Nova-class Battlestar Orthos v2 - 11 years later

137th Gebirg

137th Gebirg

Well-Known Member
Hello, all:

Not so much a studio-scale model topic, but a topic inspired by one.

It's been 11 years since I did the first set of schematics for the TOS Galactica (which I dubbed the "Nova" class for lack of a better named) by hand using a pencil, ruler, and my well-scrubbed VCR recordings of the original series. Sadly, the web was in its infancy at the time and good source material was really impossible to come by. Nobody knew where the original studio model was and all I had to go on were some grainy pics and my Revellogram model, which as most people know was riddled with errors. The schematics that were born from that model contained the same glaring errors.

Lately, I've had a wild hair to revisit the schematics (especially after having seen my old orthos appear in photos taken at the CIC set of the new show) and create the most accurate full 6-view set of orthos I could build using Adobe Illustrator CS1. I went to Jim Creveling's site, containing very detailed pictures of his unbelievably fantastic 1:1 studio "miniature" of the Big G. As photos of the original filming model are damn near impossible to find (still!) this was my best shot at an authentic layout. I painstakingly assembled a mosaic the different photos he has on his site of the model, trying to take into account perspective distortion. The result follows:

-- Link removed - no longer needed --

For comparison’s sake, here’s my original set of schematics from 1996:

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7915/battlestarnovaqm0.gif

And here is a preview of the new schematics. Had to make some tweaks to the port profile to make it orthographically reconcile with the dorsal (top) view, which is now about 80% done. Some more tweaking will be needed, particularly with the top-aft section of the engine module. I tell ya, perspective distortion is a real pill. Anyways, the dorsal view is about 80% done. I still need to fill in some asymmetrical detailing on both sides and finish the neck and shuttle bay armatures. I'm waiting on some photo information from the builder of the model to fill in those details. I don't want to eyeball or guess on these things. In any case, here's the new preview. Enjoy!

-- Link removed - no longer needed --
 
Last edited:
That's beautiful! I had always thought the Galactica exterior more random, now I am more impressed, since you have brought it into focus.
 
So....it was you who coined the 'Nova Class' name then? If so, cool!:cool

The drawings are looking really nice. I still think that the very top of the head does not rise higher than the main body of the ship. I believe that the very lowest point of the head is slightly lower than the bottom of the landing bays. Lowering the entire head may achieve this. I'd like to see the centre leg a little wider than the front and rear too.

It's looking really good!

Mike, Oz
 
LastBattlestar said:
So....it was you who coined the 'Nova Class' name then? If so, cool!:cool

The drawings are looking really nice. I still think that the very top of the head does not rise higher than the main body of the ship. I believe that the very lowest point of the head is slightly lower than the bottom of the landing bays. Lowering the entire head may achieve this. I'd like to see the centre leg a little wider than the front and rear too.

It's looking really good!

Mike, Oz
Click to expand...

Hi, Mike:

Re: the lowest point - I've heard conflicting reports about what should be lower, the head or the landing bays. I asked Jim Creveling this specific question, and he replied that "The seam that runs the length of the underside of the landing bay is the lowest point on the ship." so I'm kind-of sticking with that for now until I can get something more substantial.

Does anyone have the name and/or email address of the guy who restored the original filming model? Mark Bradley, I think it was? If so, could you please PM me with that info? He's probably the best source for that kind of knowledge.

Jim's model does show that the neck area is slightly angled up, as I show it (since I used his model as the template). I'll delve deeper into the original source material so I can get a better look - along with the landing bay pylons. I did widen the central pylon considerably on each, and slightly narrowed the outer pylons. I'll give it a second look, though.

Thanks for the input!
 
Continuation:

I checked out some of the restoration shots and I have a few comments on things I noticed:

Re: pylon dimensions - Several pics I've dug up seem to show that the outer pylons are only a slight-hair-width narrower than the central pylon - something which can be seen pretty clearly in this pic:
(Pics removed at request of webmaster)

The illustrations I have made so far seem to correspond with both the original model and Jim Creveling's replica.

Re: angle-up of the neck - These two pics seem to show a very slight (emphasis on very) angle up between the body and the head, much less pronounced than what I have shown, but still there, nevertheless:
(Pics removed at request of webmaster)
(interestingly, the blueprint side view does seem to show a slightly wider central pylon than the higher-res restoration pics - something which I honestly cannot explain).

Unless, of course, I'm seeing perspective distortion/foreshortening here, something which has mercilessly plagued me since the beginning of this project.

