5' Studio Scale USS Voyager (RESEARCH THREAD)

Cadeus

Cadeus

Sr Member
Hey guys and gals! :) I am currently working on a 1:350 scale Enterprise-C, but that is not why I am here, now... My next project is gonna be THIS:

ncc74656_2_zps6a8e140c.jpg


Of all the ships of the federation, the only one that comes close to beating the Voyager, in my book, is the Enterprise-E. That's just my book, people... not trying to upset anyone.:confused So, why am I here? I am beginning research in order to, when I am ready, BUILD the 5' Studio Scale model USS Voyager. This is NOT a build thread. It is specifically to ask all who are interested in helping me find the most accurate references available in order to achieve this fantastic goal. And I already have done a lot of foot work and collected a lot of references, but I am still blind to certain things, like what model kits were used to part-bash this model, ect. I can't even find any good close-ups of the parts in question... and not for not trying. So, if you love this model as much as I do, please help. Thank-you! :)
 
There is someone in Leicester, UK who actually has the filming model.
Track him down and ask him for photos I'd say :)

As far as I am aware, the whole model was custom built. Nothing was kit bashed, hashed or otherwise. It is completely original. Probably because it was the hero ship, planned well in advance and built with enough time to get it right. (Unlike the defiant, which was essentially an overnight build compared to the other hero models). You might find a few details on Doug Drexler's blog: Voyager Details by Starlight |
 
As bmused55 said, I'm pretty sure there's nothing bashed on there, as it's a hero ship of a series, and I haven't seen anything on it that looks like it's taken from another ship.

Also, not sure if this needs to be said, but ignore any reference from the CG ship for all shots from later seasons. The model is horribly inaccurate and doesn't match the physical model very well, and is missing a lot of detail.
 
I would suggest contacting the original designer Rick Sterbach. Also as said the original is out in the public now and may have been displayed for an event or two. I'll have to dig through my files as I should have some good pics of the miniature. The CG model was for the most part a scan of the miniature with photos mapped onto it. Lacking smaller details as the show was non-HD
 
Thanks for everything, so far, guys. I am actually glad there are no kit-bashed parts... I prefer to build everything myself when I'm doing a build. Tracking down kits is a big job, and time-consuming. Lots of respect for those who have the stamina, and money! :) I will try to track down the model owner for some pics, and I may be able to get a hold of Rick on the BBS... he wasn't able to help me on my research for the E-C, but maybe he can help with this. the tip about the CG model inaccuracies is awesome... I have a LOT of CG pics, so I might keep them for shape and contour reference, but I will stay away from using them for details.. Thank-you BlobVanDam. And thank-you, every-one! :)
 
Cadeus said:
I have a LOT of CG pics, so I might keep them for shape and contour reference, but I will stay away from using them for details..
Click to expand...

Even the shapes and contours of the CG model are wrong. Some of the most glaring inaccuracies I can think of off the top of my head:


  • The slope of the main hull (saucer) is wrong. It rises far too steeply, which shows itself in the profile of the phasers and hull grid lines being off. I read someone once refer to it as "roller coaster phaser strips" and that about nails it. The CG artists appear to have lined everything up in the top view without checking that the hull was shaped right and as a result, nothing lines up from any other angle.
  • The secondary hull is shaped wrong around the deflector dish. Just way, way off. There's flat spots and pinching all over the place. Don't even try to reconcile those areas. It cannot be unseen...
  • The shape of the underside saucer contour is also wrong. Most noticeably, the inset area comes to a sharp point at the front where the original model has a nice smooth curve.
I'm sure there's more but those are the most obvious problems, IMHO.
 
I believe it was Rick Sternbach who referred to it as the rollercoaster, which is a pretty accurate description.

On top of the inaccuracies mentioned above, there are plenty more major ones-

-The whole ship is too thin, and the warp engines are too far inward, and lack a lot of the mounting around the pivot.
-The rear lip of the ship is flatter than the studio model, which is more rounded.
-The whole top section (including the captain's quarters and bridge module) is too far back, and I recall the entire section is too small as a result.
-The front sensor array and secondary deflector are too far back.


Even though they say so, I don't believe that the CG model is scanned from the physical model, or if it is, it must have been really low quality and still required them to add all of the details manually. Even the basic aspect ratio of the ship is wrong, and all of the details are very inaccurate.
I suggest you don't use it for reference at all unless it's an absolute last resort for details you can't find images of on the studio model.


