atolm
Commander
Posts: 857
|
Post by atolm on Apr 19, 2017 14:49:10 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by rarcher on Apr 19, 2017 17:42:52 GMT -7
Nice! Only critic I'd say is making the saucer smaller from the top down view to better match the original source which could still get a face lift like you did here!
|
|
|
|
Post by pericles on Apr 20, 2017 13:44:56 GMT -7
I did not care for the original Decker as it was just too skinny. It didn't look like it could support its own weight. Now it looks like a viable design.
|
|
atolm
Commander
Posts: 857
|
Post by atolm on Apr 20, 2017 14:52:36 GMT -7
Nice! Only critic I'd say is making the saucer smaller from the top down view to better match the original source which could still get a face lift like you did here! Thanks! I opted the elliptical saucer because this ship was supposed to be a contemporary of the Galaxy, and all their sister ships, that all have elliptical saucers, so it made sense. Going circular would have been easier, but I felt it was the wrong way to go. I did not care for the original Decker as it was just too skinny. It didn't look like it could support its own weight. Now it looks like a viable design. Thanks mate, I just tried to give it a more plausible identity. |
|
|
|
Post by rarcher on Apr 20, 2017 18:03:14 GMT -7
Nice! Only critic I'd say is making the saucer smaller from the top down view to better match the original source which could still get a face lift like you did here! Thanks! I opted the elliptical saucer because this ship was supposed to be a contemporary of the Galaxy, and all their sister ships, that all have elliptical saucers, so it made sense. Going circular would have been easier, but I felt it was the wrong way to go. I did not care for the original Decker as it was just too skinny. It didn't look like it could support its own weight. Now it looks like a viable design. Thanks mate, I just tried to give it a more plausible identity. Fair point! I guess I was saying if you were to go by the original design. I guess its hard to see the scale of size based o the pic. |
|
|
|
Post by pericles on Apr 21, 2017 8:36:45 GMT -7
Thanks mate, I just tried to give it a more plausible identity. Most people tend to disavow any knowledge of the crappy designs from the TNG First Year Sourcebook. At least with your work, there is hope someone might use them instead of laughing at them. |
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Apr 21, 2017 13:50:03 GMT -7
Still laughing. You can't polish a turd.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Apr 21, 2017 14:01:02 GMT -7
looks good to me, with your permission I want to scale this down to a game counter version for play.
|
|
atolm
Commander
Posts: 857
|
Post by atolm on Apr 21, 2017 14:40:44 GMT -7
Thanks! I opted the elliptical saucer because this ship was supposed to be a contemporary of the Galaxy, and all their sister ships, that all have elliptical saucers, so it made sense. Going circular would have been easier, but I felt it was the wrong way to go. Thanks mate, I just tried to give it a more plausible identity. Fair point! I guess I was saying if you were to go by the original design. I guess its hard to see the scale of size based o the pic. Well I always felt this design was Excelsior length at best. Thanks mate, I just tried to give it a more plausible identity. Most people tend to disavow any knowledge of the crappy designs from the TNG First Year Sourcebook. At least with your work, there is hope someone might use them instead of laughing at them. LOL, glad I could help Still laughing. You can't polish a turd. LOL, no I guess you cannot. looks good to me, with your permission I want to scale this down to a game counter version for play. Sure by all means |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Apr 21, 2017 15:49:26 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by rarcher on Apr 21, 2017 16:41:34 GMT -7
Fair point! I guess I was saying if you were to go by the original design. I guess its hard to see the scale of size based o the pic. Well I always felt this design was Excelsior length at best. See there's where I have it hard to picture, original excelsior was a class 12-14 refit is class 14, decker in all three forms is a class 10 going by the numbers for height/width/length the decker is quite a bit smaller in scale. I'm not bashing your pic! dont get me wrong I LOVE it to death! I just think the scale is probably out of sorts with the excelsior |
|
atolm
Commander
Posts: 857
|
Post by atolm on Apr 21, 2017 18:28:34 GMT -7
Well I always felt this design was Excelsior length at best. See there's where I have it hard to picture, original excelsior was a class 12-14 refit is class 14, decker in all three forms is a class 10 going by the numbers for height/width/length the decker is quite a bit smaller in scale. I'm not bashing your pic! dont get me wrong I LOVE it to death! I just think the scale is probably out of sorts with the excelsior I get where you are coming from and I know you're not knocking the design...lol...But when I design a ship, I do not use FASA stats for a guide, I use what I envision the ship to be for it's era: TNG Destroyer. |
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Apr 21, 2017 19:15:28 GMT -7
I knew someon would bring that up. Fine. You can't polish a Decker Class Destroyer. |
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Apr 21, 2017 19:16:48 GMT -7
To be clear Atolm, it looks FAR better than the Decker from the TNG Officers Manual, just still not good IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Apr 21, 2017 22:03:40 GMT -7
I knew someon would bring that up. Fine. You can't polish a Decker Class Destroyer. Correct - and that clarifies that a Decker Class Destroyer is worse than a turd... |
|
atolm
Commander
Posts: 857
|
Post by atolm on Apr 22, 2017 5:23:34 GMT -7
To be clear Atolm, it looks FAR better than the Decker from the TNG Officers Manual, just still not good IMO. lol...I know, but If I modified the ship too much, it would not be the Decker, it would be another ship entirely. I had to fight this tendency while undertaking this project. I did however come up with some interesting ideas for a possible sub-class or "refit" for the design. As for liking my interpretation, that is up to the viewer, mate. I have no control over that, nor would I want to...lol. All I know is that I attempted something that seemingly everyone just gave up on.  I knew someon would bring that up. Fine. You can't polish a Decker Class Destroyer. Correct - and that clarifies that a Decker Class Destroyer is worse than a turd... LOL |
|
|
|
Post by kaisernathan1701 on Apr 24, 2017 23:06:32 GMT -7
Lovely remake of the Decker  |
|
|
|
Post by jeffwright on May 13, 2017 15:04:32 GMT -7
Keep up the good work. This is your best yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on May 13, 2017 19:20:21 GMT -7
This design looks great to me like I said before. But what gets me more about the original is that awkward saddle behind the saucer section. It just looks ungainly, almost sea-horse like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian not logged in on May 16, 2017 19:17:39 GMT -7
The neck should be just a bit taller to make sure the impulse exhaust doesn't melt the top of the secondary hull.
I kind'a like this, regardless. Are you going to do the front view and complete the set?
|
|
|
|
Post by IanNotLoggedIn on Aug 5, 2017 7:41:42 GMT -7
Dude! We need the bow view!!! |
|
|
|
Post by jeffwright on Aug 14, 2017 13:08:57 GMT -7
Orthos
|
|
