Star Trek Builders Unite 2 "Renderings on the Edge of Forever"

14445464850

Comments

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Posts: 376
    edited December 1969

    Also interesting is that it seems we might just yet take to the stars in our lifetime. Nasa claims they might be able to create a warp drive that does not require the mass of Jupiter. Laboratory tests are underway.

    http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/

  • MADMANMIKEMADMANMIKE Posts: 407
    edited December 1969

    Also interesting is that it seems we might just yet take to the stars in our lifetime. Nasa claims they might be able to create a warp drive that does not require the mass of Jupiter. Laboratory tests are underway.

    http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/

    Ha! Now lets remember that the military is usually 10 to 20 years ahead of the public in tech development and wonder what the air force has been up to with its warp ships since 1992...

  • TheCastellanTheCastellan Posts: 668
    edited December 1969

    Also interesting is that it seems we might just yet take to the stars in our lifetime. Nasa claims they might be able to create a warp drive that does not require the mass of Jupiter. Laboratory tests are underway.

    http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/

    Ha! Now lets remember that the military is usually 10 to 20 years ahead of the public in tech development and wonder what the air force has been up to with its warp ships since 1992...
    Sadly.

    Keep in mind that NASA is a military agency, even says so right in the charter.

  • PtropePtrope Posts: 594
    edited December 1969

    On another note ... ;)

    Still playing around with permutations on quarters arrangements, and also polishing the 'blanket' material; I discovered that the texture and bump map weren't cropped vertically as they should've been, so I'll be putting together a package of the updated material. I was also playing around with the proper fit last night; keep in mind that, as I said, I tend to make my UV maps the full size of the image, rather than using multiple maps on a single texture, which admittedly can make it easier to keep all of the results properly scaled. In this case, the mattress for the captain's quarters (larger than the mattress used for the 'dorm' version or Pike's quarters) has the top, bottom and sides separated, and the sides use a totally different aspect ratio. In addition, the pillow uses a different ratio than the mattress materials. After some fiddling, this is what I came up with.

    While I was at it, I also played around with making the left-side room the bedroom, and slid the two dorm bed bases together so they look like one captain-sized base, with nightstands built in on both sides. I like the idea of orienting the bed this way; the room is surprisingly spacious! ;)

    master002_sample.jpg
    1200 x 900 - 466K
    master001_sample.jpg
    1200 x 900 - 294K
  • shadowhawk1shadowhawk1 Posts: 1,981
    edited December 1969

    Also interesting is that it seems we might just yet take to the stars in our lifetime. Nasa claims they might be able to create a warp drive that does not require the mass of Jupiter. Laboratory tests are underway.

    http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/

    Ha! Now lets remember that the military is usually 10 to 20 years ahead of the public in tech development and wonder what the air force has been up to with its warp ships since 1992...


    Sadly.

    Keep in mind that NASA is a military agency, even says so right in the charter.

    (b) Aeronautical and Space Activities for Welfare and Security of United States.--Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President.

    NASA is a civilian organization and being such CANNOT run military operations or programs that falls under the Department of Defense (DOD) and it says so right in the charter. I am not sure where you are getting your information but NASA is civilian run, yes it uses military pilots and other personnel to fill it rosters but they answer to the VP of the US not the military when they are loaned to NASA.

  • MADMANMIKEMADMANMIKE Posts: 407
    edited December 1969

    Keep in mind that NASA is a military agency, even says so right in the charter.

    (b) Aeronautical and Space Activities for Welfare and Security of United States.--Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President.

    NASA is a civilian organization and being such CANNOT run military operations or programs that falls under the Department of Defense (DOD) and it says so right in the charter. I am not sure where you are getting your information but NASA is civilian run, yes it uses military pilots and other personnel to fill it rosters but they answer to the VP of the US not the military when they are loaned to NASA.

    Likewise the Air Force has it's own space program independent of NASA (actually advertised it in a recruiting push a few years ago - "NASA launches a rocket two to four times a year.. we put five rockets up this month.."), so again, the hypothetical still stands. Even still, if NASA were entirely a military organization, it is the public face thereof, and thus what it lets out is what has been deemed 'okay' for the public, i.e., what they've been playing with for the past 10 to 20 years...

