quote:Originally posted by Reverend: 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
You know. That actually makes some sense to me. Is that sad or what?
posted
I think it's safe to say the Centaur was a physical model simply because of the obvious fact that it is a literal kitbash...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The way I've interpreted the comments on DS9's special effects, is that they used models primarily except where they had too many ships in the screen, and that's when they started adding the CGI ships.
For example, the big fleet at the end of "Call to Arms" -- there were a number of models in this shot, and then they filled in the background with CG ships like the Akira and the Steamrunner.
The scene with the Centaur, OTOH, was a relatively straightforward sequence. They would have used a model. Especially because they did some fairly up-close shots of both ships -- they don't do that with CGI's unless it's a very good model. But with a decent kitbash they wouldn't have to worry about the quality -- because it was the same as most other models.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
posted
If this was a physical model, where is it now? You think asking Okuda might reveal anything? It could be hanging around the Paramount lot for all we know.
-------------------- "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 other question is, why would the CGI people go to the trouble of rendering an entire model like the Centaur for a few brief sequences like that? One of the drawbacks of CGI is that it takes a certain amount of time to put a decent, screen-worthy model together, no matter how long it's going to be used.
With the physical models, they can use the kitbashes made of existing parts and throw them together for a few brief uses, and that's it. For the brief-appearance ships (like the Centaur), it's a whole lot simpler to use physical kitbashes.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
What did they kitbash the Centaur from? Did they use cheap models you can buy from the store? A totally new mold for all the parts? Or did they actually rip up the Excelsior model to use the saucer?
-------------------- "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."
posted
Its highly probable that the FX guys used some ERTL Reliant and Excelsior models to create the Centaur. Just grab the main hull from the Excelsior and the rollbar/weapons pod assembly from the Reliant and presto! You've got a Centaur. The parts scale out perfectly according to the Mark I eyeball. And, they're cheap and easily had, a huge plus if the DS9 guys had a deadline to keep. I built such a model for myself (using the Ent-B saucer, though) and again, it scaled out very well.
BTW, the warp engines are just two Excelsior lower nacelle halves turned sideways. If you cut along the attachment points, knock out those sections, and then light the model, you can replicate precisely where the Centaur's nacelles glow.
posted
Actually, I believe that the Centaur nacelles were not just standard Excelsior models. For one thing, both sides of the nacelles had the blue glow.
The AMT/ERTL kit idea does make a lot of sense, and even more so when you start looking at some of the other models... for instance the Intrepid/Constitution kitbash. Frighteningly, that spec might actually be accurate if you consider the different component parts. There's the Danube nacelle pylons, the Constitution-refit nacelles, and an Intrepid saucer. (No clue about the secondary hull.) But those three components are all in close proportion to the DS9:TM schematic. (*shudder*)
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
posted
I'm also voting for the physical model theory. In fact, all the new ships we saw inDS9 were ERTL kitbashes. The Yeager Class that we see orbiting the station every now and again is a kitbash of the Voyager and Maquis Ship models from Monogram and the Shelly Class is a rearrange of the Excelsior parts with some Connie refit nacelles thrown on. Both ships work out perfectly when you consider the scale problems with the models they would've used to make the ships.
Similarly, the little green tug seen in the same ep as the Shelley was a kitbash of various Models (Voyager, Rommie Warbird, etc.)
I think what they did was use two lower nacelle halves for each Centaur warp nacelle. If you perform the cutouts like I described and then back the opening with Lightsheet, you've got your glowing Centaur nacelle. Somewhere, there is a warp drive-less Excelsior model (sigh). I'm with you on the other kitbashes - someone hit them with an ugly stick! Someone needs to tell the FX guys to back away from the model parts before they hurt someone!
Robert
-------------------- Everything in life I ever needed to know I learned from The Simpsons.
You've turned a simple thread I started about obscure ships from a computer display in TWOK and turned it into A MONSTROUS KITBASH BASHING FRENZY!!!
What can I say? We're trekkies! (Sorry for anyone offended by that term.)
But seriously, just what does everyone have against those DS9 ships? Personally, I like them. I was getting tired of seeing more and more 'new tech' ships like the Nova and Sovereign, and any one of those Tech Manual ships is better than the Holoship! (C'mon, let's see somebody try and defend the Holoship!) I just wish we could get official names for them, other than those cheap 'something/something-class variant' monikers from the manual.
Okay, I'm done.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic