[ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/misc/akira-vs-akiraprise.jpg
I still think that it's adequately different to not be such a blatant ripoff. At least, not a BLATANT one. 
Mark
quote:
They really aren't copies of each other, as you'll see.
Best joke I heard today.
"They really aren't copies of each other..."
Well, no fucking kidding. One would have to be a complete idiot to think the ENT was a copy of the Akira. Hell, the nacelle pylons point up instead of down! I don't think I've ever heard anyone be stupid enough to claim that the ENT was identical to the Akira.
However, that doesn't change the fact that it was obviously made to resemble that ship very closely in many respects, which the illustration you provide merely accentuates.
quote:
Erm... The differences are significant enough that building an ENT mesh from scratch would be far simpler than editing an Akira mesh.
Yes. For someone who wanted to reproduce the final NX-01.
But I assume in Drexler's favor that he started with the Akira mesh. At some point, when he had done the changes Captain Mike described, he decided that it was different enough. Bad enough that he was lazy. He didn't bother to change more (basic proportions and the silly little details) and give the ship more individuality.
In case, however, he just took a reference image of the Akira and imitated its look from scratch, I can only call him a plagiator. He could have done *anything*, but he slavishly copied certain details where they are on the Akira too.
[ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: Bernd ]
quote:
I think that if you were modeling the NX-01 from scratch you would be wondering why you needed to take so long to exactly reproduce the greebly on top of the catamarans, rather than simply make a new shape.
In a way, that is just my point. Creating the NX-01 with a resembling but not exactly the same configuration was easier than reproducing the Akira (from scratch). It was also easier than creating something completely new. It was actually the laziest thing to do.
I know only few about 3D modeling, only so much that I can tell if someone is lazy or uncreative or both. Just like I can say something like that about a 2D sketch too.
They don't bitch when the vast majority of ships we see have the same general design as the original 'Enterprise' ...
Gee, I wonder why.
-MMoM 
Xoom xoom xoom...
Yea yea yea...
Ya xoom xoom xoom.
Ya xoom xoom xoom.
quote:
People bitch when a ship has the general design of the 'Akira' ...They don't bitch when the vast majority of ships we see have the same general design as the original 'Enterprise' ...
And then other people insist that the NX-Class isn't in any way whatsoever a copy of the Akira-Class, and, when presented with pretty complete evidence that it in fact IS, resort to such arguments as "it takes one to know one" and "you smelt it, you dealt it." And so the wheel turns. . .
The NX-01 design process is embarrasingly short and atypical when compared to even that of an unimportant ship of the week on Voyager. Not to mention DS9, Voyager, or the Ent-E, which took weeks and weeks of development and refinement. I don't know what's wrong with the show. They had so many ships of the week in Voyager, but now they can't even design a Klingon ship of the week for an older era.
Something is different in the real world. My interpretation is that Braga wants this to be a "reimagination" of the Star Trek universe, and so he allowed some of the familiar designs to appear in a different era. Of course, he'll use other designs when necessary. Maybe they simply spent too much money on the new sets. Then again, maybe they simply can't replace Rick Sternbach.
[ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Anyway, if I may stick my head in, the NX-01 model was scratch-built, not a modification of the Akira mesh. at least according to a VFX industry mag article that I read online not so long ago. Said article went on to say how it's also the CGI model with the highest polygon count in the history of TV.
quote:
And then other people insist that the NX-Class isn't in any way whatsoever a copy of the Akira-Class,
In the same way that the Excelsior-, Galaxy- and Ambassador-Class designs are copies of the Constitution-Class. But you don't see anyone bitching about that now do you?
The difference between similarity and copying explained--- case closed.
[ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: J ]
If you'd ever listen to the arguements, it's all "they were so lazy in designing the ship." Mark Nguyen called the design a "ripoff." TSN said Enterprise was "obviously made to resemble that ship [Akira] very closely in many respects." And so on. I think Bernd has been much more blunt about his feelings.
