# Ray's TAS shuttlecraft...



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

My shuttlecraft projects are still alive and progressive...albeit sometimes in a seemingly glacial manner.

At any rate even as I continue working on my TOS Class F shuttlecraft schematics and scratchbuild model I've also been keeping a hand in pushing my TAS adaptations forward. Those of you who have been following my shuttlecraft works may recall that I gone through easily four major design concepts in trying to fashion a "realistic' TOS live-action version of the shuttlecraft designs seen in TAS' "The Slaver Weapon," "Mudd's Passion" and the aquashuttle in "The Ambergris Element."

Previous versions all had something to recommend them...except a major element always bothered me to some extent or other: no matter how interesting the design it just didn't resonate enough to evoke the original TAS design. And so I'd go back to the drawing board and sketchpad to try again. This time I swore to make it work and not commit to detailed and scaled drawings until I got something I was satisfied with.

It's understood that a "real" version of the TAS shuttlecraft will never be exactly as seen onscreen. The TAS designs are way off scale, being much too large and with exaggerated proportions. They also lack a lot of detail. But I still think I can make them work. Even though they will depart from the onscreen versions to some extent they should still be immediately recognizable.

And here is my final attempt:










Note this is not the only drawing I have. While still a work-in-progress it's just one image from the multiple view schematics that are nearing completion. And I will be rendering them in the same sheet styles as my TOS shuttlecraft drawings. Note also there is still some intended detail yet to be added to this drawing. I can say that like the onscreen version it has an aft access hatch, but it doesn't function like the one seen onscreen. That one operated like many of the familiar doors seen aboard the _Enterprise_. Instead this one opens in two parts with a swing down gangway and an upward swinging upper panel. The vehicle's interior is meant to accommodate up to four people since this is meant as a small fast transport craft. The onscreen versions tended to be rather sharp edged looking designs and spare in detail. My intention is to soften the overall look to some extent, round off the edges some and add some much needed detail where appropriate.

The crewman included in the image represents someone about 5'-10" or 1.778m. to give the image a sense of scale. I don't have any hard dimensions yet, but they are forthcoming. Presently I estimate this design to be perhaps 35ft. in length. I've given the craft a starbase registry to underline the idea that these designs are specialized craft assigned to starbases and outposts and loaned out to deep space starships for specific missions.

These designs are meant to fit into a starship's flight deck area for temporary accommodation when needed for specific missions. The scoutship above would be roughly analogous to a DS9 era runabout and thus be faster and have longer range than a standard Class F. 

Presently I'm classifying as such:
*Class F* - general multi-purpose shuttlecraft (TOS)
*Class J* - fast long-range scoutship ("Slaver Weapon")
*Class L* - heavy lander ("Mudd's Passion") - _For surveying high gravity and extreme environments. Low warp capable._
*Class M* - aquashuttle ("The Ambergris Element") - _For surveying aquatic environments. Non warp capable._

Stay tuned.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Very nice, as always... I eagerly await updates.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Some progression and added detail...with more to come. There are bits to be added to the landing struts and some overall hull detail. I made one small correction since the starbase mentioned in "Slaver Weapon" is Starbase 25 rather than 27.










One thing to note is that I cannot think of a way to add impulse engines to this without really changing it. Of course when this was first drawn by the animators it's likely no thought was given to this. _I would be curious to know if the TAS designs were something they just thought of an the spot or if someone had actually sketched out ideas for them. It would be very interesting to see concept sketches of the new ship designs seen in TAS as well as for the aliens too._ Anyway I'm thinking of taking a page from TMP's shuttlecraft and having the ship able to go sublight by antigravity drive. That would be that object you can just partly see under the main hull behind the support struts. I thought I could put it there since it isn't an area we got a good look at onscreen except perhaps for one quick shot.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

^

Yeah, I would go with your idea for the bottom drive... I wouldn't want the lines of this craft to be ruined or changed from what they are now.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I must say I prefer the cleaner look of the nacelles without the bits I added on top, but there is something like that on the original version although onscreen they look too much the the _Enterprise's_ nacelles and so I simplified them for what is supposed to be a high-speed shuttlecraft.

I've tried to keep the essential concept of the original while shortening it in length and softening some of the sharp lines and angularity of it. It also won't be as spacious inside as what we saw onscreen. I solved the forward viewport sightline problem by envisioning the forward flight control area as a sort of elevated cockpit where you have to step up slightly from the aft area into a forward section where you cannot stand upright. Consequently this allows me some extra space under the deck for mechanicals. While thinking this through I learned from my drawing of the Class F and wanted to allow between hulls space for the craft's guts. The only place about the hull where there'll be no room for mechanicals will be the main viewport.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Very Nice.

Have you thought about either making them up or having someone make them up for you in 1/350 so you can kit them and sell them when the R2 TOS 'E' becomes available?

Some other scale like 1/32 might also be cool.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

ClubTepes said:


> Very Nice.
> 
> Have you thought about either making them up or having someone make them up for you in 1/350 so you can kit them and sell them when the R2 TOS 'E' becomes available?
> 
> Some other scale like 1/32 might also be cool.


Well there is the matter of them not being exact replicas of the onscreen versions which I think look rather hastily drawn and with little thought to how they would actually supposed to fit in the ship's hangar.

I am thinking of trying my hand at scrathbuilding them when the drawings are complete although at a smaller scale than my TOS Class F build.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

*Nice ship!*

This is a great looking ship! I like the concept a lot. One thing that seems to be off, though, is that the landing gear seem a little...flimsy? Or just lacking. I'm wondering what it would look like if you had skids on the bottom of those struts. Just a thought!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ I'm not yet finished with the landing struts, but I won't be using skids as was used onscreen. Skids just look so dated and not right on a _Star Trek_ design.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

The best place I can see for adding impulse engines is the area between the lower hull and the landing wings, or built into the landing wings.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

There would be some substantial bulk in adding a recognizable impulse drive and then it will really change the look of the craft. So I'm going to stick with the idea of an antigrav drive for sublight propulsion.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

GSaum said:


> One thing that seems to be off, though, is that the landing gear seem a little...flimsy?


As I was looking at it it does look somewhat flimsy when viewed from the front or aft view, and I'm referring to the side landing struts and where they attach to the hull. So I've thickened up those attachment points and you'll see that in a forthcoming update.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

Looking forward to it! Regarding the impulse deck, what if you added something akin to a spoiler on the ventral aft section? Function-wise, it's really hard to imagine a rear hatch on this ship is it included both warp and impulse engines. Where would all the hardware go? I think that rear hatch is causing placement issues with the impulse drive.

Also, I think it would look better if the landing struts were retractable. Imagining how it looks without them, it looks like it'd be a cool little ship. I just can't imagine it flying around with those struts sticking out.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Truth is I have some issues with the design and I think I could do better myself while still looking like a vehicle intended for the TOS universe. But that isn't the issue. The issue is reconciling what we saw onscreen in TAS. As someone once suggested to me the TAS designs are something of a rough sketch that I'm fleshing out into something more credible for the "real" TOS universe. That said I don't want to stray too far from what we saw onscreen or then I might as well forget the whole thing and do it all from scratch.

Yes, I agree the aft placement of the access hatch causes problems. That's why I'm making it a swing-out hatch rather than the sliding panel kind as seen onscreen. If panels have to slide into the hull then you lose that limited space. If I relocate the access hatch to the side then I have to lengthen the ship, it won't resemble the onscreen design much anymore and I start getting into the problem of an oversized craft after a concerted effort to get it down to a more reasonable size. :freak:

Also in TNG and DS9 and the rest I don't recall seeing impulse engines on their designs even though they make references to impulse. So perhaps they are also using an antigrav drive for impulse only they simply refer to it as impulse. The only post TOS shuttle design I saw with two visible forms of drive units were the shuttlecraft of _The Final Frontier._


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

The only TNG shuttle that had blatantly visible impulse engines was the Type 6... the impulse engines are that grilled area below the aft cowling:










The small boxy TNG shuttlepod's nacelles were actually impulse units... it was not a warp-capable craft.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ And I'm pretty darn sure that is a shortened (maybe even recycled) version of the TFF shuttlecraft mockup.

I'll be posting a significant update soon, but I gotta say as I push this forward sometimes I regret having to add certain details to make the ship look more like what we saw onscreen. I like the clean look of the landing struts without the extra bits I'm adding. Oh well...


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> Truth is I have some issues with the design and I think I could do better myself while still looking like a vehicle intended for the TOS universe. But that isn't the issue. The issue is reconciling what we saw onscreen in TAS. As someone once suggested to me the TAS designs are something of a rough sketch that I'm fleshing out into something more credible for the "real" TOS universe. That said I don't want to stray too far from what we saw onscreen or then I might as well forget the whole thing and do it all from scratch.
> 
> Yes, I agree the aft placement of the access hatch causes problems. That's why I'm making it a swing-out hatch rather than the sliding panel kind as seen onscreen. If panels have to slide into the hull then you lose that limited space. If I relocate the access hatch to the side then I have to lengthen the ship, it won't resemble the onscreen design much anymore and I start getting into the problem of an oversized craft after a concerted effort to get it down to a more reasonable size. :freak:
> 
> Also in TNG and DS9 and the rest I don't recall seeing impulse engines on their designs even though they make references to impulse. So perhaps they are also using an antigrav drive for impulse only they simply refer to it as impulse. The only post TOS shuttle design I saw with two visible forms of drive units were the shuttlecraft of _The Final Frontier._


One thing you could with the hatch is leave it where it is, have the bottom section drop down to make a step and split the top part of the hatch down the center and have it open like TOS shuttlecraft door did, there is room for the door to do this. This would make it consistent with what was seen on TOS.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Well, the bottom part of my access hatch does swing down to serve as a gangway/step and the top part swings upward.


