Taldren has released a Nemesis pack for Starfleet Command 3, containing - besides a new mission where you fly the Scimitar - 10 pieces of concept art. Each comes in three different sizes (800x600, 1024x786 and 1600x1200, IIRC). The concept sketches include the positioning of the additional torpedo bays and design studies of the Scimitar, Valdore and Scorpion fighter. I'd upload them, but I have no idea if flare upload supports such an amount of files. If anyone can host them, let me know (or download the pack, but be warned: you can only access them by installling the pack if you have a SFC3-copy and the Activision-server is dead-slow).
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
(Besides, if you want to download the whole pack check www.st-sfc3.com for the official release or this one: http://www.strategyplanet.com/sfc/sfc1/mission_official.shtml#sfc3nemesis for some mirrors. Sadly, I didn't find that link until after I had nearly completed the whole download. Took me nearly an hour with 3.0kb/s. )
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Damn. Now I have to go back & work all that shit into my models of Enterprise & Shenzhou.
Those upper torp tubes are stupid, as is the spinal one. They're too damn small & in such the wrong places.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So the shuttlebay wasn't supposed to be resized to the size of the door, eh?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
And those aren't very convincing torpedo launchers. I mean, there's no room for any launching apperatus, it seems.
At the same time, that problem exists for the launcher just above the captain's yacht as well, so it isn't really a new problem.
Were these extra launchers actually added to the model? I did not notice them.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Good grief, someone wasn't thinking when they patched in those new torpedo launchers. It does make sense to have a couple more launchers there -- it was even indirectly shown in "Insurrection" -- but the way they draw them there seems really haphazard and ill-conceived.
For one thing, that dual launcher at the top is sitting right on top of an airlock! "Mind the antimatter warheads as you pull on your boots, Captain!"
I've got my good old AMT 1/1400 model handy, and I think that the rear saucer launcher might have actually made sense -- if they replaced the aft-facing airlock with the launcher itself! By comparison, the two main dual-launchers mounted at the bottom of the secondary hull on the model are about the same size, so I guess they could fit in.
The second launcher back by the aft shuttlebay makes a little bit of sense, in that the launcher itself could fit in the gap... probably. But where the heck would they store the torpedoes themselves?
I suppose it's a reasonably good thing that they add a bit more weaponry to cover the often-neglected rear firing arc; even in "Insurrection" this problem caused some trouble. But I wish that if they were going to do modifications like this, to at least do them properly!
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Well, *I* like 'em. Eaves may be out to lunch with launching mechanisms compared to Sternbach - there is obviously no place for reactant injectors and magnetic hoohahs. I'm guessing he means to treat the torpedo launchers as independent weapons that need little more than an airlock to launch. I suppose it's entirely possible that the mechanism is just really small and efficient these days, if the microtorp launchers on DS9 are to be believed. As for the aft saucer launchers, there should be JUST enough room left in the deck below for a corridor, which is really all that places like the DS9 ring and TNG neck docking ports had. Assuming that torpedo launchers require minimal space for additional launch mechanisms for the TUBES THEMSELVES, I think it works. And why wouldn't it?
So... Sovereigns have five aft launchers, two forward, plus the BFL under the saucer. Akira-happy, indeed.
Mark
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Also, note that the warp nacelle pylons now sport phaser strips. Since these are mirrored on the ventral side a la E-D, they've accounted for another close-range blind spot.
Next time I see the film, I certainly will be on the lookout for the launchers & strips. I'd assume they were on the new model, as it was rebuilt from the ground up and adding different features like those odd arches flanking the shuttlebay.
Mark
Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
So these are microtorpedo lauchers? And that barrage [microtrops?],from the 5 min trailer, shot from the location above shuttlebay?
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Heh, I think its funny that Eaves actually wrote "Oh Baby, Look At All That Firepower!" on the third drawing. I think the most ideal location for rear firing torpedo launchers would be in the pseudo-"neck" immediatly behind the shuttlebay, since its raised a bit and could easily have a notch or two cut into it.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
He put lotsa stars and stuff around that text... Reminds me of girls' diaries.
Interestingly enough, all this close-range-blind-spot-coverage he's been adding has CREATED a blind spot - the forward dorsal of the saucer. One wonders if there's some unseen popup launcer somewhere at the front of deck 2...
Mark
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i think i'm going to vomit. the worst part is is that the ship almost made sense at first, and now hes screwing it up.
i suppose the sensible explanation is that those torpedo launchers are set for a much lower payload/launch recharge time than the primary 'good' launchers. (this is my explanation for the Akira too)
*dies*
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
Is there any concept art of the shuttle Argo? It would be cool to see that. Thank you for the concept art on the rest of the vessels. John Eaves does a good job. Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: He put lotsa stars and stuff around that text... Reminds me of girls' diaries.
Interestingly enough, all this close-range-blind-spot-coverage he's been adding has CREATED a blind spot - the forward dorsal of the saucer. One wonders if there's some unseen popup launcer somewhere at the front of deck 2...
Mark
Yeah I know, and that's the reason why your not suppose to put torpedo launchers all over the ship in the trek universe like...like blasters or something.
Torpedoes are suppose to be used on targets that are at a nice safe distance away from the ship. Therefore making one or two launchers pointing forward and aft enough.
You don't really need a launcher above the shuttle bay on the saucer when you got one at the tail end already. Unless that launcher is suppose to fire straight up from the ship at targets far "above" the Ent-E.
[ December 17, 2002, 19:28: Message edited by: TheF0rce ]
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Perhaps these are short range launchers that fire standard photons through a much shorter magnetic accelerator and is intended to engage multiple targets that are to close for the primary launchers, like Jem'hadar fighters for instance.
While not necessarily a good idea it is certainly plausible that the flagship was refitted with extra armaments during the Dominion war and perhaps said armaments are scheduled to be removed at the next major overhaul, which would be at the end of Nemesis.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Excellent stuff. Thanks, Amasov.
