This is obviously a bluray cap, because I can now see the registry of the Miranda class CGI model, and it's NCC-31911...the registry of Sisko's U.S.S. Saratoga, which also made an appearance in Generations. So apparently when they scanned the filming model into CGI, they kept the name and registry too...of a ship that had been destroyed years before.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
GHOST SHIP! Or...a time travel episode waiting to happen!
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
This is actually the second Mirande class ship in STFC. The first is visiable just a few seconds earlier. I assume that it is the same model with the same registry, but it is not legible because it is more distant.
I can recall a couple of DS9 episodes where Miranda's with the registry of NCC-1864 appears. Here is an example:
(I hope that they will fix this when we get the HD release! For my taste there are far to much ships without or with stupid registries and/or names, especially in the later years of the series.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I just want them to add in a couple of norway class ships and a few Ambassadors as well to the major fleet action. maybe swap out some of the more insane Frankenstein Fleet ships with Steamrunners and such- that tug and the Raging Queen have to go...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: This is actually the second Mirande class ship in STFC. The first is visiable just a few seconds earlier. I assume that it is the same model with the same registry, but it is not legible because it is more distant.
I can recall a couple of DS9 episodes where Miranda's with the registry of NCC-1864 appears. Here is an example:
(I hope that they will fix this when we get the HD release! For my taste there are far to much ships without or with stupid registries and/or names, especially in the later years of the series.)
I discussed this over at the TrekBBS. If the original CGI fleet shots from seasons 6 and 7 turn out not to be HD-worthy, they will all have to be redone. If that's the case, there's absolutely no reason why any new footage would have to exactly match the old stuff. As long as the Defiant is there, the other ships are irrelevant. New ship models could be made (new classes and old classes that had little screen time, like the Ambassador). They could make new Klingon and Romulan ships too. There'd really be no reason to see tons of Excelsiors, Mirandas, and BoPs like we did before.
Of course, that's only if they absolutely have to do this. I'm guessing they'll find a way around that, because this would be a bit expensive.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Most of the ships in season 6 and 7 are generic, that is right, but there are some ships scenes that are iconic: the destruction of the Sitak and the Majestic, for example. On the other hand: There is a seriously need for substitution of the stock footages in the last episode of S7 (WYLB).
Regarding the posiblity of making the transition to HD: Did anybody saw this picuture:
I think there is hope...
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I can now see the registry of the Miranda class CGI model, and it's NCC-31911
Mightn't it actually be the physical model, since we know that's what it was labeled and since the physical miniatures of the Oberth and Nebula (and Enterprise-E) were used in this sequence as well? Or is there some tell that this is a CGI model, which I'm missing?
Regarding the render of the "Honshu" above, I certainly hope that if they do this for the episode that they'll remember to put the right registry number back on the model; right now it's got the Bonchune's from "Message In A Bottle" (VGR).
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I just want them to add in a couple of norway class ships and a few Ambassadors as well to the major fleet action. maybe swap out some of the more insane Frankenstein Fleet ships with Steamrunners and such- that tug and the Raging Queen have to go...
Seconded!
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Mightn't it actually be the physical model, since we know that's what it was labeled and since the physical miniatures of the Oberth and Nebula (and Enterprise-E) were used in this sequence as well? Or is there some tell that this is a CGI model, which I'm missing?
No, it's a CGI model. It was built by ILM after scanning the Saratoga physical model, but it was low-poly. The Oberth model likewise was a low-poly model (it was not the physical model). The Nebula class model however, was the physical model.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Ah. I didn't know that! I had no idea the Oberth had ever been rendered in CGI. Is this info in a published making-of source or interview?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
From Memory Alpha:
quote:The last appearance of the Oberth-class was in Star Trek: First Contact in the Battle of Sector 001 scene. With the exception of the Borg cube, Borg sphere, the unnamed Nebula-class starship and the USS Enterprise-E all other ships were done as CGI models, including at least three Oberth-class starships. Never meant to be seen up close but rather as deep background elements, the model was built at ILM by modelers Larry Tan and Paul Theren, using Electric Image software for animation and Form-Z software for the model, at a fairly low resolution and at a low detail level. Noteworthy was that this was the first and only time that viewers could see an Oberth-class vessel discharge it weapons. Established as an older design, the model was never used again nor was its CGI-counterpart upgraded for later appearances and the class, with the exception of the use of the physical model for DS9: "Emissary", has not been seen (though referenced to) in either Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or Star Trek: Voyager.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: Regarding the posiblity of making the transition to HD: Did anybody saw this picuture:
Just what we need another insanely inccurate Nebula...
I'd hope the producers of any updated ships would at least glance at the studio model before cludging Galaxy parts into a halfassed Nebula like was done at the end of Generations.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
According to what the author said, this CGI model was used both for the Honshu and (with the changed registry ) for the Bonchune. He was well aware of the 'wrong' registry, when he re-rendered the scene from DS9 Waltz, but his point was: The CGI models and the scenary files are still available and the models as detailed enough for HD.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: The CGI models and the scenery files are still available and the models as detailed enough for HD.
