My Star Trek Modeling M.O.

When I present my Star Trek models, both the original designs and my interpretations of classic designs, I'm often asked why I do some of the things I do. Well, here's my answer!

This may be heretical to some of my fellow fans, but I really don't care about Star Trek canon. What I do care about is consistency, and Star Trek is typically anything but.

When I build a model of a Star Trek starship, my goal is not to perfectly adhere to the original design of the studio or CGI models. Rather, my principal goal is to be as faithful as possible to the intent of the original design. Generally this means taking and maintaining the overall shape and profile of the original design, and altering (sometimes inventing) the details.

While modeling, I ask myself the following questions:

• What is the historical context of this design? EG when was it built, and for what purpose?
• What flaws with the design might lead to it serving a different purpose, or being replaced prematurely?
• What feelings was the design meant to evoke in the audience?
• (With a redesigned ship): what aspects of the original design are absolutely necessary? This is usually how I determine an appropriate scale.
• (With a redesigned ship): what aspects of the original design are most problematic? This is how I determine the most radical changes.

The most common problem with classic starship designs is that the scale tends to be wildly inconsistent. Producers, especially in this CGI age, constantly tweak the size of a model in order to come up with something that looks "better" in-frame. Scriptwriters also often create story elements that require the size of a model increase or decrease (EG the B'Rel-class Klingon Bird of Prey needs to be able to be large enough for its cargo bay to accommodate two adult humpback whales). Canonical information derived from props (usually computer screens) and data books is often contradictory. Visual details, like window rows, are often placed haphazardly (too near or too far apart); sometimes the design will "cheat" by using skylights to give a single deck two rows of windows on the hull, creating the illusion of additional decks. Ex Astris Scientia is an excellent resource for cataloging all of the many scale problems and inconsistencies of Star Trek starships. When I re-imagine an classic design, my goal is to fix those issues and create a models that are wholly consistent with each other. To that end, I use the following standards (based off of the dimensions established by Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach):

• Average deck height is 2.5m with 0.5m between each deck.
• Average deck height of large TNG-era craft is 3.0m with 0.5m between each deck.
• Average (small) window is a circle 0.65m in diameter.
• The top edge of a window is no lower than ~0.58m below the deck ceiling.
• The top edge of a window on a large TNG-era craft is no lower than ~1.08m below the deck ceiling.
• A photon torpedo's dimensions are approximately 3m by 1m by 0.5m, and each torpedo port should be able to accommodate these dimensions.
• A turbolift shaft is approximately 2m in diameter.

And while I typically less careful when modeling interior components, I do scale everything around my uniform silhouettes to create an accurate sense of scale, which are sized to reflect the current average heights of a human male and human female (even though you may notice my female silhouette is vulcan)--approximately 1.71m (5.6ft imperial) and 1.59m (5.2ft imperial), respectively.

(Please note that while I've always aimed for consistency, I experimented a fair bit, and these standards only finalized with the 2nd version of my Excelsior-class Type-C model. IE older models may not necessarily meet all of my criteria after deck heights.)

You may notice that while I typically try to model most of the necessary external hull components (torpedo ports, phasers, impulse engines, warp coils, bussard collectors and so on) sometimes the RCS thrusters or escape pods and often the transporter emitters are absent. Honestly, sometimes I just get tired of a model and want to move on. Er, what I mean to say is that all of those components still exist, they just aren't modeled because they're hidden underneath hull panels.

On In-Universe Context

When I build a model, it's helpful for me to consider the in-universe context. My overall approach to continuity (or "canon") is too complex to explore here, but in general I view Star Trek media as historical fiction rather than historical fact--in other words, while the larger events are likely "true" in the continuity, the details are not necessarily true. This approach is handy because it gives me the wiggle-room to "quibble over the details," accepting most of what's seen on-screen into my headcanon, but abandoning aspects that I do not like or which cannot be coherently reconciled with the rest of the continuity.

For practical purposes here, I place my models within the "prime universe" continuity, including the expanded "LitVerse" continuity--which is where I place the "present day" of the setting. I do not include the 2009 reboot continuity or the Discovery continuity, though I may borrow certain elements in my imaginings.

On Style:

The other most-frequent question I receive is, thankfully, much easier to answer: what's up with my style? My earliest models don't have a discernible style because they were my earliest models, and I was learning how to model as I built them. My skills have improved, but I am still very much an amateur. I do not have the skills or the patience for a realistic modeling skills, nor am I sufficiently familiar with the software needed to render realistic models appropriately. Further, many other people, far more skilled than I, are already making very realistic models.

So I've attempted to establish my own, unique modeling style. I consider it a stylized/minimalist style, but others have compared it to animation (which I cannot deny is is an influence, hence the URL).

This aesthetic has several advantages: it makes my models more uniquely mine; it requires less detail, meaning I can produce models more quickly (and I am therefore less likely to get bored with a model and abandon it); it uses less geometry, making it easier to create, modify or view on less-powerful computers.

And on a final note:

• If you like my work and would like to show your support, you can buy me a coffee at Ko-Fi! I'm sorry, but I do not have a Patreon account.
• All of my models are created using Google SkectchUp and are freely available for download at the 3D Warehouse.
• If you don't have SketchUp, you can download the free 3D Viewer. You can also use the web viewer at the 3D Warehouse (select 3D view) but it is very limited and often produces errors; alternatively the .skp files should be usable w/ other modeling programs, and relatively easy to convert to other formats.
• Anyone may use and/or modify my models for their own projects only if they credit me (link to either this blog or my 3D warehouse page). I'd also appreciate an email/message/comment, just so I can see what you're doing! I do, after all is said and done, love starships.