Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
The Connie - PP2 format by Greywolf-Starkiller The Connie - PP2 format by Greywolf-Starkiller
If you are one of the few who have the Kit, you don't need
this, as it is unchanged from the kit version. :)

The iconic Connie, with Imperial marking props, and registries
for ten ships of the Fleet. Smoothing/Crease angle at 25
degrees, remember. ^_-

Eric
Add a Comment:
 
:iconbomsteinam:
bomsteinam Featured By Owner Jul 8, 2017  Professional Artist
Gorgeous!!!!!!
Reply
:iconradpreacher:
radpreacher Featured By Owner Aug 20, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
wow this is nice

Reply
:icondiemamker:
Diemamker Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2012
Hey thanks for the set,I've been looking for this set for sometime...I've seen many great renders using them and they are fantastic!!...now to see what I can do with it...
Thanks again...
Reply
:icondrmcquark:
DrMcQuark Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I look forward to working with it! :)
Reply
:iconkaranua:
karanua Featured By Owner May 17, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You made a TOS kit? Is it available anywhere? Sounds intriguing.
Reply
:icongreywolf-starkiller:
Greywolf-Starkiller Featured By Owner May 18, 2011
Just download the Connie, Destroyer, Scout, Tug, and
the two extra cargo containers for the Tug, and you've
got it. It here at DeviantArt. When you unzip, each goes
into the Starkiller\Star Trek\Starships directory
structure in the Props library, and the individual
parts are placed in the Connie Parts directory, though
it has more than Connie parts in it. :)
Reply
:iconpromus-kaa:
Promus-Kaa Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Okay, I can understand you not including the Potemkin, although it's actually a canon TOS Connie (watch "The Ultimate Computer" again), but how could you not include the Constellation?!?!? :eyepopping: :o
Reply
:icongreywolf-starkiller:
Greywolf-Starkiller Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2011
Because I haven't had time to do the rest of the registries.
And since looking for work is more important, at this time,
it'll be awhile til I get the rest of them done. I just
figured you guys might like it with at least the ten
registries I did manage to get done.
Reply
:iconpromus-kaa:
Promus-Kaa Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
I saw in your previous comment that you based the registries of Franz Joseph's list...no wonder the registries are all messed up. Franz Joseph is infamous for producing the most inaccurate fan material in existence - material that goes against information given in the episodes. I hate that people still go by his crap as if it's gospel...
Reply
:iconmdbruffy:
mdbruffy Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2012
One thing you need to remember, is the fact that FJ's tech manual- and blueprints- came out at a time- the early 70's- when nothing else was being done. No remastering, no TNG, nothing. TOS was it and whatever was approved by Paramount was accepted as offical material. Don't blame FJ because Paramount didn't have enough sense to keep track of things.For the time, the Tech Manual was as Offical as you could get.
Reply
:iconpromus-kaa:
Promus-Kaa Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I know all that, but it doesn't change the fact that FJ's "work" is pure garbage, and people really need to stop using it as reference material - because doing so only perpetuates falsities about TOS, meaning accurate TOS is nearly impossible as long as people keep using his material.
Reply
:iconmdbruffy:
mdbruffy Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2012
What falsities? that the registry numbers make sense? That other Constitution-class ships were commissioned beyond the original 12? His deck plans for the crew cabins, Sickbay, Engineering, the Transporter room, ship's corridor- were all based on the sound stage set designs. His ship's blueprints even explain why there are no viewports in Kirk and Spock's cabins- there's life support equipment between the cabins and the outer hull. That there were other classes of ships in the form of the destroyer, the scout, and the transport? I'm not aware of anything false in any of that.
Reply
:iconpromus-kaa:
Promus-Kaa Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Well, originally there WERE viewports in Kirk's cabin (and McCoy's cabin - check the early Season 1 episodes).

As for the falsities, for one thing he put Main Engineering on Deck 5, right behind the impulse engines, when Main Engineering was established as being on Deck 16 in the actual episodes, and always referred to as being on the "lower decks" (as in "The Enemy Within"). Plus, the Secondary Hull is called the "Engineering Hull" for a reason... Engineering is NOT in the Primary Hull!

Plus, Matt Jefferies (the man who designed the Enterprise) clearly put Main Engineering in the Secondary Hull - you can see it on his cutaway plan. Also, watch the episode "Day of the Dove" again - the Energy Creature is shown leaving Main Engineering and going out of the ship. In the exterior shot of the Enterprise, it's shown coming out of the exact same place in the Secondary Hull that Matt Jefferies drew as the Main Engineering.