It's good to see the Ent-E get some more teeth considering it's meant to be such a powerful ship. In particular, the extra phaser arrays on the pylons are a very welcome addition.
The new torp launchers are certainly compact but it's reasonable to assume that they have some limitation compared to the regular launchers. Perhaps they can't launch torpedos at warp speed or something.
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
Well, atleast the main shuttlebay launchers are on the new model. I cut and pasted a few shots of the aft saucer side of the EE, one from Insurrection, the one from The Communicator, and the one showing the Argo launching. The INS shot clearly has a nice flat spot right where the launcher goes. The two NEM shots confirm that the launcher is there now. Nice upgrade.
I can't tell for sure if the launcher is there or not down on the ship's stern. There is a boxlike structure just above the stern shuttlebay doors, but I think the launcher would be alittle forward of this box (according to Eave's drawing).
I've got the caps of the main shuttlebay launcher if anyone wants to post them for everybody to see. I can email, but can't upload to flare.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Email them to me. My address is in my profile.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I for one would be happy to buy into the idea that there are varying sizes of torpedo launchers, and of torpedoes. The long range monsters with 1.5 kg of antimatter aboard would be fired from largish warp-capable launchers. But smaller turrets could fire weaker weapons to defeat enemies at closer ranges.
Short range wide coverage torpedo defenses might have become a concern with the Dominion and its swarm tactics: pounding a Battlebug even with relatively weak torpedoes might be worth the while. In blowing up a Romulan ship, they would be less useful - but as an anti-cloak measure at close quarters, they would be very practical indeed.
Not that I really would have wanted to have these extra launchers on the E-E. IMHO, it's a profoundly silly idea. But at least it's easy to rationalize away.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
Possible torp launcer mechanics:
Maybe the longer launch tubes like those on the Galaxy class are the ones capable of firing the 10 torps simultaneously. Scale-wise, could you even get 10 torps to fit together in a tight enough package to fit out the launcher port? Not sure. More likely you have a longer breach and stack sets of torps (i.e. like 2 sets of 5) and then mag launch them out the tube and let them separate/track after exit. I think we saw 1 bright torp flash and then a separation into smaller torp flashes during Yesterday's Enterprise, the larger torp flash may not have necessarily been a single pack of torps, but may have been two/three packs close together. Also, I agree with Timo that the longer launch tubes should theoretically generate a longer range, more mag pulses = increased velocity.
For the smaller turret style launchers, we can probably assume they don't have the 10 shot multiple launch capabilty and really don't appear to need it based on their rapid fire capabilty. I can imagine two feed chutes running from floor to ceiling in the airlock deck area on the E-E that feed from a larger magazine of torps below that deck, where the torp integration/loading could occur. The torps could still be mag launched in the shorter turret launchers, just launched similar to how the US Army is testing "blow-off" armor panels. Those panels normally rest on the side of vehicles until an electrical charge is generated on the vehicle side and the panel side (with a similar charge) goes flying away from the vehicle and hopefully toward any incoming threat weapon.
Looks like good Dominion war upgrades to me....anybody notice if the stern torp launcher was firing in the movie or if its been spotted on the new CGI model in any of the pics?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Keep in mind though that we haven't seen a multi-launch from ANY starship since the fouth or fifth season of TNG... Maybe it was just something that didn't work out, and they refitted everything for rapid fire.
Mark
Posted by StyroFoam Man (Member # 706) on :
Prehaps, just prehaps... With all the new technology that Voyager brought back... and all the new technology that was invented during the Dominion War... Prehaps torpedeo tech has evolved to the point where they can store torpedeos pre-armed? This would reduce prep-time and allow massive vollys to be fired in a shorter time.
Therefore, any place that can hold a short launch-rail and automated torpdeo-rack/loader could be converted into a launcher.
(Patent Pending And Copyright "FlamingTechheadFanboy INC," All Rights Reserved) EDIT: Very funny Liz! NOW STAY OUT OF FLARE!!!
[ December 19, 2002, 14:57: Message edited by: Styrofoaman ]
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
The only problem with preloaded torps is presumably that you wouldn't have a way to regulate the amount of destructive force delivered. That's probably the primary reason that Sternbach et. al. designed the m/a loading systems around the torp tube just so that the torps could be customized for a particular target or required damage effects.
True Mark, we haven't seen the multiple launch since then, but the TNGTM made such a big point about it so I'd say it's probably still onboard. I can't think of an instance where a multiple launch would have been handy during later episodes, would've been cool to see during the battle of Chin'toka (sp) Normally, you try to work showstopper bugs out before integration into the hardware...(not that defects don't come up later on, but almost 10 years (using 2357 as the Galaxy launch and 2366 as the episode timeframe [3rd season?])is a long time for a BIG problem to crop up and cause a system to be scrapped.)
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Remember in "Genesis" where a smug Worf was testing out their brand new torpedo system? That coulda been it. I've no doubt that the old system could still be there, but the fact remains that it could have been used in a variety of situations. The attack on Chin'toka, for example, where Starfleet was trying to destroy as many of the OWPs as possible before they came online.
The extra tubes we see here seem capable of handling standard-size torpedoes (microtorps aside, we've only really seen one size anyway). At the most, I'm guessing they have no capacity for warp launch or specialized payloads - the larger GCS launchers would be more capable of launching oddly-shapped probes. I'd think that they were capable of rapid fire bursts... We see three launch in that one instance, followed by three more. This means that the aft saucer launcher is capable of at least two per tube per burst, and probably three - unless it was the aft shuttlebay launcher that let loose three torpedoes in the subsequent volley, which therefore suggest that the top launchers are capable of three-round bursts too.
Sternbach said a GCS carried 250 torpedo casings under standard conditions. All things being equal, the Sovereign probably carries a similar number, given its more military role. Given how long they were blasting away at random, they could have easily expended that much of the course of the battle.
Mark
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
The torp shot in Genesis was a torp upgrade and probably not a launcher upgrade. They made an effort to recover the torp, which would seem more plausible if you were testing an upgraded torp capability.
