# MGagen's CGI Hangar Deck



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Not being one to leave well enough alone, I have embarked on adding a Hangar Deck to my CGI TOS Enterprise. I posted a preliminary image in my other thread, but I thought this should have one of its own.

My goals are:

Make it fit, somehow.

Make it look as much like what we saw onscreen as possible.

Make it make sense from functional standpoint.

I'm trying to make sure that the various alcoves lead to workable spaces between the hangar walls and the outer hull. For example, there is enough space to go from the aft alcoves to a curving ladder that grants access to the control booths.

Put me in the camp that says the cylindrical thing over the axis of the doors is not a cabin. It's just too small and hard to access. I'm going with an aft long-range sensor. One of the problems of modeling the Enterprise as it really is is that this structure is visible from inside the hangar when the doors are open. I have an idea to fix that, but it will have to wait until a little later. 

Anyhow, on to the pictures. These are all still WIP pix. Textures have not been assigned yet, and there is still some modeling to do. The figures are 6-feet tall.

First up, the "standard view":










Second, an approach view:










Here I borrow an excellent idea from my friend JHeilman. Since the hangar must extend at least a little bit forward of the aft end of the engine pylons, their structure is seen interrupting the forward bulkhead. In my version, what you're looking at are not the pylon surfaces themselves, but two of the structural spars they are built around. I made them similar in shape to the two supports visible down the length of the ceiling. My rationale is that all are structural members which have been sheathed with a cover to make the hangar air tight. My plan is for the spars themselves to be visible where they cross into the gallery. They will have walk through cutouts so they don't block the gallery completely.

Next, the view from one of the aft control booths:










The cool thing about these CGI models is that you can get a real sense of what it might be like to "go aboard" the E. I haven't decided if these will have a stand up control console or if they will have chairs and a lower console. Any suggestions?

Finally, here's a Lenore's-eye-view down into the hangar from the port observation gallery:










I'm still working on the outer walls of the galleries. These will be the outer hull of the ship, complete with windows. This looks like it will require me to re-locate some exterior windows by a little bit, so here is where the model will diverge from my completed exterior model. It will be have to be a separate version of the ship as I have worked too hard making my exterior match the 11-footer in every detail. I have already duplicated my exterior 1701 and rescaled it for the purpose. (My earlier version was studio scale, the new version is the full 947 feet.)

More updates as I get the time.

M.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Simply awesome! :thumbsup: I can't wait to see more!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

So, the 3D bug has really sparked in you lately. Can't wait to see an animation of a shuttle flyby (ala TMP) as it gracefully soars around the ship and then comes to rest inside the hangar. Of course, then it needs to rotate, bay doors close, shuttle hatch opens and Sarek and Amanda emerge.


Too much?

Seriously, very nice work.:thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Yes, very nice. :thumbsup: A standup console could be justified by the limited space and the short-term nature of the task, where you wouldn't likely be at that station all day long.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

My suspicion regarding the aft control booths has long been that they're not accessible from behind. Rather, they're on tracks along the inner walls, and one gains access by lowering the booth, entering when it's down on the flight deck, then raising back up into position.

At the very least, it solves the issue of having to fit a corridor in that space.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I think one question to ask in this context is, do you have Engineering down in the Engineering hull or up in the saucer? If you follow the idea that the slanted tubes we see in forced perspective on the set actually go up the pylons, that may be something to consider, a bit more bulk on that aft (forward?)wall of the bay.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Besides the angles being all wrong for those tubes to go towards the nacelles, it makes life a lot easier if you divorce those things from the nacelle struts completely and move the works a ways forward of the hangar bay.

Jus' sayin'...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

jheilman said:


> So, the 3D bug has really sparked in you lately.


Well, I worked *so* long on the Enterprise exterior; and it was slow going for two reasons: The time required to gather and evaluate references and my desire to get it _just right._

With the hangar, there aren't any solid references to be had. I have a much freer hand so I can go faster. And since I have the exterior completed, I know how much room I have to work with.

What is really fun is trying to make it fit _and_ work. 

Thanks for your kind comments (and the forward bulkhead concept)...

SteveR: You make a very good case for a standup console. Thanks.

Capt. April: Even as tight as it is, there is room for a passage behind the hangar wall and up to the booth. In my configuration, the booth is shaped something like an "L" when viewed from the top, with the base of the L being the windowed end. The "L" base points aft. This is because if the booth extended back at full width, it would crash the doors on the aft side of the round arch. You enter my booths from a curved ladder inside the arch which leads to the back of the booth.

And since my hangar has parallel sides, there is more room behind the forward alcoves. It is looking like I may be able to fit in a full corridor that at least _in part_ resembles the entrance seen in the series. 

M.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Ladders work, too. I just hate to do a lot of climbing.

So, yeah, it could be my bad back talking more than any real technical rationale...


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Captain April said:


> My suspicion regarding the aft control booths has long been that they're not accessible from behind. Rather, they're on tracks along the inner walls, and one gains access by lowering the booth, entering when it's down on the flight deck, then raising back up into position.
> At the very least, it solves the issue of having to fit a corridor in that space.


Interesting. Great justification for no corridor. And given that we see no ladders, the lowering seems to make sense. (Of course, there could be a 23rd-century equivalent, like a pad elevator up to the booth ... YMMV.)


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Steve H said:


> I think one question to ask in this context is, do you have Engineering down in the Engineering hull or up in the saucer? If you follow the idea that the slanted tubes we see in forced perspective on the set actually go up the pylons, that may be something to consider, a bit more bulk on that aft (forward?)wall of the bay.


I've always considered that Main Engineering is in the center of the Engineering Hull, just forward of the pylons. I illustrated a concept for how the tubes from the pylons meet up with the tubes seen behind the "Scotty Retaining Mesh" in Engineering several years ago. The intersection angles are only a problem if you insist on 90 degree intersections. I don't.

