I must admit, you make that awful kitbash look very good... Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Just goes to show,...it's the Modeler, not the Model! Fantastic work! I'll use these shots as reference for my physical 2500th scale model. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
You know, if it weren't for that third nacelle this ship wouldn't look half bad. Maybe this could be a propper class after all, if you loose nacelle #3 that is. Perhaps the tri-lobed warp field was some freaky experiment that was only used on one of these ships. Try doing a few renders without the offending engine and see what difference it makes. Great model as always BTW Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Damn good! . Actually, I've never really minded this design but I have to say it looks a hell of a lot better in 'proper' colours than the model's paint scheme.
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
reverend you seem to have a bone to pick with three nacelled ships.. we know theyve happened before...
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Well thanks all, I'm kind of in agreement, as I wasn't a great fan of this design until the mesh was finished, and then I thought it wasn't half bad after all. It just shows that you can't always judge a ship by merely the schematics...
I have nothing against 3 nacelled ships. This is the fourth such example we've seen, and presuming we only know the minority of the classes commissioned since the UFPs founding, one would expect that such designs are consistently used.
But I'll try doing a few renders of only the two nacelles and see how it looks...
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Great work! I don't care for the third nacelle either... in fact, I hate it, but not simply because it's a third nacelle. I don't like how far down it hangs nor do I like it's nacelle pylons. If that third nacelle were tucked in a bit tighter and given a proper mount, I don't think it would be nearly as bad.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Dang Mark, you DO make that ship look good!
I agree, if the third nacelle and pylons were removed it would look like a decent ship. In fact, it would look remarkably similar to the basic configuration of the old Reliant sketches (before they flipped the nacelles downward).
I have nothing against most three-nacelle designs either, but this one looks extremely unbalanced. In all the others, there's no great difference between the top and the bottom of the ship, and it appears that the center of mass is somewhere around the center. But with the Medusa, that third nacelle is hanging way out in the middle of nowhere.
"Oh, I wouldn't want to be a third nacelle..." -- Reg Barclay, "Inside Man" Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
a beautiful explanation would be if the third nacelle was a seconary hull of some type.. i think it looks kinda Oberth-ish in that case.
and.. um.. the reason it looks like the original configuration.. well you do know what 'kitbash' means, right?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye replace the third nacelle with a Steamrunner deflector (use diffrent pylons though!) Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
i kinda appreciate the pylons. its an idea ive liked ever since i saw the Akula-class from SotSFv2
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Maybe a little theory of mine might fit when looking at one of those pics up above.
Maybe this medusa only really had two nacelles (a copy for the bottom nacelle on top), as a quick repair to bring it home again (during that scene - if she was there)... the pair of nacelles were brought along and slotted in/gamma welded on top - as a makeshift repair.
Andrew
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I think it would've been cool if, instead of the third nacelle, the top two were mirrored on the bottom half. That way it would be the Excelsior equivalent of the Constellation-class.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Yes! And then we could savage it for months and call it unoriginal! Name it the Constellsior! Demand the producers' heads on duranium platters!
(Sorry, I'm going back to uni tomorrow and need to get some facetiousness out of my system.) Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
What about taking a few more liberties with this thing?
The model as shown has no torp launchers. But it does have major damage to both sides of the bow. What about inserting torpedo tubes (perhaps two per side, one atop the other) in the damaged areas, and saying that the smart Dominion gunners targeted those spots specifically because that's where the ship's main armament was?
Or, if the ship is torp-less, perhaps one could call it a fleet salvage tug, and say it was rescuing this single nacelle this time? Perhaps the lower pylons aren't a makeshift arrangement for a single towing mission, but instead a permanent towing receptable?
Incidentally, how did you do the impulse engines? Does each nozzle glow red, in both halves of the saucer? The additional things on the top half are even less likely to be impulse engines in this thing than in the E-B: here they would fire directly at the pylons!
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Actually, froma little lower angle, it looks like the Ent-B Side Impulse Engines would fire directly underneath the pylons. However, I tend to think the two thin slots right under the the aft pylon... er... anchorage (the block structure with shuttlebays?) are the impulse engines.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
The impulse engines, as I did them, are the where you'd expect them on an Excelsior. But as this involves two Excelsior saucers stuck together it would mean there are two pairs of engines. I phased out the two above, it's the two below which are the impulse engines.
I like the idea of putting torp tubes on the saucer, where the damage on the photos is. I'll see what I can come up with...
