# The Invaders Saucer



## Seaview

The DVD set for the Roy Thinnes series "The Invaders" has been out for a couple of weeks now and I've just gotten about half way through it; this was a surprisingly better show than I remembered it being! While definatly formulaic television, the scripts are very well written, acted and directed, and especially with the alien "immolation" scenes, the special effects are still quite effective. 
This is a series well worth getting, and IMHO, I would love to see an Invaders Saucer get the "Moebius" treatment and be made available as a kit in about a 12"-15" diameter size, perfect for either an interior or even a very nice lighting set-up. :thumbsup:


----------



## bert model maker

I too would like to see an Invaders saucer in a larger size :thumbsup:


----------



## djnick66

I'd go for that. Although the old kit is still nice. Its simple but one of the cleaner Aurora kits. A standard scale version would be cool.


----------



## Dave Hussey

I've also been watching the DVDs and I share your opinion of them.

And that has rekindled my interest in the saucer from the show also. I have a couple of the recent re-issues and I was thinking of building and lighting one. My quandry is powering the lights while retaining the interior for display. I don't want to have a big battery visible in there. So maybe I'll build it without lights.

But a Moebius saucer would certainly be welcome!!

Huzz


----------



## djnick66

Dave Hussey said:


> My quandry is powering the lights while retaining the interior for display. I don't want to have a big battery visible in there. So maybe I'll build it without lights.


I was wondering about that. Of course it has lights around the top lid of the saucer, which pretty much means no interior... 

For the bottom lights I want to look at some of those push button on/off drawer lights they advertize on tv... or something similar. If I found some small enough I would just use one in/under each of the red domes on the bottom.


----------



## maucutt

*Invaders ship*

Here is mine. It's 15" and made from sheet plastic and acrylic.


----------



## Dave Hussey

How did you make that out of sheet plastic??

15" diamater? Awesome!!!:thumbsup: It really looks great!!!

Huzz


----------



## SUNGOD

Guys the old Monogram kit is hard to beat. All it needs is someone to reissue that kit with the *top moulded in clear plastic *so you can either put it on as it is and see the interior, or the windows can be masked off and the top sprayed/painted silver and once the masking tape is pulled off the windows will actually look like proper windows. I'm sure when Monogram first issued that kit the top was moulded in clear plastic but subsequent reissues all had the top moulded in opaque plastic (which is stupid). 


The underneath where the main circular engine is should be moulded in clear plastic too (even the appropriately coloured clear plastic of the tv saucer) so it could be lit up from inside.

Nice scratchbuild btw maucutt!


----------



## Dave Hussey

DjNick - I wasn't going to bother with the top lights. 

One possibility for lighting would be to not cement the bottom plate in place but secure it with button magnets. That way, the entire top of the saucer could be lifted off (including the flight deck) to reveal the electronics and battery area. But that means that the seam around the leading edge of the saucer would remain.

Huzz


----------



## gareee

I cn still remember seeing my invaders saucer model sitting on top of the trash pile... my grandmother had thrown it away, and so much of the landing gear was broken, I just left it there....>>sob<<


----------



## bert model maker

WoW, huge model & picture


----------



## Seaview

SUNGOD said:


> Guys the old Monogram kit is hard to beat. All it needs is someone to reissue that kit with the *top moulded in clear plastic *so you can either put it on as it is and see the interior, or the windows can be masked off and the top sprayed/painted silver and once the masking tape is pulled off the windows will actually look like proper windows.


 
Another improvement over the Aurora/Monogram kit would be to make it twice the size. 
If I remember correctly, the mold for the clear roof part was destroyed in the legendary "Great Aurora Train Wreck".


----------



## Dave Hussey

I agree with Sungod that the original would be hard to beat.

But in the hands of Moebius, I'm sure they would find a way to make improvements. 

Huzz


----------



## Richard Baker

If I remember correctly, the mold for the clear roof part was destroyed in the legendary "Great Aurora Train Wreck". 
__________________
The clear and opaque parts were identical.

The only problem with the original kit was the cylinder section was a different proportion to the main hull. I would also love to see a bigger updated versiuon of it.


----------



## Seaview

Richard Baker said:


> The clear and opaque parts were identical.


____________________

Correct; they were identical in measurements, but the only difference was that they were on different trees; the clear roof was on the tree with the clear dome parts. 
I've also noticed in viewing the DVD that the "window slits" around the upper hull are closer together, and that there are more of them, than are represented on the Aurora/Monogram kit.


----------



## Richard Baker

My big hope is that if it is reissued by Moebius instead of a rescaled and tuned hull the interior would have a fresh rethink. The original never made sense to me. The control room was OK though it did not amtch the scene showing it in the series, but the weird center hall and two empty rooms on a ship that small just looks stupid. The third room with the standing frames is OK but you would think a space craft would have a little more effiecient use of limited interior space.41. I thank Aurora for making an attempt, but some more stuff and a potential way to exit the craft through to the landing leg ladder would have been nice.


----------



## Dave Hussey

Hey Richard - there is an episode from the series which is titled "The Saucer" in which Vincent captures an Invader ship for a brief period. That episode features some good ship interior shots.

My impression of it was that the Aurora kit did a reasonable job of replicating the interior. Bear in mind though that its been a while since I watched it. I don't think its on the recent first season DVD set. And although I have it on VHS, my VCR died and we replaced it with a DVD recorder. So I can't watch it again to revisit the accuracy of the model.

Ah well!

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle

SUNGOD said:


> I'm sure when Monogram first issued that kit the top was moulded in clear plastic but subsequent reissues all had the top moulded in opaque plastic


Only the original issue of the Aurora kit came with a clear top. 

Great job on the scratch-build, Mike. :thumbsup:


----------



## xsavoie

I agree.If this kit is to be re released in a bigger size,it should be more accurized and have more detail parts.And of course,offer the necessary clear parts for lithing display.


----------



## scotpens

Richard Baker said:


> The control room was OK though it did not match the scene showing it in the series, but the weird center hall and two empty rooms on a ship that small just looks stupid. The third room with the standing frames is OK but you would think a space craft would have a little more effiecient use of limited interior space. I thank Aurora for making an attempt, but some more stuff and a potential way to exit the craft through to the landing leg ladder would have been nice.


Yeah, when I had that model I always used to wonder how the aliens got in and out of the thing!


----------



## Dave Hussey

They just popped the top off, jumped out and slid down over the side!

Yee-ha!!!

Huzz


----------



## Mr. Wabac

I posted some screen caps from my VHS copy of "The Saucer" over at "that other board" some time ago.

Here's the link:

http://www.resinilluminati.com/showthread.php?t=1053

Anyone know whether the filming miniature still exists ?


----------



## SUNGOD

Seaview said:


> Another improvement over the Aurora/Monogram kit would be to make it twice the size.
> If I remember correctly, the mold for the clear roof part was destroyed in the legendary "Great Aurora Train Wreck".



I might be wrong but all Moebius would have to do is mould the opague lid which is now included in the reissued versions, in clear plastic (even clear coloured plastic such as red etc). 

If it was a bad kit then I'd be all for a new tooling but I don't think it is and in fact I think it's one of the few older kits that doesn't need an update in the form of a new tooling (except for a reissue with more clear parts like I've stated, plus maybe one or two interior detail changes).

I'd rather see more subjects that haven't been done before from Moebius (if we're talking flying saucers, what about Earth Verses the Flying Saucers or Day the Earth Stood Still?


----------



## gojira61

Nice grabs!

The kit interior is really not too bad matched to the set. The show really does have a higher production value than I remember.


----------



## scotpens

SUNGOD said:


> . . . I'd rather see more subjects that haven't been done before from Moebius (if we're talking flying saucers, what about Earth Verses the Flying Saucers or Day the Earth Stood Still?


The saucer from _The Day The Earth Stood Still_ with a full interior and Klaatu and Gort figures in a decent scale -- now, that's a kit I'd shell out some bucks for. (Patricia Neal optional.)


----------



## Captain Han Solo

Great show.


----------



## Dave Hussey

gojira61 said:


> Nice grabs!
> 
> The kit interior is really not too bad matched to the set. The show really does have a higher production value than I remember.


That is my recollection too. And based on Mr. Wabac's pics, it looks that I may be right. Wow - ain't that something?

Huzz


----------



## GKvfx

I has to be about 25 years since I last saw an episode of this. That being said, it never stopped me from building the kit as a kid (I think I still have it).

I took a look at Mr. Wabac's frame grabs and something looked weird. Took me a second or two to figure out what was bugging me.

Look at the photos I grabbed from his RI posting and reposted here. Specifically, look at the shadows on the ground. There is no shadow on the ground save for the pentagon shaped outline of the landing pads. With the sun almost directly overhead, there should be a circular shadow on the ground. Yet all we see is a shadow in the middle of the saucer. Another giveaway is the fact that the landing legs are brightly lit and not in shadow. Also, in the side-ish view shot, look through the landing gear holes - you should see the saucer on the far side, yet it isn't there.

I know next to nothing about the FX for the show or who created them, but it appears to me that they only lugged the landing legs to Vasquez rocks and then composited a photo of the miniature (or footage if the lights on the roof are chasing) that was shot from a similar angle.

I don't know if this is old news or has been discussed before, but it now makes me want to check out the series and see if I can find any of the guys who worked on the show.

Gene


----------



## scotpens

Even without the lighting and shadow discrepancies, it's a VERY obvious matte shot. Notice the dark blue line on the right edge of the saucer where the optical composite is slightly out of register.

The quality of those FX shots is typical for filmed TV shows of the 1960s. _Star Trek_'s opticals were usually no better -- especially when the same stock film elements were used and reused over and over again, reprinted umpteen generations from the original. How many times did we see a portion of the _Enterprise_ "drop out" as it flew past a starfield in a bluescreen shot? Or inch-thick black matte lines surrounding the ship as it orbited a planet?


----------



## GKvfx

Yeah, the matte lines gave it away, but I was trying to think how they set this up. Whether the top portion was a photo or a model. If you look at the lineup you can see that the perspectives are close, but not quite. Don't know if it is a position thing or a lens mis-match or a bit of both.

And when we saw bad matte lines, we always referred to them as matte lines by 'Sharpie'.

Gene


----------



## Carson Dyle

GKvfx said:


> I know next to nothing about the FX for the show or who created them...


Weren't the FX created by the Anderson Co? Or did they just handle the opticals...


----------



## Mr. Wabac

I don't know whether they ever built a full-scale mockup of the saucer. My thinking is that they had the "paddles" that form the landing gear produced and perhaps and entry hatchway; nothing else. The fact that they matted the top of the miniature into the scene would seem to confirm this. Just speculation on my part, but check out one of the new photos I have attached; there is no saucer shaped shadow in the closeup. Note also the way they frame the shot without even a hint of the upper surfaces.

Curious as to whether the scene with the matted in saucer will look more "realistic" as a DVD release where they likely are using better source material.

My understanding is that the Howard Anderson Company did the SFX. Information on the series does seem to be spotty. Perhaps with the DVD release will reveal some more information on the production.

Note also in the last attached photo what appears to be an armature mount to the right of the saucer.


----------



## scotpens

Mr. Wabac said:


> . . . My thinking is that they had the "paddles" that form the landing gear produced and perhaps and entry hatchway; nothing else.


It would be interesting to know how they created that shot in the third frame from the left. The camera was probably on a crane or tower above the mocked-up landing gear. The circular hatch opening may have been a simply built three-dimensional piece -- or could it possibly have been a glass painting?


Mr. Wabac said:


> Curious as to whether the scene with the matted in saucer will look more "realistic" as a DVD release where they likely are using better source material.


The effects in television shows of that era were meant to be adequately convincing when broadcast from 16mm film prints and viewed on a 21-inch, 525-line TV screen. If the DVD release is mastered from the original 35mm negatives, the opticals won't look more "realistic" -- in fact, just the opposite. They'll probably look even more fake!


Mr. Wabac said:


> Note also in the last attached photo what appears to be an armature mount to the right of the saucer.


Does that black speck appear in every frame of that shot -- or is it just schmutz or a scratch on the film?


----------



## Carson Dyle

The optical "seam" between landing legs and the upper saucer reminds me of _Forbidden Planet_ in which the establishing shots of the C-57-D were achieved via similar approach. 

I'd be very surprised if anything other than the landing struts were built at full scale. Under the circumstances there would have been no reason to do so.

Unless I'm mistaken (help me out here, Gene), the saucer miniature still exists and now resides in the hands of a collector. According to a friend in the FX biz who's seen it, the thing is pretty big -- about seven feet in diameter.


----------



## GKvfx

Carson Dyle said:


> .........Unless I'm mistaken (help me out here, Gene), the saucer miniature still exists and now resides in the hands of a collector. According to a friend in the FX biz who's seen it, the thing is pretty big -- about seven feet in diameter......


I know next to nothing about this. And that's the first I heard of the saucer still existing. I guess I gotta try and get a hold of the Anderson's now........


I'll see what I can dig up...

Gene


----------



## Aurorafan

Here's my take on the Invaders UFO. The diorama is sculpey & plaster; light is shining up from box to simulate the ship's center light. A wire feeds into the hull via a tree branch in the back which happens to be 'touching the saucer's rim. The shaft of light is obviously an acrylic tube painted yellow


----------



## gojira61

Very nice!


----------



## Carson Dyle

Very cool effect!


----------



## mcdougall

Breathtaking...and if you don't mind me asking...how did you take this Photo? It's perfect...how did you illuminate the top of the saucer and still not wash out the cool effects? :thumbsup:
Mcdee


----------



## Mr. Wabac

GKvfx said:


> I'll see what I can dig up...
> Gene


Any information on the miniature would be of interest. A shot of the miniature during filming; especially of the opening credits would be amazing. I had no idea that the saucer could be as large as 7ft in diameter...WOW !


----------



## Aurorafan

Thanks for the comments. I simply dimmed the room's light down a bit and shot using a tripod to reduce blur. The lamp illuminating it from below is a mini flourescent from radio shack. Believe me, in normal light the model is NOT very spectacular.


----------



## X15-A2

I know where the filming miniature is and have photographed it a few times.

Some pertinent details about the FX model:

Size- about 30-36 inches across (I've never measured it actually but it is certainly no larger than 48 inches in diameter. I'm pretty sure it is smaller than that).

Color - (wait for it!) WHITE. It only appears "silver" in the show because of the blue glow reflecting from the blue-screen BG.

Physical details: No landing gear, no windows and most interesting, no "light ring" around the top. Apparently the lights around the top were not part of the model but matted in as separate elements. Odd, but that is the way it is.

The original builder still owns it.

Phil


----------



## Seaview

Thanks for the report, Mr. Broad; I'm sure we'd like to see those photos you took of it.
This clears up the mystery of why we never saw the landng gear either folding down or retracting.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Wow, the size info certainly contradicts what I was told by my FX pal. Is it possible there could have been two models created for the show?

I'll have to do a little further digging...

Question Phil: do you happen to know if the fellow who owns the saucer you saw also owns a couple of sub miniatures used in both _Flipper_ and _Hello Down There_? If so, we're talking about the same saucer, and I was either misinformed, or I misunderstood what I was being told (probably the latter). :hat:


----------



## Mr. Wabac

Very Cool Information.

Even at 36 inches across that is a fair sized model. Very strange about the light ring on the top; especially considering how difficult it was in the 60s to get a good matte (not that it is easy today if done optically). Lights and a "chasing" circuit would seem to have been much easier to do. I'll have to check out the opening credits again as I always thought the lights were part of the miniature.

If you are able to post photos, either here or on your own site it would be most appreciated.

"Hello Down There" wasn't that with Tony Randall and a cameo by Merv Griffin ?


----------



## Carson Dyle

Mr. Wabac said:


> "Hello Down There" wasn't that with Tony Randall and a cameo by Merv Griffin ?


Yeah, that's the one. 

I'll need to confirm this, but I believe the fellow who built the _Invaders_ Saucer was also contracted to build a couple of mini-subs for _HDT_ (miniatures which also popped up in the TV series _Flipper_, IIRC). I'm not sure if Phil and I are talking about the same person, but if so he still owns the models in question.

This weekend I've been invited to a gathering of "old school" FX industry model makers, and I'll try to get a more accurate accounting of this stuff. In the meantime, maybe Phil will chime in with more info.

One bit of clarification re: the original issue of the Aurora kit: the model came with 2 separate lid sections; one clear, and the other opaque. Curiously, the original "lights" were molded in the same silver-grey plastic as the rest of the model.


----------



## gareee

You mean the bottom lights? I distinctly remember them being cast in clear red.

I also recall wishing the bottom of the saucer was cast in clear read as well, since the large center section could never be lit up. I just painted it dayglo red back then.


----------



## Carson Dyle

gareee said:


> You mean the bottom lights? I distinctly remember them being cast in clear red.


That's the case with the early 70's Aurora re-release (the one with the revised box art). The original kit came with opaque lights (which the instructions direct the builder to "paint red").


----------



## gareee

Ah, ok. I don't recall which artwork was on the box at all.. back then, boxes were for paint schemes, seeing pics of the model built, and using the inner top lid for mixing paint.. LOL!


----------



## Dave Hussey

Carson Dyle said:


> That's the case with the early 70's Aurora re-release (the one with the revised box art). The original kit came with opaque lights (which the instructions direct the builder to "paint red").


Absolutely correct. I still have my mid 70's Aurora Invaders saucer and the small domes are indeed clear tinted red plastic. 

The later Monogram release did the same thing. However, the most recent Revell version has them in clear untinted plastic. That way you can apply your own tint; likely blue per the way it appeared on the TV show.

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle

Found a cool link...

http://home.earthlink.net/~peredhil/Invaders.html


----------



## SUNGOD

Of course a reissue of the Invaders UFO was supposed to be coming from the bizarre Aurora plastics company that mysteriously disappeared into thin air. 

Question is.....who has the moulds now?


----------



## Carson Dyle

Dave Hussey said:


> the most recent Revell version has them in clear untinted plastic. That way you can apply your own tint; likely blue per the way it appeared on the TV show.


Voodoo FX makes a nifty lighting kit for this model. The trick is figuring out where to hide the battery without falling prey to telltale seams (given the chaser lights, using the top lid as an access hatch is just asking for light leak heartbreak).

This thread has jumpstarted my own build of this subject. I'll post pix over on the sci-fi forum once I'm further along (I feel guilty dragging this out on the Moebius forum. *Moebius Mods: please feel free to relocate this thread to Sci-fi if you'd like*).


----------



## Dave Hussey

I've been agonizing on how to power the lower five lights while retaining the interior detail and also removing that big circular seam at the bottom of the saucer.

I may do that by mounting watch batteries in the top cap. With a wire that can fit inside the model but allow the cap to be removed for interior detail display. Hmmmmm.


----------



## Capt. Krik

SUNGOD said:


> Of course a reissue of the Invaders UFO was supposed to be coming from the bizarre Aurora plastics company that mysteriously disappeared into thin air.
> 
> Question is.....who has the moulds now?


Revell still owns the original molds. Most likely A Corp. was going to have Revell run off copies.


----------



## Seaview

The Aurora/Revell molds are nice, and I admit that I'll always have an affinity for it, but what I'd really love to see is this craft getting the "Moebius treatment"; a nice large scale with enough room for an appreciable interior AND lighting (with well hidden yet accessable batteries). 
In other words, to be a "self-sufficient" build-up that any of us would be as proud to display as any of our other projects.


----------



## starmanmm

First Aurorafan.... Nice Build up!  Gave me something to think about!

X15-A2... White was the original color! ? :freak: Damn... that threw me for a loop!


----------



## SUNGOD

Capt. Krik said:


> Revell still owns the original molds. Most likely A Corp. was going to have Revell run off copies.




I think Revell must have lent the moulds too Tsukuda aswell because the kit I have is a Tsukuda boxing, along with the Buck Rogers Starfighter.


----------



## Dr. Brad

And for what it's worth, here's my take on the "UFO" reissue of a few years ago. I replaced the opaque grill in the bottom with sheet plastic, added orange and blue LEDs, and painted it... silver.

Brad.


----------



## Aurorafan

Spectacular job, Brad.

And thanks, starmanmm


----------



## John P

SUNGOD said:


> I think Revell must have lent the moulds too Tsukuda aswell because the kit I have is a Tsukuda boxing, along with the Buck Rogers Starfighter.


I think what they do is not lend the molds, but Revell would shoot all the plastic in their factory, then ship the parts to Japan for Tsukuda to box up. Pretty sure that's the way they did the Flying Sub.


----------



## bert model maker

I also like the blue lights so i used a transparent blue and dipped each dome into the paint and got the perfect consistancy of blue. I may need to get another so i can light that one and not build the interior. Maybe Moebius will release one a little larger.


----------



## Dr. Brad

Aurorafan said:


> Spectacular job, Brad.


Thanks - I could have made the lighting on the center section more even if I'd not included the interior...  Or, come to think of it, I guess I could have used EL sheet. But I was way too cheap for that!


----------



## X15-A2

The fellow who built the "Invaders" saucer also built the ships for the original TV pilot "Earth II". He still has a few of those models but the big space station went to the "Planes of Fame" and "Cars of the Stars" museum in Orange County CA and disappeared after they closed down.

I am of the opinion that people are confusing memories of the large version of saucer from "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (used in the VTTBOTS series) with the one from "The Invaders". It actually was about 6 or 7 feet across while the Invaders ship was not that big. There might have been more than one model made but the saucer was seen so rarely in the show that I don't see why they would have needed one.

Phil


----------



## X15-A2

BTW, the bottom dome lights were green rather than blue. The rotating lights around the top were white and the central light on the bottom was red.

The ship displays two distinct methods of entry. The first one shown are the ladders mounted to the landing gear but in later episodes we see a drop-down ladder within the perimeter of the landing gear (closer to the centerline).

If you think about it, this show actually dovetails quite nicely with Gerry Anderson's "UFO". "The Invaders" illustrates the period when the invasion is first being detected while the slightly later series "UFO" shows the point where the Earth governments have created a dedicated defense force. I hadn't really thought about this relationship until I watch this new DVD release of "The Invaders".


----------



## charonjr

X15-A2, is there any way of getting permission for you to post the photos you took? I'd love to see the hero model.


----------



## Mark Dorais

Richard Baker said:


> If I remember correctly, the mold for the clear roof part was destroyed in the legendary "Great Aurora Train Wreck".
> __________________
> The clear and opaque parts were identical.
> 
> The only problem with the original kit was the cylinder section was a different proportion to the main hull. I would also love to see a bigger updated versiuon of it.


 You are correct in that. The Aurora/Monogram kits are incorrect in that respect. The upper part of the hull has a subtle taper to it unlike the kit's straight up and down sides. It's also wider on the upper section of the filming miniature produced by the Howard Anderson Company. I too would love to see a larger, more accurate version of this classic ship. Happy Modeling to you.


----------



## Mark Dorais

Mr. Wabac said:


> I don't know whether they ever built a full-scale mockup of the saucer. My thinking is that they had the "paddles" that form the landing gear produced and perhaps and entry hatchway; nothing else. The fact that they matted the top of the miniature into the scene would seem to confirm this. Just speculation on my part, but check out one of the new photos I have attached; there is no saucer shaped shadow in the closeup. Note also the way they frame the shot without even a hint of the upper surfaces.
> 
> Curious as to whether the scene with the matted in saucer will look more "realistic" as a DVD release where they likely are using better source material.
> 
> My understanding is that the Howard Anderson Company did the SFX. Information on the series does seem to be spotty. Perhaps with the DVD release will reveal some more information on the production.
> 
> Note also in the last attached photo what appears to be an armature mount to the right of the saucer.


 With the photo on the far left, you can clearly see the slight inward cant to the upper portion of the filming miniature. Along with this, it's wider than the Aurora/Monogram offerings.


----------



## Richard Baker

I have not been through the whole set yet but the DVD collection looks about the same as the earlier stills. I have not found any additional material about the suacer yet either.

It is interesting watching it again. Very edgy and a lot of false leads- you assume one thing and it turns out different. I enjoyed watching it more that some of the current high tech shows with perfect SFX.

.


----------



## Atemylunch

Just a brief bit of humor on this subject. 
I had one of the Aurora kits when I was a kid, and as kids do I had the base(some earthly terrain, cast in styrene, dark grey) sitting on the floor. 

My Grandmother tried to clean it up, thinking an animal left it behind. (No it wasn't painted.)


----------



## mach7

I love this show. Season 2 will be out in Jan. and it's in my netflix queue.

I agree it holds up much better than I remembered. 

I built the saucer as a flying rocket this past summer. It's made from card stock, and standard Estes type body tubes.

Mark


----------



## g_xii

*Decals for The Invaders UFO*

Hi --

I did these a little while ago. You can get them from Cult or at my website ( www.tsdsinc.com ). I managed to get one of the old kits, and just had do do up some decals!

It includes decals for all doors, panels, storage areas, even either open or closed hatches and the ladders! Scaled to fit the old Aurora / Revell / Monogram kits.

Also includes full color instructions, but this is a pretty easy set... everything pretty much only fits one place, and they are separated by "rooms" on the decal sheet, so using these decals is a piece of cake. And makes the model look great, too! 


--Henry


----------



## deadmanincfan

Sweet set of decals! I can't see anyone who has the kit not wanting a set!


----------



## Richard Baker

Nice Decal sheets you have. After the Christmas chaos settles down I am going to have to get a few.

.


----------



## g_xii

Thanks for the nice comments. I almost did not do them, because I figured the kit was kind of old -- and who'd need decals for it? Apparently there are still a fair number of un-built kits in circulation!

I guess that's one thing we all do ... hoard those kits away until we have time to build them. And the pile gets bigger and bigger ....!!! 

--Henry


----------



## Richard Baker

I have two unbuilt Invaders kits still- I have been thinking of building one with the full lighting kit- has anybody already done so and what are your recommendations?


----------



## g_xii

Richard Baker said:


> I have two unbuilt Invaders kits still- I have been thinking of building one with the full lighting kit- has anybody already done so and what are your recommendations?


Richard --

I just sent you an email.

--Henry


----------



## Gilusions

Richard Baker said:


> I have two unbuilt Invaders kits still- I have been thinking of building one with the full lighting kit- has anybody already done so and what are your recommendations?


Having always been a fan of the old kits. Flying Sub, Spindrift, Invaders ETC.
To me one of the best features is the interiors of all the old kits and should never be compromised with electronics. But then again that's me.

I usually don't let the cat out of the bag but We are coming out for the first of 3 light up products for 2009 will be lights for the Invades panels. I have been working on this for the last few months I like to have my cake and eat it too! (As far as lights & interiors)

So with the decals that TSDS has will make it so much easier then painting.

I hope to have some pictures and price in a few weeks

Gil

www.justanillusion.biz


----------



## starseeker2

X15-A2 said:


> I am of the opinion that people are confusing memories of the large version of saucer from "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (used in the VTTBOTS series) with the one from "The Invaders". It actually was about 6 or 7 feet across while the Invaders ship was not that big. There might have been more than one model made but the saucer was seen so rarely in the show that I don't see why they would have needed one.
> 
> Phil


Could have been this Day Still saucer?


----------



## Richard Baker

It looks like the same shape- dropped rim and gentle bulge in the center.

Was the Crashed Saucer seen in 'the Invaders' just a matte painting?

.


----------



## Mark Dorais

Richard Baker said:


> It looks like the same shape- dropped rim and gentle bulge in the center.
> 
> Was the Crashed Saucer seen in 'the Invaders' just a matte painting?
> 
> .


 It looks that way to me.....With some opticals layed over it


----------



## Krel

That is one of the saucer miniatures from "The Day the Earth Stood Still". It was used in the first season episode, "The Sky Is Falling". I saw it at the 96 World Con, where it still had the mini-saucer dock on the bottom, but unfortunately the mini-saucer was long gone.

David.


----------



## thepixelpusher

I would appreciate any info (feel free to PM me for my phone number) about the original Invaders Studio Model and it's builder. I'm working on a "button-for-button" set of blueprints and 3D CGI renderings that I will post to a public website for all to enjoy.

The Aurora model interior is based upon the 1st Season saucer set interior (example episode: THE INNOCENT), which was simplier. I'm creating 2D/3D blueprint plans based upon the 2nd Season saucer set (example episode: THE SAUCER) that was more developed.

As mentioned earlier, the other inaccuracies of the Aurora model was that it's windows were too far apart, the underside lights should be green and it's possible the center underside red-orange light should not have that reflector grid chiseled pattern on it. I'm still looking at some of the better screencaps from the new DVD's and I can't see any signs of texture on that underside center glowing engine area.

I wonder if there was a small and big filming model used on the show (regarding earlier comments on white saucer - possibly repainted?). The photo I have in my private collection shows the classic window slits and black lines on the underside to indicate landing legs. The shows FX shots with the landing legs was always an FX composite of real life leg set and matted in studio model. The studio model never had the legs built. See my image of the studio model below.

The info I have on the studio model was that it was 4' in diameter and made of wood and painted silver (see one of the best images of the studio model from the episode: THE PEACEMAKER), but this is not first hand info so it may be wrong.

As a new member I'm glad to be here and I'm contributing some of my own images from my collection to this discussion.

*Tom*

*shot of 1st Season saucer set (note moveable arm rests)*











*shots from 2nd Season saucer set - a little desktop image I made*











*one of the best shots of the saucer model from 2nd Season's "The Peacemaker"*











*one of the only "behind the scenes" shots I've come across of the original studio model - photo from my personal collection*


----------



## Richard Baker

I will be watching this with interest. I do not have any data to help yet but I always loved the Saucer design and was disappointed with the Aurora model. The basic proportions were off too much and I wish there was a proper Garage Kit of it someday. One thing I am interested in seeing how you resolve is the location of the landing gear entrance hole into the interior. I have the season one DVD set also and I am waiting foor the season two to be released- I just watched this show on first broadcast and I don't recall the season two changes made to the interior well.

.


----------



## mach7

Tom,

I was under the impression that the filming model was white and looks silver due to the bluescreen/lighting during filming. Also your behind the scenes photo shows the "sensor array" on the model, I had always believed they were an optical added in.

Nice photos, thanks for sharing.


----------



## starseeker2

I don't know if this is accurate or not but when I was building my saucer, I was comparing my few photos of the saucer (from the covers of the old comic books) and it it seemed that the "upper deck" portion of the Aurora kit was too small in diameter compared to the hull. If you scaled the Aurora kit up to 16", it was about 1" in diameter too small. That was a long time ago, so mostly now I'm just wondering if that recollection is correct.
Poor quality attachments, but as I say, from my old comic books. I know one is a matte composite, but the other might be the miniature, and they are almost precisely proportionate with each other.


----------



## g_xii

thepixelpusher said:


> I would appreciate any info (feel free to PM me for my phone number) about the original Invaders Studio Model and it's builder. I'm working on a "button-for-button" set of blueprints and 3D CGI renderings that I will post to a public website for all to enjoy.
> 
> The Aurora model interior is based upon the 1st Season saucer set interior (example episode: THE INNOCENT), which was simplier. I'm creating 2D/3D blueprint plans based upon the 2nd Season saucer set (example episode: THE SAUCER) that was more developed.


 
Tom -- 

First, welcome to HobbyTalk! 

Second, WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I WAS DOING DECALS 40 YEARS AFTER THE FACT????!!!! 

Those are great pictures, and I do wish I'd had better references when I did my decals! Keep 'em coming! I can always revise decals!

--Henry
www.tsdsinc.com


----------



## thepixelpusher

*Henry*, I have 6 kits of the Invaders Saucer. I'll want to get some decals.

*Starseeker2* here's the color shot of the field one you had in your attachments. You can see the dotted light reflections on the middle bottom engine rim that comes from the practical bottom lighting inside the saucer from the bottom dome lights in this one shot. I haven't seen any light spill like this in other shots. In my opinion, the chaser lights on the upper part of the saucer are probably not animated because it has motion blur when they are rotating. Any laser zaps or stuff that was done with hand animation FX in the series is crisp under frame by frame study and shows no motion blur. If anyone has a lead to the propmaker to settle this, please shoot me the name or PM me. I'd certainly appreciate it.

The blue look of the saucer most likely comes from the fact that FX shots were composited with 2 different rolls of films and a final duplicate or combined shot on another piece of film meant that the film image degraded (grainy) some (because of being duplicated) and caused color shifts, generally toward the blue range. The brighter saucer surface would show the color change the easiest because it was so clean and light. Take a look at a lot of the old Star trek series FX shots, they were very grainy and very bluish. Could also be spill from the bluescreen too.

*Mach7* I'm not positive the model wasn't white. The behind-the-scenes pic I posted is an old aged print I have and it isn't that good color-wise, so I'm still looking for more info.

If I'm clogging up this thread with research photos and going too far off topic, please let me know and I'll stop.

Tom


----------



## g_xii

thepixelpusher said:


> *Henry*, I have 6 kits of the Invaders Saucer. I'll want to get some decals.


Tom --

Remind me -- I'll set you up with a quantity discount. Don't just order them from my website -- email me for a paypal invoice when you are ready and remind me of this thread!

In the meantime, keep the pics coming! I'm snaggin' and savin'!!!

--Henry


----------



## Rick N

The Invaders really was top notch sci fi back then. I for one would like to see Moebius produce this saucer at least in a 15 inch dia. I have the original model that was produced years back..no lighting in it yet. Rick N


----------



## g_xii

Rick N said:


> The Invaders really was top notch sci fi back then. I for one would like to see Moebius produce this saucer at least in a 15 inch dia. I have the original model that was produced years back..no lighting in it yet. Rick N


I have not seen it in at LEAST 30 years! I may have to pick it up and give it a try again. I remember watching it as a child, but it did not hold my interest as much because the saucer was not in it very often. 

I appreciate things like this more now. There is a really great 1 season TV show that was made in the UK called "Ultraviolet". It's hands down the best Vampire TV show I've ever seen. The word "Vampire" is never used in the six episodes that were made, it's not gorey, you don't see fangs, but what you do get is very driven plotlines. From what people have been saying here about "The Invaders" sounds much the same. I'll have to watch it again!

--Henry


----------



## thepixelpusher

I'd be happy to provide Moebius with reference and blueprints when I finish it. I'd love a 15" model!! I saw The Invaders when I was 7 years old and I remembered it all and still love it.

I'm going to have a web page up shortly with more of The Invaders saucer.

Tom


----------



## mach7

Tom,

I could be wrong about the color. I've never read anything official.

Please keep the photos coming! Love them. Can't wait to see your web site!

g_xxi,

It's much better than I remembered it 30 years ago. Good plots, acting, and production values. Well worth a watch.

Mark


----------



## Richard Baker

When I first got the DVDs I was amazed how effective that show was. It did not have the saucer ofter, some shows had no alien tech at all. What made it work was the excellent stories and direction. The show was creepy in a subtle way. It also demonstrated how a good show can be made without CGI, tricks and gimmicks (or any of the budget those tricks cost).


----------



## g_xii

Richard --

That sounds very watchable! I actually really LIKE stuff like that now. I'll have to go looking for it.

--Henry


----------



## The IDIC Page

*Production Models Shop*

Hey. When I interviewed some of the guys at Production Models Shop (where the original TOS 11-footer was constructed), I was told that they built a studio model of The Invaders ship. I don't know much more than this or whether there was more than one filming model, but I was told this by one of the original model-makers and also the late Volmer Jensen's grandson. These interviews occurred almost ten years ago. 

Regards,

William


----------



## Richard Baker

I just saw that the Second season of The Invaders has been released. Money-In-Motion has it for about $30, I am sure there are better deals out there for it.


----------



## mach7

I started watching season 2 yesterday. Got it from Netflix. It's a good thing as I was having withdrawal.


----------



## John P

Cheapest I've seen it for is $26, but with free shipping:
http://www.deepdiscount.com/viewproduct.htm?productId=53504629


----------



## Dave Hussey

I picked it up at Wal Mart here in Canada for around $28-ish I think last weekend. Considering the current 20% difference between the US and Canadian dollar, that's a very good price.

And the show is as good as folks are saying!

Huzz


----------



## Lloyd Collins

On the subject of the filming model, Starlog had an article with their episode guide. It stated, that Anderson shined different colored lights on the model, to change it's look.
Since Phil stated that the model was white, it explaines alot. But I still will paint mine silver, because flying sauces are silver, it is a law!


----------



## thepixelpusher

Which number Starlog had that info in it?

Thanks.

Tom


----------



## Lloyd Collins

It is in issue 16 of Starlog.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Any update on the kit upgrade for metal legs, etc.?

Tom


----------



## Gilusions

thepixelpusher said:


> Any update on the kit upgrade for metal legs, etc.?
> 
> Tom


Hello I have made the molds for them and the bulkhead walls. But because of ongoing projects I have a little bit of a set back.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Lloyd Collins said:


> On the subject of the filming model, Starlog had an article with their episode guide. It stated, that Anderson shined different colored lights on the model, to change it's look.
> Since Phil stated that the model was white, it explaines alot. But I still will paint mine silver, because flying sauces are silver, it is a law!


Here's a frame grab from "The Peacemaker" episode from the 2nd Season. In the 2nd Season they did a better job of compositing the special effects and didn't have so much of a color shift in compositing. It's doubtful they would have shined a blue light on the model since they used bluescreen for the matting/compositing technology and that would make the model disappear. Blue colored items disappear as a way to composite the elements. They did shine red lights on the underside and possibly the top for the landing sequence for the opening intro of the show. The underside domes are really green instead of the light blue that shows up in the opening. Poor compositing is to blame for the altered colors. No blue would have been used on the model for fear of the item disappearing in the bluescreen compositing.











The model may originally have been white, but it looks distinctively silver in this shot. Though, the information I have is that the model was silver. On the new 2nd Season DVD set they show early Invaders TV promo commercials, and the saucer flying shot past the moon in the TV spot promo looks like the cleanest version I've seen (though this composite shot must have been redone to remove the bad spot on the lower left of the saucer). That shot looks shiny silver to me too.










Note in both versions the upper energy ports show a yellow tint. Most likely is that the energy ports on top were lit with white lights, but in these shots the bottom red engine dome light spills over into the top section, giving it a yellow tint.

Tom


----------



## starmanmm

Nice screen grabs.

I guess one can still paint it what ever color, based on the info now available, they wish... be it white based on one set of info or silver.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Gilusions said:


> Hello I have made the molds for them and the bulkhead walls. But because of ongoing projects I have a little bit of a set back.


If you can post any in-development pics that would be exciting.

Tom


----------



## starseeker

I just remembered this thread. I'm trying to figure out the shape of the Invaders saucer for a scratch build. I've posted the closet I've come so far at:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2944737&postcount=48
This would be a 24" diameter model, which is 1/32 scale for a 64' saucer. Among other questions, there definitely was a band around the base of the upper section. Does anyone know what that was? How far down the side of the upper hull were the spinning lights located? Is the dark circle centered on the top of the saucer real or a compositing artifact? If anyone has any comments or corrections, it would be hugely appreciated.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Are you making a kit? Sign me up for one if you do.

Tom


----------



## SUNGOD

I'd like to see Moebius reissue this with more clear parts (such as the lid) like we discussed.


----------



## Richard Baker

Rather have it just reissued with some clear parts I would prefer waiting a few years and have a retooled one. The original kit was OK until you compared it with what was on screen- some major proportion issues with the hull.
It has been a long time since it was on air, I think a few more years for a better kit would be worth the wait...

.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Not sure about this, but supposedly Monogram lost some molds in a train accident and the Invaders UFO was one of 'em. Anyone else hear this?

Tom


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> Rather have it just reissued with some clear parts I would prefer waiting a few years and have a retooled one. The original kit was OK until you compared it with what was on screen- some major proportion issues with the hull.
> It has been a long time since it was on air, I think a few more years for a better kit would be worth the wait...
> 
> .




But why would you assume that there's definitely going to be a new kit (I take it you mean a new tool and not retooled?) Moebius have never said as far as I recall that they would do one, and neither has any other company. The Invaders isn't exactly a huge show any more. It wouldn't do any harm to reissue it anyway as it's still a nice kit and more clear parts would improve it a lot without the expense of tooling up new parts.


----------



## Richard Baker

I never said it was an intended kit. I was just responding to the general wish for a reissue of the original kit. Between the choice of a reissue and a new tooling I would prefer a retooling.
I am well aware of the fact it was an old show without a cultish fan base, but it has more recognition than some shows/movies which do have kits.


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> I never said it was an intended kit. I was just responding to the general wish for a reissue of the original kit. Between the choice of a reissue and a new tooling I would prefer a retooling.
> I am well aware of the fact it was an old show without a cultish fan base, but it has more recognition than some shows/movies which do have kits.



What parts do you think need retooling?


----------



## flyingfrets

thepixelpusher said:


> Not sure about this, but supposedly Monogram lost some molds in a train accident and the Invaders UFO was one of 'em. Anyone else hear this?
> 
> Tom


Complete bullsh!t...at least with respect to *this* model. Tsukuda released a repop in the 80's and Monogram has repopped it several times themselves since then. The molds are fine.


----------



## Zorro

thepixelpusher said:


> Not sure about this, but supposedly Monogram lost some molds in a train accident and the Invaders UFO was one of 'em. Anyone else hear this?
> 
> Tom


No. Monogram has re-issued the kit several times since that apocryphal "train wreck", most recently in 2003.


----------



## starseeker

I just compared the Aurora saucer with the work-in-progress profile that I've posted based on photos and screen grabs. I have to say that I'm really surprised at how close the two profiles are. My upper hull is not quite as tall as Aurora's but the upper hull diameter is almost identical as is the curve of the lower hull.
The parts that would need re-tooling: the upper hull cylinder may not have have had vertical sides. Everything I see suggests that the side really were canted inwards toward the top. 
There is an obvious proud ring around the waist of the saucer. 
The large center light on the bottom seems to have sides that angle out toward the top.
The circumferential step on the bottom hull seems to also be angled and not vertical. 
But all in all the Aurora kit is a very respectable representation. I think it scales closer to 1/110 scale than to 1/72, tho.


----------



## thepixelpusher

The Monogram model doesn't have enough energy ports on top and they are too far apart. They also shouldn't protrude from the model, but should be flush with the exterior surface. Also, there is no gridded pattern on the underside middle engine circle, as is seen on the Monogram model.

Tom


----------



## SUNGOD

starseeker said:


> I just compared the Aurora saucer with the work-in-progress profile that I've posted based on photos and screen grabs. I have to say that I'm really surprised at how close the two profiles are. My upper hull is not quite as tall as Aurora's but the upper hull diameter is almost identical as is the curve of the lower hull.
> The parts that would need re-tooling: the upper hull cylinder may not have have had vertical sides. Everything I see suggests that the side really were canted inwards toward the top.
> There is an obvious proud ring around the waist of the saucer.
> The large center light on the bottom seems to have sides that angle out toward the top.
> The circumferential step on the bottom hull seems to also be angled and not vertical.
> But all in all the Aurora kit is a very respectable representation. I think it scales closer to 1/110 scale than to 1/72, tho.




Maybe the upper hull cylinder's sides look distorted sometimes because of the matte lines? The saucer usually looks distorted in the programme and in pictures because of the dated special effects process.


----------



## Richard Baker

SUNGOD said:


> What parts do you think need retooling?


For me the biggest difference is the hull shape. The width of the base, the diameter and heigth of the top cabin section and the curved section between them is off from what the frame grabs show. The model kit to me looks more like a Scout version of the basic design. Other details as mentioned above do not bother me as much and can be altered during the build.
I do like the original kit- I bought one on the rerelease and am saving it for later. I know it would be expensive to do it in a larger scale, but a reworked kit the same overall diameter with different detail and proportions would be wonderful. I doubt we will ever see one, but I had given up on a new Flying Sub and Chariot many years ago also..

.

.


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> For me the biggest difference is the hull shape. The width of the base, the diameter and heigth of the top cabin section and the curved section between them is off from what the frame grabs show. The model kit to me looks more like a Scout version of the basic design. Other details as mentioned above do not bother me as much and can be altered during the build.
> I do like the original kit- I bought one on the rerelease and am saving it for later. I know it would be expensive to do it in a larger scale, but a reworked kit the same overall diameter with different detail and proportions would be wonderful. I doubt we will ever see one, but I had given up on a new Flying Sub and Chariot many years ago also..
> 
> .
> 
> .




Well I just had a look at mine and compared it to the photo's on the previous page and the original does look a bit taller and more squat perhaps. I'd definitely buy a newly tooled kit (I wasn't going to buy the new Jupiter 2 from Moebius but I'm going to now after I saw the pics) but there definitely wouldn't be any harm in reissuing the Monogram one with more clear parts. I doubt anyone would retool it as that would virtually be like making a new kit to make it more accurate.


----------



## JAT

thepixelpusher said:


> *Henry*, I have 6 kits of the Invaders Saucer. I'll want to get some decals.
> 
> *Starseeker2* here's the color shot of the field one you had in your attachments. You can see the dotted light reflections on the middle bottom engine rim that comes from the practical bottom lighting inside the saucer from the bottom dome lights in this one shot. I haven't seen any light spill like this in other shots. In my opinion, the chaser lights on the upper part of the saucer are probably not animated because it has motion blur when they are rotating. Any laser zaps or stuff that was done with hand animation FX in the series is crisp under frame by frame study and shows no motion blur. If anyone has a lead to the propmaker to settle this, please shoot me the name or PM me. I'd certainly appreciate it.
> 
> The blue look of the saucer most likely comes from the fact that FX shots were composited with 2 different rolls of films and a final duplicate or combined shot on another piece of film meant that the film image degraded (grainy) some (because of being duplicated) and caused color shifts, generally toward the blue range. The brighter saucer surface would show the color change the easiest because it was so clean and light. Take a look at a lot of the old Star trek series FX shots, they were very grainy and very bluish. Could also be spill from the bluescreen too.
> 
> *Mach7* I'm not positive the model wasn't white. The behind-the-scenes pic I posted is an old aged print I have and it isn't that good color-wise, so I'm still looking for more info.
> 
> If I'm clogging up this thread with research photos and going too far off topic, please let me know and I'll stop.
> 
> Tom


Hi,Tom. I know that I'm very late joining this thread, but I just have a quick question. In the posted photo, which seems very crisp and clear, is that center drive element (for lack of a better definition) as vertical as I'm seeing it? Also ( I lied, two questions ) is that same feature a darker color/shade than the rest of the ship, or is that just imperfect optical matting? Could change a few things. By the way, if you do get around to producing this in a decent size (say 12-16 inches) count me in for at least one. Last question (I am SUCH a liar), has anyone defined absolutely the dark circular spot on the top of the saucer seen in "The Saucer"?


