# Refit Painting and Finishing



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

*Refit Templates*

Hi all,

Might have missed this somewhere along the line but there are now templates for the 1/350 Refit as created by Aztec Dummy (Lou?). Thought this might be of interest.

Rob


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The instructions are full of photos showing them on the model, so one may assume he had a prototype to work from.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*Refit test shot*

Yup,
I had one in my meaty little paws. I hated to send it back. While I had it, I was the king of Smugness.  

Can't wait til the thing actually hits the shelves, tho. I'm curious about how all of those pieces are supposed to fit together. It does seem weird that they would put that much detail into the shuttle/cargo bay when, if you built the ship the way you assume you should, you'd never see anything but the tiny portion you see thru the bay doors. It really begs for a cutaway variation.

Lou


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

someone in a previous thread on this topic said they were inaccurate. if so then theyre a moot point.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I got mine as well. They are VERY good and worth the price. They are not completely accurate, but my feeling is, unless you know the ship color for every inch, then it won't matter. They are close enough for our modeling needs and I look forward to using them.

According to the paperwork with it (which is very detailed on how to place the templates and where), it states the prototype from Polar Lights was used so it should be fine when the actual refit is released. Now with these and the circuit board for the navigational and collision lights, I am all set to build this puppy!


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*Glad to hear it*

Hey guys,
I'm glad to hear from you folks who've gotten yours. I was concerned that the instructions weren't clear enough, so I tended to over explain things.

What do you think of the finish variant idea? That is, painting the ship however you like but then only using the templates to apply a flat/gloss finish?

Lou


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

Lou,
You did a fine job on the instructions. It's laid out very clear on how and where the masks should go. Kudos on a top notch job.

I've thought of doing the gloss/flat paint for the aztec paint scheme. My thoughts came about when laying down the decals. We all know that decals should be place on gloss surface to prevent silvering. I came up with this:

1. Gloss the model after painting.
2. Place decals on model.
3. When decals are dry gloss coat again to seal decals.
4. Apply the masks.
5. Spray the dull coat on.

While this would give you the appearence you mention in the instructions, isn't there a danger of the masks pulling up decals when they are removed. I know masking tape will pull up decals even when they have been given a coat or 2 of clear.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Uhmmm…

I don’t want to spoil the mood here but….that saucer “Aztec” is not correct! 

Specifically I’m talking about the upper “branch” of each section.
It should look like a capital E, the template looks like an U if you know what I mean: 

There should be three beams like in an E,

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent05.jpg
(look at the left hand side just below the phaser and you’ll see what I mean)

The templates only have two beams like an U.

http://www.culttvman.net/aztek_dummy_refit_templates_0.html

AND…… there should be a little box at each upper corner to the left and right of the E……

Sorry I don’t wan to come of as the ever smart a**hole, but the “There’s something wrong with that Aztec” popped to my mind the second I loaded that picture at Cults.
I appreciate the work that went into those templates, but I wouldn’t buy them with such an obvious mistake….

In case the real thing has been corrected (pictures at Cult might by a “prototype” template)…I never said a word, but if they ARE the same, I’m VERY surprised none of you saw that mistake yet!


----------



## Rogue1 (Jan 3, 2000)

It's been noted before.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

...and few seem to care. I do, so Ill make my own


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*?*

Those are minor concerns. If perfection is what you're looking for, good luck. Building models is about improvising and interpretation. It's an art. 

The product is excellent, in my opinion. I see it as a great starting point, just like the kit itself, which will require a good deal of work as well.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*E vs. U*

It was a deliberate decision to make the topmost section a U.

Two reasons:

1) Technical considerations - It's harder on the plotter (more wear and tear)to make it cut the tiny shapes plus it takes more time to cut them, so I opted to make the change to speed up the process. You should have seen the other things I wanted to include, but that would have meant more vinyl, longer cutting time (each of these sets currently takes about a half hour just to cut) hence more supplies which translates into higher cost. I want to mke these the easiest to use, and the best value for the money.

2)Call it "artistic license" 

If these changes are enough to sour you on the idea of buying a set, I more than understand. 

Lou


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Hey Lou, 

Thanks for addressing me personally.
I may not post much here (am more in to posting at SSM) but I’m always checking the board for news 

Anyway I can understand why you opted for the U because of the problems one is faced with the “E”. It took me two weeks in total just to put the mask in place (I ruined LOTS of templates because of the E).

BUT…..

I managed to do the “E” AND that little “box” thingy on the ERTL kit!!! (You all know how small that upper most deflector grid section close to the bridge/planetary sensor dome is right?) 

Here is my ERTL Ent-A in case you don’t believe me:
pic 6
pic 8
pic 11
It may not be as Nicely cut as those templates, but I did it myself. 

And since the PL is going to be MUCH bigger (1/350 opposed to 1/573) it will defiantly be NO problem for me to do it again on the PL Refit!





To cinc2020,

Yeah its perfection I try to accomplish with my kits and such an (to me) obvious wrong “Aztec” spoils the fun for me! 

I don’t want to discourage anyone to buy those templates, they are GREAT…. if one is not so much into “perfection” as me!

BTW, I’m one of those modellers who want to do EVERYTHING themselves


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*To Garbaron*

My God Man, That's some great work there!
How did you achieve the fine red lines on the top of the saucer? You've done some incredible work. I can't wait to see what you can do with the big beastie.

I appreciate your comments about my templates, but I think that you misunderstood my intentions, however.

It's not that I didn't know about or couldn't make the two changes to the aztec pattern you talk about, it's that I chose not to, because of the additional wear and tear on the plotter. After I finished my original design work I found that I needed to simplify the shapes a bit to get the cutting time down and minimize the number of tiny shapes

Look, the shapes are still there and if folks who want to put a little more time into their ships can still cut out the top corners with an exacto if they want.

I personally like the "U" shape because it echoes the center shaft of the pattern "above" it .

I hope this answers your concerns

Lou


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Thanks my friend!

Well the red line around B/C deck is a decal. It was a straight decal, so I had to cut it into izibzy tiny pieces in order to get the bending correctly, took about two/three hours to apply. I primarily ordered the replacement decals because of the registry number and Starfleet delta, which are all wrong at the original sheet (besides the others that are wrong and those missing altogether  ). The decals and the Reliant planetary sensor are the only two things I replaced; everything else was modified by me in hour after hours of work. 

I do understand why you changed the E to U. That particular part of mask gave me a lot of trouble and I had to re do MANY of these deflector grid sections because I either cut the tiny “E” off entirely, or it was too big so I couldn’t add the two ”boxes” to the corners. Mostly it was a cutting problem because cutting these tiny forms proofed to be VERY difficult and almost lead to cardiac arrest in times . You see I CAN understand why you made the changes. But as I mentioned earlier, my kits need to be as perfect as I can get them and the change in the pattern is not an option for me. In fact I originally had planed to do a multi layer color scheme, but all the sanding, puttying, detail painting, soldering of wires, placing of bulbs, solving light leaking, solving flood light issues, etc. where winding me down more rapidly then I had anticipated. So I skipped parts of my original dream, like the registry/name flood lights (fantail and behind planetary sensor), REC-Deck interiors, the nacelle tip flood lights and more complex secondary hull plating schemes among others. I’ll try to realize my un realized dream with the PL 1/350 

I’m not sure if you have checked the rest of the pictures…she’s all lighted you know…just like this: 

pic 5

And this 

pic_3


Here is the link to the total collection.


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

Thorsten your work is incredible !It is the best refit I have seen !


----------



## dsscse (Dec 19, 2004)

I just want the right impression, so that it looks like the refit, I have only got one hand and it shakes when doing fine work, I have built and lit aprox 15 Trek models and thought they looked good untill I saw the same ones done by you folks. Mine look CRAP! So anything that helps me with the 1701 refit, I will buy.
So, THANK YOU! Lou.
From those of us who cannot attain perfection and need all the help (some may call it cheating) we can get!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Absolutely the best, Thorsten, I've ever seen of the AMT/ERTL kit.


----------



## tripdeer (Mar 7, 2004)

Oh yeah, I also wanted to thank Lou for the templates, I think I'm going to be picking up a set when I get time to tackle the refit... nicely done, sir!

Dan


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Thank’s guys! 

I hop I can impress you even more when I have finished work on the PL refit 

P.S. if you like to look them up, there are other kits build by me: Voyager (in the VOY section), KBoP (at the Klingon section), TOS and Ent-D (ST collections)


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

Suggestions, colors, techniques, please post here.


----------



## fjimi (Sep 29, 2004)

Thorsten...In-flippin-credible man!

Looking at your work kinda reminds me of the first time I heard Stevie Ray Vaughan. It was so good it made me want to quit playing guitar. Where are the crossroads


----------



## Epsilon (Apr 3, 2004)

That IS a very nice job!

Now... a question. I was thinking about doing the aztecing as decals (I'm sensing a bit of eye-rolling out there...) as I'm just so much better at computer graphics than I could hope to be with paint. I believe that somebody here did a 1/1000 Connie up similarly. Although, looking at this monster... it's going to take a bit.

Anybody out there have any experience in making their own decals? Any thoughts or tips I should know about before I start on this journey?


----------



## Epsilon (Apr 3, 2004)

I've attached an example of what I mean. Here's a sample (reduced in size because of forum restrictions) of what I'm working on...

Any suggestions?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

That looks pretty good Epsilon, but don't forget, the white areas should have panel breakup too.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

The panel breakup within the panels have a definate repetitive pattern also. As I have two of these things to build and light, and I thought I would continue the work on the stencils I had started when I laid up the kit design.

Each panel is broken down to five separate color layers to go on top of the base color, not just another shade or flat/gloss finish on top. Why settle for inaccurate stencils that only supply 20% of what you need?

I know the cut area of the stencils and masks will be huge, but well worth the time it will save me in depicting a truely accurate finish on the builds.


----------



## Doggy (Jan 29, 2000)

How're we going to approach the model's rainbow-like "coat of many colors" sheen?

On Paul Olsen's site he talks about painting the original miniature's pannelling effects using pearlescent blue, green, red and gold automotive lacquers. I'd assume since the base coat was white, that the lacquers were hightly transparent, creating the multicolored shimmer you can see in some of the original TMP shots.

...But how to achieve that effect on our models? Has anyone had any luck finding pearlescents so transparent they simply create a sheen? I've been experimenting for some months and haven't even come close. I'm thinking about giving up and just doing the whole thing in standard acrylics, with custom shades of white instead.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Doggy said:


> Has anyone had any luck finding pearlescents so transparent they simply create a sheen? I've been experimenting for some months and haven't even come close.


I've got high hopes for the Golden line of artists acrylics -- they have pearls and iridescent paints in the line. They call the iridescent ones "Interference" colors. I suspect that you could add some relatively small amount of these to whichever base color you choose and keep the effect pretty subtle, but much experimentation is advised. The other option is to thin them greatly and put them on over your base color(s).

The only drawback to these for me is that they are acrylics, and I prefer enamels and lacquers. Therefore, I may elect to go the thinned-down route.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

I've wrestled for quite awhile with the idea of aztec pattern decals. The snag in the idea appears if you're going for the different subtle colors on the hull. As good as inkjets are these days, there are limits to how many distinct colors they can generate while still keeping everything subtle enough -- this is simply a side-effect of process printing. If you're trying to make them in light gray or light blue you might get the subtle effect right but lose the multiple colors. One option that might work is to make them a little darker, using as many colors as you wish. Then you could put a thinned version of the base colors down on top of that to obscure the colors to the degree you see fit.

The other drawback to using decals is that if you don't do more-or-less the whole model that way, you're then faced with the trick of getting a match to the decals using paint for the other areas.

All this presumes, of course, that you're planning to use an inkjet printer.

These problems could be conquered, I think, but it will take some thought and effort.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

Gotta question for you all.

I've got the Refit templates by Lou and I've had a practice with my Airbrush so I know how to use it. I've now got three Refits on order and I don't particularly want to buy three sets of templates - I can't stretch that far even with the dollar worth a pittance against the pound! Has anyone tried to re-use either the Refit or NX templates on another kit?

Rob


----------



## healvis (Apr 6, 2005)

*aztec pattern*

I just got the 1:350 refit and it comes with an aztec mask is it accurate?
H.


----------



## healvis (Apr 6, 2005)

It is a fantastic looking kit.


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

it has a diagram in the instructions I know that much


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Thank you, thank you very much!


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

Could anyone take a moment and explain to me the paint differences between the TMP, and then the 1701A? i know there was a repaint between TMP and TWOK, but all that looks to be done was a grey overcoat to dull out the original sheen.

However, the STIV+ model seems to have less black detail, and lots of stronger blue and green hues in the hull. The rear vent at the bottom is a dusty bluish color, and same with the plasma vents in the nacelle supports, whereas the TMP-STIII were stark black.

Someone had a video of a paint scheme that was being tested on an ERTL upper saucer, and it looked awesome, but I can't seem to find it.

Does anyone have pics of what a set of different pearled whites would look like? versus the traditional white/offwhite most kits are done in? I had personally been considering building the model as the refit, and using at least 3 different pearl whites as paneling (aztec, then aztec even panel detail, and aztec odd panel, since the original model had more than two sheens to it) over a flat white base (the flat white to help show spotlights).

Any advice? I know its a pretty heated topic. I have the links on the original painting around here somewhere, but I've never seen really good color pictures of the TMP model, and the paint scheme it has nowadays is kinda meh.


----------



## Epsilon (Apr 3, 2004)

Well, (except for sbaxter... thanks for the input) I got no feedback on the idea of decaling aztec patterns, but you know what? After doing things the hard way on the NX-01, I decided to boldly go a new direction.

And... after an initial mis-step... or FIVE... this is the way to go. At least for me. Sure, it will take thought, and sure... as sbaxter said, effort (by the way, two qualities which I lack!!!!(actually it's patience and discipline I lack... but why split hairs...)), but in the three days I've had this precious kit in my hands, I've made 5 mistakes, but one success.

Take a peek.


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

So this is a decal? Looks very good!


----------



## tripdeer (Mar 7, 2004)

I believe the appropriate response to that, Epsilon, is


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

So, I don't suppose you'll be posting a tutorial for how to make your home-made decal aztecs... ?


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

CaptDistraction said:


> Someone had a video of a paint scheme that was being tested on an ERTL upper saucer, and it looked awesome, but I can't seem to find it..


Here ya go...

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/1701_refit_paint.avi

And the markings you see are tests of various custom dry transfers! What good is a great paint job if you're going to bury it under clear coats!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

TrekFX said:


> Here ya go...
> 
> http://members.aol.com/trekfx/1701_refit_paint.avi
> 
> And the markings you see are tests of various custom dry transfers! What good is a great paint job if you're going to bury it under clear coats!


The paint looks great in this video. Any info on what paints were used to do this?


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

That li'l bit o' prehistory was done in 1992.

