This is topic An ugly child, but that's not my fault... in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/1690.html

---

Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
http://www.geocities.com/cpt_kyle_amasov/Medusasd.jpg

Top view to follow. Anyway, I'm planning to create a page for the research of the kitbashes. Don't know if anyone is going to do something similar, of if you want to hepl, tell me.

Back to the ship; do you think I should add windows? The model itself has no windows allthough the model-kits (Excelsior and Enterpirse-B) have plenty of them. I think the ship could be some sort of ablative armor-prototype, and the windows have been removed from the design. Same reason why the Defiant has no windows.

And please, don't complain about the color.
 

---

Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
 
Not bad..

Well, if you're going to add windows, you'd best change the color scheme back into something remotely normal. That is, after all, what they did on the show - we had no idea that the Yeager bash was all rainbow-colored until we saw these pics, since the model shot was color-corrected to a normal scheme.

Mark

[ March 16, 2002, 12:11: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
 

---

Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
 
Yeh really nice. I don't know what help I can offer, but I'm planning a new 3D project which concentrates on building some of these DS9 Tech Manual ships. Funnily enough, starting with the Medusa, so in fact your picture will certainly help me some.
 

---

Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
The color scheme, yes. I had the ship with the basic color of the picture at first, but the think looked butt-ugly, so I changed it to 'Sterfleet-standard-light-grey'. The dirty look seems fitting, the original model had much brighter colors. I think I'll change the color of the other ships, but I think the colors for this one are good.

I tried the thing with windows, but it dodn't look 'real'. So I'll probably leave it this way.
 

---

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
 
She probably takes after her mother... ALL her mothers.

Why does it have two bridges, BTW? The upper warp nacelles looks like it could use a bit more reinforcing, where the Excelsior part joins with the main hull. All the thrusters on your saucer section are pointing downwards, which might make certain course changes difficult. Is that a Ent-B shuttlebay or impulse drive?
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Looks pretty good, Captain.

But, I have a request: Could we at least see what it does look like with standard colors? (ie, the color scheme from the Manual)

I'd like to take a look, at least...

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
This is the color of the ship if we take original colors. What I said, it looks stupid.

http://www.geocities.com/cpt_kyle_amasov/medusaorig.jpg

quote:

---

She probably takes after her mother... ALL her mothers.

Why does it have two bridges, BTW? The upper warp nacelles looks like it could use a bit more reinforcing, where the Excelsior part joins with the main hull. All the thrusters on your saucer section are pointing downwards, which might make certain course changes difficult. Is that a Ent-B shuttlebay or impulse drive?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndrewR:
Amasov! Can I just say I LOVE THAT MEDUSA DRAWING! Woooo! That first one - with the colour does look better. I really really like what you have done.

I've got to ask - what program did you use... is it easy to use... and where can you get it!?! ;o)

I have another theory now and the nacelles of this baby...

Look at the top two... the seem to be sort of 'dangling' off the edge. Maybe these nacelles are 'emergency nacelles' brought into to hastily replace damaged/destroyed nacelles allowing ships to be able to go to warp. They might have a number of old exxie nacelles lying around and can bring them in when needed - they just slot them on. Maybe the original version of the ship had another nacelle on top with two pylons similar to the bottom!?!

Anyway. I love your pic, and I'd LOVE to see you do more ships - even ships we've seen - I'd like to see the FC ships done in your style - I'm sick of seeing the encyclopaedia schematics of them - they seem to be the only ones on the net.

Andrew

---

Thanks.

Micrografx 8.0 is the program I use. Before I got it I used Paintship, but this one is easier to use, allthough it lacks some Photoshop features. And as far as I remember, I got the the budget version (I think they are allready at 9.0) for €15 (or do you write it 15€? No idea... ). It's very easy to use if you know some small 'tricks'.

My nacelle theory was another one: What if the ship originally used 2 nacelles? the two at the top? The third may have been added when the ship was heavily damaged. I imagine some sort of Akira-secondary hull, an Excelsior hull directly attached to the saucer. The thing was blown away and Sterfleet used abother saucer to replace it. Maybe they added the third nacelle to increase her spead. If the warp core was running down from the top of the saucer to the bottom of the secondary hull, it was destroyed, too and replaced with a smaller one. To compensate this, they added a third nacelle to create a stable warpfield with a lower amount of energy.

OK, the theory is a little bit far-fetched, but I really have no idea why they would add a third nacelle, connected with the main budy with two instead of one phylons. In other words: Why does the lower nacelle need the energy of two main plasma conduits running down instead of just one, like any other nacelle.

Hey, maybe I'll sketch up the thing I imagined. I'm sure it will look a lot better tha this thing.

And for my 'future projects': I first wanted to complete the kitbash ships for my project, and then go on with something new. I always wanted to try the Freedom. Maybe I'll do the Norway or Steamrunner, too. Because you are right, the FC-ships look really ugly.
 

---

Posted by Akula (Member # 319) on :
 
Well, in terms of theories about the ships, I have to beleive that these ships how ever ugly probly were not built just for the war. The expense in time and resources of trying to connect odd componets and systems plus the fact that these ships have older regesties indicates to me that these ships were clearly design not in a state of emergency but rather as normal ships.
Why go to all the trouble when you could reactivate moth-balled ships or construct new mirandas or excelsiors, quicker then it would take to combine odd parts and make a whole new design.
 

