# TOS Galileo Shuttlecraft, the Bob Villa version - Part 2



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

This thread continues from THIS thread.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

FMM,

Your model is looking great! I'm green too, now...

Chuck,

There will be about 40 exterior sheets, not counting the contour drawings. I must admit, I am having some trouble comming up with a dimension scheme for the main views. There isn't much of a real starting point in the design to measure from.

Phil


----------



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

The lengths based on your 1 foot cross sections look totally logical, maybe you might want to increase the size of the sections until the ship is 24 feet long from nose to the end of the nacelle, as long as that size doesn't screw up dimensions you've already done for details like the nacelle supports. Maybe you mean something other then exact lengths by the term "dimension scheme?"

Another approach would be to look at some of the construction pics.
I believe one of them I sent you had a pic of the open port side door with some tools and other stuff on the floor, maybe even a circular saw(which would have one of three standard sized round blades).


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Chuck,

Actually what I was referring to was a logical starting point to begin taking dimension from. Usually there are a few logical starting points that are fairly obvious on any given design, the tip of the cone-shaped fuselage on the ship from "Planet of the Apes" is one example. You use that point to begin dimensioning the drawing and eventually all dimensions lead back to it.

There are no such points on the TOS Shuttlecraft. This means that I am being forced to use a couple of points that I don't want to use. One is the ground line. This I would not normally use because it is not part of the ship or a point on the ship. I am also using the point at the back edge of the hull side plate on the plane of the "wings". I would not normally use this point either because there is no good way to locate it via dimensions without using the ground line. But I'll just have to use what I can.

The dimensions will be fine for computer modelers but anyone trying to build a real one (1to1 scale) will have to have a flat floor to measure from.

Phil


----------



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

I don't completely understand what you are saying, please forgive my ignorance. Apparently part of what the problem you are having has to do with how there is no one point the craft radiates out equally from.


If there is no particularly ideal starting point, why not start at the front nose, at the hull's vertical center seam?

Both that point and the rear wing point both will still probably require awkward measurements to reference the warp engines' placement. But I don't see a way to avoid it, if I even half understand you correctly.


----------



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

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoPlansTop.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultPlans.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DesignStudy/GalileoDesignStudy.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/GalileoDVDimagesSht1.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/GalileoDVDimagesSht2.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...ecraftConstruction/GalileoConstructionTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

X15-A2 said:


> FMM,
> 
> Your model is looking great! I'm green too, now...
> 
> ...


It feels like it's been weeks since I could truly participate in this project. I guess that's because it HAS been weeks. High praise indeed Phil, thanks. I have stolen a few moments to check out your updates and they are looking very nice indeed. I haven't had a chance to look in the past few days so I don't know if you've managed to do the underside view yet but I'm certainly looking forward to seeing that from your side of things.

It's looking very likely that I'll have my "real work" wrapped up by Tuesday night (three days ahead of schedule -- toot, toot) so be on the lookout for some new stuff and some site updates soon thereafter.

Until next time...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> To keep the info visible on each page...


Hmmm. Seven links to my one, must get busy when I'm not busy.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Hmmm. Seven links to my one, must get busy when I'm not busy.


Cool icons, Four Mad Men!

Your pages seem to load so much faster then Phil's I didn't see the need for too many multiple links,

plus I _did _ give you top billing! :lol:


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Drum roll please...

My Shuttlecraft (as built) exterior plans are ready to be posted!! Yippie!!! 42 sheets, not counting the contour drawings. Next the interior, also "as built". I will hopefully get the exterior sheets loaded to the site tonight.

Chuck,

I started laying out plans of the seats over the weekend. They will be contour plans, which is something that I hoped I would be able to avoid doing but there just was no other way. Once they are drawn, then the rest of the cabin can be drawn around them. This is just to let you know where I am on this project so far.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> ...plus I _did _ give you top billing! :lol:


Yeah, I guess you did at that. I guess I'll just have to let it go then.

*Phil*,
Fourty-two sheets on top of what you've already done!? Incredible. I know where my browser will be on Wednesday (I hope the light at the end of my tunnel isn't a train).


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Guys,

Okay, I didn't get the drawings loaded to the site. As usually happens with a project this complicated, I got home and started scanning the drawings then I began to notice things that I missed on them. After awhile the list of missed items was so long that I just gave up and decided to postpone the loading until they could be revised. Hopefully they will be fixed today and I'll then be able to get them loaded tonight. Sorry about the false alarm yesterday.

Phil


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

X15-A2 said:


> Drum roll please...
> 
> My Shuttlecraft (as built) exterior plans are ready to be posted!! Yippie!!! 42 sheets, not counting the contour drawings.


Let there be general rejoicing! All hail Phil Broad, benefactor of the race! --er, uh, I mean... 

Great job, Phil! Many thanks! :thumbsup: 

Now for another issue:

After the interior (as built) is finished, any chance of a version that attempts to reconstruct what intended for the studio prop? We know that they made changes to Jefferies' design in order to make it "easier to build"-- so I would suspect that some of the apparent alignment issues and odd angles you've found are the result of either sagging after it was built or departure from the plans.

Any thoughts?

Mark


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Mark,

When I began this project I had big plans to do just that. However it has turned into such a monster project that I don't know if I have enough stamina to go the distance. I will do the interior, it is already started, but the fully integrated interior/exterior I make no promises about. My intention is to bulid an integrated 3D model so maybe I'll be forced to do plans first. Maybe it will be easier the second time around, who knows?

There is a HUGE difference between plans that I draw for my own use and those that are prepared for others to use. When drawn for my own use they don't have to be dimensioned, I've found that fully dimensioning these drawings takes nearly the same amount of time as it took to draw them in the first place. Now I know why plans of the Enterprise are never dimensioned, beyond the basics...

Good news, the revisions are done so the drawings should be up by tonight! Whew!

Please do me a favor, everyone who is interested in these drawings should look them over and let me know if there are errors or ommissions on them. I have no one to proof them so all your help will be appreciated.

Phil


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

TA-DA!!

The exterior plans are up! Yippee!!

So far I can only think of one dimension I forgot to put on the drawing... undoubtedly there will be more...

But for now, the "first revision" of the exterior plans are available. Its "Miller time"!

Phil


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Those look great Phil. Truly impressive stuff you've got there. And I think I see something that I forgot to model.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Amazing. I don't think I've ever seen a set of plans that I didn't want more from. I'm always like, "I wish they'd define that curve, or point out this dimension." But it's all here. Truly amazing stuff.

What I hope you do Phil is you work out any remaining kinks and along with your upcoming interior plans, bundle them up into some kind of file with a title sheet and other information and code it. So that people can access it (buy printouts?) and if it's updated, you make it part of an updated release. 1.2, 1.3 etc.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Phil,

I've had a chance now to really look over what you've done -- and I must say, I'm stunned!

This is the most amazingly thorough job of blueprinting I've ever seen on an SF subject. It is difficult to imagine the amount of work you have put into this project. I'm sure that even the builders of the thing didn't have plans this detailed to work from. The fact that you do this kind of thing for a living really shows.

Your work will be invaluable to everyone who wishes to study the shuttlecraft from now on. Here _is_ the studio mockup -- warts and all! Any attempt to construct a "real" or "ideal" shuttlecraft (or re-construct the _intended_ mockup, for that matter) _must_ start here.

And to think you're sharing them with us for free...

With profuse thanks,

Mark


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the praise, I appreciate it. These are the most detailed plans I've ever drawn of a given subject so it was a new experience for me. Now that we have some plans, lets see some models!

If anyone does build a model based on these plans, please send me some photos or renderings and I'll post them on the site too.

We are slow at work right now so I brought in the interior project file with me to work on. Fingers crossed here that it won't be another FRORTY TWO sheets... :freak: 

Phil


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> TA-DA!!
> 
> The exterior plans are up! Yippee!!
> 
> ...


Have a six pack!
Those are in-freakin-credible!!!!!

As soon as you finish a few overall interior views you won't have to wait all that long before models start popping up.

I understand that you may not attempt to integrate the two "as built" interior and exterior views yourself in some sort of cuttaway view(at least not until you do your 3D model), but that should be no problem for most of us to do via photoshop.

Incredible, beautiful work Phil!!!


----------



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

Here's a direct link to the most recent and incredible Project update ever!!!

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...uttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultExteriorPlans.htm


----------



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

Here's a rough and ugly Photoshop composite pic I made awhile back. I don't know if I ever got the pic through to your email address or not Phil, as a lot of the stuff I have tried to send has bounced.

It's a combo of an old version of Four Mad Men's model, your own previous exterior drawing, a partial shuttlecraft interior you've already done, and parts of David Winfrey's interior, some elements of which I rescaled(cut down the chair heights, made the 1st to 2nd cabin wall right at 8" inches thick).

As said earlier, it's rough and ugly, and points out some issues that need to be addressed in integration, but I thought it might be interesting.


----------



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

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoPlansTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.





Here's a direct link to one of the most detailed Project updates. An incredible 42 pages of exterior TOS Galileo Plans!!!

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...uttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultExteriorPlans.htm


----------



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

Phil Broad has updated his interior drawings and created some new, preliminary integrated drawings!

Go to
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DesignStudy/GalileoDesignStudy.htm

and scroll down to "An Integrated Interior/Exterior Version" to see them!


----------



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

Just sat down and checked out out the new drawings in detail, Phil.

They are great! The only thing I would suggest changing that I noticed so far is the underside protrusion.

I know that part was never clearly seen onscreen so it could be considered up for grabs. But I'm afraid it would make the ship look even less sleek and more "boxy." I realize this might end up causing the further compromise that the true "below deck" space for fuel lines, etc.. would be less then viewed in the Galileo Seven, but I think that would be preferable to making the underside look boxier.

Of course, that's just a personal preference. It could of course be designed with an optional underside piece and done either way.


----------



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

Question on the front windows Phil...

Could they be done so that the interior smaller ones expand to the larger exterior ones in some way? That way the windows wouldn't be too small on the exterior...


----------



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

After studying an IDIC page pic of the filming miniature's underside and Four Mad Men's better angled(then the IDIC page photo) representation of how at least the filming miniature's bottom was done here http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/views/oblique_ext_port_aft_low.jpg it seems that a "bulge" may not be necessary. 

It seems that the bottom of the hull should slant downward along with the wings, thus giving enough below deck space without the need of an add-on bulge.

If you were to go by the filming miniatures underside contours this one view of yours, Phil, would have to be edited somewhat: http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/Exterior_Sheet_006.jpg

to be closer to this one,
http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/views/ortho_ext_ventral.jpg


Also, here's a link to the page that contains the original IDIC page underside shot.

http://members.aol.com/WMccullars/TOSGalileo.html

I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that the bottom and the downward sloping side hulls shouldn't be seperated, and therefore there would then be enough below deck room to make the bulge unnecessary.

True there is a very slight upward indentation, but only a very slight one that would still leave lots of below deck room.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Guess who's baaaaaaack? It's me the long lost son of this project. I see I've got lots to catch up on both in this thread and the new discussion about a real model. So more on that when I'm all caught up.

Chuck,

As to adding space to the underside: Remember that on my model -- which was never intended to follow the mockup "as built" -- the upper roof line does not slope down very much at all, which might account for an added bit of "head room" as well as room for the "Scotty hatch". I guess we'll see if that's indeed true as I attempt a few things in the interior.

Glad to be back and now it's time to try to catch up to Phil (Nice work Phil love the updates!)...


----------



## The IDIC Page (Oct 20, 2000)

*Photo of the bottom side of the studio model*

Did you see this old photo of the studio model?:

http://members.aol.com/WMccullars/GemKirk83.html

William
The IDIC Page


----------



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

The IDIC Page said:


> Did you see this old photo of the studio model?:
> 
> http://members.aol.com/WMccullars/GemKirk83.html
> 
> ...


Freakin' Awesome, IDIC Page!!! :roll: 

You continue to be an incredible source of info and inspiration to the Trek community!

That's the best pic I've ever seen showing how the bottom hull meshes and flares out to seperate from the sides at the very end.

Thanks immensely, not just for this pic but also for all the help your pages give on tons of other Trek subjects as well!!!


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Guess who's baaaaaaack? It's me the long lost son of this project. I see I've got lots to catch up on both in this thread and the new discussion about a real model. So more on that when I'm all caught up.
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> ...


Welcome back!
The prodigal son returns!

I think that in either of your models there would be room for the underneath section, as an interior cabin floor that is either parallel, or nearly parallel to the exterior ground line would both likely give a reasonably deep wedge of room under the cabin floor, when modeled like the filming miniature.

Of course well know more after Phil get's a chance to check in and you get a few tweeks done and attempt some interiors. Once ready, a vertical cutaway done midship(center of center window) viewed from the port side would be much appreciated!

Welcome back :wave:


----------



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

For those of you who missed it, here is an explanation from Phil as to how he came to the scaling of his preliminary interior/exterior integration found at:

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DesignStudy/GalileoDesignStudy.htm



 X15-A2 said:


> ...
> How it was done:
> 
> First I scaled up the exterior until my existing ceiling height fit comfortably inside it. The lowest part of the ceiling in my version (the frame around the light panel) is 6 feet 3 inches high. This scaling left the interior too long so the length was compromised by shortening it using a method suggested by Chuck. This was accomplished by changing the wall panel widths from 48 inches to 42 inches. This allowed the length to fit comfortably and the change is not really noticable. The cabin width was also increased by 6 inches which left a reasonable 12 inch side wall thickness at the front of the cabin. A "bath tub" has been added to the belly of the ship which makes perfect sense as a systems tunnel and provides for Scotty's floor hatch and corresponding service duct. This tub will be designed in such a way that it would not have been visible in any of the appearances of the Shuttlecraft on the show. Also you will find a chart showing preliminary layout for the geometry of the hatch.
> ...


So even if one would want to build an exactly "as built" interior, all that would probably be necessary would be to add 6 inches to the room vertically for each panel(I'm going to take a leap in logic and guess to the left of each panel, as the area closest to the right would be where most of the side hull "computers" will be eventually located). I doubt that adding much height to the interior cabins would be either necessary nor noticable, as it's hard to determine the height anyway due to the really low filming angles used in the interior shots.

Phil, any way the interior windows could be given the same slant as exterior ones and designed to expand outward through a slightly thicker hull? That way the exterior windows could match the "as built" exterior windows in size...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I have some qualms about the supposed "bathtub" underneath the vehicle. In some vires, albeit few, such as when the shuttlecraft is landing or departing the hangar deck we are seeing the vehicle in plain front or rear elevation and no such "tub" is visible. There is also one visual sequence when the shuttlecraft is approaching the viewer's p.o.v and again no "tub" is visible.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Here's that centerline section Chuck. And just to remind everyone the chairs (size, location and design) are simply placeholders during the blocking process. There is also the hint of where the door might go.

Centerline section


----------



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

Thanks, Four Mad Men!
Great work!

I'm going to attempt a Photoshop composite using Phil's estimated interior and see what I can come up with in terms of below deck space.


----------



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

Here's the composite!
Hope this helps either Phil or Four Mad Men,
or at the very least is interesting to somebody.

Note that there is some room for a trench.
Perhaps not quite as deep as pictured in the few second
clip from the Galileo Seven(screengrab anybody?),
but personally I think a shallower below deck fuel line are
would be a better compromise then adding something to
the underside.

Just a personal preference.
A model _could _ always be designed with an optional add-on
section that could be left off for those who didn't want to 
add it.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Yep. This works for me. :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well if I read that composite image right, and if those sections are 4 feet wide then from floor to light panel is almost exactly 7'. Seems a resonable way to proceed. Unless someone notices something I don't, and that's not-un-likely.

"Those sectoins" defined as, "from black vertical line to black vertical line" (one section being ~100 pixels wide in your image, now I think I know why you super-sized the image the way you did -- yes?).


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Since *Chuck* and *Phil* seem to have a handle on working out the interior how about the places only the mice get to see?...










Anyone like to see more of this sort of thing?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Definitely. Very Nice.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Well if I read that composite image right, and if those sections are 4 feet wide then from floor to light panel is almost exactly 7'. Seems a resonable way to proceed. Unless someone notices something I don't, and that's not-un-likely.
> 
> "Those sectoins" defined as, "from black vertical line to black vertical line" (one section being ~100 pixels wide in your image, now I think I know why you super-sized the image the way you did -- yes?).


Actually, each section should be 3.5 feet, the high to the light fixture 6'3".
The sections should be 4 feet, but Phil trimmed them a little to get the total integrated craft size down to just under 30 feet. A barely noticable compromise to the "as built" design that few would notice if Phil hadn't told us about it in his scaling thread.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Since *Chuck* and *Phil* seem to have a handle on working out the interior how about the places only the mice get to see?...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes!!!  
Especially if you decide to put those interlocked contour forms at equidistant points and plan on later doing detailed sizing info!!!

Could lead to a very easily constructed scratchbuild using interconnecting metal, scribed styrene parts that could easily look machine made, and then doing a thin overlay!!!

That's a genius way of putting the ship together from the inside out Four Mad Men!!!

More! More!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Welcome back yourself Chuck. I was beginning to wonder what had happened to you.

Yes I'm planning on placing them (as much as possible) at regular intervals. However until the location of the inner bulkheads (seperating main cabin from "engineering/whatever") are sorted out I can't really proceed too far with this as I'd like the framing to line up with atleast one of them.

I do have one issue that I can't quite decide on. I'll post a couple of pictures showing my quandry and let everyone discuss it.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Welcome back yourself Chuck. I was beginning to wonder what had happened to you.
> 
> Yes I'm planning on placing them (as much as possible) at regular intervals. However until the location of the inner bulkheads (seperating main cabin from "engineering/whatever") are sorted out I can't really proceed too far with this as I'd like the framing to line up with atleast one of them.
> 
> I do have one issue that I can't quite decide on. I'll post a couple of pictures showing my quandry and let everyone discuss it.


Please do. Take a couple of days away from the net - how did I survive- and there are quandries all over the darn place!  

As soon as we can get a few of them De-quandrified the more pretty pics and renders we get to see! :lol:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

OK, here's the decision point:

Starting with what you've already seen. So any added hull plating would need to cover from top to bottom. In this one you would not see any part of the "beams" once the hull plating is on.









Now here's the alternate. The second image from here is simply a closer look at some of the detail. In this one the top, bottom, and middle WOULD be seen. It's easier to see in the second image but there are cutouts (not present in the original image) where the panels would attach. This way the panels sit flush with the parts of the framing you do see.


















Forgetting for the time being any reasons that might make one way easier to model than the other; What do you think about the two choices?


----------



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

I think I like the first style better, looks more modular, even if it doesn't look as cool!


----------



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

Hi guys! I'd like to help outline what all of us have been talking about in Phil's thread
about scaling with an eye towards helping Phil create a checklist style roadmap towards a set of integrated plans...

I'm crossposting this here in the Galileo thread, as I think keeping the "views" count up to date might help show Polar Lights or some other licensee how popular the subject is via the
7000 plus view count, plus the important fact that all of these issues are appropriate to discuss here as well.



I. Emphasis.

A. Which of the following should take precedence in design consideration and why?
1. A model as close to a faithfull exterior as possible, everything else secondary?
2. A model as close to a faithfull interior as possible, everything else secondary?
3. A strictly idealized model redesigned to be as believable and practical as possible,
everything else secondary?
 4. A compromise model that is heavily weighted to favor the exterior?
5. A compromise model that is heavily weighted to favor the interior?
6. A compromise model that has it's compromises as closely as possible
restricted to the door and windows where the interior and exterior meet,
but otherwise as faithfull as possible to both interior and exterior sets.

II. Front three windows' exterior/interior integration.

A. Should the interior cabin be widened to allow exterior window
width to rule?
B. Can the interior cabin's parallel side walls be wide enough at 
the front between the interior and exterior anterior side walls
and still, by virtue of the craft's wedge shape when viewed from
above, still have thick walls at the side door position?(a cut and
dry question that Phil could give us a simple yes or no answer to).
C. Should one or the other front windows(exterior or interior) be used with 
no compromise made between the two? 
1. If so, which one and why?
D. Should the side hulls be left thick and the interior windows designed to
"flair" outwards to help maintain the traditional sized exterior windows?
1. If so should the interior window size be changed?
a. If so, by how much?
2. If so should the interior window positioning be changed?
a. If so, by how much?

III. Would you like to keep the model's cabin width the same as the interior set's cabin width?


IV. Belly of the Beast.

A. What underside style(systems tunnel, flatter bottomed(no "filming model" crease) mockup style,
or filming miniature style) do you like and why?http://members.aol.com/WMccullars/GemKirk83.html
1. If either a mockup or filming miniature style is preffered, would a shallow "Scotty hatch"
be preffered to a tunnel? http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=8739

V. Would you not like, or like, to see details added to the final model that didn't appear onscreen,
in order to make the ship look more detailed and less "toylike?"

VI. Side Door Size, "windows" and recess design, interior controls.

A. Should the door be fully upscaled with the rest of the ship to the anticipated approximate 30 foot size?
(This would result in a door about 6'3 inches and the fact that the crewmembers would no longer have to
duck to exit.)
1. If so, would you recommend moving the above door internal door control be moved to a position parallel
to the external controls?
B. Should the door be slightly downsized instead?
C. Which would be more important, if necessary: 
1. Keeping the externally viewed position of the door "windows" the same.
2. Making sure the door "windows" would be at eye level from the interior.
3. Would you support considering the windows to be something other then 
windows(such as access panels to manual over-ride door controls) if it
were the only logical way to maintain the traditional size of the doors
and positioning of the the darkened "windows?"
D. The exterior and interior doors don't match. The external doors have the darkened
window-like panels and the interior doors are solid and unremarkable.
1. What remedy would you prefer to this?
a. One door with windows visible on the inside without opening any doors
or window coverings.
b. Two seperate doors, perhaps with the interior door controls shown to have
a setting to open the inner doors when "planetside" then allowing outside
view through windows(assuming the model's panels are decided to be windows).
c. One door with movable panel covers or shades for the windows.

VII. Thickness of the Front (three window) hullplate.

A. This is different from the front windows' sizing and placement. Should the front hull
only be thick enough to have just the one window and/or plate and remain thin, as it appears onscreen?
1. If not, should it be thick enough for one saftey plate and window, two safety plates
on both sides of the window, etc? Explain.


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

1-A. If you aren't going to do the exterior right, no one will think you got the outside right either...

#2 Whatever it takes to keep the exterior right.

#3 No. No one is actually going to be walking around in there, so fudging what I feel reasonably sure was a 28.5' craft to try and match the unmatchable seems illogical to me. Anyone making the kit (I can dream, can't I?) will just have to understand that the set designers flubbed the dub, not us! 

#4 Filming miniature style. It's canon. A shallow Scotty hatch is preferable to a noncanonical tumor on its bottom!

#5 NO!!! If people want to add stuff, let them do it on their own! We're heading for Miarecki territory, there, folks!


#6 Leave the doors sized as for the exterior. Let the panels be panels, only in Hollywood were they windows anyway.

#7 Canon thickness.


----------



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

Hey Four Mad Men, any new progress on your exteriors?

I'm starting to hear an echo in this thread...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

You mean they're not done!?

Nothing left but some nacelle details that I'll get to soon. After all the work I had to do I've been taking some time away from computers in general but I'm gearing back up for my shuttle work. I have (as you've seen) been playing with the hull framing and thinking about the interior.

A question about that last composite you made: If fits pretty well lengthwise but what does that do about the width? I think this weekend I'm going to use that composite as the basis for fleshing out my interior by changing the chairs, adding some panels and the helm (not planning any detail on these just more blocking exercises) and try some renders with "the top down".


----------



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

Centerline Issue...

While doing some composite pics to help Four Mad Men
with the interior of his 3D model I once again came
across a problem that I discussed earlier in the thread.

Namely the fact that the horizontal centerline of the main
hull's interior and exterior do not match.

On the interior, the point where the upward sloping part of 
the cabin's side wall meets the downward sloping part of the 
wall is a little too low to match up with the exterior 
centerline seam.

Personally I'd prefer to see the problem remedied by raising
the interior's seam slightly. The computer banks for the side
walls, which haven't been rendered or drawn yet will end up
slightly higher then in the onscreen interior, but I don't think
the solution will be very noticable.

I'm attaching the file: ~ updated 3 view composite puzzle piece B.jpg,
to which I've added some orange lines and pointer text
marking the proposed changes.

I'm also attaching the file: ~ updated 3 view composite puzzle piece B.jpg,
a rough overhead view that may be of interest.


Four Mad Men, Phil, or anybody else have any ideas on the centerline subject?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This is looking great!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Aligning the interior and exterior centerlines shouldn't be a big deal and will be hardly noticeable if at all IMO. Good work.


----------



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

Oops! Just noticed that in the overhead view I did in post #550 I laid out 8 seats instead of seven... :freak: 

Just erase the one closest to the side door.
Sorry about that! :lol:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck, those fit the bill most perfectly. Good work! And I agree about the interior side wall. That line can be moved up without too much difficulty or disturbance.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Chuck, those fit the bill most perfectly. Good work! And I agree about the interior side wall. That line can be moved up without too much difficulty or disturbance.


Make sure you use the "updated" second 3 view file I sent you.(Which, so the rest of the guys will know, actually just a one piece version of the two files above - the file above is only inaccurate in that I idiotically transposed 8 seat positions in the overhead view instead of leaving the position in front of the side door chairless. :freak: )

Glad you agree with me on the centerline issue. Until you mentioned the interior side wall while talking about the centerline, I didn't stop to think that while I was was working so hard to get all the different pieces and so forth in exactly the same scale and making sure all the other views agreed with one another; I never stopped to realize that I had gone with the matching interior/exterior centerline specs without even thinking about it.

By cutting off the interior fore view along the _outside _ seam and then transposing that to the overhead view in order to get the cabin width, I had
made the cabin the same width as it would be had those suggested orange lines had been used.

The difference is minimal, and the design aesthetics are for all purposes the same while making the craft's design look 100 times more logical, at least for my tastes. 

Throw us barking seals a few fish whenever you get a chance, 4MMen and Phil! :thumbsup: 

You don't have to wait and feed us all at once you know...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Haven't gotten as much done as I wanted to but the night is still young. Here are the some different chairs and the pilot's console (both far far from final).

The back cabin wall has been moved back but I still need to model the inner cabin walls so it may look like there is more room for the passengers than will actually be there when complete. Not really sure how to render these given we have the outer shell the (soon to be modeled) inner shell and then the chairs and things. Any thoughts?

Here's the image expect more later tonight...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

P.S. Just noticed that someone has stolen my warp coils! Confess! Who did it?


----------



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

They won't fit in any vehicle I own, don't look at me!


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Haven't gotten as much done as I wanted to but the night is still young. Here are the some different chairs and the pilot's console (both far far from final).
> 
> The back cabin wall has been moved back but I still need to model the inner cabin walls so it may look like there is more room for the passengers than will actually be there when complete. Not really sure how to render these given we have the outer shell the (soon to be modeled) inner shell and then the chairs and things. Any thoughts?
> 
> Here's the image expect more later tonight...


