In the latest Magazine, in the Next Issue part, there's a beatyshot of the U.S.S. Centaur. But it's in CGI!
And it doesn't look anything like the model. It's made up of the standard Excelsior parts, with the addition of a Miranda pod and only the four 'towers' so far as greeblies are concerned.
The question of course is where this model comes from. Was it just created for the Magazine? Or was it used on the series? The Centaur looked like a physical model in the show. That would mean that someone did this CGI just for the Mag. Have they ever done that before!?
I'll try to have scan of it this evening or tomorrow.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Interesting. It could be Eric Peterson's, he did a Centaur some while ago, and as I recall it was quite different from the physical model we got to see recently. It did look more like an Excelsior variant....
Hang on...yes I've got a picture of it. Can you do a scan from the mag and I'll do a comparison.
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
If it's in the Official Magazine, it's likely not a fan model.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Ten Centauri duckats on it being a Mojo model.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Hmmm.. Taking another look (I enlarged the picture a bit), it DOES look like it has the correct structures. At least I see the 'forward shuttlebay', and the greeblies behind the bridge.
I had the same suspicions that it might be some of Mojo's work.
Posted by Cherry Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
It's possible that this might be a "cleaned-up" version of the actual model, although in contrast to Harry's observation, I can't see a forward shuttlebay.
Still, I'm going to be prepared for an absolute bullshit-filled article about the model. Really, these days I wonder if the Magazine writers have ever heard of the internet before. I seem to find more reliable info there than in their magazine.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I definatly see the forward shuttlebay. It doesn't appear to be as raised up as it is on the physical model. And that is definatly a "beauty" shot Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Nope, not forward shuttlebay. That's the registry number!
And dang, after seeing the horror that was the original filming model a few months ago, that pic looks BEAUTIFUL! I'm now totally convinced that the Centaur type was not a kitbash by Starfleet, but rather a "Miranda-ized" Excelsior that was designed concurrent with the production of the standard Excelsior ships. (Not necessarily dating back to 2285... could've been designed in 2315 or so as a candidate to succeed the Miranda, or something.)
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Yes there is a bay there. The same bulge in front of the bridge dome as on the model.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think I see it, but I'm not sure. If it is then it's a little smaller and flatter than I remember it. Perhaps we should do a comparison with the original model?
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
And I still say it was an actual class of ship...
*ducks for cover*
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I think it's a real class too. I don't see why it shouldn't be.
Posted by capt ussintrepid (Member # 807) on :
Very nice.
I think it should be an actual class of ship as well. Heck, it could probably fill one of tose never-seen-but-mentioned ship classes. It would be a nice candidate for the Apollo IMHO (though I know there are plenty of good speculative designs for that class out there).
Either way, it's a nice ship.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I agree, defiantly a Class of it's own.
It is a good candidate for an unseen class, although I've always thought Renaissance-class suited it better, what with a 4xxxx range reg being consistant with a bunch of known Excelsiors.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Damn, I think I can see the bay now, too. Maybe. But I'm hoping that I'm just seeing things, because I really don't like having that ugly bump to mar the sleek, smooth saucer.
I'm certain that it's a "real" class, too. Unlike the butt-ugly kits-bashes (love that term, Mark!) like the Yeager and the Elkins, the Centaur is fairly consistent, and uses major components from only one type of ship -- Excelsior. (Yeah, there's the Miranda roll bar, but that's a fairly simple piece, and could conceivably be a custom part, even if it's shaped very much like the roll bar. The important parts are the saucer and nacelles.)
Hmm... that image isn't of the highest quality, but it looks like the bridge module might be the normal Excelsior-sized dome. That would also make me happy, as a ship as tiny as Bernd suggested (based on the Miranda kit bridge pod on the physical model) would not seem to fit with such a smoothly angled saucer. There'd be a lot of wasted space, IMO.
Besides, it doesn't make sense to duplicate the ENTIRE saucer perfectly, and then scale it down for a light cruiser. I know there've been a few cases, like the Klingon Bird-of-Prey, but... oh, damn. I forgot about the Wolf 359 kitbashes, where they combined the 1/1400 bridge modules with the 1/2500 saucers. Nuts.
Here's a theory -- maybe the crew of the Centaur retrofitted their ship with all those greeblies for whatever purpose. Those golden things on the nacelle pylons could be extra shield/power generators, and the large bridge dome could be an armor shell to protect the command center (the actual bridge being the normal-sized Excelsior dome).
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Bear in mind that the makers of the W359 ships were fully aware of the scales of their ships. They put those big bridges on, but then they altered the windows, so there would be fewer decks.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
The Centaur on the other hand, has a large number of windows that appears to be consistant with the number of decks on a properly scaled Excelsior.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Uh, nope. If we assume that each window row specifies a deck, it would be consistent with a ship about twice the size of the Excelsior! Would such a vessel run from three puny Jem'Hadar attack bugs?
There's no rule that each deck should only have one row of windows, though. It's entirely possible that all the windows of the Centaur are skylights on a single deck. Or sensor ports...
As for the shuttlebay, yes, I can see it - it must be there, or the "pedestal deck" below the bridge wouldn't extend that far forward. But I can't believe it would be a shuttlebay, not when compared with the bridge module next to it. You couldn't squeeze the Defiant shuttlepod through that thing if it were a door! (And that's the shuttlepod of the 68m Defiant!)