Dax, I also came up with the same idea that this may have once been a four nacelled ship... I'm going to try that as well.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye this thing is a repair/support ship chock full of repair crews and workbees and it needs the extra nacelle to help tow crippled ships at warp. The space at the rear of the saucer could house additional shuttle bays/repair ships.
We really have not seen many starfleet support ships....except for that hideous "tug" from DS9.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Here's a variation I call 'Scorpio' - currently experimetning with both 2 and 4 nacelle configurations....
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I like the 4 nacelle version. As I said earlier, it strikes me as an acceptable Constellation equivalent of the Excelsior.
I think the 2 nacelle version would be better, more balanced, if it didn't have the double saucer.
BTW, on the original kitbash, do we know what that blocky thing at the back of the saucer and below the top pylons is?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
BTW, on the original kitbash, do we know what that blocky thing at the back of the saucer and below the top pylons is?
A kennel.
The two nacelled version looks like a cool updated Loknar class.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
The 2 nacelle design is much better looking I'd say. After all, RA has a very nice looking, 4 nacelled excelsior type already.
To answer a previous question, no I do not have any particular aversion to 3 nacelled ships, but then I'm not particularly fond of them either. It really depends on how the ships are designed. For instance, the Niagara is a fairly nice looking ship, with it's balanced configuration but FJ's old Dreadnaught on the other hand is decidedly unbalanced and not a clever design at all.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Dude, you are kiddin'. The Viagra? That is the WORST of the BOBW ship-bashes by far! Even the Fryingpan...er...Firebrand is better than that! Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Perhaps, but it's still not as unbalanced and ugly as the Medusa. After all, it didn't get it's nickname by having a head full of snakes.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: A kennel.
Please explain. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
From Vulcan are we? The kennel thing was a joke about the "blocky thing" on the Medusa.
The Medusa is a starnge, unbalanced monster, I agree. The Niagra monster makes even less sense as it has nacelles of a later vintage than the secondary hull and the saucer is just freakish.
At least the frying pan (freedom) class is an update on the jackhill scout ship....
I really think that the Medusa looks good as a modern Loknar class once you drop the third nacelle.
I've been thinking of making an updated "Remora" class destroyer from some extra Ambaassador parts..any ideas Admiral? Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
actually the Freedom would more realistically be an, intentional or not, homage to Franz Joseph's Hermes/Saladin from the ST:TM.
I still dont get the kennel.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: From Vulcan are we? The kennel thing was a joke about the "blocky thing" on the Medusa.
I see - how funny. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
DON'T YOU ROLL YOUR EYES ON THIS FORUM, YOUNG MAN! THIS NEWBIE BASHING HAS GOT TO END! YOU OUGHT TO BE ASHAMED OF THIS CRUEL AND DEGRADING TREATMENT YOU ARE SUBJECTING JASON TO!
Is it my imagination, or are we actually making progress in this respect?
The two-nacelled Medusa is a real beauty. All it needs now is a name and a registry. Somehow, a 7000-range one doesn't fit my mental image of the thing. This could rather be something built to accompany the 14000-range Excelsiors...
Also, what about getting artistic? The Mirandas have their registries painted differently from those of the Constitutions. The Medusas could have smart blue-gold lines framing the registry, or something...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
*laughs* Actually I'm probably one of the most well mannered members here. Jason just made the fatal mistake of implying that I'm Vulcan.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Could have been worse, he could have accused you of having blue skin and rather suspicious looking antennae.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
I actually like both the 2 and 4 nacelle variants. Making alterations, like losing the second mirrored Excelsior saucer, and other customizations I can't see why both ships can't exist as separate conjectural classes.
I think the two nacelle version is too unlike the Loknar. They share a similar configuration, but any Loknar upgrade would be more like the refit Connie.
I like the Niagara fine. I speculate that the Galaxy style nacelles we see with the Princeton is only due to refit - or a second batch. After all, the Princeton's registry is NCC 58904, suggesting there was another batch of Niagaras in the middle of the 24th century, right at the time the New Orleans, and as the Galaxy prototype was under way.
Jason - Remora Class....?
Timo, I put this Medusa Class ship at the beginning of the 24th century, late 23rd at the earliest. Just a wild guess. But it could hail from later on, you're right.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
O.K. so nobody here is a Vulcan! Romulans? Excalibans with good skin? Whatever you are....kirk probably would have either hit on you or hit you. The Remora was a design from the old FASA game. It was a fast scoutship with only one nacelle. From the top it looked more like a stingray than a remora. I stand corrected on my theory about the origin of the Freedom design. It is indeed a salidin shaped ship. Another frying pan that I've modeled.
