I noticed it a while back: Is the graveyard at the end really CGI? It seems pretty difficult to create so many 'wrecked models' in CGI (they were only there for a moment in the background) whil you could easily use physical models. Does anyone know more about that scene? There was a wrecked secondary hull of a Galaxy visible, as well as this baby:
Is it me or is that a 'Curry-type-but-we-all-call-it-Shelly-allthough-it-is-Shelley'-class ship? Don't tell me that's a Sabre. Please, don't tell me...
[ February 10, 2002, 14:03: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
Could be, but also looks like a Sabre.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Okay, I won't tel you it's a Sabre.
But it is a Saber.
-MMoM Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
It's not a Galaxy wreck, it's a Nebula. Here's a clearer closeup I took out of the ST Magazine:
The pylons are all wrong for a Galaxy, connect above the secondary hull, and the secondary hull itself is too squat and fat for a Galaxy. As for the Saber, it's a Saber - upside down and top facing us. The magazine shows a little more than your cap, but it's pretty clear.
Mark
[ February 10, 2002, 14:39: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Not entirely convinced that it's really a Nebula. Shouldn't there be any... remains from the saucer? Or is this the proof that the Nebula can seperate? OK, I admit, the phylons look a bit weired. But...
...the Sabre. Why no Shelly? Give me a Shelly! I don't want Nebulas and Excelsiors and...
...hey, BTW, there were other 'things' flating around. Any chance there is something we haven't seen yet? Neither the Encyclopedia nor the DS9TM reach that far. If I had better shots of that scene, I could do an analysis, but... but... *runs out crying and screaming something about DS9-DVD's*
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If you know it's spelled "Shelley", why do you keep typing "Shelly"? Should we start referring to you as "Kyl Amsov"?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Oh the Nebbie saucer is there in the wreckage. It's toward the the right of the Defiant's nose in your pic there, Kyle.
[ February 10, 2002, 17:30: Message edited by: Dat ]
Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
I personally think its the "shelley" type of starship which we apparently don't like very - personally I actually liked that design when i saw it being towed!
*gets pelted with rotten tomatos*
Anyway, when we get down to it - does it really matter???
*gets pelted with rocks*
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: If you know it's spelled "Shelley", why do you keep typing "Shelly"? Should we start referring to you as "Kyl Amsov"?
I became used to it, TN. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Regarding the graveyard being CGI -- it's my understanding that there are two parts to a computer model -- the 3D diagram itself, and then the texture, which provides the color and details.
Couldn't the artists simply modify the texture map to show the damage on the outside, and make it APPEAR to be 3D?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Yes, or they could just rip out a section of polygons and darken the texture map a bit. Its really not that hard to create damage in CG, its no more difficult than doing it on a physical model. Just look at the Equinox & Voyager's Year of hell.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
Strewth you're all blind! HEHE!
It ain't a Sabre, and it ain't a Shelley. It's an Excelsior! That's clear as mud even on my crappy watched-too-many-times VHS tape.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by akb1979: Strewth you're all blind! HEHE!
It ain't a Sabre, and it ain't a Shelley. It's an Excelsior! That's clear as mud even on my crappy watched-too-many-times VHS tape.
That's really the strangest position for an Excelsior-saucer I've ever seen! And the nacelles? Where are the phylons???
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
A Sabre "saucer" looks almost round, despite being really angular, when you look at it from a distance. I'd assume, however, that we could see some of the 3D detail of the ship even at this distance. The "tail" of the ship appears very flat and shadow-free, which I wouldn't expect from a Sabre.
Then again, that nacelle placement does seem unique to the Sabres. Those nacelles just look awfully thin...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: That's really the strangest position for an Excelsior-saucer I've ever seen! And the nacelles? Where are the phylons???
Right, click on this link and look at the picture below that of the Courier (modified Nova). OK, I'm talking about the Excelsior saucer in the top left. It's missing the front left part of its saucer - obviously been blow away by some torpedoes.
Now if you are talking about the plylons to the right of that with part of a ship's body - me does think that it is part of a Nebula - the pylons bend in the same manner as that class and the necelles appear to belong to that class and the Galaxy. As for Cpt. Kyle Amasov's comment about remains of a saucer - it either separated before that damage that we can see was caused or the saucer was totally blown away. It's more than likely the secondary hull of a Nebula.
That help anyone? Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Right, click on this link and look at the picture below that of the Courier (modified Nova). OK, I'm talking about the Excelsior saucer in the top left. It's missing the front left part of its saucer - obviously been blow away by some torpedoes.
Now if you are talking about the plylons to the right of that with part of a ship's body - me does think that it is part of a Nebula - the pylons bend in the same manner as that class and the necelles appear to belong to that class and the Galaxy. As for Cpt. Kyle Amasov's comment about remains of a saucer - it either separated before that damage that we can see was caused or the saucer was totally blown away. It's more than likely the secondary hull of a Nebula.