Rather, I guess the thing is a deflector. And I also think it's the same thing on the Curry and the Raging Queen, which don't have the big bridge module but otherwise could very well be of smaller-than-Miranda size.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Finally, this article is making it to print! Soon will be the day when I can reveal how Mojo and I worked on it togeth--
Uh, oops.
Mark
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
That is one bewtiful piccy of the Centaur!!
I REALLY reckon that this is a Mojo ship... key point:
The 'flood lights' on the nacelles highlighting the registry. 'member Mojo likes to bring them back to Trek ships.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Uh, nope. If we assume that each window row specifies a deck, it would be consistent with a ship about twice the size of the Excelsior! Would such a vessel run from three puny Jem'Hadar attack bugs?
Well, if they were the same sort of attack bugs that blew up after a few shots from the Defiants phasers (or Martok's BOP), then no. OTOH, if they were the same sort as the three bugs that destroyed the Galaxy-class Oddessey, then maybe.
quote: the Centaur is fairly consistent, and uses major components from only one type of ship -- Excelsior. (Yeah, there's the Miranda roll bar, but that's a fairly simple piece, and could conceivably be a custom part, even if it's shaped very much like the roll bar. The important parts are the saucer and nacelles.)
I don't actually remember what the original model looked like, but are those really Excelsior nacelles? Why are they only glowing around the middle?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
They appear to be made out of the bottom halves of Excelsior nacelles, glued together without the lateral "warp grille" in between. And there is no top piece, so no top "warp grille". In fact, no transparent grille at all.
What the ship has is a painted-on grillework, which must be photomanipulated into glowing (it's bright red paint so replacing the red parts of a shot with a glow should do the trick, although it's probably also fluorescent so one just has to blue-tint and exaggerate the fluorescence).
I trust Mojo's picture is a CGI model, or possibly a heavy manipulation of an originally unlit model photo if he (and Mark?) had access to one. A low-profile bow "deflector"/"shuttlebay" might suggest it's pure CGI, made of Excelsior elements - the thingamabob then probably wouldn't be bent the way it's squeezed on the real model, and wouldn't gain a higher profile.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Right, the nacelles aren't exactly like the Excelsior's, but they're the same shape and proportion. That's why I figure they're based on the Excelsior design.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
The Centaur also appeared in 'Blaze of Glory', and in that episode it did seem quite a large ship from what I could tell/guess in compaison to the Starbase it was alongside. I'd have to agree with other comments that it's saucer is approximately the same size as an Excelsior's.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Where are those pictures of the DS9 ships being stored again, by the way?
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
In someone's closet?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The picture does not seem to have the stuff that the Centuat model has. Maybe it's the lighting.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I promised to divulge nothing until the magazine is out. But when it is, I'll let y'all know the lowdown about the model and its history. I will say however that some artistic liscence was taken with what will be seen in the article... You can catch some of it in the picture on this thread if you look closely enough.
Mark
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Did you find out the real name of the model?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Doesn't that depend on when the model was built? If it, like the others, were all slapped together at once and then put in episodes as needed, I suppose it may have a "silly" name like some of the others. On the other hand, the Centaur's appearance was different enough from the others (even the Curry) to suggest, to me at least, that it may have been purpose-built, in which case there is a possibility it may say Centaur on it. But I suppose the former scenerio is more likely.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
There's also the chance that the ships were prepared during the hiatus, with the names and regos we see in the pictures, and then the VFX little people or the mighty producers or somebody in between picked one or two for close-up roles. The Excelsior-Miranda could have been renamed and even re-registered for her big "Centaur" scenes. So two names for that model.
The Raging Queen might also have been rearranged into the Curry after the photo session, say, if there were problems in lighting the nacelles - somebody could just have grabbed a pair of yer standard Miranda kit nacelles which can be lit using transparent warp grilles, instead of the fluorescent paint trick, and bolted those onto the model...
(I don't know whether the VFX folks would have access to transparent field windows for the Miranda, though. I think the kit comes with oblique ones (that is, simple two-piece nacelles), and these people may not have heard of Thomas Models and the like.)
I trust Mark will tell us all we need to know soon enough or then receive proper comeuppance for raising false hopes.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Cherry Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
First of all, I have to say that I'm very pleased that the Magazine is finally attempting to get things right, based on the info that we fans have at our disposal.
Second, I doubt that the Centaur was relabeled from its original name. I got the impression from DD that there was really no time to dilly-dally, as far as shooting was concerned. Plus, we never see the top of the Centaur's saucer anyway, so the name wouldn't have made any difference. I think "Centaur" was just the name in the script, and the VFX guys just chose a model to represent it. They could just as easily have chosen the Elkins or the Connie variant.
Third, I really don't think the Raging Queen and the Curry are the same model. I have good screencaps that show that the Curry's saucer has different battle damage in different places than the Queen, especially at the rear of the saucer. So it wasn't just a slight rearrangement of the nacelles, as far as differences go. It's a different model with a similar configuration. I could have sworn someone here had Dan Curry's email address. I would love to ask him about the model, providing that he would actually reply to my email.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
The Centuar out of all of them except for the Ragin Queen and Curry, seems to be an actual designed class, whereas the others were just 'kitbashed' design.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry Dukhat: I really don't think the Raging Queen and the Curry are the same model. I have good screencaps that show that the Curry's saucer has different battle damage in different places than the Queen, especially at the rear of the saucer. So it wasn't just a slight rearrangement of the nacelles, as far as differences go. It's a different model with a similar configuration.
