I'm surprised no one has posted screen-shots of the Armada from "Call to Arms." Season Six comes out tomorrow ... let's get those screen caps up, yes?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
...And better shots of that Jem'Haddar warship with the long nacelle struts, too.
Shall we make a Season Six "request list"? I'm up for seeing stuff like the registry of the USS Fredricksen, USS Hood, and other ships, for starters.
Mark
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Well, some frame-by-frame of those Akiras getting slaughtered in "Tears of the Prophet" would be nice, as would any instances of Nebulas appearing in a fleet shot. Any pics of a non-Defiant Starfleet ship destroying a bug would also be cool.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Still frames of any kitbashes.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I can't believe it either - do you know the ONLY screen caps of the armada at the end of CTA were the same ones that were posted soon after the episode aired. I even tried to enhance the first 'frame' and posted it here (or whatever the board was then) and people have been using that one since too! NO ONE HAS EVER recaptured that scene!! I think the one's I'm talking about are Pedro's captures.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
"In my day, we had to scour the net just for any old picture of the Enterprise. It was a crappy grainy looking .gif, but we liked it when we found it! We loved it!"
"Sure, grandpa, and you had to walk uphill to school, both ways, and in the snow, too."
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I rewatched "Call to Arms" last night ... did anyone else notice the super-sized Miranda?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
It's true though. And we had to eat string for breakfast.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
And it wasn't the good kind either.
Did I ever tell you about that time we upgraded from the wood-burning modem to the coal-burning modem? Wasn't like those fancy electric modems you kids have now nooooo sir!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
That's why my 8088 didn't work, no coal....
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:did anyone else notice the super-sized Miranda?
Yes, that was the ship they built at the Ronald McDonald fleetyard.
Seriously, I don't think anyone had previously wanted to see the armada simply because there were no new ships in it (just Galaxies, Excelsiors, Mirandas, Defiants, Sabers, Steamrunners, Vor'chas, K'T'ingas & Birds-of-Prey). Unless the DVD shows something I missed.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I never caught the gigantor Miranda... now I want to see a cap of that.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
What I want to see is good caps of the most underused ship in Trek; the Saber class. Is it in "Call to Arms"?
One interesting thing I noticed before is that the sound effect added when the Saber flanking the Defiant passes the camera (in "Sacrifice of Angels", when approaching the enemy) the sound effect of a TIE Fighter is used for the Saber ship.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it so.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Mmmmm.... Saber Class... Nim, I think you and I are probably the only ones who actually like that ship.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I quite like the Sabre, and the Steamrunner. But then, I don't really mind the Daedalus either. Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
I wasn't aware that anyone disliked those ships.
The only ships I dislike are the one that's half Voyager and half Maquis ship and the one that looks like an Excelsior whose engineering section has been shoved forward of the saucer (I never learnt the names of those kitbash ones).
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Yeager and Curry/Raging Queen/Shelley.
Mark
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: I quite like the Sabre, and the Steamrunner. But then, I don't really mind the Daedalus either.
Gak. The Sabre is pretty nifty, but the Steamrunner just annoys me no end. Daedalus rocks, and I'd lead a march on Paramount to get a proper-looking one on Enterprise at some point.
But, then, I'd also have them re-do the CGI for some of DS9's battles to add ships like New Orleans, so what do I know? Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Steamrunners rule!
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Absolutely!
quote: But, then, I'd also have them re-do the CGI for some of DS9's battles to add ships like New Orleans, so what do I know?
Don't forget the Ambassadors!
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Wow... I thought people generally disliked the Saber... Hmmm, my bad.
I don't mind the Shelley, but I hate the Yeager.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Excelsiors (Vanilla and Ent-B) forever!
Boo Yeagers, die!
*dodges incoming plasma torpedoes*
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
What David said. Plus, it's usually the Norway class that people hate.
Mark
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Actually, I finally got my hands on the three-piece ship set for Voyager and I'm tackling making the Yeager look good. I've busted out the sheet styrene, scribing tools, and epoxy putty. I'll keep you posted, but I'm more into my Elkins "cleanup" right now.