And it doesn't boil down to different functions by the same things as you claim. What it boils down to is, some folk think Enterprise's designers are lazy for basing the design on the Akira-Class. However, they don't think the designers of the Excelsior-, Ambassador, or Galaxy- Class starships are lazy for basing the design off the Constitution.
It's just mindless bashing which lets people feel superior, while in reality making them "Comic Book Guy" from The Simpsons.
So, answer me this: the Excelsior, Ambassador, and Galaxy-Class clearly were based on the Constitution design. The NX-class is clearly based on the Akira design. What's the difference in calling the Enterprise designer lazy when you don't call the designers of the others lazy?
J -- you posted when I was typing, naughty boy. So, you mean all the anger about the "Enterprise" design is about a few insignificant details that very few people notice? So if they'd done a dual-hull design and copied those features, you'd be just as bad? C'mon, clearly the anger is at the catamaran style that Enterprise borrowed from the Akira-Class (even though, if you look at the two, you can see they're just "features" the two have in common -- much the way the Const/Amb/Exc/Gal all have similar features).
[ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Just like the first time i saw the Nebula.. i said to myself 'Hey, they took a Galaxy model and rearraged it to make a new ship!' I said that because it was the only conclusion that was possible. I dont think the Nebula is a bad design, nor do i feel that it was creative laziness (budgetary maybe..). Its a good ship design that was recognizably arrived at by using an existing ship design. But if someone in vehement defense of the Nebula said that it was designed entirely new, they would be lying.
As to the article that says that NX-01 was new built, i can only suppose its because they had to add more detail to the existing Akira mesh so they 'traced over it' so to speak. My first major 3d model i built about six years ago when i was in high school, a 1701. I was making it into a TOS style Reliant when the file kinda got loopy, with stray vertices and all sorts of wierd problems cropping up with the symmetry because of the complex subtractions and melds i was doing. I basically took the same model and made new uncorrupted shapes over it, but it still had my orignial dimensions and shapes, but i did have to delete the orginal. But the new 'scratch built' one took a fraction of the time it would have taken me to model a completely new saucer and still maintained all of my (incorrect!) proportions and details on the original.
[ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
[ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
quote:
we do know what the era after looks like, and there are no Akira-style ships there.
No we don't. Compared to the amount of episodes (and therefore, the knowledge) we have set in the 24th century, information on ship designs of the 23rd century is very sparse. So no, we *don't* know that.
There are a lot of TOS era ships we didnt see.. considering that every ship except for about 6 of them (Constitution, DY, Aurora, Klingon D7, Romulan BOP & Tholians) were represented by a) an animated blur or b) a lame invisibility field or c) simply not shown
"TSN said Enterprise was 'obviously made to resemble that ship [Akira] very closely in many respects.'"
Because it was. The designer himself has explicitly said as much.
where Drexler admitted that TPTB had decided that the Akira was the most popular design (possibly based on the 'favorite ship poll' from STContinuum?), so an Akira must NX-01 be. Basically, we are lucky that we got a ship that makes any sense given that the suits just wanted something that would make the fanboys drool liek the ship that got the most votes
quote:
Because it was. The designer himself has explicitly said as much.
Yes, I'm aware TSN. Did you bother reading my arguement? How does that make him any lazier then the guy who designed the Excelsior-, Ambassador-, or Galaxy, HMMM?! Could you be bothered to answer the question? 
[ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
quote:
One would have to be a complete idiot to think the ENT was a copy of the Akira. Hell, the nacelle pylons point up instead of down! I don't think I've ever heard anyone be stupid enough to claim that the ENT was identical to the Akira.
TSN, this quote was a writing of pure genius. Would you mind if I used it in my sig?
quote:
There's a world of difference between basing one design on another, and outright copying it. [Jeff's] post about the Miranda & Nebula class is a good example. TBTB didn't just take the Miranda design and modify it a bit, calling it the Nebula class. No, they made an entirely new ship, but with a similar configuration. It was "based" on the Miranda class, although it was an original design. The same holds true for the Constitution refit, Excelsior, Ambassador, & Galaxy classes. Although the two ships are quite different, you are correct in stating that the configuration of the Ent-D was based on the Ent-nil.However, my point was that the NX-01 was not based on the Akira; it was in fact copied from it, & that it really wasn't an original design.