I agree. I've got "ATtS" on video tape and you can clearly see the difference in battle damage.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: The Centaur also appeared in 'Blaze of Glory', and in that episode it did seem quite a large ship from what I could tell/guess in compaison to the Starbase it was alongside. I'd have to agree with other comments that it's saucer is approximately the same size as an Excelsior's.
I thought the only other appearance of the Centaur besides "A Time to Stand" was "Behind the Lines". Are you really thinking of "Blaze of Glory"? Can someone confirm this?
Yeah, yeah, I know...why do I care? Well, I counter you with...why do YOU care?
-MMoM Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
You might be right, but my own screencap I believe came from 'Blaze of Glory', but I can't remember for sure. It's orbiting starbase 375, right? (bottom RH corner)
I scaled the roll bar from my Miranda mesh alongside the dorsal view of the Centaur model. Taking Miranda scaling into account the Centaur comes in at 225M. That's just too small. There are still problems resolving whether this is an actual class or not...
But I am forced to conclude that the Miranda roll bar resemblance is merely a coincidence, simply because they cannot be scaled alongside the Excelsior components inherent in this design. We (I) have to for now ignore the modelling inconsistencies and say that the Centaur pylons are of similar shape to the Miranda roll bar, but are in fact custom made pylons for this [class of] ship.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, I think it's a real class too (also that 'Constant class' one). Compared to the other kits-bashes it's too, well, nice. I'm also in favour of the larger version, simply because it's easier to belive that the Miranda rollbar was scaled up than an entire saucer section was. As for the greeblies, they could be EW stuff; either an upgrade or else special loadout for a particular mission. Also, as regards the pod, it almost seems in 'A Time to Stand' as if the torpedo comes out of the bottom of the pod, as it'd have to to avoid hitting the saucer; so presumeably there're angled launchers in there.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'd just like to take this oppertunity to look at the Centaur's forward shuttlebay/deflector contraversy. I've heard people say that it has to be a deflector because it's far too small, even for one of the Defiant's shuttlepods. Well I tested this theory and found that this structure can indeed cope with a standard shuttle.
Mind you, this is assuming that the Centaur 380m long, rather than the much smaller measurement that depends of the Miranda parts being to scale.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Both Centaur models (the 'real' one and M&M's CGI one) have a lot of greebles on the pylons. Enough, I think, to say they 'really' aren't Miranda bars.
Actually.. the CGI has quite different pylons than the rollbar. They seem to have some kind of inset details.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The shuttlebay on the Centaur is exactly the same size as the shuttlebay on the back of any Excelsior. How could it be too small?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: You might be right, but my own screencap I believe came from 'Blaze of Glory', but I can't remember for sure. It's orbiting starbase 375, right? (bottom RH corner)
I think you're getting some of the titles confused. "Blaze of Glory" was the late fifth season episode about Eddington and the phantom missiles that were supposedly launched by Maquis survivors. The one where Eddington was killed at the end. "Behind the Lines" was the episode where Sisko was promoted to become Admiral Ross's adjutant, and Dax took the Defiant off to attack that Dominion sensor array.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Ah, right you are. I was getting those mixed up, even though I've got them on tape up on the shelf with all the others, and have seen them many times, I haven't seen either for a while. I had made some caps of the starbase from 'Blaze of Glory', and had automatically associated the Centaur/starbase cap with that episode. Sorry, my error.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: The shuttlebay on the Centaur is exactly the same size as the shuttlebay on the back of any Excelsior. How could it be too small?
My thought exactly, but I have heard people claim that a shuttle could never fit inside it. This assumption may stem from the MSD in "Generations" which has the structure acting purely as a cargo bay.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The reason I argue that a shuttle can't fit in is because I *don't* believe the components are of Excelsior size. If they were, you could park three type 7 shuttles on that bridge, plus a fourth atop them. Is captain Reynolds playing badmington in his free time or what?
And how would a ~220m starship be "too small"? It's bigger than the Defiant, apparently even in internal volume. It's like a Miranda sans shuttlebays. And not every starship needs shuttlebays. They are only so much dead weight in battle anyway.
If any component of Starfleet ships is "kitbashable", the bridge *MODULE* and the torpedo *MODULE* of the Miranda class ought to be. It's a perfectly acceptable parallel to how things are done in the real world, too: you build a number of ships and a number of weapons systems, and then you equip the ships with the systems as befits their intended mission. A Miranda carries three systems: the torp pod, the "pulse phasers", and the shuttlebays. The Renaissance (or whatever) carries one: the torp pod.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
but if we take that bridge as a Miranda module, which there is no definite reason for it to be, we not only lose the shuttlbay, but the windows also become nonsensical.
No one explanation satisfies all the problems with the scaling, but the Excelsior-size Centaur eliminates more of the inconsistencies than a Miranda size
Miranda size Centaur has these problems: > impossible window setup > shuttlebay not big enough to be shuttlebay
> and one advantage, the explanation of reusing a torpedo rollbar and bridge module from a class they probably wouldnt be reusing pieces of
the Excelsior-sized Centaur has one problem: > Miranda bridge complex sized too big, along with oddly situated rollbar reuse.
> and the two advantages of a working shuttlebay and an almost logical window setup.
Add to this the fact that that could easily be a two tiered bridge complex that just looks like another bridge, and this ship makes the most sense.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I find it more likely that a ship could have parts that look identical to the outside of a Miranda bridge module and its torp launcher�but scaled up�than that it would have an entire saucer that looks identical to an Excelsior saucer�but scaled down.
