I know that Bernd fixed the side view, but has anybody tried to tackle fixing the saucer details (windows, bridge module, etc) in the top view?
-MMoM Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Nope.
Mark
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Funny I see this right at the moment. Guess what's the next ship on my 'to do'-list for the size comparison chart? Right.
One thing I noticed; using the factfiles-schematic (corrected or not), the ship would be 580m long. For my first comparison I used the Galaxy-nacelles, but then I noticed the secondary hull is Ambassador. So I took the 526m-Ambassador as a reference. And the 580m-Niagara was the result. Otherwise, I got something around 500m. What do you think? Galaxy-nacelles or Ambassador-hull? (Furthermore, the whole saucer dome is just the standard-Ambassador's, turned 180�. And the saucer seems to be an Ambassador-modification, too.)
While currently at it, what about the Freedom-class? Here I wanted to use the Galaxy-nacelle-comparison, too. We'd get a 400-something scale. But the factfiles-schematic showed only a five-deck connecting dorsal. Going that way (I don't know where the ff get their info, but we have to assume they have some sort of insider information on it) we'd get a 230m-Freedom. First, the ship looked fake being that small, but assuming it's some sort of destroyed like Hermes and friends, the size would be perfect.
So? What should I do? (Sorry Mim for using your topic for it, but it fits in here. )
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, given the number of Ambassador parts on the Niagara, I'd use those for the scale. After all, we already know that Galaxy-style nacelles come in all shapes and sizes.
As for the Freedom... What are the choices we have? Normal Galaxy/Nebula nacelle, Niagara nacelle, or Challenger nacelle (assuming this isn't the same size as one of the others). I'd say go w/ the one that looks best. :-)
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
The only part of that ship that comes from the Amnassador is the secondary hull. The nacelles come off the 2-foot Galaxy, the pylons are custom-made. The saucer is in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY derived from an Ambassador. It's elliptical and quite Galaxy-like, and doesn't appear to be too far out of scale with regular Galaxy nacelles. Pay no mind to the FF schematics, look at the studio model. The bridge looks to be custom-made, too, thought I can see the resemblance to an Ambassador module.
And, as far as I know, the only time we've seen Galaxy-like nacelles that don't appear to be regular sized is on the New Orleans, (where they are "stretched") which is scaled to be a smaller ship. The Niagara, Freedom, and Nebula all have the same scale nacelles as the Galaxy.
-MMoM
[ February 23, 2002, 18:10: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I don't think the assertion that the Niagara parts came from the "3-foot Ambassador" and "2-foot Galaxy" is true. For one thing, the Ambassador studio model was 41", which is closer to 3.5 feet. And a two-foot Galaxy's nacelles would be way too tiny compared to that. Or even to a 3-footer, for that matter. I would guess the nacelles had to come from the 4-foot Galaxy. As I understand, it was built for the third season, so wouldn't it have been around by the time of the filming of the TBoBW graveyard scene? Even if it wasn't completely finished, the mold could still have been already in existence.
Now, the ratio between a 48-inch Galaxy and a 41-inch Ambassador is about 1.17:1. The ratio between a 643m Galaxy and a 526m Ambassador is about 1.22:1. So, if we assume the Niagara has a normal Ambassador sec. hull, the nacelles are about 96% the size of normal Galaxy nacelles. So, if we wanted to, I suppose we could say that the model was actually inaccurate, and the Niagara has both normal Galaxy nacelles and a normal Ambassador sec. hull.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I've also just been thinking about the Challenger. Since the Cheyenne, New Orleans, and Springfield were all made using 1:2500-scale saucers w/ 1:1400-scale bridge modules, we can (and do) assume that the bridge modules are normal Galaxy size, and the saucers are scaled down to 56% of normal Galaxy size. If the Challenger also follows this same scaling set-up, we have two options for the nacelles. Either they were taken from the 1:1400 model, making them the same scale as the bridge and therefore normal Galaxy size, or they were taken from the two-foot model, making them about 130% of normal Galaxy size.
[ February 23, 2002, 21:55: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Hey, I'm going to upload my shipscale-list today, including two large charts of all the federation classes.
For now, I took the (uncorrected) Niagara-schematic - Ambassador size. Maybe I'll redo the nacelles-part. What I can say is I had to redo both Nebula-Melbourne (you can clearly see from the pictures at EAS that the small nacelles are attached to the base of the weapons-pod phylon and not to the secondary hull) and Shelley (I have a dozen different schematics of that ship, and all look different. So I decided to do my own version of the truth. ) The Freedom is at the moment at ~ 230m (going with the windows), but maybe I'll change that. Maybe there's another base for the Freedom-scaling. As mentioned above, the Niagara's and Ambassador's bridge dome module thing (the part on top of the saucer) is the same used for the Freedom. Niagara's main body and dome are of the same scale, meaning I could use the dome of the Niagara to scale the Freedom. (I did basically the same when figuring out the size of the Springfield, allthough I used the Cheyenne-nacelles as reference.) Let's see how much time I got at hand today and tell me what exactly has to be altered on the FactFiles schematic. The redone nacelle phylons are one thing already done. I'll rescale the nacelles. What else?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Here it is, my size comparison chart. The two pictures are accessable by clicking the links on top of the page, as is the updated starship chart.