--Jonah
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Actually, I finally got my hands on the three-piece ship set for Voyager and I'm tackling making the Yeager look good. I've busted out the sheet styrene, scribing tools, and epoxy putty. I'll keep you posted, but I'm more into my Elkins "cleanup" right now.
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
So...where be those screencaps?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Peregrinus: Actually, to make the Yeager, you need the individual sets of Voyager and the Maquis ship. The three-piece set has everything in proportion to each other. The individual sets are out of scale which gives you a larger Maquis ship as the Yeager's butt.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Soundeffect's Yeager rocks better than anyone else's in the larger scale and mine in the small one.
Next you must challenge yourself to build the Elkins. And post pics, of course.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
You're right that the large versions of the Voyager and Maquis ships allow you to kitbash a proper Yeager, but the set of 3 are NOT in scale with each other by a long shot!
In fact, the small Maquis ship from the set of 3 is almost in scale with the large Monogram Voyager.
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Wait a tick... there's no shuttlebay on the Yeager.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Thanks, Aban. I just held them up against each other, and you're right. Crap. The quest for old models resumes.
--Jonah
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge: Wait a tick... there's no shuttlebay on the Yeager.
None on the Springfield, Medusa, Challenger, Polaris or Centaur either. Unless they're blended into the hull like on the NX-01 or Defiant. It's anybody's guess as to the shuttlebay locations on Norway and Sabre. I had to add those in "creativly" on many of my models: my Medusa has two landing pads/ elevators in the saucer, for example.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I'm not sure if I agree with that list...
Challenger is made of two E-D top halves, so it should have TWO shuttlebays.
Medusa is made of Excelsior and E-B top halves, so it has those E-B shuttlebayish thingamabobs.
Centaur has the Excelsior shuttlebay part, which may or may not be a shuttlebay (I believe it's a deflector, but that's only because I believe in the "small ship" interpretation of the Centaur).
And the Saber has the pronounced frontal openings that are big enough to be Steamrunner-style shuttlebays unless we take the Saber to be 170 meters long. She's far more likely to be 300 or even 400 meters long, if we count the window rows...
Not that every ship would *have* to have a shuttlebay. I'm quite happy with the idea that the Norway had none, for example. But adding bays to the Yeager should be simple enough. Note how the Maquis ship hull has several vertical surfaces with distinctively colored rectangular greeblies on them? The ones in the aft corners could quite well be doors to Miranda-style shuttlebays!
(As an aside, where do you put landing pads in a Medusa? No matter which way you turn it, there's always a nacelle or two in the way of a clean landing! )
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I stand corrected! That is definitely a shuttlebay at the fore of the Centaur: I dont buy that "it's a deflector conviently made from shuttlebay parts" crap.
The Sabre is 170 meters long. It's forward opening could still be a Defiant sized shuttle bay though or it's bay could be fush with the ship's aft.
The Challenger shuttlebay is debatable: the nacelle support pillar is kinds blocking the way. ...although not as much as on the Nebula's saucer.
Hey - I was just thinking - the other episode that has only ever had the crappiest of crap caps - and by the one person only - on the whole of the net that I can work out - is the opening of A Time to Stand with the kitbashes!! Seeing as season 6 is now out on DVD - can someone FINALLY cap the start with those ships!!
Oh and every morsal from SoA!
Andrew
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Can we also get some screen grabs of the very cool disabled Malinche from season 5?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Can we at least get caps of the Armada before we move on to other episodes? Or, can someone at least post something picture-wise?
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
What do people use for screen cap capability with DVD? I have two player software on my system and neither work for grabs. They do the same as the "Prt Scr" key...they take the pic, but it's taking a blank image, not the image from the show. I can't seem to circumvent this feature.
Who's using software that works reliably?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I have an ATI All-In-Wonder Radeon video card that I use to watch TV on my computer. It has screen-cap ability, but I don't have the DVDs, or access to them -- not yet.
--Jonah
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Scott Nixon has sent me screenshots of the fleets from CtA and ATtS.
So cool, thank him for us, and thanks Spike!
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Thanks indeed!
These are just plain beautiful. Random comments:
-Many, many deflectors (Steamrunners, Sabers, Akiras) switched off in the big fleet. Looks a bit funny. Wouldn't a CGI ship like that automatically have all lights on in a pass? (Then again, perhaps in fleet action it is customary to deflect for your buddy, so that not all the units have to be on.)
