A Battlestar Called Galactica...

[Dawg]

Amazing, Don. Simply amazing.

Now - I'm looking at a poster I've got and it appears that the launch tubes may actually be on a level above the landing bay. Which would mean that, along the inside wall, perhaps at the front end, are elevators that "load" the viper into its launch tube.

And I doubt any kind of catapult system could use a curved launch path with any degree of efficiency. Some of the energy would have to be used to direct the viper along the curve, rather than just pushing it out at maximum thrust.

I am
Dawg

[peter noble]

Originally Posted by Dawg

And I doubt any kind of catapult system could use a curved launch path with any degree of efficiency. Some of the energy would have to be used to direct the viper along the curve, rather than just pushing it out at maximum thrust.

The Viper goes along and out of the tube under it's own power. There's is no catapult involved.

[gmd3d]

Originally Posted by Dawg

Amazing, Don. Simply amazing.

Now - I'm looking at a poster I've got and it appears that the launch tubes may actually be on a level above the landing bay. Which would mean that, along the inside wall, perhaps at the front end, are elevators that "load" the viper into its launch tube.

And I doubt any kind of catapult system could use a curved launch path with any degree of efficiency. Some of the energy would have to be used to direct the viper along the curve, rather than just pushing it out at maximum thrust.

I am
Dawg

I think Westy calculated 13 or so feet above the landing bay deck ....
so getting it right is near impossible with out make some artistic licence
somewhere along the way ..

[David Kerin]

Somewhere (long before GINO ever existed) I thought I heard or read that it was a catapult lauch system.

[peter noble]

Originally Posted by David Kerin

Somewhere (long before GINO ever existed) I thought I heard or read that it was a catapult lauch system.

I'm looking at my studio scale miniature (with part of launch tube railings and sled) now (and again this doesn't gel with the studio set) the Viper sits on the sled and when the launch order is given they press the turbo button and it propels the sled down the tube.

I don't even need to look at the show. That's how it happens.

[Titon]

Question is what the heck happens to that sled at the end?

[peter noble]

Originally Posted by Titon

Question is what the heck happens to that sled at the end?

Magnetic buffer.

[Titon]

Good answer!

Actually i was thinking that in the painting there are side openings. Each Viper could go into one of those openings and be elevated to the launch deck. Getting that to fit is still a work in progress.

[peter noble]

I'm thinking if you stick with the established matte painting look you're screwed.

Do you think you could fit an Eastern Alliance cruiser through the width of that opening?

[gmd3d]

Thats right . Peter has hit the nail in the head here .. nothing measures up ..

[Darrell Lawrence]

Ever think that as they raise the Viper to the launch tube that they also rotate it so it's at that launch tube angle?

[Titon]

Ever think that as they raise the Viper to the launch tube that they also rotate it so it's at that launch tube angle?

Most definately. Only problem is fitting the launch deck to the scenario as seen in the show. IF i go somewhat as to what the painting show's. It's a tight fit but again artistic license will be at work here.

[Titon]

Render of the day...

A top down perspective of the G as she set's today....

[gmd3d]

amazing work.. so soon you will be in nurnie hell ..

good luck

[Titon]

Already am in nurnine hell!

[gmd3d]

Go with the Gods or in this case the Lords of Kobol

[Titon]

A few questions for the masses.

Since the ship has progressed to this point i think in my own mind changes need to be made.

The details on the ship in some locations just do not make sense. Structuraly it will remain the same but take for instance the details along the sides of the landing bay perticuarly inside the trench areas running down the sides of the bays. It's a mess of model parts but in the show this would more than likely be areas where the pulsar cannon emplacements would be located. Does a person omit some of those details and go with building a functional ship or does a guy keep it the way she was?

Questions.

1. Gun emplacements instead of details.

2. Uniformity-meaning symetrical. What's on one side of the ship should be in all common sense on the other?

3. Landing bays themselves-artistic license? Build it how i think it would be layed out or ask for options from the masses as to what it should be like?