I used a variety of pearl pigment powders mixed into Future, mixed with various percentages of Tamiya flat base to vary the sheen.

For what it's worth, I still have a bottle of thinned Future from that test and it shows no yellowing in the jar. Neither does the paint on my test subject. Happy.

Here are the "outakes" from the shoot:

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/AztecOutakes.mov

You'll need QuickTime, I can't remember how to export as an .avi right now.


----------



## fubarcar (Jan 16, 2005)

Opus Penguin said:


> The paint looks great in this video. Any info on what paints were used to do this?


I think the paint job extends far, far beyond that. IMHO it could well become a De Facto standard for the new kit. Absolutely, jawdroppingly stunning!

Fabulous work Mike, and the fact you adopted a 7 x 18 panel matrix rather than 7 x 9 didn't go unnoticed. This would certainly give an increased sense of scale to kits on which it is applied, and also remains true to the TMP original.

Like Opus Penguin, I too am curious as to the paints. Automotive? Taxidermists paints? Acrylic or Laquer? Locating pearls in the UK through the web is a nightmare. Nevertheless, Auto Air Colors and their UK distributor Createx UK appear to show promise (despite being a little pricey).

One last thing; Whilst painting, did you overlay the pearls one on top of another, say blue over gold or vice versa, or did you have to create discrete boundaries between colours via the friskets?

EDIT - Future?!! OMG, incredible!


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

http://www.olsenart.com/strek.html

That's the site from the original painter, but I have no clue on where to find pearl pigmented clearcoats. Could we just get pearl powders and mix in small amounts to a clearcoat and get a close effect, or would that be barking up the wrong tree? Its been a long time since I've picked up an airbrush, so I'm pretty much a noob to this again.


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

I'm just curious....

Just asking...

Do you guys _read_ the prior posts before asking a question, the same question that has already been answered? Not only answered in a detailed way, but also one which includes a MOVIE file attached?


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

FYI:

http://www.mannbrothers.com/products/bronzingpowders/pearlescent.htm

http://www.kremer-pigmente.de/englisch/krpigm04.htm

There are MANY importers of pearl pigments from China and Taiwan. Check with a local autobody paint shop and see if they can direct you to a local or nearby supplier.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

*is the kit to big?*

never (-:

but what I wondering now, is this to big to paint with my pache air brush?


----------



## Epsilon (Apr 3, 2004)

Guartho...

I'll post here what I have discovered so far. What I did for the aztec decals was this:

Do a 600 dpi scan of the aztec template from the instructions.

Copy (using photoshop) just the aztec detail and copy into a new document layer with white as a background.

Drop Opacity on that layer to about 2-3%. (this will make the solid black into a very shallow grey). Flatten the image.

Drop another copy of the aztec on top of the old one and take opacity on this new layer to about 4-6% (to taste).

Then cut out portions of the top (higher opacity layer) to reveal the lower (lighter, or dimmer) layer to get the proper effect. Shake up the balance here to get a fairly varied scheme. once complete, (and be sure you are satisfied with the results) flatten the image.

Print to a color laser printer (maybe adjust the color balance more towards blue by doing an: *Image | Adjust | Color Balance* select "highlights" and nudge just a bit towards "blue" on the color scale).

Now the point that REALLY honked me off. The instructions that came with the decal paper tell that you don't need to top coat over your print job - very specifically - if you are using a laser printer.

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Spray a fine coat (or two) over the print job of dullcoat to seal in the ink! If you don't do this, you will have a messy solution of ink-water on your hands!

Let dry, then cut, soak, and apply.

That's what I did.

I'm sure that others have better solutions, but... hey, nobody's sharing, so this is what I've worked out. 

Hope it can help!


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

Thom S. said:


> I'm just curious....
> 
> Just asking...
> 
> Do you guys _read_ the prior posts before asking a question, the same question that has already been answered? Not only answered in a detailed way, but also one which includes a MOVIE file attached?



haha, easy sir, set it to stun, or whatever quip fits best there.  

I didn't edit afterwards, but like I said, I am a noob, I just figured out what future was, and I hadn't understood TrekFx's method of mixing until just now. I looked at powders online and had no clue the difference between a pearl, a metallic, and a irridescent(sp-copy/paste from google) color.

I now know better. 

btw, you don't have any pull with shipping companies to step up the speed of delivery of your product do you? Waiting for this is worse than waiting for car parts. Its going to be a sad day for my wallet if I see one locally too. Already justified it to the gf (who bought me the one online) that if I ended up with two, I'd just have to build both to be the different versions.


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

woof359 said:


> never (-:
> 
> but what I wondering now, is this to big to paint with my pache air brush?


considering a paasche is what "put the dress" on the real deal, I'd think that the 1/350 will be just fine.


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

Thanks Epsilon. I'll let you guys know how it turns out using an ink-jet since that's all I've got available.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Airbrush?
I'm gettin' one of those Wagner power rollers from the Home Depot and a 5 gallon bucket of Sears' finest interior white latex! Yehaw!!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

At the risk of sounding incredibly stupid ( I know I can be slow), the impression I am getting from all the techniques is to basecoat the model in flat white and use different color pearlescent paints to create the aztec pattern (except for when color is specifically used in areas like the engineering section, and such). The site mentioned previously from the man who painted the actual model seems to state this as well. If this is so, I can see how the color of the model would seem to change based on the angle. Is this correct? Again, forgive me if I sound ignorant.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Airbrush?
> I'm gettin' one of those Wagner power rollers from the Home Depot and a 5 gallon bucket of Sears' finest interior white latex! Yehaw!!


I was thinking that considering the size of the kit, maybe we could just take 'em to a local body shop ... 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## fubarcar (Jan 16, 2005)

Thom S. said:


> I'm just curious....
> 
> Just asking...
> 
> Do you guys _read_ the prior posts before asking a question, the same question that has already been answered? Not only answered in a detailed way, but also one which includes a MOVIE file attached?


Think I may have just got under the wire with my edit (TrekFX posted whilst I was still writing my post, hence the "Future" edit).

BTW Thomas, thanks for the FYI links on pearls


----------



## NCC1701-A (Apr 19, 2005)

I had read some where that these were the steps used:

1: Black primer entire ship
2: Lay and complete cover of flat aluminum over the black
3: Sand the two layers accordingly
4: lay a thin layer of flat white on top of that, just enough to give it some color.
5: Then either use different variations of white or finish over the model for aztecing.

Ah I remember it came from the Manual that was produced back in 81, 82 star fleet assembly manual 4 I think I have it some where.


----------



## MartinHatfield (Apr 11, 2004)

Has anyone tried the Tamiya Pearl White spray on a kit? I was wondering if it would lay thin enough on the model without risking the surface details.

After spraying the Tamiya Pearl white, I was going to then apply very light and thinned coats of white and shades of grey to create the pattern desired.


----------



## captain_america (Aug 21, 2004)

Tamiya lacquer spray cans will work just fine, but the pearl white is very milky, so you'd be best to start with a pure white base.

Since they're an aerosol, the lacquers are loaded with solvent, and the paint will continuously "shrink" as it dries... Over a period of months, no less, so there's absolutely no worry of covering up any detain on the model itself.


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

*Don't Know if this helps, buuuttt....*

Gang,

I went to the craft store A.C. Moore this weekend. At least in my area, they have a line of pearl powders called "Pearl Ex Pigments", Made by Rupert, Gibbon & Spider's division, Jacquard Products. They have different sizes of White pearl flakes for different effects,(Macropearl, Micropearl, and Pearlwhite) as well as incidence pearls (The 'flip-flop colors: Gold, Blue, and Green? (I'm runnin' on memory here...)) and a couple of colored pearls, Blue, etc., as well as Gold, copper, silver) 

Thier website is at:

http://www.jacquardproducts.com/products/pearlex/l0_index.php

Greg


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

You got it!


----------



## scifibear2 (Oct 19, 2003)

I will most likely be using tube artists' acrylics for my paint job. I did the Enterprise E in them. What I like about this approach is that I can build up my color in thin washes. Lighting is beyond my skills right now, and I wont' even put myself through that frustration. The model won't be handled much, so I don't think that the paint coming off will be an issue. I know that washes sometimes break down the cohesiveness of the pain, but I use a brush and have better control. I can also get the tube colors in just about any shade and tone I want. I do have to see how the paint layers will hold up to adhesives though, as in taping off for panel detail. I don't like the bottled model paints, usually either too thick or too thin and difficult to match colors I have mixed.

IS there anybody out there who thinks I will be making a MISTAKE with this approach?


----------



## dsscse (Dec 19, 2004)

*to show off cargo hold etc*

Just a thought but how about an V. Small oblong mirror on its side at 45 degrees (aprox) in the top rear (as you look through from hanger doors) with the area lit you should see more (You could say its an OH&S requirement so that crew dont get hit in the head by cargo lifters comming from the hanger down to the cargo level) You might have an old SLR camera that you could get the mirror to cut it down from..... JUST A THOUGHT, lets work this and see if its possable or not, the floor is now open


----------



## AZbuilder (Jul 16, 1999)

Hi Scifi Bear In a word *It is your model* It really don't matter a hill of beans how you finish the refit except for those who are a bit retinitve about such things. LOL :jest: . but seriously It don't matter what media or medium you use to do *YOUR *model just as long as you are happy with the results of your efforts. 

Myself I am planning on painting mine in white acrylic Pearls, no aztecing as that is beyond my megre talents. but I am planning on lighting it in some fashion just have not worked out all the details yet. Go ahead and model and most of all enjoy yourself.

AZbuilder
John Davis


----------



## scifibear2 (Oct 19, 2003)

Thanks John. I just thought that I had heard somewhere that thinning too much can break down the adhesive quality of the paint, but I don't think I will worry about that. I found about five liquid acrylic Liquitex colors that I liked, pearlescent white, very light silver, darker silver and a green for the engineering areas, and a blue. I'm looking forward to seeing the results. The "Aztecing", which is a cliche term in my opinion, may get on my nerves, but I think the subtle effects will be very PLEASING.

Also, am I correct that Tenax 7 will set and dry within seconds or a couple of minutes? I assume this will be better for connecting the major stress/support areas then super glue?


----------



## scifibear2 (Oct 19, 2003)

Oh, thanks, John, for your support.

Dennis


----------



## admiralcag (Apr 2, 2004)

I've just skimmed the entire thread but didn't find a whole lot of discussion on how to apply the decals. Will a gloss coat effect a pearl coat? Should the model have an overall gloss or semigloss sheen? I've been wanting to do a competent job on the Refit for 15 years but haven't had the guts or the advice to do it.

Thoughts?

Vern


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*Ideas*

Good question. I use Future floor wax, applied via airbrush (slightly thinned with water) to the model prior to applying decals. Over that, I spray another coat of Future.

As for the final sheen of the model, I recommend a flat to semi-gloss finish. Gloss makes the model look toyish. I've seen gloss used for airliner models to great effect, but my impression is that the Enterprise is not glossy, it's supposed to be metallic.

I will be using four metallic colors (Testors metallizers) with Future coats in between. One has to be very careful with these paints as they do not respond well to tape and masks. But two coats of Future appears to work well. The model will then be buffed, Future coated, and decaled. A final coat of Future will be applied, then the model will recieve a flat coat. After all that, I will dust with silver dust, chalks, etc. as needed. Thrusters on the engineering hull, for example, will receive mild exhaust stains.

I tested this on some plastic, and I was surprised by the effect. I will post pictures when I have time. Indeed, I'm going to post progress pics on my website once I get started.

I am concerned about the decals that came with the kit. They seem quite thick, and that usually doesn't bode well. But we'll see.


----------



## omnimodel (Oct 9, 2004)

admiralcag said:


> Will a gloss coat effect a pearl coat? Should the model have an overall gloss or semigloss sheen?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Vern


The answer depands on which version you are building. The original (and IMHO best) paint job was done for ST:TMP in 4 shades of pearl lacquer over white automotive primer. It was so glossy, that the hacks at ILM could not light it properly. As a result, the model was defiled by ILM with a flat white/blue and blue/grey paint combination for ST II and III. For the 1701-A, it is actually a combination of flats and semi gloss, with some pearls thrown in.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Actually, the guys at ILM are far from hacks. The reason the model was toned down was due the the different method for keying out the model from the background. During TMP the model was filmed against a black backdrop and optically overlayed against stars, a process called lumakeying. At ILM they were using bluescreen keying--a much superior method--where a specific key color is removed from a plate by computer. The problem was that the model was too _reflective_ to pull a good key. Any blue that spilled onto the model from the bluescreen backdrop was also made transparent by the computer, so they had to tone it down in order to control it. Even the TOS Enterprise, which was painted _flat gray_ had some spill problems in certain shots--but that was a purely optical process. Today's software is much more sophisticated in controlling spill, but back in the 80s it just wasn't possible to film that model with that method as it was.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Actually, there was no keying, video, computers or software involved in the compositing of the _Enterprise_ in either TMP or TWOK. All composites and compositing steps to marry the film elements together were done entirely in the photochemical and optical process. We're talking 1979-82 here.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

cinc2020 said:


> Good question. I use Future floor wax, applied via airbrush (slightly thinned with water) to the model prior to applying decals. Over that, I spray another coat of Future.


This sounds like a good idea from what I have heard over the thread so far. I want to attempt the aztec pattern and want to try mixing in the pealescent powders in several different colors to create the effect. The question I have is if the Future wax endures over time (yellowing, cracking, etc.) so that the model will look as good ten years from now as it would when first applied. I have heard so far that, yes it will but do you agree with this. I have had no experience with this method so plan to experiment, but would like some advice.

Thanks.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

scifibear2 said:


> I just thought that I had heard somewhere that thinning too much can break down the adhesive quality of the paint...


Well, instead of thinner, I plan to mix a little tube intereference and pearlescents in future, which will ensure adhesive quality.

Also, as for aztecing being "cliché," that's the term used by Paul Olsen, who painted the big E.


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

Can rubber cement be thinned? I'm getting ready to put a few coats of paint on my parts to prevent light leaks. I need to keep the bonding surfaces clean though and was thinking of painting them with rubber cement. It's pretty thick and hard to work with though. So does anybody know of a way to thin it down or have a better idea?


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

Isn't there a mention earlier of liquid masking stuff?


----------



## admiralcag (Apr 2, 2004)

Trek Ace said:


> Actually, there was no keying, video, computers or software involved in the compositing of the _Enterprise_ in either TMP or TWOK. All composites and compositing steps to marry the film elements together were done entirely in the photochemical and optical process. We're talking 1979-82 here.


This is not entirely true. Shooting against a blue screen will create a matte when shot (processed) in B&W that can be used in optical printing. Lumakeying and chromakeying have been around for a long time.

Vern


----------



## admiralcag (Apr 2, 2004)

Still, what about the decals? Perhaps I asked my original question badly. I typically gloss coat my model and decal using Super Sol and Super Set. I gloss it again and weather with oils. I then coat the model with a flat or semi-gloss coat. How should I modify this process to accomodate the subtle finish required on the Refit Enterprise?