-The small interceptors in the ragtag fleet appear to have pilots inside! Single pilots, possibly yellowish flight suits, scale uncertain but IMHO more supportive of the 15m interceptor than the 30m one. Never noticed them before.
-Only the Curry and the Raging Queen can be positively identified. One can almost read the Curry registry off the hull!
-All the Miranda-like background smears in the shot seem to be Mirandas, not this "Constitution variant" or "Polaris" design.
-Which leaves only one possible Frankenstein ship to ID, the one trailing behind the Raging Queen. I agree it should be the Elkins.
-Why don't these guys do anything to stop the constant leakage of sparky stuff from the wrecks? I'd hate to tow a firecracker that's still sizzling like that...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd sat these caps support what I've said all along: That tug is a KLINGON design. It's green with red nacelle glow (not exactly standard for a Fed ship). Stupid STTM!
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Of course it's a Klingon tug. Everyone who thinks otherwise is plain full of silliness.
Is the highlighted ship the one you think might be the Elkins? At first I was thinking Miranda... but there's a structure to starboard that doesn't look right for a Randy.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's unlikely that's the Elkins: I'm using my own model to try and match that shot with no luck. The screenshot's ship seems to have a miranda-ish saucer whereas the Elkins' Intrepid saucer would be much taller and more visible. Looks more like another Curry to me.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The Curry (one can see that the name is accurate from the pic) has the registry of the Raging Queen. (NCC-42284) Does this mean they realy WERE the same model after all? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I doubt it....although if they had one Excelsior saucer rigged with lights to simulate battle damage, they might have used the same saucer for both ships.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Woohoo! Okay, going down the list:
Based on these two images (one | two) which were taken scant seconds apart, you can get a rough sense of the scale of the ship. The left-hand Jemmie fighter that's firing ahead of the cruiser in the first shot is suddenly flying behind the cruiser in the second shot. The angles mandate that the fighter is firing awfully close to the cruiser to get at the runabout. This looks like the cruiser is definitely only in the 400-meter range.
Also, in the last shot we've got a pretty clear look at the underside of the ship -- and there's a MUCH simpler pattern for those glow-y purple lights that might be the impulse engines.
That settles it for me -- that's DEFINITELY a different class of ship! It just didn't get seen as often, or else was "mistaken" for the similar heavy cruiser design in some of the lower-resolution background shots elsewhere. I'll have to dig up and re-work my kitbash that I did of the design a few months back.
There's an interesting structure apparently at work in the ventral saucer surface of the Steamrunner. I'm pretty sure that it's not just shadows... You can best see it in this image -- the biggest Steamrunner is along the top center edge of the image, although there's another that's of fair size on the upper right-side edge, too. I don't think that the bottom Steamrunner's saucer is quite as smooth like all the schematics we've seen suggest...
I do see the giant Miranda! Take a look at the rightmost of the two Galaxy-class ships... (I'll just write this one off as an effects glitch, though...)
Is this an optical illusion, or a very weird Akira? Take a look at the one just to the right of the rightmost Galaxy... doesn't it seem to be missing the lower bulge and the glow of its deflector dish? Kinda like the saucer were inverted or something?
You can just about make out the lettering on the left-hand GCS... NCC-1701-D!
It's hard to tell because of the dim color, but I'm 95% sure that the Curry variant did not have its deflector dish replaced -- it's just not lit. (Battle damage, of course...)
This is definitely a great find. Many thanks to both Spike and Scott! Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I agree that the Dominion cruiser is a diffrent class than Dukat's command ship. Diffrent hull configuration plus the dorsal nacelles look far larger in relation to the ship's hull on this one. It looks like the dorsal nacelles are from the larger cruiser but on a smaller superstructure.
The Steamrunner's ventral side is correct with the one from First Contact. A freind of mine at Starcrafts Models got the specs and CGI from someone at the Paramount art dept to make his model master and they match in details from that pic.
What's worse? A monster Miranda or a tiny Galaxy?
The Akira looks like an unfinished CGI model: there's NO detail on the ventral side at all!
I agree that the blob to the left of the K'Tinga is he Raging Queen (based on the nacelle configuration mainly).
I think from the secxond shot that the deflector is replaced with the connie refit style shuttlebay. God only knows why though...
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Regarding that last bit -- I don't think you're looking at the same thing, Jason. The Excelsior's aft shuttle/cargo bay piece has been brought forward to this end of the secondary hull, yes, but down in the deflector cove, the dish is still there prominently dishlike (but unlit). I see nothing Enterprise-shuttlebay-y about it.
--Jonah
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I think that the "weird Akira" just doesn't have its deflector lit (like many of the other ships). And, because of the way the light is hitting it, the features are just washed out and hard to see. I doubt that they aren't there.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Regarding that last bit -- I don't think you're looking at the same thing, Jason. The Excelsior's aft shuttle/cargo bay piece has been brought forward to this end of the secondary hull, yes, but down in the deflector cove, the dish is still there prominently dishlike (but unlit). I see nothing Enterprise-shuttlebay-y about it.
--Jonah
Jack the brightness on you monitor to maximum and it looks like theres definitely something in there (not the deflector). I'm of the opinion that it's the clamshell shuttlebay from a constiution model thats been cut to size and inserted there. The kitbashers were using the 1:1000th Excelsior and the 537th Connie Refit for the Curry/Raging Queen bashes and that part of the connie model kit can fit into the deflector area without any difficulty.
Just my own theory, but the pic looks like it supports it.
Here's the real question I have: Does the Curry have a scond Excelsior shuttlebay at the rear? That would support the whle "through deck carrier" idea at least. All the schematics I've seen online of the ship either have it or dont, but I've found no studio model topview to definitely know. Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Scott's Centaur-screenshots are now online.
Posted by Scott Nixon (Member # 540) on :
A clarification for those that didn't realize it: The "Dom Cruiser" series of caps is from the 5th season episode "In Purgatory's Shadow." I thought it would be neat to do some caps of the cruiser in that episode (especially since they did a close pass of it) so that you guys could compare it to the cruiser that was used in later episodes.
Also, about the caps: I don't know why, but all the caps I generate are naturally dark. I decided to leave them that way so that people could save the caps as is and adjust the brightness and contrast to their own personal taste. So, for those that haven't yet, after you save the caps, play around with your brightness and contrast settings to reveal more detail in the pictures.
Posted by TheYoshinator (Member # 1066) on :
No offense to some who are convinced that things are the way they are 'supposed to be' in those shots...
It seems to me that there are rendering errors here. The Steamrunners seem to be missing the lower Saucer sections or have reversed normals. Either way its not rendering.
I also see that Akira doesn't have the deflector housing... but since you are dealing with CGI. The texture maps that would be on the deflector housing are passing on and are still impacting the lower saucer. Hence. the look that something is there.
Form is defined by light and shadow. The Steamrunners are like upside down empty bowls, but shouldn't be. Thats why the highlight is on the far side away from the light source and the shadows are close. As for the Akira, there are no highlights nor shadows of that Akira's def housing.
And there is NO giant miranda... Its just a compositing error. I wished people would stop justifying errors.
my 2 cents.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Jack the brightness on you monitor to maximum and it looks like theres definitely something in there (not the deflector). I'm of the opinion that it's the clamshell shuttlebay from a constiution model thats been cut to size and inserted there.
Jason, all I interpreted it as was the coloration of the secondary hull. The large bluish swaths of detail evident on the secondary hull of the Excelsior.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It would be inside the circular depression of the deflector dish.... I'll link in a line schematic...
Look at the color schematic of the Curry and see the connie refit shuttlebay where the EXcelsior deflector would normally be.
Witch do you think it is Stephen?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott Nixon: Also, about the caps: I don't know why, but all the caps I generate are naturally dark.
That's because the gamma levels on TV are different than on computer displays. I usually try raising the gamma to 1.2 and sometimes kick up the brightness and contrast up a notch as well.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
*Drooool*
I love the Centaur. Probably my favorite of the DS9 kitbashes.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Centaur sure is a fast SOB! It would also be crazily overpowered for an older design: it's got all the engine power of an Excelsior but only about half the mass! I too, love that ship.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, it's nacelles are much skinnier than an Excelsior's, so the power may not be the same.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
And it's smaller overall. The saucer, as has been determined in comparison to the J'H attack ship, is NOT the same size. It's a completely different beast - as the New Orleans to the Galaxy.