But don't hold you breath for me to model an integrated Engineering section as well. It is possible, but not likely at this point. I'll have my hands full modeling a Shuttlecraft to go in my hangar -- a model that I've started and abandoned twice before. That flying cheese box is a far more complicated shape than it looks....

M.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

I apologize if I missed any previous discussion on this:

How does the big domed "beacon," "control room," of whatever it may want to be fit into the reconciliation?

It sort of makes sense as a big beacon, but the little red and yellow bits they included in the model imply that they wanted to suggest the colors of the uniforms and thus people. Looking at the kit, I don't see any real way to access the thing. Transporter?!

But then, I'm still trying to figure out how the ship (near-instantly) changes configuration from engines with domes/spikes at the front and a pattern of round dots at the end to ones with cool lights at the front and balls at the ends.:wave:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I can't tell you how frustrating it is that my work blocks most picture sharing sights.
*AARRRGH!!!*


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

John, it is magnificent. It's like stepping into a new reality, like getting right on the ship.

Does this help?

:hat:

(Best I could find for protection was the "hat." If there was a :helmet: I'd use that one... !)


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Great views! 

Since space is at a premium, I thought the pylon support might be more efficient as this:



The support would wrap around the neck as a "collar", reinforcing it and binding the secondary hull to the pylons/engines.

The "spine" would have "ribs" circling the secondary hull.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

TrekFX said:


> How does the big domed "beacon," "control room," of whatever it may want to be fit into the reconciliation?
> 
> It sort of makes sense as a big beacon, but the little red and yellow bits they included in the model imply that they wanted to suggest the colors of the uniforms and thus people.


That's the first I've heard of anyone linking the the little colored bits to people under the dome. If that's what they had in mind, I wonder why they didn't do the same with the bridge dome?

I tend to think of the dome as an equipment installation, rather than a room. It just seems too inaccessible. Your mileage may vary.



> But then, I'm still trying to figure out how the ship (near-instantly) changes configuration from engines with domes/spikes at the front and a pattern of round dots at the end to ones with cool lights at the front and balls at the ends.:wave:


If the Transformers can do it, why not the good ol' Enterprise? 

M.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Just got back from a seminar at Scotty's Engineering and Scotch-tasting Technical School and made some minor changes. :tongue:


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

One of the original design concepts was to demonstrate how Mankind had evolved materials and construction way beyond anything we can do now. Two massive engine/warp generators held out with pylons far too small to be practical was the best example of this.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Richard Baker said:


> One of the original design concepts was to demonstrate how Mankind had evolved materials and construction way beyond anything we can do now. Two massive engine/warp generators held out with pylons far too small to be practical was the best example of this.


I agree. It also (cleverly) visually implied that the ship was not under the laws of gravity.

But - there is always the urge to conform to the current and the familiar, so there is a solution in creating a structure that has a "spine", support "ribs" (and a sternum too on the underside you're inclined to).

Also, kind of makes it more of a "she" - backbone, ribs, (boobs and butt??)


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I agree that the technology used is far beyond what we have today. The nacelle/pylon configuration also makes it pretty clear that whatever the warp engines are doing, it is _not_ the application of thrust. That said, I do think that some type of internal anchoring structure must be present since the ship is exposed to all sorts of stresses during its operation. I wouldn't necessarily go as far as J Indy is proposing, but neither would I opt for the Franz Joseph solution. A careful comparison of the interior and exterior of his plans would lead you to believe the pylons just "velcro" onto the outer skin of the engineering hull...

I'm busy tonight, but there should be further updates tomorrow or Saturday.

M.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

MGagen said:


> I agree that the technology used is far beyond what we have today. The nacelle/pylon configuration also makes it pretty clear that whatever the warp engines are doing, it is _not_ the application of thrust. That said, I do think that some type of internal anchoring structure must be present since the ship is exposed to all sorts of stresses during its operation. I wouldn't necessarily go as far as J Indy is proposing, but neither would I opt for the Franz Joseph solution. A careful comparison of the interior and exterior of his plans would lead you to believe the pylons just "velcro" onto the outer skin of the engineering hull...
> 
> I'm busy tonight, but there should be further updates tomorrow or Saturday.
> 
> M.


Actually, I was just speculating based on mixing a number of things that seemed cohesive in the existing design.

Like the beams above the hangerbay suggesting a structural support that runs along the top of the hull.
The supporting ring-column that the two control pods at the exit to the bay are suspended from, suggesting a rib-like skeleton.

Separately, the strength of the pylons as they are molded in the 1/1000 TOS E, which are quite strong and stable - and would be even more so if the structure was a solid piece extended along the entire upper hull to the neck.

All of which would make the connections very strong while leaving the most space for the interior of the ship.

To me, having the pylons just jut straight thru the hull seems...antiquated. Like a 19th century limitation.

But, we all get to make up our own stuff, so maybe FJ figured velcro is really, really strong in the 23rd century.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

J_Indy said:


> But, we all get to make up our own stuff, so maybe FJ figured velcro is really, really strong in the 23rd century.


Can you imagine the _RRRIIIIIIPPP!_ sound it would have made when they removed the engines during the refit? If they weren't in vacuum, of course... :jest:

M.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

MGagen said:


> Can you imagine the _RRRIIIIIIPPP!_ sound it would have made when they removed the engines during the refit? If they weren't in vacuum, of course... :jest:
> 
> M.


Of course in the "Star Trek: Phase II" web series they just plug in.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

kenlee said:


> Of course in the "Star Trek: Phase II" web series they just plug in.