    All hypothetical of course, as even with the documents that Aspie from England gleaned in his hack of the Pentagon a few years ago (showing a list of Air Force personnel who are assigned to ships and listed as 'off world'), as long as the government denies it, it's secret and may or may not be true..

    I didn't mean to derail the topic here, still loving the work you guys put into your love of Star Trek.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Posts: 376
    edited December 1969

    Well, regardless of motives I think it's very exiting to have sci-fi turn into sci-real!

    Now if only they can get the replicators sorted and captain Archer out of bed we're all good to go. I think about now is when the Vulcans are suppose to show up and fix our warp engines. :D

  • MADMANMIKEMADMANMIKE Posts: 407
    edited December 1969

    I think about now is when the Vulcans are suppose to show up and fix our warp engines. :D

    You mean hinder our exploration efforts while they make us spend 20+ years cleaning our house?

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    I think about now is when the Vulcans are suppose to show up and fix our warp engines. :D

    You mean hinder our exploration efforts while they make us spend 20+ years cleaning our house?

    with our luck it'd be the Klingons that showed up

  • PtropePtrope Posts: 594
    edited December 1969

    I think about now is when the Vulcans are suppose to show up and fix our warp engines. :D

    You mean hinder our exploration efforts while they make us spend 20+ years cleaning our house?

    Only if you believe Enterprise ;).

  • shadowhawk1shadowhawk1 Posts: 1,981
    edited December 1969

    Ptrope said:
    I think about now is when the Vulcans are suppose to show up and fix our warp engines. :D

    You mean hinder our exploration efforts while they make us spend 20+ years cleaning our house?

    Only if you believe Enterprise ;).

    Wait a second!! Are you telling me that Enterprise wasn't real?! WHATCHU TALKIN' BOUT WILLIS!!

  • wancowwancow Posts: 2,708
    edited December 1969

    Wait a second!! Are you telling me that Enterprise wasn't real?! WHATCHU TALKIN' BOUT WILLIS!!

    Don't worry Shadowhawk, they live in an alternate reality... it doesn't affect yours :P

  • TimbalesTimbales Posts: 1,738
    edited December 1969
  • GRFK DSGN UnlimitedGRFK DSGN Unlimited Posts: 921
    edited December 1969

    Interesting. Even has Kirk hitting on a yeoman...

    David

  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited January 2013

    Speaking of questions, here's one that I've been musing over for a while now. Star ships in general are sleek and aerodynamic as portrait in movies and television. My question is, why? There's no air in space and thus a Borg cube would be just as efficient as the Enterprise in traversing the galaxies. Now I know we all expect star ships to be sleek and sexy and I guess that's the real question. Why do we expect it to look like that? Is it because we can only imagine what we've already seen or is it just a male thing that we find curves pretty and squares not? ;)


    I don't know if your question was simply rhetorical or if you were seeking a response, but I read a Popular Mechanics article a couple of months back speculating what actual starships might look like.

    It's actually still online for those wishing to read it:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/deep/what-would-a-starship-actually-look-like-12869471
    (this is a long link so you may have to copy and paste the URL)

    In answer to the OP question, the article does address why starships are portrayed as they are by stating, "sci-fi leans toward sleek designs with lines borrowed from planes or cars, since those are the kinds of looks we’ve been conditioned to think of as "fast."" Without doing research on the topic, this does seem to have merit. Also, as you noted, curved spacecraft are more visually appealing than, say, flying bricks.

    In addition, the article has an interesting view regarding interstellar propulsion systems.


    Just to play "Devil's Advocate" here, the Enterprise- and I'm talking the original TOS one- isn't exactly aerodynamic in it's design. I don't know how many times, I've read articles that point out how really UN-aerodynamic she really is. If not for the techno-babble of the series, she would never have survived "Tomorrow is Yesterday" - that climb out of the atmosphere- even if it was the upper atmosphere- would have tore her apart.
    She's purely a "Space ship"- which is why Abrams'...project burns me. You can't build something like the Enterprise inside an atmosphere and expect to get her into orbit in one piece- because she's not aerodynamic. INfact, I think she- and maybe the Discovery from 2001, night be amoung the first Sci-fi ships that were intended for Spaceflight only.