Mark
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Well, it's nacelles are much skinnier than an Excelsior's, so the power may not be the same.
Plus, as every Yeoman knows, it's not the size of the nacelles that matters, it's how much plasma the warp core delivers...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Of course, that's just what the yeowomen tell them to make them feel better...
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron:
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Well, it's nacelles are much skinnier than an Excelsior's, so the power may not be the same.
Plus, as every Yeoman knows, it's not the size of the nacelles that matters, it's how much plasma the warp core delivers...
Um...all the Yeomen seen are Trek ARE women.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:There's an interesting structure apparently at work in the ventral saucer surface of the Steamrunner. I'm pretty sure that it's not just shadows... You can best see it in this image -- the biggest Steamrunner is along the top center edge of the image, although there's another that's of fair size on the upper right-side edge, too. I don't think that the bottom Steamrunner's saucer is quite as smooth like all the schematics we've seen suggest...
Well - It looks as if the bussard collectors on the Steamrunner poke out the bottom of the saucer as well as the top.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Indeed. It now seems pretty much clear that they forgot to add the bottom to some of the Steamrunners in this shot. And to that one deflector-less Akira. We're basically seeing the inside of the top surface.
Not a serious problem, not for the VCR audience at least. The lack of deflector glow can be easily spotted, but can also be rationalized away. And I trust that we don't want to speculate on the existence of a bottomless variant of the Steamrunner design.
Odd that there seem to be perfectly well rendered Steamrunners and Akiras in the shots as well.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Doesn't the Centaur model use a Miranda bridge instead instead of the Excelsior's bridge, thus making the saucer small than an Excelsior? I believe the window details in the model are also different, adding to the fact that it's a smaller ship.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Do CGI errors constitute a new canon variant of a ships class, or do we take them with a grain of salt and move on???
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Hands up, all those who truly want to believe in a bottomless Steamrunner!
...Although come to think of it, one could easily install a bottomless pit on such a ship, in case some villains needed a push.
The Centaur indeed has the Miranda bridge to go with the Miranda roll bar and torpedo pod, but it could just be a really really big bridge. And the window rows suggest the saucer is about twice the size of an Excelsior saucer! That is, if we assume each row constitutes a deck. So you can pick just about any size you prefer. I prefer the one on scale with the Miranda bridge...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
That seems the most reasonable to me. I'll have to go look at a size comparison of the Randy and the the Excelsior...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: Doesn't the Centaur model use a Miranda bridge instead instead of the Excelsior's bridge, thus making the saucer small than an Excelsior? I believe the window details in the model are also different, adding to the fact that it's a smaller ship.
Not really.....although it is a bit confusing. The Excelsior was intended to be a 600 meter long ship: and the bridge reflects that. Buuuut, when TNG got rolling, they decided to make the excelsior 465 meters long (to illustrate the Galaxy's huge size) and so if you placed a Miranda and excelsior model next to each other, the Excelsior's bridge is actually (at 465 meters) much smaller than the Miranda/connie refit bridge! Dumb, I know, but it's the truth. So, we're forced to either consider the Excelsior's bridge to be recessed with only the sensor dome sticking out or just to ignore it. The two Centaur stlye ships I've built both have Miranda bridges, are both scaled as using an Excelsior sized saucer/nacelles and both look correct with the window placement of the studio model by using the windows from a GCS. See? http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=1301771&uid=657989 I even used a correctly scaled Miranda torpedo launcher, just for plausability's sake. Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well... in the face of a lack of concrete sizing, I like to think of it as a smaller scout ship, with a saucer smaller than that of the Excelsior. I don't think that the Centaur just has a Randy torp pod slung under it. I think it's a unique structure that houses functional areas of the ship, most probably Engineering and the torp bays.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If the underslung section is on a small scout ship, then it cant e anything but a Miranda torp pod and if it's a larger cruiser, the torp tubes are three times too large..... No real soulution either way, really.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Indeed. It now seems pretty much clear that they forgot to add the bottom to some of the Steamrunners in this shot. And to that one deflector-less Akira. We're basically seeing the inside of the top surface.