----------



## No_6

I have fond memories of building the original model kit when I was a kid. Of course now I'd have to light it.


----------



## starseeker

Talk about trying to hit a moving target! This saucer is causing me to tear at my hair more than any other SF vehicle I've ever tried to pin down. There were only a handful of shots of the saucer filmed, and those shots were composited over and over again against various backgrounds to show the ship with landing gear, taking off, landing, etc. There may have been 2 miniatures ? and who knows if they were identical. Sometimes the saucer was just an animation (crashed in The Enemy). And from the point just above about the center light on the bottom, now it looks like there was compositing over the compositing! Aaarugh!
Okay, there was posted way above a great photo of the bottom perhaps the only miniature. That bottom view could be considered definitive. There are many shots of the profile from slightly various angles. I've used a lot of those to get as far along with my plan as it is. It should just be a matter of using as many different angles as can be found and averaging them all (most are very close) to get something that is if not definitive, at least a very close approximation. And since the source is what's seen on screen,at least the end product will look like what's seen on screen. There. I feel a little more confident again.


----------



## starmanmm

Starseeker, you stated that there is a "band around the base of the upper section".... I am not seeing it. 

Any shots that better show this?


----------



## mrdean

http://www.jackill.com/Pages/INV-1_Sample_Page.htm

More stuff.

Mark Dean


----------



## JAT

starmanmm said:


> Starseeker, you stated that there is a "band around the base of the upper section".... I am not seeing it.
> 
> Any shots that better show this?


Maybe not a band per se, but a couple of ribs, looks like probably two that circumnavigate the saucer where the curved lower hull meets the upper super structure. In at least one shot, I believe the still of the craft landing from the opening sequence, it appears that one of these "ribs" circles the lower hull section, whereas the second one circles the base of the upper hull. Of course, this is all very subjective and open to observational interpretation, given the lack of actual information we are given regarding the ship. Any help?


----------



## JAT

mrdean said:


> http://www.jackill.com/Pages/INV-1_Sample_Page.htm
> 
> More stuff.
> 
> Mark Dean


Hi, Mark. I'm a big fan of what Jackill has done in puting out quality drawings of some of my favorite ships. However, with regard to our Invaders saucer, I believe he has interpreted the Monogram model of the saucer, rather than the actual saucer itself. I like the attention to detail and the effort put forth, but I think I would prefer to see something more representative of the actual craft ( which, of course is nearly impossible to do, given the dearth of extant information on the subject ). Someone ( probably several of us ) on this site is working toward some finalized drawings of their own. Again no perfect, to my eye, but closer to the saucer than to the model of the saucer.


----------



## starseeker

This is a shot from The Innocent, inverted in PS and brightness and contrast enhanced. The same bulge is visible in most of the clearer shots of the saucer, including landing in the opening credits, once you start looking for it, but this is the clearest I've seen it. It is nothing like the rings or bands engraved on the Aurora kit.


----------



## mrdean

starseeker said:


> This is a shot from The Innocent, inverted in PS and brightness and contrast enhanced. The same bulge is visible in most of the clearer shots of the saucer, including landing in the opening credits, once you start looking for it, but this is the clearest I've seen it. It is nothing like the rings or bands engraved on the Aurora kit.


Howdy!

Have you looked at "The Saucer" Season 2 Episode 2? It is when a saucer lands and Roy and his buddy go into a saucer.

Mark Dean


----------



## starseeker

The first episode broadcast in my part of the world and because of that, still my favorite. 
Same messing with as above and the same "So close but I just can't quite tell what the heck is that stupid thing?" experience. And as I mentioned in this or the other saucer thread, this shot adds the question of "What the heck is that dark circle on top of the saucer???" (And I'm not even going to mention that the upper deck ring lights seem to stand proud.)


----------



## Krel

starseeker said:


> And as I mentioned in this or the other saucer thread, this shot adds the question of "What the heck is that dark circle on top of the saucer???"


Could it be a depression, or indentation? Or am I just muddying the waters? :lol:

David.


----------



## Zathros

I dont remember all that much about the TV show itself, but I was and still am a BIIG fan of the Aurora kit..I built one, have a MIB original Aurora issue, and the Aurora 1975 re-issue, ( with which they added the Dick Tracy space coupe and figures base..lol) , as well as 2 Monogram issues, and the tskuda issue...Guess I need to sell off a few..lol...

In any case, I wasnt aware that they released the show on DVD..I dont know how many seasons it ran, but I am definitely going to pick up the first season..what I liked so much about this kit is that it was well enjineered, and builds up great.I myself have no interest in these "Large Size" kits coming out as I cant dedicate my dining room, Kitchen, or living room coffee table for ONE kit..so this kits scale is perfect for my room constraints..

Z


----------



## Mark Dorais

You should check out The Invaders Saucer Model page 2 on the web for a nice shot of the underside of the 4 ft. filming minature.


----------



## starseeker

Thanks. That's the shot of the bottom that I mentioned a few posts back. I think it's somewhere on this thread, too. To my eye it seems to show a flared base to the lower center light. For a time I thought the outer bottom ring was flared in toward the center but now I'm not so sure. 
Messed with every lens I have at every focal length and fov and can't get a picture of the Aurora saucer with an upper deck cylinder with non-vertical walls. Everything I try gives me a photo with an upper deck dead on straight. So the non-vertical walls in the screen grabs probably accurately show non-vertical walls. 
So when they appear straight, is that an animated saucer? Is it a different miniature? Is it an effect of the compositing?


----------



## starmanmm

Mark Dorais Wrote


> You should check out The Invaders Saucer Model page 2 on the web for a nice shot of the underside of the 4 ft. filming minature.


Gotta link please?


----------



## JAT

starmanmm said:


> Mark Dorais Wrote
> 
> 
> Gotta link please?


possibly page 6, toward the bottom. very large image (photoshopped? )


----------



## swhite228

starmanmm said:


> Mark Dorais Wrote
> 
> 
> Gotta link please?


I think he means this site and page:http://home.earthlink.net/~peredhil/_PAGE2/Page2.html


----------



## JAT

swhite228 said:


> I think he means this site and page:http://home.earthlink.net/~peredhil/_PAGE2/Page2.html


aaahh, exxelleent!


----------



## starmanmm

Thanks


----------



## HabuHunter32

I'd like this to get the large scale Moebius treatment! One of the top 5 saucer designs of all time!


----------



## thepixelpusher

Just talked to Moebius this weekend at iHobbyExpo and it seems unlikely that they will do The Invaders saucer at this time.

That said, I'm moving forward with my complete blueprints and recreation of a button-for-button 3D CGI image of the saucer. The least I'll do is release a set of blueprints and 3D images of it. I have almost all of the reference for the console I was looking for to complete my work. Time to move on to the 3D CAD work. My job hunting is delaying this some, but i should have stuff done within a reasonable period of time if anyone is interested.

Tom S.


----------



## Richard Baker

Sounds like a good project. Are you going with the Aurora interior tuned up to match what was shown on screen?

.


----------



## thepixelpusher

The Aurora UFO model interior is based upon the 1st season set (see episode: The Innocent) and I'm doing the interior based upon the 2nd season (see episode: The Saucer). In the 2nd season they redressed the saucer set with a more detailed console area. Also, they had the ladder rungs on the saucer legs and the entry port off the ladders with a 2 level interior. The episode "The Saucer" showcases most of the final saucer details. The cleanest composite effects shot of the saucer is seen in "The Peacemaker" where the saucer no longer has that bluish cast and is the true silver color that the model was.

The Aurora model is inaccurate on a few points, so I'm basing my recreation off publicity stills, screencaps off the DVD's, photos taken on the filming set of the saucer legs and platform, and photos taken of the original studio model.


----------



## Richard Baker

The Aurora Saucer is VERY wrong with the upper hull and the top cylender cabin area- wrong curves and proportions. I would love to see a kit with th ecorrect profile- the shape is more agressive and elegant. The Season One interior never made much sense to me- for a spacecraft with a small interior it had a lot of useless 'rooms' and why a center hallway? An open plan like the Jupiter 2 or divided into three pie slices makes more sense to me.
I am looking forward to seeing how your blueprints come out- it is a great project with a fun subject...

.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Yes, the Aurora model has too few energy slit windows on the top, the underside circular engine area on the filming model does not have a gridded texture like the Aurora model, and the 5 underside domes are supposed to be a light blue green color to add just a few of the model inaccuracies to the list you mentioned.

I saw The Invaders 1st season at the age of 6 and was forever hooked on that saucer. This a quest for me to combine the set and the filming miniature in a way that is accurate as possible. The only detail I lack so far is a close up image of the buttons on the far side of the main console room near the doors. I have some far away reference, but I'm on a tear to get these details pinprick accurate. So if anyone has that shot in their collection, please contact me.


----------



## gimijimi

*Great link.*



swhite228 said:


> I think he means this site and page:http://home.earthlink.net/~peredhil/_PAGE2/Page2.html


Sweet link. Thank you.

I too fell in love with the original release. I remember that I was at the hobby shop looking for something else when I came upon it. The owner had just stocked the shelves with it. I remember that I had only enough money to buy what I had come in for, or the Invaders Saucer. No contest.

I have built that saucer over and over again. My last try included the lighting effects kit from VoodooFX. Great stuff.

A sound unit, like the sonar ping for the Seaview (also offered by VoodooFX but discontinued) would be nice.

Don't know if going larger will do it. I trust Moebius to pull it off, but the original just knocked it out of the park for me. However, I am fickle. If bigger is better than I'm on board with it.

Good luck. Thanks again for sharing.


----------



## starduster

Hi all, I like everyone else here was a big fan of the Invaders show, I was living in Brooklyn in the 60's and was one of those who was very interested in UFO'S and was in a group of people who had a news magazine " Saucer News " well there was a UFO convention coming and I think it was at the Commodore Hotel, I had built a 
few models of Aliens and a Mothman model and had them displayed at the Convention, TV's Invader star Roy Thinnis
was the featured speaker and after he was done toured the exhibits and stopped and talked to me about my models, I asked him lots of questions about the show and the saucer, he said there never was a full saucer only a studio interior, he said a 4' model was used for the exterior scenes, he's a great guy and took plenty of time with all the people there, I'd love to have Moebius Models build a larger saucer, I'll try to find the photos of the convention and post them, thanks for this thread. Karl


----------



## thepixelpusher

Karl, they did have a full size platform set of the legs to film on set outside too. The 4 foot model saucer top was matted in over the legs in several episodes.

Here's a nice shot of the profile of the saucer from the episode: Panic.










I gave the guy that hosts "The Invaders UFO Model History" page all the info I had researched on it and the photo I had of the filming model. http://home.earthlink.net/~peredhil/_PAGE2/Page2.html

The guy I talked to at Moebius said he thought the Aurora model covered the saucer release and that there wouldn't be enough interest to merit another release. I had to agree that The Invaders was less known to many, but maybe we can get someone else interested in it.


----------



## SUNGOD

Well I can live with the Aurora saucer. It might not be totally accurate but it's still one of the better sci fi kits from the 60's and stands up well today. Someone should reissue it with more clear parts such as the lid and make them in the correct colour.


----------



## starseeker

The image above is one of about three in the total number of views of the saucer used in the series. It was also used for landing and takeoff and hovering, etc. I don't know if it is of the model or not. Could be and it could have been matted badly, or there could have been distortion during the filming or processing, or it could be an animation, but whatever it is, it's not symmetrical.
I used every photo and screen grab I could to try to make my outline of the saucer (attached), including the above. While it's not apparent in the small image, once you blow it up to 24", you'll find that the upper deck is about 1/4 - 3/8" wider on it's left side than it's right, that the right side shows the bump between the upper hull and curved lower hull and the left doesn't, the left upper hull is almost vertical and the right curves in toward the top (or is that vice versa - I don't remember off hand), and I think there were a couple other anomalies.
So which shapes, diameters, spinning light placements do you use in trying to model an "accurate" saucer? At the end, my choices were what were most pleasing both to my eye and my rivet counting nature. I still have no idea how close they are to the "real" saucer. Still don't think the slope of the upper deck hull is right. Which really bothers me. I hate committing something to shape without having better info. But I am still committed to committing something to shape. 
Edit: oh, the scribbles are me trying to map the interior, mostly from Dark Outpost. You know you're in for trouble when Vincent climbs the landing gear ladder, ends up in a room with the curving wall facing the wrong direction, climbs to the upper deck where the curving wall is the wrong direction again, wanders hallways of a very cool standing set, but keeps entering one side of a door and exiting from the other side side of a different door to enter the room he's just left. Holy Irwin Allen, Batman!


----------



## Carson Dyle

starseeker said:


> At the end, my choices were what were most pleasing both to my eye and my rivet counting nature. I still have no idea how close they are to the "real" saucer. Still don't think the slope of the upper deck hull is right. Which really bothers me. I hate committing something to shape without having better info.


This is a tough one given the shortage of reference data, but I believe you have the right attitude re: combining the best available images with your own subjective "artist's" interpretation of the subject. 

It often tends to be the case that great reference comes to light a day or two after you complete the master pattern lol, but in this instance, based on my own research, your sketch appears to have gotten pretty close to the mark -- at least as far as _my_ eye is concerned.


----------



## Steve H

It's been a long, LONG time since I saw this show, but what I recall, I think the distortion around the saucer was INTENTIONAL, to give it that 'mysterious' quality. It might be heat waves, it might be gravity bending light, whatever.

(it can also, clearly, be an artifact of the optical printer and the effects process  )

It might be helpful to go to the 'source', what was used to inspire the model. It looks to me pretty clearly based on the 'Adamski' type of saucer which turned out to be a fake-an infra red lamp heat unit used in chicken coops- OR WAS IT?

The Adamski type was the 'baseline' UFO for years. Might be worth looking into


----------



## Frank2056

I had a small 1/350 scale Invader's saucer printed up last week. I used some of the dimensions from "The Saucer Fleet" although the legs are based more on the ex-Aurora model and screen shots than the drawings in the book. I couldn't get the book landing gear to work in 3D as drawn, but that could have just been me.

This image is an overhead view with a "plate" with the landing legs. I'll probably cast them for myself at some point:










This image shows the saucer with legs I cut out of thin plastic. They're held in place with blue-tac. The figure is a 1/350 scale sailor from Preiser:


----------



## starmanmm

Cool.


----------



## Mark Dorais

Frank....that looks amazing. The most accurate model that I've seen yet of this ship. How was it created and how big is it?


----------



## Frank2056

Mark Dorais said:


> Frank....that looks amazing. The most accurate model that I've seen yet of this ship. How was it created and how big is it?


Mark, Thanks!
I made it in Rhino3D, then had it printed together with a larger object (to help me meet the minimum $$ requirement). It's a little under 37.5mm (1.47") in diameter and about 17.8mm (0.70") tall on its legs.

The material is a waxy feeling ABS-like plastic. I'll make a resin copy out of this one, and use the copy as a real master. My main concern is with the landing legs, which really aren't 100% accurate... but since they were penciled in on the original in-flight model, I don't feel too bad about them. 

Frank


----------



## cozmo

Frank2056 said:


> I made it in Rhino3D, then had it printed together with a larger object (to help me meet the minimum $$ requirement). It's a little under 37.5mm (1.47") in diameter and about 17.8mm (0.70") tall on its legs.
> 
> Frank


I wondered about this when you showed the Leif Ericson shuttle bay. Could you elaborate on this some?


----------



## Frank2056

cozmo said:


> I wondered about this when you showed the Leif Ericson shuttle bay. Could you elaborate on this some?


For this saucer, I made a cross section of the invader saucer based on the dimensions in the book, then tweaked the shape slightly to match what I was seeing in some of the pictures (mainly the small radius at the top and the slight narrowing of the "cockpit" section). Next I revolved the outline in Rhino and added the various detail bits. The hard part is making it "watertight" - no openings or dimensionless surfaces - and making sure that the details and angles are within the printing tolerances of the printer I'll be using. After that, if I need to, scale the output to the correct size. Then I save it as an .STL file, verify that the file looks good and is printable, then upload it. A week of so later, I get the part back. 
Right now, it would have probably taken me less time to scratchbuild this than to make it in Rhino and have it printed.


----------



## cozmo

I've never looked very far into this but find it interesting, thanks.

Did you have the parts printed by a place that can be contacted? And was there a problem with the subject matter?


----------



## Frank2056

cozmo said:


> Did you have the parts printed by a place that can be contacted? And was there a problem with the subject matter?


No problem with the subject matter. 
I've used three places that go from somewhat expensive to very expensive. They all have a minimum print price ($25 - $150):

Shapeways Are the cheapest and most hobbyist friendly, but the low price means that they have to place limits on part wall thickness, size and detail. The acrylic detail photopolymers are the only ones that produce acceptable surface details. The others are OK for rough shapes.

Printapart is a subsidiary of a larger printing company. They specialize in small, very detailed print jobs using a blue acrylic polymer. They're expensive, but the resolution is much higher.

RedEye has a wide variety of printers. they're mainly an industrial printer, but they'll gladly do small prototypes. The main drawback is the minimum price - $150.

There are many others, but the higher the detail, the more expensive they get.


----------



## starmanmm

:freak: It's gotta be the terminology... you say "print" but am I correct that what you send them is carved out of some sort of plastic by a machine of some sort?


----------



## Richard Baker

It is actually like a printing process- just ultra thin layers built up like a contour map.

.


----------



## cozmo

Holy crap! I was going to pick your brain about the creating the parts you had printed...until I checked out the price of the software...way to rich for my blood.

I'll just live with my hand carved small craft for the Galactic Cruiser.


----------



## Richard Baker

cozmo said:


> Holy crap! I was going to pick your brain about the creating the parts you had printed...until I checked out the price of the software...way to rich for my blood.
> 
> I'll just live with my hand carved small craft for the Galactic Cruiser.


The good thing is that this technology is getting cheaper- still far too expensive now, but in about 10 years 3D printers will be as common in homes as Airbrushes and Dremel tools...

.


----------



## cozmo

Richard Baker said:


> The good thing is that this technology is getting cheaper- still far too expensive now, but in about 10 years 3D printers will be as common in homes as Airbrushes and Dremel tools...
> 
> .


I've been reading about the printers and they are a lot less expensive than just a few years ago, just like a 5 axis milling machine. Its the $1,700 for Rhino3d that dropped my jaw.


----------



## Richard Baker

That is a lot of money for a program, but most high end 3D programs are expensive. The important thing is not the modeler but the proper file format to export to. As the 3D printers get more common the export filters will start to include the .STL format.
I use a number of programs depending on what I am trying to do and swap the files as needed. Each program has it's strengths and advantages. 
Of course building a water tight model takes more time than something to just animate on screen. As the 3D printers get more common a new file format may evolve or translator programs will adapt. I have seen Computers advance from the DOS days and if there is a desire and a market, that need will be filled.

.


----------



## Frank2056

cozmo said:


> Its the $1,700 for Rhino3d that dropped my jaw.


If you find a University or Community College that has a few classes that you're interested in, you can probably get Rhino at the educational price (around $200, maybe less). Even better if the school offers a 3D design class. 

You could also try Blender, which is free. Or Sketchup (also free). Both can do .stl output either directly or through a plugin. Unfortunately, both have very, very steep learning curves compared to Rhino. AC3D outputs .stl as well and it's around $60.


----------



## swhite228

If I win the lottery this will be the first purchase!!!
http://www.dimensionprinting.com/default.aspx


Nice little 3d printer that prints the items in ABS plastic.

For those of you close you might want to check out Techshop
(Menlo Park, and San Francisco, CA , along with sites in Beaverton, Oregon, and Durham, North Carolina)

They have the Stratasys printers as well as most everything you would want available for customers to use.

Their web site is http://www.techshop.ws/index.html


----------



## Richard Baker

The best way I have found to get a great deal on #D software is getting the Magazizes '3D World' and 3D Artist', They have every couple on months a full program (Truespace, Bryce, Maya... included in the cover disk. There is also a demo for the current version, but the included full programs are pretty powerful already. Each program has multiple export capabilities so moving a file from a program that does soft shapes best into a program that is better for hard geometry is easy. For just the cost of a magazine (which also has a tutorial and sample objects) I can afford software that costs a LOT when new.

.


----------



## cozmo

Frank2056 said:


> You could also try Blender, which is free. Or Sketchup (also free). Both can do .stl output either directly or through a plugin. Unfortunately, both have very, very steep learning curves compared to Rhino. AC3D outputs .stl as well and it's around $60.


Next up for continuing education are some writing classes.

I looked at the three examples you gave and am not averse to $60.00 for AC3D. Do you, or anybody else, have a recommendation for which is best? I don't figure on doing anything more complicated than the vehicles I have already made, Landmaster or ArkII, only in the 30mm range.



swhite228 said:


> If I win the lottery this will be the first purchase!!!
> http://www.dimensionprinting.com/default.aspx


Why wait, must be karma, just before I saw Franks post on the saucer, I was watching this:
boingboing

makerbot


----------



## mach7

X15-A2,


A while back in the thread I think you said that you had seen and photographed the filming model. Is there any chance that you could post some of the photos? Also can you give any more information on the saucer? 

I understand if the owner would like to stay anonymous but myself and others would love to have a bit more information on the model.

If not I understand.

Thanks

Mark


----------



## thepixelpusher

Some new unreleased photo reference to THE INVADERS saucer studio model will be going up soon on a site dedicated to the people responsible for the saucer. It will answer some of the questions brought up here and include information from the propmaker himself. If anyone has info on the whereabouts of the studio model today, please contact me. I'd love to include any new photos of it on my site as well. All information will be kept confidential where requested.


----------



## starseeker

thepixelpusher said:


> Some new unreleased photo reference to THE INVADERS saucer studio model will be going up soon on a site dedicated to the people responsible for the saucer. It will answer some of the questions brought up here and include information from the propmaker himself.


I cannot tell you how much I'm looking forward to seeing this. It's already below freezing here at night so I'm going to try to get as much as I can done on the master for the 24" saucer in the next couple of weeks. I hope "soon" is Soon and not Christmas. Great news! Keep us posted, please.


----------



## moonbus01

Hey, its been getting on 2 years since it was purported that there would be information published regarding the original filming miniature from "The Invaders". Where are the photos, the interviews with the model builders and details regarding this miniature? What's with the big secrets and guarded knowledge? One would think that the owner/builder would love to talk about it. Heck I would!! Now that Richard Datin has passed away, isn't it time to make with the facts? Or is there really an Alien conspiracy?


----------



## thepixelpusher

2 years? Jan 2009 was my join date to this site, not the time I posted that I would release the new saucer photos online. In fact it wasn't until last Sept 2010 that I had reached the modelmaker and gotten the unreleased photos that are planned to be included on a Invaders Saucer site. Richard Datin only did a small 3 inch saucer that was given to Quinn Martin. Richard confirmed this in an email to me. Richard worked with the modelmaker on the Trek Enterprise though.

Life has been hectic for me. I went from massive freelancing to maintain myself after getting downsized (scary times), to starting a new job 2 months back…that I left to start yet a new job this week. Be patient. I do have images that show the saucer model to be roughly 4.5 feet in diameter, made of the same vacuum-formed material over a mold like the original Trek Enterprise studio model. The midsection has the 3 ridged lines as in the Aurora model. No screencap was of sufficient resolution to resolve this for me until I got the photos. I have had conversations with the modelmaker and will share this when I can get time to put up a simple website. For this week and a few weeks after that I'm getting settled into my new job. After that I'm back into the Invaders saucer site and more. This is at the top of my list and my love. Also, there is an Invaders movie that is under consideration and I hope to provide all my info to them in descriptions and image references too.

Trust me, this thread will have the first notice of the new site dedicated to the saucer.

I'm sad that Richard passed. When did that happen? I'm relieved that I got him before he passed so he could clear up the assumption that he was involved with the saucer creation. I contacted Richard prior to finding the one and only modelmaker behind the saucer (Hint: it was one of the team members that built the Trek Enterprise).

Here is one of the emails from Richard to me:

_Tom:
Howard Anderson did contract with me to build the desk model version of the "Invaders" ship. It must have been about 3" in diameter. Iam sorry am unable to answer your other questions regarding the larger model as I never saw it--too busy with the Enterprise for Star Trek. I assume you have searched the Internet for info on the model--I've always had great luck just typing the word or words to gain information in searches. Never took pics of the small model--too busy!
That's all can do for you, good luick,
Richard_


----------



## moonbus01

Awesome, best of luck!:wave: He passed away Jan. 24th.


----------



## thepixelpusher

One big surprise I got was a picture included with the saucer pictures. It was a shot of the mold of the Trek Enterprise saucer section as it was being made. The modelmaker inadvertently included it thinking, at first, it was part of the Invaders saucer, as that was made the same way. In fact, the pic of the Trek Saucer section being built was sent by the modelmaker to his mother and was only retrieved after his mother died. He didn't even realize he had gotten it back until he looked for the saucer pictures and had seen the box of photos returned from his mother estate, sent by his sister. No to tease too much, but that unreleased photo will also be on the Invaders saucer site.


----------



## moonbus01

Great news! can't wait to see those pictures!


----------



## mach7

Tom,

Glad to hear your life is getting back to normal. I look forward to seeing what you have, and your contribution's on The Invaders yahoo group. I've got some ideas of a 1/2 studio scale Vac formed kit. I've never done anything so big but I might have to give it a shot! 

Mark


----------



## starseeker

Definitely exciting stuff! I'm holding off on any more work on the 24" saucer molds until I see these photos. Also until it's no longer -18 degrees.


----------



## armymedic80

I hope Moebius is reading this because a bigger than the Aurora/Monogram kit would be really nice and with a detailed interior.


----------



## moonbus01

I wonder how they made the master for the Vac-formed saucer? I'm thinking a plaster turning jig. Maybe made in 2 pieces- one for the cake dome, and one for the body. Then they vf'ed each piece separately so the top would be removable.


----------



## JAT

Outstanding!!


----------



## starseeker

Way OT: I was goofing on the computer and stumbled across a site called Digital Meltdown. They have a bootleg 2 disk Invaders soundtrack album here:
http://digitalmeltd0wn.blogspot.com/2010/09/dominic-frontiere-invaders-unofficial.html
Fool that I am, I immediately downloaded it, scanned the files with Norton, SuperAntiSpyware, and MalWareBites and all showed them them to be virus free. (But don't take my word for it, if you're crazy enough to download these, scan them yourself.) Burned them onto disks and while they're a long way from perfect (some sound effects in the background, a trace of a voice or footsteps, etc, here and there), the sound quality is suprisingly good; they're all a person could possibly ask for while waiting for an official soundtrack album to come out. Just thought I'd mention it. Music to contemplate an Invaders saucer to.


----------



## thepixelpusher

I have to say that I was mistaken in my earlier posts about the saucer being silver. The saucer was white and was gel lit for different colors. It may have been painted silver for the later episodes. "Peacemaker" had new footage of the saucer (only place it truly looks silver) and some old footage recomposited with clouds. But the photos I have of the studio model before it was delivered is a white model. After talking with the still living modelmaker, I have been told it was white, at least as delivered.


----------



## thepixelpusher

moonbus01 said:


> I wonder how they made the master for the Vac-formed saucer? I'm thinking a plaster turning jig. Maybe made in 2 pieces- one for the cake dome, and one for the body. Then they vf'ed each piece separately so the top would be removable.


They made it the same way they made the saucer sections for the Sta Trek Enterprise. A wire frame and a wooden turning jig with a profile to create a perfect mold when rotated around it axis over the slow setting plaster. They vaccuum-formed over that then. I have the modelmakers unreleased photo of them making the Enterprise saucer section molds. It's going up on my Invaders site. I know I'm slow getting that up, but it will come.


----------



## joshuathomas

SUNGOD said:


> Guys the old Monogram kit is hard to beat. All it needs is someone to reissue that kit with the *top moulded in clear plastic *so you can either put it on as it is and see the interior, or the windows can be masked off and the top sprayed/painted silver and once the masking tape is pulled off the windows will actually look like proper windows. I'm sure when Monogram first issued that kit the top was moulded in clear plastic but subsequent reissues all had the top moulded in opaque plastic (which is stupid).
> 
> 
> The underneath where the main circular engine is should be moulded in clear plastic too (even the appropriately coloured clear plastic of the tv saucer) so it could be lit up from inside.
> 
> Nice scratchbuild btw maucutt!


I just lucked up and bought an assembled but not painted original kit with the clear top and silver domes. It was listed as a buy it now on Ebay for about 25 bucks! It does not have the landing gear pieces, but I'll swap some out from another kit. Currently finishing up an led chaser kit that I'll install one of these things....


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> They made it the same way they made the saucer sections for the Sta Trek Enterprise. A wire frame and a wooden turning jig with a profile to create a perfect mold when rotated around it axis over the slow setting plaster. They vaccuum-formed over that then. I have the modelmakers unreleased photo of them making the Enterprise saucer section molds. It's going up on my Invaders site. I know I'm slow getting that up, but it will come.


Tom, I am trying to do the same thing as you, only that I have just found you now!
I have a 3d model in construction which was based in primitive plans that you could find in the roythinnes web site forum. See the post called THE SAUCER.

The black and white pictire you published in this forum was of great help for my research work.
I am amazed the information that you were able to find, and would love to see the pictures you mention in your posts. Is there any place where I can see them?
Thanks in advance and Good luck

Ernest


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> I'd be happy to provide Moebius with reference and blueprints when I finish it. I'd love a 15" model!! I saw The Invaders when I was 7 years old and I remembered it all and still love it.
> 
> I'm going to have a web page up shortly with more of The Invaders saucer.
> 
> Tom



I cannot wait to see your NEW web page!!!!

Ernest


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> Just talked to Moebius this weekend at iHobbyExpo and it seems unlikely that they will do The Invaders saucer at this time.
> 
> That said, I'm moving forward with my complete blueprints and recreation of a button-for-button 3D CGI image of the saucer. The least I'll do is release a set of blueprints and 3D images of it. I have almost all of the reference for the console I was looking for to complete my work. Time to move on to the 3D CAD work. My job hunting is delaying this some, but i should have stuff done within a reasonable period of time if anyone is interested.
> 
> Tom S.


Are you working in Autocad? If so I can send you my 3d model that might help you, otherwise you might help me correcting whatever you may find.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

This is the old section:









Now I realized that the saucer diameter should be smaller, perhaps 19 meters, instead of 20.90m. as in this drawing. You can guess this by comparing the running silouete of David Vincent to the standing line drawing guy. The top plane should be a slight cupula, and the flat bottom should be conical.
I am correcting the plans and will post them here soon










Another thing that I discovered is that the amount of lighting lines arround the cabin top seems to be 11 instead of 10.

For more detail related the lower level of the saucer see the post THE SAUCER in the roythinnes forum.
Thanks


Ernest


----------



## swhite228

Nice!


----------



## ernest

swhite228 said:


> If I win the lottery this will be the first purchase!!!
> http://www.dimensionprinting.com/default.aspx
> Nice little 3d printer that prints the items in ABS plastic.
> For those of you close you might want to check out Techshop
> (Menlo Park, and San Francisco, CA , along with sites in Beaverton, Oregon, and Durham, North Carolina)
> They have the Stratasys printers as well as most everything you would want available for customers to use.
> Their web site is http://www.techshop.ws/index.html


That sounds great!
Here I found this similar service that is great!
They can work on CORIAN on ALUMINIUM and other materials and the quality is amazing. Also the cost is not that high $400- for a complex object in CORIAN that could fit in a cube of 20 x 20 x 20 centimeters. (8 x 8 x 8 inches) http://www.fabrinco.com/
http://www.fabrinco.com/aplicaciones.php?q=0&c=91&p=0&pag=4

Ernest


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> I have to say that I was mistaken in my earlier posts about the saucer being silver. The saucer was white and was gel lit for different colors. It may have been painted silver for the later episodes. "Peacemaker" had new footage of the saucer (only place it truly looks silver) and some old footage recomposited with clouds. But the photos I have of the studio model before it was delivered is a white model. After talking with the still living modelmaker, I have been told it was white, at least as delivered.


It is logical! As Mr Spok would say, since any reglective finish would make things complicated for mate compositing process, because it would reflect the blue or green background producing issues, or would force the cameraman to take everything in the studio under control for ocasional undesired reflections.
White is the best colour to simulate a GLOWING object as it was the case.
They were inspired in the Adamski Flying Saucer, which had the 3 rings the same inclined flange and the balls in the underside (instead of 5) and it was reported to be glowing.



















Here in these images it can be seen the conical bottom. 
Considering that the saucer of the invaders was inspired in this other case, it makes sense that the bottom would be conical and not horizontal flat as in the Aurora model!

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Here you are my assumptions on the real profile of the saucer in the TV show compared to the Aurora model.
My guess is that the Aurora model was made by someone that had no contact with the real TV show model, and who didn´t invested enough time to study the images in the show, so redesigned it inventing what was not evident.









By airl at 2011-05-06

All the botom surfaces are conical except the central disc, which should be lower the outer border of the saucer. These are shared caracteristics by both the Adamski Saucer and the Invaders Saucer.
Note also that the outer walls of the cabine are conical too, even the outer ceiling of the cabin is conical.

The Redesigners of the Aurora model assumed most lines in the profile as vertical or horizontal.


Ernest


----------



## SUNGOD

No offence Ernest but the Aurora kit looks more like the Invaders saucer than the drawing of the tv show model you've provided. 

You've done the roof of the saucer as too tall and slanted where as the roof of the Invaders saucer looks almost flat to me...like the Aurora kit.


----------



## starseeker

I just don't see the conical bottom in the behinds the scenes photo that was posted here earlier and that I've reposted below. 

Overlaying every photo I can find of the thing, and averaging them out, this is still my closest guess as to what the saucer was shaped like. I'm not committing this shape to a 24" mold until I see some of the new material that's promised. I'm making my saucer molds exactly the same way: spin a template around a mass of plaster. I think I have some pictures of the process in my 1/24 Jupiter 2 build album on photobucket. Ground to a halt (well, winter didn't help. either) on making my various saucer hulls: don't know if I want to go fibreglass or maybe build a vac former big enough to do 24" diameter hulls out of 1/16 or so styrene. Hope the attachments work. Having a lot of problems after my Windoze reinstall. Computer was far happier when it was a total disaster. ??

Edit: Attachemnets worked! But staring at the first one for a long time, I'm starting to think you're on to something about the bottom. The inside edge of the outer lip doesn't seem nearly as deep as the center light. And that center light doesn't protrude beneath the bottom of the saucer. Damn, I'm thinking you're on to something...


----------



## ernest

SUNGOD said:


> No offence Ernest but the Aurora kit looks more like the Invaders saucer than the drawing of the tv show model you've provided.
> 
> You've done the roof of the saucer as too tall and slanted where as the roof of the Invaders saucer looks almost flat to me...like the Aurora kit.


No offence at all!
I am basing my assuptions on complex 3d constructions on the image.
Anyway this is a very complex and at some point intuitive process, in which I have some experience. I am sorry I cannot provide an undoubtable proof of my guess...
Anyway i will try to do some, just to show the point.









By airl at 2011-05-06

Here you can see a series of ellipses drawn on the photo. They represent circles in perspective. (this is not that true because the photograph was taken with a wide angle lens, but for this purpose we can consider this particularity irrelevant) Each gropu of ellipses of the same colour shares the same center. This means that the circles are at the same height. The Green circles are higher than the blue circle, and both are higher compared to the red circles.
If you look carefully the line that "cuts" the green ball at the left, it pases exactly on a little black hole in the bottom conical plane, and this line ends exactly at the center of the bottom red circle. this means that the profile of this conical plane is an inclined line that goes from a point inside the green ball that is above the outer border of the sauser (green) and ends in the center of the bottom circle (red)










Here in this other image the Blue lines are inclined by construction. In other words they goes from the center of the balls to the center of the red disk.
In the balls A amd B you can tell that they are inclined and more or less paralel to the blue lines. (look at the upper border of the balls where they intersect the conical plane in which they are embeded)



















As for the outer conical ring between the balls and the outer diameter you can see that it is conical in the famous image of the saucer while landing in the opening sequence. If you look carefully at one of these images you will see that this conical ring is only visible in the back of the saucer and cannot be seen in the front border, where you will notice the green balls directly behind the outer front border with nothing in between. This means that the outer bottom ring has an inclined profile, instead of a flat horizontal plane as in the Aurora model.

As for the too tall and slanted roof, you are right. The published sketch is just that: a sketch. And in order to show the diferences it is an exagerated (cartoonist) because it is a hand held drawing.

Ernest


----------



## starseeker

Staring at the bottom view picture above, the angles (if they're there) are just so subtle there's just no way of telling for sure, but I can see where you're coming from. I can see how the angles could work on the bottom like that. It's certainly more elegant.


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> Staring at the bottom view picture above, the angles (if they're there) are just so subtle there's just no way of telling for sure, but I can see where you're coming from. I can see how the angles could work on the bottom like that. It's certainly more elegant.


Yes, and I am basing this assumption in the fact that the designers of this saucer were inspired in the Adamski saucer which has a conical bottom, as well as a conical outer ring and a flat disc in the middle. 
Aditionally to the previous statment I have read in this same forum, about the construction process of the model for the series, and considering the technology used it would be a technical waste if the profile would be made of flat planes!
In sucha a case it would be easier to cut the rings of any lamiated plastic and gluing all the pieces together!
By the way your elevation looks (at least it looks to me) pretty accurate as for the outer cabin profile with inclined walls and slanted roof!

One question for you Starseeker, I have just saw something in your drawing that called my attention.
You have drawn a kind of skate under the cilindrical legs under the pods. 










This is the first time I see that! But I remember the tracks David Vincent saw in Dark Outpost that were that kind of shape!
Tell me where you got the idea of the ski piece?
Is that shown in any episode?

This is a missing item in the Aurora Kit!

By the way you might be interested in this: http://roythinnes.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=119&page=1#958
It is the interior 3D model made by Edgar Noel from the French Invaders Web Site!

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Here you are the new corrected plans, version 28
Improvements: smaller diameter, conical planes in the bottom.
Main issue: the lower floor thickness is too small, and the conical slope in the bottom should be increased.









By airl at 2011-05-06

Ernest


----------



## ernest

This is version 29









By airl at 2011-05-06


----------



## ernest

Starseeker,

I have just tried your solution.
I think it is prety logic, although I wonder if it was shown somewhere in the tv show...










By airl at 2011-05-06

Ernest


----------



## starmanmm

Interesting take on the landing legs.


----------



## ernest

starmanmm said:


> Interesting take on the landing legs.


Yes! and it could work as a buffer!
The Aurora model solution wouldn´t work fine, since the craft would end nailed into the ground.
I really cannot imagine where did Starseeker got this idea, but if he invented it: he is a genious!

If this is right, this explains the lack of the tubular legs in "The Inocent" http://invaders-ware.netfirms.com/en_saucer_action_003.htm where we can assume that the Buffers were retracted, because the land was not irregular as in "The Saucer" (see picture below)

I am still speculating on the reasons I cannot see this solution in the TV films...
One possibility is that if the ground is made of sand it seems logical that the skate would end hidden under the sand...
But in some episodes the land seems prety hard...

Another possibility could be that they didn´t payed much attention to these details... as for instance for the lack of the saucer shadow on the land which appears magically under sunlight as if the saucer wouldn´t exist.










Ernest


----------



## lunadude

ernest said:


> ...
> 
> Another possibility could be that they didn´t payed much attention to these details... as for instance for the lack of the saucer shadow on the land which appears magically under sunlight as if the saucer wouldn´t exist.
> 
> Ernest


Careful now. I sounds like you are buying into the "_it was just a TV show_" conspiracy.


----------



## ernest

lunadude said:


> Careful now. I sounds like you are buying into the "_it was just a TV show_" conspiracy.


No, No! I want to believe! 
Here I am posting the new version number 32 compared to the flying saucer.
It seems that the central disk (red) is too low.









By airl at 2011-05-07

There is a diference in the aparent location of the green balls. It is due to the nature of perspective.
the image from the TV show is obviously a perspective but the cad image isn axonometric image.
Anyway for now this will not bother, but for the final adjustment I will have to calculate the focal length of the lens used to reproduce the exact same perspective.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Note the Interesting similarities between the Adamski Scout Ship, and The Invaders Saucer which is suposed to be inspired in the first.
The botom conical exterior ring, and the conical bottom, seems to be more than a coincidence.









By airl at 2011-05-07

Even the balls and the central disk protudes under the outer diameter border.

Here a custom transformation to make it more evident:









By airl at 2011-05-07


----------



## thepixelpusher

The Invaders saucer design was influenced by the Rex Heflin saucer and the Adamski saucer. Both were reported before the shows airing.


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> The Invaders saucer design was influenced by the Rex Heflin saucer and the Adamski saucer. Both were reported before the shows airing.


Thanks thepixelpusher!
Now that you mention it, as for the outer profile and proportions, the Invaders saucer is more close to the Rex Heflin saucer.








I haven´t thought of that before.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

The Invaders saucer is like a combo of the 2. It has the Adamski balls, edge flair and center rings and the upper part of the Heflin saucer. The Heflin saucer actually had some dusty vortex under it in the last photo. Kind of like the foggy landing scene in the show.


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> The Invaders saucer is like a combo of the 2. It has the Adamski balls, edge flair and center rings and the upper part of the Heflin saucer. The Heflin saucer actually had some dusty vortex under it in the last photo. Kind of like the foggy landing scene in the show.


Very Interesting Thepixelpusher.
You know more about the invaders saucer (at least to me) and perhaps you can add some light into an issue on the landing gear:
Starseeker (Another member in this forum) proposed a piece like a skate under each of the 5 pods, which seemed very logic to me, and it could explain several situations in the TV show, but I haven´t found any hint in any of the episodes.
Do you know anything about this?
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3768254&postcount=203
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3768564&postcount=206

Ernest


----------



## CaptCBoard

I have a question concerning the geometry of the bottom of the ship. If the bottom is not flat, if it is on an angle, this would produce a somewhat flat conical shape. Would not the landing gear then be slightly curved, with the outward facing surfaces being concave? Or would the surface with the retracted, flat gear actually appear more as a faceted surface instead of conical?

Scott


----------



## thepixelpusher

The landing legs only ever had the pegs at the bottom. I have a preproduction composite still photo of the saucer model and the full size landing set of legs that was done prior to the shows effects being done. The episode of "The Saucer" has the saucer on hard rocks so it doesn't sink in. In other episodes it sinks in. I don't think the technology behind it was so thoroughly thought through as discussed here. Rememeber it was a mid-season replacement show and it ended up only running 1-1/2 seasons. Maybe the aliens had repulsar technology for the peg legs 

BTW, Ernest what 3D modeling software are you using?


----------



## ernest

CaptCBoard said:


> I have a question concerning the geometry of the bottom of the ship. If the bottom is not flat, if it is on an angle, this would produce a somewhat flat conical shape. Would not the landing gear then be slightly curved, with the outward facing surfaces being concave? Or would the surface with the retracted, flat gear actually appear more as a faceted surface instead of conical?
> 
> Scott


Scott,

As in the TV show the pods planes seem perfectly flat, and considering that they contains the folding stairs, what I did is to keep the outer plane of the pods flat. (I mean the outer when it is in landed position) So the oposite side would be conical. This conical side will be visible when in flying position. As result of this, the pod will be thicker at its vertical axis, and narower in the vertical borders.

I am includding an image to make it clearer. Note that this 3d model is still changing.










Note the inclined lines on the conical side, if you extend them they should intersect in the center of the cone.
The upper border is cylindrical, and the central axis of that cylinder is the rotation axis for the pod to open and close.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> The landing legs only ever had the pegs at the bottom. I have a preproduction composite photo of the saucer model and the full size landing set of legs that was done prior to the shows effects being done. The episode of "The Saucer" has the saucer on hard rocks so it doesn't sink in. In other episodes it sinks in. I don't think the technology behind it was so thoroughly thought through as discussed here. Rememeber it was a mid-season replacement show and it ended up only running 1-1/2 seasons. Maybe the aliens had repulsar technology for the peg legs
> 
> BTW, Ernest what 3D modeling software are you using?


Thepixelpusher, I am using plain Autocad in this case. 
As for the "preproduction composite photo of the saucer model and the full size landing set of legs" it is increasing my anxiety to see them!! 
Regarding the show, I am amazed by the high degree of detail design anyway.
My only hint on the skate piece can be seen in Dark Outpost where David Vincent brings a Geologist to the landing site, with the hope to show him the Saucer.
It was not there but he found the tracks, and they were linear tracks, not points.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

Ernest I don't mean to hold back, but I want to save some exclusives for my site. It will contain information from the original propmaker and this includes photos never before released. The site will be mostly about the saucer, but will also include some of the weapons too. I just got some great information on the season 1 bigger and season 2 smaller rayguns. It's been years of work to track down these leads, but it's all coming together. I'm still looking for Death Disk to examine if anyone has any leads.


----------



## JAT

thepixelpusher said:


> The landing legs only ever had the pegs at the bottom. I have a preproduction composite still photo of the saucer model and the full size landing set of legs that was done prior to the shows effects being done. The episode of "The Saucer" has the saucer on hard rocks so it doesn't sink in. In other episodes it sinks in. I don't think the technology behind it was so thoroughly thought through as discussed here. Rememeber it was a mid-season replacement show and it ended up only running 1-1/2 seasons. Maybe the aliens had repulsar technology for the peg legs
> 
> BTW, Ernest what 3D modeling software are you using?


 Additionally, although it probably was not thought out beyond the "that looks cool" stage, those pegs would have worked independently as little pistons to adjust to variances in a landing site, allowing the ship to rest evenly and securely in most any environment.


----------



## JAT

CaptCBoard said:


> I have a question concerning the geometry of the bottom of the ship. If the bottom is not flat, if it is on an angle, this would produce a somewhat flat conical shape. Would not the landing gear then be slightly curved, with the outward facing surfaces being concave? Or would the surface with the retracted, flat gear actually appear more as a faceted surface instead of conical?
> 
> Scott


 I think the outward facing surfaces could be flat since they would face into a landing well inside the ship, but the inward surfaces would be convex, though we never see much of them.