Vern


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Hey Vern! 
I bet you're tired of getting that  
The last coat is where you are going to see your difference. If you put all those gloss coats down between the decalling and weatherrig, that's all well and good, but it's also going to screw up any attempt at a finish. I't like trying to show what HD looks like on a regular TV. It's only going to be as good as the TV signal, so why bother..

I think what you want to do is to do all of your glossing and decalling and weathering and a final glossing, then do a selective coating with the dull or matte finish. Use tape, masking frisket, ahem..ready made templates..ahem, or whatever to block off parts you want to remain glossy. then when you take it off, you will have a combo finish.


----------



## James Henderson (Aug 22, 1999)

guartho said:


> Can rubber cement be thinned? I'm getting ready to put a few coats of paint on my parts to prevent light leaks. I need to keep the bonding surfaces clean though and was thinking of painting them with rubber cement. It's pretty thick and hard to work with though. So does anybody know of a way to thin it down or have a better idea?


Rubber cement will thin with lighter fluid.


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*Yellowing Future*

I've spoken with several folks who specialize in building airliner models, and each of them swears by Future. Given that most airliners are white, these modelers among all others will be concerned about yellowing.


----------



## idman (Apr 11, 2004)

Ok all For gloss coat future is the best it's kinda like spraying liquid plastic on your model and will keep the finish look good almost forever. As for the windows I'm using liquid mask and elmers white glue to mask all my clear parts.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

I've heard of many complaints about lacquer overcoats (Testors Glosscote, Dullcote, etc.) yellowing over time, but never Future (which is an acrylic).


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Use tape, masking frisket, ahem..ready made templates..ahem, or whatever to block off parts you want to remain glossy. then when you take it off, you will have a combo finish.


Okay...if I missed it somewhere, I'm sorry. I've seen a lot of posts and comments regarding ready-made aztek templates, but I have yet to see a link to where to get them, how much they cost, etc. Please repost this info.

Thanks!

J


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

Here's a link to Cult's site selling the templates... but it says he's out of stock for now...

http://www.culttvman.net/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=21


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

admiralcag said:


> This is not entirely true. Shooting against a blue screen will create a matte when shot (processed) in B&W that can be used in optical printing. Lumakeying and chromakeying have been around for a long time.
> 
> Vern


You need to reread my post.


----------



## scifibear2 (Oct 19, 2003)

Yes, TrekAce, there does seem to be an echo in here, or would that be superimposition? LOL


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

As far as I remember, the first several Star Trek films had effects done optically-most likely shot and composited in 35mm vista vision. TMP may have gone 70mm-not sure. Digital compositing was still a ways off. "Blue spill" was (and still can be) a problem if not careful, which is why the earlier Star Wars miniatures had no glass in the cockpits.


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

Hey guys, on the inboard warp grills, should the raised ridges be opaque and the recessed part glowing blue or the other way around?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Nope, that's right. Raised ribs gloss black, recesses glow blue.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

drewid142 said:


> Here's a link to Cult's site selling the templates... but it says he's out of stock for now...


Federation Models has them too: http://www.federationmodels.com

Greetings from Germany
Marco


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> Nope, that's right. Raised ribs gloss black, recesses glow blue.


Glorious day! These will be so much easier to paint than the NX's opaque segments. thanks


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

Do those template instructions include exact procedures for making it look like the real model, or is it simply "Lay template A on part B and spray"


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

I'm inclined to say the latter, mainly because the original paint had at least 5 shades to it. Templates help you get started with 2 shades. I'll be using 5 templates for each portion of the ship, I haven't even started making mine yet. I may get the ones mentioned here, and use the templates as templates to make more templates, haha.


----------



## Tosprops (Oct 7, 2004)

I have a model I "clear coated" with future going on 3 years ago and it still looks fine with no cracks or yellowing. I have no idea what will happen to the "future" in the "future", though.


----------



## omnimodel (Oct 9, 2004)

CaptDistraction said:


> I'm inclined to say the latter, mainly because the original paint had at least 5 shades to it. Templates help you get started with 2 shades. I'll be using 5 templates for each portion of the ship, I haven't even started making mine yet. I may get the ones mentioned here, and use the templates as templates to make more templates, haha.


I remember seeing a post a few weeks ago that had the TMP paint job as dead on as I've ever seen it. I believe it was TrekFX who did it, but I'm not sure. Maybe they will post the procedures they used again...


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

It's back there somewhere...


----------



## compucrap (Dec 16, 2000)

So are these vinyl templates reusable? Or do they give you enough azteking to cover the entire ship in one go?

Thanks,

Josh


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

^^Compucrap, Love the name

Not really, on the "reusable" question and yes on the "do you get enought to cover the whole ship "question

Hope it helps


----------



## MartinHatfield (Apr 11, 2004)

Well, I just got through using Tamiya spray cans for the first time and all I can say is WOW!

I never knew that spray cans could produce such flawless coverage. I used the ight green and darker green on a PL Jetsons model, and it was perfect with the first coat.

I now know that I will use nothing but Tamiya sprays for the base coat on my refit. A couple of coats of the white primer, then a coat of Tamiya Pearlescent paint for the base color. I will then use thinned versions of various grays (flat and gloss) for the panelling. This should work quite nicely for the Enterprise.

I have begun drawings that detail the paint schemes on the bridge and level 2 dome area. and the lower sensor dome. There is some complicated painting in those areas.


----------



## compucrap (Dec 16, 2000)

*Self-made reusable aztek templates?*

I'm trying to come up with a good way to make one of the sent along templates (paper) into a reusable one so I can paint my saucer in sections.

Heres my theory:

1)Cut one out of paper nicely. 
2)Glue template to thin sheet of copper.
3)Spray a thick coat over the sheet, and remove the paper template (toothbrush/warm water?)
4) buy some sufric acid from radio shack and etch the template out.

My thoery is it'd be reusable and cheaper then vinyl and less tedious then tape.

Anyone have any input/experience on something like this?

Thanks,
Josh


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

so what is a good dull cote? I sprayed the shuttle bay floor with the testors stuff with mixed results some of the decals still have some mild silvering.


----------



## Daikaiju1 (Apr 26, 2005)

OK, heres my ideas for painting the beast, after reading the Olsenart article. And many thanks for that link it is priceless!

base coat it in matt or satin white laquer or enamel, let it sit for a week or so (while I sand out dust spots, etc) Buy a quantity of Tamiya pearl white cans (to be determined...) divide said cans into four jars. Tint each jar with a few drops of Tamiya clear blue, green, orange and red. The orange should give a nice gold effect. remember these will be thinned further before spraying. 
Make/buy some stencils and get spraying.... sounds easy when you say it fast, but i think i am on the right track.

I am curious about the black grilles on the warp nacelles. On my Ertl one i used Humbrol metallic black which was a bit sparkly and interesting. What is the consensus out there ?

My kit should arrive this week, can't wait!
GS


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

I`ve just read about another neat idea to mask the windows: Mask them with liquid mask _before_ you glue them into place. This will help to protect them against color AND glue, and they will be perfectly covered with the liquid mask without having problems with the surrounding plastic of the hull. Paint the entire ship, then unmask the windows (it maybe neccessary to slightly scribe the edge of the windows with a sharp #11 blade).

I haven`t tried this yet, but I will - and if it works I will go this way instead of simply not using any of the clear windows parts (I was planning to fill them with crystal clear instead).

Greetings from Germany
Marco


----------



## admiralcag (Apr 2, 2004)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Hey Vern!
> I bet you're tired of getting that


My wife won't call me "Vern" for just that reason  



Lou Dalmaso said:


> The last coat is where you are going to see your difference. If you put all those gloss coats down between the decalling and weatherrig, that's all well and good, but it's also going to screw up any attempt at a finish. I't like trying to show what HD looks like on a regular TV. It's only going to be as good as the TV signal, so why bother..
> 
> I think what you want to do is to do all of your glossing and decalling and weathering and a final glossing, then do a selective coating with the dull or matte finish. Use tape, masking frisket, ahem..ready made templates..ahem, or whatever to block off parts you want to remain glossy. then when you take it off, you will have a combo finish.


Shameless plug  

You're suggesting what I was planning on doing. I guess what needs to be done is mask the large decals with frisket and then do the aztec pattern. I guess I just needed reassurance. Thanks, Lou!

Vern


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

admiralcag said:


> I guess what needs to be done is mask the large decals with frisket and then do the aztec pattern.


I will not do that. If you paint over different basecoats or surfaces (as you would do if the ship would be real) the final markings will have a different shine, too. I will do the aztecing _only_ with different clear coatings, and I guess - I _hope_ - it will work.

Greetings from Germany
Marco


----------



## compucrap (Dec 16, 2000)

Just to let everyone know, the etch attempt didn't work out well at all. I'm just going to restore to buying the vinyl's.

Josh


----------



## admiralcag (Apr 2, 2004)

Marco Scheloske said:


> I will not do that. If you paint over different basecoats or surfaces (as you would do if the ship would be real) the final markings will have a different shine, too. I will do the aztecing _only_ with different clear coatings, and I guess - I _hope_ - it will work.
> 
> Greetings from Germany
> Marco


That's an interesting thought. At what point should the decals be applied? Does anyone know when the markings were applied to the miniature?

Vern


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

admiralcag said:


> That's an interesting thought. At what point should the decals be applied? Does anyone know when the markings were applied to the miniature?
> Vern


My guess would be after the pearl paint job was done, as I've seen some 'test shots' of the ship in its' dock, with no registry or pennants to be seen.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

admiralcag said:


> That's an interesting thought. At what point should the decals be applied?


My plan is:
- Basecolor (flat white)
- clear gloss coat
- decals
- clear gloss coat again to seal the decals
- vinyl aztec masks
- semigloss aztecing
- removal of the masks
- done

The clear gloss I`m going to use isn`t very shiny, so in fact in the end there will be two subtle different kinds of semigloss coat.

Greetings from Germany
Marco


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

After the clear gloss coat to seal decals then you apply aztec mask, 
How do you semigloss the aztec with the mask still in place ?
Or maybe I just don't get it  
Help !


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

He's using the semigloss to create the aztec pattern. Spray it just like you would paint, and it gives the surface a different sheen than the part that's masked off.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

You mean after the second coat of clear gloss to seal decals THEN sray on semi-gloss before removing mask ?


----------



## omnimodel (Oct 9, 2004)

A note of caution to those using Future as for the gloss coats: you may want to do some semi-gloss and dull coat compatability tests first.

I work exclusively with acrylics, so I can't comment about enamels or lacquers. But I do know that you can't topcoat future with acrylics without wet sanding first. Otherwise, it will wrinkle and not adhere to certain spots.


----------



## fubarcar (Jan 16, 2005)

omnimodel said:


> But I do know that you can't topcoat future with acrylics without wet sanding first. Otherwise, it will wrinkle and not adhere to certain spots.


Hi OM,
Despite being an acrylic, would that include future itself? Reason I'm asking, TrekFX has done extensive tests with Future that has been mixed with pearl powders and varying ratios of Tamiya flat base depending on the sheen required (feel free to jump in here anytime TrekFX  ). Would the flat base not provide the key that the next coat requires, or doesn't it work that way?

I'm very curious and more than willing to soak up and then acknowledge any experience from seasoned modellers.


----------



## omnimodel (Oct 9, 2004)

Great question!
As far as I know, Future should bond to Future just fine, since it is the same chemical makeup. However, since the Future bottle recommends clean up with ammonia (such as Windex) rather than alcohol, it may be slightly different than other acrylics (both Tamiya's and Testor's acrylic thinners are essentially alcohol). It may just also be due to the fact that Future has so little surface tension that any paint going on too wet will not lay down evenly (think about how water beads on a waxed surface...)

I've tried on 3 different occasions to topcoat directly on Future, using both Tamiya and MM acrylics. Each time I experienced the 'beading' mentioned above. Each also required correction by wet sanding and spot painting.

That said, I've had great results wet sanding to 2000 grit and topcoating from there.

Because of health concerns, I don't use Enamels or Lacquers anymore, so I can't speak to how they will react to Future... maybe the solvnts are strong enough to eat into the Future... I just don't know. Maybe someone else here could speak to that.

My strongest recommendation for this (or any other) project is to test your paint on a small scale before committing to the finished project...particularly if the basecoats and decals are already done. The easiest way to do this is to save the imitation cards that come with credit card offers (or old credit and ATM cards for that matter). They are a great source fo free stryrene, and are very easy to prep with a flat surface and some sandpaper.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

justinleighty said:


> He's using the semigloss to create the aztec pattern. Spray it just like you would paint, and it gives the surface a different sheen than the part that's masked off.


C O R R E C T.

I tested this with the spare secondary bottom, and for me it works great. There may be other solutions, which other ones like more, but IMHO my way gets the screen appearance very well: It looks just white from a distance, but when you move around or come closer a subtle aztec pattern becomes visible. It is just very important to have not too much contrast between the gloss and semigloss areas - I tested no less than 6 brands of clear spraycoats to find the ones I`ll use.

Greetinsg from Germany
Marco


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

Marco - care to share which clear brands you're going to use? I've never really found a super flat finish I'm happy with (Testors Dullcote is my fallback sealer, but unless you shake it for 10 minutes you risk getting a satin finish. Plus, it really 'greys' out colours and makes some chalk pastels disappear)

Ross


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

RossW said:


> Marco - care to share which clear brands you're going to use?


The clear brands are from a brand called "Marabu", it can be found here in artists stores. They have a gloss, a semigloss and a dull coat. The gloss is more a half-semigloss in my eyes, and the dullcoat is _really_ flat. They are expensive (approx. 10.- EURO for a rattlecan of 300 ml), but well worth the price.

Greetings from Germany
Marco


----------



## fubarcar (Jan 16, 2005)

omnimodel said:


> Great question!
> As far as I know, Future should bond to Future just fine, since it is the same chemical makeup. However, since the Future bottle recommends clean up with ammonia (such as Windex) rather than alcohol, it may be slightly different than other acrylics (both Tamiya's and Testor's acrylic thinners are essentially alcohol). It may just also be due to the fact that Future has so little surface tension that any paint going on too wet will not lay down evenly (think about how water beads on a waxed surface...)
> 
> I've tried on 3 different occasions to topcoat directly on Future, using both Tamiya and MM acrylics. Each time I experienced the 'beading' mentioned above. Each also required correction by wet sanding and spot painting.
> ...


Hi again OM, thanks for the input, very much appreciated :thumbsup: 
Without your advice I would probably have sprayed Tamiya acrylics straight onto untreated future, albeit on a test piece of course. 's funny that you suggest testing on a small scale; I have a 1/537 ertl kit that never got built due to the naff engraving work. Maybe now's the time to put it to good use!