I certainly hope that isn't true.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Why do you say so?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Simple. Because I never want to see any Excelsiors, Mirandas, Klingon BoPs, or those horrendous FC ships ever again, because I've already seen them a million times before and I hate them.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
I doubt it will happen Dukhat, but it would be nice.
Frankly I would love to see more of the Wolf 359 designs thrown in too. I am a bit disappointed that TNG HD has not had them in, although I concede it is just wishful thinking. In reality I never expect to see the New Orleans class, for example, or a Springfield except in bits.
That said I never really want to see a Niagara class in action. Possibly the worst BoBW kit bash. Still miles better than the Frankenstein flet though.
I am fairly confident though that if they can't HD the video or even revisit the files (which may now be history, I don't know), there is a chance they do good on shots they need to remake. But I doubt it. I am pretty sure we won't have the same problems as on B5 DVDs though.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I can live with Miranda's and Excelsior's, but I also like to see the FC ships in more detail. They have been only showed brief and/or from the distance, but I really would like to see one of them as 'Hero' ship in one episode. Ok, I know that will not happen...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: I can live with Miranda's and Excelsior's, but I also like to see the FC ships in more detail. They have been only showed brief and/or from the distance, but I really would like to see one of them as 'Hero' ship in one episode. Ok, I know that will not happen...
Ok, here's why I hate Excelsiors and Mirandas so much (and to a lesser extent, the FC ships).
At the time, the DS9 producers needed massive fleet shots for the Dominion war, and the only way they could do this was with CGI. SO in order to get ships, ILM had to hand over their FC ships for remapping. While something happened to the Norway mesh and it was never used again, the Akira, Saber, Steamrunner and Miranda classes were remapped. The rest of the fleet was represented by ships whose physical models survived long enough to get scanned into CGI, which were the Defiant, Enterprise-D, and Greg Jein's Excelsior. The Nebula class Bonchune CGI model created for VOY was used later, but only for one scene.
I completely understand their limitations, budget, and time constraints, at the time. What I don't quite understand is why the bulk of the fleet consisted entirely of Mirandas and Excelsiors, with Akiras, Steamrunners and Sabers backing them up.
I'm presuming that the ships comprising the Cardassian and Dominion fleets were state-of-the-art battleships. So all Starfleet can throw at them are 75+ year old clunkers? There were like four Galaxys, one Nebula, and usually one Defiant. The rest were TMP-era ships. IMHO, this makes Starfleet look desperate.
Now I understand that the three FC ships are obviously newer, and they comprise most of the other half of the fleets. My bias with them is that I just don't like their designs, at least for the time period they're supposedly from based on their registries. And the DS9 producers were essentially forced to use them because they didn't have any other CGI-only ship models.
SO my point with this rant is that if these fleet scenes need to be redone, why would they need to use the same ship designs, and why would they have to mimic the original scenes? I would prefer to at least see a lot fewer Mirandas and Excelsiors, or even better, none at all.
[ June 19, 2013, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Is it so inconceivable that the current Mirandas and Excelsiors had received continuous upgrades every five years of their service lives, to the point where an Excelsior could go toe to toe with the Defiant (USS Lakota)? If their impulse engines, warp cores, hull, shielding and phasers get upgraded, it doesn't matter what their overall shape is, it's a good ship then.
Compare with Peru's Almirante Grau, laid down in the Netherlands in 1939, 74 years old and still serving.
I see where you're coming from, I would've wanted to see ten new original designs during the Dominion War Arc, that's our bread and butter around here, but a large chunk of the population and the viewer base don't care at all what the ships look like and couldn't tell the difference, so I can understand if they didn't bend over backwards to wreck their budget on design studies.
I myself was very disappointed that every Jedi in the Prequels and "Clone Wars"-show shared the same three lightsabers, with a scant few exceptions. At least they splurged on the ships. ;
[ June 19, 2013, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Nim ]
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: Is it so inconceivable that the current Mirandas and Excelsiors had received continuous upgrades every five years of their service lives, to the point where an Excelsior could go toe to toe with the Defiant (USS Lakota)?
The thing is, O'Brien was shocked that the Lakota had been upgraded from what a normal Excelsior class ship should have had. That right there tells me that what you describe is not normal.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
But it makes sense, if you have a large aging fleet and an impending invasion, to upgrade what you have as much as you can and as fast as you can, instead of building entirely new classes from scratch that need shakedown cruises and working out bugs.
The Prometheus-class debuted in VOY in January 1998, I was really hoping we would see her in DS9 the final year of the show, but I suppose "competing" FX studios don't want to share designs.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I think it was more a political decision not to use the Prometheus. This ship was unique for VOY and the producers won't gave it away for the sister show (a shame that they haven't used it more often). For the same reason the Ent-E was never shown in DS9 (although the digital model was available as well).
The only reason I can imagine that they shared the model of the Nebula was that this ship was aged from a producers point of view.
Regarding the other topic: Starfleet was always a fleet of exploration and not of war. It makes sense to me that they have more Excelsiors and Mirandas ships and not so many Defiants or Akiras.
