(This info was posted in the Wolf 359 thread, but I just thought I'd make a new one to make sure everybody finds out...)
Captain Kyle Amasov of the TrekBBS e-mailed Gary Hutzel to find out the name of the mystery Galaxy from the DS9 Calendar. Hutzel replied that it was labeled as U.S.S. Ronald D. Moore, named for the famous SF admiral (naturally... ) that we've heard about on all those dedication plaques.
It can be added to your shiplists (or not, if you choose, since we still have no confirmation of it ever being in an actual episode) accordingly.
-MMoM Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well, we can be 99.99% sure this ship has never appeared onscreen, so its a delectable footnote to the holy writ of canon, but delectable footnote nonetheless.
Unforunate Coincidence of the week:
On the day this little tribute to RDM finally became public knowledge, they guy joined the unemployment line. Alas, poor Roswell.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Yeah. In the end, it'll probably be about the same level as the Trinculo on the canon scale. Still interesting to know that someone actually labelled a model like that at some point, though.
Mark
Posted by nx001a (Member # 291) on :
I noticed that the registry of the USS Ronald D Moore has a registry lower than the Galaxy itself. Is it possible to have a class ship with a higher registry number. I know that the Constitution Class had this but since then I have always assumed that registry numbers were sequential.
If this ship is "official" could this Ronald D Moore be one of the ships that was not constructed in the first batch of ships. Instead the registry number was reserved for a galaxy class vessel.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Here is the text of Hutzel's e-mail, and a link to the pic he sent with it, courtesy of Capt. Kyle:
quote:I am delighted to help you with your question.
Because the original composition is an 8x10 inch negative, the name is clearly visible if you blow it up sufficiently.
The ship in question is the U.S.S. Ronald D. Moore, registry # NCC-70564.
This is, coincidentaly, the name of both a famous Star Fleet Admiral and a writer on a certain 20th century television show.
Attached is a close-up for your records.
-Gary Hutzel
You'll have to copy & paste this link. (ImageStation just disabled direct- and hot-linking. Grrr... ) U.S.S. Ronald D. Moore
-MMoM Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Cool closeup. Sadly it's still docked at a location where there's no docking port Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Cool! So... What are we looking at here? I mean, is it the CGI E-D? The ILM revamp of the model? It looks like the latter to me, since the CGI model usually doesn't have the painted aztec scheme on it...
Mark
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I can't say for sure. The general opinion was that it was CGI, but it damn sure looks like the physical model to me...
The model was last labeled as the Trinculo, though, so the name & reg might have been manipulated digitally for the pic or something to that effect.
[ January 30, 2002, 17:05: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Hellooooo, new wallpaper!
And as for the Moore being docked all funny, remember that the USS Venture was docked in the same way, albeit to the other side. Obviously, later model Galaxy class ships incorporated a docking hatch on the side axes of the saucer.
Mark
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Which makes a whole lot of sense in case the saucers are docked by themselves or if both main airlocks are damaged or disabled.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
[two posts are better than one]
[ January 30, 2002, 22:33: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I thought we'd established it was physical, seeing as Gary Hutzel was responsible.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
The phaser array and the lifeboat hatches don't look right for it to be either Galaxy physical model. I'm guessing the Moore is CGI. The Defiant is certainly the physical model though.
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
The main phaser strip looks annoyingly smooth.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
In the same vein, many of the windows seem clearly (at least to me) to be textures and not physically indented into the surface of the hull. For a small pic, that would be fine, but that close up, it appears to be quite certainly CGI.
I know nothing about 3-D modeling, so this is just a semi-educated guess.
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
Could it be ILM's CG model from "Generations"?
I think it's important to make an inventory of all Galaxy-class models in official use, to list differences between them, their current status and history of modifications. That way, we'll be able to identify everything easily. I've found out, for example, that the Defiant exists as the four-foot physical model, the ILM CG model (with battle damage), the VisionArt CG model, the first Muse CG model, the second Muse CG Model, and finally, the new CG model by Andrew Bradbury. That's it.
As for the Galaxy class, we have the six-footer, the four-footer, the two-footer, models that are only a few centimeters across (according to the IDIC page), the ILM CG model, the Muse CG model, a modification of the latter by Mojo and Rob Bonchune, and finally, Andrew Bradbury's new model.
Here are my questions:
1) What is the status of the two-foot Enterprise-D and the smaller models? Any pictures of them? The two-footer was used by ILM to animate the warp jump (they'd switch from the six-footer to the two-footer after the flash that precedes the leap into the distance).
2) Was the four-footer used after "The Way of the Warrior"? Who labeled it as the Trinculo? Was it possibly used with this name in "A Call to Arms" or the first five episodes of DS9's season six?
3) Was ILM's CG model ever used on DS9, say by VisionArt in "A Call to Arms" and the first five episodes of season six?
