quote:Many of the diagrams seen in the Tech Manual were never seen on screen nor were models ever built for them.
Well, three of the six were seen: the Curry, the Yeager, and the Centaur.
quote:They were simply made up.
I realize that I've posted this before, but not everyone might have read it. All of the diagrams WERE possibly based on models the VFX crew built for "A Time to Stand," whether they were used or not. Okuda confirms this, and I had previously suggested to anyone with Drexler's email address that they ask him about it.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I don't know if anyone has twigged yet but we have seen a refit saladin/hermes. Most likely somewhere in DS9 "A Time to Stand"
Not clicked yet? there is a diagram of it in the DS9 Tech manual.
I think I know which ship your refering to. No, it was never seen in DS9. As a matter of fact, it's not the same ship at all.
posted
The Constitution-class variant from the DS9 Technical Manual has nothing to do with the Hermes or Saladin. The vessel has 2 warp nacelles. (Look at the stats. )
We don't yet know if all of the VFX models were used in an episode or not, but they may very well have been, as there are still some blurs in the background we can't see clearly. (Indeed, we may never truly know.) But it's almost a sure bet that all the designs in the Manual have their roots in actual production models and/or other materials, and weren't just 'made up.' Okuda, as said, has confirmed this.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
It is quite possible that if these kitbashed really resulted from an overnighter between numerous volunteers, the VFX crew would then have felt obligated to use all the models in actual filming. However, several of them might have turned out unfilmable, either because of poor quality of assembly, or because their awkward design cast undesirable shadows or made motion-control mounting impossible or simply looked ugly.
To avoid embarrassing anybody, the VFX crew then would have included the less appealing ships in the very distant background, where their faults would not show. Most probably, all such ships would have been clustered in the one shot in "ATtS", for reasons of practicability.
posted
Also, in response to Harry's post about the Saladin, Hermes and Federation:
The original source to all these designs would seem to be Franz Joseph's SF Tech Manual, but this included no dates. Dating was apparently added by the RPG that featured these designs (Perhaps Star Fleet Battles, which originally used non-Gregorian years, though). This dating (as adjusted to Gregorian dates by fans like Jimmy Dixon) suggested the Constitutions were indeed among the first ships to be built to this design - but in the 2220s, not in the 2240s. Saladin and Hermes were full contemporaries, and IIRC Ptolemy came two years later. Okudaic history of course disagrees on the Constitution dating. Another RPG, by FASA, added more "family members" in the 2240s, including the single-nacelled Larson destroyer (which, imaginatively enough, has the nacelle on the top...).
Various sources later added sub-classes and refit/successor designs to these ships. The picture is one interpretation of what Cygnus could have looked like, but it seems to show a truncated saucer (there's a sector missing from the aft side) - such a saucer was the trademark of the Amerind scout, another fanfic invention to use that funny-looking nacelle design. There's also the Cochise destroyer, the latter-day Saladin. These designs had their written origins in Todd Guenther's excellent "Ships of the Star Fleet", but the graphic interpretations come from a variety of sources and often contradict each other.
All in all, there are far too many fan-created Hermes, Saladin, Federation and Ptolemy adaptations to keep track on. Personally, I think we could commonly settle for these original "semi-canon" four, and only accept those of the derivatives that we personally find attractive. Otherwise, we'd have a Starfleet in the TOS movie era that had more ships than the modern Dominion and Borg fleets combined!
posted
Timo, all these ships are CGI, why would they need motion control mounting?
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The fact that the DS9 tech stats say that the ship has 2 nacelles does not discount it as being a saladin/ptomley refit, the refit may well have required this for some technobable reason like...oh...the TOS nacelles were capable of generating a two lobed warpfield but at a high cost in energy but the Refit nacelles could only handle one lobe but with a much higher energy efficency and a higher warp factor, so 2 nacelles were better than one
this is how I think the nacelles would be configured
posted
the359: Why do you say they are all CGI? Has this been established? As I recall, I think the Centaur was a physical model, so these ships may be as well.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
MIB
Ex-Member
posted
Can you make the nacelles on the saladin refit right side up again?
IP: Logged
posted
Well, DS9 and VGR hadn't used physical models for 2 - 3 years for almost anything (unless it was stock footage). The Centaur was not a physical model.
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Um...I'm pretty certain it was. I'm also pretty certain that a good deal of DS9 stuff, even towards the end, was models. I remember someone involved talking about how the other Defiant class ships in A Call To Arms were just off the shelf models.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd say the centaur was definatly a physical model. You only have to look at it to see, CGs look distinctly different.
and no, I can't put them on the right way, its just a quick cut & paste to illustrate the configuration, there are no un obstructed colour frontviews of a connie nacelle for me to steal.
posted
I don't think the Centaur was a physical model... You can tell in the effects - it's not CRISP enough... look at the ships between TUC and FC... Even the big EE doesn't look clean enough. It's supposed to have SHARP lines, that is because for the purpose of the moving pictures, the CGI doesn't need to be rendered at as high a resolution, but see CGI stills of the EE - like that pic from the front of the 2001 TNG calendar... NICE!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
Topic Closed
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic