# Refit Plans



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

I hope to put together a set of refit plans in the near future. Over the past few months I have been doing a complete rebuild of my solid model to correct all the inconsistencies I have discovered from analyzing photographs.

The source is all done in 3d so you can see window angles

I am trying to make it as close as possible to model as it appears in STTMP. The only real changes are that I fix things that look like defects resulting from hand crafting: straightening lines, making things symmetrical (but not the windows), eliminating mushiness.

The hardest part to draw is the area above the hangar door.

After doing this so long I seem to spot errors immediately in any printed plan.

Hopefully, this will be the final iteration. I'd kill for 20 minutes with the studio model.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I take it that this will be completely based off of the original studio model from ST:TMP? No elements of the Directions Cut version CGI Refit?


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

That's correct. I found too many discrepancies between the studio model and the Directors cut CGI to use the latter as a reference.


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

bigjimslade said:


> I hope to put together a set of refit plans in the near future. Over the past few months I have been doing a complete rebuild of my solid model to correct all the inconsistencies I have discovered from analyzing photographs.
> 
> The source is all done in 3d so you can see window angles
> 
> ...


The studio original is in the possession of Paul Allen (Microsoft co-founder). It was acquired for his pop culture (formerly science fiction) museum in Seattle. To date it has not been put on display (probably because it requires restoration work -- broken impulse engines being one problem).

Here's a link to the museum's website:
http://www.empmuseum.org

It can't hurt to ask for access. Worst thing they can do is tell you "no".

I for one would make a generous donation towards getting her restored to TMP shape. You never know. Olsen might even be willing to take on a restoration of the paint job, since it would mean she'd finally be seen by the public in her full glory.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

I actually did contact them---and they said they did not have the model.


----------



## FyreTigger (May 31, 2005)

bigjimslade said:


> I actually did contact them---and they said they did not have the model.


Hmm. Maybe I'm misremembering. Or maybe Paul Allen acquired her for himself and not the museum. But I do remember feeling relief at the acquirer, because it probably meant it would be going on public display.

A web search would probably reveal the lot number and then you could contact Christie's.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

bigjimslade said:


> That's correct. I found too many discrepancies between the studio model and the Directors cut CGI to use the latter as a reference.


Awesome and I thought as much. Thanks to you - and your research partner - for taking the time to do the work on the CGI model. I hope it's well received. :thumbsup:


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Griffworks said:


> Awesome and I thought as much. Thanks to you - and your research partner - for taking the time to do the work on the CGI model. I hope it's well received. :thumbsup:


I'll give one prominent example. On the CGI model, take a look at one of the 3 doohickies around the forward engineering hull (the one with the chest logo on it). On the CGI model it flares way out towards the back. On the physical model, it does to flare out. 

For a more subtle discrepancy visually (but more crucial for sizing), the first vertical gridline goes through the 3d arboretum window rather than between the 2d and 3d. Errors in this kind of relationship create chain reactions

The CGI model is great for a motion picture and produces a nice effect on the screen. It is useless as a reference for the physical model where one can place the two side-by-side.

I have attached an image illustrating the part of the drafting process. It shows reference points taken from multiple photographs superimposed over one photo. This source for particular file has 12 images and analysis stacked (not all shown). I can turn images and reference lines on and off.

Using the straight lines in the photo, you determine the lens distortion causing the discrepancies.

(btw..my previous comment was not to dispute that the model is in the possession of Paul Allen. I firmly believe it is and that it is intended for the museum. However, the museum asserted to me that they did not have it and had no information about it.)


----------



## eagledocf15 (Nov 4, 2008)

*Let us know how you are doing with the plans*

good luck!!!


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*First Pass*

I'm starting to convert the solids from 3D to 2D. Here's one of my first, shrunk down to 8-1/2 x 11. For the most part it appears pretty good. However, some lines disappeared (such as along the back ends of the thingamajigs around the nose)and some appeared from no where (such as the line under the fantail).

It gives a good impression of the orientation of the windows.

If you spot something odd, let me know,


----------



## sgariepy (Jun 20, 2003)

That's a great project. Looking forward to it.

Isn't the model in the hands of Ben Stiller? Read that somewhere on the interweb, a mostly reliable source


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*A Little Progress*

I finally got a PDF of the whole thing done. Until they came out with a 64-bit version, this always crashed. I have it sized for 1/4 scale printout (25"). Due to the size, I can't give you more than a little sample here.

I hope to go down to Staples this weekend and get a giant one printed out.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

Oh man I can't wait to see how they've turned out! The image you posted is making me salivate! I take it the actual kit is still in the molding stages?