"This means that the aft saucer launcher is capable of at least two per tube per burst, and probably three"
Not really, the turret only has to fire pom pom style with torp 1 out the left tube, torp 2 out the right tube, torp three out the left tube and so on. The nonfiring tube goes through a reload cycle while the other tube empties a round.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
What I mean is that even with said pom-pom fire, the launcher would have to take a break to recharge or something. Reloading the tube must mean more than simply slapping another torpedo in there.
I'm sure the "Genesis" upgrade was more than just a fancy new torpedo... Anyone have access to the scripts? Regardless, Starfleet would be obligated to retrieve a trorpedo that wouldn't self destruct. NOT doing it would be like the USN leaving a Tomahawk cruise missile alone in the middle of the Nevada desert after its engine malfunctioned.
Mark
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
Actually, "slapping another" torp in is almost exactly what I think it would have to do. The torp travels up into a breach area from the magazine chute, something seals the breach from the next torpedo that is in line in the chute, and then you have a flash of EM charge that propels the torp out of the tube. The only time required is for the seal mechanism to open and close, a torp to move into the breach, and some type of capacitor to recharge. Mechanically, all of this could occur in less than a second with current technology (i.e. mechanisms from a GAU-8 cannon operate at a MUCH faster rpm granted with a much smaller projectile but we are talking 24th century capabilities that should be more advanced), the only potential drawback from today's tech is the capacitor charging time, but again 24th century tech should be able to handle it.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
All this provided that you are useing either quantum torpdeos or preloaded photons. Otherwise you have to count in the reactant injection time. (Again, most likely about a second. Seen injection presses shoot 50# of resin in .9 seconds)
quote:Originally posted by Shipbuilder: Actually, "slapping another" torp in is almost exactly what I think it would have to do. The torp travels up into a breach area from the magazine chute, something seals the breach from the next torpedo that is in line in the chute, and then you have a flash of EM charge that propels the torp out of the tube. The only time required is for the seal mechanism to open and close, a torp to move into the breach, and some type of capacitor to recharge. Mechanically, all of this could occur in less than a second with current technology (i.e. mechanisms from a GAU-8 cannon operate at a MUCH faster rpm granted with a much smaller projectile but we are talking 24th century capabilities that should be more advanced), the only potential drawback from today's tech is the capacitor charging time, but again 24th century tech should be able to handle it.
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
Good point. Now we're talking fast. If the torp isn't preloaded we have a torp that has to be filled, joined, and transported from a deck below the airlock deck (unless this is mounted in the ceiling of that deck), slammed into the breach, breach sealed, and EM pulse launched, all in under a second. Whew!
Who would you have to bribe to get a Sovereign TM in one of the final ST:Magazines? *Homer speak...ummmmmmmmm Sovereign*
Also a good point about the torp recovery in Genesis, Mark.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
Ok, why do we need a physical breech? Prehaps it could be done with force-fields like the one that seals the shuttle bay?
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
Do you mean a breech door, because the breech is technically the compartment where a projectile is loaded until firing.
Why not a forcefield to seal the breach? Could possibly be done, but it seems like a lot of EM field interactions going on in a tight space. You would have the theoretical EM breach door, the mag pulse that launches the torp and then an EM recharge occuring at a nearby capacitor. I just assumed it would probably be easier to have a physical breech that could be shielded (using materials) to guard against all the adjacent EM fields.
Would probably work either way though and probably wouldn't gain any speed by using an EM field over a mechanical breech door.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
In his novel "Once Burned", Peter David has Calhoun exiting the ship in a torpedo tube. He has a force-field on the tube's exit into space that allows solid objects to pass through (i.e. a torpedo, or in this case Calhoun) but keeps gases (i.e. nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc) inside to maintain an atmosphere. Same thing as a shuttlebay forcefield, I guess.
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
Despite some issues with the DS9TM, there are still some jewels remaining in the text. In regards to this discussion about the new torpedo launchers I found this....
"The launch of a photon or quantum torpedo from the runabout involves a fire-and-forget system, in the absence of a magnetic tube launcher. The guidance and navigation package of the torpedo attempts to keep to the programmed course, but may have dificulty during the first 3.7 seconds of powered flight."
So here we have a canon reference to the pod mounted compact torp launcher with no mag coils that has difficulty achieving a lock-on during the first 3.7 seconds of flight.....SOUND/LOOK FAMILIAR???
Looks like this type of launcher has actually been around since DS9, just now being integrated into larger ships as sort of a close-in (assuming sublight due to the absence of mag coils) weapons system. Of course, it also looks like they aren't limited by the pod size which could only fire 4 full size torps, but now they are integrated with magazines giving them a higher capacity.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
Perhaps these new mini launchers are the same type as those packed into the Akira weapon pod.
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
Picked up the new issue of the ill-fated ST: Magazine this weekend (ST: Nemesis Special). While my scanner is currently DOA, I can tell you that there are 3 additional launchers beyond what Amasov posted. Two on the dorsal front of the saucer (in separate centerline emplacements) and one additional launcher aft ventral under the aft shuttlebay (again centerline). These all appear to be of the newer DS9 type launchers.
Looking forward to seeing someone post a scan...
Later! Art
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
As am I! I guess he DID account for the aforementioned blind spots.. And doubled up on lots of the firing arcs too!
Scans please! I doubt we'll be getting the magazine out here for at least a couple weeks..
Mark
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
How many launchers does that make? Suddenly the Akira's 15 doesn't seam quite so extreme.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
This depends on whether the launcher Neggie mentions are single or dual tube mounts. Prior to today, we thought this:
Primary: Single rapid-fire launcher - ventral saucer mount
Secondary: Two twin-tube launchers - ventral stardrive mounts, fore and aft
Tertiary: One twin-tube and one single tube launcher, dorsal aft atop saucer and stardrive respectively; assumed "DS9-style" mini-launchers
This is eight so far; we're now adding three more emplacements, for as many as six more tertiary-style tubes.