That help anyone?
Oh. That Excelsior. Err, yes,...uhmm, very sad, indeed.
The saucer; yes. It's not a Galaxy. Nebulas can - as far as we know - not seperate. Either it blew up or... it blew up. But what if they really can seperate? Sort of Consitution-last-minute-emergency-jettison? You know, leave the stardrive there and get your saucer out of the mess. It took ages to figure out if the Nebula has any impulse engine, and now that we know the saucer has the Galaxy-type drive, we can forget about my theory that there is a drive located in the rear pod. Well, if the two saucer-engines are the only STL-propulsion system, Nebula's stardrive is a blind duck if seperated. On the other hand: The Dominion would have eliminated an entire saucer escaping the battle. They only let the escape pods go. I really asked myself when did Starfleet pick them up. They can't leave the system on their own, and even starfleet isn't insane enough to send rescue ships to Chin'toka after they lost the battle. Maybe they 'disappeared' on the same way the escape pods at Wolf did. Back to Nebula: maybe the saucer seperation is really necessary. DS9TM says the ship has a crew of more than 700. The two rowns of pods (assuming those are the same Intrepid/Defiant-pods) can carry up to 4 persons, You couldn't get everyone out of the ship that way. Too few. Emergency-saucer ejection sounds reasonable.
I really should go to bed now.......
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
AKB: Well, yes, that is indeed an Excelsior. But since that isn't the ship in question, I'm not sure I see your point.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: AKB: Well, yes, that is indeed an Excelsior. But since that isn't the ship in question, I'm not sure I see your point.
Well duh!
I posted that little bit of info because people were getting confused about what I was talking about. It doesn't take a PHD to figure it out you know Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
quote: maybe the saucer seperation is really necessary. DS9TM says the ship has a crew of more than 700. The two rowns of pods (assuming those are the same Intrepid/Defiant-pods) can carry up to 4 persons, You couldn't get everyone out of the ship that way. Too few. Emergency-saucer ejection sounds reasonable
Actually, both the CGI and physical model of the Nebula have a total of 400 lifeboats on the saucer. The physical and CGI modelers left out the 10 lifeboats near the bridge. We've never seen the part of the saucer under the pod really well, but if it is like the Galaxy-class, it adds another 14 lifeboats. The Tech. Manual states that Galaxy-class type lifeboats can hold 4 with a max of 6.
So: 400 lifeboats (w/o lifeboats on the rear of the saucer) X 4 = 1600 people (with 6 in each lifeboat, the count rises to 2400)
414 lifeboats (including the ones at the rear of the saucer) X 4 = 1656 (with 6 in each lifeboat, 2484)
More than enough for the 700+ count in the DS9 Manual. Personally, I believe a Nebula could hold a crew just as large as a Galaxy, unless there really is something vital in that neck the Galaxy has...
...wow, I feel strange.
[ February 14, 2002, 13:59: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
But that's only the CGI. I think Phoenix, Sutherland and others had less lifeboat hatches (They also had less windows.).
Concerning Lifeboats: Why did they never update the Excelsior with the lifeboats common on ships like the Galaxy-series (Nebula, New Orleans...)? Or the Miranda? And don't tell me 250 people fit into 4 of those 'Emissary'-lifeboats! Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Nope, the physical model used for the Pheonix and Sutherland have the same number as the CGI model.
Personally, I like the TOS movie ships the way they are. It gives a more clean look compared to the TNG ships. Can you imagine the 1701-A with lifeboat hatches all over the saucer? ICK!
[ February 14, 2002, 13:58: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
If you can get a clear shot of the E-B MSD somwhere (can't scan the one from the Sketchbook, it's two pages wide), there are lifeboat hatches located on the saucer. The MSD even calls them 'lifeboat hatches'. But I didn't find them on the model yet. Same old question: What do you believe? Model or Okudagram? Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Model. That same MSD calls the saucer impulse engines "Main Shuttlebays (P/S)"!
However, it doesn't mean they don't have lifeboats UNDER the saucer hull similar to the Defiant. Mr. Scott's guide (not canon, but still interesting) has info about how the Constitution Refit has the lifeboats behind the hull plating, and the plates are blown off before the lifeboat is ejected.
[ February 14, 2002, 14:09: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace: Model. That same MSD calls the saucer impulse engines "Main Shuttlebays (P/S)"!
However, it doesn't mean they don't have lifeboats UNDER the saucer hull similar to the Defiant. Mr. Scott's guide (not canon, but still interesting) has info about how the Constitution Refit has the lifeboats behind the hull plating, and the plates are blown off before the lifeboat is ejected.
The top view, yes. But the cutaway says 'Shuttlebay, P/S'.
The Constitution had lifeboats. One was seen during the scnene in TMP when Kirk came aboard the ship for the first time. On the blueprint. It was a red boxy entrance with a yellow label saying 'lifeboat', if I remember right.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
HEHE!![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)