Red, have you ever built the Excelsior study models? One of them is real stretched out and sports four smaller nacelles. As for the Medusa, I say continue on the two nacelled version. I looks very cool. Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Nice apology, Jason. Just kidding.
I'm pretty sure Red's done the 4 nacelled Excelsior study. There should be a thread on it here somewhere.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Yes I've done the first of the Excelsior study models, the four nacelled one, which is here:
Ah yes, the Remora, I'm with you now. I'm not any great fan of it, only a few of the FASA ships have worthy designs. My favourites of the FASA ships are the Genser, Loknar (which I've built), Griffon, and the FASA Ambassador.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Wow, that model is really cool-looking. I actually *like* this design. I don't know why people seem to have a problem with any ship that doesn't look like the Enterprise...
Nice work, Jason!
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Thanks! I never would have attempted it if THe Red admiral had not made it look kewel in his CGI version (back on page 1)and if Soundeffect had not made his 1/1000th scale model (his had the third nacelle up as per the DS9TM). My little model is only about 5" long too! Hopefully I'll be able to photograph my entire fleet next week (almost twice as big as the original one now).
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
That's a nice model that, real sweet. This might inspire me to do some more modelling. I've been out of the loop and haven't done any for months now... Indeed, this is my first visit to Flare this year! Alas, I have just not had the time.
Posted by Middy Seafort (Member # 951) on :
Red Admiral,
That's a great model of the Excelsior, phase one design.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
The folks at StarshipModeler have already seen this, but as Jason mentioned abouve, here's my model of the "Medusa" using the single-nacelle-up variation (which I believe is the correct orientation):
USS Aquarius Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Build more CGI models Red! I'm using your Niagra as a reference on an ucoming model (although the filming version-and mine- has 5 phaser strips). I even have plans to build a phase I Excelsior as per your CGI. Your work rocks: don't stop now. Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Very nice model indeed Soundeffect, looks terrific. Although I must say that I do believe the configuration is two up, one down. The studio model seemed to be orientated this way, but even with one up two down, it still looks cool.
Thanks Middy Seafort, and good luck on the Viagra Jason, it was a tough one to build in CGI actually. As for giving up, it's more a matter of just not having the time to do it. I used to be able to build a full ship in two or three days. Now any modelling work I do will find large gaps of time between each session, and as such it will be slow going.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
I've already heard the arguments about the 'coolness factor' being the deciding point in favor of the two nacelle up theory, but that doesn't quite cut it. My reasoning for the single nacelle up is:
1) I feel the studio pic that was released actually shows the bottom and not the top. IN the cases of ALL the other DS9 kitbashes, model stand holes were drilled into the bottom of the models only, not the tops.
2) The DS9 Tech Manual shows it to be single nacelle up. Since we can't find the ship on-screen with any certainty, that's as canon as we have. (And yes, of course it could've been a mistake in the manual as the Jem'Hadar Cruiser was upside down)
3) Although the saucer is made from two tops and therefore technically has two bridges, the single necelle up orientation has a bridge module that is more ornately colored than on the other side. The other bridge is painted entirely copper. Looking at both, the copper one suddenly looks more like a sensor platform than a main bridge.
I'd really like to hear some convincing arguments for the two-nacelle up orientation, again, besides the 'coolness factor'. The ship has to have an 'up'. I'm interested in hearing what points are in favor of the two nacelles up version.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I actually replaced the bottom "bridge" with a connie planetary sensor pallate. It makes more sense that way.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
My arguments for two nacelles up:
-Looks better! Especially if one assumes the third nacelle is an afterthought to an originally two-nacelled class...
-That way, it's the top half of the saucer that has the E-B extensions. I'm positive that the modelmaker would follow the standard aesthetic of "upper trailing edge and lower leading edge may receive extra stuff" that makes for fast-looking cars.
-On the same vein, the E-B extensions aren't complete - they lack the original bottom part, which was attached to the bottom half of the saucer in the E-B kit. No sane modelmaker would leave the *top* of these structures uncovered/unfinished this way. Such imperfections are always swept *under* the rug.
-Ditto for the other dangling bits of the ship's stern. They look good from "above" but not from "below" when two nacelles are up. Ships are not made to look better from "below" unless they are specifically to hover above the camera, often menacingly so. I can't imagine such a role for the kitbashes.
-The decorative markings are on the upper pylons when two nacelles are up. Again, aesthetics would call for markings on the upper part of the ship rather than the lower (Miranda class notwithstanding).