Refit movie logo:
"In Space, No One Can Hear Velcro RIIIIIIPPPPP......"


Actually, that's interesting, as no one ever suggests that the refit pylons extend through the secondary hull like a stick in the mud.

The connection to the hull is a bit wider than the TOS E - but at the narrowest point, not by enough to matter...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Time for an update.

I've been working on the doors off and on over the last few days, and I wanted to deal with the little lighted assembly just aft of the door axis.

What is it? The folks who remastered TOS seem to think it is a control room; but they have a big problem with scale. The entire assembly is only a hair over 12 feet wide. The interior room couldn't be more than 10 feet across. A bigger problem is that the under side of the room would need to be scooped out severely since it can't be in contact with the spherical doors beneath it, if they are to open. At its deepest point (the aft-most wall) it is only 5'-7" tall _on the outside_. This rapidly shrinks to 4 feet no more than six feet from the wall. Judging from the little figure seen in the remastered version window, this booth must be staffed only by those little gold guys from Journey to Babel. Add to this the inaccessibility of this area from the rest of the ship, and I think we must rule out a control booth. In my reckoning, this feature is the aft long-range sensor. It is the counterpart to the three round porthole-looking windows on the front of the saucer. 

But even though it is a lot smaller than it would need to be to function as a control booth, it still sticks down pretty far into flight path of incoming shuttlecraft. What's more annoying, from a TOS purist's point of view, is that it is all too visible from inside the hangar when reproducing the iconic "standard view" camera angle.

Phil Broad, of the excellent Modelers' Reference Vault, interpreted the doors as stopping short of extending all the way to the top in his CGI model. In essence, there is a seam just below the sensor housing and the doors slide across under it more like a curtain opening than the rotating-axis blimp hangar doors that inspired Jefferies. This does keep the unwanted assembly from sticking down into the field of view (and makes a control booth a bit more feasible), but at the price of changing the very look of the doors when they open.

After spending a good deal of time thinking this through, I've come up with a different plan. It is not perfect, but I believe it represents a fair compromise between what we actually saw in TOS and a design that would actually function. It also lets me offer a peek at some of the inner workings of the ship that we were never privileged to see back in the day.

I propose that the upper section of the sensor housing, down as far as the translucent "window", is anchored to the top of the hull. The bottom of the housing is actually attached to the two center door segments. When the doors are closed, it looks like it always does in exterior shots:










When it opens, the bottom of the housing splits with the doors and rotates out of the way, reducing the depth of the structure visible from within, and allowing us a glimpse of the actual sensors:










Once the doors are closed, the housing is back in place protecting the delicate instruments from space dust, ion storms, and grasping olympian gods.

Here's the difference it makes when viewed from the inside:










As opposed to the much deeper solid housing:










Here's how the whole thing looks from the aft control booth's vantage point:










And here is an unobstructed view of the sensor as I have imagined it:










That is how I have decided to deal with this thorny issue. Your mileage may vary, of course. 

Now I am on to completing the interior of the observation galleries. After that, final texturing and lighting...

M.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I like that....


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

The CGI people seen in it aside, I always imagined it was the tractor beam emitter used for all the landing and taking off shuttlecraft. This was backed up for me when Sulu said he had never landed one manually. Just my take on what it was, I never thought there were people in it.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

RSN said:


> The CGI people seen in it aside, I always imagined it was the tractor beam emitter used for all the landing and taking off shuttlecraft. This was backed up for me when Sulu said he had never landed one manually. Just my take on what it was, I never thought there were people in it.


That's what I always imagined it to be as well.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I'd always assumed that the big boxy thing in the middle of the hangar ceiling was the tractor beam emitter. That's one of the areas where I agree with FJ's Technical Manual.

M.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

MGagen said:


> I'd always assumed that the big boxy thing in the middle of the hangar ceiling was the tractor beam emitter. That's one of the areas where I agree with FJ's Technical Manual.
> 
> M.


Perhaps for landings and take-offs inside the bay, yes, but there is no line of sight to the rear of the ship from them. An emitter would be needed outside as well, just as they had two different emitters in "...The Next Generation".


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

kenlee said:


> Of course in the "Star Trek: Phase II" web series they just plug in.


With all this talk about conventional 21st construction vs. 23rd century construction, I started to think about the dry-dock itself.

With SOOOOOOOOO many changes to the ship both outside and inside. AND considering the time in which they made those changes, I started to think of the dry-dock as a super accurate and sophisticated transporter.

Probert originally envisioned all those panels as lights. But we're all familiar with the graphic that now covers those panels.

Since they are not lights, what other purpose might they serve?

I think of them as hyper accurate sensors and transporter emitters.

So, they would beam chunks of the ship out, (perhaps down to a shipyard on earth) where they would be reworked - modified, whatever.

Then, beamed back into space and their position in or around the ship.

It still could be a very long and complex process.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I remember reading somewhere that the idea for the refit as opposed to a keel up new ship was the original parts were removed, broken down to the molecualr level and reformed into the new units. Considering that comparing the two versions side by side, both external geometry and internal configuration, there is nothing in common between them aside from the general primary/secondary hull/engines on pylons concept.


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

I remember years ago when they talked about the dry dock scene in ST:TMP, the 'light' panels were tractor beams to keep the ship inside in the dry dock, 'locked' in the middle position. You wouldn't want the ship to move inside the dry dock, smashing into and damaging or destroying the dry dock. When the Enterprise is ready to leave, they turn off the 'light' panels so the Enterprise can activate it's thrusters and move out of the dry dock.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

The drydock used for the Phase II refit was in a hollowed out asteroid, reminiscent of the pre-production artwork for "Planet of the Titans"


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

kenlee said:


> The drydock used for the Phase II refit was in a hollowed out asteroid, reminiscent of the pre-production artwork for "Planet of the Titans"


They based that on an early production design. Yes it was original imagined to be in an asteroid, but the model produced for the real "Phase II" and not a fan production, was more in line with the TMP space dock.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

RSN said:


> Perhaps for landings and take-offs inside the bay, yes, but there is no line of sight to the rear of the ship from them. An emitter would be needed outside as well, just as they had two different emitters in "...The Next Generation".


