FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages
 Forum Index      Log in  Register
Design Thread: Nostromo interiors and deck configurations
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 23, 24, 25  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> General Discussion related to Alien
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, some additional thoughts about bedsteads and scale and bodies that go splat...

Bedsteads against the ship:





and a bummer shot the first time I did this I vowed to never do it again...
and yet here it is...



can someone fact check my dimensions please and tell me I'm wrong...
Narcissus Dimensions
16.6m long
19.7m wide
7.5m Height

Thoughts on Airlocks and trajectories

Can the airlock go here somewhere about the only place I see for it to make the line it does under the wing ( I agree not physics based trajectory, but it has to go some where...)







for the lock to be here we would need to ignore the "Roof" or sunken nature of the model as the structure depicted would fill that area, and maybe beyond.

also one more light picture for Vader

I thought I had seen another image, still not sure what to do with them though...



also did some remeasuring of the ports, they are probably more 6.5' high on the outside including the framework




_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com


Last edited by Starrigger on Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
FenGiddel
Community Member


Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 338

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are correct on the shuttle specs.

And thank you for whipping up those bedstead pics.

RE: Kane's trajectory: maybe it shot out to port, hit the edge of the "hyperspace bubble", and curved back for an underarm exit... Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 229
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good picture, that thanks! Those floods will be a complete bitch to incorporate ... but they exist, so incorporated they must be. Sigh...

The shuttle thing is also a wee bit of a problem, of course.
Merely out of curiosity has anyone calculated what size the Nostromo would need to be, if we assume both that the shuttle is the size given by the sets, and that the space between the nacelle and main hull is what the close-in model set claims it to be?

Btw that trajectory is fully consistent with physics ... assuming that the Nostromo is under constant acceleration at a rate that overcomes the lateral component of the vector as quickly as you show.

One way or another, I believe that has to be the root of the explanation.
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vader wrote:
Good picture, that thanks! Those floods will be a complete bitch to incorporate ... but they exist, so incorporated they must be. Sigh..


Possible solution, since the only way we know the actual depth of the lights is through production stills, not actual film footage, is anyone apposed to flattening the design, similar to what I did earlier? I could then come up with a design that would fold up and be protected during take-off and reentry...
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vader wrote:

The shuttle thing is also a wee bit of a problem, of course.
Merely out of curiosity has anyone calculated what size the Nostromo would need to be, if we assume both that the shuttle is the size given by the sets, and that the space between the nacelle and main hull is what the close-in model set claims it to be?



If not, I can probably come up with something close.
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
FenGiddel
Community Member


Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 338

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vader: Just a quick screen measurement gave me 14/16" width of Starrigger's red shuttle in the bow view. Guessing about 3/16" would be closer to scale(?), so that would require maybe a 460 percent increase in size of Nostromo, to match it? But then the bridge scale would be off... Sad

Starrigger: I like the foldable floods.

Nice ideas, friends.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

doing this visually the channel is perhaps a shade over 4 Narcissus wide which would put it at 66.4m wide or 218 feet



In canonical the main hull is only about 160 feet wide and the channel is about 50 feet

So if I match the shuttle size, that would put the windows at around 30 feet tall! the bridge would be about 130 feet wide!! and the landing feet would come in at 40 feet tall!

wow
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 229
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gods...!

I think that all things considered, Graham's way is the only way to go to make Narcissus and Nostromo fit together in anyway that is even halfway even halfway recognisable from the movie.


But yes; flat light sources, that fold possibly into very thin recesses, I'm with you completely, there.
But there are a couple of complications that I can see. One that if I'm reading the pictures right, there are four floods, and none of them are symmetrically placed. Meaning that we need to somehow figure four completely unique places for them to go...
The other is the gobos. Where do they go?
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 229
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ha! One thing I now see where I've most certainly been greatly mistaken that last picture shows beautifully how the "wing underside" close-up model/set is hanging very neatly right side up.

I know for a fact that I've seen pictures of that model upside down, and a simple image search will turn up a handful on the Interwebz ... but probably these are just inverted images.

Anyway ... yet again, we learn that (a) don't take information found on the Iternetz at face value; it will lead to assumptions, and (b) assumption is the mother of all etceteras.
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vader wrote:
Gods...!