By the way, we got new ship designs in DS9 during the Dominion War: The patrol ship, the Curry, the Centaur. But actually I don’t like them very much.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: I am fairly confident though that if they can't HD the video or even revisit the files (which may now be history, I don't know), there is a chance they do good on shots they need to remake. But I doubt it. I am pretty sure we won't have the same problems as on B5 DVDs though.
Well, the B5 issue is down to (apparently) Doug Netter refusing to spend the money to get Foundation Imaging a widescreen monitor. With the amount of money and attention being thrown at TNG, I can't see them getting to the CGI stuff, throwing their hands up and just up-scaling it.
I can't remember who described the issue (it might have been Mojo) but one of the thoughts when CGI replaced physical models was how much more resiliant the CGI would be. It wouldn't need storing, it wouldn't need repainting, and so on.
Of course, fast forward to the late 90s-early 2000s, and I believe we had at least 3 different CGI models used for the Galaxy-class. ILM built one for Generations. Then a new one was built for DS9. Then ANOTHER new one was built for the final episode of Enterprise. The models may not physically age, but from a software point of view they do. Unless they keep updating them all the time, it means when they go back to an old model they have to spend ages getting them to work in the new software.
I imagine the late TNG/DS9 ship stuff was all sub-HD resolution, so will have to be redone. And I kinda want them to stick with the TNG approach to that, rather than the TOS version. MAYBE change one or two ships, but if we get to Sacrifice of Angels that the fleet is suddenly made up of all new design, it would feel wrong.
(On that, have Okuda and co said what the thinking is when they start getting to the heavy CGI stuff? Are they going to have to replace EVERYTHING?)
As for the ages of the fleets... how do we know that the Cardassian ships weren't 60 year old designs? The Galaxy out-classed the Galor-class, from what I remember. The Klingons certainly didn't mind going into battle with 100 year-old ship designs...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: But it makes sense, if you have a large aging fleet and an impending invasion, to upgrade what you have as much as you can and as fast as you can, instead of building entirely new classes from scratch that need shakedown cruises and working out bugs.
Who said anything about building new ships? Starfleet already had 45+ starship classes (not even including the DS9 kitbashes and whatever decommissioned ship types were in the Qualor II surplus depot), and over half that number were seen on screen at one time or another. So, where were they all during the Dominion war fleet scenes? Why did the bulk of the fleet only contain five classes, two of which were outdated?
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: The models may not physically age, but from a software point of view they do. Unless they keep updating them all the time, it means when they go back to an old model they have to spend ages getting them to work in the new software.
Exactly. Which is why whoever said they still have the ship meshes and backgrounds, that's pretty meaningless because they were all from 20 years ago, and I'd think it would be more work trying to remap all that stuff for a newer software system than to just start from scratch with new CGI ships.
quote:MAYBE change one or two ships, but if we get to Sacrifice of Angels that the fleet is suddenly made up of all new design, it would feel wrong.
Why? It would be a more realistic representation of Starfleet as a whole, and wouldn't make Starfleet look so desperate as to be using such outdated ships for the bulk of their fleet.
quote:As for the ages of the fleets... how do we know that the Cardassian ships weren't 60 year old designs? The Galaxy out-classed the Galor-class, from what I remember.
Since it was seen that the Dominion shipyards were producing these ships brand-new, I would speculate that they weren't that old.
quote:The Klingons certainly didn't mind going into battle with 100 year-old ship designs...
Yeah, and I have an issue with that as well, since the reason why the BoP was used in the first place was because of the same early budgetary concerns TNG had. The model just happened to be lucky enough to survive being scanned into a CGI model. But I don't think it's realistic for them to still be using such outdated ships.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
First, by the time we see major fleet action, Starfleet has been drastically reduced in fighting capacity. They had lost entire fleets to the Dominions superior weaponry. It's completely plausible that older ships like the Excelsior would, by the time of Homefront, have received emergency upgrades... Both as a desperation move but also to surprise the Dominion just as it did Chief Obrien. In TNG, we saw Excelsior and Miranda class ships still in service but not in front line capacity... So, after the cream of the fleet was destroyed, it was up to the reserves to step up to plate. That's what reserve fleets are for after all. Add in ships recalled from sectors not threatened by Dominion incursion and you account for the sprinkling of Sabre, Steamrunner and Akira class ships. It's possible that what we saw onscreen was the bulk of remaining Starfleet forces.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: That's what reserve fleets are for after all. Add in ships recalled from sectors not threatened by Dominion incursion and you account for the sprinkling of Sabre, Steamrunner and Akira class ships. It's possible that what we saw onscreen was the bulk of remaining Starfleet forces.
But here's the thing about that: At the end of "A Call to Arms," we see a huge fleet, pre-war, and it was made up of the exact same type of ships the post-war fleet was made up of. This wasn't a reserve fleet, this was supposed to be the bulk of Starfleet's forces. This is where we should have seen those 45+ ship classes, but we didn't.