Just a few questions as i progress forward.

[mikala]

I think it all comes down to what you want to use it for in the end.
If it is to represent what was the original the variation is a no no. If on the other hand you want to use it for animations and have the camera running from long to close ups of strafing fire of the cannons ....well I think deviation is kind of a must.
It all will come down to what you need it for in the end.

[gmd3d]

Originally Posted by Titon

A few questions for the masses.

Since the ship has progressed to this point i think in my own mind changes need to be made.

The details on the ship in some locations just do not make sense. Structuraly it will remain the same but take for instance the details along the sides of the landing bay perticuarly inside the trench areas running down the sides of the bays. It's a mess of model parts but in the show this would more than likely be areas where the pulsar cannon emplacements would be located. Does a person omit some of those details and go with building a functional ship or does a guy keep it the way she was?

Questions.

1. Gun emplacements instead of details.

2. Uniformity-meaning symetrical. What's on one side of the ship should be in all common sense on the other?

3. Landing bays themselves-artistic license? Build it how i think it would be layed out or ask for options from the masses as to what it should be like?

Just a few questions as i progress forward.

my answer ...

1.Gun emplacements

2.What's on one side of the ship should be in all common sense on the other?

3. Landing bays. Build it how You think it would be layed out .. rather than the masses .. problem is we have all different ideas..and could end up causing conflict later for yourself and what you what to do later.

the launch tube are always going to be a massive problem for you if try to figure in the height difference.. the only think I like about the GINO battlestar is that the launch tube and hangers below the landing deck.

[peter noble]

Originally Posted by Titon

A few questions for the masses.

Since the ship has progressed to this point i think in my own mind changes need to be made.

The details on the ship in some locations just do not make sense. Structuraly it will remain the same but take for instance the details along the sides of the landing bay perticuarly inside the trench areas running down the sides of the bays. It's a mess of model parts but in the show this would more than likely be areas where the pulsar cannon emplacements would be located. Does a person omit some of those details and go with building a functional ship or does a guy keep it the way she was?

Questions.

1. Gun emplacements instead of details.

2. Uniformity-meaning symetrical. What's on one side of the ship should be in all common sense on the other?

3. Landing bays themselves-artistic license? Build it how i think it would be layed out or ask for options from the masses as to what it should be like?

Just a few questions as i progress forward.

Don,

You've got the advantage that the physical modellers never had, you've got a virtual Big G that can let you do unlimited add-ons while they were stuck with a model (albeit beautiful) that was only 76 inches long. So they had to make gun emplacements and landing bays at larger sizes because of the fixed scale of the miniature.

It seems that you're now 100% percent happy that the overall shape is correct hat you're now thinking about doing these things.

The hope must be that once you've finished it (in 2018) that it will be used in a professional production and that you will be compensated for its use.

In that case it's going to have to be the best that it can be (as if we had any doubts).

So, yes, you've got to have the gun emplacements with the two types of cannons.

Symmetry. Yes. Why make it hard on yourself.

Fathom out the landing bay until you feel that you've nailed it. You're going to have to pour over the landing bay scenes again and again methinks. Also, the bay must be compartmentalised to some extent. If a it wasn't the fire that takes hold in FIS would make the bay completely unusable for yahrens.

May I make a request for the observation dome?

[gmd3d]

Originally Posted by peter noble

Don,

You've got the advantage that the physical modellers never had, you've got a virtual Big G that can let you do unlimited add-ons while they were stuck with a model (albeit beautiful) that was only 76 inches long. So they had to make gun emplacements and landing bays at larger sizes because of the fixed scale of the miniature.

It seems that you're now 100% percent happy that the overall shape is correct hat you're now thinking about doing these things.

The hope must be that once you've finished it (in 2018) that it will be used in a professional production and that you will be compensated for its use.

