Star Trek Phase 3 Project

[DubiousDragon]

Out of curiosity why no "aztec" texturing?

[SigersonLTD]

Great work!!! It truly doesn't matter that it looks like something you may have seen before, the fact is, you took the time to do it.

Furthermore, they covered the change in technology/characters/etc. with one line of dialogue by the young Spock in the first JJ Abrams Trek film.

My conclusion, is that you can't deal with it, @Actionguy1

[jnichols3]

The new movie Enterprise sucks. If they would have gone with the original design and maybe just added some extra detail, it would have been better. Seeing that the primary hull is actually considered to be the "ship". They could have the secondary hull partially destroyed in the next movie and refit it to the ST:TMP configuration. I know that movie was bad, but the Enterprise itself was pretty cool. The primary (saucer) is close to the ST:TMP saucer. It would work.

[DeviousTelevision]

I don't like the Wizard's Sleeve that hangs off the nacelles.

[johnhi00]

I can't stand slide shows.

[TazG2000]

It looked best at 1:50.

Oh and why did the name change from Achilles to Redemption?

[dugham94]

Well done, loved it!

[mearp69]

well done job here, and i enjoyed the choice of music as well

[EduardoTVideos]

Cool. You should add TNG-era or Ambassador-like warp nacelles.

[Actionguy1]

This vid would be great if it were'nt for that GOD awful, "over the top" JJ Abrams' movie music! Not to mention that hideous Abrams' aproved Enterprise design!

Yecchhhh!

[simpsonfan13]

@Actionguy1 let me guess. you would have preferred bulky controls on the bridge and a simplified version of the exterior right? in other words, make the ship look like it was made on a low budget, like the original one was. not to mention with 1960's futuristic design in mind?

[Actionguy1]

@simpsonfan13 I would have preferred ANYTHING over what this ASSRAPE that this IDIOT JJ Abrams did to Star Trek!

He turned it into "Enterprise 90210"!

[mearp69]

nice work indeed

[TheAugment]

Oh no, not this terrible big Warp engines again! *brrrr*

It' too much JJ crap.

[Battle5tarRJC]

@TheAugment Well those engines are designed to propell an object that size at many times the speed of light so it makes sense for them to be that big.

[Ambarenya13]

@Battle5tarRJC Actually, the engines only generate a field around the Enterprise. The "propulsion" is actually sub-light speed within the local domain, while from the exterior frame, the ship is superluminal. In essence, the engines aren't really propelling, but creating a slipstream through spacetime. In this case, the size of the ship's engines is likely more a result of a heat or radiation dissipation mechanism, rather than a result of Newtonian propulsion potential.

[Battle5tarRJC]

@Ambarenya13 Yeah okay mate. I'm not going to quote the tech manual from a fictional ship. My opinion is my own and I'm happy with the new design. However Gabe Kroener's design was better.

[TheAsatot]

@Ambarenya13 A little wrong, the slipstream drive generates the slipstream, it's a different (borg) technology. The warp drive generates a field that bends the space. Attracts in front of the ship and repulses behind it. The simpliest explanation is "the drive is not moving the ship, it's moving the space around it".

[Ambarenya13]

@TheAsatot You're getting confused by the fact that I used "slipstream" in the statement. What I described is exactly how warp drive works. The "slipstream" drive, which was not described in my original statement actually breaks through whatever the heck a "quantum barrier" is. Standard warp drive doesn't "attract" or "repel" but expands and contracts spacetime, creating a bubble pathway, as described before. The vessel essentially shortens the metric distance in front, reducing transit time.

[TheAsatot]

@Ambarenya13 sorry, that's my lack of english tech speech, i did mean "expands and contracts", just didn't know the wright words) But the slipstream is something like an aritificial wormhole, not a bubble wright?

[A7XRules4life]

I envy your talent, sire. I wish I could make stuff like this.

How did you do the hull paneling?

[Mercilless]

@A7XRules4life I modeled each panel. I made a circle and cut it to make it fit perfectly.

[RevanRA]

I like the new design of the Constitution-class to be honest. At first, I wasn't so sure, but I grew use to it. Some a-hole awhile back said I wasn't a 'true Trek fan' because I liked it. I call BS. Just because people like different things doesn't mean that they can't still be a fan. As for the JJPrise being a 'failure', I disagree, but I won't go into that argument because quite frankly, arguing about a vessel that only exists in Science Fiction is a little silly, in my personal opinion.