I've read what Drexler, Zimmerman, Braga, et. al have stated in interviews about the ship design, & I think they're all just full of it. It's like reading an interview with George Lucas in which he states how great a movie TPM was. I think the award for the dumbest interview line should go to Braga, when he stated that they had a preliminary design for the NX-01, but that it looked too much like Kirk's ship, so they decided to come up with a more original design (italics mine).
The Olympic was designed as a tribute to the Daedalus. The NX and Akira are the same story, except we're going backwords.
quote:
the viewers expect to see 90% of the currently used car types out there, not only a small cross-section.
Well there you go. The Enterprise-descendents (and Akira ancestors) are part of the 10%.
Second, the Olympic is a one-off ship whose canonicity is arguable at best, so it really doesn't break any lineage with the Daedalus, itself a background office model whose canonicity is arguable -- hence, either of the two can be rejected. The Enterprise is a *lead ship*, the Akira an onscreen ship seen in many episodes. If the Enterprise were a one-off ship of the week, I might've been a little upset, but ultimately I would've understood that someone would modify an existing design for an episode to save money. It's been done before.
However, you just don't rip off another ship to design a series lead ship. That's never been done, not to the extent of copying the little details and assigning them a different purpose. This is called kitbashing, and it used to be done when an episode was on a tight budget. I said "used to be done", because we've seen fewer and fewer such ships on Voyager. Now, suddenly we get this Enterprise. The producers probably want the Akira to quietly disappear instead, which would make the NX-01 the originator of all the tech, and the Akira a ripoff with flaws, kept in some storage dock until it was needed for FC precisely because *it* copied the NX-01 design elements without considering the technical implications.
You can make up explanations like this -- still, the unusually short and uncreative design process contributes to my dislike of Enterprise. It's not that I'm prejudiced -- it's that I have a tangible reason to say that the Enterprise was designed cheaply.
Phelps: I agree with you 100%. However, I think the NX-01 design problem was not a matter of laziness on the producer's part, as has been debated here recently. From what I've gathered, someone found the Akira CGI model, felt that it was just a background ship and was never used enough for the viewers to notice it, and decided to go with the same design (or just change it around a bit, IMHO). The producers probably never once thought that they'd be annoying a huge ST fanbase who have an interest in exactly these things, and who would recognize the Akira design immediately. If they did know, or cared, I'd like to think that they would have eventually made a more original design.
[ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Dukhat: I agree that the producers probably thought this. However, why did they spend so much time and money on building the Voyager? DS9? Enterprise-E? I believe they were on a tight budget in the early eps, which also explains the reused K't'inga.
quote:
Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
J -- you mean all the anger about the "Enterprise" design is about a few insignificant details that very few people notice?So if they'd done a dual-hull design and copied those features, you'd be just as bad?
C'mon, clearly the anger is at the catamaran style that Enterprise borrowed from the Akira-Class (even though, if you look at the two, you can see they're just "features" the two have in common -- much the way the Const/Amb/Exc/Gal all have similar features).
I seriously doubt that "few people notice." This isn't something like being able to tell that the outside of a Borg cube has pieces from left over model kits [IE using the left over plastic], oh and not to mention the TMP Spacedock. You can see the exactness of the Turbocharges. Even if it's pointed out to you, the Borg hull isn't easy to see.
Had they done the same yes, I would be miffed about a double-hull with exact details. It's the difference between reuse of structure and reuse of detail.
And I disagree... I'm in love with the Loknar, and it is catamaran. ---
http://frankg.dgne.com/~ragnarok/fss/frigates/frigate_loknar.jpg ---
http://frankg.dgne.com/~ragnarok/fss/frigates/frigate_loknar_upgrade.jpg ---
Infact I'd be more willing to accept a design EXACTLY like the TOS Loknar as the Pre-E, so take your assumption and shove it. Of course, there are two reasons why I'd accept the Loknar over the Akira--- 1) Loknar is more appropriate to time period 2) Loknar is fandom and wasn't on screen so there technically isn't any issues there for me within the ST Universe [I'd simply not accept references to it from the mid 23rd century]. I would be slightly upset that they copied the design without modifying it, but not so much as I am upset with the Pre-E/AKR connection.
