyway. Essentiall the lower pod should be (at this point) perfectly smooth all the way around and the curved upper and lower parts should flow smoothly into the rest. They don't. You can see a straight line followed by a straight line. Smoothing calculations help this but (which I'm using) in this case I'll just need to recreate it.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And the last of the evening...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And a few questions:

1) If the windows are not flush with the outside hull how wide is the sill?
2) How thick is the "glass"?
3) How wide is the sill on the inside?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Your last shot, I noticed an error. From what I can tell, the main cone top should be a dark blue, and the other cones tops should be the same color as the beacon/light on each of the three sections. Example: red top of cone, red light.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I couldn't quite tell from the shots I looked at if it was black or blue. As for the small cones and the beacons: All the beacons are red at this time for the simple reason that I'm lazy. Couple that with not being entirely sure what the third beacon should be colored (blue perhaps?) I've not worried about it right now. The beacons themselves are just place holders while working out proportions. The final ones will be detailed for close-up shots and not just a simple half-sphere and cylinder as they are now.

Thanks for the input, and if you do know for sure the colors of the beacons that would be great.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

That is one reason I'm here to nag...no help you, that,s it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Ah. I don't really need them to scale the orthos unless you'd like the station's scale based on them. Right now everything is scaled to the window dimensions talked about previously.


I did trace and compare the angles of the cones as well as the deck spacing. So it would probably still have something to do with the scale, depending on how closely at least the base of your cones match. (the deck spacing is admittedly not related to the scale, but I think the windows go a little too high as they are now modeled, though they still look great! Plus I got that UHF loop antenna scaled perfectly!!!  )


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> And a few questions:
> 
> 1) If the windows are not flush with the outside hull how wide is the sill?


I would go with 3 inches.



Four Mad Men said:


> 2) How thick is the "glass"?


I suggest 12 inches



Four Mad Men said:


> 3) How wide is the sill on the inside?


I would go with 3 inches.

By the way, from what I can tell the center main module seems to be black, and the three smaller satelites red, green, and blue, ala' RGB TV tubes!!!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

As for the colors: That's pretty much what I figured. Now, while my computer was busy crunching some non-Blender stuff I was playing around with one of the test builds that includes the fix for orthographic projections. In the past the orthos we're a hack job that involved setting (behind the scenes) the camera distance and field of view. The result was a very small amount of parallax in the final projection. But no more! Anyway, here are the results...




























Continued...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

...part 2


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Gorgeous!!!

Your balls are missing though...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I noticed something else, that is not on the original. On the three connecting tubes to the outer pods, their is no deep cut groove on each.Other wise the model is just fantastic. I am enjoying the progress you are making.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The balls on the smaller cones that is. 

If you take a look at the 2-D scaled drawings(the high res version I sent you with the main and secondary cones side by side) though you'll notice you need more blank space before starting the first row of windows from the top. Which I believe will make a scaling difference. *(By this I mean to add the blank space and keep the cones the same proportions you would have to enlarge them. You could make them taller but that too would require changing the proportions of the cones, though not the size).* I think the TOS cones are slightly less wide or are proportionally taller.

But this is coming out incredibly beautiful nonetheless!!!

If we scratchbuild one I'll probably do the cones in two pieces of crystal clear resin so we can put holes for fiber optics. Trying to drill and bend fiber optics on the upper window rows would be a bitch if I made them in one piece!

Sent you an update about the shuttlecraft model too. Found a pic that explains what I want to do plus does it better then my original idea!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I noticed something else, that is not on the original. On the three connecting tubes to the outer pods, their is no deep cut groove on each.Other wise the model is just fantastic. I am enjoying the progress you are making.


The one groove didn't bother me too much though I thought it should have been fainter. The multiple rings are throwing me a bit, though. 

However I understand where Four Mad Men is coming from. He's playing with ideas for the collaspible/expandible concept. So I understand. No harm in experimenting and having fun with trying new ideas. 

For the landing pad level I drew a ridiculously crude overhead layout for that level based around a honeycomb hexagonal pattern. The three blue areas would be the areas that contain the three landing bays. The blue areas aren't to scale. This is just a rough sketch to explain the idea...

I kind of like the idea of a honeycomb mass storage system, too. Though I doubt that anyone will ever bother making up all the levels. Little point as there would always be something someone would overlook.

A honeycomb pattern(that had smaller size hexagons for storage levels) just seems like a neat synthesis of the organic and the industrial.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Perhaps Phil Broad might know this...

Or someone who is also into military models...

Is there a standard size for the metal plates used on large aircraft, battleships, etc?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

On the subject of the seam/lip/ring between the cones and the main module...

While it's unclear how the two meet in the TOS model captures/pics and you can't tell what it looks like on the small modules because they are pure white and photographed from an angle that doesn't show them well on the small pre-modified models...

I just noticed on the main module pic that has the cutout that there is a perfect view of the angle/etc of the original seam. Seems steeper then I had originally thought.

Hear is a cropped detail to show what I'm rambling on about...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Continued...


My favorite angle!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Going to head out to work in a little while. You've got mail, FourMadMen!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Can you give us any preliminary orthographic measurements of your two module types and the whole station?

Especially, how tall is the main module from the top of the cone's seam to the bottom of the grain bin? (*There is a method to my maddness for asking this, I want to figure out if it is less then 10 inches at 1/1000th scale*  . I'm not talking about just the bin but also from the top of the main module's cone seam to the bottom of the bin that extends lower then the module structure.)


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I've got some errands to run today but I'll have more to say later. In the meantime here is my shuttle pod with the top removed.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


>


How come I don't recall that pod being in the original image onscreen?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

If you mean the grain pod it's probably due to the influence of having owned and seen the AMT model for years and years before there was such a thing as VCR's muchless DVD's.

I didn't remember it either, but I've checked the screencaps and they are definitely there. You can go back a bit in this thread for some cap links and check it out.

I know what you mean, though. I originally didn't remember it either.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I've got some errands to run today but I'll have more to say later. In the meantime here is my shuttle pod with the top removed.


Looks beautiful!!!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I myself don't remember that "grain bin" originally either. But it is there. Although given the internal storage structures I'm working on it's not going to be a grain bin.

Early on in the construction I added a smaller ring at the base of the cone which upon closer examination of the Jein model I've decided to remove it. There is a ring there but it just a darker part of the cone surface. Infact the Jein model shows the cone recessed into the base. I'm proceeding on the assumption that the cones we're removable. Indeed, swappable. Another case of modularity (and perhaps the cones could serve as lifeboats in an emergency).

I also had a chance to check out your cone drawings Chuck. Scaling the base to match mine yours is slightly taller. Not much but a little. This is fine as your window spacing is closer to the Jein model and mine is closer to the original. So I don't see any scaling issues here. My analysis is far from exact but there you have it. Here is a render of the station with the aforementioned ring removed.










Now I'm off to run my errands. For real this time.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Rebuilt the landing module. Plus a few other changes. Can you find them?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The colors are right, though they should be so dark that they are hard to distinquish.

I'll leave the other changes for someone else to come up with...
Don't want to steal all the fun!!!

Did you get that photo I sent you about the rear Shuttlecraft render?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Oooh! I wanna play! I wanna play!

I see: 


1) small pods have more of a "deflector grid" pattern to them instead of just spokes. 

2) different color lights at the top of the cones of each of the small pods. 

3) windows on the cones on the small pods. 

4) spokes" on to of the hangar pod. 
 
Do I win a "No-Prize"?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Don't forget your balls!
But I'd make the cones taller before you add them.
Also the antenna staff is black like the cap and tapers upwards, then comes out with those 2 VHF antennas :lol:. 
But I'd make the cone a little taller before changing the suppot rod.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Beg pardon?!? 

I'll thank you to leave my balls and cones out of this.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

It's FourMadMen's I was reffering to. He needs three of them to stick on top of his small cones...


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Yeah... Was trying to make a joke. You know, lighten up the mood a bit. My apologies for attempting to inject humor in to the proceedings. 

Carry on!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I know. Got the joke...

Was hoping you were going to ask why he needed three of them...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

You have to forgive Chuck, sometimes he can be rather victorian.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> Oooh! I wanna play! I wanna play!





Griffworks said:


> 1) small pods have more of a "deflector grid" pattern to them instead of just spokes.


In the end they will be panel lines, but essentially yes.



Griffworks said:


> 2) different color lights at the top of the cones of each of the small pods.


The lights have yet to be added but the top of the cones have been "painted". They are brighter than they will ultimately end up but for now it's a start. 


Griffworks said:


> 3) windows on the cones on the small pods.


The windows still need to be cut but the pattern has been established. The white cubes will be used as a cookie cutter to make the holes.


Griffworks said:


> 4) spokes" on to of the hangar pod.


Yes, more panel lines.


Griffworks said:


> Do I win a "No-Prize"?


Indeed you do. You can have any "no-prize" from the middle two shelves.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Don't forget your balls!
> But I'd make the cones taller before you add them.
> Also the antenna staff is black like the cap and tapers upwards, then comes out with those 2 VHF antennas :lol:.
> But I'd make the cone a little taller before changing the suppot rod.


Ha! I knew I'd get you on that one. The secondary cones are taller.

The antenna is a place holder. Patience my friend, patience.

Balls. I'm not conviced that there are supposed to be balls up there. The unlit "behind the scenes" photos don't show them. What I am convinced of is that they are "light blurs". The images where they show (too me) look like the lamps are lit and have been overexposed. There are two images inparticular where "the balls" are of completely different sizes. One where they look as you had them in your drawing and the other shows them more lamp-like (i.e. not as big, more point-light-like). If you know what I mean.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Did you get the shuttlecraft pic I sent you about the rear panel/engine render?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

One thing that bothered me about the screen captures I have made of K-7, is that every shot is almost from one view. But from the picture below, notice the color on the small cone.  :freak:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

The red you mean? I'm coloring the cones: red, green, and blue. With the main one black.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'm pretty sure no one in this station is getting any sleep.

_blink... blink... blink, blink..._


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Did you get the shuttlecraft pic I sent you about the rear panel/engine render?


Yes. So now that I understand can you block out all the pieces you want created? Ideally if I had a sketch from you that I can render against then I can send you an image of what the part(s) will look like when it comes out of the machine. Once your happy with the image I'll export the objects so you can send the file for processing.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^Kewl!!!

I'll get on it straightaway. 

There are certain signature parts of the ship that will make the whole think not look right if they are off.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> One thing that bothered me about the screen captures I have made of K-7, is that every shot is almost from one view. But from the picture below, notice the color on the small cone.  :freak:


Based on the positioning of the grain bin I would have to say that's a different landing pad. Though it still doesn't explain the difference in color as the next one to the right isn't red in the first picture either. 

Anyhow, makes sense to just chalk it up to "Yep that's weird." and just do them in the colors 4MadMen's using.

The only alternative answer to the question is way too confusing to implement on a model, if one were to apply Sherlock Holmes' corollary that "if all other answers are impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is your answer."


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> In the end they will be panel lines, but essentially yes.


Those lines you've added remind me of the lovely, wide airbrushed lines the guy who restored the underside of the 11 footer and secondary hull added...

[ducks and covers as he runs out of the room]


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I'm pretty sure no one in this station is getting any sleep.
> 
> _blink... blink... blink, blink..._


Peeeerty...

But I like the bigger AMT type balls better.
Even if the blurry camerawork caused them to look like something they weren't, I think since they are so deeply embedded in people's memory it wouldn't look right, even if shoddy camerawork mistakenly caused the impression.

Sort of like the grain bin doubletake Warped 9 and the two of us did.
Though the difference is that there isn't any evidence that they *weren't* balls vs. pins of lights. Plus there are some special lamps I can buy that create the effect of a lighthouse type beacon that would look perfect inside of some clear resin balls.

Think you accidentally added one to the main module though.

But still, as I said before, Peeeeeeerty!!! 


Did they blink at all?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

well, for me the balls are as ingrained in my memory as the grain bin was.

Blinkers -- I'm reasonable sure they did. I"m absolutely sure they are going to.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Those lines you've added remind me of the lovely, wide airbrushed lines the guy who restored the underside of the 11 footer and secondary hull added...