I'll be up late waiting!

Could you make you questions a little more specific?
Don't really understand what you are asking.
I'm pretty sure you aren't asking for Blender advice...

The only thing I would suggest at this point is making the front wall about two to three times thicker, which would probably only effect the dashboard and then in a relatively unnoticeable way.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I was just wondering aloud about how to show the interior (chairs, consoles, etc.) while also showing the walls of the interior cabin without said walls getting in the way. Not sure if that makes any more sense but I'll figure it out.

I've been chasing my tail pretty well trying to reconcile the difference in viewport locations/sizes between interior and exterior. I guess it can be done but I haven't manage to do it yet in a way that doesn't look like dog poop. I'm going to let that dog lie for now as I've burned enough time on it already.

On a happier note I've got some new renders. I wish I would've had time to add some computer consoles or some manner of detail on the forward console but hopefully they will be interesting none the less...



















After this I'm going to break open the reference photos and start on the computer consoles. They shouldn't take too long given their design. Although, I think I'll try to get the various rows of lights to fall in straight lines even if the ones we've seen on screen didn't really manage that feat.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

*FMM*, I truly admire your skills. Your work is amazing and it seems to be coming along very well. From this angle it's difficult to see what the three forward viewports look like from within and from outside. Would it help by widening the interior a smidgen? I wish I knew how else I could be of help. I'm just amazed and I sincerely hope you folks have input with Thomas Sasser and PL, assuming PL ever commits to doing the shuttlecraft model.

:thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

*Warped9*, thank you and you've busted me. I did that deliberately as I'm having some issues with the difference between the viewports as seen from the interior set and the exterior mockup. Using both as seen and joining them really looks terrible. The other thing is as the dimensions currently are the A-pillars are very thin looking from the inside.

And I'll add my voice to yours and say that widening the interior is something I'm willing to do for the above mentioned reason and perhaps more so because I'm worried that the exitway will look too think. It's going to be thicker than we've seen on the show already but I'm leaning towards the idea that it's too thick at the moment.


----------



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

I never crossposted my personal answers to the outline of issues I made to try to help Phil resolve problems he was having. The full outline can be found crossposted in this thread in post #546. Here goes...

I. Emphasis.

A. Which of the following should take precedence in design consideration and why?

6. A compromise model that has it's compromises as closely as possible restricted to the door and windows where the interior and exterior meet, but otherwise as faithfull as possible to both interior and exterior sets.

II. Front three windows' exterior/interior integration.

A. Should the interior cabin be widened to allow exterior window width to rule?

NO! The closest that can be worked out to agree with both interior and exterior sets as possible the better, realizing that some compromise may be necessary on interior forward windows and side door size and placement.

B. Can the interior cabin's parallel side walls be wide enough at the front between the interior and exterior anterior side walls and still, by virtue of the craft's wedge shape when viewed from above, still have thick walls at the side door position?(a cut and dry question that Phil could give us a simple yes or no answer to).

"How thick?" is the question. It should provide a side wall thick enough for two sets of side doors - more about that later. As to whether or not there is enough room that's a question Phil would be most qualified to answer. An overhead cutaway view might be helpful and interesting...

C. Should one or the other front windows(exterior or interior) be used with no compromise made between the two? 

Personally I would prefer the width of the exterior windows to remain the same. Whether or not that is doable via enlarging the size of the windows inside the interior to almost the entire interior wall width and then "flairing" the windows outward remains to be seen. It would definitely require a somewhat thicker front hull to keep such a compromise from looking bad, but a thicker front hull should probably be done anyhow for other reasons, which I'll talk about further down this page...

1. If so, which one and why?

Whether it is possible to use a slightly thicker hull combined with seemingly larger front windows when viewed from that inside, then be able to "flair" that outward to meet the exterior placement, is still to be determined. It may or may not be doable. Jury is still out on that...

D. Should the side hulls be left thick and the interior windows designed to "flair" outwards to help maintain the traditional sized exterior windows?

If that's doable.

1. If so should the interior window size be changed?
a. If so, by how much?
I personally would have no qualms with seeing the front windows grow in size in the interior compared to the interior soundstage set. Not only were those windows too small, the far left and far right vertical outermost sides on the interior are almost perfectly straight up and down, as opposed to the mockup and model's windows whose outermost exterior windows' sides are more slanted. So there must be at least an angle change made anyhow.

I personally don't have a problem seeing the interior windows grow a little larger in relation to the interior cabin. As has been pointed out before, actors will not be climbing inside the model, so I doubt it will be noticable.
Radically different external windows, however, would be much more easily noticed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying some movement or resizing of the outer front window openings is impossible, just that changing the interior windows to at least attempt some outward flairing would be preferable to changing the more noticable exterior window sizing - placement.

Changing either or both of the interior/exterior windows' sizing and placement are all legitimate solutions.

I simply think more people would have a preference that the exterior be as unretouched as possible. If a company ever decides to make a kit for sale I'd also be willing to bet that keeping the exterior proportions true to the mockup would definitely cause that company tons less grief.

2. If so should the interior window positioning be changed?
a. If so, by how much?

Not if unnecessary, then only as much as need be.

III. Would you like to keep the model's cabin width the same as the interior set's cabin width?

Yes, even if it means thicker walls, which I think will make the craft more believable.

IV. Belly of the Beast.

A. What underside style(systems tunnel, flatter bottomed(no "filming model" crease) mockup style, or filming miniature style) do you like and why?http://members.aol.com/WMccullars/GemKirk83.html

The filming model bottom seems the most streamlined to me.

1. If either a mockup or filming miniature style is preffered, would a shallow "Scotty hatch" be preffered to a tunnel? http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attac...tachmentid=8739

Yes. Even if there is only four inches or so for fuel lines I'd prefer that to an embellishment on the bottom of the ship. If it were to be designed that way it could be a glue on piece that could be left off for those not interested, and the rest of the underside be made to match the filming miniature.

V. Would you not like, or like, to see details added to the final model that didn't appear onscreen, in order to make the ship look more detailed and less "toylike?"

I'd rather not see non-onscreen add-ons, as I personally think that it would make the design look cluttered. Clean, uncluttered lines seem to be the one feature that the Galileo shares with the TOS Enterprise's hull.

People who wanted to give the model a more "to scale" look could use weathering. Or, as in the case of a external underside "engineering trench" PL could include more then one type of nacelle, just as they did on the TOS E.
However, even if I were into non-canon details, I doubt a large company would agree to produce a Trek kit with such embellished details. Just an opinion. I might be wrong.

VI. Side Door Size, "windows" and recess design, interior controls.

A. Should the door be fully upscaled with the rest of the ship to the anticipated approximate 30 foot size?
(This would result in a door about 6'3 inches and the fact that the crewmembers would no longer have to
duck to exit.)

Yes.

1. If so, would you recommend moving the above door internal door control be moved to a position parallel to the external controls?

Yes. 

C. Which would be more important, if necessary: 

3. Would you support considering the windows to be something other then windows(such as access panels to manual over-ride door controls) if it were the only logical way to maintain the traditional size of the doors and positioning of the the darkened "windows?"


Yes. But only if necessary. With only 6'3" of headroom in Phil's first integration attempt lowering the windows might not even be necessary. I'd like to see the door size and window placements remain proportionally in the same place on the exterior, even if it were to mean that the door would appear six feet tall if one were able to stand inside the model. To me the external proportions are more important to follow for the doorway and "windows" then the internal sizing.

D. The exterior and interior doors don't match. The external doors have the darkened, window-like panels and the interior doors are solid, smooth and unremarkable.
1. What remedy would you prefer to this?
b. Two seperate doors, perhaps with the interior door controls shown to have a setting to open the inner doors when "planetside" then allowing outside view through windows(assuming the model's panels are decided to be windows).

VII. Thickness of the Front (three window) hullplate.

A. This is different from the front windows' sizing and placement. Should the front hull only be thick enough to have just the one window and/or plate and remain thin, as it appears onscreen?

No. It makes not sense that the front, three-windowed hull is that thin, as there is no room for both a sliding internal blast hatch AND a window at the same time, yet both appear onscreen.

1. If not, should it be thick enough for one safety plate and window, two safety plates on both sides of the window, etc? Explain.

If it looks practical, I would suggest two emergency sliding blast plates, that slide up and down, with an unmoving clear window between(transparent aluminum?).
If that's too thick, just one external blast plate and one window. 

END OF OUTLINE

Hope this outline helps crystalize a few things for us. Sorry it's so long but there are so many issues it couldn't be helped.

Feel free to quote the outline's first appearance, remove the quotation bookends, and then tackle as many or as few points as are important to you.


----------



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

Gorgeous work 4MMen!

Love your solution to the viewing issue. Having multiple views with stripped away walls or centerline cuts will probably be the only way to go.

I also think that any scratchbuilt or mass marketed kit made would best display the interior cabin by having the roof from the front to the end of the second cabin or a little further back removable, rather then the whole top half of the ship lifted away as AMT did. That opinion has nothing to do with how you model your 3D ship, though. Just thought that while we were on the subject of how the interior would be viewed in 3D I'd throw it out there for conversation fodder...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well the "moon roof" was a bit of serendipity. It's actually the cutout for where the light panel is going. Any thoughts on widening the main cabin so the occupants see more width in the A-pillars?

Here's some idea of how deep the air-space is between the inner and outer shells as seen from the front...









And as luck would have it some kindly soul in Starfleet engineering has already widened the flight controls to accomodate a wider cabin. Now how do you suppose that happened? Will wonders ever cease?


----------



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

What's an A-pillar?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

It's the post that goes from the body of a vehicle to the roof. Take a standard four door sedan as an example:

The two in the front are the A-Pillars (they hold the windshield). Moving rearward we have the B-Pillars (they seperate the front side windows from the rear side windows), continuing on we have the C-Pillars (they hold the rear glass). Now a station wagon and many SUVs have D-Pillars as well (in this case they would hold the rear window).


----------



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

I guess I don't know why the cabin would need to be widened to do...what? Do you mean to make the beams between the front windows wider?

I may need some coffee or might just be dense...
Circled parts of what you are talking about might be necessary to penetrate my thick cranium...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well I think it now falls into the "Nevermind" category but we can't have you going around confused now can we?...


----------



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

I'll probably still be going around confused, just not confused about this...

Actually your problem will be two-fold.

1) that area as well as it's counterpart on the other side of the hull will have to be designed to "flair" outwards towards the side since the side hulls are so thick.

2) another problem is that the front wall as seen onscreen isn't thick enough to contain both slide down blast hatches and windows, so the front(window containing) hull will need to be thickened slightly to hold one outer blast shield that slides down in front of the window, and the window itself.

But take heart, that thicker wall will make it easier to "flair" the windows outward! Plus, the very inner part could become a new wall for your seperately contained interior model...


----------



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

Sent you a new email, 4MMen, with a crude file attachment to explain what I meant by "flairing" the windows. 

Unfortunately I'd have to delete old attachments in past messages as I've reached my 1MB account limit for posting in the forum. I will probably go spend some time doing the necessary deletions sometime later today and then post it in case some of the other thread participants are interested.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Given the latest "side seam too low on the inside" issue -- is it possible that the inside and outside were designed to fit together, but late in the game someone decided to have more head room and simply stretched the interior set up _from the side seam on up?_ This might explain several things: the proportional difference between the interior and exterior, the sight lines of the front and door windows, the lowness of the seats, and the different front angle...

If this has already been suggested, my apologies -- I've had trouble keeping up with all the post and readily admit to skimming... :roll: 

Mark


----------



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

It's unlikely that that would cause the seam to be too low. It might very well explain the drastic difference in proportions between the interior and exterior, but wouldn't account for the bottom horizontal "strip" being too low.

I once read an interview in which a TOS production guy(pretty sure it was Jefferies, but I read it years and years ago so I can't swear to it), that talked about how quickly the Galileo was created and how it and all the episodes were always on a extremely tight shooting schedule.

Given the fact that the Galileo episode was on a tight shooting schedule and the mock up was being constructed out of the state in Arizona, I seriously doubt that Jefferies(who did design and build the interior on-set) waited for the mockup to arrive before starting construction of the interior.

Wish I knew the names of some of the other guys involved in the TOS f/x, especially the Galileo, so we could ask about that. Unfortunately the one guy who could answer the question unequivocally is no longer with us.


----------



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

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/views.html

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/shipyard.html

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...uttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultExteriorPlans.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoPlansTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.

Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link 

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/winfrey.html

David Winfrey graciously gave Four Mad Men and Phil(X15-A2) permission to post his excellent plans on their sites. The two version differ slightly in the scale human figure "models" used and it also seems like Phil perhaps wasn't sent the standard letter sized sheet that was originally included with the plans(feel free to use the one I emailed you Phil, I'll send it again now that I have your other email address).

The ones that Four Mad Men has I scanned at a higher then normal resolution in full greyscale format. They are more then worth the download time even if you are using dialup. The only changes I made was to reposition a couple of elements on a few pages by a fraction of an inch from their original position. The blueprints were originally produced at 11 x 17 size and the borders were irregular and outside the normal printable area an 11 x 17 Epson or HP printer would be capable of. So I standardized the borders and shuffled a couple of elements slightly where cropping alone wouldn't have allowed me to get the pages down in size enough.

However, none of the blues' elements have been changed in size or scale in the link above.

David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.

Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was down by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.

His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.

Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey! :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

MGagen said:


> Given the latest "side seam too low on the inside" issue -- is it possible that the inside and outside were designed to fit together, but late in the game someone decided to have more head room and simply stretched the interior set up _from the side seam on up?_ This might explain several things: the proportional difference between the interior and exterior, the sight lines of the front and door windows, the lowness of the seats, and the different front angle...





Chuck_P.R. said:


> It's unlikely that that would cause the seam to be too low. It might very well explain the drastic difference in proportions between the interior and exterior, but wouldn't account for the bottom horizontal "strip" being too low.


I disagree Chuck. Even though we'll never know for sure about the construction decisions made between the two, I think Mark's theory is possible. If the interior plans were modified to change the height by raising the walls above the centerline, then in-order to integrate the two as we are doing you have to do one of two things. Those being 1) scale up the exterior or 2) scale down the interior. Either choice ends up the same (proportionally speaking) with the interior centerline below the exterior one.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Thanks, Four Mad Men; that was exactly my point. This single adjustment could lead to all the little inconsistancies we're looking at. When Phil completes his "as built" interior, we may be able to make an informed guess about it. 

At least it sounds like something that would happen in Hollywood. Witness: the likely reshuffling of the bridge stations to give us the more dramatic camera angle of the Turbolift over the captain's shoulder...Poof! We've got an offset bridge!

One thing I've learned from studying Matt Jefferies' work over the years is that he almost always started out with a consistant, logical, well thought out plan. What happened to those plans in the heat of production -- we all know too well!

Mark


----------



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

You might be right, Four Mad Men, MGagen. I didn't even think about the scaling down issue. My mistake. Though I can understand why they wouldn't want to try and film in a crampt interior. 

The more I look at the differences the more they seem to defy rational explanation. I'd be willing to bet they couldn't afford to wait until AMT shipped the exterior mockup before starting construction. MGagen could be totally right as to the height being changed late in the game. It probably wasn't practical to have a crampt space because of the weird camera angles required. Kind of hard to strike melodramatic poses when everybody is hunched over. :lol:


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Everybody,

Time for "Weekend Update..."

I spent a good part of Sat & Sun working on the interior drawings. Serious progress has been made!

Three things I discovered over the weekend;

Number one; don't underestimate David Winfrey's drawings! I thought I had discovered a detail that he had overlooked but when I checked his drawings, there it was! I had noticed while studying the screen caps that the Phaser locker appears on both sides of the cabin, port side in "Galileo Seven", starboard side in "Metamophisis". This was undoubtedly because the wall panels were interchangeable and had been reassembled incorrectly. David was there years ahead of me... :thumbsup: 

Second, I found something that David did miss, the small table underneath the starboard side computer console next to the second seat. It is visible in the screen caps from "Metamophisis" with a small tray, coffee pot and four cups sitting on it. It is such a logical and desireable feature that I'm taking this as showing a pull-out table that would be present in each of the passenger positions (there is no room for it in the pilot positions).

Third, the wall seams seen along the side walls are 42 inches appart, not 48. It would take a long-winded explaination to illustrate how this conclusion was arrived at so take my word for it. When made 42 inches, all other details fall right into place.

The mid-wall joint being discussed previously has been made higher in my drawings now, further study showed that it was too low in my previous version. The seats have been scaled-up accordingly too. I haven't checked yet to see how it compares with the exterior but making it higher will make it closer to a 'match". Also of interest, the rear cabin is at least seven feet long minimum, perhaps longer. Not the four feet or so being shown by everyone so far. Proof of this is in the side views showing Scotty next to the sidewall.

The general proportions of the cabin, seats and consoles have been pretty much nailed down now so I'm starting to draw the nernies that decorated the cabin around the ceiling.

I have revised the exterior drawings too (not loaded to the site quite yet) and added one more sheet detailing the dimensions of the "hoods" at the ends of the Warp Nacelles. The nacelles have been shortened and missing dimensions added to various sheets. I hope to get them loaded tonight or tomorrow night.

Phil


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Phil, you are a _marvel!_ 

I take it you'll indicate on your page somehow which images are the new revisions? I'll want to download them as soon as they're available.

Mark


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Mark,

Yeah, it looks like I will have to employ the the same sort of "ECNs" used in the aircraft industry when their engineering drawings are updated. "ECN" stands for "Engineering Change Notice" and typically shows two scrap views of the sections that are changed, one is listed as "was" the other is listed as "is". Or I may just start putting revision letters on the sheets, or both. The original drawings would be "revision none", next will be "revision A" and so on. It is something of an organizational headache that I'm sure, no matter which method I use, will leave some people confused. But with so many sheets, I guess that may be unavoidable.

Phil


----------



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

Looking forward to the updates with baited breath!
Thankfully I always carry curiously strong Altoids...

Personally I'd recommend doing it the simplest way and just doing a new drawing with A's, B's, etc. No point in showing the old work on the new plans, not to mention it should be tons easier for you.

Phil, on the rear cabin, are you sure about the length being that long? 

I'm pretty sure I know the shot you are talking about of Scotty working on the Starboard wall, the capture you did titled 14_StarTrek_TOS_166.jpg, here's a link to your page for the other guy's convience http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_166.jpg. 

But I always assumed that was a perspective problem caused by how they must have had to remove the back wall of the cabin to get the camera at a dramatic, if skewed, angle.

I think it's a lot like the capture file you titled Doomsday_Machine_299.jpg from The Doomsday Machine episode. http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/Doomsday_Machine_299.jpg



That shot is even more incredibly skewed!!!!!!!!

Take a look at it guys! 

We are looking at Decker from a perspective OUTSIDE THE SHUTTLE! AND THE SHUTTLE HAS NO PORT SIDE HULL WHILE SUPPOSEDLY FLYING THROUGH SPACE!!!  


How's that for a hard to incorporate design feature?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Chuck,

Did you look at this one?
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_163.jpg

Measure the width of your own shoulders then compare to the photo. Mine are approximately 24 inches and I'm possibly a hair taller than Scott. The room is almost exactly 5 feet wide in that photo alone. There is another similar image where Scott is standing back even farther aft, that I did not post to the site (check the episode), before striking the terminals with the tool. The placement of the instruments on the wall seem to be the same distance aft as seen in this image too:
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/The_Menagerie_255.jpg

There is no way to tell how far back the wall is from the other angles seen in show, typically looking back through the open doors. That side view with Scott is the only guide we have. I don't see any sign that the room has been extended for that one shot, it seems to agree with the last link I posted above too. In lew of additional information, I'll have to go with it.

Phil


----------



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

You're right that there is no good way to truly tell how wide the cabin is from the views seen onscreen, as they apparently never shot the scenes in the back cabin with the aft wall installed.

Based on the DVD captures from your site, I'd recommend using the "further rear" shots to get your best estimates. That side angled shot http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_166.jpg
makes the cabin look really deep, but there is no way to tell how how close the camera was to the wall on the right.

Unfortunately though, even discarding that angle, since they apparently didn't have the rear wall installed there's no sure way to know where the darned thing should have stopped. 

Don't get me wrong, the room is definitely over 5 feet long, it's just that when you said "at least seven feet long minimum, perhaps longer" I was beginning to get worried.

Personally I'm worried about going too much wider then 6 feet as no one will remember the rear cabin as being that deep, even if it was. Then you get into the situation of something being technically right but intuitively wrong looking.

In the end I have faith that your drawings will look as deadly accurate and beautiful as ever.


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

If we assume the large "gauge" was 14" across with a 12" circle, does this give the thin edge and the framing on the panel below an even measurement like "one inch"? What if we assume the circle was 10" and the panel, 12" across? Seems to me most gauges (the small ones below the large circle) would have faces even to an inch or maybe a half inch. After all, if they were using tape recorder guts up front, no reason to assume they'd build an offbeat sized set of gauges for the rear. They'd grab something they could stick in the walls in a hurry... no point in making *anything* an offbeat size when they could just cut something to an easy size and slap it up. These guys were in a hurry!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Guys,

OK, the exterior "Revision A" sheets are now up on my site. Throw away your old copies. There were many errors and omissions in them which have now been rectified. There is also a new sheet "29" detailing the measurements of the "hood" on the aft end of the Warp nacelle. Sheets 32 & 41 will be reloaded tomorrow. It seems like everytime I glance at the stupid things I see something else that I forgot. Sheet 32 is missing at least one dimension and 41 is missing a dimension leadline. Other than that the sheets should be complete...

...for now...

They just released season two of my favorite TV show, "Married with Children", on DVD so now I'm going to head out to the TV and "set a spell"...

See you guys 'round the Internet tomorrow.

Phil

Phil


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> OK, the exterior "Revision A" sheets are now up on my site. Throw away your old copies. There were many errors and omissions in them which have now been rectified. There is also a new sheet "29" detailing the measurements of the "hood" on the aft end of the Warp nacelle. Sheets 32 & 41 will be reloaded tomorrow. It seems like everytime I glance at the stupid things I see something else that I forgot. Sheet 32 is missing at least one dimension and 41 is missing a dimension leadline. Other than that the sheets should be complete...
> 
> ...


That's great news Phil! I'm going to point a browser window towards http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...uttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultExteriorPlans.htm and "set a spell" myself!

On the interiors(which I realize you are not ready to post yet, and won't get this question until tommorrow), are you going to model all the hull embellishments that appeared in the different episodes, or keep it simple like the Galileo 7 episode design?


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Finally had time tonight to try and catch up on what's been going on since my last visit, and wow! is all I can say, Phil, to what you've done...

Though I've not the time to correlate my (brief, this time) comments to the long-posted list of questions, here's my two cents on a couple of issues:

1)If one takes "interior [as much as possible] as depicted to be the (relatively) inviolable driver of overall length/size, Phil's painstaking incorporation of the roof's downward slant is gonna play hob with minimal size, due to the need to make the rearmost interior height tall enough to stand up in. 6 ft 3 in minimum has been quoted; seems to me Leonard (Spock) Nimoy's 6 ft 1 in height would make the interior taller than that

2)Personally, my means of matching interior/exterior seam height would be to raise the interior floor relative to the exterior underside. If this plays hob with the lineup of the interior/exterior doors, who cares? Going with 2 sets of doors brings us squarely into apocrypha anyhow...

3)I find changing the size/proportion of either the interior or exterior windows aesthetically displeasing. Given the fact of the interior and exterior walls differing in "slant angle" anyhow, we're left initially with a "window" that isn't a flat "pane," but a sheet (far) thicker at the bottom than top. Given this discrepancy, how much more disturbing is it to incorporate a size/proportion differential? Obviously the depiction of this in the perspective CGIs will look ugly...but that's the conclusion a slavish reflection of what we were shown leads us to...and as I've said many a time before, I'm a "series reality" addict above all else.

4)the "seen from outside the shuttle" shot of Decker from "Doomsday Machine" is amusing...and would make a nice comparative perspective if inserted into an exterior...

Finally, I at least would find it useful if certain of the primary reference screen captures could be displayed alongside the reconstructions. That is, once a looking-forward interior cross-section is put online, why not post a capture from the same angle? This way, compromises and such can be readily observed and thus knowledgably discussed.

And damnit! Yeah, I forgot the coffee table (it's on my never-completed revision sketches, I swear...).

David Winfrey


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Trekkist,

Keep in mind that so far, Phil's blueprints are aiming at being an accurate reproduction of the set piece _as built_. The idealized version we're discussing will be a whole different set of drawings. I'm sure we all pray Phil has the stamina to see that through, as a set of plans as detailed as his current ones of a "real" shuttle would be fantastic.

Your point about renders from the same viewpoint as the screen shots is well made -- but that will have to wait until one of us models up an actual 3d version of Phil's plans. So far he's just drafting in 2D. I plan to do that myself (at least the rudimentary geometry) in order to double check the nacelle length -- but keeping up with a little daughter who's almost four, a new baby son, and selling a house at the same time has left me with a shortage of free time. Besides, as fast a Phil works he'll probably have an updated 3d model with all the details any day now! :roll:

Mark


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Guys,

Chuck: Yes, I will be drawing the packing foam shapes used as decorations in the cabin set (at least as well as possible with the incomplete views we have of them).

David: LOL! Darned coffee table! You did a fantastic job on your drawings, considering the limited reference material available at the time. My integrated version of the Shuttlecraft will eliminate certain annoying details such as the slope of the roof and the slope of the body centerline. These are details that have no place on a "real" Shuttlecraft so you won't be seeing them on my drawings. Screen caps to go with the views is a good idea too. I'll try to do that as much as possible (viewing angles as seen in the show are limited however).

Mark: My 3D model is almost finished...  

Just kidding!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Just for kicks, has anybody thought about doing external plans of the shuttlecraft (derived from the model and set exteriors but) altered to demonstrate how it would look containing the on-screen interior space tightly fitting within thin walls as depicted on the set pieces?  

I know it would drastically distort the exterior though it would be interesting to see the sort of craft on the outside that was implicitely, though unintentionally , depicted by the constraints of the interior set.


----------



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

Great news on the "packing foam" Phil. Having a good a views as possible of them modeled as well as location positions might be helpful to someone. That way if anybody ever wants to model a particular version of the shuttle they can put it on or leave it off as they see fit. It might even be helpful if multi-angle views of the pieces were done to help them be constructed as individual pieces. Personally, if anybody ever does a mass produced model of the F class shuttle I'd prefer they do those pieces seperately as I'd personally rather leave them off and prefer not to have to grind them off with a dremel, at the very least the three over the front windows. Those always seem to me to clutter up the design without particularly increasing it's believability.