Now with all this said, even if these fleet scenes get remastered (and that's a big if, since we don't even know if the show will get the HD treatment), I seriously doubt new ship designs will be created. If those SOTL calendars are any indication, apparently TPTB seem to think we all still want to see Excelsiors, Mirandas, and BoPs. This is just the rantings of a starship fanboy Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Something else to consider regarding Starfleet is their timeline of readiness, or rather a lack thereof. We know that after the brief war with Cardassia, there was a time of peace and exploration. At least one whole class of Starfleet becomes officers (like Riker) during this lull in hostility. Starfleet got lazy... They were more than prepared to deal with the local powers but when the Borg tore through, it was a wake up call to upgrade. Unfortunately, that would be a monumental task with thousands of ships r throughout such a wide area while staying on guard against another Borg incursion... Small wonder the new designs are few and far between. And yes, registries aside, I consider the First Contact designs all new classes specifically made to defend against the Borg.
The Klingons had the opposite problem... They had a ton of ships owned by various houses which were old but serviceable, and which no house would retire for fear of weakening their position and being vulnerable to a rival house. The war would help the Klingons the same way a forest fire clears dead wood so new trees can grow. The Klingons would eventually come out far ahead of the other powers, I'd think.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I have no problem whatsoever with a fleet composed of mostly Mirandas and Excelsiors, though I would have preferred visible updates, if even just the nacelles.
I do have a problem with 45 ship classes all running around simultaneously. Even accounting for replication, easy manufacture a la 3D printing, and so on, that is a crapload of non-interchangable parts and systems and training.
With that in mind, it makes even more sense to have your primary battlefleet be composed of a few numerous classes, and let your odd ducks stay behind.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Surely, as everything else in the Empire is, things like resources are controlled by the greatest of the great houses. This suggests to me that, as it's also the great houses that do most of the fighting (or at least stand off against each other most) they are the only ones with big new capitol ships.
All the other houses make do by capturing, stealing or buying older ships, which are less efficient and less powerful. Even an older ship is more useful in this kind of economy than the resource rich caring and sharing kind in the Federation, which would not need to keep renovating old ships.
Really, I find it hard to believe that the rich Federation would bother using older ships when you consider its main goals are exploration and making new friends. While upgrades are commonly used in real life navies to extend the life of older ships, richer nations tend to get rid of ships at a faster rate, have smaller navies and move towards automation - something hard to retrofit into older designs.
Because of this I suspect that the vast majority of Starfleet prior to Wolf 359 would be ships 10 - 30 years older than the E-D, primarily of the designs that were only ever made as wreckage for that battle scene.
Many, but no where near all of these, would have been destroyed, along with several reserves of older design. Come to think of it, the Aries was referenced in a couple of TNG eps and then in the okudagram in Nemesis.
The fleet rebuilding would have no doubt been in full swing by DS9 and churning out some brand new Borg killers (the FC designs) as well as several more (perhaps upgraded versions) of the "lost era" designs. Older ships, like the Lakota, would be upgraded as an emergency measure, and not in the huge number as suggested in s5-7 of DS9. I would also expect that most of these would be destroyed in the opening battles of the Dominon War.
To me, there really is not much of a logical argument to explain the vast numbers of movie era ships (in universe that is).
As for registries? Well, I always thought the numbered the TNG ships way to high. The highest registry we see in the movies is what? 2050ish? So they built 68000 odd ships between TUC and TNG - 1000 ships a year. That just seems like a really big number to me.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
You make some good points, but is the Federation really going to be in the habit of ... doing what, with perfectly good starships that just need some upgrades to keep functioning? The Galaxy Class, IIRC the technical manual correctly, was intended to be in service for a century -- there's no reason to expect that many movie-era classes weren't built with the same intention.
Even if they're not used as front-line ships, Starfleet (and the Federation) has a lot of personnel to shuffle about: how many of those ships are in service as glorified transit buses? Or running boring interdiction patrols on inner trade routes.
When you consider that Earth, by the 24th Century, must have a population of (extremely conservatively 10 billion), and there are over 100 member planets in the Federation (plus assorted colonies), many of which presumably have similar populations, if even only a very small fraction serves in Starfleet or in a government role with the Federation ...
I just don't buy the concept that Starfleet would scrap ships simply because of their age - especially in the 24th Century. (Yeah, I know, Morrow wanted to retire the Enterprise - but that as a full century earlier).
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Regarding Lakota versus Defiant, I suspect that O'Brien's surprise was HOW MUCH the Lakota had been upgraded rather than the fact that it had been upgraded at all. It would be stupid to leave ships in service with no refits or improvements. We've seen Mirandas and Oberths with TNG-era LCARS consoles on their bridges. Considering the industrial capabilities of the Federation, upgrading ships wouldn't be THAT hard by the 24th century.
Technology can be modular, as power increases equipment can be made smaller. Why are the upgrades seen as such a bad idea? Just because they don't look as cool, I think.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
The notion that automation is hard to retrofit is true in real life but not for Trek.
Witness Scotty making a semi-combat-capable automated Constitution in ST3, and the Mirandas of TNG that all fly around with a duty shift crew of like six people total.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: And yes, registries aside, I consider the First Contact designs all new classes specifically made to defend against the Borg.
Re: The FC ships.
