I have a silhouette chart of several ideas for revised Daedalus designs. I'd like everyone's input on which are their favorites.
I just need someone to offer to post the image file.
Thanks.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Go here.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Stop posting the link to hell. You're eating up all their bandwidth.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Works for me babe.
Posted by japol (Member # 1149) on :
Really want to see it... but cannot. Ack.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I'm partial to Karim Nassar's Daedalus, but I'd still be very interested to see how you've mutilated its default trashcan profile... any alteration is an enhancement to that design, really. B)
Posted by japol (Member # 1149) on :
This was going really well, but the modeler seems to have fallen off the face of the planet:
L i/c/w/ bow view B, no contest.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Bow View A. Port View K.
But you're going to need to tweek some things on all of those.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I did a Daedelus/NX cross last year... Abbaz was going to do a physical model of it...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah...life got in the way though and I gave my little NX-01 away as a birthday gify so now I dont think I'll get to it.
I still need to det up shop in my new paprtment and make a Son'A command ship if i'm going to Wonderfest this year.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Bizarre as it seems to agree with Cartman, I'll go for L - B as well.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
np jason Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Agreeing with me is bizarre now? Poo.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
I imagine the Daedalus to be a sort of destroyer built during the Earth-Romulan War. It is small, fast, and contains a reasonably formidable weapons package. Built around the already-designed components of the Intrepid-class and NX-class (including bridge modules, warp nacelles,etc.), it measures around 159 meters in length. It is only later, after the founding of the Federation, that the class ship we call the Daedalus is pressed into service as an explorer.
Tell me what you think. Be brutal, but keep in mind this is a fast cobble-together of one idea. The positioning of ports, hull details, etc. is just a placeholder.
I don't care for the secondary hull. And something about the nacelle struts isn't right. Maybe the nacelles should be farther forward? I don't know.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I don't really know about the secondary hull, either. Is there any evidence that Earth ships employ that rear "undercut" in the 2100s? Personally, I think that should be a later development. I would think that, if we're assuming Sisko's Horizon model is based on a real ship, the design should look at least fairly close to the model. Otherwise, why does the model look that way?
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
TSN,
I'm not worried so much about adhering to canon for this. This is just a fun reinterpreting the Daedalus taking into account the events and designs of "Enterprise".
To take your question about the presence of the undercut, why would an undercut necessarily require a wait until the 2200's? What is so unique about the 2200's that would preclude an undercut before then?
I really don't give a rip about Sisko's Horizon model. If I were trying to copy the existing Daedalus, it's been done to death. This is something new.
Think about it. They're making a habit out of it. The Kzinti are now the Xindi. The Dy-100 class is basically supplanted by the Conestoga. The Romulan BOP's have been retro-designed into something REALLY alien-looking.
Doing that to the Daedalus is no big deal.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irishman: They're making a habit out of it. The Kzinti are now the Xindi.
!?!
That deserved a sexicon! Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Tzenkethi are the Kzin. Not that cat-peope have any place outside of cheesy 80's movies anyway.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"To take your question about the presence of the undercut, why would an undercut necessarily require a wait until the 2200's? What is so unique about the 2200's that would preclude an undercut before then?"
I wasn't suggesting that ships built on 31. December, 2199 would be undercut-less, and all the ships built 1. January, 2200 and after would suddenly have them. I'm just saying that I don't think we've seen any so far in the ENT era, so it seems sensical that they might have been developed later. Especially since they are supposed to have something to do with maximizing warp efficiency, which is something he ENT engineers are still definitely working on.
Posted by Capped in Mic (Member # 709) on :
continuity fix?
K'Xindi is the Xindi name for the Xindi-Felinoids. They fight four wars with Earth. Sulu said so in "The Slaver Weapon"
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Boo.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Otherwise, why does the model look that way?
Because Sisko is CREATIVE!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
We know that they wanted Sisko to be a "builder" from early on in the series... does anyone think that Picard built the stargazer model... I don't think so! Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
Come on. Think about the problem from this point of view. The NX-01 has been established already as a saucer with no secondary hull.
How many ways can we go from there to the basic IDEA of the Daedalus (sphere primary hull with basically an engineering secondary hull.)? All the deuterium tanks from NX-01's saucer, along with those "turbo-chargers" with a warp and impulse room, shoved back into the secondary hull. If we go from the look of the NX-01 directly to the original Daedalus (admittedly a TOS Enterprise pre-design. it's questionable that it ever made it to the final design phase), that is going to look retarded, for lack of a better word. Are we assuming that Starfleet learns how to miniaturize those warp 5 engines shrinking it down to a 105-odd meter ship? Plus, what would be the logic behind doing so now?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Why does it have to be 105 meters long? That's just what the charts in the Encyclopedias say. And it by far wouldn't be the only mistake.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
You still haven't explained how the old veg-and-2-meat look with the "Strength banding" and overall TOS look is going to work, given the more advanced and detailed design of the NX-01, Intrepid, ECS Fortunate, Conestoga, et al?
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
Sorry, that should have said veg-and-3-meat
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I would pose the counter-question of how you are going to maintain the look of the TOS Enterprise as believable without something in that style leading up to it...
Oh and the Xindi aren't supposed to be the Kzin, I don't think. They would have come a bit earlier than ENT's timeframe and, as Jason pointed out, they've received mentions on DS9 as the Tzenkethi. That being said, however, I rather like Mike's idea...
-MMoM Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
I don't think maintaining the look of the TOS Enterprise is even an issue here, and I'll tell you why.
I remember in the extra material of the ST:TMP DVD a mention that the producers of the film were very much looking forward to creating a model that allowed you as the viewer to see much more of the Enterprise than did the TOS. So, whereas some elements of the TMP Enterprise can be seen as design evolution within the framework of the Trek universe (i.e. a number of years after TOS), much of the visual elements of the TMP Enterprise are simply elements that we can assume were present in the TOS Enterprise, but which we could not see on television due to visual production limitations.
These include, nacelle glows, greebles, visible docking ports, deck plating joints, a frikkin GANGWAY hatch!!! etc, etc.
I mean, hell, if we took what we could see in the TOS as visual proof of everything, then we'd have to conclude that all the lit portholes had very bright white lights shining directly outward. Therefore, all plans of Starfleet ships from the TOS period should respect that and include VERY bright lamps in all the windows.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
It's like the Bridge consoles... dont' think of them as being 23rd century technology, think of them as being 60's representation of the same 23rd century technology that we see in TMP.
In Dr WHO, we see the Tardis 'grow' a new control room every few years to help explain the change, as the show producers could make better sets.
I just thank God that TOS wasn't black and white. Can you imagine the flame wars over colors of things?
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
True, Woozle.
For those Daedalus purists out there, give this comparison a try. Tell me what you think of it.
Personally, I still prefer the lack of undercut. And I like the one right under the E (with the sphere higher) better than the one below that. And I think I'd like to see the pylons a little thinner, and maybe not angled from front to back.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Bottom one for me. But yeah, the pylons are a little soggy around the midsection. B)
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I don't really like the look of the one with the undercut, I prefer the one under the E.
I don't really think the Daedalus design is all that bad, although I like the attepts to make it look more like the Enterprise.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