I think that all things considered, Graham's way is the only way to go to make Narcissus and Nostromo fit together in anyway that is even halfway even halfway recognisable from the movie.


But yes; flat light sources, that fold possibly into very thin recesses, I'm with you completely, there.
But there are a couple of complications that I can see. One that if I'm reading the pictures right, there are four floods, and none of them are symmetrically placed. Meaning that we need to somehow figure four completely unique places for them to go...
The other is the gobos. Where do they go?


I can see them representing debris shields, but I originally thought they were much closer to the lights. With them that far away they are pretty useless as shields.. I understand why, for the sake of filming they had to be so far away (any closer to the light and they would have most certainly been washed out and not even visible. ) Again, because on film it is difficult to tell the distance, we could easily move them closer and include them in the folding light scheme.
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vader wrote:
...

But yes; flat light sources, that fold possibly into very thin recesses, I'm with you completely, there.
But there are a couple of complications that I can see. One that if I'm reading the pictures right, there are four floods, and none of them are symmetrically placed. Meaning that we need to somehow figure four completely unique places for them to go..


I am thinking the lights were never fully incorporated in the studio model, but rather just clamped on and thus had no fixed location on the model. In the screen caps they do seem to have a measure of symmetry. I would be fine with placing the two outer-most lights toward the end of their respective aux engines . Placing the two inner lights either at the rear of the main hull or close to the main hull off the aux engines.

http://alienexplorations.blogspot.com/1979/10/belly-lights-of-nostromo.html?m=1
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
joberg
Community Member


Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 8530

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good stuff you guys Cool Yes, those flods will be heck to place neatly on that ship.
Starrigger: Kane trajectory seems logical.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 229
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Starrigger wrote:
because on film it is difficult to tell the distance, we could easily move them closer and include them in the folding light scheme.

'Fraid I have to disagree a bit, there apart from the profile still you posted earlier which shows it, there is also something else in the frontal views ... is it a parallax shift, or something else ... that to my eye at least communicates that there is a separation between the light sources and the lattices. I'd like to try to replicate that.
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vader wrote:
Starrigger wrote:
because on film it is difficult to tell the distance, we could easily move them closer and include them in the folding light scheme.

'Fraid I have to disagree a bit, there apart from the profile still you posted earlier which shows it, there is also something else in the frontal views ... is it a parallax shift, or something else ... that to my eye at least communicates that there is a separation between the light sources and the lattices. I'd like to try to replicate that.


Yeah, I wasn't certain if that one was in the film or not.

They can be placed for that distance. I'm just not certain they would have any real purpose that far from the lights. What do you see them used as? I see them as protective screening, perhaps you see them as something else?
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

joberg wrote:
Good stuff you guys Cool Yes, those flods will be heck to place neatly on that ship.
Starrigger: Kane trajectory seems logical.


Do not despair kind sir, I do believe We can come up with a very elegant solution to our problem. As soon as I can sit down with my computer again, I will sketch out my idea.
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 229
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2017 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Starrigger wrote:
They can be placed for that distance. I'm just not certain they would have any real purpose that far from the lights. What do you see them used as? I see them as protective screening, perhaps you see them as something else?


Honestly, I haven't got a clue. I haven't thought much about how to rationalise the whole landing light thing yet; you could say I've mainly been struggling with characterising the phenomenon in which you've been immensely helpful!

Protective screening seems likely to be at least part of the explanation; but as you say, at that distance they are far from 100% effective in such a role. But if not that, what...?

Just thinking aloud, now could the distance have to do with wanting the screens to be able to "give" if something big hits, without the screen itself hitting the light? Or perhaps they're articulated? Perhaps there is a sensor system that can detect items large enough to damage them headed towards the lights, and the screens can be moved to intercept?
I dunno...

And the whole thing isn't made any simpler by the fact that there seems to be more than the meshes themselves going on with the darn things:



But let's think about it.

I agree something elegant will emerge, good Sirs.
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
joberg
Community Member


Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 8530

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems to me (looking at the last pic posted by Vader) that some of the "grills/greeblies are starting to melt/detach from the lights Very Happy These lights seem very hot and I have a feeling that the shooting of that particular scene was done fairly fast (SRS said that it was a lot of smoke and a forklift putting that model down) because of that problem.