Here is some progress with only a few more details to go. Then I'm going to commit them to styled sheets just like my Class F drawings.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Well, the bottom part of my access hatch does swing down to serve as a gangway/step and the top part swings upward.
> 
> 
> Here is some progress with only a few more details to go. Then I'm going to commit them to styled sheets just like my Class F drawings.


Cool, I really like this design, I feel a scratchbuilding session coming on, that is after I finish my Gemini 12, the Calypso, the Batmobile, the Land Of The Giants Snake scene and the Moebius Colonial Viper and the Moebius Space Clipper and Uncle Martin's Spaceship and the War of the Worlds Martian (just need to detail the base) and the K-7 Space Station and, and... Oh what the heck, it will be years before I get to this, but great work on this anyway.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I'm a little surprised. Although I haven't got a finalized figure yet I just did a little quick-and-dirty calculation. My rough figure for length overall at present comes out to 29.58 ft. (just under 29'-7") or 9.015m. That's barely over 3 feet more than my final length overall of my Class F design.

I figured (roughly) that this craft would be closer to about 35 ft. overall. If true then it means I have just a little bit more room to play with in overall size, perhaps up to about 3 feet more. Still, I want to keep it down as much as possible, but at least I now know the craft will be no less than 29.58 ft.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

More detailing and a view of the bottom for those interested.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

This is really looking good so far!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Now it's a matter of adding a few more details: some service access panels around the hull and small details on the nacelles and landing struts. Then I'll put the views framed individually with styled sheets like I did with my TOS shuttlecraft drawings. Then I'll move onto some cross-section views although they won't be as elaborate as my those I'm doing for the Class F. I'd also like to do one or two perspective drawings and/or maybe even a photoshop version. When done then it's on to the heavy lander design.

I must say I rather like how I was able to take certain simplified elements of the onscreen design and make them look somewhat more credible. The aft bottom section that is slightly curved could be seen as evoking the _Enterprise's_ secondary hull fantail (visually) below the hangar bay. The antigrav stabilizers attached to the landing struts replace the dated looking landing skids. The aft landing struts are angled a bit towards the back to evoke that splayed out look seen from the front three-quarters view onscreen. The concavity on the forward sides of the hull are only a simple elongated triangle onscreen. Overall I think it worked it well enough in being immediately recognizable and yet looking more detailed and believable.


I'd also really like to see this done as a 3D model.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

^

Aye, I'd like to see this done in 3D, as well... I may know of someone who can help.

I also think this has translated really well from what we saw on TAS to what you have done here... I really think this is how it would look "in real life", so you did a great job rationalizing the design. You have just the right amount of detailing, without going overboard or making it too cluttered, and the overall simplicity of the craft's lines and form are pleasing to the eye.

Yes, if this were to be seen in 3D, be it a CG model or a physical model, I could very well see it featured in TOS, and I would WANT to see it featured on TOS.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Done, at least as far as all the major elements and details are in place. Now it's a matter of tweaking the drawings a bit for the individual sheets along with labels. Then some basic interior setups to get a better sense of scale for final dimensions. Then on to the heavy lander.










Well, it certainly took long enough to get to this point on this design. :lol: Also I'd like to say that I'm rather pleased with the overall result. I did reams of sketches to get the basic proportions and shapes right before settling on this. Initially my idea was not to have the large forward viewport as seen here. My original idea was to play on some of the exaggerated proportions of the onscreen version while keeping the overall look and the upper portion of the hull would have had a sensor array at its leading edge that would have just looked something like the triangular forward viewport. Essentially there wouldn't have been a viewport and the crew would "see" forward via a large monitor display that perhaps could have simulated a viewport. But in the end I went with my gut feeling and tried to make the above approach work, which seems to have panned out.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

^

That's a good call, because I've never been a fan of the idea of "monitor viewports"... I mean, if the ship were to lose sensors in an attack, you'd have no way of seeing anything OR targeting your enemy, but if you have a physical window, at least you have the chance to see the target and at least attempt to fire point-blank.

Not that this shuttle would be armed, I'm just using that as an example.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Monitor "windows" would mean the craft were flying or operating by instrumentation just like a starship which, of course, don't have a window to see by in terms of piloting. I forewent the option simply because it wasn't needed and I managed to make this design work within the size parameter I was aiming for.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Pretty close to what this will finally look like.










The sheets aren't numbered yet because I haven't yet decided exactly how many each set will be comprised of. All three of the TAS shuttlecraft will be part of the set. Presently I'm thinking six exterior views, perhaps three interiors, a history and specifications sheet, project notes, a cover sheet and maybe a sheet of perspective views for each craft. That makes thirty-five sheets for the set as it now stands.

Hmm...we'll see.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

BolianAdmiral said:


> ...I've never been a fan of the idea of "monitor viewports"... I mean, if the ship were to lose sensors in an attack, you'd have no way of seeing anything OR targeting your enemy, but if you have a physical window, at least you have the chance to see the target and at least attempt to fire point-blank.


Candidly as I see it a window on a spacecraft, particularly one with FTL capability, has little practical function. If you're dealing with speeds and distances far beyond the familiar then visual references are useless. At best they are more for the psychological benefit of the crew and passengers. In terms of piloting they would be useful in only the most general terms of speed, direction and orientation and only if you are relatively close to a planetary object or other spacecraft. And it wouldn't be much better really close to a planet or even within the atmosphere. Our senses and brains can deal with speed and distance and orientation up to a certain point and then we need augmentation in the form of exacting guidance systems and exact references. Even modern aircraft functioning strictly within atmosphere require instrumentation to facilitate accurate piloting. A window just isn't enough.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

^

Those are all valid and good points... that's the funny thing about Star Trek, is that even though they oft used terms of thousands of kilometers when referring to enemy ships, the Trek universe has always made it seem like ships are almost right next to each other all the time, which is both inaccurate and misleading.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ It was far less apparent in TOS and simply by accident. Limitations of time, budget and resources allowed them little opportunity to show two ships close together in the same frame and yet consequently that's what it should have been like. Rarely did we see the _Enterprise_ right up close to another ship or object. I can only recall the _Botany Bay_ ("Space Seed"), Balok's cube ("The Corbomite Maneuver"), Space Station K-7 ("The Trouble With Tribbles"), the planet killer and the _Constellation_ ("The Doomsday Machine"), the _Exeter_ ("The Omega Glory"), the Melkotian buoy ("Spectre Of The Gun"), the _Defiant_ ("The Tholian Web") and surrounded by Romulan ships ("The Enterprise Incident"). And all those instances made sense in terms of the _Enterprise_ being in such close proximity to the other ship or object. But we never saw the _Enterprise_ in the same frame as another vessel when it was engaged in maneuvers or pursuit or combat, and again that made perfect sense because we shouldn't be able to see the two ships in close proximity within the same frame in those circumstances.

It really started with TWoK, but even there you could argue that both ships were seriously damaged and their fighting abilities drastically compromised. But later on throughout the remaining films and into TNG and the rest it just got worse as the f/x limitations were no longer there.


The TAS scoutship design is finalized as you can see by these first two completed sheets. There is one small difference from the images I posted earlier upthread. I've made a slight modification that some might not even notice right off, but I've made the forward viewport surface a bit less raked in angle. This not only makes the overall look a little more like what we saw onscreen, but it also affords me a smidgen more interior cabin length.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Oops! I misspelled "nacelle" on those sheets, but they have since been fixed.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

^

Heh, yeah, I always have to be careful with entering text in Illustrator... as far as I know, at least with version CS2, there is no spell-check feature built in.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Dang, those are nice renderings! You put a lot of thought into this shuttle to make believable and still TAS-recognizable!

The only to make the drawings better is have a model of it! LOL! :wave:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Thanks. One day I may actually tackle Space Ghost's _Phantom Cruiser._ :lol:












BolianAdmiral said:


> Heh, yeah, I always have to be careful with entering text in Illustrator... as far as I know, at least with version CS2, there is no spell-check feature built in.


I'm using CS4 and it doesn't have a spell check either.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A glimpse of what's in progress...










Again I'm a little surprised by how I've been able to keep the size down more than I expected.

My thinking behind this is that while sizable on the outside this craft is rather cramped on the inside and suitable for a complement of perhaps three personnel. This heavy auxiliary or "heavy lander" is meant for surveying worlds and anomalies with extreme conditions. It's sturdily built with enhanced shielding and structure. It has a powerful antigrav system as well as impulse engines in tandem with low warp capability. The nose or forward section of the craft is brimming with a variety of sensor arrays and scientific analysis equipment. A rough analogy of this vessel would be a space going version of a deep sea submersible. It's mission profiles are primarily of limited range and duration due mostly to its lack of support systems for the small crew for extended periods.

Small note: if it had been available to them this craft might have been a better choice of vehicle to explore the Murasaki 312 phenomena in "The Galileo Seven."  Still, as we saw in "Mudd's Passion" it doesn't do well with oversized alien dinosaurs. :lol:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Progress. Seems to be coming along better than I initially thought. I think the top plan view looks somewhat odd, but then what can you do with this kind of shape? The top of the fore section, or the "hood," as well as the "roof" are a degree less curved than before. And by pulling the nacelles forward just a tad I get a little better visual balance and a bit shorter length overall down to about 30ft. I also opted for a less curvature in the viewport (as seen from above) to give me a bit more interior space. I rather like the side profiles of this while the front and top views make me think of a truck. The front view has something of a helicopter feel to it. For myself one of the big accomplishments of these adapted designs goes beyond having something that is recognizable with the onscreen versions, but more that these versions could actually fit onto the _Enterprise's_ flight deck even if temporarily.