----------



## Scorpitat (Oct 7, 2004)

*RE: Painting ideas*

Well,
we all have ideas on how the outside should look. Does anyone have any ideas, or images of how they will, or plan to paint the INSIDE stuff? ( I.E.- The lounge, shuttlebay, or the arbouretum? )

It would be great to see some stills to get color schemes, or see finished ones people have already done for their kits.........just and idea!

I watched some of ST:TMP, and noticed subtle shades of grays, tans, and oranges used inside the lounge where Kirk, Spock, and McCoy had their discussion. Just thought it would be nice to see how modelers attempts at re-creating these areas are progressing, since we all kinda know what the outside of the ship looks like.

Boldy GO!.........thanks! :thumbsup: :wave:


----------



## Prosta (Mar 23, 2005)

Check Marc King's on-the-bench at CultTVman.com. His hangar/cargo looks well but then he built it with the doors closed?????

Do a search for Botanical Garden in this forum. JeffG's is fantastic.
I'm gonna go tropical with mine and do palm trees, hammoks and stuff


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

I'm about done with my first botanical garden, but I'm thinking something different for my second one. Instead of an entire Earth-type garden, I'm thinking of doing one small section as an Andorian Ice garden and a small section on the opposite side as a Vulcan rock garden, with grass, water and trees in between the two. What do you guys think?


----------



## admiralcag (Apr 2, 2004)

TrekFX said:


> That li'l bit o' prehistory was done in 1992.
> 
> I used a variety of pearl pigment powders mixed into Future, mixed with various percentages of Tamiya flat base to vary the sheen.
> 
> ...


Please excuse my density regarding the decals, but just how do you do this and deal with waterslide decals? :freak: This is the effect I'd love to do, but I'm on a limited modeling budget and can't afford custom dry transfer decals. I still don't know how I'm going to come up with the dough for all the LEDs...

Vern


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

admiralcag said:


> Please excuse my density regarding the decals, but just how do you do this and deal with waterslide decals?


Short answer: you can't. At least, not easily. Mask the decals? Trim them close? No easy way.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

*Clear part in front of outboard nacelle grid???*

Hey fellows, 

I just detected a piece on the PL refit I don`t know how to paint. I don`t have the part number at the moment, but `m talking about those small clear parts in the front of the outboard nacelle grills. 

I know that the inboard grills are transparent blue and black, but why is there a clear part on the outboard side? Is it supposed to be clear? Tinted, or completely clear? Or opaque (main hull color)?









I want to build the TMP version, not the "A". 

Thanks for your help - this is important, because I will start with the nacelles to be able to figure out how to run wires through the plyons and econdary hull!
_________________
Greetings from Germany - 
"In glue we trust!" (http://www.triliance.de) 

Marco


----------



## fubarcar (Jan 16, 2005)

Hi Marco,
Hopefully you are referring to part #249. They are meant to be lit from the inside. Check out this picture over at stguardian's place.

Hope this helps


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

fubarcar said:


> Hi Marco,
> Hopefully you are referring to part #249. They are meant to be lit from the inside. Check out this picture over at stguardian's place.
> 
> Hope this helps


Thanks a lot! I never noticed that light... 

Bye
Marco


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

There's also a shot from Star Trek III from the starboard side (with the E facing the BOP) where that light is very visible.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

I thought I'd post something I've been toying around with this evening. I've been working on some decals for the refit - stuff I wanted to add, but that didn't come on the decal sheet. Now, bear in mind, I've never made my own decals before, so this has been fun! I'm still not certain if I got the measurements just right for the different items. Guess I won't know until I apply the decals... The link below is for a Photoshop PSD file.

Here's what the test sheet has... Two replacement images for the VIP lounge 'viewports' (I don't think the included nacelle decals make much sense even though they're canon). The replacement images are recent Hubble telescope photos. Also included on the sheet is a graphic for the large bare wall on the right-hand side of the VIP lounge. I thought it would be a good place for another viewport - this one displays the delta with name and registry for the ship. Also on there are some instrument panels and some possible (still working on these as I think they're too big) paneling decals for the TMP shuttles.

I know several of you are much, much better at this than I could possibly be, but I figured you all could take this and possibly use it as a starting point to make something cool.

click here


----------



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

woof359 said:


> never (-:
> 
> but what I wondering now, is this to big to paint with my pache air brush?


I'd be more worried about the spray booth then the airbrush.


----------



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

Okay, 

so who is going to be producing custom dry transfer decals for the Aztecing effect?

Anybody have any idea? ETA?


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Sorry to go off on yet another topic, but does have any idea of what they might use to paint the lower sensor dome on the refit?

Thanks.

Brad.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Doggy said:


> How're we going to approach the model's rainbow-like "coat of many colors" sheen?
> 
> On Paul Olsen's site he talks about painting the original miniature's pannelling effects using pearlescent blue, green, red and gold automotive lacquers. I'd assume since the base coat was white, that the lacquers were hightly transparent, creating the multicolored shimmer you can see in some of the original TMP shots.
> 
> ...But how to achieve that effect on our models? Has anyone had any luck finding pearlescents so transparent they simply create a sheen? I've been experimenting for some months and haven't even come close. I'm thinking about giving up and just doing the whole thing in standard acrylics, with custom shades of white instead.


 Not sure if this was covered already, but the original pearl coats for TMP were synthetic pearl pigment mixed into clear lacquer, so the pearl density, tint and translucence could be varied.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

guartho said:


> Can rubber cement be thinned? I'm getting ready to put a few coats of paint on my parts to prevent light leaks. I need to keep the bonding surfaces clean though and was thinking of painting them with rubber cement. It's pretty thick and hard to work with though. So does anybody know of a way to thin it down or have a better idea?


 Rubber cement thinner is available in good office supply stores.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Someone asked at what stage the banners and insignia were added to the filming model. As seen in this photo, it came rather late, after photographic tests had begun:


----------



## Alkalilake (May 13, 2005)

lastguardian said:


> Someone asked at what stage the banners and insignia were added to the filming model. As seen in this photo, it came rather late, after photographic tests had begun:



Where do you get pictures like this? That's really cool.


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

I noticed in the studio model shots that the deflector grid lines, especially on the secondary hull, appear to be highlited in a darker color than the surrounding hull areas. Has anyone else noticed this?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Alkalilake said:


> Where do you get pictures like this? That's really cool.


I can't speak for others, but I received such photos while gathering research for 'Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise.'

There are a lot of great pics on the Internet. I find new ones every day, it seems. Anyone wanting to do the PL model up right should have no trouble finding sufficient reference material. Phil Broad's 'Cloudster' site can't be beat for detail shots


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

John Duncan said:


> I noticed in the studio model shots that the deflector grid lines, especially on the secondary hull, appear to be highlited in a darker color than the surrounding hull areas. Has anyone else noticed this?



Hey, John...long time no see  

The original pearlescent TMP paint job didn't darken the grid lines as you mention, but the later 1701-A scheme did. It was thought the model's mounting point access panels could be better hidden if the lines were made darker than the hull, since the grid was used to disguise their edges.

Shane Johnson


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

lastguardian said:


> Hey, John...long time no see
> 
> The original pearlescent TMP paint job didn't darken the grid lines as you mention, but the later 1701-A scheme did. It was thought the model's mounting point access panels could be better hidden if the lines were made darker than the hull, since the grid was used to disguise their edges.
> 
> Shane Johnson


Hi Shane!

That sounds plausible....hiding the seams would be important. I guess I'll build mine as a dash A scheme, though I might back up and do another as a refit later. I bought a bunch of these things since they will become extinct and priceless in a month or so...


John

www.apollosaturn.com


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Here's a question for you guys:

I want to build my first refit without lights, so I can practise on the paint job. I would hate to spend all that time and money lighting it and then bork up the paint job.

If this was your unlit refit, would you paint the windows yellow, to simulate lit windows? What about the impulse crystal? Paint it blue from underneath?

I know that some have built the old Ertle refits without lights and have painted their windows.

What do you guys think???


John 

www.apollosaturn.com


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

John Duncan said:


> I want to build my first refit without lights, so I can practice on the paint job. I would hate to spend all that time and money lighting it and then bork up the paint job.
> 
> If this was your unlit refit, would you paint the windows yellow, to simulate lit windows? What about the impulse crystal? Paint it blue from underneath?
> 
> I know that some have built the old Ertl refits without lights and have painted their windows.


Wouldn't it be a shame to have a great paint job and no lights?

I think the best option would be to leave the ship unlit, but if you want to paint it lit, paint the impluse crystal blue from underneath and the exhausts orange from underneath. The windows, I'd use gloss white with a hint of blue. It's hard to do lit windows with a white base coat, though.


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

justinleighty said:


> Wouldn't it be a shame to have a great paint job and no lights?
> 
> I think the best option would be to leave the ship unlit, but if you want to paint it lit, paint the impluse crystal blue from underneath and the exhausts orange from underneath. The windows, I'd use gloss white with a hint of blue. It's hard to do lit windows with a white base coat, though.


I will do a second kit with lights after I get the paint job figured out. I just hate to waste all those lights (and money) and botch the paint on the first kit.

John

www.apollosaturn.com


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

John Duncan said:


> Here's a question for you guys:
> 
> I want to build my first refit without lights, so I can practise on the paint job. I would hate to spend all that time and money lighting it and then bork up the paint job.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to light mine either.

I don't know where I read it but I saw a suggestion to use reflective tape. Could small pieces be mounted on the outside of the windows. Then let external lighting to do the rest.

Or maybe you could use glow-in-the-dark paint and black lighting


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

John Duncan said:


> Here's a question for you guys:
> 
> I want to build my first refit without lights, so I can practise on the paint job. I would hate to spend all that time and money lighting it and then bork up the paint job.
> 
> If this was your unlit refit, would you paint the windows yellow, to simulate lit windows? What about the impulse crystal? Paint it blue from underneath?



I think I'd just put the windows in unpainted, and let the clear plastic show. they may pick up ambient light as is, and in any case will look more like windows than white dots probably would.

If you do decide to paint them, I wouldn't use yellow. Stay with white, which is how they looked on-screen. As for the impulse crystal, if you choose to paint it I'd go with a very pale blue.


----------



## compucrap (Dec 16, 2000)

John Duncan said:


> Here's a question for you guys:
> 
> I want to build my first refit without lights, so I can practise on the paint job. I would hate to spend all that time and money lighting it and then bork up the paint job.
> 
> ...


I'll chime in and tell you how I painted my unlit nacelles.

I paint the back side of them with standard flat white, and then mixed model masters clear blue and white until I got a nice blue color (basically a viberant blue that looked nice to me.) and sprayed a few thin coats.

The white behind them (varying in thickness on the back) looks pretty good and simulates "glowing".

Josh


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Thanks for the replies guys, I think I will just leave them unpainted. I'll mask them with white glue and then concentrate on the very few seams and see how close I can come on the paint job.

I looked at Phil's B&W photos of the TMP E and they do a good job of showing the patterns on the secondary hull and nacelles. Of course this just raises the bar a little higher.

One thing I noticed is that there seem to be fine dark lines between the pearlescent stripes, which will be impossible to do even at 1/350th. So I'll have to vary each stripe a little....

Whew, what job this is! I've got my three day weekend lined up for this project.


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

guartho said:


> Thanks Epsilon. I'll let you guys know how it turns out using an ink-jet since that's all I've got available.


Someone e-mailed me asking how my inkjet decal printing turned out so I'm posting my response in case anyone else is curious.

I haven't done any decal work on my PL refit yet, but I did extensive testing and experimenting on an Ertl refit. It turned out great! Although the engraved panels that I was too lazy to sand off detract from the result I can tell that it'll look great on the smooth PL. I found that I got the best results using clear decal paper, not white-backed. The white-backed looked great too, but naturally it wasn't quite the same white as my paint. 

If you won't have any color on the decal sheet you're printing, I found that I got "purer" subtle grays if I changed the image to a grayscale before printing. If your inkjet has a separate cartridge for black like mine, that should force it to use just the black and not interpret the gray in the color image as a mix of all three colors. Naturally the highest resolution you can print will look best.

I used glossy photo paper to test-print each decal image before I burned a sheet of decal paper. The glossy photo settings seemed to work well on the decal paper.

For my Ertl refit custom decals I used the Testors decal paper which you can get here:
http://www.testors.com/catalog_item.asp?itemNbr=2288

Then you seal the images to the film with a couple of coats of the handy-dandy Testors spray sealant here:
http://www.testors.com/catalog_item.asp?itemNbr=2293
as I recall, they also have it at Hobby Lobby, though not usually the decal paper.  

(A little bonus, this decal sealant is also good for restoring old decal sheets. I used it on the original decals on my Ertl test refit and they behaved perfectly when applied, just like new!)


Since the Testors sheets are a little small for making large aztec patterns (though I cut them up into each grid section anyway) I ordered full-size sheets from bare-metal foil for the PL from:
http://www.bare-metal.com/

I haven't used them yet, but as I recall they're great


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Can we have a painting post that details from start to finish the painting process? If white is the overall color what color do you use after the templates are applied? I have never done a model color as complicated as this one. Somone step up to the plate and give some details and not 50 posts of different methods that are confusing.


----------



## drbubba43 (Mar 24, 2005)

Krako said:


> Here's what the test sheet has... Two replacement images for the VIP lounge 'viewports' (I don't think the included nacelle decals make much sense even though they're canon.)


I'm glad I'm not the the only one who thought viewscreens of the nacelles were pretty silly. Especially when 5' away there are these huge winwodw with a better view of the same thing.

In the Director's Cut of TMP Robert Wise states they are in the Officer's Lounge, but he referres to the images of the nacelles as windows, not view screens, and if you look closely they are definately windows. I believe this scene was supposed to be in the area of the ship referred to as the Rec room and the two images are two of the 8 square windows of that area. The placement and angle of the nacells is almost dead on for a view from that area of the ship.

Any thoughts anyone?

Ray


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

drbubba43 said:


> I'm glad I'm not the the only one who thought viewscreens of the nacelles were pretty silly. Especially when 5' away there are these huge windows with a better view of the same thing.
> 
> In the Director's Cut of TMP Robert Wise states they are in the Officer's Lounge, but he referres to the images of the nacelles as windows, not view screens, and if you look closely they are definately windows. I believe this scene was supposed to be in the area of the ship referred to as the Rec room and the two images are two of the 8 square windows of that area. The placement and angle of the nacells is almost dead on for a view from that area of the ship.


Problem is, the officers' lounge 'windows' cannot be among the eight seen at the rear of the saucer. We saw all eight of those windows in the Rec Deck scene, so they're already accounted for.

Since the dwindling budget would not allow for a separate set to be built, the officers' lounge was cobbled together out of Rec Deck elements. Thus, the similarity.

There is simply nowhere on the exterior of the Enterprise for those windows to go. Can't happen. So, the only recourse is to designate them as viewing screens, freeing them to be placed anywhere. And since in official materials the officers' lounge has been determined to be behind the four tall windows at the aft end of C-deck, the set as seen must somehow be a part of that same facility. 