If you're going to have identical bits w/ scaling issues, better that it be the smallest bits possible. I mean there aren't an details on the outside of that bridge module that can't be scaled however you like. However, something as big as a saucer will have more details on it. And if all those details are scaled, it seems strange. One would think that, even if the saucer were smaller, parts of it would stay the same size as before.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I beg to differ on the count of pros and cons, really. Here's how I see it:
Ship smaller than Miranda
+bridge is of reasonable size +weapons module matches bridge and doesn't have torp tubes big enough for a shuttle to fly through +size closer to the appearance in the actual episode
-windows don't fit -no shuttlebay
Ship of Excelsior size
+shuttlebay fits
-windows still don't fit -bridge and torp tubes too big -size doesn't match onscreen appearance very well
Whether the saucer is of "correct" size or not is IMHO not really relevant. Saucers are saucers, and the Excelsior one is especially devoid of scale-establishing features. All the interesting detail is on the impulse assembly, and that area has been especially modified and added to in the Centaur.
Significantly, I feel a ship smaller than a Miranda was the *intention* of the modelmaker, and even more significantly, it was the *intention* of the VFX people to pick the smallest-looking among the kitbashes to pit against Sisko's small battlebug. Sisko had to have a chance of winning the battle, for one thing...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: This assumption may stem from the MSD in "Generations" which has the structure acting purely as a cargo bay.
True, but the MSD in Generations was drawn by crask-addicted monkeys on heat. It crazy dude man thing wow shit.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I'd just like to point out a potential flaw in these discussions -- the model photo is not canon. Only the filmed episodes and movies, with the exception of TAS, are canon. DVD-caps are canon. Film cells are canon. Behind-the-scenes photos are not.
Conclusions should be reached from onscreen evidence, and then supplemented by what we know from the photo, meaning that if the onscreen info favors the Excelsior saucer while obscuring the bridge, the saucer becomes more important because there's no onscreen proof that the bridge belongs to a Miranda, whereas there is onscreen proof that the saucer belongs to the Excelsior.
Hence, the proper procedure would be to get some screencaps first and try to forget what we know about the model photo; the information from the latter should be added only if it doesn't contradict observable onscreen features.
Boris
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
That is indeed the correct procedure IMHO. But model photos are often more interesting than the on-screen material - for the reason that they show detail that cannot otherwise be discerned, and it takes a bit of detective work to get to see that detail. And that's a major part of the fun of ship-spotting.
This supremely enjoyable hobby in the real world is a bit different from what it's like in the Trek universe. For one thing, when you research more deeply into real ships, you get more detail. But when you research into Trek ships, you get less - some things aren't present in the model, but are faked in postproduction, for example. Also, Trek is ultimately contradictory while the real world never is.
To get the full kicks out of ship-spotting, I feel we have to accept the use of model photos and backstage info as a substitute to the use of things like spy photos and manufacturer info; but with the limitations the unreality of the Trek ships imposes.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Take a drink everytime someone does a mini-lectuve about what is "canon".
Take two if someone replies and uses the phrase "semi-canon".
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
Yeah, they wanted it to be a ship Sisko could beat.
Because, as we all well know, there is no way mere battlebugs could ever hope to take on, say, a larger ship, like a Galaxy-class.
(BTW, sizewise, the Excelsior Centaur would still be pretty small in a fleet of Galaxies and Nebulas and full length Excelsiors..)
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I have more lectures. This one is hot off the presses:
The Difference Between a Creative Writer's Research and Scientific Research
Creative writers, while often doing meticulous research such as Kubrick for 2001, do not really need to research deeply or make sure their facts are 100% correct, either with respect to the real world or a fictional universe. Nobody will ever blame them -- after all, it's obvious that we're talking about a work of fiction that, however well it has been researched, really need not be 100% realistic. Nobody will be hurt because of what they say, and sometimes the story will be helped through "artistic license." More often than not, the seeming discontinuities can be rationalized by a viewer who chooses to do so.
Scientific research (used by anything from a physicist to a historian to a journalist) cannot afford this luxury. These people's facts must be correct; nothing must be assumed, everything must be supported with as much evidence as possible and any statements qualified with an explanation of the limitations under which research was conducted. People can be hurt by careless journalists, and no proper journalist would publish a piece of info that cannot be substantiated.
It's quite obvious that anyone who does not care about establishing authenticity of sources (=canon order), supporting their theories with evidence, is only doing a creative writer's level of research, and posting something that can be qualified as story notes (Excelsior specs), or in some cases, proper stories ("history" of the Excelsior). If these cannot be substantiated, then they're personal opinion -- creative writing -- and belong to the Designs, Artwork, and Creativity forum.
I'm not against questioning the validity of onscreen sources or what is canon, but more is needed than personal opinion in order to go that far. Laws of physics are a good example. Sheer impossibilities, such as the Defiant changing shape every time the models are switched are another (and even here we must eliminate visual distortions or possible refits first.) Personal opinion? That's for the writers, that's creativity, and should go into the appropriate forum.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
At this point, I would like to remind everyone that bunnies indeed ARE soft.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Here's a fun bit of speculation;
Why would the Centaur have such a big Bridge module?
Well, after an intensive 5 minutes of head scratching and scale calculations, I've come up with this diagram:-
Note the two deck structure, with the bridge proper on top and a lower deck that could house useful things like; a conference room, the Captain's ready room, maybe even a small cargo bay. One interesting problem is the aft airlock, since the module is scaled up the airlock is now too big to dock properly with the standard. In actually fact, the airlock is now big enough for a travel pod to pass straight through, so why not have an internal docking bay? Having the bridge module carrying it's own travel pod could be useful for shuttling around VIPs, without having to take up valuable space in the shuttlebay. It also provides quick access to the conference room and the small cargo bay.