Mind you I can imagine a starbase Commodore giving Kirk some grief: "What is it with you, Kirk? We loan you a heavy lander and later an aquashuttle and you manage to lose both of them. What are you, son, some sort of doomsday machine or something?" :lol:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Ray -

I found some nice pics of the original TAS shuttles that you've reworked. Here's the Copernicus:










Here's the Heavy Shuttle:










I found a very interesting re-design of the TOS shuttle (a cargo version) that it is shown in a TAS display format:










Here's a link to the webpage with more detail on the cargo shuttle:

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/cargo-shuttle.php

Like you, there are some creative folks out there with different takes on established ideas.

I'm enjoying this thread immensely!

Bryan


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

The drawings are top notch, but is any of this going to result in a model in the near future?


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> Candidly as I see it a window on a spacecraft, particularly one with FTL capability, has little practical function. If you're dealing with speeds and distances far beyond the familiar then visual references are useless. At best they are more for the psychological benefit of the crew and passengers. . . Even modern aircraft functioning strictly within atmosphere require instrumentation to facilitate accurate piloting. A window just isn't enough.


And remember that naval submarines have no windows. They depend on sonar and electronics to navigate accurately, to target weapons, and to steer clear of hazards. Considering that most of the visible light spectrum disappears below 10 meters, without searchlights there’s not a whole lot to see down there anyway.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Ductapeforever said:


> The drawings are top notch, but is any of this going to result in a model in the near future?


These could well end up as scratchbuild models of my own making...or somebody else's if they'd like to try it themselves. Unfortunately I don't have the means to produce a kit of these designs, even a garage kit. But again I suppose something could be worked out if someone else wanted to try producing a kit based on my drawings.

Except for perhaps the heavy lander design I think these designs would be easier to scratchbuild than the TOS shuttlecraft I'm currently working on. The TOS craft has lots of finicky little details that can be a challenge to recreate properly. The TAS designs are a lot simpler in overall shape and nowhere near the same degree of unusual detailing. Even the heavy lander really isn't that complicated a shape except for the nose section as the ship goes from a boxy shape in the back to a curvy shape in the front.

I also might be communicating with someone who could be interested in rendering 3D computer models of these designs.

Finally I've been thinking about a TAS design that is only glimpsed in the one panning shot we have of the flight deck in the episode "Mudd's Passion." It's something of an ovoid shaped craft and I've been musing whether I could turn this into another class of auxiliary (shuttlecraft): a cargo shuttle. I'm going to start sketching and see what I can come up with.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

I would love to see you take on that glimpsed _"Mudd's Passion"_ shuttle... I think that has a lot of potential for good development.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Details, details. A little more ways to go, folks...










I've got a spar like piece to add to the bow, some detailing to the sloping upper aft section, the hatch access control, the Starfleet pennants to the front and top views and then finally the bottom plan view.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

I can't tell you how impressed I have been with your dedication to this project. You are very talented. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> Finally I've been thinking about a TAS design that is only glimpsed in the one panning shot we have of the flight deck in the episode "Mudd's Passion." It's something of an ovoid shaped craft and I've been musing whether I could turn this into another class of auxiliary (shuttlecraft): a cargo shuttle. I'm going to start sketching and see what I can come up with.


I actually like that one. I never really paid it much attention, but the longer I look at it, the more I like it. At least the profile of the ship is something that's practical and workable. I like the nacelles at the top of the shuttle rather than the bottom.

Bryan


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Presently I can't think of what else needs to be done to this but transfer the views to the finished sheets.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

^

Aye, it looks great to me... I think to add any more would be overkill.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well overall you could say I sharpened up the detail that wasn't clear onscreen in addition to tightening up the overall look into something still recognizable yet scaled more credibly. The only real additions I made that weren't seen onscreen are a number of service access panels and the impulse drive at the aft end. 

The onscreen version had something of a small sensor dish hanging out the front end. I thought it looked silly although I did play around with a few different dish like appendages. In the end I went with something that could be taken as some sort of sensor apparatus with the notion that this could be something that was interchangeable and could be swapped out with different pieces of equipment depending on the mission profile.


Finally here are some hard numbers.

*Class L Shuttlecraft* (heavy lander):
Length = 10.159 M (33.331 FT.)
Width = 4.899 M (16.074 FT.)
Height = 2.864 M (9.396 FT.)

*Class J Shuttlecraft* (scoutship):
Length = 9.015 M (29.58 FT.)
Width = 4.349 M (14.269 FT.)
Height = 2.374 M (7.854 FT.)


And here is something for the eye, a direct size comparison.










It's interesting how visually deceptive the designs are. The _Galileo_ looks like it should have quite a bit of interior space in relation to the other designs. But it loses interior room because of its unusual design that isn't really apparent until you see the ship in a longitudinal cross-section. It also loses cabin space because a good portion of the aft end is taken up by the vehicle's impulse engines and system components. Seeing how these turned out one could make the argument for scaling up the TAS designs just a bit more...maybe.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Very nice size comparison!

I agree with you on the sensor dish... too many fans like to slap sensor dishes on every design they can, no matter if it be justified or not, but oftentimes it just ruins the flow of the design... that's why I ultimately opted to omit the dish from the Gemini... I just felt the dish looked to blatantly shoehorned-in.

Great work so far... I'm loving each update.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Last night I started work on the aquashuttle.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Here is the beginning. I finally opted to try working with the existing design albeit adapted and with modifications. I still think the onscreen version looks silly and not remotely aquadynamic or hydrodynamic or whatever---it just doesn't look like it belongs in the water. Nonetheless anything else I could do would simply depart too far from the recognizable overall shape. So I've decided to try making the onscreen design as workable or more credible as possible. I quite like the top plan and side elevation. The bow view seems at first the most departure from the onscreen version because I've thickened up the pontoon like sections on the sides in order to get some visual heft and also make room for mechanicals: ballast tanks, antigrav drive and hydrojets for surface and submerged propulsion. Although not apparent here there is going to be quite a thick under-the-deck section as well for other mechanicals. I modified the main viewport as well to gain more cabin space. The access hatch will be set aft and in two parts similar to what I did with the scoutship. with the lower section serving as a a gangway. The upper section can also be opened separately for conducting experiments or deploying equipment while on the surface. There will be some external components in view to represent the antigrav drive, but don't expect nacelles like the onscreen version. Nacelles would just create unnecessary weight and drag in the water. No impulse engines either. I cannot imagine the idea of submerging warp and impulse drives and components---it just strikes me as too ridiculous. As such this vehicle is strictly an orbit-to-surface craft and needs to be ferried from planet to planet or star system to star system. It is, after all, primarily a research vehicle and not a space transport. The craft can accommodate four personnel and with sufficient space for gear and research equipment.

Although the bow elevation is set in overall shape and structure don't accept the detail presently seen as set---it's still a work in progress.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Beautiful! I agree, I by far prefer the design you yourself whipped up for an aquashuttle, but as you said, to do anything more would detract from the original too much.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

What isn't apparent here but will be in cross-section is that the cabin takes up a bit more than the upper two thirds of the craft's height. The total interior space will be similar to that of the Class F shuttlecraft. Under the cabin (as I mentioned earlier) will be quite a bit of the craft's mechanicals and systems. I'm thinking small mini-probes could also be deployed from underneath. The bow will be similar to the lander in housing a lot of specialized sensor arrays. And the pontoons (as mentioned earlier) will house the antigrav drive, ballast tanks and hydrojet motors.

I've already started finessing the bow details. The centre section will feature a large illumination panel for subsurface operation when visibility starts to deteriorate.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Someone asked me whether this aquashuttle will have phasers like we saw onscreen. Well, I've been thinking about that. Traditionally shuttlecraft throughout Trek haven't been shown with armament with exception of the DS9 runabouts. And the aquashutle is pretty much solely a research vehicle...but we did see it with phasers. I think we could rationalize that shuttlecraft usually aren't armed, but that perhaps they can be fitted with phasers for specific missions or that some shuttlecraft are equipped with armament for specialized assignments where there may be a higher possibility of risk to the craft and personnel.

I would think the Class F shuttlecraft wouldn't be armed since they are strictly transports and science reconnaissance craft. The heavy lander is also a purely scientific research vehicle so I doubt there would much need for it to be armed. Of course both of these craft might utilize phasers for other reasons than defense or combat. I think the scoutship could be fitted with phasers because although it's primarily a fast transport it could also be used for limited covert missions and reconnaissance, situations where some defensive armament, even if limited, could be welcome. And since the aquashuttle is meant to go into unknown environments where something could conceivably threaten it then some weaponry could be useful.

The bigger question in my mind isn't whether the aquashuttle could be armed, but how are energy weapons supposed to work under water anyway???


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Done. My originally planned interior gave me an unexpected surprise of a craft that would have been quite a bit smaller than I thought I would get. So after finishing the plans I opted to up the scale a bit that also gives me more interior space. and a 6ft. ceiling interior cabin. In place of the nacelles seen onscreen I've put antigrav housings on both sides which are smaller in profile and designed for less hydrodynamic drag. Indeed for less drag I've opted for more rounded off edges all around, most particularly in the bow area.

I've yet to start labeling the drawing for the sheets, but you should be able to recognize certain things. The band that goes across the top of the bow and down onto the sides is meat to be a set of environmental sensor arrays. On the top and bottom you can also see that craft's ballast valves. From the from you can see a large subsurface illumination panel behind which are a collection of powerful lamps to pierce failing visibility as the craft descends to greater depths. To each side of the illumination panel are the navigational as well as the space and planetary sensor arrays.Just under the illumination panel you can see a small panel which is where the (usually) recessed phaser emitter is located. From aft you can see the field directional controls similar to what I have on the scoutship. You can also clearly see the round exhaust ports of the twin hydrojet motors... _DOH! I just realized I forgot to add the hydrojet intakes---gotta fix that._ Underneath you can see the antigrav stabilizers as well as the lower ballast valves. And finally on the port side of the lower hull you can see the research package deploy hatch for releasing mission specific miniprobes.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Here is a sense of scale. The crewman is 5'-10".