Move along.
You seem to be taking this arguement a bit personal. I'm refering to your "shove it" line. Methinks you should meet Senor Crobato, who I believed liked telling everyone he liked that they should bend over and take it up the ass. You'll notice he's no longer here.
(someone want to link to that
comparrison Bernd posted? I want to look at those details).
Okay, first up we've got the thing between the catamarans (at the rear). The two don't look remotely alike, even though Bernd has them circled as being the same.
Really, the only things that anyone has a reason to bitch about are the indent at the front of the saucer, and then the other just above on the saucer.
Jesus. You guys like to bitch.
How often has an Akira featured as "guest ship of the week" (as the Intrepid model was in that DS9 ep whose name escapes me)? I've asked a few friends who are big enough Star Trek fans to be able to identify a Nebula-class ship, and they hadn't noticed until it was pointed out to them.
The fact is, the vast majority of Enterprise watchers don't spend all their time on the internet looking at ship designs. While they'd probably be able to pull the Defiant out in a line-up, they'd stumble at how the Ent-B looks different from the Excelsior. And they'll have no idea about background CGI ships that have never been featured in an episode.
You can argue if it's the same or different (I think it's an obvious "homage", to avoid using argumentative words), but the truth is, less than 10% of the viewers have any idea that it looks like a 24th century ship.
"You can't tell me that it's a coincidence we haven't seen all these other ship classes you talk about. If there were Akira-style ships in the movie era, we should've seen them in TNG, as we did the Mirandas and the Excelsiors."
Oh, yes. In the same way that DS9 was FILLED with Ambassador class ships.
We saw Mirandas and Excelsior's in TNG because the powers that be had 6 Starfleet models available to them for the first 4 years, and only one additional one after that.. One was the Enterprise-D, and so could only be used for sister ships. And one was the Enterprise-A, which couldn't be used because it was "movie property". That leaves us with the Ambassador, which wasn't available until season 3, and the Excelsior and Miranda. So obviously they are going to use them. You don't throw away nice ship design.
And the reason they've never made much of an attempt with the Ambassador is (I guess) that visually, it's a bit too similar to other designs. The Excelsior and Galaxy are a fair bit different visually, but the Ambassador is close to both of them. The Miranda looks very different.
This is a major show intended to run for seven years, and they couldn't spend more time coming up with a new design. Rick Sternbach indicated that the approval process was unusually tough -- they probably ran out of time. The Akira design couldn't have been so good to warrant a complete change in historical practices, which are to spend weeks and weeks creating a new design from scratch. Don't you want to surprise all the fans, instead of just the average fans?
Was it so important that the ship look like this, or was there an unusual flaw in the design process? Was it impossible to design a ship that won't create a negative reaction in our part of the audience? Even if the answer is yes, that people like us will always find flaws, they could've at least known how we'd respond to an obvious kitbash-style ship that contradicts the drawn-out design processes of Voyager, DS9, and Sovereign.
[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
quote:
Originally posted by Phelps:
Was it so important that the ship look like this[...]?
I think the real question is "Was it so important that the ship not look like this?" Believe it or not, I don't watch Star Trek for the starship designs. I watch it because it's fun, bottom line. Voyager was never fun to me, even if it had an original-looking starship, great visual effects, and a billion new guest aliens... and so I stopped watching it years ago. That's why I don't tend to bash Voyager; I have no idea if it was any good for the last few seasons or not. Enterprise, on the other hand, I enjoy even if the ship looks roughly like an Akira from above. And frankly, it astounds me that people are still up in arms over the ship design after knowing about it for three months. It's too late now; either you like it or you don't. The ship's not changing, and I'm moving on.