----------



## SUNGOD

ernest said:


> No offence at all!
> I am basing my assuptions on complex 3d constructions on the image.
> Anyway this is a very complex and at some point intuitive process, in which I have some experience. I am sorry I cannot provide an undoubtable proof of my guess...
> Anyway i will try to do some, just to show the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By airl at 2011-05-06
> 
> Here you can see a series of ellipses drawn on the photo. They represent circles in perspective. (this is not that true because the photograph was taken with a wide angle lens, but for this purpose we can consider this particularity irrelevant) Each gropu of ellipses of the same colour shares the same center. This means that the circles are at the same height. The Green circles are higher than the blue circle, and both are higher compared to the red circles.
> If you look carefully the line that "cuts" the green ball at the left, it pases exactly on a little black hole in the bottom conical plane, and this line ends exactly at the center of the bottom red circle. this means that the profile of this conical plane is an inclined line that goes from a point inside the green ball that is above the outer border of the sauser (green) and ends in the center of the bottom circle (red)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here in this other image the Blue lines are inclined by construction. In other words they goes from the center of the balls to the center of the red disk.
> In the balls A amd B you can tell that they are inclined and more or less paralel to the blue lines. (look at the upper border of the balls where they intersect the conical plane in which they are embeded)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the outer conical ring between the balls and the outer diameter you can see that it is conical in the famous image of the saucer while landing in the opening sequence. If you look carefully at one of these images you will see that this conical ring is only visible in the back of the saucer and cannot be seen in the front border, where you will notice the green balls directly behind the outer front border with nothing in between. This means that the outer bottom ring has an inclined profile, instead of a flat horizontal plane as in the Aurora model.
> 
> As for the too tall and slanted roof, you are right. The published sketch is just that: a sketch. And in order to show the diferences it is an exagerated (cartoonist) because it is a hand held drawing.
> 
> Ernest



Ah! Should have known that. Nice technical mock ups b.t.w.!


----------



## JAT

I am genuinely amazed at the amount of thought and ingenuity and sheer dedication going on here, and very grateful that someone has undergone the trouble to bring it all to a website in which we can all interact and put forth our thoughts and insights. 
Pixelpusher, I am truly looking forward to seeing the fruits of your efforts, and am certain they will be worth the wait.
And Ernest, I'm awed at the amount of work and research you've created, even though I'm not sure I completely agree with all of your conclusions I will remain open-minded. In profile, I find the (very slightly) conical lower hull elements, the undercarriage to be very attractive and an approach I had never considered. Intriguing, and thought provoking.I had always simply taken for granted that the underside surfaces were flat. I do believe that the outer hull curvature needs to be refined some still, and that there was a band of some sort at the juncture of the lower and upper hulls. This may have been for practical purposes, possibly lending strength to a weak point in the connection of those surfaces.
Size continuity also seems to be a problem. I've seen Jackill's and the iteration put forth in the "Saucer Fleet" and kind of found them both wanting somewhat, according to my admittedly incomplete conceptions. I've work mine down to about 57 ft. dia., but remember Vincent mentioning it to be somewhere between 40 and 50 ft. as a guess. So who knows. Again, as alluded to by Pixelpusher, there was not a lot of thought put into the craft or the continuity between interior and exterior shots. Anyone familiar with pretty much any Irwin Allen show is all too aware of these issues. I believe a saucer was initially never intended to be built. I don't know if we can ever fully reconcile all the tantalizing bits shown us into an absolute model. I imagine it will be a lot of fun as well as informative, to see how close any of us has come, when Pixelpusher gets his site up. Can't wait.


----------



## ernest

Here we have the problem of interior space.
The outer diameter (64") is a bit larger for most of our estimates, and the interior space is not enough to acomodate the folding pods.
The thickness of each floor level is 20cm (8 inches) in this section, although in the TV show it looks about 50cm (20 Inches) as seen here:










The height of ceilings in the plans are not as tall as in the TV show for sure, as seen here:










The doors are 72 inches (1.85 meters) which is too low compared to the TV show images.
The slope of the bottom conical plane should be more subtle, which would get things worse. So I give up for now. 
Perhaps someone else can find a solution.









All measurements in this section in meters.

This time I added a bump on the roof, similar to this:








trying to copy the bump in the ceiling under the roof.

I have added the grid window to the machine room as seen here:










Also added a "step" near the porthole in the loading deck vestibule, which could help to acomodate part of the folding pods.
In this image it can be seen the step, blocking part of the porthole door.










Perhaps the vertical steps (in the bottom of the ship) are not vertical, but sloped, which could add 4 extra inches. (see the red area)
They were the last vertical lines in the profile, that shouldn´t probably be there-










Anyway we are stretching the limits.
Any idea?


----------



## thepixelpusher

Nice job Ernest. Obviously the set wasn't in proportion to the studio model so ultimately an inside/outside model of the saucer has to have some averaging of the measurements to get it to work.


----------



## Krel

JAT said:


> Anyone familiar with pretty much any Irwin Allen show is all too aware of these issues.


Amazing. Irwin Allen gets the blame for something that EVERY show did, and still does. I forget who, but someone pointed out that the Flying Sub interior set is actually smaller than it should be for the size of the model. 

A lot of people went crazy trying to fit the Star Trek shuttle craft interior set into the full size mock-up. Then it was pointed out that Matt Jefferies designed the shuttle craft to be a small vehicle, but then it was decided that they wanted the actors to be able to stand upright in it.

It is amazing how many sets are made at a reduced scale to what they're real-life size is suppose to be. Sometimes it is due to costs, but most often space, or lack of is the deciding factor.

David.


----------



## thepixelpusher

The Invaders was a Quinn Martin Production so we're good. :thumbsup:


----------



## ernest

I have seen screen captures that show a diferent proportion:

















From The invaders Site in Brazil, looks wider.

And the following two images were published in photobucket, and looks taller.

















I wonder how to find out which is the right one...

If the righ is the last we have a chance that the interior could fit...
My only hint is that the wheels of the truck looks round. If it were a deformed capture they would be not round.
Anyway it is hard to say since they are too small...
The round holes seem to be Ok in the last series, and could be wrong in the first two images...


----------



## ernest

Here I found an image that shows a CIRCLE that looks an ellipse.










Obviously there is a deformation here...
Any hint on which is the real proportion will be wellcomed!

Ernest


----------



## charonjr

In my experience, most image capture cards use 720x480 as the standard NTSC frame. The captures are horizontally elongated. I've had to take such captures and put them through Photoshop to convert them to 640x480, which gives the correct 4:3 proportions of the NTSC frame.

The last two saucer frames would be correct. 

The circular imager could be from a 720x480 capture. I was going to say that if the camera were at a high enough angle, the circle could be flattened into an ellipse. But scratch that, that doesn't appear to be the case here. I do find the square video image curious, for if the circle is stretched horizontally and were corrected, the square would become a vertical rectangle. Yet the image of Vincent appears the correct height for the man in the video. It could be the imager was not quite round. Hard to tell here.

Any idea what episode that imager is shown in? I could check my DVDs.


----------



## kenlee

charonjr said:


> In my experience, most image capture cards use 720x480 as the standard NTSC frame. The captures are horizontally elongated. I've had to take such captures and put them through Photoshop to convert them to 640x480, which gives the correct 4:3 proportions of the NTSC frame.
> 
> The last two saucer frames would be correct.
> 
> The circular imager could be from a 720x480 capture. I was going to say that if the camera were at a high enough angle, the circle could be flattened into an ellipse. But scratch that, that doesn't appear to be the case here. I do find the square video image curious, for if the circle is stretched horizontally and were corrected, the square would become a vertical rectangle. Yet the image of Vincent appears the correct height for the man in the video. It could be the imager was not quite round. Hard to tell here.
> 
> Any idea what episode that imager is shown in? I could check my DVDs.


That is from the episode "The Saucer" I used Power DVD to capture a similar frame, this program keeps the actual frame proportions.


----------



## ernest

Thanks Kelee & Charonjr

So 4:3 should be the right proportion.
454 x 302 = 4:2,64
720 x 540 = 4:3
640 x 481 = about 4:3
800 x 600 = 4:3

Most of the options are OK, except the one I picked! (the first)
The good new is that perhaps now the interior could fit!
I am correcting in Photoshop all the reference images, so that I can redraw everything from scratch, and we will see...

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Here you are version 36.
The outer proportions are as exact as possible although the general size is a bit larger for our estimates from the TV show, and the interior is prety acceptable, although it could be compressed vertically, if compared to the images in the TV show.










The round holes in the pods seem to be too near the bottom border of the pods.
I am leaving the skates for now.
The power coil in the upper desk is OK when seen from outside, but seems to be too low from the interior. This will be a problem when adding the cabin rectangular porthole.

Now we have no vertical lines in the profile at all!

Here a perspective view in flying configuration:










And a comparison to a screen capture (corrected to 4:3)










Pleasse report comments and critics, in order to improve in the next version.

Ernest


----------



## AF1963

Sorry to be dumb but what is 1,78 or 19,54? Is that some metric measure?


----------



## ernest

AF1963 said:


> Sorry to be dumb but what is 1,78 or 19,54? Is that some metric measure?


Oh, yes!
I forgot to mention, all measurements are in meters.
1 meter = 39,36 inches
So if you multiply the values in meters by 39,36, you will have the equivalent in inches.
Then if you divide by 12 you will have the equivalent in feet.

Ernest


----------



## AF1963

So 1,78 = 1 meter, 78 centimeters? I have never seen meters expressed that way before. For what little contact I have with metrics I usually see something like 178 centimeters. Thanks.


----------



## ernest

AF1963 said:


> So 1,78 = 1 meter, 78 centimeters? I have never seen meters expressed that way before. For what little contact I have with metrics I usually see something like 178 centimeters. Thanks.


Yes, in Metric System you have several choises:

In Meters = 1,78 m (for architectural use , or civil engenier )
In Centimeters = 178 cm (for interior design, office work, etc) 
In Milimeters = 1780 mm (for mechanical use, naval engenier)
Also you can use Decimeters (which is not so common) = 17,8 dm

That is the great thing about decimal (metric) system, when you change from one unit to the next, you just move the comma.
That cannot be done to change from feet to inches!

Ernest


----------



## kenlee

ernest said:


> Here you are version 36.
> The outer proportions are as exact as possible although the general size is a bit larger for our estimates from the TV show, and the interior is prety acceptable, although it could be compressed vertically, if compared to the images in the TV show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The round holes in the pods seem to be too near the bottom border of the pods.
> I am leaving the skates for now.
> The power coil in the upper desk is OK when seen from outside, but seems to be too low from the interior. This will be a problem when adding the cabin rectangular porthole.
> 
> Now we have no vertical lines in the profile at all!
> 
> Here a perspective view in flying configuration:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a comparison to a screen capture (corrected to 4:3)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pleasse report comments and critics, in order to improve in the next version.
> 
> Ernest


I like what you are doing with this, I think you have nailed the shape of this iconic saucer. The skids are a logical addition to the landing gear, who's to say that there were not different versions of the same basic saucer design? If you look at real space hardware you never see two spacecraft that are exactly identical. Even the NASA shuttles were not identical, there were minor detail differences on each spacecraft.


----------



## ernest

Thanks Kenlee.

Good point: *If you look at real space hardware you never see two spacecraft that are exactly identical*.
In fact, one of the descriptions of the construction procedure that I have read, tells that they are "grown" in a way similar our 3D plotting services we have here on earth. If so, they would not need factories, or there would be no advantage of mass production. They do not have parts, or pieces, since they are just one single piece. Every model could be a custom build!
That would be nice to order a new car!

Ernest


----------



## starseeker

Ernest,
I've been busy comparing all your images in Photoshop and lining them up with my few images and studying them as only an obsessive rivet counter like me can. I think you've nailed that hull shape as well as it can possibly be nailed. Even if we had the blueprints, we couldn't be sure that the miniature turned out to match them. The only thing I'd change is rounding the roof a little. It seems too flat. Possibly a slightly smaller radius curve from roof to top hull side. And your top hull lights are a touch lower than the lowest of the pair I plotted. But...
Fantastic work! Many thanks!
I love your angled bottom surface. It's so close to the picture you compare it to in post 239 and it explains those oddly angled lights that I always thought were just poor animation. 
Question: did the large center light really protrude past the bottom rim? Actually, Pixel, if you're here: did the large center light really protrude past the bottom rim? And was the bottom surface really angled like that? You don't have to post photos or anything - just give us a hint. Warm? Hot? 
When I was doing my drawings for the plaster hull master (still not finished, so I will add a bit of width to the top hull), I noticed that the vertical position of the top lights varied considerably between photos. Possibly because they were an animated effect? At their highest, it is just possible to squeeze the control room window in underneath. 
While all the lights were supposed to have been animated by Anderson Co., I have this really weird photo of the saucer from somewhere. I've posted it here before hoping for some info as to what the black circle on top of the saucer is, or for info on why the top lights look like this. I've inverted the image to make it clearer.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Do you have a high rez image of that? That's from the episode "the Saucer".

Reviewing the effects on the saucer it looks like some of it was practical lighting and some animated in. The revolving lights have a motion blur to them, so it probably wasn't animated. The underside of the engine has an animated glow that doesn't always line up - a giveaway that it was animated (but only maybe to enhance the fact the undersride lighting wasn't bright enough). There are some episodes where the upper lights seem to leak down through the underside large engine area rim.

That part on the top of the saucer (from the episode "The Saucer" in that shots looks like a different color is likely either due to poor uneven lighting on the model, poor compositing (spill from the blue backdrop on the top knocks out some of the full tone) or both.


----------



## starseeker

http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums... Saucer/?action=view&current=SaucerSaucer.jpg


----------



## starmanmm

What has caught my attention in this shot is that it looks like there are ribs on the top of the ship and that the top maybe recessed abit also.


----------



## ernest

starmanmm said:


> What has caught my attention in this shot is that it looks like there are ribs on the top of the ship and that the top maybe recessed abit also.


Do you mean circular ribs or radial ribs?
If you mean curcular, there is a posibility that they are caused by Digital Image Artifacts
As for the bump in the center of the roof... I am not sure yet.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

There is no detail on the top of the saucer. The body was vacuum formed off a plaster mold that was created with a wooden profile turned around a centerpoint. The plaster was slow setting and a metal post held the end of the wooden profile in the center. It was an easy way to make a perfectly smooth and perfectly balanced bell shape this way. The Star Trek Enterprise (original series) saucer domes were done the same way.

And since I recently shared this unpublished picture of the making of the Enterprise with StarTrekHistory.com I think it should be shown here too. The process of making The Invaders saucer mold was done the same way.










This original polaroid (shown above) was pretty rough looking. This is retouched and cleaned up. Thankfully the saucer photos were taken with traditional film camera and processing and look much better.


----------



## thepixelpusher

I just checked the saucer studio model image I have (the one prior to it's delivery) and it does indeed have what look like lighting cords coming out of it.


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> I just checked the saucer studio model image I have (the one prior to it's delivery) and it does indeed have what look like lighting cords coming out of it.


Where does this supposed electric wires comes from?
Accordingly to your knowledge, could the dark shadows (on top of the roof) appearing in "The Saucer" episode (published here by Starseeker here: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3773807&postcount=243), be explained by this fact?

Regarding the plaster and rotating wooden frame procedure, it is great!
Thanks for the image of the StarTrek ship under construction.
The technique remembers me the old way used to creat architectual mouldings as seen here: http://www.cornice.co.uk/images/Blocking out the cornice in gypsum plaster.jpg or http://www.dpmouldings.co.uk/uploads/images/Slideshow/custom.jpg and http://www.rtbullard.com/stucco/progress/1812.htm , way before the appearance of expanded poliestirene and other prefabricated material mouldings ready to glue on the wall. 
Accordingly to old techniques the moulding shouldn´t be made of wood, but in metal. At least the moulding border in the template should be metalic to support the heavy use without deteriorating, and also because it will provide a sharp border less sensitive to misshandling.
One thing that called my attention is that the ship shape was positive. I do not know why, I imagined it should be negative, like other type of mouldings in which you need a negative moulding to get a positive product.
Anyway, I am not familiar with vacum forming technique at all.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

ernest said:


> Where does this supposed electric wires comes from?
> Accordingly to your knowledge, could the dark shadows (on top of the roof) appearing in "The Saucer" episode (published here by Starseeker here: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3773807&postcount=243), be explained by this fact?
> 
> Ernest


"supposed electrical wires"?

Okay, I guess it's time for a peek. Here's a portion of the image showing the underside.










The cords are coming out of either the bottom (engine area that might still be open) or are curled up under the bottom (coming off a side spot) when the shot was taken. The wooden board and supports under the saucer are not part of the saucer itself. The photo was taken outside their shop against cyclone fencing. The image has detail in other areas that are surprising too. But the top is smooth with no detail at all.

I have a photo of the inside support structure too, but I'm holding that to use to verify if someone claims to have the studio model.


----------



## ernest

Nice Image Thepixelpusher!

If I understand it OK, it seems that the 5 balls and the central disk do not protude under the outer border.
But I could be wrong if the central disk had a cap that was probably removed.
As for the ball, I cannot tell since I do not know if the visible ball is aligned with the saucer axis, or if it is behind or perhaps in front of it.
That will have to wait for the real thing! 


Here I am posting the new version number 41
The changes are:
The flange profile was adjusted. In previous version it was an arc, now it is a complex curve where the radius gets reduced in the lower part.
The 5 balls were elevated so that they do not protude so much under the outer border, therefore the holes in the pods got smaller.
The skids are thinner so that the space under the circular holes are thicker, aproaching more to the ideal.
The upper lights at the outer cabine walls were evevated. I have verified that this position seems to vary, but I am not sure if this is due to a problem in the composite masks, that cuts part of the saucer image, giving the impression that the space in between the lights and the roof changes.
Anyway the new position will not be in conflict with the window in the comand position.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Ernest, looking good!


----------



## ernest

Thanks Tom,

What I have learned from that image is that the 5 balls shouldn´t protude under the outer border. That is a correction for the next version.
I cannot be sure about the central disc (the engine bottom) because I do not know the missing cap. It is possible that the cap could be thick enough to protude under that level, and it could be possible the oposite. (for now)




















Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

The bottom engine rim is there. The inner lens may be off at the time of the picture.


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> The bottom engine rim is there. The inner lens may be off at the time of the picture.


If the only missing part here is the red lens, this picture seems to show that the outer border , the 5 balls and the central disc should be all at the same level.
So I have to change this in next version.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

It might hang out a bit. Remember this photo is at a slight angle.


----------



## starmanmm

*Rib*

ernest wrote:


> Do you mean circular ribs or radial ribs?


On the top... looks like a rib or some sort....

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u88/starmanmm/saucer01.jpg

There is something there for it is lineal.

It also looks like the top is recessed for there appears to be an edge or rim when you look at this pic to the upper left of the top of the ship.


----------



## thepixelpusher

I can tell you the top has no ribs or concave structure. The top is slightly curved, but upwardly. And no rim. Keep in mind that the special effects compositing for these 60's TV shows was rushed and absolutely horrible in most shots. They had a small budget and if it wasn't right it still aired. Look at the horrible fringing on the lower right edge of the landing saucer in the opening. That wasn't fixed until the 2nd Season. The Enterprise space effects in Star Trek, done by the same FX house, was really bad too. Things just weren't as sophisticated back then on the budget they had. Sometimes it was good sometimes not.


----------



## Larry523

AF1963 said:


> So 1,78 = 1 meter, 78 centimeters? I have never seen meters expressed that way before. For what little contact I have with metrics I usually see something like 178 centimeters. Thanks.


I believe that what's confusing you is Ernest's use of the comma (,) for the decimal mark instead of the period (.) that you're probably more accustomed to. The U.S. and many countries use the period, but Ernest is in Argentina. They, and several other countries, use the comma to denote the decimal. So 1,78 = 1.78 in U.S.-style notation.


----------



## AF1963

Thanks Larry523. You hit the nail on the head. The period would have clued me in that the measurment was most likely 1.78 meters. Here in the US we would list a simlar measure as 5' 10". The use of (*'*) and (*"*) might have thrown non-US users off as well. Although with the use of decimal inches very common these days I might have still been thrown off. In addition I learned something about metrics and that the expression of such is not quite as universal as we are frequently told.

Thanks so much. :wave:


----------



## starseeker

Threads like this are what make Hobbytalk the best modelling forum in the English-speaking world, if not beyond. There were a couple other great general sf forums but they're all but moribund now and there are a lot of specific interest forums but Hobbytalk with its huge range of subjects and members continues to delight.
Pixel: thanks for posting that mudding photo of the E. It's great to know that the pros are as messy as I am, and that something elegant can come out of so crude a pile of muck. There are pictures somewhere in my Photobucket albums of my using the same technique on my Gemini 12 /Jupiter 2 masters. I use about an inch of plaster over high density foam or scrap lumber. I haven't got the past the scrap wood stage for the 24" Invaders saucer yet. Which turns out to be just as well.
Ernest: you're timing is great and your work is amazing. I'll make the top cylinder a tiny bit wider to match yours. I never paid much attention to the bottom of the saucer but I love what you're doing. With any kind of luck, this fall I'll have pictures of something more than scrap and plaster to post. Still haven't decided whether to do the hulls in fiberglass or just build a giant vacuum former. The Spindrift hull is so complex I don't know which technique would be better or easier to work with. It's all a learning experience.


----------



## ernest

Well I am starting to consider that some of you were right when pointed that the central disk as well as the 5 balls may not protude below the outer flange border.
Here I am trying to explore the subject, and seems to look ok.











This is version number 42 (temporary)

Now the round holes in the pods are smaller, which increases the space between them and the bottom border of the trapezoidal prism of the pods, matching the right proportions for the first time.
Perhaps as a consequence of the previous, The ladders in the pods should neeed to be moved towards the center of the hole.


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> There are pictures somewhere in my Photobucket albums of my using the same technique on my Gemini 12 /Jupiter 2 masters. I use about an inch of plaster over high density foam or scrap lumber. I haven't got the past the scrap wood stage for the 24" Invaders saucer yet. Which turns out to be just as well.


Thanks for so much praise starseeker, and others!
I am having fun, and help from your feedback.

I would love to see the pictures you mentioned. Can you post a link?

Ernest


----------



## starseeker

I have some scattered in the wreckage of this Photobucket album
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/24 Scale Jupiter 2/#!cpZZ3QQtppZZ32
it looks like primarily on page 3? Someday I will get in here and organize this. This is actually a 25 year old 24" diameter Jupiter 2 master made out of plaster over foam being re-shaped to match 25 years of better information.


----------



## ernest

Starseeker, I am impressed by your modeling skills!
The plaster mold of the Jupiter 2 looks perfect.
Anyway I couldn´t find a picture showing the vacum moulding process.... was that done in your working place, or sent to a specialized service?


I am still wondering about the central lens level.
I think that when I wrote post number 201, I was underestimating the wide angle perspective distortion of the studio model image.
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3768231&postcount=201
A circle in perspective cannot be represented with an ellipse!
If the picture would be taken with a telephoto lens, such a reasoning would be Ok, but that was not the case.

I shouldn´t take into account the opening sequence, where the red light effect that is slightly out of place could help to missinterprete the shape.


----------



## ernest

I am changing the topic for a moment:
This is a lower deck reconstruction, based in the images published in The Invaders Brazilian Site.
The "angles" with names and numbers are the camera position and the FOV (field of view) 
The names start with two leters, for instance DO meaning Dark Outpost http://invaders-ware.netfirms.com/en_saucer_action_005.htm , or 
TS meaning The Saucer. http://invaders-ware.netfirms.com/en_saucer_action_001.htm
The numbers refers to the position of the reference images in the web page.










The main desition was to divide the interior in 10 slices, which could match the pods, and the possible entrances.

One interesting thing I have found is that in Dark Outpost david vincent got unconcious in the small room in the center of the saucer (DO13) , but when he recovered and decided to go out, he appeared in another room (DO18). This is obvious because there are two kind of automatic doors, a narow and a wide model.
The door to the small room is the narow type, which can be seen from the inside, but when the camera look at David Vincent from outside, it is a wide door, and he is magically in the main room where everything started.

A diference between The Saucer and Dark Outpost is that the main wall is curved in the first, but it was faceted in the second. Anyway It could be one way, when viewed from outside and faceted when viewed from the inside... which is shown in the current plan.

One question: How they entered the lockers? They seem not to fit in the portholes...

Of course this is a free interpretation, so I will be happy to know your diferent point of views.



Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

Ernest, I can't see your picture.


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> Ernest, I can't see your picture.


I hope now it is fixed....
I am having problems attaching files using Firefox.


----------



## JAT

Ernest, you are doing some amazing work here and I have to thank you for helping me to look at aspects of the saucer that I had previously either never considered or taken for granted. As a teenager when I built the model I recognized that there were some problems with its design ( the upper hull was too vertical, the lower lights too shallow, etc), but I had simply accepted that the flat undercarriage was true to the show, no angles to those surfaces at all. You have helped me to view those areas with a completely new eye and make sense of what did not.
I am wondering, however, if I might be mistaken in your transition from the lower hull to upper? You are illustrating this as a smooth transition using an elegant small radius curve, however to my eye in the still photos it appears to be a band wrapping around the join of those two elements. It doesn't necessarily resemble the three rings of the model (or the source saucer in your drawings), but that's how it appears to me. Also, I;m not sure each of the support legs has a set of steps leading up into the ship. Admittedly this is a tough call as we never see all of them in any up-close detail, but the two recessed steps at the top of the fold-up steps don't appear on any supports other than the one used on screen. I think it might be reasonable to guess one other support contained a set of access steps, but with such limited space, and the small crews involved, even a second set might not be necessary.
Obviously, when the web page goes up we will have our answers and it will be interesting to see how close or far off any of our thoughts are. Until then, keep up your great work, it's very exciting.


----------



## ernest

Thanks Jat!
You are right that the transition between the lower hull to upper may be diferent. It is very probable that a rim or several rims were built in the connection betwen these two pieces. I am leaving it for now until any new graphic material could show any new detail.
Regarding the ladders, I am sure _like you do_ by what is shown in the TV show that the production team built just one single pod with two ladders. The other 4 pods were just plain surfaces. In some episodes they used the right ladder and in some other episodes they used the left ladder, so up to here we can assume that the ship would have two access hatches.
In The Saucer they entered using the left ladder.
In The Life Seekers they used the right ladder.
In The Mutation they used the right ladder again.
And in Dark Outpost they used the Left Ladder again, to the loading deck which is a diferent room compared to The Saucer.
So at least we have 3 access.
If you look at the lower deck plan I have posted, I decided arbitrarily to draw 4 of them. Two using the left ladder, and the other two using the right ladder.
Anyway we cannot know how the diferent rooms shown in diferent episodes were connected. Perhaps they were independent sets, who knows...

All we know for sure is that we have 10 possible locations for the portholes, as shown with black dots in this plan of the bottom of the ship:









This is an exception:








A 5th ladder which comes from the central room shown in The Inocent.
But It is not in the current plan for now...
Perhaps this is the one that could be used to load the lockers in Dark Outpost....

To make things more complex I can say that real witneses tells that saucers can open access hatches in many places, and when they are closed you cannot tell that there was an opening nor couldn´t see any joint.

We also can assume that there could exist more than one design...


Ernest


----------



## JAT

Off topic slghtly, but still in the neighborhood; a friend of mine was in the industry, specifically, making props, and we've talked a little about the process. It is entirely possible that those that designed and/or built the physical prop had little or no contact or communication with those who built the sets. So, while the set builders had some idea of what they were supposed to be creating, actual dimensions of the ship were probably not available to them and quite possibly not even the model. So where as we, all these decades later and with a wealth of information and computers at our disposal are able to retroactively attempt to figure all this out, in all likelyhood it was never really meant to be figured out. The interiors were simply meant to somewhat resemble the exterior of the saucer without being too far off. These were just craftsmen (and women), handling each job as it was assigned, as quickly and cheaply as was possible. The same crew might very well finish a saucer interior on Wednesday and begin a police squadroom the next morning.
In the 60's, television, while no longer in its infancy, was still developing and its primary goal was to entertain. I very much doubt anyone involved ever imagined that 40 years later so many of us would be so absorbed with trying to figure out how these elements all fit together. Probably they would get a good chuckle out of our hours and years of efforts, and maybe even be a little awed by it all. This would apply to all shows as well, I guess. We were, for short blocks of time, being entertained. It wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, or even make sense especially, just look good. And, given our obsession with their creations, they succeeded.


----------



## JAT

Ernest, with regard to your truly excellent and very well thought out renditions of the "belly" of the saucer, I wonder if, in place of some of those hatches, might there have been a larger cargo hatch, for just such items as those locker crates? Surely these little craft would be carrying supplies that would most certainly be larger than those circular hatches. Additionally, there might also be a small lifting mechanism (a la Forbidden Planet ) on the lower deck, just never seen on the show.


----------



## ernest

JAT said:


> Ernest, with regard to your truly excellent and very well thought out renditions of the "belly" of the saucer, I wonder if, in place of some of those hatches, might there have been a larger cargo hatch, for just such items as those locker crates? Surely these little craft would be carrying supplies that would most certainly be larger than those circular hatches. Additionally, there might also be a small lifting mechanism (a la Forbidden Planet ) on the lower deck, just never seen on the show.



Good point!
You mean that perhaps the little room where David Vincent lost his conciousness (or the other symetrical room not shown in the show) , could have been an elevator...


----------



## JAT

ernest said:


> Good point!
> You mean that perhaps the little room where David Vincent lost his conciousness (or the other symetrical room not shown in the show) , could have been an elevator...


 Kind of, yes, but maybe not so elaborate. For folks that are supposed to be so advanced, some of their equipment seems decidedly low-tech. I had in mind a simple crane mechanism situated near or over a larger (possibly rectangular) hatch. But definately in one of those rooms, so that storage is immediately accessible from the hatch.
Also, have you noticed, or rather, does it seem to you that some images of the saucer were just badly matted paintings? Seems unnecessary if they had at their disposal the actual model, but some images just seem very off.


----------



## ernest

JAT said:


> Also, have you noticed, or rather, does it seem to you that some images of the saucer were just badly matted paintings? Seems unnecessary if they had at their disposal the actual model, but some images just seem very off.


I assumed that they were a reduced model composite, but never thought of mate paintings... Perhaps the weird look is due to the "Glowing" effect on the saucer.

Here you can see a rare abc promo that shows the saucer model without the "Glowing" effect: youtube.com/watch?v=9wytXPDdEv0

Even in this special case the central red lens seems to be really lightened from inside, although in some other opening sequences it is a bad posproduction enhacement.

I have read somewhere that the opening sequence was made without a model, but this short seems to prove the oposite.


----------



## starseeker

Ernest, this is what your 3D model looks like in 3D, at 24" in diameter, making it somewhere around 1/32 to 1/35 scale, I figure. I widened the top hull to match the width of your rendering. I've left the top of the top hull slightly rounded and the intersect between the top hull and the bottom hull sharp, for now. This is the first of at least 5 layers of plaster. It will take about a week to dry and it will shrink and crack horribly, at which time a second thick coat will go over, and after about 4 more progressively thinner coats over 3 to 4 more weeks it will be ready for some sanding and filling and sanding and...
I love to see the transition between lumps of scrap wood into something so familiar and instantly recognizable, even in this crude a form.


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> Ernest, this is what your 3D model looks like in 3D, at 24" in diameter, making it somewhere around 1/32 to 1/35 scale, I figure. I widened the top hull to match the width of your rendering. I've left the top of the top hull slightly rounded and the intersect between the top hull and the bottom hull sharp, for now. This is the first of at least 5 layers of plaster. It will take about a week to dry and it will shrink and crack horribly, at which time a second thick coat will go over, and after about 4 more progressively thinner coats over 3 to 4 more weeks it will be ready for some sanding and filling and sanding and...
> I love to see the transition between lumps of scrap wood into something so familiar and instantly recognizable, even in this crude a form.


Looking Great!
24" diameter is an interesting size!
Thanks for sharing the process, which I will follow!

Ernest


----------



## mach7

Starseeker,

Fiberglass or vac-u-form?

How much?

Please!


----------



## starseeker

mach7 said:


> Starseeker,
> 
> Fiberglass or vac-u-form?
> 
> Please!


Don't know yet.

How much?
If I can make one successfully, then I could try to make more than one. I was planning on having these done two autumn's ago, thought last year for sure, so I've given up trying to say when I might actually get these done. This year? First, tho', I'm just still trying to figure out what this thing actually looked like. 
Vac forming is practically free, once you get the machine built. Only concern there is how strong the hull would be. But styrene or abs is definitely modeller friendly. Haven't priced out fiberglass . Fiberglass is definitely strong but unfriendly and the downside there is that it is something I can't work with in our 8 months of winter. . 
Believe me, I'll keep progress posted.


----------



## mach7

I would vote for vac form (not that I have a vote!). I've been toying with this for a while. I just bought a small 12x12 in vac table and I am working on building a 12x18 inch homemade table. The major problem I see with vac forming is heating the plastic. Much bigger that 14 inches deep and it will be hard to get it in an oven.

A vacformed kit might need some kind of support inside larger than say 18 in.


----------



## ernest

mach7 said:


> A vacformed kit might need some kind of support inside larger than say 18 in.


Not necesarily. It all depends on the design. 
In this case, the Invaders saucer upper profile is self supporting, so in theory it could be made in a very thin material, because of its shape. Once you get the two sides attached it will be a very hard object.
All the conical plane and rings in the uderside will make a very strong profile too.
The only possible weak point would be the flat part of the roof, and the perforations for the power coils in the outer side of the cabin.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Here you have the lower deck being built.


----------



## thepixelpusher

ernest said:


> Looking Great!
> 24" diameter is an interesting size!
> Thanks for sharing the process, which I will follow!
> 
> Ernest


The original studio model was 4 feet in diameter.


----------



## flyingfrets

ernest said:


> Not necesarily. It all depends on the design.
> In this case, the Invaders saucer upper profile is self supporting, so in theory it could be made in a very thin material, because of its shape. Once you get the two sides attached it will be a very hard object.
> All the conical plane and rings in the uderside will make a very strong profile too.
> The only possible weak point would be the flat part of the roof, and the perforations for the power coils in the outer side of the cabin.
> 
> Ernest


There's more to it than the design. It also depends a great deal on the material used to vac-form and the thickness of the medium.

The old Lunar Models Jupiter II kit was a series of compound curves which added no structural rigidity what-so-ever. Complicating matters was the fact that the styrene used was very thin and felt more like heavy vinyl than plastic. I was appalled at how flimsy it was.

An earlier version of the kit (circa 1987 or so) was *very* sturdy, but the styrene used was a considerably heavier guage. Consequently, the details on the outside of the hull were very soft. Short of using male *&* female molds to do the forming, you have to accept the trade-off. 

Contrary to your assertion that the flat part would be the weak spot, the *only* sturdy part of the Lunar Jupiter II hulls was the flat piece of carrier plastic around the edges. They never lost their rigidity even after the hulls were cut from them.

Not bashing the Lunar kit (I did buy the thing), just using it to illustrate the misconceptions on vac-forming.


----------



## thepixelpusher

The Invaders saucer was vacuformed royalite plastic (same material as what they used on the Enterprise) over a plaster mold and a wooden and wire support structure added inside the shell for support. I have a photo of the inside as it was being built, and the propmaker holding the shell.


----------



## starmanmm

post please


----------



## thepixelpusher

ernest said:


> I assumed that they were a reduced model composite, but never thought of mate paintings... Perhaps the weird look is due to the "Glowing" effect on the saucer.
> 
> Here you can see a rare abc promo that shows the saucer model without the "Glowing" effect: youtube.com/watch?v=9wytXPDdEv0
> 
> Even in this special case the central red lens seems to be really lightened from inside, although in some other opening sequences it is a bad posproduction enhacement.
> 
> I have read somewhere that the opening sequence was made without a model, but this short seems to prove the oposite.


A model was used in the opening. It was filmed against a blue background and composited into the background plate of the real woods.

The ABC promo shown on youtube uses the newer 2nd Season opening composite special effects that was redone to take off the bad matte fringing on the lower right of the saucer. This upload to Youtube is just a dark version of that promo commercial, but the glowing underside is there. It matches the 2nd season intro perfectly for the saucer (see the DVD's). The glow was animated afterward though the model did have practical lighting inside the top and the bottom. The bottom lighting may have been too subtle and they may have added the bottom glow to make it more dramatic.

I agree, there are some saucer shots that look more like a still image was composited into the shot, but I can't find any evidence to support that yet.


----------



## ernest

This is the lower deck version 046


----------



## ernest

flyingfrets said:


> There's more to it than the design.


You are right flyingfrets, materials can be of diferent strenght.
I would like to mention something that I have forgotten about these shapes.
The main requisite to obtain the maximun strenght from the vacum formed pieces is to provide a strong support along its borders.










Here you can see an example. This is a very thin concrete structure, which strength comes from its supports on the thick borders and on the ground. It is easy to imagine that it would collapse if you could add wheels on each support, or if you would have thin borders..

In the same way if the upper part of the saucer could be strongly assured to the bottom part, along all their borders, it will become a very much strong structure, compared with itself before gluing the two pieces together.

Another clasic example is an egg, which would be stronger compared to an irregular half an egg shell.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

Ernest, PM sent.


----------



## starseeker

The second coat of plaster just on. The shape is becoming recognizable. One or two more rough coats and then it becomes work.


----------



## swhite228

starseeker said:


> The second coat of plaster just on. The shape is becoming recognizable. One or two more rough coats and then it becomes work.


Nice!!!


----------



## Seaview

Amazing! I started this thread a couple of years ago and never even noticed that it's been alive all this time, and just read through about 15 pages of posts!
Starseeker, I can't wait to see how this 24" invaders craft of yours turns out; keep up the great work! :thumbsup:


----------



## Rotwang

Looks like it could be a birthday cake.:thumbsup:


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> The second coat of plaster just on. The shape is becoming recognizable. One or two more rough coats and then it becomes work.



Great Work!
One technical question: Do you have a "revolving table" to make it spin?


----------



## ernest

Here we have version 49
This is the first time I have the upper deck and lower deck in the same model.










There is something that I do not like:

The lower deck is divided into 10 slices, because it should coordinate with the 5 pods, whith 2 possible portholes in each of them.
The upper deck is divided into 4 main slices, each of which is divided into 5 smaller slices, making a total of 20, which is compatible with the 10 power coils (the upper lights in the outside of the cabin)
The problem is that 4 is not multiple of 10 so there is no way to coordinate walls between the two levels. All this comes from the design desition to use 5 balls in the underside.


The Adamski saucer had 3 balls, the cabin was divided into 24 slices, so they had not this problem. The cabin could be divided into 3 or 4.

Ernesto


----------



## armymedic80

If only there was at least 1 brave model company out here with the willingness to take a chance in producing a large-scaled version of that old Aurora kit. The Aurora/Monogram was cute but how about a 12 or 16 inch version with aliens. All before they succeed in their purpose of making the Earth, their world.


----------



## JAT

ernest said:


> Here we have version 49
> This is the first time I have the upper deck and lower deck in the same model.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something that I do not like:
> 
> The lower deck is divided into 10 slices, because it should coordinate with the 5 pods, whith 2 possible portholes in each of them.
> The upper deck is divided into 4 main slices, each of which is divided into 5 smaller slices, making a total of 20, which is compatible with the 10 power coils (the upper lights in the outside of the cabin)
> The problem is that 4 is not multiple of 10 so there is no way to coordinate walls between the two levels. All this comes from the design desition to use 5 balls in the underside.
> 
> 
> The Adamski saucer had 3 balls, the cabin was divided into 24 slices, so they had not this problem. The cabin could be divided into 3 or 4.
> 
> Ernesto


 Ernesto, I am wondering if it is necessary to configure the upper deck into four divisions? We never really saw much of that area, chiefly just the control room and the area immediately outside that room. The only source that I am aware of that divides this deck into four spaces is the model Aurora produced, and we all know that to be inaccurate in a number of details. So you may have much more leeway in interpreting the layout of the upper deck to comform to what you've already set forth on the lower deck. Also, as you pointed out earlier, there may have been a number of different configurations within the basic design of their craft. JAT


----------



## flyingfrets

armymedic80 said:


> If only there was at least 1 brave model company out here with the willingness to take a chance in producing a large-scaled version of that old Aurora kit. The Aurora/Monogram was cute but how a 12 or 16 inch version with aliens. All before they succeed in their purpose of making the Earth, their world.


True enough, but the reality is that if there's ever a large scale model of the Invaders' saucer, it will come from someone like starseeker.

The cost of tooling a kit like this, especially if you're talking about one that includes an interior, is outweighed by the relative obscurity of the show. Though there are a number of good episodes, on the whole, the show is extremely dated. Considering a generation that grew up with Star Wars & the like, the fx are laughable and you're not likely to interest enough folks to make a large scale model of the saucer (as cool as it is) a worthwhile endeavor.

That doesn't mean that a garage kit (if one ever comes to pass) wouldn't be worth considering. With the investment of a little more time, money & patience by the builder, they can be made into some stunning pieces.


----------



## ernest

I wonder if a 3d plot would be an alternative?
I mean if you could plot your copy of the Invaders Saucer in your local 3D plotting service.
I am not aware of the costs of such a service in the USA

If so, a 3d virtual model like the one I am building could be used to create a 3d phisical model in your 3D service.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

JAT said:


> I am wondering if it is necessary to configure the upper deck into four divisions? JAT


You are right. I took it as a fact... but it could be that the upper deck could be divided in 5 slices...
I know for sure that it was not divided into 3 or less nor into 6 or more, just by watching the TV show.
But 5 could be a possibility, and it would be the right design desition if you started with a 5 balls saucer!
I wonder how to find it out...

May be this image published by the pixelpusher (http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2684541&postcount=83) can be of help here.










The control panel is divided into 5 sections.
The beams in the ceiling are concentric to the center of the saucer.
The two radial walls (like the one with the door in the picture) are coplanar with one of the beams of the ceiling, so these walls ar radial.
In the Aurora model those walls were not radial, and if you would want to create the beams in the ceiling in such model, you will be into troubles.

After some brainstorming, I came up with this possible way to find it out:









The black dot is the acces hatch coming from the lower deck.
The black room is the control room.
The vertical line is paralel to the camera lens axis (in the upper picture)

Here You have two cabins in two diferent upper decks.
The one at the left was divided into 5 slices (the overall polygon has 25 sides) the one at the right was divided into 4 slices (the overall polygon has 20 sides)
If you look at the interior photograph, you will notce that the camera seems to be located in the corner of the room. The camera is aligned with the armchair in a way that the lens axis is paralel to the main board in the control panels, which is paralel to the vertical line in the drawings. If you look at the other corner (the one in the picture) you could compare the angles of the two walls that intersect that corner.
In the drawings I have measured the angles to be used for comparison.

In my opinion it seems that the angles of the walls are closer to the drawing in the left.
If you look at the floor, it will be more evident that the two angles are not similar.
In the drawing at the right the two angles are very similar, but in the picture they are way diferent, perhaps like in the pentagonal version.

If so, this makes sense!

Thank You Jat! You are of great help here!
Your valuable image was the key, Pixelpusher!

More stuff on the pentagonal polygon in design: It was considered a futuristic shape in the 50s. There are some building (one famous with the same name) designs using it, but it was abandoned soon. Perhaps because of the problems with angles. The Hexagonal polygon was more used in the 60s for precast pieces, and even today for floorings and certain structural walls (in the highways)
If you search in Google Images: Pentagonal Architecture, you will get only two buildings, but if you search Hexagonal Architecture you will find lots of designs.

Here you are the new "nude" version (number 51)










Now it is starting to make sense...


Ernest


----------



## ernest

Here you are a detail of the new cabin:


----------



## starmanmm

Really looks great.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Ernest,

I think modeling the interior off the 2nd season would be better than the one shown a few posts back. They added more detail to the control panels and such. I have quite a bit of reference for the interior for the 2nd season that I will share with you.


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> Ernest,
> 
> I think modeling the interior off the 2nd season would be better than the one shown a few posts back. They added more detail to the control panels and such. I have quite a bit of reference for the interior for the 2nd season that I will share with you.


Yes, I agree.
That will be of great help, thanks!

Ernest


----------



## JAT

ernest said:


> Yes, I agree.
> That will be of great help, thanks!
> 
> Ernest


 Ernest, (hello, again), in addition to the above, I was looking at some other stills of various episodes that allowed a glimpse of the interior of the ship. Sorry I can't recall the site, but in the episode "The Innocent" Vincent is possibly taken for a ride in one of their craft (it may also have been an induced hallucination). In the control room there is a boxy structure up against the ceiling at the back of the room, what would probably be an HVAC chase anywhere else. Anyway, looking closely at the images it appears to curve as several characters pass from the outer room into the control area. This may have been due to the dreamlike sequence, but also with the interior support buttressing radiating out from center it might make sense for that inner wall to have some curvature to it.
Also, in that rear wall, as i believe you've already illustrated, there is a door. In one frame that door is shown open. There is either a hallway behind the control room or possibly a storage room. I will have to break out my dvd and watch it a little more carefully. Hope this is of use to you as well. JAT


----------



## ernest

Thanks Jat,

Here I tried to include the detail you mentioned in this new section of the cabin.
Please tell me if you find any missing detail.










Here in the following image we can see the beams in the ceiling.

















In this other image (of the other room) we can see a better detail of the beams under the low ceiling.
In fact I assume this is the same set, under red lights, to which a strange "scupture" was added, to simulate a diferent room.
You can see also the pair of lights on the wall.









Here in this image we can see the 5 slices of the ceiling with the 6 beams.
There is a rectangular "light fixture"? and two round light lens on the other wall, in the far right.
This means that the room is symetrical, so we have 4 round lens lights on the two radial walls.









Here we can see a strange device in the back wall, aside the door. (it looks like an old wall phoneset)
I thought it was the switch control to open the door but this is the only door that has this thing...
Any idea?

Here in the brazilian web site: http://invaders-ware.netfirms.com/en_saucer_action_003.htm, as well as in the black and white image posted by Tom, there is a stick "holding" the armchair against the floor. (perhaps a problem with the chair mechanism?) which dissapeared in the images where the chair is inclined.