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Are you also thinking of doing this one?


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> Here is a sense of scale. The crewman is 5'-10".


Ray -

That came out very nice! 

BTW - I found an interesting website that has a "modelers resource" for the various TAS shuttle designs. Here's the link for the Aquashuttle:

http://home.earthlink.net/~startrek-tas/id2.html

Lots of nice screen caps!

Bryan


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

BolianAdmiral said:


> Are you also thinking of doing this one?


Looking at that with so many familiar lines it seems rather obvious that it's meant to be a quick draw of the familiar Class F. And since I've already done that I'm not paying much mind to the way it was done on TAS.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Starting to put the set together and what the sheets will look like. While I'm doing this I'm thinking about how I want to tackle the vehicles' interiors.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Slow progress.










Note that the drawing on the sheet and the accompanying scale bar are 5% smaller than the other sheets so that I can fit the drawing comfortably within the border.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Now that things are getting back to normal after a prolonged run-up season to the holidays (I work in retail) I want to get back to finishing this off. Looking back on what I've done here I'm generally pleased with the results.

I lack access to 3D modelling, but here is a quick-and-dirty illustration of what my adapted scoutship design could look like in perspective.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Awesome... just awesome.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


>


I'd call that a reasonable interpretation of how a real-life long range shuttle would have looked along those lines. The inconsistencies of the various views in TAS have to be interpolated somehow without losing the essence of the design and I think you've done that very well. This design is an especially difficult design to bring to life, IMHO, but you've pulled it off!:thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Thanks. I've just begun toying with Google Sketchup, but I've a long way to go. I can draw freehand to my heart's content and render pretty much what I can already see in my head with decent faithfulness, but 3D modelling is something else. It takes time for the tools to become familiar and intuitive.

So far I've managed a rather crude and blocky representation of the scoutship, but with none of the nuance of a hand drawing. It'll take time. For one thing I can see mastering subtle curves and curved surfaces (particularly in more than one direction) will take some time to master. Even so it's rather nice to be able to rotate an object with ease and see it from different angles.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Sketchup is proceeding slowly, but in the interim here's a quick take on the scoutship with some shadowing. It isn't 3D, but it does help to show off the overall shape and lines and I think does make the design look sleeker and more rakish, something that is lost a bit in the straight line drawings.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> Sketchup is proceeding slowly, but in the interim here's a quick take on the scoutship with some shadowing. It isn't 3D, but it does help to show off the overall shape and lines and I think does make the design look sleeker and more rakish, something that is lost a bit in the straight line drawings.


Excellent! :thumbsup::wave:


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

WOW... that latest image is awesome... I have yet to even attempt shadow effects in Illustrator, let alone get it to look as good as you have.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

BolianAdmiral said:


> WOW... that latest image is awesome... I have yet to even attempt shadow effects in Illustrator, let alone get it to look as good as you have.


Thanks. Actually this time I bypassed Illustrator and did this wholly with Photoshop. And truth to tell my initial sketches for this design were done by hand with something of that kind of shadowing to get a better feel for the overall look. Only afterwards did I eliminate the shadowing to do the straight line drawings.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I'd call that a reasonable interpretation of how a real-life long range shuttle would have looked along those lines. The inconsistencies of the various views in TAS have to be interpolated somehow without losing the essence of the design and I think you've done that very well. This design is an especially difficult design to bring to life, IMHO, but you've pulled it off!:thumbsup:


When I started I first tried to draw the vehicle as faithfully as I could aiming to keep as much of the "feel" of it as possible. But, of course, I then had to scale things back to get a more reasonable scale and proportions. None of the TAS designs as shown onscreen could have even fit into the _Enterprise's_ flight deck. And, of course, as you scale them down then the proportions inevitably have to change for the design to remain workable.

I like to think that even though I had to make changes that all three adapted designs are still immediately recognizable.

What's interesting is that at one time when I was first working on the Class F design I had posited a 29ft. shuttlecraft that could still be feasible within the _Enterprise's_ flight deck. Eventually I got the design down to 26ft. to make it work better. But in light of that a 29ft. scoutship could conceivably be part of the ship's regular shuttlecraft complement. And considering the shape the overall width and height of a 29ft. scoutship would be comparable to that of a 26ft. Class F. The lander and aquashuttle are still too big, though.


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

ClubTepes said:


> Very Nice.
> 
> Have you thought about either making them up or having someone make them up for you in 1/350 so you can kit them and sell them when the R2 TOS 'E' becomes available?
> 
> Some other scale like 1/32 might also be cool.


I 2nd that motion!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> When I started I first tried to draw the vehicle as faithfully as I could aiming to keep as much of the "feel" of it as possible. But, of course, I then had to scale things back to get a more reasonable scale and proportions. None of the TAS designs as shown onscreen could have even fit into the _Enterprise's_ flight deck. And, of course, as you scale them down then the proportions inevitably have to change for the design to remain workable.
> 
> I like to think that even though I had to make changes that all three adapted designs are still immediately recognizable.
> 
> What's interesting is that at one time when I was first working on the Class F design I had posited a 29ft. shuttlecraft that could still be feasible within the _Enterprise's_ flight deck. Eventually I got the design down to 26ft. to make it work better. But in light of that a 29ft. scoutship could conceivably be part of the ship's regular shuttlecraft complement. And considering the shape the overall width and height of a 29ft. scoutship would be comparable to that of a 26ft. Class F. The lander and aquashuttle are still too big, though.


Good points! :thumbsup: I'd still like to see a workable aquashuttle instead of writing it off as a temporarily assigned shuttle, though.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I'd still like to see a workable aquashuttle instead of writing it off as a temporarily assigned shuttle, though.


The only way I can possibly conceive of this is to have a vehicle without a standing height interior. The crew would have to be crouched over to move around inside.

That said I don't see why they would bother equipping the ship with an aquashuttle as standard complement when the ship rarely visits a world requiring such a craft. In that light then you might as well give them a vehicle with standing room height inside.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

^

I always envisioned the aquashuttle being something that a starbase/outpost or underwater base would have assigned to it, not an actual starship. But obviously, since for the cartoon the Enterprise is the hero ship/setting, they had to assign it to the Enterprise.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> The only way I can possibly conceive of this is to have a vehicle without a standing height interior. The crew would have to be crouched over to move around inside.
> 
> That said I don't see why they would bother equipping the ship with an aquashuttle as standard complement when the ship rarely visits a world requiring such a craft. In that light then you might as well give them a vehicle with standing room height inside.


I know that you are absolutely right in all respects and cannot logically argue against anything you've stated. :thumbsup:

That being said, purely wishful thinking leads me to want to see something that _would _work. It would take some reproportioning to bring it into the real world but I think it could be done even though it might be mostly unrecognizable as being anything related to the TAS version.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

This is just a rough alteration of screencaps from TAS allowing for more room in a way that's at least somewhat in keeping with the style and adding more hydrodynamic shaping to the hull around the passenger compartment. Except for shortening the front to rid it of some excess so that it fits into the shuttlebay a little easier, I left the rest of the shuttlecraft in its original configuration. What do you think?










Compare to original view here:


















Compare to original view here:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

There are any number of ways to modify the design(s) depending on what you're aiming for. Yes, it's all just fiction, but I like my SF hardware to have some sense of credibility to them even when they really don't. Part of the problem I have with the TAS shuttlecraft designs is that ultimately they don't exhibit the same sense as the TOS ship designs. There no sense of real thinking behind them, no cohesive logic. They're just made to look sic-fi like and (even worse) Saturday morning kiddy sic-fi. From that you can do pretty much anything you want with them.

But in trying to bring them more into line with the "reality" of TOS I tried to develop some sort of logic to them that allowed them to make some sort of sense. But that that's my take on it. It doesn't have to be anyone else's.

The biggest thing that bugs me about the TAS aquashuttle (besides the blunt front end) are the nacelles. In my view they really ruin the idea of a submersible vehicle. They're there simply for the recognition factor, to reinforce the idea that this is also a Starfleet spacecraft. But to me they just don't make any sense whatsoever.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> There are any number of ways to modify the design(s) depending on what you're aiming for. Yes, it's all just fiction, but I like my SF hardware to have some sense of credibility to them even when they really don't. Part of the problem I have with the TAS shuttlecraft designs is that ultimately they don't exhibit the same sense as the TOS ship designs. There no sense of real thinking behind them, no cohesive logic. They're just made to look sic-fi like and (even worse) Saturday morning kiddy sic-fi. From that you can do pretty much anything you want with them.


Yes, you are exactly correct. The excitement factor for me was that it was an expansion of the ST universe's hardware. The main thing that bugs me about the TAS designs are the windows which are about as unlike the TOS shuttlecraft's as possible.



> But in trying to bring them more into line with the "reality" of TOS I tried to develop some sort of logic to them that allowed them to make some sort of sense. But that that's my take on it. It doesn't have to be anyone else's.


I like your approach. From what I can tell, you're essentially making them more resemble the standard TOS shuttlecraft, bulking them up in the middle as they should be, IMHO, where the people compartment is.



> The biggest thing that bugs me about the TAS aquashuttle (besides the blunt front end) are the nacelles. In my view they really ruin the idea of a submersible vehicle. They're there simply for the recognition factor, to reinforce the idea that this is also a Starfleet spacecraft. But to me they just don't make any sense whatsoever.