I was going to lighten them for the finished product, but since you like them so well perhaps I'll just leave them as they are. :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain_April (Oct 20, 2002)

I hate to be a stick in the mud but I see one error in your otherwise excellent model. Look at the profile rib you see that the radius is alot softer that what you have, yours has a sharp edge which isn't there.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> One thing that bothered me about the screen captures I have made of K-7, is that every shot is almost from one view. But from the picture below, notice the color on the small cone.  :freak:


Is it possible that the arms were designed to rotate independently of the main body? Perhaps they decided it would be too complicated to rotate them while filming but they were turned from one shot to another. Or maybe the model was taken apart and re-assembled between shots, and the arms were put on wrong.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I was going to lighten them for the finished product, but since you like them so well perhaps I'll just leave them as they are. :thumbsup:


I think you missed the next line that read "[ducks and covers as he runs out of the room]" :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Captain_April said:


> I hate to be a stick in the mud but I see one error in your otherwise excellent model. Look at the profile rib you see that the radius is alot softer that what you have, yours has a sharp edge which isn't there.


I don't think you are being a stick in the mud. You seem to be correct. I'm sure it wouldn't take a lot to change that curve a little. Better to catch something like that before someone starts a scratchbuild rather then after.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Can you give us any preliminary orthographic measurements of your two module types and the whole station?

Especially, how tall is the main module from the top of the cone's seam to the bottom of the grain bin? (*There is a method to my maddness for asking this, I want to figure out if it is less then 10 inches at 1/1000th scale*  . I'm not talking about just the bin but also from the top of the main module's cone seam to the bottom of the bin that extends lower then the module structure.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> Is it possible that the arms were designed to rotate independently of the main body? Perhaps they decided it would be too complicated to rotate them while filming but they were turned from one shot to another. Or maybe the model was taken apart and re-assembled between shots, and the arms were put on wrong.


I don't remember it doing that, there is perhaps also the chance that the smaller cones had more then one color per satellite. But either way, that's too unnecessarily complicated to bother modeling it that way, in my opinion. Maybe Four Mad Men feels differently, but I think if either of those solutions were tried people would look at the model and go "huh? Where did they get that idea?" Even if either were 100% true. 

Sort of like the tiny lights vs the "spheres" situation.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

^ I am at a loss about the color change, so I guess I will forget it.

4MM,
The blinking lights are only the white on top of each small cone, and one under the grain storage. All other lights are always on. I checked the DVD episode to make sure. Any details on K-7 I will except, as this is your model. The blinky picture is so cute!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yes, the plan is to only have the white lights blink. Do you think you could get some specs on that Lloyd?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I haven't forgotten about your request Chuck. One thing though, the cone seam is about to change. The next step is to model the recessed area that the cone will fit into (a socket if you will). But I'll take the measurement from the top of the socket structure (which is where the seam is now).

OK, here's the main measurement I think you we're after Chuck. I'll get the rest shortly:

From the top of main saucer ring (old cone seam) to bottom of "bin": 256.008 ft.

From the top of the upper beacon to the bottom of the lower beacon the total height (excluding the antenna(s)):
1003.146 ft.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

4MM,

I am not sure this is what you want. I not let me know what you need.
OT, I am making my own Tribbles. I have 3 finished, with more coming.

Lloyd :wave:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

That is infact exactly what I was looking for. Tribbles? Do they purr?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

No. I just cut the fake fur, sew and stuff them. If I can find a walking toy, I want to make a walking one. So far they cost me nothing, but time.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Cool man! Tribbles... yum.

OK, mental update. What some have called the "grain bin" has as it's official function (In the World According To Me) as the station's main reactor assembly. Externalized from living and works areas and as such easily jettisoned in an emergency.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

You are master of your universe!

Chuck's plan for the station hangers, are you going to use it? Also, are you planning to put each bay under each boom pods or inbetween the booms?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I haven't forgotten about your request Chuck. One thing though, the cone seam is about to change. The next step is to model the recessed area that the cone will fit into (a socket if you will). But I'll take the measurement from the top of the socket structure (which is where the seam is now).
> 
> OK, here's the main measurement I think you we're after Chuck. I'll get the rest shortly:
> 
> ...


Hmmm... so the main module not counting the "reactor" is about 9.8" wide but the above quoted distance is just about 3"? I guess that's possible. My mind's too frazzled to figure that one out in my head at the moment, just seems like it's proportionally off a little. But then again I'm a little off myself .

Will have to wait for the other info and true orthographics.
You said something about a new measurement capability in Blender awhile back... Does it have the ability to produce a scale bar next to an orthographic?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> You are master of your universe!
> 
> Chuck's plan for the station hangers, are you going to use it? Also, are you planning to put each bay under each boom pods or inbetween the booms?


If you mean the hexagon bit it's already been done. In fact it makes itself that way due to the whole 3 bays openings, 3 in-between hull sections.

I originally had the bays under the booms. Had the thought of putting some landing lights on their undersides. I've since changed my mind about that. The ref pics are not 100% clear on this but I believe they are not under the booms. Which makes sense in that you may not want one of those arms above you if you ever have a navigation malfunction (or other such situation).


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay, still no quote. Though I sent the info in on a Friday and it probably wasn't touched then and everybody seems to work in slow motion on Mondays. Hoping I'll hear something tommorrow...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> If you mean the hexagon bit it's already been done. In fact it makes itself that way due to the whole 3 bays openings, 3 in-between hull sections.


Actually, if you wanted to make both of the landing bays that were unseen even in the DS9 episode deeper in order to hold larger class size craft they could surround a triangle instead. I just like the honeycomb like design.

Now where to put the conveyor belts and luggage carrousels...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Any new measurements or orthographics, FourMadMen?
Can that new Blender feature insert a scale bar in them?

You might want to check your email too. I think you'll find my latest message encouraging!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well Blender isn't a CAD program so it would have to be added manually. But no, I haven't gathered any additional measurements.

I did add a beacon...









And worked on the "door" tracks. The upper ones anyway (ignore the dirty windows, the washer hasn't been around in weeks)...









Of course the workers in the cones are trapped for now but I'll add something for them later.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Those are not dirty windows! The station is full of Tribbles. Where is a Klingon ship when you need one? :lol:  

The station is looking just great. :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain_April (Oct 20, 2002)

I don't think that the clamshell construction was meant to be used as bay doors, it's an interesting idea but then what's going on with the core of the station, does that open up too?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Actually the clamshells were designed to open and close that way, with the additional feature of moving centerward after closing. Checkout my earlier thread here,
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=100950&page=1&pp=15

In it you'll find a Douglas Aircraft illustration posted by Phil Broad (X15-A2), in which it was described.

The model was built around that core, and while one might argue that there is not necessarily a tie in to the Trek universe, it would functionally make sense that the clamshell design was made to collapse for easier transport. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point of building it that way, in my mind at least. Others may not agree. But heck, it's momentarily still a free country. Everyone is welcome to have whatever opinion they want. 

The final section, after collapsing, moves inward until centered. The whole idea, as I dimly understand it, was to fit the shell(of a different scale station, of course) within a Saturn V booster.

Perhaps in the Trek universe the parts could fit in an oversized, non-standard Federation Cargo canister. While it would have to be a lot bigger then a standard TOS era cargo tug container, at least then it could be still stored within a cylinder shape, perhaps even with the cone of whatever size module pre-attached!


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

That is what I believe as well. The clam shell function of the main body and outer pods is for transport to the location were the interior will be fitted. It makes more sense to me than believeing these big stations were built on location far from a ship yard. I have designed a "super" tug that one of it's stated missions is to transport these collapsable stations to there final destination. That is one the the main reasons I'm following this project on the edge of my seat. I'm building the tug and someday I hope to build a 1/1000 station to go with it.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

^Stimpson, any pictures?


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Yes but I have little to no CG ability so don't laugh.  

These pics are being used for the construction of the 1/1000 model I hope to take to Wonderfest.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/thetallman/7583f07d.jpg
This is an altered pic that was done by somebody else of my design.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/thetallman/721c1bee.jpg
This is his unaltered version as he posted it.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/thetallman/5bbd503b.jpg


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

^ I saw the first picture on another forum. I like your design. You by any chance Woody?


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Thank you and yes it is me, Woody. :wave: 
I'd be Woody here as well but somebody beat me to it.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

^ I will be glad to see your model when you start. It would look good by the K-7.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Interesting idea. Stimpson, please be sure to post progress pics.

OK, scrap the close-up above, new close-up to follow shortly. I decided to allow each shell section to move on it's own track. In truth two sections share the same track so there are obivous physical constraints involved with the sections that share the same track. They will move via mag-lev or some other technology.

Now they can open in any number of configurations. The final impetus for this came from the simple fact that I increasingly dis-favor the inner-core-lazy-susan idea. Still some details to workout (and the lower track is still undone) but the inner area at this point will probably be static. Here's the image:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Gorgeous, FourMadMen!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I once read Trekkist comment that Michael McMaster's drawing of the K-7 in his Size Comparison Chart was the most authoritative drawing of the K-7.

I've just found out that there was a much more authoritative drawing of the K-7 done - by Matt Jefferies. Unfortunately the person I corresponded with who was given a copy does not believe it still exists.  Though he is searching for more info to help the project.

Has anyone else ever come across or perhaps heard of any Jefferies drawings of the K-7?


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Has anyone else ever come across or perhaps heard of any Jefferies drawings of the K-7?


I really hope your source can locate it. I'd love to see it.

I believe Richard Datin has stated that he had a pretty free hand in building the K-7. Jefferies gave him a loose sketch and the Douglas model pieces and the rest was up to him.

Any chance this is the drawing you're referring to?  

If so, ask him if the VHF/UHF antennas were a deliberate joke...

Mark


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

A *very* good chance .

I did ask, but he's still looking for some info so hasn't responded to that question yet. So I didn't want to repeat the question right now.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Okay, a little more info from Mr. Datin. Apparently not much was changed on the cones or rings linking them to the modules other then to replace the cone parts with clear parts.

He did, as I suspected, design it with windows all the way around with some being lit and some being left unlit. There were "seams" between the vertical and horizontal windows, but those divisions were represented by a quick and simple application of stick on materials from the inside(though they weren't detectable because of the camerawork) of the cones. 

Though I'm glad we found out that the windows were there all the way around as opposed to the scattered Jein windows, personally I like the idea of making the seams slightly external a little better. I realize that Mr. Datin had to complete the model from a very rough sketch and some nebulous ideas handed to him with very little time to complete the model. At the time, as he's mentioned, he never thought anyone would be scrutinizing and asking him about the model almost 40 years later! He would have had no reason to individually cut-out windows in a solid cone and fill them in, when rolled on lines lit from behind would be indistinguishable from solid seams with seperate little windows painstakingly inserted.

So I guess the points I would make: 

1) the seam between the cones and module bodies should remain as they appear in Phil Broad's "Display 09.jpg" pic,
of which I'm adding a cropped version of, credit of course goes to Phil Broad's cloudster.com website for the original.

2) there were in fact windows all around the cone, many of which were blocked out to simulate rooms where the lights simply weren't on. The deck divisions and vertical seams were interior, though I think that considering the time we have and the fact that it wouldn't be logical for a full-scale station to be built that way, that the seams/deck divisions remain external. At least we know we're on the right track by having windows all the way around.

3) the lamps were indeed small lamps(tensor lamps I think he called them). I don't know what a tensor lamp is, but at the time he built the model it was a new type of light and was required because he needed a really intense lamp to compete with the already bright studio lights.



Hopefully Mr. Datin will be able to answer a few more questions. He's repeated other info that I had read in William McCullar's interview with him, but I wont repost any of that interview out of respect for IDICpage's copyright.

William McCullars deserves full credit for having given Trek fans tons and tons of info about Trek modeling, and he interviewed Mr. Datin and asked many interesting questions about several models.

Perhaps that now that the second part of IDICpage's(William McCullars) article from Star Trek Communicator in which he interviewed Mr Datin is no longer available(at least directly from the publisher) perhaps IDICpage would consider posting more of that interview on his webpage? 

It doesn't get into the minutae of the K-7 construction, but it's still a fun read nonetheless!!! Plus it has a ton of detailed info on the Hanger Deck!