Not true. Here's an approach perspective with the proposed tractor beam emitter visible:










You're thinking in orthographic terms, but that sort of perspective would only occur in real life at an infinite distance from the bay. Once the shuttle was in the neighborhood, say close enough to use the approach lights to get into the right glidepath, a tractor beam emitter sited in the center of the ceiling would have a clear line of sight and could snag it.

Of course, the surest way would be to place one below the gallery on the as yet unseen forward bulkhead...

M.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

MGagen said:


> Not true. Here's an approach perspective with the proposed tractor beam emitter visible:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like what you are doing with this, well thought out.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

kenlee said:


> The drydock used for the Phase II refit was in a hollowed out asteroid, reminiscent of the pre-production artwork for "Planet of the Titans"


Looks closer to the similarly inspired Tholian spacedock in "In A Mirror Darkly..."


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Thought it was about time for another update.

Here's a little glimpse of my progress so far. There are several more details to add. And I've got a lot of work to do if I want to evoke Jerry Finnerman's trademark lighting design. 

This is the Starboard gallery:










I thought I was not going to be able to give these rooms the ceiling height we saw on the show, but once again a close study of Matt Jefferies handiwork shows he really knew what he was about. While the external gallery height would not allow for the high ceilings, the gallery disappears into the arching hangar wall. It works out that the ceilings have plenty of room to expand upwards after all. MJ knew this and designed the set accordingly. The only "cheat" is that he opened the camera end of the set outward, in customary TV style, to allow easier filming. In reality, this gallery is wider at the forward end than it is at the aft end. 

The curved bulkhead you see on the right side is the actual interior of the hull, which is 12 inches from the exterior skin. The area visible in the background behind the mesh is actually a corridor leading forward the width of the nacelle pylons and emerging into the small access room in the Engineering High Bay where we saw Scotty's party appear in Doomsday Machine.

The more I investigate this ship, the more real it seems...

M.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

Nice work M. At first I thought you'd managed to find an original color picture of the set from "Conscience of the King". :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Here's another little detail needed for the scene...










And here's the grille over the observation windows and a further refinement of the lighting.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

MGagen said:


> Not true. Here's an approach perspective with the proposed tractor beam emitter visible:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even as a kid watching the shuttlecraft scenes with the takeoff and landing, I always wondered why we couldn't see what I thought of as the "little pillbox" sticking down from the top of the outside of the bay. Of course, I knew it was there because my 18" AMT kit had it poking through the top of the hanger doors. 

But then I figured that those two blocky things on top of the ceiling near the exit were like forklifts, and the pillbox got raised out of the way on takeoff and landing.

That was my reasoning, and it made sense because, well, I was 12...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

The starboard gallery interior is done, with the exception of the exterior windows. These have to wait, since I will be reflecting the starboard gallery across to the port gallery. The viewports in the starboard gallery will be round portholes, since we saw a great deal of that side of the ship and that is what is visible from the outside. The port gallery will have rectangular ports, since that is what we saw from the inside in _Conscience of the King_ and the port side of the ship was seldom onscreen. Conflicting data must be accounted for somehow, and this is my solution. YMMV.

Once the port side gallery has been installed, I'll add each side's exterior ports and will then turn to detailing the forward gallery. Later, I'll return to the hangar interior and finish it up.

Here are views of the starboard gallery. First, looking forward:










Looking aft through the doorway from the forward gallery:










Here's a view from outside the starboard gallery as seen from a darkened hangar:










Finally, a few miscellaneous details:










You'll note that the ridges running down the length of the exterior wall are the same wedge-like shape as the ridges running the length of the roof of the hangar. As I have interpreted these as structural members in the hangar (and in the pylons), so I have treated them the same in the galleries. Since they are part of the hull bracing, it only made sense that they follow the contours of the hull, itself, rather than the parallel decks. Since this part of the hull is conical in shape, you'll notice that these beams converge toward the deck as they extend aft. This is because the gallery deck is above the centerline of the hull. Once again, the closer you examine MJ's design, the more real it becomes...

M.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

Amazing work and attention to detail. 

Yes, Matt Jeffries truly knew how to keep track of all the details.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Great work! :thumbsup:

It's also amazing that we are still fascinated with this stuff even after all these years. When we were kids we drew plans and made models and now new tools allow us to be even more detailed while covering similar ground all over again.

It's also a shame nothing new has come along to fire our imaginations in the same way.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Love it! Adding those little detail pieces, whatever they are, was a nice touch. Their design is very reminiscent of the actual wall "sculptures" seen in the show.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Thanks everybody. The "plant ons" are only an approximation. They're the best I could do from screen caps of the observation gallery. I imagine that the same pieces are visible in various corridor shots throughout the show. There are probably better images to work from than the ones I used. I wonder if anyone has done a definitive study of plant ons...

M.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Looks great. You can do a walk-through animation like a guided tour of the corridors and hangar.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

waiting with baited breath for updates.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Progress has been a little slow, but here are a few updates.

