Clever Santos and his Star Trek kits...

zathros

*****SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR*****
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Denting the tabs if done on long straight runs can work very well. Just get the paper of the same plane so the edges match. It's where radii come into play, I don't care how many they put in, the tabs always ruin the radius. ;)
 

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
So, lets finish up this kit review/comparison...

Another difference between these kits shows how one is stronger in some areas and the other is stronger in different aspects.

The secondary deflector set in the notch in the forward hull has a better support system on the PSF kit, with accurate, red triangle details [see pic 1]. Yet the Clever kit is more accurate in the Deflector layout, consisting of both the deflector projector and focusing panel [see pic 2]in front (the PSF kit leaves the focusing pad part completely out for some reason). Its odd how the authors saw, or missed, different details.

On the hulls of the rough builds, the differences are more apparent, and the fit issues more clearly illustrated.
 

Attachments

  • Nova- secondary deflector part PSF.jpg
    Nova- secondary deflector part PSF.jpg
    353.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Nova- hull & secondary defl Clver.jpg
    Nova- hull & secondary defl Clver.jpg
    369.2 KB · Views: 0

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
Continuing...

The Clever kit has the better fit of this notch [see pic 3], though it is a little tight and narrow a shape compared to the screen-Digi kit. Where the better graphics on the PSF kit provide a more accurate visual (with the exception of the erroneously omitted deflector pad in front of the projector), the kit suffers more fit problems, as the deflector projector does not kit in the housing easily. The notch-size in the forward-hull is better on the PSF kit though [see pic 4].

The differences between the kits are clear, where one has better graphics than the other in some respects, but is missing in others, and one fits better together in some ways but then not as good as the other. Both kits have benefits that may permit combining these to make one accurate, well fit kit.

The two kits may cover the same subject, the Nova class, but they are very different and have different positive and negative aspects.
 

Attachments

  • Clever secondary deflector low res image.jpg
    Clever secondary deflector low res image.jpg
    395.7 KB · Views: 3
  • PSF secondary deflector, low res.jpg
    PSF secondary deflector, low res.jpg
    162.3 KB · Views: 3

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
You might be seeing why I built rough-builds of these before attempting a quality, attractive final build. The lack of instructions, and potential fit problems, suggested pre-emptive experimentation.

This differences extended to the nacelles.

The Engines on the Clever kit are easier to build and make cleaner assembly [see pic 1] but, though more difficult to build, the PSF shapes are more accurate to the Digi-model. Of course, if you choose to light your model, like Spaceagent does, the Clever kit’s nacelles have seems through their bustards that would interfere with lighting (the PSF kits also have very minor seem splitting near the edge of the magnatomic flux chiller, but they are less noticeable) [see pic 2]. Again, a frankensteining of these kits be be needed to produce what you desire in the end.



The rear intercoolers are more accurately shaped on the PSF kit, than on the Clever kit. Very little effort would make them more accurate on this PSF kit {see pic 3]. The Clever kit’s intercoolers are mere coloured shapes and less attractive or representative [see pic 4].

Again, there are benefits to one kit that compete with the benefits of the other kit.
 

Attachments

  • Clever nacelle close up.jpg
    Clever nacelle close up.jpg
    265.6 KB · Views: 5
  • PSF nacelle close up.jpg
    PSF nacelle close up.jpg
    188.2 KB · Views: 4
  • PSF intercoolers.jpeg
    PSF intercoolers.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 4
  • Clever intercoolers.jpeg
    Clever intercoolers.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 4

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
The upper engineering hull connection is different on both kits. The Clever kit does not make for a smooth connection. You would have to rig it, or you'll have this awkward gap. Its just a kit flaw.

The PSF kit is much better. It provides a flush connection between the engineering hull and the command hull, at the base of the neck. Unfortunately, there were not directions, and a single white connection spacer plate, that would have made this more effective, was not described. In my test build, the plate was left out. I believe that using the only framing pice [pic 3] would help keep these parts from separating after the hull sag kicks in. Use the plate in pic three behind the command hull, to permit your own creation of addition of structural strips to fasten these together more securely.
 

Attachments

  • Clever hull connection.jpeg
    Clever hull connection.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 4
  • PSF impulse engine - hull connection.jpeg
    PSF impulse engine - hull connection.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 4
  • Nova- frame PSF.jpg
    Nova- frame PSF.jpg
    365.8 KB · Views: 3

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
The upper impulse-shuttle decks are very different on both kits.





