All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Last edited:
USS Enterprise F, G, H, I.
- Thread starter All Seeing Eye
- Start date
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I rest my case.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
If you think you can do better then show us your designs. The thread is specifically for designing Enterprises and not for criticising other peoples designs whilst providing none of your own.
Your -F certainly goes in a direction I would not have expected, I'll give it that. It feels to me more like a giant gunship than an exploration vessel - but, with more detail, I could also see that the idea might be that she could ultimately be easily turned into a starbase when retired?
I'd like to see a sideview of your -G, both because I think it is different and might be interesting AND because I think encouraging you will piss off The Axeman. It's like two ways to win in one.
I'd like to see a sideview of your -G, both because I think it is different and might be interesting AND because I think encouraging you will piss off The Axeman. It's like two ways to win in one.
Actually, by posting in this forum one is expected to receive criticisms of ones work. It's one of the primary reasons it's here. This is an art forum. You are obviously spending more time on the write up than the art, maybe you should move this to trek tech. Finally, The Axeman is one of the best CGI artists on this board, to insinuate that he can't do better just because he hasn't shown an interest in doing so is funny and insulting at the same time.
Stretching a circular image into an oval is pretty lame.
As a general rule, if your image is dwarved by the write up you're probably not posting art. This is the art forum, you might be better taking this to tech.
I'm not pissed off, genuinely I'm not. I'm just a bit disappointed. As my very perceptive colleague Sojourner rightly points out a lot of people will spend hours doing a write-up of the ships design brief and specs, then 5 minutes making clunky cut & paste 'art'. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that
Use that mission statement and design brief you wrote to actually design a ship. Put some thought into what it would need and what size it would be, and why it would have the things it has on it. Then spend time actually making ship. I dont care if it's in MS paint or photoshop or sketchup or hand drawn on lined paper, as long as you've clearly laboured over it and given it some real effort.
If you want advice, comments and constructive criticism to help you then this is the place, we only want to see stuff get better. If I can help, I will. I make tutorials and answer questions every day, and am happy to help people who want to learn. Others here are the same with their chosen medium or software, you just have to ask.
I'm not pissed off, genuinely I'm not. I'm just a bit disappointed. As my very perceptive colleague Sojourner rightly points out a lot of people will spend hours doing a write-up of the ships design brief and specs, then 5 minutes making clunky cut & paste 'art'. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that
Use that mission statement and design brief you wrote to actually design a ship. Put some thought into what it would need and what size it would be, and why it would have the things it has on it. Then spend time actually making ship. I dont care if it's in MS paint or photoshop or sketchup or hand drawn on lined paper, as long as you've clearly laboured over it and given it some real effort.
If you want advice, comments and constructive criticism to help you then this is the place, we only want to see stuff get better. If I can help, I will. I make tutorials and answer questions every day, and am happy to help people who want to learn. Others here are the same with their chosen medium or software, you just have to ask.
To get this back on topic...
I always felt that this unused concept by John Eaves for the 1701-E would have made a GREAT 1701-F.
I always felt that this unused concept by John Eaves for the 1701-E would have made a GREAT 1701-F.
To get this back on topic...
I always felt that this unused concept by John Eaves for the 1701-E would have made a GREAT 1701-F.
I agree
The problem I have with your designs, I Am Legend, is that they just don't look like any of the Enterprises we've seen. They're not bad designs, necessarily, but they're not Enterprises.
Between the original Enterprise and the Enterprise-J, we have maintained the same basic shape: saucer, secondary hull, two nacelles. Your designs don't make sense in that context.
No, I don't have my own designs, but that doesn't invalidate my opinion.
Between the original Enterprise and the Enterprise-J, we have maintained the same basic shape: saucer, secondary hull, two nacelles. Your designs don't make sense in that context.
No, I don't have my own designs, but that doesn't invalidate my opinion.
I was typing this, but I was too slow. This pretty much covers what I was thinking as well.
While I love Eaves's designs, I'm not sure that more and more streamlining makes for the correct design path. The one seen in Enterprise would have been a javelin shape by then, and not the wide flat design we saw.To get this back on topic...
I always felt that this unused concept by John Eaves for the 1701-E would have made a GREAT 1701-F.
When I first saw the Ent-D I was shocked and a bit annoyed, but it soon grew on me and you cant deny that it's not only much more advanced, but also shares basic design elements with its ancestors. I'd like to see just such a radical departure again.
I think it's about time we see a Vertical starship in Trek. You know, like the mothership in the Homeworld games.
I see where you're coming from. Really, all of the Enterprises we've seen have been pretty radical departures from the previous design (aside from the original refit/Enterprise-A). I always thought the Ent-B being an Excelsior-class was the oddball of the bunch.While I love Eaves's designs, I'm not sure that more and more streamlining makes for the correct design path. The one seen in Enterprise would have been a javelin shape by then, and not the wide flat design we saw.To get this back on topic...
I always felt that this unused concept by John Eaves for the 1701-E would have made a GREAT 1701-F.
When I first saw the Ent-D I was shocked and a bit annoyed, but it soon grew on me and you cant deny that it's not only much more advanced, but also shares basic design elements with its ancestors. I'd like to see just such a radical departure again.
Well, I'm also in the minority that probably feels that the 1701-F should return to a smaller size, say an Excelsior-sized vessel... no logical reason to go big just because...
Man, I suck at drawing. I am trying to design ship based on the USS Pasteur but with a more traditional saucer section instead of the big globe. I figure that might be a good starting place for a possible Enterprise-F.
It probably doesn't help that all I have is a ballpoint pen.
It probably doesn't help that all I have is a ballpoint pen.
How about something like the one in this thread?
^
Ah... Atolm's old Chariot-Class ship... aye, she's a nice one.
Ah... Atolm's old Chariot-Class ship... aye, she's a nice one.