Thanks once again for the help you've already given us, Mr. Datin!!!
Any other info you can recall or dig up in your notes would be greatly appreciated! :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yes, Thank you very much Mr. Datin for your time and input. And you have my compliments on a nice station.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck,

At this point "Tensor" is a brand name. Not sure if any of their product lines used the companies name as it's own but in either case I'm sure the lights came from the Tensor company.

Windows - My main concern with cutting out windows for all the locations is that there would then be precious little room for the *K-7* "logo" on the cones. Besides, I'm pretty happy with the pattern that's been established (on the smaller cones especially). Might be some room for modifications on the main cone. I'm open for suggestions on that one.

Cone seams - It's not really noticeable until you get really close but I'm keeping the recessed "socket" where the cone sits. It's come to be my single most favorite feature (or supposed feature) of the Jein model.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The K-7 was apparently placed on the transparent cones by application of rub-on art supply decals, then the deck and horizontal dividers were placed behind them. The same effect could be achieved by simply painting or decaling K-7 over the outside of the structure, slight recess to the windows or not.

But if you decide to go the way of not doing all the windows and just leaving some unlit, it's your 3-D model. That's completely up to you. Once you are finished I could do one for me with the windows all there and one your way too. No sweat. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Cone seams - It's not really noticeable until you get really close but I'm keeping the recessed "socket" where the cone sits. It's come to be my single most favorite feature (or supposed feature) of the Jein model.


Not a problem with the *socket*. Since we have no closeup pics of the model with the finished transparent dome, it's likely that the resultant model had, if not a "socket-containing" seam, at least a sharp divergence from the upper lip of the cone seam. There is nothing wrong with the socket, though I think a sharper " \ " style seam would look closer to the original rather then the more curved one.

But that's just my personal preference. No need to model it that way, but if you do, it doesn't have to effect the appearance of the "socket."


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

*Tribble Attack!*

I was playing around with this idea, so here it is.
In the photo, I made the Tribble, JL Galileo,and the red shirt is a 1/100 scale.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Too cool! Are you sure the tribble is in the proper scale?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

You remember TAS episode? This is the live version!


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Did the shuttle land on the Tribble homeworld ???
If so I thought the Klingons took care of that.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The Klingons wiped out the Tribbles in the future. That is my Tribble Ranch! Tribbles taste like beef. :tongue:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I thought the Federation didn't get in to bio-weapons?!?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Beef is a bio-weapon?

I've heard of militant Vegans, but rarely of Vegans in the military... :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hopefully soon FourMadMen will resurface and put this thread back on track with some new renders??? 

I know I'd like to see a few more. Don't know about anybody else...


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

You have it all wrong, that is the Tribble home world and the shuttle came down unexpectedly during the Klingon invasion.

You see the Klingons are all in that giant Tribble. 


It is a Trojan Tribble. :drunk:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

"Gaaah! Runaway! Runaway! We've happened upon the Queen Tribble and she's looking to lay eggs!"


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

All of you just made me wet my pants! :roll: :lol: 

Chuck must be one of those creatures I have heard of. Grownups!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

_From outside of the Klingon compund the Klingons have just "captured" the Trojan Tribble and returned it their stronghold --_

Nameless Redshirt #42: "What happens next, Mr. Spock.?"
Mr. Spock: "Well, next we wait until nightfall and then we all jump out of the Tribble."
Capt. Kirk: "Who jumps out of the Tribble Mr. Spock!?"
Mr. Spock: "We do, and then..."

What's a "grownup"?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

If you are reading this, Mr. Datin, to answer the obvious question, yes, this thread has gone seriously awry...:freak:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

You we're a hall monitor in an earlier life right?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

No new renders yet. Having trouble with the turbolift tubes :tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> You we're a hall monitor in an earlier life right?


A life? I once had a life?!? 

It must have been a long, long time ago...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

....In a galaxy far far away.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ I gotta' stop lobbing those creampuffs over the plate... :lol:

Also, happy birthday PerfessorCoffee. I'll be turning the big 40 this Friday myself.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

UUMMM! Creampuffs! Throw one!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> No new renders yet. Having trouble with the turbolift tubes :tongue:


I told you you shouldn't have been drinking that much coffee!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Though the Galileo renders would make a better birthday present, have you gotten a chance to try the K-7 with a less sharp angle at the module horizontal cross-cut points, FourMadMen?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, CHUCK!:hat: 

Lloyd :wave:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thanks Lloyd!
At 40, I guess I'm officially a member of the over the hill gang!!!


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

It's just me, Woody, from janitorial services. They sent me in here to knock down some cobb webs, sweep, and chase the crickets out. Don't mind me.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Some new K-7 renders might be nice. 
Don't sweep out everything here, Woody.
Lot's of good, fun stuff worth keeping.

How 'bout a try with a little more rounded modules....? FourMadMen?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


>


Here is one of my favorites!
Must be lonely out in Deep Space...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Happy belated, Chuck! Didn't see the posts above until just now. Welcome to the O.F. Club!

4Mad--Looking great! I suppose you're over forty renders, eh?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I was playing around with this idea, so here it is.
> In the photo, I made the Tribble, JL Galileo,and the red shirt is a 1/100 scale.


LOL! :thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Chuck, is that not the shot from the 4MM K-7 Christmas special?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yes, Christmas 2004.

Rounded modules? I really do prefer the "pointy" ones. Rounded cones I'm all for but I just don't know about the modules.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

That is one of the reason I like Christmas,LIGHTS! That is why I want to get the guts to try lighting a model. Call me crazy, but I always wanted to paint my ceiling black, paint stars, and hang lighted model up. So when I lay down at night, it would look like space. Of course that was when I was younger. Now I would be afraid ships would crash on me while I was a sleep.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Yes, Christmas 2004.
> 
> Rounded modules? I really do prefer the "pointy" ones. Rounded cones I'm all for but I just don't know about the modules.


Don't mean to suggest they need be extremely round.
Just the way they are now it the upper and lower halves seem almost like they have an invisible horizontal seam, or are like two pie plates glued together. The curve between the upper and lower halves doesn't have the same sense of flow(upper into lower) that the TOS one had, if this makes any sense. Could we try one or two with that point toned down a bit?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I did mention in the other thread that I was burnt out on Trek didn't I? I wouldn't do this for just anyone:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Looks Kewl!!!!
Especially like the newly detailed small module side lights! :thumbsup:

If all goes well with the 1/24th shuttle I'd love to make this one the next project. 

I'll give it a rest until you had a Trek recovery. 
Sorry about your Trek burnout. 

You were the one who got me started on the K-7 idea, though, remember? 

Let me know when you've recharged your Trek batteries and I'll let keep you up to date on the shuttle parts, etc via the thread, that way you can just browse the info.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

4MM, looking very good. Now take that break! I hope when I finish my Trek models I am doing, I can finish other non-Trek models.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I did mention in the other thread that I was burnt out on Trek didn't I?


  B...B...B...Burned out on Star Trek! How can that Be!? LOL


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I know some of the preceeding was in jest but perhaps I mis-typed when I quoted my post from another thread. I'm not burned out on Star Trek (can that even be?). I'm burned out on modeling Trek. I've spent the better part of the past 2 years modeling phasers and shuttles and various NCCs that it's time to take a small break.

Anyway... Chuck, I'm more than happy to see the progress your making on your scratchbuild and I'll even help with renders. No problem there except the time/real-life factors that crop up on occasion.

OK, now that we've cleared that up...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Thanks for bullying :wave: me into trying the other module shape. I think I like it better than the Jein profile. I have a feeling it's not quite as bulbous as the original (and I hope no one takes offense at that, but if you do... oh well) and is a nice middle ground. Leaning heavily on keeping it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Kewl!!!

Not quite as bulbous as the TOS, I agree, but I like it!
I agree it looks much better.

Eventually when I'm done with the shuttle I might try my hand at this one.
Think when you get a chance you might have a chance to run some decent res orthographics and link out to them, something with a scale bar or two inserted(still unclear at how that new Blender feature works)? 

No new renders, just side and top/bottom orthographics runs of what you have now that you have redone the shape?

I'm itching to crunch some 1/1000th and even 1/350th scale numbers on what you have so far...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

How odd... I wasn't in the mood to do any real work last and was actually just playing around making new orthographics. Anyway here are your scales. The total width of the scale is 1000' (excluding the black border). Each of the large blue and white blocks is 100' by 20' and the smaller blocks are 10' by 20' (and the black border is 10').

[EDIT: The black border is 10' not the previously stated 5'.]









Large Version









Large Version


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Hey, those are great! Thanks for the views and scale bars. :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

You are very welcome. Here are the regular orhtos I did last night. Due to the number of images I'm just providing links this time:

Strobes Off:
View #1
View #2
View #3
View #4 
View #5

Strobes On:
View #1
View #2
View #3
View #4 
View #5


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

WOW! Thanks for the views.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> How odd... I wasn't in the mood to do any real work last and was actually just playing around making new orthographics.


Fantastic!!!
Guess our brainwave patterns are beginning to merge...

Beautiful work!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Four Mad Men said:


> How odd... I wasn't in the mood to do any real work last and was actually just playing around making new orthographics. Anyway here are your scales. The total width of the scale is 1000' (excluding the black border). Each of the large blue and white blocks is 100' by 20' and the smaller blocks are 10' by 20' (and the black border is 10').
> 
> [EDIT: The black border is 10' not the previously stated 5'.]
> 
> ...


Sweet views! I definitely appreciate it! Don't guess I could beg you to include at least an overhead ortho view w/the scale, could I...?  

Purty Puh-lease? :roll:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Absolutely you may beg. May not do any good, but you are always free to do so.

But in this case it worked, here you go sir:









Large Version









Large Version


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Guess our brainwave patterns are beginning to merge...


I am afraid. I am very afraid.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Stunning!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I agree. The very thought that my (oh so) unique brain is changing to match Chuck's stunned me as well!!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

4MMen, you've got mail! (remotely related to this thread...)


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Thankee Sai! Appreciate the top and bottom views!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Now if he would hurry up and send me my model.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well since I have dibs on the shuttle I guess you can have the station.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Stunning!


I spent the day meditating and de-Chucking my brain (Hi Chuck :wave and now that word parses wholly different. Thanks Perfesser, glad you like them.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> Thankee Sai! Appreciate the top and bottom views!


Long days and pleasant nights, do ya.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I spent the day meditating and de-Chucking my brain (Hi Chuck :wave and now that word parses wholly different. Thanks Perfesser, glad you like them.


That's Incredible!!!!!

I spent the whole day doing exactly the same thing!!!

Wow!!!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Everytime I ever tried to meditate, It took hours to get untangled!! So now I just break things.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I used to punch holes in things. Walls mostly. But it got too expensinve buying all the crap (mirrors, pictures, shelves...) that was used to coverup the holes. When I can't meditate I usually just kick... er... walk the dog.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> That's Incredible!!!!!
> 
> I spent the whole day doing exactly the same thing!!!
> 
> Wow!!!


What, de-Chucking your brain...?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Better than up-chucking one's brain, I suppose.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> What, de-Chucking your brain...?


Yep. For a few hours I was able to revert to my natural non-Trek-interested Charles state.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Have downloaded and installed Blender.
Currently downloading a 48MB tutorial video...
... via dialup... may take awhile....


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> What, de-Chucking your brain...?


HA! Now that's funny.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Have downloaded and installed Blender.
> Currently downloading a 48MB tutorial video...
> ... via dialup... may take awhile....


I see someone has thoughts of replacing me.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Not at all.
I've opened the program and am about as lost as if I had come across an alien spacewreck... 
Just something to pass the time away. Been feeling left out lately, having zero 3D skills.

Besides, since the next part of the Galileo is going to take a couple of weeks to get done I've got a lot of time left on my hands.


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

blender? try maya for a learning curve yeeeshh!!
(but you will get it faster than you think just tinker for a bit).


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Yep. For a few hours I was able to revert to my natural non-Trek-interested Charles state.


I highly recommend that everyone be careful when around Chuck. Sounds like there's at least two people in his head.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Gee...
a guy can't change their moods or make a joke around here...:tongue:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Thy noggin is qwite fulle, yunge Charles!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Gee...
> a guy can't change their moods or make a joke around here...:tongue:


Oh, you can chance people's moods alright!

My lack of time for modeling continues but I did get a change last night to try some new window textures (not the best result I managed with them but that one has been lost in the ether):


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Dude! You outta worn a brother about something like that before hand! I had to go clean my shorts out after seeing that pic!  