4) What was used as the reference for building the Muse CG model? Was it ILM's CG model?
5) How is the six-footer labeled nowadays?
[ January 31, 2002, 06:08: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Surely the 6' Galaxy is still labeled as Enterprise. AFAIK the only other ship it ever was is the Yamato.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Most likely. The four footer continued to be used on the show after Generations was filmed (such as in WoTW, and Call to Arms), so obviously the TV people either couldn't or didn't want to get the the 6 footer back of ILM. Maybe despite being all glitzed up, it was still a pain to shoot. Or maybe they didn't want to have to scrub off all the battle-damage from Generations.
Mojo claimed not to even be aware that ILM had a Galaxy CGI model, so I'm guessing that the Galaxies we see in season 5 (especially Call To Arms) are the 4 footer, although in that case someone removed the Venture phaser-strips.
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
I now checked the PsiPhi guide pages, and found out that Stipes said that the two Galaxies seen in "Call to Arms" were CGI. I posted this in the Trinculo thread.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I think the Gal is a CGI - cause in the close up pic - the docking pylon looks too out-of-focus!
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
So? It's not like they MOUNT the Galaxy model to the DS9 model!
Mark
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Does Hutzel even work with CGi models? I thought he was the physical model guy...
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
Yes, he does, although he vastly prefers motion-control. Stipes, on the other hand, prefers CGI. They sometimes used a combination of the two techniques, as in "Call to Arms".
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
About my blur comment - of course... they matte them together *boing*... but that Gal still looks CGIish while the station and the Deffie look model-like... maybe seeing as a majority of the picture is model work Hutzle gets the credit? Or maybe he did some CGI as well?
Andrew
P.S. Why does anyone care about this Gal - it's not CANON - it's just a pretty picture - it was never seen in an episode.
[ February 03, 2002, 02:21: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
...and I hope it never becomes canon. Why is it that Okuda and the other physical model tech-heads never inform the CGI guys about registry numbers? All the other GCS that were physical models had NCC-718XX except for the Galaxy and the Enterprise. The Yamato's saucer that was blown up also had a 718XX number. When CGI comes along, we get 71099 and now 70564...it's not really a big deal, but then we have other CGI ships like the FC ships, the Honshu, and the Prometheus. Sure, we can say the FC ships were actually always there, and we could say the Honshu is simply a refit Nebula (it has the lowest registry number of all known Nebula class ships, yet has newer CGI "features" like a Galaxy class saucer with impulse engines, versus the previous, spartan saucer). Now, we have the most advanced ship ( Prometheus) with a registry lower than her Nebula predecessor (why couldn't they just pick another name?).
This isn't a rant, just an inquiry as to why Okuda and Co. don't communicate as much to the CGI guys as they do to the physical modelers (and yes, I know Okuda himself labeled quite a few models like the Yamato).
[ February 03, 2002, 11:53: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
You're missing the very important "interference" of the writers in lots of this stuff. Someone gave the order for lots of new ships to show up in First Contact, and someone gave both Prometheii their names. in the order of who gets the final say, the writers tend to come right after the producers, and are followed by the tech guys and the FX guys.
I think the dichotomy here is that prior to the switch to CGI, the tech guys *were* the FX guys, who designed and built the models and were responsible for their labelling. When CGI came along, so did outsourcing to lots of different companies. Creating this extra step is probably the source of a lot of the inconsistencies that have popped up.
And as for the Honshu, she doesn't have impulse engines along the saucer. There are shapes along the trailing edge where they were covered up, but they aren't there anymore.
Mark
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I dunno if it boils down that simply, Mark. I mean, throughout TNG VFX were still outsourced to places like Image G. Perhaps the Greg Jeins and Tony Meningers (sp?) of the world were more likely to chat with Okuda about minutiae than the Rob Bonchunes.
That said, I think it's important to keep in mind that there always was comparatively far less model work done in a season during TNG than we've seen lately with CGI in Voyager. Image G might have averaged three shots every three episodes and so the three or four guys in T-shirts and jeans could afford to leisurely relabel models and keep in constant contact with Okuda, while these days CGI is cranked out on fairly short notice by a larger team of people in an office. Part of the reason that the quality of the stuff out of Foundation and Eden is so good is that Paramount's VFX supervisors probably aren't stickling over things to the same degree they would have in the model shops and allow animation to go ahead methodically rather than as casually as things probably used to be done.
[ February 03, 2002, 12:44: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
The answer to the precise question of registries is simple: in the old days, the scenic artists (headed by Mike Okuda) labeled studio models exclusively, although the VFX and model construction, like today, was done elsewhere.
At one occassion, Mike Okuda was surprised when I mentioned the possibility of a second Defiant model -- he said that if one had been built, the art department would've been asked to do the markings. I've since verified that no such model exists.