It never occured to me that some of them do look like they were inverted packing material! I was wondering what the heck they were scavaged from.

Glad to hear you are going to do an exterior version that has little to no roof slant as well as planning to have a more level side hull horizontal centerline(the horizontal centerline being mentioned awhile back, this thread is turning into an encyclopedia).

I realize what you are saying about the window dimensions, Trekkist. But I don't think that the compromise that eventually comes out will be as unattractive as you imagine.

Four Mad Men has part of his 3D model finished, 98% of the exterior and the side walls, floor, chairs and console roughly laid out for the first of the two cabins with interior wall to exterior wall roughly based on Phil's interior drawings to date.

My suggestion from the outline I posted a page or two back is that the interior windows be made wider and taller parallel to the exterior ones up to the point where the interior windows meet the left and right side walls of the cabin.

At that point they would then "flair" outward and forward from the inside to the exterior position. That way the outside of the the window size positioning could remain canon.

Perhaps Four Mad Men could help us out by making a front interior wall parallel to the exterior one but deep enough to hold both a blast door and window and then attempt such a "flair" in his model?

I realize that's not something that could be wiped up in just a minute or two, Four Mad Men, and you might be way too swamped to do it anytime soon. 

But I think that such a view wouldn't look as shocking or unreal as Trekkist might imagine, either from within or without.

But then again, the proof's in the pudding - we won't really know if it would look okay, inferior, or superior to any other alternative solution until we can actually look at it modeled and rendered from a couple of interior and exterior angles.

I like it as a solution because it supports the idea of maintaining a canon exterior. I'd personally like to see the exterior windows and doors stay in the same relative proportional positions, even if that drives the interior door size to increase and forces us to perhaps move the interior door controls from above the door to a point parallel to the exterior ones.

It always seemed a little dumb to have the door controls OVER the door anyway. Maybe it was just a way to keep cute short brunnette female crew members from wandering off and getting lost... :lol:


----------



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

BTWay Phil, are pages 32 & 41 reloaded?

Like an idiot, I didn't save them Monday night as I knew you were going to redo them, but since I didn't save a version I have nothing to compare them too and therefore have no way to know if they've been reloaded. :freak:


----------



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

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/views.html

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/shipyard.html

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...uttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultExteriorPlans.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoPlansTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.

Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link 

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/winfrey.html

David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.

Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was done by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.

His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.

Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey! :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Perhaps Four Mad Men could help us out by making a front interior wall parallel to the exterior one but deep enough to hold both a blast door and window and then attempt such a "flair" in his model?


Been there, looks like a dog's butt. Summarily deleted and the world's a better place for it.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

This is probably a good time for a confession too -- Chuck would have caught it eventually anyway. I moved the outside edges of the two outer viewports inward so they didn't run past the interior wall. Thus no need for the (ugly) flare.

My main concern at this time is the the depth of the doorway is too much. My preference would be to widen the interior space. This would, of course, decrease the spacing between the interior and the exterior -- and as such the outer viewports could be re-widened to the correct proportions while at the same time (I believe) making the depth of the doorway look better.


----------



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

Personally I think the thicker walls make it more believable as a craft. There is no way to get around the hull looking thicker if you are going to have a craft that is in any way close to proportional in both the interior and exterior. 

Also remember that for the exterior and the interior doors(not doorway but the doors themselves) to be rendered accurately you will need to have the externally visible doors and an extra set of internal, non-windowed doors - the top two of which presumably open before the exterior top two with the "window-like panels."

Will trust your judgement on the dog butt thing though.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well I am still convinced that you can increase the width of the interior without sacrificing space for the two sets of doors or believeability. Once the interior and exterior are tied together it should be very easy to try it out. I'm sure the purists would catch on to a wider interior even though the vast majority would probably never notice. Although any die-hard purist will probably get bent of the other compromises that are taking place so as they say "In for a penny, In for a pound". Or in the case of my suggestion (which is not perhaps as radical as you might be thinking)... "In for a penny, In for a schilling".


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Well I am still convinced that you can increase the width of the interior without sacrificing space for the two sets of doors or believeability. Once the interior and exterior are tied together it should be very easy to try it out. I'm sure the purists would catch on to a wider interior even though the vast majority would probably never notice. Although any die-hard purist will probably get bent of the other compromises that are taking place so as they say "In for a penny, In for a pound". Or in the case of my suggestion (which is not perhaps as radical as you might be thinking)... "In for a penny, In for a schilling".


It's possible.

Personally though I'd like to see how the interior would look modeled with the normal width, more "as built" walls, then maybe it could be widened in the center later? Could that be done easily at the last minute after doing the "as built" interior without much trouble? 

I agree that many people wouldn't catch a slightly wider interior aisle, or perhaps even a stretched out console(which would also be required), but I'd like to see what an as built interior would look like in your idealized model - even if it required slightly smaller then "as built" exterior windows.

Another, perhaps selfish reason to want to see slightly thicker walls is that after perhaps doing a wooden scratch build, or a sculpted one using metal autobody paste I might end up doing a copy of the hull body in resin.

Resin is a bitch to get large pieces from that don't warp unless they are reasonably thick. Learned that the hard way after doing some molds of solid AMT 22" cuttaway primary saucer hulls.

I've never tried using the "autobody paste sculpted over styrofoam" method I had emailed you about. But whether that works or a wooden one works I at least know that it's real hard to get a metal-looking finish from wooden models. Don't have faith in the sculpted primer method giving me a good finish until I try it, but I know I can do it successfully with resin.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Guys,

I'm a bit puzzled about the wall thickness issue here. My "preliminary" section view drawing of the integrated interior/exterior Shuttlecraft demonstrated that, by increasing the cabin width a mere 6 inches, the walls would then be 12 inches thick at the hatch location. So what does that do to the hatch itself? The upper two hatch panels are about 3 inches thick, as seen on the show, and therefore must retract 3 inches inward to clear the door frame before retracting to the sides (this action is seen on the show too, the retraction is what allows the doors to fit flush to the outer surface). That takes up 6 inches of that wall thickness, minimum. The inner hatches are reccessed about 1/4 to 1/2 of an inch and are about an inch thick. In total this accounts for about 7.5 inches, thus leaving a 4.5 inch space between them. Get out a ruler guys and look at it full scale! We are not talking about HUGE amounts of space here.  

Further, this 12-inch side wall thickness permits pull-out table tops and built-in Phaser lockers inside the cabin. Not to mention unseen (but could be added by scratch building, hint, hint) structure, systems and additional storage lockers. The gains by having this wall thickness FAR outway the losses from the transgression of imagined "cannon". By having a set of inner AND outer doors, both the interior AND the exterior will appear true to the show. Only if there is one single set of doors are we faced with changing one or the other.

Those flairing front windows are just not going to fly, Chuck. A compromise will be to make the front wall thick too and have them flair "a bit" (as you have suggested) but that will not bring them all the way to their full exterior width. Personally, this is one of the more trivial changes needed to be made. After posting my CG model of the Shuttlecraft, no one even noticed that the windows on it did not go the full original width. I doubt many people will notice on this proposed model either, particularly when they see what they are getting! They will be so excited by the interior/exterior facets that the window and door changes won't matter. Also, it will be immediately obvious WHY those changes were made, no one will be saying "why did you do THAT?". Trust me. (of course, I'm talking about "normal fans" here, not the fringe lunatics who wear their "Starfleet" uniforms to public court!!  )

Keep the faith here guys, I think most fans will approve of the minimal changes made to the design (after all, we are making a HUGE, NON-CANNON change by putting the interior inside the exterior to begin with(!), something that was never shown to be the case on the show). Thanks for the good input too, I think I now have a pretty good idea of what the fans will expect to see. :thumbsup: 

The exterior sheets 32 and 41 have not been reloaded yet, I'll do that tonight.

Phil


----------



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

Phil: "Those flairing front windows are just not going to fly, Chuck. A compromise will be to make the front wall thick too and have them flair "a bit" (as you have suggested) but that will not bring them all the way to their full exterior width. Personally, this is one of the more trivial changes needed to be made. After posting my CG model of the Shuttlecraft, no one even noticed that the windows on it did not go the full original width. I doubt many people will notice on this proposed model either, particularly when they see what they are getting!"

I agree, especially now that 4MMen has said he modeled it with a "full flair" and it looked so ugly he felt forced to perform a retroactive abortion and delete it! If it looked so bad he couldn't stand to keep it, I'm more then will to accept his and your judgement on the issue. 

Phil:"I'm a bit puzzled about the wall thickness issue here. My "preliminary" section view drawing of the integrated interior/exterior Shuttlecraft demonstrated that, by increasing the cabin width a mere 6 inches, the walls would then be 12 inches thick at the hatch location. So what does that do to the hatch itself? The upper two hatch panels are about 3 inches thick, as seen on the show, and therefore must retract 3 inches inward to clear the door frame before retracting to the sides (this action is seen on the show too, the retraction is what allows the doors to fit flush to the outer surface). That takes up 6 inches of that wall thickness, minimum. The inner hatches are reccessed about 1/4 to 1/2 of an inch and are about an inch thick. In total this accounts for about 7.5 inches, thus leaving a 4.5 inch space between them. Get out a ruler guys and look at it full scale! We are not talking about HUGE amounts of space here."

I agree on that as well. I didn't think the wall looked all that thick. Maybe I'm partially to blame. On the previous page I did a composite in which I inserted your interior into 4MMen's exterior 3D models in 3 views.

I'm pretty sure that I kept everything proportionally to scale in all three views, and your drawings are not proportionally more then slightly different with the exceptions of 4MMen's center roofline being less sloped and his side center horizontal hull lines made level to the ground plane.

I'm fairly sure when I created the overhead view based on your interiors I was faithful to scale and extended everything from the port and fore views properly. Maybe you could check them out.

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=8831
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=8830

With the possible exception of perhaps needing to make the rear cabin longer(were you going to redraw in an interior Port view, Phil?) which might require the craft to be slightly upscaled again, I'm not sure why 4MMen feels the walls may be too thick.

Perhaps the seams on the craft in the overhead view I made add to the illusion that the walls are wider on the interior then they actually are.

I will mention that since the craft is wedge shaped when seen from above the interior wall thickness will increase as you go backward from the door towards the phaser lockers and engines, but so little space is left behind those rear cabin cylinders on back to the engines that I think that could be a plus and assumed to be more space for engine equipment, etc.

But at least at the door area I don't see the walls as being too deep and would leave the increasing thickness of the interior walls there as room for other unseen equipment.


And I wholeheartedly agree that we should make the front wall that holds the three windowns thicker, if for no other reason then to allow enough room for both sliding blast doors and clear windows.

Perhaps the overhead view leads one to think that the walls are thicker then they actually are at the point of the doors, but I'm pretty sure I extended the views you did properly. I'll double check them. Perhaps you could take a minute to look at them as well if you have time. I'll email you the non-cut version(had to post the full size file in the thread in two parts due to file size limitations)


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

OK, just call me the fussy old Grandmother. The space looks positively cavernous. It's not though... as I have now proved to myself.

In my own defense please bear in mind that Blender does not have real world units (inches, feet, meters, AUs, etc.). I got the knife out and cut a section at the approximate door midline. Now, not knowing the exact length of this thing but using the lengths discussed in this encyclopedia Chuck's created  the space is indeed on the order of one foot's worth of inches. So I'll call off those dogs and you can consider this my formal retraction and apology.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

P.S. I don't really expect anyone else to care but the next release of Blender will have _Depth Map Based Ambient Occlusion Lighting_. I've tried the pre-release code and it looks rather splendiferous!

I now return you to your regularly scheduled topic...


----------



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

Thanks F.O.G.! :tongue: 

Thought maybe I screwed up those composites.

If it's any consolation, if Phil ends up putting together a convincing 7 foot plus second cabin that I can't bring myself to chop down the interiors might shrink. In which case the walls WOULD have to be thicker...

plus, thicker front wall would necessitate a slightly larger interior too...

plus...

Okay, let me shutup and hold my "if's" until Phil or you comes up with some new encyclopedia entries...


----------



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

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/views.html

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/shipyard.html

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...uttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultExteriorPlans.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoPlansTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.

Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link 

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/winfrey.html

David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.

Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was done by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.

His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.

Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey! :thumbsup:


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

On the issue of widening the interior to match the exterior width -- that's what I did on my prints. In retrospect (and in the likely never-to-be-done revision), I'd do it the other way -- i.e., keep the interior width as shown ("canon"), and let the outer walls fall where they may. Why? Simply because of the degree to which widening the interior makes the result unlike what we see on screen.

Be interesting to see a comparison of the 2 different results -- i.e., with and without widening -- placed alongside.

My own preliminary sketches of the "as-shown" interior within the "sized to contain" exterior gave several feet "wall" thickness on either side of the interior -- enough room for a 'tween-wall airlock, etc. I'm none too sure why this result isn't apparent in the preliminary work put online by Phil and Four Mad thus far. Did I screw up that badly in my interior width calculations? Thus far, I've been unable to print Phil's magnum opus at any useful size (so to compare his work & mine as a cross-check, and get to the bottom of this and other issues). Has anyone done this?

David Winfrey


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

I also recommend a comparative examination of the Franz Joseph prints with the current, ongoing CGI reconstruction. I remain convinced that Joseph produced his plans via direct observation, if not measurement, of the studio soundstage prop. His interior is obviously to be discarded, and his specs ignored -- but I'm not sure the proportions he presented deserve similar treatment.

Phil cites various ambiguities in deriving proportions from screen captures -- even as I ran into questions I couldn't resolve via study of the various Fotonovels (and off-the-screen photos). Have the proportions put forth by FJ been conclusively disproven, or has such a comparison in fact been made?

David Winfrey


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Guys,

Sheets 32 and 41 of my exterior plans have been reloaded as of this morning.

I've never compared the FJ Shuttlecraft plans because I've never seen them. Don't really know anything about him either so I don't know if he studied the mockup or not. I did know the then-owner of the mockup quite well and he never mentioned that anyone had ever looked at it with the intention of doing drawings but that does not prove that no one did. He just never mentioned it. I would tend to believe that he would have mentioned it and further, possibly not allowed anyone to do that because he was pretty protective of it. But that is just speculation.

FMM, no need to apologise. I had wondered if other people were building their models based on dimensions or not. It sounds like you are probably tracing the electronic drawings then creating solids based on those outlines? That is one of the things I want to investigate in Lightwave by using these drawings, thats is, determine how feasible it is to build a model based on dimensions rather than eyeballing it. I've used LW a bit and I know it has dimension-driven tools available but not sure if there are enough to do a project like this. My interest is in historical recreations and scale will be an important part of that so dimensions will be key.

Printing my plans: I use a software that prints "to fit" on a page, do the rest of you not have something like that (I use Paintshop but Photoshop will probably do the same)? Printing issues will be important here so please let me know if anyone is having problems. The drawings will be nearly useless for real model building if they can't be printed properly.

Phil


----------



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

"Phil cites various ambiguities in deriving proportions from screen captures -- even as I ran into questions I couldn't resolve via study of the various Fotonovels (and off-the-screen photos). Have the proportions put forth by FJ been conclusively disproven, or has such a comparison in fact been made?

David Winfrey"

I haven't done any comparisons to FJ's stuff to Phil's or 4MadMen's, mainly because the ship doesn't seem to be drawn "as built" but seems to instead be a more logical, "idealized" version of the craft.

FJ's daughter flatly denies her father ever visited the prop. She says she gave him a photo of herself standing next to it after having gone to visit it while a guy who temporarily owned it had it displayed on his front lawn within driving distance.

A TrekBBS member asked her about it after reading a comment that FJ had had access to it in an old set of your excellent Blues Reviews.

According to her, her father relied on thousands apon thousands of 35mm slides provided to him by Gene and Majel Roddenberry for all of his Tech Manual stuff and Enterprise prints, back when Majel Roddenberry was selling them via her company Lincoln Enterprises. The only other stuff he used were some references that ended up printed in The Making of Star Trek.

She just flatly states he never went to visit it, plus we know he couldn't have had access to the filming miniature. I'm inclined to believe her, mainly because not only does she have no reason to fabricate such a story, but also because of the fact that he could have visited the guy's front lawn for a period of a couple of years and at any time taken tons of reference pics and measurements, but chose not to says a lot about his "quirkiness" and seems very much in character.

I'm inclined to think the guy saw a few of the illogical lines of the ship in the clips and decided he was more interested in doing his own personal interpretation of the shuttlecraft.

I don't like his interior, but I can't say I blame him for taking that tact on the exterior.

Given the tremendous number of 35mm slides Gene & Majel Roddenberry flooded him with back when they were still letting him believe they might have held the Trek copyrights and would be selling his stuff legally through Lincoln Enteprises, I don't see why it would be unbelievable that he never visited or measured the soundstage prop.

There are features in the FJ starbase shuttlecraft that are markedly different then what was seen onscreen on the exterior and Phil's "as built" version. FJ's exteriors don't match the full size mockup thoroughly. However, that may be simply due to FJ wanting to make the craft look more logically designed, just as he stated he felt compelled to do with his blues of the Constitution class starship. 

To be fair to FJ, we don't know that he WANTED to portray the ship "as built." As he openly admits he did in his Constitution Class prints, he may have simply decided to design the craft in a more logical manner then was portrayed onscreen. 

Phil hasn't had access to it while doing his prints either, and yet he nonetheless seems to be nailing it to a much higher degree of "as built" accuracy. 

So I don't think we should assume FJ had to have had access to it. This is not a criticism of Franz Joseph, as we don't know if FJ even wanted to produce an accurate "as built" set of plans. 


BTWay, on the "various ambiguities" issue, I just found an old 8 x 10 of the Galileo I bought decades ago that was in a stack of stuff I found months ago while cleaning out my attic.

It seems to be a still from The Immunity Syndrome where Spock is only a couple of steps away from climbing into the shuttlecraft, printed from a clip only a couple of seconds earlier then Phil's now famous and perplexing profile capture.

However, in this print, the shuttle DOESN'T have that pronounced nose-down profile!!!!!!!!!!

Could it be as simple as Leonard Nimoy's weight causing the distortion? I'd like to think the prop was more stable then that. But I can't deny the print I'm looking at...


----------



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

I have no complaints about your page sizes, especially now that you have added so many precise dimensions.

The only thing I would request is that the final versions have even further links, where the 200 dpi drawings would have links to 600 dpi drawings. That way people who just wanted to view them onscreen can choose to not download the bigger files, and those of us who might end up printing them on 11 x 17, 13 x 19 or even larger paper to do larger scale scratchbuild plans could do so without dealing with "the jaggies." The only other issue might be to have a second set of the "detail sheets" done at the same scale as the fuller sized prints. However, by all means keep a larger scaled version as well.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Chuck,

A persons weight does not make the mockup sag. That should be obvious when you see four or five people climb out of it. If their weight were affecting it, the nose would spring up as the mockup was unloaded. I climbed inside it along with several other people and it didn't move a bit. If it were weak enough to sag from the weight of one person, we would have been hesitant about entering it at all.

If you get the chance, send me the picture you found (scan it and send it to my work address) and I'll check the alignments on it. I can import it into Microstation and trace it like I did with the other images.

Phil


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> Chuck,
> 
> A persons weight does not make the mockup sag. That should be obvious when you see four or five people climb out of it. If their weight were affecting it, the nose would spring up as the mockup was unloaded. I climbed inside it along with several other people and it didn't move a bit. If it were weak enough to sag from the weight of one person, we would have been hesitant about entering it at all.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately I don't own the episode in question and can't see how it was edited to tell if there are any cutaway shots prior to Spock being inside when the stage crew might have done something between takes.

I don't assume that was the only cause. I'm as confused as you are. Will send it along forthwith...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

OK, here's two-part question:

What are the names of the Enterprise Shuttlecraft and how many are there?

How many: At most 8 but 7 is a more practical number (6 would be even better), based on the amount of below-deck hangar space available on the C-class Starships. There just isn't a huge amount of room to store these suckers onboard.

Names I like: Galileo (of course), Columbus (ditto), Copernicus, Amundsen, Shackelton, Goddard, Sheppard, Ponce de Leon, Marco Polo, Cortez.

The reason to bring this up is obviously for decals. Also, I was thinking about adding layouts for all the mascot names to the sheets already on my web site.

Phil


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It does strike me that a shuttlecraft of a more credible 30ft. or so long will take up more space than usual on the hangar deck. Consequently the turntable/elevator will have to be larger to accomodate the larger craft and be able to lower it to the maintenance facilities under the hangar deck. Also, it would make it more difficult to have a larger complement of these craft on board. Both The Making of Star Trek and FJ's blueprints lists six of these shuttlecraft as standard complement aboard a Constitution-class vessel, but six of such larger craft will now seem unlikely. It makes more sense to cite the one onscreen reference we have in "The Omega Glory" that no more than perhaps four shuttlecraft are the standard complement. 

Also, whether it's four or six vehicles in total, then how did the Galileo come to have a "7" affixed to its registry number? The only explanation I can think of is that it is itself a replacement for shuttlecraft lost before events we saw depicted in TOS.

I accept the names _Galileo. Columbus, Copernicus_ and _Magellan_ myself.


----------



## tripdeer (Mar 7, 2004)

The only ones mentioned on the show were the Galileo (7), the Galileo II (also 7), and the Columbus (I believe I've seen it listed as 2). As for others, I only have this to say: ya gotta have a Roddenberry!

-Dan


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Quick note: The elevator in the hangar deck is quite large, it will handle our "enlarged" Shuttlecraft without changes.

About the number "7": We could assume that Enterprise small craft are numbered consecutively, Galileo being the last of the Class Fs onboard but it is also possible that attrition has taken its toll through operational mishaps and it is simply the 7th class F "assigned" to Enterprise. I believe there is room for as many as 8 Shuttlecraft onboard but 7 would leave a little extra room for maintenance and such. 6 would be still better (I didn't remember TMOST stating how many were carried onboard).

I don't really think I would use TV show staff names for Shuttlecraft. "Jefferies" would be more appropriate for a Shuttlecraft than "Roddenberry" I think but I wouldn't use that either. Anyother name preferences?

Phil


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

If (_if!_) there were four shuttles, perhaps they were numbered 1, 3, 5, and 7. Reasonably easy to distinguish from a distance, whereas all the other markings unique to each shuttle would be so small as to be difficult to make out from far away.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Da Vinci and Icarus probably wouldn't be too bad for names, either.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

sbaxter,

That is a good point too. That type of consideration is common in many industries today so it is quite reasonable to apply to the "Star Trek" universe as well.

Phil


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

BTW,

Over 8,000 viewings!! Someone out there must be interested in our little discussion... :wave: 

Phil


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

Seems to me that Cortez was... not a very nice person. And Icarus crashed...

"Brahe" might fit in OK though.


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> Quick note: The elevator in the hangar deck is quite large, it will handle our "enlarged" Shuttlecraft without changes.
> 
> About the number "7": We could assume that Enterprise small craft are numbered consecutively, Galileo being the last of the Class Fs onboard but it is also possible that attrition has taken its toll through operational mishaps and it is simply the 7th class F "assigned" to Enterprise. I believe there is room for as many as 8 Shuttlecraft onboard but 7 would leave a little extra room for maintenance and such. 6 would be still better (I didn't remember TMOST stating how many were carried onboard).
> 
> ...


I'd add the Franz Joseph starbase decals to the mix. I'm not at home right now so maybe somebody could provide us with a quick & dirty FJ shuttle scan, maybe 4MadMen could put one up in his brand-spanking new gallery?

On other preferences I'll have to mull it over a bit.
Did you get the 8 x 10 I emailed you, Phil?


----------



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

Four Mad Men has added a gallery page to his website,
which can be found here...
http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/gallery/gallery.php

hoping he'll re-add the oblique images once he re-renders them...


----------



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

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/gallery/gallery.php

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/gallery/view.php?gid=7http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/shipyard.html

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultExteriorPlans.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoPlansTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.

Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link 

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/winfrey.html

David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.

Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was done by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.

His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.

Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey! :thumbsup:


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> BTW,
> 
> Over 8,000 viewings!! Someone out there must be interested in our little discussion... :wave:
> 
> Phil


Yep! I'd say so. And we probably won't be thoroughly finished everything until when? Monday maybe?:jest:


----------



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

Suggestion to help alleviate the consternation of having perhaps only four shuttles at a time and a Galileo numbered 7, all without believing Enterprise goes through shuttles the way later series goes through E's...

Wouldn't it make sense that the E had a couple of unseen workpods like those seen in TMP? I can't imagine the F class shuttles being effective in the case of exterior hull damage too severe to be fixed via simple EV spacewalks.


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

I'd like to see a pod like that, plus a vitamin-fed "bottle suit" for the heavy jobs that still require a gloves-on touch. I am picturing a cylindrical body with a utility belt on a conveyor belt for easy access to *any* tool attached to it, and a major thruster/portable power pack for any lasering that needs doing...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well _Galileo_ and _Columbus_ were unquestionably established onscreen in _TOS._. I support the name _Copernicus_ simply because that was the shuttlecraft's name in _TAS'_ "The Slaver Weapon" despite the fact that the vehicle looked very different. Still, I think the animators of _TAS_ took liberty with the look of the shuttlecraft in _TAS_ and I've always believed that the _Copernicus_ always should have looked like the familiar Class F shuttlecraft of _TOS._ And ditto with the shuttle depicted in "Mudd's Passion.

And hence that's why I stand by _Galileo, Columbus, Copernicus_ and perhaps _Magellan_ as well although I'm not entirely certain where I heard that last name referenced. It may have been in a couple of correspondences I had with Geoffrey Mandel back in the '70s when he was drawing up plans for the animated shuttles.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'm pretty sure I've got a view or two that shows Franz Joseph's take on the subject. Let me look and I'll get them posted later tonight. It's movie night so it may not happen until later.

[ EDIT ]

Chuck, just got your e-mail and although I didn't think of it I agree that posting them is perhaps not such a good idea.


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

FJ's daughter's saying he never saw the shuttle in person is good enough for me; I do recall reading in an intereview by (I think) Paul Newitt of FJ's use of slides. 

Which, interestingly, puts FJ in exactly the same position as the shuttle's other reconstructors -- i.e., trying to do the best possible job of capturing what's on screen.

Which reminds me: is anyone familiar with Allen Everhart's 2-page shuttlecraft blues? They turn up regularly on Ebay (as indeed right now: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=155&item=2236588294&rd=1).

Be interesting, I think, to have posted same-size (not scale -- that's another issue) views of the various shuttlecraft blues: e.g., FJ's, Everhart's, mine, Phil & Four Mad's.

David Winfrey


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> Well _Galileo_ and _Columbus_ were unquestionably established onscreen in _TOS._.


Where did we see _Columbus_ in TOS?


Warped9 said:


> And hence that's why I stand by _Galileo, Columbus, Copernicus_ and perhaps _Magellan_ as well


I could swear I once saw mention of one of them being named _Ptolemy_, though I can't remember where.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ _Columbus_ was the shuttlecraft searching for the _Galileo_ in "The Galileo Seven."