What I mean is: Very frackin' kewel! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Oh, you can chance people's moods alright!
> 
> My lack of time for modeling continues but I did get a change last night to try some new window textures (not the best result I managed with them but that one has been lost in the ether):


Freakin' fantastic!

Don't know what I said to make you change your mood about new Trek renders, but whatever it was I'm ecstatic! That's one incredible pic!!!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

^^ Chuck, you scared him!LOL

NO,NO! 4MM, that light goes here, and that light goes there. Right? 
Ok, Fantastic picture! I like the Enterprise and the D7. Nice touch!


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

I am in complete Awe. Fantastic Picture 4MM. But ya know, the Enterprise was closer to the station. The Klingons were farther away from the station in the show so they didn't have to show a ship in the scenes.

Don't ya hate those Anal people who pipe up and tells you it isn't perfect. !!! :lol: :jest: :roll:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Not to be one of those anal people, Tholian.
But the pic could well be considered very accurate.
The Klingon ship was already in orbit before the Enterprise got there. 
Based on the Enterprise distance and angle to the station, it looks like FourMadMen was depicting the approach, not both in orbit.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Its ok, I am really busting 4MM chops. He did an exemplary job and through the whole thing, he was told this may be this way and that may be that way. So I was just giving him a Reason to bite his nails one last time. :lol: 

But I do like your conclusion! :wave:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well I wasn't really considering that sort of thing. Besides I wanted the D7 to be more visible in that one. Besides, if you saw either "model" (and I use the term loosely) upclose you would very quickly modify your opinion!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I think that the Enterprise is coming to the rescue, while the Klingons are escaping the Tribbles. And I like to be anal!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Not to be one of those anal people, Tholian.
> But the pic could well be considered very accurate.
> The Klingon ship was already in orbit before the Enterprise got there.
> Based on the Enterprise distance and angle to the station, it looks like FourMadMen was depicting the approach, not both in orbit.


Actually, you can't orbit the station at all. It doesn't have enough mass. And powering the ship around it in a circular path is a supreme waste of energy, not to mention a navigational nightmare. That's one of the unfortunate things about the way it was depicted on the show. The Enterprise hanging stationary outside Lurry's window is much more realistic. 

I like to think of the scene this way: The ships and station are still, but the camera is moving around them in a circular path. The Enterprise only looks like it is moving. The inconsistant thing about this interpretation is that the stars in the show should be drifting slowly to the left while the station model turns slowly to keep the same orientation to the ship.

Mark


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ hmmm...

sounds like how I felt when I read Roddenberry's statement during TNG era that he didn't see Starfleet as a military organization, 

to which Franz Joseph's daughter responded " Yep, that's why they salute each other and call one another "Captain, Commander, Lieutenent..." 

funny revisionist stuff. :lol:

Actually, I've seen a few shots that suggest that different parts of the station rotated at different speeds, 
not that it makes sense... I'm not arguing that...

yet there it is. 

P.S. Different parts of the model were probably inadvertently moved during the filming. And the cameras were probably moved to film. However, it seems to my unexpert eye that both in TOS and the DS9 episode that the intent was clearly to imply they were orbiting and the station moving.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> ^^^ hmmm...
> 
> sounds like how I felt when I read Roddenberry's statement during TNG era that he didn't see Starfleet as a military organization,
> 
> to which Franz Joseph's daughter responded " Yep, that's why they salute each other and call one another "Captain, Commander, Lieutenent..."


 They salute in TNG...? Tell me an episode, perchance, 'cause I don't remember seeing it. 



> funny revisionist stuff. :lol:
> 
> Actually, I've seen a few shots that suggest that different parts of the station rotated at different speeds,
> not that it makes sense... I'm not arguing that...
> ...


Huh?!?  Care to point out the episodes and approximate time-frame? 


> P.S. Different parts of the model were probably inadvertently moved during the filming. And the cameras were probably moved to film. However, it seems to my unexpert eye that both in TOS and the DS9 episode that the intent was clearly to imply they were orbiting and the station moving.


I'd have to agree w/Mark, dude. Everything was stationary. Physics and all that.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

What do you think of this fan based comics K-11 deep space station?
http://startrekanimated.com/tas_comic04_01.html


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Sorry it took so long to respond. Been and still am pretty busy...



Griffworks said:


> They salute in TNG...? Tell me an episode, perchance, 'cause I don't remember seeing it.


Stop being so literalist, dude. That was not her point and I doubt she was talking about TNG, but was instead talking about Roddenberry's attempt to make TNG politically correct(and as a result way more boring - though still often good in my opinion).

What I said was I agreed with FJ's daughter who was responding to Roddenberry's TNG era comment about him seeing Starfleet as not really a military organization. A clear attempt on Roddenberry's part to make TNG and beyond Trek a "kinder, gentler, kind of Starfleet." Very politically correct and a hip idea at the time. But pure BS considering how he modeled the entire TOS, and by extension TNG, series after the exploits of a British Naval Captain.



Griffworks said:


> Huh?!?  Care to point out the episodes and approximate time-frame?
> 
> I'd have to agree w/Mark, dude. Everything was stationary. Physics and all that.


I didn't say that it wasn't. Just that it seems clear that the camerawork in DS9 especially, was made to suggest the station turned and the ships orbited them. Perhaps the inertial energy helped the anti-grav platings do their job with less energy. DS9 had rotational jets I remember them using in an episode and that was a much later station. Who knows? It is just a TV show. 

On the different parts of the station being movable (in TOS) as opposed to other parts I can't take credit for that. Lloyd was the first person to point it out and I have to agree with him based on the several stills posted in the original K-7 info thread I posted. 

The ones posted by Phil and others show the main module's "bin" in different positions relative to the three satellite modules.

Chances are it wasn't intended to be shown that way but the parts perhaps were moved during filming.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

I took some screen caps the other day of the "Trouble with Tribbles" ep. The fourth shot is about the clearest I could get on the "drum that's hanging off the back of the station.

http://www.forbiddenplastic.com/trek_tribbles_caps/trek_tribbles_screencaps.html

That's a pretty nice job on the station there, 4MM!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thanks Ignatz! Great pics!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Stimpson J. Cat said:


> What do you think of this fan based comics K-11 deep space station?
> http://startrekanimated.com/tas_comic04_01.html


That's really nice. I've been meaning to read this one but had not previously had a chance to even look at it. Thanks for the look (and the reminder)!!!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Ignatz said:


> I took some screen caps the other day of the "Trouble with Tribbles" ep. The fourth shot is about the clearest I could get on the "drum that's hanging off the back of the station.
> 
> http://www.forbiddenplastic.com/trek_tribbles_caps/trek_tribbles_screencaps.html
> 
> That's a pretty nice job on the station there, 4MM!


Thanks. I'll try to get back to this when the Cairo is farther along. But then I have to start my D-6. And then hopefully we'll get to see all three together.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thought I would dust off this one...

More please...


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Yes please. :thumbsup:


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

*bump*
I'm really missing this one.


----------



## Captain_April (Oct 20, 2002)

"It's dead Jim", time to move on to the next mission!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Far from dead. After Chuck's part sheets this is next as it's needed in the new opening scene of the Cairo animation project.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Cool! You'll make millions of screaming K-7 fans happy.


----------



## Captain_April (Oct 20, 2002)

Glad to hear it, I just figured it died on the vine as some CGI projects do.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

So little faith. In ST there are always possibilities. Speaking of K-7, I saw that Chris Larson has come out with a K-7 model. http://minimodelmadness.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=104&osCsid=e9413f2be9d23fa7363a668be3b6026a


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Absolutely you may beg. May not do any good, but you are always free to do so.
> 
> But in this case it worked, here you go sir:
> 
> ...


 

My favorite K-7 shot...

Click links in quote to see more...

P.S.:
"Here are the scales. The total width of the scale is 1000' (excluding the black border). Each of the large blue and white blocks is 100' by 20' and the smaller blocks are 10' by 20' (and the black border is 10')."


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Large Version
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's the runner-up views(In my personal opinion).


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


>


 
Just plain puuuuuuuuuuuurty!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

More...



Four Mad Men said:


> And worked on the "door" tracks. The upper ones anyway (ignore the dirty windows, the washer hasn't been around in weeks)...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


>


Another of my favorites!
Must be lonely out in Deep Space...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

More yet again...


Four Mad Men said:


> I've got some errands to run today but I'll have more to say later. In the meantime here is my shuttle pod with the top removed.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Some of the best pics for putting the scale of the station in perspective.
The scaling of the station is based around the size/width of the main cone's windows.




Four Mad Men said:


> Thanks for the kind words guys, glad to see there is still some interest in this project. I didn't know if interest had grown stale or not. I know it's not much of an update but here's one more. I fixed/added some connecting "rings". Added some beveling here and there and after landing a couple of shuttles noticed that the lower "pod" (?) has some segmentation issues and will have to be completely rebuilt.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Another, quite unique and fun scaling shot...





Four Mad Men said:


> I certainly respect Thomas' opinions and his background knowledge is certainly worth considering as well. However I'm now entirely convinced that there are 3 bays. And this is because of 2 things:
> 
> 1) All of you. I actually rebuild the lower section with 3 bays just before starting the window work. In fact the last several renders actually contain the other 2 bays and...
> 
> ...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

You're treading on dangerous ground Chuck. K-7 fever may set in pre-partsheet completion.

I'll will however try to resist. Although the Cairo needs more modeling work than the station. So while not forgotten the station won't be next.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Oops! Wasn't trying to side track you. Just came across the thread while searching for another and thought I'd make my own personal list of my favorites from the thread.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Took a little digging but I found this ole favorite of a thread...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Taking a lull in the storm to test some crude textures.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)




----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Looks great as Usual


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Looking very good! :thumbsup: 
I see you are ready for my shuttle. WARNING! I fly better than I land! Get out of the way!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Kewl!!!

A couple of touches on the main cone and you'll be done! 

Incredible work!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Hey Tholian, where you been man! Good to see you.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Looking very good! :thumbsup:
> I see you are ready for my shuttle. WARNING! I fly better than I land! Get out of the way!!


Still need to texture the shuttle bay interior so you know which part of the deck to aim for when you hit it at a high rate of speed.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Kewl!!!
> 
> A couple of touches on the main cone and you'll be done!
> 
> Incredible work!


Still lots to do I'm afraid. And I'm trying something new so there's that and much more texturing to be done.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And here we have a very minor update...


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Four Mad Men said:


> Hey Tholian, where you been man! Good to see you.


I have been here. Just had a lot going on. The surgery to my Knee, Physical Therapy, and now I am back to work. Plus I went to the IPMS Atlanta Georgia Nationals. So I have been around, just that I have been so freaking busy the last month or so that I couldn't write or do much. LOL :wave:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Tholian, Glad you are back, and doing better!

4MM, LOOKING GOOD! How are you doing?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Better than I was and hoping for more, thanks for asking. Trying not to be too greedy about it though. Most days are pretty bearable.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Tholian said:


> I have been here. Just had a lot going on. The surgery to my Knee, Physical Therapy, and now I am back to work. Plus I went to the IPMS Atlanta Georgia Nationals. So I have been around, just that I have been so freaking busy the last month or so that I couldn't write or do much. LOL :wave:


Busy I understand. And I hope your doing well after your surgery.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Four Mad Men said:


> Busy I understand. And I hope your doing well after your surgery.


I am doing ok, I went back to work on Thursday. That was hard. Not used to doing real work after being out 5 months. But in a way I am glad to be back. I got to fat. LOL

So it is sore, but I don't have to walk with a cane anymore. :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Had a few minutes and thought I'd take the opportunity to do a little texturing...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Oooh! Pretty!

I like the visible detail in the shuttlebay!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Mmmm...[Homer Simpson-like drool]... TEEEEXTUUUURE!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

This is scary! I was working on my 1/1000scale K7 model, and was going to find this thread, and here it is. Glad to see it back.
Now if we get Chuck to stop drrooling all over the place!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well it's a good thing I dredged it up then (aside from the whole getting drooled on by Chuck part  ). The differentiations in the psuedo-paneling textures did not come out like I wanted. More of a cloudy look than anything else. So those will be changing at the same time as I do the K-7 and UFP text.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Here is a picture of Mini Model Madness 1/1000 K-7 and the PL 1/1000.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Hey cool. Looks like it should be easy to light. But those arms are awfully long. Should they be that long?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I really don't know if the arms are too long. Remember we never figured out the correct size of the K7.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I can't figure this out. I was doing research, by watching TOS, and in some scenes it is red, and other are blue. The whole station moves as a whole, so I don't know. 