On the Clever kit, they are more cleanly and easily fit, as squared-off additions [see pic 1] that glue flush to the rounded deck. The PSF kit encompasses the decks as part of the lower hull fold process, instead of using two pieces, as the Clever kit does. This shaping of these impulse/bay decks is only accomplished by carefully noting this need to bend a framing-difference, as you try to assemble it (no directions makes this effort a trial and error effort) [see pic 2]. Directions here would have made the process far less frustrating. A rough-build is almost needed just to accomplish the desired shape. The good news is, if you do go through the awkward rough build process, the cleverly-thought design makes for a cleaner upper hull shape, when finished.





The impulse engine graphics are better on the Clever kit [see pic 1], as are the secondary, upper support bay doors, and the ones near the stern of the ship.





The PSF kit drops the ball in this respect, creating a glowing refection of the engine, spilling up the hull, not down in the direction of the light flow, and with little impulse engine graphics. The effect is an odd, impulse backwash! The secondary bay is neglected, with the staging area/elevator just folding over where access doors should be [see pic 3]. The aft shuttle bay doors are very poorly graphiced-out as well (and the hull shape is off quite a bit).





These difference in the kits allude to something that I hinted to in the beginning of the thread, regarding the shuttle bay (in TV that would have been called a tease!!). The Clever kit’s shuttle bay is better and more accurately shaped, as compared to the Digi on screen, but it lacks the darker staging area [see pic 4 for the graphic cutaway of the section & 5 for the designer hand drawn notes] between the aft bay and the mid-hull secondary bay access. The PSF does have this recessed upper bay staging area, delineated appropriately in a darker shade. This staging area is provided, at least in print (modification would be necessary to create the layering to make it look better) in only the PSF kit [see pic 3], but as noted before, this recessed staging area bends upward into where a set of clamshell doors should be placed. To build this accurately, the recessed darker ares should be moved a few millimetres toward the aft section, and separate clamshell-doors needed to be added (perhaps stolen from the Clever kit?).





If you look at the cutaway, as provided by the Clever kit [pic 4], the main shuttle bay is merely a deck tall (not high enough to stage a typical shuttle; see designer notes in pic 5) . Only shuttle pods could fit throughout the doors of the lower-stern bay, even with accurate tractor beam guidance [see pic 4]. The upper bay is even shorter than a full deck, making the entry only useful to workboxes (and very rested pilots!). However, if the staging area deck, between the stern shuttle bay and upper shuttle bay, were to lower, the secondary bay area would actually be large enough for shuttle travel. In fact, the entire area could be one shuttle adequately-sized shuttlebay, with a small stern door for tractor launch, an upper elevator staging pad, and an upper set of doors to close off when the elevator is raised flush with the outer hull.

The shuttle would land outside, onto the staging area, and be lowered into the bay and tractor through the upper bay doors, similar to an external elevator system, like the internal one employed by 1701, that was enclosed in the shuttle deck and dropped into the shuttle maintenance bay below the deck.





If this is the "in-universe" solution is as I suspect, then neither kit would work without modification. Clever's kit lacks the darker, shuttle staging elevator, and the PSF kit has it, but it is positioned in a manner where it gets bent when folding the parts properly.


And that's why we do rough-builds!





The Clever kit provides a better hull shape for the stern; it just takes a bit of experimentation to find the right shape. Play with the fold lines before trying to do a quality build, as this shaping is not easy, nor explained in any directions.

The PSF kit is easier to put together in the stern, but the final shape is a bit too narrow and too high; it needs to be broader at the shuttle bay doors.





regarding the graphics in this area...The Clever kit does not provide a between shuttle bay door staging area/elevator. The PSF kit does provide this.

But the PSF kit does not provide upper doors and the darker staining area/elevator elevator is bent when the kit assembled.

At the very least, the doors off the Clever kit would need to be match to the upper deck-bay access, covering the bent portion on the PSF.





The PSF also needs the doors off the Clever kit for the stern bay, as what is printed is not accurate or as attractive as the Clever version’s. Of course, then you’ll have to modify the PSF kit to have its stern shaped a bit differently, or choose to go with the Clever kit, but then steal parts off the PSF to make a staging elevator/pad…
 

Attachments

  • Clever impulse engine and shuttle bay doors.jpeg
    Clever impulse engine and shuttle bay doors.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 3
  • PSF impulse engine - hull connection.jpeg
    PSF impulse engine - hull connection.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 4
  • PSF impulse engine bay doors.jpeg
    PSF impulse engine bay doors.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 4
  • Nova aft cutaway.jpg
    Nova aft cutaway.jpg
    332.4 KB · Views: 3
  • Equinox deck notes.jpg
    Equinox deck notes.jpg
    140.9 KB · Views: 3

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
The main deflector is very different on both kits. The housing and bracing is more effective on the Clever kit, providing more shape and an inset brace that stages the deflector better [see pic 1]. It takes bit of patience and experimentation, but after puzzling it through you're able to figure out how the author planned to employ the piece. Turn it "inside-out" to brace the inner, raw fold of paper, enclosing the inner assembly.