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
Mark,
They appear to single tube mounts, much like the new one above the aft shuttlebay.
Art
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: This depends on whether the launcher Neggie mentions are single or dual tube mounts. Prior to today, we thought this:
Primary: Single rapid-fire launcher - ventral saucer mount
Secondary: Two twin-tube launchers - ventral stardrive mounts, fore and aft
Tertiary: One twin-tube and one single tube launcher, dorsal aft atop saucer and stardrive respectively; assumed "DS9-style" mini-launchers
This is eight so far; we're now adding three more emplacements, for as many as six more tertiary-style tubes.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
I want scans!
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Eleven tubes total then, unless Eaves decided to put a tertiary launcher under the ventral saucer too.
I also just realized - the launcher above the aftmost shuttlebay may be a single-tube, but that tube is almost certinaly larger than the tubes used in the launcher on the saucer. Hmm...
Mark
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
The torpedo tube above the aft shuttlebay is a single tube.
And the new tubes: 2 forward tubes dorsal saucer (I don't know exact location yet) 1 or 2 aft tubes ventral stardrive below aft shuttlebay
This makes a total of about 11 or 12 tubes.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Here's what I don't get with all these tube-happy designers: wasn't the point of the torpedo in Star Trek to be like how torps on a sub work? It doesn't really matter where they're shot from since they're supposed to follow targets (true, pointing in the right direction would help), and you don't need that many launchers because one can fire multiple torps from a single supply instead of having multiple launchers each with their own smaller storage facility. Wasn't that the idea, or were Matt Jefferies and Andrew Probert just really naive in their designs?
You don't see Navy subs with tens of launchers with smaller storage bays, do you? (That's a real question, BTW. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on submarines can shed some light on how designers think when it comes to arming subs with torp launchers?)
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I think we're looking at a case of trading off accuracy vs. rate of fire vs. range. Torpedoes in Trek are certainly guided; however if they're going to hit a target a relatively close ranges then they've got a greater chance of missing.
Remember, the first torpedoes weren't even guided; their initial mission was to sink slow-moing targets. Their use against other submarines is a sort of secondary function, and one that was never used effectively in the big wars (I read a book once that said that a torpedo has NEVER been conclusively shown to be able to sink another submarine in either World War).
Perhaps this older style of torpedo warfare is what Trek is trying to allude to?
Mark
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Matt Jeffries? Oh, right, for his detailed torpedo bay on the original Enterprise.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Well, that was kind of my point. He didn't see the need to bristle his design with tubes everywhere because of "blindspots." Was he wrong?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
This is why we go back to the notion of different kinds of torpedoes, including smaller torps used for point defence, close-range assault, and options for variable-yield torpedo attacks without taking the time to modify existing torpedoes. The large number of tertiary launchers seems to support the idea of close-range torpedo uses.
As it stands, depending on what kind of torpedo you use you can inflict a range of damage amounts and types without wasting time refitting torpedoes - they're already in the appropriate launchers. Evidence suggests that only the one big launcher is capable of firing quantum torpedoes... Thus, within the forward firing arc, you can fire the big hitter quantorps, more conventional photorps, and whatever kind of torpedoes the tertiary launchers can fire. In the aft arc you don't have quantums, but the conventional photorps and the extra torpedo tubes are there providing dorsal and ventral coverage.
The only problem with the close-range uses are that there is absolutely no coverage on the port or starboard sides... Eaves forgot these arcs that the Akira at least seems to cover.
Mark
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
For clarification:
1 aft tube ventral stardrive below aft shuttlebay
Art
quote:Originally posted by Dat: The torpedo tube above the aft shuttlebay is a single tube.
And the new tubes: 2 forward tubes dorsal saucer (I don't know exact location yet) 1 or 2 aft tubes ventral stardrive below aft shuttlebay
This makes a total of about 11 or 12 tubes.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Matt Jeffries designed as many weapon emplacements on the Enterprise as I have.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Okay...um, fine. Matt Jefferies didn't put any visible weapons at all on the Enterprise, does that make you feel better? That still doesn't change my point. He knew what cannons looked liked. He could have said, "Gee, I bet this ship would look really cool with 15 cannons attached to it!" but he didn't. (Yes, he liked the idea of everything such as machinery inside the ship, no rough details on the outside)
I was simply wondering why there's a trend to put 11 or 12 torpedo launchers on Star Trek ships recently when just a few years ago, anything over 5 was considered too much. Probert even states he originally had a dorsal saucer torpedo launcher on the E-D but eliminated it (among other things like moving the bridge to the top as Roddenberry wanted), thinking the two main ones were sufficient.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
My point is that to say that Jeffries' design for the weaponry of the Enterprise was superior (or inferior) to any other is simply meaningless, because he never designed any. That's all. I feel much as you do regarding the Enterprise E being peppered with launchers, but that has next to nothing to do with what made the original Enterprise such a neat design.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Ah, I see the point of this whole mess now.
When I posted the Jefferies and Probert line, I was simply trying to say that these earlier designers didn't take the time to point out everywhere on their design "here's another torpedo launcher!" like some hyperactive kindergartener drawing scribbles of smileys and messy lines all over his paper while drooling spittle down his chin (not the best analogy, but oh well). As you point out, Jefferies didn't give much thought to it at all. I just wanted to contrast that with how Eaves and newer designers feel somehow that their ships are "unprotected" (self-conscious, perhaps?) without launchers bursting out of every corner like teenage acne (okay, second awkward analogy, I'm on a roll!).
I didn't mean to suggest Jefferies' design for weaponary was superior (nor Probert for that matter), and I wasn't trying to comment on how launchers (or the lack there of) made the original Enterprise such a neat design.
Do you get what I'm trying to write?