When you think about it, bridge modules are fairly simple structures so scaling them up is no big deal, at least no bigger a deal than scaling up a saucer section
[ August 16, 2002, 16:46: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Interesting; maybe something to do with the greeblies, if they're EW stuff, could be some sort of CIC?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
The what? The who?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
EW -> Electronic Warfare (I think) CIC -> Combat Information Centre
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i don;t understand why they didn't just make a "real" ship for the USS Centaur. it was promeninently displayed onscreen, and at least warranted a new CGI image with parts that all make sense. hell, i would have preferred a TOS style blob of light to what they came up with.
p.s. i think that a larger ship makes more sense structurally, but it didn't seem all that big on screen.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I like the idea of the Centaur being refined to look like a real Excelsior-derived class. And to pick up Boris' argument, that's what I think we have seen on screen.
If we pay attention to details, however, the most important one is the nacelle pylons. If the whole ship were Miranda-sized (even smaller), then the rollbar would suddenly become a warp pylon. If it has to be something different anyway technically, I see no reason why we should insist on the visual similarity.
The many windows on top of the saucer, on the other hand, don't necessarily mean that each row (or ring) represents one deck. The Galaxy class, IIRC, has two decks with two window rings. These windows are all in the ceiling of the deck. But they would suit a 400m ship much better than one of 200m.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Why they didn't design and build a CGI model? Possible reasons:
1) Gary Hutzel prefers model-work 2) Any CG model they built in VisionArt's software would have to be discarded or rebuilt in LightWave for later episodes, which is when the primary CGI vendor changed from VisionArt to Digital Muse. 3) Not even in Voyager did they design and build a ship-of-the-week, CG or otherwise, unless the entire episode was built around it, i.e. the Prometheus, the Equinox, the Raven, etc. The only ships VisionArt had in CGI, IIRC, were the Galaxy, Akira, Steamrunner, Sabre, and the Defiant. Had Stipes done the show, we might have seen one of these instead.
I'd like to see the comparisons next to the attack ship, but let's keep in mind that its size varies considerably. The last VFX figure they used was 152 meters, whereas onscreen dialogue supports a size of roughly 100m. In any event, VFX evidence is a poor indicator of scale.
Boris
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I like that 2-deck idea, and I like the schematic!
Acually - it could be a mini shuttle bay?
Posted by Dr. Phlox (Member # 878) on :
Hello, newbie here.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the CGI models Mojo is using in the Unseen Frontiers book.
"In other news, I have people now working on models of the Sphinx workpod (which Mr. Probert was kind enough to send me full color sketches of) and the Centaur-Class ship." -- January 15, 2002 Adam "Mojo" Lebowitz
"Actually, you'll get to see the Sphinx model ahead of time in an upcoming Star Trek Magazine, but in the book you'll get to see it in action--most likely cleaning up some wreckage at Wolf 359."
I don't know whether the issue with the Shpinx has come out yet or not, but it's in an upcoming issue of the Fact Files. Looks like they decided to use the Centaur in the magazine instead of waiting even longer for the book to come out.
There are a couple of other interesting articles there, don't know whether any of you would have seen them.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
It dose indeed look like Mojo's evil doings.
Hopefully we'll soon get to see the hopper that Probert designed.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yeah, but Mojo's book has been indefinitely shelved... Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Which is probably why his work is popping up in other places. Me may yet see Unseen Frontiers, if a little diluted and spread across several different publications.
Posted by Dr. Phlox (Member # 878) on :
I hope we get to see all those Wolf 359 pictures he mentions. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: Not even in Voyager did they design and build a ship-of-the-week, CG or otherwise, unless the entire episode was built around it, i.e. the Prometheus, the Equinox, the Raven, etc.
Surely this isn't quite true, though? What I mean is, we saw lots and lots of alien ships of the week on Voyager, most, if not all, CGI of some sort. So many that, when the show resorted to modifying some previous model instead, people around here were a bit put out, probably more so than was really necessary. (The reworked Breen ships in "Workforce", for example.)
Maybe I'm just not sure what you mean by "entire episode built around it." But I can think of lots of ships that were, admittedly, more than just brief background ships, but far from the focus of the episode.
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
youre a newbie that isnt the old Dr. Phlox? we remember from way back in the day 10 months ago when i was a kid here (oh, im so old!)
now that you mention it, besides the 'hero ships' of the runabout and the Defiant, I don't think that DS9 ever gave us ANY new Starfleet designs, with the exception of the Centaur and the Curry (not counting the other bashes that are only visible in our screencaps, DS9 TMs and of course, visible in our ship-boner sporting hearts and souls..)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, we did get two shuttles out of it.
But that's my point, re: Voyager. Compared to DS9 and TNG it was an embarassment of ship designs. (Though mostly alien.)
Hey, we should count all the visible Federation ship designs each series came up with! Hooray! Uh, foreground only. So no Wolf 359 wreckage. And no movies.
TOS: Constitution, shuttle, Aurora
TNG: Galaxy, shuttlepod, shuttles type 6 and 7, Constellation, Ambassador, Sydney, Nebula
DS9: runabout, Defiant, shuttlepod, fancy shuttle, maybe the "Yeager," though it was in the background, but it was in the background often
As you can see...well, nevermind, there's not much here. Uh, Voyager had as many new UFP ships as TNG. And more alien ones, I think, but I have no list for that.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Don't forget the holoship! So I've probably forgotten several others.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
DS9 also had the Starfleet fighter. And TNG started the whole Batris/Xhosa/Norkova/Antares mess. And it also had Rasmussen's timepod thing.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The fighters falls under "various Maquis ships" because of all the Peregrine madness. Plus, it had appeared in TNG, no? Or no?