Colorization of the hangar is underway:










Here's a view inside the forward gallery, looking port. The angled red tubing and the gray thresholds are part of the port pylon structure. This has been updated somewhat, but I don't have a more recent render:










Finally, I have been hard at work adding the windows and further working out the forward area. You can see the internal pylon structure angling across the open doorway. Unfortunately, there is less room here than I anticipated. I expected the pylons to be a bit further inboard at this level. However, I take things as they come. At present I have offset the doors a bit to make it easier to walk around the pylon structure, but I'm not sure I'm done with this area yet:










Cutting in the windows was the trickiest bit so far. I wanted the window frames to be perpendicular to the hull. Since this section of the hull is conical, and the windows are situated above the horizontal center, I had a bit of a time getting them level to the deck and perpendicular to the hull. In the end, the bottom of the windows is just about at Shatner shoulder level. This means they run a bit higher on the outside than they appear on the model.

M.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Mark,

Are you basing your hangar on the 947' hull length or the 1080' hull length?

I just posted some pics of my CG Galileo that I'm working on, and you got me inspired to start on my own hangar deck.
I've had my Enterprise for years now, but never tackled the hangar.

We've likely followed some of the same protocols, like taking a screen grab from Conscience of the King and scaling it out to Shatner's height and the dimensions of the communications panel on the wall.

The thing is, my galleries seem a bit big in relation to the curvature of the hangar walls for the 947' length.

However, if I enlarged the hangar to fit the 1080' length, I'm sure they would be more in proportion to what we're all used to.

The more I do stuff like this, the more I warm up to the 1080' length.

So that got me wondering what hull length you were using?
IIRC, without going onto my other computer, I think I had my hangar at 52 feet wide.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

My E is the canonical 947' in length.

In my opinion, the little extra elbow room you get by scaling up to 1080' is outweighed by other issues, such as the turbolift no longer aligning with the bridge tube.

The TMOST hangar drawings are of little help, as they appear to be concept drawings for a forced perspective miniature, and differ in several respects from what was constructed. (The actual miniature was not forced perspective -- it's just not scaled properly for the ship.)

The gallery height is a little deceiving: There is more headroom in the galleries than it looks from the outside because the slanted top intersects with the hangar wall -- The interior extends higher on the inside between the hangar walls and the exterior of the hull.

I'll try to post some dimensions from my version later today.

M.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

O.K., here are some dimensions from the hangar deck of my 947' TOS-E. _YMMV_.

Radius of interior hangar walls: 26'-0"

Inner width of hangar: 52'-0"

Length of hangar
Forward bulkhead to inner edge of aft arch: 54'-9"
 ... to edge of flat deck surface outside doors: 67'-7"
... to edge of semi-circular deck extension outside doors: 83'-3"

Height of alcoves: 8'-8"

Height of control booths and visible height of galleries: 8'-6"

Height of bottom of galleries from deck: 11'

As stated before, you mileage may vary; but this is how I've shoe-horned all the details seen on screen into the 947' hull in a way that resembles what we saw and yet is still functional.

Next up, the rest of the interior details.

M.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

MGagen said:


> O.K., here are some dimensions from the hangar deck of my 947' TOS-E. _YMMV_.
> 
> Radius of interior hangar walls: 26'-0"
> 
> ...


WOW,
Radius 26' and width 52'.
As I stated above, thats EXACTLY what I had.

I wonder what else we got the same.
Now I gotta go look.

You must have your 'camera' set to a pretty wide focal length to get the shots your getting.
I usually don't render so early on in a project but I may just have to.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Time for another update. What time I've spent on this in the last week has been trying to free up space around the pylon supports. I wasn't happy with the solution I had come up with earlier, so in order to have room available for Kirk and Lenore to enter the gallery as seen in _Conscience_ I decided that I'd need to re-route the aft most support members. The two aft red tubes now turn forward and join the next ones a little above head height. This give more room for entering the forward door of the side galleries and takes away the need for the pylon support structure to have walk-through tunnels in the forward gallery. It also allows me to center the doorways again and gives a reason for the red mesh screen, which serves to keep people from walking into the supports.

Here is a view of the Starboard side gallery looking forward. You can see the the pylon supports and that the doorways have been brought back in into line:










And just to give you an impression of how my hangar design fits into the hull, here is a cutaway view. Note that this is a perspective view, not an orthographic side view:










If you look closely, you can see how the pylon enters the hull, revealing its inner structure in the gallery, then continues down into the hangar space within the sheath-like structure on the forward wall. You can just see where the aft red supports turn and join the next forward supports. This is visible through forward gallery at the top of the doorway. One of the supports they merge with is visible angling down behind the red mesh screen. I imagine that after dodging the gallery level, the supports split off again into their original lines. 

The exterior hull viewports are also visible through the port gallery windows.

Next up: Final hangar detailing. 

M.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Most excellent. :thumbsup:


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

Superb bit of 3d modeling! It's really looking sweet. :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Time for another update. Work is almost complete.

Finished adding the various lights and the deck markings. The only things left to do are to add a little more detail to the forward bulkhead and some doors to the side alcoves. Neither of these are strictly canon. We didn't see the forward bulkhead and there wasn't a visible door in the outer wall of either alcove. But since we saw that door from the other side in _Journey to Babel_, it must be there. 

As for the forward bulkhead, I need to decide on the configuration of Engineering. If I put a single set of GNDN tubes in the center, then I could have a small door on either side of the front wall, outside the pylon braces. I am leaning toward the two tube-set solution. This would allow me to depict both first and second season Engineering sets with an Emergency Manual Monitor high bay in between. In that case, a single door in the center of the forward wall would enter a corridor through Engineering, under the EMM.

Decisions, decisions.

In the mean time, here are two views.

M.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I gotta say I am HUGELY impressed!!! You've made this work when so many basically accepted it couldn't work as seen. Awesome! :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Thanks!

I'm certainly not the first one to create a nice 3D hangar deck model. 
But I have imposed the strict limitation on myself that it must be 
functional in a 947-foot ship.