I'm of two minds about them. Mainly, my issue is their low registries. If registries are chronological, that would put their construction around the same time as the BoBW kitbashes and the Nebula class. The designs really don't gel with what was previously established (although I'm well aware that ship classes can look very different and still be contemporaneous, I don't think Alex Jaeger was going for that). There also seems to be a whole lot of them for some reason (well, not the Norway though), when there are no other 5XXXX and 6XXXX ships in the fleet shots from other classes.
On the other hand, these four ships, as Jason surmised, would make an excellent post-BoBW fleet. That would explain why there were so many of them, since Starfleet would have ramped up production after BoBW. Heck, the underside of the Norway class was created from the Defiant's CGI mesh, and we know what the Defiant was built for, right? It would also explain why they look so different and newer than the Galaxy class family of designs. The only issue is the above registry conundrum, unless of course they were not chronological.
I'm actually in the process of writing up a conjectural list of starship production times, based on canon and official info. I've come to an interesting conclusion. There seems to be evidence that ships with registries of 5xxxx, 6xxxx, 7xxxx and even 8xxxx were actually built around the same time and are not chronological (I.e. a 5xxxx ship could have been built after a 7xxxx ship). I'll post it soon.
[ June 20, 2013, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: Really, I find it hard to believe that the rich Federation would bother using older ships when you consider its main goals are exploration and making new friends. While upgrades are commonly used in real life navies to extend the life of older ships, richer nations tend to get rid of ships at a faster rate, have smaller navies and move towards automation - something hard to retrofit into older designs.
Ah, but modern navies are not part of expanding empires- the Federation, as I said, got lazy on new ship development and the new ships they were making were being built at a trickle- the UFP had been in unprecedented peacetime when TNG starts- Klingons were pals, Romulans were AWOL and the only new ships were explorers- everything else was refitted to remain part of a self-defense only force or downgraded to milk run duty like the USS lantree.
In such a peacetime climate, it's unlikely the UFP Council and President would authorize a massive ship building campaign.
quote:Because of this I suspect that the vast majority of Starfleet prior to Wolf 359 would be ships 10 - 30 years older than the E-D, primarily of the designs that were only ever made as wreckage for that battle scene.
I think Starfleet was in a classic "fortress mentality"- all their defense was at the perimeter, with all their second stringers toward the center- and the fleet was "stretched thin"- they had this massive area to patrol and not enough ships to make it happen. The Borg zipped on through and the responding force of 42 ships was more "whatever we can throw at them" instead of the best and most powerful ships.
quote:[qb]As for registries? Well, I always thought the numbered the TNG ships way to high. The highest registry we see in the movies is what? 2050ish? So they built 68000 odd ships between TUC and TNG - 1000 ships a year. That just seems like a really big number to me.
Different shipyards might have different ranges of numbers assigned to them- and, Enterprise aside, different classes might conform to certain registry ranges for ease of coordination- when assigning dozens of ships, it would be a pain in the ass to have to constantly look up what class a ship is- the registry might indicate that information in some way for ease of identification.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'm pretty sure that the hightest registry seen in the first 6 films (excluding unreadable background displays) is the Excelsior, at NCC-2000, a number which was obviously chosen in the real-world as a "this is the start of a new generation *cough* of starship design", a reason which can quite happily apply in-universe as well.
Regarding the 7xxxx registries... did they pick that range from the start so that they could do the 747 puns, or did those come AFTER they'd decided to give most modern ships registries beginning with 7?
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Heck, the underside of the Norway class was created from the Defiant's CGI mesh, and we know what the Defiant was built for, right?
I did not know that. Are there any pictures to show that in action?
Regarding building new CGI ships, the producers will have exactly the same issue as they did before. Building a CGI ship still costs time and money. If they started to show new designs instead of (rather than in addition to) Mirandas and Excelsiors, there would be a lot of complaints. They are both good designs that have an essential "Starfleet" look about them. If they wanted to populate fleet scenes with new ships, then they are going to have to pay people to build them, and they might not have the budget for that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sure, but the cost of making a CG ship is far less than making a physical model- a full sized "hero" shooting prop back in the 80's cost over ten grand- and then there's the added cost and time spent of shooting the model with motion control and composiing it into backgrounds...
And of course, lighting and such works much better with multiple ships when it's all CG- no need for that annoying "ship glow" that destroyed so much of the subtle details on ships like the talarian ships or the tiny details on the Enterprise- they saturated the brightness to the point where shadows were nil.
Not that I dont love physical models, of course, but there was certainly a downside.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I always assumed that Starfleet reserved blocks of registries for future ship classes, so that's why we see newish ships with 5xxxx and 6xxxx registries. I mean that has to be the reason why Oberths have three digit registries, but don't look like anything that could have existed in The Original Series or predate it. And an in-universe explanation as to why the warship Prometheus has a 5xxxx registry. On the other hand, I can't really believe Starfleet has had around 79,000 to 80,000 starships in its history, much less 10,000-20,000 at any one time.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I'm pretty sure that the hightest registry seen in the first 6 films (excluding unreadable background displays) is the Excelsior, at NCC-2000, a number which was obviously chosen in the real-world as a "this is the start of a new generation *cough* of starship design", a reason which can quite happily apply in-universe as well.