----------



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

trekkist said:


> FJ's daughter's saying he never saw the shuttle in person is good enough for me; I do recall reading in an intereview by (I think) Paul Newitt of FJ's use of slides.
> 
> Which, interestingly, puts FJ in exactly the same position as the shuttle's other reconstructors -- i.e., trying to do the best possible job of capturing what's on screen.
> 
> ...


Yep, I've got a set. They have nicely rendered exteriors, though the interiors aren't that impressive. A few minor things kind of bug me about them. No overhead or underside views, only fore, aft, and side. He never bothered with the tedious pressure transfer process he used to give his other blues a decent typeface, instead opting for handprinting.

The exterior drawings are puuuuurty. They are worth the $5-$7 bucks for that alone, but don't expect to see Everhart's best work in terms of technical layout and interiors.


----------



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

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/gallery/gallery.php

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/gallery/view.php?gid=7

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultExteriorPlans.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoPlansTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.

Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link 

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/winfrey.html

David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.

Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was done by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.

His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.

Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey! :thumbsup:


----------



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

Four Mad Men, Phil, any new interior stuff on the horizon?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Chuck,

I hope to get some interior detail drawings together for posting to the web site, consoles and chairs mainly. Haven't started on the packing foam shapes yet, been trying to finish up the contour drawing of the chair (something I didn't want to draw in the first place). Other than the packing shapes, the only other thing that needs to be drawn is the details of the rear compartment. Next will begin the tedious process of breaking it all up into individual drawing sheets and then getting them dimensioned. Dimensioning takes quite awhile too, I've discovered. Probably another two weeks at least before its all up on the internet. As a bonus, I've also drawn plans of the Kenmore-style (refridgerator) computer cabinets as seen onboard the Shuttlecraft in the episode "Immunity Syndrome" and in various other sets including the Starbase 11 computer operations center. This will allow me to show that specialized version of the Shuttlecraft too. For reference, they are 36 inches wide, 18 inches deep and 58 inches tall.

Been working on house repairs so not as much time available to work on drawings.

Phil


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

X15-A2 said:


> I had wondered if other people were building their models based on dimensions or not. It sounds like you are probably tracing the electronic drawings then creating solids based on those outlines? That is one of the things I want to investigate in Lightwave by using these drawings, thats is, determine how feasible it is to build a model based on dimensions rather than eyeballing it. I've used LW a bit and I know it has dimension-driven tools available but not sure if there are enough to do a project like this. My interest is in historical recreations and scale will be an important part of that so dimensions will be key.


Indeed. I have in fact rebuilt the exterior no less than three times. The first was based mostly on "eyeball". The second on David's drawings. And the third (and final) were based on a few of your cross sections. The use of all of those sections would have been a very manual (and time consuming) process.

*Chuck*,
I'm working some some things now and will try to post them tonight. Like many others it's been a busy non-computer weekend for me as well. I did get a change to add some of the old perspective views to the gallery. I'll be re-rendering those soon but want to get further on the interior before I shift gears.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Although I guess a preliminary render from earlier might be inorder. It will be "On The Bench" in just a few minutes.

SGCP Image Gallery


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

OK, the final bench work for the evening is in the gallery...

SGCP Image Gallery


----------



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

Great work 4MadMen!
Hope you got all the views I sent you yesterday.


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Chuck,
> 
> I hope to get some interior detail drawings together for posting to the web site, consoles and chairs mainly. Haven't started on the packing foam shapes yet, been trying to finish up the contour drawing of the chair (something I didn't want to draw in the first place). Other than the packing shapes, the only other thing that needs to be drawn is the details of the rear compartment. Next will begin the tedious process of breaking it all up into individual drawing sheets and then getting them dimensioned. Dimensioning takes quite awhile too, I've discovered. Probably another two weeks at least before its all up on the internet. As a bonus, I've also drawn plans of the Kenmore-style (refridgerator) computer cabinets as seen onboard the Shuttlecraft in the episode "Immunity Syndrome" and in various other sets including the Starbase 11 computer operations center. This will allow me to show that specialized version of the Shuttlecraft too. For reference, they are 36 inches wide, 18 inches deep and 58 inches tall.
> 
> ...


Great news, Phil!
Hope you won't be hoarding all of those and will let us see some of them as you go along...

Don't make us beg...

I'm especially interested in seeing your contour drawings of the chairs, anything of those done yet?

Also, is there any additional screengrabs you could do showing the interior side wall of the shuttle on the door side, especially the three small computers and phaser locker positioning?


----------



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

On the issue of the rear cabin Phil, I did a preliminary scaling of your first rough interior sketch and found the rear cabin as drawn to be less then 4 feet, I redid it a bit as well as slightly thickening the wall between cabin 1 and 2 and made the rear cabin 48 inches wide(I know what you said about the rear cabin, but what few shots of the interior with the rear "cylinder wall" installed don't suggest anything deeper then perhaps 4-5 feet. I'm inclined to chalk up the back in-cabin views to the fact that they probably couldn't fit the camera back there with the side(rear) wall installed and perhaps were a little sloppy on the filming angle.

Even with a four foot rear cabin I felt forced to upscale the craft to 31'11" (7.25%) in order to fit the longer rear cabin and give a believably thick front(9inches which can allow for a window and blast door), top, bottom and rear hulls.

Maybe 4 Mad Men could perhaps post a link to a scaled side view from the 3 view I sent yesterday as for some reason I can't upload the file to show you guys.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Great work 4MadMen!
> Hope you got all the views I sent you yesterday.


I did thanks. I'll have more to add tomorrow -- some of it you may not like. Right now I'm playing SpyWare Hunter on one of our PCs. In the mean time I'm attaching the requested image. I had to shrink it down from a width of 1500+ inorder to allow attachment so sorry if it's not the easiest to see. I'll upload it to my site if Chuck can't get it posted.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

[ Off-topic geek post ]

This message brought to you by my trusty Dell Axim with it's brandnew Wi-Fi card. I'd tell you where I am and what I'm doing but that would be disgusting so I won't. :drunk:


----------



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

Hi guys!
Four Mad Men did a great deal of work on some of the interior panels this weekend.
I'm posting some of his stuff for you guys to check out. None of it is absolutely final, though the main rear cabin door panel is 99.9% done, Four Mad Men just wants to tweek the lights a little.

I was giving him a little assistance by helping do 2D drawings of some of the elements.
In doing the three console help array I noticed some pretty weird design elements in terms of contours. When viewed from overhead, the console "looks like a moose" to quote 4MadMen. Lot's of other idiosycrasies. It's also apparent that the comm panel on the right pilot's panel can't possibly be 4" x 5". It's far more proportionally vertical then horizontal. Though as long as the panels, consoles, cabinets are proportionally accurate we can always wait until later for measurements.

Phil, just got your email. I was pretty aware you probably new about those "kenmore computer panels." What I was asking was if you could please perhaps post some hi-res screengrabs of them on your sight in the "interiors" section?


----------



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

Oops,
the attachments won't upload.

I know that before the BB upgrade it would warn me that I had reached my attachment limit and I could then delete some old attachments. Now it's not doing that. I deleted some old attachments already, so I probably have space. But the files won't upload 

Sorry Four Mad Men. Perhaps you could upload them later tonight if I can't get this problem fixed before then.

Some, but not all of them, can be found here
http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/gallery/view.php?gid=7


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Thanks anyway for the effort Chuck and thanks again for your 2D work! I've posted some more to my project gallery but here is the current work on the center console:










The gallery shows the evolution of this panel from it's very beginning to now. Have a look, you may find it interesting.


----------



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

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/gallery/gallery.php

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/gallery/view.php?gid=7

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultExteriorPlans.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoPlansTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.

Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link 

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/winfrey.html

David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.

Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was done by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.

His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.

Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey! :thumbsup:


----------



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

Phil, got your email. I was pretty aware you probably new about those "kenmore computer panels." What I was asking was if you could please perhaps post some hi-res screengrabs of them on your sight in the "interiors" section?

The only style I really need good views of are the style that is only glimpsed on the "door side" of the shuttlecraft interior. The type that is unlike the other two seen on the opposite side, and are side by side just forward of the door-side phaser locker.
If I could get some good screengrabs of that type of "sidewall computer" from you or anyone else(they appear on the "Kenmore Refrigerator" style computers seen in "The Menagerie" and "A Taste of Armagedon") I would greatly appreciate it.


----------



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

Great work, Four Mad Men!!!

The interior is really starting to come together for you.
A couple more tweeks and the front helm array will be 
ready for prime time!!!!


----------



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

Hi guys!

Got an email from Four Mad Men that his hard drive is acting up and he might be down for a couple of days getting an non-upgraded copy of his mirroring software to facilitate seemless tranfer to a new drive.

Hope he's at least able to read this from his other computer and it works out okay for him.


----------



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

While waiting for Phil and Four Mad Men's latest interior updates I thought I would try my hand at an "idealized"(to borrow MGagen's term) version of Phil's Galileo.

In the attached files are an interior and exterior versions.
I changed none of the sizing or proportions on the exterior.
All I did was cut along the top and front of the nacelle, raise those lines a hair,
and then tilted the whole thing clockwise very slightly.
Then I just reattached the curve of the front bottom hull to the proper place
at the front of the nacelle and lengthened the front nacelle support strut so
they once again touched the nacelle as the back ones did.

So none of the proportions have been changed, the ship has just been leveled.
To get the exterior under 50K I had to eliminate most text even and crop it to get
it under the 50K limit. But they should be otherwise unchanged.

The "interior" file uses Phil's exterior lines and a modified inner hull largely based on Four Mad Men's cross-section. The most notable feature being the filming miniature version bottom, which will give a few more inches of room for a below-deck "Scotty Hatch" area.


----------



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

Wow, my files actually uploaded that time!

Let's see if lightening will strike twice in the same place...

It they upload, here are three pics of some of the 3D interior details
Four Mad Men is currently working on.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'm still here, just don't have my main PC at the moment. I'm playing musical chairs with the harddrives as I post this with my handheld (That new WiFi card sure is getting a workout).

Please note that the helm console is a VERY rough fit test as I just wanted to see how the finished prroduct might look. Also not all the pieces in the multi-component render are in the same scale.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Guys,

New drawings of various interior details have been posted on my web site here: http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehic...uttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultInteriorPlans.htm

They include the three types of sidewall instrument panels, one wall detail part (the odd panel seen over the center window), the Kenmore Komputer and the chairs.

It will be a busy weekend with two train shows, an airshow and a visit to the Boeing History office planned so I don't expect to get any drawing done and will probably not be back online until Monday. So for now, enjoy the new drawings.

Phil


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Is it possible we need a minor rescale of the "as built" plans?

Here's some food for thought:

On the Matt Jefferies blueprints in TMOST, the body of the Shuttlecraft scales out to 21'-9" long. On the excellent photo survey of the miniature on Phil's site (with the lens cap for scale) the miniature's body measures 21-3/4" long. If this is a cooincidence, it is a very unlikely one since this means the miniature is exactly 1/12 scale (1" = 1') when compared with the Jefferies drawing.

Along comes Phil's exhaustive study and blueprint of the set piece as built. According to his analysis from photos of the mockup, he makes out the length of the body as 20'-8.285".

Now Jefferies' drawings are of his original design which AMT "simplified" in order to build the mockup. Isn't it likely that they merely straightened the sides to make them easier to build, but otherwise worked from the plans? And since the miniature seems to have been patterned after the simplified version, not the original design, doesn't it's length argue pretty strongly for a 21'-9" mockup?

That would mean Phil's reconstruction is only off by a hair over a foot. Not bad when working from photographs!

Mark


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

That's an interesting theory, but probably has some leeway involved with the numbers. For one, they may have built the fullscale shuttle to the 21' 9" plans, but over such a large construction, they may have made changes that make up part of the foot difference. In other words, it might not actually be exactly the right length, even if it was intended to be to start with.


----------



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

MGagen said:


> Is it possible we need a minor rescale of the "as built" plans?
> 
> Here's some food for thought:
> 
> ...


Actually I think Phil is off by far less then a foot. If in fact he is off on the exterior. Remember that Jefferies flat out claims he only designed the exterior, and disavows designing the exterior, claiming that an AMT car designer did that. True, I don't know if I fully buy that he had no hand in it. I think it's likely that both Jefferies and the AMT designer corresponded on it to some degree and Jefferies was just too upset about the compromises needed to want to claim what he considered to be the red-headed stepchild of his original design. But it seems to me that Jefferies may have drawn the blues after the craft was finished, rather then before, and perhaps wasn't extremely concerned with a being extremely precise.

Remember that in TMOST blueprints the shuttle has zero forward tilt to the main body. Now, leveling Phil's blues at the horizontal hull centerline as I did above should slightly(admittedly infinitesimally) increase the length. Please ignore the fact that in the exterior "idealized" version of Phil's exterior I posted in post # 651 I didn't recalculate the length.

This is not to say that the leveling could come close to making up the difference, but it does show that the ship wasn't constructed as per the blueprints in TMOST. The TMOST measurements are close, but I think Phil's 
exteriors are in fact more authoritative then TMOST's!


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> New drawings of various interior details have been posted on my web site here: http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultInteriorPlans.htm
> 
> ...


Thanks for the incredible update Phil!
It's all coming together!

Have a great weekend and hope to hear more from you later this week.

Impressive!


----------



## TheYoshinator! (Apr 2, 2004)

That's an impressive amount of work there Phil! That's an amazing amount of work to define a chair. That must have been hell for you.

Thank you!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck,

I think you're missing the significance of my point that the miniature was built to match the set piece, not Jefferies' blueprint. If the set piece is the length Phil has rendered it, the miniature is scaled down at a really wacky scale -- one that would have involved FAR more work to pull off than simply making a 1:12 model. It is far more likely that the miniature is scaled down from the same (as yet unavailable) construction blueprints; and at a sensible scale.

My post was not in anyway meant to take away from Phil's work. I stand in awe of his achievement. But even he has stated that it is merely the best that can be done from photo evidence. I am merely proposing an independant source of data that might help fine tune the drawings even more.

I believe that MJ disowned the shuttlecraft design when it was simplified into a basic box. If you look at his drawings, you'll see that while the side view could be taken to represent the final shape, the top view shows the sides taper back in at the rear. Also, the aft view visible in one of the hangar deck drawings shows he even intended that the sides curve from top to bottom. All told, the shape he had in mind was very complex and would have made a more interesting (but more expensive to build) shuttle.

We also have a 3-view sketch that he drew and labeled something to the effect "as redesigned by AMT -- interior also by AMT" which shows the final, squared off configuration. Obviously, he was well aware of what they had done to it and could have blueprinted it accurately if he wanted to. Instead, he gave us _his_version.

Mark


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

After installing my new drives and the system transfer everything was running great. Faster than before. With one notable exception... Blender!!! The latest official release, the most recent test build, every version I had was sluggish to the point of being unusable. In the end I remembered that just a day or so before my harddrive troubles I had upgraded my video driver and once I rolled that back all is (again) as it should be.

So I did not get a chance to do much work but I did manage to model the rest of the interior walls and slap some pieces of equipment on them. So here is my first render from inside the shuttle...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Suddenly Mark is arguing AGAINST "wacky scales"... :devil: 


Just twisting your tail again Mark, sorry. :tongue: 

Actually, I would be hesitant to take much if any information from the studio miniature because we have no way of assessing what changes were made to it when it was "restored". Mike Minor told me that the model had been smashed, he said "it looked like somebody had stepped on it" and that it was "broken in half" (he was explaining why they weren't planning to use it as dressing in Kirk's appartment eventhough they wanted to. It was used in later films of course). After seeing it in its "restored" condition it is apparent that many pieces were missing too. I never saw the model myself in its pre-restoration condition so I can't testify to the extent of the damage but Mike's comments present a pretty graphic image of what he saw (true, he may have been exaggerating too). Until someone comes forward with a photo survey of it before it was destroyed, I will not be paying too much attention to what we see in the photos of it as it looks today. Also, it does not appear to be a really high-fidelity model anyway, many of its small details don't appear to match the fullscale version (this might be because of its "restoration" too but who can tell?).

Phil


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Welcome back, Phil. 

Actually, I usually _do_ argue against wacky scales. It was my stubborn refusal to believe that MJ would have willingly drafted the E in a wacky scale (1:84.75) that eventually turned up proof that the Enterprise was indeed designed in a much more reasonable 1:48.  

I still think that the fact that the miniature is (even in its current shape) exactly 1/12 the size of the Jefferies profile in TMOST is just too much of a cooincidence. Adding to that the fact that you've arrived at almost the same figure from photo studies and the case seems pretty compelling. The photo studies definitely get us "in the ball park", but calibrating it with hard data can get us even closer.

That the small model doesn't (or didn't) reproduce all the details of the large one doesn't trouble me at all. What I'm talking about is overall scale. It's exactly the same issue as the small vs. large Enterprise models. We learn from Richard Datin himself that the large E was built from the same blueprints that the small one was built from -- scaled up exactly 4 time. I think it is pretty likely something similar is going on with the shuttles.

Mark


----------



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

Sorry MGagen, didn't pick up on the fact that you were discussing the miniature versus the mock-up. Only thought you were discussing the plans versus the two props.
I think you are right about the miniature being 1/12th scale. As far as I can tell from Phil's photos with the lenscaps, the rebuilt miniature seems to be 22.xx inches. Which is pretty close to 1/12th scale of Phil's drawings.

I do remember an interview I gave a link to earlier in the thread with FJ though in which he claimed to have designed the interior, maybe his "interior by AMT" was meant to help fans realize in the future that he's not resposible for the configuration that the AMT's exteriors ended up forcing us to reconcile with his interior.

Glad to see you are up and running again Four Mad Men!

Can't wait to see more stuff from you and Phil both!

Small, insignificant detail: I noticed in Phil's first chair drawing, that when I rotated the "overhead" chair drawing and lined it up over the "side" chair drawing, that the overhead chair was deeper viewed from above then it was deep viewed from the side.
Is this prospective distortion, or perhaps should either side or overhead versions be smaller/larger?

Thought I would ask before anyone spent time trying to model it in 3D.


----------



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

9000+ views and counting, guys! 

Looks like at least a few people find the subject interesting...


----------



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

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/gallery/gallery.php

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/gallery/view.php?gid=7

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoVaultExteriorPlans.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/ShuttlecraftPlans/GalileoPlansTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.

Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link 

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/winfrey.html

David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.

Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was done by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.

His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.

Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey! :thumbsup:


----------



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

Could someone else checkout Four Mad Men's gallery at
http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/gallery/gallery.php
and see if the links to the various galleries work on their connection?

There's so much security crap on my work computer I can't tell if the links on the page are messed up or if it's just my connection...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Something certainly isn't working. I get to the page and then cannot access anything.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

^^ It's working fine for me.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Chuck,

You are right, the chair is almost exactly .5 inch deeper in the plan view. This is because I didn't show the extra depth caused by the curved rear edge of the top of the back in the side view. This does not change the contours at all. If we were building the chair fullscale, this would simply be a "trim" or cutoff line. Currently the side elevation view only shows the lines as they appear at the edge of the chair. The correction is to add a .5 inch-long straight line horizontally from the top of the back of the chair, as seen in the side view. BTW, the still you sent me from "Immunity Syndrome" displays the same "sag" in the main hull that all the other images show. The only way to really check this is to get the image into a CAD program or use a T-square on a drafting table (or some such similar device) to check for parallel. When you do so you will see that the top of the engine nacelle is not parallel with the hull centerline. Further, I no longer believe that the landing gear ever supported the weight of the mockup. It appears to always have some type of stand or "jack" arrangement under the main hull, just as we see in the "under construction" views. If you check, you will see that some type of support is just barely visible at the back edge of the hull in "Metamorphosis". What this means to the various odd angles found in the mockup, I'm not quite sure. But instead of "sag", I suspect that this support arrangement contributed to its mis-alignment during assembly. They just weren't checking with bubble levels when it was built. Thats my guess anyway. That sag certainly was not designed in.

Hi Mark,

I see what you are saying but I just don't have the confidence in the quality of their model building back then to use the miniature as a guide. Scale up if you want to, just remember that doing so then throws all other dimensions "out of whack". In my opinion, you would be better off making a separate drawing of the model only, rather than trying to force the two to be the same when they may not be. Even then you would have to note which details were "pre-restoration" and which were "post". That's the beauty of working with the mockup only, all the images we have are "pre-restoration" and therefore consistent. Trying to harmonize the mockup and the miniature is just an exercise in futility in my estimation. I'm well acquainted with this same issue as experienced in the case of the ship from "Planet of the Apes". The miniature of that ship was so poorly built that the angles of the conical fuselage don't even match the mockup or the blueprints. This is very poor model building in my opinion and it means that all the other details which rely on those angles (such as the windows) are also wrong. Remember too that Jefferies didn't design the Shuttlecraft, which means that the construction plans were drawn by AMT, not Paramount. Mr Jefferies published drawings would have to have been made after the mockup was prepared by AMT and therefore he may simply have based his Writers Guide illustrations on the model, which he probably had sitting on his desk in front of him. This may well be why his drawings and the model appear to be so close, because his illustrations are based on that model, not the mockup which would be much more difficult to measure.

I have been contacted by people who claim to know the current owners of the Shuttlecraft mockup but my requests to be put in contact with them have amounted to nothing. So for now, we'll just have to be happy with what we can see in the photos.

Phil


----------



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

Thanks Warped 9, MGagen, for checking I keep getting the following message:


Warning: fopen(images/yapig_data.94d951b9eb26bf7d3ab065d3c7dd240c/gid-stats.dat): failed to open stream: Read-only file system in /home/fourmadm/public_html/sgcp/gallery/functions.php on line 386

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/fourmadm/public_html/sgcp/gallery/functions.php:386) in /home/fourmadm/public_html/sgcp/gallery/view.php on line 72

I'm hoping maybe Four Mad Men will check in and let us know something if he gets a chance...

Thanks for the info on the chair views and the 8 x 10 of the Galileo Phil.
I should have figured it was a side view issue since the other two views
agreed, I should have figured that out but wanted to be sure.

I agree there is a cant to that view as well, it just looked less pronounced.
The jacks being used as support also would explain inconsistencies in slants
in the various different scenes. I doubt they would be 100% consistent as to
where they placed them.

It's a shame the people who contacted you haven't forked over the info. Since tons of people on various websites have been broadcasting wanting to know about the whereabouts of the mockup it seems that anyone really knowing would have been likely to just have spilled the beans if they actually had reliable info. Hopefully I'm wrong and they aren't just teasing you.

Any chance you might take up the suggestion I made several pages back and install a TOS style "food replicator" on the never seen rear engineering cabin's door side wall?

Great work X-15A2! Can hardly wait to see more!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Guys,

I posted the shots of the "Kenmore Komputers" from "Menagerie" on the web site. The links have been rearranged too and there are now 3 sheets of DVD images, 1 exterior and 2 interior. Sheet 2 of the interior pages has the images from Menagerie. There is also a new index page which allows you to go the specific set of images you are interested in. Tomorrow I will be posting the updated interior detail drawings too, they will be "revision B" sheets.

New DVD images index found here:

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/GalileoDVDimagesTop.htm

Phil


----------



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

Great Phil!

Thanks especially for the new Menagerie screengrabs of that include the "Type 3" panels.

Are there going to be any new additions in your update, like the helm or engineering room details?


----------



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

Hey Four Mad Men, you still kicking around out there in cyberspace somewhere?


----------



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

Couldn't resist putting together some "idealized" interior/exterior integrations based on Four Mad Men's exteriors and Phil's new interior info. I've also added to them some low-res versions of some rear cabin details. I've sized the rear cabin a 4 feet deep, even though we know it's probably a little deeper then that. There's just not enough room to lengthen it further.

All the panel details should be to scale. The interior is roughly based on a previous interior by Phil with the 48" rear cabin done to the scale of the center two "panels," which Phil estimates to be 42 inches wide.

The upscaled exterior of the cabin comes in at approximately 31'11".
Perhaps a couple of inches per panel might be trimmed, but I don't see getting it much smaller front to back while allowing believably thick and proportional walls.

I also took the liberty of inserting a TOS style "food replicator" on the never seen rear engineering compartment wall. Thought it would be a logical addition, makes sense on a long range craft that should usually have a tremendously powerful power source, they would have conventional rations for backup, of course. Anybody else like the idea?

Hope some of you find these interesting.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Phil,

I think you've missed my point. I'm not at all trying to harmonize the small model with the set piece. I'm merely pointing out that the overall size of the one seems pretty clearly related to the other. Yes there are differences. But since someone is responsible for both models -- and they would make more work for themselves by using an odd ball scale in making one from the other -- it seems obvious that some guidance can be taken from this relationship.

You mention that Jefferies didn't design the Shuttlecraft. I'm not so sure about this. We know that they "redesigned" it to suit their manufacturing capabilities, and that MJ's design had more curves. When we look at the TMOST drawings we see exactly that. The shuttle sides curve in both dimensions. If MJ drew these from the small model provided by AMT after the fact, why aren't these details flat like both model and mockup? His sketch showing the flat design labeled "as redesigned by AMT" plainly proves he knew what they delivered. I think it is likelier that his early round designs had already been adapted by him to the TMOST configuration to make it easier to build -- then AMT went a step further and made it a complete box. At that point MJ disowned it as complelely unaerodynamic. If you know otherwise and can provide sources I'd be very interested. Either way, there is a relationship between the scales of the two pieces, whoever designed them.



X15-A2 said:


> Scale up if you want to, just remember that doing so then throws all other dimensions "out of whack".


I think I've found a major component that is already "out of whack." You'll recall that I mentioned earlier that I suspected that you have rendered the nacelles too long? I managed to do some home-grown photogrametry on the Immunity Syndrome image that I think you'll find interesting. Look for details in my next post, presently.

Mark


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I believe the nacelles as rendered on the current "As Built" plans are too long -- and extend too far aft of the main hull. In support of this, I offer the following analysis.

We take as our starting point the "Immunity Syndrome" image.










This has been rotated so the centerline of the hull is level.

Now there are three kinds of distortion we have to reckon with in an image like this. 

1) There is the lens distortion. Since the image is projected through a focal point onto a flat film plane, the lens of the camera must be configured to progressively enlarge the image in all directions from the center outward. This is done to make a "flat field." In other words, without this correction, all straight lines would appear as curves unless they happen to pass through the center of the image. You can see this kind of distortion in a fish eye image. Fortunately, this is a long shot, with the subject centered in the frame, which has been cropped in substantially. In this case, we can ignore this type of distortion as minimal.

2) There is distortion based on the angle of view. For instance, since the nacelle is closer to us than the main hull, it can appear either further forward or further backward than it really is, depending on whether we are viewing from a point more in line with the front or back of the shuttle.

3) There is distortion based on perpective. Closer objects will appear larger than they really are.

