posted
The saucer superstructure on the Conventry is longer than on the Surya. But, oddly enough, it was the Surya that got refitted into the Miranda and the Coventry got part of it's superstructure lopped off and refitted into the Knox. It's weird, I know. But Jonah switched it around so the Surya refits into the Knox and the Coventry refits into the Miranda, which makes far more sense.
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Visual aid: . [edit: note that i prefer the Franz Joseph deflector as well]
The Coventries, which had NCC-1230 registries, werent chopped to build the Knox, rather the Knoxes, with their NCC-1940 registries were new builds along the lines of the Surya. I also prefer to believe that the Sury� simply weren't all refitted, but the Mirand� were new-builds of the more advanced design (or at least not all of them were refit.. the reason that they are suggested to be is the original draft of star trek II, which called "U.S.S. RELIANT, an older, somewhat battered starship of the ENTERPRISE class, with a slightly different configuration." (BTW, that line is contentious by it mention of 'Enterprise' class being used to refer to any starship made of of 1701-refit components, and not a name of a class proper).. its more believable that more of the Mirand� are new builds, IMO
posted
Yeah, I'm mostly with Mike, Jonah and Steve on this - what SotSF claims smells very fishy, and swapping the Coventries and Suryas around would help a lot.
The Mirandas have registries that look like they come from the Surya pool, but designs that clearly stem from the Coventry. So IMHO it's simplest to just swap the images and specs of Surya and Coventry, and retain everything else (including registries and names and histories) from SotSF.
I'm not really that keen on calling the Knoxes a refit of an older design, though. But if necessary, I could accept that they were originally built to the Coventry (i.e. SotSF Surya, or the NCC-1830 ship in Mike's post) specs and then re-engined. Or that they were planned as a follow-on class to the Coventries, being in the same size range and all, and thus given similar registries despite their later construction date.
As for the "Miranda subclass", I would very much like this to be the very earliest subclass in the entire family. Something built concurrently with the Suryas (in the 2240s), thus with low 1800-range regos. Later refitted in the Avenger style, except this refit left the ships podless. USS Lantree would be a proper Miranda subclass ship, one out of ten (SotSF leaves the registries 1833-1842 free for this subclass).
When Starfleet in the reign of Grand Admiral Okuda would simplify its naming schemes, the oldest subclass name would be picked for the entire family...
posted
Looks great, Harry. A couple of suggestions on the schematic: 1. I think that the spacing of "U.S.S." should be closer. The Amarillo font tends to leave too much space after periods. What I do is type "USS" without periods to get the proper spacing between letters, than add the periods later. 2. The nacelle supports/pylons are much narrower on the top view than on the front view. 3. On the side view, you have a good chance to put a good hard shadow on the part of outer nacelle pylon underneath the hull. The top view allows you to determine exactly what parts of the pylon are under the hull and which are not. Such a shadow would look more realistic than the soft gradient you have know. Also, the top part of the pylon, which is completely under the hull, should probably have a darker, uniform shadow. The only light would be some reflection from the already dark hull above. 4. When are you going to start using a greenish grey base color?
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
i agree.. your ships are excellent technically, but the color seems a little light and too gray sometimes.
BTW, I found my editted version of the Amarillo font that I tweaked in Softy.. its still buggy, but I may make it available once ive made it usable to people besides me. some of the things I fixed were >the space after periods > the numerals '1', '7', and the letters 'Z' and 'E' > I left in the alternate 7 as a new character, because one of "The Cage" models had the alternate font > the addition of a hyphen > the addition of greek characters and letters with tilde or accent symbols. Unfortunatly my version was lost in a crash, but the one i recovered, is mid stage (still has the 'demo' tagged version of the 4 and a couple of the letters), but is buggy because i cant get the character set to stay numbered correctly because of my own font-editing inexperience (the fonts i design from the ground up are easy [but time consuming], compared to editting existinmg versions that i have less experience in)
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
For the low, low price of $22.50 you can download the "pro" version of the Amarillo from its creator's website. This version has all the alternate letters (F, R, Z), numbers (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9), dashes, and periods. You can see the full character set on this page: http://www.tlai.com/med_des/ausafpro.html
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No way in Heck that I'm going to spend �25,- on a font only used for the drawing of fictional starships.
And you should probably know that I am slightly colorblind, so I'm afraid I'll misjudge the green-ness and either make it unnoticable or Kermit-green. But if someone could give me something like a hex code, or the rbg/cmyk value?
posted
Harry, you asked the same question 2 weeks ago in the thread about my Connie schematics!! Here's what I said then: "The color I use RGB 176 191 189 and CMYK 20 9 14 0. The color was originally worked out by 3-D modeler Thomas7g, but the shade I use is slightly lighter than the one he suggested since the color looked too dark on the white backgrounds I always use."
As for paying for fonts, considering the amount of use I got from them in the past 2.5 years, it was well worth it, especially after trying to draw the letters by hand. I originally paid the shareware license fee for the standard version of Amarillo of $12, which was reasonable, I think. The upgrade to "Pro" was a fee bucks more. As a strong supporter of creators' copyrights on the web, I think paying reasonable fees rather than using pirate versions is the right thing to do.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