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that the only reason why the Excelsior's registry was 2000 was to imply that she was such a new and large ship (this was the early '80's after all, and the number "2000" at the time was regarded as so futuristic). I also think the reverse reasoning was why the Grissom had such a small registry, because she was such a small ship.
quote:Regarding the 7xxxx registries... did they pick that range from the start so that they could do the 747 puns, or did those come AFTER they'd decided to give most modern ships registries beginning with 7?
No. As early as "The Naked Now," the highest registries for brand-new ships was in the 5XXXX range. Only later did they change to 7XXXX...as if 5XXXX wasn't high enough...
quote:I did not know that. Are there any pictures to show that in action?
Flare member MattC, who claimed to actually have a copy of the "missing" Norway CGI mesh, explained that because the ship was kinda never finished before being used in FC, it's underside was a badly-put-together version of the Defiant's mesh. Since he hasn't been around here for quite some time he never showed what he had, but seeing both FC HD screencaps and the Fact Files artwork, I believe he's telling the truth.
quote:Regarding building new CGI ships, the producers will have exactly the same issue as they did before. Building a CGI ship still costs time and money. If they started to show new designs instead of (rather than in addition to) Mirandas and Excelsiors, there would be a lot of complaints. They are both good designs that have an essential "Starfleet" look about them. If they wanted to populate fleet scenes with new ships, then they are going to have to pay people to build them, and they might not have the budget for that.
You mean complaints from CBS, who would be funding this? I'm not sure why they'd care, if both a new design or an old one would have to be created essentially from scratch, and cost the same amount of money no matter who was building them. I don't think they care whether the audience sees an Excelsior class or a Rigel class ship. And the fans certainly wouldn't complain. Yes, it takes more time to come up with an original design instead of copying an older one (unless you just kitbash an already existing design, only in CGI instead of physically, which would be even easier), but that would be done by someone who is already on their payroll. And it's not like that exact thing didn't happen with TOS-R, with new designs for the Gorn ship, the Aurora, Masao's space station design, the Orion ship, etc.
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: I always assumed that Starfleet reserved blocks of registries for future ship classes, so that's why we see newish ships with 5xxxx and 6xxxx registries. I mean that has to be the reason why Oberths have three digit registries, but don't look like anything that could have existed in The Original Series or predate it. And an in-universe explanation as to why the warship Prometheus has a 5xxxx registry. On the other hand, I can't really believe Starfleet has had around 79,000 to 80,000 starships in its history, much less 10,000-20,000 at any one time.
Yes, I'm of a similar mind too. That could be why Ambassadors, while clearly newer and technologically superior to the Excelsior and Miranda, has regs of 2XXXX, while the latter has regs of 3XXXX and 4XXXX.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
double post
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
double post
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
But we are talking about nothing more than arbitrary number assignments. Look at the M-1 Abrams or the F-22 Raptor. Someone who was not familiar with modern military designations could logically interpret that an F-101 Voodoo from the early 60's or an M-4 Sherman from WW2 were more advanced replacements of the Abrams and Raptor if all they knew were the designations.
In the same way USN aircraft carriers have gone from being "CV-XX" to "CVA-XX" to "CVA(N)-XX" to now the use of "CVN-XX". Who is to say that hull numbers for whatever replaced the Ford class (if there are ever replacements) will not start over at "XX-1".
Since every registry is "NCC" instead of a type specific like the Navy uses,Starfleet could simply have started classifying ranges of numbers to equate to type/usage. Anything below 4 digits would be utility vessels and the 2000's could have been intended for "Fast Battleships" (Transwarp) etc. Personally, I think they should have used other class/type designations from the beginning. "NCC" would be for a "Cruiser", "NCD" a "Destroyer" etc.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: But we are talking about nothing more than arbitrary number assignments. Look at the M-1 Abrams or the F-22 Raptor. Someone who was not familiar with modern military designations could logically interpret that an F-101 Voodoo from the early 60's or an M-4 Sherman from WW2 were more advanced replacements of the Abrams and Raptor if all they knew were the designations.
While I don't think starship registries are always necessarily chronological (or chronological at all, for that matter), I certainly don't think they're completely arbitrary either. If that were the case, then we'd be getting registries like NCC-GF78, or NCC-07 for a brand-new Galaxy class starship. I think the issue is just that most Trek fans who care about stuff like this (myself included), prefer registries to be more cut-and-dried than that. Nice, orderly chronological registries are easier to deal with
quote:Since every registry is "NCC" instead of a type specific like the Navy uses,Starfleet could simply have started classifying ranges of numbers to equate to type/usage. Anything below 4 digits would be utility vessels and the 2000's could have been intended for "Fast Battleships" (Transwarp) etc.
For all we know, that's exactly what they do. Something I noticed when I was writing up my essay about starship production times was the almost total occurrence of the registries of each conjectural class of starship being extremely close together (i.e. the three known Renaissance class registries all being 45XXX). This also happens with some regular classes, like the Intrepid. Maybe these numbers actually stand for the type of ship or mission it was built for.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: [I'm not sure why they'd care, if both a new design or an old one would have to be created essentially from scratch, and cost the same amount of money no matter who was building them. I don't think they care whether the audience sees an Excelsior class or a Rigel class ship. And the fans certainly wouldn't complain. Yes, it takes more time to come up with an original design instead of copying an older one (unless you just kitbash an already existing design, only in CGI instead of physically, which would be even easier), but that would be done by someone who is already on their payroll. And it's not like that exact thing didn't happen with TOS-R, with new designs for the Gorn ship, the Aurora, Masao's space station design, the Orion ship, etc.