Agree X 4! However, given that it's a design in a pretty decent story and functions well in that context, it is attractive in that sense and makes for a bit of a challenge to come up with something a little more in line with the live action series.:wave:


----------



## Sarvek (Jun 10, 2005)

I have a theory as to why the aquashuttle looks the way that it does: it may be based on the design of SeaShadow used by the US Navy and on the ship seen on a James Bond movie, the ship was designed similar to what we see in the aquashuttle. This design is also more stable because of the outrigger nacelles on the bent down fuselage. I do not remember the name of the James Bond movie but it was used to start a conflict in the storry.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Hmm... Could you be thinking of _Thunderball_ from 1965?'


----------



## Sarvek (Jun 10, 2005)

It is not Thunderball, but a movie more recent within the last 5-10 years.


----------



## Sarvek (Jun 10, 2005)

I am sorry for the double post but the movie is _Tomorrow Never Dies_. The movie uses a stealth ship to sink the _HMS Devonshire _using the *sea-vac *to sink it and blame it on the Chinese.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

And how can the design be based on something in a film made decades afterward?


----------



## Sarvek (Jun 10, 2005)

Have you ever seen the canoes that the natives use at Hawaii?? They have outriggers that stabilize the canoe itself and these canoes have been around for a great deal of time. I also believe that the writers had some information about technology that we did not know at the time. Have you ever seen the Gene's _Genesis II_?? It has a *sub-shuttle system *that suposively exists today and is seen in some books. Gene and the writers knew something and I think they knew something here with the aquashuttle and its design. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

You're giving the artists on TAS way too much credit. Those nacelles are drawn as space warp nacelles and not as pontoons of any sort.

Anyway...


----------



## publiusr (Jul 27, 2006)

Ah, the armored shuttle... Very nice.


----------



## Sarvek (Jun 10, 2005)

I second that. :thumbsup::thumbsup: I know that the nacelles are not pontoons but they may have a double use when it comes to aquatic travel. It is only a thought...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


>


Looks great!!!


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

Not trying to steal your thunder here, I am going to post further pics of this in a separate thread. After seeing your Aqua Shuttle I have just got to build one. This will be my interpretation based on what will be easiest to build. I may attempt an interior, need to get out my dvd's of TAS to give it a look. Here is what I have so far:

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/100_1532.JPG
http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/100_1533.JPG

The ribs are .060 styrene and the skin will be .040 sheet. I am building this approximately in scale with the old AMT shuttlecraft, you can judge the size by the inch marks on the cutting board.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

kenlee said:


> http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/100_1532.JPG
> http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/100_1533.JPG


Cool! Looks great so far! :thumbsup:


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

kenlee said:


> Not trying to steal your thunder here, I am going to post further pics of this in a separate thread. After seeing your Aqua Shuttle I have just got to build one. This will be my interpretation based on what will be easiest to build. I may attempt an interior, need to get out my dvd's of TAS to give it a look. Here is what I have so far:
> 
> http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/100_1532.JPG
> http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/100_1533.JPG
> ...


You build a big one Ken. I think I could build a small one using AVES and Evergreen. Might be fun!


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

Trekkriffic said:


> You build a big one Ken. I think I could build a small one using AVES and Evergreen. Might be fun!


With my eyes, bigger is better. This will be approximately in scale with the old AMT Shuttlecraft kit.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> There are any number of ways to modify the design(s) depending on what you're aiming for. Yes, it's all just fiction, but I like my SF hardware to have some sense of credibility to them even when they really don't . . .
> 
> But in trying to bring them more into line with the "reality" of TOS I tried to develop some sort of logic to them that allowed them to make some sort of sense. But that that's my take on it. It doesn't have to be anyone else's.


I want to apologize for somehow(?!) missing the posts of your aquashuttle design. I realize that, in retrospect, my suggestions and posted pics may have seemed like implied criticisms of your designs when no such thing was intended. In fact, you did exactly the sort of treatment for the aquashuttle that it needed along the lines I was attempting to convey with my crude photoshopping--EXCELLENT work! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I want to apologize for somehow(?!) missing the posts of your aquashuttle design. I realize that, in retrospect, my suggestions and posted pics may have seemed like implied criticisms of your designs when no such thing was intended. In fact, you did exactly the sort of treatment for the aquashuttle that it needed along the lines I was attempting to convey with my crude photoshopping--EXCELLENT work! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


No worries. I didn't take your remarks as criticism. You simply expressed a preference for retaining the nacelles in the design, and nothing wrong with expressing what you like.

In a sense I did retain the nacelles, but I simply incorporated them in a different way as antigrav units merged into the outboard sections of the hull.

If it weren't an _aqua-_shuttle then retaining the nacelles in the design would have been easy. (-: The thing for me was that in the episode we see the craft in action and it seems to imply a measure of speed. From that I can't get my head around these things hanging out the side and creating hydrodynamic drag that would inhibit such movement of speed.

But then, maybe, I don't understand enough about hydrodynamics. (-:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> No worries. I didn't take your remarks as criticism. You simply expressed a preference for retaining the nacelles in the design, and nothing wrong with expressing what you like.
> 
> In a sense I did retain the nacelles, but I simply incorporated them in a different way as antigrav units merged into the outboard sections of the hull.
> 
> ...


No, I think you're right about the hydrodynamics. You're going for a more realistic interpretation and that's fine. Personally, I would probably keep the nacelles but you're right in that they do not make sense on such a craft and I also like your design without them. The main thing I like about your design is the beefing up of the pressure hull and bringing into a more reasonable size range. 

I've saved all your blueprints so far. They are fascinating to look through due to the nature of your interpretations and the details present  Going through them is like the thrill of opening the _Star Trek Technical Manual _for the first time: ST universe expansion!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I've saved all your blueprints so far. They are fascinating to look through due to the nature of your interpretations and the details present  Going through them is like the thrill of opening the _Star Trek Technical Manual _for the first time: ST universe expansion!


Thank you. It was my intent from the beginning for the drawings to evoke that feeling of the old FJ blueprints and tech manual as well as some of Matt Jefferies' original drawings in _The Making Of Star Trek._

I think the drawings work best when seen large (I've printed out samples in their intended size of 11x17), but they would also make a nice 8x11 booklet. The lifework is fine enough that you wouldn't lose much detail in a smaller format.

This project is slow going as I work on it when time allows. Ideally I want to cover quite a few shuttlecraft designs: TOS, TAS (3), TMP and TFF.


And this was posted earlier upthread.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Here's a snapshot of my initial baby steps in trying to render my scoutship in 3D with Sketchup. It's a start, but with a long way to go.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It looks crude and simple, but it's my first successful complex object in 3D: the upper section of the scoutship's main hull. It's still lacking a small nose extension and detail as well as finishing touches, but for me it's a significant accomplishment.










Now that I'm beginning to get some understanding of the basics I can set about fixing things like having more angels (faces?) to my curves and arcs. Speed will also come (I hope) with more proficiency. And then there'll be painting of course.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Fascinating!


----------



## mattjaco35 (Feb 27, 2009)

Your progress on the "lost" TAS Shuttles is inspiring.

Not to hijack the thread, but I've been working on a model for some time now that's supposed to be a large fast-scout type TOS/TAS Shuttle- a "TOS/TAS Runabout", if you will. Perhaps she could fit into the general taxonomy of TOS/TAS shuttles you're creating.

I call it the "Hermes"-class fast-courier shuttle- the smallest Warp-9 capable ship in Starfleet.

The curves of the Spindrift seem a natural match for the TOS/TAS design motif- they were designed during (roughly) the same era, after all.

The large overhead nacelles are the warp engines (one picture shows the warp nacelles with the warp caps and ends); the smaller landing pods are auxiliary boosters (on landing legs traced from Reliant nacelle pylons).


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

mattjaco35 said:


> Your progress on the "lost" TAS Shuttles is inspiring.
> 
> Not to hijack the thread, but I've been working on a model for some time now that's supposed to be a large fast-scout type TOS/TAS Shuttle- a "TOS/TAS Runabout", if you will. Perhaps she could fit into the general taxonomy of TOS/TAS shuttles you're creating.
> 
> ...


 Irwin is rolling over in his grave, or very proud. Either way, I love it! Great idea!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Matt Jefferies is definitely laughing his ass off.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

mattjaco35 said:


> Your progress on the "lost" TAS Shuttles is inspiring.
> 
> Not to hijack the thread, but I've been working on a model for some time now that's supposed to be a large fast-scout type TOS/TAS Shuttle- a "TOS/TAS Runabout", if you will. Perhaps she could fit into the general taxonomy of TOS/TAS shuttles you're creating.
> 
> ...


For some reason, that made me think of Cyrano Jones' scoutship:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Me too.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

mattjaco35 said:


> Your progress on the "lost" TAS Shuttles is inspiring.
> 
> Not to hijack the thread, but I've been working on a model for some time now that's supposed to be a large fast-scout type TOS/TAS Shuttle- a "TOS/TAS Runabout", if you will. Perhaps she could fit into the general taxonomy of TOS/TAS shuttles you're creating.
> 
> ...


Really like the idea of using the 1:1000 secondary hull as a stubby warp nacelle, don't know why I never thought of it.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Gemini1999 said:


> For some reason, that made me think of Cyrano Jones' scoutship:


Fascinating take on this TAS ship! Definitely gives me ideas. :thumbsup:

My current understanding of the Sketchup tools has me encouraged where I'm already thinking about how I'll proceed next. At this point I'm going to redo the upper section now that I've a better idea of what I'm doing and then continue on with the rest of the ship. Assuming it's successful then the other TAS shuttlecraft and my take on the TOS Class F beckon.