The kit's compromise, in my opinion, is the best available. It allows the room seen on-screen to be seen by the modeler through the tall windows, adding a nice detail to the build-up and a direct tie to the film. And it's a nice concept that the two expansive screens in the lounge could display any number of subjects, from ship exterior views, to sporting events, to a Hawaiian sunset.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

drbubba43 said:


> If you look closely they are definitely windows. I believe this scene was supposed to be in the area of the ship referred to as the Rec room and the two images are two of the 8 square windows of that area. The placement and angle of the nacells is almost dead on for a view from that area of the ship.


Sorry, but how can you say "if you look closely they are definitely windows?" (I corrected your spelling there). What makes them windows rather than viewscreens, just by looking?

Besides the fact that there aren't any corresponding windows on the rec deck part of the ship (the rectangular ones — which were clearly shown in the crew assembly scene — are larger than what you're calling windows on the set, and the smaller windows outside the rectangular ones in the rec deck area aren't the right shape, either), the view seen in the director's edition represents a viewpoint a few feet BENEATH the saucer, according to Andy Probert (the designer of much of the TMP interiors, who also placed that scene just forward of the VIP lounge). Therefore, for those to be windows, Kirk, Spock and McCoy would have to be standing on an invisible deck a few feet beneath the saucer rim.


----------



## drbubba43 (Mar 24, 2005)

I'm not arguing any of the points made here. I based the idea of them being windows on Robert Wise refers to them as windows stating there was a desire to show a view of the outside of the ship through them.

Also they are deeply set into the wall which is not really logical since it would tend to limit the view to a very limited area of the lounge, contradicting the idea of bringing the view into the rest of the lounge. I do disagree that the view of the nacells is that far off from the view of those ports which would look out onto the full length of the starboard nacell and the final rear portion of the port nacell.

I'm not really suggesting the rec room is the lounge. What I am suggesting is that because of budget issues, having to quickly redesign the set, and and the haste to complete the film which was in danger of not finishing on time there was a continuity error made.

Given that, the idea of the view screens is a very valid comprimise, just not one I think I would have chosen.

Ray


----------



## bkoski (Apr 26, 2005)

*Any considering brush instead of airbrush for aztec pattern?*

I've heard that Thomas is working on a 4-layered masking series of templates for the Polar Lights refit Enterprise. On close-up view of the studio model shots, there is a lot more detail to the panelling than simply a single layer of aztec, so those multi templates will come in handy. With this masking and painting in mind, has anyone had clean, smooth success using a brush to do this detail? In my own limited experience, I could never get brush-work as smooth-surfaced as any spray. But I'm also worried about the template not sticking properly and getting under-spray. Thinning the paint, specific types of brushes; I don't know all the tricks, And even if I do airbrush this kit, I'm expecting to do alot of brush work as well. I just want to do it right. I'm patient, but I've read in some other threads about people hurrying coats of paint too soon. The best advice I've ever read on painting a model is wait, wait, and wait a little longer for each coat to dry (2 to 3 days). The last thing I want is to ruin a fantastic kit because of my hurry to get it done. Any thoughts of sprays, airbrushing, paints, brushes, thinning, favourite (Yeah, I'm Canadian - we like those "u's" and "re's," too) types of paint. All thoughts / responses appreciated.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

I think this is one of those canonical grey areas that allow for multiple interpretations. Someone else has already pointed out that when they added the nacelles in the director's edition, they botched the moving starfield in the background making it look like the ship was 'crabbing' through space, so obviously the revised version can't be taken too seriously. 

An interesting diagram of the space can be found in Shane Johnson's "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" in which he's got everything in almost the same order as the part on the PL kit, except the wall with the view ports is facing fore instead of aft. I like the interpretation in the PL kit better, myself!


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Krako said:


> An interesting diagram of the space can be found in Shane Johnson's "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" in which he's got everything in almost the same order as the part on the PL kit, except the wall with the view ports is facing fore instead of aft. I like the interpretation in the PL kit better, myself!


So do I. 

The lounge arrangement we put into the PL kit is approximately the one I wanted to put into 'Mr. Scott's Guide' (the first drawing I submitted showed it as such), but I was forced into a compromise with Mr. Probert's rendering (which, while very nice, is not what we saw on-screen). What you see in the final version of my book is that compromise.

When the time came to lay out the PL kit, I requested that my original concept be used instead of the one shown in my book. So, while I contradicted my own published floorplan, I finally was able (with Thom's gracious help) to portray the lounge as I always thought it should be. 

Shane Johnson


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

justinleighty said:


> ...the view seen in the director's edition represents a viewpoint a few feet BENEATH the saucer, according to Andy Probert (the designer of much of the TMP interiors, who also placed that scene just forward of the VIP lounge). Therefore, for those to be windows, Kirk, Spock and McCoy would have to be standing on an invisible deck a few feet beneath the saucer rim.



So, if the lounge 'windows' are actually viewing screens, they can be fed images from any point on the ship's exterior. Perhaps a wide-angle camera, mounted in the dorsal 'neck' and trained on the starboard nacelle, was 'on' at that moment (I know the angle wasn't perfect, but work with me). 

Shane


----------



## drbubba43 (Mar 24, 2005)

Don't get me wrong... The layout of the interiors in the PL kit is excellent, as is the kit as a whole. My only issue is the image on the viewscreens, which seems a little redundant. I really like the idea of the sailing ship images. In fact, other than modifications required to light the thing, this will be the first kit I've built "Out of the box" in years. That by itself makes this kit pure pleasure to build!

I don't necessarily feel the need to reconcile every square inch of the kit to the movie. Especially when the movies themselves often play loose with the layout of the ship. 

Ray


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Shane - 

I just wanted to say that I've had "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" since it came out and it's one of my all-time favorite Star Trek reference books! Thank you for all the super-cool stuff you did in that book.


----------



## bkoski (Apr 26, 2005)

I, too, like the look of the Enterprise from TMP over all the other films. And I wonder what the range of opinion is regarding which effects literally look best for the Enterprise in all of the movies. I think that Trumbull's / Dykstra's Enterprise has less matte lines visible. Surprising when it was the first made. Opinions?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Krako said:


> Shane -
> 
> I just wanted to say that I've had "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" since it came out and it's one of my all-time favorite Star Trek reference books! Thank you for all the super-cool stuff you did in that book.



Thanks, Krako.  I really appreciate the kind words.

As I look back (and given the revelations of later research) there are a few things in the book I'd do differently, but fortunately they are minor. Some are 'errors' brought on by hastened research (the book had a very short deadline), while others came through my efforts to remain in line with prior works -- I had been asked by the publisher to remain faithful to the dating in the _Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology_, and also included technical elements established by FASA, a Paramount licensee of the time.

As of its publication date, the book was as screen accurate as I could make it and for the most part I think it still holds up today. After its release, however, the talented individuals who put the varied incarnations of _Star Trek_ on our TV screens each week chose to pursue different 'historical' and technical paths than I had followed, which of necessity comes with the demands of creating such a mythos. Writers, producers and art departments cannot be expected to work within the restraints laid down by such publications as my own, licensed or not.

In any case, I'm honored to have been given the opportunity to make _Mr. Scott's Guide's_ minor contribution to the ST realm. 

Shane


----------



## drbubba43 (Mar 24, 2005)

lastguardian said:


> Thanks, Krako.  I really appreciate the kind words.
> 
> As I look back (and given the revelations of later research) there are a few things in the book I'd do differently, but fortunately they are minor. Some are 'errors' brought on by hastened research (the book had a very short deadline), while others came through my efforts to remain in line with prior works -- I had been asked by the publisher to remain faithful to the dating in the _Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology_, and also included technical elements established by FASA, a Paramount licensee of the time.
> 
> ...


Whatever changes have been made to the mythos after it's publication, the release of the PL refit has made Mr. Scott's Guide's *the * refrence of choice. Especially since I still feel the TMP version of the ship and the effects are vastly superior to anything that came later. 

Ray :thumbsup:


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

It WAS a little rude of them to totally change the Enterprise-A set for ST V, after giving you those nice stills from the end of IV.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

woozle said:


> It WAS a little rude of them to totally change the Enterprise-A set for ST V, after giving you those nice stills from the end of IV.



They didn't have a lot of choice, since the sets we had seen in ST I, II and III had been heavily redressed for use as the Enterprise-D in TNG. Besides, I like the bridge they built for ST V.  

It was interesting visiting the Stage Nine sets in 1986, before the TNG changes. The bridge seen at the very end of ST IV was repainted and redressed only from the helm aftward, meaning as the actors looked toward the viewing screen they were seeing the same gray paint scheme and spray-painted burn marks we saw in ST II and III. 

Shane


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

drbubba43 said:


> Whatever changes have been made to the mythos after it's publication, the release of the PL refit has made Mr. Scott's Guide's *the * refrence of choice. Especially since I still feel the TMP version of the ship and the effects are vastly superior to anything that came later.



Thanks, drbubba. I hope the book will prove of some use in detailing the model. And isn't it a GREAT kit? Thom just outdid himself. I'm most grateful for his diligence in helping bring such an accurate product to market, and for the honor of being allowed to contribute to its design.

Shane


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Now if only PL would give him the green light on a 1:350 TOS Enterprise....


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

lastguardian said:


> Thanks, Krako.  I really appreciate the kind words.
> 
> As I look back (and given the revelations of later research) there are a few things in the book I'd do differently, but fortunately they are minor. Some are 'errors' brought on by hastened research (the book had a very short deadline), while others came through my efforts to remain in line with prior works -- I had been asked by the publisher to remain faithful to the dating in the _Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology_, and also included technical elements established by FASA, a Paramount licensee of the time.
> 
> ...


Have you ever considered or been approached to do a revision, based on the STV and STVI bridge and interior updates, the "corrected" history/dates and technical info, etc? I've actually had two copies of Mr. Scott's Guide over the years (lost my first copy when moving from one house to another...GRR!), and have read it cover-to-cover MANY times. I don't know about anyone else, but I would definitely love to have a final, difinitive update, since it's HIGHLY unlikely we'll ever see that ship onscreen again.

Just curious.


----------



## robcowley (May 29, 2005)

*Aztec templates were to buy?*

can you guys let me know how to get my hands on the vinyl templates federation models have sold out?
cheers


----------



## idman (Apr 11, 2004)

try starship modelers or cult tv man's site


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

1701ALover said:


> Have you ever considered or been approached to do a revision, based on the STV and STVI bridge and interior updates, the "corrected" history/dates and technical info, etc?


I've proposed such a project to Pocket Books on more than one occasion, but they decided some time ago that any further 'technical' tie-in publications are to be written only by members of the various series' production staffs. 

Alas, the days of such contributors as Franz Joseph and myself are past. But I enjoyed the ride while it lasted, and am glad to have had the chance.

Shane


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

lastguardian said:


> So do I.
> 
> The lounge arrangement we put into the PL kit is approximately the one I wanted to put into 'Mr. Scott's Guide' (the first drawing I submitted showed it as such), but I was forced into a compromise with Mr. Probert's rendering (which, while very nice, is not what we saw on-screen). What you see in the final version of my book is that compromise.
> 
> ...


Somewhere in a different thread I posted a drawing I did using the Directors Cut and the PL version of the Officers/VIP lounge. It shows where the trio were standing/sitting in the lounge and where the lounge is on the ship. For those that haven't seen it, here it is again. Remember this is one mans version not an "OFFICAL" layout.


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

OOPS! forgot to attach the pic


----------



## robcowley (May 29, 2005)

*A Credit To The Master Craftsman That Made This Kit*

And The Price What Can I Say But Awesome !!!!!


----------



## drbubba43 (Mar 24, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Now if only PL would give him the green light on a 1:350 TOS Enterprise....


Abso-DARN-lutely! :thumbsup: 

Ray


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

lastguardian said:


> I've proposed such a project to Pocket Books on more than one occasion, but they decided some time ago that any further 'technical' tie-in publications are to be written only by members of the various series' production staffs.
> 
> Alas, the days of such contributors as Franz Joseph and myself are past. But I enjoyed the ride while it lasted, and am glad to have had the chance.
> 
> Shane


Too bad...I think it'd definitely sell. I'd be surprised, though, if Pocket Books actually made the decision on their own, but rather TPTB at Paranoid Pics telling Pocket Books to make the decision. Whatever...like I said, too bad. There are so many fans out here, perfectly ready and happy to make these contributions, and they shut them out like they don't matter...what's wrong with that?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

1701ALover said:


> There are so many fans out here, perfectly ready and happy to make these contributions, and they shut them out like they don't matter...what's wrong with that?


There's been a quantum shift in Paramount's mindset this past decade or so. Where once the _Star Trek_ fan base was deemed of value, the execs now seem to believe the fans really _don't_ matter, and have taken them for granted. The prevailing attitude apparently has become, "They'll watch whatever we give them."

The issue came to a head with _Star Trek: Enterprise_ -- Berman and/or Braga, in public statements, made it quite clear they had no regard for the opinion of fandom at large.

It's no surprise they lost fan support, and thus their series was cancelled. _Star Trek_ has always been a symbiotic creature, with two mutualistic entities (series producers and dedicated fans) working in unison to sustain a worthwhile mythos. Unfortunately, the powers that be at Paramount, mistakenly thinking the essential fan base frivolous, chose through both persistent legal assaults and willful deafness to alienate it. 

Perhaps _Star Trek_ will rise again, when the day comes that both entities once more work together.


----------



## mechinyun (Feb 23, 2004)

Hi guys, this might be my first post here, but im a long time reader. 

I want to do the aztec effect subtlely, yet as close to TMP as possible. Im intrested in the ideas of thining down tamiya pearl and adding in the pigments for the diffrent colors to be sprayed on very thinly in layers to achieve the color changing effects using templates layed on top of each other, with each in the same basic aztec shapes, yet some parts of the individual aztec shapes are filled or cut out, depending on what color will being going into that individual aztec part area.

Im wondering for the people looking into this option, what pigments are you using? Im worried about how fine grain the pigments will be. Im trying to avoid being able to pick out the pigment chunks and it just being a smooth consistant colored sheen (as it should be). 


For total painting of the ship, based on alot of whats been said here in this thread here is what im thinking of for the order.

Primer (sanded)
Satin White 
Tamiya pearl thinned, mixed with 4/5 seperate pigments/jars sprayed on in 4/5 diffrent combinations of the same aztec shapes. To achieve multi-hued views of the aztec shapes when looked at.
Flat Green(brand/specific color TBD any thoughts?) Enginering sections
Other sections/details
Coat of future
Decals
Coat of future
Dull Coat


I hope someone has found a killer pigment powder already


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

lastguardian said:


> Alas, the days of such contributors as Franz Joseph and myself are past.
> Shane


Perhaps, there's a market for a web-based, downloadable, fan-produced book with more complete deckplans, done as a PDF. Heck, with your name on it, I think most of us would put out a fair price, sight unseen. For instance, how many people have seen Probert's saucer seperation storyboards? 

