posted
When I talk about kitbashing, I don't mean the literal thing model makers do to fabricate something out of existing parts but the cut & paste type fan designs that just rearrange existing designs into new configurations.
As for that blue thing, it's the arboretum. You might also notice that large bank of aft facing windows just behind it; that's meant to be a large rec deck. The concept being that it'd have a balcony view of the garden area.
I actually tried several variations on how to mount the pod, including a Miranda style rollbar. The problem I found is that in order for the pod to clear the bridge module, you'd either have to attach the pylons to the rear quarters of the saucer (which interferes with the nacelle pylons) or have them sit right on top of said pylons, in which case the roll bar appears overly tall and odd looking to the point of being impractical.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: When I talk about kitbashing, I don't mean the literal thing model makers do to fabricate something out of existing parts but the cut & paste type fan designs that just rearrange existing designs into new configurations.
As for that blue thing, it's the arboretum. You might also notice that large bank of aft facing windows just behind it; that's meant to be a large rec deck. The concept being that it'd have a balcony view of the garden area.
I actually tried several variations on how to mount the pod, including a Miranda style rollbar. The problem I found is that in order for the pod to clear the bridge module, you'd either have to attach the pylons to the rear quarters of the saucer (which interferes with the nacelle pylons) or have them sit right on top of said pylons, in which case the roll bar appears overly tall and odd looking to the point of being impractical.
Yeah, on your Apollo it's an odd thing to have an alternate pod configuration- but on the Sternbach design (which I built) it's kinda neat to follow the vertical nacelle pylons seemingly through the saucer- to a field-goal configuration like the Phionex has. Hmmm..maybe I'd angle the nacelle pylons inward a bit ala the Miranda- smaller pod that way.
You know, my model has those rear-facing windows on the arboretum too- I glommed them thinking it was a large lounge or their ship's bar- they could have called it "Two Backward".
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
^I don't know, there's something about that type of configuration that just bothers me. It works fine for the Miranda but once you add a secondary hull into the mix it looks incomplete. Almost like an insect with it's wings pulled off.
posted
I think there's a design in the NuTrek with this general configuration.
Really, I just love it as a variant that does not retread old ground- it's not an Enterprise or Reliant, nor any FJ design.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:I think there's a design in the NuTrek with this general configuration.
There is. It's a three-nacelled ship where the third one is where the secondary hull is on your model. Which pretty much reinforces Rev's ill feeling toward kitbashes, because all those ships in the fleet were literal kitbashes of the Kelvin.
No offense Jason, I like your model (I wish I was that talented modeling-wise). It's the design I don't particularly care for, or at least Sternbach's rationale for it. Why stick the nacelle pylons underneath the saucer if the conduits have to snake through the saucer into engineering in the secondary hull? (Which they do in his LCARS display.)
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, that's pretty much the crux of it for me. I tend to approach designs with a practical mindset and I like my ships to not only look good but also feel as if they could work. In this case is just looks like the type of arrangement someone would arbitrarily do just because it looks cool.
I'm not sure if I'm articulating this very well but the way I look at it, it's the same principle why art students who are expected to be able to draw people must start with nudes first (and a little basic medical anatomy helps too.) It's very hard to draw a person wearing clothes unless you have a pretty good idea how they're built. Similarly, when drawing a machine you really ought to have at least a rough understanding on how it works, how things inside fit together, what the details mean and how they relate to one another.
I don't want it to sound as if I'm singling this one out or anything, believe me there's plenty of fan designs that I dislike for this and other reasons. Indeed that's why I stopped reviewing JoAT submissions for Bernd way back when. It got depressing.
posted
I dont think there has to be any engineering in the secondary uhll though- which would make the secondary hull almost like a swappable Nebula pod.
Consider this design with no secondary hull- it's cheesy looking but not impossible- particularly when you think of saucers with their own warp capability- they'd have to have a saucer-bound engineering section.
BY TNG, weknow that engineerng functions can be easily transfered to the bridge (and bridge functions to engineering, of course), so it's just a matter of locating the warpcore in the saucer and having the conduits follow the saucer's curve to the nacelle pylons.
On large ships like this, it might even be more efficent to have engineering, the impulse plant and the warpcore all centrally located: less time to feel bad as the core breaches...spare you that .0004 seconds of self-recriminations.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
That's just putting the cart before the horse; coming up with a configuration you think looks cool and trying to justify it without really thinking through the design implications.
Leaving aside for a second the impracticalities behind cramming all your engineering and major industrial facilities into the primary hull--warp core, antimatter injectors, primary deuterium tanks & all of your power distribution systems--with everything else while leaving the secondary hull mostly empty for cargo space; If one were to design a Miranda style Ambassador variant with a large modular cargo capacity, you simply wouldn't want to do it like that.