Fortunately for us, the image itself contains clues that allow us to quantify both of the latter types of distortion. Here's how:

The bottom half of the door functions like a flush-mounted drawbridge. When the door is down, the part that aligned with the center seam rests on top of the nacelle. This allows us to quantify just how much larger the nacelle appears since it is closer to us.










By reducing the nacelle by 92.79% we can bring it into an orthographic relationship to the center seam of the hull, thereby removing the perspective distortion.

But how is this new, smaller nacelle to be aligned? The "drawbridge" itself provides the clue. We can align the edge of the door with the opening in the hull to precisely determine the front to back alignment. The result looks like this:










Now here is where things get really interesting with my theory about the TMOST blueprints mentioned earlier in this thread. The Matt Jefferies blueprint looks like this when layed over this result:










As you can see, the TMOST side view is much closer than previously thought. In fact, I get the distinct impression that the front of the nacelle was lengthened a little bit to keep the drawbridge from sticking over it on the leading edge. Also, It looks almost as if the top of the hull was extended to add the "top curls." Other than that, the boxy AMT redesign matches Uncle Matt's curvier TMOST blueprints in overall proportion (and I contend, size).

My conclusion is that the nacelles on Phil's otherwise excellent drawings are too large since the above mentioned distortion wasn't factored out. My figure of 92.79% is an approximation based on a very small image. A larger image could provide a more refined figure, but the principles I've applied are quite sound.

Mark Gagen


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Mark,

Now_ that's_ analysis. More than once, the word archeology has been invoked in description of this process. Since it's likely impossible to determine what was drawn when, built when, it's best to overlook no possible source of data.

It's in that spirit I urge the same photo/plan comparison be done with FJ's exterior. In writing me, he made reference to an allegedly abosolutely precise technique of deriving plan views from perspective photos. Given that, it's not necessary for him to have had physical access to the exterior mockup to have (perhaps) caught its lines as well as can/have you or I from the relatively few photos we have at our disposal.
I'd also be interested to see an overlay of my side view with Phil's. Having been condemned for quite some time (8 Feb to be precise) to a schedule of working every night, I haven't had the time to approach this from a "stone knives & bearskins" angle (i.e., going to Kinko's to shoot matched-size copies on transparency stock), but have little doubt such could be effortlessly done "in-house" by computer. Wouldja please?

Understand: I'm not asking this so's to show off. I merely think as many heads as possible should be tackling the issue. 

David Winfrey


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Chuck,

I recall reading in one of David Gerrold's 2 nonfiction books on TOS his having been told that the "food replicator" was in fact a turbolift-dumbwaiter. Doesn't make much sense such a thing could deliver so quickly (save perhaps in the rec room, with a "kitchen" behind), but if this is so, it would make less sense to have one in a shuttlecraft. I suggest a (relatively) conventional food prep area instead.

David Winfrey


----------



## trekkist (Oct 31, 2002)

Here's what looks like the shuttlecraft chair (identified as an Eames model on the "shuttle chair" thread):

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=63592&item=2396950359&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

Suppose we all go in together and buy the damn thing?

David Winfrey


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

trekkist said:


> *SNIP* ...I urge the same photo/plan comparison be done with FJ's exterior.


David,

I'll do that if I can lay my hands on a scan of FJ's blueprint. One thing that always bugged me about his drawing is that he showed the nacelles extending too far aft as well. I believe his claim to an "absolute technique" for drawing plan views from photos may have been overstating it a bit. The only way I know to do it with scientific reliability is to factor in information about the focal length of the camera lens and the distance from the object in question -- both data that is inaccessable to us (and him).

I admire FJ's work a lot; a first edition Tech Manual and first mass market printing Booklet of General Plans are prized parts of my collection. But I do take his work with a grain of salt. He never envisioned where things have come to today. We have primary sources he never dreamed of. He was also not all that concerned with accurately depicting what was seen onscreen as much as he was trying to make it all look feasable by his lights.

Mark


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Mark,

Your idea for removing the scale difference between the engine nacelle and the hull is interesting but not really very helpful because you totally ignore what the realignment does to the positioning of the pylons and by extension, the leading and trailing edge angles of the "wings" they are attached to. To address this, you need to draw us a plan view and side elevation view which show the integrated layout and what it should look like. I will look further at the issues you've raised here and get back to you. Glad to see that everybody is keeping their "thinking caps" on.

Phil


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

BTW, this morning I discovered that my computer at home is no longer working properly. It freezes on the desk top during boot up. Until this issue is resolved, I won't be adding anything to the site. That said, I was able last night to load the updated "revision B" sheets to the interior details page. The only one that I forgot (which I was going to load this morning until I discovered my new computer problems) was the rev-B sheet 4 of the chair drawings which was revised with a few more dimensions added to it. I'll keep you guys posted on further developments from my computer at work (unfortunately the company firewall prevents me from loading files to the site from work).

Phil


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

Wish I could help you with your comp problems, but I don't even know how to boot into Safe mode, myself. But I had something similar happen to me and when I did a *complete* shutdown, as in all the way and then unplug it for a while, I then got a complete reboot to normal behavior. Whether Microsloth will admit it or not, restarting does NOT clean out memory all the way, I don't think. You might try getting RamBooster (it's free) and I'll tell you the settings I use which seem to work just fine for me in clearing things out.

In particular, one thing I have noticed is that if I open a pdf in Adobe, closing the document doesn't make Adobe go away... and it makes the computer sticky and hang-y. So every time I open a pdf, I try to remember to do c-a-d and close acrord32 down manually. 

Hope some of this helps.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

X15-A2 said:


> Your idea for removing the scale difference between the engine nacelle and the hull is interesting but not really very helpful because you totally ignore what the realignment does to the positioning of the pylons and by extension, the leading and trailing edge angles of the "wings" they are attached to.


Phil,

I'm glad you found my post interesting. I wish I had the time to do this study earlier in the process. I'm sure it would have been more welcome if it had been more timely. 

Actually, I would say my study is _quite_ helpful. It identifies the actual proportional length of the nacelle and ties down the proper front to back alignment of it in relation to the edge seam of the hull. This can be done with confidence even without reference to the wings and pylons. Of course, those details will need to be adjusted, too; but I leave that in your far more capable hands. I have merely extracted the information I reliably can from this image. The fact that the configuration matches so well with the Jefferies side view is icing on the cake. 

I had a similar thing happen way back when I was first blueprinting the TOS Enterprise. I used the same technique to establish the proper length of the Nacelles from the famous Botany Bay soundstage shot. "Back in the day" it was common for fans to deride the Jefferies 3-view in TMOST as woefully inaccurate. One of the things they commonly did was point to how much longer the nacelles were than the drawing depicted. This was the general opinion because perspective always makes the near Nacelle look bigger than it is. The distortion was even more extreme since the "eleven footer" was shot on such a small soundstage with the camera quite close given the size of the model.

Wanting to quantify this distortion, I created a median "third nacelle" right in the middle between the other two by averaging the size of the foreground one with the (just visible) background one. I made other adjustments to remove the lens distortion as well. Imaging my surprise when later, just for grins, I layed the Jefferies TMOST blueprint over it and found that the basic proportion of every component was a close match. The much maligned TMOST drawing was right all along!

I have since become a devotee of Occam's Razor when it comes to these things. The simplest answer is usually the right one. People don't go out of their way to make things harder for themselves. The same blueprint was probably used to make both the shuttle set piece and the miniature. The relationship between the two sizes was probably something very easy to work with (like 1" = 1'). To do otherwise would require extra (uncalled for) effort. 

Mark


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Mark,

Having now spent about an hour and a half reviewing my drawing and comparing it to the photos, I now know where you are making a mistake. Beyond the fact that ALL the elements must work together to provide the final answer (we cannot ignore the alignment and placement of the pylons for example), it should be immediately obvious that your reduced engine nacelle is way too short.

Go back and look at your arguement again. Heres a hint: your reasoning is perfectly sound, as you say, but one of your basic assumptions is in error. Mr. Holmes would figure it out, lets see if you can  (I know you're a Holmes fan and probably enjoy logic puzzles). If you are stumped, here's another important clue: the error has occurred because you are only studying one picture, not all of them as I have.

Say "uncle" and I'll post a picture that explains the error. In summation, your hypothesis is correct, what is wrong is the percentage of error you postulate. The actual reduction factor is probably closer to 99 or 99.5 percent (or even less). Thanks for bring it up, it is a perfectly valid arguement and needs to be considered but in this case, the actual resulting difference is so slight as to be invisible (that between the closer engine nacelle and the farther hull).

Phil


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Pygar,

Thanks for the advice. I always power-off my computer when I'm finished with it so it isn't that particular problem. I have a feeling that I've picked up a virus with all the time I've spent on line lately, normally I rarely get online from home except to load new material to the web site but lately this drawing project has had me on line alot more.

Mark,

I know what you mean about projecting lines back to the centerline to create a true (truer?) profile. If we had profile shot where we could see both engine pods on the Shuttlecraft at the same time, I would be using that technique too. I wish we did have a picture like that. BTW, it isn't just a question of them using different drawings to create the Shuttlecraft model, it is also that the model was smashed, then rebuilt. This brings greater chance of error into it too.

Phil


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

"Uncle" Phil,

You intrigue me! As you say my argument is not flawed, only my initial assumptions, I've reviewed them. The only assumption I can find that I took for granted is that the edge of the open drawbridge rests near the centerline of the nacelle. I've since checked, and it does. 

The only other variable I can think of is that the side seam in back is closer to us than it is in front (since the shuttle is wider at the back), while the nacelle (which doesn't toe in) should be roughly the same distance along its whole length (assuming the photo is taken square on). I do not believe this will affect the result at all, however, since the rearmost point of the hull is what we are measuring to, and it actually tapers back to at least as far away from the camera as the side seam at the door.

I stated before that my answer is based on a pretty small original image -- and that a more accurate answer would be obtainable from a larger one. I must say, though, that 1% will not be nearly enough to reduce the foreground edge of the door so it fits the width at the side seam.

Please, by all means, show me where you think I've gone astray. I'm aquiver with anticipation... :roll: 

Mark

P.S.: I _love_ this kind of thing!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Mark,

I wasn't putting you off in replying, we had a long lunch here and it then took a little while to put together an image that explains the situation. Okay, here we go...

The short answer is that the working assumption that the hatch panel is the same width as the hatch opening is wrong. The hatch panel is substantially wider. If you look at the closeup of the open hatch (several images available on my web site) you will see that the lower panel flairs outward a great deal at the top where it meets the hull divide line. The opening does not.

Your arguement could not be ignored so I had to check and the attached image is the result.

The short vertical green lines at the bottom of the image are projected from the edges of the lowered panel (out of view here) as seen in the "Immunity Syndrome" image while the two inner green lines have been aligned with the widest part of the hatch opening.

Note: The above comparison was done in another view, where I scaled the "Immunity" image to my drawing, this view is not seen here now. Only the green "ref lines" have been retained for this new comparison.

The fat vertical pink line shows the outer edge of the lower hatch panel when closed (ref to this same image on my web site for a larger, easier to see version). Now, when we take the forward width and add it to the aft as seen in the Immunity image (what the green lines were taken from) the answer is shown in the thin dashed pink vertical line. Compare the width shown to that of the fat pink line and you will see that it is in fact wider, as you claim, but only "just".

When measured in the computer the actual distance seen in this photo is 3.16 inches while the enlarged "Immunity" image distance is 3.257 inches. The actual scale factor equals 97.1 percent as shown here.

97.1 percent is well within the margin of error when working with fuzzy photographs. My final drawing not only took into account what was seen in the photos (which don't agree with each other for the reasons of distortion that you pointed out earlier) but also what was "logical" in terms of final dimensions. If I scale the engine nacelle down 97.1 percent, I get a diameter of roughly 17.5 inches. We must ask, which is more likely; 17.5+ or 18 inches? True, it might be 18 inches, just at the shorter length but I would have to see some compelling evidence to support that. Don't forget that the pylons and plan-view shape (and fore-aft placement) of the wings is tied directly to the length and position of the nacelle. Not to mention, by extension, the placement of the trailing edge of the hull which must meet that wing. My drawing integrates all those and largely agrees with the photographic evidence. You (anybody) can argue inches either way but that isn't really productive. We have no way to "prove". In the end, any such drawing is just an artistic opinion. This is mine.

Good call though, on a possible major screw up.

Phil


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Do we get a prize if we top 10,000 viewings?

I could use a new car...


----------



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

trekkist said:


> Chuck,
> 
> I recall reading in one of David Gerrold's 2 nonfiction books on TOS his having been told that the "food replicator" was in fact a turbolift-dumbwaiter. Doesn't make much sense such a thing could deliver so quickly (save perhaps in the rec room, with a "kitchen" behind), but if this is so, it would make less sense to have one in a shuttlecraft. I suggest a (relatively) conventional food prep area instead.
> 
> David Winfrey


I think someone was most likely pulling Mr. Gerrold's leg, or he was talking to a grip or somebody who may not have known better. Or maybe early in the series they might have been viewed that way, but certainly those recepticles weren't viewed as dumbwaiters for long.

Actually there are two conflicting "onscreen" sources of info seen in the TOS series, which I take as a little more authoritative(writers are often told things that are never evidenced nor appear onscreen), but I will admit that even the "canon"(seen onscreen) info nonetheless leaves us with conflicting info.

In one episode, "Charlie X," the cook contacts the Captain to tell us that the synthetic turkeys he had started to cook have been changed to real turkeys.

However, the speed to which you refer to in the delivery of food, not to mention other issues, leads me to the unescapable conclusion that those were undeniably replicators.

Perhaps they were not originally intended to be computer controlled food creation devices(just as the Enterprise didn't originally have shuttlecraft and crewmen were stranded when the transporter broke down), but the "food recepticles" clearly developed into that in the course of the series.

The biggest evidence for that is two-fold. First, the screengrabs I used to create my 2-D version came complements of Four Mad Men, and were taken
from a scene in the TOS time traveling episode, _*in the transporter room!*_

Clearly there was no dumbwaiter service from the Galley all the way to the transporter room, especially one that was so fast. Also, the lights that appear on the panel that light after inserting computer programmed cartridges are clearly designed to indicate that the device is processing something.

Finally, the biggest evidence that it's in fact a replicator is the 3" cartridges themselves. You want chicken soup(as the airmen asked for in the transporter room scene)? You put in a chicken soup cartridge. Later, in the episode which the Enterprise was modified by aliens who took over the entire ship and reduced all but a handfull of crewmen to big-ole sugar cubes, the cartridges were once again shown to be programable food cartridges.

The logical conclusion is that these cartridges were telling the replicators what to produce.

The idea that they were just names for stuff that was transmitted to the galley and then the food was that quickly prepared and dumbwaited back to the appropriate wall recepticle all in a matter of a couple of seconds seems way way way way way unlikely.

Did I mention it seems unlikely?


----------



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

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:
(NOTE: Four Mad Men's web address below is new, plus Phil has changed several of his internal page locations, so for simplicity sake I'm just going to list their main pages here.) 

http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/index.php

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.

Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link 

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/winfrey.html

David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.

Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was done by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.

His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.

Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey! :thumbsup:


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> Do we get a prize if we top 10,000 viewings?
> 
> I could use a new car...


I call shotgun!!!

Actually the only other hobbytalk thread that came close to this
one appeared in another forum, and it really shouldn't count as
competition as was a merged thread. Several different, Bandai
Enterprise model threads that had covered duplicate ground 
repeatedly and paralleled one another were merged into a mega-thread.

I think this is definitely the most popular thread dedicated to a single subject.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Good news, I'm back "on the air" at home. It turns out that the only thing wrong with my computer was that the A/B switch I use to go from one computer to another has gone bad (it allows me to run two computers with one mouse, keyboard and monitor). Once I switched the mouse and keyboard to be directly plugged into the computer, it worked fine. Huzzah!

I also discovered that at some point in my revision of the web site, a whole bunch of the DVD images had been dropped. Not really sure how that happened but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with a "senior moment" on my part... At any rate, they are back now and have been divided up into four pages for easier loading, two exterior and two interior. The top page for them is here:

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/GalileoDVDimagesTop.htm

Phil


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Phil,

I concede -- you've convinced me!

Thanks for drawing my attention to the aft bevel on the door ridge. Once I took this into account -- and had the added benefit of a couple more images that had dropped off your site -- I was able to refine my image analysis to a very fine degree. My results tell me that your nacelles are only 1/2% too large! (At least based on this one particularly suitable image.) In other words, you nailed it!

The only other detail that my previous analysis identified that is still incorrect on your drawing is the fore/aft position of the nacelles. The photo evidence shows that the drawbridge rests on the nacelle with its front edge a little forward of half way between the dome and the ring vents. You have it rendered dropping barely aft of the dome itself. Either the Nacelles need to move forward a bit, or the door needs to move aft.

Even if you decide to move the nacelle forward and reduce it 1/2%, the overall length of the craft would decrease by -- are you sitting down? -- _a little less than a quarter of an inch._ :lol: 

I still strongly suspect that there is a 1:12 scale relationship between the miniature and the set piece (and that the TMOST blueprint is a clue to the actual size). I'll keep trying to find evidence to falsify this theory. 

I'm also not willing to give up on the miniature, even if it was damaged and repaired. We have enough vintage images of the miniature to be able to tell if the proportions are still the same after it was restored. I'll try to verify that. Then we'll know whether we can have confidence in the dimensions gleaned from your "lens cap" photo survey. 

Otherwise, I'll try to document a few other minor adjustments I think the plans need. Look for another post in a week or so.

Yours in unabashed admiration,
Mark


----------



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

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I call shotgun!!!
> 
> Actually the only other hobbytalk thread that came close to this
> one appeared in another forum, and it really shouldn't count as
> ...


Oops!

I stand corrected.

Thomas' thread on his Polar Lights Refit Enterprise model has blown by the 10,000 views mark like it was standing still.

Understandable considering it's great scale and the fact that it's definitely going to be produced. Hopefully when we finish we'll have Galileo plans that show as much love for the subject and attention to detail that he's obviously poured into the Refit-E.

Great work Thomas! :thumbsup:


----------



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

Heard from Four Mad Men late yesterday.
He's switching hosts and will get back to us
as soon as he can.

Can hardly wait to see more new helm renders, 4MadMen!!!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

trekkist said:


> It's in that spirit I urge the same photo/plan comparison be done with FJ's exterior. In writing me, he made reference to an allegedly abosolutely precise technique of deriving plan views from perspective photos.


David,

Here you go. I scaled the FJ side view to match Phil's current one. The results quite different. I had to choose some point to align the images. I chose the aft "point" of the hull, since this made more details align the closest.










For those of you with image editing programs that let you view channels, you can see each drawing independently by looking at the blue and red channels individually.

I am pretty certain that Phil's blueprints are 95% accurate at this point. From what I see here, it seems pretty clear that Franz Joseph either didn't have access to the set piece; or if he did, he ignored it in favor of his own "improved" version. 

Mark


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Mark,

You are probably right, the model probably is 1/12th scale. Thats is a very typical studio scale from the era. They typically built to .75, 1 and 1.5 inches to the foot. Did Mr Datin build the Shuttlecraft model too?

About the door open position in relation to the nacelle it rests on, don't forget that it doesn't project straight down in the side elevation. It would land somewhat forward of its closed position because the hinge line is at an angle (the hull wall its attached tappers towards the front when seen in the plan view). I haven't done a mechanical plot to see where it would come down but the front edge would be slightly forward of its closed postion because of that. And of course, I didn't even show the flair of the lower hatch panel where it hits the hull divide line. I should probably update the drawing to show that too.

You don't have to wait, if you can tell me what else you think is off, I can look at it. Unless it is something that is too difficult to describe with text alone. After you mentioned the aft length of the engine pods, I went in and changed them after I saw that you were right about them being too long.

Thanks for checking, you and Chuck are the only ones really looking for errors so far. Its a dirty job but somebody has to do it!

Phil


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

The "pointier" version looks better. No wonder somebody dubbed it "the cheese box". Should say "Velveeta" down the side and be painted yellow...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I am very interested to see how much he and I agree on the hidden Impulse Deck details too.


----------



## TheYoshinator! (Apr 2, 2004)

I've been one of those quietly watching and enjoying this thread. I like the TOS Shuttle given my age and when I started watching TREK (pre-TMP), but I've never sought the kind of information regarding the shuttle as you guys have and are. As I've stated in the past, my love is the Enterprise-Refit. I do appreciate your dedication to the Shuttle though. It's a very fun and informative read.

I'd like to note: I've never noticed that there seems to be a clear plane of plexi or glass over the shuttle impulse engine. I can see a reflection of the film crew in it, I think.

Is this the case?


----------



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

Not sure if there is a clear plane or it's just a reflection in the engine itself(somebody posted the pic a ways back in the thread and I don't recall which it was), but there definitely is a clip or two where film crew reflections are visible in parts of the engine.

Glad to have you at Hobbytalk, Yoshinator!

Sent some stuff to your old fourmadmen.com address, Four Mad Men, but I also double sent it to your old "porthos" email address as well since you said that address may not be there too much longer.

Hoping you got them.

Hoping that Four Mad Men and Phil might be posting some new interior stuff.

I'd especially like to see some helm stuff, in case you guys can't decide what to tackle next...


----------



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

MGagen said:


> David,
> 
> Here you go. I scaled the FJ side view to match Phil's current one. The results quite different. I had to choose some point to align the images. I chose the aft "point" of the hull, since this made more details align the closest.
> 
> ...


Actually Mark, I'd have to go a step further and say it's more likely that his opinion of the ship was more influenced by the AMT model then either the mockup or the studio model.

His top/bottom views show a bend in the side hull similar to the one seen in the AMT kit, though the "rear-end" version of the ship is closer to the series version then the AMT kit.

But his side hull viewed from above/below definitely has the AMT like inward slant.

I took a ruler to the scale FJ provides in the Tech Manual and strangely found his estimate of the craft length to be 22.34 feet(about 22'4").

So apparently FJ threw out Kirk's verbal reference as well.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Yoshinator,

It isn't that there is a sheet of clear plex over the impulse deck, its the fact that the panel with the exhaust port cutouts is made itself of black plexiglass. You will note in the images that the reflections stop were the exhaust port cutouts are. In fact, there were two such panels in there, one a few inches behind the other and the inner one had the shapes of the cutouts upside down from that of the outer one! Why you ask? Who knows, thats just the way they did it. Perhaps to make it appear to have more complex shapes in there. Because it was all black, they knew that no one would be able to see it very clearly so the odd reversing angles just provide a bit of "busyness" in the shadows. Thats my guess anyway.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Chuck,

I believe that it is in either the TOS Writers Guide or just buried in the text of TMOST that the original concept for the food conveyances were actually high speed dumb-waiters. One of those sources mentions food being prepared in a central galley then rushed to the requestor via the service ducts.

However, considering how they were depicted, a "replicator" seems to fit the bill more accurately. It was never stated either way on the show but the concept of a "galley" seemed to have been dropped after a very few episodes in the first season. And of course, they seemed to drift back and forth between "real food" and cubist-style "space food", a-la "Silent Running". Just another example of the shows lack of continuity.


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> Chuck,
> 
> I believe that it is in either the TOS Writers Guide or just buried in the text of TMOST that the original concept for the food conveyances were actually high speed dumb-waiters. One of those sources mentions food being prepared in a central galley then rushed to the requestor via the service ducts.
> 
> However, considering how they were depicted, a "replicator" seems to fit the bill more accurately. It was never stated either way on the show but the concept of a "galley" seemed to have been dropped after a very few episodes in the first season. And of course, they seemed to drift back and forth between "real food" and cubist-style "space food", a-la "Silent Running". Just another example of the shows lack of continuity.


I'd have to agree with that assessment.
It's just not logical that someone in a galley would be able to receive the signal, or "order", from those cartridges inserted in the slots, prepare all those meals individually, then place them in the dumbwaiter, then have the dumbwaiter transport them, even to the transporter room, all in a matter of 3 or 4 seconds.

While they might have originally considered it to be such a system I think it clearly evolved into something quite different.

The Next Generation's use of their "newer style" replicators I found to be one of the few instances where a later series defined a device in a way that was both harmonious with TOS and helped explain a TOS device all at the same time.

Besides, if those cubby-holes weren't just materializing areas those slow moving tribbles would have been just so much unseen mush inside the walls when Kirk went to get his coffee and chicken sandwich. Unless the dumbwaiters weren't completely walled on most sides(very unlikely).

Hmmm...

Now I'm hungry.
Tribble burgers anybody? :tongue:


----------



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

Any progress on your helms, guys?


----------



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

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

(NOTE: Four Mad Men's web address below is new, plus Phil has changed several of his internal page locations, so for simplicity sake I'm just going to list their main pages here.) 

http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/index.php

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.

Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link 

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/winfrey.html

David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.

Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was done by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.

His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.

Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey! :thumbsup:


----------



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

Four Mad Men, could you perhaps post more pics of the panels from your rear cabin wall, the one you showed us a glimpse of in post #661?


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

I just don't think that replicators (or "Enterprise" 'protein resequencer') on TOS shuttles seem right... I think I posted somewhere that the unseen space *had* to have any john/galley facilities. 

A shuttle would just about have to have stored food for stranded travellers on damaged shuttles anyway. Why put a replicator *and* conventional food cooking in the same space? 

A phone booth sized john with shower capability for decontam or long stays, with a tiny cooking surface and small microwave set above it, on the outside wall, sounds more likely to me. Food, water and galley supplies would be stored above and below, perhaps in those fancy metal boxes seen being unloaded from the Galileo. Presumably the sanitary supplics would be stored in the head, maybe up near the ceiling in cabinets out of the way, as well as under the sink (which would be dual-purpose, for galley use, and would probably have its faucet be a sink sprayer on an adjustable mount). Take a look on the net for the "Dymaxion bathroom" designed by Buckminster Fuller, and cut off the bathtub half. Mount a tiny galley on an outside wall. Not canon, but very logical... something very like this would have to exist.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well there are a couple in my gallery under "Shuttlecraft Galileo Construction Project -> On the Bench". I'm updating some ortho's at the moment but I can make some additional renders. What exactly did you have in mind?

Also, I get the feeling that you are hinting around about seeing some helm renders. Don't be shy, speak up!  

I'm slowly getting back into things so expect to see some additional work over the next few days.


----------



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

Pygar said:


> I just don't think that replicators (or "Enterprise" 'protein resequencer') on TOS shuttles seem right... I think I posted somewhere that the unseen space *had* to have any john/galley facilities.
> 
> A shuttle would just about have to have stored food for stranded travellers on damaged shuttles anyway. Why put a replicator *and* conventional food cooking in the same space?
> 
> A phone booth sized john with shower capability for decontam or long stays, with a tiny cooking surface and small microwave set above it, on the outside wall, sounds more likely to me. Food, water and galley supplies would be stored above and below, perhaps in those fancy metal boxes seen being unloaded from the Galileo. Presumably the sanitary supplics would be stored in the head, maybe up near the ceiling in cabinets out of the way, as well as under the sink (which would be dual-purpose, for galley use, and would probably have its faucet be a sink sprayer on an adjustable mount). Take a look on the net for the "Dymaxion bathroom" designed by Buckminster Fuller, and cut off the bathtub half. Mount a tiny galley on an outside wall. Not canon, but very logical... something very like this would have to exist.