The issue that a book publisher has, is that there isn't a market large enough for it to be worthwhile, for a well known subject that has been done to death and has a million fan-based articles and artworks already.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

woozle said:


> Perhaps, there's a market for a web-based, downloadable, fan-produced book with more complete deckplans, done as a PDF. Heck, with your name on it, I think most of us would put out a fair price, sight unseen.



That's something I'd very much like to do. Creating an updated edition of _Mr. Scott's Guide_ and making it available would be most enjoyable. 

Unfortunately, I doubt it would get very far before Paramount's famed cease-and-desist legal department stepped in to put a stop to it.


----------



## neosporing (Feb 12, 2005)

Can anyone tell me if i'm seeing this wrong? On Marc King's on-the-bench at CultTVman.com part five, it appears that he just left the templates on and painted over them to achive a 'bump mapped' appearance on the saucer-section? Is that what he did? I can't tell with the current resolution of the pictures.

http://www.culttvman.com/html/marc_king_s_completed_refit_2.html

http://www.culttvman.com/marc_king_refit_part_5_2.html

The url says 'completed' so i'm assuming he isn't going to remove the masks, i'm guessing he left the templates on to give a bluish hue to the hull plating and didn't use them to create the semi-gloss/ flat coat aztec pattern being discussed on this board.


----------



## Alkalilake (May 13, 2005)

He said he removed the masks in his article on that site. I would assume that's just thick paint. A little too thick maybe.


----------



## neosporing (Feb 12, 2005)

Whoops, I was staring so hard at the pictures, i didn't see the text explanation next to the thumbnails. lol. i'm going to crawl back into my cave and put some visine into my eyes.


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

Is there an online source of the basic painting templates like the one in pl instructions, that I can print out?

They'd need to be 1/1 scale - could scale it myself, but I'm too lazy for that sort of thing.


Cheers,

Mike


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

Here's a peak at an early draft sample of what I'm working on...


----------



## chunkeymonkey (May 4, 2004)

:freak: WOOOHOOO I'VE GONE ALL WOBBLY :freak: 

looks like something interesting is in the piepline.


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

Thom S. said:


> Here's a peak at an early draft sample of what I'm working on...


I must ask what program are you using to make the templets ? Is it a cad program ? I see how you do it by mapping it out on a grid . I bet I would love to see the resource material you have for this ! I am trying to make a very ,very basic set of templets for a Smoothy AMT refit I am working on .I have patterns for the saucer ,the Nacelles and the neck but nothing I can use for the Engineering hull .I am thinking of using my Bandai refit and also my ArtAssylem refit for refernce on the Engineering hull. I am going to edit and size what I have in PhotoShop and then try to get a sign shop to make the templets for me. Do you think this might work or am I just beating my head against the wall?


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

Wow! What a headache!


I found these templates on the starshipmodeler site while googling http://www.starshipmodeler.com/tech/cz_mask.htm I can't open them as I don't have the right program.

Mike

edit: managed to get em open, not much help here!


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

That will work, Steven. But the signshop will probably want a vector art or line drawing to make the templates. I am not sure as I have never asked my sign guy about cutting from a bitmap image.

That sample above is only of one section of one part of the saucer. I also have the entire secondary hull, neck, wings, and nacelles, and masks for lit areas.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Thom S. said:


> That will work, Steven. But the signshop will probably want a vector art or line drawing to make the templates. I am not sure as I have never asked my sign guy about cutting from a bitmap image.
> 
> That sample above is only of one section of one part of the saucer. I also have the entire secondary hull, neck, wings, and nacelles, and masks for lit areas.


Can't wait until you make them available Thomas. Looking mighty forward to seeing them


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

Thom S. said:


> That will work, Steven. But the signshop will probably want a vector art or line drawing to make the templates. I am not sure as I have never asked my sign guy about cutting from a bitmap image.
> 
> That sample above is only of one section of one part of the saucer. I also have the entire secondary hull, neck, wings, and nacelles, and masks for lit areas.


I am going to defiantly buy yours when available! I just have my back against the wall on the AMT kit ,I am doing it for someone else .I am looking at this experiment in templet making as a new adventure .It is great just to see if I can do it ,but it is nothing I want to do all the time!I hope to leave stuff like that up to the Masters!Thank you Thomas for your help and the great work you do!


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

I am working on these when I can. They can be scaled down to somewhat fit the Ertl kit.

The only reason I am getting so anal on these is that they are going to be displayed by two persons who I want to please with the final results of the multi hued pearlescent finish. Otherwise, I could hack thru it like this:
http://www.thomasmodels.com/howto.html

You might be able to do something like that on the Ertl kit. It works on the small scale, but on the larger 1/350 scale, you gotta be cleaner.

If you can wait a couple of months untill I wrap up that and other projects, I will make them available in the correct scale for you.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Wow, My eyes must be going. I missed that area on the saucer where the grid lines got wacky ;-)

Very nice work, Tom.

Made up a song for you: 

Thommy

He's the template wizard
(His sample's got a twist...)
The template wizard
Will save our tender wrists!

How do you think he does it?
Good photos!
What makes him so good?

(etc ad nauseum)

For some reason, I like to play this using the "banjo" model on my Variax guitar. Sure ticks off the neighbours... the dog seems annoyed too. Sings (howls?) backup... vocals?


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

TrekFX said:


> Wow, My eyes must be going. I missed that area on the saucer where the grid lines got wacky ;-)


Yeah...what's up with the wavy gravy, man? :drunk:


----------



## CaptDistraction (Feb 1, 2005)

Awesome detail there Thom, as always! I assume the curvature is adjustment for laying the 3d saucer into 2d? Its very neat looking, are you actually going to line up someone to cut the vinyl and sell as a product? I can just imagine how much something like that would cost. (Especially in comparison to what the aztec dummy ones already cost).

However, based off experience, no, typically bitmaps cannot be cut into vinyl, they must first be converted into vector graphics, and its no where near as easy as converting vector to raster/bitmap. It can be done, but man, what a pain.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

Um, guys, the curvature is so Thomas can show us what he's working on without having to worry about someone else ripping it off before he releases it.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

HEY! I just noticed.. the starboard torpedo deck, docking port, isn't strait! 

s'ry, it's probably been mentioned a million times.


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*Yup*

woozle,

Quite right. I noticed this as well, and drilled all docking ports out. I intend to side light the doors anyway, so they had to be removed in any case.

Also, the elevator shafts for the hangar bay in both kits I purchased are severely warped. Anyone else have issues with these? I'm scratching these.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Some pages back, photos were asked for of the cargo deck/hanger. Here are two screen grabs form the DVD. From the shots, I can't decide the colors.


----------



## Prosta (Mar 23, 2005)

Think I went too dark on my colours.
Homemade railing by heating and stretching spurs into strings

My elevator shafts were fine.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

If you look at the color of the floor on your model, it's just about the way it looks from the screen grab. The walls, which are more or less under the same lighting conditions should look about like what you've got on your model. I'd say you're pretty much correct.

That is until someone who worked on the film comes up and says the walls were supposed to be paisley! Sorry, that was uncalled for.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

I wish there was an easy answer to how those dorky looking cargo containers are supposed to work. Present-day box-car containers would work better. I just can't envision having the cargo deck set up in an actually useful way.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Prosta, the real test is to look at it as a whole when lit. The one who would know for sure is, Andrew Probert. He did the mattes.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

Actually, to get technical with your paint job, Prosta, the hangar floor should be more the color of the elevators and not the color of the cargo floor. I went with Testors Acrylic Model Masters Intermediate Blue for my hangar and elevator floors and Testor's Acryl MM Medium Gray for the cargo floor. Your walls in the cargo area look better than mine, though; I originally went with a gunmetal, but lightened that with dark anodonic gray. It doesn't have the greenish cast, but is close enough for me. Also, don't forget the bluish cast of the work bee docks (duck-egg blue would probably be a good match).


----------



## cinc2020 (May 10, 2004)

*Looks good*

Looks good Prosta. Thanks for posting. I'd love to see more...


----------



## chunkeymonkey (May 4, 2004)

nice job prosta and it looks great to me.

100 times better than what i have done....seeing as i have'nt started yet... :freak: 

did you seal the floor in future/klear and then decal and re-seal ?

difficult to tell from photo if you have got a gloss or matt finish.

keep up the good work and we look forward to seeing the end product.

btw are you lighting your refit up ??


can't remember :drunk:


----------



## Prosta (Mar 23, 2005)

Ya used Klear/decal/Klear. I used Klear neat. Should I have diluted it?
Didn't get that gloss a finish from it. I'd call it satin at best.
I put a load of brown into the mix for the cargo floor but it dried the same colour as the hangar.

I'm still waiting on an order for Elwire and ccfl from the U.S. (since April 27th  )
The plan is to drill out the elevator shafts and run the elwire thru them.

Not done anything else but some work on the PCB for strobes. Stealing the design from the electronics on DLMs site :devil:


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

Prosta - if you're refering to the Federation Flasher Board, Don and I worked on that together and I can tell you that while it works like a charm, the strobe part depends on you finding a 3909 chip somewhere (They're pretty hard to come by).


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

I don't think the 3909 does anything a 555 circuit can't do.


----------



## ArthurPendragon (Jan 4, 2004)

IC 3909 ´s are out of production for some years now.

I don´t know what IC will succeed it, but I believe Digi-key may have the a substitute.

http://www.digikey.com/


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

3909's were perfect for simulating strobes - that's what they were designed for. They simulated a triangular waveform (maybe through PWM), which is impossible for a 555 to do. If there is a chip to replace it, I'd love to find one - otherwise, I'll do strobes using PIC microcontrollers which have a PWM command.


----------



## USSCassiopeia (Jun 9, 2005)

woozle said:


> It WAS a little rude of them to totally change the Enterprise-A set for ST V, after giving you those nice stills from the end of IV.


 I just wish they could have done the full shuttle bay in ST-V instead of that two-car garage deal.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

USSCassiopeia said:


> I just wish they could have done the full shuttle bay in ST-V instead of that two-car garage deal.


I wish I knew the source, but there's a rumor that the TMP shuttle bay being open to the cargo deck, was intended to look unfinished, implying that the ship was being rushed into service for the emergancy. 
The ST-V shuttle bay, actually, is a closer match to the TOS shuttle bay and exactly the same size as the TMP shuttle bay, HOWEVER, the TMP shuttle bay, looks twice as long as there is space for, due to the force-perspective of the matt painting. Having the bay doors looking less dorky would be my vote, though.


----------



## USSCassiopeia (Jun 9, 2005)

I think you might be on to something there. 

I watched part of StII last night, and during the "They knew exactly where to hit us!" scene, they show a computer diagram of the engineering hull's decks. The shuttle bay is just like you described, and it *is* proportioned alot like the TOS bay...

I didn't think anything about that 'till you brought it up!

Dave


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

woozle said:


> I wish I knew the source, but there's a rumor that the TMP shuttle bay being open to the cargo deck, was intended to look unfinished, implying that the ship was being rushed into service for the emergancy.


That's the rumor (I've heard it too), but such is not the case. The bay as seen in TMP was the bay as intended, complete and operative, with the forward forcefield active to retain the atmosphere of the cargo deck.

"Scotty tells Kirk, "We've just _finished_ eighteen months redesigning and refitting the Enterprise..." There was nothing left to build. All that remained were tweaks and crew training.

The hangar bay in ST V was chosen by Shatner, who wanted set designs more reminescent of TOS (reflected also in the design of the shuttlecraft). The interiors of the 1701A and the refit were vastly different, as shown by the changes to engineering, the bridge, the transporter room, the elevator cars, the hangar deck, the corridors, the observation lounge, etc. We saw no intermix shaft, no cargo deck, no rec deck, no officers' lounge (though in ST VI we did see a conference room where the officers' lounge had been). Every set varied dramatically from those seen in TMP. 

The two ships clearly had completely different interior configurations -- which further bolsters the contention that the refit was Enterprise Class (and perhaps unique), while the 1701A was a new Constitution. 

Shane


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

USSCassiopeia said:


> I watched part of StII last night, and during the "They knew exactly where to hit us!" scene, they show a computer diagram of the engineering hull's decks. The shuttle bay is just like you described, and it *is* proportioned alot like the TOS bay...


Weren't they using Franz Joseph's diagrams of the TOS Enterprise in that film (as they also did in TMP and ST III)? That would explain why the hangar resembled that of the later 1701A.

Shane


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Shane - I was looking at my shuttlebay parts last night along with the matte paintings from the movie. Just fore of the lowered area where the 'elevators' are for the shuttlecraft, there appears to be the edge of a door sticking out on either side, along with what appears to be a track in the floor. Do you know if the intention was that the shuttlebay could be partitioned off from the cargo deck below? If someone's already answered this question, I apologize for asking it again.

Also, if they used Franz Joseph's diagrams in the movies, does that then make the technical manual canon?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Krako said:


> Shane - I was looking at my shuttlebay parts last night along with the matte paintings from the movie. Just fore of the lowered area where the 'elevators' are for the shuttlecraft, there appears to be the edge of a door sticking out on either side, along with what appears to be a track in the floor. Do you know if the intention was that the shuttlebay could be partitioned off from the cargo deck below?


The 'track' is a forcefield generator, which creates a specialized barrier that maintains the atmosphere within the cargo deck while the hangar doors are open. Workbees and cargo pods (and other solid objects) can penetrate the field, but air cannot. The 'doors' to either side are bulkheads and do not move.



Krako said:


> Also, if they used Franz Joseph's diagrams in the movies, does that then make the technical manual canon?


It does for me.  While many now dismiss that book, I am very fond of it and believe it should be regarded as the milestone it is. Without it (and without Franz Joseph), 'Trek tech' likely would not be what it is today.

Shane


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Thanks, Shane. my copy of the Technical Manual and Mr. Scott's Guide are my two favorite Trek books. In fact, long before I paid attention to who wrote what, I considered them a sort of matching pair, with one complimenting the other by providing updated information on a new era.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

lastguardian said:


> The 'track' is a forcefield generator, which creates a specialized barrier that maintains the atmosphere within the cargo deck while the hangar doors are open. Workbees and cargo pods (and other solid objects) can penetrate the field, but air cannot. The 'doors' to either side are bulkheads and do not move.


Actually, that's not true, according to Andy Probert. The forcefield is at the landing bay doors and the tracks are for doors (apparently accordion-style doors) that are shown open in the model and in the movie.

From Andy Probert's site (see the last sentence, especially):
"What I proposed ... was that the landing bay & cargo bay be connected, allowing the easy passage of cargo 'trains'. The landing bay doors remain open but atmospheric integrity is maintained with a 'force field'. The idea is that shuttles would normally take off from & land in the landing bay. They then could be lowered (E-1 or E-2) to the Hangar Bay level, (which you see lighted in red), or lowered another level to shuttle maintenance. A multi-paneled 2-story door, between the elevators and cargo bay, has been opened to the sides allowing the transfer of cargo."