It's important historically that we learn the how's and why's of this design, because it really is an aberration from the usual design process. It's also important that the results of this research be made as public as possible, so that people know as much about the NX-01 design process as they do about that of the Enterprise-E. This way, maybe the producers won't repeat the mistake of picking a background ship, modifying it and using it as a lead ship.
[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Honestly, I think the single hull design makes a great deal of sense. That way, the dual hull of Kirk's Enterprise looks much more modern.
[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
If you're talking about it in the other sense, then I think its really sad someone doesn't watch a show because of a few details. Hey, its your business.
[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
The process for the most important ships goes like this: they start with *rough* shapes and *rough* sketches which can be based on existing ships, but then again maybe not. You get three or four different directions that are explored and ultimately abandoned, leaving us with only one.
The designer then finalizes the sketches, scales them, and gives them to the Scenic Art Department to start drawing any Okudagrams that might be needed. In the meantime, Rick Sternbach or Tim Earls do the detailed blueprints of the ship that refine its details so that everything has a certain function and purpose, and is consistent with the previously established technology. They also make up a writers' technical guide to go along with the ship.
The blueprints then go to the modelmaker, say Tony Meininger or Greg Jein, or Foundation Imaging/Eden FX which then build the model. In the meantime, the Scenic Art Department has already drawn up a mostly correct cutaway based on the final sketches. Done and over with.
Now, we know that the NX-01 design process started with Doug Drexler modelling the ship in LightWave, and ended with a refinement of his original CG model by Rob Bonchune and Pierre Drolet. He should've deleted all the details from the Akira, and added the correct ones once the final shape was complete. Instead, some were copied, even though Drexler's boss probably wouldn't have cared if such details were copied or not. Maybe he was confused on how much he should follow the Akira. I'll bet you there are a lot of such details that don't have any purpose at all, just like on the Defiant.
[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
And, whaddya know? It's an extrememly popular design that everyone loves! Crazy.
Also, I would think that since Braga's show, the most important UPN show, always managed to show us original and consistent ships of the week like the Equinox and the Prometheus, it should've been able to do better for the lead ship. I would compare the Enterprise to these ships, not to DS9, which never had consistent ship designs.
Then again, maybe the Enterprise is what happens when you get the DS9 team of John Eaves and Doug Drexler working on it, instead of Rick Sternbach. I have no problem with them designing the basic shape, but Rick Sternbach should always at least blueprint the ship and fix its details because he knows best what goes into a starship. He did that for the Enterprise-E and the DS9 station although other designers worked on their basic shapes as well.
[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Phelps, you're contradicting yourself. The Defiant had a prominent role in DS9, and thus, should be under as much scruity by you as Enterprise or any Voyager ship.
Even if the Defiant were as important as the DS9 station, I'll compare it to Enterprise only if you can show me that Braga's budget sank to the DS9 level. DS9 was the forgotten child -- Voyager was always the major show that was more important to the network. If it could have well-designed, original *ships of the week*, the new Braga show shouldn't have sunk to the level of modifying the Akira for its lead ship.
The Defiant ended up the way it did because Rick Sternbach was busy designing Voyager. That's almost certain -- he's one of the very few people who can draw blueprints, and the only person who knows exactly what goes into a starship. Had he but a little time to take Jim Martin's sketches, refine the details and draw the blueprints, we would've never argued about its size and layout. I assume he would've fixed up the Enterprise as well if he were working there, but maybe the producers spent too much money on new sets and uniforms and couldn't afford a good ship design.
[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
quote:
Originally posted by Phelps:
I assume he would've fixed up the Enterprise as well if he were working there, but maybe the producers spent too much money on new sets and uniforms and couldn't afford a good ship design.
Or maybe, as they always say in interviews, they think Enterprise is, in fact, a good ship design, and so there was no need to bring in anyone else. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," as they say. I'm not saying Enterprise is or isn't a good design in my opinion; the only thing that matters is what they think... and I haven't heard anyone who actually works on the new series indicate that they don't like the design, so why would they see a need to change it? It's like saying Michaelangelo should have brought in someone else to fix the Sistine Chapel because you think Adam's dick is too small.
quote:
Originally posted by The_Tom:
It would appear we seem a wee bit obsessed with the idea that Rick S and Rick S alone can design starships "correctly."