In Dark Outpost they added a switch to open doors as it is visible here: http://invaders-ware.netfirms.com/en_saucer_action_005.htm

Ernest


----------



## JAT

Ernest, I went back and re-watched the episode "The Innocent" again (twice! for Heaven's sake). Boy, do I need to get out more. It sure seems that most of your dimensions are pretty close to being dead on. A couple of things I noticed were that the two lights near the doors are closer to the doors, perhaps only a little further than the door itself is wide. Consequently, that lower ceiling extends only slightly past those lights, maybe 6-8 cm., so may not be quite as deep as you have shown. You are absolutely correct in illustrating all walls as flat panels, there is no curvature in that rear wall at all. It does appear that wall is only about 2.5 meters wide. In fact the whole room seems pretty cramped. Interestingly, though it is never really made clear, I believe that the supports that the aliens stand in are situated in a slight arc behind the chair, possibly to facilitate filming or just movement in those confined spaces. The one in the center comes and goes as needed.
A couple of other details that may still need to be worked out. I believe that the window should be raised some, about 15 cm. To help facilitate this, I also believe that the outside radius of the upper hull (not quite vert. as you have illustrated) meeting the roof area should be much smaller, maybe a30 cm radius, maybe more or less, I've never really measured that dia. Also, the roof should have a very slight convex shape to it.
Something I noticed that you also illustrated was that the ribbing seems to go vertical just above the control panel. Nice touch. I think the wall goes vertical here as well and that the ribbing follows this contour, though elsewhere that wall angle extends to the floor.
Finally, just as a point of interest, one of the aliens picks up a narrow bar with two small silver spheres above each end and walks back to his circular flight platform. With this device, he seems to control the ships travel. Not sure of this and again, it's never really explained. Possibly just an alien version of in-flight entertainment?
With regard to the small device at the base of the chair, i wonder if that might have simply been a means of activating the headrest feature from below, then moved out of the way once activated? Don't know. 
Finally, this will play havoc with what you are trying to do. David and his hosts enter and pass through at least two rooms prior to the control room. In each case, when the doors open, they appear to approach from somewhere outside of the ship. Craziness. At the end, one exits through the doors at the rear of the control room into a narrow hallway.
I hope all of this is of some help to you and not too contradictory. Good luck in your further pursuit of this design. JAT


----------



## FROGZILLA

In the book "The Saucer Fleet" by Jack Hagerty and Jon Rogers, the last chapter in the book is dedicated to "The Invaders" saucer and has blueprints for the craft. The book is available on ebay from the author. Check out Jack's other book "The Spaceship Manual" it has blueprints for the "Disney Man in Space" series


----------



## thepixelpusher

The blueprints in the book are the best out there so far, but not entirely accurate. The book is very nice. I've emailed with them on the details of the saucer.


----------



## JAT

thepixelpusher said:


> The blueprints in the book are the best out there so far, but not entirely accurate. The book is very nice. I've emailed with them on the details of the saucer.


 True, an exceptionally well done book (for Jack and Jon not exceptional, just their usual excellence). But there are some innaccuracies with regard to the Invaders saucer. To my admittedly untrained eye, it appears that it follows closely on the Aurora model released and re-released over the years. And not having at my disposal all of your information, I have to say that Ernesto is getting closer than anyone I've seen. Through remarkable research coupled with his own expertise in design or engineering, his attempt to accurately portray the ship, lacking the physical model, seems little by little to be closing in on the truth of the matter.


----------



## ernest

Here you are the reflected ceiling plan, together with 3 walls corrected.








The radial structure of the space is rather tricky, so I tried to discover a constant measurement to compare dimensions.
The module is 66 cm or 0.66 meter (which is the same) which is about 26 inches.
Now the room is deeper, and the back wall has been reduced.
The two lights in the lateral walls now should be in a better position.

Thanks Jat, I am working on some of your observations now

E


----------



## ernest

This is the floor plan and the main wall with the command boards


----------



## ernest

It seems that they canibalized the sets.

For instance in this image from dark Outpost, the lights pannel at the top left here:









Is the same as the pannel at the left here:








Shown in the Saucer.

In the same way there is a small pannel with two circles near David Vincent´s elbow in the first image.
One of the circles is red and the other black.
Apparently they used the same parts shown in the second image at the right of David Vincent´s head.
In the second image the red circle is up, but in the first it is upsidedown.

Here in this other image you can see a long horizontal pannel with a line of yellow/orange lights behind DV.








The same pannel can be found in the first image, just at the left of the two circles.

Perhaps they were short with the budget?

Ernesto


----------



## thepixelpusher

Ernesto, the close ups of the panels are coming this weekend.


----------



## ernest

Great, Pixelpusher!
That will help a lot

Ernest


----------



## ernest

In this two images from "The Saucer" , you can see the two panels at the right and left of the open porthole.
















They were used again here in this other screen shot from Dark Outpost:








You can see both at the top left corner.
The dark pannel can be recognized by the yellow and dim green, on lights.


----------



## ernest

More closeups



















Note that the following image is inverted (the right side should be the left)








This is the only one image that I have ever seen, that shows the far right side of the command board (left in the inverted image)
This special image was taken with a totally diferent lighting, perhaps the stills photographer did the shot at a diferent time. This lighting is much more plain compared to the TV show movie. This makes evident some detail that was not visible in the screen captures of the DVDs although it loses some of the magic that was created with the creative and original lighting used in the TV show.
I can guess the wooden texture of the silver painted panels top right and to left, thanks of the reflections.
The buttons lights wires and levels in the control panels looks not so extraterrestrial here!

I still wonder the material used for the beams. My first guess was metal tubes, but here I am starting to doubt.


The next image is inverted also!








I wonder what kind of lab technicians would miss this thing?
Or perhaps it was on purpose?










This is a rare first season image.








A very "empty" control room...
This first version of the control room is probably closer to the real thing.
The newer version full of lights buttons and artifacts looks really old today!
Just think of the first computers and compare them with the I-pads.










Ernest


----------



## starmanmm

Cool reference pics.... the next to the last pic did not make it tho. (rare first season image)


----------



## ernest

starmanmm said:


> Cool reference pics.... the next to the last pic did not make it tho. (rare first season image)


It seems that the server hosting the image is unstable... 
I hosted a copy in imageshack (now I can see it)


----------



## OzyMandias

Wow, I just finished reading this thread and have found the conjecture regarding the studio model and landing gear vs. the Aurora model fascinating. I have been watching the series on DVD (which holds up extremely well) and paying close attention when the Saucer appears on screen. 

I had made a mental note while watching season 1 that the 'practical' landing gear were actually wedge shaped. They are much wider at the top than they are at the bottom. Watching 'The Saucer' yesterday, I found it offers a lot of reference shots of the legs as much of the dialogue happens outside the ship. It is also very clear that there are no curved surfaces (aside from the hole for the dome light). The ladders that reach to ground level are actually hinged and fold up to lock in place on both sides of the landing leg, covering the L-shaped rungs, which are below the box steps on each side. You can see the left one lowered and the right still locked in place in a couple of shots. It would be great to be able to replicate that in kit form.

I can see why Ernest has given the 3D rendered legs a curve in light of the possibility of the underside of the Saucer not being a flat plane. This is where, as modellers we have to reconcile the shooting miniature with the practical legs. You know in your mind that they are two separate entities, but we have a desire to tie them together and make it all work within the 'reality' of the show. Ultimately it's impossible (much like fitting the interior set of the Galileo Shuttlecraft into the exterior). So which side of the fence do you sit on? 

I personally feel it's a question of balancing the 'canon' that is available to us. Like it or not, the Aurora kit has become a part of that, having been repopped more than just about any other kit of it's time. I know the landing legs are flat and wedged from bottom to top, so any kit design should reflect that, as the Aurora kit does already. Something like the cambered underside really needs further research if there are available reference materials. I am really hoping that thepixelpusher can make this material available soon.

Ernest, your 3D renderings are excellent. I do have a question regarding the 'roof' curve. Where did you come across the measurement showing a smooth curve as opposed to the squarer corners shown on the Aurora kit? As much as I defer to your obvious expertise in manipulating 3D objects, i feel the curve looks wrong when viewed against the shots of the model in the series which almost always appear to have sharper corners where the roof drops down the sides of the upper deck. 

I'm going to have to chase Hank down for a set of decals for my kit. They look too awesome not to add. The instruction sheet in my Monogram kit suggests white walls and floors for the interior. I was contemplating a light ghost grey. What do you guys think? I've got a blue-grey that replicates the onscreen colour of the exterior, and I was considering that as opposed to the oft used silver.

Thepixelpusher, I'm really hoping that you can make the information you have collected available soon.

Keep it up guys, I love the chatter. :thumbsup:


----------



## JAT

OzyMandias said:


> Wow, I just finished reading this thread and have found the conjecture regarding the studio model and landing gear vs. the Aurora model fascinating. I have been watching the series on DVD (which holds up extremely well) and paying close attention when the Saucer appears on screen.
> 
> I had made a mental note while watching season 1 that the 'practical' landing gear were actually wedge shaped. They are much wider at the top than they are at the bottom. Watching 'The Saucer' yesterday, I found it offers a lot of reference shots of the legs as much of the dialogue happens outside the ship. It is also very clear that there are no curved surfaces (aside from the hole for the dome light). The ladders that reach to ground level are actually hinged and fold up to lock in place on both sides of the landing leg, covering the L-shaped rungs, which are below the box steps on each side. You can see the left one lowered and the right still locked in place in a couple of shots. It would be great to be able to replicate that in kit form.
> 
> I can see why Ernest has given the 3D rendered legs a curve in light of the possibility of the underside of the Saucer not being a flat plane. This is where, as modellers we have to reconcile the shooting miniature with the practical legs. You know in your mind that they are two separate entities, but we have a desire to tie them together and make it all work within the 'reality' of the show. Ultimately it's impossible (much like fitting the interior set of the Galileo Shuttlecraft into the exterior). So which side of the fence do you sit on?
> 
> I personally feel it's a question of balancing the 'canon' that is available to us. Like it or not, the Aurora kit has become a part of that, having been repopped more than just about any other kit of it's time. I know the landing legs are flat and wedged from bottom to top, so any kit design should reflect that, as the Aurora kit does already. Something like the cambered underside really needs further research if there are available reference materials. I am really hoping that thepixelpusher can make this material available soon.
> 
> Ernest, your 3D renderings are excellent. I do have a question regarding the 'roof' curve. Where did you come across the measurement showing a smooth curve as opposed to the squarer corners shown on the Aurora kit? As much as I defer to your obvious expertise in manipulating 3D objects, i feel the curve looks wrong when viewed against the shots of the model in the series which almost always appear to have sharper corners where the roof drops down the sides of the upper deck.
> 
> I'm going to have to chase Hank down for a set of decals for my kit. They look too awesome not to add. The instruction sheet in my Monogram kit suggests white walls and floors for the interior. I was contemplating a light ghost grey. What do you guys think? I've got a blue-grey that replicates the onscreen colour of the exterior, and I was considering that as opposed to the oft used silver.
> 
> Thepixelpusher, I'm really hoping that you can make the information you have collected available soon.
> 
> Keep it up guys, I love the chatter. :thumbsup:


 I agree that the exterior of the legs should be flat surfaces, but (and this is where it gets hypothetical, I guess) these surfaces are the sides that, when the landing gear is retracted, would be facing upwards, into the ship. It seems likely, practical even, that the gear would retract into hollow compartments on the underside of the ship, with the inside surface being absolutely flat or parallel to the ground or landing surface. The sides of the landing gear that we don't much see are the inner surfaces which, when retracted would form the belly of the craft, the visible, curved and slightly tapered surface. It's just conjecture, of course, until we have the evidence from Thepixelpusher. But the curvature wouldn't be all that severe and possibly easy to miss. The reality I think, is that you are correct and that it was simply expedient to build the legs as "flats", as surely no one would ever notice any discrepancies, much less try to reconcile them to the model or drawings. Inconsistancies in television, who wudda thunk it?


----------



## thepixelpusher

OzyMandias said:


> Ernest, your 3D renderings are excellent. I do have a question regarding the 'roof' curve. Where did you come across the measurement showing a smooth curve as opposed to the squarer corners shown on the Aurora kit? As much as I defer to your obvious expertise in manipulating 3D objects, i feel the curve looks wrong when viewed against the shots of the model in the series which almost always appear to have sharper corners where the roof drops down the sides of the upper deck.
> 
> I was contemplating a light ghost grey. What do you guys think? I've got a blue-grey that replicates the onscreen colour of the exterior, and I was considering that as opposed to the oft used silver.
> 
> Thepixelpusher, I'm really hoping that you can make the information you have collected available soon.



The side profile doesn't have a sharp edge to the top, though the curve radius is small. Even the top is curved slightly.










The saucer is actually a light primer gray on the exterior, not blue grey (color shift due to special effects compositing) and the interior is silver on the walls and console. Though the flooring is medium grey.










I am already sharing the photos I have with someone special. And a book with the images and such may end up coming out.


----------



## Seaview

Thank you for these photos and the head's up on a forthcoming book, Pixlepusher! I for one am definately getting a copy! :thumbsup:


----------



## ernest

OzyMandias said:


> Ernest, your 3D renderings are excellent. I do have a question regarding the 'roof' curve. Where did you come across the measurement showing a smooth curve as opposed to the squarer corners shown on the Aurora kit? As much as I defer to your obvious expertise in manipulating 3D objects, i feel the curve looks wrong when viewed against the shots of the model in the series which almost always appear to have sharper corners where the roof drops down the sides of the upper deck.


Thanks OzyMandias!
Well the roof profile is an incognita for me now! I cannot find any image that could show that profile in a clear way. I had many problems trying to fit the interior, and that point was a conflictive point that I stretched up into the limits, or perhaps beyond them, in an atempt to reconcile the exterior profile with the interior space.
It is obvious at this point that as you pointed: it will be impossible to reconstruct the interior and the exterior in a single model.
It seems that I will have to create 3 separated models, one for the exterior, one for the interior (without compromises) and one stretched to reconcile both. Now in the meantime I try to find missing information on the control room, I am working on the most accurate exterior model that will publish here as soon as it is ready.

Ernest


----------



## JAT

Seaview said:


> Thank you for these photos and the head's up on a forthcoming book, Pixlepusher! I for one am definately getting a copy! :thumbsup:


Oh yeah, count me in, absolutely


----------



## thepixelpusher

JAT said:


> Oh yeah, count me in, absolutely


I have reference and castings of the raygun weapons, so I hope the weapons will be able to be in the book if we can get that going.

I still need a lead on the death disks and the communicator, if anyone knows someone that has actual props from the show of those.


----------



## JAT

thepixelpusher said:


> I have reference and castings of the raygun weapons, so I hope the weapons will be able to be in the book if we can get that going.
> 
> I still need a lead on the death disks and the communicator, if anyone knows someone that has actual props from the show of those.


 Will you also be addressing any of the special effects of the show, the weapon beams or vaporizing, or "flying" the saucer?


----------



## OzyMandias

Great news thepixelpusher. I feel that The Invaders is one of the unsung heroes of sci-fi television, and a published work in the vein of the Nigh Gallery After Hours Tour or the Twilight Zone Companion would be a 'must buy'. As I have been watching the DVDs, I am very impressed by the quality of the writing, acting, and effects. The guest star list is a cavalcade of Hollywood talent. Each show seems to exceed what would have been (I assume) a modest budget for the time. Optical effects applied for the disappearance of Invader bodies, or buildings, cars and equipment, have been taken an extra yard when a latent silhouette remains in frame and appears to be perfectly married with live action.

A Death Disk prop would be an easy build with today's technology. The original prop looks for all the world like it is using LEDs well in advance of their commonplace status today.
I'd be interested to hear how other hand props like the 'conditioning' gem gadget were executed on set. 

I pointed Terry, who created the Aurora kit history page, to this thread and he tells me he has been reading with interest. 

Sorry for wandering off topic from the Saucer itself, but there is so much more to this series and it is IMHO worthy of deeper analysis.


----------



## thepixelpusher

I provided Terry with the image of the large size studio model and the story of it's making for his history of the Aurora model kit website. We keep in touch, though Terry doesn't have the newest images of the studio model. That's for something special.


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> The side profile doesn't have a sharp edge to the top, though the curve radius is small. Even the top is curved slightly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The saucer is actually a light primer gray on the exterior, not blue grey (color shift due to special effects compositing) and the interior is silver on the walls and console. Though the flooring is medium grey.


Thanks Pixelpusher!
This is a great screen capture!
And is the first time I can see the area of the 3 rings in the saucer, as it was seen in the TV show.
I will be using this as reference image to check the outer profile.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

Ernesto, your work is AMAZING!

Unfortunately the DVD screencaps don't show the 3 seperate rings around the middle too well in any episode (too soft in the image), but I trust my other reference to you shows it very clearly


----------



## Rotwang

Is Isao Hirai the guy who built the Invaders saucer? It mentions him having it in this article.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0707-challenger-memorial-20110707,0,177050.story


----------



## ernest

The Ray Guns

Here I have found a screen capture of one of the first season ray guns




























It is interesting the similarities with modern digital cameras!
I wonder if the second season version still has the TV screen in it, or not...?










Now that I look at this screen capture, it doesn´t seem to be the same gun...
Perhaps an oversized version to make it easier to focus the scene?
The rims at both sides cannot be seen in the first two images...










Sorry this post was somehow out of topic.

Ernest


----------



## Rotwang

I seem to recall somewhere that these were made by Thol Simonson.


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> Ernesto, your work is AMAZING!
> 
> Unfortunately the DVD screencaps don't show the 3 seperate rings around the middle too well in any episode (too soft in the image), but I trust my other reference to you shows it very clearly


Thanks Pixelpusher!
Thanks also for the extra inedit and valuable reference material, which is letting me go further with this reconstruction work.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

The Original First Season Central Console (discarder when they redesigned the cabin for "The Saucer" episode)










This was a light pannel in the first season saucer cabin, originally placed where in the second season 









you can see the 3 oval containers with red needles and white back light (behind David vincent´s shoulder)








Here In the great image provided by Pixelpusher you will find the device in front of David Vincent´s eyes









I still wonder if this pannel was REUSED in the second season version in the far left table board.
In the previously published reference photographs found in the web you could see 3 pannels unfortunately out of focus on the far left command board here:










Another raygun used in The Invaders










All items found HERE:
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00021.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00020.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00019.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00016.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00015.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00014.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00013.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00012.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00011.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00010.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00009.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00008.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00007.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00006.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00005.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00004.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00003.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00002.html
http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00001.html

This is one of two used in the second season control pannel
Probably from a tail light of a car of the 50s...?








seen here bottom right corner in the following INVERTED image









Ernest


----------



## ernest

This image is upsidedown but shows the far right control pannel:









I wonder why all images showing this part are always out of focus???

Found here: http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00030.html


















Another pannel from the first season that might be used in the second version
You can tell all the saucer was made of wood!!!!
Perhaps high tech wood !!!

http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/index.html

Ernesto


----------



## ernest

The Invaders Design and Number 5.

Most of the alien devices were designed with number 5.
The guns show a pentagonal shape when seen from the front.
The same with main control pannels in the saucer cabin that have 5 sides.
The death discs as well as the "comunicators" show 5 lights.
The saucer have 5 balls, and 10 power coils, as well as 5 interior divisions.
The cabine and control table boards are divided into 5 slices.
The hipnotic crystals have 5 facets.
The Saucer have 5 pods

Ernest


----------



## Mark Dorais

Rotwang said:


> Is Isao Hirai the guy who built the Invaders saucer? It mentions him having it in this article.
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0707-challenger-memorial-20110707,0,177050.story


Very interesting that the Invaders Saucer is mentioned hanging in his scale model company. I wonder if any contemporary photos of this exist.:thumbsup:


----------



## thepixelpusher

Isao Hirai did not make The Invaders filming studio saucer. The saucer for the TV Show was made at Production Models Shop in Burbank, California. Isao Hirai did not work there.

The miniature that's mentioned in the article is probably the Monogram Invaders saucer or a custom creation. The 4-1/2 foot saucer studio model wouldn't fit in his workroom.


----------



## Rotwang

It sure would be great if someone local would do the legwork and post a picture of what he has.


----------



## thepixelpusher

ernest said:


> The Ray Guns
> 
> Here I have found a screen capture of one of the first season ray guns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting the similarities with modern digital cameras!
> I wonder if the second season version still has the TV screen in it, or not...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I look at this screen capture, it doesn´t seem to be the same gun...
> Perhaps an oversized version to make it easier to focus the scene?
> The rims at both sides cannot be seen in the first two images...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry this post was somehow out of topic.
> 
> Ernest


I have access to castings of both season rayguns. After the saucer, there should be 3d models of the rayguns and other weapons from that chart in a planned book.


----------



## thepixelpusher

ernest said:


> This image is upsidedown but shows the far right control pannel:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why all images showing this part are always out of focus???
> 
> Found here: http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/00030.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another pannel from the first season that might be used in the second version
> You can tell all the saucer was made of wood!!!!
> Perhaps high tech wood !!!
> 
> http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/invaders/index.html
> 
> Ernesto


I might have a slightly better image of that side panel in the upside down picture. I'll look for it and post it.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Here's another inside set shot I missed getting on ebay. It would show the side panels much better. Though this might be a season 1 set, I'm not sure.

This is the auction photo.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Here's the 1st and 2nd season raygun castings. Very hard to get access to these. Sorry for the poor quality. I just grabbed my phone camera and took it in poor lighting today.

1ST SEASON RAYGUN









You can see the "V" shaped scratch on the right side of the handle matches the photo of the real one in post #333 by Ernest (repeated below).




























Nozzle looks long here because my camera phone has a wide angle lens and it distorts the shape quite a bit. The nozzle length isn't anywhere near as long as it looks here. I'll have to retake these when I have time again.


2ND SEASON RAYGUN


----------



## thepixelpusher

From Flickr




































You can see the right side ladder is folded up here.


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> From Flickr


Thanks Pixelpusher!
In the second picture that you published behind the shotgun there is pannel with buttons similar to elevators controls. This is the first time I see that!

Ernest


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> Here's another inside set shot I missed getting on ebay. It would show the side panels much better. Though this might be a season 1 set, I'm not sure.
> 
> This is the auction photo.


Yes, it seems the 1st season version.

Very Interesting: This is a great picture where we can see the complete beams (and almost aligned to the camera) in the ceiling, as well as a NEW (for me) detail: The wall containing the Door, seems to be divided in two parts, which would be logic if you consider that these sets ussually had removable walls, in order to have more freedom for camera angles.
The vertical rim, could be the JOINT between the removable wall (at left containing the door) and the fixed part at the right containing the two lighting lenses.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

I am starting to consider the possibility that the far right and far left control pannels in the comand table boards could be SYMETRICAL.
In other words both groups of pannels buttoms and lights could be exactly the sabe, although arranged in a symetrical way. The symetry axis in the center of the room.

Ernest


----------



## JAT

Hi, Tom. Was wondering if you were going to make any attempt at realizing a floorplan when you get your site up or in a book? The reason for my question is that in following all of this development I went back and watched (and re-watched) the Dark Outpost episode in order to get a better feel for the saucers interior layout. And now I'm more confused than ever. Vincent seems to wander a little bit inside and we get some wonderful, tantalizing shots, that don't seem to add up. At one point he backs into a small room off a main corridor and passes out when the ship lifts off. When he awakens, he exits, seemingly through the same door into a different space, which seems to be the initial room in which he had been hidden. I know it's not supposed to make sense and that we're attempting to force a logical layout to a production set that was never meant to be so thoroughly scrutinized, but was curious if you had any intentions of attempting to reconcile what little we have seen with a working plan? Ernest also seems to be making great headway in that direction. Thanks, JAT


----------



## ernest

Here we are the new 2nd season upper (right) and lower (left) decks.










The upper deck has been improved since the last version.
You will find that the pentagonal central room is much smaller and as result, the cabin is bigger. In the room next to the cabin where you will find the entrance ladder, we have just added a new wall which is not very nice since it breaks the original pure design. This wall was not supposed to be there in the first season saucer, but it is seen in the second season pictures where David Vincent is entering through it, as seen here in the new image provided by Pixelpusher:








The wall is in the right border.
In this image as well in the following we can see that the entrance foyer is ocupying 3 of the 25 slices of the saucer.








That is the reason for the unusual dimension.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

David Vincent´s camera?

Pixelpusher confirmed it is a Pentax camera.
i wonder if this is the right model:

















If I am righ it is the first Asahi Pentax of 1957
here you can find more details: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Pentax_K_engl.html
Which was the japanese copy of the first reflex camera: the German Contax S made in 1948, more info here: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Praktiflex.html

Both Cameras Compared here










Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

Here that image undistorted. I think I may have a slightly better version of this image on my archive. This one was uploaded to my online photo account, so it was downsampled before.

BTW, FANTASTIC work Ernest! I'll have more pics coming your way soon.


----------



## Captain Han Solo

This is my favorite thread on Hobbytalk.
All this info of one of the greatest Sci-Fi shows produced in the 1960's is a loooong time comming!
I am really looking forward to the Photos of the actual miniature..with the hopes Pegasus Models may, at some point , produce a larger model of the Saucer.


----------



## thepixelpusher

I already talked to Pegasus Hobbies about The Invaders saucer and also about doing a Raygun/Death Disk model kit and they passed on it. Also Möebius Models passed on it too. Neither thinks the market is enough to sell to break even. I tried.


----------



## Captain Han Solo

thepixelpusher said:


> I already talked to Pegasus Hobbies about The Invaders saucer and also about doing a Raygun/Death Disk model kit and they passed on it. Also Möebius Models passed on it too. Neither thinks the market is enough to sell to break even. I tried.


:freak:

Well that stinks!!!

I sometimes don't understand the thought process regarding what "Can sell and what won't".Any subject matter that isn't in the Publics face currently is a huge gamble..Most people are "out of site, out of mind"

Pegasus just released a Kit of the *My Favorite Martian* Space ship?!?!?!?!?!And I am personally very glad they made the kit, It's well made, a LOT of fun to build etc...But is it any more/less popular than the *Invaders* Saucer????!!

It must be me.

But getting back on topic,Thanks thepixelpusher for all the info here! And if anyone can make One of these Saucers, Starseeker can!:thumbsup:


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> Here that image undistorted. I think I may have a slightly better version of this image on my archive. This one was uploaded to my online photo account, so it was downsampled before.
> 
> BTW, FANTASTIC work Ernest! I'll have more pics coming your way soon.


In this image, there is a light/shadow profile that can be seen through the door, that could match the NEW wall aside the porthole that conects the lower deck.
This might be just a coincidence, since the NEW wall was introduced in the second season version, and this black and white image seems to show the first season version.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

beatlepaul said:


> :freak:
> 
> Well that stinks!!!
> 
> I sometimes don't understand the thought process regarding what "Can sell and what won't".Any subject matter that isn't in the Publics face currently is a huge gamble..Most people are "out of site, out of mind"
> 
> Pegasus just released a Kit of the *My Favorite Martian* Space ship?!?!?!?!?!And I am personally very glad they made the kit, It's well made, a LOT of fun to build etc...But is it any more/less popular than the *Invaders* Saucer????!!
> 
> It must be me.
> 
> But getting back on topic,Thanks thepixelpusher for all the info here! And if anyone can make One of these Saucers, Starseeker can!:thumbsup:


Everyone call both places and let your voice be heard. I think the saucer would be a hit even if a person saw the show or not. UFO kits are popular. Even today the saucer still sells, even though Monogram has stopped making anymore inventory. I have some other companies in mind and will not stop in pursuing this.


----------



## ernest

CORRECTION

This image shows the second season saucer set.








The first season was just the cabine and there was no "next room" at all. The next room was simulated modifying the furniture and lighting in the only room set.
The beam profile that can be seen through the door belongs to the addition made for "the saucer" episode. As a confirmation if you look at the lights and buttons pannels that can be seen on the comand table board next to the door, you will realize they matches the second season layout. In the first season version that tableboard was empty.

Pixelpusher, make me a favor (one more) if my assumptions are right in this picture, it would appear the opening hatch to the lower deck.
It should be seen through the door, in the lower part partially blocked by the right wall. Marked in red in the image.
Can you check this in you high res image database?
Thanks in advance!

Ernest


----------



## ernest

The valuable information that could be deducted from the previous picture provided by Pixelpusher, is that the cabin ceiling and probably saucer roof are not flat, but slightly curved.
This matches also unedited images showing the building process of the TV saucer model owned by Pixelpusher.
Here in this new corrected section of the cabin, we can see the new roof and beams profiles, trying to match more closely the new evidence recolected up to now.










The good news is that this aparently slight variation, makes more room in the interior. In previous general sections I had to stretch vertically the outer profile because there was no enough room for the interior. Now I will have to rearrange everything again, and there is a possibility that the compromising stretch could not be necesay.
In such a case this would be the first time we will get an accurate section from both viewpoints: exterior and interior.

As you may note, the cabin ceiling seems higher compared to photographs. This extra space will be distributed in the next overall section now under development.

We will see.


----------



## ernest

This is a better section of the upper deck.
Note that the room at the left represents the access hatch from lowewr deck and upper deck, and the right room is the control.
This is not accurate but a simplification to compare both profiles, which shares the structural beams and columns, although slightly hidden in the second case, in the sawcer both rooms would be touching each other rather than in the oposite side.










The updates:
The outer walls now are much more thicker accordingly to the screen captures shown here: http://invaders-ware.netfirms.com/en_saucer_action_001.htm
This is good since the outer wall seems to be very vertical, meanwhile the interior walls are inclined, so a thicker wall can solve the problem.
The beams in the ceiling have been adjusted to match the photographs, now they are thicker and the round part is bigger.
The command table board was reduced.
The central room in smaller now.
Now you can see the 3 rings in the outer profile accordingly to evidence provided by Pixelpusher.
The beams in both rooms are the same kind
The main command porthole mechanism can be solved in a better way now that there is more space inside the outer walls. for instance we can have two pair of sliding doors, one in the interior and another in the exterior. The exterior doors would have to perform two diferent movements like doors in vans. In this case instead of pulling out the door and then slide lateraly, It would push inside the wall and then slide laterally into a compartment inside the wall. That is the reason for the double door that you can see in the plan.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Here we have a contradiction betwen these two pictures:








Here we can see that the opening hatch is not in the corner of the room but in the middle.








Here we can see a wall at the right corner that was not shown in the other picture.

This is the plan with the controversial wall (at left in the upper deck plan)









Since we have contradictory evidence, and considering that in the TV show the new wall is not seen at all, and that it looks weird in the plan, I will remove the wall from now on until we have better information.

Ernesto


----------



## ernest

A possible solution for the command porthole.
Now that the walls are thicker there is space for two pairs of sliding doors as well for a thick glass screen.
Here you can see a possible opening sequence.










The outer doors perform two movements: a) they move towards the interior b) they slide inside the walls.
The inner doors are simple sliding doors.

In this way, the doors will be hardly noticeable when closed and seen from the exterior, as it should be.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

There are 2 circular hatch openings. One above each leg ladder. Do that solve anything?


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> There are 2 circular hatch openings. One above each leg ladder. Do that solve anything?


I guess I didn´explained myself clearly in the other message.
My concern was about this picture.








I assume that the opening hatch connecting the upper and lower decks should be visible in this image where I drew the red area.
This is just an assumption since in this low res image it is not possible to see any detail.
I wonder if it could be visible in your better resolution image.

Ernest


----------



## OzyMandias

Wow, Ernest! The new layouts are truly amazing. 
As for the arch that can be seen through the doorway in the b&w pic that pixelpusher kindly reposted, I think that is a 'wild' flat that has been placed to cover part of the stage that they didn't want in the shot that was being filmed. It is too close to the control room door to be related to one of the roof segments. I would be inclined to call it a reflection and ignore it on the plans. 
My understanding of the saucer layout was that there were two hatches above the leg that is below the control room area. That doesn't discount the possibility that there are hatches above the other legs, but I don't think they are shown in any episode of the series. In the 'reality' of the series there must have been some way to access the lower deck of the ship for cargo storage (Dark Outpost). I would love to see a conception of a cargo lift or ramp above one or two of the other legs. That makes far more sense to me than having 2 crew hatches above each leg.


----------



## OzyMandias

Ernest, one more thing about the upper deck profile view. I concur with your layout of the interior and the mechanism you have come up with for the view screen covers. I still think the exterior should be a little more square at the top edge. Not as square as the model kit, but less of a curve than you have there now. 
If it was square, it would allow for an engineering channel, where wiring and cabling could be run around the circumference of the upper deck. I'm talking series 'reality' not soundstage reality. Call it imagineering if you like...
I know I mentioned the curve earlier, but I had the idea for the void when I was looking at your new layout this morning.


----------



## ernest

OzyMandias said:


> Ernest, one more thing about the upper deck profile view. I concur with your layout of the interior and the mechanism you have come up with for the view screen covers. I still think the exterior should be a little more square at the top edge. Not as square as the model kit, but less of a curve than you have there now.
> If it was square, it would allow for an engineering channel, where wiring and cabling could be run around the circumference of the upper deck. I'm talking series 'reality' not soundstage reality. Call it imagineering if you like...
> I know I mentioned the curve earlier, but I had the idea for the void when I was looking at your new layout this morning.


Yes, thanks OzyMandias, I remember that point! 
Pixelpusher is insisting in the same direction, and someone else whos name I cannot recall now!
It is obvious that I am "resisting" in an attempt to match better the interior profile and the exterior profile.
At the present time, it is more clear that they do not match. For instance the structural beams are inclined in a diferent angle compared to the outer wall. This can be seen in the screen captures of the cabine interior, where you can see the outer wall through the view screen where the outer border seems PERFECTLY VERTICAL. I have to work out this again, perhaps correcting the outer wall to be vertical and changing the round border to a new profile. The only problem I am having with this is that this will force me to move the roof down, with consequences in the interior available space.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

Consider adding some space for the technology between the floors and also to adding to the space above the top cabin with a sharper edge to the upper top. The outer energy ports seem to be shining in the cabin from the upper wall windows along the top edge which would seem to indicate the outer energy ports would be higher up the side than you have shown.

On the access hatch, I expect that there will be discrepancies due to the set not matching the full-size landing legs. You look like you have some good compromises on that front.

Keep up the good work!


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> Consider adding some space for the technology between the floors and also to adding to the space above the top cabin with a sharper edge to the upper top. The outer energy ports seem to be shining in the cabin from the upper wall windows along the top edge which would seem to indicate the outer energy ports would be higher up the side than you have shown.
> 
> On the access hatch, I expect that there will be discrepancies due to the set not matching the full-size landing legs. You look like you have some good compromises on that front.
> 
> Keep up the good work!



Pixelpusher, remember that the access hatch in the upper deck have nothing to do with the access hatches in the lower deck, which should be aligned with the ladders.
I also am influenced by the aurora model where the energy ports were TOUCHING the doors covering the view screen as seen here:








But I although I do not trust it, I cannot find more info.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Another view screen proportion and diferent interior in "The Peacemaker"











"The Peacemaker" was produced one year after "The Saucer" so I wonder why they didn´t used the great interior cabin already built.
Perhaps it was already dismatled when produced "Dark Outpost"?

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

ernest said:


> Another view screen proportion and diferent interior in "The Peacemaker"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Peacemaker" was produced one year after "The Saucer" so I wonder why they didn´t used the great interior cabin already built.
> Perhaps it was already dismatled when produced "Dark Outpost"?
> 
> Ernest


That shot in Peacemaker is reused saucer interior from the Opening Credits to the show. It was made before the saucer set was finished, so it won't match anything really.

This shot in Peacemaker (below) was also a reused saucer from the opening credits, but recomposited with clouds.










And this shot was a new FX shot done for the 2nd season (Peacemaker), but shot with a wide angle lens that distorts the saucer shape greatly and is of little use for a profile. Note though that the lighting in this shows a warmer yellow color. My guess is that they didn't take the time to do a seperate light pass in the special effects compositing and thus the lighting looks unusually dark and yellowish.










The saucer looks silverish here, but it is still really a light gray color. The studio lights weren't adjusted enough to take out the light glare and it looks shinier than it is. However, the color of the globes under the saucer seen here is the true color of the globes…a pale warm green color.


----------



## thepixelpusher

ernest said:


> Pixelpusher, remember that the access hatch in the upper deck have nothing to do with the access hatches in the lower deck, which should be aligned with the ladders.
> I also am influenced by the aurora model where the energy ports were TOUCHING the doors covering the view screen as seen here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I although I do not trust it, I cannot find more info.
> 
> Ernest


Ah yes, the upper access hatch could be in another area I guess. Though I thought in one episode (The Saucer) they went from bottom to top in nearly the same place.

I have the Aurora model and the ladder legs can be inserted in any position under the model, so it is not necessarily under the main viewport as shown in that model buildup. refer to "The Saucer" episode to determine the orientation to the ladder legs. That was the only episode with the ladder legs and the saucer interior shown in the same episode. In the episode "The Innocent", they didn't have the ladder on the legs yet, but just some ladder coming out under the middle area (silly really).


----------



## OzyMandias

They are some great screen grabs. The interior view of the control room seems to put the uppermost edge of the view screen at around 6 feet high, comparing the standing crewman on the right. When compared to Ernest's profile view at the top of this page, the top of the view screen would be around 5 feet?
Further evidence to support the taller internal walls and slightly sharper edge? 
I hadn't thought of the energy ports when I commented this morning. There would definitely be a need for some sort of space behind them for the internal alien plumbing. 
Ernest, is it my imagination or didn't they show the external entrance in 'The Saucer' leading straight to the flight deck/control room level? I know that doesnt make any sense at all when attempting to rationalize the interior/exterior conundrum. Perhaps you could consider access between the upper and lower decks and exterior all matching up on the control room side, and alternate non aligned hatchways on the obverse? More imagineering from me over my Sunday morning coffee...


----------



## OzyMandias

Just a couple more observations: 
In the two shots of David climbing ladders, the lighting is very different. the shot from 'The Saucer' (blue jacket) climbing onto the flight deck seems to have exterior daylight shining from below. The other shot (beige/bone jacket) showing the mysterious corner ladder has no lighting below. Night or a darkened lower deck?
My daughter is watching Doctor Who season5, episode 1; The Eleventh Hour. Composer Murray Gold pinched the two note descending 'sting' from The Invaders score for the scene where Amy is in the room with Prisoner Zero, and the Doctor is telling her not to look out of the corner of her eye. It's repeated several times and I overheard it as I was writing my last post...


----------



## OzyMandias

*Modified Roof section*

I took the liberty of modifying part of Enest's profile view to show my idea for the engineering void that might exist behind the rotating energy pod lights. 

I used an orange line to show the extended roof section and the height that the viewscreen should be raised to according to pixelpusher's screengrabs from The Peacemaker. I copied and pasted the energy pod to the place that Ernest liked it, just above the viewscreen top edge, same as the Aurora kit. I think that is a logical placement too. 

My fiddling with extending the diameter of the roof and the height of the outside wall brings the meeting point to a place that seems to correlate with the shooting model, as hard as that is to prove to to fuzzy compositing of the model on screen. 

All this may be completely wrong, but to me it makes sense of the angled interior bulkheads and shallower angle of the outside walls.

Sorry for butchering your pic Ernest.  I'm not a 10th the designer you are and I thought this was the easiest way to get my point across.

Another thing that crossed my mind today to explain contrary interiors. What if the Invaders used the same external ship hull, but had multiple configurations of the interior, depending on the mission requirements? Scout craft, cargo ships, troop carriers, etc... :thumbsup:


----------



## thepixelpusher

That top radius looks too sharp. I think the top area above the inner ceiling should be thicker too. That would allow the outer energy ports to raise up and shine in through the top angled inner windows as it does in the show.


----------



## ernest

OzyMandias said:


> I took the liberty of modifying part of Enest's profile view to show my idea for the engineering void that might exist behind the rotating energy pod lights.
> I used an orange line to show the extended roof section and the height that the viewscreen should be raised to according to pixelpusher's screengrabs from The Peacemaker. I copied and pasted the energy pod to the place that Ernest liked it, just above the viewscreen top edge, same as the Aurora kit. I think that is a logical placement too.
> My fiddling with extending the diameter of the roof and the height of the outside wall brings the meeting point to a place that seems to correlate with the shooting model, as hard as that is to prove to to fuzzy compositing of the model on screen.
> All this may be completely wrong, but to me it makes sense of the angled interior bulkheads and shallower angle of the outside walls.
> Sorry for butchering your pic Ernest.  I'm not a 10th the designer you are and I thought this was the easiest way to get my point across.
> Another thing that crossed my mind today to explain contrary interiors. What if the Invaders used the same external ship hull, but had multiple configurations of the interior, depending on the mission requirements? Scout craft, cargo ships, troop carriers, etc... :thumbsup:



Thanks OzyMandias!
That is the reason I am publishing here: looking for feedback.
You feedback is great, not only trough words but with images!
That is the best I can expect!
I do not feel bad if one of my drawings is modified. I see drawings as independent beings that live their own life after finished, and I expext them to surprise me one day. You did it!
Thanks again.
And Just in case, if someone was doubting or perhaps feels too shy, I encourage everybody to "destroy" any idea or drawing. If ideas can stand any attack, it means that they were good, if not it means that they needed to be improved.
So anyway the result is the best.

Ernesto


----------



## ernest

Just in case, note that we are dealing with contradictory information regarding the control room.
Here we have a control room probably created in a hurry, before they have a real set of the saucer interior.
As Pixelpusher explained it was created for the opening, and was REUSED in "the peacemaker" (the shot)

The Peacemaker:









The Opening Sequence:








We should ignore this because it was an arbitrary design.
You are a good observer Pixelpusher! The scenbe is exactly the same. I can recognize the shadows appearing on the console in both cases.
Obviously the guys are the same.

Here this is the 1st season version:

1st Season (The Inocent)








Although we are not reconstructing this set, it is usefull anyway, since the following set was an upgrade of this first version.
Here we have the second season version. The most complete and detailed interior set of the saucer, seen in the episode named "The Saucer"
This is the version in which we are working right now.

2nd season (The Saucer)








Later we could create plans for the first season set, which wouldn´t be difficult if we have the second season version finished.

Note that the lintel in the window is lower in the real sets, but it was higher in the opening sequence and in the screen capture of "The Peacemaker"

Ernest


----------



## OzyMandias

Oh yeah, silly me. I should have realized it was the saucer interior used in the opening credits. Doubtless they used that shot as it gave them a bigger window area to frame the exterior shot in and still make things look busy. It also meant they didn't have to set up a full effects shot, just the view screen image. 

The wide angle shot of the saucer is used in the opening credits as well. It's shown flying towards the Earth and it disappears very quickly toward the right side. 

Pixelpusher, I know you mentioned this before but I can't remember how far back it was in the thread. The interior walls and floor are grey, right? It appears that the console shelf in the control room and any control panel packs appear to be silver. Chairs and padding appear to be silver too. I'm planning my interior paint job for my kit and having some trouble differentiating the colours from the stills.


----------



## OzyMandias

Ernest thank you for your generous attitude regarding drawing mods. It was the quickest way I could think of to explain my idea. I do realize I brought the roof edge to a sharp corner when it should be gently curved. I did the mods in MS Paint and it's not a very accommodating little sucker to work with, especially with my lack of artistic talent on a flat screen...


----------



## thepixelpusher

OzyMandias said:


> Pixelpusher, I know you mentioned this before but I can't remember how far back it was in the thread. The interior walls and floor are grey, right? It appears that the console shelf in the control room and any control panel packs appear to be silver. Chairs and padding appear to be silver too. I'm planning my interior paint job for my kit and having some trouble differentiating the colours from the stills.


The interior walls, console and ceiling are silver. The floor is medium grey.










The same silver as you see on the pole in this shot. On the chair, I think that's mostly silver too, but I'd have to rewatch "The Saucer" or "The Innocent" to see if the padding is silver too.


----------



## OzyMandias

Thanks for that. I've actually taken a bit of artistic licence and used a grey that is tonally close to the silver I've used on the exterior for the walls and floor. I've done the panels and raised areas in silver as well as the doors. It's made the details pop nicely. I'll post some photos when I'm all done.


----------



## JAT

Ernest, your work is really amazing and I believe it's going to pay off in the most accurate recreation of the saucer to be found, including the Aurora models and the Saucer Fleet book. Wonderful research and interpretation.
I think your outer hull angle is pretty close to exact as we can see in the above photos. The vertical hull seen through the window is probably an expedient set-build, with no thought of matching the actual saucer contours. Also, the roof convex curve looks much closer than the previous flat iteration. There seems to be a compound curve occurring where it meets the upper hull. I think if you were to simply extend the angled hull upward and likewise the roof outward, where they would intersect connect them with a slightly smaller radius curve and you would be pretty close to dead on. We seldom see the saucer except usually from a few degrees below, so that juncture is difficult to accurately interpret. By extending both of those surfaces, very much as OzyMandias has, the result would be a little greater headroom at the front of that cabin. Additionally, it creates some necessary room for electrical and mechanical components to run through that space.
With regard to the window, it appears that the lower frame rests at the same height as where the wall behind the control panels bends to vertical, roughly 10-12 cm above the panels (though the center panel is slightly higher). The window doesn't appear very high either, maybe 45-50 cm. I'm guessing Vincent to be somewhere between 180-185 cm tall and his eye level seems about even with the top of the window frame. By comparison, Michael Rennie is about 193 cm and clearly taller than the window.
On the Aurora model the window is shown to be too tall I believe, and should not be touching the ring of lights.
The connecting ladder does indeed extend up to the room just outside the control room in The Saucer (also notice the extra ribbing above the door into the control room). In The Innocent we enter the ship from an entirely different hatchway, then pass through two or three rooms before entering the control room. Hard to explain.
Again, Ernest, your work is incredible, and I always eagerly look forward to any new developments you have. Thanks for your hard work and diligence, JAT


----------



## ernest

Thanks again for all the feedback!
Perhaps now we are closer:










The Energy ports are higher, the vew screen is taller, and the upper roof corner is sharper, or less rounded.

I was resisting the thicker corner.
But metalic structures are weaker in the corners.
here you can see a good example in a hamgar where the corner is much thicker in order to support the stronger forces that happen in that point.










So, what looked weird previously, now can look logic!

Pixelpusher, your explanation regarding the relationship between the energy ports and the interior lighting above the control table boards, cannot be used in other than the cabin room. The beams and columns in the room that conects with the lower deck are nudes.









This is a bridge in Buenos aires where the corner or joint between beams is reinforced. (it is made in steel)

Another example in concrete:









One more in Steel:










Here you can see the same shape in the control room of the Seaview.









BTW the last model was linked from this site: http://larslil.com/ where you can see GREAT models!!!!

And the Famous Flyingsub!

















Ernest


----------



## Mark Dorais

Ernest your work is amazing....I'd love to see an overview of the Saucer with the sharper angled roof edge now....FANTASTIC!


----------



## OzyMandias

Ernest that is looking great! I think you're getting very close to the actual model profile for the upper deck and roof, at least as I perceive it. 
As JAT mentioned, the angle that the saucer is shot for the series in order to show the lights on the the belly does make it difficult to lock down the exact wall height and camber of the convex curve where it meets the roof. 
Unless some other photos of the model surface, a best guess is as close as we are going to get.


----------



## ernest

Here I am posting images of the 3D model as it is up to now.
Note that as OzyMandias, and JAT pointed, the perception of curves changes when in perspective!