In the below image, all looks the same, except the small cone colors. Any ideas?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

One is red, one is green, and one is blue. The red one on the upper left station is the arm that is counter clockwist to the blue one. Also the lighting is very blue on that one so the green is probably being "washed-out".

For the other station the red and the blue are switched (as compared to the other station) which leads me to believe that the arms we're removeable.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I really don't know if the arms are too long. Remember we never figured out the correct size of the K7.


Actually those arms are too long. But that can be fixed very simply. The transparent arms' apparent width also threw me there for a second. I thought they were too thin too. My mistake.

We did figure out the size of the K7, within about 20 feet or so.
It's back there < 
somewhere!

The minimodelmadness kit is beautiful (once you fix the arms), but it's a little small to be 1/1000th.

I believe we figured out that a 1/1000th kit would be about 28" wide, but I'll have to check that to be certain.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Found 'em!
The orthos and links to orthos are on page 20-21.

Based on the scale I have to correct my previous post and say the width of the entire station should be about 23.666086956521739130434782608696 inches wide in 1/1000th scale.

Roughly speaking, of course...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, that's downright reasonable.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Thanks, Chuck. I have so much research material on CDs,DVDs, and hard drive, I knew I would never find what we figured out. I will back track, and look at the orthos.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well I don't see an opportunity to upscale the kit, so I'd just shorten the arms and run with it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Don't get me wrong, it's a great, beautiful kit.
I don't think it has to be redone, or that it needs to be upscaled to be acceptible.

Heck the Klingon D7 looks good to me and it's slightly out of scale with the 1/1000th PL E too.

Just hang them from the ceiling, space them out a bit, don't display them right on top of each other, and no one will know the difference.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

That is my plan. I figured it is about two inches too long, on the arms. When I can get what I need, I am going to light it. It is more patterned after the DS9 model.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hey, 4MMen!

Quickly check your messages.
Found something you might find interesting but there is a definite time issue involved.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay, I think I have an old Paul M. Newitt sheet lying around detailing how to light and wire the K-7 to match the TOS one.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Got it. Thanks man, but I've just got too much going on right now. If you want to make a run for that border be my guest.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Chuck, I bought the book released by CultTVMan of all three of Pauls books, and it was included. That is the start of my lighting of the model. Paul calls for yellow LEDs, and I think in might look ok that way. The only difference in his instructions, is that the beacon on the large cone does not flash. But that is no problem, it still has four flashing lights.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

-- _There are five lights!_


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Chuck, I bought the book released by CultTVMan of all three of Pauls books, and it was included. That is the start of my lighting of the model. Paul calls for yellow LEDs, and I think in might look ok that way. The only difference in his instructions, is that the beacon on the large cone does not flash. But that is no problem, it still has four flashing lights.


I don't think there is a light on the middle TOS antenna tower at all. It was solid and had two VHF looking antenna sticking out the top of a bell shaped solid piece. Remember the conversion we had earlier in this (or the original K-7 info thread) about the fact that there was also a round loop attached to the TOS main cone? So apparently the inside joke was that K-7 was a fancy enough station to receive both VHF AND UHF channels? Also remember the fact that the three small cones were lit with the colors Red, Green Blue? 

VHF antenna, UHF antenna, Red-Green-Blue cone lights...

Heck it's one of the clearest examples of a Television producer introducing a bit of an inside joke to see if any tech-heads got the joke! 

*And it only took us Trekkers 35+ years to figure it out! Talk about a really long punchline!* :lol:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Four Mad Men said:


> -- _There are five lights!_


I have rewatched the episode to be sure. Atop each small cone, and under the grain pod. Atop the light pole on the big cone, is always on. It is easier to change in in your blender, than it is on the model. So I am sure! :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

_*THERE ARE FIVE LIGHTS!!!!*_


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Their are eight lights. On each small pods, one blinking on cones, and one non-blinking, but different color. On the main pod, one non-blonking on the pole, and one blinking under grain bin.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

*There Are Five Lights!!!!*


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Prove It!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

1... 2... 3... 4... 5.

*Five Lights*


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

*I I
lol
lVl
l-l
L L*


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Ok, I have to prove it. Look at the below picture, and it is as I said.











I mess up the top left view, the hidden light should be off.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Prove It!


 
Um.... Lloyd.
Calm down.
He's making an illusion to the TNG episode in which Pacard was brainwashed and coerced into trying to tell his torturer there was a fictious number of lights he was seeing.


On the main cone, I believe what you are seeing is a star. Not a light on the main cone antenna. Thomas described the antenna pretty thoroughly once in this or the other K-7 thread.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

By the way, here is the definitive picture of the K-7, in terms of main cone and antenna detail, originally posted by someone you know quite well Lloyd. 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=14646

Based on this shot, if it wasn't a star you were looking at, it is probably a reflection from the studio lights.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here is a quote of the description I was talking about:



ThomasModels said:


> ...
> 
> The main antenna is not a straight pole with a small pointy end. The pole should be 2.25 times the diameter of the top at the base. It should be a tapering cone.
> 
> ...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Sorry Lloyd, just a little Orwellian humor.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Sorry Lloyd, just a little Orwellian humor.


Humor? I thought you were serious!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I was but don't tell anyone. So, how many fingers do you see?

By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

So tell me, how over the top is this?










Like it? Hate it? Thoughts?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> By the way, here is the definitive picture of the K-7, in terms of main cone and antenna detail, originally posted by someone you know quite well Lloyd.
> 
> 
> Based on this shot, if it wasn't a star you were looking at, it is probably a reflection from the studio lights.


Great, use my picture against me! :freak: 

I can say for a fact, that it is not a star. I viewed every shot of K7 in the episode, and it was always there. I think you are right about the studio light, but does that mean that I should not light it?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

4MM, I like it the way it is.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well that's one for, any against? And here's one more to end the evening.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Now, *I'm* drooling!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Still not too fond of the extra rings and seams on the extension arms.
Sort of reminds me of the Ed M. rust rings...[ducks and covers as he runs for the door]

But I do love the new aztecing though.:thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Great, use my picture against me! :freak:
> 
> I can say for a fact, that it is not a star. I viewed every shot of K7 in the episode, and it was always there. I think you are right about the studio light, but does that mean that I should not light it?


Personally I'd make it highly reflective silver. But if you feel the need to light it(don't know what the piece that came with the kit looks like) I would make the "Taco Bell" looking rabbit-ear thingy(can we make that the official name of the top of the main antenna tower?) out of clear resin with a cavity underneath the "bell" where you can glue in an LED. Then I would run wires down the tapered antenna poll, that should be silver, and paint the protruding "rabit-ears" silver.
Thereby leaving only the bell part clear.

That way you could always paint the rest of the bell silver if you wanted too later, leaving your options open.

But heck, it's your model. Only you can decide what you will be happiest with.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I just noticed the lump on your head,Chuck. Didn't duck fast enough! LOL

I will have to see what I can come up with on the pole. Since their are no detailed photos for TOS K7, I am going to use details from DS9. But, I am going to try to get the lighted winds close to TOS. The model came with decal sheets, and it follows DS9, so it will look more detailed.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I just noticed the lump on your head,Chuck. Didn't duck fast enough! LOL


Huh... Wh..whh.. whaat? Who are you?



Lloyd Collins said:


> I will have to see what I can come up with on the pole. Since their are no detailed photos for TOS K7, I am going to use details from DS9.


Makes sense to me... one is Cardassian, the other Federation, seperated by a couple hundred years... the details on the Cardassian Deep Space 9 should match up exactly with the Federation K-7...

Hhhhuh... what did I just say? What year is it? :drunk:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I understand on DS9, in the 90's FX, to make it more detailed. But looking at the largest screen grab of TOS, I can see Greg did not do the large cone and pole light the same, on DS9. So I will do the model by photos I have of TOS, and fill in from DS9.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Okay. You meant from the DS9 episode Trials and Tribulations. That makes a lot more sense then what you typed above.

Still I don't quite understand, what exactly are you missing in information from the TOS station that you need to fill in? 

Make us a list and maybe we can come up with the answers for you.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ThomasModels said:


> That looks really nice, Mark.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I know you were addressing someone else, but any chance of seeing a rough sketch of how the hanger(s) should look?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

What I mean about details, is that shots from TOS are mainly far off shots. One shot was fairly close, so I can make out some details. THe close up of the model I posted helps on the large cone, and Thomas's info helps on others. But, on DS9, I have many upclose shots, so I will use them to fill in the rest. 

The model I have was made based on DS9, and the decals reflect that. Shots oh DS9 are easy to find on the web, and the DVD helps alot.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

That's important info. I had no idea it was based on the DS9 T&T episode version of the K-7.

In that case you shouldn't be missing any details. Even the DS9 version isn't very complicated.

If you are missing any info, let us know and I'm sure someone here can help.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Been a busy week here but I do have a couple of new renders. Just a close up of the aztec pattern and some playing with the map to channels.

Here is the close up of the aztec pattern. It is actually three layers (with a fourth one planned but not yet shown). I've also turned of the AO for this upclose image as it tends to dirty the details.










And here is an example of the Aztec mapped the way it is on my U.S.S. Cairo, with almost no color influence but the spec channel is cranked up to about 75%. Makes the station more TOSish until you get some light bouncing off it at certain angles. I'll probably lean more towrads this but with the color influence turned up a little more to give a hint of the pattern.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I have seen that yes. However I'm sure if you can travel at warp with artificial gravity, your technology won't force you into using that sort of port hold setup. But then, I'm not going for that level of detail anyway.

Smoothie (above) or Paneled (below). I just can't seem to make up my mind...


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

That's great work! I really like the aztec paneling, perfect.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

I vote for the Aztec pattern. Really like that!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Thanks guys.

I think I've struck a balance between diffuse/specularity and aztec-panels/non-aztec-panels that I like.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And a larger render (2560px wide) of the previous image.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

That is VERY nice!

However...










The UFP should be slightly smaller. The K7 Should be on the center cone. The smaller cones read as you have them except KA, KB and KC, for markings accurate to the studio model.

There should be a few windows on the Hangar Module between the hangar doors. There is also another detail no one I have seen catch yet:
Below the section where the arms attach, is a bulbous shape that the hangar module is attached to. On that bulbous shape, on center with the radiating arms is a light. Sometimes on, somethings off. Check the DVD, you'll see it.

And FMM, Happy Birthday and Happy New Years!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Thanks. I have checked and you are correct, the light is there. Never caught that. Would there be three of them by any chance? Also, something else I've never caught is the A, B, and C on the cones, thought for sure it was just a repeat of the "7".

But in my defense I am aware of the large cone's K7 I just haven't mapped it yet. Thanks for help Thomas, and thanks for the ref pic, I also see my letters and numbers are something on the thin side.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

When I look at the fuzzy images of the model, the one outer pod where you can see the "K" marking appears to read "K2". Are there better images of the model where these markings can be read more clearly? Here is the composite image I made from the various shots in my collection:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/K-7_Chart_01.jpg


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Okay, "Photobucket" resized the image so that none of them are readable. Here is one image at large size:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Space-Station_K7.jpg


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

I would guess there are three lights in that area, one under each arm.

Something else that must be considered in looking at X15-A2's images, is that one or more sections of the stattion rotated or counter rotated with each other.

Note the placement of the arms in relation to the open hangar door. In most views, the left vertical edge of the open door is close to being on center with one of the pod arms. Looking at the middle row, center and right images, the door seems to be moved a little further to the left.

The center top cone in all photos has the K7 marking facing camera with the bin at the back or right side. All arm components look to be in position in relation to each other in every photo, except for the one on the top left. The barely visable left side of the open door appears to be close to on center with one of the arms.

Based on the outer left edge of the K also being almost on center with one of the pod arms, I am guessing that the hangar pod rotated slowly, while the rest of the station rotated quicker or counter rotated. Perhaps the top cone platform turned, or it turned at a faster rate than the outer pod arms.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The gentleman who built the model said he helped physically move the model on a central rod that it was attached to a few times while the cameramen moved the cameras around it trying to get a variety of different shots to simulate movement.

