Galactica length question... - Page 4

BST · February 12th, 2011, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taranis

to any Mod or Admin passing, any chance of having this thread Sticky-ed.

I am planning some more scale images sometime soon.

Ask and ye shall receive.

(Thread stuck).

gmd3d · February 13th, 2011, 02:26 AM

I thank thee for thy labours ..

BST · February 13th, 2011, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taranis

I thank thee for thy labours ..

Thou art most welcome.

Darrell Lawrence · February 13th, 2011, 12:05 PM

If you want an accurate (other people's words, not mine!) Viper, I can loan you mine.

Also, I have my DeSanto Viper (needs a little re-work on the engine cowl) and my Cobra, among other ships.

gmd3d · February 13th, 2011, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrior

If you want an accurate (other people's words, not mine!) Viper, I can loan you mine.

Also, I have my DeSanto Viper (needs a little re-work on the engine cowl) and my Cobra, among other ships.

absolutely

. I would love to see those models.

gmd3d · February 13th, 2011, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter noble

Well, the miniature is 3 ft wide, so about half the size of the Galactica.

you know I only just got this..... I

I was so engrossed in the scaling question I let it pass..

Har har har !!

Punisher454 · February 14th, 2011, 03:34 PM

Been gone a week, lots going on here. Awesome!
For my own 3D Galactica related projects I have settled on 6080 feet (approximately).

I believe that to get anywhere with figuring out a consistent scale you have to decide which screenshots to accept as correct and which ones to accept as being in error.

My bad list,
I think all EA destroyer shots should be considered to be in error.
The viper landing shots are possibly the worst.
The shuttlecraft hatch/aft exterior set prop is a joke.
Launchtube exit's are too big on the studio miniature.

Good list,
Shuttle to landingbay entrance proportions as seen from inside and outside.
Shuttle interior set to shuttle model looks good (and works well in 3D).
Cylon Raider cockpit and model match up okay and the exterior shot with the ladder is acceptable.
Full size viper prop was really good, a slight discrepancy with the miniature, but I'd model based on the full size prop rather than the miniature.

My main complaint with the EA Destroyer scale is the very narrow connection between the cockpit area and the "neck" , its just too small. Fix that problem with the physical model and you could easily reconcile the interior shots with the model, and possibly scale it down in size enough to be less of a problem in the landing bay.

A couple of things that effect the size of the landing bay entrance is the 3d modelers interpretation of the 2D drawings as well as the 2D artists interpretation of the studio model. It seems that people see the "head" (or bow) section of the Galactica as either being short or long. BTW, I think Maudib has the proportions right on his model.

I would like to see a "standard' scale adopted that would make it easy for artists to share assets and have them work together easily. This would not be a "rule" or anything , people can model and draw as they wish. But to make interchangeability a snap we could have something like a "G-6080" standard, and possibly others like a "G-2M" standard. Obviously we scale models up and down when importing/exporting and such, but on many models there are features that need to be a certain size in order to match other models in a scene. Some basic standards could make that a bit easier.

gmd3d · February 14th, 2011, 03:44 PM

all good points ..

I am planning to knock out an EA destroyer for a technical manual using 137th Gebirg work.

but I want to create the basic shape...

then we will see. but I think its to big as its depicted to fit through the landing bay entrance

gmd3d · February 14th, 2011, 03:45 PM

I agree for the scale point you made.

the Viper should be our starting point for small vessels ...

what do you think

Punisher454 · February 14th, 2011, 04:54 PM

Viper works fine, do you prefer the life size prop or the filming miniature? they seem to be of slightly different proportions.

gmd3d · February 15th, 2011, 01:26 AM

life size prop perhaps. I will be preparing some samples in a few days.

among other things

gmd3d · February 15th, 2011, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter noble

Anybody trying to work out the scale from screen grabs from the show is on a hiding to nothing.

The scales of the landing bay changes to whatever ship is in it and when you consider that the launch rails on the landing bay aren't angled (like the exit ports on the miniature) but straight, then it's all up for err... grabs.

Just to show this confirming Peters point, here is an image of the Viper and the entrance to the Bay.

I think for this we need to make compromises for scales.

that what the Technical manual is about. so please help to make it work by contributing your thoughts and ideas and if you can. your time.

peter noble · February 15th, 2011, 06:26 AM

It might be best to start from the top down.