*The upper corner looks sharper in perspective although it is way more rounded in a flat elevation or section.*
This is the tricky thing about cilindrical revolution objects as it is this case.
Try this observation excercise: Look at a round column, and guess the diameter, and do the same with a square column.
In my experience I am more succesfull guessing measurements in the last case, and fail al lot in the first case, although I know I should correct my perception in those cases!


Thanks Pixelpusher, Mark Dorais, OzyMandias, JAT and everybody for your words, comments and help!
Hope to count on you in the coming steps.


Ernesto


----------



## starseeker

Ernest: fantastic work! I see the bottom of the saucer is still evolving, too. Truly fascinating stuff and a true labor of love. Thanks for sharing all this.
Your upper hull is considerably taller than the one I've taken from the best edge on view of the upper hull I've been able to grab. In the fuzzy image below, I was just boxing them out. The overlay shows your upper hull compared with the one I got from the fuzzy image. I do agree with your upper hull width, tho'. You've got some really interesting detail at the intersection of the upper and lower hulls: wondering if you have a better source than my horrible screen grabs?


----------



## Mark Dorais

Ernest it looks amazing......to my eyes the taper toward the bottom of the saucer's side lower edge bends a little too much in a downward curve and might flare out a little more compared to photos of the filming miniature. The rest looks spot-on....Wonderful work. Thanks for sharing your great talents with us.


----------



## ernest

Mark Dorais said:


> Ernest it looks amazing......to my eyes the taper toward the bottom of the saucer's side lower edge bends a little too much in a downward curve and might flare out a little more compared to photos of the filming miniature. The rest looks spot-on....Wonderful work. Thanks for sharing your great talents with us.


Yes Mark Dorais, you are right.
I will fix it!

E


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> Ernest: fantastic work! I see the bottom of the saucer is still evolving, too. Truly fascinating stuff and a true labor of love. Thanks for sharing all this.
> Your upper hull is considerably taller than the one I've taken from the best edge on view of the upper hull I've been able to grab. In the fuzzy image below, I was just boxing them out. The overlay shows your upper hull compared with the one I got from the fuzzy image. I do agree with your upper hull width, tho'. You've got some really interesting detail at the intersection of the upper and lower hulls: wondering if you have a better source than my horrible screen grabs?


Yes Starseeker, the upper hull was increased as a consecuence of making the upper border sharper. Perhaps now that we know that this shape looks sharper when seen in perspective, compared to the section, we could go back to the much rounded version, which could solve the problems and with a bit of luck could look good in perspective.

I will make some test in this direction to be sure.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Here I am playing a bit with the top curvature, and perspective.
If you look carefully at the elevation, you will notice an exagerated curvature on the roof, compared to the images that we saw in the tv show.

But we must take in mind that in the TV show we could NEVER see a real elevation. All we saw, were diferent kind of perspectives. Some of them very exagerated (when they used a wideangle lens) and some other slightly perspectivated, (when they used telephoto lens)










The interesting fact is that even in an axonometric perspective as the shown here (this is a theoretical perspective which focal length would be infinite, therefore its deformation would be minimal) the elevation differs from the perspective.

The Perspective shows a sharper upper border!
Even in this exagerated curved top model!
So there is a possibility that the real shape could have a really exagerated curved top, and we never saw it, due to perspective deformations!
If so, this would match unedited and exclusive images in Thepixelpusher photo collection.

This would solve my old problem of a tight height of the outer profile, which is forcing down the interior spaces heights.
Ernesto

Note: in this last test, I have corrected the outer hull height as well as the outer flanges curvature, but I still have space in the interior, since the roof is way more curved.


----------



## Mark Dorais

Ernest....Thanks you for listening to our advice.....you are amazing. If only Moebius applied your mindset when designing the little Spindrift model and listened to others, we would have had an accurate to the filming miniature, model. Your saucer looks spot on to my eyes and I love how you've created the interior.....Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!


----------



## JAT

Ernest, it really is coming together very nicely. Again, wonderful work. With regard to the lower hull, I may have to admit to either being influenced by the earlier Aurora models, or simply not reading the existing perspective images we have very well. The somewhat blurry image put forth I have always considered a very bad matte painting and the least accurate profile, or at least the least satisfying profile to what my eye was telling me was correct. It may simply be that the image is not as crisp as others at our disposal. I think your hull contours are actually closer to correct than in that particular image. Although a low light image I've always considered the shot from the opening sequence where it seems to "bounce" at its lowest point, or the scene from "The Innocent" in which we see it almost straight on behind a building to be very good resource material for contour accuracy, but again, possibly because those images conform to what i was predisposed to believe was correct.
In the very clear image from "The Peacemaker" we get a good look at the underside of the ship and we can see the angle of the center light structure which, again, I had until this site was started had always assumed to be vertical. Likewise I had previously believed the underside of the ship to be flat. So I am very much learning as we go.
Keep up your excellent work, Ernest, I look forward to learning more and seeing the end result of all your work. JAT


----------



## WEAPON X

Love the Invaders Saucer design.


----------



## Chertok tv

*Invaders trivia...*

For those of you who have not figured this out...the main engine sound for the Invaders saucer was pulled from our sound FX used on My Favorite Martian.

The ramp up sound is unique but after that it's our saucers flight/engine sound effect..both show were mixed at Glen Glen sound in the sixties..hence the effect was there and the rest is history..
Also in the first season of Martian our first assistant director was Robert Daley...he went on to do the same for both seasons of The Invaders..:wave:


----------



## starseeker

Edit: updated profile posts a few more posts below.


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> I've started to do this again (plastering) in a 16" version as well. So while I was shrinking the profile, I thought I'd clean it up a little. This is the saucer profile as close as I've been able to get it. Because the lights were often animated, the 10 lights on the upper hull seem to vary in vertical position quite a bit. Here I've placed them at an average. That's one of the questions I have about this, along with the basic: how close is this hull shape to accurate??
> Another question I have is: how accurate is my intersection between the upper and lower hulls? I think I see two ridges. Ernest, you're working with material none of the rest of us is privy to yet so I'm thinking it probably really is three rings?
> In any event, the small details don't matter yet. This is the hull shape I've gone with (so far) for the 24", and is what I'm going to use for the 16, until I learn differently.
> Fabulous work going on here. What a great thread! Thanks, all!



Starseeker,

Regarding the 10 lights in the upper hull, sometimes called power coils (from George Adamski´s description), you are right, they look as if they were varying their height from scene to scene.
The explanation to this, and the reason of the difficulty to match them, as far as I understand it, is that the roof curvature, and the curvature of the junction between the roof and the upper almost vertical walls conform a tricky shape when seen in perspective. When the camera looks at the saucer from a low angle, the power coils seem to be closer the top, but when the viewpoint is higher, they look in a lower position. Up to now I have been working with elevations or sections which are theoretical representations of a 3d object as if the camera would have an infinite focal lenght. It is not right to compare real perspective images as the screen captures from the TV show, to these kind of images, but I did up to now, considering that the diferences would be so subtle that could be considered irrelevant. Now after so many attempts, I am starting to think that perhaps this wrong comparisons could be the problem, and am planning to move to another software where I can reproduce accurately the real perspective conditions, to see if I can reproduce this apparent change in height of the Power Coils.
I wish I can be faster, but I have limited time, so it will be slower than desired! We will see it soon.

Here you see a low camera angle:








And in the following image a higher camera angle:








And here a very tricky image:








In this last image, as it was taken with a wide angle lens we have diferent light rays angles deppending on the analized point.
For instance ther upper hull border in viewed from a lower angle compared to the other two previous images, but the outer border (bottom) is seen from a higher viewpoint compared to the second image, but from a lower viewpoint compared to the first image . This is very tricky for the human eye (and brain interpretating images) specially because it is an object generated by a revolution curve (in its vertical axis)

Regarding the rings, I can say that in my opinion there is no doubt that they are 3 rings. Remember that the Adamski Saucer was one of the inspirations, and it had 3 rings also. The available material that I have seen up to now could be controversial for the untrained eye, since the grain of film used to take the pictures couldn´t capture a sharp detail. Anyway in a detailed observation the 3 rings are visible in a way that I can assure without any doubt that they are there!

Finnally regarding the intersection between both hulls looks very accurate in my opinion.

My only critic, appart from the fact that they are 3 rings instead of 2, is that the upper border seems to be sharper in the TV images as Pixelpusher pointed. Anyway I could be wrong because of the wrong comparison between the two perspective kinds. I will not know the answer until I play with real cameras as it is planned.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Here I have imported a 3d model, to another software, where I can control perspective.








The upper image was taken with a 135mm lens (tele) the second image with a 45 mm lens (almost normal) and the lower with a 20 mm lens (superwide)
The diferences are so intense that the sacers seem to be diferent!


Here in this second test, you can see an image of an object that is seen from a low angle.
The roof top seems to be rather flat and its borders sharper compared to the bottom.










In the second image you can see an orthographic elevation where it is clear that the top and bottom are identical.


Ernest


----------



## Richard Baker

Regarding the size/position changes in the 'power coils'. There is something I have to deal with in lighted signs called 'visual blooming'. A lighted object flares past the darker edges making it appear larger- backlit letters seem larger than the same size letter on a lighted background. I think this might be contributing to the changes in the power coil's appearance.


----------



## Rotwang

I don't know if anyone has brought this up before (if so, sorry), but could the domes used on the 11-foot Enterprise nacelles be the same size as the ones used on the underside of the saucer?


----------



## starseeker

As I begin a search for any Saucer material I can find on the net, came across a fantastic Saucer model here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/invad...riginal&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&dir=asc
possibly the miniature itself?? 
What's great about this photo, if of a miniature or a studio maquette, is that the landing gear is part of it. The model is obviously lit from two directions, which results in the smaller intersect shadow centered under the saucer, not a shadow from a miniature/full size composite as someone on the site suggests. 
Note the tapered thickness of the landing gear, as speculated earlier on this thread. 
What's most fascinating to me is the comment that "the side ports can be enlarged vertically when in flight". What the devil does that mean??
Only 7000 more messages to scan. Sigh. 
Started plastering the 16".


----------



## CaptCBoard

That link requires signing up for membership. Can you post the photo itself so those of us who don't want to join anything can see it?

Scott


----------



## CaptCBoard

I can't see the photo since I don't belong to that site. Can you post the photo so those of us who are not members can see it? 

(this is what happens when you think you've done a valid edit and the machine tells you it was too short and to try again...)

Scott


----------



## starseeker

Since I'm close to committing myself in plaster to a final shape, I thought I'd double check the best images I have of the saucer with my drawing. The red lines show the upper hull width at the top of the ridges as best as I can make out, and sizing the saucer as best I can to the same diameter, given the often poor cropping and bleed. The white lines are just a reference across them all. I think I'm close, a hair too wide perhaps, so I'll narrow it just a little.
A larger version of the comparison is here:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/Invaders Saucer/
The photo seems to have come from some magazine published in 1967?
6500 messages to go... Kill me...


----------



## starseeker

So narrowing the upper hull slightly would give me this profile:


----------



## ernest

Very Interesting Photograph, Starseeker!!!!

This is the MOST accurate model I have ever seen up to now!
The pods have the angled borders, and they are thicker rear the saucer bottom, and gets narower at the landing end.
This seems to be the REAL model used in the show, although I have never seen any reduced version of the landing gear, since in the TV show they were real size props.
Seems to be a studio model of the landing gear, used to build the real size prop.
The proportions are VERY accurate.
The only thing that looks diferent from the screen captures is the fact that in the TV show the saucer blocks much more of the upper part of the pods.
I am almost totally sure that this is the 4 feet diameter saucer used for the TV scenes!

Great finding!!!!


I wonder the meaning of: 

"The side ports can be enlarged vertically when in flight"

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Based in the previous phrase, perhaps the outer shield covering the view screen, moves in a vertical direction, meanwhile the inner shields slides horizontally:









Apparently the portholes never close totally in their upper border, which results in the 10 lighting openings arround the upper hull...
This means that the light might come from the lintel in the openings.
And perhaps it should have 10 portholes that could be opened anytime...

Thanks Starseeker! this seems to be a new piece for our puzzle!

Ernest


----------



## ernest

After studying the picture, I can find certain similitudes between this model and the Aurora version, for instance the fact that the landing pods seems in a lower position, showing clearly their hexagonal shape 5 visible sides) , meanwhile in the TV show the upper part is so hidden that they look more a trapezoidal shape (3 visible sides)
I assume that the people who designed the Aurora Model SAW this model, and based their kit on it!

Another interesting detail that supports this theory, is that 2 ladders are unfolded down at the same time, although this never happened in the show.
This strange configuration is the same reproduced in the Aurora Model!

GREAT GREAT FINDING STARSEEKER!!!!!!!!
Thanks!

Ernest


----------



## ernest

The problem with the angled borders in the landing pods, is that if they would fold up against the saucer bottom, there would be no possibility of hiding the joints, so that when in flight it could be seen as we saw it on the TV show.
I am strugling to find a possible way to do it, but for now it looks simply impossible!!!

Regarding this phrase: "The side ports can be enlarged vertically when in flight"
It seems to be the designers Idea since this is not visible in the TV show at all!
This fact, together with the image, inclines me to think this is FIRST HAND 100% trustable information.

You can tell it is a big model (about one meter diameter) because of the lighting and shadows.
The ladders detail and proportion are perfect too.


Ernest


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> So narrowing the upper hull slightly would give me this profile:



I would trust more the black and white picture you published, where the upper hull vertical walls looks almost straight, and not that curved as in your last profile.
In my opinion that is the best photographic angle that shows the most accurate profile of the original model, although it do not show the roof curvature as all the other pictures.
The only hint I have of the roof curvature is the mold profile in Pixelpusher´s photographic collection, but we have no picture of the saucer that can show that partial profile.

ernest


----------



## ernest

The original design of the shields mechanism, was influenced again by the wrong Aurora Model!
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3834461&postcount=363
This new design, seems the right thing up to now.
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3846003&postcount=409

From which I can deduct that the designers of the Aurora kit, were shown the model in the black and white photograph, but they couldn´t talk to the real designers of the TV prop, which were obviously interviewed in the magazine where the picture was found, and pronounced the phrase that gave the hint regarding the view screen shields opening mechanism!

Ernest


----------



## ernest

I have just found a possible mechanical design that could made possible that landing pods with angled borders could be folded against the saucer bottom without visible joints when in flight configuration.
It is rather complex, but I will publish it as soon as I have it modeled in 3d.

Ernest


----------



## starseeker

Sorry, I've been asked to remove the photo from the other site I posted. However, the link still works, even tho' you have to be a Yahoo board person to access it. A smaller version of the photo is here at:
http://www.peterice.com/images/tvtornado1967.jpg
and I've ordered a copy of the magazine to see if I can make a better copy scan of it for here. Really makes you wonder what other Invaders (LIS, Voyage, etc) material was published at the time and is just mouldering out there somewhere.
The search continues.
Great stuff, Ernest! Thanks, as always!


----------



## thepixelpusher

I've got that book. It's a hard cover compilation magazine. You won't see much more from the book because it has a large halftone dot pattern. The image you posted was as good as it gets.


----------



## ernest

Sometimes "bad images" can give us better information than high resolution colorfull photographs, so I would not underestimate any of them.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Here I am posting the first sketch of the mechanical solution for angled sided legs:








In the first image, we can see the flight configuration, where the 5 blue shields are locking the 5 pods in their place.
In the second, we have the 5 shields that moves out of the center of the craft, unlocking free the legs. Each of them is made of two pieces, a main part and a tiny triangle which slide independently to make more space between the pods.
The third image shows the landing gear being unfold.
In the last image we have the landing configuration.









In this way we will have the same main joints in the bottom of the ship, as seen in this photograph of the TV studio model.

In the mechanical sketch I have not drawn the outer ring which would provide the necesary room for the main 5 sliding shields to move outwards.

Here I am posting a detail, seen from an hipothetical viewpoint in a transparent upper deck, to show the tiny triangular piece which slides on the main shield.










Just to make it simple the bottom plane was made flat, but in the real saucer it will be a conical plane, but since the cone will be rather flat, I assume it will not be that noticeable. 
The conical shape is necesary to match the bottom plane in flight configuration.

Perhaps this is a too elaborated solution.... but it is the one that matches best the available information.
I doubt the original designers would think of a working mechanism for the landing procedure, but this could be a possibility.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Possible light source for the interior difusers, and the outer portholes.








Now that the power coils and the portholes are the same, I thought of a possible solution for the lighting instalation.

The light coming from the wiew screen lintel, would reflect in the metalic surfaces in the space between the interior and exterior shields, and will come out through the only opening between the lintel and the upper border of the outer shield that would never be completely closed.

ernest


----------



## Fernando Mureb

This thread has been the most extraordinary work of research and reconstruction of a "lost" object I had ever seen. 

The spacecraft is just being reborn. 

Congratulations to Ernesto and to all you guys. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## thepixelpusher

ernest said:


> Sometimes "bad images" can give us better information than high resolution colorfull photographs, so I would not underestimate any of them.
> 
> Ernest


That image you see here is the best it gets unfortunately.

Ernesto, I'm looking into the legs.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Fernando Mureb said:


> This thread has been the most extraordinary work of research and reconstruction of a "lost" object I had ever seen.
> 
> The spacecraft is just being reborn.
> 
> Congratulations to Ernesto and to all you guys. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


I like your enthusiasm.

I'm working on some poster concepts for The Invaders. Those poster concepts will be posted here for a show of hands. Trust me, this will be more fun than voting for the 2012 election.  Stay tuned.


----------



## ernest

Perspective Inconsistencies Detected

Still working on the question stated in this message: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3772305&postcount=229

There is a problem with composites where they combined the Saucer model with the real size landing gear prop, and it has to do with focal lens used in both composited images.
In order to get a technically perfect composite, you should use the same lens for each of the scenes (the saucer and the landing gear) but this was not the case as far as I am finding.

The following image looks as the best reference material between all screencaptures from the TV show:








Here both parts were filmed using long telephoto lenses.

But in most other cases they used a telephoto lens for the landing gear or the real landscape and a more wider lens for the saucer, as it can be seen here in this other capture:









This is probably due to the limitations of the locations. Sometimes you must use a long lens, beacuse the scene needs it, but when you are in a studio filming a model, you do not have those limitations, but others. For instance using long telephoto lenses inside a studio could be a problem, since you need a big space between the subject and the camera. Another reason to use wider lens to take the saucer, is that those lenses have a deeper perspective and show a more interesting 3dimensional effect, meanwhile telephoto lenses have a tendency to flatten the image, which results in a less interesting image.
Anyway whatever the reasons for this inconsistencies, they happened, and the result for us is that the saucer proportions looks diferent as follows:

Telephoto Lenses, show a saucer with an upper hull with an aparent bigger diameter compared with the outer flage diameter.
Wider lenses, show a saucer with an upper hull with a smaller diameter compared to the bigger outer diameter in the lower flange.
The first cases are nearer the real proportions, because telephoto lenses performs the slighter distortions in the images.
My original mistake was interpreting a scene as a telephoto shot evaluating the entourage only and not the saucer itself, assuming that both would be the same.

Uf to now I was using the average profile, to create the 3d model, but the good new, is that now I can correct it as it is shown in the first image.
This will result in a taller saucer, which will solve all the problems to fit the interior.

As you may know I was having problems fitting the interior, and the main problem was available height. That is the reason I was reducing the thickness of the floors to about 10 inches when they should be about 16 inches as seen in this image:









Well, now I will have some work to be done to adjust all the last changes:
Outer Profile
New Viewscreen Shields Opening Mechanism
New Landing Gear with angled borders and new unfolding mechanism.


Here In This Imgage
You can see the needed corrections that will be performed:










The outer flage in the photograph is smaller compared to the current profile (in white lines)
And the upper hull diameter seems to be bigger in both photograph.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

This is the corrected profle number 66


----------



## ernest

Regarding the bottom plane, I know that it looks flat in the screen captures, specially in the opening sequence when the saucer si flying to the earth, and passes near the camera in the upper left corner of the TV screen, but it is an illusion.

The main plane where the 5 balls are iserted, is limited by two rings that are about the same height.
This fact (the height of the limiting rings) gives the impresion that the plane is flat and not conical.

The proof that it is conical should be found in the outer bottom ring, that in the aurora model is horizontal and flat (see color picture below), but in this inedit picture provided by Pixelpusher it can be seen that it is conical. 








If the outer ring would be flat, you would see in this picture that it would be the same width all arround the outer flange ( as it is in the aurora model, see the other image) but here in this black and white image the outer ring is ONLY visible in the back border, and it is totally blocked by the outer flange in the front border. The only way that this could happen is in case of a CONICAL shape.
Therefore the other main plane where the 5 balls are inserted is conical TOO.










Ernest


----------



## JAT

Ernest, excellent work. It's really coming together and looking very accurate, much more so than any previous attempts of which i'm aware. Upper and lower hull proportions and angles look dead on. One thing I noticed in the above images is the upper light ring, power coil I think you call it, is very close to the top of the upper hull which leads me to believe that it is separate from the viewport (though your solution to their marriage is very well thought out i think ). Also, it is possible that the viewport could fall between the coil lights if their heights overlap. 
Again looking at the images posted, particularly the landed saucer, the roof seems nearly flat with a very small radius intersection to the upper hull. This and the scene from The Innocent are the most direct, straight on images we have to work with and I 
agree with you that they are the best references from which to work.
Beneath the saucer, lacking further definitive information, I don't know that we can with any certainty define any of the angled surfaces, horizontal or vertical. However, judging from the saucer approach scene in The Peacemaker, to my eye it does appear that the central light element is somewhat "taller", maybe twice the height shown in the cut-away image above. I hope that this is useful to you and that it doesn't throw off any of your excellent conclusions thus far. Again, the filming model was never intended to perfectly correspond to the interior sets. You've succeeded in bringing the two facets together in a logical manner that no else has come close to. JAT


----------



## thepixelpusher

Good work. I sent you some more info.


----------



## ernest

Thanks Piuxelpusher!!!

Thanks Jat for your opinions, that are right as you can see in these images, where the 3D model was pasted on the screen captures.



















I agree that the roof top should be more flat, so that it will be nearer the power coils (as I call them) or the upper light ring, but I still see the lighting ring at the right height in relationship to the rest of the ship. The problem I am facing is that if the roof gets lower I will be in problems with the interior. Perhaps this is the unconcious reason I am resiting this change up to now, but it is clear that it should be done!

Note: These renders that were supperimposed in the sreen captures are real perspective images, trying to simulate a telephoto lens.


----------



## JAT

Ernest, I took a second look at those posted images and found that I could not have been more wrong with regard to the viewport fitting between the coils. Won't fit, too close together. Since the lights seem constantly to be spinning I'm not so sure that they are related to the interior ceiling lights either, but the viewport is surely below the coils. I think it's going to be difficult to reconcile any heights of the inside decks with the exterior of the ship. You've got it about as close as is possible without starting to make some compromises between the two. Possibly the thickness of the upper roof could be trimmed a few cm., maybe by 30% and that could provide a little breathing room to raise everything else similarly, or possibly just the upper deck to allow for some greater headroom on the lower deck. Again, the proportions of the upper and lower hulls seem to my eye to be very much correct. Your superimposed image above is so close that at first I skimmed right past it until I realized the differences in color. Great job. JAT


----------



## ernest

Thanks for your insistence, Jat, Pixelpusher, and you all.
It seems that I was too stubborn, but here I changed the roof.
This is the new roof in the section of the Profile number 68:









And here you have the render superimposed:









I think it is better (from outside), and will need some more work to adjust the interior.



Ernest


----------



## ernest

JAT said:


> Ernest, I took a second look at those posted images and found that I could not have been more wrong with regard to the viewport fitting between the coils. Won't fit, too close together. Since the lights seem constantly to be spinning I'm not so sure that they are related to the interior ceiling lights either, but the viewport is surely below the coils. I think it's going to be difficult to reconcile any heights of the inside decks with the exterior of the ship. You've got it about as close as is possible without starting to make some compromises between the two. Possibly the thickness of the upper roof could be trimmed a few cm., maybe by 30% and that could provide a little breathing room to raise everything else similarly, or possibly just the upper deck to allow for some greater headroom on the lower deck. Again, the proportions of the upper and lower hulls seem to my eye to be very much correct. Your superimposed image above is so close that at first I skimmed right past it until I realized the differences in color. Great job. JAT


Jat, I must confess I am still resisting! I havent lowered the roof as much as it should be! If you look carefully at the superimposed render, you will notice that the 3D model si taller compared to the TV saucer, but I am being conservative because of my concerns with interior space.

Well now with the new low roof, we might have to lower both interior decks, and in such a case the viewscreen would move down with them, but the lighting ring or power coils would stay in the same place...
We will see how this could fit...

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Someone here (I am sorry cannot remember who) pointed that the 3 rings area in the 3d model was rather thick compared to the TV saucer. (I have this in my notes) 

Well whoever you are: You were right!
I am reducing the 3 rings to an 80% of the current thickness.

I am glad we are getting into a fine tunning.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

"The Side Ports can be enlarged vertically when in flight"











This is the possible answer to the previous phrase.
In the section http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3846003&postcount=409 the idea looked better, than in this exterior elevation.
Although I am not very convinced, since the width of these portholes are much higher than the viewscreen in the cabin.
Perhaps we will have to come back to the previous configuration, where the view screen was separated from the power coils or lighting ring.

Ernest


----------



## Green Man

*Hello from a "newbie"!*

Hello! Thanks for allowing me to be a part of an elite community. My name is Ray Sikes (aka Green Man...a reference to the suits that the alien Invaders wore..but you already knew that!) I have been an avid model builder and a fan of The Invaders since I was 12 years old(ok..do the math.I'm old). I have 4 of the Monogram UFO Invaders models..and hope to build one from scratch.
Ernest, I applaud you for your labor of love in the construction and vast knowledge of the Invaders Saucer. I had read of the problem with a solid top, hiding the aliens and interior(not like the good old Aurora model with the clear top). Actually what I did with one was to leave the entire interior and figures out and secured the top. I used the interior pieces to build a regeneration station...using the controls in a console type display with aliens at the helm,operating the regeneration process. In front of the controls were alien figures standing in their "stasis" cradles..all figures painted flourescent red and inside some small clear plastic tubes. All encased in a crude balsa wood "barn" that the top lifts off. A cool way to show off what normaly isn't seen(without removing the top, or it falling of with a bump...too bad the didn't design an interior hinge to open it up.
Sorry to take up so much time..just proud to be here. I really enjoy Sci-Fi and Movie Monster models..oh if only I had my Barnabas Collins model fromyears ago....and so many others...oh well hindsight.
Crazy enough, my goal is to build my son a Invaders Saucer large enough to fit in my back yard for a play house...one day!
Thanks for reading
Later,Ray


----------



## starseeker

Green Man, welcome! Always a pleasure to have another modeller here. Especially one crazy enough to consider scratch building anything. 
Ernest, fascinating overlays above. Made me think about the studio overlays. They had a physical set of landing legs and and aliens and matted the saucer over top. How careful do you think they were with scaling the two together? In your first pair of the pair above, it doesn't appear that the landing gear the alien is climbing could fit under the saucer. Is it possible that rather than shrinking your interior to make everything fit as it should, perhaps the hull should be expanded? When Vincent says the saucer is about 60 feet in diameter, it's hard to judge the size of a huge, circular, and alien object accurately. Maybe it was 65, even 70 feet. Maybe your interior is perfect and the saucer itself needs adjusting a couple percent?


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> Green Man, welcome! Always a pleasure to have another modeller here. Especially one crazy enough to consider scratch building anything.
> Ernest, fascinating overlays above. Made me think about the studio overlays. They had a physical set of landing legs and and aliens and matted the saucer over top. How careful do you think they were with scaling the two together? In your first pair of the pair above, it doesn't appear that the landing gear the alien is climbing could fit under the saucer. Is it possible that rather than shrinking your interior to make everything fit as it should, perhaps the hull should be expanded? When Vincent says the saucer is about 60 feet in diameter, it's hard to judge the size of a huge, circular, and alien object accurately. Maybe it was 65, even 70 feet. Maybe your interior is perfect and the saucer itself needs adjusting a couple percent?



Welcome! Green Man,
Anything to do with the "Green Hornet"?
Answering your question, Starseeker: My guess is that they were very professional. More than I would expect, considering that the TV Show was not an audience success, therefore their budget was tight. I have checked the relative propotions and size of saucer in relationship to the landing gear, in diferent episodes, and I must say they all are consistent, except in Panic, and the Inocent, where the saucer diameter seems to be arround 15,60 meters (It would be totally impossible to acomodate the two decks inside) . In the rest of the episodes the only diferences I have found is in height. Some of the scenes had the landing pods standing directly on the ground, and some other on the thin tubes. In some cases the landing gear was composited as if it would be introduced into the saucer bottom (for instance the wide angle view in "the Saucer") , and in some other they look just touching the saucer bottom.
But the landing gear width seems to be constant in relationship to the saucer diameter, and that is the diameter I am using in the 3D model: 19, 59 m. (19 meters with 59 centimeters) The best scene, to detertmine an accurate calculation seems to be the landing saucer in Dark Outpost.
Perhaps it is not a coincidence that in dark Outpost where it is shown for the only time, the lower deck, the outer dimensions are higher.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Now that I rechecked the screen captures, I can see that perhaps I was too optimistic in my assumptions. Here I found a mistake I did when calculated the saucer scale:










The guy in the left image (David Vincent escaping from the saucer in "Dark Outpost") was used to calculate a diameter of about 20 meters.
If you look at the right image ("Panic") the aliens are way taller in relationship to the saucer, and the guessed result was about 17 meters in diameter.

The wrong assumption is in the first, where David Vincent is not in the same plane as the saucer, but about 10 or more meters behind! Obviously if he was at a greater distance from the camera his image would be projected at a reduced scale, as the perspective rules states!

In "The Inocent" it is clear that it is a similar diameter as in Panic as you can see here:









where it is easy to observe that the height of the guys can be pasted along the saucer diameter about 7 times.
Assuming that their average height would be 1,85 m, the diameter calculation would be about 13 meters.
But we will have to correct this assumption since the guys are not at the same distance from the camera as the saucer diameter ( or center which is the same ) so we should estimate more than 13 meters. Perhaps 15? (seems to be nearer the Panic capture)

So, perhaps the estimated diameter of about 20 meters is not that right... and if so there would be noway to fit the interior.

Here in this image things seem to bee better (for our goal)








The guy on the ground is nearer the camera compared to the saucer diameter, so our calculated guess will have to be increased to compensate the perspective effect.
Lets see: The height of the guy seems to fit 6 times into the saucer diameter.
Assuming his height as 1.85 m this would give an 11 meters diameter saucer.
If we correct this to compensate perspective effect we can guess 13 meters, perhaps 15 meters?
It could be 20 too, depending on the assumed distance. 
As we have no shadow of the saucer on the ground so we have no hint, so it could be 30 too!

BTW this was a nice composite with the mountains behind!

I will do a deeper research to find out more info.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Here in "The Mutation"



















The guys seems smaller so the saucer could be calculated bigger... (perhaps 9 alien heights = 1 saucer diameter of 18 meters?)
Do anyone have a better screen capture of the saucer in "The Mutation", with aliens on the ground? 

Up To now our Saucer Diameter formula is as follows:
between 7 and 9 alien heights = 1 Saucer diameter = from 12 to 17 meters. 
As Jat said here: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3771111&postcount=224 "Vincent mentioning it to be somewhere between 40 and 50 ft. as a guess" in meters it would be from 12 to 15,5 meters.

Thanks in advance!!

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Just to see how it would look, here you have a saucer version, of almost 16 meters in diameter.










It would be only one deck, as in "The Inocent" and the entrance would be in the central room.









In this picture you can see the central ladder.

Here the viewscreen would be clearly separated from the power coils (the lighting ring)
This looks closer to the aurora model..
Perhaps they weren´t that bad! I will not blame them anymore!!!
Now I understand the difficulties to get this done. They were forced to divide the deck into 4 slices instead 5, because of the lack of space.
The inner room is ridiculously small!

The space under the main deck, seems to match the famous adamski scout diagram published in the 50s










Everything seems to direct us to this first inspirational sketch, as the original idea of the invaders´s saucer designer. Apparently as the scripts would demand, they were adapting the diferent caracteristics on the go.
Here in this sketch you can see the name POWER COILS which are separated from the portholes.
The landing procedure were totally diferent, that is why the first time I saw the Invaders (I was 10) I though it would land touching its bottom on the ground directly without a landing gear. I knew the Adamski saucer before I fist saw The Invaders saucer.
The opening hatch can be seen in the left flange, where there is a ramp and two steps to reach the cabin level.

Here you have a rendering of the interior space in the Adamski Scout. I expect to reach this level of quality with the Invaders Saucer, if we can solve the Size issue one day...










Ernest


----------



## JAT

ernest said:


> Here in "The Mutation"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guys seems smaller so the saucer could be calculated bigger... (perhaps 9 alien heights = 1 saucer diameter of 18 meters?)
> Do anyone have a better screen capture of the saucer in "The Mutation", with aliens on the ground?
> 
> Up To now our Saucer Diameter formula is as follows:
> between 7 and 9 alien heights = 1 Saucer diameter = from 12 to 17 meters.
> As Jat said here: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3771111&postcount=224 "Vincent mentioning it to be somewhere between 40 and 50 ft. as a guess" in meters it would be from 12 to 15,5 meters.
> 
> Thanks in advance!!
> 
> Ernest


 Ernest, I have to admit to having been incorrect. I re-watched that episode, "Dark Outpost" I believe, and when Vincent was asked how large he thought the saucer was he responded that it was 50-60 feet. I'm very sorry, and hope this doesn't cause you further complications in your excellent work. JAT


----------



## ernest

No problem at all! Thanks JAT!
In fact this is much better, so if my calculations do not bring us anywhere, we should better trust David Vincent´s guess.
50 to 60 feet would be 17 to 18,30 meters which is closer to the current profile.

Ernest


----------



## JAT

Whew, that's good news, felt that I had fed you some errant information that would have thrown off all of your careful calculations. I tend to agree with you regarding the above images. There appears to have been an inconsistent approach to matting the saucer to the leg elements, and from this we are left with difficulty in determining an accurate diameter for the craft. One would think that some form of registration would have solved this, or possibly was and that's why they even got as close as they did. Even the circular openings seem to vary from one episode to the next. In "Panic", they appear about maybe 54-60 inches in diameter, whereas in "The Mutant" they look quite a bit larger. I doubt that there was sufficient budget to create more than one set so that may be a matter of lenses used and varying focal lengths. 
Aside from scale questions, your above image looks very close to accurate, again, to my eye. As an example of your accuracy, I went back and re-examined your duplication of the "Panic" screen grab. Not an exacting examination, but in comparing the saucers with the background imagery the contours of yours seem to match the shows at the points where the background is blocked out. The only difference I see is the roof. If you look very closely, there is a very faint line arcing from the right above the saucer beginning with a brownish "bare patch". That patch becomes a thin line as it arcs over to just above the left side of the roof, stopping short of touching it. I think the difference in distance between that line and the roofs is a pretty good indicator of how close you are to the correct roof height. Hope THAT makes some sense. Carry on. JAT


----------



## CaptCBoard

I've been watching this thread with a great deal of interest. I think the CG work that has been done to create an accurate exterior - and the interiors - is very well thought out! 

I want a nice big model of this saucer. Ernest states the best diameter he's come up with is 19.59 meters, or very close to 65 feet. At 1:16 scale, this winds up being 48.75 inches. Sorry for mixing meters and feet, but at the time this model was built for the show, all work was done in feet/inches. Now, someone said the model was 4 feet in diameter and from the work Ernest has done, it looks like this is probably correct. 1:16 scale is 3/4" to the foot, a common architectural scale. Art Directors just love to design things to scale, especially if there is a possibility the object may be built full-scale at some point in the future. We know the landing gear was built full-size, so we have to assume the rest of the exterior of the ship was blueprinted as well. Using 65 feet as the theoretical diameter of the actual ship, there is no other scale that works for a model that is-- 'about 4 feet in diameter'. By the way, if the model was built to 1:24 scale, it would be 32.5 inches in diameter. That is still a viable size for a filming model, but we have no evidence that the model could be that small. Given the fabrication techniques of that time, the model could have been any size and of no particular scale. But since they knew they would have to line things up with the 1:1 landing gear, any math that needed to be used to assure proper size relationship on-screen, having the model at a particular scale could be essential.

So, here's my point. My preference is for a 1/2 Studio Scale model, which would be 24 inches in diameter. That makes a model at 1:32 scale. 

But, I have to say something that may be very unpopular. Given the smooth exterior features of this spaceship, I have no interest in the interior. Lights, yes; but the interior is of zero importance-- for me. I'm not knocking the hard work that has been done, in fact I find it interesting that the interior seems to fit the exterior. That almost never happens in SF models.

For anyone considering kitting this thing, I would make one request. Take the effort to generate inverse tooling so that a vacform part has the exterior surface contacting the mold surface. If someone is going to take the time to get these contours right, clean and square, it would be a shame to pull plastic over the form and round everything off. With inverse tooling, pulling into that negative space means much thicker plastic can be used, making for a more enjoyable modeling experience. 

An experience that I look forward to!

Scott


----------



## OzyMandias

Ernest, that profile is looking just about perfect! I'd still be pushing for a slightly squarer corner and less camber on the roof.
Yeah I know, I know...:beatdeadhorse:

Those screengrabs that you overlaid the render on are quite a bit sharper detail-wise than the more familiar shots that we see more often. The overhead shot at Vasquez Rocks is very telling. Anyway, that's my 2 cents, YMMV.

I know you are doing your utmost to reconcile the interior with the model exterior and I'm sure you are pretty damn close. Just something to think about in line with my earlier 'Imagineering' comments, in relation to the disappearing space for the lower deck; what if those concentric rings just above the skirt flare were considered vertically expandable? If space was needed for cargo, they could 'pop the top' so to speak.:thumbsup:

Incidentally, I'll cast my vote with Scott for a 1:32 scale kit! That's not too big, and not too teeny. I'd still like an optional interior as a nostalgic acknowledgement to the Aurora kit.


----------



## Mark Dorais

Ernest...It's looking amazing. With further observation of the stills, I have to agree with Ozy Mandias's statement about a slightly squarer upper corner and a little less camber on the roof. I always look forward to viewing this topic to seeing what's new..... Thanks again for your sharing with us.:thumbsup:


----------



## starseeker

I too have always thought that 24" would make it about 1/32 scale. Just seems right. The 24" master is at the point of just needing half a dozen progressively finer fillings and sanding, with a couple layers of primer in there somewhere, and of course tweaking the final upper hull shape and size. The 16" needs a week of drying yet, before I start adding two or three more layers of surface, and then the final fill layers. 
It's starting to feel like autumn here now. I can't believe I'm running out of time already??? Big push on to get as much as I can get done in the yard and with the model hulls as I can. Still haven't decided between vac forming and fibreglass for the hulls. Whichever, I am using female molds. 
The 16" seems dainty. But that's only because the 24" is HUGE.


----------



## ernest

Great Models Starseeker!

Thanks Mark Dorais, and Ozy Mandias for pointing the top issue!

CaptCBoard, your comment about the interior makes sense.. Perhaps I automatically thought everything as a whole, as in normal Architectural work, where both (interiors and exteriors) should be designed as a whole object. Anyway as you pointed, this is a reduced model, so perhaps we do not need an interior.
My original goal was to create a model (digital at least) of the saucer, on its landing gear, which would be a cut away model.

Something like this:









or one of these:























































Here you have an old render (wrong proportions and design) where I tried to do so.










So that you can see it as a solid object when seen from one side, and discover the full interior when seen from the other side.
Now I am working on the mechanism of the folding landing gear, and I have found that further compromise should be done, to make it a working model.
Previously we tried to fit the interior, and as it might be not that noticeable some compromises had to be done.
So, I am getting to a point in which I am getting the right proportions as it was the real thing, but should decide between 4 options:
1) creating an exterior saucer, and fixed landing gear stand, where the saucer can be exibited. (this will be the real proportions model as seen in the TV show, without compromise)
2) creating an exterior / interior model that could be exibited as a cut away. (this would need a higher top, and a lower bottom, or increasing saucer scale to about 21 meters)
3) creating an exterior model with working landing gear. (the saucer top will be as accurate as the TV show, but the bottom conical plane should be exagerated)
4) creating an exterior / interior model with working landing gear (here we should modify things as the two previous options together)
I am interested in your preferences. Anyway we could do more than one. In fact the first option is already clear, and could be done in a couple of hours, but the others will need more work in order to find the less distorting compromised solution.

About scales, CaptCBoard mentioned imperial architectural scales. Although I am very familiar with scales because of my work, I am a totally ingnorant about imperial scales. I found very interesting your reasoning although I couldn´t follow probably because of my lack of knowledge in that topic. Could you direct me to a place where I could studdy that? Or better if you have some time, could you explain which are the common Architectural scales and how do you calculate sizes in the Imperial system?
Thanks in advace!

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Here I thought that a 5th option may be possible, which would be complemetary to the first previous option.

It would be an interior only model, as this one:










And a lot more here:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/gallery/bridges1.htm

In this way we could cover interior and exterior without compromises, but they will be two separated models.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Well, I have just got one of these in Imperial system.
Sorry I do not know the name of this tool.










I am starting to studdy it.
In each scale I can read:

1 1/2, 1/8, 3/32, 3/8, 1/2, 3/4, 1, 16, 3, 1/4, 3/16

I assume that they mean:

1:1 1/2, 1:1/8, 1: 3/32, 1: 3/8, 1;1/2, 1:3/4, 1:1, 1:16, 1;3, 1:1/4, 1:3/16

I do not have problems understanding these (or that is what I think):

1:1 , would be real scale
1:16, one unit in the drawing would represent 16 units of the real world
1:3, one unit in the drawing would represent 3 units of the real world

But I am not sure about the rest???

Ernest


----------



## JAT

Ernest, I will be eagerly awaiting those finalized images, I had no idea that that was the level of quality you were striving for. My impression was that you were simply attempting to reconcile the inner sets to the outer hull contours, as many of us have for so many years. This has become a very ambitious project and I applaud your efforts. I am fully confident that when you are finished it's going to look amazing. Can't wait to see. JAT


----------



## CaptCBoard

Ernest--

The scale in your photo is actually a metric scale, not an Imperial architectural scale. Both are the same 6 sided design, but the markings are very different. In the US, we also have a decimally divided scale, where inches are divided into 10ths, 20ths, etc. This is used by engineers and I have no idea why, other than most engineering drawings refer to small(ish) parts instead of whole rooms and buildings!

Architects tend to work at 1:48 for most projects. This would represent 1/4" per foot, with the scale designator being the ratio of 1 (foot) divided into 1/4" increments (4 per inch, 48 per foot because 12 inches equals a foot). All other scales are represented by a ratio of 1 (foot) divided by the number of scale feet in the desired scale. 1:96 is 1/8" per foot. 1:24 is 1/2" per foot-- and so on. But for some odd reason, we have scales that do not directly relate to equal divisions. For instance, 1:72 scale is not the result of clean division. Nor is 1:35, but 1:32 is (3/8" per foot). The reason for cleanly divided scales is that on a single instrument, like the one in your photo, you can have 12 scales. This is shown by the way these scales have 1" scale on one end and 1/2" scale at the other. The scales can overlap so that the entire length of the ruler can be used for both scales-- the divisions of one are contained within the other. The same is true for 1/4" and 1/8" as well as 3/4" and 3/8".

Having explained that, back in the time we are dealing with, Art Directors would be using Architect's scales because you can read the scales off a regular tape measure and use a little basic math to derive a scale dimension, or to take a scale dimension and derive the 1:1 dimension.

Today, armed with the knowledge of how things were done back then (and still to this day), one can approach a project with a small amount of information and derive the rest through logic. In this case, knowing that the model of this saucer was probably 48 inches in diameter is the starting point. The process to find the size of what would have been 1:1 if they had built it would begin by assigning a scale to the 48 inch model. At 1:24 scale, the real thing would have been 96 feet in diameter. By screen grabs we have seen, that just can not be the case. At 1:12 scale, the real thing would have been 48 feet in diameter, which is obviously too small. The scale between these two is 1:16 (3/8" to the foot), which makes the saucer 64 feet in diameter-- which appears to be the right size.

The only assumption made for this calculation is that the model is 48 inches in diameter. If the model was 36 inches in diameter, the scale work up would be this:

1:24 72 feet in diameter
1:16 48 feet in diameter
1:12 36 feet in diameter

One could argue that 72 feet is feasable and it would certainly give you more room inside for the interiors! But, because the model was built with the intention of being used possibly for hanging miniature shots, the 48 inch diameter makes more sense, because the photographic depth-of-field would be easier to hold. Then there is the idea that getting to the lights inside is easier when the model is that size. It also means you can cut a full circle out of a sheet of plywood easily, so it probably was not any larger than 48 inches.

Another reason for not going larger than 48 inches in diameter is that it would not fit easily into the bed of a pick-up truck. That is an actual consideration in low budget film projects-- how these things get carted around. For a TV show, if they needed a large truck to move the saucer, that would involve a Union driver. If it can fit into the back of someone's personal truck, anyone can move it!

The last thing everyone should know is the way we represent scale when writing. A scale is a ratio, properly represented as 1, being the original, separated with a colon from the divisor, which represents how many of the models it would take to equal the length of the original. So for automobile kits, the Imperial representation of a model that is made at 1/2" to the foot becomes 1:24, or "one to twenty-four". Most people use 1/24 to say this, which is technically correct in that the model is one twenty-forth the size of the original. But that is not a ratio, it is a fraction. I'm being picky here, but with a good reason. Many times you will hear 1:48 being called "quarter scale". It is true that 1:48 means a foot is 1/4 of an inch. But leaving the 'inch' out of "quarter inch scale" actually means you are referring to something that is one-quarter the size of 1:1-- or 1:4!

In writing about scale it is important to not confuse anyone, so using the ratio instead of representing the scale as a fraction is less confusing. Yeah, its definitely more picky...

And I'm sure some of you are wondering why automobile kits have two scales given-- 1:24 and 1:25. The first is Imperial (USA) and the second is Metric. By showing both scales, the model companies increase their sales abroad. It is actually incorrect, because a model can not be both one twenty-fourth AND one twenty-fifth the size of the original!!

I should also explain that my father was an architect. I grew up with this scale-stuff!

Scott


----------



## ernest

Thanks a lot CaptCBoard!
Your explanation was perfect!