It was all turned by hand. It's a good chance that the bottom part simply moved unintentionally during one of those repositionings if most of the time everything else is properly aligned. They probably were just trying to simulate the entire station moving and the hanger just slipped without them noticing it. All the shooting was done in one day very hastily.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Hi! I,m back after my computer went crazy. Only a new hard drive and modem, to back here. It is good to be back. Now I can R..E..L..A..Xxxx.

I have noticed the station rotation on DVD, and it is not enough to see different parts moving differently. If you get what I said? I think Chuck is right, about the unintentional repositioning.

Thomas, I never noticed the lights you saw, now back to the DVD to see them. It will change the plans I am working on for the model. If you find anything else, hurry and tell me. Once I start the drilling, it is no turning back for me!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> When I look at the fuzzy images of the model, the one outer pod where you can see the "K" marking appears to read "K2". Are there better images of the model where these markings can be read more clearly? Here is the composite image I made from the various shots in my collection:
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/K-7_Chart_01.jpg


I think what you may be seeing is a confusion between the black 7 decal and the blacked out windows. The K-7 decals were stenciled on at the last moment after the cones had been lit.

Since the K-7 stenciling wasn't taken into consideration when randomly blocking out the windows, it might have been almost impossible for them to find an area that clearly showed the 7 without it looking odd. If it wasn't a slant-style 7, for example, it could also have ended up looking like a 1.

The original model maker said also that he only remembered one hanger, and thinks the production crew may have embellished the model before shooting. Adding the numbers at the very least.(He doesn't remember the hanger pod windows also for example, even though he was there helping with the shooting.) Again, it may have something to do with having a VERY long and distinguished career in FX and he's just not able to remember those details.(Though he remembered certain details like the brand name of the lights he uses for the three smaller cones.)

It sounds like Thomas has seen the model itself though and has a clearer recal of at least the hanger section(the details the original model maker doesn't remember doing or even seeing are definitely in the model - there is no denying that), that's why I was asking for more details - maybe even a sketch or two of the bottom circular hanger section, especially the windows Thomas mentions.

I think those details and the "underarm lights" are the only remaining missing details of the TOS model left to flesh out.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

In reference to the "K7" markings, I was under the impression that some people in this thread believed that the markings on the small saucer cones read; KA, KB and KC. I was just pointing out that the one readable example seems to read "K2". Chuck, in light of your comments about darkened windows however, it might very well read "K7". This would make the station markings consistent throughout.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Yes, some people _believe_ that at least one of the two models built for all of the Trek series read "KA".

Here's one, a frame blow up from TOS:










Looks very much like an A to me.


A line traced image from another angle:










Still sort of A shaped. It could be a 2.... The odd thing about that image is that it shows a window in the middle of each character. However the frame grab from above shows no windows amid characters. That, and the arm appears to be on the left side of the open hangar bay door 2 while the line traced image shows the same arm on the opposite side of the open hangar door position. (Not shown in the image above.) Perhaps all three cones read KA?

In the episode, the station is shown slowly turning. A couple of shots show Enterprise orbiting closest to camera and one of the cones appears to be red. Another shot with Enterprise orbiting in the background shows not only the red tipped cone to be a blue/green color, but the striping on Enterprise is the same color blue/green color as well. It is very likely one of the spectrums were inverted to suggest that we were viewing another angle of the station and that one of the cone tips was actually another color. The full image of the line traced one shows the model on blue screen stage, with the closest cone red tipped, the right cone black tipped, and the left cone dark grey tipped.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Thomas, I never noticed the color change on the Enterprise, and K7. Now I am getting confused. And the cone letters/numbers. Their has to be somewhere a really good shot of the original model.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Its a tough call. It could be alphas or numerics, judging from these images. I would say that the bottom module with the "bay" in it appears to show the numeral "3" next to the open bay while the far side appears to show a numeral "1" (so there must be a numeral "2" on it somewhere out of view as well). I could see the outer saucers being labelled either way, alphas or numerics. I lean towards numerals (for consistency) but the evidence is far from conclusive so far.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Looks to me as if the colors on the small cones are red and dark blue and dark green. (which very well might have ended up flipped for one of the shots, as Thomas noted)

Which would also fit nicely with the two VHF/UHF antennas, completing the TV motif.

N.B. The center cone's tip being black up until the silver tapering rod.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm in the middle of digging through some emails from Mr. Datin, who built the model.
I have to correct something I said earlier, the filming took place during two - not one - hectic days in which he was hired to help with the filming.

The most important thing I found in Mr. Datin's emails is confirmation of what I thought I remembered reading - the whole station was designed to rotate, but only as one piece.

" I don't understand what you are referring to when you state "the canister-style object on the center module replaced or was added to the square block protrusion." Are you referring to the circular item directly below larger platform? All the items you see in the K-7 pic that I sent are centered on each other. A rod penetrates the center of each item, i.e., the hanger platform at the base (bottom) through the next circular object (to which the smaller platforms radiate out from) through the larger platform, or top unit. "


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dang it, Chuck! You make me feel like an incredibly amateurish fan-boy!  

I have never gone to the extent you've gone to. You've dug up some really neat stuff. Shows what perseverance will do! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thanks! But Thomas still knows more about the hanger section then any of the rest of us. Plus if Mr. Datin hadn't responded to my emails I wouldn't know anything more then the DVD captures show.

Now if only Mr. Datin can come across that Jeffries "Tribbles Satelite" sketch he can't seem to locate...

Also, William McCullars(still a member here I think) did a great interview of him in Star Trek magazine, though I have refrained from quoting from it as those scoops are his. 

However I haven't found any info in the interview that someone in this thread or the one I started on the K-7 hasn't already brought up indirectly. But he still deserves credit for the info nonetheless.

Plus let's not forget Phil Broad's original Douglas Aircraft info and pics.

Plus, FourMadMen's renders! My whole motivation is to try and get him enough info to do the ultimate TOS K-7!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well if the station is called K7 then numbering the smaller cones (other than with the number 7) seems odd to say the least. So A,B,&C it is unless pehaps R,G,&B? Well, maybe not.

In the midst of chamfering the square edges I decide to just re-build the entire central core (minus the large cone and the saucer). And since I was having a very off night last night I completely messed it up and had to do it again. Anyway 3 steps forward, 2 step back...




























The textures on the reactor (or silo if you prefer) are incomplete and the textures on the hangar bay are temporary. Previously the details on it were textured but this time I will be modeling them so you may notice some items have gone missing.

Many (many, many) thanks to Thomas for bringing some of the extra items to my attention. Namely the lights above the hangar bay and the windows that are between the hangar doors.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I can tell you are having WAY too much fun!
Looking awesome! I saw the lights Thomas mentioned, and was not surprised I missed them. The windows on the hangar deck pod, I have not seen yet.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Looking schweeeeeet!


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

Pidg said:


> Just a question. Have ever seen glass used in deep submersibles?. The glass is tapered so that the pressure forces the glass tighter in the plug. In a vacuum on the outside like in space, the windows should be smaller inside and larger outside so the taper forces the glass to maintain the pressure seal.


In a vacuum, with pressure inside the ship, shouldn't the windows taper the other way?
i.e. Outside small, inside big.
That way the pressure will trap the window against the hull.

Jim


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Even on regular military submarines, the pressure is used to complete the seal. 

I've seen the control room get a bit damp from breaching during rough weather. The sail would pop above the waves (which the OOD wasn't supposed to allow). I'd know this was happening due to hearing the sail planes slam loudly against the waves. The hatch on the sail would become temporarily loose from lack of water pressure allowing salt water to spray inside the ship. 

It was always funny to hear the radioman curse when it happened while he was up in the sail winding in the antenna before surfacing.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Gorgeous work, FourMadMen! 

There is a drawback to relying on pressure to complete or control a seal. Wasn't it during Apollo 10 pre-launch test that they had a capsule fire, and couldn't get the capsule door open because of the pressure differential? 

As FourMad Men pointed out, who knows what tech they'll have in the 24th century to control such things?


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

That was owing more to 1) the cabin being overpresurized and 2) the design of the hatch and it's operation under such conditions. the designers didn't think that the astronauts would ever WANT to exit the capsule in space. When they changed the design, they changed how the hatch worked, not how it was pressurized (other than under test conditions).


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Wow, that is really nice looking!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Thanks guys. And now here's a little something I've been putting off but finally got around to starting...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I like how it relates to the style on board the 1701 shuttlebay. :thumbsup: 

It looks a lot more detailed than the Jein version already.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

But I liked the sign in the Jein one. WELCOME TO K7, NOW GO HOME. Talk about wanting customers. Can we some Tribbles?


----------



## FishDS9 (Jan 3, 2006)

Lloyd Collins said:


> But I liked the sign in the Jein one. WELCOME TO K7, NOW GO HOME. Talk about wanting customers. Can we some Tribbles?


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Cool picture. I wish there was better pictures of Cyrano Jones' ship.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Cool! That's reflecting tape for windows, isn't it?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I like how it relates to the style on board the 1701 shuttlebay. :thumbsup:
> 
> It looks a lot more detailed than the Jein version already.


At the moment it's actually less detailed than that but give me a little more time.

*FishDS9 *, thanks a ton for that image! All the other images I have are at greater angles. This one will really help me fine tune the window and door placements.

*Lloyd*, I have an image that shows a sign but I could not read what it said or I would have included it. I did however include something else no one has noticed yet.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Is that a TMP poster? The Hangar Adventure is Just Beginning!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

You sir, have excellent eyes. Exactly!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

One sign. And some other tweaks/additions...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Looks better. The light panels on the ceiling is a good choice. Now your shot gives me some ideas, for my model. I still like the sign. Just think if Jones had took it's advice, then he would not have had to pick up all the Tribbles.

If I was't planning to make the hangar deck, I would make a decal of your deck, and use it. The more I look at it, the more I feel as if I am coming in to land.


----------



## FishDS9 (Jan 3, 2006)

FMM, don't know if this has been mentioned but the IDIC page has several good shots of K7.

IDIC K7 Page 1 

IDIC K7 page 2 :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yep, I've seen those. Thanks for the input though.

Hey Lloyd, you just have to do at least one hangar! There is simply no other way around it.

So... Drum roll please... The moment I know I have been waiting for...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And one more to round out the evening:










Nothing beats modeled detail!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I have been waiting for the shuttles to come in. Now the station is in business. With 1/1000 scale shuttles, I can fill her up. 

I was watching the behind the scenes of the DS9 Tribble episode, and the K7 model has only one hangar. I think I will stick with one.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I would've been suprised had it (the model) been built with more than one hangar. However it seems likely with the numbers present (whoever first added them prior to filming for TOS) there are meant to be more than one in the "real station".

Here are a couple of closeups on said hangar (let's just see who is paying attention)...

Hangar Interior #1
Hangar Interior #2


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

My eye sight is already bad, so don't expect me to figure out the two SMALL pictures, on the wall.


----------



## FishDS9 (Jan 3, 2006)

Nice pics of the jets and carrier. And the shuttles look awesome! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I would've been suprised had it (the model) been built with more than one hangar. However it seems likely with the numbers present (whoever first added them prior to filming for TOS) there are meant to be more than one in the "real station".
> 
> Here are a couple of closeups on said hangar (let's just see who is paying attention)...
> 
> ...


Nice touch!

I agree about the hanger issue. Although Datin doesn't remember adding even one hanger to the TOS model, he said some touches were added by the TOS regular production crew. The hangers/hanger #'s(the #3 being clearly present, although there doesn't appear to be a hanger very visible next to it or any number other then the 1, perhaps just simply because of the coloring/lighting) were probably among them.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Actually the "paying attention" part had to do with the shuttle that it in the "back room". Although *FishDS9* got them. And to be more specific they are a couple of posters about avoiding FOD and TFOA.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

What are you using to see the detail? One of them Blade Runner Photo scanners that lets you magnify and see around corners? Cuz i thought I saw the reflection of a snake scale in the bathtub :freak:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yeah my Cosco had them on clearance.

Going into the weekend I was planning on finishing the textures for this but instead wrote a Layer Manager script for Blender. Instead of a finished K-7 I ended up with this...