I agree with you entirely about the bathroom. Take a look at the drawing I posted, it doesn't use the space in question. There will still be a small door on the back second compartment wall next to the cylinders and room for a small "Dymaxion" type bathroom.

The area I propose the TOS style replicator go is basically where you proposed the "galley".

I'm not opposed to storage space for conventional food. In fact I said that there of course needed to be conventional rations.

Whether we're talking Enterprise's "protein re-sequencers" TOS's un-named devices, or TNG's food replicators, it's obvious that during the TOS era the technology existed to create food from pre-stored patterns of energy.

In our own spoiled day I already hear people lots of people complain that their microwaves just take too darn long!!! :lol: 

To me it makes more sense that if this technology exists, that the craft would make use of it and use food rations for backup.

The idea that they wouldn't include a device that can make food from energy when it only takes up a less then 26" x 20" of wall space would seem silly to me.

Not putting one in, in favor of the kind of galley you might see on a 20th century airliner would just not seem right to me. I'm not saying that rations and conventional food storage/rations/utensils etc for emergency situations shouldn't be there as well, it isn't a one or the other thing as far as I'm concerned.

The need for drama written into the script of "The Galileo Seven" aside, it would seem obvious to me that any craft capable of warp drive would need to have an incredible amount of energy at it's disposal.

How this energy was drained in the episode is beyond me, but I would like to believe that whatever caused it would be a pretty rare event. If you had any pre-warning of power failure at all, the device could be used to quickly produce food volumes well beyond the space it would take up.

Even if it happened a lot, would 26" x 20" inches of wall space be too much to dedicate to a device that could potentially keep you fed for years?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I'm okay with the concept as long as one can still get bonafide good oldfashioned hot-buttered movie popcorn. Orville Reddenbacher's version would be sufficient too...I guess.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Well there are a couple in my gallery under "Shuttlecraft Galileo Construction Project -> On the Bench". I'm updating some ortho's at the moment but I can make some additional renders. What exactly did you have in mind?
> 
> Also, I get the feeling that you are hinting around about seeing some helm renders. Don't be shy, speak up!


Helms, helms, helms, helms, helms,
and if you have some more spare time you
might want to do some... helms? :lol: 

Panels, consoles, cabinets, 
dead-on, tilted, plan view, side view...

Was I being too subtle?

Higher the res the better!

While you are on the orthographics,
any chance you might make a set of those
orthographics "under-cut removed" wirelines?

Maybe even a port side one cut in half vertically
down the middle like your last side cutaway?

High res of course!

I'll be drooling in anticipation!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Helm huh? See what happens when your perfectly clear? I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. The helm _"won't be installed until Tuesday"_.

In the meantime check out the "On The Bench" and you might find some rather large files lurking around. I am, however, confused by "under-cut removed". Please explain. I'm pretty sure the whole-body wireframe I created is nothing more than a tease for you (given that it's not really what you want).

The full-size resolution I'm using for "hi-res" is 5120 x 3840 (shows all the warts), let me know what you think.


----------



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

Oh well, as long as it's not a Monday/Friday helm I guess I should be happy... 

I see a couple of new panel files, is that what you meant?
Like the new light design!

What I meant by "under-cut removed" was that once you had done a wireframe where every line in the model was visible, and it was hard to tell which surfaces were which.

You had said something about having a program that removed the lines of what wasn't supposed to be visible from a 2D perspective.

The wireline orthographics I was asking about was the six views plus the "center cut" port side cutaway view... plus if you are feeling maybe particularly generous with wireframes maybe an overhead wireline view with the "top down?"(ship cut along the side hull's centerline).

Maybe that'll hold me over 'till Tuesday...

Let me know if I get too subtle again. :lol:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Ah you mean "hidden line removal/Back face removal". I never get a chance to try out that script but I guess now's a good a time as any. Also I seem to have forgotten the most important one. My apologies and please check the gallery again, I don't think you'll be disappointed (too much).


----------



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

^^ There seems to be a place holder for a new image, but no new image, at least in the "On the bench" section.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Ah you mean "hidden line removal/Back face removal". I never get a chance to try out that script but I guess now's a good a time as any. Also I seem to have forgotten the most important one. My apologies and please check the gallery again, I don't think you'll be disappointed (too much).


Wow, okay!

I found it. It's in the orthographic section guys!
Gorgeous! 

While the "hidden line removal/Back face removal" is still a little confusing, it would be great to have a "full-xray" and "back face removal" version in each of the six views...

(am I being too pain in the a... ehr, subtle, again? :lol: )

That way measurement could be extremely precise and non-confusing on the "back face removal" versions, and
added insight could be gained on the x-ray version(which probably wouldn't be used for measurement though).

The res is perfect and the files gorgeous, though maybe white on black or vice versa might look a little more "old school."

Yet more incredible work, Four Mad Men!!!

The Galileo is on the cusp of coming together in a way that's never been seen before!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I kind of like the way those look myself. While learning more about the new gallery software I've taken the opportunity to re-organize the way I was doing it. Most of the changes are in the underlying directory structure but I have added two new categories: Iteriors and Wireframes. I'll let everyone guess which one the wireframes have been moved to.

As to the request for "white on black", I'm sure by the time this is over I'll have a set very much like that for printing/measuring purposes but for now the stock background makes everything more uniform. So for general display purposes I'll keep using it.

It's not too useful right now (given the number of files I'm adding in a short period of time) but in the future there is a block of the "latest additions" that you can use to navigate to the new stuff although I do try to list the section that any new uploads are in.

Glad you liked them Chuck. There are new Orthos and Perspectives from today as well.


----------



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

They all look great!

On the background issue I'm sure I can do a negative of the pics and use the contrast to eventually remove the background, so they should still be able to yield great sharp line drawings, just will take me an extra step or two to convert them. No big deal.

Can hardly wait to see more high res wirelines!


----------



## TheYoshinator! (Apr 2, 2004)

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Yoshinator,
> 
> It isn't that there is a sheet of clear plex over the impulse deck, its the fact that the panel with the exhaust port cutouts is made itself of black plexiglass. You will note in the images that the reflections stop were the exhaust port cutouts are. In fact, there were two such panels in there, one a few inches behind the other and the inner one had the shapes of the cutouts upside down from that of the outer one! Why you ask? Who knows, thats just the way they did it. Perhaps to make it appear to have more complex shapes in there. Because it was all black, they knew that no one would be able to see it very clearly so the odd reversing angles just provide a bit of "busyness" in the shadows. Thats my guess anyway.


Yes, I see how it seems to terminate in the cut-outs. It's sometimes hard to tell in these cases. When you have a reflective clear surface the reflections would seem to drop out as opposed to a reflective black surface. So, I thought I would ask those that would know best (that would be you guys )

Thanks for clearing it up for me!

And keep up the good work guys!


----------



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

We're glad to have you, Yoshinator!

This thread is becoming sort of an encyclopedia of the Class F shuttlecraft...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck, I'm getting a quota exceeded message on you juno account when I try to send you a zip of those renders. Also I increased the JPEG compression on the wireframe so try it again and let me know if it works.


----------



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

Yep, I have a 2MB file mailbox limit.
I've cleaned out the spam and gotten your first zip file 
named "wireframes." I should have another 2MB of file space left now.

Anybody notice?

10,011 views!

Seems like there's a little interest in seeing a TOS Galileo...


----------



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

Hey Phil,

you still kicking around somewhere in cyberspace?

Any new interiors possible in the near future?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Chuck,

I'm still here. Didn't get any work done on the drawings this weekend. Instead I spent Sat helping my sister clear her garage then spent Sun & Mon on a ladder scrubbing mold off the eaves of my place, trying to get them ready to be painted. I worked on the shady side of the house, it was 104 deg on Mon in Long Beach, 14 miles from my place. Am sore and very tired. Sleep wasn't so great either, it was still pretty warm in the house at night. Usual summer stuff. Got some neat-o chemical burns from the stuff I was using on the mold too (not bad, like a rash). Better living through chemicals!! Thats my motto...

Phil


----------



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

Wow...

Well, as long as you had a fun weekend that's what counts. :tongue:


----------



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

Seriously though, Phil, on your way home you might want to pick up a combination remedy I found usefull after a day hanging sheetrock on two of my ceilings(hammering overhead is a bitch!).

You combine one 32 ounce White Russian Daiquiri with 3-4 Excedrin PM's(aspirin is better for muscle aches then Tylenol).

Just make sure to set your alarm clock for work the next morning and you are in bed before you start using the remedy. It's crude but it works!


----------



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

Some really neat new stuff is on Four Mad Men's new website, especially in the wirelines section!!!

Check it out here:
http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/index.php

and here:
http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=17


----------



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

Anyone know who produced/produces this kit?
It's not perfect, but it's a lot superior to the 
AMT specs. Though not a straight recast, it
looks like it was reconstructed
around an AMT shell, based on the size and
a couple of hard to see details.

Based on a rough estimate from a couple
of idealized integrations of interior exterior,
this would be an approximately 1/48th scale
model.


----------



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

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

(NOTE: Four Mad Men's web address below is new, plus Phil has changed several of his internal page locations, so for simplicity sake I'm just going to list their main pages here.) 

http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/index.php

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.

Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link 

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/winfrey.html

David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.

Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was done by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.

His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.

Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey! :thumbsup:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Chuck.

The kit you have pictured is from Resin Ranger. It is the probably most accurate Galileo kit to date. I have one around, somewhere. Still packed in a box from the move. Federation Models sold them. I don't know if they are still available.


----------



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

Glad to know someone's sold some attempt to do a better Galileo, even if a garage kit manufacturer.

Thanks Trek Ace! :thumbsup:


----------



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

4MadMen, Phil, any ETA's on interior updates?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

ETA? How about right now...

It's been one delay after another but here's the latest progress on the helm console:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Beautiful, *FMM*, Just beautiful. :thumbsup:


----------



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

Way cool!


----------



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

Okay guys...

A long long time ago...
In a galaxy far far away...



Phil expressed concern about the number 7 on the Galileo. Saying that it was going to be tough to find room for seven shuttlecraft on his 3D TOS Enterprise.

I offered the suggestion that perhaps some of the craft might have been small workerpods used for repairs.

Seems now that I might have been channeling some memories from my early teens. While searching through some old boxes of collectibles I came across a four volume compilation of the old Trek comic books that I hadn't looked through since the 70's.

There among the pages of volume four I found a story that featured - of all things - an "extravehicular repair pod."

Looks EXTREMELY similar to the EVA pods from 2001: A Space Odyssey. I'm not sure which appeared first though as I haven't yet checked to see when 2001 was first released. Also the copyrights are confusing, as there are none given for the individual issues compiled, and the comics compilation's copyright notice simply reads "1975, 1976, 1977."

Anyhow, I know these images don't show designs ever seen onscreen.

I know they look a little hoacky.

I also noticed that the pods also seem to suffer from Galileo's disease of being bigger on the inside then the outside(maybe there is some Dr. Who Tartis technology built into every Federation small craft?).

Having said all this I thought I'd share a little hoacky TOS comic pics since they remotely address an issue Phil raised.

I know they aren't canon, but I think they're fun to look at, especially the portrayals of the "cavernous" style shuttlebay Warped 9 likes so much. Technically imperfect, but nostalgicly fun nonetheless.


----------



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

Had to split them up.
Here's the last two.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^ Looks like a combination of the LIS space pod and, as you pointed out the resemblance to, the extravehicular pod from 2001! :freak: 

It would have been nice to see some sort of variation on the clear bubble pods that MJ designed though I suppose his drawings were unavailable or the comics folks were simply uninterested in such research.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Looks EXTREMELY similar to the EVA pods from 2001: A Space Odyssey. I'm not sure which appeared first though as I haven't yet checked to see when 2001 was first released. Also the copyrights are confusing, as there are none given for the individual issues compiled, and the comics compilation's copyright notice simply reads "1975, 1976, 1977."


Chuck,

2001 was released in 1968. The repair pods in the comic are definetly ripped off from them -- right down to some of the surface greeblies.

Thanks for sharing these scans. They are a hoot! 

Mark


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> Beautiful, *FMM*, Just beautiful. :thumbsup:


Thank you, this model is turning out nicer than I ever thought it could.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Starting to come together...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Where'd everyone go? Last call for "chair" volunteers. 3, 2, 1 and a half, 1 and a quarter...

Anyway, now these make those last two look kinda weak...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Yeeessss. I like verrry much. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Whoa! VERRRRRYYYYY NICE!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Thanks *Warped9*, *PerfesserCoffee*. I've made a couple of updates to the above two pics that can be seen in my gallery but here's a new render that shows the relevant changes as well:










For clarity I've removed the center console and the chairs are translucent. As far as the changes are concerned I've corrected that back computer so it now has the proper arrangement and added the first of several computers to the port side (the right side of the picture in this case). And lastly the atmospheric panel at the back has been scaled down (final scaling to be determined but the old size was decidely too big).


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Beauti-mous! This computer model of the shuttlecraft is awe inspiring. I have always wanted to do this but don't have the time.

Oh yeah, don't forget the phaser locker. It's on the wall, behind that last chair on the right side (of the picture).

Keep up the great work!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

KUROK said:


> Beauti-mous! This computer model of the shuttlecraft is awe inspiring. I have always wanted to do this but don't have the time.
> 
> Oh yeah, don't forget the phaser locker. It's on the wall, behind that last chair on the right side (of the picture).
> 
> Keep up the great work!


Thank you sir it's always nice to know all the work is appreciated, although *Chuch P.R.* deserves A LOT of the credit as well. And yes, there will be a phaser locker but first I've got one more style of computer panel to model first.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Thank you sir it's always nice to know all the work is appreciated, although *Chuch P.R.* deserves A LOT of the credit as well. And yes, there will be a phaser locker but first I've got one more style of computer panel to model first.


Hey, I'm just an a glorified anal retentive proofreader. I've done a few 2D pics for you, but you've probably suggested as many improvements to my 2D stuff as I have to your 3D stuff!

Hope our brain storming helped at least a little bit though...

4MadMen's got his overall helm done, though he has to do a little work on the pilot control panel still, the right side panel is very simple and the center console stuff is almost done - helmwise.

Just sent 4MadMen some "swingarm sensor" drawings(too big to post here).
Went through about 4 revisions to get them where I was happy. 

So very soon there will be little left in the main cabin.


Wherefore art thou, Phil Broad?

Hoping you are in good health, and haven't either fallen off the face of the earth or given up on us...


----------



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

MGagen, walk over to his place and shake Phil by the shoulders.
Make sure the guy's still breathing at least...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> MGagen, walk over to his place and shake Phil by the shoulders.
> Make sure the guy's still breathing at least...


Phil lives on the Left Coast; I live in Flyover Country. It'd be a long walk....  

I may be to blame, though -- a couple of days ago I introduced Phil to the ASAP Props forum. When I told him about _this_ forum the result was the Shuttlecraft plans. He's probably off now definitively blueprinting McCoy's complete surgical suite. :lol: 

Mark


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I guess it's about time for an animation. I'll go ahead and pre-apologize to the non-OSX Mac users (I'll encode as AVI if there's demand for it and if we can identify a good codec that people can get for free)...

Shuttle Interior (2.42Mb WMV)


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Ran some test renders with both the interior and exterior...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Lookin' sweet! :thumbsup:


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Great images!
As I recall the "roof" slopes downward slightly as it goes front to back.
Perhaps this helps it shed rain? lol


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yes the original had a rather signifigant slope -- especially over the impulse deck. My model has only a slight slope inorder to accomodate the integration of the interior. Chuck can expound on this better than I but it's one of the compromises involved in said integration.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> Lookin' sweet! :thumbsup:


I'm not sure if I've said this before (or enough) but Blender impresses me the more I use it. The shuttle looks better than I ever thought it would. Here's an image courtesy of a request by Chuck...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hi Guys,

Sorry I've been away from the board but I must admit to achieving burn-out on the Shuttlecraft plans. I think I might be ready to go at it again now. And yes, Mark did a VERY BAD thing by introducing me to the ASAP board... You are an EVIL man Mark!

Lots of VERY COOL information on that BB!

I've had requests for info on the Burke chairs from the show so I put together a web page about them. It is now up on my site at this location: http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/Burke_Chair/BurkeChairsTop.htm

This should help those of you working on Bridge models and the like. I will be adding the chair with the arms on it later on as well as a color match formula for the chair color. The chair and the seat back seen on the page are from my collection.

I haven't read through the previous messages yet so I'm not quite up to speed on the latest discussions. Give me a little while to catch up.

FMM is doing great things with Blender! Keep it up!

Phil


----------



## TheYoshinator! (Apr 2, 2004)

Phil, that's a great page addition!

Thanks and welcome back!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Hey Phil, welcome back!

I'm glad you're enjoying the ASAP board. Putting you wise to this board resulted in your peerless Shuttle plans ... I can't wait to see what comes of my latest introduction!

Thanks for the excellent page on the Burke chairs. You are so generous.

Mark


----------



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

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Sorry I've been away from the board but I must admit to achieving burn-out on the Shuttlecraft plans. I think I might be ready to go at it again now. And yes, Mark did a VERY BAD thing by introducing me to the ASAP board... You are an EVIL man Mark!
> 
> ...


Cool page Phil!!!

Actually, not a lot to catch up on.

Just waiting for you and/or Four Mad Men to get around to more interior drawings.

Four Mad Men has only to decide exactly how to approach the integration of interior/exterior door as a remaining issue.

Everything else he just has to sit down and draw.


Did I understand that you were intending to do first an "as built" interior before doing an integrated "idealized" shuttlecraft?

Maybe you've changed your mind and only want to do an "idealized" version?
In which case you might be mulling over one or two integration issues.

But if you are going to draw an "as built" interior first, then there isn't really a lot to discuss, at least until you do some new preliminary interior drawings.

Can hardly wait to see some new stuff!
Especially the helm and control panels!!!

Welcome back!!!


----------



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

Thought I would post a pic that combines some 2-D, 3-D, and photo elements to help give the interior of the shuttlecraft a sense of scale.

The doorway size is a compromise, but I think a reasonable one.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

_Bravo! _ That is wild and it gives a truer sense of scale. Excellently done. :thumbsup:


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> _Bravo! _ That is wild and it gives a truer sense of scale. Excellently done. :thumbsup:


Glad you liked it! The Spock figure is scaled to 6'2".

I also now realize I slipped up and forgot to properly credit the 3D stuff as Four Mad Men's, and the chairs as slightly higher versions of Phil's design. The crudely drawn doors and "swing arm sensor" are my fault. I'm sure Four Mad Men will probably eventually model at least the sensor.

He hasn't decided exactly what door design to go with.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this style.

Though it will require the "as built" over-the-door door controls to be moved to the side I think it a good compromise.

There is not enough room in the interior to make the door taller, and any smaller and I think the exterior would look wrong. But that's just my personal take on it.

Looking forward to seeing some new interior stuff from the Dynamic Duo of Phil and Four Mad Men. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Actually by not having the door any taller it still supports seeing Spock duck his head to some extent upon entering the craft as we've seen onscreen. Kinda cool.

By the way, any measurement in there approximateing 24ft. that could rationalize Kirk's statement referring to a 24ft. shuttlecraft? Could it had had anything to do with cabin size?


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> Actually by not having the door any taller it still supports seeing Spock duck his head to some extent upon entering the craft as we've seen onscreen.


Actually if the door were that low it would likely look weird on the exterior. I don't think there is a way to allow everyone to still have to duck without the door looking weirdly too small on the exterior. But I could always be wrong. It's been known to happen before.  




Warped9 said:


> By the way, any measurement in there approximateing 24ft. that could rationalize Kirk's statement referring to a 24ft. shuttlecraft? Could it had had anything to do with cabin size?



I went ahead and checked the current integrated version I have from Four Mad Men. While I'm waiting for some newer wirelines that may or may not change the specs an inch or so in various directions, I think the specs are close enough for government work.

From the front of the point of the interior
to the back wall of the second cabin(not including
the alcove with the 3 "cylinders"), the interior is approximately 22'5.556."

From the front of the point of the interior to the back
wall of the alcove containing the three cylinders is approximately 23'9."

So one might conceivably argue that Kirk was rounding off that second spec to refer to the interior of the shuttlecraft.

The only totally inconceivable argument would be that he meant the entire craft was actually 24 feet long on the exterior.

Unless the Galileo had Tardis Technology, there is no way to reconcile the onscreen interiors and exteriors if the exterior were truly 24 feet long.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Well actually you've pretty well rationalized it reasonably then in my book. Perhaps in TOS' time auxiliary vehicles such as a shuttlecraft are loosely classified in regards to their interior space. It may sound odd, but there it is. No?


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Well actually you've pretty well rationalized it reasonably then in my book. Perhaps in TOS' time auxiliary vehicles such as a shuttlecraft are loosely classified in regards to their interior space. It may sound odd, but there it is. No?


It seems to me that perhaps Kirk was picturing them trapped inside a shuttlecraft in the tiny crampt livable area of the interior as opposed to the vastness of space, and while thinking of them trapped in the realitively small space of the interior, absent-mindedly stated the length of the interior space he was picturing them trapped within.

An idea that I think was first put forth by Pygar, I can't rightly take credit for it.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Hmm. Yes, that works just as well and it does fit the more immediate situation.


----------



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

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Hmm. Yes, that works just as well and it does fit the more immediate situation.


I'm assuming you are talking about door size???

I tried one with an even smaller door and it just didn't look right.

As it stands now the door in the message above is already smaller then a door exactly the same proportions as the ones seen on the exterior stage prop and miniature, though I narrowed the width enough to help make it look taller then proportionally should for the percentage height it was reduced. In plain English, I reduced the width more then the height in order to make the door look more elongated and taller then a strictly proportional door reduction would appear.

As a result, the side door is still shorter then it should be but I don't think it looks too bad.

The windows(if we assume those two panels only seen on the outside - not inside - doors, ARE windows) in the doors are still a little too high.

But in order to lower the door windows enough for it to be practical for an average female height(about the lowest level practically necessary) of 5'5" that too would screw up the look.

Personally, like the front windows that can't be lowered enough for them to be of practical use to the pilots, I'd probably suggest just leaving the side windows slightly too high and have it left unexplained, as must be the case with the front windows.

Of course, my suggestions are in reference only to an "idealized," or integrated designs like Four Mad Men's work in progress. Rather then to the seperate "as built" designs that Phil is doing prior to doing his integrated version.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ No, actually I was referring to Kirk's 24ft. reference.


----------



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

My mistake.

The phrase "does fit the more immediate situation" threw me.
Mistakenly thought you were referring to something that required a decision.

The only thing I could think of was the doors' integration.

Sorry 'bout that Warped9!



Looks like our Dynamic Duo have both retreated to the batcave!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Don't worry Chuck, *Mark* and *Phil* will be back soon I'm sure. In the meantime I sent a wireline out to you. This should let us pin down any additional size/proportion changes prior to locking down the "shell"


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Don't worry Chuck, *Mark* and *Phil* will be back soon I'm sure. In the meantime I sent a wireline out to you. This should let us pin down any additional size/proportion changes prior to locking down the "shell"


Mondo Cool!!!!!

:wave:


----------



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

Just did an overlay, Four Mad Men.

Feel free to lock it down!

Perfect work!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Just wanted to throw in my two credits' worth.


----------



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

Hilarious! Great work!

Good to have a new thread contributor.



Looks like we must have lost Phil...  

Or he's wandered into that vortex that seems to encompass Trekkist for weeks and months at a time... 

Maybe that's the last we'll get to see of his shuttlecraft interiors...  

He was SO CLOSE to being finished the entire "As built" part of his drawings.  

Oh well, hopefully someone will find him along one of those roads he's collapsed beside in shuttle burnout and nurse him back to health, and one day he will return to us!

We can only hope and pray!


----------



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

To keep the info visible on each page, for convience sake here's the links to the key Galileo Project pages:

http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/index.php

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/GalileoTop.htm

Keep in mind that these pages contain working views that are in flux. I would recommend members posting recommendations and observations here so tons of people don't repeat the same observations over and over again in individual emails, thus slowing the guys down.

Also, for a key link to the plans which inspired me to start this thread in the first place checkout this link 

http://sgcp.fourmadmen.com/winfrey.html

David Winfrey was the first to approach the subject of Galileo Blueprints from the perspective of modeling the interior as close to the sound stage interior as he thought practical, then upsizing the exterior to create a functionally believable craft.

Even if drawn today they would be extremely impressive, and considering the fact that all of this was done by hand in 1989 at a time when far less info was available and when most of the people using the internet wore lab coats and military uniforms they are truly amazing.

His chronology of when certain details were added and his line drawings of them will undoubtedly be incredibly valuable to the project, not to mention the rest of his incredibly inspiring Blues.

Thanks for starting it all Dave Winfrey! :thumbsup:

Hoping Phil will chime in and rejoin us soon!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Checking in with a slight update. One Federation credit for the first person who can spot what's new...


----------



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

Hmmm...

just can't figure it out...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck, I'm disapointed! Try again :freak:


----------



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

I sense there are a couple of new things.

Can't make sense of what it is though. 

Maybe a shot from the starboard 3/4 view rather then port?


----------



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

Found a previous version here,

http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=16&pos=6

still can't sense a difference...


----------



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

Geez.
Nobody got it yet?

Here's a swingin' hint...


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

It's those scanners by the console. In the series, they looked roughly the same size as bowling balls but with a viewscreen cut inside.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

KUROK said:


> It's those scanners by the console. In the series, they looked roughly the same size as bowling balls but with a viewscreen cut inside.


We have a winner. Please post your relevant financial account number(s) and I'll make sure your Federation Credit is sent to you without delay :thumbsup:


----------



## mrhenessy (May 11, 2004)

X15-A2 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Sorry I've been away from the board but I must admit to achieving burn-out on the Shuttlecraft plans. I think I might be ready to go at it again now. And yes, Mark did a VERY BAD thing by introducing me to the ASAP board... You are an EVIL man Mark!
> 
> ...


de-lurking long enough to ask:

is this thread dead?

should we just shovel some dirt on it and call it a done-deal? :freak:


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

"E's not dead! 'E's resting!"


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And look at the lovely plumage!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

"Wake up Philly! (Whack, whack!) I've got a nice cuttlefish for you if you wake up Philly!"


----------



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

Maybe Phil to a trip to mount Fuji to settle up with the photo guys personally????


----------



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

Any new stuff, Four Mad Men???


