Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
On screen ships
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Timo: [QB] Oh, and by the way... The CGI Nebula definitely ought to be a subclass of its own. There are two significant differences to the Farragut: -No short phaser strips on aft saucer -No impulse engines whatsover! Even the Farragut still had the tiny grilles below the saucer lip to denote impulse engines, IIRC. The CGI doesn't. I'm not sure about the short phaser strips under the secondary hull fantail. They aren't there in the Phoenix or the Sutherland, but the Sutherland does have something that looks like two-sided adhesive tape in this location (according to TNG:The Continuing Mission photographs). The Farragut might have had proper strips fitted, and these could have been copied onto the CGI, or then not. If the CGI is a distinct design, then there are five "real" Nebulas: Melbourne (as seen in "BoBW II"), Phoenix (as seen flying), Sutherland, Farragut, and the CGI ship. Only one of these is drastically different: the Melbourne has the longer hull. But mercifully, this cannot be seen in "BoBWII". So perhaps the longer hull is a mistake perpetuated by Monogram of the 24th century, and only present in tabletop models! Timo Saloniemi [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3