Maybe by identifying what the areas of the bridge do?

https://reocities.com/televisioncity/...36/bridge.html

This is the sort of thing that Jim Stevenson's skills would lend themselves to IMO.

gmd3d · February 15th, 2011, 06:37 AM

Yes this is helpful . I just at this moment located the blueprints ......

great stuff

Punisher454 · February 15th, 2011, 08:56 AM

I think I have copies of most of the blueprints with good resolution. I'll try to find them all and send them.

gmd3d · February 15th, 2011, 08:59 AM

Great.... Oh and I found your Bridge model you sent me.

or I think its yours anyway..

maudib · February 15th, 2011, 10:55 AM

Taranis, when you say "tech manual", are you referring to BSG things as they are in the TV show, or are you going to "re-imagine" some aspects in order to make all the pieces all fit together sensibly?

gmd3d · February 15th, 2011, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maudib

Taranis, when you say "tech manual", are you referring to BSG things as they are in the TV show, or are you going to "re-imagine" some aspects in order to make all the pieces all fit together sensibly?

"re-imagine" some aspects in order to make all the pieces all fit together sensibly"

that cover it really.

I don´t see the point of rehashing information that is wrong.
its my hope that this will fix the things that are just out of place as much as possible and yet try the hardest to keep within the feel of the show.

its like for years the Galactica has be thought of as a ship between 2000 ft or 4000 ft and I find that to be wrong. it has to be bigger.

the 2 miles is I think also too big for what we see on the screen.

so I think 6080 ft is the scale we should as a fan base make Canon if you wish to think that way.

April 20th, 2011, 03:26 AM

I only just found this thread, just had a read of all 4 pages,
as everbody has already mentioned 6,080 minimum,
I cant argue against that, ages ago i wrote up 6 pages of ideas and arguments on the
size's etc and back then came up with "at least 5,780 feet" so yes 6080 works.
good work all

gmd3d · April 20th, 2011, 04:01 AM

thanks ..... we´re still working on it ......

HDE · June 24th, 2011, 03:42 PM

Hi all,

I've tried a new way to determine the size of Galactica. Instead of comparing the sizes of images, one can estimate the length of launch tubes from acceleration expected and time accelerating in the tube using simple lenght = (acceleration * time ^ 2) / 2 formula.

In most launches it appears that Viper needs just under 3 seconds to exit the tube. Well, this time is sometimes a bit longer (up to 5 seconds), but this are exceptions and can be due to multiple filmilngs or deliberate slower acceleration. Anyway, I'll use 2.7 seconds as some sort of minimal launch time.

Now that the time is here, let's figure out the acceleration. First of all, this launches resemble an airplane taking off an aircraft carrier by catapulting. While this is necessary in atmospheric flight, where a craft needs some minimum speed to have enough lift to fly, there must be some other reason in space. I guess that this gives Vipers better chance of survival when launched during the fight, because slower targets are easier to hit. That means, it can be expected that the acceleration is high or close to the maximum that the craft allows, which is probably somewhere between 50m/s2 and 120m/s2. Most of viper pilots heads are pressed back during launch, but sometimes pilots (Boomer) manage to move the head forward during launch, which is not possible at accelerations well above 50m/s2. That means, that 50m/s2 (5g) might be a good guess for Viper launch acceleration. I frankly doubt it sensible for acceleration to be lower than that.

This time and acceleration give 182meter (600ft) long launch tubes.

From this size it is possible to calculate the minimum width of flight operation decks. We see Vipers exit Galactica at about 60° angle, which allows tubes to be longer at the same deck width. Simple trigonometry shows that at least 158 meters (520ft) of launch deck is used by the tubes. This size makes it unlikely for the tubes to be placed on the side of landing bay. (Such configuration would call for at least 400m wide launching decks and 5km long Galactica at least.) It is much more likely, that the tubes start at the side of the deck that is closer to the main body - Viper than accelerates above the landing bay and crosses to the outer side. If this is the case, there must be some additional space behind the launch tube start (we can even see some sort of garage door behind the Vipers), where the Vipers are brought to their launch positions. This needs at least another 15 to 20m including the armored outer wall.

If I sum these numbers it means that flight operation areas are at least 175 meters (575ft) wide which gives at least 2050 meter (6750 ft) long Galactica.

Apolloisall · June 24th, 2011, 05:53 PM

Sound good to me!!!

And welcome aboa

rd!!!

(Actually given the size of the underpinning co-axial rod casing (which everyone knows is exactly 1/2 meter), just above the port pin locking joint behind the main thrusters, I calculated 5987 ft 6.5 in myself- but that's just me.

)

(Did anyone buy what I said for like, even a micron...?)

HDE · June 24th, 2011, 07:58 PM

It is kind of surprising, when it's obvious that filming was often done with no regard to real dimensions (Vipers landing, etc), how many different measurements give pretty similar results, around 2000m (6000ft).

Apolloisall · June 24th, 2011, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDE

It is kind of surprising, when it's obvious that filming was often done with no regard to real dimensions (Vipers landing, etc), how many different measurements give pretty similar results, around 2000m (6000ft).

I think the FX guys were in so much of a hurry to produce, they didn't overthink details like that, and their natural talents led them to a pretty standard scale appearance. IMO anyway.