Although don't get me wrong, that script is something I've been wanting to have for years and this weekend I decided to just do it myself. I did however take the time to make one render...










It's doubtful I'll get the opportunity to work on this in the coming week but next weekend should see textures for the central column and the loss of the temporary textures on the landing bay. Which I love to render from a distance. Don't know why but there you go. Well I do know why, because I think it looks cool, so there you go too.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Your model looks better than what was in TOS or DS9. Since I have not seen an real evidence that it had three hangar bays, I like the bays and windows. When I build my old AMT kit, I think I will do in in the 4MM style. So cool!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Cool man. I guess that will make it two you've done. I look forward to your progress.

It's been awhile since doing some in-the-dark renders so why not now. Also I've rendered a shot with my Cairo. Sort of a peek into the (far?) future.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Your model looks better than what was in TOS or DS9. Since I have not seen an real evidence that it had three hangar bays, I like the bays and windows. When I build my old AMT kit, I think I will do in in the 4MM style. So cool!


I know that there was no visible second or third bay. But wasn't there a clip posted somewhere where there was a 3 visible on the hanger bay section?

My 2nd season DVD's I ordered a few days ago haven't come in yet so I can't check.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Not sure about a clip but I'm pretty sure Phil has some images that I've seen which both a 2 and a 3 are visible in various shots.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thanks!
I do agree with Lloyd that they aren't visible as hangers, but I do think they should be there, though I also realize it would be too much of a pain for Lloyd to add two more bays to his physical model.

Gorgeous renders, by the way.
I get the impression you enjoy playing with lighting as much as I used to love playing with filters.
Are you going to work on the central tower and UHF loop next?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Next steps are detailing the central core (below the main "saucer") and update the textures on the landing bay exterior). I'll be modeling most of the details, whereas before it was all textures.

I've also pretty much given up on the idea of designing and building my own Klingon D-6, so I'm going to try and find one I like that already exists. I'm hoping to start animation work in March. I'd like to have everything finished by Christmas '06.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

A Christmas present for us? I guess I will have to be good this year.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I've also pretty much given up on the idea of designing and building my own Klingon D-6, so I'm going to try and find one I like that already exists.
> 
> 
> > This is the nicest D-6 I've ever seen.
> > http://i1.tinypic.com/mufn74.jpg


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Next steps are detailing the central core (below the main "saucer") and update the textures on the landing bay exterior). I'll be modeling most of the details, whereas before it was all textures.
> 
> I've also pretty much given up on the idea of designing and building my own Klingon D-6, so I'm going to try and find one I like that already exists. I'm hoping to start animation work in March. I'd like to have everything finished by Christmas '06.


A certain person who did FX rendering for Enterprise might be able to help you out there.

I know the D-6 they built was a physical model, but he might have a photo or two kicking around there somewhere.

And there is always the off chance they decided to do a 3D version just to have in the archives.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Can't really agree about the D-6 there Chuck. It was at most a D-5. At least I'd like to think there was another level in between what we saw on "Enterprise" and what we see on "Star Trek". Can't say that I have a specific memory of it being mentioned as either of the above designations but surely there is a ship in between the two. Like...



Stimpson J. Cat said:


> This is the nicest D-6 I've ever seen.
> http://i1.tinypic.com/mufn74.jpg


Thanks. Yes, I've seen that before and like it too. Perhaps there's a 3D model of it out there somewhere.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The ship I was talking about was built by a third party and given to the Enterprise F/X crew.

The producers didn't like it because it "didn't have enough lights" let's forget that the TOS D-7 had none at all and this was a predecessor to that one and move on from such an uninformed comment by the Enterprise powers that were...

So they used stock footage of a Voyager Klingon ship that was basically originally supposed to be a post D-7 design.

I don't know if the ship, mentioned in Communicator Magazine ever made it into the series, but I'm sure someone here has a link to an article handy...?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hey!

Didn't take as long as I thought to find it!

Here ya' go! 

http://www.trek5.com/ships/drexeaves/drex_eaves3.html


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Finally some progess...

I started out discovering that the renderer re-code has changed the way halos and lamps interact (or perhaps the way halo sizes are generated). My light/halo setups we're not rendering the way they used to. I spent some time sorting those out but I am not 100% please with the results so more to work on there. I also flirted with the idea of making just two bays but I have decided to keep all three.

Here's a list of changes for this round:

Recessed ALL the windows. That's not as painful as it sounds due to some of the (semi) new region extrude. I finished mapping the smaller cones with the KA, KB, & KC signage. I changed the nav light setup from colored lamps/white bulbs to to white lamps/colored bulbs. Added most of the details to the hangar pod with just a few left to do. Mapped and textured the hangar pod. I'm sure I've left something out but that will do for now. Here are the pix...


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Whoa! That's sweet, 4MM! It just keeps gettin' better 'n' better!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

You know why it looks better and better? 4MM went into space and took some pictures 0f the real one, and SAID he did it.


----------



## FishDS9 (Jan 3, 2006)

Great job FMM!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Does he ever take friends with him when he goes up, do you know...? I'd pay cash money. 


All kiddin' aside, it's _really_ makin' me want to get that MiniModelMadness K-7 kit!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Believe me, I wish that we're so. I'd certainly give you guys the grand tour too.

More work...

_More black (and white) stripe-things on the hangar module. I'm now calling this part complete._


Look Ma... no Aztec. Well not much anyway.[/i]


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

This whole project has been a real "E" ticket ride! :thumbsup: 
Did I just give my age away? :tongue:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Really beautiful! The hangar deck details are just great. I am not a fan of aztec patterns, but it really look nice on your K-7!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Stimpson: Thanks, and yes you have.
Lloyd: Thanks.

It's a good thing my wife is out of town because as I sit here and drink a pint or two of Boddingtons I find that I am in love...

...with Blender's new node based compositor :thumb: 

DOF Test #1
DOF Test #2

It took just a few minutes to setup and maybe double that to get used to making changes that I could control. The best part is I can see how the blur is going to be applied without rendering. Cool stuff!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Good it is a test, I thought my eyes were getting worst.LOL


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yes, not your eyes. 

Here is my final tweaking of the small scale effect. Here's is what the AMT kit might have looked like (in an alternate reality):


And here is the same setup with a smaller blur size which (to some degree anyway) increases the apparent scale of the station:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I like the last shot. For me it looks more real. 
Overall, I like the changes you made, that improve it over the DS9 version.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Sweet job on the blur. Gives it that little extra sense of realism! 

Quick question? After this one...? 

What are those "boxes" on the section that joins the outboard pods to the arms? Are they supposed to be landing pads? I'm sorry if you've mentioned them in this thread, but at 32 pages I'm thinking it's not something I want to try and read just to answer one question.  

OK, that's actually two, but I hope you'll forgive me my exuberance. :roll:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

So far since I've slipped those in you are the first to mention them. Yes, they are shuttlecraft landing pads. Complete with turntable/elevator thingies.


----------



## FishDS9 (Jan 3, 2006)

Griffworks said:


> What are those "boxes" on the section that joins the outboard pods to the arms? Are they supposed to be landing pads?


Great catch Griff!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Woo Hoo! I win a coo-kee! I win a coo-kee! :hat: 

Thanks for the response, 4MM. I figured they had to be landing pads since they had the same style of "warning marking" like other Fed starships do. That or maybe something to do w/cargo hatches. Wasn't 100% sure, but knew they had to have something to do w/some sort of opening!  

Nice addition, regardless. I like the idea of that and was thinking of something similar not so long ago w/my 1/2500 re-working of the AMT K-7 model. 

Initial construction complete, needs primer. Comparison drawing: 
http://members.aol.com/griffyards/DS13_04.jpg


Finished construction, primer only: 
http://members.aol.com/griffyards/DS13_07.jpg 


I was thinking of adding the shuttle docking to the sides of the pods, tho wasn't totally decided to even add anything like that yet. I was also thinking of just making the underside of the pods have a "garage door" and that shuttles would float "up" inside and the door would close, sort of like I guess shuttles did on the DS9 Defiant. 

I like your idea, better, however. Mind if I steal it...?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

The more I work on this I can't see why the Jein model changed the cross-section on the saucers. To be fair mine started out like that but it really does look better the original way.

Steal away Griff. I considered doing an underside entryway as well but decided against it since they would not typically be seen.

Nice build. That's the best use of an AMT K-7 kit I've ever seen. On the main saucer there is an attachment. Some people refer to it as the main reactor and some say it's a storage compartment (storage compartment). I notice you have a notch cut out in it, what is your intention there?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Cool lookind AMT kit rework! I really like what you did with it. 

All this work on K-7's, make me feel bad that mine is not done. Thanks, I just need another guilt trip! LOL


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Glad to make you feel guilty, Lloyd! I've been wanting to see yours finished for a while now. I'm going to buy one of those MMM kits and hope to do half as good as you have! 




Four Mad Men said:


> The more I work on this I can't see why the Jein model changed the cross-section on the saucers. To be fair mine started out like that but it really does look better the original way.
> 
> Steal away Griff. I considered doing an underside entryway as well but decided against it since they would not typically be seen.
> 
> Nice build. That's the best use of an AMT K-7 kit I've ever seen.


Thanks! After following your work for a while, I decided that I wasn't ever going to build it as-is. However, I got to thinking on it some more and figured I'd try it as a "sized up" version - hey, they do it all the time on Trek! - w/the rationale that this was somewhat a standard design layout for outposts/starbases. 'Sides, this one had already been built up when I got it, but was in rough shape. It just seemed easier to convert it to 1/2500 scale use. 

One of these days, tho, I want to try and build the K-7 type stations in 1/2500 scale. That's very ambitious of me, but you just never know what I might be able to do. The only real hard part is going to be the clam shell aspect of the various pods. I mean, the core and arms are easy! 



> On the main saucer there is an attachment. Some people refer to it as the main reactor and some say it's a storage compartment (storage compartment). I notice you have a notch cut out in it, what is your intention there?


It's the primary shuttle bay. I had considered accurizing it to be the primary power plant, then opted to have it on the bottom of the central core, ala' Terok Nor/Deep Space 9. I plan to put more "parking garage" type bay doors along the outer rim, however, via decals. I'll prolly do the same w/the smaller pods, too.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> Glad to make you feel guilty, Lloyd! I've been wanting to see yours finished for a while now. I'm going to buy one of those MMM kits and hope to do half as good as you have!


Thanks! I was doing some work on it tonight.

Griff, seeing yours gave me an idea. I am thinking of combining the MMM and AMT, to make one station. Maybe.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

What, w/that extra one you purchased a while back for the landing bay section?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Yes. Unless the missing parts were to show up. It would not be lit, so I could go wild with it, like you have, with yours.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I love subtle depth of field effects in the proper type of image; but here, a shallow focal plane makes it look like a little model in both versions.

Consider the scale of this thing: if you were far enough away from the Superdome to get the whole building in the viewfinder, would you have any trouble keeping it all in focus? Not at all. That's the kind of subject you're dealing with here.

M.

P.S.: Of course I LOVE the model!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

All true Mark and thanks. Although I really like the first image where it looks like a small model. It lets me imagine what the AMT kit might have looked like.

The main reason these image exists is I'm teaching myself Blender's new Node based compostire and material system. After doing some reading on DOF, COF, and Hyperfocal distances I know how I plan to use this effect in future animations. Specifically I'll simulate a H.D. of about 20-30 feet. The end result will be everything is in focus with the exception of object that pass very near the camera. So in the case of a Starship flyby as the ship passes the camera and out of the shot there will be a blurring in the area between the camera "lens" and just short of the hyperfocal distance.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I dunno what you just said, 4MM, but it shore did sound purty!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

You using some mighty big word, we are just humble modelers.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I may be a simple un-frozen caveman lawyer, but I understood it.

I think...

Keep up the excellent work, FourMadMen!

M.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I guess the main thing is, that 4MM understands. Once again the K-7 pictures helped on my model. I used the shots to make sure the pods were in the right order. I have been working on my model, again!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Yeppers. Long as DAMan understands what he's sayin', it's all good! 

OK, seriously, tho I got the gist of it, but was just bein' silly. I really have no clue what some of those terms are, tho know they've got to be some sort of computer modeling tech talk!

