# My Own 1/350th PL Refit Insanity



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

As some of you have seen I have made occaisional posts with progress on my build up. Rather that do it piecemeal I decided to do a web page and show all of the details and process, starting with all of the accurizing that can be done on the refit. If you find a detail of accurizing that I have missed please comment here or PM me and I will add it.

Please feel free to offer comments and suggestions.

Here is the Link to my page.

http://www.showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/index.htm

Enjoy,
Mark


----------



## fokkerpilot (Jul 22, 2002)

Great attention to detail. Thanks for sharing Mark


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2007)

The word brave just don't quite say it.
I agree with fokkerpilot, excellent attention to detail !

Looking very good Mark.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Ha, that is insane. But the good kind. :thumbsup:


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Thanks Guys. I am going to try to run through the buildup and experiments just like Raytheon and Raist3001 did. In parallel with the actual build up I want to try an experiment using Raytheons interior spotlight illumination trick and Raist3001's beautiful multilayer aztec approach.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Fantastic attention to detail. Awesome work Marc


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

WOW! Attention to detail is an understatement 
That's some beautiful work :thumbsup:


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

The good news is I have made some more progress on the construction details. Painting on the rec deck and officers lounge has begun. 

http://www.showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/index.htm

The web pages are updated as follows:

Page 1: Accurizing details added for further details on the bridge decks and the engineering hull sections.

Page 4: A small Arboretum update on the roof attachment and roof decal. Excuse the poor focus on the roof decal I need to redo the photo.

Page 5: Added details of the accurizing alterations to the bridge deck.

Page 8: Added page 8 to start covering the accurizing of the engineering hull.

Now the bad news: My digital camera failed. I have a Dimage A1 (which I like) and suddenly its viewfinder showed nothing but vertically streaked images. After checking I find out that Sony, who made the CCD, had a glue problem that only manifests after years have passed. They are fixing it at their expense but if you have a camera made betwen 2000 and 2004 and you see this you might want to check with Sony. So unfortunately I will not be able to update things for a few weeks until the camera gets back.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Nice work, Mark. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

You are doing an awesome job - this is the only refit I've seen in any forum out there that's truly on the way to being the perfect Big E from the standpoint of physical accuracy (not just paint job). Your build info is now becoming my guidelines! (hope you don't mind)

I've been gathering info/images for almost a year now, and because of family and job etc, I'm anticipating mine to take YEARS (just to get the time to do everything -especially paint) - but a long process I will enjoy of course. 

You mentioned at the beginning of the post that you were open to input on other fixes for the kit - there's tons to work on, depending on how far one wants to take the accurizing, but here's a couple of spots that have caught my attention recently:
1 - towards the front of the warp nacelles, the covering that separates the flux chiller from the rest of the grille - there are many spots that should be "open" towards the rear, like bent sheets of metal (see images)
2 - the angle of the command decks (just below bridge piece) is not in line with the bridge piece (compare images of PL and publicity photo)
I'd be interested to see if/how you would tackle these.... I'm hoping that sanding the command decks down would work, but I'm not sure yet what to do with the engines, since that incorrect covering should be almost flush with the "bulge" part of the engine in which the long grilles sit. What do you think? Again, I think you're doing some of the best work out there on this kit.


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Thanks for the kind words guys. I posted things to help others so please use the information.

Gunstar1:
I appreciate the input on other details. Please feel free to add any more you might come across. I need to look at those spots you mentioned before I respond. I'll get back to you.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2007)

Mark,
Check the code on the 'back to main gallery index' button at the top of page 8, it's linking to my site and i think you wanna keep the viewers on your site my friend 

Back on topic: coming along very nicely so far, you keep it going sir !

Go easy


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Lookin' good! Can't wait to see that one finished.


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Thanks Raytheon. Fixed the link. I hate cut and paste errors. (grin)

Got a good news email today. My camera is on the way back so I can do more updates. Sony's service has been superb. They notified me when they received it. Where to check repair status and then sent a tracking number when they shipped it back. Turn around time less than 5 days!

Mark


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Gunstar: Some selective sanding and/or grinding to thin the thickness and remove some of the ends, and then layering over the nacelle parts with thin brass is how I plan to tackle those nacelle details.
Marc111: Truly beautiful. I find can't quite give up on the boards and your amazing work has brought me out of lurk mode long enough to say what you're doing is surely going to make a museum/world class E. 
I plan on fixing those thin sheets on the nacelles with thin sheets as soon as I finish (another project and) figure out a way of correcting the profile of the front of the nacelles. If I'm seeing this correctly (no guarantees), compared to the Christie's photos esp (but even Mr Scott's), the nacelles do not slant out at the top with enough angle. I'm thinking at least 1/8", possibly almost 3/16" more at the top front tip to get the correct angle. 
The flux grills sit on a raised panel. The angle of the front of that raised panel should match the angle of the front of the nacelle, and after the nacelle fix this still appears to angle slightly too far forward. 
It would be relatively easy to shorten the bottom of the nacelles, but that doesn't look right. The fix needs to be a lengthening of the top, where All That Detail is. Unfortunately, I am still too scared to tackle it, and thus have ground to a halt, so I've gone off and tried to work a fix on my Excelsior, which seemed easy enough at the time but which is proving even more problematic than I think the nacelles would have been. At least they're big enough to hold on to. 
Great job!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I take it back.
It's a Really Easy fix. If you just cut it into a couple of pieces. 
This is the correct angle, as far as I can tell, roughly tacked together. Some backing, some styrene shims, and some putty, and nobody would ever know what had happened. The bumps that will be sanded away aren't in the right places anyway. 
And a little bit of correction of the angle of the flux grill mount to make it parallel with the leading edge.
As for the piece that slides between the halves here, just kerf the inside curve and bend it a little more, slice the top side and insert an filler piece.
A Really Easy fix. Sigh. And all this time I've been worried...


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

This is the first time I've looked at the kit's assembly instructions. I'm surprised at how meager they are. However: 
Sub-assembly 9, the whole of the sensor/deflector unit, as far as I can tell, measures to exactly the right depth. But there's always been something that doesn't look quite right about it. I thought that proportionately it looks a little too small. That obviously isn't the case. What I have discovered about it (again only to the best of what I can spy - confirm everything yourselves) is that part 30 is .10" too long. That 1/10" could be shaved off the front. That means that the base of clear part 220 needs to be made correspondingly deeper. 
We're talking subtle differences here, an 1/8 to increase the angle of the nacelles by a couple degrees there, a 1/10" here, but I'm convinced that minuscule as they are, the changes are visible to the eye, esp when you compare to photos, esp Christie's, and that the ship looks better, looks Right??? when they're fixed. 
????