Not a serious problem, not for the VCR audience at least. The lack of deflector glow can be easily spotted, but can also be rationalized away. And I trust that we don't want to speculate on the existence of a bottomless variant of the Steamrunner design.
Odd that there seem to be perfectly well rendered Steamrunners and Akiras in the shots as well.
Timo Saloniemi
Is it possible that the bottom always shows the bussard collectors on a steamie?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I doubt there's any way that the bussards go all the way through the saucer and show on the bottom of a steamrunner. They'd have to be huge. And it would really serve no purpose to run the bussards through the ship.
What if the Centaur's saucer were, say, the size of the NX-01, or a little bigger? I would think there would be room in that lower pod for at least a few rooms, one contaning the warp core,
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Why does Engineering or the warp core need to be in there? For example, the Excelsior "hump" that connects the nacelle pylons with the secondary hull is rarely posited as the location for either.
Mark
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: Um...all the Yeomen seen are Trek ARE women.
*ahem*
What about Yeoman Burke and Yeoman Samno from TUC? Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well... it doesn't *have* to be there I guess. Just seem logical. The Excelsior has all kinds of other places Engineering could be. What with the impulse engines being where they are, locations for Main Engineering on the Centaur are kind of limited.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: Plus, as every Yeoman knows, it's not the size of the nacelles that matters, it's how much plasma the warp core delivers...
Unfortunately this is only a half truth. There is an unknown formula in the matter that concerns the amount of heat the coils can handle, which is a matter of refinement. As more plasma is delievered to the coils they heat up and lose efficiency, even before the point where they self-destruct.
If two ships that have coils of the exact same refinement are compared... one with bigger coils [thus the bigger nacelle--- and I'm assuming this is in width not length, we can assume that length and even the number of coils in the nacelles are exactly the same]. We will find that the vessel with bigger coils is a better warp vessel for these reasons:
1) more vertium cornide 2) more surface area for contact with the plasma 3) more surface area for heat dispersion [including contact with coolants I assume]
This would equate to:
1) the ability to go faster 2) the ability to go a certain fast speed longer 3) the ability to run more efficiently in the long run
Now add in all the other factors and it becomes impossible to accurately compare different warp engines from this side of the TV. We know that coil refinement plays a role, plasma tuning, power generation, and to a certain extent coil size and amount. Some of these on their own are impossible for us to know any details about unless we get to see them on the show--- coil refinement is one such example.
So, while most yeomen may think that, it will not always be true.
Posted by japol (Member # 1149) on :
Wow.
And here I thought that was a joke.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
That's the trouble with dick gags 'round these parts: you can never anticipate whom they might be lost on. B)
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
I love this place.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: Um...all the Yeomen seen are Trek ARE women.
*ahem*
What about Yeoman Burke and Yeoman Samno from TUC?
They were exceptionally ugly women. ....and they died like the bitches they were. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
But then again, J, there are other things that can help with propulsion, helm's experience in handling the vessel, both at high speed and sometimes taking it slow and easy, the navigator's ability to navigate in all situations.
There is a lot to consider about all of this, if one is to please the Captain that is....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There's also the whole mass vs. thrust ratio that would make ships like the Curry underpowered while ships like the Medusa and Niagra are virtual powerhouses for their size. Not to mention the RCS thrusters for precision handling.....and rich corenthian leather seats for the senior officers' seats, of course.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: Um...all the Yeomen seen are Trek ARE women.
*ahem*
What about Yeoman Burke and Yeoman Samno from TUC?
Have you checked their genetic code. Amazing what a trip to planet Denmark will do!
Posted by japol (Member # 1149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: But then again, J, there are other things that can help with propulsion, helm's experience in handling the vessel, both at high speed and sometimes taking it slow and easy, the navigator's ability to navigate in all situations.
There is a lot to consider about all of this, if one is to please the Captain that is....
Sure, with the right helmsman you could make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.
Sorry, couldn't resist. Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
If anyone's interested, I did a minor analysis of the Centaur scaling issue when I built my model.