QSF, please!
Oh! Forgot one thing: The corrected chart with the redone Niagara will be uploaded later today. If you want the seperate Shelley/Melbourne/Unknown1-drawings, tell me and I upload them.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Here's a thought: How big would the Freedom be if we made it's nacelle the same size as the mini-nacelles on the Melbourne?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
First we need the actual size of the Melbourne nacelles. The ship itself is the 1/1400 kit and the nacelles are the 1/2500-kit. The nacelles of the Galaxy should be 245m. Scaled down it should be 17,5cm for the 1400-kit. For the 2500-kit, it would be 9,8cm. the 9,8 upscaled with 1400 we get 137,2m-auxiliary nacelles. (Always assuming the 245m are the real size, not 247m or 244m and the model kit dimensions are the right ones given at the EAS.) The entire ship would then be ~ 230m long. Interestingly, that's nealy the same size I got when I took the 5-deck connecting dorsal.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
I'm the one who built all these ships, (Niagara, Freedom, Springfield, Challenger, Melbourne, New Orleans, etc) a while back, in conjunction with Bernd, and fellow members of the ASDB.
This was the final Niagara version...
At the time I fixed the over all length of her to be 415M. It doesn't mean that's right though, and the Freedom came out at 259M. The Niagara saucer is in fact circular, not elliptical, that's what we established.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
My redone schematic so far.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: The Niagara saucer is in fact circular, not elliptical, that's what we established.
How can you say that? The saucer is obviously ovular...how did you come to this conclusion?
quote:Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: My redone schematic so far.
Okay, so if the proportions were right in the first place what were we arguing about?
-MMoM Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
We're arguing about some 80 meters. With the redone ship, it should be about 540m long. With larger nacelles going the galaxy-way, we have 500 and with larger nacelles gaing the ambassador-way we have 580m.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Oh, never mind, I see now. In your pic, the Galaxy and Ambassador aren't to scale with each other. At first I thought they were.
-MMoM Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
If I didn't do something wrong, they are.
Galaxy 642 and Ambassador 526. We're talking anout the same pic? The second one? With the three ships? I haven't changed the other one yet (in my shiplist).
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Okay, wait. I don't know if I'm having a blank-out or what...but bear with me: If in your 3-ships pic the Galaxy and Ambassador are to scale with each other, and the Niagara's proportions are as shown in the pic, then there shouldn't be a problem.
Right? From that pic, the nacelles and secondary hull are in proportion...or at least it appears that way.
Am I just not getting something here? If not, please feel free to slap me.
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Ohhhhh...now I get it. You altered the niagara's nacelle-to-secondary hull proportions. Christ, I'm thick...
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
'*slap* has to be edited out because he got it without any help'
Because that's the redone image of the Niagara. I resized the nacelles to fit with both the Ambassador and the Galaxy. The original one had larger nacelles (as seen on the large chart at my shiplist/size-page).
[ February 24, 2002, 13:04: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yes. I know. I'm stupid.
Okay then, I cuncur with that interpretation. The FF schematic must have just had the proportions slightly off, which is no big surprise considering the level of inaccuracy that it already was known to display. The actual model had the nacelles of a Galaxy, the secondary hull of an Ambassador, and a saucer somewhere in between the two. (Not quite as wide an ellipse as the Galaxy, but certainly not circular.)
So, let's recap: How long does it work out to be now?
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
I had originally thought it was elliptical as well, but after some discussion within the group it was concluded that it was indeed circular. Look at the overhead shot of it in the graveyard scene.
The reason it may look elliptical in the photo with Greg Jein is that he's holding it at an extreme angle.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
The saucer seems to be a vague Ambassador-kitbash. And the Ambassador's is round, too. Wnat about the Freedom? I her saucer is round, this one ir round, too. They are of the same type.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I think it's the other way 'round. (No pun intended... ) The screencap makes it appear circular because it's at an odd angle, and because half of it is gone and part of the other half is in the dark. Also remember that when it was shot, the starboard nacelle was bent out of place. It's the Jein photo that gives a less-distorted image of the ship.
And Capt Kyle, we don't know if the Freedom had the same saucer. We've never seen any image of the Freedom aside from the one waaaaay indescript screencap and the FF schematic. Although, the FF depiction doesn't seem to be too far off.
-MMoM Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
It is precisely because the nacelle is twisted that it gives the impression that the ship's on a tilt, but it isn't. Granted, one side of the saucer has been blown away, but look at the edge of the other side, the saucer is definitely circular. The Bridge module too, it's not at an angle, we're looking virtually right down on top of it.