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

whiskeyrat said:


> Oh man I can't wait to see how they've turned out! The image you posted is making me salivate! I take it the actual kit is still in the molding stages?


The kit is still going on. I get regular updates but I am not in the middle of it. I understand that the size and number of parts has made the process longer than expect.

I had computer problems yesterday and spend the whole day reinstalling software. I did not get to make a print out at Staples.


----------



## publiusr (Jul 27, 2006)

A lot of people drew all kinds of Excelsior saucers, TOS Es, but you look to have actually paid attention. How does this differ from Kimbles?


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

publiusr said:


> A lot of people drew all kinds of Excelsior saucers, TOS Es, but you look to have actually paid attention. How does this differ from Kimbles?


I didn't use the Kimble prints as a source. I dismissed them for accuracy early on. They are more artistic than accurate.

From a quick scan some of the differences include:
The engineering hull on the kimble prints is overly wasp waisted. 
The grid lines are wrong. 
The pylon attaches to the warp engine in the wrong place. 
There are missing grid lines on the saucer bottom.
Details on warp engines are missing.
There is no right side Kimble plan

On of the big difference is that these have been drawn in 3d so the views are consistent with each other

Here is a JPEG reduction of a 36x24" sheet I made of the warp engines. The images are at 1/2 scale


----------



## Bernard Guignar (Sep 9, 2006)

Very nice work Looking forward to seeing more :thumbsup:


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

I hope to finally get to Staples this weekend to print a set out on 24x36 paper.

It took a while to do the cleanup. The automatic 3d to 2d conversion is not flawless. Some lines have to be added back in. Others have to be deleted.

Some people have asked here how is this different. This top view gives one example of the benefit you get from doing this in 3d. Take a look at the shape of the aft end of the warp engines. Now compare that to any other plan you know of.

Then think about how the back end is sloped forward and what shape that would give from a top view.

Another difference I have noticed is the relationship of the aftmost vertical gridline to the aftmost tab on the spin. Compare where is here to any reference photo and to other plans.


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

Really looking great, BigJim! Totally agree with what you're saying about the aft end of the engines. Your attention to these kind of details truly sets this apart from any other efforts I've seen for the Big E. Didn't quite understand what you were talking about when you mentioned "the aftmost vertical grid line to the aftmost tab on the spin." Clarify please? Really looking forward to these plans! Incredible work!


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Along the spine of the engineering hull there is a series of little tabs on either side. 

If you look in reference photos, you find that last vertical grid line on the engineering hull lines up about 2/3rd of the way up the last pair of these tabs.

It was observations like these that I used to put together the model.

Probably people will find things wrong and point them out. 

I didn't go to Staples today because I found that I had incorrectly positioned one of the parts of the neck (not visible in that picture I posted) too far forward. I always define the orgin for each part as 0,0,0 but sometimes I mistype when I position them (I did 9, 0, 0).


----------



## whiskeyrat (May 7, 2012)

bigjimslade said:


> Along the spine of the engineering hull there is a series of little tabs on either side.
> 
> If you look in reference photos, you find that last vertical grid line on the engineering hull lines up about 2/3rd of the way up the last pair of these tabs.
> 
> ...


Ah gotcha. Spine! I'm an idiot...


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

I finally made it over to Staples and printed out four sheets (top, bottom, left, right, front back and warp engine details). The quality was excellent. I now have to clean up the mysterious problems from 3d to 2d conversion.


----------



## Bernard Guignar (Sep 9, 2006)

Looking forward to seeing the results of your changes. 
Would it be possible to see pictures of the 3d model that you used
to make the 2d Orthos ? :thumbsup:


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*All Finished*

I finally figured out a process that would allow me to get from the 3D model to a beautiful 2D representation. In a previous post I showed that the default to PDF conversion was creating blobs. If figured out a sequence of conversions steps that preserves the clean lines of the original. 

It looks beautiful.

I developed an 8-sheet set (36x24") consisting of:

1:480 scale
1. Right and Top
2. Left and Bottom
3. Front Back and Saucer bottom
4. 4 Saucer side views and sectional profile

1:240 scale
5. Warp Engine views (top bottom, front, back, inside, outside, and sections)
6. Engineering hull top (saucer and pylons removed) and cross sections 
7. Pylon and Neck with cross sections

1:120 (full)
8. Details at full size: Bridge, Impulse Engine, Torpedo tubes, etc.

I printed out a few sets and gave them to [close] friends (each set is VERY expensive to make). They were blown away.

Unfortunately, Hobbytalk's file size limits prevent me from giving more than a teaser. Imagine the attached file drawn on 36 inch long paper using vector graphics with fine lines and no jaggies anywhere.


----------