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

I like that fix idea for the front end.... but now that I've been investigating the warp engines more closely, I'm afraid I've opened pandora's box.... there are some really big issues with the arrangement of the various lengthwise "bulges" - I'll get into that later as I'm currently working on some wireframe schematics of some trouble spots on the ship with my Adobe Illustrator (tracing over photos of the studio model) so I can get accurate angles for things like the front ends of the warp engines and the profile of the impulse drive. 
Speaking of Impulse Engines.... does anyone find it odd that no one is discussing appropriate lighting for the Impulse Engines? In the ORIGINAL film, the only time the engines are lit is when Big E is cruising thru the solar system (the engines are essentially yellow). Here's the catch: the IMPULSE DEFLECTION CRYSTAL! It behaves differently - not the standard (II-VI, anyway) light blue that most assume, but it also is unlit the entire movie except when in the solar system.... where if you watch carefully..... it's bright RED! The highly tampered-with director's edition (where they "fix" the wrong things) incorporates a blue deflection crystal when the Big E gets probed (with the digital enterprise). Anybody else ever see that? I will not be lighting my ship (and will portray engines as unlit), but I thought those who are planning on lighting might want to consider. (i will now get off my purist soap box...though this thread seems to be more enterprise-purists)


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Gunstar1 and Starseeker, Thanks for the inputs. As I have found in the past no one person catches all of the details. My listing is a summary of what a lot of builders have noticed so far. 

I have some things to add to the accurizing page on my next update.

1) Gunstar1: You are correct the small sheet material curve details on the front nacelle sections are not molded in on the kit. I haven't quite decided how to fix these but the suggestions allready made are good ones. I am also thinking about whether they can be carved in.

2) Gunstar1: Yes the slopes of the B/C decks are off. There should be more slope there. As you commented I think some sanding can bring it in close. One will have to be careful as the detail needs to remain. This may also address the fact that the decking as it flattens out is a little too wide at the sides.

3) Starseeker: Glad I was able to bring you out of lurk mode as your scratch of the shuttlebay was one of my inspirations. Thanks for the complements I am still learning but I have patience.

Based on your nacelle front angle comments I went back to my picture archive because it s very important for angle judgements to get as orthoganal a view as possible. Just a slight slant to the picture and you can really fool yourself. After comparing multiple points, I agree. You are right on and the top at the horizontal boss line needs to be moved forward by 0.125 inch. You are also correct that a lengthening is needed not a shortening. I like your approach and will try a variation of it.

I do disagree on one point. As I scale the angles and compare the angle of the front to that the slightly raised panel where the flux grills sit is in fact correct on the kit and matches both the corrected front slope and the edge slope of the original so closely that it is not worth touching.

4) Starseeker on the length of part 30 on the engineering hull
I have a set of detail photos and cropped closeups that I made including multiple good orthoganals that I have scaled with a vernier caliper. As I compare things Part 30's length relative to the next part to the rear, part 28 is in fact correct. I would not suggest changing the basic front to back length of the part. It is certainly not off by 0.1 inches. You may want to recheck this.

5) Gunstar1: OK now you got me started looking at all of the major bumps on the nacelles! (grin) This next find is your fault. The main long bulge that runs down almost the entire top of the nacelle looks to me to be short by 0.015625 inch and should be extended to the rear by this amount.

6) Lighting. I have only though about how to light it not each specific. However I have a pre directors cut video tape of STTMP. I will go back and see what I can see on the impulse engine crystal. I know the deflector goes from copper to blue only in the first movie, but I am not sure about the impulse crystal.

All for now, keep the inputs coming.
Mark


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I don't know how well this is going to be visible. These are a couple portions of the Christie's auction photo eaDSC07329, which is a lovely relatively long shot side view, so I'm thinking distortion (I hope) was minimized. The photo matches extremely closely the Pocket Books or whoever STTMP blueprints. My attempted crops of the photo don't seem to enlarge all that well, so if you've got a download of the original photo, check it out and see what you think.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

A couple more crops.
It's that polished metal ring at the front of the deflector housing that doesn't appear wide enough on the kit. To my eye, at first I thought it should just be made wider, and the clear housing moved about 1/10" further out to make up for it. But after much measuring, I convinced myself that it is more like the sketch I superimposed over Dave Kimble's STTMP plan which I enlarged to match the diameter of the engineering hull. The panel lines don't match on Kimble's plan. I think they were changed on the miniature so that the starfleet pennant would fit all nicely centered, of all things. 
See what you think.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

PS I agree. That angle isn't worth fixing - it's no more than a pencil line's difference at the top, and not a fat pencil either. Well, unless maybe you haven't fixed the flux parts yet, because I make such a mess out of things I'll probably have to replace the entire nacelle before I'm done anyway. Sigh.


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Starseeker,
If you check my accurizing notes you will see that we agree the polished ring (rearmost ring of the clear deflector part) should be wider than you see in the kit based on mounting it against the kit provided alignment bumps. I make it off by .040 and to fix it I just added 0.040 stock to the mounting bumps inside front surface of part 30 so that it sits farther forward.

Thanks for adding the pictures it helps the discussion.

Mark


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Just had to comment here. Some outstanding discussion and work on a lot of very fine detail flaws with the kit. Please keep using sketches or marked up photos to explain where possible as plain descriptions can be a bit tricky to follow.

Great stuff, thanks


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

marc111: no, somehow I'd missed that. I'm going to have to print it off and have a really good read. What I think you're going to end up with on-site is the most complete and best guide to building an E that anyone could possibly have. I for one thank you.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2007)

And i for another one second starseekers' comments on your build Mark.
I'll be keeping a close eye and taking more than a few notes (like all of them) along the way.
She's going to be a beauty !!

Go easy.


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Thanks guys. With all of the help I have received on these boards I figure the web site is one way to say thank you. Look for another update this weekend as I get to use my camera again.

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

Mark - just wondering when that wonderful website of yours will be updated... oh, any further ideas on those warp engines? I am putting a comparison shot of the studio model and PL kit in a vector graphic... hopefully I can get that posted soon.... it shows clearly some of the warp bulge issues - and maybe a problem with width (from inboard to outboard)


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Gunstar1:
I may have missed something so please post the vector graphics when you can I would love to compare notes

And now the update:
http://www.showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/index.htm

Ok, first off I have looked at some more rear nacelle photos and made some more comparison measurements and I think I was wrong. The rear end of the top bulge on the nacelle does in fact end at the right spot and should be left alone.

