I don't know why? the forward angles are all supposed to give the feeling of powerful, forward, purposeful motion while the tremendous "depth" of the ship is intended evoke the idea of stability, strength and dignity. In addition, the forward angles of the ship, forward interconnecting dorsal, aft interconnecting dorsal, transwarp engine wedge support pylon, forward engineering hull leading edge are all intended to be virtually identical. Complementary and/or parallel angles are often a key factor in giving an object FVA (Favorable Viewing Angles). Look at the original Battlestar Galactica and the movie refit U.S.S. Enterprise to learn the visual importance of complementary and/or parallel angles. I think most people that didn't like my design were among the "It's too big mafia" among Star Trek ship critics. You know the same ones who think the Next Generation Enterprise was too big. The aversion to size has no rational basis.
It's not the size, but it literally looks like you have stuck a flag in a turd with those mini-nacelles. I just doesn't feel sleek. It feels cumbersome and heavy. That's nothing to do with it's size, but rather it's shape. Have a look at this picture Now, I know this post probably reads as a massive troll, but I am serious, can you not see the likeness in terms of the body of the ship being this huge lump, with the nacelles being these little things poked on top?
It reminds me more of something like this. Huge body with tiny little "movers". I know they're supposed to be "placeholders", but they definitely don't add any apeal to the design at all.
As I said the engines were "placeholders". There are not supposed to be distinct engine nacelles. The transwarp engines in my design are a single, thin, but long and wide flattened assembly. Sure, the look small when viewed directly from the side, and directly for fore & aft, when looked at levelly. But when viewed from above, below, upper aft, lower aft and from the well known forward, lower port/starboard quarter angles forward, upper port/starboard quarter angles they look quite large indeed. Unfortunately, I don't have good presentable drawings of those angles. I was inspired by the "antigravity wedges" common in the Honorverse starships. Though in this case the "wedge" is actually a functional part of the ship and not just a projected forcefield.
Exactly my point. You've managed six or seven samples at least two of which a lot of people would disagree with. When what you said was: "Most of the winners you'll either have never heard of, or loathe, while the losers, or ones not even nominated are the classics." The Oscars often get it wrong but to suggest the Best Picture winner has overall been a turkey is nutso.
no. I just think it's an ugly, clunky profile that's guilty ten-fold of everything people like yourself bash the JJ-prise for. At least that looked like a federation ship. With the "place holders" you've abandoned the Enterprise design lineage... may as well be a ring ship.
Explain what? You don't know what "horrible" means? It's ugly. Very ugly. I would not watch a show in which that ship was the hero ship.