    Edit: Forgot to mention: I found my missing folder!! YES!!!!! Nova Trek can now continue. Thanks to jmper. After two other programs and an internet tech tried, FTK found it buried in the External drives recyle bin.

    Post edited by mdbruffy on
  • ThalekThalek Posts: 314
    edited December 1969

    Also interesting is that it seems we might just yet take to the stars in our lifetime. Nasa claims they might be able to create a warp drive that does not require the mass of Jupiter. Laboratory tests are underway.

    http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/

    Ha! Now lets remember that the military is usually 10 to 20 years ahead of the public in tech development and wonder what the air force has been up to with its warp ships since 1992...


    Sadly.

    Keep in mind that NASA is a military agency, even says so right in the charter.

    Could you point that section out to me? It was my understanding that NASA was always a civilian organization. I did find a charter printed in 2010 that specifically states that military areas of interest will remain with the Department of Defense and that NASA is to deal with the civilian aspects of space research. http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html However, I am having trouble finding a copy of the original 1958 act that formed NASA.

  • ThalekThalek Posts: 314
    edited December 1969

    mdbruffy said:

    Edit: Forgot to mention: I found my missing folder!! YES!!!!! Nova Trek can now continue. Thanks to jmper. After two other programs and an internet tech tried, FTK found it buried in the External drives recyle bin.

    Congratulations! Whatever you did to put it there, don't do that again! [grin]

  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited December 1969

    Thalek said:
    mdbruffy said:

    Edit: Forgot to mention: I found my missing folder!! YES!!!!! Nova Trek can now continue. Thanks to jmper. After two other programs and an internet tech tried, FTK found it buried in the External drives recyle bin.

    Congratulations! Whatever you did to put it there, don't do that again! [grin]

    I still have no freakin' idea how in the world it happened. All I know is, I used the scene file, saved it in the same folder I 've been saving it in, went to dinner, came back, went to use the scene file- and the whole darn folder was gone! That was Sunday evening- and I spent the last 2 days trying to find it.

  • PtropePtrope Posts: 594
    edited December 1969

    Congrats, Madison!

    I wish my own recovery were so easy :(. Ah, c'est la vie! We now have multiple backups running on different drives for everything being created. At least I did find that my Elysian Council Chamber did survive as a Poser prop set! Whew!

  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited December 1969

    Ptrope said:
    Congrats, Madison!

    I wish my own recovery were so easy :(. Ah, c'est la vie! We now have multiple backups running on different drives for everything being created. At least I did find that my Elysian Council Chamber did survive as a Poser prop set! Whew!

    Well I immediately copied the folder to a memory stick which is now laying next to my modem - in easy reach if I need it again. :-)

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    mdbruffy said:
    Speaking of questions, here's one that I've been musing over for a while now. Star ships in general are sleek and aerodynamic as portrait in movies and television. My question is, why? There's no air in space and thus a Borg cube would be just as efficient as the Enterprise in traversing the galaxies. Now I know we all expect star ships to be sleek and sexy and I guess that's the real question. Why do we expect it to look like that? Is it because we can only imagine what we've already seen or is it just a male thing that we find curves pretty and squares not? ;)


    I don't know if your question was simply rhetorical or if you were seeking a response, but I read a Popular Mechanics article a couple of months back speculating what actual starships might look like.

    It's actually still online for those wishing to read it:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/deep/what-would-a-starship-actually-look-like-12869471
    (this is a long link so you may have to copy and paste the URL)

    In answer to the OP question, the article does address why starships are portrayed as they are by stating, "sci-fi leans toward sleek designs with lines borrowed from planes or cars, since those are the kinds of looks we’ve been conditioned to think of as "fast."" Without doing research on the topic, this does seem to have merit. Also, as you noted, curved spacecraft are more visually appealing than, say, flying bricks.