Now, here are the Web Site updates
Page 1: I added the front slant of the nacelle correction and the correction of the slant of the B/C decks with diagrams. 
I also added a lighting section detailing all of the light colors, when they are on and when they are off and the timing on the various light sources including the Dry Dock Power-Up sequence and torpedo firing.

Page 4: This has become the Arboretum, Rec Deck AND Officers Lounge page. I have updated the pictures to show the Arboretum ceiling, the completed Rec Deck and the almost completed Officers Lounge and the saucer modification to allow the officers lounge to fit better.

Page 5: Pictures added for the section cutaways on the upper saucer edge to allow easy window lighting and the alignment tabs added to the lower saucer to allow assembly of the saucer wall sections to the lower saucer in perfect alignment.

Page 7: I have majorly re-thought the construction of the internal armature. So I added a description and picture set of the new armature which slides into the hull much better than my first version.

Page 8: I added the remaining steps (less the docking ports) on the accurizing of the engineering hull focusing primarily on the front area.

My thanks to the various posts on Enterprise Lighting for source material and to Gunstar1 for his help on some of the subtle details of when various deflector, impulse and warp light effects are present.

Hope this helps and let me know how you like the interior rooms.

Mark


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

In case any one missed it I added a bunch of important updates to the web site.

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

I'm excited for 4 reasons:
- Mark's site is updated,
- I just made a transfer to DVD from brand new VHS widescreen of the "12 minutes bonus footage" version of ST:TMP (not the best dvd quality, but at least I have my prized original version),
- I finally got my DLM accurizing parts
- and I finally have the first round of vector graphics set up for the warp engines.
I will get to an explanation a little later for the attached pdf (I labeled some specific parts for further discussion) as well as figuring out what to do with the DLM impulse engines (they are great in terms of shape, but there are some problems besides the outer wall thickness). Meanwhile, take a look at the pdf and soak it in.


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

Mark - were you able to look at the warptest pdf yet? I'm curious to hear if/how you would deal with that, and also the earlier warp engine issue....


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

I am going through pictures now. Thomas (who was responsible for the kit design) made a comment at one point that he thought the nacelles might have been made about 2 mm too wide at the bottom. However this is almost impossible to fix as if you remove the 2 mm then you alter the whole pylon attachment angle and would have to completely redo the structure in that area.

I hope to look through things this weekend and double check some more photos. I am becoming a big fan of photoshop overlays if I can match views correctly as they allow multipoint comparisons.

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

I think it may be 2mm or so top and bottom.... solution.... remove from each half from where the parts meet (right down the middle) with some playing around at the front end...


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

This is not as easy to do as it sounds. Removing the 2 mm severly affects the area around the warp crystal and the fit/look of the entire front detail and horizontal grooving that extends back to the warp crystal. More thoughts to follow.

On the subject of lighting I was looking at the sequence in drydock where the Enterprise powers up and then leaves. There is one missing element in the sequence. Nowhere does it show when the fantail light of the name Enterprise turns on, yet it is on when she leaves dock.

I would propose inserting it into the sequence after the rear nacelle spots come on and before the lower saucer spots come on.

Mark


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

A small update to the site: 
http://www.showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/PL_Enterprise_Refit_WIP_1.htm
I discovered that there are some missing details for the roof of the shuttle/cargobay in the elevator and hanger roof sections. In the elevator section its cross beams and in the hanger it is a missing center strip. The details are now added to page 1 (the accurizing page) as items 6 and 7 of the Shuttlebay section and you can see what it looks like implemented towards the bottom of page 3.

All for now. I am preparing the shuttlebay for painting.
Mark


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

OK I have done a fairly sizable update this time. I wish I was at the fancy painting stage. Those pictures always look so much niftier. But I am still in the end game of correcting construction details. My thanks to people like Starseeker and Gunstar1 who continue to point out things and help with the correction analysis. For reference the URL is:
http://www.showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/index.htm

So on to the updates.

Page 1: I have added major accurizing details.
Lower Saucer Dome: 
Correct slant angles for the projection ends
The slant correction for the side walls
The Impulse Engine and Impulse Deck:
I made a mistake. The saucer deck should not be thinned to 1/2 
thickness it should be thinned to 0.030 just like the DLM parts outer 
walls.
Details on corrections to the DLM part
Impulse Deck- The square engraved details are not quite right
Nacelles:
Corrections to the quarter round that runs along the top grill
Corrections for the top bumps
Correction to the width of the rear end

Page 5: The Saucer
On the construction side I have corrected / added in the details for adding the DLM impulse engine and the modifications to get that part to be fully correct.

I have also added the measurements and procedure for adjusting the lower saucer dome to match the studio model.

Page 7: Nacelles and Pylons
Here I have concentrated on adding detailing the steps to correct the nose slant. Modify the grill pieces to match the corrected nose. And add material to the horizontal wings at the nose to match them back in.

I have also added the steps to correct the heigth of the quarter round linear grills that run to each side of the top grill.

Hope this helps.

Mark


----------



## Vaderman (Nov 2, 2002)

Mark,


I am extremely impressed with the amount of detail you are doing with this build-up. Keep up the great work. Can't wait to see it and your 1/350 TOS build-up later.


Scott


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Thanks for the kind words. I received a lot of help from people on the boards as I got started and this seemed a good way to ease the debt. Once these last construction bits are done I hope to mof=ve on to lighting the beast.

I'm really looking forward to the matching TOS kit.

Mark


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Love the accurizing of inaccurate accurizing parts. That amuses me. I ended up scratch building my own impulse unit in the end, as that was simpler. 

Good work Mark, impressive stuff.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Great documentation! Looks like you've gathered all the relevant info in one place. :thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Excellent attention to detail. The more I see, the more I look forward to seeing just how beautiful this thing will look once you're finished. I really think it'll be the premiere PL Refit.


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

OK its been a little while and amidst the family stuff I have made some more build and analysis progress.

My Web Page Link
http://www.showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/index.htm

Page 1, the accurizing page has been updated to include the fixes for the observation deck and the error in the fantail deck thickness.

Page 5, the Saucer page, has been updated with the final parts of the process for bringing the lower saucer dome piece in line with the studio model.

Page 7, the nacelles page has the details for revising the lengthwise top bulges.

I hope to next finish off shaping the wings at the front of the nacelle and sanding down the rear side profiles at the rear of the nacelles to thin down the rear face to match the studio model.