As you can see, it is certainly not as spacious as it looked in the series. 
But hopefully it looks enough like it, if you squint...

And I don't mind a small, cramped ship. I think it is more realistic. 
Why must every new "Enterprise" be bigger and more bloated than the last?

M.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Sweet. I want to jump into it and walk around.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

MGagen said:


> Why must every new "Enterprise" be bigger and more bloated than the last?
> 
> M.


Out of universe: bigger budgets.
In universe: energy to waste.


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

Where do the other shuttlecraft go?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

onigiri said:


> Where do the other shuttlecraft go?


Under the floor, er, deck. That turntable is also an elevator.


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

I know how its supposed to work but dont see how it can work dimensionally. Has anybody done a cross section showing how this would actually fit?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Franz Joseph did, but it only works because it's further forward into the ship.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

*MGagen* has done it more credibly because he accounts for the structural aspects of the pylons and secondary hull.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Warped9 said:


> *MGagen* has done it more credibly because he accounts for the structural aspects of the pylons and secondary hull.


Thanks! It's true, the lack of pylon bracing structure is one of the things I've faulted FJ for; but I always try to temper my criticism 
of his work with my awe for what he accomplished (and with such meager resources). I am an unabashed fan of his, 
even though I favor a different take on several points.

My version of the hangar deck has the turntable/lift far enough forward to be able to lower it down to a true hangar level. 
This is based on the shuttlecraft as designed, not an enlarged version that takes into account 6-foot interior ceilings. 
That may be possible, too; but it is not the task I've set for myself.

M.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Would my 26-1/2 ft. shuttlecraft fit? If so then it works for me.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

onigiri said:


> I know how its supposed to work but dont see how it can work dimensionally. Has anybody done a cross section showing how this would actually fit?


I haven't posted any pictures, but I'd been working on my own CG hangar.
(haven't had a chance to touch it in a while).
I can tell you that there dimensionally IS room to get an elevator down to a lower deck.
For my Galileo that I did a few months ago, that I based on the dimensions of the studio piece and enlarged it based on the notion that it was a 3/4 mock-up.

But here is an interesting thing to consider....
Who says the elevator has to go straight down?
When I was on the Aircraft Carrier Enterprise in November, I was surprised to see that its elevators didn't go straight down. They travel on a track that is not completely vertical, but rather angles inward as it goes up to the flight deck.
Once I had a 'full scale' Galileo and a 'full scale' Enterprise with hangar, it occurred to me that the elevator might go down at a angle, like her real world counterpart and taking advantage of the angled nose of the shuttle, saving dimensional space at the rear of the ship.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

That's a pretty cool idea.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Excellent point, ClubTepes. I had heard speculation from others that perhaps the lift angled, but I had never known that such a system is actually in use in today's fleet. How many degrees off of 90 does the lift travel?

And your point about the pointed nose is well made. It would probably be standard procedure to lower and raise the shuttles facing forward.

M.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

MGagen said:


> Excellent point, ClubTepes. I had heard speculation from others that perhaps the lift angled, but I had never known that such a system is actually in use in today's fleet. How many degrees off of 90 does the lift travel?
> 
> And your point about the pointed nose is well made. It would probably be standard procedure to lower and raise the shuttles facing forward.
> 
> M.


Thanks.
On the USS Enterprise CVN-65, the angle is very subtle, perhaps 5 degrees, but for sure, there is an angle. Surprised the hell out of me, especially considering on every model, they are vertical (Likely due to molding issues) and that is what we 'know' and come to expect out of the real thing.
I'll try to post a pic I took later.

Here is something else to consider. That big red rectangle under the fantail. What is it? Well of course that is all speculation (Not sure if Jeffries ever said). A couple of people have said that it was an access hatch for workbees.
Thats all fine and good, but then shouldn't it be sectionalized or something like the big hangar doors? It can't split, or run up or down in the alloted space. It might hinge, but thats a huge panel to hinge.

Again, with everything in 'full scale', I noticed that the rectangle is slightly wider than the shuttle and perhaps the same size as the elevator.
So, I'm starting to think that it might be an explosive panel.
Why? Well, Class F shuttles have warp capability. So seems like they have antimatter. 
The Starships all have ejection points for the warp cores.
And if the 'repair' deck is one deck down, what do you do if you start to have a catastrophic failure in the shuttles warp drive system?
You might not have time to get it up the elevator and out the hangar door, so, you eject it out the back.
When viewed from the rear, the hatch is actually tall enough to eject a shuttle straight out the back.

My two cents.

While I initially really liked the 'workbee' hatch idea, realistically those could be stored on the forward (Never seen) wall of the hangar in close proximity to where they store them on the refit (Which has no forward wall in that area-so of course they moved them to the sides).
Thats how I plan on detailing out my hangar, whenever I can get back to it.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Still progressing slowly. Here's another minor update.

The Hangar Deck Pressure control panel. I took the liberty of correcting the spelling of "hangar." Seems the same guy labeled the "Hanger Deck Pressure" sign as handled the "Enviromental Control" sign in the corridor set.

I also gave the overall layout a bit of a tune-up, as well as replacing the _Inches of Mercury_ pressure scale with its metric equivalent. Even though I'm an old-school American, I figure by the 23rd Century we'll have finished adopting that new-fangled French measuring system...

M.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Another update:

Here's a view of the nearly completed hangar. I decided to add some signage identifying the ship for new arrivals.










And here are later closeups of the forward starboard corner, and the door in the starboard alcove. There wasn't a door hear on the miniature set, but we know there should have been, since it's the door the honor guard welcomed Sarek and Amanda through in Journey to Babel. I surmise it would have both an intercom and a control panel near it.



















Next, I'll be adding some control consoles to the port and starboard control booths, and I'll probably add some detailing to the wall visible through the forward center gallery.