----------



## kdaracal (Jan 24, 2009)

Regardless of the bizarre combo, I really like the design. And the scratch work is great. Wish I had that level of skills.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Right now I'm still struggling with how to get certain things done, but I'm getting there. Next post (whenever  ) will have something more further developed and more recognizable.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Definitely taking longer than expected, but I am making progress...albeit haltingly. :lol:

I've a long way to go before I'm familiar with Sketchup's full capabilities. Sometimes it seems like I'm making good progress then I hit a stumbling block and I have to rethink how I'm doing something and how I can best proceed. The Contour part of the Sandbox Tool is helpful, but it isn't my preferred way of doing things because it still requires a contour of lines to get the shape you want. I prefer manipulating shapes where possible to get what I want. Although I've only experimented with the standard colours and textures supplied it's nice to know that I can import others better suited to my purposes. That said I'm not ready to start colouring things yet. Presently I'm just trying to get the entire main hull of the scoutship together and then the other components before I think about colour and textures. In the end, though, I do want the ship to have something of a metallic or alloy look to it. I envision the overall colour to be a very light grey similar to what we saw on the TOS shuttlecraft. I'm thinking of making the nacelles a bit darker grey with red (similar to the that on the 1st pilot _Enterprise)_ or perhaps even white nacelle domes. The forward viewport I see as a dark blue or smoke tinted that you can't really see through from the outside as it's meant to be a one-way transparency.

Although I'm confident I'll figure how to get the whole model done I am mindful of the aft end nacelle cowls and their distinctive curved shape and corrugated surface. I can think of how it might be done (with the Solid tools perhaps), but it remains to be seen.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

My progress with 3D modelling has been incremental, stumbling at first, having "ah ha!" moments then hitting yet another wall. But bit-by-bit I'm getting there. Recently I've learned the power of Sketchup's solid tools which have solved certain problems for me.

Sometimes I over think a problem and other times I mistake something for being too simple. But I'm gaining more confidence with every session.

Here's where I stand. The scoutship's shape may be deceptively simple (just like TOS' Class F design looks deceptively simple), but they're both nuanced shapes with unusual and easily missed details. But I'm taking heart because I've come a long way as evidenced in the posted screenshot.

In the background you can see the schematics I've imported as immediate references for the model. In the foreground is an X-ray image of much of the scoutship's main hull section. I rather like working in this transparent mode so I can easily see all sides at the same time and note potential problems without having to always turn the model around.










Certainly I'm finding it easier to make the hull in separate parts before putting them together rather than trying to build the main hull all in one piece. Actually I'm not sure I'd have any idea on how that could be done. In this sense I'm finding 3D modelling is exactly like building a physical real world model.

Forgive my little ego-boosting here because I'm feeling rather good about how far I've come. I know there'll be more stumbling blocks along the way, but I'm feeling a lot more confident about this then I thought I ever would in the beginning.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I just might give this Sketchup program another try...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I have to say that trying to model the shuttlecraft in this way revealed a few flaws in my thinking when I drew the schematics. As a result when the 3D model is finished I'll use it as a template to correct the few small errors I made on the schematics.

I suppose I'm taking a harder approach to learning this by trying to model an object such as a sic-fi spacecraft, but frankly I don't have the patience for just playing with random shapes. I think I'm learning faster by trying to make something a bit challenging and more recognizable. Long term: I want to complete this and then the other two TAS designs as well as as the Class F design based on my drawings. I also wouldn't mind trying my hand at Space Ghost's _Phantom Cruiser._


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Some genuine progress...for me anyway. :lol:

I'm actually working on only one half of the ship because other than registry numbers and such the design is mostly symmetrical. But I've duplicated the one side and reversed it to give a better understanding of where I'm at.

This mightn't seem like much and seem like rather slow progress compared to some of the other vastly more skilled modellers around here, but bear in mind I'm learning this from scratch as I go along.

Anyway I spent more than two days trying to fashion the upper nose section, something that looks rather simple, but I had a lot of difficulty getting it the way I want. And believe it still really isn't exact, but it's close enough. I know where there are one or two small flaws, but I'm not pointing them out. 

The side of the nose section looks so dark because there is a lot of visible geometry there that I can't understand from where it came. When I used a similar method to build the main section I didn't get that kind of geometry. So go figure. For me what's important is that I got the shape I wanted. Also when the ship is finished I'll eliminate a lot of the unneeded internal geometry because all I need is the outer shell for the finished model.

Next I'm moving on to the lower nose section which extends from the nose to about midway under the main section. I'm including an image of the scout to give a better sense of what shapes are what.



















I do find it amusing that when the design is broken down into separate components it doesn't look much like they belong to the final result. But as I put the components together then the familiar shape begins to take form. Presently I think it looks flatter and wider than I'd thought it would, but I've yet to finish the forward section and add the upper hull.

I've already toyed with making the nacelles and so I don't foresee any real challenges there.

With becoming more familiar with the tolls available I've begun to see how I'll be able to add certain details. I'm pretty sure that the service access panels and the aft hatch control can actually be separate pieces with genuine seams to them rather than just painted on details.

I'm also toying with the idea of something like a cutaway view with something of an interior to illustrate what I had in mind for that layout.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Fascinating! Watching your progress here--seems to be a lot of work involved going 3D.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Fascinating! Watching your progress here--seems to be a lot of work involved going 3D.


I'd say _learning_ 3D is quite involved. And from what I understand Sketchup is easier than most for beginners. So far I've found that some things are quite easy once you get comfortable with the tools.

But there are parallels with making a physical model. You're better off to make parts separately and assemble them when the individual components are done rather than trying to build it all in one piece. Although you're using virtual tools and and what I guess you could call mathematical materials you still have to think about how you go about fabricating what you want to make. How do you turn a block of wood or sheet plastic into a model? In 3D how do you make complex shapes out of essentially pieces of squares, circles, triangles, boxes, spheres, ovoids, polygons, lines, arcs and whatever else?

3D even has its own garbage in the form of hidden or unwanted/unexpected geometry that can sometimes screw you up.

I'm finding it alternately fascinating, fun, challenging and periodically maddening. :lol: It's also quite rewarding when something works out and things start to come together.

And seeing the TAS shuttlecraft come alive in three dimensional form is rather cool considering the original 2D animation drawings. Back in the '70s and '80s when we started drawing _Star Trek_ and SF ships and hardware on paper who knew one day we'd be able to see and realize them in 3D?

I gotta say that one thing I have in mind when this is done is to render some live-action never seen TOS scenes with the scoutship in place. And I don't mean just space scenes. That has gotta be fun to make and see.

Although I get frustrated sometimes I'm already considering what I'm learning and how to apply that to making the heavy lander and aqua shuttle as well as the Class F.

I was also thinking about TOS-R and how it would have been kind of cool to have seen the scoutship design used in the two-part "The Menagerie" for the scene of Kirk and Mendez chasing after the _Enterprise._ But then you have to consider that the interior scenes are clearly that of a Class F shuttlecraft and so it wouldn't work. And no one was going to invest the time and effort to reimagine all of the shuttlecraft interio just to be consistent with a drastically different exterior design. Still, it might have been cool...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

You learn by doing and by making mistakes and trying something else. Well, in choosing what I felt was the best way to construct the lower section on the bow I found it worked so much better than what I had done with the upper section. So I'm remaking the upper section in conjunction with the lower part combined as a subassembly to be then joined to the main hull.

I'll post when it's done.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A much improved and cleaner bow section. I'm quite happy with the results.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well, we learn by doing...again. :lol:

I've run into some difficulty which also underlined some of the mistakes and compromises I made along the way. I know it's mostly the way I'm looking at it, but some things seem a lot clearer than they were before and the model looks somewhat stained by the mistakes I know are there.

And so for my own peace of mind and taking what I've learned I'm starting again from scratch. The big difference this time is I have a better plan and a much clearer sense of what I'm doing. Since a lot of fumbling (but certainly not all I'm sure) can be bypassed I should make a lot faster progress.

In the process I sometimes listen to TAS music sound clips...or I hum or whistle them to myself. :lol:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The current scoutship restart is going quite well so far. I've got the major hull section done except for the topmost component (where the forward viewport is set). After that it should go quickly because all that will remain are nacelles, landing struts and details...and of course colouring and registry markings.

What I've learned so far gives you a much better grasp in what is involved in cgi animation. It's all very well for people to say, "Oh, they can just whip it up in the computer and presto!" But, of course, that's not how it really works. You still have to design things and then painstakingly build them from scratch in the computer even if they are "only" mathematical constructs as opposed to physical models. I'd argue that a physical model could conceivably be constructed faster than in 3D. The distinction is that 3D models don't require actual materials. They simply require time: time to design and build the models and then _lots_ of processing time to animate them.

Fortunately I'm dealing with relatively simple static models that might see limited animation.

I'm holding off posting images until I get a bit further along and can share something of more substance than what I've shown so far.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Something to show.

Again it's an X-ray image of only one side, but that can just be duplicated and reversed to make the whole thing. I know have the main hull finished but one detail small thing in the back end. But the main body is done and a helluva lot of work it was too. The hardest part has become those little detail elements like where rounded corners meet or lining up surfaces with compound curves and angles. Argh!!! (-:

But based on how far I've come along with this I don't foresee any major hurdles with adding the remaining bits and pieces. Now, though, you can get a better sense of the shape and what this adapted TAS design will look like in 3D.










And a quick glimpse...









Note surfaces and edges have not been smoothed and the texturing and colour isn't set yet.

I'm quite pleased overall, but for myself there are quibbles and some of them go right back to when I drew the schematics initially. As for the 3D model there are things that have worked out, but I now know I'd do differently when I start the next model or if I do this one again sometime. One thing I'm not really satisfied with is that some of the rounded edges are still too sharp for my liking and I'd make them larger diametre edges in the future, but since I took the measurements right off my schematics the mistake was made long before. Hmm, so maybe I should go back and modify my schematics. 