For one thing you ship's only shuttle bay, impulse engine and the main deflector are all integrated into the secondary hull. Hardly something you can just swap out and not very economical when it comes to manufacturing spare modules.
The way I would approach such a design brief is to take a cue from the Miranda and expand the aft section of the saucer to house include all the aforementioned extra equipment, the shuttle facilities and mount a permanent deflector (either integrated into the primary hull somewhere or on a smaller outboard secondary hull.) Then I'd figure out where the best location for a modular cargo unit would be and designing it specifically for that purpose.
What I'd probably end up with is something more like a cross between the Akira and the old Ptolemy class. Indeed the Bristol class; our old rejected Deneva design would suit that brief rather nicely.
posted
Yes but "putting the cart before the horse" covers every Trek design ever (except the Galaxy, which Probert really went nuts on). Hoestly I have tons of Jeffries sketches trying to find a cool look- most of which were terrible and discarded.
There is an impulse plant on the primary hull on my model it's just powered down like the extra impuklse plants on the Galaxy. The secondary hull's impulse plant would be needed in case of emergency seperation and provides additional power to make up for the huge additional mass the addition of the secondary hull add. As to the engineering, the Ambassador's saucer is HUGE- far far more than adequate to house the ship's engineering. The secondary hull could be all science oriented, not just cargo or whatever....though I agree that the saucer needs some sort of shuttlebay and deflector system for the design to make sense this way.
Of course, this is all fanboy rationalizations for an implusable design but hey..... thats. what. we. do.
No one bends logic to make Trek work like we do at the Solar Flare Forums.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Yes but "putting the cart before the horse" covers every Trek design ever (except the Galaxy, which Probert really went nuts on). Hoestly I have tons of Jeffries sketches trying to find a cool look- most of which were terrible and discarded.
To my knowledge the only major design that wasn't completely thought through was the Defiant and that was because they didn't have a lot of time or money. All the others, Jefferies's original, Probert's refit & the E-D, Sternbach's Voyager and the NX-01. All of these were highly detailed designs where their internal configuration was defiantly considered.
The trick is in finding a balance between the aesthetic and the practical. Yes it's nice if it looks cool but it still has to actually work and no amount of rationalization will make be think that type of configuration is practical.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: All of these were highly detailed designs where their internal configuration was defiantly considered.
No, I'd say that the Defiant's internal configuration was defiantly considered. The other ships' internals were definitely considered.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Yes but "putting the cart before the horse" covers every Trek design ever (except the Galaxy, which Probert really went nuts on). Hoestly I have tons of Jeffries sketches trying to find a cool look- most of which were terrible and discarded.
To my knowledge the only major design that wasn't completely thought through was the Defiant and that was because they didn't have a lot of time or money. All the others, Jefferies's original, Probert's refit & the E-D, Sternbach's Voyager and the NX-01. All of these were highly detailed designs where their internal configuration was defiantly considered.
The trick is in finding a balance between the aesthetic and the practical. Yes it's nice if it looks cool but it still has to actually work and no amount of rationalization will make be think that type of configuration is practical.
I cant agree- whehn you see all the possible configurations of what would become the Enterprise and D7 sketched out, it's obvious that the look was paramount (no pun intended) and we've had to justify things like the Oberth and Nebula. The Excelsior made sense, coming from a design legacy of the Enterprise...well, except that pointless lower shuttlebay anyway.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
That's just thumbnail concept sketches playing with shapes and proportions. The final designs were much more refined than the initial sketches.
Ships like the Nebula don't really count any more than the Wolf 359 wreckage or those horrible Frankenstein things from DS9. Those are all models put together on relatively short notice, often for only a fleeting appearance so they can't be held to the same standard as the E-D, Voyager or the Runabouts. I'm talking about ships that are designed and when I do I design saying "other ships are just as illogical" is not a very good excuse for lazy thinking.
I don't see anything about either the Oberth or the Excelsior that are particularly problematic. Even if there were, IIRC both were done by ILM and only used in what? Three shots each? I'm sure they never indented for them to recur quite so frequently or hold up under particularly close scrutiny.
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: All of these were highly detailed designs where their internal configuration was defiantly considered.
No, I'd say that the Defiant's internal configuration was defiantly considered. The other ships' internals were definitely considered.
You should know by now spelling jokes are wasted on me.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: QUOTE]You should know by now spelling jokes are wasted on me.
Anmen, brother! I dont agree that the Nebula was no better than the W359 stuff: they went to the trouble of making tons of custom parts for that- new secondary hull, bridge, saucer...really, if it's not thought out, why make those particular parts? The problem was that, as par for the course on TNG, the models were scaled very poorly when the shots were composited, making the Nebula the same size as the Galaxy (and it was intended to be maybe 2/3 that size).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Originally, it WAS one of the W359 kitbashes! It wasn't until later that they scratch built a proper filming miniature and refined the basic configuration into a workable design.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