I contend that the saucer and thus the ship uses Excelsior based components, not Miranda-scaled components.
I have a deck analysis on the above page that depicts how the decks would be arranged if scaled each way. If it's scaled to Miranda, there are two immediate problems: The shuttlebay door would only allow a person to exit without bumping their head...a shuttle wouldn't get through. The other is that the couple of rows of windows on the saucer bottom (clearly seen during the episode) would represent one deck, AND those walking on that deck would be walking ON the windows as they would comprise the floor.
The majority of the Miranda bridge module is obscured by the shutlebay. The 'sensor dome' perfectly clears the shuttlebay and using the Excelsior-scaled ship, the dome is large enough and high enough to be one deck thick, and therefore the Centaur's bridge.
Those are the main points in favor of an Excelsior-scaled USS Centaur.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I would guess that the bridge would be under the dome, not in the dome itself. If it were actually in the dome, the walls would curve down too much, and leave only a little useable space in the center.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I must say I don't see the need for the bridge to be unobstructed, as we see an "inset" bridge on the Defiant.
And the shuttlebay problem is easily solved by saying that this is not a shuttlebay at all.
The forward-facing, bronze-painted thing made out of the Excelsior hangar piece could be a deflector for this otherwise rather deflector-less ship, AND for the Curry/Raging Queen, all of which could use the same size of Excelsior-looking but smaller-than-Miranda saucer.
This would mean that the Curry/RG would have really tiny bridges, though. But again, they could be inset...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I'm with Timo in thinking that it's not a shuttle bay. It seems like a really bad place to put one no matter what your scale is.
I suppose it could be a deflector... or it could be nothing. Or maybe it's the cargo bay.
One thing to remember about bridges, we've seen really small ones. The Holoship bridge appeared to be about the size of a shuttlecraft cockpit. I'm guessing the Centaur's is a little bigger than that, but if she's a small ship, maybe her bridge is only the size of, say, Data's U.S.S. Sutherland.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Looking at the Centaur screencaps, it looks like at least the forward-most greeblie added to the ventral saucer is a phaser turret, since the beam doesn't come from the standard turret positions on the Excelsior.
Personally, I think that makes sense -- they strapped on a higher-power phaser emitter to supplement their standard armament. Kinda enhances the "retrofit" feel of the ship -- even if the Centaur was an original-build design, there were lots of custom add-ons made for the war. I like that idea.
I think that if the Centaur were really scout-sized (note I said if), then maybe the forward saucer projection that we think is a shuttlebay is actually a some customized piece of armor to provide additional protection for the bridge, and it isn't REALLY a shuttlebay at all. It just looks like a similar piece on the Excelsior.
Actually, I think that that same argument could apply to the larger scale as well! And in that case, as others have already suggested, they just took the hull shell from an Excelsior shuttlebay (maybe salvaged from a wrecked ship after the war started?) and welded that in place without it having any real functionality underneath. The same would go for the larger bridge dome.
As for the scale... I'm not all that good at measuring relative ship sizes, but I think that based on this shot, accounting for the fact that the Centaur is firing its phaser at nearly a 90� angle relative to the fore-aft axis and the apparently small distance (tough to judge, I know) to the Jem'Hadar bug, that the ship is probably using a real Excelsior saucer rather than supposed to be a miniature, like the New Orleans. I also consider the fact that the designers took the time to paint windows onto the hull -- inaccurate though they might be in terms of actual decks -- that they definitely indicate the approximate scale they had in mind when making the model. Besides, these windows even appeared illuminated, meaning they had to add the white glow during the visual effects process. (I still think we should ignore the actual deck counts from the windows, though, since there simply can't be that many decks in between, even on an Excelsior.)
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
How big did the dome look on the E-Ds saucer module when Picard and Riker looked up through it??
It seemed like it was just over the command chair, maybe as far as helm, but not covering the other stations....
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: That's the trouble with dick gags 'round these parts: you can never anticipate whom they might be lost on. B)
Just because I didn't laugh means nothing about not getting it... lame joke, over used, lost it's humor about the time it reached it's billionth allegory.