The actual deflector graphic is not as nice as the PSF kit though [see pic 2]. There is less detail and the dish is too wide on the PFS kit! You'll have to play around, shrinking the pSF dish a bit to fit in the deflector housing of the Clever kit.

The PSF kit lacks the inner housing-curved piece that makes the Clever kit look so much better when built. Its too flat.

The Deflector assembly suffers poor fit and creates bubbling and warping around it. The forked edges of the housing that extends beyond the dish cavity is just not smooth and do not fit well, pealing up after gluing. The Clever kits assembly is light-years better. The deflector assembly on the PSF suffers many fit problems and even after playing with it, the final result is less satisfying.
 

Attachments

  • Clever main sensor deflector.jpg
    Clever main sensor deflector.jpg
    673.3 KB · Views: 2
  • PSF main sensor deflector.jpg
    PSF main sensor deflector.jpg
    616.7 KB · Views: 2

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
Again, neither kit is fully there; some combination of the two would be best.


The engineering hull bottom is better shaped on the PSF kit, but the stern better on the Clever kit. The markings are not well done, though on the Clever kit [see pic 1]. There are transporter emitters where there should be landing leg doors. The upper spinal bays fit better on the Clever kit, but they can be folded into shape on the PSF kit.

The command hulls also have challenges.
The lower, dorsal side of the forward hull, where the waverer shuttle is imbedded os smoother on the Clever kit [see pic 2]. This is a strength of the kit. The PSF kit needs some framing to hold this section from warping during the build. Part of the problem is that the deflector connection to the lower hull pulls the dorsal side of the upper-bow, creating structural warping. Compensating with framing would help, but the kit has serious fit-issues in this area. I would recommend test building with attention on how to compensate for the hulls-joining tension, possibly with cooped spacers?
 

Attachments

  • Clever hull shape.jpeg
    Clever hull shape.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 4
  • Clever dorsal forward hull.jpg
    Clever dorsal forward hull.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 4

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
Conclusion.



Neither kit is fully better than the other. Both have strengths and both have weaknesses, and sometimes one kit is better in some aspects but worse in others, when compared.



Overall, though harder to puzzle together, the PSF makes fo a better fitting kit, save for the underside of the foreword-arrow shaped hull. It needs considerable framing to manage the shape and the dorsal area of the fore hull will require some modification to make for a smoother joining of the upper/lower/deflector connection. The deflector assembly on this kit is inferior to the Clever kit.



The stern section of the PSF kit is too narrow, compared with the Clever kit, though the joining of the upper neck between the engineering section and command portion of the hulls is poorly achieved with the Clever kit.



The graphics on the PSF kit are by far, better. They do have some failings, compared to the Clever kit, though. The Clever’s secondary deflector and both shuttle bays and impulse engines have more detailed and better graphics.



So, in the end, neither kit is really better than the other; there are just aspects of each that would work best if the kits could be Frankensteined together. A common size would have to be established before printing, though, as the PSF kit is larger than the Clever kit.



What do you think?

Have you built these kits? Resolved any of these problems?

I was asked to do a comparison, and am exploring a finer-quality rebuild, but my best solution at this time is to resize the Clever kit to match the PSF kit, and swap portions, where fit and colouring permit?


What are your thoughts?
 

zathros

*****SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR*****
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
I don't want to sound likee a jerk, but I don't think either of these models are worth building. I know you do good work, and if this is how they came out with you doing the work, imagine someone else with lesser skills. The frustration could have them give up paper modeling. IMHO. ;)
 

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
I get your point.

You may be right, but I do see promise in both of these. They both need new versions, possibly even author cooperation?


I respect authors of paper models. They do amazing jobs with their minds and pixels.

It is sometimes hard for authors to see how difficult it is to understand their intentions. THat's why authors like Thales, Marko, RAWEN, and other who make kits with directions, show real skill and dedication toward creating long lasting, valuable kits. Its not only about making buildable models; its also about making understandable kits.