Here are the orthos of my own CG model of Voyager, built based only on the studio model. It's not 100%, but it will be a much better start than any other blueprints or CG model available online.

http://www.blobvandam.com/ortho_side.jpg
http://www.blobvandam.com/ortho_top.jpg
http://www.blobvandam.com/ortho_bottom.jpg
http://www.blobvandam.com/ortho_front.jpg
http://www.blobvandam.com/ortho_back.jpg
 
AnubisGuard said:
Even the shapes and contours of the CG model are wrong. Some of the most glaring inaccuracies I can think of off the top of my head:


  • The slope of the main hull (saucer) is wrong. It rises far too steeply, which shows itself in the profile of the phasers and hull grid lines being off. I read someone once refer to it as "roller coaster phaser strips" and that about nails it. The CG artists appear to have lined everything up in the top view without checking that the hull was shaped right and as a result, nothing lines up from any other angle.
  • The secondary hull is shaped wrong around the deflector dish. Just way, way off. There's flat spots and pinching all over the place. Don't even try to reconcile those areas. It cannot be unseen...
  • The shape of the underside saucer contour is also wrong. Most noticeably, the inset area comes to a sharp point at the front where the original model has a nice smooth curve.
I'm sure there's more but those are the most obvious problems, IMHO.
Click to expand...
OK... wow. Thank-you. I am really surprised they allowed themselves to mess it up like that. Those dead-lines must be a booger, though. :)
 
BlobVanDam said:
I believe it was Rick Sternbach who referred to it as the rollercoaster, which is a pretty accurate description.

On top of the inaccuracies mentioned above, there are plenty more major ones-

-The whole ship is too thin, and the warp engines are too far inward, and lack a lot of the mounting around the pivot.
-The rear lip of the ship is flatter than the studio model, which is more rounded.
-The whole top section (including the captain's quarters and bridge module) is too far back, and I recall the entire section is too small as a result.
-The front sensor array and secondary deflector are too far back.


Even though they say so, I don't believe that the CG model is scanned from the physical model, or if it is, it must have been really low quality and still required them to add all of the details manually. Even the basic aspect ratio of the ship is wrong, and all of the details are very inaccurate.
I suggest you don't use it for reference at all unless it's an absolute last resort for details you can't find images of on the studio model.


Here are the orthos of my own CG model of Voyager, built based only on the studio model. It's not 100%, but it will be a much better start than any other blueprints or CG model available online.

http://www.blobvandam.com/ortho_side.jpg
http://www.blobvandam.com/ortho_top.jpg
http://www.blobvandam.com/ortho_bottom.jpg
http://www.blobvandam.com/ortho_front.jpg
http://www.blobvandam.com/ortho_back.jpg
Click to expand...

Thank-you for the advise, and references! :)
 
IEDBOUNTYHUNTER said:
Cool. Looks like this will be a fun build
Click to expand...

I hope so... the E-C is a necessary project for my 1:350 scale collection. THIS baby is just for fun, cause I love her Voo-doo. :lol I am glad to see you on the train, Al. Realistically, it may be a few months before I start building. Research is a real booger, and I am passionate about the Voyager, so she has to be as accurate as I can get her. And I love the large scale, because the view-ports are large enough to put some nice detail behind them, i.e.- Janeway's ready-room, the mess, Tuvok's quaters, ect. I am hoping to recruite a CGI sculptor to tackle the "innards" so I can get them printed... I have lots of cool ideas for her. Thanks for looking! :)
 
Ruddigger said:
I hope you see this one through, it'll be epic.
Click to expand...

I understand your skepticism. In my research I came across several builds that were incomplete. And my efforts to contact those artists has failed, so far. But I never begin something I don't finish, so you can rest assured that this project is a go, from dispatch to slpash-down. :)
(On a side note, I will be updating my 1:350 E-C build thread, soon... I messed up the primary hull, so I have begun working on the secondary hull until I can aquire the materials I need... so I am still working on her, too. NO RETREAT! NO SURRENDER! [anyone know what movie that's from?]) Thanks for looking! :)
 
Hm, I dunno, 300? I prefer "Never give up, never surrender!" from Galaxy Quest. ;)

Anyway, looks like I have to subscribe to ANOTHER one of your threads. :D
 
By Grabthar's hammer, you will not regret it!:lol

The question is... who is gonna tackle THIS?!?
kg_nsea_protector_studio_model-020.jpg
 
Last edited:
This thread is more than 10 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

SCUDMAN
STUDIO SCALE 3D PRINTED AT-ST
Replies
11
Views
1,164
SCUDMAN
SCUDMAN
darthbooth1978
Imperial Probe Droid studio scale model help
Replies
14
Views
1,110
Duncanator
Duncanator
MangyDog
First Contact Borg Cube- Studio scale-ish... 50CM3
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
6,076
Duncanator
Duncanator
darthbooth1978
AMT/MPC ESB/ROTJ X-Wing studio scale miniatures
Replies
2
Views
464
division 6
division 6
swgeek
My Studio Scale TIE X-1 Advanced
2
Replies
29
Views
3,067
rbeach84
rbeach84
Back
Top