You do? Good, 'cause I'm lost now. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
On a tangent to that, even if Jeffries didn't arm the E-nil to the teeth, the TOS writers and VFX folks did that for him. From a purely observational-treknological standpoint, fifteen tubes on the Akira is not that different from at least six forward tubes on the E-nil in "Balance of Terror".
The existence of more than two torp tubes on the likes of E-A is also a distinct possibility - they could still reside wherever the tubes were on the unrefitted Constitutions. That would help explain the four(!) torp bays seen in ST2 aboard the refitted E-nil - two or more were in the saucer somewhere (perhaps behind those hatches we mistook for airlocks or landing legs), and just happened to fire an inferior type of torpedo that Kirk didn't want to bring to play in the battle.
The apparent scarsity of tubes aboard the E-D could also be observer bias - the saucer could have had sixteen, for use in separated flight mode. Or fifty, and those fired the antimatter spread we saw in "BoBW II". The two big 'uns on the stardrive section were simply better for most purposes.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Considering modern real world developments, I am not a believer in a ship of Star Trek's time requiring this many tubes. Here's my idea.
In the film "The Fifth Element", Zog introduced a weapon to hired-for-money thugs. This weapon had many neat features, one of which is the ability of the bullet to do a straight line trajectory, curve, and then strike the target behind the shooter. How does this apply to Star Trek?
The torpodoes on a starship are smart weapons which can analyze and track a target. When fired from a launcher, a torpodoe will have the ability for assaulting a moving target aft of the firing ship. When fired in groups, this can be quite effective. There is no need for this many torpodoe launchers.
I see the explosion of torpodoe launchers as a trend in Star Trek. First, we see a fleet blown up to ridiculous numbers. (In TOS and TNG, ships were spaced far apart and there was a time lag in acquiring ships for a fleet wide movement. By DS9, Starfleet had thousands of ships at her disposal.) Second, we see the size of the Federation expanded considerable. Third, the explosion of number of launchers on a starship. I call this the "Kewl Factor". This factor, which started in fandom, has spread with all the rapidity and ugliness of a disease to canon Trek. Where's the cure?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Re Matt Jeffries defense, the Enterprise was clearly designed prior to decisions being made about just about anything of the ship's features. I suspect Roddenberry et al gave little or no thought to guns or torpedoes until the script for "Balance of Terror" was in the works. In fact, that they land a laser cannon on Talos IV in "The Cage" makes me suspect no one originally anticipated the ship being armed.
I agree with the assertion that a zillion launchers is silly. Albeit the torp was modified for Star Trek VI, the one that tracks down Chang's BOP behaved exactly as I always thought the photorps should...as guided missiles, not unguided rockets.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"How does this apply to Star Trek?"
Uh, it doesn't?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Remember that the designers on Star Trek do not have as much influence as you're according them -- a lot of design decisions ultimately rest with Berman.
Whenever we've seen torpedoes firing from odd places in the past, it was because the VFX people weren't happy with the designed locations. There is nothing in the Nemesis script to suggest additional torpedo launchers, but there *are* a lot of unknown names in the VFX credits of Nemesis. Digital Domain had never done a Trek show or a movie before. Eaves would've naturally modified his design to match.
However, the ultimate blame or credit rests with the producers who hire these people and oversee their designs/VFX. Don't forget that the proto-Voyager was the final design from Rick Sternbach's POV, and that he went curvy only because Jeri Taylor (an executive producer) wanted him to.
Boris
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
To say that the EE yacht launcher is the only launcher capable of firing quantums isn't exactly a true statement. We've only seen quantums from this launcher, but if we are to assume these are the "DS9" style (personally I think we should call them something else since they weren't on DS9...how about "short" launchers??) the DS9TM states they can fire both photon and quantums....additionally we see other evidence in the TM that suggests the two torps are interchangeable in the torp tubes.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Granted, the differences between quantums and photons should not keep them in seperate launchers. However, perhaps this was a tactical decision for maintenance or tactical issues? If you have all the torpedoes of one kind in one launchers, it'd make 'em easier to keep running and your launcher configured specifically to 'em. Plus, if the notion is correct that there aren't that many quantum torpedoes to go around, keeping them all where they will do the most damage - when attacking a target - will have it make sense to be in the one big launcher. Note for example that Defiant never fired quantums aft ("Paradise Lost" et. al.).
And yeah, "DS9-style" launchers don't make much sense. But calling 'em "short" launchers means calling the other ones "long" launchers. How about "Eaves" and "Sternbach" style for the TNG era? The former accents short tubes and unconventional launch mechanics, wheras the longer emphasizes longer tubes, multiple torpedoes per launch, and lots of ancillary machinery besides the tube itself.
Mark
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Can anyone still put up pics of the newer realized 3 launchers?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Like I said about the Romulan article: Give me a day or two. Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
Yep, we're back to the "ready-load" Defiant torpedo tube discussion Mark Which makes sense to me. We could say that the torp tubes can fire either torp style, their magazines are just ready loaded with a particular type of torp.
Someone was asking about subs and multiple launchers...check out the first four Ohio-class subs which are being refurbished as conventional missile launching submarines. These subs will have multiple vertical launch tubes fitted out to fire tactical missiles...I'd classify that as a modern day example of a weapons system "bristling" with emplacements.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Mark
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Okay, here's the moolah!
This is an annotated set of schematic views done by Eaves, showing all the changes he made to the Enterprise-E for the film:
The aforementioned addition of four (4) new torpedo launchers along the dorsal centerline of the ship. One near the front of the saucer, (no mention made of whether it's a single or double tube) one at the front of the bridge module ledge-thingee, (again, no mention of whether it's a single or double) one above the rear airlock, (which we know to be a double tube) and one above the aft shuttlebay. (Which we know to be a single tube.) So, that's actually five (5) new tubes, assuming that only the airlock launcher is double.
A sixth tube was placed at the ventral trailing tip of the secondary hull.
He also added new tapered extensions to the back of the saucer (on both sides of the saucer shuttlebay) that integrate the two parts of the hull a little more gracefully. You can see the smoothing effect that this generates in Amasov's scan.