There are areas of Sketchup I'm still not familiar with such as how to get more realistic looking surfaces and lighting. The default setting and what I've played a bit around with still looks too bright and intense. And the default surfaces have too much reflectivity at this point. I know it's possible to look more photo realistic, but I haven't learned how to do that yet.

Also I haven't learned how to get sharp and clear pictures of the model yet either. So far I only know how to do screen capture pics and thats not what I want ultimately.

But so far overall I'm quite happy with it. Now what lies ahead shouldn't be too hard. The next major hurdle I have are the triangular indentations on the lower part of the bow section. And with what I've learned so far the landing struts and nacelles shouldn't present any major challenge.

One thing I did yesterday was remove all the unneeded internal geometry thats visible in the X-ray images above. That was needed when I was constructing and assembling the individual components, but now they're not needed and it just complicates things when rendering the model. When I copied the one side and reversed it to get a look at the whole ship I'd get a little spinning beach ball while I waited for things to get processed. And I have 4G RAM. After removing all the internal geometry things sped up noticeably, but I think I'll eventually upgrade the RAM to 8G, possibly more.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I've just installed a plugin called Maxwell that will help me get better renders and pictures. I, uh, had to learn about Sketchup's limitations. I've played with it a bit and early efforts are promising and as I get accustomed to using Maxwell then I should get satisfactory renders. But I'm going to wait until I'm finished the entire model before I go for a final render.

I think I may install a rudimentary interior to the model because although the viewport is darkly tinted (to simulate a one-way transparency) there's still something coming through with enough light from the opposite side. So I should add something to suggest an interior with perhaps a couple of crew aboard. And they'd only have to be rough forms of people to suggest a shape inside the craft when viewed from certain angles.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Looking good so far!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Looking good so far!


Thanks.

What isn't visible is that there are some spots where my lack of forethought resulted in me getting a bit messy to fix things. Of course, this is part of learning, but I'm far enough along that I've no real interest in starting again from scratch. But at some point, as well as with planned forthcoming projects, I may build the scoutship again and I'll have learned where I went wrong and to avoid those mistakes again.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A small update. This was delayed because what you see is a new model from scratch. Mistakes had piled up that were bothering me in the previous attempt. Also the previous model was too sharp edged for my taste. It looked okay in 2D, but in 3D it didn't look right. And so all the rounded edges of the design have a radius twice as large as they were initially. The soften the overall look overall and looks more believable I think. I had a particular challenge with a corner where the forward viewport surface meets the roof and the side. I just couldn't get it right until this morning.

Now I can make better progress adding the extra parts. The next is a real challenge: that long triangular insert on the lower sides of the bow section.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It's a small detail, but that elongated triangular like indentation in the lower side was a pain, at least for a novice like me. It's not exactly as I had envisioned it, but it's actually not bad as is. Actually it's growing on me.











And a quick peek at the aft hatchway.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A look at the modified antigrav housing affixed underneath. This addresses the obvious lack of an impulse drive which I couldn't add to the design without drastically altering its familiar appearance. And yet it's unobtrusive since it's in a little seen spot and mostly obscured by the rear landing struts (which are forthcoming).


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Triangular indentation, forward navigational deflector (gold), aft access hatch, antigrav housing, forward viewport and service access panels in place. Next up are the landing struts and warp nacelles.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Beginnings of the warp nacelle.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I'm calling it a night even though I'm in the middle of shaping the aft nacelle cowling with the distinctive corrugated surfacing. Oh, lots of fun...

For some it may look odd that I'm only working on half the ship, but it's actually easier to do just the one side then duplicate and reverse and then put the two symmetrically identical halves together. Then I can add what few asymmetrical details afterward..


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Nice! I like the way that's coming together!

:thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Slow but steady progress. I struggled a bit with this, but finally it came together: the aft nacelle cowling.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Some nacelle details: intercoolers, heat dissipation units, support pylon and lower service access panel.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Really enjoying this thread, Warped9. Thanks for sharing your journey with us.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Fozzie said:


> Really enjoying this thread, Warped9. Thanks for sharing your journey with us.


Thanks.

A small amusing note (well I thought so). In TAS we never catch sight of the support pylon attaching the nacelles to the scoutship's hull. Actually the nacelles look like they're sitting right against the hull. Yet on my model the pylon is there, but in many angles it's not visible.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

I noticed the support pylon in that last angle and was thinking about just that thing. It always looked like the nacelle was flat against the hull. I think they pylon makes more sense.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It does make more sense. Still, I looked again and from most angles, particularly ones most flattering to the design, you can't see the pylon. It's kinda weird and neat.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Initially I wanted to wait until I was a bit further along, but I found myself rather liking this and wanted to share. I think this is actually beginning to come together. 










Ya know, I can almost hear the music. :lol:


Since I've scaled this with the Class F shuttlecraft I find myself wondering about seeing this on the _Enterprise's_ flight deck. I'm getting some vague idea of making myself a 3D hangar deck. I must be nuts...


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> I'm getting some vague idea of making myself a 3D hangar deck. I must be nuts...


If you end up doing more of these (like the Class F shuttlecraft), they're going to need a home...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Getting there, folks. Aft landing strut and antigrav stabilizer in place. Now for the forward landing strut.


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

I love it!! Great work.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

feek61 said:


> I love it!! Great work.


Thanks!

I did reams of sketches when trying to adapt the TAS design into something more credible to fit within the TOS "reality." And while I liked how the schematics came out I did wonder how they might translate into 3D. Drawings sketches and an actual model with precise dimensions and accurate perspective and shadowing aren't the same thing. I'm gratified that it seems to be working out. The only serious change I had to make from the schematics were to soften the edges a bit more by increasing the radius on those edges. Otherwise the design looked a bit too boxy for my liking whereas now it looks somewhat less simplistic and toy like. And while the design is apparently stubbier and sports some curvature that departs from the TAS image when seen at certain angles with forced perspective I think it does evoke the original design. The TAS depiction of the _Enterprise_ was a stylized and simpler version of the ship as seen on TOS. So I guess it works that you can reverse that approach to render a more credible version of a simple TAS design.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Almost there. Some small details and then I can think of texturing, painting and rendering.










Before I mirror this I'm going to fashion something of a rudimentary interior. It will not only give an idea of what I have in mind in terms of the interior layout, but also make the model look a little more complete given that something can be seen through the darkened viewport albeit barely.

I've also got to do some more reading and tutorial videos before I proceed with painting and rendering. I'd also love to know if I could do some animations with this as well as Photshop images.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> Ya know, I can almost hear the music. :lol:


I_ can _hear it! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Some preliminary mirroring trials.










I must say there is one thing I'm not happy with yet there's nothing I can really do about it at this point, simply because it would involve changing too many things. I think the main hull is too wide. It should be about ten percent more narrow and the upper section (the forward part being the main viewport) should be angled in a bit more on the sides. It's a nitpick at this point but there it is. One day I'll come back to this design and remake it and then I can fix what I don't like, but for now I'm going to follow it through the rest of the way.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Yeah, I can see the resemblance_ and _I can see how making it a bit more narrow would bring it a bit more in line with the original--but it looks great as is! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Yeah, I can see the resemblance_ and _I can see how making it a bit more narrow would bring it a bit more in line with the original--but it looks great as is! :thumbsup:


Thanks. And I must say that I do quite like the look of it particularly from certain angles. Even more so with shadowing it to give more realistic form and presence.

When I was scaling it I used the TOS Class F design as a benchmark of sorts in terms of scale. In that regard I was trying to get the cabin width to be roughly similar as well as maintain some space between the cabin inner bulkhead and the outer hull for mechanical guts. Now I see that with the bulges on the lower sides I don't need quite as much space as I allowed between hulls and the cabin can be a bit more narrow than the Class F design.

It has to be said that the TAS onscreen version was ridiculously long and narrow, so my version wasn't going to be exactly the same. But I think I can afford to narrow it in the middle section without touching the rest of the design and it will look better, though still not as narrow looking as the TAS version.

Part of it may also be a matter of getting used to it. We'll see.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

What's the difference here? I managed to section and remove about nine percent of the width of the main hull from the centreline area. Why nine percent? Well there was some under hull detail I wanted to preserve without redoing it all over again and I managed to pull it off. I think I still have to remake the aft hatch access, but that's simpler than the under hull detail.










I think it looks a bit better balanced visually. And yet...yet...I find myself torn between the two...

Opinions?


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Speaking as someone who has only seen one or two episodes of TAS, I'm not overly familiar with this shuttle, although I have seen stills of it before (quite a few years ago).

What you've done is fantastic - and both versions look great to me! Just not seeing or connecting with the need to make this shuttle a little narrower. The first version looked good.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I've decided on a compromise of sorts. I found the first version looking too wide and not visually balanced although I find myself getting used to it somewhat. Still the narrower version evokes the original TAS onscreen version and yet as a 3D model it also looks a bit odd. So I'm going to lean more towards the original version yet trim off just a bit from the middle section and hopefully I'll get a more balanced look.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I'm liking the narrower version better.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I played around with some stuff last night and it becomes apparent that part of what is bugging is that the ship is still naked. It hasn't got texturing and markings and a few more bits of detail on it yet, and so it's easy to focus on just the basic shape without anything else to distract you. I think once I get the last things in place and render it and then even start putting it into scenes then it will look different.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

You know it's _really_ beginning to bug me. I've learned I'm not the only one with this periodic problem, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating.

