UCS Super Star Destroyer 10221: A build and review

[mortesv]

Yeah well, we really need the width

But Thanks! ;)

The width was the "joker" in the entire discussion in the first place; because while the angles (top and bottom both! ) are very shallow, the profile shots however clearly indicates the model's "height" - this height is achieved because of the larger (than I) expected width of the model.

Thus, even though I can try to mimic the the angle (as I've have already tried with the bottom), I'll never get the right profile without applying that angle to a broader frame.

We need a shot at the model straight from the top!

Edited January 30, 2012 by mortesv

[Aeroeza]

Guy's!

If you're happy with Martyn Griffiths' work (Saxton stated he is a sci-fi modeller who was "undertaking a painstaking blueprinting project using all manner of photogrammetric and other techniques to determine the ship's proportions accurately." I could whip up a 3D model for you which would give you all the angles of your dreams in addition to orthographic top, side and front renders...

[Fallenangel]

Such a render would go a long way in resolving this dispute. Be my guest!

[mortesv]

Such a render would go a long way in resolving this dispute. Be my guest!

Always so dramatic The is no dispute (at least not any longer ) Just a quest for facts!

@Aeroeza - such a render would be beautiful! However I am a bit skeptical of the drawing (as always ). In the drawing the middle bottom prong seem to go far below the bottom engines. However if you look at the picture of the bottom of the model (in my post above) and draw a line from one bottom engine to the other you can see that the middle prong just barely goes below the engines. And yes, the middle prong and the engines are (almost) aligned in the Z-axis, so such a line would be indicative of "prong" depth vs. engine depth

Hope I have not begun another long discussion - honest

[Aeroeza]

... In the drawing the middle bottom prong seem to go far below the bottom engines. However if you look at the picture of the bottom of the model (in my post above) and draw a line from one bottom engine to the other you can see that the middle prong just barely goes below the engines. And yes, the middle prong and the engines are (almost) aligned in the Z-axis, so such a line would be indicative of "prong" depth vs. engine depth

Hope I have not begun another long discussion - honest

I think I've worked out your concern...

The forward most engine hasn't been drawn at all so the 'prong' outlining the engine housing would look too low in its absence...

Edited January 31, 2012 by Aeroeza

[mortesv]

I think I've worked out your concern...

The forward most engine hasn't been drawn at all so the 'prong' outlining the engine housing would look too low in its absence...

Well, then I'll dispute that the forward engines are invisible! (sorry)

Can't wait to see your render (if you have the time for it that is )

If you are detailing it (which I beg you not to - it'll take weeks) - look here

It would be cool to mimic those shots with your render

If there is anything I can do to help in this undertaking please let me know - although I'd be pressed to come up with anything you couldn't do by yourself, but I'll pay for render timer if you would make an animation of the SSD/DSII crash

[mortesv]

I think I've worked out your concern...

The forward most engine hasn't been drawn at all so the 'prong' outlining the engine housing would look too low in its absence...

Well, then I'll dispute that the forward engines are invisible! (sorry)

Can't wait to see your render (if you have the time for it that is )

If you are detailing it (which I beg you not to - it'll take weeks) - look here

It would be cool to mimic those shots with your render

If there is anything I can do to help in this undertaking please let me know - although I'd be pressed to come up with anything you couldn't do by yourself, but I'll pay for render timer if you would make an animation of the SSD/DSII crash

[Mr Man]

My head asplode .

Just following this discussion is absolutely fantastic, you guys really take this seriously, do any of you work for Kuat Drive Yards?

[mortesv]

My head asplode .

Just following this discussion is absolutely fantastic, you guys really take this seriously, do any of you work for Kuat Drive Yards?

Kuat what?? ... Just kidding!

Well I used to work for them - until I got fired... They found out I had bought the 10221, and brought me in for "questioning". I shoved them my modifications to the model and they seemed pleased.. until... One of the executives lifted the fake bridge section... Then he exploded saying that "if you havn't removed that frikkin bridge yet, then why haven't you at least added a Boba Fett minifig?!". I tried to explain I hadn't come around to it yet, but it was too late - I got sacked...

Hope that answers your question

[Aeroeza]

Well, then I'll dispute that the forward engines are invisible! (sorry)

Can't wait to see your render (if you have the time for it that is )

If you are detailing it (which I beg you not to - it'll take weeks) - look here

It would be cool to mimic those shots with your render

If there is anything I can do to help in this undertaking please let me know - although I'd be pressed to come up with anything you couldn't do by yourself, but I'll pay for render timer if you would make an animation of the SSD/DSII crash

:laugh: No way is this going to be detailed!!! I don't have three months spare to bring it to any level of awesomeness!

For those who don't know how much working in 3D is like watching paint dry or grass grow consider this...

The 'BSG Pegasus' for the re-envisaged 'Battlestar Galactica' series was built by one guy in Lightwave over five weeks (presumably very long days) using thorough concept art as a guide and crafted using 1 million polygons (they don't build themselves). Someone else textured it. That's an industry build, so an incredibly efficient model. Hobbyists at Sci Fi meshes sometimes spend many, many more months (if not the odd year) doing crazy, cool stuff you'd never, ever do in a VFX company (you'd get fired as a time waster)!!! I spent seven weeks on a B5 Thunderbolt Starfury for the hell of it a couple of years ago (down to the nuts 'n' bolts) but I'm forgetting to mention the research and design time which went into conceptualizing the scramjets, variable thrust mechanisms, landing gear etc. (..and rigging most of that for animation). NEVER AGAIN well maybe never again! I got that right out of my system...until the next time...

This tiny project is for the 10221 crowd who want a little help with the research into MODing it! I'll probably just build the hull as there's buckley's info on the cityscape from above. I'll assume 17.6km is the length and from there we'll be able to know height, width etc (given we have the command tower drafted for us). I'll render out bug ugly front, top & side images for your protractor!

Of course the success of this is dependent on Mr. Griffiths' frontal image. Initial observations are promising despite running into an unforeseen issue with the reference images... i.e. the middle third of the SSD was missing! His rear image lined up about 98% accurately with Russell's image- except Russell's command tower is too large compared to the actual model. (Again this bodes well for Grif)!. I lined those up and then threw in Grif's other image just to check his overlaid nicely with Russell's (and my own vectors thrown in for good measure). I recken it's all good within 2-3 pixels of error. What's that when scaled to 17.6k???

Here's what I'm working with after much fiddling...

That's it for now, it's bedtime 'Downunder'!

My head asplode .

Just following this discussion is absolutely fantastic, you guys really take this seriously, do any of you work for Kuat Drive Yards?

Nahh I'm a bricklayer... not a Doctor..... or engineer...

[mortesv]

Looks promising Aeroeza

The front view looks a bit fatter than the flim shot, but I guess that is due to the drawing beign rendered without perspective

I was indeed kidding suggesting making the model detailed

Lastly, I really like your style - making a long serious post in a Star Wars forum, and then finishing off with a Star Trek reference - very brave

- BTW, I'm a trekkie too!