The guy might already be on payroll, but that doesn't mean he's not currently occupied. They will have a certain amount of resources for making CGI meshes, and doing a Rigel-Class one might mean that the Excelsior-class one doesn't get done. And I DO think fans would compain if every instance of an Excelsior-class ship in CGI-era Trek was replaced with a different class.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Sure, but the cost of making a CG ship is far less than making a physical model- a full sized "hero" shooting prop back in the 80's cost over ten grand- and then there's the added cost and time spent of shooting the model with motion control and composiing it into backgrounds...
We say that, but what is the cost of creating the CGI mesh, texturising it, paying the licences for the software, the hardware to do the processing on...
(I'm not saying it's not cheaper. It probably is. But there's an occasional impression given that because some people create these models in their spare time that the cost is almost nil. Artists might draw something for free. Doesn't meant that Jim Lee will draw Justice League for Pop Tarts.)
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: The guy might already be on payroll, but that doesn't mean he's not currently occupied. They will have a certain amount of resources for making CGI meshes, and doing a Rigel-Class one might mean that the Excelsior-class one doesn't get done. And I do think fans would complain if every instance of an Excelsior-class ship in CGI-era Trek was replaced with a different class.
Don't get me wrong: I wasn't advocating that every time we saw an Excelsior in the DS9 fleet scenes, they should now replace it with something else. As much as I personally don't like the Excelsior or Miranda classes, most of the physical model shots done before the switch to CGI (finale of "Call to Arms;" the ships in orbit of Starbase 375, etc.) were of those classes of ships. Obviously any new CGI shots would have to include those ships as well. All I was saying was to add more than just the seven or so classes which comprised the original fleet.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
The high number of registries may have something to do with small craft, like runabouts, having starship registries. There are hundreds of starbases, most of them likely have registered support craft, and stations larger than Deep Space Nine likely have more than three at any given time. Add to that the fact that DS9 lost as many as 10 over 7 years, it seems like these craft must be replaced fairly often.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: And an in-universe explanation as to why the warship Prometheus has a 5xxxx registry. On the other hand, I can't really believe Starfleet has had around 79,000 to 80,000 starships in its history, much less 10,000-20,000 at any one time.
As to the Prommie, I think it's plausible if the ship's registry refers to a secret project- each "NX" prototype made to test new weapons keeps the same older registry to foil spying. A casual look at stolen fleet orders would reflect some ship which has been in constant service since the days when the New Orleans was a new design. Once a design is proven worthy of becoming it's own class, it's given a current registry with the "NX" prefix for the sake of an official shakedown mission- possibly as a means of testing less vital non-combat oriented systems.
It could be the James Bond of starships- and there could be several such registries given to either experimental designs or to starships on covert missions- there could even be unregistered starships which sub in for ships assigned to some sensitive mission- making scheduled stops at this or that starbase while the real deal does whatever. I'd think changing the ship's registry both in computers and on the hull (vial hologram!) would be easily done.
I second the notion taht Starfleet has indeed had or has as many starships as the 7XXXX numbers would indicate- but not only from Runabouts or scouts, but mainly from the incorporation of existing spacefleeets into Starfleet when a spacefaring species with Warp capability joins the UFP. Even a "home fleet" that does not actively engage in exploration or defense (usualy due to lesser technology or incompatible systems) would get registries within Starfleet.
With the entry of a Vulcan like species to the UFP, Starfleet could gain several thousand registries while not really adding anything to the generally available fleet.
Must play hell with the Romulans or whoever is spying though- talk about a fleet build up! Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Don't forget about the other, apparently originally intended registry for the Prometheus: 74913.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Don't forget about the other, apparently originally intended registry for the Prometheus: 74913.
Yes, this was a miscommunication between the VFX Dept. (who were responsible for creating the ship in CGI), and the Art Dept., specifically Okuda (who was responsible for the ship's registry, dedication plaque, etc.) I truly believe this was also why the FC ships had such low registries when they were clearly supposed to be newer ships.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Then again, there is the theory that registry numbers are assigned in blocks to different shipyards. Say there was this little out-of-the-way shipyard deep in the heart of UFP territory that got the contract to build the FC ships right around the time of BoBW. Well-insulated, little-known shipyard starts pumping out these new-build ships but with registries lower than the other shipyards were pumping out.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Then again, there is the theory that registry numbers are assigned in blocks to different shipyards.