I was trying to get back on topic---
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:The Curry (one can see that the name is accurate from the pic) has the registry of the Raging Queen. (NCC-42284) Does this mean they realy WERE the same model after all?
So, like, has anyone checked up on this? It's obviously not the same model (or at least not the same saucer, as the damage patterns don't match), yet now we can clearly see that the registries are the same. We previously thought the reg for the Curry was 45617(?), supposedly stated by the Art Department. So what gives?
Posted by japol (Member # 1149) on :
I've always imagined that the "Raging Queen" was an art department joke by someone who was a Saturday Night Live fan and not to be taken particularly seriously. It appeared as the ship that rescued Michael Palin's character in a Dickens parody (for those who didn't know) - John Belushi played the captain. She was manned by manly-men so to speak, to quote the skit.
For some reason, I cannot imagine Starfleet naming a vessel after a comedy routine.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, for all we know, there was a real queen on some world somewhere who took matters into her own hands against rebels or pirates or Klingons, and that her gallantry under fire earned her the nickname "Raging Queen" and love of her citizens.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
...or the ship is really really really really really flaming gay.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So, that solves the question "Where are all the gays in Star Trek?" Answer - serving on the Raging Queen. Ugly ship on the outside, but the interior decor is to die for! Tres chic, darling. 8)
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
My personal theory is that Starfleet Command didn't have the time to officially christen all these ships as they got launched and assigned to combat duty, so they got semi-official names by the dock workers that were not always of the "traditional" Starfleet style. And they just didn't paint the "USS" on the Raging Queen because they were out of the non-replicatable hull paint. (Oh wait, that was the Relativity-E... )
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: For some reason, I cannot imagine Starfleet naming a vessel after a comedy routine.
yeah; I can't imagine the USS Dead Parrot strikes fear into the hearts of many Klingon warriors...
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The USS Fleshwound might, though.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: So, that solves the question "Where are all the gays in Star Trek?" Answer - serving on the Raging Queen. Ugly ship on the outside, but the interior decor is to die for! Tres chic, darling. 8)
Queer Eye for the Gamma Persei Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Backing things up for a second, at the end of the "Sacrifice of Angels" battle there was a Jem'Hadar cruiser at the very back of the lines that the Defiant passes as it runs the gauntlet with the Rotarran... It always looked a little different to me than a plain-vanilla Jem'Hadar cruiser.. differently-shaped and "ridged" mandibles, a big keel thing sticking downwards, different upper nacelle-things, plus the impression of being a tad bigger (not that that alone is worth a whole lot ).
Now, the Jemmie cruiser design went through a couple of iterations (at least two, if not three CGI models and a physical model existed) so I've always wondered if that was indeed a different variant than the design we've gotten used to which was used because they needed better detail for the close flyover. Could somebody grab some shots of her?
And while we're at it, can we grab some shots of the Jemmie cruiser from "Ties of Blood and Water," just to see what particular iteration we got then?
Posted by KoshNaranek (Member # 1194) on :
Some of the kitbashes in the Dominion War episodes were truly horrid. Ex Astris scientia has images of all of them. Not only are the models themselves physically amongst the most offensive-looking in terms of condition, but it's almost like Starfleet was trying end the war by making their wartime ships simply too ugly for the Jem'Hadar to want to get near them.
I do not like the Saber class ship at all, nor do I much care for the Norway class. But I have to admit that I absolutely love the Steamrunner. It has such a sharp, angular, and aggressive look to it... like a snake, almost... cobra-like. As soon as I saw the first good view of that ship, I thought to myself: "If only THAT had been the design they used for the Defiant..."
And I also really like the Akira design as well.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yay! Steamie fans of the world unite!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
All both of you?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Make that three. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
One more, and we can play Bridge!
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Ah, but I don't play Bridge.
Except when it's an exact replica of Kirk's. With functioning sounds for ALL the keys and knobs.
I do love the Steamrunner, though - as long as I can keep pretending she's one of the extremely few mission-specific designs of Starfleet. Namely, a LPD of some sort, consisting of a gigantic shuttlebay and some incremental add-ons.
I can even forgive the fact that the impulse engines blast straight into the pylons... Clearly, a minimal amount of creative & thoughtative work went into this one.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)