This is the right picture of the scaler I have got yesterday:









I was very wrong in my assuptions on its use, now I am practicing to get familiar with the rule, as a first step.
I agree that if the people involved in the show worked in inches and feet it would be better to proceed the reconstruction using those standards.
At the begining, It was easier for me to guess measurements in my standard (metric) because of a matter of experience, but now that we are getting into a more fine tunning, I will change all my files to architectural imperial units.
This will be of great help because designer have the tendency to use round numbers for each component, i.e. 65 feet would be 19,82 meters, but if the designer would have been using Metric standard he or she would make it a round number to 20 meters. 
Now I am using a 3d software (similar to this: www.photomodeler.com) to determine measurements in some landing gear images, and will change to inches and feet so that I can get to a better result.
Thanks again CaptCBoard for your time answering and perfect explanation!

Ernest


----------



## CaptCBoard

I would not recommend changing your file to use Imperial dimensions. It is better for you to use the system you find natural to use because confusion may get in the way. It is easier for you to keep dimensions straight in your head in metric because that's the system you use in daily life. Simply having an understanding of what could have been in the head of the designers is enough so that when you come across something that seems a bit off in metric, you know to check it against what makes sense in Imperial. When you have finished this project you can always publish the file in both systems, so anyone using meters or feet can enjoy the results.

Scott


----------



## ernest

CaptCBoard said:


> I would not recommend changing your file to use Imperial dimensions. It is better for you to use the system you find natural to use because confusion may get in the way. It is easier for you to keep dimensions straight in your head in metric because that's the system you use in daily life. Simply having an understanding of what could have been in the head of the designers is enough so that when you come across something that seems a bit off in metric, you know to check it against what makes sense in Imperial. When you have finished this project you can always publish the file in both systems, so anyone using meters or feet can enjoy the results.
> 
> Scott


Thanks again Scott!

I am concious of this problem, so I have just printed a 10 feet tall paper with two scales in real size, (inches, feet, cm, meters) , and fixed it to the wall in my office. In this way I plan to understand the most common measurements in the new standard. For Instance the height of a door, the height of a chair and the diference to an armchair, the normal height to a window lintel and ledge, the normal height for a table, or the height of a safe handrail, or the distance between steps in a ladder, and so on.
If I get not used to it, I will stay in meters, but if I can "translate" it to my brain, it will be way better!
We will see.

Anyway whatever the way, I agree with you that it will be better to publish in both systems so that we can all think in our own standards.
I will.


Ernest


----------



## starseeker

In the civilized world, where metric has always made sense, models are made to a rational scale, like Heller's 1/50, 1/100, 1/125 scale spacecraft and ships, etc. I believe that was always considered "engineer's scale".
In the imperial backwaters, we've always used 1/48, 1/96, 1/144, etc. The Fox Irwin Allen blueprints that I have copies of are in scales like 1/24 (1" = 24") for the full scale Jupiter 2 exteriors and interiors and the Chariot, 1/48 and 1/96 (1" = 4' and 1" = 8') for the Seaview exterior and control room, 1/16 (3/4" = 1") for the Time Tunnel and Planet of the Apes ship and the Spindrift, etc).
When someone says that the Invaders saucer miniature was 4' in diameter, that's the same as David Vincent saying it was about however big he said it was. It's just a guess and Vincent's guess may more reliable than whoever is saying that it was 4'. We simply don't know where the miniature diameter came from. And if it did come from a reliable source, unless they had a tape measure with them, it could have been 42", 44", 45", tho' I agree that 48" is a logical upper limit. 
People always assume that all the dimensions of sets and miniatures are even, logical numbers. They're not. They're not even close. If you check out the Fox LIS blueprints I posted at:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/Fox LIS Blueprints/
you'll see all kinds of odd fractions that are very definite and very not an even division or rounding of anything (lots of measurements like 1' 3-3/4" or 2' 7") (hmmm, maybe that comes out to something round in metric?). In fact, in the J2s lower deck laboratory, the dimensions of the outer wall are left approximate. I think with the complex angles and trying to fit an existing "test bench" into the space, even the draftsmen couldn't figure out what the result would be. 
And even if we had the miniature to measure, that might not help you much if the miniature wasn't designed to accommodate the interior. And because the miniature shops were cropped and matted, the miniature might not match its screen appearance. 
So lots of ifs and lots of room for leeway.
Once you have your interior the way you want it, once we have the shape of the saucer nailed, then its just a matter of you scaling the exterior to fit your interior. If it works, it's as accurate as it needs to be and as accurate as it ever could be. Personally I'm leaning toward a saucer 65-70' in diameter. I figure that when it comes to interplanetary spacecraft, even if they're being dropped by a mother ship or jumping through a tunnel in space, bigger has to be better.


----------



## ernest

Interesting view Starseeker!

To make it worse, I can say Projects Blueprints will never be as the built object.
In Architectural work we use to create a set of new plans as soon as the building was finished, to match all the changes that were done during the construction process.

Another interesting thing I have learned in my first job, is a phrase that use to be written in detail blueprints that in english would be more or les like this:
"All measurements should be taken in the Site" this is because every worker might deal with their own imperfections, so that a given room of 3 meters in the blueprints could be built 3,02 m or 9,98 m. So the kitchen furniture workers use to have a normalized piece of furniture which can be repeated and a special piece that should be made specially to size to fit the existing space between walls.

Regarding the saucer diameter, we do not know the exact size, but I know it would be about 4 feet. This is an aproximated guess.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> Once you have your interior the way you want it, once we have the shape of the saucer nailed, then its just a matter of you scaling the exterior to fit your interior. If it works, it's as accurate as it needs to be and as accurate as it ever could be. Personally I'm leaning toward a saucer 65-70' in diameter. I figure that when it comes to interplanetary spacecraft, even if they're being dropped by a mother ship or jumping through a tunnel in space, bigger has to be better.


Well it is not that easy. The reason for the inconvenient is that the "exterior" includes the landing gear, and the landing gear includes the ladder.
If you scale it too much you will need a giant to climb that ladder.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Ok, for now I will forget the interior.
Here I am concentrating in the shape and scale of the landing gear.
I assume this is a prety accurate model measured from images.










The next step will be to scale the saucer to match this landing gear and see what happens.

Each side of the pentagon at the top is 14feet 6 inches or 4,43 meters.
As you could see the ladder determines certain scale which cannot be stretched so much.
The height of the landing gear from ground to top is 12 feet (sounds logic) which would be 3,66 meters.
I trust this measurements because I used a software to calculate them from several screencaptures.
The angle of the main planes (where the ladders are installed) is 75 degrees, which sounds logic too.
The distance from step to step is 16 inches, or 40 centimeters which is rather high although acceptable.
If you draw a circle on the ground, passing through the centers of each tube it will be a 26 feet diameter circle, which looks very small for a 65 feet saucer...

The landing pods resulted way thicker than I though previously... perhaps another unconcious influence from the Aurora model kit!

These were not thought thinking in a folding mechanism, but just to be built, unbuild and transported to the locations.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

This is the elevation:










The square grid behind is 1 meter by 1 meter.
Or 39 1/3 inches by 39 1/3 inches.

Ernest


----------



## mach7

Pardon me if this has been brought up, It's a long thread and I may have missed it.

The cinematographer would choose lenses that gave the appearance of what the director wanted. This sometimes greatly distorted what is seen on screen from what the real landscape looked like. 

Now we can expect the model shots to be consistent from shot to shot, (they were all filmed at the same effects house I believe), but can we say the same for the landing gear? 

In "Panic", the area looks to be wide open, but "The Saucer" was filmed in Vasquez Rocks. A much more confined area. I would bet that the lenses were different, possibly distorting the look of the legs. 

might this affect the dimensions pulled from a screen shot?

Below are a screen capture from "The Saucer" and a photo I took of the same location last September. While the path Annie and Bob are walking on looks long, in reality it is much shorter. In the photo I took, I had to stand back quite a bit to get the rocks in view. 

I don't want to muddie the waters on what has been a great discussion.


----------



## starmanmm

hun... also looks like the scene from ST Arena.


----------



## ernest

You are right Mach 7
Nice picture! thanks for sharing it!!!

One of the data needed to start a project in a photo matching modeler software is focal lens used in the picture.
We have no idea what lens they used, since as you pointed they use to change the lens to help the script ambience, or the location caracteristics.
To make it worse at that time ZOOM lens were a standard equipment so the focal lens could be any number.

Coming back to your sample, at first sight it seems that you used a focal length longer than the used in the tv show, that makes shorte the distances. The lens used in the screen capture seems wider compared with your lens, because distances looks longer. Anyway It is harder to say in natural landscape scene.
But in urban square entourage it is way easy since we know that everything is 90 degrees and we may know the measurements of a curb or a car or a lighting fixture, which would help to determine the right focal length in case we do not know it.
In our case all we had is the landing gear which is a great shape (pentagonal) where we know for sure that the 5 pods are the same size, they are arranged in a circle, so we know that each pod is rotated 72 degrees with reference to the previous, and we have certain help knowing the aproximated height of the actors, so it is possible to get the right focal length superimposing a 3d model with the picture.
The rule I used is this:
(we need at least two landing pods visible)
If the landing pod near the camera matches the picture, and the landing pod behind it looks larger compared to the picture, this means you are using a larger focal lens than correct.
On the other hand if the landing pod at the back looks smaller compared the one in the picture it is because we are using a too wide angle lens.
One we have two or more pictures even with diferet focal lenghts the software can interpolate info between them, and the work turns easier.
Using as much pictures as you could will make everything more and more accurate. (It is a great software)

Wideangles show objetcts in the background very small meanwhile the objects near the camera looks exagerated big.
The telephoto lens do the oposite, they have the tendency to enlarge objetcs in the background so that the diference between foreground is not that noticeable. 








That is why these lens use to flatten the image, on the other hand wides exagerate perspective.
From a composition viewpoint the wides are more DRAMATIC, and the teles are more STATIC. This is used to enhace the script.
For instance in "The Mutation" the aliens under the sauce that were going to use their ray cannon trhough one of the pods round holes, mounted on a tripod, is a very WIDE angle scene consistent with the needed dramatism.










Ernest


----------



## mach7

starmanmm said:


> hun... also looks like the scene from ST Arena.


It is! around the back side is the Gorn Rock. It's also where I suspect the saucer was in "The Saucer" but I have yet to find the exact location.

It's also where "The Alternative Factor", "Shore Leave", and "Friday's Child"

Where filmed. "The Leeches" was also filmed there.


Enest,
Wow! Thanks for explaining. It sounds like you have really thought of everything.


----------



## flyingfrets

Having followed this thread off & on for quite awhile, I have to say, I agree with starseeker..."once we have the shape of the saucer nailed, then its just a matter of you scaling the exterior to fit your interior.* If it works, it's as accurate as it needs to be."*

I understand that the research for a project can be as rewarding as building/engineering a model, but in many ways, it almost seems that you're *over*-thinking it. Accuracy is wonderful & appreciated, but in the end, you can drive yourself too hard and you'll never be satisfied with the "finished" result. You can end up tweaking it until everyone else loses interest, but you're still not "done." I only pass that on because I've fallen victim to the syndrome myself.

I'd be willing to bet the thought you've put into this project exceeds the efforts by the builders of the original prop by a factor of 100...and I mean that as a compliment. But that's a double-edged sword. Since it doesn't appear that the original build was documented all that well, all you have to go on are best guesses, some grainy screen caps and maybe some reminicences of guys that are either no longer with us, or so old they won't be for much longer. 

Just remember to keep it all in its proper perspective...and have *fun *with it!

Best wishes on your endeavor...
'Frets


----------



## starseeker

Ernest, I've looked over every picture I can find of the landing gear with people in it and I have to say that your elevation of the landing gear looks as close as it could possibly be. In your elevation, the ~1.5m diameter opening in the gear seems correct. But that stupid hole has to be about the same size as the dome on the bottom of the saucer. It can't be smaller. If you use the dome on the bottom of the saucer as 1 unit on a ruler, then the saucer is about 9.33 units in diameter. 1.5m by 9.33 units is about 12.5 m (41'). 
The one scale I didn't mention that the Fox bps include is 1" = 1', which is the size of the Jupiter 2 blueprints. Given the fuzziness of the mattes it's possible that the saucer could be a little larger or the bottom dome a little smaller than the screen grabs indicate. Perhaps the approx 4' saucer miniature was 1/12 scale. I hate the idea of that, I have to admit, and would reject it out of hand, even if it does scale the mattes to the size of humans. I want the saucer to fit two levels as much as you do.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Ian's point about the size of the domes and the holes in the 1:1 landing gear is something I never thought of. That distinction only matters if the landing gear was going to be used in the retracted position on a 1:1 size saucer though! I know from my own experiences that things get 'cheated', made differently as originally designed, to accommodate something in the filming process that was not foreseen in the design process. So the holes could have wound up larger either because no one paid attention to what size they should be to reflect the design referenced by the miniature or some one simply said to make the holes larger for some reason we'll never know.

In the end, the only thing happening here is someone is trying to make the interior fit a logical version of the exterior. But, with the way Ernest is able to get things to line up, chances are at least some of the interiors were designed to fit into the confines of the exterior. My thought is that, from the outset, at least a partial interior was designed to fit into the exterior shape. Perhaps someone just defined the usable interior space when the saucer was blueprinted for the miniature to be built and then designed the subsequent sets.

A lot of this stuff fits without much modification to what is seen on film and none of it 'just doesn't fit'. Lets face it-- the stuff on Star Trek fits without question because the totality of what we have seen of the sets does not fill the space suggested by the exterior miniature. I guess you could say the shuttle bay doesn't fit the space it is supposed to occupy, but the rest is unquestioned because there is just no way to make a comparison. 

In the confines of the saucer as seen on The Invaders, the set designers had only a small space they could use, so what was seen did not seem out of place-- that it probably fit inside what is defined by the saucer shape. It only makes sense that they'd have designed a logically fitting interior-- and that is what Ernest has found out. So, he has done exactly what the original designers did, without knowing exactly how big the exterior was. 

On the other hand, the designers were not actually constrained to specific dimensions, the sets only had to LOOK like they would fit. If this is the case, Ernest's version of what was built is simply fitting into a possibly larger version of the exterior, one which happens to look correct for size when compared to the shots from the show. The actual miniature could very well be the size as Ian defines it and the sets could have been designed to be just a bit larger than what would fit into that space. 

But, Ian's version is only based on having the size of the domes be identical from miniature to 1:1 set. That distinction would not have been all that important to the designers, but the size of the hole in the landing gear, from an artistic point of view, would have. I think the short version of what I'm getting at is this--

The exterior dimensions as defined by Ernest's design of the interior is probably very close and is verified by the guess at the size of the miniature. Trying to define the size of the miniature by using the size of the domes in the miniature versus the size of the holes in the 1:1 landing gear is not as solid a method since so many other things work against it.

I just thought of something that I don't think anyone has brought up before. In the filming process, the FX guys would have set the camera up and shot footage that is not shown. This footage would have some kind of reference for the space occupied by the saucer. It could be as simple as two guys standing equidistant from the center of the saucer's location, so that the space between them was a set dimension. This footage would give the guys doing the optical composite of the saucer a reference for the outer edges of its image. Once that was set, then the hero footage could have the saucer dropped in and it would be the correct size. So, SOMEONE knew the size of the actual saucer!

Second thought-- this to Ian. You say the holes in the landing gear are too large. I'm wondering by how much. Is it a small amount or quite significant?

Scott


----------



## Avian

Fascinating thread! For fun, I put 4 of my CG saucer models together in one shot. I did the Invaders a while ago but tweaked it to conform with Earnest's profile. Never got around to putting in the landing gear or any kind of interior though... 

The diameter I used was 64 feet. The C57-D is 170 feet, original Jupiter 2 is 52 feet, and the new Jupiter 2 from the web series is 98 feet.



--Ron H


----------



## thepixelpusher

CaptCBoard, the studio model was indeed roughly 4 feet in diameter if that helps. BTW, I have your 2001 EVA pod and it is excellent.

The saucer model was vacuformed with Royalite plastic over a plaster mold, the same procedure as the Star Trek Enterprise domes. Both the Star Trek Enterprise and The Invaders saucer were done by Productions Models Shop. I've talked to Mel Keys who built it. He is still alive, though sadly Richard Datin passed away this last year. Richard has been wrongly credited with making the saucer. Richard oversaw the Trek Enterprise modelmaking for the studio, but wasn't part of the hired staff of Productions Model Shop in Burbank, CA. The Invaders saucer was the same light matte gray color as the Enterprise. I've got tons more on the saucer (behind the scenes) and I have some more stuff coming, but I've been so busy with work, my sitebuilding to put them all up is on the backburner for now. Most I could do lately was give Ernest help on the model here.

Here's some pictures from a french book I have on The Invaders.


----------



## JAT

Those are great photos. I always love to see the behind the scenes work that goes into the making of a show, or even just a shot. And, without knowing anyones particular height in these shots, it looks as though Ernest is pretty darn close in hie estimations. When you do find the time, I'm really looking forward to your Invaders site, as well as the planned book. Great fun. JAT


----------



## JAT

Something else occurred, looking at the above images. Those landing supports are fairly substantial in their construction, even without actually being solid metal. What would any one of those elements have weighed? Reason I'm wondering is that I'm looking at those now seemingly spindly metal rods supporting the entire construct. Would love to peel off the skin of one of those supports to get a look at its construction. Also wondering about that curved piece laying on the ground. Hmmm. And why on earth (excuse unintended pun) didn't they go ahead and build a full diameter base to attach to the top of the supports, to create the proper shadows and give us, the viewing audience a better up close view of the ships underside? Yeah, I know, cost, and possibly it matted better without a base, but still...And I don't remember seeing any creases in those supports before. Aghhh, just two pictures and now so many questions. JAT


----------



## ernest

JAT said:


> Something else occurred, looking at the above images. Those landing supports are fairly substantial in their construction, even without actually being solid metal. What would any one of those elements have weighed? Reason I'm wondering is that I'm looking at those now seemingly spindly metal rods supporting the entire construct. Would love to peel off the skin of one of those supports to get a look at its construction. Also wondering about that curved piece laying on the ground. Hmmm. And why on earth (excuse unintended pun) didn't they go ahead and build a full diameter base to attach to the top of the supports, to create the proper shadows and give us, the viewing audience a better up close view of the ships underside? Yeah, I know, cost, and possibly it matted better without a base, but still...And I don't remember seeing any creases in those supports before. Aghhh, just two pictures and now so many questions. JAT



The construction technology can be see through the opened sides.
It is called baloom frame, 



















and consist in a wooden structure similar to a grid, with a skin covering the planes, in this case of some kind of wooden pannels as Hardboard Plywood or Others. The diagonals are the most important piece from the structural point of view, since they determine the strenght of the whole framing, since triangles are the only poligonal shape that is undeformable. Those creases are wooden sheet joints and can be seen because of that particular sunlight angle that exagerates the imperfections. They will never be seen with the apropiated light angle! The joints should be covered with putty, sanded, and everything painted silver.
It is called light structure. I do not think one person could support one of those pods, but compared to steel, concrete or brick, inded they are light structures.
The curved wall is here because the camera angles planned for this episode (The Saucer) needed to look through the opening hatch from a low angle, so that it would be seen as the wall in the lower deck of the saucer.
It can be seen here, in this screen capture in a studio scene: http://www.theinvaders.4t.com/en_index.htm (get into The Saucers section) images marked in the plan as TS8 and TS9.
This was the ONLY room in the LOWER DECK that is visible in "The Saucer".










It also can be seen in this lower deck plan. You will find it because it is the only interior CURVED wall near the interior ladder to the upper deck.










Thanks Pixelpusher those are great pictures, I will superimpose the 3D model on those images to check accuracy. This episode "The Saucer" is my favorite!

Ernest


----------



## Highlighter

Fantastic posts, an amazing amount of information, models, photos everyone's been putting in this subject, hello everyone as I've not posted here before.

I started modeling an "Invaders" saucer a few years back -- wish I'd stumbled on this then, would have helped! I've had the Monogram model sitting on my shelve for years but the more I got into it the more I realized how much it differed from the TV show. I went through all the episodes and ended with using frame grabs from episodes "The Innocents" and "Panic" for the body shape, pretty much the same another post mentioned, they were about the only direct side on perspectives I could find. I pulled some grabs from the "The Saucer" and "The Life Seekers" for the landing legs.

I'd put it a side for some time and started on it again recently, I've posted some images below, one where it's at now plus an earlier one's before the top rotating lights were and I realized they were green, plus in and one where I tried it over a frame pulled from "Beachhead".

Thanks, these posts have really been fun and interesting reading. -- Jon


----------



## ernest

3D model compared to Photograph


----------



## thepixelpusher

That is amazing Ernest!


----------



## JAT

thepixelpusher said:


> That is amazing Ernest!


 Agreed, at first I passed by thinking you had reposted the above images. Then I took a closer look, WOW. And thanks for the above information. Still not sure how those skinny metal legs upheld the mass and weight of the landing supports (much less an entire ship). Must be some substantial bracing going on inside those frameworks, or some crazy alien metalurgy or engineering? Also, this set-build seems less than level, yet once inside the ship I don't recall any list. again, crazy alien engineering. JAT


----------



## Highlighter

On the subject of landing gear, there appear to 4 holes drilled into the side of the pole feet no doubt so they could be locked off at different lengths. 
These were probably parts of cannibalized stands or chairs but they may have been turned in the machine shop. It’s hard to tell if the holes on both sides of the feet. -- Jon


----------



## JAT

Highlighter said:


> On the subject of landing gear, there appear to 4 holes drilled into the side of the pole feet no doubt so they could be locked off at different lengths.
> These were probably parts of cannibalized stands or chairs but they may have been turned in the machine shop. It’s hard to tell if the holes on both sides of the feet. -- Jon


 Wow, never noticed those before, and they appear to taper at the very bottom, look like table legs to me. But if they're hollow that makes it that much harder to grasp their ability to support that much weight. Perhaps the five landing supports all leaning on one another supported the bulk of the weight and therefor needed very little else to remain stable in that "lifted" configuration. Also, this all had to support guys, maybe 170-180 pounds climbing up and down those steps. Must have been pretty well thought out. JAT


----------



## ernest

JAT said:


> Agreed, at first I passed by thinking you had reposted the above images. Then I took a closer look, WOW. And thanks for the above information. Still not sure how those skinny metal legs upheld the mass and weight of the landing supports (much less an entire ship). Must be some substantial bracing going on inside those frameworks, or some crazy alien metalurgy or engineering? Also, this set-build seems less than level, yet once inside the ship I don't recall any list. again, crazy alien engineering. JAT


Here we are facing a problem that could not be solved with alien sophistcated metalurgic technology, because the weak point is the GROUND.
The first thing you should do when starting the construction of a building is calculating the weight that this particular ground can support.
Usually the foundations need to distribute the weight of the building in a big surface, as can be seen in this brick wall section.








Our case seems to be the oposite since this design is CONCENTRATING the weight in a small area.
One of these ships (as described by George Adamski in the USA or Alberto Perego in Italy) could be 20 Tons. If we have only 10 small areas of 25 cm2, this would give a presure of 800 kg/cm2 which would probably sink nailing the ground. That was the reason for the early proposal of a skate, under the pods.
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3770022&postcount=218 
That would help to redistrubute the weight again, like in the Apollo LM









Highlighter, I haven´t noticed those holes before! Very interesting!

ernest


----------



## ernest

Here I have found something interesting from the geometric point of view.
It is related to the number 5 of all the alien designs in the invaders.
As you may know each side of a penthagon is rotated 72 degrees.
If we would like to create a 3d volume made with pentagonal faces, we get a Dodecahedron.



















So in my previous elevation I thought that each pod was angled 75 degrees: I was wrong , it is 72 degrees, which seems consistent with this particular alien culture!


















Look at this odd pentagonal buttons!
These guys had a strong obsesion with number five 

Have just remembered the pentagonal pyramid in mars...









Ernest


----------



## ernest

Another weird thing:










This is the only time I remember they used the two unfolded ladders....
I wonder if they were supposed to have two opening hatches?

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

2 ladders, 2 hatches. That would be my guess. Though, that is sure to cause interior issues I'd imagine.


----------



## starseeker

This is the saucer profile I've gone with for both the plaster masters. Apologies for the horrible roughness of the drawing but I just did a rough cut and paste and haven't cleaned the image up at all. Ernest, in retrospect, your idea of the convex bottom surface seems not only elegant but absolutely necessary to account for the wedge shape of the landing gear profile. In the drawing, both decks would have to be moved up 1/4" to fit but they still will fit. At 24" in diameter, this Saucer would have be a minimum 1/32 scale or 76 3/4' in diameter for both decks to fit. Hoped today to start in on a master for the saucer bottom but it's already taken me two hours this morning to tidy up this drawing (you should have seen it before) and get it posted. Sigh.


----------



## Mark Dorais

Starseeker....your drawing looks great. Looking forward to seeing more images of your plaster masters!


----------



## starseeker

This is what my fine scale modelling looks like this summer. One is a Gemini 12 lower hull scaled to the Moebius kit getting mudded/plastered. The other is the 16 and 24" saucers with several coats so far, getting the shape closer, and 24" Gemini 12 and Jupiter 2 lower hulls, still early on, tho' looking a lot better than the Spindrift, which I hope to get going on again soon.
The landing gear on the Saucer has me stumped. Pictures show their sides angled sharply toward the center axis of the saucer, which they have to be. But that would leave deep V shaped grooves in the bottom of the saucer when they're retracted. Weirdly, even tho' my Saucer seems to be much larger in diameter than I think the miniature was supposed to represent, the spacing of the rungs on the leg's ladder exactly matches the 7 rung spacing on the interior ladders. Maybe I made a mistake when I calculated earlier that the miniature seemed to represent a Saucer about 41' in diameter? 
But how am I going to get the gear to fold? Is it physically possible that they can? Or perhaps this has to be two models, a Saucer placed on top of the open gear, the same way the Saucer was matted over a physical landing gear set?


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> This is what my fine scale modelling looks like this summer. One is a Gemini 12 lower hull scaled to the Moebius kit getting mudded/plastered. The other is the 16 and 24" saucers with several coats so far, getting the shape closer, and 24" Gemini 12 and Jupiter 2 lower hulls, still early on, tho' looking a lot better than the Spindrift, which I hope to get going on again soon.
> The landing gear on the Saucer has me stumped. Pictures show their sides angled sharply toward the center axis of the saucer, which they have to be. But that would leave deep V shaped grooves in the bottom of the saucer when they're retracted. Weirdly, even tho' my Saucer seems to be much larger in diameter than I think the miniature was supposed to represent, the spacing of the rungs on the leg's ladder exactly matches the 7 rung spacing on the interior ladders. Maybe I made a mistake when I calculated earlier that the miniature seemed to represent a Saucer about 41' in diameter?
> But how am I going to get the gear to fold? Is it physically possible that they can? Or perhaps this has to be two models, a Saucer placed on top of the open gear, the same way the Saucer was matted over a physical landing gear set?



Starseeker,

I Love your models and would like to have your well equiped working space too!

Regarding your concern about the landing gear working mechanism that could be compatible with the clean look when in flight configuration, I thought of this mechanical solution:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3846571&postcount=418
Pleasse do not look at proportions, nor scale, they are just a rough 3d model to test the possible solution that could avoid leaving deep V shaped grooves in the bottom of the saucer when they're retracted.
I know it is rather complex, but take it as a first aproach to the solution. I am sure it can be simplified so that it might be possible to build a working phisical model.

Great models Avian!
Highlighter, yours are great too! and very good photo composites!
Thanks JAT, Scot, and Pixelpusher for your help in this Brainstorm!
Specially ThePixelpusher for your great reference Material!!

Ernest


----------



## ernest

flyingfrets said:


> Having followed this thread off & on for quite awhile, I have to say, I agree with starseeker..."once we have the shape of the saucer nailed, then its just a matter of you scaling the exterior to fit your interior.* If it works, it's as accurate as it needs to be."*
> 
> I understand that the research for a project can be as rewarding as building/engineering a model, but in many ways, it almost seems that you're *over*-thinking it. Accuracy is wonderful & appreciated, but in the end, you can drive yourself too hard and you'll never be satisfied with the "finished" result. You can end up tweaking it until everyone else loses interest, but you're still not "done." I only pass that on because I've fallen victim to the syndrome myself.
> 
> I'd be willing to bet the thought you've put into this project exceeds the efforts by the builders of the original prop by a factor of 100...and I mean that as a compliment. But that's a double-edged sword. Since it doesn't appear that the original build was documented all that well, all you have to go on are best guesses, some grainy screen caps and maybe some reminicences of guys that are either no longer with us, or so old they won't be for much longer.
> 
> Just remember to keep it all in its proper perspective...and have *fun *with it!
> 
> Best wishes on your endeavor...
> 'Frets


I agree with all this, and specially with the final conclusion. This is about having Fun!
If this starts to be a problem, we should better stop it!

Ernest


----------



## starseeker

ernest said:


> Regarding your concern about the landing gear working mechanism that could be compatible with the clean look when in flight configuration, I thought of this mechanical solution:
> 
> Ernest


Of course! - I'd forgotten your idea. It makes sense mechanically and aesthetically. I was thinking about outer panels that would drop away till the edges cleared but this is much better and probably much more simple to engineer in the restricted interior spaces.
I was puzzling over how to make the lights in the light ring spin. One could use a mechanical method, lights on the ends of spinning rods. That would be best but wouldn't fit with an interior. One could use surface mount leds in a chaser circuit but that would involve a lot pf relatively expensive leds and as we've found with the Jupiter 2 chasers just don't look right compared to the original mechanical effect. But perhaps there's some way of inserting a spinning screen between the light source and the outer hull. I don't know how mechanically feasible that would be but I'm going to keep think about it. 
Anyway, thanks very much Ernest! Amazing work!


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> I was puzzling over how to make the lights in the light ring spin.


Thanks starseeker, Now the chineese manufactures a wide option of leds stipes.
Some of them are denser (very close leds) and they also have the circuitry included into the stripe that makes the spinning effect.

http://www.opto-led.com/Products/LED-Strips/SMD-3528-Strips/

This may be interesting for you rotating solution.






Or using something like this:








An acrylic fixed disc that would transmit light to the outer ring from a central source, that could have a small rotating hood arround a single fixed lamp. I do not trust big diameter rotating things since they should be very well balanced to avoid vibrations and noise.

Ernest


----------



## Fernando Mureb

ernest said:


> This may be interesting for you rotating solution.
> 
> ‪Retrobrad Presents! A Flying animation on a spinning LED display.‬‏ - YouTube
> 
> Ernest


My God!! I wonder if would still remain something to be invented. 

Great post!! Amazing thread!!

Congratulations Ernest. :thumbsup:


----------



## swhite228

ernest said:


> Or using something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An acrylic fixed disc that would transmit light to the outer ring from a central source, that could have a small rotating hood arround a single fixed lamp. I do not trust big diameter rotating things since they should be very well balanced to avoid vibrations and noise.
> 
> Ernest


The problem with a flat disc is that you will get a glow through out the edge of the disc which is caused by the light reflecting off the top, bottom, and sides of the disk.

The disc plastic in effect becomes a large cross section of fiber optic.

The effect you would see would be like a light house where you see a glow that ramps up to a flash, then back to a glow.

You might want to cut pie wedges for the plastic that could be placed in the windows with the narrow end at the center pointing to a spinning pipe with a slit in the side over a lamp.


----------



## starseeker

Just thought I'd completely muddy the waters, because that's what I do best. Dug my old crusty, bruised, and battered Testor's can sprayed Aurora kit out of the attic and held it at various angles, to see what the bottom looked like, as the first step in figuring out for myself what the bottom angles should look like. First thing I noticed was that I wasn't seeing quite right, as the domes on the bottom appeared to be tilted already with the flat bottom. So I held the model up to a photo of the saucer on screen and tried to match the angle and took a picture. The picture is aurora1, below. Matched the size of the saucer photo to the size of aurora1, which is saucerbg below. And put one over top of the other, also below, but it's kind of hard to see through the layers. 
But what I'm pretty sure I'm seeing both with my eye and in aurora1 photo is that even with the flat bottom, because of the domes placement and angle of viewing, the domes seem to tilt. And almost exactly to the degree that the photo of the saucer shows. 
There's no question in my mind that the outer edge of the bottom of the saucer is angled. But now I'm not sure about the central ring. In this capture from the beginning, it looks quite flat to me. 
????


----------



## ernest

You are Right Starseeker.
(good pictures!)
There is a perspective distortion here, that makes this a more tricky issue!
Anyway I still am inclined to think the bottom is not flat.
Here I will try to explain my assumptions:

We know for sure that the outer ring is conical because of this picture published by ThePixelpusher:










The second observation that I made is that in the Aurora model as well as in the TV show model the height between the central red lens and the controversial plane where the domes are inserted seems to be the same as the height between the last and the outer ring that we agree as conical in the TV show, and that was made flat in the Aurora model.

Therefore if the outer ring is conical, the main bottom plane containing the domes should be conical too!
In the same way if the outer ring would be flat, the main bottom plane should be flat too.

But there would not be possible to have a outer ring conical and a main bottom plane flat, because the mentioned heights wouldn´t be the same.

I wonder if you can do the same comparison with the other studio photograph... I assume it is a wideangle image which would make the comparison more difficult.


----------



## ernest

Apart from you (hobbytalk forum users) I have resistence in my own office (at work). This has became a geometric puzzle and some Architects and Ingeneers here crazy enough to get involved in the solution of this tricky issue have just gave me a geometric proof that it is a conical bottom, although they all were guessing it was flat. It is obvious that there is something here that is tricking the eye, but look at this demonstration. (thanks Sebastian)










The explanation:
As you could see in the plan view, the lines that simulates the retracted landing gear joints in the bottom of the saucer should be symetrical.
As the pentagonal shape and the location of the 5 domes are symetrical too, we could establish a relationship between the two systems.

As you could see in the same drawing the two oposite domes are equidistant to the extended joints at an angle of 5 dregrees (in this case)
If it would be a flat plane it would be noticeable and measured in the photograph.
The only explanation for this apparent missalignment that can be verified in the picture is that the domes and the extended joints are at a diferent height, which is the ultimate proof of the conical bottom.

Ernest


----------



## starseeker

Brilliant, Ernest, brilliant. Thanks again and thank you, too, Sebastian!


----------



## Fernando Mureb

I'm sorry. my poor skills in geometry did not allow me to understand, but I believe in you anyway!


----------



## Highlighter

That light chaser is really cool, I’ve never seen one like that before.

One the landing gear: It’s puzzling that the landing gear lines carved in the model photo (seems like the one and only) never seem to be apparent even once in the show. Even in The Pit” (see photo) which despite the distortion effect, does show the base fairly clearly and I would have thought a line would have appeared in at least one frame. The same goes for “The Peacemaker” shots also. -- Jon


----------



## ernest

Nice screen captures Highlighter!

I am not sure if I am suffering alucinations but I believe there is one of the joints in the lower left image that I published again here:










Anyway remember that the 3 rims arround the upper hull were neither clearly seen in the DVDs , and they were several times thicker compared to the bottom joints.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

This is one of the best creen captures (by ThePixelpusher) we have, and I cannot see any trace of those joints nor the 3 rims.
The great thing about the distorted saucer from The Pit, is that it is a closeup and as result it can show more detail.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Here I have just found something that could be interesting, and might explain the optic illussion or the trick to the eye.










The green plastic domes seems to be mounted on some kind of rim, as it is seen in the picture. Anyway the bottom of the rims seem to be perfectly horizontal.
They look partially hidden by the conical bottom in which they are inserted, giving the appearance that they have a variable height.

When the ambient light is dimm and the green lamps looks brighter all we see is the joint between the green transparent plastic and their rims (which is perfectly horizontal) , but not the real joint between the rims and the conical bottom (which are really sloped)

Anyway we have the optical distortion that Starseeker pointed that makes things more tricky.
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3858839&postcount=491

This could explain the tricky interpretations!

The same seems to show here too, in this croped closeup from "the peacemaker":









Ernest


----------



## Highlighter

On “The Pit” captures, thanks Ernest for the compliment by the way. On the line: I think you’re right, I thought it was a scratch as it only seems to appear in the one frame but comparing it to the model photo it does seem to be in about the right place. Too bad the alternating distortion effect makes it difficult to see.

“The Peacemaker” photo is one of the best shots, I’m surprised the lines don’t register, I had a good look at that, I think the red glow is flattening out the detail out somewhat, plus looks like they were filming with a lot of smoke most of the time. -- Jon


----------



## ernest

swhite228 said:


> The problem with a flat disc is that you will get a glow through out the edge of the disc which is caused by the light reflecting off the top, bottom, and sides of the disk.
> 
> The disc plastic in effect becomes a large cross section of fiber optic.
> 
> The effect you would see would be like a light house where you see a glow that ramps up to a flash, then back to a glow.
> 
> You might want to cut pie wedges for the plastic that could be placed in the windows with the narrow end at the center pointing to a spinning pipe with a slit in the side over a lamp.


I understand swhite.
It would be a lot more work than I expected.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

Okay, I didn't review this against all my images, but I combined your newer profile and older one to get this. Seems very close. I know these are roughs, but the top of the saucer seems a bit flatter (see yellow line). The top radius that meets the top might be a bit tighter too. The lip on the main engine near the lens is probably more rounded than I show it here (see B&W image below).

The main engine height is also taller. Look at the new stuff to see what I mean.

"Panic" episode seems to have the best profile. I have the slide for this shot. I'll scan it and see if I have a better reference for you.


----------



## ernest

This is the new landing mechanism using the tested landing gears.
The only change in the landing pods was the curved interior face.









The 5 shields that locks the landing pods (in yellow) in their flying configuration are just one piece.
The previous version needed two pieces each of them which was complex too much.
I added a last movement after the pods are unfolded, so that it will match better the images in the TV show in "The Saucer", so the shields come back to their intitial position.

http://invaders-ware.netfirms.com/saucer_2-2_004.jpg

Now the domes are installed on rims which bottom borders are horizontal, although their upper border is sloped as it is intersecting the conical bottom
It seems that it will be possible to create a phisical model of the saucer with working landing gears, and that could look as in the TV show in both configurations (flying and landing)
I haven´t tried the interior yet, but I doubt that in this version would fit, since the landing mechanism is taken too much interior space.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> "Panic" episode seems to have the best profile. I have the slide for this shot. I'll scan it and see if I have a better reference for you.


Thanks Thepixelpusher! that would be great









This is the section of the previous model. (version number 90)
The interior is scaled so that the aliens would be in the right scale with the exterior ladders.
The lower deck cannot fit here.
The central room would be too small therefore the back wall of the cabin would be too narow compared to the TV show scenes.
We will have to scale down the interior to make it look like in The Saucer and Dark Outpost, and the compromise will be the redesign of the space between steps in the exterior ladders.

Ernest


----------



## starseeker

The bottom of the Saucer seems to be one giant optical illusion. Not matter what angle you look at it from, it seems to asymmetrical in the direction you're looking. At least when 24" in diameter. I've begun mocking it up on .040. The first time around, using my last drawing posted above, the center light seemed way to shallow. So I've deepened the conical recess 1/8", about half way between my drawing and pixel's, above. That seems plenty deep enough now. Which is lucky, as ot's all I can manage and keep two levels inside while keeping the scale of 1/32 for a 24' model. At present, the outer edge is still taped and curing. I haven't figured out how I'm going to reinforce that outer edge yet. Next up I'll start laying out the landing gear, box the gear bays, and cut them out. Then I'll see if it's possible to make the gear work. I do have my doubts.
Apologies for showing you something that looks so rough but this is little more than a 3D 3D drawing, to see how everything looks and fits together. Despite appearances, the outer rim does angle down as the radius increases. Even in photos, the whole thing seems one giant optical illusion. Weird.


----------



## fortress

I loved that show and more to the point the old Aurora kit, man that ship use to
scare me pretty good when I was a kid, seems silly now, I feell sorry next generation
I grew up on Star Trek, Lost in Space, VTTBS, and the Invaders, man that was when
TV was really cooking.

Really enjoying this topic!

fortress


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> The bottom of the Saucer seems to be one giant optical illusion. Not matter what angle you look at it from, it seems to asymmetrical in the direction you're looking. At least when 24" in diameter. I've begun mocking it up on .040. The first time around, using my last drawing posted above, the center light seemed way to shallow. So I've deepened the conical recess 1/8", about half way between my drawing and pixel's, above. That seems plenty deep enough now. Which is lucky, as ot's all I can manage and keep two levels inside while keeping the scale of 1/32 for a 24' model. At present, the outer edge is still taped and curing. I haven't figured out how I'm going to reinforce that outer edge yet. Next up I'll start laying out the landing gear, box the gear bays, and cut them out. Then I'll see if it's possible to make the gear work. I do have my doubts.
> Apologies for showing you something that looks so rough but this is little more than a 3D 3D drawing, to see how everything looks and fits together. Despite appearances, the outer rim does angle down as the radius increases. Even in photos, the whole thing seems one giant optical illusion. Weird.


Thanks Starseeker!
That looks great!!!! Did you made those bottoms in plaster? they look perfect.
As you said, these are the "real thing". Afterall 3d drawings are a teoretical abstraction, but your help is a link to the phisical world!

Regarding the working landing gear I will need your opinion. I am working on a newer 3d model of a workable solution and your practical view/critic/suggestions will be of great help.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Here in your picture the outer ring seems to be flat...









http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=137517&d=1313250001

My guess is that this could be due to a too wide angle lens.
If I am right a picture using a tele lens would show it more sloped.

It is amazing how tricky this shape can be!

Ernest


----------



## starseeker

Ernest, that's the optical and photographic illusions I'm talking about. That edge really does taper down and out all around. But with both eye and camera, as you rotate the model, the side your eyes are aiming always looks shallow and asymmetrical. Figured out how to reinforce it. It's all built of styrene so far. And prayer.
I've got to get to work and build the gate for my driveway. I'm spending way too much time obsessing about the Saucer. But...
Had an idea: when the gear are down, the smaller surfaces are all facing toward each other, "inside". The larger dimensioned surfaces are all facing "outside". When the gear petals are retracted, the "inside" surfaces become the outer surface of the bottom of the saucer, which means that somehow the larger surface has to fit into a smaller opening than it can. Ernest, you have a great solution for that but one that wouldn't be easy to model. 
What if as the petals open and close, they extend and retract hydraulically and rotate 180 degrees around an axis centered along the length of each gear? Then the "outside" would stay outside. The petals could fit into properly tapered bays. It wouldn't take that much of an extension, less than 1/4 the length of the petal, the ladders fold into the gear leaving only a few recessed steps open to space, and it would be much easier to create a folding gear mechanism for a model, as well. I've seen some actual aircraft where much the same extension, rotation, and retraction/lock takes place.


----------



## JAT

starseeker said:


> The bottom of the Saucer seems to be one giant optical illusion. Not matter what angle you look at it from, it seems to asymmetrical in the direction you're looking. At least when 24" in diameter. I've begun mocking it up on .040. The first time around, using my last drawing posted above, the center light seemed way to shallow. So I've deepened the conical recess 1/8", about half way between my drawing and pixel's, above. That seems plenty deep enough now. Which is lucky, as ot's all I can manage and keep two levels inside while keeping the scale of 1/32 for a 24' model. At present, the outer edge is still taped and curing. I haven't figured out how I'm going to reinforce that outer edge yet. Next up I'll start laying out the landing gear, box the gear bays, and cut them out. Then I'll see if it's possible to make the gear work. I do have my doubts.
> Apologies for showing you something that looks so rough but this is little more than a 3D 3D drawing, to see how everything looks and fits together. Despite appearances, the outer rim does angle down as the radius increases. Even in photos, the whole thing seems one giant optical illusion. Weird.


 That is looking pretty close to exact, at least to my eye. In the above images pixelpusher has overlaid on an actual screengrab, I think the initial angle of that outer ring is too steep, as is the angle of the belly of the craft where the legs unfold, making the center light too shallow and likewise too severely angled. In your image, though possibly distorted some by the lens used, the depth and angle of the center light housing, as well as the previously mentioned surfaces look just about correct. Excellent work. Looking forward to seeing how your model developes. JAT


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> Had an idea: when the gear are down, the smaller surfaces are all facing toward each other, "inside". The larger dimensioned surfaces are all facing "outside". When the gear petals are retracted, the "inside" surfaces become the outer surface of the bottom of the saucer, which means that somehow the larger surface has to fit into a smaller opening than it can. Ernest, you have a great solution for that but one that wouldn't be easy to model.
> What if as the petals open and close, they extend and retract hydraulically and rotate 180 degrees around an axis centered along the length of each gear? Then the "outside" would stay outside. The petals could fit into properly tapered bays. It wouldn't take that much of an extension, less than 1/4 the length of the petal, the ladders fold into the gear leaving only a few recessed steps open to space, and it would be much easier to create a folding gear mechanism for a model, as well. I've seen some actual aircraft where much the same extension, rotation, and retraction/lock takes place.



Satrseeker, Interesting solution the rotating landing pods...

Do you think something like this could be done?








I am concious that this would need high mechanical skills to make it work...

Ernest


----------



## JAT

ernest said:


> Thanks Thepixelpusher! that would be great
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the section of the previous model. (version number 90)
> The interior is scaled so that the aliens would be in the right scale with the exterior ladders.
> The lower deck cannot fit here.
> The central room would be too small therefore the back wall of the cabin would be too narow compared to the TV show scenes.
> We will have to scale down the interior to make it look like in The Saucer and Dark Outpost, and the compromise will be the redesign of the space between steps in the exterior ladders.
> 
> Ernest


 Ernest, this profile is looking very good. I do have one guestion; is the top of the landing supports as thick as is shown here, which I'm guessing to be around 30 inches (76.2 cm?)? I realize that it is a great deal thicker than at the bottom, but had always kind of guesstimated it to be about 16 Inches (say 41 cm?). Admittedly that little difference wouldn't buy you much interior space, but it could allow for a slightly taller center light housing (only very slight though, I think this is pretty close).And I agree with you regarding the scale. Though it seems to vary from one episode to the next, all images of the saucer in which crew members are shown indicate a craft too small to include a second level. Some compromise seems called for. JAT


----------



## ernest

JAT here you are the dimensions of the landing pod that matched best ThePixelpusher photographs of the real prop being mounted.










As you can see it does not matches the bottom of the saucer, because it was never intended.
One is a real size prop and the other a reduced model.
Anyway I have tried to align both objects to match best the composition in the TV show.