Obviously, now that the CG modellers can do the markings themselves, inconsistencies arise. Nowdays, it should be as simple as sending an e-mail to Mike Okuda, but one or two things are bound to slip through, especially with time pressures.
Which is one more reason for the Moore to be CGI -- how likely is it that Mike Okuda created these markings?
[ February 03, 2002, 13:15: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
So, wait a minute. You have a Miranda model which has been sitting in a crate for 18 months. It gets hauled out of a warehouse on the Paramount lot, transported across LA in the back of a pickup to Image G, gets examined by Jein and co., gets its roll bar reattached, and repainted. And then Jein flicks on the Batsignal, and Okuda and his team zoom down to Image G in a 1989 Plymouth Voyager, jump out with little fine-tipped camelhair paintbrushes, and they paint on the name and registry. Okuda, who'd be rather familiar with Mr. Brattain, has a grade-A brain fart and paints on "Brittain" instead. He then hops with his team into the minvan and they rush back to the backlot to finish some Okudagrams.
Strikes me as a bit peculiar. You positive?
And I'd like to hear more about this one Defiant model theory. I'm almost positive Ron Moore said they had to get a second Defiant model built for the escape-pod sequence in "Valiant," which was something of a bother that ultimately convinced them to go all-CGI ASAP.
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
Well, maybe he meant something else by "markings". Actually, I admit I don't know if the numbers are painted on, or if they're just stickers. I assume at least a part of the markings would be stickers that Okuda and Co. print out, then stick onto the model or have somebody else do it. Maybe the regs aren't. I should check that, although it wasn't relevant for the purpose of uncovering another Defiant model.
The theory (right now) is based on two things: the fact that the Fact Files/AMT model is so misshapen, and a line in the DS9 Companion saying that the Defiant model is the same size as the Negh'Var model, "two-and-a half feet", as opposed to the many-times verified size of 4 feet for one model.
Unfortunately, Mike Okuda denies it for the aforementioned reason, and we haven't seen this misshapen model onscreen. The closest thing is the new CG Defiant from "Sacrifice of Angels" onward, built by Brian Fisher, then an intern at Digital Muse who had built this model off the Ertl kit as a practice assignment, long before Muse was asked to work on Trek. His model was used in "Valiant", and would be replaced with a 4' based-one in "The Changing Face of Evil."
In all likelyhood, AMT/Ertl got the proportions wrong, while the line in the Companion (which said the model was the same size as the Negh'Var, 2.5 feet) is probably wrong -- the Negh'Var model looks about 4' long, just like the Defiant model.
[ February 03, 2002, 14:47: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Cut and paste the URLs. Look at the two engines. Unlike the physical model that had no "engine remains" (though the Aztec pattern was later painted with spots at where the saucer engines would be), the Honshu CGI model's engines, while shaped into the hull, have the grill lines. My only guess is that this type of engine doesn't glow and/or these engines that we see are actually covers over the real engines inside the saucer.
The real world reason, probably, is that the Nebula CGI was made from the Galaxy CGI which would explain the more detailed saucer and more elliptical secondary hull.
[ February 03, 2002, 19:00: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Well, they certainly aren't traditional impulse engines, which is what I meant. Hence the confusion...
Mark
[ February 03, 2002, 20:13: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Just a little additional info: I just watched 'Image in the Sand' and 'Shadows and Symbols' and guess what I found? There's a shot showing a Galaxy at DS9 (not docked, but floating near the upper pylons). There are also some Warbirds and the nose section of a Vor'cha visible, but it was the Galaxy that got my interest: it seems to be a never-again-used shot, and it doesn't look CGI. Just wanted to let you know that this could be the Moore. The only other shot of a Galaxy at DS9 was the Venture (if you don't count the Enterprise/Odyssey-shot which hasn't been reused since then), reused one or two times. Not much to offer, but a beginning. Well, it could be...
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
But the Moore IS a CGI model.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I don't think we've established that. It may be a physical model whose image was digitally manipulated/retouched for the pic.
Capt. Kyle, can you get a screencap?
-MMoM
[ February 20, 2002, 11:36: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
^^^^
Nope, sorry. And I haven't seen a screencap of it yet. Maybe someone else has this possibility. It appeared in both episodes.
And whether is is CGI or not isn't that easy to decide. This one seems more 'model'-ish, but I could be wrong.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I'm convinced the Moore is CGI. For those with the SOTL 2002 calendar, compare the detail of the Challenger (in the centrefold) with the Moore. In particular the detail of the phaser array and the lifeboat hatches are sure signs that both of these Galaxys are the same model.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
*wonders which is worse - a Galaxy-class ship named after a drunken court jester or Ronald D. Moore*
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) that we've heard about on all those dedication plaques.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)