[SpockBorg5]

@RevanRA it not simply a matter of different people with different ideas reaspecting each other's differences. there also matter of vorta like abrams not producing consistent trek which has come to be the problem with this franchise. this problem made worse by trekkie posers who embolden these incompetent producers into thinking that this crap is what the real trekkies want to see. besides if you think that arguing about some silly sci-fi ship is not worth your time then you totally miss point

[RevanRA]

@SpockBorg5 I didn't say it was a silly ship and my god, man...that was a month ago. I totally miss the point, huh? So I should be going all anal about, "OMG, the nacelles are wrong! OMFG, everything's so unproportional!" I find the senseless arguing illogical. People like what they like and hate what they hate. Live with it. THAT'S the point I was trying to make. People should quit shunning others for liking stuff. I love TOS AS WELL as the new stuff. I'm a fan and no one will say otherwise.

[SpockBorg5]

@RevanRA it appears you totally missed my point, that hollywood types like abrams put out inconsistent crap like this which causes this franchise to suffer and that people like you are emboldening them to continue doing this with your it's only a movie attitude. movies and/or tv shows are just like any other product, they have to maintain some consistency. that's why st ent was highly criticized even though it was a entertaining, it went against stuff that had already been established in past.

[RevanRA]

@SpockBorg5 By all means, I like consistency...I was just pointing towards the fact to the people that get all pissy over tiny little things. I like when things are consistent, but I also like when things are meant to entertain. And all I meant was if you guys don't like the new stuff, keep with the old stuff, since complaining about the new stuff is pretty much a useless gesture. I like old and new alike. You guys like only all the older stuff. That's fine. Never meant to be aggressive here.

[SpockBorg5]

@RevanRA not just little tiny details that p o fans is big glaring errors when pions like abrams invoke "artistic license" and start making fundamental changes for example when amanda died she should not have died atleast not in way depicted. transport was already initiated, she technically already on ship in transport buffer. better off die in cavein.

agree films primary entertain, but if watch franchise for while can't just ignore big error like this. can give more examples movie errors

[katanaburner]

(Not being an ass or anything just stating my personal opinion)

To answer your question towards Revkor you have to be a Star Trek TOS fan to understand. The JJ's design is all wrong VS the original design. For one thing the JJ version is much bigger so making the refit for the movies is now void. The dish and the neck are too close to the center of the secondary hull. And the nacelles are too far back. Also there was never a torpedo bay in the neck until the movies. I can go on and on!

[SpockBorg5]

@katanaburner totally agree with you.

[SpockBorg5]

@katanaburner can go on myself

[dugham94]

@SpockBorg5 DUDE ITS SCI FI, HE DID A GREAT JOB, ESSPECIALY FOR A NON TREKKIE, BROUGHT MILLIONS INTOTHE FRANCHISE THAT IT WILL ULTIMATLEY BENIFIT FROM SO JUST SHSH AND BE GRATE FULL, WE MIGHT GET A SERIES OUT OF IT!!!

[Battle5tarRJC]

@dugham94 I completely agree. I have a friend who dispised The Wrath of Khan and then I showed him this movie and he loved it. Would they rather have another Nemesis?

[Battle5tarRJC]

@katanaburner I think you should ask yourself to not compare it to the original but to just think of the ship as a ship. If it wasn't the Enterprise would you like it?

[Battle5tarRJC]

@katanaburner Also I've noticed that the original Enterprise fired all weapons out of it's sensor dome. I like the original Enterprise don't get me wrong but I'm just pointing that out.

[katanaburner]

@Battle5tarRJC And you have made a good point!

[Gallardo501st]

and you can download this for 3ds max :D?

[Revkor]

No too much JJ in it.

[Mercilless]

@Revkor What is the problem with JJ Abrams, it stayed true to the design.

[StuartTheGamerNerd]

@Mercilless your kidding right??, the wings and necelles on his version are not very true to the original design in my eyes...and I only have to be a minor star trek original series and movie fan to know that for sure, look up gabe kronor's enterprise on google NOW THATS STAYING TRUE!!!

[StuartTheGamerNerd]

@Mercilless sorry the name is Gabe Koerner look it up and thats THE ENTERPRISE!

[nxmoparmatt84]

@Mercilless it does to the original 1701 as a updated scheme, but i suspect alot of the fans miss the refit and 1701-A look, as do i.

[TrekToons]

@Mercilless In basic shape only. Abrams should have stuck to the original TOS design and just added a little more detail to it. Instead, he just took the overall basic design and embellished it way too much. I agree with Revcor. IMHO Abram's design is a failure.

[rctw89]

@Revkor I kinda agree... It was stated as a project "to make and model my own starship based on star trek" but it looks a lot like it was heavily (and I mean very heavily) influenced by the J.J. Abrams version of the Enterprise. I was expecting something a little bit more original.

[zebadee277]

looks better that the jj cony

[AdamEtheredge]

Killer Blender work. Is that 249 or 2.5?

Anyhow, subbed friended.