Regarding the thickness at the top of the landing gear, we must remember that it was never shown in the show, and the only image where it is seen is in the behind the scenes photograph. The camera in the show would never get close to that point because it would show that there is NO saucer at all. So perhaps our rememberings refers to a smaller thickness that was visible in the show, perhaps in the point where two pods are joining together where the thickness is about 54 cm.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> Had an idea: when the gear are down, the smaller surfaces are all facing toward each other, "inside". The larger dimensioned surfaces are all facing "outside". When the gear petals are retracted, the "inside" surfaces become the outer surface of the bottom of the saucer, which means that somehow the larger surface has to fit into a smaller opening than it can. Ernest, you have a great solution for that but one that wouldn't be easy to model.
> What if as the petals open and close, they extend and retract hydraulically and rotate 180 degrees around an axis centered along the length of each gear? Then the "outside" would stay outside. The petals could fit into properly tapered bays. It wouldn't take that much of an extension, less than 1/4 the length of the petal, the ladders fold into the gear leaving only a few recessed steps open to space, and it would be much easier to create a folding gear mechanism for a model, as well. I've seen some actual aircraft where much the same extension, rotation, and retraction/lock takes place.


If we do so, we will have the folding ladders as well as the recessed steps in the curved surface, which would be visible in the bottom during flight configuration.
Another thing to consider is the problem of a folding ladder on a conical surface. (this is too much for my brain now)

Ernest


----------



## JAT

ernest said:


> JAT here you are the dimensions of the landing pod that matched best ThePixelpusher photographs of the real prop being mounted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see it does not matches the bottom of the saucer, because it was never intended.
> One is a real size prop and the other a reduced model.
> Anyway I have tried to align both objects to match best the composition in the TV show.
> 
> Regarding the thickness at the top of the landing gear, we must remember that it was never shown in the show, and the only image where it is seen is in the behind the scenes photograph. The camera in the show would never get close to that point because it would show that there is NO saucer at all. So perhaps our rememberings refers to a smaller thickness that was visible in the show, perhaps in the point where two pods are joining together where the thickness is about 54 cm.
> 
> Ernest


 Ah, good point, did not consider that. Thanks JAT


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> "Panic" episode seems to have the best profile. I have the slide for this shot. I'll scan it and see if I have a better reference for you.


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> "Panic" episode seems to have the best profile. I have the slide for this shot. I'll scan it and see if I have a better reference for you.


Yes ThePixelpusher!
Your screen captures are the best!
If I could have several captures where the sauces appears in diferent situation with landing gear or in flight configuration, it would be great to test the current 3d model against them, as we didf with the landing pods props being mounted.

Ernest


----------



## Highlighter

Ernest, you’ve done an incredible job of thinking it out. And Pixlepusher for the cool photos, the top thickness and odd angles of the landing gear were never apparent to me until seeing those 2 set photos. I was also interested in the thin black & white photo of the base, is that of the studio model? I tried looking back through the posts but couldn’t find the original explanation for it. -- Jon


----------



## ernest

I have just realized that this composite was too bad!








I loved this image, and never saw that it was out of perspective, and that in the composition the back flange of the saucer got lost. (see in red)

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Highlighter said:


> Ernest, you’ve done an incredible job of thinking it out. And Pixlepusher for the cool photos, the top thickness and odd angles of the landing gear were never apparent to me until seeing those 2 set photos. I was also interested in the thin black & white photo of the base, is that of the studio model? I tried looking back through the posts but couldn’t find the original explanation for it. -- Jon


The explanation is not known yet.
We have only guess, but ThePixelpusher is investigating it with his contacts involved in the production of the show. We first though that it was a composite using the real size prop, but all we know is that the landig gear was not the same as the real size prop that we saw in the TV show.
I know that these investigations takes time, and I will be waiting the news from ThePixelpusher.
Anyway we are concentrating in the reconstruction of the saucer and landing gear that was seen in the show.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

The site is coming along (possibly up by first week of Sept or sooner). It will have even more things that I got in the past day. Ernest has promised me to post his saucer on the site too and that is why I have been sharing with him. And plus he has the skills to determine the shape like no one else.


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> The site is coming along (possibly up by first week of Sept or sooner). It will have even more things that I got in the past day. Ernest has promised me to post his saucer on the site too and that is why I have been sharing with him.


Yes, by then I hope to have a full set of blueprints with dimensions in metric and imperial systems, at least of the exterior and landing gear.
I am not sure about the interior yet, due to the size issue.
Anyway with time you will have all the final information we have been working on here.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

Ernest, your work is unsurpassed! Your old school knowledge of perspective sure did help out. And you coworkers probably saw how passionate you were too!


----------



## thepixelpusher

I am considering whether to do a book with higher resolution pictures than can be shown on the site.

Ernest, you have a special treat in your email. Here's a view for Hobbytalk.


















Sorry for the shameless plug.


----------



## starseeker

Post deleted


----------



## Highlighter

ThePixelPusher: really looking forward to your site, sounds really interesting! Great you’ve got to talk to some of the OFX guys while they’re still around, doesn’t seem like there’s ever really been much behind the scenes on “The Invaders”, or Quinn shows in general -- compared to Star Trek and especially Gerry Anderson.

Years back, I had a friend of had a first season hand gun sitting around in a corner of his home gathering dust which I examined of a few occasions (probably every time I was there), I think it was the first time I realized what you could do with a piece of wood, spring, silver paint and a great optical! -- Jon


----------



## Highlighter

Ernest, having the sides lock in for extreme space travel is clever; imagine a landing grid breaking loose in mid flight, considering aliens normally like events going pretty smoothly, this makes a lot of sense. -- Jon


----------



## starseeker

Okay, my confusion last night regarding the landing gear is resolving itself. The full size landing gear set seems a bit too small to actually fit around the Saucer's center light. I looked at every photo I have and have reduced the center light diameter very slightly. The full size landing gear as measured is still too small to fit around the light so it needs to be widened. It won't quite match the on-screen appearance of the landed Saucer but close enough.
The changes I've made so far are in red in the drawing below. Note that the landing leg is not a plan view but is angled in the drawing. I haven't wanted to make any of these changes; they've been necessary to make the thing work as a physical model.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Ernest, this is the most beautiful thing I've seen!

Now that your figured out the bottom is angled I see it in every shot in the show.


----------



## starseeker

First I'm going to build cardboard mockups. These are neither the outside nor inside faces, yet. Just making sure they fit around the inner light. The finished legs will also have to extend into the saucer bottom, not sit on it as these do at present. This is going to be a challenge. 
As you can see, the proportions of the leg (white poster-board) are a little different from what was mapped from the photos of the full size set leg (printed from Ernest's plan). On the model, you have to get the legs around the inner light, whose diameter we know reasonably, but they have to be wide enough to join at the tops to form the pentagon, but they have to be short enough to fit between the inner light and the outer rim(whose width we know reasonably), and still look right. This is my closest approximation.


----------



## CaptCBoard

Wow-- this thing sure went dead suddenly! It was going great for a while!

Scott


----------



## starseeker

I suspect things must be gearing up for that Invaders site. In the meantime, I've come to the part where I'm trying to make the 24" model look like what I see in the two good pictures of the bottom of the saucer. Can't find my 2" Plastruct half sphere so I'm just using cutouts to stand in as the domes until I can find a master to vac form over. 
Holding the model at the same angle as the photo of the Saucer below, the bottom outer lip is just all wrong. At its closest to the eye/camera, it should not be visible at all. So after obsessing about it for a couple of days and about the amount of styrene I'm cutting (about 2/3 of a 4x 8' sheet but almost all of that is leftovers, enough to make a dozen normal models), first thing this morning I cut off the outer edge and reduced its inside height to about 5/8". Just about to start rebuilding but it looks right to the eye so far. Revised the rough drawing once again to include the new outer edge profile.


----------



## thepixelpusher

CaptCBoard said:


> Wow-- this thing sure went dead suddenly! It was going great for a while!
> 
> Scott


Ernest and I are working on things in between our day jobs. But things are still moving along.


----------



## ernest

CaptCBoard said:


> Wow-- this thing sure went dead suddenly! It was going great for a while!
> 
> Scott


I am still alive, just working overtime for surviving!
Meantime I am performing a fine tunning to the profile, and comparing with several screencaps.
It is a slow process because I have to match the caracteristics of the cameras and lens used in the original filming, and then place the 3d model in the right position and angle, to see the diferences in all the screen caps, to correct them.

Ernest


----------



## JAT

ernest said:


> I am still alive, just working overtime for surviving!
> Meantime I am performing a fine tunning to the profile, and comparing with several screencaps.
> It is a slow process because I have to match the caracteristics of the cameras and lens used in the original filming, and then place the 3d model in the right position and angle, to see the diferences in all the screen caps, to correct them.
> 
> Ernest


 Ernest, we're not concerned, we know that no one is going to do a better job and eagerly await your final designs JAT


----------



## starseeker

There are two good pictures of the bottom of the Saucer. The problem with this one is that I don't think it is a picture of the bottom of the Saucer. Perhaps it is based on the actual miniature but it's been so doctored that I don't know what can be trusted about it. The whole bottom glows, there are no shadows, it could all be a matte painting or an animation. However, it is the single most iconic image of the Saucer there is and it has to be taken seriously. The key thing in this image is the forward bottom lip. If the bottom of the saucer isn't a matte just applied over an image of the miniature, then the outer bottom rim of the miniature slants upwards to a degree that at this angle it isn't visible at all. 
In all the previous drawings here and in my previous attempt at modelling it, the lip angled up a little, but as my previous mock up showed, not nearly enough to replicate this image. So I cut and glued and 6' x 4' of styrene and two bottles of Tenax later, I think I've managed to replicate it as closely as I can. It's the same angle as in the revised drawing a few posts ago.


----------



## starseeker

The other good picture of the bottom of the Saucer is said to be of the actual miniature. The proportions across the bottom are slightly different than of the fx shot but then all the half dozen or so master fx shots are all a little bit different than each other. I've used this shot to try to get the various vertical dimensions proportionate to each other. 
The bottom layout of the Saucer is also dependent on the landing gear. The center light has to be small enough that the five landing gear are large enough to join at their edges when extended, as I pictured in a previous post. Also the dome placeholders could be a bit larger (2 18 - 2 1/4" instead of 2") but then the landing gear might not look quite right. I'll find out when I add the landing gear. 
Again, here is a comparison between the photo and the mock up. Man, I thought I had the angles in the photos opened up a bit more. But as you can still see, the proportions are very close. 
I can't quite get the five dome lights in the pictures to line up as they should, either to my eye or to the lens. This tells me that there is considerable distortion in the miniature and fx photos, which is to be expected, given lenses used, distance to the subject, even the processing. I spent months trying to make reasonably accurate drawings of the Excelsior and a very quick discovery there was that pictures cannot be trusted. Even on what seemed an square overhead shot of the primary hull/saucer, if you followed the circular grid lines out along a single axis, they would bend in, bend out, and bend in the further you moved along. Along another axis in the same photo, there might be another distortion completely different. 
So I'm still not 100% convinced that the main portion of the bottom of the hull is convex. I've built it that way because it's elegant, explains a lot of what we see, and it's more complex (I love complexity), and makes the tapered landing gear make sense, even if one of their outer surfaces has to be curved. And it's a lot easier to add a flat piece to the bottom than to build a cone, if I'm wrong. 
So now I've got to re-enforce this, add a 1/8" bottom sheet and make sure everything is square and sold, box in the gear wells, and make the landing gear work. That will keep me out of trouble for a while.


----------



## JAT

Starseeker, that's looking awfully good. Between you and Ernest I think you're really closing in on an accurate representation of this great little ship. I don't know how your questions regarding variances and distortions in the filming models can be answered with any certainty, but I wonder if with a little patience you might get some answers from thepixelpushers site? Might save you some grief, and it sounds as though it may be up relatively soon. JAT


----------



## starseeker

I am SO waiting for their site to come up! I'm hoping for a studio blueprint, or at the very least edge to edge photos of the miniature that we can establish a center point and symmetry from. But should my hopes be dashed, we're all working from the same screen grabs. The hull of the Saucer seems pretty well established, probably within the 2% margin of error that would constitute statistical certainty. The bottom hull (if the landing gear are to work) has to fall within certain proportions. I'm only interested in the exterior of the Saucer and I don't have a heated garage, which means my large scale modelling has only six or seven more weeks to go till May. So I'm trying to get as much done as quickly as I can. 
Meanwhile, 60mm (~2 3/8") domes available at any craft shop look much better than the 2" placeholders and fit the landing gear (which I just remembered that I'd enlarged slightly from previous drawings) without looking wrong at all. Note that they are sitting too high, on the surface of the bottom, rather than inside the landing gear wells, at this point.


----------



## starseeker

Overlaying photographs and comparing, I'd say I'm really close now. The domes are almost the exact diameter but they seem to be sitting 1/8" to 1/4" too far inboard. To move them out I'll have to move the vertical edge of the outer ring slightly outboard, too. But there is something problematic with the center light. It seems to be sitting way too low in my version, off-centered significantly toward the bottom of the overlay-ed image. There is a solution, but that would involve flattening the bottom surface. How can this be???


----------



## Highlighter

Coming along very nicely Starseeker, the center light seems to sit fairly low to me. -- Jon


----------



## starseeker

That shot of the Saucer as it flies past the moon was filmed with a lens so wide angle as to be almost fish eye. The image is so distorted that it's not a good reference.


----------



## starseeker

The landing gear is proving enormously difficult to sort out. In order for the gear to meet on the inside as it does on the full size landing gear set, and for the tapering sides to butt together, the outside becomes larger than can be fitted into the physical space without the widest corners overlapping. My first 3D landing gear out of cardboard. I've also narrowed the outer lip of the saucer bottom by 1/4" here. The bottom looks good. But these landing gear...


----------



## JAT

starseeker said:


> The landing gear is proving enormously difficult to sort out. In order for the gear to meet on the inside as it does on the full size landing gear set, and for the tapering sides to butt together, the outside becomes larger than can be fitted into the physical space without the widest corners overlapping. My first 3D landing gear out of cardboard. I've also narrowed the outer lip of the saucer bottom by 1/4" here. The bottom looks good. But these landing gear...


Ok, I know we never actually saw the gear deploy, and I really don't believe that this was the intended process for doing so, but in the interest of just making the various parts of this puzzle conform into a cohesive whole that could possibly make sense, how about this; What if a section of that outer rim area pulled back out of the way or angled up and in to allow for the deployment of the gear, then moved back into place to lock the gear into position? In that way the legs could be the necessary length you need as well as the rest of the proportions. I'm fully aware that this is not how the gear was designed to function, nor how it is shown to us in the few images we have, but might pose a workable compromise. JAT


----------



## starseeker

Ernest has a great idea for that but it would be difficult, if not impossible, to model, at least by an ordinary human being. But right now I'm stuck on the actual physical structure. In order for the inside of the gear to meet, they have to form a continuous pentangle around the inner light. If the sides of the gear meet at the tops portion, the gear have larger front surfaces than back surfaces. The sides are angled. But then the larger front surfaces are too large to fit flat on the bottom of the saucer. It the sides of the landing gear were square and there were gaps between the outside surfaces of the landing gear where they surround the center light, it would all work fine. That's not how the full sized landing gear set looks (but it was built to be self supporting), but that's the way it may have to be on the model, same as the Aurora kit. I keep thinking that I'm missing something, but several days now and I still don't know what it could be.


----------



## PrimitiveDave

Okay, I've been lurking and reading this thread for a long time -- I just have to chime in. What if you built the saucer in flight position, then built the legs separately as a stand? I know it's not a "real-world" solution, but in a way it actually is more accurate. I mean, the saucer miniature didn't have any landing gear -- it was composited over the large-scale prop gear. The two never really existed together, except on film. They never reconciled the two elements -- why should you?


----------



## ernest

Here in this image, we can see an uncentered composite.
The pentagonal base can be tricky because its center seems not centered.
Here the people who did the posproduction composite didn´t took this in mind, instead they forced the image as it would look centered.

The diameter for this saucer is: 15,38 meters, or 50 feet and 5 inches.










The diameter for this other saucer is: 16,91 meters, or 55 feet and 5 inches.










These are the most accurate measurements we can do from captures.
I must say that there are certain inconsistencies produced by wrong focal length used in composition.

To create an optically accurate composition you should use the same lens for the pods and the saucer.

In the second example from "The Inocent" the saucer was photographed with a longer lens, and the pods with a wider lens. That is the reason for the exagerated upper curvature in the 3d model of the saucer, and also certain shift in the 3d model of the landing gear. The focal length used for the 3d model was aproximately the average between the two diferent lens used in the movie composite.

Note that the green people look smaller, because they are standing on a ground that is under the ground level in the inocent, this is because in this episode they didn´t used the metalic tubes under the pods. 

None of these sizes can contain the two decks interior.
I still have to calculate the dimensions for Dark Outpost which is the only episode where they showed the two decks.

I like the idea that Primitive Dave mentioned (two separated model one for the saucer and another for the landing gear) since it will be the most accurate solution.
I have discovered that the real size landing gear would have to be embeded into the saucer bottom to get the right proportion as seen in The Inocent. So, the landing gear stand should be shorter than what is sen in the great images of the landing gear being mounted, published by thepixelpusher.


This is taking more time than expected, mainly because this is a more subtle task, and because I have limited time.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

starseeker said:


> Ernest has a great idea for that but it would be difficult, if not impossible, to model, at least by an ordinary human being.


You are right starseeker. In my opinion based on the photographs of your PERFECT models, you are not in the "human being" category, perhaps in the "Alien" category.!
In my own case I know I am way under that level, perhaps in the "monkey with a hammer" category so what I am doing is evaluating the possibility of building it using a digital milling machine.







Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

Ernest, that is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen!

I think if milled, it would be nice to have the legs as an extra plug-in like on the Aurora model. The legs could work up - plugged in or down, plugged in. Milling this in aluminum would be the greatest.


----------



## Highlighter

> Originally Posted by ernest
> Note that the green people look smaller, because they are standing on a ground that is under the ground level in the inocent, this is because in this episode they didn´t used the metalic tubes under the pods.


According to the book Quinn Martin: Producer, during “The Innocence” the poles were there but they sunk in the mud! -- Jon


----------



## Highlighter

A recent pic inspired by saucer shots from “The Innocence”. -- Jon


----------



## ernest

Highlighter said:


> According to the book Quinn Martin: Producer, during “The Innocence” the poles were there but they sunk in the mud! -- Jon


That is very interesting, and seems to support the idea that it was a bad design for a supposedly heavy ship. 
Is this, The book that you mentioned? http://www.amazon.com/Quinn-Martin-...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315168587&sr=1-1

Ernest


----------



## ernest

Highlighter said:


> A recent pic inspired by saucer shots from “The Innocence”. -- Jon


Nice shot Jon!
BTW what rendering software are you using?

Ernest


----------



## ernest

In this case the saucer should be smaller than 15,38 meters, or 50 feet and 5 inches.
I didn´t calculated the exact diameter, since I am more interested in a larger version, but my guess is about 14 meters.










Here we have another problem, the image of the landing pod was taken from a very high viewpoint, but the saucer was taken from a lower viewpoint, so both perspectives are not consistent.

In the following image, where the full model with landing gear was superimposed on the screen capture, you can see the diference in size, and camera angle.










In this comparison you will notice that the 3d landing gear looks smaller compared to the photograph, this is because the 3D saucer diameter is 15,38 meters, or 50 feet and 5 inches, and the landing gear size matches that dimension. Since the saucer in the screen capture is much smaller, I had to reduce the 3d model to match the picture. 

Ernest


----------



## ernest

In the Image from Dark Outpost, I have found something weird.










The proportions seem to be similar to "The Inocent" shot, but the overall size seems bigger.
A 20 meters diameter does not look too wrong in this case.
So I looked at this image more in detail...
I remember someone here pointing that this seemed a diferent kind of composite... perhaps a mate painting?
The shadows on the ground are not the same as in previous cases where you can tell that the landing gear was mounted in the site!
Instead it looks like the landing gear is part of the composite together with the saucer.
Look at the strange black line all arround the border of the landing gears... this could be due to the composite mask...
If so, this may explain the diference in size!
One point of conflict would be that the ladders will be bigger and this could make difficult climbing them, or even impossible...
Perhaps they were concious that in this episode a bigger ship would be needed in order to make it beliabable that it had two decks...?
It seems that the diferences in size were not that out of control, but perhaps a desition for each episode...
I will study this more in detail and will tell you the results.

In the meantime any hint to answer all these questions will be greatly apreciated!


Ernest


----------



## Highlighter

Ernest, thanks, I’m using Lightwave 3D. The whole thing started as a practice in low poly subdivision modeling which I thought the Invaders saucer would be a good choice for but it’s now evolved into recreating a modern day version of the opening title landing.

I’ve done some 20 second render tests of it landing with gear extending which are coming along but I should be in Los Angeles in a few weeks and if I can get time, I’m going to try and pinpoint the exact location of original “Beachhead” backdrop at Malibu Creek and take some good sized shots to composite it into. It’ll should be interesting to see how the location looks now.

That’s the book you linked to, which has an interesting chapter on “The Invaders”. -- Jon


----------



## ernest

Highlighter said:


> Ernest, thanks, I’m using Lightwave 3D. The whole thing started as a practice in low poly subdivision modeling which I thought the Invaders saucer would be a good choice for but it’s now evolved into recreating a modern day version of the opening title landing.
> 
> I’ve done some 20 second render tests of it landing with gear extending which are coming along but I should be in Los Angeles in a few weeks and if I can get time, I’m going to try and pinpoint the exact location of original “Beachhead” backdrop at Malibu Creek and take some good sized shots to composite it into. It’ll should be interesting to see how the location looks now.
> 
> That’s the book you linked to, which has an interesting chapter on “The Invaders”. -- Jon


Sounds great! 

Ernest


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> Ernest, that is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen!
> 
> I think if milled, it would be nice to have the legs as an extra plug-in like on the Aurora model. The legs could work up - plugged in or down, plugged in. Milling this in aluminum would be the greatest.


I agree Thepixelpusher! It would be a nice model!
we will see...

Ernest


----------



## JAT

ernest said:


> In the Image from Dark Outpost, I have found something weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proportions seem to be similar to "The Inocent" shot, but the overall size seems bigger.
> A 20 meters diameter does not look too wrong in this case.
> So I looked at this image more in detail...
> I remember someone here pointing that this seemed a diferent kind of composite... perhaps a mate painting?
> The shadows on the ground are not the same as in previous cases where you can tell that the landing gear was mounted in the site!
> Instead it looks like the landing gear is part of the composite together with the saucer.
> Look at the strange black line all arround the border of the landing gears... this could be due to the composite mask...
> If so, this may explain the diference in size!
> One point of conflict would be that the ladders will be bigger and this could make difficult climbing them, or even impossible...
> Perhaps they were concious that in this episode a bigger ship would be needed in order to make it beliabable that it had two decks...?
> It seems that the diferences in size were not that out of control, but perhaps a desition for each episode...
> I will study this more in detail and will tell you the results.
> 
> In the meantime any hint to answer all these questions will be greatly apreciated!
> 
> 
> Ernest


 Hi, Ernest, what gives me the impression that this image may in fact be a matte painting is the saucer itself. The contours of the lower rim of the saucer hull seem kinda "wavy", uneven and the general proportions also appear a little off. Also, the figure appears to be several meters behind the saucer, possibly making it look larger than it is ( I believe this was mentioned elsewhere ). Additionally, the lighting also appears false or at least different from the background and the scene in general. I don't know how to verify any of this, just looks wrong to my eye. JAT


----------



## ernest

JAT said:


> Hi, Ernest, what gives me the impression that this image may in fact be a matte painting is the saucer itself. The contours of the lower rim of the saucer hull seem kinda "wavy", uneven and the general proportions also appear a little off. Also, the figure appears to be several meters behind the saucer, possibly making it look larger than it is ( I believe this was mentioned elsewhere ). Additionally, the lighting also appears false or at least different from the background and the scene in general. I don't know how to verify any of this, just looks wrong to my eye. JAT


I totally agree with you.
One thing I have noticed that looks bad, is that the saucer looks as seen through a wideangle lens, meanwhile the site looks as seen through a telephoto lens.
At such a distance it is not normal a curved outer border in the saucer. I would expect it to look as a straight line, more or less as in the scene where the saucer is seen aside a truck.










(I have just noted that the 2 ladders are unfolded here! and I wonder how these guys entered the big boxes through the small circular opening hatch)

Ernest


----------



## Highlighter

> Originally Posted by ernest
> In the Image from Dark Outpost, I have found something weird.


Looks like “Dark Outpost” is all a matte painting as Vincent walks completely behind all the landing legs. Probably not having any of the prop legs present the scene made it difficult to reference the size for the matte. He says between 50 and 60 feet bit later in the episode when he’s describing it.

The exact same matte is used in “The Life Seekers” with a different shadow. -- Jon


----------



## ernest

Highlighter said:


> Looks like “Dark Outpost” is all a matte painting as Vincent walks completely behind all the landing legs. Probably not having any of the prop legs present the scene made it difficult to reference the size for the matte. He says between 50 and 60 feet bit later in the episode when he’s describing it.
> 
> The exact same matte is used in “The Life Seekers” with a different shadow. -- Jon


GREAT FINDING Jon!!!
There is no doubt now...
It is funny the fake shadow on the ground!!!
It seems that after all Quinn Martin compalins on the real size landing gear prop, they found a "solution".

Now my next question is:
We know that the saucer is a photograph of the 4 f model, but what about the landing gear?
Is it the reduced model or a photograph of the real size prop?

Ernest


----------



## JAT

Also regarding the book on Q.M., they mention various difficulties in filming the "saucer" on site, by which I assume they meant merely the legs, from obtaining permits to dealing with the weather and just trucking the pieces around, I wonder if it just became expedient in some cases to use a matte painting for a quick shot. Again, I doubt they would have guessed so much attention was going to be brought to bear so many years later on scenes which, at that time there was no means available to the general public for even recording the images, much less scrutinizing them.


----------



## Rotwang

Funnily enough, my local library has this book! I'll be checking it out this week.


----------



## ernest

Highlighter said:


> The exact same matte is used in “The Life Seekers” with a different shadow. -- Jon












I tried to compare this Saucer/landing gear configuration in both episodes, and it is the exact copy!










But they are NOT a photograph of the complete reduced model (the one with the landing gear included) . So my guess is that the mate painting is a combination of two photographs: one of the saucer and the other of the real size prop of the landing gear.

Ernest


----------



## thepixelpusher

Yes, those are the same photos and they look retouched. Notice there are no spinning lights too. They could also have airbrushed a semitransparent shadow on a piece of glass in front of the camera and pasted the cutout photo composite on the glass. It's an old trick, and erasy to do with a stationary shot.










I'll have to study these shots again.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Guys, I don't have my website up yet because I decided to do the book with big pictures and offer that at the launch of the site. There will be great reference for the saucer in picture form and a surprise or 2 that will answer some long-standing questions about the saucer. I hope to do a current interview with the propmaker soon (haven't talked to him since last year). He's 79 years old now. The book will include his photos while making it (the saucer) and before it's delivery. I've been working on it after I return from my day job, so be patient. I want to do this right.


----------



## Mark Dorais

thepixelpusher said:


> Guys, I don't have my website up yet because I decided to do the book with big pictures and offer that at the launch of the site. There will be great reference for the saucer in picture form and a surprise or 2 that will answer some long-standing questions about the saucer. I hope to do a current interview with the propmaker soon (haven't talked to him since last year). He's 79 years old now. The book will include his photos while making it (the saucer) and before it's delivery. I've been working on it after I return from my day job, so be patient. I want to do this right.


WOW......We can't wait!:thumbsup:


----------



## ernest

About Matte Paintings:
Here you are a sample taken from "The Forbiden Planet" one of my favorite cience fiction movies!

Here you can see the photograph of the real size landing gear:









Here the mate painting MASK and the FULL COMPOSITE:









Here you have more in this web site:
http://nzpetesmatteshot.blogspot.com/2011/03/forbidden-planet-shakespeare-in-space.html

Some more here:
http://www.davidstipes.com/early_exploration/index.php?directory=.&currentPic=7

http://cinewiki.wikispaces.com/Special+effects+in+the+1930s

http://nzpetesmatteshot.blogspot.com/2011/06/artist-at-work-matte-painting-in.html

http://nzpetesmatteshot.blogspot.com/2011/03/painters-art-mattes-up-close-part-two.html


In our case of "The Invaders", the black border arround the saucer and landing gear, could be due to a "post production composite". I wonder why... since I agree with Thepixelpusher, that it would be easier to glue the photograph on a glass, and take the direct shot in the site. Somehow it seems that they decided to do it using a posproduction process that should be very sophisticated and expensive by that time!
Anyway all these are just the guess of someone that is not an expert in the matter.
I would like to know your opinions, no matter the degree of expertise.

Ernest


----------



## ernest

thepixelpusher said:


> Guys, I don't have my website up yet because I decided to do the book with big pictures and offer that at the launch of the site. There will be great reference for the saucer in picture form and a surprise or 2 that will answer some long-standing questions about the saucer. I hope to do a current interview with the propmaker soon (haven't talked to him since last year). He's 79 years old now. The book will include his photos while making it (the saucer) and before it's delivery. I've been working on it after I return from my day job, so be patient. I want to do this right.


That is a great new! 
I want one copy

Ernest


----------



## Highlighter

I would think the matte from “Dark Outpost” and “The Life Seekers” episodes was either a heavily airbrushed photo blowup or a complete painting. The saucer body and landing legs are probably together and the shadow as a separate pass.

It’s also likely an Aurora model kit was used for reference (which would have already been in production by the second season) because the legs are thin like the model and not the life size props. The model kit would have been perfect for the artist to use for referencing the right angle.

Even if they had used the full sized legs, optically matting in the top of the saucer would still have been done so they weren’t saving any money there, but this would have saved the production considerable cost of transporting full size prop legs to the location.

In “The Life Seekers” the camera angle when actress Diana Muldaur climbs the ladder is an indication they only used one leg, I’d have thought a second leg would have been visible to the left like in “The Saucer”. -- Jon

Pixelpusher, count me in for a book too.


----------



## JAT

Also, filmed at that upward angle a large section of the underside of the saucer would be visible (if indeed one existed). The field and vehicles in the background also appear to be poor rear screen projection. Nothing in that sequence really works convincingly. JAT


----------



## ernest

JAT said:


> Also, filmed at that upward angle a large section of the underside of the saucer would be visible (if indeed one existed). The field and vehicles in the background also appear to be poor rear screen projection. Nothing in that sequence really works convincingly. JAT


They were "forced" to film at that angle because they couldn´t show the real ground, since they were using a background composite.

Here I found an image from "The Mutation" that looks similar:
Note that this screen capture is deformed (wider)
http://invaderstech.atspace.com/en_saucer_action_004.htm
The diference I can see is that in this case the ladders are visible.
I pasted the others to make an easier comparison










Ernest


----------



## Highlighter

> Originally Posted by JAT
> 
> Also regarding the book on Q.M., they mention various difficulties in filming the "saucer" on site, by which I assume they meant merely the legs, from obtaining permits to dealing with the weather and just trucking the pieces around, I wonder if it just became expedient in some cases to use a matte painting for a quick shot. Again, I doubt they would have guessed so much attention was going to be brought to bear so many years later on scenes which, at that time there was no means available to the general public for even recording the images, much less scrutinizing them.


The QM book mentions it was a problematic show in general not just with the effects, Quinn Martin liked to shoot at night and they need large amounts of lights and heavy equipment to shoot the opening. There are some interesting parts on the effects like funny stories about blowing stuff up and the opticals being tricky to do.

As far as the interest in the shows now, I don’t think no one ever planned on these effects being looked at with such close scrutiny, or the ability to even do it, home video didn’t even start the late 70's (not many even had it then) where finally there was the option to repeat something or freeze frame it, the filmmakers expected the effects would probably be viewed only once. -- Jon


----------



## ernest

Nice Images!

Ernest


----------



## Highlighter

> Originally Posted by JAT
> 
> Also, filmed at that upward angle a large section of the underside of the saucer would be visible (if indeed one existed). The field and vehicles in the background also appear to be poor rear screen projection. Nothing in that sequence really works convincingly. JAT


It is a back projection shot! So looks like they completely avoided taking any of the prop legs on location then, it does look like you should see some of the underside of the saucer.

Strange, the same saucer matte comes off a lot better in “Dark Outpost” for some reason. --Jon


----------



## Highlighter

Thanks, Ernest! -- Jon


----------



## ernest

This black border may be due to a shift between the mask and the second pass, in a typical posproduction composition.
If It would be done with a matte painting on glass method this would not appear in the final composition.

If you look at the right border of the landing gear, you will notice that the front and back pod´s borders do NOT converge at a single point as all the others.
This perspective mistake, might be the proof of a partial or total illustration.









In this last image where I superimposed the 3d model you can see the landing gear in an accurate perspective, where all the pod´s borders converge in 5 points near the bottom of the ship, which clearly do NOT happens in the "mate painting".
Another interesting observation is that in such a scene it is not possible to hide the top and bottom of the saucer at the same time. only in a superwide perspective it would be possible which would not be consistent with the scene. In the 3d model the roof is clearly visible meanwhile the bottom is hidden.

Ernest


----------



## JAT

ernest said:


> This black border may be due to a shift between the mask and the second pass, in a typical posproduction composition.
> If It would be done with a matte painting on glass method this would not appear in the final composition.
> 
> If you look at the right border of the landing gear, you will notice that the front and back pod´s borders do NOT converge at a single point as all the others.
> This perspective mistake, might be the proof of a partial or total illustration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this last image where I superimposed the 3d model you can see the landing gear in an accurate perspective, where all the pod´s borders converge in 5 points near the bottom of the ship, which clearly do NOT happens in the "mate painting".
> Another interesting observation is that in such a scene it is not possible to hide the top and bottom of the saucer at the same time. only in a superwide perspective it would be possible which would not be consistent with the scene. In the 3d model the roof is clearly visible meanwhile the bottom is hidden.
> 
> Ernest


 Also, the actual profile of the saucers hull appears a little "off" when viewed in relation to your model, which seems to be the more correct profile. I find it somewhat incredible that what began as an attempt to simply create as accurate as possible 3D model on your part is now being put to use to better examine and evaluate actual images from the show. Were it not for your efforts we would be very hard pressed to arrive at any of this information. JAT


----------



## JAT

ernest said:


> Nice Images!
> 
> Ernest


 Agreed, beautiful work


----------



## ernest

JAT said:


> Also, the actual profile of the saucers hull appears a little "off" when viewed in relation to your model, which seems to be the more correct profile. I find it somewhat incredible that what began as an attempt to simply create as accurate as possible 3D model on your part is now being put to use to better examine and evaluate actual images from the show. Were it not for your efforts we would be very hard pressed to arrive at any of this information. JAT


Well, it is all conected. I am testing and fine tunning the current 3D model matching the camera angles in many screencaptures from the show, and these particular cases presented strange problems that made impossible to match with the 3d model. It is good to know which of the screencaptures are just a rough illustration, to ignore them in the fine tunning process. In this way we will be closer to the real thing.

Ernest


----------



## starmanmm

Anyone else notice in Highlighters' post (#571) the second pic.... if you closely look at the rods which support the landing gear.... there appears to be either holes in those rods or side pegs?


----------



## ernest

starmanmm said:


> Anyone else notice in Highlighters' post (#571) the second pic.... if you closely look at the rods which support the landing gear.... there appears to be either holes in those rods or side pegs?


Yes, they are holes. Apparently the rods were retractile and the holes are related to a system to fix them to a desired length, in order to adapt the landing gear to an irregular site ground.
Look at this post http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=3856835&postcount=476

Ernest


----------



## lunadude

They kinda look like scaffolding poles. Bet they had a lot of them laying around the shop where they built it.


----------



## Highlighter

Jat, thanks for your comment. At some point I’ll post an avi of the landing probably on youtube and make a link here, still some work to be done on texturing.

It’s tricky make look real while keeping it somewhat like the original, I’ve been using photos of water towers as reference which are smooth but have subtle flaws and make a more realistic surface, I keep debating whether to add subtle paneling also. -- Jon


----------



## Highlighter

Couple of interesting prop shots, the wire showing in “Dark Outpost” and possibly something like thumb tacs to help the spinning hypnocrystal in “Moonshot”. 

Ernest mentioned in a previous post the 5 side pentagons (A star?) seem to be prevalent through many of the designs, the disc is not unlike the underside of the saucer. -- Jon


----------



## mach7

And here is the first season death disk. Still the 5 pattern.










I'm making one for my collection now. The big problem is handling it without giving myself a cerebral hemorrhage!


----------



## Highlighter

> Originally Posted by mach7
> 
> And here is the first season death disk. Still the 5 pattern. I'm making one for my collection now. The big problem is handling it without giving myself a cerebral hemorrhage!


The first season disc was always the better design, I never thought the colored “Christmas light” version looked as good. Good job you’re not working on the ray gun, the whole place could go up!


----------



## Krel

Highlighter said:


> The first season disc was always the better design, I never thought the colored “Christmas light” version looked as good. Good job you’re not working on the ray gun, the whole place could go up!


In addition to Christmas Lights, they used a common diamond pattern plastic covering that is a light diffusion cover for ceiling lamps. Still used in lamps today.

David.


----------



## starseeker

I think I have the bottom of the Saucer pretty well proportioned now. Here's a shot of the Saucer bottom, a shot of the master bottom, and an overlay of the two. They line up pretty well.


----------



## starseeker

So I'm reasonably satisfied that the inner light is about the right size compared to the Saucer's diameter. In order to get the landing gear to fit around the inner light and meet at their upper edges, each has to be a certain width. I've made the top edges as small as I can to still get them around the inner light. Keeping the landing gear to as near to the same proportions as the full size sets, they are considerably larger than your drawing, Ernest, proportioning yours to a 24" diameter. But they still look "right".


----------



## starseeker

The outer surfaces of the landing gear have to be considerably larger than the inner surfaces, if the top edges of the landing gear are still to meet. But if we want the three dimensional landing gear to have that angled side, then the outer surfaces of the landing gear have to become still larger than the inner surfaces. Again, compared to yours, Ernest. You can see how much larger the outer surfaces have become and how much larger they would look in comparison with shots of the landed Saucer. They can still fit into the bottom surface of the Saucer but the angle of the sides would trap them unless the bottom of the Saucer had your intricate mechanism, Ernest, or unless they rotated 180 degrees around a pivot point as they extended. The latter would be easier to model but still perhaps unnecessarily complicated, especially since the proportions of the gear vs the hull would still be way off. I'm thinking the best option would be to leave the legs square sided, not angled in. While not looking like the full sized gear, that would simplify the working mechanism tremendously and you'd be able to keep the outer/ visible surfaces of the gear in much closer proportion to landed saucer in the screen images. 
This of course would also be true for a separate landing gear as a stand for the Saucer. Unless you wanted the gear to sit under the inner light. Then you could make the gear in exactly the screen used proportions. 
I'd love to see an image of the bottom of that Saucer miniature/maquette with the gear extended. How did they fit them around that light?? Was that light originally much smaller? Did they detail the bottom of that miniature at all?


----------



## thepixelpusher

The episode "The Saucer" has the full size landing legs set on a hard rock surface with minimal sand. And because of that we can actually see that the tip of the landing legs posts are TAPERED!

I was making screencaps for Ernest and there it was...another surprise detail revealed!! It makes me wonder if they used some kind of industrial post that already had the holes for ratcheting the legs up or down. Anyone have a background in industrial construction here?


----------



## thepixelpusher

mach7 said:


> And here is the first season death disk. Still the 5 pattern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm making one for my collection now. The big problem is handling it without giving myself a cerebral hemorrhage!


I'm partial to the disk that had the plastic grid pattern like a bike reflector. That grid-version came later though.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Highlighter said:


> Couple of interesting prop shots, the wire showing in “Dark Outpost” and possibly something like thumb tacs to help the spinning hypnocrystal in “Moonshot”.
> 
> Ernest mentioned in a previous post the 5 side pentagons (A star?) seem to be prevalent through many of the designs, the disc is not unlike the underside of the saucer. -- Jon


There was actually a thin thread that was wound around the crystal to give it that spinning motion by a propmaster off screen. You can actually see the string in a few shots from the show if you look carefully. I believe it was wound around the center, but I'd have to go back and check. Thol Simonson explained that to a buddy of mine that spent time with him before he died. Thol was the prop master for The Invaders and other Quinn Martin Shows.


----------



## thepixelpusher

ernest said:


> This black border may be due to a shift between the mask and the second pass, in a typical posproduction composition.
> If It would be done with a matte painting on glass method this would not appear in the final composition.
> 
> If you look at the right border of the landing gear, you will notice that the front and back pod´s borders do NOT converge at a single point as all the others.
> This perspective mistake, might be the proof of a partial or total illustration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this last image where I superimposed the 3d model you can see the landing gear in an accurate perspective, where all the pod´s borders converge in 5 points near the bottom of the ship, which clearly do NOT happens in the "mate painting".
> Another interesting observation is that in such a scene it is not possible to hide the top and bottom of the saucer at the same time. only in a superwide perspective it would be possible which would not be consistent with the scene. In the 3d model the roof is clearly visible meanwhile the bottom is hidden.
> 
> Ernest


Also, it might be a photo that was cut out and attached to a glass sheet in front of the camera with a shadow airbrushed on the glass. This is called a "Glass Shot" and is quite easy to setup and cheap to do versus a film composite. The 2 shots you show look identical and may have used the same still photo or piece of film if it's a composite. The black line on one side suggest it might just be the shadow coming off the thickness of the photo paper. Typically a composite shot has that nasty black line all the way around and it sawtoothes back and forth around the object due to the wiggling of the film through the film gate slightly during the composite phase. This scene doesn't seem to have that ragged matte composite line.

Though there's always the chance they composited the shot too. They did compositing on shots that should have been done differently because they were a special effects house and they made money by the more expensive compositing techniques that were popular at the time. I'm still trying to get a hold of someone that worked at Howard Anderson & Associates, the FX house that did Star Trek and The Invaders.


----------



## JAT

Highlighter said:


> Jat, thanks for your comment. At some point I’ll post an avi of the landing probably on youtube and make a link here, still some work to be done on texturing.
> 
> It’s tricky make look real while keeping it somewhat like the original, I’ve been using photos of water towers as reference which are smooth but have subtle flaws and make a more realistic surface, I keep debating whether to add subtle paneling also. -- Jon


 Jon, that is a thing of beauty, just really jumps off the screen. And i would love to see a rendition including some VERY SUBTLE paneling, if only as an exercise. I do believe that the tops of the landing supports should meet, however, to be mutually supportive. And the three rings at the juncture could possibly have a slight flair out at the bottom, more angled than the upper hull but less than the lower. Unsure about all that until pixelpusher gets his site up. But this is looking very nice indeed. Can't wait to see more.


----------



## thepixelpusher

ernest said:


> Nice Images!
> 
> Ernest


This is one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen!!


----------



## Highlighter

Jat, thanks again and you’re absolutely right about the structural differences. I’ve been debating whether to rework the base and landing gear -- had I not built UV maps and rigging already I probably would rework them but I’m not sure at this stage. Plus Ernest has already made about the most accurate version possible, I wish I’d found this site before I started, certainly with the help of everyone and especially the newer images thepixelpusher has been discovering, Ernest has taken this far further than I would have ever thought quite honestly.

I started modeling a saucer sometime after the second season came out on DVD, I used whatever reference I could find, not a lot, especially where the base was concerned! Apart from frame grabs I finally did find the one original model shot thepixelpusher had sent the model kit site, so mostly my trusty (or untrusty?) old model kit served as reference for the base and legs.

However, the base is still somewhat different than the model kit, mostly the spheres are placed differently and rounded like the TV ones, the leg tips extend out where as there's the grooves for them in the kit. Also, the legs are slightly thicker but not like the TV base and Ernest's. 

Mostly what bothered me originally was the main body of the saucer. A while back I’d found a very good 3D model someone had done of the kit saucer but when I started messing around with it in Lightwave I was surprised how different it was from the TV show (Posted an image below) so started on one myself.

Lately I’ve been texturing, working on the lighting, adding animated smoke and blowing leaves on the ground, I should be in LA soon and I’m going to find that backdrop in Malibu Creek (orignally the Fox Ranch, posted a frame grab from "Beachhead" below and a youtube cap that looks to be close) I think it's now the campground, I may have to do some editing on any background images though I don’t think the mountains will have changed to much, ironically the first two aliens were the campers so it may fit in well somehow. -- Jon


----------



## Slotcarjames

It is interesting how close the bottom looks to a coffee cup lid.


----------



## nicksdad

What a great thread. The Invaders is one of my favorites. I can't wait for Pixelpushers web site and book to come along. I still have my screen used small pistol and a casting of the larger one I used to own. Hopefully the prop master he is interviewing has some cool prop info to share.


----------



## PrimitiveDave

thepixelpusher said:


> The episode "The Saucer" has the full size landing legs set on a hard rock surface with minimal sand. And because of that we can actually see that the tip of the landing legs posts are TAPERED!
> 
> I was making screencaps for Ernest and there it was...another surprise detail revealed!! It makes me wonder if they used some kind of industrial post that already had the holes for ratcheting the legs up or down. Anyone have a background in industrial construction here?


We can also see that the leg is peeling apart, just above the post...


----------



## thepixelpusher

nicksdad said:


> What a great thread. The Invaders is one of my favorites. I can't wait for Pixelpushers web site and book to come along. I still have my screen used small pistol and a casting of the larger one I used to own. Hopefully the prop master he is interviewing has some cool prop info to share.


Thol Simonson the propmaster for The Invaders died last year, and sadly I didn't speak to him. But, I did speak to Mel Keys who made the studio saucer model. And I'll have some of his pictures to show.