And the Batris wasn't a Federation ship, and you'll note I'm not including simple resuses of a model. And yet I included the Sydney! But I think the Sydney is way, way different from the shuttle, and thus worthy of inclusion. Also, it is two in the morning. What do you people want from me? Blood? Turnips? Curry?
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
Wasn't that a civilian design?
Sol: DS9, that awful Excelsior-kitbash towing some ship after the Feder�les get their asses handed to them.
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
The DS9 tug? still think it was supposed to be Klingon, regardless of Fact Files.. looked a lot like a green ship with red lights on screen.
So for DS9's forefront ship designs, we have the Danube, Defiant, Yeager (I forgot!), Curry, and Centaur.
Should we count the Miranda variant? or the *snicker* Nash as a Sydney variant with carpeted ceilings? (I know there is no 'up' in space, but im trying to imagine walking through that airlock if they docked upside down.. actually i'd much rather believe the Nash was a standard Sydney that docked upside down for some unexplained but very good reason)
The fighter came in TNG first ('Preemptive Strike' [i believe..]), then came all over DS9's battle scenes. So its DS9's sloppy seconds on that one too.
And then for blobby background ships we have the Elkins, Constant (the 'frying pan' Connie) and Medusa.
and i dont believe any of the Batris reuses or Antares references were ever used as a Starfleet ship, except for the Hermes on the Okudagrams. And that itself has had its own thread.
Posted by Dr. Phlox (Member # 878) on :
That'd be the can opener.
quote:Originally posted by Captain... Mike: youre a newbie that isnt the old Dr. Phlox? we remember from way back in the day 10 months ago when i was a kid here (oh, im so old!)
LOL, I don't know who this other guy is, I hope I didn't take someone else's expired name, but I use this at all the other places I post at. I'd never posted here until Friday.
Lemme have a go at this.
TOS: Constitution, shuttle, Aurora
TNG: Galaxy, Type 15 Shuttlepod, shuttles Type 6 and 7, Constellation, Ambassador, Sydney, Nebula, Glaxy Refit(AGT), Olympic, Peregrine, Federation couriers the Maquis use(2 sizes), Soyuz? The Miranda Class Variations. And the Apollo if you think it counts. Academy trainer craft. Mars defence pods.
DS9: runabout, Defiant, Type 18 shuttlepod, Type 10 shuttle, can opener, surely the Curry was seen close up enough? Dark necked Galaxy and the Venture variant.
VOY: Intrepid, Type 9/12 shuttle, Type 8 shuttle, Prometheus, Nova, Nova Variant, Aeon, Relativity, "Endgame" shuttle. Warship Voyager?
TMP: New Constitution, travel pod, Workbees(different types), Vulcan shuttle, Airtram.
TWoK: Miranda Class.
TSfS: Excelsior, Oberth, Orbital Shuttles.
TVH: Executive shuttle.
TFF: Shuttle.
TUC: None?
GEN: Excelsior Variant, Whorfin, can the Hawking count? Pleeeeeaaase?
FC: Sovereign, Akira, Norway, Steamrunner, Sabre.
INS: Scoutship, Yacht, Type 11 Shuttle.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:GEN: Excelsior Variant, Whorfin, can the Hawking count? Pleeeeeaaase?
no. absolutely not.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Sol -- we did see a lot of seemingly unimportant but still brand-new *alien* ships-of-the-week, true. Again, there are several reasons -- the first one is obvious, the others are probable:
a) A new alien race requires a new ship -- however cheap -- whereas a new Starfleet officer can have most of the existing classes, unless the ship plays a major role in the episode (i.e. the Equinox) or the story requires a new class (i.e. Prometheus). Kitbashing is actually an easy way to be creative in Centaur-type appearances, when you can't logically argue with the producers against using one of the many existing classes, and I like the fact that the VFX people chose not to simply use an Excelsior or a Miranda.
b) Alien ships are so much easier to design than a Starfleet ship-of-the-week. They often have no windows, transporter emitters, phaser arrays/phaser emitters, core dump hatches, and a host of other details that cannot be omitted on such a ship simply because the result would be inconsistent with Voyager and the Ent-D. Furthermore, one alien ship's equipment need not be consistent with that of another alien. For comparison, the only person who could've detailed a 24th century ship well became Rick Sternbach, who practically stopped working for DS9 once Voyager started. Even John Eaves' Enterprise-E had to be detailed by him. DS9's Defiant and the Maquis raider, while Starfleet designs likewise, were both specifically excused in terms of appearance -- neither are regular Starfleet ships, and neither were detailed by Rick Sternbach.
c) DS9's VFX infrastructure was created in the beginning as that of a model-show, whereas Voyager's was that of a CGI-show from the start. Switching in mid-series is difficult for budgetary reasons, and it wasn't until season 7 that DS9 was almost entirely CGI. Voyager had been CGI for a long time before that, which made it easier to create new models than modify existing ones.
d) Even if John Eaves (DS9's Rick Sternbach from Season 4 onwards) were to design a new Starfleet ship, it would look too much like the Enterprise-E and might hurt the movie franchise.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I don't want to see Mojo's work appear in some crappy magazine... I WANT THE BOOK!!!!!! Mojo's talent can't go to waste.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Here's another thought:
The Magazine article is probably going to use the relatively unusual designation Baracus-class (based on the "jewels" that arguably reminded an Admiral of D.A. Baracus from "A-Team", as pointed out by Mark in March), but
a) if you compare the shape of the Centaur to that of an actual centaur (basically a horse with a human head and torso instead of a horse's head and neck), there are clear similarities.
b) the Centaur is made of components belonging to different ships, rather than being a fully unique ship, just as a centaur is made of horse body parts and human body parts.
c) the DS9TM states that most of these ships are one-off designs.