He also noted the glowing tubes in Main Engineering as being the impulse engines, when they were always referred to as the Main Energizers, which converted the energy from the matter/antimatter integrator into usable power by the rest of the ship.

Then there's the matter with the FJ phasers, which are highly inaccurate to the actual props shown on screen. As for his registry numbers, they DON'T make sense, and neither do they follow the registry number system that Matt Jefferies created for TOS. According to the Jefferies system, the "1701" of the Enterprise's number is broken down into two parts: the "17" refers to the Enterprise being the 17th starship design used by Starfleet. The "01" refers to the fact that the Enterprise was meant to be the first ship in its class. That registry method was used all the way through "The Wrath of Khan," when the dedication plaque on the bridge still read "Enterprise-Class" (rather than "Starship Class," which wasn't meant to refer to the NAME of the ship, but rather the TYPE it was - like Spaceship, Starship, Dreadnaught, etc).
Reply
:iconmdbruffy:
mdbruffy Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012
"As for his registry numbers, they DON'T make sense, and neither do they follow the registry number system that Matt Jefferies created for TOS. According to the Jefferies system, the "1701" of the Enterprise's number is broken down into two parts: the "17" refers to the Enterprise being the 17th starship design used by Starfleet. The "01" refers to the fact that the Enterprise was meant to be the first ship in its class. That registry method was used all the way through "The Wrath of Khan," when the dedication plaque on the bridge still read "Enterprise-Class" (rather than "Starship Class," which wasn't meant to refer to the NAME of the ship, but rather the TYPE it was - like Spaceship, Starship, Dreadnaught, etc)."

Where did you get this? I have not seen this in any reference I have read- Including "The Making of Star Trek" and the "The Art of Star Trek".As for view ports, I don't remember seeing any in Kirk's quarters in "The Man Trap". Pike had one in "The Cage" over his bed. But I don't remember seeing any in Kirk's quarters.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icongreywolf-starkiller:
Greywolf-Starkiller Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2011
Pity, but that's the way it is. There are many
contradictions in the series, so I chose the Tech
Manual for the numbers. I knew it wasn't Canon, but
I'm a Trekker, not a Trekkie, which means I'm not
going to go anal about Canon vs Non-canon.
Reply
:iconpromus-kaa:
Promus-Kaa Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Well, I AM A Trekkie (hardcore TOS purist), so if you'd like I'll be happy to help you provide your watchers with a TOS ship download that at least adheres to TOS's canon. :)

TOS never actually contradicted itself outright, and throughout the run of the 79 episodes, they DID establish nine out of twelve of the names that ARE canon. We only know two of the registries as canon (1701 and 1017), but following another canon source (Matt Jefferies, the man who designed the Enterprise) by using his registry number system, the rest of the ships would have registries that count upward from 1701 onwards. Jefferies' system was that the 17 referred to the fact that the TOS Enterprise was a member of the 17th starship design made by Starfleet, and the "01" referred to the fact that it was the first of it's class. (This meant that the TOS Enterprise was actually of the "Enterprise-class," which was followed even until they made TWOK).

Here's the list of CANON names of "Connies" from TOS (in alphabetical order):

Constellation - 1017 (it is generally assumed that, like the Enterprise-D, the Constellation was named after an older ship, and that it also bore the older ship's registry)

Enterprise - 1701
Excalibur
Exeter
Hood
Intrepid
Lexington
Potemkin
Yorktown (not in the episodes, but one that Roddenberry established)

Although giving the other ships numbers would be conjecture, as long as it follows the basic count-up (1702, 1703, 1704, etc) I think you'd be fine. :)
Reply
:icongreywolf-starkiller:
Greywolf-Starkiller Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2011
Thanks for the offer, but not needed.
I told my watchers that I wasn't using
canon, but using the Tech Manual instead.
If they REALLY want canon, there are many
ship models out there that they can use.
Reply
:iconpromus-kaa:
Promus-Kaa Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
You're intentionally making something non-canon...on purpose? :o
Reply
:iconramspite:
ramspite Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2011
"This meant that the TOS Enterprise was actually of the "Enterprise-class," which was followed even until they made TWOK" - Actually, the enterprise was originally referred to as a "Starship" Class spaceship in both pilots and for one or more of the early episodes.