    In addition, the article has an interesting view regarding interstellar propulsion systems.


    Just to play "Devil's Advocate" here, the Enterprise- and I'm talking the original TOS one- isn't exactly aerodynamic in it's design. I don't know how many times, I've read articles that point out how really UN-aerodynamic she really is. If not for the techno-babble of the series, she would never have survived "Tomorrow is Yesterday" - that climb out of the atmosphere- even if it was the upper atmosphere- would have tore her apart.
    She's purely a "Space ship"- which is why Abrams'...project burns me. You can't build something like the Enterprise inside an atmosphere and expect to get her into orbit in one piece- because she's not aerodynamic. INfact, I think she- and maybe the Discovery from 2001, night be amoung the first Sci-fi ships that were intended for Spaceflight only.

    Edit: Forgot to mention: I found my missing folder!! YES!!!!! Nova Trek can now continue. Thanks to jmper. After two other programs and an internet tech tried, FTK found it buried in the External drives recyle bin.

    Star Trek shuttle craft aren't exactly aerodynamic either..

    also I don't recall if TOS had the structural integrity fields of NextGen or not.

  • jmperjmper Posts: 247
    edited December 1969

    Good job Mdbruffy, glad you found your missing file!

  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited January 2013

    Rareth said:
    mdbruffy said:
    Speaking of questions, here's one that I've been musing over for a while now. Star ships in general are sleek and aerodynamic as portrait in movies and television. My question is, why? There's no air in space and thus a Borg cube would be just as efficient as the Enterprise in traversing the galaxies. Now I know we all expect star ships to be sleek and sexy and I guess that's the real question. Why do we expect it to look like that? Is it because we can only imagine what we've already seen or is it just a male thing that we find curves pretty and squares not? ;)


    I don't know if your question was simply rhetorical or if you were seeking a response, but I read a Popular Mechanics article a couple of months back speculating what actual starships might look like.

    It's actually still online for those wishing to read it:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/deep/what-would-a-starship-actually-look-like-12869471
    (this is a long link so you may have to copy and paste the URL)

    In answer to the OP question, the article does address why starships are portrayed as they are by stating, "sci-fi leans toward sleek designs with lines borrowed from planes or cars, since those are the kinds of looks we’ve been conditioned to think of as "fast."" Without doing research on the topic, this does seem to have merit. Also, as you noted, curved spacecraft are more visually appealing than, say, flying bricks.

    In addition, the article has an interesting view regarding interstellar propulsion systems.


    Just to play "Devil's Advocate" here, the Enterprise- and I'm talking the original TOS one- isn't exactly aerodynamic in it's design. I don't know how many times, I've read articles that point out how really UN-aerodynamic she really is. If not for the techno-babble of the series, she would never have survived "Tomorrow is Yesterday" - that climb out of the atmosphere- even if it was the upper atmosphere- would have tore her apart.
    She's purely a "Space ship"- which is why Abrams'...project burns me. You can't build something like the Enterprise inside an atmosphere and expect to get her into orbit in one piece- because she's not aerodynamic. INfact, I think she- and maybe the Discovery from 2001, night be amoung the first Sci-fi ships that were intended for Spaceflight only.

    Edit: Forgot to mention: I found my missing folder!! YES!!!!! Nova Trek can now continue. Thanks to jmper. After two other programs and an internet tech tried, FTK found it buried in the External drives recyle bin.

    Star Trek shuttle craft aren't exactly aerodynamic either..

    also I don't recall if TOS had the structural integrity fields of NextGen or not.

    The Original series was never big on the tech side of things- remember we're talking mid to late 60's. Viewers weren't as tech savy as they are today. What kept Enterprise from collpasing under the stress of warp and every day orbits was never explained on screen. Since she was bigger and more spread out than anything before her, one has to assume the SIF- even if it wasn't as advanced as the one in NG- had to exist- even if it was never mentioned.