These are three reasons why it makes more sense that the ship was kitbashed first, that it reminded someone of a centaur rather than Mr. T for a) and b), and that the first kitbash became Centaur-class U.S.S. Centaur. Production ships (if any were produced) might carry the names of related mythological creatures (Sphinx, Minotaur) or something else alltogether (Baracus, Duckats)
Boris
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Captain... Mike: The fighter came in TNG first ('Preemptive Strike' [i believe..]), then came all over DS9's battle scenes. So its DS9's sloppy seconds on that one too.
Nope. DS9's "The Maquis, part 2" aired a couple of weeks before TNG's "Preemptive Strike". So DS9 wins that won.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
I'd like to point out that the Executive shuttle did not appear in ST4. It first appeared in ST6.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
One Maquis raider design (the one most commonly called the Peregrine) appears first in "The Maquis," a second design debuts in "Preemptive Strike."
So, uh, share!
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Does that registry say NCC-43043?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I shouldn't think so, since it's the Fact Files that originally gave us the correct registry for the Centaur, ages before we got our mits on the photos.
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
AHHHH Fucked Files!!!!!!!!!!!
Haven't they put Centaur in Encyclopedia yet?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
IIRC, the Encys are over. No updates or new versions planned.
And Unseen Frontier will probably remain Unseen, so our only way to see Mojo's models is via the Fact Files and Magazine .
Posted by USSMillennium74754 (Member # 822) on :
IIRC, the Centaur did make it into the last update of the Encyclopedia, with the DS9 TM schematic. Class and registry weren't mentioned.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
... which means tht either they did not know the registry or they did not want us to know. For obvious reasons.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Plus they used the same inacurate diagram that appeared in the DS9 TM.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
And I can clearly see the applications on the lower saucer.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
....and they missed the shuttlebay at the front of the ship!!! Worse still, the Star Trek Magazine is running a feature on the Centaur next issue and the CGI image in the preview is of the inaccurate version from the DS9TM!!!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote:Originally posted by Harry:
Hmmm.. Taking another look (I enlarged the picture a bit), it DOES look like it has the correct structures. At least I see the 'forward shuttlebay', and the greeblies behind the bridge.
I had the same suspicions that it might be some of Mojo's work.
Posted by Dr. Phlox (Member # 878) on :
Well I can't see the shuttlebay, just looks like some shadow and the running light to me.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Whatever the shadow thing ahead of the bridge is, It certainly alters the traditional Excelsior superstructure. The "pedestal" below the bridge would never go that far forward in an unmodified Excelsior saucer. Whether it's shown as in the model, or retouched somehow, remains unclear. But virtually all superstructure detail appears roughly correct, including the big blue-topped bridge and the small towers atop the impulse nozzles. At least to my wishful eye.
The only thing that could be missing would be the greeblies on the saucer rim, and that can be because of low resolution.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Cherry Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:....and they missed the shuttlebay at the front of the ship!!! Worse still, the Star Trek Magazine is running a feature on the Centaur next issue and the CGI image in the preview is of the inaccurate version from the DS9TM!!!
Um, perhaps you haven't been paying attention. We all know there's going to be an article in the Magazine about the Centaur. That's why this topic was started in the first place. And if you had read any of the last seven pages of this post, you would know that the CGI pic is NOT the inaccurate DS9TM version.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Or maybe
1) The original poster should have given a more specific name to the thread, which would help limit the scope of the discussion.
2) A new thread should have been created whenever someone felt like deviating from the original topic (I am merely guilty of replying to such deviations). This would have prevented seven pages from forming.
3) The UBB should enforce replies to specific people, which results in a thread whose subthreads are more visible.
The second option is best, although the other two do help. Nobody should have to read seven pages of uncategorized discussion when it is so easy to subdivide it into various topics, by simply creating a new topic, i.e. "U.S.S. Centaur: size"
Boris
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You are a fun, fun person.
Posted by Dr. Phlox (Member # 878) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Or maybe
1) The original poster should have given a more specific name to the thread, which would help limit the scope of the discussion.
2) A new thread should have been created whenever someone felt like deviating from the original topic (I am merely guilty of replying to such deviations). This would have prevented seven pages from forming.
3) The UBB should enforce replies to specific people, which results in a thread whose subthreads are more visible.
4) Posters could bother to read the first post before replying.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Or maybe
1) The original poster should have given a more specific name to the thread, which would help limit the scope of the discussion.
2) A new thread should have been created whenever someone felt like deviating from the original topic (I am merely guilty of replying to such deviations). This would have prevented seven pages from forming.
3) The UBB should enforce replies to specific people, which results in a thread whose subthreads are more visible.
The second option is best, although the other two do help. Nobody should have to read seven pages of uncategorized discussion when it is so easy to subdivide it into various topics, by simply creating a new topic, i.e. "U.S.S. Centaur: size"
Boris
Say what?