[Mercilless]

@AdamEtheredge It is indeed 2.49, as much as I love the new features in 2.5, I pretty much hate everything else about it. I've been using blender since 2.25 so I'm so used to using the same interface for so many years, jumping to 2.5 has been a huge problem for me.

Its like when your right handed, something u always been and then someone comes along and says to write your name with your left hand and it comes out all Fudged up lol.

[AdamEtheredge]

@Mercilless Yeah, I totally understand how you feel. That is, in fact, exact reason I've decided to switch to 25. I mean, I'm impressed by the new features, and the fact that armatures can now be used in the game engine (essential, I think, for what I want to do.)

But by no means am I a Blender genius like you. I was worried that, had I stayed with 249 to keep learning it, I'd be so lost by 25 that I'd want to quit. So, I'm just pouring all my effort into 25, and hoping they finish it soon...

[MrThomasCWest]

Personally, I like the original and the refit. The original gave us the dream and the refit looked mor like a sub on the inside, which fits with the idea that starships are nothing more than submarines in space. The Enterprise A from STVI, for example, had the cramped corridors that a submarine would have. It also looked more realistic than Abram's monstrosity.

I do have to give him credit though. We all knew the ship was alcohol fuled.

[Mercilless]

Im still amazed that some try to compare the original or the refit to the 2009 ship. Everyone has their own preference and opinion which is fine but lets look at this in a common sense light, to say an 8 foot model from 1976 is more realistic then a CGI model from 2009 is crazy. CGI allows greater control with many effects to be done extremely more convincing.

[Mercilless]

Also why do people call it Abrams ship, ILM has done the ship since Wrath of Khan and continued to do so. Its there ship and still is and all they have done is improved as they always have. CGI coined the term photo-realistic for a reason, yeah the original model was real but it was as real as an 8 foot toy can get.

[spacecowboy5000]

I have to agree. Every incarnation of the Enterprise had it's own look, it's own unique charm. ILM has been modelling starships since before a lot of the new generation trekkers were born. Since the opening of ST11 I've been having "discussions" with other fans. Instead as seeing it as the desctruction of Trek I see it as a renewal. Wasn't that what "Wrath..." was about? But everyone loves to nitpick. You did a great job and I hope to see more.

[gstamo01]

@Mercilless I love the model, but I hate the ship. Not because of it's looks, but because of it's scale compared to the original ships. It's freaking HUGE. Which means not only did they go back in time to give a big FU to all the fans that made ST what it is today, but that they arrived in giant shipville. Where all things are five times bigger than they are suppose to be..

Great model though.

[luis6079]

@MrThomasCWest I see this a lot from people knocking the last Star Trek movie. And I am asking honestly, because in my opinion I don't see the problem, but what exactly was so bad about the design of the Enterprise in the new movie?

[STITZ12345]

@luis6079

Because how the proportions are all messed up on the ship, according to most people, including myself. The nacelles being the main point. If it was better proportioned, then people wouldn't complain as much. That being said, it's not a bad design, just needs a few adjustments.

[DigitalLonestarX4600]

holy fuck man not bad :D

hey dude pm me id love to use this for a trek webcast or something along those lines :D

[Actionguy1]

Modeling is very well done. I will not take that away from you. you did a fine job! But this looks too much like that peice of crap Enterprise from ST09.

I didn't care for the "hot rod" design or the movie!

Seems to me the simpler design from the original series was much more practical and far better than what JJ Abrams approved for the new film. The asthetics were all wrong! I can't even find myself calling the new film Star Trek.

[Mercilless]

Thanks for the compliment; Ive come to find that its impossible to make everyone happy, even more so trekkers or trekkies or just fans. I cant see the original 60s model being practical, especially now, in the time frame we are in with technology. It may have been practical in the 60s but we live in a time where laptops fit in envelopes, TVs that are as thin as 2x4 and smart phones that can do 90% of everything a desktop can do....

[Mercilless]

Looking at designs of cars, planes today, can you honestly believe a future star ship will look like the one from the 60s. I say some people just dont like change which is cool. With my ship, I added what I liked from all the ships I preferred. Its a mix of the Original Enterprise, the Enterprise C and E and even Voyager and of course Abrams, as well as my own unique touches lol. I love the new enterprise and the movie; it fits a possible future that can come from the present we live in now.

[madcapromanian]

Some of your ideas are really nice. I might render one in Plastic using an AMT kit in the future, if that's ok.

[Jetfreak74656]

hats off to you sir, that is one fine model :)

[miamimanni]

Have to say man, looks outfitted with some kick ass. Cya around. Blender ftw!

[Mercilless]

lol

[STJAC23]

AWESOME

[Mercilless]

Thanks glad you enjoyed it.