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yes I do, I just have not had a chance to do the renders yet. Very soon.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Yes I do, I just have not had a chance to do the renders yet. Very soon.


Hmmm...
starting to think you're becoming a render tease! :lol:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Actually your right. Changed my mind about the new renders :devil: 
Although I am working on it and will post images as soon as they are ready. You might even feel it was worth the wait.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Although here's a couple of hints for what I'm doing (part of what I'm doing anyway)...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Love the Cat logo...


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Actually your right. Changed my mind about the new renders :devil:
> Although I am working on it and will post images as soon as they are ready. You might even feel it was worth the wait.


Could you be more vague please?

I've started a second job and just don't have enough stress in my life now.

Please feel free to add as many straws you'd like to my already aching back!... :tongue: 

'tis a cruel, cruel world in which we live! :freak:


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Of course - Caterpillar will still be around in 300 years... People love Cats!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I've always thought the LIS robot would look good in Caterpillar yellow with an insignia on its back.


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

Ron Cobb is designing tractors?


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Now that looks kewl. I could go for one of them Future Cats right now lol


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Thanks everyone. It's sort of a two-man workbee with Galileo design elements. Perhaps made by the same company (Hey! I guess now we now that Caterpillar branches out into Star Fleet transports).


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Could you be more vague please?
> 
> I've started a second job and just don't have enough stress in my life now.
> 
> ...


Yes I could but I wanted to give something of a chance. Just popped back in to twist the knife (fresh out of straw). And for anyone wondering just how big this thing is...


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Just popped back in to twist the knife (fresh out of straw).


Et tu, 4MadMene'?!? :roll:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Who me? :thumbsup: 

Soon my son, soon. And trust me it will be worth the wait (hopefully -- ok, maybe don't trust me 100% but I'm pretty sure it will be).


----------



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

Where the heck are you, Phil????  

We don't have enough spare red shirts to mount a search party...


----------



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

mrhenessy said:


> de-lurking long enough to ask:
> 
> is this thread dead?
> 
> should we just shovel some dirt on it and call it a done-deal? :freak:


Perhaps. The patient is comatose at the very least. Hope there are no "do not recessitate" orders out on this one. 

A shame as it's been close to being finished for weeks apon weeks now.

Perhaps it will make a miraculous recovery.
Perhaps it will flatline...

But thanks for decloaking long enough to pay your respects.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

[mother]"You now have 4 days to reach minimum safe distance"[/mother]


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Nice!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Beautiful!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> [mother]"You now have 4 days to reach minimum safe distance"[/mother]


Hmm. Isn't there supposed to be a bit of the red pennant extended beyond the yellow delta thingy?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Thank you gentlemen. And hot off the press I have the others finished as well...

Fore:









Aft:









Starboard: (Not too sure about the placement of "Galileo II" on this side, it's in the spot as the port side on but maybe I'm just not used to seeing it)










The letters on the others were hand drawn but I'm going to use a font for these next two. Obviously it's the wrong one right now but I'm looking.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And a request... Would someone (or everyone) post a color square (80 x 80 or so) that shows the base hull color? Might be interesting to see what everyone comes up. I've got my own ideas about this which we will see in a few days but it might be fun to do several images with various colors.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> Hmm. Isn't there supposed to be a bit of the red pennant extended beyond the yellow delta thingy?


Arrgh! Good catch, Thank you! And it's fixed now.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Arrgh! Good catch, Thank you! And it's fixed now.


 :thumbsup:


----------



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

Great work! Though the "II" thing is a bit of a heresy... 

On the hull color issue, I think the original bottom hull was darker then the top but I will have to check. I think you have all the same color "patches" that I have access to already so I can't help you there.

So where's that surprise you were hinting at a few days ago?
Should we be "seated" before you tell us?
Was there any "nurbing" involved?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Actually I had a little something else in mind.

Oh, and why heresy?


----------



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

^^ Just being fecious.

In one of the post-Galileo 7 episodes the "II" wasn't used, and in one it was. Sort of a confusing continuity thing.

But it makes sense to model the II version, that way someone who wants either version will have the info, and those who don't can just ignore it. I haven't double checked it, but I'm pretty certain they didn't move the decals when they added the II. Great work, by the way!

So what was the something else?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Oh, alright. I was going to make you wait for it while I worked on finishing the interior but here goes, not perfectly positioned yet (especially the front but)...


----------



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

Gorgeous!




Four Mad Men said:


> Oh, alright. I was going to make you wait for it while I worked on finishing the interior but here goes, not perfectly positioned yet (especially the front but)...


Make me wait?!?  

I don't remember having pissed in anybody's Cheerios...
Why should you want to torture me like that?  

Other then because I'm often single-minded to the point of being a pest...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Not at all. I just didn't want to show it until I had the door in place. Besides I'm a shredded wheat sort of guy.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And just in case it slipped through the cracks:

What font is that for the shuttle name? I can't find anything even approaching that. I do have my list of shuttles though:

NCC-1701/5 Newton
NCC-1701/6 Copernicus
NCC-1701/7 Galileo
NCC-1701/8 Kepler

Thoughts?


----------



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

Door?

Have another angle, lying around on the hard drive with the door on it you might want to share?

Curious to see which of the three or so versions we were talking about you decided to model...


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> And just in case it slipped through the cracks:
> 
> What font is that for the shuttle name? I can't find anything even approaching that. I do have my list of shuttles though:
> 
> ...


Damn! A couple of years ago I could have given you an extremely precise answer.

I had about 2,000 fonts in an optional startup config that would have let my copy of OmniPage Pro automatically find the closest match. Just have the standard system fonts now.  

I'll try to convert a JPEG and see which of the few fonts I have left is closest...


----------



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

Sorry 4MadMen.

No luck.
After reinstalling Omnipage Pro the system font that Omnipage picked as the closest was no where near close.

Any new interior stuff you can share?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Almost ready to share. Thanks for looking, I guess I'll try to derive the other letters based upon what we've seen.

Now it has been brought to my attention that "Copernicus" was infact not in the original series but "Columbus" was so after a brief re-think here's the new list (by "era"):

NCC-1701/5 Columbus (Renaissance)
NCC-1701/6 Drake (Elizabethan)
NCC-1701/7 Galileo (Baroque)
NCC-1701/8 Faraday (Georgian)


----------



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

^^ Other letters? Thought you were looking for font styles.
Would it be too difficult to do outline traces of the various letters?

[again I display my ignorance of "decaling" and/or 3D methods]


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

No, but the letters in "Galileo" are not sufficient to do the other names so I'll have to guess. Here's a quick attempt at Columbus (definately not perfect) but you get the idea...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And thanks to *Warped9* who helped me realize the simple matter that there is nothing that stops Columbus and Copernicus from both being included as names here is what I think is the final list:

NCC-1701/5 Copernicus (astornomer)
NCC-1701/6 Columbus (explorer)
NCC-1701/7 Galileo (astornomer)
NCC-1701/8 Magellan (explorer) 

And an update of the previous shuttle:



















I still need to correct the forward image but but stay tuned for an image that I know I've always wanted to see...


----------



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

Great work!

Can't wait!!!


----------



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

BTWay, noticed you went with a smaller door.
Any chance you might also eventually model the "alcove version"?

I know you have issues with the window height, but that would allow those who wanted to go with a closer to externally-accurate version.

Plus we've all had to come to accept the fact that the _most important_ windows - the front windows - are just irrevocably too high and there is little that can be done about it with radically changing the exterior.

Was thinking that since we've already had to accept that it might be more consistent to keep the externally viewed height on the side windows as well(though even in the "alcove version" the door is smaller, just not quite as much).

Again, this is your model. Your decision. Just hoping you might eventually decide to accomidate both versions.

Again though, beautiful work! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> BTWay, noticed you went with a smaller door.
> Any chance you might also eventually model the "alcove version"?
> 
> I know you have issues with the window height, but that would allow those who wanted to go with a closer to externally-accurate version.
> ...


Hmm. Yeah, I just noticed the smaller door too. It looks...rather odd.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yes well in anticipation of these sorts of things the door has not actually been modeled at this point. It's a bump map. I choose to start with the door size that's most representative of the interior. At some point next week I'll be rendering some side views with the various door sizes (with psuedo-windows no less) so we can check them all out and see what we think.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And as promised above...

The Newton is lagging behind because it had to navigate around a freak ion storm but I now present (in all their odd door glory  ), _The Flight of the Bumblebees, er Shuttles_:


----------



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

Kewl!!!!!!!

Looking forward to more interior stuff...

You are sooooooooo close.

How are they coming?

Need anything more drawn in 2D?


----------



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

Hello in here!!!!

Anybody there?

[tumbleweeds roll across the thread as the the wind whistles through the empty buildings...]


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Hot off the renderer my friend...

Nurbs, Nurbs, Nurbs, Nurbs, Nurbs. Nurbs, Nurbs, Nurbs, Nurbs.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And again...










[--EDIT--]

And almost there...


----------



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

Ooooooooooooooh!!!!!!!

Those are puuuuuuuurty!

You have been busy learning new stuff!!!

You're becoming a regular Nurb-meister!:thumbsup:


----------



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

Can hardly wait(but of course, will) to see them inserted in a new spiffy interior! Will you be matching the tops to a slightly higher base version? I know you didn't like the taller version with the proportionally more narrow bottom I drew. But you never mentioned whether the taller base with the slightly wider(front to back in side view) base I drew was acceptable...

Can't have those sensors smackin' Scotty in the forehead!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I was planning on trying both. Starting witht the one I didn't like just to see if it's as noticable at an angle. Although I wasn't planning on pointing it out so I could see if anyone noticed. But that's okay, I guess you just got excited  

Here's the latest of this morning:


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

Well, _that _looks fairly uncomfortable... 

Great job on the renders though!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

User testing has prompted a slight modification of the design as the level of mutiny was unacceptably high. Updated interiors coming soon...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And as promised...



















I should probably work on the helm but I'd like to get all the interior spaces finished so it's off to the aft compartment.


----------



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

Checking in while on my way out from work.
Gorgeous!!!
Incredible!!!

Can hardly wait to see what you come up with on the aft compartment, though I may not be able to check in until much later and/or tommorrow.

The suspense will be almost painfull!

Great work, Four Mad Men!!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

_"Nice picture, what's next?"_ !!! Where's my accolades? Where's my party? Where's my orion slave girl? Some people it's just me, me, me :tongue:


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> _"Nice picture, what's next?"_ !!! Where's my accolades? Where's my party? Where's my orion slave girl? Some people it's just me, me, me :tongue:


I did say "Gorgeous!!! Incredible!!!"

Was it not enough accos, or not enough lades? :devil:

Also, the minute I can afford an orion slave girl I'll happily loan her to you for a week or two! Assuming your wife agrees, of course.


----------



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

Speaking of which, any progress on your Dr. Who air purifier?

I'm going to have to turn in earlier then desired this evening. Have a long, early day coming up at my second job.

Hope my paltry under-use of accolades won't prevent you from doing some more Galileo interior stuff - Four Mad Men.

You pretty much ARE the project these days.

I, for one, have faith that you'll be able to render the best integrated TOS Galileo EVER!!!

If there IS anything I can do to help though, you've got my email address...

Going to sleep with visions of shuttlecraft in my head, okay - and maybe one or two sugar plums too...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Speaking of which, any progress on your Dr. Who air purifier?
> 
> I'm going to have to turn in earlier then desired this evening. Have a long, early day coming up at my second job.
> 
> ...


Well it's not really an "air purifier". When I say "dust collection", I mean sawdust collection. You run it when you run your tools and it picks up the sawdust so there's less to clean up later (and less in the air as well so I guess you were partly correct). But to answer your question: No I have not even started. I'm in the pool too much for anything more major than building shelves and fixing chairs. 'Cause you know the pool must be "cleaned" on a regular basis. In fact you can't over "clean" it. Now as a side note (for anyone with or thinking of putting in a pool) I don't use chemicals as I have a solar powered water purifier that uses the same method of cleaning the water as NASA uses in the space program (silver/copper ions). I think the Romans discovered this process but it really does work very well. Amazingly well in fact. You could drink it and fish can live in it (although I've not gone that far with it).

Now getting back on topic I have an update but not on the interior. I finally got around to doing a proper set of nacelle (rear)end-caps. Although in truth this picture is not of _Galileo_ so much as it is of _Columbus_:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And here's a larger one that has a few corrections. The thumbnail links to a 2560x1920 image:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Been awhile since I've watched "The Galileo Seven" and am too lazy to fire up the DVD player right now but I have a questions about the cylinders in the aft compartment.

All the drawings I've seen show three cylinders, with the overall centerpoint offset to the starboard side. How do we know there are only three and not four? The reason I ask is I don't like the fact they are offcenter, bug the everlovin' daylights out of me!

So have we seen for a fact that there are only three?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Now here's an interesting comparison...

Portside elevation (prior to texture mapping):









Portside eleveation (after texture mapping):









Can you tell a difference? Also, anyone want to double check the "decal" placement? *Chuck*? I'm pretty sure the main decals are too far back (at least some of them).

And lastly, be on the lookout in my gallery for all new orthographics.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I can't get used to that small door. And, yes, the markings are set too far back.


----------



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

Have just now gotten your email, Four Mad Men. I'm going to work a little bit on it tonight. Don't know if I'll get a chance to finish though.

The decals look a little off, but I personally wouldn't worry about that until the door is finished...

Gorgeous work though!!!

Perhaps it's just the lighting, but did you thin the nacelles by any chance?


----------



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

On the cylinders, it's your call of course. But if you do either center them or add a fourth cylinder consider that it will leave less room for the "mystery door!"


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Worked on the decals. The main ones are much better now. So for anyone you wishes to help lock them down here are the images to use:


----------



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

You've got mail, Four Mad Men!

New door layer drawings hurling through cyberspace at this moment. Will send JPEGS too in case you have a problem with the version Photoshop I'm using.

Later today I'll go ahead and look at decal positioning for you too.
However, I have to say they look beautiful and you've done 99% of the actual work already. Cutting and stretching here in there should not be a big deal as the decals themselves are beautiful!

Great work!

We're almost there!

P.S. Please post dead-on front and rear orthographic shots so we can see the positioning of those decals as well.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Thanks, I'll go check them out and let you know.

Haven't mapped the rear one yet but I don't those will be a problem. The others can be found in the orthographics section of the project gallery pages (or didn't you read the post above where I said that before :tongue: ?)


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Got it! Layers worked fine although (and I forgot to mention this so sorry) please turn off anti-aliasing when you draw the lines. Thanks :thumbsup: 

I'm going to place the door but could you please resend one with the entire shuttle as the background. Makes it a whole lot quicker for me (and that's what it's all about -- lol)


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Not a side view ortho but here you go anyway:










[--EDIT--]

Oh, And here's another teaser for you. This is frame 1 of a new animation:








_Landscape by *Brian J*_


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

No sound, no particle effects and plenty to do with light an shadow but here are a couple of quick motion tests I cooked up for scene one...

Motion test 1 (Spock at the helm) WMV, 150 KB

Motion test 1 (Kirk at the helm -- or perhaps McCoy) WMV, 158 KB

Oh, and as always my apologies to the non OS-X Mac users.

_Landscape by *Brian J*_


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Not a side view ortho but here you go anyway:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I take it from the new upper door that you no longer need a full size side shuttle shot?

I can definitely do it, but in Photoshop it would be about a 12-15MB file!!!


----------



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

By the way, the larger door, as some may have noticed, still doesn't extend as close to the roof on the exterior as the stage prop.

However, it is very close.

Unfortunately it's impossible to make the exterior door go completely as high on the exterior as the stage prop and not have it virtually cut into the interior ceiling. The stage prop had a relatively thin roof.

One small interior change it may necessitate is moving the overhead door controls to the side of the door. 

Here is a shot of how the new door would make the interior look.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

The mouse under the chair...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well ladies and gentlemen while I don't do this for the amount of views and responses it will generate there does come a point when you have to ask if you've overstayed your welcome. Perhaps it's time to move on.

That's not to say I don't intend to finish but I think maybe it's time to take it underground. She was a nice thread in her day and I'm sure in some small way we'll all miss her.


----------



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

Chin up guy!

Just a little left to go!

This thing has become absolutely gorgeous!!!!


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> No sound, no particle effects and plenty to do with light an shadow but here are a couple of quick motion tests I cooked up for scene one...
> 
> Motion test 1 (Spock at the helm) WMV, 150 KB
> 
> ...


Just downloaded them.
They're incredible! Especially impressed by the subtle shadowing and light sourcing.


----------



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

Just did an overlay of a profile shot for decaling placement.
Looks great!

About the only thing I would suggest is to lower the Galileo decal a bit and slightly to the left. Stunningly close already though.

The nacelle decal may need to be made slimmer and raised a bit, but that's simply a matter of dimensioning. The decal's font and design are themselves dead-on perfect!

I'm emailing you a Photoshop version with layers that you can move around and manipulate however you want.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> By the way, the larger door, as some may have noticed, still doesn't extend as close to the roof on the exterior as the stage prop.
> 
> However, it is very close.
> 
> ...


That is a damn fine piece of work. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Here's a quick and dirty effort, *FMM*. I tried to do something with the nose to give it curvature, but I flubbed it. It just didn't look right having a straight edge nose and it seemed to stick out too far.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> Here's a quick and dirty effort, *FMM*. I tried to do something with the nose to give it curvature, but I flubbed it. It just didn't look right having a straight edge nose and it seemed to stick out too far.


That looks nice. I really like the windows. There is infact a small amount of curvature on the front but not nearly enough. I had actually forgotten about it but consider it back on my list. I tried eyeballing it once but I guess I just need to get some good overhead pictures (and I just happen to know where) and fix it. But I do have one question about your comment: What do you mean when you say it seemed to stick out too far?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Just downloaded them.
> They're incredible! Especially impressed by the subtle shadowing and light sourcing.


I'd love to take credit for the flash of light on the nose being intentional but it just sort of came out that way. Just wait until I get the particle effects in there and modify the shadow plane so it matches the background better and it should look really impressive.

Now on the subject of my post from last night: I must admit that it was simply an evil trick that attempted to get people re-involved to a larger degree than they have of late. Can't say it was successful because no-one but the current regulars have posted. Oh, well doesn't ultimately really matter just thought it would be nice to have some life breathed back in the thread. Maybe I should have tried bribery instead.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Oh, and *Warped9* did you ever download Windos Media Player 9 for the Mac? I'd really like to get your feedback as well on the two motion tests. If you just can't bring yourself to download it let me know and I'll re-encode the masters to an AVI or something.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I know I may be stepping on authenticity here, but even in drawings I've seen before it always seemed as if the bit of flash or stabilizer or whaterver extended out forward too far. Just my feeling I guess. I feel it would look better shorter and if it had a curvature that paralleled the the leading edge of the sloping forward hull as well as some wee bit of radius akin to the leading edges of the stabilizers.

And no, I haven't downloaded Windoes Media Player as I've never had need of it...until now.


----------



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

Don't know about Warped9, but I personally like the Spock version myself. 

Was the decal overlay .PSD file I sent readable?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yes I did thanks, in fact it's in use here: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=808496&postcount=866

And *Warped9* used the image in his post above.

Overall I agree but the beginning of Kirk's (or was that McCoy?) rolling takeoff is something to see and perhpas even more of something to experience.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Oh and technically the door outline can't really be termed a "decal". A textture map yes (a bump map in fact) but a decal? No. :tongue:


----------



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

^^^ I meant the one with the Immunity Syndrome Profile overlayed with your original side shot. Hope you got both that as well as the earlier partial profile door drawing.

Let me know if you need anything else drawn. Any updates coming up?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Oops, sorry. I just check my inbox and saw that message. It must have (ok, it did) gotten overlooked in the crush of the last two days.

I'll have some updates soon but you can proably expect an e-mail or two from me about the aft compartment before I have anything truly new to post.


----------



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

^^^I'll be waiting with baited breath(where did I put those altoids?)

Any questions, etc. you can email tonight would be appreciated as I'm off tommorrow and can get a lot done, if need be.


----------



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

Okay, here's a really rough draft of the most important seat on the entire Galileo. Could have been the Galileo "8" had someone been willing to ride coach!!!

Sorry for the poor res, but with file limitations etc...

Notice in the overhead shot the convient proximity to the external air exhaust vents!!!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Okay, here's a really rough draft of the most important seat on the entire Galileo. Could have been the Galileo "8" had someone been willing to ride coach!!!
> 
> Sorry for the poor res, but with file limitations etc...
> 
> Notice in the overhead shot the convient proximity to the external air exhaust vents!!!


Perfect!

Now if someone can figure out where to plug in the Mr. Coffee...probably next to the Mr. Long Range Sensors....


----------



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

Captain April said:


> Perfect!
> 
> Now if someone can figure out where to plug in the Mr. Coffee...probably next to the Mr. Long Range Sensors....


We're working on that!

Stay tuned for more.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'll more to say on the aft compartment tomorrow but right now I'm outta here. Before I go let me share a new image. Buf first please bear in mind (and this is mostly concerning Chuck): (1) It's still not true hidden line removal but it gets past a major limitation of the previous method I showed you, (2) It still needs some tweaking, and (3) those viewports went through much wrangling and many unkind size/location changes and is the first area to be remodeled when everything else is finished so please be kind on that score. Anyway here it is...


----------



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

Looking good!

I know that many of you may be wondering, "what the heck, it's not even a wireline?!"

This view mainly has to do with being able to eventually produce 2D solid blueprint style illustrations from the 3D model. It's something Four Mad Men has sweated a lot over and he's come a tremendously long way towards that.

Now that almost all the visible interior structures and visible exterior structures are done the time where those methods become necessary for a "plans" version is approaching.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Okay, here's a really rough draft of the most important seat on the entire Galileo. Could have been the Galileo "8" had someone been willing to ride coach!!!
> 
> Sorry for the poor res, but with file limitations etc...
> 
> Notice in the overhead shot the convient proximity to the external air exhaust vents!!!


That looks really good but I have two concerns. The first is how much head room (hah, a pun!) is there when entering/exiting and even sitting down. Perhaps we could show Scotty or someone in there (doing maintenance work of course). The second concern is you just cut through my power/control lines from/to the nacelles. I had always envisioned the majority of that space being used for impulse equipment and such. I suppose it can be re-routed but then the lines get somewhat convoluted. But that my be
unavoidable.

I love how it rear vents are right back there and I guess now I know what the mall hatch on the back is as well. I mean they have to have a way of getting that stuff off the shuttle don't they?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And this is why you should lock your computer when your outside of the house:

_Is this bad? Or do you think people won't notice?_


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

A little bondo, nobody'll notice....


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> And this is why you should lock your computer when your outside of the house:
> 
> _Is this bad? Or do you think people won't notice?_


Ouch. Did they at least leave their licence and insurance information?


----------



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

^^^ Ouch!


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

Notice what? 

Oh. I see. You fiddled with the size of the door again... :freak:


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> That looks really good but I have two concerns. The first is how much head room (hah, a pun!) is there when entering/exiting and even sitting down. Perhaps we could show Scotty or someone in there (doing maintenance work of course). The second concern is you just cut through my power/control lines from/to the nacelles. I had always envisioned the majority of that space being used for impulse equipment and such. I suppose it can be re-routed but then the lines get somewhat convoluted. But that my be
> unavoidable.
> 
> I love how it rear vents are right back there and I guess now I know what the mall hatch on the back is as well. I mean they have to have a way of getting that stuff off the shuttle don't they?



Glad you like the placement!

I thought about the head room issue already, 5'2" give or take a half an inch. Might have to crouch a little when you're a guy doing the ole' number 1, but for safety sake on a small craft with questionable inertial dampeners it might be safer to do that sitting down anyway! :tongue: 

Perhaps a little ladylike, but you wouldn't need to worry about being thrown "off-target" by turbulence!

Other then needing to crouch a little to get in and out there's a decent amount of room. 

Much better then the alternative of holding it until you get back to the Enterprise, or come across an alien bush!!!

Question: if you were to "fertilize" an alien planet with your own non-indigenous personal bacterial waste...

...would you be violating the Prime Directive? :freak: 

I mean, you are affecting alien development...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Gosh Chuck you really are putting up a brave front in the face of total disaster. 

And yes the door has been made bigger (good eyes there).


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> Ouch. Did they at least leave their licence and insurance information?


Never saw anything. One second I'm in the back yard by the pool and the next... BOOM! Hit and run.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I know we came up with a list before but let's start fresh on this. What's do you see as being left to do? Before I start slicing her up to make the framework.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Gosh Chuck you really are putting up a brave front in the face of total disaster.
> 
> And yes the door has been made bigger (good eyes there).


----------



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

Not necessarily in any particular order:

Helm panels.
Flat panel over rear doorway to second compartment.
"Scotty hatch".
Phaser cabinet(I think you may have finished that but I never got final word on that).
Rear floor grille.
Rear second cabin wall.(With or without rear latreen).
Port side wall of second cabin.
Complete door.

About the only thing I'd say about the order is that the port side second cabin wall probably has the lowest priority(and not just because I've been working too much to get some non-frazzled-too-burned-out-to-concentrate time devoted to doing other versions of my design).

Mainly because it's the only part of the visible interior not at least partially seen.


----------



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

On the subject of the rear floor grille design. There is one detail I didn't draw in the design I sent. The metal ovals should extend just slightly higher then the straight metal framework. Assuming you haven't modeled it yet, of course.

Based on my estimates there would indeed be room under the grillwork for an emergency EVA hatch 3 feet wide that on the exterior bottom would fit in the indented, flat, recessed surface seen on the filming model's bottom. An idea Phil brought up. Personally I don't like the idea of having an externally visible hatch, I like the clean simple external surfaces of the original. But maybe if Phil rejoins us one day he'll put one there on his version.

Of course, this is your model, you could decide to put one too. But I didn't get the impression that you were too interested in the idea.

Just wanted to bring up the grille and make the suggestion of the very slightly raised ovals, if you haven't already modeled it...



The only other minor detail would be the starboard side coffee tray seen in Metamorphosis right behind the first seat and right next to the first computer(not too genius of a design location for a tray that might hold liquids).

However, from what I can tell from the screen grabs, in that episode they actually made a cavity in the wall and inserted a grey protrusion which then held the brown colored tray.

Since there is obviously no cavity there in any other episode, I would suggest simply leaving it out. The tray might be explained as having some type of latch that hooks under the computer, or attaches magnetically to the computer in some fashion.

Either way, I wouldn't want to muck up the wall design.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Agreed on the coffee tray. Also I too don't want to have an external hatch visible on the outside although there should be something under the grille in the aft compartment. It just seems like something that's made to be removed and give access to some part of the inner workings.

I have not and probably won't model the actual grille. I'll probably just use the image you sent as a bump and alpha map. This will achieve pretty much the same look. There are some differences with how shadows are calculated (i.e. shadow that it casts on other objects) but given it's location on the floor I don't see that as a liability.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Now let's see who is paying attention...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ I already caught this on the TBBS.  You fixed up the nose by shaving back the flash and giving it curvature to match the foward hull.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Correct! I also cleaned up some mesh errors on the lower side hull. I've two other small area that need fixing and they are next after this next picture.