Personally, I always prefered Andy Probert's ships to Sterbach's. His ships always seem more thought out and consistent in design details. The E-D, Warbird and Ferengi ships are great designs, and very distinct. Too many of the designs that followed his depaerture are like masses of shapes shoved together. Curves against angles, blocks shoved through discs. Take the Klingon Attack Cruiser, rip off its nacelles, turn it around and paint it yellow and you have the Cardassian Galor. Weak.
I never said only Rick could do original designs. I feel the Defiant is a lot more original than anything Rick did, and so is the Enterprise-E. All I'm saying is what I said -- Rick should've done the blueprints that make sure every detail works from an engineering standpoint, and that it is not just a cool shape that served a different purpose on the original ship. He did this for the Enteprise-E by Eaves, DS9 (designed by himself, Zimmerman, Okuda, and a few other people), etc.
Doug Drexler should be able to do all that, having done all the MSDs, but I feel he didn't know how many of the details he should modify while keeping the producers happy. Another reason could be a lack of Probert's industrial design background or Rick's enthusiasm for real-world engineering and space vehicles.
Oh, and I do like Probert's designs a lot -- unfortunately, he hasn't been working for Trek in a while, so asking him to help out might be less practical.
As for the Equinox, it isn't a plaigarism of the pathfinder -- the Equinox *is* the pathfinder, and besides, the pathfinder configuration was never built.
[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
quote:
Originally posted by mrneutron:Personally, I always prefered Andy Probert's ships to Sterbach's. His ships always seem more thought out and consistent in design details. The E-D, Warbird and Ferengi ships are great designs, and very distinct. Too many of the designs that followed his depaerture are like masses of shapes shoved together. Curves against angles, blocks shoved through discs. Take the Klingon Attack Cruiser, rip off its nacelles, turn it around and paint it yellow and you have the Cardassian Galor. Weak.
Now, hang on . . . the Ferengi ship is a knock-off Klingon design. It's got the same "Head-neck-main hull-guns and warp engines on the sides of the main hull" configuration as the K'tingas (with the guns off of the BoP).
Guardian 2000
I haven't got it, but didn't the Equinox look like one of the Nova-class prototypes at the end of the TNG Tech Manual?
"Take the Klingon Attack Cruiser, rip off its nacelles, turn it around and paint it yellow and you have the Cardassian Galor. Weak. "
I've done that mentally, and I've got a back to front yellow Klingon ship with no nacelles.
By "Klingon Attack Cruiser", do you mean the ship introduced in season 4 of TNG? The Vor'cha class ship (I think)?
That always struck me as being a TNG version of the K'Tinga. It's more rounded, in the same way that the Ent-D is more rounded than the original. The Galor looks like an Egyption Ankh, I believe, and the Cardassian symbol from above. I can't see how they look similar at all.
But that wasn't the point -- the point is that Rick's designs are more plausible from an engineering standpoint because of his interest in real-world space vehicles and Star Trek technology.
The idea that Sternbach can design a better ship then others is, well, your opinion.
My favorite design is that of the beautiful Enterprise-D ... and Sternbach didn't design that, now did he?
[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
The Enterprise should be compared to the DS9 station, Enterprise-E, Enterprise-A, Enterprise-D, TOS-Enterprise or Voyager.
quote:
The Enterprise should be compared to the DS9 station, Enterprise-E, Enterprise-A, Enterprise-D, TOS-Enterprise or Voyager.
Okay.
Compared to the ships you've mentioned, its a refreshing change of design. But, oh, it wasn't designed by Sternbach so it must suck dick.
As for the Defiant, it *was* a lead ship (I doubt anyone but you considers it not) -- it had a lot more then just "ship in background" status.
And, gee, it wasn't designed by Sternbach. It thus must suck dick.