Re: lowest point - I'm still having a really hard time determining this aspect of the Battlestar's architecture. This one pic from the Parker Brothers BSG board game:
(Pics removed at request of webmaster)
seems to imply that the head and shuttle bays could be at around the same level, and it also makes it look like the neck is on the same level as the body and not angled slightly. Additionally, this pic also makes it appear as if the pylons are almost exactly the same width.

>sigh< - I honestly never thought that this would be so difficult, and I now clearly understand why so many people believe so many different things about the dimensions of this model. There are so many odd shapes and angles on it, there's no photographic source to infer 100% orthographically compatible views.

There was also the question if the "jaw" area behind the head where it joins at the neck was at a perfect 90% perpendicular to the body, or angled slightly forward as I have shown it - something else which is highly debatable through the original photographs.

So, I suspect that the only way I'm going to solve these problems is to talk with Mr. Bradley himself, and hope that he may remember the particulars of the design to put these questions to rest.

I will continue! :thumbsup
 
Last edited:
Apologies to all that there haven't been any updates on this recently. I'm having to deal with some personal stuff both at home and at work right now, and I'm collecting some new information that will help make the final product several orders of magnitude more accurate. I will return!
 
Hello, all. After a long hiatus I've picked up the mouse again and created a new update, with some major re-working on some components for accuracy based on some new information I've recently obtained. Several questions that I've long wondered have been answered:

Q1: Does the lower "chin" of the head go down below the bottom-most portion of the landing bays, at the same level, or just above? I've seen/heard conflicting info on this.
A1: The chin is just a hair ABOVE the bottom center-line of the landing bays, like by an inch or so. The center-line of the landing bays IS the lowest point on the vessel. Lowering the overall head assembly (see next question) and thickening out the chin beneath will get the desired effect. The "throat" area under the neck also extends down almost to the back of the chin, making it look much thicker.

Q2: Is the top of the neck flush and perfectly level, in-line with the main body or does it angle-up on its way the the back of the head?
A2: It does angle-up slightly, but not as pronounced as I originally showed it. The head should also be lowered when the neck is fixed.

Q3: Are the outer hangar bay pylons wider, narrower or the same size as the inner pylon?
A3: The outer pylons are about an inch narrower (on the original model) than the center pylon.

Steps have also been taken to reconcile these corrections orthographically across the current views shown.

Additionally, the rear engine assembly has been increased in size slightly to make it more proportional to the rest of the ship. The starboard profile has been completed, along with most of the dorsal view. I'm still having trouble finding good source material for the top neck piece - I hope to have something soon to finish that out. The next section to be worked on will be the ventral (bottom) view, followed by the fore and aft views.

-- Link removed - no longer needed --
 
Last edited:
New update. Topside of neck has been accurized, some little things tweaked here and there and one ventral half around 80% done. I need more info on the underside of the landing bays, though. I will be pausing for the next update in favor of some other projects that need to be re-prioritized, especially since I just landed a new job and need to get some other things out of the way in the meantime. There will be more...keep watching!

-- Link removed - no longer needed --
 
Last edited:
Re: Nova-class Battlestar Orthos v2 - 11 years later - FINISHED!

Well, after 9 months of R&D and over 200 hours of drawing, I'm finished with the schematics. Clickable thumbnail follows. I've had to take some liberties with the old girl, particularly with regard to symmetry on an asymmetrical design, the fore-mentioned perspective distortion and other bits. The one thing I really had to fudge was the ventral "cap" where the stand would be mounted on the bottom. Nobody seems to have good reference materials of that particular object, as it's probably been long since lost. Many thanks to all those who helped make this project possible. I will post source Adobe Illustrator and Acrobat PDF files after a few days and I get some comments on the design. Please do not use these schematics for profit. I'm giving them freely for the whole community to use.

http://www.shipschematics.net/bsg/battlestar_nova.png
 
These really look great! Just beautiful stuff.

FYI, I get "forbidden" pages as well when I click on all of your links except the very last one.

Thanks for sharing
 
Ah! I understand now. Those were earlier versions of the schematics - "work in progress" type stuff. Now that it's done, I removed those other versions to reclaim some space.

Thanks much!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ogibendogy
Studio Scale Kit Donors Matrix
Replies
8
Views
932
bwayne64
bwayne64
Boxcar Bret
Let's Build an Escape Pod!
Replies
11
Views
709
scotthothpatrol
scotthothpatrol
Carter C
Gold 5 "Triangles" Y-Wing (Based on the files created by Dave G)
Replies
5
Views
1,203
dtssyst
dtssyst
OldNutsy
Koolshade, I know it's all been said before....
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3,108
RealDaveWinter
RealDaveWinter
thibkaji
Studio Scale B-Wing Starfighter Build Thread
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
7,651
thibkaji
thibkaji
Back
Top