OK, so the viewports are not much good for seeing where your going. They might be better to see where you are (as in when you've landed on a planet) if you stand up. So for spaceflight perhaps they serve another purpose (my apologies for the horrible display)...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Interesting idea. Could even be made to work with the established aspects of how they _are_ transparent and are there primarily as viewports.

Maybe transparent holographic display screens? Powered on, they serve as view screens, turn 'em off, you can see right through 'em.

That work for everyone?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Works for me.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

This is my favorite thread! Awesome model of the shuttlecraft.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

KUROK said:


> This is my favorite thread! Awesome model of the shuttlecraft.


It's right up there on my list too, and thanks it's turned out pretty well I think.

Not much to show depending on how you look at it but spent the day rebuilding the "face", the forward side hulls where they meet at the vertical centerline, the outer roof, and the impluse deck (whew!). The impulse deck is not finished and I have not re-cut the viewports but it looks tons better (in terms of what you can and can't see). Today's cleanup and yesterdays now let me proceed with cutting the actual door but I still want to show some side orthographics of the various door optons. Although I think I already know what the concensus is going to be.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

*4MM*, when you're done with this I'm going to ask pretty, pretty please, please, please, please, puhleease could I have some shots of the _Copernicus_ to work with for some images in Photoshop?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'll make a deal with you. I have not yet created the image map for the name "Copernicus". So if I can talk you into doing it then you can have any shot you want. If you don't want to that's fine too but I do want to finish the cleanup this weekend so I wouldn't be able to get to it until mid to late next week.

Just make the name about 600 pixels tall and as wide as needed. Use pure red letters on a pure white (RGB:255,255,255) background with no anti-aliasing. In either case just let me know.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

May I assume you don't have a font? Okay, I'll see what I can do.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

You may. If you can find one great but I never did. Although I did use the freestyle font (which is close) for "inspiration". I don't actually have that font either but I do have a sample image that shows all the letters.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And just as a fun distraction here's a sample of how everything (one side anyway) fits together...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Outstanding!!!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And a couple more. 

I really like this first one...









And this one sort of looks like a damaged shuttle adrift somewhere...


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> And just as a fun distraction here's a sample of how everything (one side anyway) fits together...


Looks gorgeous!

Spend a couple of days without logging on and look what happens!!! 

Maybe I should log on less! It seems to help... :tongue: 

Seriously though, this is looking incredible!

I will be spending some time tonight working on the kind of wall that you and Pygar have expressed preference for, whether or not I really SHOULD be getting some sleep.

I won't be able to get much sleep anyway after seeing these!

So how was the "visible" interior-exterior list that you asked for?

Did I miss anything?


----------



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

Captain April said:


> Interesting idea. Could even be made to work with the established aspects of how they _are_ transparent and are there primarily as viewports.
> 
> Maybe transparent holographic display screens? Powered on, they serve as view screens, turn 'em off, you can see right through 'em.
> 
> That work for everyone?


We had speculated about that quite awhile back, and I have to agree that's the only explanation that seems to work. A little illogical(like the side-saddle bridge) but the the only one that seems to make any sense. Especially since in the episode in "The Doomsday Machine" in which Decker flew into the "planet-eater" it was centered in the viewscreen.

Perhaps another explanation can be found for it, but as undesirable as it seems(would hate to loose power to the viewscreen in the middle of a tricky landing and be blind) I can't think of one.

Luckily since none of us will actually be flying one anytime soon we can leave that to the imagination, but yes, it is the best explanation as there seems to be no logical alternative.


----------



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

4MMen, have you considered the need for taller seats, to fix the swingarm sensor height positioning?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> We had speculated about that quite awhile back, and I have to agree that's the only explanation that seems to work. A little illogical(like the side-saddle bridge) but the the only one that seems to make any sense. Especially since in the episode in "The Doomsday Machine" in which Decker flew into the "planet-eater" it was centered in the viewscreen.
> 
> Perhaps another explanation can be found for it, but as undesirable as it seems(would hate to loose power to the viewscreen in the middle of a tricky landing and be blind) I can't think of one.
> 
> Luckily since none of us will actually be flying one anytime soon we can leave that to the imagination, but yes, it is the best explanation as there seems to be no logical alternative.


Well I'm of the opinion that the viewports (now viewscreens) actually slide open. I believe the on-air evidence supports this as well. Certainly loss of power is an issue but don't forget that we're powered by A/M batteries (Coffee Cans -- named for their inventor) so unless the feed is cut your pretty safe on that score. Remember too that a not insignificant number of todays aircraft are unflyable without computers (which require power as do the engines and pretty much everything else). I guess if we can send people in the air with a reasonable sense of security I'm pretty sure that the same can be said of a spacecraft from several hundred years in the future.

Chuck,

The list looks good. If we've missed something it will eventually come to light and we can take care of it then.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> 4MMen, have you considered the need for taller seats, to fix the swingarm sensor height positioning?


Yes I have and will probably try some modification to the base before too long. I have a couple of things that are ahead of this though. The chairs themselves are linked so a change to one changes them all  

Upon starting my cleanup I discovered (actually re-remembered) that the exterior and interior viewports are not yet connected together. Which is part of the reason I have not cut the holes in the new bulkhead. I'm going to send you a new orthographic and let you take some measurements off it as I'm still convinced that the space between exterior and interior (at the front) is too large.


----------



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

Okay!

Am about to clean out my mailbox now!

Wish Phil was still around. Working for Boeing he'd probably have some very convincing looking cooking/food storage area drawings kicking around somewhere I could use for the Port side wall...

Oh well,


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Yes I have and will probably try some modification to the base before too long. I have a couple of things that are ahead of this though. The chairs themselves are linked so a change to one changes them all
> 
> Upon starting my cleanup I discovered (actually re-remembered) that the exterior and interior viewports are not yet connected together. Which is part of the reason I have not cut the holes in the new bulkhead. I'm going to send you a new orthographic and let you take some measurements off it as I'm still convinced that the space between exterior and interior (at the front) is too large.


Just sent back the updated orthographic overlayed over previous wireline.

A few things to consider:

there is arguably a slight curve to the outer bulkhead which in a side orthographic view might lead one to think the wall is thicker exterior to interior then is actually the case,

also,

What is to be the final cofiguration of the windows?

If the window/view is to be internal, and the blast door external the two can be fit in less space.

If there is to be a window on both the exterior and interior and a blast door in between there would of course, have to be more space allowed.

Finally, in the stills I've seen it appears that the original stage prop wall was so thin that they alternated between a clear window and solid grey panels ...

in other words, they appeared to have simply switched the two out, without leaving room for there to be both, even though we know that the shuttle had both.

The Treker in me would favor an interior only window/viewscreen with an external slot for a slide down blast door.

The designer in me would prefer to see a blast door that slid down between a space between two windows/viewscreens, just for safety/redundancy.

Of course, the either-or option isn't realistic. Even if it's how they probably did it with the stage prop.

Thoughts???


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

The cross-section image I sent you shows the maximum distance between interior and exterior. Although the curve is somewhat shallow in the middle so there is not very much change in the "gap" between the center and the outer edges of the outer windows.

I'm thinking an inner window and outer blast door. Partly to conserve space but mostly because the idea of two windows with a blast door sandwiched between them seems strange. And problematic in the event the out windows is damaged. Besides I'm sure the windows is no more made of glass than the blast door is. Transparent-aluminum or Clear-steel I imagine.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

OK everybody. Here we have the first step in interior/exterior connection (plus a small suprise)...










So what'cha think?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And one more just because I wanted to do one with some stars...


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> And one more just because I wanted to do one with some stars...


Puuuuuuurty!


----------



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

Eh...

How do they look from the outside looking in, if we might see?

Also, you've got Decal Mail!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Perhaps you not finished yet, but the windows look too small and a little low.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I was waiting for someone to mention this. This is one area where a glaring difference in looks is unavoidable. The windows on the interior set in no way reflect the exterior mockup (or model). I have in the past tried to integrate the two as we saw them but it just doesn't work (and as I recall looks like a dog's butt). So picking one as the driving force I choose the exterior ones. And cutting through to the interior you get what you see in the render above. I can raise the top of the window on the inside without affecting the outside given the angle that's currently involved but that's really all that can be done with it. It's just one of the compromises required in integrating two sets that done match in various ways.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Got it. Raising the top edge and rounding the corners would be a fair compromise. Oh, check your email for "Copernicus."


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Has nobody notices the small but way cool (IMO) addition in those last couple of renders?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ If you mean the scanner visual effect. Sorry, I did just now, but then I'm tired from being at work overnight.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yes, I added the moire pattern to the scanner. No problem on not noticing, I understand. I'm going to create dual layer imagemaps for the scanner so it can be animated.

Now back to the windows...

Here's the alternate size. And this is as large as they can be (and still have it look good) without changing the exterior.









And here's an image showing the difference between the two.









Thoughts?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'm not sure if this is considered off-topic or not but here is the shuttlecraft _Copernicus_ (With a special word of thanks to *Warped9* -- Thanks.)...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The larger windows look fine. Oh, and if you need _Magellan_ and _Columbus_ done I think I can do those as well since all the required letters save three are now done.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Yes I like the larger windows too, should have made them that way from the beginning I guess. And since I can't seem to post one image without turning around and doing another...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I've been having a re-think of my numbering scheme. Originally I was thinking 5-8 for the shuttles and 1-4 being some form of smallercraft (shuttlepod, workbee, or the like). But what about larger ships (or smaller ones) with a different number of vehicles? It would be nice to be able to identify the type of vessel based soley upon it's number so with the above in mind I'm going to change the scheme to odd for shuttlecraft and even for the as yet unseen others (ala *Warped9*'s idea).

Now while this is not the order I would have put them in if I had originated the idea but since he's used it in some of his images already I've decided to adopt it for this project. So the new scheme is now:

NCC-1701/1 Columbus (explorer)
NCC-1701/3 Copernicus (astornomer)
NCC-1701/5 Magellan (explorer) 
NCC-1701/7 Galileo (astornomer)

Just wanted to make mention of this incase someone get confused over noticing that the numbers had changed.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Question, *4MM*, have you ever tried modeling the shuttlecraft with the forward landing pads retracted into the nacelles to depict in-flight mode? It would make an interesting distinction I think. Just wondering.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The big version should be in your email.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> Question, *4MM*, have you ever tried modeling the shuttlecraft with the forward landing pads retracted into the nacelles to depict in-flight mode? It would make an interesting distinction I think. Just wondering.


Like the sensor swingarms they are rigged to retract without alot of fuss. Though I usually neglect to render them that way. However I've updated the Copernicus shots above.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I've got them saved but Adobe has crashed on me and won't run again until after I reboot so I'll get to them in the morning. Thanks again for the quick response.


----------



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

Damn! Go to work for 10 hours after being up all night and look at all the fun you miss! 

I have to seriously crash right now and get some shut-eye but will be back tommorrow night/morning if possible.

How did the Galileo decals repositioning I sent via JPEG psuedo-layering work, Four Mad Men?

By the way SUPER WORK ON BOTH FOUR MAD MEN'S AND WARPED 9'S PART!!! WAY TO GO to both of you! Great teamwork! :thumbsup:

Also glad to see that the "cut-through" from the exterior has gone a long way towards lessening the too-high interior window problem.

It was the only logical compromise without screwing up the exterior, which I think most would agree would be a bad way to go.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Damn! Go to work for 10 hours after being up all night and look at all the fun you miss!
> 
> I have to seriously crash right now and get some shut-eye but will be back tommorrow night/morning if possible.
> 
> ...


Sleep! There's work to be done mister!

I did get the images yes. Only one minor issue that I e-mailed you about.

Yes, if anything the top interior line of the windows are a little low now. But not too bad. I still wouldn't want to land the shuttle with them but they are not too terrible for general observation during flight (and on the ground as always). I took a page out of your book and produced the following:










I've tweaked the chairs again. They were ever so slightly too high and I've widened the base some more. Also I added that 10% to the chair thickness (and perhaps a little more on top of that). I don't think I can get away with doing more eventhough they still look a little too tall and skinny.

P.S. You'll notice that the interior has brightened up some since the front has been closed in (with the exception of the viewports of course). I guess the light that was escaping is now reflecting back into the cabin. Gotta love raytracing!

[--EDIT--]
Oh yeah, Adobe is running again but I'm going to wait for Chuck's resend of the side decal placement changes before adding the new names to the image maps. That way I can get them sorted out in one sitting instead of two.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I have one final question regarding the rear landing pad. In images I've seen of the vehicle flying away from us and receding into the distance I've always noticed the rear pad oriented at right angles to what you've shown with the widest dimension oriented front-to-back. I can never recall any image o the pad orineted the way you've drawn it wih the widest dimension running at right angles to the vehicle's line of flight.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

That's another difference between the miniature and the external mockup. Given that the "footprint" of each forward pad is small (and curved) haveing the rear pad in the orientation of the mockup (vs the miniature) would seem to provide maximum stability. You can find some really good shots of this in "Metamorphosis" and I think "The Galileo Seven". In either case the external mockup was never shown as the miniature was so a case might be made that (since it doesn't retract like the forward pads) this is the cruise configuration. Although I can't really see a benefit of one over the other for traveling in space.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Hey Chuck, have you had a chance to checkout the chairs in the above post. What are you thoughts on the way they look? I usually just try not to look at them too long or I start getting dizzy :jest:


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Hey Chuck, have you had a chance to checkout the chairs in the above post. What are you thoughts on the way they look? I usually just try not to look at them too long or I start getting dizzy :jest:


I know what you mean...

We could just redesign the helm, the interior side wall, and all the computer positioning...

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


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

You sir are NOT funny.

I've got all the image (medium res.) image maps finished. That's port, starboard, fore, and aft. I have not mapped the text on the outside of the door nor have I mapped the aft NCC-1701/# bit but it's the creation of the maps that takes the longest.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> You sir are NOT funny.
> 
> I've got all the image (medium res.) image maps finished. That's port, starboard, fore, and aft. I have not mapped the text on the outside of the door nor have I mapped the aft NCC-1701/# bit but it's the creation of the maps that takes the longest.


I take it then you want a slightly less radical solution to the chair issue?  

Let me put my thinkin' cap on for awhile.

From the rest of the post I take it you did get the revised decals I mailed back?

Looking forward to seeing some new renders... maybe one with the bottom door "skin" too?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I take it then you want a slightly less radical solution to the chair issue?


Yes, please.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> From the rest of the post I take it you did get the revised decals I mailed back?
> 
> Looking forward to seeing some new renders... maybe one with the bottom door "skin" too?


I'll get to the full door soon. I did get your revisions but I think you moved them back too far. The positions of the individual elements look good (in relation to each other) but as I say I think it's too far back. I've attached an image in this post, check it out.


----------



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

^^^Just off the top of my head, I'd say you're right. 

I aligned your image over the photo, don't know how that happened...

I did add a small segment to the front orange stripe that contains the boomerang to make everything align right.

There was that small difference in pixel width, but it shouldn't have made that big of a difference.

I'll send the first narrower version pasted into a blank 3200 pixel canvas. Then try that one...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Not sure what you we're on but I want some :devil:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)




----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Looks like the names came out all right. Looks like one of the few things you have left is the rounding of the window corners. :thumbsup:


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Not sure what you we're on but I want some :devil:


It's real cheap and available to everyone.
It's called 20 or more hours without sleep.  

I take it you got the new one... :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I did, Thanks. But have not had a chance to try it out yet. Will get to that tonight. I've been distracted with the viewports. But I most certainly DID NOT remodel the "face". I want whoever started that rumor to standup now! Chuck would be terribly upset if he thought all I did lately was remodel the front (and we wouldn't want that would we?). So official word is I tweaked what was already there (and certainly didn't redo it with lattice deformations, now that would just be silly).

Hey *Warped9*, here you go.








And yes, I'm growing increasingly dis-satisfied with the mapping of the front.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Looks great. What are you unhappy with?

If you're interested in some telling detail that you may or may not have thought of:

- The slots or grooves indicating where the fore window blast panels come down.
- Perhaps colourizing the interior using the shuttle interior shots as a pattern or perhaps even the colours mentioned in FJ's _Starfleet Technical Manual._ As is it looks awfully gray and rather bright in there. I'd even be tempted to tint the forward viewpoints to some degree.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Looks great. What are you unhappy with?
> 
> If you're interested in some telling detail that you may or may not have thought of:
> 
> ...


I'm unhappy in the sense that I don't think the proportions are right on the "U.S.S. ENTERPRISE" part.

Actually it's all silver in there because I forgot to turn on the layer that has the interior which is closer to the interior color (I'm going to end up mapping the inside with the two tone that you see in the series). If you look in the back you'll notice that you don't see the doorway or the tanks which is a telling sign that the interior walls are not present. If you look back a page or so you should be able to see the missing bits and their (temporary) color.

The cutouts for the blast doors are on my list of things to do I just have not had a change to make them yet. As for the tinting, there is infact nothing to tint at the moment. When the "glass/transparent aluminum/clearsteel" is in place the refraction through the depth of the material should suffice.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck,

Speaking of the door... You know what I really need to do is remodel the outer hull using lattice deformations and then I can modify the size and shape of the door in a matter of seconds. Right now if I have to change the (presently non-existing) door it either takes a larger amount of time or the underlying mesh gets ugly (and would need to be redone anyway) like the forward hull did before it was recreated.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And let me just say too how disappointed I am that noone has noticed the drastic changes seen in the attached image for post #952. I mean apart from the image map being too far back. You guys must be slipping in your collective old ages :freak:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Yeah, somthin' don't look right. The lower part of the hull looks incomplete as do the landing pads and no lower part of the door. And, yes, I did notice the markings were too far back.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well a lot of what you see there is the lighting on the lower parts not being ideal from all angles. What I actually meant was the modification to the nacelle pylons (the angle of the rear edge) and the nacelle itself (shorter, end cap moved forward to maintain the distance from pylon edge). Also the rear landing pad connector arm was too long and now the rear pad sits more within the sides of the shuttle instead of poking out so far.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Actually now that you mention it I think the rear pad is too recessed inward since I'm so accustomed to seeing it further rearwards.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well I've been having some close looks at some stills from the mockup and it's new position appears to be closer to what was shown on screen. I've been busy so nothing much new but I did a couple more modifications to the forward section (and included all the necessary layers this time too)...

Still need to add proper blast doors.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Oh and anyone care to guess what the rendertime poly count is (I say render time because some of the objects are subsurf'd)?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

You've got me beat.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Not even one try?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

On my computer, about a week. Seriously.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well I was actually shooting for a polygon count but nobody's computer would take that long to render an image (not 640 pixels wide anyway). So methinks you exaggerate just the least little bit.

In any event the render time polycount now stands at 655,124 

Not huge by some standards but it's the most I've every worked with.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I haven't had time to do any modeling the last few days but I did manage to label some of the various components of the shuttle. Here's my initial take on things. This is based on the current state of the model and somethings will probably change in the aft area...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So, no Bussard collectors on the shuttle?


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Correct, no bussard collectors. The forward ends of the nacelles will contain navigational deflectors.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

"Bussard collectors" are post TOS/TMP technobabble that I have never felt really properly applied to Trek. Nothing we ever saw looked anything remotely like what a bussard collector would more likely look like.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Nifty. I'll have to remember that.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Besides they are also pointless on such a small craft, that by it's very definition relies so closely upon it's home "base". I don't see TOS shuttlecraft as being mini-starships like in later series but relatively simple (though warp capable) vehicles for moving people relatively short distances.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

It's been awhile since I've posted one like this, so...









And next I'm re-doing the port/starboard outer hull to use lattice deformations, so I though I'd rip a hole in this one just to get an idea for what the door will be like...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Excellent! :thumbsup:


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

If I had known it would have added so much to the look I would have made it a higher priority. It will probably take a few hours to set up the base object and lattice but then tweaking the door as required will only take a few minutes. I probably won't get around to it until next week but real doors should follow soon thereafter.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Halfway back to _Enterprise_ a bored Dr. McCoy finds out what that little red button does...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ :lol: :thumbsup:


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> It's been awhile since I've posted one like this, so...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 





Gorgeous! Sorry I've been absent so much lately. But my part time job is taking a tremendous amount of time lately, still will for a little while longer.

About the only request that I recall that is still outstanding is for 2D drawings of the "Galley side wall(unseen port engineering section wall)."

Have you had any luck with seat # 8, Four Mad Men?


----------



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

All alone and no renders to look at...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Have you had any luck with seat # 8, Four Mad Men?


No, I'm waiting to finish the pieces that have been seen before going into things that have not.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I haven't had much time to work on this lately but I had some time last night so I finished the outer doors and have a test animation of them closing.

But it's not your average animation. In Blender all objects can have scripts associated with them so the doors "know" how to open and close themselves. There is also a little cube inside the helm console called "cpu" that runs a timebased control script for things like opening the door, closing the door, setting engine thrust, flight control, etc. There will also be external sensors that will give the cpu information about surrounding objects, atmospheric pressure outside the ship, etc.

The next step for the doors will be to add collision detection so if an object is encountered between the doors two things will happen: 1) Re-open the doors and 2) turn on a warning light on some console.

So now that you know something about what's going on internally here's the door test animation (111KB, WMV9). I still need to watch some episodes to get a better feel for the door sequence. Right now an open sequence causes the upper doors to slide in and then slide open while the lower door folds down (with all doors coming to rest at the same time).


----------



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

Fantastic! And I certainly understand having a lack of time, so don't sweat it FMM! I find this project lately getting more and more exciting as we are so close to finishing ALL of the visible, interiors/exteriors.

Can hardly wait to see what you come up with for the underlying superstructure/skeleton! Those ribs you designed a couple of hundred posts ago look like they have the exciting potential of being able to both explain the underlying superstructure _*AND*_ perhaps being refined to being used to help design a scale scratchbuild!!! :thumbsup: 

The hard drive that I have Photoshop on has a surface error that scandisk can't fix, so I'm desperately trying to find my Photoshop 5 CD right now, considering the 2.5 hours a day of free time I have right now between workplaces that might take a while.

I know Pygar was very interested in seeing a "airliner style" mini-kitchenette counter/ storage area and may have mentioned a style of such a design at one point(and/or a style of airliner bathroom). If he would be so kind as to submit so names and or links to the kitchenette/food storage area that I could research online or even links that would be very helpfull.

I'm finding it very hard to imagine an intermediate set up steps between today's refrigerators/reheaters(microwaves) and the very simple non-descript TOS food replicators.

I'd like the area to be convincingly 23rd Century, yet find it hard to imagine refrigerators, food reheaters that would look drastically different then today's units.

Anyone else who can and is willing help with the design of that unseen port side second cabin wall, I can send you a file of the area that you can manipulate freely to help with the project.

Warped9 or anyone else interested please both pipe up here and email me.(I have a copy of the file with me at work and only answer my email at home.)

Once again, great work Four Mad Men!

Thanks in advance for any help any of you can give guys! :wave:


----------



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

Trekkist, I remember reading somewhere that you no longer have a printed version of McMaster's Klingon D-7 blueprints.

Email me via the email button(my main email address has changed).


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And if anyone would care to figure out the door opening sequence that would be great as well. I'm re-rendering with the inner set of doors. It should be finished in just a few minutes.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

And here is an opening sequence with all the doors.

door test animation 2 (136KB, WMV9).


----------



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

I think the closest way to match both the internal and external sequence is to have the outer two top doors push in first, then both move to the side, then the bottom doors(inner-outer bottom nearly the same size-shape) extend downward.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Well having two sets of doors caused a deviation in the inner ones. The bottom part of the inner doors don't fold down. In fact there is no bottom part of the inner doors as it stands right now, just two doors that slide open (at a slight offset to the outer ones because it looked better at the angle I used).


----------



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

That's one way to go, though it wouldn't match the onscreen internally seen door-opening sequence. Even the way I described it wouldn't technically be accurate, because from the inside the interior stage set obviously has no doors that retract inward before opening. Not to mention no windows...


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

I didn't mention any brand of kitchenette. You may have to look up my old post or something. I may have said that the toilet/sink area of Buckminster Fuller's "Dymaxion Bathroom" (google that phrase) is about as efficient a design for the toilet as you are going to find. I figure the outside of the sink side could have a little hotplate and a microwave mounted above, storage above and below that. Those "Spirit of St. Louis" metal boxes had to come from somewhere... maybe some undersink storage too. The sink should be large as people may be taking sink baths or washing dishes in it.


----------



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

Pygar said:


> I didn't mention any brand of kitchenette. You may have to look up my old post or something. I may have said that the toilet/sink area of Buckminster Fuller's "Dymaxion Bathroom" (google that phrase) is about as efficient a design for the toilet as you are going to find. I figure the outside of the sink side could have a little hotplate and a microwave mounted above, storage above and below that. Those "Spirit of St. Louis" metal boxes had to come from somewhere... maybe some undersink storage too. The sink should be large as people may be taking sink baths or washing dishes in it.


Yep! It was the bathroom you were talking about...
Will store that info away once we get to the bathroom part(which will be a seperate little cubbyhole of a compartment)...

I'd personally like to keep the two areas seperate, but that may be my own little 21st century bias. Even if hygienne control has increased in the 23rd century enough for the two to be combined, I don't know if I'd want to combine the functions...

Sure wish Phil Broad was still hanging around!
Being a drafter for Boeing aircraft I'd be willing to bet he would have more then a little info available on the subject!

Oh well... guess that's hoping for too much...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

OK, one more then back to modeling. Here's the last test that show's things more in detail (warts and all).

door animation test 3 (213KB, WMV9)

Now I might be offline coming up here soon as I've got no less than 2 hurricanes breathing down my neck. Guess it's time to find some CDs and make a backup or two.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> OK, one more then back to modeling. Here's the last test that show's things more in detail (warts and all).
> 
> door animation test 3 (213KB, WMV9)
> 
> Now I might be offline coming up here soon as I've got no less than 2 hurricanes breathing down my neck. Guess it's time to find some CDs and make a backup or two.


Was worried about that and sent you an email. Batten down the hatches and protect that Fortress of Solitude!!!

Maybe move those CPU's back into the house if need be.

Good luck! How close are you to the paths?


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

So, uhm....has anyone made a model directly following Phil's plans? It would be neat to see one overlayed on various reference images on his site.


----------



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

Four Mad Men said:


> Now I might be offline coming up here soon as I've got no less than 2 hurricanes breathing down my neck. Guess it's time to find some CDs and make a backup or two.


I know checking in here isn't high on your priority list, but just so you know I'm sure we're all hoping to hear from you soon to know you and your family is okay.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I'll have more to say later tonight but just wanted to check in. All is well and intact (Whew!).


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

This thread is continued HERE.


----------