The nacelles were moved forward by 3.5% and upward by 1.3%. (How much did he change the shape of the pylons to do this?)
A phaser strip was added to the trailing dorsal surface of each pylon as well.
It looks like he gave himself an "A+" for his work, probably with a little self-congradulatory pat on the back to go along with it.
-MMoM Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yeah, people who don't hate themselves and everything they touch should be murdered in public places.
What's with the launchers on the saucer? I don't remember those being used.
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
Do you have any scans of the Argo Shuttle from the magazine? It sure would be nice to see what else John Eaves did for the movie.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
So basically...he built a brand-new ship. Idiots. You can't simply play with the structure ifd things like that.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: So basically...he built a brand-new ship. Idiots. You can't simply play with the structure ifd things like that.
Well, it's far less than the refitting of the E-nil in TMP. He didn't even replace the nacelles themselves, or any of the major hull components. All at worst he necessitated the replacement of the nacelle pylons, and even then it was probably only a partial rebuilding rather than a total one. The blending of the saucer and neck doesn't require a gargantuan amount of deconstruction/reconstruction, does it?
And the torp tubes don't change ANY of the actual structure of the hull, at least not externally. I can believe that they made space for them on the inside. (Except maybe that airlock one, but it's still possible...)
-MMoM Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Little changes are far worse than large-scale ones. You don't simply decide to move pylons forward & change the dihedral. It's like moving the citadel of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer back 5 meters & increasing the slope of the outer casing walls by 2 degrees. It just isn't done, because it's stupid.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Hear, hear!
I think the problem is that the artists are approaching the ship design from an artist's perspective... they figure that tweaking a few details to get things "just right" is a good idea. From an engineer's standpoint for a warship, that's positively awful.
I guess it depends on whether you think we should sit back and accept this all because it's "just a movie" or come up with a damn good explanation for this major-minor refit. Or better yet, come up with some excuse for why it never happened in the first place. Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
It's not like they haven't done this sort of thing before. The 4' miniature of the Ent-D has a different shape and texture than the 6', and all the CG models of the Defiant are a poor match for the physical model.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Little changes are far worse than large-scale ones. You don't simply decide to move pylons forward & change the dihedral. It's like moving the citadel of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer back 5 meters & increasing the slope of the outer casing walls by 2 degrees. It just isn't done, because it's stupid.
Hows about we blame it on SF tinkering with warp geometry to increase efficiency and call things even?
After all, it has been four years since we last saw the ship. That's plenty of time for it to either have undergone a refitting or even to have had a nasty run-in with someone/thing and have her ass blown off. (Sacreligious, I know, but possible.)
Hadn't the Enterprise returned to Earth in 2376? ("Life Line" [VGR]) Sure, I know that if they'd just been thrashed, Deanna probably would have mentioned something about it to Reg, but perhaps it was just a planned refitting after all.
Someone throw me a frickin' bone here...
-MMoM Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Here you go!
::drops a bone in front of MMoM::
Good Monkey!
Seriously, though, I'm sure it's possible for the E-E to have a refit. Here's a new question, though: with the "blending" of the saucer into the engineering hull (the tapering near the shuttlebay), can the ship still separate, at least in theory as so many fanboys say it can?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Good question.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
I submit that aside from the new torpedo launchers and phasers, the ship never "really" changed. Eaves said that this is how it was meant to be from the beginning, as far as the saucer curve and nacelle orientation go, and I for one am willing to accept that retroactively. Same way I accept that Ten Forward was always on the Enterprise-D, even if the windows weren't there at first.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I can go with that.
Mark
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
I was not one of those fanboys thank you very much. I thought that the Intrepid and Sovereign were both integrated hull designs, no seperation possible. I thought we covered this too.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, Eaves designed the E-E to be able to separate. I don't see why he would have made changes that would preclude a function he designed into the ship in the first place.
-MMoM Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Poor Eaves. Has everyone's "list of people whose work I can appreciate" maxed-out at, uh, three, or something?
People are icky, anyway. Clutter up basement bedrooms.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds: ...Eaves said that this is how it was meant to be from the beginning, as far as the saucer curve and nacelle orientation go...
That wouldn't surprise me. Andy Probert told me he often had to fight to keep the modelmakers and propmakers from changing details on approved designs. The Cylon helmets were changed from the approved drawings just because the costumers decided they didn't like the mouthpiece, and the Ferengi makeups were altered from his (Roddenberry-approved) drawings by Westmore. He said he had to fight to keep ILM (and Bob Justman) from covering the E-D with a billion little 3 foot square hull plates because they liked all the extra detail, even though it made no sense to build a ship out of poster board sized sheets.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
But isn't that the job of those various people?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Nice to have the annotated drawings. I was fearing for much more extensive hull alterations. Moving the nacelles and adding the pylon phasers is a refit that could plausibly be done. Perhaps the nacelles simply were in the wrong position to begin with (if we assume that warp geometry computational modeling is as difficult to do then as aerodynamic computational modeling is now).
As for moving the citadel of an Arleigh Burke or altering the facet tilt, funny that you should mention this specific class. After all, the Block IIA changes to the design more or less amount to that very thing! Not that any single Burke would be changed from Block I or Block II to this standard, not under current budgetary plans anyway. But such a refit could plausibly take place. And if you add the aft hangar, you *have* to move the forward superstructures to avoid obscuring the aft SPY-1 arrays. One could perhaps infer a similar relationship between nacelle positioning and torpedo launcher positioning.
I'm a firm believer in the separation capabilities of the Sovereign class, even in this "reinforced" variant. Any ship with a saucer IMHO has that saucer solely for its ability to act as an atmospheric lifeboat. The Intrepid is atmospheric-capable in itself and needs not separate, of course... Those neck braces can probably be severed explosively or something.