I am sure I will get to paint something yet. (g)

Mark


----------



## lizzybus (Jun 18, 2005)

Utterly astonishing! 

The single minded drive toward total accuracy is nothing short of an inspiration!

Is there any chance you could provide some sort of template for the lower planetary sensor dome ring you made? I've tried 3 so far which have all turned out a bit deformed......

Kudos

Rich


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Rich,

I do not have a template as I drew it on the plastic directly. However I will post a set of directions tonight for you. Once you get the diameter of the ring correct the rest falls into place.

Mark


----------



## lizzybus (Jun 18, 2005)

Thanks!


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

At Rich's request I have added an update to page 5 which details exactly how to measure, draw and add the broad ring around the lower saucer dome. Hope it helps,
Mark


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

I always thought the phasers/photorps fired from spots just above the dome about where the ring was. Never saw them fire from the nub at the bottom but I may be wrong.


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

....that's the original TV show you're thinking of. The design changed a bit between 1968 and 1979.


----------



## lizzybus (Jun 18, 2005)

Thanks mark for providing the invaluable info on the Planetary sensor ring....
Here's a pic of my Not-Quite-Finished effort






Thanks again
Rich


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Good work Rich! Looking good. I am glad I could help. 

There is now a full update on the fantail section on the page.

Mark


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Thought I would give you all a teaser shot on the modifications to the rear nacelle profile. First I added some interior apoxie sculpt to thickine the sidewalls where I would be sanding. Per the measurements on my accurizing page I then reduced the rear thickenss by 0.70 on each side. In the comparison below the Modified nacelle is on the left, the studio model center and the UNMODIFIED nacelle to the right. 








This is an inprogress shot as you can see that the curves at the top and bottom still need a bit of sanding to match. Apologies for the angle of my photos being slightly off that of the studio model shot. I also think I have a bit of foreshortening distortion but you can get the idea. I think its a positive improvement to thin the kit down.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## lizzybus (Jun 18, 2005)

...."Porkers? You talkin' about porkers Mr. Hooper?"

The PL unmodified engines look bloaty indeed! Your worlk is truly inspiring sir!

Rich


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Well I really have been working on my refit so it is time for a major update on status. 
Page 1
First off I have added several more details to the accurizing page.
a) Details on the corrections needed for the B-C deck windows
b) Pylon edge contour and front base and nacelle termination tweaks
c) Photon Torpedo Launcher center detail corrections
These are minor but the windows being on odd slants on the B-C decks really bugged me.

Some of you may have heard that I have been trying to get the impulse engine part right. I started with DLM’s impulse part but had problems with its left right asymmetry. Carlos had a good reason for it (see discussion on Starship Modeler) but it bothered me. I basically started with his part and adjusted it to try to eliminate the asymmetry and correct some contours per discussions with GunStar1 you can check in the accurizing thread. Don at DLM was kind enough to cast me some clear pieces off of my remaster of the part and I will be using those. I have given Don permission to sell these updated versions if he wishes. You can see the result in the Saucer Subsection of my accurizing page.

Page 3
Most of my work has gone into trying to finish the shuttlebay and all of those nice shuttles etc. I have never bought into the idea that the detachable portion of the Vulcan long range shuttle was meant to be a starship shuttle, Mr. Probert not withstanding. Its design goes against every other shuttle design before or since. For this reason I have populated my shuttlebay with ST 5 shuttles and some custom built TOS shuttles. My thanks to JT for some miniaturized copies of his TOS decals for my 1:350 shuttles.

I have the shuttlebay done less attaching railings, final glue up and the painting of the base coat on the outside of the fantail so I thought I would show it off.








And in through the hanger doors:








I am really pleased with the way it is coming out!

Page 5
I added details and pictures of the new impulse engine part.

Page 8
I really liked Krako’s idea for adding light slots to the docking ports. So that is what I did. I also use PNT Models PE sheet for adding details to the doors. His ring and background approach nailed the onscreen look. I have tried an experimental version for light blocking tests and it works but only if I use Gloss black Enamel for the light block. Anything less and I have bleed thru. You can see the approach and pre painting look on page 8.

Page 9
Ok, as many of you know I really wanted to have a side mount instead of a vertical strut up through the engineering hull so the ship would have more of a floating look. Well the aluminum armature is finally finished and it WORKS. Probably a 5 time overkill for strength actually as I used 1/8 in. wall aluminum tubing. Here is a teaser picture with the details on page 9 of my web page.









That’s all for now. For lots more pictures check out the web site:
http://www.showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/index.htm

Next steps putting in the FINAL (I hope, I hope) accurizing corrections and beginning the lighting / assembly.

I seem to be having a temp problem with page 9. I will update it tonight.
Fortunately Dry in Iowa,
Mark


----------



## TOS Maniac (Jun 26, 2006)

I just want to tell you that your mounting plan/execution is flat brilliant! What a wonderful way to display the model. It's too bad that the model's producers can't come up with something that imaginative and practical. ..and your shuttle bay is dead awesome! cant wait to see this beauty finished.


----------



## thestartrekker (Jun 10, 2008)

Marc111, great job on your build. Your attention to detail is astounding! I am trying to replicate your modifcations on my own build. Didn't notice this on the other comments, but apologies if its there, I think a saw somewhere that the phasers, or rather the panel around them shouldn't be a raised detail as moulded on the kit. What do you think?
Sorry about the photo, but you can just about make out the panel as a painted detail, rather than raised. 
Also, although I like you Rec-Dec, we all know the argument about the set used in the movie not being able to fit there. I came across Mr Proberts site, and saw an alternative design he came up with, with a stepped set, to account for the curvature of the hull. I'm experimenting with trying a blend of the two designs.
Anyhow, keep up the great work.
thestartrekker.
PS
I'm getting a bit nervy looking at the nacelles. Especially the forward angle at the front, but true, it just has to be done.:dude:


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

Yikes! You must be living on a hill to have escaped the flooding. Hopefully you and family and friends are faring well, especially with the predicted levee failures. Stay safe!

She's lookin great!
I can't tell by the pictures, but does the new impulse piece have quarter-round edges all the way around? Hey if you still have that master in one piece I would buy it from you, as I don't need a transparent piece. Or maybe Don would trade for his old piece... I might just rework Don's piece.

I checked the Pylon edge again - you may want to take a glance at your pg 1: the photo just below my warp engine comparison graphic, and the photo where Kirk is looking at the E from inside the shuttle (you can see the pylon edges clearly past the shuttle bay. Those images show it to be pretty darn sharp, and the pic that you compare the back side to seems a little low-res to be able to tell..... 