M.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

I cannot express how impressed I am by what you've done here...just awesome!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Thanks, Fozzie!

Here are the beginnings of the control console. I am basing it on the transporter console, but narrower, since it will be a one-man station.

More details as it progresses.

M.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

It's looking awesome my friend.:thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Thanks, Jon.

Time for another update. Here's the completed Starboard Control Console. As you can see, I've given it a hangar 
schematic with the flight path for incoming shuttles on it. The orange circle with the red pointer represents the shuttlecraft. 
The bullseye in the lower left corner is a sort of radar screen depicting objects in the immediate neighborhood of 
the ship. For the Port booth, this graphic will be reversed so it matches the view of the hangar from that vantage point.



















There are a few jokes hidden in the right and left side readouts. The one in blue in the center of the left panel should 
be legible enough to decode. Bragging rights to the first one to identify it...

M.


----------



## JediDad (Dec 5, 2009)

Ok don't laugh at me if I am totally wrong, but I see the jja as being JJ Abrams, and the rest as sux, though the supposed S actually looks like a 5 hahaha. That's all I got . . . . 

Regardless, that console looks fantastic, and I love the work you have been doing.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

JjA 5ux = JJ Abrams Sux.
Funny, but took only about 5 seconds.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

We have a winner at 4:41 a.m. ET! 

Bragging rights go to JediDad, who is also some kind of night owl.

Kudos also to Club Tepes.

M.

P.S.: I never said it was subtle...


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

"gndn". Nice! :thumbsup:


----------



## NemVia (Jan 6, 2007)

I caught that and the yellow (gndn) goes nowhere does nothing indicator on the left panel.
Mark


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Well, no plan of battle survives its first encounter with the enemy. Looks like my control console was a little too deep for the control booth. Since the outer 
half of the booth (the part extending beyond the bulkhead) has to clear the inner door surface, it can't be very deep. This doesn't leave enough room to 
stand behind the console.

This left me with two options: Convert it into a seated console and lower it so it could move closer inboard; or pare down the depth of the console, removing its legs 
and attaching it to the wall. Since you wouldn't get a very good view of the hangar from a seated position, I had to go with the latter option.

Here is the truncated console in position within the booth. The first image gives an operator's view:




























And finally, since I had to give up one of the outer panels, here are both of them for your inspection. Of all the references, only "5974" is random.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

A further view from outside the doors.

M.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

AE 35 unit from Discovery
C57D from Forbidden Planet
35.5 degree bridge offset
947' Enterprise length
WgtYr - no idea - We Got The Year Right??


----------



## JediDad (Dec 5, 2009)

MGagen said:


> We have a winner at 4:41 a.m. ET!
> 
> Bragging rights go to JediDad, who is also some kind of night owl.
> 
> ...


I'm in CA so it wasn't quite as late as it seemed haha. And I have to say, I agree with your sentiments. I am very afraid of what he is going to do to Star Wars.

Keep up the great work MGagen!!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Correct on all counts, JHeilman.

And WgtYr is a slightly botched _Buckaroo Banzai_ reference:

Wherever (you) go, there you are.

M.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Missed that one. And I love Buckaroo. :thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Very nice work!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

It's been a while, but it's time for a small update.

Recently I've been working to integrate the Hangar back into my full model. Actually, I had isolated a copy of the secondary hull into a separate document and built the Hangar in it. 
Along the way, I refined the hull a bit and now it is time to replace the entire assembly into my model. 

Here is an exterior view looking into the open hangar deck:










Careful observers will note that I have relocated one of the round portholes down into line with the two others near the hangar. This is to place it into the observation booth at the end of the gallery, 
rather than higher up into no man's land. This is my little concession to a workable interior. A view of the other side will find two of the portholes converted to rectangular ports to match 
the ones in the port gallery that Kirk and Lenore gazed out of.

For the record, I've branched my model into two separate ones: This "full scale" version, and my original studio-scale one which matches the filming miniature and has no interiors.

That hangar looks a little bare, doesn't it? Not to worry, I'm working on a Shuttlecraft to land there. This will be the third time I've attempted to tackle the surprisingly complex "flying cheese box." 
Hopefully I will manage it this time. My plans for it are to make it the same size as the set piece and give it the cramped interior that MJ seems to have had in mind. I'll also likely make a 150% scale version 
with a full-sized interior, although getting that one down the lift may prove a challenge. Time will tell.

M.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

In orbit around an obscure Class M planet...

Earth photo courtesy NASA.

M.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

Very beautiful work, sir. :thumbsup: I love the shot of the open shuttle bay. Really cool!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Nah, you can't fool me. That's not earth. It's the parallel earth from "Miri." 

Looking good. Have you attempted any animations yet?


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

jheilman said:


> Nah, you can't fool me. That's not earth. It's the parallel earth from "Miri."


Spoken like a true _Gr'up!_

Thanks,
M.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

"NO MORE BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!


----------



## harristotle (Aug 7, 2008)

Seriously amazing work! I may have missed it in the thread, but what program are you using? I did some 3d modeling with autodesk back years ago in school, but have since not been able to find a 3d modeling program that didn't cost a fortune and was still usable.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Thanks, Harristotle, (love the name, by the way)

I use Strata Design 3D CX7 on a Macintosh. It's easy-to-use, relatively affordable (You can get it online just now for about $400), and makes great renders. It can do animation, too, but that's not its strong suit.

There are cheaper programs (even free ones), but for ease of use and beautiful renders, Strata is hard to beat.

I began working on my E in Strata 3 about a dozen years ago (yeah, I'm that picky), and at that time it lacked some of the necessary tools to do serious polygon modeling. Some of the ship was constructed in a now orphaned package called Amapi 3D, but since that time Strata has really stepped up their game in the modeling department and my current model has been completely rebuilt in Strata.