That's at http://www.probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/CargoBay-3.html


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

My saucer is 1/16" too big....


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

ThomasModels said:


> My saucer is 1/16" too big....


... is that on the model?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

justinleighty said:


> The forcefield is at the landing bay doors and the tracks are for doors (apparently accordion-style doors) that are shown open in the model and in the movie.
> 
> From Andy Probert's site (see the last sentence, especially):
> "What I proposed ... was that the landing bay & cargo bay be connected, allowing the easy passage of cargo 'trains'. The landing bay doors remain open but atmospheric integrity is maintained with a 'force field'. The idea is that shuttles would normally take off from & land in the landing bay. They then could be lowered (E-1 or E-2) to the Hangar Bay level, (which you see lighted in red), or lowered another level to shuttle maintenance. A multi-paneled 2-story door, between the elevators and cargo bay, has been opened to the sides allowing the transfer of cargo."


The only 'accordion' doors Andy ever mentioned as _Mr. Scott's Guide_ was being written had been conceived as running side-to-side across the top of the cargo deck, rather like the cover of a roll-top desk. When closed, these doors would create a second 'floor' upon which more cargo could be stacked. Their 'track' can be seen running side-to-side above the aft row of module storage. While an interesting idea, I could never figure out a way to make such doors fit (when retracted) into the limited space between the cargo deck and the outer hull (they could not have curved to conform to the outer contours, and could not be allowed to block windows), so I made no specific mention of them in the book.

If Andy isn't referring to that, I'm not familiar with whatever doors he means. Perhaps he simply never mentioned them to me, which may well be. More often than not, gathering data from Paramount for the book was like pulling teeth and if Andy didn't happen to mention something, no one did. Too often, in dealing with the studio art department, unless I specifically asked just the right question I got no useful information at all. That was why I wound up having to fly out there and physically gather what I could on my own.

I'm not sure I see the point though in having a vertical retracting door in that location, since a forcefield generator/hangar door combo would make it redundant. And it wouldn't really be an 'accordion' door per se, I wouldn't think, but more likely a door made up of disconnected narrow strips that overlap. Such a segmented door would have a _lot_ of segments -- perhaps eight per side -- and be very thin, given the narrow area into which it would have to retract. 

In any case, the molded objects in the kit are bulkheads and not 'thick' doors. 

Shane


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

ThomasModels said:


> My saucer is 1/16" too big....


Naughty, naughty 

Shane


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

lastguardian said:


> The only 'accordion' doors Andy ever mentioned as _Mr. Scott's Guide_ was being written had been conceived as running side-to-side across the top of the cargo deck, rather like the cover of a roll-top desk. When closed, these doors would create a second 'floor' upon which more cargo could be stacked. Their 'track' can be seen running side-to-side above the aft row of module storage. While an interesting idea, I could never figure out a way to make such doors fit (when retracted) into the limited space between the cargo deck and the outer hull (they could not have curved to conform to the outer contours, and could not be allowed to block windows), so I made no specific mention of them in the book.


Those are also shown in Andy's artwork on his site, though they don't appear to be accordion-style. They just look like blue frames that pull out of the walls. And you're right, they probably just wouldn't fit.



lastguardian said:


> I'm not sure I see the point though in having a vertical retracting door in that location, since a forcefield generator/hangar door combo would make it redundant. And it wouldn't really be an 'accordion' door per se, I wouldn't think, but more likely a door made up of disconnected narrow strips that overlap. Such a segmented door would have a _lot_ of segments -- perhaps eight per side -- and be very thin, given the narrow area into which it would have to retract.
> 
> In any case, the molded objects in the kit are bulkheads and not 'thick' doors.


I don't know that I see the point either (given the forcefield and shuttle bay doors), but they are there in the painting and Andy talks about them. The only way the design makes sense would be accordion doors, so they aren't made of disconnected, overlapping segments. They'd still be smaller, thin sections to fit into the area on either side (and you're right, they aren't thick doors; but I take them to be the doors fully opened). 

When closed, they'd look something like this:
l------------l. When partway open, they'd look like: l/\/\/\ /\/\/\l. When completely open (as his painting shows, and as the kit looks like), they look like: llll llll. The tracks on the floor would likely only be useful in the opening/closing phase.

Your idea for the doors could work, too, Shane, but I think the accordion idea works best in the space. But my whole point was that the doors are designed to be in that area, according to Andy Probert, despite your sound assumption that a forcefield would make more sense there and be less redundant. Maybe it's just some sort of backup, or a system that would allow the secondary hull to be pressurized while refitting the landing bay.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

The forcefield HAS to be aft of the elevators, since the hangar deck is open to the elevators and who wants to have a hangar deck that is in vacuum? 
I still like the theory that the TMP shuttle bay/cargo deck was open, because it was meant to look 'unfinished', due to the emergency interrupting the ship's refit, though I wish I could find the reference to that.. Shane, have you heard that theory? 

It would make sense to have an actual wall, with shuttle-size doors, between the cargo deck and elevators. In ST V, we see a similar wall and doors on the Shuttlebay side of the elevators. 

As to the 'rolling-out' deck in the cargo bay.. again, if it was unfinished in TMP, A logical finished design might be to have cargo galleries around the sides and front, with an open center for workbee access. Who knows, in a finished plan, the turboshafts we see in the cargo deck, might even be enclosed in walls and decking.


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

Need help with Aztec template.


Could someone please scan the Polar lights template that came with the kit. I don't have a scanner and I would like to print it on some sticker sheets. I tried using the photo copier at work but had a sweet paper jam. LOL


ty
Rob


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

woozle said:


> The forcefield HAS to be aft of the elevators, since the hangar deck is open to the elevators and who wants to have a hangar deck that is in vacuum?


Yes, there was a forcefield at the landing bay entry. I had understood there to be a second field forward of the elevators, but that may not be the case if Andy meant for doors to be there instead. There would be times when they would want vacuum in the bay, and would keep that option available.



woozle said:


> I still like the theory that the TMP shuttle bay/cargo deck was open, because it was meant to look 'unfinished', due to the emergency interrupting the ship's refit, though I wish I could find the reference to that.. Shane, have you heard that theory?


I posted the following earlier in the thread, but you may have missed it:

The bay as seen in TMP was the bay as intended, complete and operative, with the forcefield active to retain the atmosphere of the cargo deck.

"Scotty tells Kirk, "We've just finished eighteen months redesigning and refitting the Enterprise..." There was nothing left to build. All that remained were tweaks and crew training.

The hangar bay in ST V was chosen by Shatner, who wanted set designs more reminescent of TOS (reflected also in the design of the shuttlecraft). The interiors of the 1701A and the refit were vastly different, as shown by the changes to engineering, the bridge, the transporter room, the elevator cars, the hangar deck, the corridors, the observation lounge, etc. We saw no intermix shaft, no cargo deck, no rec deck, no officers' lounge (though in ST VI we did see a conference room where the officers' lounge had been). Every set (due to the TNG redress) varied dramatically from those seen in TMP.

The two ships clearly had completely different interior configurations -- which further bolsters the contention that the refit was Enterprise Class (and perhaps unique), while the 1701A was a new Constitution.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

justinleighty said:


> Your idea for the doors could work, too, Shane, but I think the accordion idea works best in the space.


Probably so.  I just took Andy's description of "multi-paneled two-story doors" to mean something else, perhaps a design along the lines of the hangar doors themselves. Who knows. 

In whatever case, I wonder whether doors that tall, wide, and _thin_ could retain the pressure of an atmosphere. Structurally, you'd be asking a lot of an expanse like that. And the notion must have been present of the landing bay being unpressurized while the cargo deck was not, otherwise the doors serve no purpose at all. For the sake of simplicity, had it been up to me, I'd likely have gone the forcefield route. 

Shane


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Ah, I found the reference to the ship being 'unfinished' in TMP. Watching the TMP Director's cut, have the Michael Okuda, Text commentary ON. During his commentary, he stated that the Refit Enterprise was expected to look unfinished (mainly because they didn't know if the sets would all be finished on time), reflecting the emergency pulling the into service, before the Refit was complete. Aye, it's essentially hearsay, but it makes sense as an on-screen excuse for not having everything done in time. It would be nice to ask Probert and Turnbull about that theory/excuse, though as Shane said, the impression given in the movie is that what we see on screen is intended to be the finished shape. 

As I understand it, Many of the sets where started, for PHASE II, then redone for TMP, then redone again, with a change in directors. 
This could be used to explain why the shuttle bay was open to the cargo deck, but later closed. Some sets where also intended to be used in different locations, like the rec-deck. They moved it from below/behind the bridge, to the lower secondary hull (the big bay windows....), then moved it to the edge of the primary hull and put a garden inside the windows they cut in the engineering hull. Along the way, the set didn't change much or shrink to fit. The two turbo-shafts in the Rec Deck where originally supposed to be the same ones that go up to the sides of the bridge (though they're farther apart).


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

The unfinished business dates back to a prerelease article in CFQ, where GR supposedly wanted to dress studio carpenters in uniforms and have them hammering away during the early bridge scenes, but SEG rules forbade it. Personally I don't buy this at all, as it would have been Wise's call, not GR's, and it would have been a sound and coordination nightmare, even worse than what they had with the racket from the projectors. 

There are more than a few goofs and errors of omission on the Okuda tracks, so I consider them anecdotal rather than historical in nature ... I'd have to watch them again, but as I recall there are about a half dozen outright wrongs on the TMP and TWOK commentaries from Okuda, and a few more that are pretty questionable. He only started working on them with TVH, so I imagine those commentaries are probably a lot more accurate.

EDIT ADDON: The phase 2 sets were still standing when Bob collins was doing the feature, and it was only when Wise came on that they got reworked. He threw out the corridors and most of engineering, spent a couple hundred grand redoing some of the bridge, but basically most of the interiors were phase II plus some extra touches. Not all good -- as Mike Minor pointed out, the TMP folks really ruined Kirk's quarters with bad art direction and lighting. By way of comparison look at how Jennings made the same space very warm and inviting in TWOK. Wish Wise hadn't got rid of Jennings, since Michaelson, his replacement, did a lot of ??? wtf stuff, like putting lighting in the floor.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

trevanian said:


> There are more than a few goofs and errors of omission on the Okuda tracks, so I consider them anecdotal rather than historical in nature ... He only started working on them with TVH, so I imagine those commentaries are probably a lot more accurate.
> 
> The phase 2 sets were still standing when Bob collins was doing the feature, and it was only when Wise came on that they got reworked.


Since Mike came into ST eight years _after_ TMP, his comments apparently were more an attempt to harmonize the refit with the 1701A for the benefit of the fans than it was a relating of the producers' actual intent. The ship as we saw it in TMP was structurally and mechanically complete.

As for the conversion of the standing sets from Phase II to TMP -- when I visited the sets in 1986 and inspected the end of the corridor farthest from the intersection at engineering, one could see -- through the open, raw end of the bulkhead -- that the TMP corridor dressing had been constructed _inside_ the Phase II corridors that already had been built. In other words, there were finished TOS-like corridor walls _behind_ the walls we saw. 

Shane


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Interesting discussion on the (possible) cargo deck doors. Seems like I've been working on my cargo deck/landing bay forever now, so I've had a lot of time to ponder the finer points of that space. Hopefully, I'll have some pictures of what I've been working on soon.

Shane, did the sets look very different than the way they appeared on screen? I suppose up close, that they didn't look very good. One other question... I've always wondered what those TMP-style chairs felt like to sit in. I'd love to hear more of what you recall from your visit in '86.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

woozle said:


> Watching the TMP Director's cut, have the Michael Okuda, Text commentary ON. During his commentary, he stated that the Refit Enterprise was expected to look unfinished (mainly because they didn't know if the sets would all be finished on time), reflecting the emergency pulling the into service, before the Refit was complete. /QUOTE]
> 
> okay, okay... As much as I like that excuse/explination, I'll let go of it as having any basis in reality. it WOULD make sense, though.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

lastguardian said:


> one could see -- through the open, raw end of the bulkhead -- that the TMP corridor dressing had been constructed _inside_ the Phase II corridors that already had been built. In other words, there were finished TOS-like corridor walls _behind_ the walls we saw.
> 
> Shane


That's really interesting, as the old quotes from Wise (at the time of release) all say pretty much the same thing, that the corridor sets were thrown away. In the past, I've been inclined to only consider the DVD-era Wise comments to be totally dismissable (sounds like he is reading copy prepared by SharpLineArts to me), but now I gotta wonder about the ones he made back in 79 as well. 

It is hard enough for me to reconcile he did something as great as DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL less than a decade after helping massacre MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS ... now I've gotta start thinking maybe he was less than a thoughtful craftsman and more like a lucky bastard to have drawn THE HAUNTING and ANDROMEDA STRAIN before his luck ran out.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Krako said:


> Shane, did the sets look very different than the way they appeared on screen? I suppose up close, that they didn't look very good. One other question... I've always wondered what those TMP-style chairs felt like to sit in. I'd love to hear more of what you recall from your visit in '86.


The sets seemed smaller in person, but then sets always do. The camera adds width, height and depth to everything it sees (think of a televised football game vs one you see in person). One set though that struck me as expected was Engineering. Very cool place to be, even with the intermix shaft 'off.' Lots of nice detail the camera never really picked up on. The forced perspective element as the shaft swept aft was amazing and very precisely crafted -- if you stood in the right spot and closed one eye, the room suddenly seemed twice as long.

Overall, the sets, while most impressive, aren't quite as refined as they appear on film. The men who build and dress them know what the camera will see and what it won't, so they do only what they must in order to save crucial time and money.

It was really interesting walking the corridors of the Enterprise and hearing the occasional creak of wood beneath my feet. Brings you down to earth real quick. The doors worked on a curtain-rod pulley system and were _very_ lightweight, made of aluminum-faced foamcore. I'd imagine if an actor leaned against one he'd damage it beyond repair. 

Sickbay had been redressed into the bar from ST III, and since the set hadn't been needed for ST IV it was still in that condition. 

The transporter room was beyond cool. Unable to resist, I stood in the operator's booth and beamed up a few imaginary folks, then stood on the platform and took a photo of myself using a tripod and a 25' cable release. 

(By the way, I took the photos on pages 63 and 68 of _Mr. Scott's Guide_.)

Alas, the bridge chairs. They were missing the day I visited -- a vandal had slashed them all with a knife and they were out being reupholstered. How I had longed to sit in that captain's chair, but it was not to be. I did get to sit on Kirk's bed, though, so it wasn't a total loss. 

Shane


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

trevanian said:


> That's really interesting, as the old quotes from Wise (at the time of release) all say pretty much the same thing, that the corridor sets were thrown away.


Perhaps by "thrown away," he meant 'went unused.'