I know that some members here are in contact with the original model makers who worked on Alien; they could shed some light (pun unintended) on the whole sequence of event.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Starrigger
Community Member


Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

joberg wrote:
Seems to me (looking at the last pic posted by Vader) that some of the "grills/greeblies are starting to melt/detach from the lights Very Happy These lights seem very hot and I have a feeling that the shooting of that particular scene was done fairly fast (SRS said that it was a lot of smoke and a forklift putting that model down) because of that problem.

I know that some members here are in contact with the original model makers who worked on Alien; they could shed some light (pun unintended) on the whole sequence of event.


don't know why, but I had forgotten about the possibility of melt down. Probably explains the distance some. Not sure if it explains the irregular shapes and "structures" though. Something to think about.
_________________
Come on over to my place - CGiWorlds.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 229
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hadn't even considered the possibility that those grilles were plastic; I'd just taken for granted that they were metal ... but deformation under intense thermal radiation could easily account for the distorted shapes of the left and right grilles in the picture. It wouldn't however explain the two circular features visible in the centre and right grilles; they seem to be put there intentionally.
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Vader
Community Member


Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Posts: 229
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lot of different things going through my mind; I'll try to touch upon a few of them:


First, the floods.

From these images it seems like it should be possible to determine in approximately which regions the lights should be suspended:



Problem is, there is nothing at all even close to those places where such lights could be housed, unless they were literally paper thin.

So, what if they aren't housed there, but move there when deployed?

I thought that maybe there are rails running along those surfaces, too thin to be visible at the scales we see the engine areas depicted in? And that the lights themselves are housed in garages below the aft end of the main hull?

Here is an image to summarise what I've been pondering, doodled onto Graham's blueprint:



Assuming that the lights can be dynamic in where along these rails they go and exactly which way they point, this could also account for why we see no strict symmetry in the light placement.


= = = = =


Then ... I'm afraid I need to raise a wee question mark around the shuttle in your earlier post, Starrigger.

The dimensions you have for it make it wider than it is long (length/width ratio approx. 1:0.8 ), consistent with the proportions you have drawn.

To my eyes, that makes its proportions seem consistent with the shuttle as represented in these WIP images of the close-close-up model of the close-up model of the shuttle garage -- the one used for back projecting activity inside the shuttle:



However; I'm certain that I've read somewhere how Phil Rae describes this as a "forced perspective" model, meaning it was only meant to be shot from dead ahead, where the foreshortened proportions are obscured by the perspective, and that it thus wouldn't represent the intended look of the vessel.

Here a couple of Phil Rae's own WIP pictures of the smaller Narcissus model used when we actually see the whole shuttle:



It seems to me the shuttle has distinctly different proportions, with the length/width ratio being approx. 1:1.4 (which, assuming a length of 16.6m, would make the shuttle 12m wide).

Would you agree with my observations, or do you feel I'm barking up the wrong tree, here?


= = = = =


I've also tried to make sense of the mystery recess at the shuttle garage. It's highlighted with blue light strips, but there seems to be nothing much in it?

I found another image, plus I tried to play around with the light and contrast in the other one to see if anything emerged ... not that it helped a huge lot. Here's what I've got, in case you guys can make more sense out of it than I can:




= = = = =


Then -- what are these ... things?



They sort of look like Laval nozzles, and they've generally been interpreted as some kind of rocket exhausts ... but...

Looking at them in detail, they really don't look like any rockets exhausts I'm familiar with anyway at all -- for one thing, they seem to dead-end. Or do they...? Other pictures imply a complex interna structure with concentric flanges. And why would the Nostromo need a "nose up" thruster trio, anyway?
Besides, if they were rocket nozzles, where are the combustion chambers -- as can be seen in the other picture, the volume these would need to occupy is hollow. An antenna is attached there.

And besides, if we're assuming a reactionless thruster technology, there wouldn't be any need for rocket nozzle-looking features anyway.

Sure, they could still be reactionless thrusters -- but still, why? What would nose-up thrusters accomplish, that pushing a bit harder with the fore VTOL's wouldn't?

So ... can we think of something else they might be?
_________________
26354
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> General Discussion related to Alien All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 23, 24, 25  Next
Page 24 of 25

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
BBTech Template by © 2003-04 MDesign

Problems Registering Contact: help@propsummit.com