And, of course, what I really wanted to say was....

"Gee, Mr Four Mad Men. You use yer mouth purtier 'n a two dollar whore!" :devil:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Now what could I possibly add to that? Except: Ewwwwwwwww. I know the quote isn't from Deliverance but please don't break out the banjo and guitar


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

More renders please!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here are the orthos from previous pages...



Four Mad Men said:


> How odd... I wasn't in the mood to do any real work last and was actually just playing around making new orthographics. Anyway here are your scales. The total width of the scale is 1000' (excluding the black border). Each of the large blue and white blocks is 100' by 20' and the smaller blocks are 10' by 20' (and the black border is 10').
> 
> [EDIT: The black border is 10' not the previously stated 5'.]
> 
> ...


 




Four Mad Men said:


> You are very welcome. Here are the regular orhtos I did last night. Due to the number of images I'm just providing links this time:
> 
> Strobes Off:
> View #1
> ...


 


Griffworks said:


> Sweet views! I definitely appreciate it! Don't guess I could beg you to include at least an overhead ortho view w/the scale, could I...?
> 
> Purty Puh-lease? :roll:





Four Mad Men said:


> Absolutely you may beg. May not do any good, but you are always free to do so.
> 
> But in this case it worked, here you go sir:
> 
> ...


 
Based on the scaling key FourMadMen and I came up with the width of the entire station should be about 25.704 inches wide in 1/1000th scale, roughly speaking.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here's an idea to keep us occupied while FourMadMen is busy doing other stuff...

How about going backwards in the thread and choosing our favorite renders/animations from this thread and quoting/reshowing them?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

An oldie but goodie...

Is it soup yet???


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

A while back in this thread someone posted an excellent photo of the K7 model prepped for what looks like blue screen optical shooting.
Does anyone know the source of that photo ?


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

pagni said:


> A while back in this thread someone posted an excellent photo of the K7 model prepped for what looks like blue screen optical shooting.
> Does anyone know the source of that photo ?


Was it the TOS K-7 or the DS9 K-7?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

pagni said:


> A while back in this thread someone posted an excellent photo of the K7 model prepped for what looks like blue screen optical shooting.
> Does anyone know the source of that photo ?


Post #?


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Tos version of it.
I'll dig back through the posts.


----------



## rocketeer390 (Feb 2, 2007)

Does anyone have a decent photo of a finished MMM K-7 or the parts. I was considering buying one, but The photos on the site are terrible. With the 4mmm orthos, I have been considering doing a scratchbuild.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Check out Lloyd Collins buildup thread: *Space Station K-7:The Model*. He's got buildup pics that should help. If not, I'll be happy to take some pics of mine, which is unbuilt at this time.


----------



## rocketeer390 (Feb 2, 2007)

Thank you sir, That was helpful. Looks like a nice kit. The only possible reason to scratchbuild one will be just for the challenge. Either way, it will be an awesome companion piece to my MR Enterprise.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

With all the K-7 activity I'd thought I'd dust of mine and play with her a little bit.


And an oldie but a goodie.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

I'd love to see your model prepped and sent to a 3D printer. It'd be a wonderful kit.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

4MM nice to see your awesome K7 again. :thumbsup:


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Excellent! I can't believe how HUGE this thread is! 36 PAGES!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

lunadude said:


> :thumbsup::thumbsup:
> 
> I'd love to see your model prepped and sent to a 3D printer. It'd be a wonderful kit.


I'm all set to prepare it if someone has a 3D printer and enough materials to send one to me as well.



Stimpson J. Cat said:


> 4MM nice to see your awesome K7 again. :thumbsup:


Yes, it was good to work on it. Been awhile... on many levels.



MadCap Romanian said:


> Excellent! I can't believe how HUGE this thread is! 36 PAGES!


What can I say... this is a "Chuck P. R." thread. They tend to grow like that. You should see the Shuttle thread. I mean threads... there were what 4 of them if I recall correctly. One would get too long so they'd continue it in another one.

On the saize speculation front... and forgive me for not going back to look but I think at 1/1000 scale the station would be 25" in diameter. So real size about 2500 feet. The small "saucers" are slightly smaller than the 1701 Refit saucer. And isn't it odd that I've never checked the size against my TOS Connie?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Oh... did I ever post my hi-rez orthos here? I'll have to dig back and see.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Ever hear of Shapeways (www.shapeways.com)? They are a print-on-demand 3D model service. Upload your model, choose the output size and material, and send them $. They have good quality printers and they are reasonably priced.

I have no first hand printing experience, though I have personally inspected some very clean and detailed models.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I've used Shapeways and am underwhelmed with the quality - it's very stratified and requires a lot of cleanup to get a nice surface (lot's of automotive sandable primer and Mr. Surfacer, and hours of polishing). They don't use terribly high res printers. I'm tracking down some new options for future use.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Paulbo said:


> I've used Shapeways and am underwhelmed with the quality - it's very stratified and requires a lot of cleanup to get a nice surface (lot's of automotive sandable primer and Mr. Surfacer, and hours of polishing). They don't use terribly high res printers. I'm tracking down some new options for future use.


Hmm. They have added some materials, since they started. I looked at samples of all thier materials (http://www.shapeways.com/materials/), and found the "Black Detail" to be the finest quality. I held samples in my hand, at SIGGRAPH, last year.

I'm pretty sure they would send a sample, if you asked.

Then again, Paulbo has more experience in this, than I.


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

Paulbo said:


> I've used Shapeways and am underwhelmed with the quality - it's very stratified and requires a lot of cleanup to get a nice surface (lot's of automotive sandable primer and Mr. Surfacer, and hours of polishing). They don't use terribly high res printers. I'm tracking down some new options for future use.


That's because they've been using the Objet printers in the "top speed" settings (vs "High quality"), which produces greater steps. They recently offered the white, black & transparent detail material printed in the high quality mode, which produces 16 micron steps (vs 28, in the top speed mode). I had some parts printed in the higher res version, which should come in next week. It'll be interesting to compare the two.

Other printers that produce higher resolution prints are Printapart and Redeye. 

Frank


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'd be interested in hearing the details of that comparison.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Four Mad Men said:


> I'd be interested in hearing the details of that comparison.


Me too. Quality/price/ease of use.


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

Sorry for the thread hijack, but I got the new parts today. For the comparison, I'm going to use the 1/350 scale Invaders saucer I had printed by them. Without a doubt, the 16 micron step is a *huge* and noticeable improvement. It won't eliminate primer and sanding, but it will reduce it. The higher resolution also preserves fine details better.
This picture shows the two prints side by side. I ran a chrome Gundam marker over parts to bring out the details.
*Please note: in these pictures I screwed up and the part marked "16" is actually the 28 micron (lower resolution) part.*










The 16 micron (on the left) is clearly smoother, although print artifacts are visible.

Here's the 28 micron part. Again, mislabeled "16":










And the 16 micron part:










Here's a detail of both parts, showing one of the light bars at the top of the saucer, as well as printing artifacts on the saucer. 
I used an LED flashlight to exaggerate the printing artifacts. There's some camera blur, but the difference is obvious. Curved surfaces will always show up printer artifacts (the severity will depend on the print direction). 

28 micron detail:









16 micron detail:









Now all we have to do is to convince Shapeways to offer the higher resolution option, even if it's at a higher price.

Frank


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

How big are those? How sturdy is the material? I mean if the subject was hollow how thick would you think it would need to be to holdup?

Easy to sand?

...questions, questions, question.

** And hey! This thread is in the first ever Hobbytalk newsletter!!! ** Whoot! Am I famous now?


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

Four Mad Men said:


> How big are those? How sturdy is the material? I mean if the subject was hollow how thick would you think it would need to be to holdup?


The saucer is 37mm (1.46") in dia. and 11mm (.43") tall.
This material is an acrylic-based photopolymer; it's about as hard (or soft) as styrene and easy to sand and polish. You can polish this stuff to a glass-like transparency. Some of the colored versions of this material may have a sticky feel to them, due to the post processing. It doesn't really affect the properties, though.

The thickness is limited by the Shapeways design specs to 1mm walls. They'll reject designs with thinner walls, since thinner walls can warp or not print completely. The printer can print thinner walls and I've had stuff printed elsewhere in this material that was no more than 0.5mm thick (some sections were 0.25mm) by around 40mm long and 25mm wide. There was warping, but it was relatively easy to fix.

Frank


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Thanks for the info. It's very helpful.

I wonder what a good desktop size is for the K-7?

Hmm...


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

Four Mad Men said:


> Thanks for the info. It's very helpful.
> 
> I wonder what a good desktop size is for the K-7?
> 
> Hmm...


You don't have to print the whole thing - the arms can be regular styrene tubes. The easiest way is to get a Shapeways account, upload a *watertight* version of your design and see what the costs are for the various materials.

The best materials to work with are the acrylic photopolymers. The cheapest ("white, strong & flexible") is made by sintering together small nylon beads. This results in a very grainy, porous surface that *cannot* be sanded smooth; you just expose more of the grains. You can use Mr. Surfacer on it, but it will soak the paint up.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yeah, been thinking along those lines too. Not printing as one single piece. The arms are probably BEST not printed.

I will have to work up a hollow versions of the hangar (sans interior detail) and one of the A/B/C pods and see what the cost is at various sizes.

Thanks!


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

Four Mad Men said:


> I will have to work up a hollow versions of the hangar (sans interior detail) and one of the A/B/C pods and see what the cost is at various sizes.


I don't know what software you're using, but one way of creating a hollow part is to duplicate the exterior, scale it smaller than the original, then center both parts. It's not the ideal method, but it works.

You have to calculate how much to scale it to get the correct wall thickness as well as making sure that any openings through both shells are closed (to make the model water tight).


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Smaller of the pod types with radius of two inches (mploaded model contains pod, cone, and "box" where it connects to the arm)...

Sandstone ~$15
Transparent Detail ~$40


----------



## Frank2056 (Mar 23, 2007)

Four Mad Men said:


> Smaller of the pod types with radius of two inches (mploaded model contains pod, cone, and "box" where it connects to the arm)...
> 
> Sandstone ~$15
> Transparent Detail ~$40


What was the total volume? Are the cone and box hollow, also? $40 seems about right if the volume is high.

I would resist the temptation of going with the sandstone, unless you want to spend a lot of time with Mr. Surfacer.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

*Live!*

*Live* I say!!!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)




----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Oh... did I ever post my hi-rez orthos here? I'll have to dig back and see.


Latest versions with scales please!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

MGagen said:


> I really hope your source can locate it. I'd love to see it.
> 
> I believe Richard Datin has stated that he had a pretty free hand in building the K-7. Jefferies gave him a loose sketch and the Douglas model pieces and the rest was up to him.
> 
> ...


Oops! The drawing I was referring to *was* indeed the loosely drawn Jefferies sketch that he was given with the model.

And he did eventually respond to the question I had asked about the two antennae being a joke. He said he thought it was a humorous touch at the time. I never bothered to ask him if it was his idea or suggested by Jefferies or someone else. Guess at the time I just assumed it was his idea, so I never asked.

Unfortunately that can't be done now. Has anyone confirmed whose idea the 11 foot TOS E saucer underside decals jokes(the original ones, not the "restored version" ones) were?

That might suggest an answer, as Mr. Datin worked on both.


On the Jefferies sketch. He thought he might still have it, but had no idea where it was. He kept very detailed log books and info on hours worked and material used on his prop creations. But I got the feeling from his emails that the nitty gritty detailed stuff was probably in one of probably hundreds of boxes.

I sincerely hope his remaining loved ones didn't just throw all of that stuff away.

It is possible someone with the inclination and resources - such as Paul Allen - might be able to go through that stuff and rescue some source materials and place it where other fans could appreciate his work.

He never fully received the credit he deserves, even though the Smithsonian finally came to their senses and acknowledged him.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Latest versions with scales please!


Out of town just now but will get those when I get back. Scales included.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Paulbo said:


> I've used Shapeways and am underwhelmed with the quality - it's very stratified and requires a lot of cleanup to get a nice surface (lot's of automotive sandable primer and Mr. Surfacer, and hours of polishing). They don't use terribly high res printers. I'm tracking down some new options for future use.


Can you recommend a good 3D printing service, Paulbo?

One that produces a near styrene smooth plastic surface?


----------