You may be right in that smaller, more specific threads are more manageable in some respects, (ie, you can get individual questions answered quicker and more directly than if you lump a bunch together, hence my reluctance to post an all-inclusive "Shiplist questions" thread) but that manageablility is negated if there get to be too many threads with similar or directly related topics runing at the same time. When such a thing occurs, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep track of who posted what in which thread, etc.
-MMoM Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Looking at the actual picture in the magazine, it does appear as though the structure in front of the bridge is there.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Why? Given the number of times the topic changes, why is the first post more important than the others? Furthermore, I just clicked on the U.S.S. Centaur topic and it took me to the last page, so the first page isn't even the obvious starting point.
If you are afraid that people will not read your reply because it isn't in the "hot" topic, but rather a new one, the newsgroups have an established way of handling this:
Centaur's size (WAS: U.S.S. Centaur)
As for who posted in which thread, why is that a problem if everybody stays on topic? The moderator could easily move any stray posts into a new thread. It's only that I am not sure if the moderators would have time for such constant policing, and this is where the specific reply function of the newsgroups comes in -- it automatically gives things more structure. Or maybe people should simply get into the habit of creating new threads.
I have not created a new thread on this subtopic because according to the current policy, it would be something for another section of the boards, which is a lot different from posting a subtopic of the U.S.S. Centaur.
Boris
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The moderator could easily move any stray posts into a new thread."
False.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
False why? Isn't being concrete and specific a virtue in writing? I'm seeing some hesistant, non-committant language and hardly a definite assertion
In either event, anyone can easily start a new thread by quoting the stray post and saying, "Continue here." That would free up the moderators, but it wouldn't be as polite. In the newsgroup system, such posts are simply ignored and threads continued by replying to the last on-topic post.
Boris
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It's false because individual posts cannot be moved.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Naturally, the moderator could encourage the starting of new topics, or do it himself, each time he feels there's a divergence in the original thread. And if need be, copy the relevant passages of the divergence-point reply to the first message in the new thread.
You wanna me to do that from now on?
Fat chan^H^H^H^H
I mean, yeah, can do. Just not 24/7. And I won't lock the original threads just for diverging.
There's a certain perverse attraction to threads that go on for ten pages or more. It's actually rather rarely that they go on in circles, unless there's a great, brief influx of newbies into the group. Usually, they just branch out. But if we want to keep this strictly business, let's go for the "begin new very specific thread" policy. We *are* obsessive-compulsive about treating the fiction of Trek on a factual basis, after all. Being businesslike about it, too, is then just natural.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
No, I don't want you to do anything that would affect your more important business. That would be nuts. Ideally, everybody should create his/her own thread, rather than post off-topic. If, for whatever reason, the new topic continues in a longer thread, then maybe someone could politely open a new thread, saying "Here, I copied the last couple of posts from the original thread, let's continue here, shall we?"
As for being or not being business-like: let's be sure, this is a hobby. I have more important things to do. However, I don't like seeing criticisms of other people when there are a lot of other things that can be criticized likewise, and I'd like to point these out.
Boris
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Okay, so let's dedicate this one solely to discussing the FF and ST:Mag data on the Centaur from now on. Everybody in agreement, just shut up and keep discussing. Anybody in disagreement, go away mad. (insert emoticon of choice here)
Just to be sure:
When do these articles come out in the respective publications? Is FF 298 already available? When can we expect quotes and scans, instead of just teasers?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Dr. Phlox (Member # 878) on :
The FF issue with the Centaur will be out in over a month, the one with the Sphinx Workpod is out next Tuesday.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
The ST:TM issue with the Centaur is the November issue, which should be out be the end of the month, I believe. I'll see about grabbing a copy of it when I see it and do some scans.
Posted by Felix the Kzin (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: The ST:TM issue with the Centaur is the November issue, which should be out be the end of the month, I believe. I'll see about grabbing a copy of it when I see it and do some scans.
On sale September 3rd. I plan to buy it right off and make some scans. I'm lucky in that I've got a Borders bookstore about 3 blocks from my house that consistently carries the Mag, so I needn't shell out for a subscription. I can just go over, flip through and see if there's anything of interest, and buy only the ones I want.
Don't know why I told you all of this. Maybe it's just 'cause it makes me feel special...
-FtK Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I can do the same at a Coles store, on my way to work. Posted by Felix the Kzin (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: I can do the same at a Coles store, on my way to work.
Good times! Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
I just looked at the ST: Magazine with the Centaur pics... it has the side view, top and bottom views... all in CGI. The area that looks like a foward shuttlebay is more like a solid copper hull. Nice work though but the article with the pics mention phaser banks which I never saw.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Damn those gay people! Getting everything before everyone else! Affirmative action bullshit.
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Affirmative action my ass!!! California banned that a few years ago. Besides, it's not my fault that the magazine is put on the shelves here in the Los Angeles area before anywhere else. Too bad my scanner doesn't work though, the ship somewhat looks like the NX... in a more continuity sort of way.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
When we get those Centaur scans in, how about starting up a new thread about it specifically? This one's getting too off-topic in spirit. Once the scans are in, I'll see what I can do about getting Mojo to post about it.
Mark
Posted by Felix the Kzin (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: When we get those Centaur scans in, how about starting up a new thread about it specifically? This one's getting too off-topic in spirit. Once the scans are in, I'll see what I can do about getting Mojo to post about it.
Mark
Nothing you can tell us? Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I can tell plenty. But would you rather not hear it from the horse's mouth?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
or then receive proper comeuppance for raising false hopes. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