Finally, the motion control rod socket need not be "up" or "down" specifically - but it *must* be on the side that has the two nacelles, because the other side cannot accommodate a socket (the single nacelle there is on the way). So this should not be considered an aesthetics choice the modelmaker was free to make. Even if he handed over a finished product and specifically said "this side up!" the motion-control people would drill the hole wherever *they* knew it had to go.
But here's another viewpoint for balance: the three-naceller is the only ship that *wouldn't* be able to stand on a tabletop for the artist to admire if the two nacelles were up... I mean, apart from the Connie kitbash. But *that* model does have a definite "down" established.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: My arguments for two nacelles up:
-Looks better! Especially if one assumes the third nacelle is an afterthought to an originally two-nacelled class...
-On the same vein, the E-B extensions aren't complete - they lack the original bottom part, which was attached to the bottom half of the saucer in the E-B kit. No sane modelmaker would leave the *top* of these structures uncovered/unfinished this way. Such imperfections are always swept *under* the rug.
Timo Saloniemi
I noticed this too: I had to fill the enginnering section directly between the naceles (and that part would be glaringly face up on a model with the third nacelle in the dorsal position. The other reason that the third nacelle is dorsal is that i'm always right and everyone that disaggres with me is, of course, wrong. And the Defiant is 170 meters long. And Perigrines are 25-32 meters long. And the Jenolin is 230 meters long. And the Government is really out to get us...
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Of course there are only four relevant pieces of 'evidence' to consider with this. Without positive identification on screen, the only things we have to go by to determine orientation are two DS9:TM diagrams (main and silhouette) and the two studio model pics.
So if you have two nacelles up, you have an entirely copper colored deck 1, which to me looks strange, and a nicely colored lower sensor.
The Starfleet symbols were placed where there was room. Assuming 1-nacelle up was correct, where could you fit a symbol? Nowhere. So they put one on the bottom. Hardly conclusive.
I'm not sure what is meant by the Enterprise-B extensions you refer to Timo. If you mean the extra impulse engines, take a look at the model shots I linked above...the saucer shape from Excelsior makes it so you can't put the rest of those pieces there.
The semi-circular area at the junction of the pylons was easily covered with a piece of plastic. If only we could see a name and/or registry on the studio model, we might have a better time of reaching a definite conclusion.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Just to clarify the E-B extension thing: yes, I mean the impulse engines. Or shuttlebays, which in this particular design at least would probably be a better function for those boxes. I mean, the ship already has four impulse nozzles! And the lack of red plastic plates on the side boxes could be taken to mean the red glow was an atmosphere-holding forcefield even in the original, and is turned off on the Medusa.
I know they couldn't be finished to their E-B glory because the structure of the Medusa precludes it. And I think the modelmaker, once faced with this problem, would have made sure that the ugly unfinished half would be the underside, not the topside.
Too bad the model wasn't named. Which begs the question: why the heck not? I mean, it was painted and all. But I could believe the modelmaker got fed up with creating *one* set of cut-and-paste decals not available from the box, and never did the "optional" decals on the underside or the nacelles. Which would mean the decorated topside *is* the hidden one with the third nacelle...
...But only assuming that the ship got any decals at all. Save for the Starfleet arrowheads. Perhaps cutting and pasting the letters one by one was not rewarding enough for the modelmaker. (Or did these guys have access to a decal printer?)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: ...But only assuming that the ship got any decals at all. Save for the Starfleet arrowheads. Perhaps cutting and pasting the letters one by one was not rewarding enough for the modelmaker. (Or did these guys have access to a decal printer?)
Timo Saloniemi
Possibly the model was the last one built before filming and time wa an issue. The modelers seem to have learned the lesson of the Wolf 359 models and evidently not felt the need to make bueatiful models that would never get any scrutiny on screen (except from us psychos!). Speaking as someone that's built the Medusa, Niagra, Freedom, Elkins, Yeager, Centaur and is building the Springfield I have to say that much more effort went into the 359 models: too much for the threeseconds of screentime most of them got really.
My largest reason for thinking the Medusa's side view was inaccurate is that so many of the other side views were incorrect (along with lots of "placeholder text"). having just built the Niagra, I had to scrutinize the pics of the study model and re-work a lot of the nacelle pylons and phaser strips that are wholly incorrect in the fan schematics and the STTM version was totally off. The nacelles are waaay too forward, the bridge decks are just copied from the Freedom and not at all like the model and for some reason the shuttlebay is considered to be shorter than on the Ambassador when the studio model actually has it's own blown off! The ship has no neck either! Us fans can be as unintentionally misleading as the Magazine was when doing reference for CGI and physical models. (steps down off soapbox)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)