Frankly, it gives me a warm feeling inside to think that Starfleet actually built a ship they had to extensively revamp and rebrace in order to make her properly spaceworthy...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
If I remember correctly, the Burke's citadel wasn't moved, they only redesigned the aft SPY radar housing. I did some grad-work on a composite hanger replacement design for these ships and saw a drawing detailing the placement of a bulkhead to bulkhead section installation...bascially plugging in an extension, and it was done aft of the superstructure. There was also some material replacement done throughout the ship to help equalize the weight changes.
Another funny oddity ...Burke class upgrades are known as Flight (I, II, IIA, etc.) not Block as shown above. So we have ships with Flight upgrades and aircraft with Block upgrades, crazy engineers?
As far as the EE changes...If Eaves says thats how it always should've been, then I can go for that too (minus the torp launchers which were easily refit). So I suppose this makes the Sovereign class a little shorter now? Wonder if he made her alittle deeper to account for that 29th deck? Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
I'm now thinking that the Sovereign always had a number of 6' half-decks between various decks -- since at the time of FC, Deck 16 really was on Level 16, at that time they would've been somewhere below that deck.
When Picard said 24 decks, he probably meant 24 decks; however, since the numbering system treats half-decks as full decks, there would be at least 26 Decks by the time of FC.
By the time of "Nemesis", the Enterprise-E could've been refitted with the maximum number of half-decks (48), meaning that Deck 29 would really be somewhere around the old Deck 15 -- tall enough for the fall.
I think we do see a few door signs on "Deck 29", although I don't remember what they read.
Note that the above is merely a hypothesis of mine which needs some testing and refinement.
Boris
Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
BTW, my Deck 29 comment was a joke. And I don't think we have any way of knowing that Riker and company were on Deck 29 when they started shooting at the Remans and therefore we can't assume those doors were on Deck 29 (would be interesting to see if they do say 29 tho).
I think its just another flub. With all the scale folks around here, has anybody ever tried to scale the EE and determine how many decks she SHOULD have? I'm sure this came up in an FC discusssion along time ago..just don't remember the results.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shipbuilder: With all the scale folks around here, has anybody ever tried to scale the EE and determine how many decks she SHOULD have? I'm sure this came up in an FC discusssion along time ago..just don't remember the results.
She should have 23 decks but 24 is the most canon figure considering the MSD and Picard's FC dialogue. I'm yet to see Nemesis but a "Deck 29" would be a blunder that should be ignored.
Posted by NightWing (Member # 4) on :
Actually, the underside was made a bit fatter. And to emphasis that a bit more they made a reference to deck 29. Pitty it still doesn't work out since appearantly you can fall deeper.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Funny thing, I remember staring at where the forward dorsal saucer launcher is and thinking it looked strange. . . Wish I'd thought to myself "Gosh, that looks like a launcher there" so I could feel really pleased with myself now.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Maybe the presence of "Enterprise" changed these things so that they should have always been like that? Hence things were starting to change when Picard said 26 Decks, and then we hear it has 24 decks?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: He said he had to fight to keep ILM (and Bob Justman) from covering the E-D with a billion little 3 foot square hull plates because they liked all the extra detail, even though it made no sense to build a ship out of poster board sized sheets.
Didn't they end up doing that anyway? And didn't it look a lot better, really?
quote:Originally posted by Shik: So basically...he built a brand-new ship. Idiots. You can't simply play with the structure ifd things like that.
Yeah, the bastard. Next thing he'll be doing it lowering the bridge dome, or removing the spikes from the engine nacelles, or changing the curiture of the underside of the saucer section, or shrinking the navigational deflector dish...
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Only the curvature change is "forbidden" by the constraints of realism. As it is in the E-E revamp.
Unless, of course, the refit was similar to the final E-nil one - remove secondary hull, add new secondary hull, remove primary hull, add new primary hull, remove engines, add new engines. (There's an old Finnish recipe about boiling a loon that goes something like that. "Take loon. Gut and feather. Mildly boil in two liters of water for two hours. Throw away water. Mildly boil in two liters of milk for two hours. Throw away milk. Mildly boil in two liters of raw alcohol for two hours. Throw away loon. Serve.")
Except that here, the primary hull need not have been changed. And perhaps the original secondary hull proved impossible to de-Borgify and had to be scrapped, and we just didn't see this in "Insurrection" because the Briar Patch nebula fogged our eyes?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: He said he had to fight to keep ILM (and Bob Justman) from covering the E-D with a billion little 3 foot square hull plates because they liked all the extra detail, even though it made no sense to build a ship out of poster board sized sheets.
Didn't they end up doing that anyway? And didn't it look a lot better, really?
They didn't do it to the six footer except to a few areas. I know I'm in the minority, but to my eye the four footer made the ship look smaller. The only thing wrong with the original six-footer was that the effects cameramen didn't know how to light it. There were a few instances where the light caught the Aztec paintjob of the six footer in such a way that really got the scale across. Generations proved the six footer could look good as well.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: They didn't do it to the six footer except to a few areas. I know I'm in the minority, but to my eye the four footer made the ship look smaller. The only thing wrong with the original six-footer was that the effects cameramen didn't know how to light it. There were a few instances where the light caught the Aztec paintjob of the six footer in such a way that really got the scale across. Generations proved the six footer could look good as well.
I prefer the shape of the six footer but the panelling of the four footer. I believe the 4 footer also had a better paint job. Both are lovely miniatures but I think the 6 footer is slightly better overall. If only it was lit better.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Timo: Okay then, what about the moving turbolifts on the bridge of the Enterprise-A? They are at least as crazy, if you want to get worked up over that sort of thing.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I see no problem with that at all. Turbolift stops are little different from bus stops - they are not a fixed part of the "road", but simply a "signpost" planted at a suitable location next to the "road". The signpost can be moved without moving the road.
There would always be a horizontal stretch of shafting at the bridge level, to provide the "waiting slot" for one lift without hindering the movement of the other. I cannot believe Probert ever intended the ship to have two vertical shafts for the bridge - but simply two outlets for a single shaft, like Shane Johnson shows.