In that case it's going to have to be the best that it can be (as if we had any doubts).

So, yes, you've got to have the gun emplacements with the two types of cannons.

Symmetry. Yes. Why make it hard on yourself.

Fathom out the landing bay until you feel that you've nailed it. You're going to have to pour over the landing bay scenes again and again methinks. Also, the bay must be compartmentalised to some extent. If a it wasn't the fire that takes hold in FIS would make the bay completely unusable for yahrens.

May I make a request for the observation dome?

Dido .. well said .. I second that ....

[Titon]

The hope must be that once you've finished it (in 2018)

Funny!

Very funny!



To the question of the ship being fleshed out correctly i feel i've accomplished that with certain small tweaks remaining. The center head trench area needs some tweaking but other than that the bays, arms, head, body and engine section are all built 1 to 1 with the original miniature. Bout as close as your going to get. Believe me i have plenty of revisions on my hard drive.

I'd like to keep her as true to the filming miniature as possible but again your right Peter. This gives us a slight advantage to add into her what they could of only hoped of doing.

[TheHobb]

It's looking pretty awesome, Don!


1. Gun emplacements instead of details.

I'd say work the gun emplacements in with the details. No reason why one would necessarily exclude the other.


2. Uniformity-meaning symetrical. What's on one side of the ship should be in all common sense on the other?

It doesn't need to be, but it would generally make sense on a symmetrical ship.


3. Landing bays themselves-artistic license? Build it how i think it would be layed out or ask for options from the masses as to what it should be like?

I'd recommend making what you can see from the exterior looking in the same as it is in the show, and use your artistic license for the rest.

p.s. long time no see! Of course that more applies to me than to you.

[Titon]

Holy crap!

Look what the cat dragged!

How goes the battle Todd?

[TheHobb]

Lol, yeah it's been a long time since the last time I visited. Too long in fact.

Things are going well overall, and have been busy as hell as usual. Got laid off from Sony but was immediately picked up by Digital Domain at the start of the year. Recently finished up work on Speed Racer and Mummy 3, but am sitting on my butt now until they figure out what to put me onto next. The break is nice, seven day work weeks are a drag.

I don't know if you know I've got a side business. I've been developing a tabletop starship combat game over the last few years (still not published though) and have been producing and selling a line of pewter starship miniatures for it. Earlier this year I decided to take those old Galactica-inspired designs and turn them into miniatures too.

Here's some photos of some I painted up:

Ranger, Defender and Guardian


Intruder and Invader

I also have two year old twins too, which of course means there isn't a time when I'm not busy even if I'm not on a show!

Anyway, I don't mean to hijack your thread. Your Galactica is looking fantastic so far!

[Titon]

Glad you found work right away my friend.

Those models look great! I especially like the Invader.

THanks for the remarks on the Galactica. Long way's to go yet but it's getting there.

[Reaper]

Those models rock!! very well done!! you offering them up? lol, I'd be interested!!!

Very nice!

[dilbertman]

Originally Posted by Taranis

my answer ...

1.Gun emplacements

2.What's on one side of the ship should be in all common sense on the other?

3. Landing bays. Build it how You think it would be layed out .. rather than the masses .. problem is we have all different ideas..and could end up causing conflict later for yourself and what you what to do later.

the launch tube are always going to be a massive problem for you if try to figure in the height difference.. the only think I like about the GINO battlestar is that the launch tube and hangers below the landing deck.

I also, second this. Tom was updating the Galactica in the new show so I think any changes you make could be part of that.

Jim

[Titon]

Well i pulled out my old (veryyyy old) modeled version of the pulsar deck. It needs overhauling of course before it would become a permanent fixture on the ship but here's a look at how it might look placed on the landing bay's. This is just one section but from watching the show it looks like the gun's were placed close the the launch tube exit's. Of course they could be placed virtually anywhere along the landing bays.

[gmd3d]

That works for me Titon ..