Oh, that's a perfectly reasonable in-universe, after-the-fact explanation that would explain things like the FC ships and the Prometheus's low registries. There's even evidence that other ships with 5XXXX registries are brand-new as of the start of TNG. I was just speculating above what the real-world explanation was as to why the regs were so low.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Maybe the Prometheus is 5xxxx because the art department looked at the FC ships and saw that they were also 5xxxx, and so assumed that was what new ships were?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
According to Memory Alpha:
quote:There was some confusion during the production of "Message in a Bottle" concerning the registry of the Prometheus. According to Michael Okuda, he had used the number NX-74913 on all the internal displays and the ship's dedication plaque. However, the Foundation Imaging FX artists did not get the memo and used the number 59650 instead. Although Okuda's number did appear on screen, the Foundation number was much more visible.
According to Star Trek: Communicator issue 152, the Prometheus was redesignated NX-74913 after stardate 51461, right before the date the Prometheus was hijacked by Romulans. This was probably stated to alleviate the registry confusion mentioned above. If this statement was correct, it would suggest that the crew of the Prometheus modified the interior of the ship to reflect the new registry number before the old one was changed on the hull. It would also suggest that the ship had the old registry removed completely by "Endgame". The Prometheus having such a low registry number was meant to show that the ship had been in development for a long time.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Getting back on topic, I happened to notice something else in regards to another Miranda class ship.
In "Way of the Warrior," the Miranda docked at DS9, which had been previously thought as the U.S.S. Trial model kit, actually has its torpedo pod and rollbar facing the wrong way.
So it's possible that the WOTW ship might in fact be another model kit, and not the Trial.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Interesting. Though it's also possible that it's still the same model, the just fixed the roll bar orientation after filming. But you never know.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Interesting. Though it's also possible that it's still the same model, the just fixed the roll bar orientation after filming. But you never know.
That's possible, but I'm not sure why they would bother fixing the orientation later if it was just a disposable plastic model kit used for one shot, and especially if it were just one of several Reliant model kits that were built for far background shots.
[ July 06, 2013, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Or maybe the other way around, it was built in the right position, filmed, then damaged and repaired wrong?
Never mind. I got the shots mixed up. Maybe they figured they might use the model again?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Or they jst dropped the damn thing and no one caught that some intern or whever stuck the rollbar on backwards, then fixed it later.
Or it's Q having a bit of fun. Or Trelane.
Or the Metrons.
Or the Olivia Dabo Q babe.
But I cant fathom any other in-universe explanation on that.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Occam would think that they're just two different models.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
It is either, depending on if you open the box to see, or leave it closed.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Well, I've given my reasons as to why I think it's a different model. You're free to agree or disagree with my logic as you will.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Apparently this wasn't the only model with the pod and rollbar facing the wrong way.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Tsk. Don't these people read the instructions that come with the model kits?
(Although this does give me the urge to get my model kits out of the loft and finish them after... 15 years oh shit I'm old)
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
These people probably wrote those instructions in the first place...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starship Freak: It is either, depending on if you open the box to see, or leave it closed.
You are confusing this ship with the USS Schrodinger and it's Catian captain. Boxy design on that one.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Occam would think that they're just two different models.
Been a while, but I was just reviewing the thread. Actually, wouldn't Occam prefer it other way around? It's a simpler explanation that whoever kept the model on their desk after it was used noticed it was wrong and flipped it around (the rollbar is one individual piece of the kit and this could be easily done, right?) than to think that there were two separate models labeled the same thing.
(Remember, we had the information that there was a ship in "Way Of The Warrior" called the Trial independently prior to the photo of the model being unearthed, and many people had already posited that it was the docked Miranda since the name could be easily created using the same letters as Reliant. It was years later that the photo surfaced, and lo and behold it confirmed what we'd already suspected. That's some coincidence!)
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
Been a while, but I was just reviewing the thread. Actually, wouldn't Occam prefer it other way around? It's a simpler explanation that whoever kept the model on their desk after it was used noticed it was wrong and flipped it around (the rollbar is one individual piece of the kit and this could be easily done, right?) than to think that there were two separate models labeled the same thing.
Here's the problem with that theory. If the rollbar was facing the wrong way for filming, and then someone decided to fix the orientation later before taking that photo, then they would have either had to break apart the rollbar from the model or cut it off somewhere and then reposition it. 1) It's extremely hard to break something off of a model that's already been cemented in place without breaking it in unintended places, and 2) if it was just sawed off with a Dremel and then re-glued, that should be noticeable in the photo. It's not.
Plus, (And I won't be able to verify this until either a clearer pic emerges or WOTW is upconverted to HD), I think I can see where the ship's name starts in the screencap. The Trial's "U.S.S." starts above the beginning of the second C in "NCC", but in the screencap it starts above the N.
And honestly, I have no idea why anyone would try to "fix" a disposable plastic model kit used for far background shots once it was filmed. When I got the U.S.S. Curry photos from Mr. Dan, I didn't even try to fix my model; it was easier to just build another one. And my model was not a down-and-dirty kitbash like these were.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well, you do have a point there, and you know these models better than I do. I figured (wrongly, it seems) that it would be a piece that would just snap on with little teeth or something of that manner. Since the big filming model had its rollbar taken off and put on again many times, I assumed the same could be done with this little one.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
It all depends on the glue. Some glues will come apart easily, some won't. Judging by the assembly instructions (assuming this was built from the AMT 1/537 scale kit) the roll bar could be switched around easily with glue that either hasn't set properly or is very weak.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)