A helluva lotta work and money went into designing E-D, VGR and DS9 because they had about a year of mean time to work it out, and a huge amount of capital intended to get the series on its feet. In between seasons, you are probably designing on a fraction of that budget and with much less time. You can still get design excellence, but it varies in individual cases. Some other 'mid-series' design adjustments include the Jefferies-tube sets, VGR Astrometrics, Ten-Forward & the Nebula-class. While the Nebula is an impressive design, not much was determined about its technicality because it was a kitbash. Even a better example is the Olympic. it was figured out between episodes with no real purpose in mind to any of its details/structure.. although the Defiant probably had more of a design process and got more attention, it definitely did not get the full blueprints treatment a-la the work on the E-D and VGR.
I still think its a great model.. just wish we knew how long it was.
[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
quote:
Originally posted by mrneutron:
Take the Klingon Attack Cruiser, rip off its nacelles, turn it around and paint it yellow and you have the Cardassian Galor.
Someone actually did this at Starship Modeler for the Dominion War Contest.
quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
Even a better example is the Olympic. it was figured out between episodes with no real purpose in mind to any of its details/structure.
Uh....NO. The model that became the Olympic-class was built by Bill George in his garage in his own spare time. Y'know, like the replacement Y-wing that they used from "Empire" onward, which turned out to be far superior to the original, mind you.
"I haven't got it, but didn't the Equinox look like one of the Nova-class prototypes at the end of the TNG Tech Manual?"
Not in the least. It was the Defiant "pathfinder" from the DS9TM, w/ a few details altered.
quote:
While the Nebula is an impressive design, not much was determined about
its technicality because it was a kitbash.
Amen! Just where the hell are the impulse engines on this tub, anyway?
Check out the Nebula reference pictures at Starship Modeler located here. Be sure to check out this picture and this picture. Look at the darker areas where the engines would be on the Galaxy class.
And yes, you can see these "covert" engines on both the physical model and the CGI model.
[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Ace ]
quote:
although the Defiant probably had more of a design process
The Olympic, the Constellation, the Nebula, the Delta Flyer, the Yeager (*shivers*) all suffered from the fact that, rather than having been designed when the designers had plenty of time sitting on their asses, they were made in between seasons or when the designers were probably juggling lots of projects (or designed as experiments and then pressed into use as more of a focus. The Nebula started out just like George's Olympic, as a 'test-model' by Miarecki.. and shortly thereafter it found itself a main backup ship. The Defiant shares many of these problems.. impulse vents, weapons ports, windows, all kind of in disarray.
I mean, have you read how much thought went into just designing the E-D's windows? and how many stages DS9s shape went through. (This raises another issue altogether.. how come, when these well thought out designs were passed on to the regular series, many of their purposes became skewed. Aeroshuttles what? Variable warp geometry who? Curved docking pylons why?)
--jacob
[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]
As for the structures on the saucer, I don't know. I'm assuming you're talking about the vent-like outlets on either side. They don't look much like impulse engines to me. For one thing, there's the size factor; they don't look all that much bigger than a Galaxy-class thruster quad. Does anyone have a good screencap of the stern of a Nebula in flight, to see if there's any type of glow that would indicate presence of the engines?
You will need to cut and paste these URLS:
Example 1:
http://www21.brinkster.com/ace1701a/ncsd/gallery/beauty/nebula2.jpg
Example 2:
http://www21.brinkster.com/ace1701a/ncsd/gallery/beauty/nebulaaftq1.jpg
Example 3 (nice artistic shot):
http://www21.brinkster.com/ace1701a/ncsd/gallery/beauty/Honshu.jpg
The most likely reason is that the Nebula CGI mesh was made from the Galaxy class CGI and so they simply made the engines into the hull lines.
Anyway, unlike the physical model, these engines cannot be just part of the hull pattern because they go around the rim of the saucer to the underside as seen in "Message in a Bottle."
Example 4 - "Message in a Bottle":
http://www21.brinkster.com/ace1701a/ncsd/gallery/battle/prometheus39.jpg
Thoughts?
Oh, and if you are wondering...yes I am a Nebula nuthead and have a site dedicated just to this class.
[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Ace ]
.--jacob