Extending or shortening the horizontal shafts would then be a simple matter. And if the extensions "don't fit under the hood", then one can simply move the bridge down half a deck (it's raised on a pedestal anyway in Probert's drawings) and not have it flush with the exterior dome.
The same has to be done to the TOS bridge, too, unless one wants to say the bridge was angled off centerline. The turboshaft visible at the back of the bridge exterior cannot be the location of the lift doors on the interior. Rather, I'd take it as the vertical shaft extension that's supposed to interface with starbases and the like, while the actual "lift stop" on bridge level again is on a horizontal branch, to provide the "waiting slot" needed.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, the E-nil's bridge *is* angled off center, but otherwise I agree with what Timo is saying... Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
In that case, when the ship "shakes", wouldn't the heroes sway from forward left to rear right, instead of left to right?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
depends on which way he ship shakes.
i hardly see turbulence as something regular we can quantify.. and why bother.. it looked realistic enough to begin with, except of course when it didn't.
oh, and it was just a tv show, too. hm.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
They were only off-centreline by, what - 15 degrees? That's not much. I'm more concerned with WHY they'd do something like that. In practicality it really doesn't mean anything...
Mark
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Maybe Captains are paranoid about sitting with their backs to the door.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Actually, that's not a bad supposition - at least where the modularity of the bridge set is concerned. According to FJ, and the set itself, the bridge is composed of segments which are identical in terms of how many degrees of the arc they occupy. For all we know, the wall segments could be functionally modular and simply arranged as the starship required - the only constant was where the door was, at the back. So on the Lexington the science station could've been just port of the viewer, on the Constellation the helm'nav and CO chairs could've been FACING the door, and on the Excalibur the door could've been right behind where we all want it to be!
Mark
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Interesting idea! Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
And of course, if the gigantic hand of an ex-Greek god grabs the bridge, and the IDFs are slow to react, it's safer if the backs of the chairs are facing front...
...As they apparently weren't on Kirk's ship.
Okay, I could buy that off-axis configuration if the saleswoman offered additional incentives. But by having the lift door position independent of vertical turboshaft position, we can solve a lot of problems in related designs - so why not go with it here, too?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Okay, I could buy that off-axis configuration if the saleswoman offered additional incentives. But by having the lift door position independent of vertical turboshaft position, we can solve a lot of problems in related designs - so why not go with it here, too?
Cause I'm a Franz Joseph junkie... Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
On a purely aesthetic level (i.e. the one that can't stand the concept of a ship's captain bravely facing the wrong way), I agree with Timo.
But, we must also accept what we see.
1. "Balance of Terror"[TOS]: The Enterprise is struck by a plasma weapon that was in pursuit of her as she went hella-fast in reverse. We may therefore presume that she was hit on the bow. Kirk and Rand were flung to the railing which is to the starboard of the helm console.
2. "Errand of Mercy"[TOS]: The Klingon attack at the start of the episode uses the standard "torpedoes hitting the ship" shot, and these strike at the forward ventral saucer. (This should cause the ship to tip up, theoretically.) Kirk and Spock are again flung toward that same railing.
And then there's "The Cage"[TOS], with its potentially-great-but-kinda-sucky matte of a model shot and a bridge crane shot (way before 2001!). But that sucks all around, since not only does the bridge not line up with the ship's axis, but the turbolift doesn't line up with the external lift-sized feature, either.
On the other hand, we have "The Naked Time"[TOS], which involves everyone leaning back in their chairs as the ship starts zipping along.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
As regards Deck 29, I just saw the film again and I looked out for any door numbers. I saw one - "0940" but the problem is it could easily have been 2940. It sure looked like a '0' though. . .
Also, the MSD is different from the one I have on my HD (I'm not gonna post it now as it's about 750kb in size). The one thing I did notice is that on the new MDS (oops, that was a typo, I wasn't at Berkeley in the 1960's!) there are about 6 or 7 decks below the lowest horizontal turbolift shaft in the secondary hull, whereas on my MSD there look to be about 3 or 4. . .
Edit: This MSD, thanks to Bernd.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
G2K, allow me to reiterate:
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: depends on which way he ship shakes.
i hardly see turbulence as something regular we can quantify.. and why bother.. it looked realistic enough to begin with, except of course when it didn't.
oh, and it was just a tv show, too. hm.
i still say that turbulence, caused by maneuvering and weapons fire, is too random and chaotic a thing to try and analyze like that..
besides maybe they get thrown a specific direction because that is where the inertial dampeners reset to when the artificial gravity is reset. we don't (and shouldn't and can't) know the precise science of it.. not that you are one who is prone to overanalysis
Vogon: dont the deck signs still go by the XX-XXXX scheme? that is, if it was deck 29 it would say 29-0940 ?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I like the Scorpion Concept ALOT better than the final model. The concept has sharper lines. It looks a little more sinister. And it looks more like an actual scoprion than the final model. Mostly the gun mount and the nose section of the craft make it seem so. In my opinion, they should have used the concept, it just looks better.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: Also, the MSD is different from the one I have on my HD (I'm not gonna post it now as it's about 750kb in size). The one thing I did notice is that on the new MDS (oops, that was a typo, I wasn't at Berkeley in the 1960's!) there are about 6 or 7 decks below the lowest horizontal turbolift shaft in the secondary hull, whereas on my MSD there look to be about 3 or 4. . .
I emailed Doug Drexler asking whether the Nemesis MSD was different from the FC MSD and his response was "The Master Display has not been altered in any way." He also commented that a MSD change wasn't warranted because the ship shape change was only subtle. I tend to agree.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, then the actual MSD must be different from the one I posted the link to then, because the one I saw in the film sure was.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: Well, then the actual MSD must be different from the one I posted the link to then, because the one I saw in the film sure was.
I'm pretty sure the MSD in your link is the same as the one used in FC and Insurrection. I can't further comment on this subject until I get the opportunity to see Nemesis for myself.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)