Oh, and let me know if you need me to reshape my Impulse Grille decal graphics (I think I sent you the file a while back) - I'm assuming it would still fit the new part, but ya never know.


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Thanks for the kind words everyone. I am trying. This is the first major build I have tackled since I was a kid. I and my employer are fortunately on the north sie of Cedar Rapids and wel away from the floods. My wife jokes that if our place ever floods we will be ready to get on the ARK (150 feet above the nearest river). I appreciate the concern we are fortunate.



thestartrekker said:


> Didn't notice this on the other comments, but apologies if its there, I think a saw somewhere that the phasers, or rather the panel around them shouldn't be a raised detail as moulded on the kit. What do you think?
> 
> Also, although I like you Rec-Dec, we all know the argument about the set used in the movie not being able to fit there. I came across Mr Proberts site, and saw an alternative design he came up with, with a stepped set, to account for the curvature of the hull. I'm experimenting with trying a blend of the two designs.
> 
> I'm getting a bit nervy looking at the nacelles. Especially the forward angle at the front, but true, it just has to be done.:dude:


On your first point I had not really looked hard at the phaser bumps. Now I will. Thanks for pointing this out. I agree on the rec deck. It is TARDIS engineering. 

Good Luck with trying Mr. Proberts concept. I think that would look really cool as well. Make some crude height mockups from stiff plastic to check that the concept fits before commiting to detail work. it saves agony later.

The nacelle fronts are a bit of a pain. I did find that the partial cut and then gluing in a wedge to get the proper angle worked well. I then just filled with the apoxie sculpt. ( Love that stuff).



Gunstar1 said:


> I can't tell by the pictures, but does the new impulse piece have quarter-round edges all the way around? Hey if you still have that master in one piece I would buy it from you, as I don't need a transparent piece. Or maybe Don would trade for his old piece... I might just rework Don's piece.
> 
> I checked the Pylon edge again - you may want to take a glance at your pg 1: the photo just below my warp engine comparison graphic, and the photo where Kirk is looking at the E from inside the shuttle (you can see the pylon edges clearly past the shuttle bay. Those images show it to be pretty darn sharp, and the pic that you compare the back side to seems a little low-res to be able to tell.....


GunStar1: It has radiused edges as best that I could make them. I gave Don at DLM permission to sell additional pieces from the mold. Contact him via email and I am sure he will sell you one.

I will check the rear edge again. You are observent and I may have missjudged.

My next two corrections to implement will be the windows on the B-C decks and the line of vertical windows on the dorsal. Two small tweaks that have been hanging around. That and painting the fantail while it is out of the model and things are "easy" This way I can just touch up as I assemble things into the engineering hull. I have to admit I am getting glad that almost all of the corrections are done. I want to move on to more of the lighting and main assembly. Of course there are all of those windows to epoxie fill. 

I tried a couple on the engineering hull. I used the clear casting epoxy that michaels sells. Do you know that with some carefull sanding and a bit of future you can get them so clear that I could see the trees on my lawn through the window! I may put illustrated backgrounds in the saucer to allow some motion to appear as part of the light boxes. Its a bit too much trouble to do it everywhere.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Much as I hate to admit it thestartrekker is correct. The rectangular surface and outline around the phaser bumps is painted on. It should not be a raised detail. Now I have to decide if there is a practical way to fix this. I wish kit makers wouldn't interpret painted details as raised areas. It's a pain.

Thanks. I will add this to my accurizing page.

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

Mark - I actually assumed you already knew that about the phasers - I wanted to check so I poured through the whole PL inaccuracies sticky thread (actually a fun trip through memory lane! - and who knows what we've forgotten since) but I found nothing - I thought then maybe it was something I saw on Starseeker's build site, but his finished model did not change the PL kit phasers.... then I started worrying that I might be missing other valuable info.... I fear I may have to make a huge comprehensive document for myself that accounts for everything I've ever come across for fixing the details. (especially since I might not get to really work on this thing until we finish having kids and they are all in school!) There is a lot to keep track of.

Another note on the phasers as long as you are thinking about them. Funny thing, but the design that Thomas went off of must have been images of the current model which, as the sad Christie's pics show, is a mightily abused prop.
Point being, the PL molded phasers are wrong. The AMT/Ertle kit was based on the TMP model and actually is correct on this item (though they were a little too big overall) If you look carefully at screencaps from TMP (especially just when the upper/forward saucer spot is turned on) you can see that the hemispheres are topped by a tiny nozzel/barrel/slice of a hollow tube. But when you look at photos post-Trek VI (including colored cloudster images) all you see are tiny divots where once the tiny tubes were glued on. THIS is how the PL kit is molded. I think that a couple of the micro-tube bits are actually still on the upper starboard banks, but there are no good pics of those - usually just the forward banks as far as close-up, in-focus shots. The one set of PL phaser banks that are correct are the shuttle bay banks (above hangar doors) - those were always simply smooth and squished a little. Must have been very quickly added on for TMP.
I'm guessing the best thing to do is to just start from scratch and make all new phaser banks.


----------



## thestartrekker (Jun 10, 2008)

Gunstar1 said:


> If you look carefully at screencaps from TMP (especially just when the upper/forward saucer spot is turned on) you can see that the hemispheres are topped by a tiny nozzel/barrel/slice of a hollow tube. But when you look at photos post-Trek VI (including colored cloudster images) all you see are tiny divots where once the tiny tubes were glued on. THIS is how the PL kit is molded.....................I'm guessing the best thing to do is to just start from scratch and make all new phaser banks.


Sounds like a job and a half! Well spotted by the way.:dude:


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

I sometimes think this is like an onion you keep peling away at it and noticing smaller and smaller details to correct. A good working assumption is that if it is not mentioned on my accurizing page it is something that I havenet caught yet so please keep the comments coming.

The phaser bumps will be in my next update on the web site. along with a relook at the rear pylon edge.

Thinking about phaser bumps,
Mark


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

ok here's a doosie -

Saucer underside. Outermost gridline. On the PL kit, the gridline sits on the level, non-curved part of the underside.
uh oh.
'taint so on the studio model. I said something about this on this thread or the inaccuracies thread, so the pics might still be posted. The gridline should be sitting just inside of where the inward curve starts. 
Rather than move the gridline, it would be easiest to sand down the area just inward of the gridline.