I do see your point. I have to confess that I didn't work hard on making a clean build, so these are not representative of what these kits could be. I had to do a test-build just to try to figure out how to piece these together; how to make them fit, given no directions on where to fold and what to connect.

I do think that both kits can be bettered. They just need some graphic updates (in the case of Clever Santos kit) and in some part fit-betterment m(in the case of both Clever and PSFs kits).

There's not a lot of Nova class kits out there. Let's hope that these authors, or others who have strong design skills, can better these kits; just like how Perry improved Nijatoes excellent kits with improved graphics.

Otherwise, maybe we, builders, can find creative ways to get one good Nova class out of these two close-to-potential kits?


What do you think?



.
 

mijob

Tie designer
Staff member
Moderator
I think it could be possible it will take some time. The new designer has to build like you both the models and then figure out the right way to combine them. Maybe its better to design from scratch a new model and use both models as example.
 

Revell-Fan

Co-Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Thank you for such an indepth analysis of the two kits. I don't remember ever seeing anything like that here on the forum. So major kudos for your hard work! :)

Making a new model from scratch would eliminate several problems which may occur when combining the two kits, like fitting issues and matching the colours. It is possible to combine the two but it will require MUCH work and time. In addition, working with a proper CG model would make it easy to produce a fitting inner frame right from the start. Starfleet vessels look so attractive because of their fluent lines which almost look organic (Star Wars vessels are more angled and thus indeed easier to replicate). Those delicate lines need much care and a very well fitting support structure.

I totally agree that missing, incomplete and misleading instructions can suck the fun out of a build.
 

zathros

*****SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR*****
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
I could improve those kits, but I just don't have time now. I am building a 10' x 12' foot shed made of Double Pane Argon Filled French Glass Wall panels, and it is absorbing all my time, as my back is killing me. I'm not supposed to be doing this kind of stuff, but I need to put my motorcycles and MG in there, to free up working space in my Barn/Workshop. I'm 75% done.

There is potential for these models,I agree. I kind of would rather start over with a CAD model from someplace else, and Greeble, instead of huge graphic surfaces. This model is more of a toy to me, in it's present form. What kid wouldn't like running around with this? :)

Shed.jpg
 

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
Thank you for such an indepth analysis of the two kits. I don't remember ever seeing anything like that here on the forum. So major kudos for your hard work! :)

Making a new model from scratch would eliminate several problems which may occur when combining the two kits, like fitting issues and matching the colours. It is possible to combine the two but it will require MUCH work and time. In addition, working with a proper CG model would make it easy to produce a fitting inner frame right from the start. Starfleet vessels look so attractive because of their fluent lines which almost look organic (Star Wars vessels are more angled and thus indeed easier to replicate). Those delicate lines need much care and a very well fitting support structure.

I totally agree that missing, incomplete and misleading instructions can suck the fun out of a build.



" Starfleet vessels look so attractive because of their fluent lines which almost look organic"




That's a very good point. I have a couple of Star Wars kits, and am looking forward to RAWEN's upcoming large-scale corvette/blockade runner (which will most likely have his well thought out instructions!), and one attraction to those kits is how easily a gap or fit problem plays well into the architecture.

Star Trek ships are smooth, detailed, and reflective of apex technology. Making a model of one is a challenge, even when tackling Klingon and merchant vessels, where perfection is less an issue.

I have respect for these authors. My critiques here was not to denigrate their efforts. The Nova class is an especially difficult example of curves, rounded shapes, and flush-fitting seems. I could not have produced what either of these designers did; their skill exceeds mine by far.


"I totally agree that missing, incomplete and misleading instructions can suck the fun out of a build."




I do wish authors valued their kits more. It must take a great deal of time and effort to design and compete these kits. With so much work, one would think that they would want their kits olive on and develope.

To produce instructions is an essential part of communicating the value of the kit. It not only promotes builds, but repaints, recolours, and even different versions.

Consider DWHALE's kits. His Vor'Cha class Klingon battlecruiser has spawns held a dozen versions, last I checked (one even pink for "Hello Kitty"!). I am not suggesting that every kit designer is skilled at instructions; that's a different, unique ability. But an author, if not skilled in instruction development, could coo-op with an interested party, providing their pdo and guidance for an invested party.

Thales is an example of a skilled model designer and instructions provider. His kits are examples to aspire to.


I haven't given up on these kits yet. I am considering how to figure out the size of the Clever kit, enlarging it to the PFS version. Except for the shuttle bay are, I think the foundation pf the PSF kit might work as a foundation for Clever-kit improvements. I am taking a few weeks away to mull over this possibility.