Shane


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Eww... Kirk's bed? I hope you washed up afterward. Easily the most, ahem, used space on the ship...


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

lastguardian said:


> In whatever case, I wonder whether doors that tall, wide, and _thin_ could retain the pressure of an atmosphere. Structurally, you'd be asking a lot of an expanse like that.


Yeah, but keep in mind, that in TOS the unshielded ship handled a nuclear blast from not too far off the bow, so we're talking construction materials far superior to what we have around today.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Krako said:


> Eww... Kirk's bed? I hope you washed up afterward. Easily the most, ahem, used space on the ship...


I made use of a sonic shower... 

Shane


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

lastguardian said:


> I made use of a sonic shower...
> 
> Shane


If it was the one in Kirk's quarters, it'd probably be almost as bad as the bed ...


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

justinleighty said:


> If it was the one in Kirk's quarters, it'd probably be almost as bad as the bed ...


It was the _only_ one, so I guess the whole crew had to share it... 

Shane


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

I read about how they did the sonic shower effect, for the Ilea Probe.. I can just imagine how they would do it today. Okay, I can imagine how I would do it today.. it would involve lots of CGI-generated steam and suggestively out-of-focus camera angles, as the steam gives way water cascading off of her.. um.. sensors.....:dude:


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

lastguardian said:


> It was the _only_ one, so I guess the whole crew had to share it...
> 
> Shane


So, I guess that nagging question has finally been answered: there really WAS a bathroom on the Enterprise...wow! But here's the REAL question...was there a toilet? :lol:


----------



## Nosirrag (Apr 26, 2005)

And if there was a toilet, where would it flush to? Out into space? eeehhheeewww.

I guess the bottom half of engineering section, below the cargo bay, was a massive septic tank. That's why Klingons never fire on the underside of the engineering section -- no hull breaches here, please.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

I have a question about color. I have painted the secondary hull with a base coat and used two different colors. For the main portion I used Krylon Ultra White. For the engineering section I used Plasti-kote color CC9089 (a white/grey). I took a pic of these pieces (temporarily assembled) to get an idea of how the colors look together. What do you think of these colors? Keep in mind, they are base colors - there will be pearl white over portions of the ultra white and lightblue/grey colors over portions of the plasti-kote color. Looking for opinions...THANKS!


----------



## chuckman (Nov 25, 2003)

/\ well, i like it, the grey doesnt seem to pop out too much, which is good. a slightly bluer shade for the paneling and it should look great.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

Here's one taken with a flash...the first was with room lighting...the deflector dish housing is in progress...


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

I posted a lighted picture of my delfector dish earlier (under the lighting thread). Here's the dish unlit (with still a lot of paint work to be done). I managed to paint behind the dish, on the curved wall of the piece the dish fits into, using a clear blue. That combined with the frosted dish gives the following look unlit. Let me know what you think. I'll never get it to look like the real ship (unlit) but I'm pretty happy with this (I might try to get it a little lighter).

(edited to correct horrendous spelling...as usual...and to add the following)

My goal is for it to look something like this pic: http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent50.jpg

This above is a pic where the flash used in the picture taking is not making the dish look lighter than it really is (my picture was taken without a flash as well.)


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

Any thoughts on the dish color? I realize the piece in the picture is very much unfinished, but I am looking for feedback on the color when unlit. I think mine is a shade more toward blue and the studio model might be more of a blue/grey.


----------



## podmonger (Apr 30, 2005)

It looks pretty close to me. I'd move on to other parts of the model and come back to this. At any rate, it's up to you. If _you _ want it a little grayer, then mist on a little gray.

But I do think the gloss on your dish should be toned down. Look at the soft edges of the highlight in the cloudster shot.

Steve


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

Thanks for the feedback! Good point! I have been debating on whether to do anything with that now or to wait until the final clear matte coat is applied. I'm thinking that final coat will dull it down enough...well hoping at least!


----------



## podmonger (Apr 30, 2005)

Speaking of dishes, I was futzing around with a small maglite and the DLM blue replacement dish for the Ertl refit. To get a nice diffused glow on the dish, I added two disks of .010" styrene: one replacing the lens on the maglite, and a larger one right behind the DLM dish. When the maglite was moved about an inch away from the dish, the glow was sweet.

The PL refit would use a slightly different setup of course, but I think that one sheet close to the light source and one behind the dish should look good. 

Hope that helps somebody ...
Steve


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

podmonger said:


> Speaking of dishes, I was futzing around with a small maglite and the DLM blue replacement dish for the Ertl refit. To get a nice diffused glow on the dish, I added two disks of .010" styrene: one replacing the lens on the maglite, and a larger one right behind the DLM dish. When the maglite was moved about an inch away from the dish, the glow was sweet.
> 
> The PL refit would use a slightly different setup of course, but I think that one sheet close to the light source and one behind the dish should look good.
> 
> ...



The PL dish is conclace and not flat like the DLM part. I have toyed with colored disks myself, however, the effect is lost since the disc lies right over the LED. Way too close.


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

How about painting it white and putting an UV led behind it.. that way you won't see the brightness of the LED, but the white dish will glow like a lightsheet.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

I have a color question. I have been working on the planetary sensor array, particularly the areas where the spotlights originate. In looking at images on cloudster's site, it looks like these areas are either a medium to dark grey or grey/blue with some darker accents (black maybe)? The problem is that the pics (see below) are of the ship upon retirement and it appears as if there is perhaps "dust" or some type of whiteish material that makes it tough to tell what's underneath.

Here's the forward facing spotlight: 
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent12.jpg

Here the "cleanest" looking one:
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent04.jpg

Does anybody know what colors are used here and if these (in the pics) are the same as the E from TMP? I know on film it almost always looks black (like the photon launcher area EDIT: which is NOT black now, see added image below) but this can easily be attributed to lighting conditions during filming.

Photon Launcher:
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent61.jpg


----------



## MartinHatfield (Apr 11, 2004)

I am pretty sure that these areas are black, or a very dark grey.

I plan on doing them the same as the torpedo launcher on my kit. I am going to paint the areas flat black, and then dry-brush with gunmetal.


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

*Paint scheme diagram?*

After reading this thread about 5 times, looking at dozens of great images of the refit E and -A versions.....has anyone sat down and made a layout of suggested colors? I bought all the colors listed in the PL kit instructions but of course the painting guide in there is simplified.

Anybody seen a layout?


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

Thomas.... Is there a four color set of Aztek masks in the works? What's the status on that? I, for one, plan to do everything else and wait for your stencils!

Would you include some color suggestions with it?


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Two issues:

1. Does anyone know of a brand of "pearlescent white" for airbrushing? Testors (and all of their related lines) only has a "Pearlescent Purple".....yeh, like that would work.

2. Apparently the Aztec scheme in the original is created by varying the finish. The directions say use shades of gray. Has anyone tried varying the finish? I'm wondering how you would go about it. In order to get the decals on, you need all gloss. So you could aztec after decals. However, the aztek pattern appears not to go over the markings...so you'd need to mask the decals and risk damaging them. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

1. Doesn't Tamiya have pearlescent white?
2. I'm planning on aztecking the whole thing, then masking a panel around the area where the decal is to go, then glossing that panel. Next, I'd apply the decal, then spray a satin clear coat, maybe Microscale or mixed Future to seal the decal. If it needs some sheen variation after that, I'd mask some panels within that, and cover those with a flat coat. They don't have to match the painted aztec exactly. It could be a lot of work, but I think a proper aztec needs a lot of work. 

... but of course, this is in theory. :wave:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Yep.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*Pearlescent White Encore une fois*

Let me rephrase a previous question...

Does anyone know of an enamel (so Tamiya is out) airbrushable (ie not in a spray can) pearlescent white suitable for the exterior of the 350 PL Refit?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Googling pearlescent enamel white airbrush plastic led to:
http://www.ehobbies.com/pac76.html (actually a lacquer)
http://www.airheadairbrush.com/houseofkolorpb.htm

... but yes, it does seem hard to find that combination. Hope that helps ...


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

According to Bran Ferren of Associates & Ferren when they recieved the Ennterprise model for the fillming of STV some of the neon tubing had to be replaced and half of the ship had been painted grey,so the entire model had to be repainted. Saw it in the STV Movie Magazine from Starlog. Don't know if any body here was aware of all this.Apparently the damage accored while the Enterprise had been loaned out.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

bigjimslade said:


> Let me rephrase a previous question...
> 
> Does anyone know of an enamel (so Tamiya is out) airbrushable (ie not in a spray can) pearlescent white suitable for the exterior of the 350 PL Refit?


Here are the pearl colors I used when aztecing my PL refit (http://photobucket.com/albums/b391/Raist3001/?sc=1&multi=5)

http://www.taxidermy.com/cat/05/paint.html


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Raist3001 said:


> Here are the pearl colors I used when aztecing my PL refit (http://photobucket.com/albums/b391/Raist3001/?sc=1&multi=5)
> 
> http://www.taxidermy.com/cat/05/paint.html


Can you state specifically what colors? I checked the site and I can see what I believe you used, but can you give a list of them (and include what was used for basecoat vs. aztecing)? I like your work and would like to try and get mine to look the same.

Thanks.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Well he either used these:

http://www.taxidermy.com/cat/05/polyirid.html

or these:

http://www.taxidermy.com/cat/05/WCirid.html


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Opus Penguin said:


> Can you state specifically what colors? I checked the site and I can see what I believe you used, but can you give a list of them (and include what was used for basecoat vs. aztecing)? I like your work and would like to try and get mine to look the same.
> 
> Thanks.


Thanks for the kind words

I used the silver and white pearl found here....http://www.taxidermy.com/cat/05/LTpearl.html

AND

I used the satin white pearl found here...http://www.taxidermy.com/cat/05/WCpearl.html

I used a simple white as my basecoat.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> Well he either used these:
> 
> http://www.taxidermy.com/cat/05/polyirid.html
> 
> ...



I also purchased the shimmering pearl colors. I plan on using Arthurs templates to spray the complex aztec levels. What I want to create is the 'sheen' effect in which many colors will 'pearl' when the light hits it.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Dito


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

repeat question... there was rumored to be a set of painting masks coming from Thomas that was to break the aztek into something like 4 layers. Does anyone know the status on that?


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

They are not yet complete. I started them when I had a window for it, but other commitments take that time now. When I get things wrapped up and I will again need them for the two builds I have, I will again work on them.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

ThomasModels said:


> They are not yet complete. I started them when I had a window for it, but other commitments take that time now. When I get things wrapped up and I will again need them for the two builds I have, I will again work on them.


I would be curious on getting these when you produce them. I look forward to what you come up with. The four layer would be more impressive.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*Some Painting Experiments - Preliminary Results*

1. Tamiya "Aluminum Leaf" spray paint is the best I have found for making the interior opaque.

2. Tamiya Pearl White over White and Testors Pearl Spray Finish over white give two close colors from a distance but very distinct close up. 

I am trying to have the same overall color but with varied finishs.

I'm still testing some other paints.


----------



## fokkerpilot (Jul 22, 2002)

Thom S. said:


> I'm just curious....
> 
> Just asking...
> 
> Do you guys _read_ the prior posts before asking a question, the same question that has already been answered? Not only answered in a detailed way, but also one which includes a MOVIE file attached?


Not being a smart*ss but, no, I won't spend half the afternoon reading a thread that is a mile long.


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 28, 2004)

It looks at least you started! That post is at the end of the third page.


----------



## fokkerpilot (Jul 22, 2002)

Thom S. said:


> It looks at least you started! That post is at the end of the third page.


:lol: Yep, you got me on that one. Wife is at work, kids are in bed, model is doing it's dry time, and I get on the forums to see whats up. It is funny though, whenever you try to find something, luck has it that it is in a mile long thread. I'm guilty for asking without searchin' at times but that is in a pinch. Heck, tonight I'll probably read the whole BB.

Jack


----------



## frontline (May 4, 2005)

Sorry for dragging this one up from the depths, but I've got a question about paining the engineering hull, specificaly the area with the varying shades of green (or blue if you are doing post TWOK). Are there any templates for doing this area? Have most folks been making up their own masks?


----------



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

Somebody please lock this thread down as a sticky.
She keeps breakin' loose!


----------



## fokkerpilot (Jul 22, 2002)

frontline said:


> I've got a question about paining the engineering hull, specificaly the area with the varying shades of green (or blue if you are doing post TWOK). Are there any templates for doing this area?


Frontline, go over to http://www.scalehobby.com . You'll be able to find what you need in the "Build Along" Thread, and then Sci-Fi 2005. It's a shame you couldn't have been answered differently instead of a "lock this thread" reply.


----------



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

fokkerpilot said:


> Frontline, go over to http://www.scalehobby.com . You'll be able to find what you need in the "Build Along" Thread, and then Sci-Fi 2005. It's a shame you couldn't have been answered differently instead of a "lock this thread" reply.


What I meant by please lock this thread down as a sticky was not to close the thread, but simply to make it as a sticky.

For some strange reason it gets "unstuck" every few days. The moderator I spoke with doesn't know why.

I had/have no intention of asking it to be "closed."

I just think it has enough nifty info to be a "sticky" and thus avoid having to go hunting for it every few days.

I'm sorry if I was unclear or gave you the wrong impression, I did not in any way ask that it be closed. To the contrary I was asking that it be made more accessible due to it's usefullness.

Asking to lock threads is rarely our style around here.


----------



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

To try to answer frontline's question, there is one template set that is available.
However the pattern it uses for the saucer section is not what is seen onscreen.

The pattern for the engineering section looks great but, according to the person making the template, it is his own interpretation.

I haven't seen one that is yet in production that seems 100% accurate.

Thomas is working on a five layer templates set. But he is currently tied up doing other work and hasn't been able to give us a guess as to when he'll have a set for sale.


----------



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

I'm PM'ing Capt Locknar about converting this to a sticky.

So please, moderator dudes, don't go adjusting the thread over one another's work and loosing it, ala' the Galileo Project.


----------



## frontline (May 4, 2005)

fokkerpilot and Chuck_P.R. thanks for the tips. Im going thorugh those threads right now and getting a lot of info, esp about AD. Good work fokker


----------



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

Question: is there any really thin translucent white paint available?

I'm going to try decals for aztecing.

With the exception of the non-aztec decals and the strongback colored decals, 

I was thinking a coat of very thin translucent white paint might also be a way of setting the decals and making them blend with the model more closely. I wouldn't have to use a gloss coat that way either I think.

Just a thought...


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I thought this thread was already a sticky because every time I get on Hobbytalk this thread is near the top of the page among the other stickys.


----------



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

Even when "unstuck" it often is because of the subject.
But I like it better as a sticky because people often start new threads.
If it's info already covered it can be a waste,
and if the info isn't already covered there's a chance someone will miss a valuable tip because it was in a smaller thread that went nowhere.

That said, anybody have any ideas/experience with translucent white paint?
How thin can one get the stuff and still have a consistent white color?


----------