There is a Japanese site that hasn't been updated for over a year, but the guy is taking the PL kit and literally manufacturing parts out of 3D software. He actually re-scribed the entire saucer underside because the outermost and innermost positions are wrong. I'll post that link later tonight.


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

ooo ooo - you mentioned clear casting epoxy and you got it crystal clear with sanding and future? Would you use that for VIP lounge and Botanical gardens?

I'm really leaning towards coming up with a solid clear piece for those areas and painting on the window frames, since even a photo-etch set would be too thick.

I checked the site - was it the polyester-based resin?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Great armature and stand, Marc. Nice 'n' floaty!

(If you sold 'em, I'd buy one)


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Gunstar1 said:


> Saucer underside. Outermost gridline. On the PL kit, the gridline sits on the level, non-curved part of the underside.
> uh oh.
> 'taint so on the studio model. I said something about this on this thread or the inaccuracies thread, so the pics might still be posted. The gridline should be sitting just inside of where the inward curve starts.
> Rather than move the gridline, it would be easiest to sand down the area just inward of the gridline.


I agree with the assesment. The kit places the gridline at the edge of the flat just barely after the tight reverse curve to go from the main underside surface to the flat. The studio model seems to have run the underside surface right up to the groove and used the groove itself as the transition. A lot of carefull sanding could rub out the small transition. Hmm. It does leave the question if you do that is the flat the right width.

I looked at every underside picture I could find. No one shot a decent orthogonal. The best I could find was a straight on front shot looking up at the saucer. I tried (in variuous shots ) to compare the width of the lower saucer dome spot light at the left right centerline with the width of the flat at the same centerline. I get close to the ratio with enough variance that the flat could be the correct width, and probably is. My only worry is how to sand that curve down smoothly enough that there were no waves and dips as you look around the edge of the saucer.

You also asked about the epoxy I used in the test window. It was from Michaels and sells under the brand name EasyCast Clear casting epoxy. It is a 1 to 1 mix and although low viscosity(nicely lets the bubbles out and is not prone to form bubbles) it has enough to stay in the small windows. I do not think it would work for the larger ones unless you made a support, as in tape for the surface contour. The advantage in the small windows is that it domes out slightly under gravity and sits fairly flat on the inside so you only have to sand/polish the outside.

I do not think the photoetch is too thick. At 0.020 it only represents 7 inches which is not an unreasonable set back for a large port.

Steve, Thanks for the complement. Wish I could jig and sell them but I do not have the capability.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Gunstar and Startrekker:
OK now as to the "barrels" on the phaser bumps. I put the DVD on my bigscreen TV and looked at the spotlight sequence on the upper hull frame by frame and also part of Kirks tour pass. There is a hint if I strain in the shadown on one shot just as the spotlight is coming on and there is a lot of side lighting that hints at a possible barrel, abet a very short one. Once the spotlight is on I can at least fool my self into interpreting some faint contour lines as a possible very low cylindrical barrel. However where I should also see a barrel on the left or right phasers in the same shot sequence I see not even a hint of a barrel.

I also went back and relooked at all of the black and white shots which are as close in time as we are going to get to the actual movie shots. I can find no hint of any barrel at any location in those shots.

Based on this and the fact that if it was indeed in some places and not others, no one ever noticed it on screen and it does not appear in any actual model shot, I am not going to try to put them in. I like the domes as they are.

Mark


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

That's some insane detailing, Marc! Thanks for tackling it as those of us w/ lesser minds would clearly have gone mad and been locked away! 

While I won't be going into the level of work you and the others have attained with the hyper accuratizing, I will be using your build as a definitive guide when I do get to building mine!

Thanks again!!!


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

Gunstar1 said:


> There is a Japanese site that hasn't been updated for over a year, but the guy is taking the PL kit and literally manufacturing parts out of 3D software. He actually re-scribed the entire saucer underside because the outermost and innermost positions are wrong. I'll post that link later tonight.



I remember seeing that site, I acually used it for reference for my shuttlebay, he was the only reference I could find for the roof. That aside I remeber that he completely redid the secondary hull making the shuttlebay wider than the PL kit comes.


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Mr. Canoehead said:


> I remember seeing that site, I acually used it for reference for my shuttlebay, he was the only reference I could find for the roof. That aside I remeber that he completely redid the secondary hull making the shuttlebay wider than the PL kit comes.


I actually think that modifying the kit shuttlebay to be the correct 4 cargo container width really improves things. The proportions look much better and it was worth the effort even when viewing through the hanger bay opening. I recommend you try it.

I have seen the japanese guys site. He seems to be really into detailing. My concern with some of his efforts is the lack of better data to start with. I think each one of his conclusions needs to be analyzed just like we have been doing to the PL kit before accepting them. 

A lesson for model photographers out there is " Make sure you take lots of good undistorted orthographic shots"

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

I only mentioned the Japanese site in reference to re-scribing the grid lines - I wouldn't trust his approach without more detailed info as well.

I feel kinda stupid about the phaser emitters - actually the best shot is at the end as the E is emerging from Vjer and you zoom in very close to the bridge. Staring me right in the face there. I somehow had always thought that there were little bumps on the hemispheres - maybe it was brainwashing from doing too many Amt/Ertle kits. I even thought I had seen a cross-section in Mr. Scott's Guide to the E. The light plays tricks enough where it could make sense when casually viewed. So yeah the PL kit is right that the phasers are emitted from a little divot on the phaser bank hemisphere. 

But the phasers still need to be redone because the squares should be painted on, not raised detail.

Mark if you are doing interior-source spot lights, the phasers will not look right. I've seen someone replicate shadows from the interior, but you can't fake the highlight you would get on the light-facing side - it just looks dark and muddy..... my suggestion would be to make those phasers out of a clear material with strategically layered paint such that the side facing the spot light source would let some filtered light through, while the shadowed side would be painted totally opaque. You would probably also want to do a semi-transparent coat on the square, so that it too looks like it is having light shining on it. Maybe too crazy to work, but that's a tricky issue either way.

If you are not using the epoxy for your large window areas (garden vip etc) what are you going to do?


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Gunstar1 said:


> I feel kinda stupid about the phaser emitters - actually the best shot is at the end as the E is emerging from Vjer and you zoom in very close to the bridge. Staring me right in the face there. I somehow had always thought that there were little bumps on the hemispheres - maybe it was brainwashing from doing too many Amt/Ertle kits. I even thought I had seen a cross-section in Mr. Scott's Guide to the E. The light plays tricks enough where it could make sense when casually viewed. So yeah the PL kit is right that the phasers are emitted from a little divot on the phaser bank hemisphere.