I have reached out to Bones several times, offering to develop instructions for his TAS Robot Freighter. He recreated a pdo of it but I can't separate the pieces enough to develop instructions. If he gets back to me, I will share.

I am also open to working with either of these authors. I would like to see their kits celebrated.


I can only hope that they share my enthusiasm.






If nothing else, I hope that this presentation helped any prospective builders get a heads-up before starting their builds. Maybe they can figure out solutions to some of the issues that I have raised, and share them? There are undoubtedly some more skilled builders out there than I, and they may have the solution to the puzzle that I have highlighted.




And now a random photo of an opossum that was stunning about my yard during the daylight. It has not relation to my theme; it was just unusual and worth sharing!


[No, he's not made of paper...]
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4424.MOV
    2.2 MB

spaceagent-9

Right Hand Man and Confidant
Moderator
My printer bit the dust this week end, right when I was going to print out a try at a 2 foot long Excelsior. Clevers I guess, or maybe a mix of Clevers and Rawens? seems like this ship never gets anything done until Tuesday [ snicker]- Then I think maybe Clevers kbop or a Phoenix class 1701 modification. both in the 200% enlarged size, as I am finishing up my KD7s. I am having difficulty solving the power pod nacelles curvatures. Still waiting on a ride to the print shop to take Ron's new recolor of his 1701 and print a 200% enlarged onto really thick silvery poster stock. I try to post the lego star trek ships I run across because I think it's marvelous how they make this stuff look so good. It's starting to cool down now , here in the desert, and I am looking forward to going for walks at evening time. First print off the new printer will be; the new Romulan bird of prey tos designed by eric_son https://www.zealot.com/resources/romulan-bird-of-prey-tos.2433/
 

THE DC

Highly Esteemed Member
That's a pretty ship!


Who made the 2 foot Excelsior?


RAWEN's was about 6-8" long and Clever's pretty similar; maybe a foot?


Where'd you find that?


Sorry about the printer. It wasn't my opossum that got it, I am sure...


:laughrolling:
 

spaceagent-9

Right Hand Man and Confidant
Moderator
Who made the 2 foot Excelsior?

I might make a combination of r\Rawens and Clevers. enlarge it to 200% so it comes out to 2 feet or so, I'm not sure yet. what I have learned from my efforts so far this year is that there are many problems that come with enlarging a paper model. I know a few things- I will be using Styrofoam and wood struts for my structural integrity frames. another might be bent brass hobby planks, like from under the nacelle hump up the neck and to the nose of the saucer to keep it from sagging. Tim791e will tell. I might just jump to the really big Ron Cs 1701 recolor enlargement.
 

Revell-Fan

Co-Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
RAWEN's upcoming large-scale corvette/blockade runner
You had me with "blockade runner". You made me freak out with "large-scale"..! :yesyes:(Is there a preview one can drool at dream of???)

Who made the 2 foot Excelsior?

I might make a combination of r\Rawens and Clevers. enlarge it to 200% so it comes out to 2 feet or so, I'm not sure yet. what I have learned from my efforts so far this year is that there are many problems that come with enlarging a paper model. I know a few things- I will be using Styrofoam and wood struts for my structural integrity frames. another might be bent brass hobby planks, like from under the nacelle hump up the neck and to the nose of the saucer to keep it from sagging. Tim791e will tell. I might just jump to the really big Ron Cs 1701 recolor enlargement.
Wasn't the 200% upscale based on the Clever model? If yes, the parts would be identical, so you wouldn't have to combine the two. ;)
 

spaceagent-9

Right Hand Man and Confidant
Moderator
Wasn't the 200% upscale based on the Clever model? If yes, the parts would be identical, so you wouldn't have to combine the two. ;)

Well, there are certain things that I like about the Rawen model That aren't like the Clever Excelsior. Maybe I should enlarge both to the same size and present them as enlargements in one download. If I could enlarge it to 300x, I think this would satisfy all, but then you run into things like paper thickness does not support it's own wight, and the internal structural integrity must be wood or metal. I am sitting around here part of my day waiting for rides, and pondering, things like; should I make the basic pieces out of foam board with thick poster paper for the detaining, and overlay placement on the exterior? use air filled balloons to firm up the saggy areas on just a poster paper presentation? Make the internal supports out of foam board and fill the entire ship with walls and runners so it won't sag? It is quite an undertaking especially if you want it presentable. Then, the STNG Romulan War bird double hulled enlarged model!
 
Top