Strata is available for both Mac and PC at www.strata.com

Since you mention AutoDesk: If you are more comfortable with CAD-like solid modeling than the usual polygon methods, I can recommend a knock-out and very affordable solid modeler created especially for ease of use by the creator of Rhinoceros. It's called Moment of Inspiration (or MoI). For about $300 you get a full-fledged solid modeler that writes the same standard NURBS format that Rhino does. It lacks a rendering system, but for CAD modeling it is hard to beat. I have given it a thorough trial, and am only waiting for the next upgrade (due sometime later in the summer) before hitting up my employer for a copy. It runs on both Mac and PC and you can demo it at www.moi3d.com

Hope this helps. Working in 3D is a great deal of fun. 

M.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I know I've not been commenting on this in a while, but figure it's time to do so now, right...? I just didn't want to come across as too much the back-patting Gr'up. 

Great work, Mark! I've appreciated not just the CG work you've put in to this, but your research and conjecture, as well as sharing it all with us. Lots of excellent stuff. 



I'm hoping that this is just the warm up to you doing some NuBSG CGI....


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Thanks, Griff.

I'm more likely to embark on some 2001 subjects before I tackle Galactica (Nu or Classic). All that new reference material in Adam Johnson's 2001 book is calling to me. But given it's taken me over a decade to get the E settled to my satisfaction, I should live so long.

M.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Lovely. What a fine thread this has been.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Great job (as I hope I've said before). I'm seriously thinking of picking up Strata 3D after seeing what it can do in capable hands ... though I wish there was a 3D program than interfaced like this with CorelDraw.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I'm sure you can use CorelDraw with it. For example, I often draft my splines for lathed shapes or extrusions in 
Adobe Illustrator and then import them. Strata accepts .ai, .eps and .pdf vector files for input.

And I'm sure Corel's Photoshop counterpart would be more than suitable for making texture maps.

M.


----------



## Larry523 (Feb 16, 2010)

Amazing job! As for the shot of the E orbiting that planet, you can send the ship on her way to her next destination. I have it on good authority that there's no intelligent life there!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Wait a minute...I live there. Are you saying...oh never mind. :freak:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> ...Great work, Mark! I've appreciated not just the CG work you've put in to this, but your research and conjecture, as well as sharing it all with us. Lots of excellent stuff...


I concur. Your subtle modifications are not only well-thought-out and reasonable, but they make the ship "realistic" instead of "idealistic" (as realistic as a fictional starship can be, anyway).


----------



## harristotle (Aug 7, 2008)

MGagen said:


> Thanks, Harristotle, (love the name, by the way)
> 
> I use Strata Design 3D CX7 on a Macintosh. It's easy-to-use, relatively affordable (You can get it online just now for about $400), and makes great renders. It can do animation, too, but that's not its strong suit.
> 
> ...


Thank you! 

One more question for you. I'm not sure I understand the difference between polygon modeling and the solid modeling you reference, could you explain those? 

Sorry for the nitpicky questions, but I want to understand what I'm getting into before possibly shelling out a few hundred bucks and find I don't like the program.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

By all means download the demos of both programs before deciding.

Most 3D programs you'll see being used for artsy renders and animations are polygon modelers. They treat the objects they build mainly as surfaces made up of triangle polygons (or in many cases quads and n-gons). A model is built by adding detail and pushing and pulling polygons around to achieve the desired shape. Organic and freeform shapes are easier to make this type of program. Complex mechanical shapes often require more discipline and planning. Boolean functions like subtracting one shape from another can become very complex and unpredictable. 

Solid modelers work more like a CAD program. A shape is defined as a volume within an intersection of mathematically derived curves and surfaces. You can also create a shape more the way you machine metal, by starting with a larger block and cutting away the chunks you don't need. Boolean functions are usually very predictable because the original shapes are really still there. The new shape is just an intersection of them. Freeform and organic shapes are harder to create, but mechanical ones are easier. The resulting model could be used to make an accurate set of blueprints, but it can't be rendered into a photo realistic piece of art without being exported into a polygon format. You'll need another program that can import the model and texture and render it.

You might find it easier to think of polygon vs. surface models as the three dimensional equivalents of bitmap graphics vs. vector graphics. Ideally, it's nice to have both types, so you can use each one for what it is best at.

Here's an example from my own experience with modeling the TOS-E: Making the secondary hull was a real bear in a polygon modeler. You start out with a lathed shape, which is easy; but you also need to scoop out the fantail and the three trenches at the front. Then you need to add on the three "brackets" that extend around the deflector assembly. Each of these extra functions require very accurate intersections between flat and curving surfaces, or worse, between two different curving surfaces. I spent an ungodly amount of time cleaning up and rebuilding areas where boolean operations left the polygons in a hash. Much of this is careful hand work requiring a clear understanding of how to represent a shape with particular polygons. Errors result in wrinkles or pinched surfaces. The final bit of refinement required was to smooth out the transitions where the flat trenches fade into the roundness of the hull. On the original model, this was merely the work of a bit of sand paper, but when dealing with polygons, it is quite tricky. More hand work, but I got the effect I wanted.

When I got my hands on a demo copy of MoI, the first thing I did was rebuild the secondary hull. What took me hours before, was the work minutes. However, that smooth transition from the trenches to the roundness of the hull was too complex for MoI's fillet command to handle. I ended up sticking with my Strata derived hull, since it had the subtle detail I wanted.

M.


----------



## harristotle (Aug 7, 2008)

That makes sense. I really appreciate the explanation! 

I found a picture I had saved of my attempt at the Excelsior from about 6 years ago.


----------