Boy am I glad someone agrees with me. I thought maybe my eyesight was going.



Gunstar1 said:


> But the phasers still need to be redone because the squares should be painted on, not raised detail.


Completely agree. Now to figure out how best to do it. Sand everything away and redo the bumps? Cut out the rectangles and reglue them in at the proper heigth to match the surface? or Carefully sand the surface down around the bumps?



Gunstar1 said:


> Mark if you are doing interior-source spot lights, the phasers will not look right. I've seen someone replicate shadows from the interior, but you can't fake the highlight you would get on the light-facing side - it just looks dark and muddy..... my suggestion would be to make those phasers out of a clear material with strategically layered paint such that the side facing the spot light source would let some filtered light through, while the shadowed side would be painted totally opaque. You would probably also want to do a semi-transparent coat on the square, so that it too looks like it is having light shining on it. Maybe too crazy to work, but that's a tricky issue either way.


This is a point that has bothered me as well and your suggestions while tricky are interesting. This detail has frustrated me because while Trekmodelers idea for raising the bridge and trying direct lighting works to some extent ( and corrects the issue you describe), it keeps leaving me thinking that it noticibly alters the appearance of the bridge levels from the studio model.



Gunstar1 said:


> If you are not using the epoxy for your large window areas (garden vip etc) what are you going to do?


In the shuttlebay I used the photoetched brass to outline the window openings. To the back of this I glued on clear acetate. To be precise , a standard transparency as used in overhead projectors. I then did a thin future coat of=ver this to eliminate any surface scratches. I am going to atleast try this for the large windows.

I have also considered sanding down the kit parts and repolishing them as Raist3001 did as mine seem relatively clear of distortion.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Gunstar1 said:


> I've seen someone replicate shadows from the interior, but you can't fake the highlight you would get on the light-facing side ...


You couldn't paint the bumps a little darker, then mist the highlight side with white?


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

The whole problem with the phasers in this case is that light will be shining through them (interior spotlight) rather than external light source.

Mark, considering how accurate you and I are trying to make this I wouldn't dream of displacing the bridge to get the right light angle.

While interior spot-lighting is a nice self-contained idea, I have never seen it look good - it all comes down to the fact that it will never look natural coming through painted plastic. 

I think you should really consider doing it how they did it for TMP: all spot lights that are white originate off the model with mirrors and whatnot, while the "source" lights on the model leave some streaks near their source (a little warmer tone - pylons, dorsal etc). With so much work going into this, I wouldn't want to see it lessened by an "unnatural" light treatment (course thats up to you - I won't have to worry about it since I won't light mine - "3D lighted canvas" if you remember my post from a long time ago)

Oh, and I plan on sanding the existing phasers down to the hull and putting new ones on - the detail will be sharper than the molded phasers - especially the little divot in each hemisphere.


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

On a side note from an earlier discussion. The rear edge profile of the pylons.

Hypothesis: The PL kit center slot is the correct size. Measure the edge thickness. Take a photograph and measure the slot width and edge width. See if (Photo edge width/photo slot width)*PL Kit Slot width comes out colse to the PL kit edge width.

I used photos from as close to an orthographic rear as I could find, mostly shots intended to be of the fantail. I did this for 3 of the black and whites, one form the post directors cut series and 3 from Christies photos by various people. Each case I got a good match. I really think the rear profile is acceptable. at most one could sand slightly to make the edge slightly crisper.



Gunstar1;2425037I think you should really consider doing it how they did it for TMP: all spot lights that are white originate off the model with mirrors and whatnot said:


> I have thought about this and I sometimes wish I could use the lighted canvas approach however I want the lighting to litterly come on with the drydock startup sequence on command.
> 
> The only problem with the do it like the movie set did is now you need to enclose the model in a custom cabinet and restrict the viewing angles to pull it off with concealed spots. I'm really not sure I want to do that. I liked the effect Ratheon got with the interior lighting and I am looking at whether a combo of that and correctly focused exterior spots might pull off the look. The hardest one is that darned top of the saucer spot. Why couldn't someone have done it so it as physically possible (O and the fantail and the nacelle spots).
> 
> ...


----------



## thestartrekker (Jun 10, 2008)

For the larger windows you could use transparent polyester foil that is used for making canopies on model aircraft. Granted, a bit thicker than the acetate, but better tansparency and over all quality, in my opinion.
Think I'm going to have to look at those phasers again.:dude:


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

thestartrekker said:


> For the larger windows you could use transparent polyester foil that is used for making canopies on model aircraft. Granted, a bit thicker than the acetate, but better tansparency and over all quality, in my opinion.
> Think I'm going to have to look at those phasers again.:dude:


Interesting. Where do you get the "transparent polyester foil"

is there a Web source?

Thanks,
Mark


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

Is this the sceene your talking about?


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

that's where it does look like there could be little barrels on the phasers.

The most clearly defined angle of viewing is at the very end of the movie as the enterprise is slowly emerging from Vger. The bridge keeps moving closer and closer (until you cut to bridge interior), and you can clearly see the phaser emitters as divots, not barrels.


----------



## thestartrekker (Jun 10, 2008)

marc111 said:


> Interesting. Where do you get the "transparent polyester foil"
> 
> is there a Web source?
> 
> ...


I got it with a bunch of other stuff from a UK based website, www.modelhobbies.co.uk. 
Measures at just over 0.5mm thick.
Hope this is helpful.:dude:


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Gunstar1 said:


> that's where it does look like there could be little barrels on the phasers.
> 
> The most clearly defined angle of viewing is at the very end of the movie as the enterprise is slowly emerging from Vger. The bridge keeps moving closer and closer (until you cut to bridge interior), and you can clearly see the phaser emitters as divots, not barrels.


Yes the sequence you show is what I was looking at and even there I was having a hard timew convincing myself they could (not were) be barrels. I would say this myth is "Busted" as they say and they have always been divots.

The Startrekker: Thanks for the web link. I will try ordering some.

Mark


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

I've made PROGRESS!!!! My web site is updated! 
http://www.showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/index.htm

I have to admit progress slowed down as I try to do the painting. I am a newbie at airbrushing and it takes some experimenting before I am willing to commit to the real kit parts. Also I have been waiting for my LED's to come in. Now I can move to the lighting phase while doing aztec experiments.

The updates:
Page 1 (Accurizing page) I added a section 11 under the nacelles to detail the appearance of each nacelle rear. The bump details are different from side to side and there are some details to the center wing that must be fixed.