----------



## JAT

I begin to despair that this thread has run its course


----------



## JPhil123

JAT said:


> I begin to despair that this thread has run its course


Hello,
I'm not making a comment regarding any posts in particular, but since there are many posts in this thread I wonder if there may be (possibly) any new model of the Invaders' UFO on the horizon? Next to the Jupiter 2 (original) and the "Star Trek" Enterprise (the TV series version and the classic movie version), the Invaders' UFO is another favorite of mine. As plain as some believed the craft to be, I think it is an interesting subject. If it were modeled anew with accurate details (maybe detailed lighting section areas at the top and a more accurate undercarriage and landing gear section) it would be great. If that isn't on the horizon, I do find the information in the thread interesting. I plan to build/rebuild a couple of the Monogram reissued kits I have, and the information can be useful.
Jim


----------



## Highlighter

Made it over to Malibu Creek last Sunday and here’s a few photos of the “The Invaders” pilot landing site. Got over late in the day so didn’t have time to find the exact spot but got close. Depending on lens and angle it’s from somewhere in the large field area highlighted on the map. “The Invaders” isn’t listed as one of the productions that shot there but it is in the QM book:

As usual, Quinn Martin insisted on much location shooting. Location shooting always caused its share of problems on the QM shows. On _The Invaders_, these problems were horrendous. "We needed more hours per day to shoot the show," explains Alston. "That was always a problem with Roy. Roy didn't like working long hours or at night. We shot a lot at night because the visual effects were much better at night.” "We went to the Fox Ranch in Malibu Canyon for the pilot," remembers Wurtzel. "We had to bring on all kinds of heavy lighting equipment just to light an empty field so we could shoot this background. That cost a fortune, but Quinn wanted it done the right way. We used Temecula for the town. Today Temecula has vineyards and resort hotels; when we shot there, there was nothing. We also shot near El Segundo, at the Hyperion Salvage Plant. It was a huge, tremendous, bizarre plant. You could smell it. We built a whole bunch of huge plexi glass tubes which we used in the interiors"

It was fun to get out there, strange to think the film crew was there some 45 years before. -- Jon


----------



## Carson Dyle

Highlighter said:


> We also shot near El Segundo, at the Hyperion Salvage Plant. [/SIZE]
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> I live in El Segundo. The Hyperion plant has been used in many a film over the years (e.g. Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers, Soylant Green, etc)., but I didn't know The Invaders had been shot there.


----------



## BOXIE

awesome work.cannot believe it!


----------



## mach7

Excellent work Highlighter. I have been looking for the beachhead landing sight.
Thanks very much.

The book would seem to be wrong about the power plant. It is Power plant 2 out side of Santa Clarita.



I visited there last year.

I also went to Vasquez rocks and found many sites from The Saucer and The Leeches.




I'll have to make the trip to Malibu Canyon soon.


----------



## starmanmm

*Location shots*

Vasquez rocks looks also like the site they shot Arena from ST?


----------



## Richard Baker

starmanmm said:


> Vasquez rocks looks also like the site they shot Arena from ST?


It is.
This area has been featured many times- even Bill & Ted went there.


----------



## liskorea317

Highlighter said:


> Made it over to Malibu Creek last Sunday and here’s a few photos of the “The Invaders” pilot landing site. Got over late in the day so didn’t have time to find the exact spot but got close. Depending on lens and angle it’s from somewhere in the large field area highlighted on the map. “The Invaders” isn’t listed as one of the productions that shot there but it is in the QM book:
> 
> As usual, Quinn Martin insisted on much location shooting. Location shooting always caused its share of problems on the QM shows. On _The Invaders_, these problems were horrendous. "We needed more hours per day to shoot the show," explains Alston. "That was always a problem with Roy. Roy didn't like working long hours or at night. We shot a lot at night because the visual effects were much better at night.” "We went to the Fox Ranch in Malibu Canyon for the pilot," remembers Wurtzel. "We had to bring on all kinds of heavy lighting equipment just to light an empty field so we could shoot this background. That cost a fortune, but Quinn wanted it done the right way. We used Temecula for the town. Today Temecula has vineyards and resort hotels; when we shot there, there was nothing. We also shot near El Segundo, at the Hyperion Salvage Plant. It was a huge, tremendous, bizarre plant. You could smell it. We built a whole bunch of huge plexi glass tubes which we used in the interiors"
> 
> It was fun to get out there, strange to think the film crew was there some 45 years before. -- Jon


M*A*S*H was shot near there too.


----------



## Carson Dyle

liskorea317 said:


> M*A*S*H was shot near there too.


As was Planet of the Apes.

Re: the power plant... perhaps the interiors were shot at Hyperion in El Segundo, with the Santa Clarita plant serving as the exterior?


----------



## mach7

Carson Dyle said:


> Re: the power plant... perhaps the interiors were shot at Hyperion in El Segundo, with the Santa Clarita plant serving as the exterior?


I bet thats it. Boy did they travel on shoots. It must have been a nightmare to schedule. Just for Beachead they went from Temecula to El Segundo, to Malibu ranch, to east of Santa Clarita. As the pilot they probably had more than a week to shoot.


----------



## Highlighter

> Originally Posted by *Mach7*


Mach7, very nice photo of the Santa Clarita power station, doesn’t seem to have changed much and there’s nothing about it in the QM book, that’s a really good find.
The time I was at Vasquez rocks, I knew a number of Trek episodes had filmed there but really had no idea about amount of other stuff including “The Invaders”. I noticed it showed up in the film “Paul” recently.



> Originally Posted *Carson Dyle*


Interesting about El Segundo Hyperion plant, I found a Youtube of that place, it’s looks absolutely massive. In “Beachhead” when Vincent enters the power station the door is slightly different from the outside so it does look like there were two locations. I wonder if it was also used for the shot of the Invaders truck rolling out of the gates of some type of plant.



> Originally Posted by *starmanmm*


As well as "Arena", “Shore Leave", "Friday's Child", "The Alternative Factor" also shot there, probably some others too.




Thanks for all the compliments on the Malibu Creek photos, hope some of you get out there, and a get better match on the location and lens and I did, I went with some friends who weren’t Invaders fans but ended up having a good really time trying to pin it down.

Sure has been quiet on this board for a while! -- Jon


----------



## Highlighter

I'm putting this on my Christmas list:

http://www.revell.com/gallery/rmxe3961-video.html


----------



## mach7

Cool,

I want one!


----------



## CaptCBoard

WOW!! I really like the image you included Jon!

Scott


----------



## Highlighter

> Originally Posted by *CaptCBoard*
> WOW!! I really like the image you included Jon!


Thanks Scott, will post some more when I get a bit more time. -- Jon


----------



## Rotwang

Saw the video. Looks cool!! It would last about an hour around my place. :hat:


----------



## Charles Thaxton

Hi-I just signed up after reading this neat thread. Has anyone here discussed the fact that there were apparently different saucer landing scenes shot for the extended pilot BEACHHEAD? I had a copy on VHS recorded from Canadian TV CHCH Hamilton on which the saucer efx were totally different from the USA version (shown on the DVDs). The ship has no matte lines and looks way better on the Canadian broadcast and is a large looking model coming directly at the camera from the trees behind instead of descending from the top of the shot in a blue screen. This version used to be watchable online but I just tried to locate it and cannot. When I saw that the extended pilot was going to be on the DVD set I was thrilled because the VHS copy I had was multiple generation dubbed. But I was sad to see the standard USA saucer landing shot on the version on the DVD set.(with the matte lines)
It also appears the landing scene was re-done yet again for the second season as some of the intro scenes during the titles have no matte lines visible any more. So apparently 3 different takes of the ship landing. The one on the Canadian broadcast looked fantastic and blows the other 2 away. I cannot figure out why they would have changed it.
Charles


----------



## starseeker

According to a 1978 Starlog, there was a 90 minute pilot of the Invaders that was on shown only once (at least in the US) in New York Museum of Modern Art's Science Fiction Retrospective in 1969. So when the DVD came out, I too was very excited to see the unaired pilot, and very disappointed to see that it was just a slightly longer version of the one we all know so well. There was someone in Winnipeg, Robert's Hard To Find Video, that might once have been a source for such a thing, but no longer has it if they did. Most interesting! 
Talk about multi-generation dubbed, Robert's has a copy of Fear No Evil, with Louis Jourdan, once of the best spooky movies ever made but almost unwatchable in its current condition.


----------



## Chertok tv

For what it's worth Alan Armer was a friend of mine he produced the show and spoke to me at length about the 90min cut.

He felt it was just about a perfect start to the show and was very upset about the final cut..he said the interneg 35mm should still be with the other Invaders elements.

But the show transfered ownership a couple of times before it ended up with Paramount/Viacom..so who knows..but having worked with their system it could still be in the vaults it just needs a very hard core type to find it.

And they would then have to beg the powers that be to transfer it..another trick un to itself.

For whatever this is worth when I really looked into the vaulted material for My Favorite Martian I found our unaired pilot version..was not labeled as such I found it by looking at the production dates and the fact too many negs existed in the system..The Invaders would be alot easier based on the larger amount of cans rather than six cans you would have about nine.


----------



## Charles Thaxton

I have read on the HOME THEATER FORUM that they could not locate the original film elements for THE INVADERS for the DVDs and had to use magnetic tape transfers (some of which had some glitches...a few of the episodes in season 2 set have a noticeable picture jitter). Several film score labels have also tried to track the music tapes recorded for the show. Dominic Frontiere didn't even know where to look.
The fact that there were several edits of the pilot is pretty interesting, and even more interesting are the different saucer effects shots. Like I said...I was so hoping that the extended version on the DVDs would have the shots I saw on the Canadian broadcast. They looked completely realistic and had none of the matte bleed thru of the standard landing scene.


----------



## SteveNeill

Wow Scott you were right. These guys did an incredible job. I enjoyed going through this.

The Invaders was one of my favorite shows growing up in the 60s. What I liked most of about it was it was serious unlike so many 60s shows. And you know what I mean. The effects and props were superb fro those days and still hold up well. The score was outstanding.

The saucer is a hot design and the interiors just great. 

I just finished this project after a year of off and on work. 







Sold 7 of the big girls so far and have been thinking about a next project. Although I wanted to stick to TOS so much has been done I started to question it until Scott called me up tonight and suggested this ship as a 24 inch model. He told me about this thread. Impressive.

I have the holidays to think this over as I finish off some personal projects. 

Thanks Scott for suggesting this and being so late to the game.

If you guys want to know more about me go here: www.sneillfx.com and here www.steveneill.wordpress.com and thanks again Scott!

Steve


----------



## Chertok tv

That's total rubbish they know exactly where the film elements are, I had some of them pulled for sound sound fx that Glen Glen sound did for our show originally.
The only reason they were not pulled was the existing transfers were probabley just this side of ok and they used them rather than spending money on a new transfer.
The digital elements are standard def no doubt and as such if they had thrown money into this the new transfer would have had to have been HD which for such a limited market..well just not cost effective.


----------



## Charles Thaxton

Interesting...I was quoting the comments of the DVD's producer who had said they couldn't find the 35mm negs for the show. I actually called Alan Armer & John Elizalde back before the second season set was released to ask them if they knew where the extended pilot film might be (which Paramount/CBS wanted as an extra). I also asked them about the whereabouts of the music recordings for the show but they had no idea either (several labels would like to release the Frontiere music)


----------



## Chertok tv

Charles Thaxton said:


> Interesting...I was quoting the comments of the DVD's producer who had said they couldn't find the 35mm negs for the show. I actually called Alan Armer & John Elizalde back before the second season set was released to ask them if they knew where the extended pilot film might be (which Paramount/CBS wanted as an extra). I also asked them about the whereabouts of the music recordings for the show but they had no idea either (several labels would like to release the Frontiere music)


It's in there somewhere, the material came across with the Spelling company buy out..the problem is that they are so understaffed and security crazed no one could take the time to really look.
Alan was the one who placed the negs both fine grains and camera into storage for QM so the entire inventory was intact when it was held by Worldvision ent.
They did a transfer from the 35mm elements in the early 90's those were the basis of the new dvd sets.


----------



## SteveNeill

Still I pose the question. Would there be an interest in a good 24 inch model of the saucer?

Steve


----------



## Charles Thaxton

I would love one Steve


----------



## Charles Thaxton

here's a link to a Youtube video I made which features some saucer shots (there are 2 parts to the video ) I lifted & edited the audio from a bootleg DVD set which I had before the official sets came out.


----------



## mach7

SteveNeill said:


> Still I pose the question. Would there be an interest in a good 24 inch model of the saucer?
> 
> Steve


Heck yes! Keep the price reasonable and I think they would sell well


----------



## SteveNeill

Thanks Charles and Mach7. 24 inches sound about right? 30 would be pushing things I fear like room.

As for a reasonable price it all depends on materials cost and labor to make them. For instance the enterprise cost about 400 just in materials. Of course this model would be smaller and far less complex but then again there's that interior. Something I did have to think about with the E.

Steve


----------



## PrimitiveDave

Maybe the same scale as the Moebius Jupiter 2? Wouldn't that put it somewhere in the neighborhood of 22 inches?


----------



## SteveNeill

Too big at 24?

Thanks,

Steve


----------



## CaptCBoard

Steve, I don't think the size is the question, it is the reference to the Jupiter 2 as an identical scale object, so to speak. The Mobius J2 is 1:35 scale, so an Invaders ship would be 22 inches to match (64 scale feet in diameter). In the sense that the two ships would be the same scale, the size at 22 inches would be just right. Making it a 1/2 studio-scale model, at 24 inches, doesn't make much difference in size, but ruins the scale comparision. You also get the added benefit of having 1:35 military equipment to use in a diorama!

Then there is the idea that a commonly available 24 inch square box can be used to ship the thing, but if the ship was itself 24 inches in diameter, you'd have to go with a bigger box!

Scott


----------



## SteveNeill

Scott. Excellent input and understood. Sound good to me.

Thanks so much,

Steve


----------



## mach7

Myself I would like a 18 inch shell but I would bet everyone else would want a 22 inch ship. I really don't care about an interior, but an accurate underside would be nice. I also don't think landing gear is a must.


----------



## starseeker

It's the accurate underside that is the big stumbling block. I've finished masters for a 16" and 24" upper hull based on my drawings here but I keep putting off the underside in the hope of seeing the promised book or website with better images. I'm sure that as soon as I do finish something, then I'll get better information that will show me that it's actually all wrong. Regardless, I really, really want to have something in fiberglass by the end of winter.


----------



## bert model maker

mach7 said:


> Myself I would like a 18 inch shell but I would bet everyone else would want a 22 inch ship. I really don't care about an interior, but an accurate underside would be nice. I also don't think landing gear is a must.


The landing gear would be very important ! I have mine landed and without landing gear, it would have to always be in flight. Yes 22-24 inches would be just right & maybe an extra top that would be transparent to view the interior. the interior is very interesting and could be lit and viewd through the transparent top. I say go with 22- 24 inches.
Bert


----------



## PrimitiveDave

I would be interested in the saucer with the gear up like the studio model; I'd probably scratch-build the landing gear to be a cradle stand, not attached to the ship. Since the technical reality was the saucer didn't have landing gear and the landing gear didn't have a saucer, that would be the best compromise for my taste. I understand others might feel differently. ;-)


----------



## thepixelpusher

I'm working to have a paper model sheet up on my website. I'm job hunting right now and I'll get back to this soon.


----------



## starmanmm

43 pages for this thread and nothing in awhile.... has the subject gone stale?


----------



## JAT

starmanmm said:


> 43 pages for this thread and nothing in awhile.... has the subject gone stale?


Kinda seems that way. There was such furious activity and great exchanges of thoughts and ideas for quite some time. Now it's been nearly three months with no input at all. I check in a couple times a week hoping for something new, or possibly the fruition of all that effort and promise, but alas...


JAT


----------



## starseeker

Okay, given up on anyone posting anything new or informative on the Saucer so I'm going ahead on my own. A few more passes of plaster and sanding and I think in a week or so I should be ready for priming and (and more plaster and sanding and priming) maybe soon I'll be ready to make a mold and lay up some glass. Over the winter I figured out a way of making the landing gear work and stay in scale. Tho' it's complicated. 
This is the 24" upper hull after some shaping today. The 16" upper is in the same shape. Close but not quite ready for prime time yet. Still don't know how I'm going to mold the lower hulls. Gear retracted? Or openings for extended gear?


----------



## mach7

looking really nice!

I'm looking forward to this.


----------



## starseeker

Will start a build album here:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/35 Scale Invaders Saucer/
I have yet to sort and annotate it.


----------



## starseeker

Ernest, are you still out there? How's your project coming along? That work was far too beautiful to leave us hanging.


----------



## Highlighter

Coming along very nicely Starseeker, going to be a terrific model.


----------



## Captain Han Solo

Starseeker, your probably one of the most talented guys out there Sir!

Looks good!


----------



## JAT

Thanks so much for putting SOMETHING back up on the site. I check here about once a week just to see if it's still alive and was beginning to lose hope, after such an energetic period of activity. Thank you for keeping this alive, and here's hoping that your work will serve to rejuvenate some of that previous interest.
Jeff


----------



## thepixelpusher

Apologies guys. I'm dealing with being downsized a 2nd time and looking for work, and the saucer project is way behind. I've tried to get several model companies interested in the saucer model, since I have studio photos and other stuff not in the public. I hope to get back to this after the job search is over.


----------



## starseeker

Possibly a stupid idea: using the bottom hull study as the master. It does have a lot of internal structure and when screwed to a flat board, it flattens nicely and is concentric and level all around. Will a few layers of 040 be strong enough not to deform under the weight of plaster? 
We'll see. In the meantime, then, a lot of sanding and filling, repeated.
(If the study survives being pulled out of the mold, then it could be relatively easily modified for a new master with the gear leg bays open.)


----------



## starseeker

Spending the holiday weekend sanding J2, G12, Spindrift and Saucer masters. Poor neglected Flying Sub.
-cough- 
This looks like the last of the plaster patches on the Saucers, just covering sanding scratches at this point. Other than the sanding scratches, they're smoooooth.
Next will be priming and then the search for pinholes, and puttying, all repeated many times. Once they're primed and I have some new photos, I'll start a new thread on the progress of these specific models and let this thread get back on topic. 
So one last shot for here - a size comparison of the upper hulls. The 16" looks and feels dainty compared to the heft of the 24". And the old Aurora kit seems positively tiny and toy-like.


----------



## Highlighter

> Originally Posted by *starseeker:*
> _Spending the holiday weekend sanding... _


Interested to see links for the other models as they shape up, Starseeker, -- always liked design of the Spindrift ship especially.

The latest photo with The Invaders kit does put the size into perspective -- hadn’t realized, certainly tiny compared, will you finish both the 16 and 24? -- Jon



Somebody’s posted this vid on YouTube recently:


----------



## Avian

The same guy also has a terrific little animation showing the interior of the C-57D:


----------



## starseeker

Was just working on the bottom of the 24" saucer until a moment ago. Came in to kill some time while I ponder a question: should I make the bottom flat or should I make it with recessed landing gear wells? It would be more difficult for modellers to modify the flat bottom into one with wells but it would be relatively easy to close open wells. 
Hmmm, I think I just answered my question but any other opinions would be welcome.
Also been working on the poor neglected 'drift the last few days. Somehow I have to insert the window area into the master, without destroying too much of the master in the process. Same problem with the FS. Who doesn't love a challenge?...

Edit:
Or is the 24" too big to bother with the gear down? How could it be displayed? Is the 16" a better choice for open landing gear wells? At least there's a potential for getting the 16" onto a shelf.


----------



## Highlighter

> Originally Posted by *starseeker:*
> _ponder a question:..._


Yeah, tricky to display a 24" I guess if it was hanging you could have the wells closed.

I think the design tends to be a bit on the plain side without the gear down personally. Plus as most of the detail is on the bottom, it’s always hard to see the rest of those without the model raised in some way.



Although there’s no “Invaders” saucer, for anyone who’s not seen this, well worth a look, fantastic stuff:

http://www.scifiairshow.com


----------



## Highlighter

Found a pic of Invaders model I made in the mid 70s. My uncle helped me figure out the curve in card first and gave me a piece of his prized aluminum sheet to cut the final, at that time I didn’t have any reference except for the show on TV.

I remember going through lots of old can lids until I found one that fit the top. The base was plywood, the domes were some type of panel lights and the center was a bike reflector.

I hung it from my mom’s washing line and was really pleased when the photo came back and the wire didn’t show.


----------



## starmanmm

Wasn't cool when we did things like that with our models.


----------



## Highlighter

*Invaders UFO*

Some images I've been working on, still need work on backgrounds and things but it's been too quiet around here so figured I'd post something. Happy 12/12/12


----------



## Steve Mavronis

That first one in the green field is killer looking!


----------



## Fozzie

Nice job on both shots! We'd love to see more (because we're greedy like that).


----------



## thepixelpusher

Highlighter said:


> Some images I've been working on, still need work on backgrounds and things but it's been too quiet around here so figured I'd post something. Happy 12/12/12


Cool! What 3D program did you use?


----------



## Highlighter

*Invaders UFO*



> Originally Posted by *Steve Mavronis* That first one in the green field is killer looking!


Thanks, the green field background is a pic I took last year of the same location used for the original pilot episode.



> Originally Posted by *Fozzie* Nice job on both shots! We'd love to see more (because we're greedy like that).


Thanks also Fozzie, got some more in the works and will put those up soon. I’m greedy too, I keep hoping others will be posting stuff!



> Originally Posted by *thepixelpusher* C ool! What 3D program did you use?


I’ve been using Lightwave for some year now, not for any particular reason, just what I got into originally and tried to stay with it.


----------



## Josellas

*Saucer interior*

All of you guys have inspired me to work on my old Invaders model.
I went on EBAY and got pieces like a clear top.
I removed the interior of the kit and reworked it using these splendid decals.
I plan on displaying it outside of the model onces it is completed.
Boy you guys are great cause I got a lot out of your work and dialog.


----------



## Josellas

*Saucer interior 2*

Just a few more pics to share:


----------



## Highlighter

Really nice! Love the painted hatchways especially the open one with the perspective leading down the landing gear, also like the copper like control panels. A lot of detail going on there.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Josellas, nice work. Just add a red orange gel to the bottom engine area. The original studio model did NOT have any bottom texture like the Aurora model engine area.


----------



## starmanmm

Very cool to see this kit being worked on.


----------



## thepixelpusher

It's too bad that Mobius Models or Pegasus Hobbies didn't want to produce a larger more accurate "The Invaders" saucer. I tried to get them interested in it and offered my photos and information. Seems it just wasn't as popular with folks like "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" and ones like that. A shame since I think UFO's are still good selling models.


----------



## Josellas

Thanks guys. Yes, I added some red to the clear piece you see. I actually airbrushed Tamiya Clear Red on the acrylic disc. I'll send some more pics on it later. I also used Tamiya Clear Green on those bottom 5 domes.
Oh, that copper color you see is actually from the decal set. Only one decal was difficult since the control stuck out so much, I consequently painted it by hand.


----------



## djnick66

thepixelpusher said:


> It's too bad that Mobius Models or Pegasus Hobbies didn't want to produce a larger more accurate "The Invaders" saucer. I tried to get them interested in it and offered my photos and information. Seems it just wasn't as popular with folks like "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" and ones like that. A shame since I think UFO's are still good selling models.


Then they make something weird like a gorilla wearing a propeller beanie or a $40 , 2" Adamski UFO (that there are at least 3 other larger, better kits of).


----------



## JAT

thepixelpusher said:


> It's too bad that Mobius Models or Pegasus Hobbies didn't want to produce a larger more accurate "The Invaders" saucer. I tried to get them interested in it and offered my photos and information. Seems it just wasn't as popular with folks like "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" and ones like that. A shame since I think UFO's are still good selling models.


 Agreed, but we may be in a minority in that regard. I would eagerly purchase a decent sized saucer, maybe 9? inches. In any case, happy to see this site active again. There was so much activity going on and a lot of input, then it just suddenly dried up. Hope to see much more here.


----------



## starseeker

I'm still plugging away at the master for the 24". The 16" is sort of being neglected, but once the saucer bottom for the 24" is done, I'll get the 16" finished. No real hurry as it will be months here before I can start fiber-glassing. This weekend's high temps are -21C. Sigh. 
It has been months since I've updated here. Some progress photos:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/user/jkirkphotos/library/35 Scale Invaders Saucer?sort=3&page=1
tho' I've done nothing very recently.


----------



## mach7

Not the saucer, but my 3 death disks:


----------



## Highlighter

Nice! Interesting how the 5 point design finds it's way into other props. There's also another disc that crops up from time to time with a white grid like textured surface -- similar to the communication device, I prefer this design over that one personally.


----------



## Josellas

*Progress*

I have a few items on my list to work on so I do what I can on the Saucer.
Here are few in progress shots so far.


----------



## starmanmm

Like the windows or portholes.


----------



## Josellas

Thanks Starmanmm,
Here are a few more in progress shots. I ordered a 3 chase light ckt and superglued yellow LEDs into the masked clear pieces of the top dome. The chase sequence is not quite right, but it kind works for me. I intend to frost the clear areas once the top dome is attached to the main body.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Oooo ... I can remember thinking these devices were so cool in the show. Especially when the victims glowed red and disintegrated.


----------



## Highlighter

starmanmm, your model is looking terrific, really like the thicker base design like the show, looks like you're getting close.


----------



## starmanmm

Not mine... they are Josellas


----------



## Highlighter

Hi starmanmm, no, I pulled these from your Photobucket -- nice stuff.


----------



## spawndude

It may have already been mentioned in the 40+ page thread but Roy Thinnes us still with us.


----------



## starseeker

I know, another ancient thread resurrected. I apologize.

But, Ernest, if you're still out there, I am making progress on making the Saucer underside work. Using some of your angles and dimensions, trying to fit them into a three-dimensional space that matches as closely as I can what we see on-screen, this is where I am right now on the underside. This is my second try at it. 

Everything works. Except...
The Saucer legs have to rotate 180 degrees in order to meet at the edges in the landed position. How they would do that, I don't know, and I don't care. I'm just accepting it. It's vastly easier (to model) than having panels withdraw, elegant as that is. 

Making a master for the molds is tied with the Spindrift nose as the most difficult thing I've ever tried to do. There can be no undercuts so there has to be a second layer (the huge center light) at the base of the landing gear that is added separately, and undercutting fillets can be added later.

Anyway, here are more photos of in-(glacial speed)progress. Extremely rough right now, full of layers of putty and gaps still, but you can see how complicated this thing is. Angles, angles, and more angles. I've managed to keep the center light the same depth as the outer edges of the saucer, which I think is correct. And the center light needs to have squared, not angled, sides, in order to keep the correct diameter, if the landing legs are the right size in order to have the right proportions when it's sitting on the ground. 

This has been tough.

The in-flight exterior surfaces of the landing gear, as has been noted before, have to be slightly convex. That's next. A lot of things are next. 

But... progress?


----------



## thepixelpusher

I looked at your Photobucket photos and you should know that the B&W image of the saucer on the legs with the funny drawing of a person is actually a photo composite of the 4 foot studio model onto the preproduction small size mockup of the legs before they were built full size. That is why the legs look so small in that picture. In the TV show final compositing they move the saucer lower down on the full sized legs set, so that they really couldn't possibly retract into the saucer body without some sort of movement toward the under side center as they retract in. It going to hard to recon the TV show images with your reality.


----------



## starseeker

Yes, the image from the TV magazine is somewhat disproportionate. I'm trying to keep the landing gear to a size that will match most of the on-screen composites, tho' there were a couple different versions there, too.

Pretty much impossible to match everything but if the legs could retract somehow, and Ernest is right about all the angles, and if retaining the proportions of the saucer underside (the center light, the edge rim, and the space in between), and if trying to make the saucer look close to proportional when sitting on its landing gear, then physically this is about as close as you can get. Without having to include dozens of sliding panels and flaps and who knows what else that would all make it all but impossible to model. That the legs still have to turn 180 degrees for the tops of the legs to meet as they did on the full size landing gear set is a trade off that I'm willing to live with. There's no other way of getting this to fit together to the extent that this does. For me, the model will be an either/or, displayed with the gear up or down, but with no retracting action.

Unless you go the Aurora route and make everything horizontal and square and ignore the angles at the tops of the landing legs. Going the Aurora model design route allows everything to fit together reasonably well and even might allow an operating landing gear mechanism. But from all Ernest's work earlier in this thread, the underside of the miniature seems much more complicated and elegant than that. 

And I've been fighting with this on and mostly-off for two years. If there's a way of making something that can't physically work almost work, this has to be close.


----------



## Highlighter

*The 1969 Tornado Annual photo*

Here's the interesting photo of the saucer from the 1969 British Tornado Annual. It's a large scan and I've adjusted it so the saucer is aligned.

I'm also thinking, before the photo made it's way into the annual, it was probably of the original production model with some example model landing gear to show the producers -- before life size ones were built. It's possible the figure was painted in to demonstrate size. 

It's different than any shots from the show, also the points on the feet are not dug in which also suggests the model.


----------



## thepixelpusher

Again, this is a composite image. An early pre-production retouching (old fashioned way) of the 4 foot saucer studio model image with the concept (not full size) of the lower landing legs for evaluation. If you look carefully this small mockup of the legs does not match exactly the full size studio set that was built for the show. Look in the ladder area to verify this. Daryl Anderson of Howard Anderson and Associates effect studio was the art director for the saucer design. They did this composite to present to the studio, prior to filming, to get approval before the full size set of the legs were built.

Unfortunately, you really can't reckon these proportions with reality. You see how in some effects shots, like "The Saucer", the legs are impossibly big under the main saucer hull.


----------



## Richard Baker

This shot with the larger top section (than the model kit) makes me think the complicated interior might be shoehorned into the hull...


----------



## Highlighter

*Tornado annual photo*

Has this image ever appeared as a photo outside of the Tornado? Would be nice to see it without the printer dots in more detail.

it's a nice view of the saucer -- really quite different than the model kit, and a good example of how the landing gear were developed, would be interesting to know why they ended up wider.


----------



## thepixelpusher

The Tornado was the only place that image appeared to my knowledge. It's an early preproduction photo composite test with the real 4 foot studio saucer and the concept model of the legs before the full size legs set were built. You see the saucer in the TV show composited differently with the full size legs set. In "The Saucer", the closest and biggest shot shows the upper hull lower on the legs and the legs impossibly large in relation to the saucer. In "The Innocent" the legs are composited smaller under the saucer.

Because the saucer shots with the legs are always made of 2 different images you cannot rely on the proportions. The effects house did not always composite the items in the correct size relationship. The people creating the Aurora model Kit basically found a size relationship of saucer hull and legs that worked. That is probably the best solution.


----------



## Patron Zero

Got a very unHappy April Fool's Day message here, I was in the process of sorting out the child-scale build of the Invaders Saucer for my young nephews, such to be constructed as a playhouse-playfort in their backyard this coming Summer.

Said message was from the Homeowner's Association where my nephews reside, well technically where their parent's home is but I digress, the message clearly outlined that such a structure would violate a good half-dozen covenants not to mention be considered a possible item that could cause serious property damage if such became airborne.

Mind a tornado did pass through the vicinity of said neighborhood-subdivision last Summer and the subsequent winds did turn patio furniture, satellite dishes and other 'mundane' outdoor fixtures in missiles, such doing a fairly applaud-able amount of 'breakage and disfigurement' to several homes.

That said, I guess I cannot argue the conclusion of a more aerodynamic craft being 'Frisbeed' by strong storms as more likely than just possible to occur and sadly withdraw the project as it was intended.

Now no one will argue that a Saucer scaled for 3-3/4" figures will be of any concern so turning my efforts and resources to that in the near future.

*quitely grumbling about Homeowner Associations and their fascist-like covenants*


----------



## Highlighter

*Invaders Flying Saucer Fabrication*

Very cool shot of Mel Keys and the top half of the Invaders flying saucer model! From around 1966 at Production Model shop in Burbank California!


----------



## starseeker

What a great photo! Thanks for that!


----------



## scooke123

Cool picture!


----------



## SUNGOD

That is a great picture but are you sure it's not just a guy who has a bad taste in hats?


----------



## Highlighter

Lol, it would certainly keep the sun off, that's for sure.


----------



## thepixelpusher

FYI, that pull of the saucer form, that Mel holds above his head, was not the final shape of the piece used in the saucer studio model. Mel got feedback from the studio and there were small changes.


----------



## JAT

Well yeah, they probably wanted a bottom, maybe some lights...
Good to see some progress on this site, tho


----------



## nivek626

12 inch Invaders Saucer build mock-up stage on interior


----------



## Richard Baker

nivek626 said:


> 12 inch Invaders Saucer build mock-up stage on interior


...which means?


----------



## nivek626

trying to figure out how to post pix I think i may have it check my album sorry new at this


----------



## Richard Baker

Best way I have found to post an image on this forum is to create a new account with Imgur if you do not already have one (free also), load the picture there and select either 'Direct Link' (which copies a link into your computer to paste into the Hobbytalk Post Reply) or 'BBCode' which does the same thing but when the post is seen online the picture will be in the actual post instead of just a link for others to follow.


----------



## nivek626

Thanks for the help


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

As a new member you are not allowed to post images until after your 5th post. (Yeah, I know.  ) 

In the meantime you can post (create) thumbnails - that works from the gitgo!

So try again in a few posts...


Welcome to the boards! :cheers2:


----------



## nivek626

Thank You glad to know kinda new at this glad to be part of this great board


----------



## Highlighter

*Recent Activity*

Guess I'll post a few things seeming it's been quiet for a while.


----------



## nivek626

looks great work like this is an inspration


----------



## Richard Baker

If only the show had shots that good


----------



## Highlighter

Thanks! Certainly does help to have a bunch of things not available 50 years ago.

The effects were certainly impressive for the time. Though I was thinking as far as the saucer was concerned, it often looked better in the first season when they would take the fully size landing gear out. Outside of S2 THE SAUCER episode, they seemed to save money by using matte paintings more (the same one too) The saucer shots in episodes like DARK OUTPOST and THE LIFE SEEKERS are disappointing where as ones in THE MUTATION, THE INNOCENT and PANIC hold up far better.


----------



## Highlighter

Just before dawn...


----------



## Mike Makkreel

*The Invaders 1:48 Scake ship*

:wink2:


xsavoie said:


> I agree.If this kit is to be re released in a bigger size,it should be more accurized and have more detail parts.And of course,offer the necessary clear parts for lithing display.


Here a Large Saucer for Sale...The Invaders... Mike


Modeler's Miniatures & Magic has a large Invaders 1:48... Search Mike Makkreel, or You Tube


----------



## Highlighter

*Invaders Saucer Model*

A pic of the the filming miniature as it is today.


----------



## Seaview

Mike Makkreel said:


> :wink2:
> Here a Large Saucer for Sale...The Invaders... Mike
> 
> 
> Modeler's Miniatures & Magic has a large Invaders 1:48... Search Mike Makkreel, or You Tube






Welcome to Hobbytalk, Mike. Do you have a link to this website? I'm interested in getting this.


----------



## SUNGOD

Highlighter said:


> A pic of the the filming miniature as it is today.




I've painted my Aurora kit silver but that looks an off white?


----------



## Highlighter

*The Invaders Saucer Minature*

Hi SUNGOD, I'd say very much like the original Enterprise filming miniature: light grey with a hint of green -- seeming THE INVADERS saucer was made at the same shop too. The green was added to improve the models definition from the blue screens which were used then (Now green is the preferred color for screening, so if you're planning on keying it, may want to add a hint of blue instead, lol). The lighter grays could also be lit without many issues. Here's a bit of info on the Enterprise one:

https://culttvman.com/main/what-color-is-the-classic-enterprise-by-paul-m-newitt/


----------



## Bruce Bishop

When I was young our TV usually showed the color as something of a metallic silver blue, so when the kit first came out I bought it and painted it that color, as close as I could. Still like the color of it, sitting on the shelf, but using a brush and the old Testors enamel it's not the smoothest coat of paint.


----------



## Lloyd Collins

An old Starlog magazine article stated that the filming model was white and color lights where shined on it for effect when filming the miniature.


----------



## SUNGOD

Highlighter said:


> Hi SUNGOD, I'd say very much like the original Enterprise filming miniature: light grey with a hint of green -- seeming THE INVADERS saucer was made at the same shop too. The green was added to improve the models definition from the blue screens which were used then (Now green is the preferred color for screening, so if you're planning on keying it, may want to add a hint of blue instead, lol). The lighter grays could also be lit without many issues. Here's a bit of info on the Enterprise one:
> 
> https://culttvman.com/main/what-color-is-the-classic-enterprise-by-paul-m-newitt/




Thanks for that and I might well be painting over the silver on mine. Be good as I have a few saucers in silver so it'll add variety.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I loved this series as a kid and used to have the model. Last night I finished watching season 1 of The Invaders (1967-1968) on YouTube so now I'm ready for season 2. Just watched The Saucer episode. Now I want that model again! I'll be looking to buy the Atlantis reissue. In the whole series, did they ever show more of the interior sets than in The Saucer and the Michael Rennie episode from season 1? Also the control room viewport is not on the filming model right? I'll probably fill that in.


----------



## Highlighter

DARK OUTPOST in season 2 is the other episode to show some interesting saucer interiors. Check the stores for the Atlantis kit as they tend to still have it for around the original price.


----------



## Highlighter

*Invaders Beachhead Scene.*

This is really nicely done!


----------



## Steve H

Nicely done! Very nicely done! Was there some floro paint and UV light used there?


----------



## Josellas

I had an old Monogram Invaders saucer kit then found Aurora parts on Ebay, in particular the clear top. I used that and sealed the kit with the interior outside of it for display on a diorama. I took a lot of the fine information from the fine gentlemen on this posting and tried to incorporate as much as I was able to into this build up.
Can't thank you guys enough for the invaluable input. It isn't close to the studio miniature but makes for a nice display. Here is a link to the build up.

Thanks again to all you guys.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums/72157670469267384

and the interior assembly

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums/72157639207696223


----------



## Richard Baker

Just a heads up- Atlantis is re-releasing the original Aurora Invaders UFO model kit
Preorder available at CultMan for $31.95
https://www.culttvmanshop.com/Invad...om-Atlantis--PREORDER-RESERVATION_p_4338.html


----------



## Highlighter

I bought one first round, I couldn't help taking off the shrink wrap and opening the box and glad I did. A couple of the landing gear had the pins knocked during shipping. Atlantis were nice enough to send some replacements.


----------



## SUNGOD

Nice to see it being reissued but shame it probably won't have the clear top.


----------



## Seaview

According to Steve Iverson, the molds were destroyed for the clear top. I remember painting mine silver and leaving the slits clear. Hey, I was 10, what did I know?


----------



## mach7

Seaview said:


> According to Steve Iverson, the molds were destroyed for the clear top. I remember painting mine silver and leaving the slits clear. Hey, I was 10, what did I know?


Maybe Atlantis can release a clear kit as a special edition. I have the re release from last year and a Monogram release, so a clear kit would get me to buy another.


----------



## Richard Baker

A clear kit could be a lot of fun- build it as a 'Visible' Saucer and scratch up the lower deck. I remember seeing a CGI walk through trying to duplicate some of the additional interior seen in the show. It would be cramped, but with Alien tech you would not need to have a lot of the drive system taking up room...


----------



## LoraElise

Seaview said:


> According to Steve Iverson, the molds were destroyed for the clear top. I remember painting mine silver and leaving the slits clear. Hey, I was 10, what did I know?


Couldn't they just use duplicate the existing top mold and make a clear part for it? It's the same part, after all


----------



## Richard Baker

I think they are still trying to save money by using the original tooling. IIRC the saucer top is on a sprue with some other parts which do not need to be duplicated in clear.
Now if they just switch to all clear styrene then the problem is solved and they have a special edition they can sell to those who already have a kit.


----------



## robn1

The existing mold for the top may not be polished smooth enough to cast a clear part.


----------



## SUNGOD

I do find that a bit odd. If they have the mould for the non clear top then don't they put coloured plastic beads in there? And if so can't they just put clear beads into the mould instead of opague ones?


----------



## mach7

robn1 said:


> The existing mold for the top may not be polished smooth enough to cast a clear part.


Excellent point, one I never thought of.


----------



## Highlighter

*Atlantis Reissue of The Invaders UFO*

Don't think there are going to be any differences with the reissue which is apparently shipping today. At least they're back to the regular price again.

https://www.atlantis-models.com/theinvadersufo.aspx


----------



## NTRPRZ

How many episodes actually showed the interior of the saucer? There's a BW pic of Roy Thinnes sitting in a chair in the control chamber, but the controls are totally different from what was shown -- extensively -- in the episode "The Saucer."


----------



## Highlighter

*Episodes that show the Saucer Interior.*

Three episodes -- kind of. THE INNOCENT, THE SAUCER & DARK OUTPOST. There's also the opening credits shot of the aliens and the viewscreen which features different paneling. THE INNOCENT & THE SAUCER have the same basic set structure but have different panels and set dressing.

In THE INNOCENT one side wall and area is never shown as that's where the film crew were filming and lighting from, because of the smaller size of the set, that wall would not have even been there. In THE SAUCER the back wall is missing, as again that's where they filmed. The set was definitely modular so they could remove sections to place lights and the camera.

I said "kind of" because DARK OUTPOST never shows the main control room but has a maze of other rooms. The DARK OUTPOST set comes off a little like the TARDIS in Dr. WHO -- bigger on the inside than on the out.


----------



## Highlighter

*The Original Studio model*

Mr. Mel Keys has very kindly shared some original photos of construction on the original studio 4 foot model.


----------



## NTRPRZ

The interior of the Aurora/Atlantis saucer apparently was based on the set from "The Innocent" and not "The Saucer." That could make an argument for there being more than one kind of saucer -- consequently, the exterior shape could be different as well.


----------



## taneal1

Highlighter said:


> Don't think there are going to be any differences with the reissue which is apparently shipping today. At least they're back to the regular price again.
> 
> https://www.atlantis-models.com/theinvadersufo.aspx



I've seen contradictory info -- does this version have the clear bubbles on the bottom, or the red?

Thanks to any responders...


----------



## taneal1

Given all the great info here on this thread, has anyone attempted to correct any of the deficiencies on the 7" 'Aurora' et al?


----------



## Richard Baker

I do not think the Aurora can be corrected to match the filming miniature- it has some proportion issues and the hull curve is wrong. I think it would be easier to make a new one from scratch and use some lower engine pieces for detailing


----------



## taneal1

Richard Baker said:


> I do not think the Aurora can be corrected to match the filming miniature- it has some proportion issues and the hull curve is wrong. I think it would be easier to make a new one from scratch and use some lower engine pieces for detailing



Thanks Richard,

Scratchbuild, eh? Sorry to hear this... I've never tried anything this big!

Sounds like a job for slow-drying plaster over a frame and a rotating table or arm. Do more folks go for the rotating arm or rotating table method? The toughest part, IMO, will be cutting the arm to the correct shape.

Tom


----------



## Highlighter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlighter View Post
Don't think there are going to be any differences with the reissue which is apparently shipping today. At least they're back to the regular price again.

https://www.atlantis-models.com/theinvadersufo.aspx

I've seen contradictory info -- does this version have the clear bubbles on the bottom, or the red?

Thanks to any responders...

Clear domes, the rest opaque grey -- including the top. The only thing different from the first Atlantis run is the date on the box.


----------



## Highlighter

*THE INNOCENT Interior*

Been working on a version of THE INNOCENT saucer interior. Most of the paneling and prop pieces are in other episodes so it's been a bit of detective fun trying to put it together.

When I matched the camera lens, the camera would have been behind the left wall so the left wall wouldn't have been in the set to make space for filming, likewise the back wall was removed in THE SAUCER episode.

So far no image of the left side of THE INNOCENT set has been available but think it's safe to say the far left control desk section would have been blank like the far right one. In THE SAUCER version both of these have panels.


----------



## Highlighter

*THE INNOCENT Interior*

Some 3D prints of some of THE INNOCENT saucer panels at 60mm, I'm quite pleased with how they're coming out.


----------



## Highlighter

*THE INNOCENT Interior*

Some other modelling stuff. The antimatter bomb detonator from the DOOMSDAY MINUS ONE episode became a panel in THE INNOCENT turned sideways, much better reference of it in DOOMSDAY MINUS ONE.

The power generator when Michael Rennie and Vincent first walk in to the saucer is also in THE BETRAYED train tanker as are many of the other panels.


----------



## charonjr

Really nice work! At that scale, are the 3D prints done in .1mm resolution?


----------



## Highlighter

Thanks. 0.4 nozzle, 0.08 layer height.


----------



## taneal1

Highlighter said:


> https://www.atlantis-models.com/theinvadersufo.aspx
> I've seen contradictory info -- does this version have the clear bubbles on the bottom, or the red?
> 
> Clear domes, the rest opaque grey -- including the top. The only thing different from the first Atlantis run is the date on the box.



Thanks Highlighter,


Tom


----------



## charonjr

OK, Highlighter, .08 looks nice! Thanks!


----------



## Highlighter

*A Deluxe Aurora Re-Issue with Clear bottom domes and a Clear Top Dome Coming out!*

Sweet! Just heard about this today:





Invaders Flying Saucer U.F.O. 1/72 Scale Model Kit Deluxe Aurora Atlantis Re-Issue with Clear Lights and Dome Invaders Flying Saucer U.F.O. 1/72 Scale Model Kit Deluxe Aurora Re-Issue with Lights and Clear Dome [18SAT200] - $24.99 : Monsters in Motion, Movie, TV Collectibles, Model Hobby Kits, Action Figures, Monsters in Motion


This kit comes molded in silver and includes a Clear dome and 5 clear lights. This kit has not had the clear dome in included since the original Aurora issue many years ago. The dome and 5 lights will also be molded in silver as well. The kit will feature new box art and for the first time and...



www.monstersinmotion.com


----------



## mach7

Atlantis's Invaders saucer clear dome


Nothing earth shattering, but I just got an email from Atlantis. https://atlantis-models.com/preorder-the-flying-saucer-1-72/ They are re-releasing The Invaders saucer with a clear top cover, Something I don't think we have seen since the original Aurora kit. I figured some here would be...




www.hobbytalk.com





I posted this 5 days ago. I already have mine pre-ordered from Atlantis. $27 for July delivery.

Exciting news!


----------



## Highlighter

mach7 said:


> Atlantis's Invaders saucer clear dome
> 
> 
> Nothing earth shattering, but I just got an email from Atlantis. https://atlantis-models.com/preorder-the-flying-saucer-1-72/ They are re-releasing The Invaders saucer with a clear top cover, Something I don't think we have seen since the original Aurora kit. I figured some here would be...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hobbytalk.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this 5 days ago. I already have mine pre-ordered from Atlantis. $27 for July delivery.
> 
> Exciting news!


Thanks for more info on that. I kind of wondered if it was going to another Atlantis release, I have the first one, and I've now ordered this too, I'm curious to see what the new artwork will be.


----------



## mach7

Yah, I'm guessing Atlantis owns the molds now. I think they got them from the Revell purchase.

I have the last Monogram release and the Atlantis from a few years ago. This will make a nice addition. 
Now if we can just get AMT to re-release the 1967 ford Galaxy I can make a nice Buds diner diorama.


----------