Seems there's an issue with Sketchup 8 on Mac in that at times it can run really friggin' slow. And from what I understand upgrading to Pro want make any difference. I know it's being worked up, but in the interim it's really pissing me off. The problem crops up (or I should say the spinning beach ball of death appears) usually when I'm trying to intersect two groups or faces. Everything is fine and then it's *WHAM* as if I've run into a wall.

Sometimes it only goes on for a few minutes, but there have been other times when I've let it run for over half an hour before I force quit out of frustration and try again. And this happens even when I make sure I don't have any other programs or applications or even Sketchup panels open. I also try to keep things simple so I'm only trying to interest the necessary faces.

Windows users don't seem to have this issue and Sketchup on Mac OSX Leopard or Snow Leopard don't appear to have a problem either. It appears to be limited to some running OSX Lion. And it doesn't matter that my computer is a brand new (last summer) iMac with a recently upgraded RAM to 8GB from 4GB. Note it did this when I had only 4GB so the RAM upgrade didn't make any appreciable difference. So I seriously doubt upgrading yet again to 16GB would matter.

*Aargh!!!*


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Playing around with some signage.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The colour you're seeing in the images are essentially the colours I'm aiming for. The main colour will be light grey even though it can appear almost white or darker in some places. Thats pretty much what the _Galileo_ also looked like colour wise onscreen so that should give this design some conformity with TOS' "reality." The red of the Starfleet pennants isn't the same as the red on the nacelle domes. And note that the nacelle domes on the _Galileo_ were not red but white (or at least look white onscreen) and so I might experiment with this. Other colours included are a goldfish colour for the navigational deflector and I'm going to add a slight cyan tint to the service access panels to make them a bit more noticeable without being obtrusive. The only black on the model is the lettering, and even there it's not pure black because I want the letters to look ever so slightly faded along with the pennants. The rest of what appears to be black (the viewport and the rings behind the red nacelle domes) are actually charcoal or very very dark grey.In the viewport's case it looks smoked because it's a bit transparent.

The real trick for painting the model will be adding some weathering so it doesn't look right out of the factory.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Weathering is great, but it's VERY easy to "overdo" it. What you're shooting for is something which you can just BARELY notice if you're looking for it.

Some thoughts on weathering for a shuttlecraft...

1) Presumably there'll be some minimal pass-through of gas atoms (nothing is 100% efficient, even in Star Trek) by the deflector, so there'll be some pitting and abrasion along the length of the ship. This will show, not as "burning" (ie, not black or grey) but rather as alterations in the "tone" of the paint... areas which are more worn will be less glossy, basically. Also, this sort of wear is most prominent on outside corners... say, at the edges of sheetmetal plates, for example. This is best done using a "specularity map" if you have that capability.

Some dust/debris/smudging will be retained in "hollows," but this will likely be more of a brown/grey tone than it will be anything BLACK, and it will be fairly subtle as well.

Occasional small "hits" of larger particles (say, a minute bit of sand) at high speeds will result, not in abrasion per-se, but in vaporization of the particle and of the hull material at that point. So, a tiny silver pinpoint indentation with a small black halo around it, trailing off in the direction of the "hit," not necessarily in the direction opposite travel (though, normally that would be the case, assuming the ship is flying straight and level).

If the ship is sitting on a pad for long periods of time, it will get the same crud on it that anything else does, but most of that would be lost during atmospheric flight, I'd think... 

So your "weathering" will be dependent on whether the ship sits on a pad for most of it's life, on a class-M world, or is docked at a spacestation, or flies constant missions through asteroid belt regions, or so forth. Not every shuttle will "wear" in anything like the same fashion.

So... what "mission profile" do you envision this particular ship fulfilling? If it's the one carried by the Enterprise, and it only saw use in "The Slaver Weapon," you'd expect quite a few micro-impact pits but very little else.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Some creative license here. Despite what we saw and heard in "Slaver Weapon" I still don't think this shuttlecraft would have been part of the _Enterprise's_ standard complement. That said, though, my design is scaled very close to my version of the Class F. My take on the Class F is about 26ft. and this design is no more than about 28ft. And so it's close enough that you could make it part of the regular shuttlecraft complement. Also the width and height are also very similar to the Class F. Actually it's shorter in height than the Class F.

That said I'm still inclined to mark it as belonging to Starbase 25 as a craft that gets loaned out for special purposes, much like we saw Picard and company using a runabout even though no runabouts are part of the 1701D's shuttle complement.

This craft is for fast transit to extended points. It's faster and can go farther than the Class F. It can carry up to four or perhaps six persons or two persons plus cargo. It could serve for limited range science survey ("Get out there and take a look around"). It could serve as a quick medical transport. It has a measure of flexibility in tandem with its extended range and greater speed. As a result it could see a fair bit of use.

I agree the weathering should be subtle. The TOS _Enterprise_ was weathered and yet even that was still quite clean looking even after about twenty years of service. I think that gives us a clue as to how Starfleet vehicles hold up over an extended period. Of course a shuttlecraft could also be a lot easier to scrub down than a starship.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A little aft strut detailing.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Current status report.

Presently I'm working on a rudimentary interior. After that I can finally mirror the model and then add the final asymmetrical details, one of them being the vehicle assignment markings (Starbase 25) and the vehicle registry number. Then it's final painting and rendering.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The beginnings of a basic interior. I'm not going full out with this at this point. I just want a basic layout and I haven't figured exactly what I'm going to do with the forward viewport section yet.

The aft section is a standing height deck, but when you step forward you have to duck your head before seating yourself. The idea is that to retain eye level with the viewport than the seating would have to be higher and hence the deck level raised and thus less head clearance that prevents standing upright up forward.

I'll be adding some rough detail such as console placement and shape, 2-4 seats and some aft section detail. Note the double doors in the aft end which I think is a good idea. You also can't miss the double hull structure and the between hulls space allowing for mechanicals.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The end is in sight. A little more detailing and then some final paint touches and rendering. In the meantime here's a quick-and-dirty peek along with requisite blurriness and film grain.  No real shadows yet though.










I want to add a bit more detail including some weathering if I can. I don't want to add more detail than what we saw on TOS' shuttlecraft, but the detail will make the design look more "real" so to speak. When I'm done I not only want to do some live-action like scenes, but also recreate some of the angles we saw of the ship in TAS as a form of comparison. Of course it can't be exactly like TAS because my design doesn't have the extreme and stylized proportions of the animated design.

After I'm done with this one I'm thinking of moving onto the heavy lander design from "Mudd's Passion."


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Fascinating! Great take on a classic TAS shuttlecraft :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Slow progress. A few more details then rendering time. I added a little asymmetrical detailing on the top to break up some of those expanses of plain surfacing. That longitudinal detail is not on the centreline but offset to the port side of the craft.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Looking great!

Are you going to put some sort of dish antenna on it? (Not that I've ever understood the reasoning behind them on TAS when the TOS shuttlecraft did not have one.)


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Looking great!
> 
> Are you going to put some sort of dish antenna on it? (Not that I've ever understood the reasoning behind them on TAS when the TOS shuttlecraft did not have one.)


No. Although you can't see it at this angle the leading front edge has a yellowish band across it thats meant to be the navigational deflector. I always thought the dish looked stupid particularly considering the TOS shuttlecraft didn't have any such thing.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

My first render. I need a more advanced rendering program to get larger images. It's not bad for a first effort. I like how the forced perspective makes it look a bit more dynamic and evokes the TAS original I think.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Looks really great! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

First try at fashioning a TOS image with a TAS shuttlecraft.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Overall, and for a first effort, I'd have to say I'm pleased with the end result. Yeah, there are some small little things I will change when I do this design again one day, but they're not drastic. If there's one thing I'm not happy with (which you can't see in the above image) it's the aft end. The aft hatch and plain aft section doesn't sit well with me. It's mostly true to the original onscreen design, but it just looks so bland. It's the one area I will have to add more detail and try to massage into something more interesting. After all it goes without saying that details had to be added all around because the original was so plain and simple to begin with. It's the basic overall shape that made the concept interesting and thats true of all the TAS designs.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

I think you've done a great job all around. Taking a flat, rather crudely drawn image, and turning it into something in 3 dimensions that could have existed in the TOS universe was a daunting task but I think you've succeeded brilliantly. Your end result is a superior design to the original in every way, but you didn't go so far astray that the source material was lost.

Congratulations!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Thanks! You know, if I may say this, that pic above actually looks like it could be a model kit.


...hmmm, be nice if RC2 would be interested in this. :lol:


These are of the raw model. I'm still working on renders that I'm happy with.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

A sense of scale. If we accept Kirk as about 5'-10" then the scoutship would be scaled something like this (assuming I stick with my 29.58ft. for the ship's length overall).











It's a good thing I'm not ready to do full up HD renders yet because I still want to add a few more details. I just have to do something to the aft end on either side of the access hatch. I also want to add a bit more to the underside.

The next time I model this design one change I have to make is restore the aft hatch to its original width. When I narrowed the hull a bit for better proportion the aft hatch also got narrowed. I don't feel like going through the trouble of fixing it now, but when I revisit this deign I will fix that.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

That does the trick, for sure! Very good treatment of a difficult subject!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Okay, I stepped up and paid for the upgrade of Maxwell Render so I could do higher resolution renders and shots. Here are the first couple.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> Okay, I stepped up and paid for the upgrade of Maxwell Render so I could do higher resolution renders and shots. Here are the first couple.


You can really tell the difference. Love that large render. Looks great!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Thanks. The second one is using a sky background, and the way it came out it looks almost like high atmospheric flight. But the image isn't distorted enough by motion blur and atmospheric turbulence and composition. If the sky were darker, though, it could be really high at the edge of space.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Seeing it more properly rendered in 3D I can note some of the small things I want changed next time around, but overall I'm pleased particularly for a first effort.


----------