Page 6 (dorsal) I finally finished correcting the windows along side of the vertical detail. After working out the correct spacing of the holes (already detailed) I made up a piece of brass with the proper line of holes drilled in it and then used one edge of the brass strip cut to align with the vertical scribed lines so that the proper spacing from the vertical grid line to the window centers was maintained. This made a great drill guide to keep all of the holes in line and the same on both sides.

Page 8 I added the details of how I am light blocking the slot lights in the docking ports.

Page 10 Nacelles part 2. This covers finishing off the detail adjustments to the bumps along the top of the nacelle, the reworked front grills and the corrections to the bump and fin details at the rear of the naceles. Finally the inner nacelle grill pieces. The lengths of the grooves that must be masked off for the glowing blue lines so as to have their rear tips follow the correct contour as well as a painting sequence to try to get both the proper purple color as well as the quick fade to looking very black as the angle of the light changes.

Page 11 Although there was a thread on Hobbytalk about my correcting the torpedo bay I have added it here with some added details to make sure it is documented.

Page 12 Deflector clear part painting, A deflector lighting approach for both the coppery rose color as well as the blue color. Althoug the lighting looks even better by eye than the digital camera captures I am still mildy anoyed by a suggestion of a slightly darker color at the outer rim of the deflector due to the greater thickness of the plastic part at that point.

The beginnings of the main saucer assembly, surgery to open up both upper and lower domes for easy lighting and light blocking. (Thanks to Raytheon for some really good suggestions on his web pages.) And the glueup of the saucer edge pieces.

This is all for now, Let me know what you think.
Mark


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

Awesome awesome awesome - It's lookin great!

For your internal spot lighting on the upper saucer, are you going to keep the spot in a good rounded shape (check TMP screencaps)?

I ask this only because no one else does.


----------



## Daikaiju1 (Apr 26, 2005)

thestartrekker said:


> I got it with a bunch of other stuff from a UK based website, www.modelhobbies.co.uk.
> Measures at just over 0.5mm thick.
> Hope this is helpful.:dude:


What about inkjet transparencies for overhead projectors from the office supply store?


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Gunstar1 said:


> Awesome awesome awesome - It's lookin great!
> 
> For your internal spot lighting on the upper saucer, are you going to keep the spot in a good rounded shape (check TMP screencaps)?
> 
> I ask this only because no one else does.


Yes I probably will. There is one minor variation I may try. It has always bugged me that the light spill went right through the middle of the N and just missed the inside of the 1. I am really temped to expand the spill just enough to complete the registry illumination. it never made sense if you were designing a spotlight that you would almost but not quite illuminate the full registry number.

Oh and Gunstar1, I have been following the recessed panel line discussion and I will probably add it to the accurizing page. Wish I had a practical answer. None of the suggestions so far have been solid enough to get me to risk messing something up.

Re clear acetate. Yes I will probably use this for the windows behind the PE brass window frames.

It is amazing how many things can stall if you are still deciding on the basic hull paint. I have various pieces light blocked but not taken any further until I decide on the base coat for the hull.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Gunstar1 said:


> I'm really leaning towards coming up with a solid clear piece for those areas and painting on the window frames, since even a photo-etch set would be too thick.


How do you figure that would be too thick? 0.01" (0.25mm) photoetch is equivalent to 3.5" (9cm) at scale. How thin do you figure the window frame would be - 1", 1/2", 1/4"?


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

I'm not debating how far INSIDE of the VIP lounge the frame is deep, it's that on the OUTSIDE of the ship, it should be flush with the glass. (I am assuming anyone getting the photoetch set would be putting the frame on top of clear material). I think it would make sense to use the photoetch frames if you were NOT going to use any clear material - just like the millennium falcon studio models don't have cockpit glass - it would interfere with filming, and for the modeler *bonus*, you get a better view inside. (you never see light reflecting off of the windows of the VIP lounge in any ST movie) But for me, the issue is if I'm gonna do clear material, it has to stay perfectly smooth. I'm saying that with all the photos I've seen of the photoetch set, it's not thin enough for me.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

How about applying the PE VIP windows, attaching a nose-greased sheet of acetate to the outside, then pouring clear resin onto the inside ... just a thin layer, then remove the acetate when the resin is hard? Then the "glass" would be flush to the outside, and hopefully the total thickness would be in scale?

The problem would be if the window isn't flat ... it has a slight curve, no? Then the resin would pool unevenly?


----------



## Disillusionist (Apr 19, 2003)

How about something like this. The entire area is filled with resin and sanded smooth and flush. Mask off the window areas and paint!









[/IMG]


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

SteveR said:


> How about applying the PE VIP windows, attaching a nose-greased sheet of acetate to the outside, then pouring clear resin onto the inside ... just a thin layer, then remove the acetate when the resin is hard? Then the "glass" would be flush to the outside, and hopefully the total thickness would be in scale?
> 
> The problem would be if the window isn't flat ... it has a slight curve, no? Then the resin would pool unevenly?


yes - the trick is that it not only curves convex from side to side, but also from top to bottom a little (see the screencap from STII above) - but otherwise that's a good idea



Disillusionist said:


> How about something like this. The entire area is filled with resin and sanded smooth and flush. Mask off the window areas and paint!


that's kinda what I'm thinking - maybe even using the kit part and sanding/polishing that - I wonder how painful/possible it would be to sand/polish both sides of the resin (to limit distortion?) to keep thickness relatively even....


----------



## Disillusionist (Apr 19, 2003)

yeah, distortion is kind of a problem. I should stick something behind the window and take another picture just to see how badly it distorts. The outside sands/polishes easily enough, but the inside is kind of a bear to get to.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Gunstar1 said:


> I wonder how painful/possible it would be to sand/polish both sides of the resin (to limit distortion?) to keep thickness relatively even....


Why don't you just sand and polish the original part?

http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b391/Raist3001/?action=view&current=ARBORETUMWIN.jpg

That's assuming of course it is accurate enough


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

Raist3001 said:


> That's assuming of course it is accurate enough


Hee hee! 

that is really what I'd rather do - is distortion minimal?
the only problem for me is that I will be modifying the slopes of B/C decks, I haven't checked that clear part for a while, so I hope that with new slopes/curves I could still use the polished piece...


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Gunstar1 said:


> that is really what I'd rather do - is distortion minimal?


Very minimal. It's extremely clear.


----------



## eagledocf15 (Nov 4, 2008)

*Confused*

Was this build ever finished? Thanks


----------