The Freedom saucer BTW is almost certainly elliptical, like the other ships from the Galaxy family.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I feel so out of league here - I couldn't do any of this measuring stuff since I don't even have those differently scaled E-D models available. But I got a sudden urge to sprout out some stuff that may or may not be helpful.
1) When Ed Miarecki assembled his ships, he most probably did not have access to any studio models or their molds. He worked solely on ERTL kits and non-Trek materials. Which doesn't mean he wouldn't have customized a part or two (like the Kyushu bridge module).
2) Greg Jein had access to lots of Trek studio stuff, and devoted more time to the construction (for one thing, he only had to do two ships!). He was probably also unwilling to use the commercial kits, since he typically builds big.
3) And Okuda and Sternbach had access to both types of stuff. The only time they are known to have messed with the big BoBW ships is the attaching of a second nacelle to the Buran, though, and the first one would have been an ERTL part in any case.
4) The Niagara secondary hull size cannot be established properly by using the FF image, because even the shape is wrong there. The shape of the real Ambassador hull seems to be agreed on by most Ambassador drawings.
5) The Freedom is probably a big and detailed model, since it was used on the foreground like the other Jein ship. Doesn't mean she's a big ship in "reality", of course.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
^^^^
Now, then let's do a little poll: A, B, C, D, E or none of them?
After reviewing everything again (not changed in my chart yet), I have to say
B
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I tried this a long while back too.
I suspect that option D and E could be the same, if there's a sufficient margin of error on those calculations of the Constellation and Proto-Nebula.
It's either that (a ~240m ship) or a ship with a GCS nacelle. The problem with the small ship is that there's hardly any room left inside for the treknological goodies.
BTW, what's the size if you scale it up to New Orleans nacelles (yeah, I know they're elongated versions of the GCS nacelle).
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
275m. I had to insert another NO-schematic because the one I had was inaccurate (it just used downscaled nacelles). I'll upload the updated picture later. The 350m-estimation for the New Orleans stays the same since I didn't use the schematic to figure out its scale (I only did this with schematics from which I knew they were accurate).
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'm going to go w/ 'B' on your little poll there. However, it's possible that the answer is really both 'A' and 'B', because the two ships might actually have the same saucer. But that would make the Freedom diagram's saucer inaccurate, so fixing it would still bring the ship to a size somewhere between 'A' and 'B'.
And regarding the Niagara... The nacelle is twisted and the ship is turned. Look at how far the nacelle seems twisted in the screencap, and look at how far it's actually twisted in the Jein photo.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
I was never quite sure if the Niagara really used the Ambassador secondary hull (as Masaki tells us, the deflector and shuttlebay were blown away). It is a good argument that Jein had probably access to the Enterprise-C in work, though. In this respect the Galaxy-Niagara-Ambassador size relation seems right.
As for the Freedom, I have a clear opinion that Jein built the nacelles of his two ships to the same size (and probably the same size as the Galaxy nacelles). And I don't think that he put huge windows into the neck where the are shown in the FF schematic.
May I show the comparison images in a future update at EAS?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I say use a standard Galaxy nacelle. So that would be...let's see...option B. Just because the part that was used for the neck was a Constellation pylon doesn't mean that it was supposed to be to that scale, and Jein probably would have put different detail on the piece, (windows, smooth surface, some things like that...) not just leave it as it was.
-MMoM Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bernd: I was never quite sure if the Niagara really used the Ambassador secondary hull (as Masaki tells us, the deflector and shuttlebay were blown away). It is a good argument that Jein had probably access to the Enterprise-C in work, though. In this respect the Galaxy-Niagara-Ambassador size relation seems right.
As for the Freedom, I have a clear opinion that Jein built the nacelles of his two ships to the same size (and probably the same size as the Galaxy nacelles). And I don't think that he put huge windows into the neck where the are shown in the FF schematic.
May I show the comparison images in a future update at EAS?
Sure. If you need anything special, just tell me. Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I must be unusually dense today, it's taken me ages to figure out the diagram; now, however, I agree, it must be option B. The resized version looks a lot better anyway.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
It irks me that the FF Freedom image is turning out to be pretty accurate after all. The Freedom saucer isn't an incorrect cut'n'paste of Niagara, but actually vice versa. The general shapes aren't wrong, nor is the lack of visible impulse engines. And yet there are those stupid neck windows that disagree with the saucer superstructure deck height. They aren't cut'n'paste errors, and they are unlikely to be figments of the artist's imagination, either. How come this single part of the picture is messed up, but none of the rest?
Either the windows are wrong, or the saucer superstructure deck height is. Jein probably wouldn't make the error. The two choices seem to be that Jein manipulated the saucertop so that the apparent two decks are in fact just one (but if the saucertop is a pure custom piece, why build it in a fake two-deck format to begin with? It does show the "deck separation line" in the screencaps!) - or then he actually drew smaller and more numerous neck windows than shown (but why did the FF artist mess it up when everything else is detailed and seemingly correct?). Aargh!
If the first choice is right, then D or E is the likeliest correct scaling for the Freedom. If the second choice is right, then I go with B.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