:) Mr Pendantic...
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icongreywolf-starkiller:
Greywolf-Starkiller Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2011
Yup. Unlike Trekkies, I like the Tech Manual.
And considering how uptight Trekkies can be,
pleasing them is not high on my priority list.
I'm not trying to be insulting here, but Hard-Core
Trekkies are some of the nastiest fans I've met.
You haven't been, but many others I've met HAVE
been. Anything that deviates even VERY slightly
from Canon, and they're all over you. Canon means
nothing to me, as I gain enjoyment from both Canon
and Non-canon efforts. Except for Shippers, of course.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconcolonel-azzameen:
Colonel-Azzameen Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2011
Dude, there's something seriously wrong with the registries.
Where did you get the name Valiant from?
That was a vessel 200 years older than the Enterprise, called SS Valiant.
Farragut is debatable, but possible.
And I'm missing the Constellation in there...
Reply
:icongreywolf-starkiller:
Greywolf-Starkiller Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2011
I have mentioned that I'm not going to be anal when
it comes to Canon, but the names and registries come
from the Franz Joseph Tech Manual, so there is nothing
"wrong" with them. I released the model with 10 registries
because if you had to wait for them all, the ship would
not be released to this day, as my time is rather limited
at the moment.
Reply
:iconcolonel-azzameen:
Colonel-Azzameen Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2011
Ah.
Franz Joseph... who's that?
And Darth RealLife is a bi***, so I know what you mean.
Reply
:icongreywolf-starkiller:
Greywolf-Starkiller Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2011
Darth Realife. ROTFLMAO!
I'll have to remember him. :)
Are you serious about not knowing
Franz Joseph? Not sure if you're
joshing me or not. :)
Reply
:iconcolonel-azzameen:
Colonel-Azzameen Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2011
Might have heard that name, but don't remember it.
I'm serious, I have a horrible name memory.
Who are you again?
Reply
:iconpromus-kaa:
Promus-Kaa Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Franz Joseph did a TOS "technical manual" back in the 1970s and made a lot of other blueprints and stuff for TOS. The problem is, his work was so laughably ignorant of canon facts established in the episodes that it really pisses me off that people still consider his crap to be canon, in some way.
Reply
:iconcolonel-azzameen:
Colonel-Azzameen Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2011
Ah, an idiot.
Reply
:iconpromus-kaa:
Promus-Kaa Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Yep! He drew phasers that don't look ANYTHING like the ones in the show, and he's the one who's responsible for everyone thinking that the Phaser Type-I has a trigger on the TOP (it doesn't...the trigger is on the bottom). And many, MANY other inaccuracies...
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconcelticarchie:
celticarchie Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2011
Hey Eric, just wondering how that alternate BC/bridge deck is coming along? :pray:
Reply
:icongreywolf-starkiller:
Greywolf-Starkiller Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2011
Haven't had time to do much. That's why I posted
these ships. They're done, and I wanted people to get
some use out of them, but don't worry, I haven't
forgotten. :) BTW, the bridge and dome are good, right?
I only need to do a classic C/D deck, right?

Eric
Reply
:iconcelticarchie:
celticarchie Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2011
Yeah, just the don't know what the technical term for it would be, "blob underneath the bridge". :D
Reply
:icongreywolf-starkiller:
Greywolf-Starkiller Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2011
Heh. I know Guy, I think his name is Guy, wants me
to do a classic C/D deck, but with the torpedo tubes
on it. I think there are at least 3 or 4 versions of
the C/D deck. I also want to do a few end and bussard
sections for the warp nacelles. Vektor did an awesome
bussard section on his nacelles which I hope to
emulate, but I doubt I can do as well as he did. He
actually made that section look functional. :)
Reply
:iconcelticarchie:
celticarchie Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2011
That's cool, I was just checking up! :woohoo: You have a captive audience you know. :D
Reply
:icongreywolf-starkiller:
Greywolf-Starkiller Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2011
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! :)
Reply
:iconcelticarchie:
celticarchie Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2011
Also, looking forward to your Bontany Bay model. I think you were working on one. :poke:
Reply
:icongreywolf-starkiller:
Greywolf-Starkiller Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2011
Yup. Hoping to get that going too, once the Dreadnaught
is done. Just detail I need to add, as the basic shape
is done. :)
Reply
:iconmylochka:
mylochka Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2011
Hooray!
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
February 20, 2011
File Size
13.3 MB
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
3,447
Favourites
12 (who?)
Comments
60
Downloads
459