posted
Altair: No, sorry :-( (please let me know if you find any) Timo: Yeah, I know, it would be nice to have a streamlined terminology. Any suggestions?
------------------ "The Starships of the Federation are the physical, tangible manifestations of Humanity�s stubborn insistence that life does indeed mean something." Spock to Leonard McCoy in "Final Frontier"
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
As for the different classes of Dominion ships: they seem to be:
1) Attack Ship (the fighter / runabout sized "bug") 2) Battle Ship "1" (seen in IPS/BIL) 3) Battle Cruiser (larger version of BS, seen in CTA) 4) Dreadnought (not official) / Battle Ship "2" (the large ship seen in SOA and Valiant)
It puzzles me why a race doesn't simply use the following, much easier system to classify a ship:
(Dreadnoughts > Battleships > Cruisers > Destroyers) ...or a similar means of dividing ships into classes. After all, the current terms create some confusion as to which class contains which ship.
------------------ "Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
As far as models are concerned:
A physical model of the 762m long battlecruiser is seen mounted on a motion control rig in a photo from David Stipes' article in the latest magazine. It doesn't look like a V-ship to me. Also note that as far as the 300-500m size is concerned, one should be careful what we compare the ship with - we've seen some really huge Galors also, at 480m+. Does the ship look 500m next to ships other than Galors?
What is interesting is the Encyclopedia version of the picture. Have we ever seen the BC with the larger nacelles, or is this just a preliminary version placed into the book at the very last moment (the Encyclopedia didn't cover late S5 IIRC). The mistaken upside-down orientation suggests that it might have been drawn while placed on a motion-control rig (it's normal to do that to a model while filming).
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Then it appears I got it wrong... I thought that the huge ship (seen at the end of the battlescenes, the Defiant skims over it) in SOA was of the same type as the ship in WYLB (but then, we didn't really get a good look at it in SOA so that is probably why I made the error).
By the way, how do "frigates" fit into the destroyer/cruiser/battleship categories, and why are some ship classes referred to as "battlecruisers" or some other "mixed" description? This would imply that there are also "normal" cruisers, and that the battle-variant is specifically designed for, well, battle.
Also, in "Conspiracy", the Ambassador class is designated as a "heavy cruiser"; but we do not know if this is a "special" combat design or if the description itself is accurate (the Galaxy class is also designated as a "heavy (exploration) cruiser" for instance, as is the Akira class). It seems that the class of the ship is determined by its relative size, rather then its combat capabilities.
------------------ "Cry havoc and let's slip the dogs of Evil"
------------------ Frank's Home Page John Linnell: "This next song is from our album 'The Spaghetti Incident.' And...it's actually a new song." *several seconds pass* Audience Member: "Oh, I get it..."
posted
Boris: Would you be able to scan in the pic of the cruiser physical model? I'd love to see it. I always assumed it was CGI only.
It does seem really odd that they especially built the V-ship and then only showed it in a couple of episodes. There has to be a logical reason behind this. Maybe the physical model was damaged or something. And, was it actually the V-ships that was saw in the wormhole in "SoA"? Could it have been stock footage from "IPShadow"? I've never bothered to have a close look before.
------------------ "Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets) Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
posted
I think the problem is the use of 2 or maybe 3 models:
1: physical: Highly detailed, lots of purple and pink lights, dark grey/almost black hull. Used as Weyouns ship, docked at DS9 several times. Also seen as the 'flagship' in 'Call to Arms'.
2: CGI: The smaller ship. Low detail. Hull is a lighter grey then Weyouns ship. Also less purple/pink lighting, also dimmer. Larger nacelles (???).
3: Early version (??): The V-ship from 'IPShadow'. The only one where we can see that the wings are folded more downwards than other version.
Note: I believe that the models used in larger space battles after 'Call to Arms' are all CGI models, due to the lack of some details.
------------------ Meddle not in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
Dax: sorry, I'm now back in the Czech Republic, freshmen year is over . That means no scanner close by, unless I find one elsewhere.
Ok, as for the V-ship: A few years back, Frank G and I asked David Stipes (DS9 VFX supervisor for IPS) about the matter. I asked whether there's more than one type of Dominion Battlecruiser, and he said no. Frank then showed him some images, and he replied that it's all a matter of CGI vs. model discrepancies.
Given the fact that the physical model seen in the Magazine is not the V-ship, and the low likelyhood of the DS9 crew spending money on two physical models/prototypes, it seems reasonable to conclude that the V-ship is a CGI model built by VisionArt. Since DS9 was still primarily a model show in late S5, a physical model would've been definitely needed, and the modelmakers probably took the chance to refine the original shape a bit when they set to work on it.
And as far as the V-ship CGI model was concerned, it would've been modified also for consistency - if not immediately in S5, then at the latest for "Sacrifice of Angels", which is when Foundation Imaging finally built the entire alien fleet in CGI (VisionArt doesn't use LightWave, which meant that every model had to be built anew, using old CGIs as templates).
The funny thing is the size of the nacelles. Both the Fact Files and the Encyclopedia side views have the nacelles at 81% the overall length. The DS9TM version, on the other hand, has nacelles at merely 50-60% the overall length.
The interesting thing is that the Fact Files *top view* matches the DS9TM top view (nacelles at 50-60% O.L.) - it looks like Doug Drexler drew the top view because there were none in the Encyclopedia, then drew another side view to match (realizing that he'd made some errors in the first try). This time, however, he forgot to scale up the nacelles for perspective (when you're looking at the ship from the top, the nacelles are further away than the main body, and will appear smaller), and left the nacelles at 50-60% O.L. even in the side view.
Also note that the window spacing seen in Doug Drexler's side view matches a 762m O.L. I counted 7 deck spaces over 0.4cm in the DS9TM, compared it to an overall length of 13cm, and the result was something over 700m at 10' per deck.
Both of them show much bigger nacelles in the side view.
Note this on the 'Valiant' type: The length from the front of the mid-wing torpedo launcher to the rear thing that is sticking out. This is almost the same length as the nacelle in the top view, but considerable shorter in the side view.
Given the fact that the overal length of the ship is identical in both views, it is save to say that the pictures are made with some type of weird camera lens.
------------------ Meddle not in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!
posted
Check this in the first picture (the forward swept wing ship): In the side view the front of the nacelles are closer together than the rear of the nacelles. In the front view it is the other way around. Againg the effect of some type of camera lens or something.
------------------ Meddle not in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!
posted
Boris: No sweat about the scan. I always love to see new pics of physical models though. Anyway, I like your theory that the V-ship was originally CGI and then was modified to match the "normal" cruiser. It makes sense and fits what we know.
------------------ "Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets) Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
posted
Altair: The reason for the front view's showing the backs of the nacelles apparently closer together is just perspective. These pictures are as though you were actually looking at the ship. In a 2-D diagram, it wouldn't look that way.
------------------ "This is Major Tom to ground control. I'm stepping through the door, and I'm floating in a most peculiar way. And the stars look very different today..." -David Bowie, "Space Oddity"
I just want to say that THAT may be the cause of the 'larger nacelle version' confusion.
------------------ "From where I'm sitting now, the plot is manacled to a monorail with a GPS system stapled to its buttocks." - Jim Wright, about 'Unimatrix Zero'
. That means no scanner close by, unless I find one elsewhere.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