    Post edited by mdbruffy on
  • PtropePtrope Posts: 594
    edited December 1969

    mdbruffy said:
    Thalek said:
    mdbruffy said:

    Edit: Forgot to mention: I found my missing folder!! YES!!!!! Nova Trek can now continue. Thanks to jmper. After two other programs and an internet tech tried, FTK found it buried in the External drives recyle bin.

    Congratulations! Whatever you did to put it there, don't do that again! [grin]

    I still have no freakin' idea how in the world it happened. All I know is, I used the scene file, saved it in the same folder I 've been saving it in, went to dinner, came back, went to use the scene file- and the whole darn folder was gone! That was Sunday evening- and I spent the last 2 days trying to find it.

    Do you have a cat? May sound silly, but if the folder was selected in Explorer, a cat could easily walk across the keyboard, hitting the "Delete" and "Enter" keys in succession ;).

  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited December 1969

    jmper said:
    Good job Mdbruffy, glad you found your missing file!

    And thank you for the program that did it!

  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited December 1969

    Ptrope said:
    mdbruffy said:
    Thalek said:
    mdbruffy said:

    Edit: Forgot to mention: I found my missing folder!! YES!!!!! Nova Trek can now continue. Thanks to jmper. After two other programs and an internet tech tried, FTK found it buried in the External drives recyle bin.

    Congratulations! Whatever you did to put it there, don't do that again! [grin]

    I still have no freakin' idea how in the world it happened. All I know is, I used the scene file, saved it in the same folder I 've been saving it in, went to dinner, came back, went to use the scene file- and the whole darn folder was gone! That was Sunday evening- and I spent the last 2 days trying to find it.

    Do you have a cat? May sound silly, but if the folder was selected in Explorer, a cat could easily walk across the keyboard, hitting the "Delete" and "Enter" keys in succession ;).


    In fact, I do have a cat. But my key board is on a sliding shelf just under the desk top. There's no way Shelly can step on it.

    Shelly-WEB.jpg
    900 x 675 - 175K
  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited January 2013

    Celebrated too soon. The folder's there with items in it that look like the files. But Poser says the scene files are not proper poser files and won't open them- UGGGGG!!!!

    I have pieces in my runtime. I hope the objs and the texture maps still work....

    Post edited by mdbruffy on
  • jmperjmper Posts: 247
    edited December 1969

    mdbruffy said:
    Celebrated too soon. The folder's there with items in it that look like the files. But Poser says the scene files are not proper poser files and won't open them- UGGGGG!!!!

    I have pieces in my runtime. I hope the objs and the texture maps still work....

    Well, once a file is deleted, it is flagged to be written over. Depending on how often the drive was plugged in and length of time from accidental deletion then another file may have occupied a cluster thus causing corruption in the original file you tried to recover.
    :(

  • mdbruffymdbruffy Posts: 2,345
    edited December 1969

    jmper said:
    mdbruffy said:
    Celebrated too soon. The folder's there with items in it that look like the files. But Poser says the scene files are not proper poser files and won't open them- UGGGGG!!!!

    I have pieces in my runtime. I hope the objs and the texture maps still work....

    Well, once a file is deleted, it is flagged to be written over. Depending on how often the drive was plugged in and length of time from accidental deletion then another file may have occupied a cluster thus causing corruption in the original file you tried to recover.
    :(

    So far, the texture maps seem to be working- haven't tried the obj files yet. This is what I have to rebuild:

    Dock-test--Tri-view-WEB.jpg
    936 x 1975 - 193K
  • PtropePtrope Posts: 594
    edited December 1969

    Sounds like the complement to my situation - the files were there, but because Windows had lost the index to them, it couldn't properly find them when I tried to open them - it just threw gibberish names on them that it couldn't read. That's the frustrating part - couldn't even rename them because the characters used aren't legal Windows characters for filenames.

    If yours were in the Recycle Bin, though, you should be able to read them - they shouldn't be overwritten until they're actually truly deleted. Did you properly recover them from the RB, or just drag them out of it? That might've caused a problem.

    I feel your pain! :(

This discussion has been closed.