---

Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
Hey, I came up with something that might have been the original configuration of the vessel. If you ask me, it looks like a Mediterranean-class vessel (not that I would know how a Mediterranea-class vessel looks like, but...)

http://www.geocities.com/cpt_kyle_amasov/Ismellkitbash.jpg
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
You should send it to Bernd so he can substitute it for the Manual pic he has in his database. (He's trying to get all-corrected versions.)

Your comment about thrusters confuses me. As far as I know, those squares around the saucer rim *are* the RCS quads...

And I thought we settled that the Ent-B aft saucer modules are additional IMPULSE ENGINES, not shuttlebays as you keep saying...have I missed something?

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
I'll send it to him when I completed the top-view.

And whether those are shuttlebays or impulse engines: the things are neither the former nor the latter. I have no idea what they are. The things on board the E-B are another question. The E-B MSD says they are shuttlebays.

Let's put it this way (concerning the thrusters): They appear to be RCS thrusters, but they could also serve a different purpose. I'm not sure about that.
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
*jumps up and down* Shuttlebays!

There's enough to go either way, but I prefer the notion that: 1) The stock Excelsior isn't THAT underpowered, 2) the MSD in Generations isn't THAT inaccurate, and 3) Starfleet engineers DIDN'T build something with impulse engines exhausting directly onto the nacelles.

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
The diagram in the movie sketchbook says Main Shuttlebay, P/S. I wanted to post the picture here, linked from EAS. but the diagram there says 'Main Impulse Reaction chamber' or something, and has been modified (the shuttlehangar has been removed and replaced with some impulse engines). Still, I don't see a reason why there should be 3 impulse engines (the middle engine is remains from the standard-Excelsior). Furthermore, the exhaust of the engines is right in fron of the bussard ramscoops. And I don't have any idea how to explain that.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 

quote:

---

And whether those are shuttlebays or impulse engines: the things are neither the former nor the latter. I have no idea what they are.

---

Wha?? Surely they would be whatever they are on the Ent-B...

quote:

---

The E-B MSD says they are shuttlebays.

---

The E-B MSD also completely omits the large protrusions on the secondary hull.

quote:

---

Furthermore, the exhaust of the engines is right in fron of the bussard ramscoops. And I don't have any idea how to explain that.

---

But you do have an idea how to explain shuttlebays that glow red at impulse?

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus:
There's enough to go either way, but I prefer the notion that: 1) The stock Excelsior isn't THAT underpowered, 2) the MSD in Generations isn't THAT inaccurate, and 3) Starfleet engineers DIDN'T build something with impulse engines exhausting directly onto the nacelles.

---

1.) It isn't, the upgrade is just THAT much more powerful.
2.) See my comment in above post.
3.) Good point, but I think there's probably enough space in between for whatever exhaust there is to dissipate without causing any bussard damage.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:

quote:

---

And whether those are shuttlebays or impulse engines: the things are neither the former nor the latter. I have no idea what they are.

---

Wha?? Surely they would be whatever they are on the Ent-B...

---

You forget that the Impulse Modules/shuttlebay doors are missing. So if those are the impulse engines, this have to be some new sort of rocket drive, and if those are the shuttlebay, they have to nail the shuttles on the floor because they would fall out of the hangar at high velocity.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The E-B MSD says they are shuttlebays.

---

The E-B MSD also completely omits the large protrusions on the secondary hull.

---

But after all, it's as official as every MSD.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, the exhaust of the engines is right in fron of the bussard ramscoops. And I don't have any idea how to explain that.

---

But you do have an idea how to explain shuttlebays that glow red at impulse?

---

They don't glow red. They are painted white, but the close red-glowing bussard ramscoops light them up.

[ March 17, 2002, 13:17: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
 

---

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
They glowed red. Shuttlebays don't glow red. Impulse engines glow red. They are impulse engines. So
 

---

Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
3.) Good point, but I think there's probably enough space in between for whatever exhaust there is to dissipate without causing any bussard damage.

---

Why should they put a second and third engine on top of the saucer if they knew the secondary hull has no impulse engine at all? What if they seperate? And don't tell me they do it the Constitution way: 'Eject and forget'. In 200 years they didn't learn how to build a ship with the ability to seperate and reconnect?
 

---

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov:

Why should they put a second and third engine on top of the saucer if they knew the secondary hull has no impulse engine at all? What if they seperate? And don't tell me they do it the Constitution way: 'Eject and forget'. In 200 years they didn't learn how to build a ship with the ability to seperate and reconnect?

---

You were CLOSE to my theory Kyle...

I reckon that the EXTRA impulse engines are separate from the original impulse engines. I.e. when the saucer separates, there will be now impulse engines for both the saucer AND the engineering section - I would say the 'middle engines' remain on the engineering section and the 'new' engines are employed in saucer operations. This then doesn't conflict with the 'being in the way of the nacelles' - they might GLOW but they might not be active. Only active when the saucer is separated.

Oh and remember the bussards of the Ex-Ref are blue.
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
Then again, just because the 23rd century shipwrights might have been able to build ships that separate and reattach doesn't mean they would want to. Even in the 24th century, this capacity is considered a novelty, and a curiosity of little operational value.

If the extra impulse engines are only supposed to operate in cases of saucer separation, then why are they lit in "Generations"? And why couldn't shuttlebays glow red on this ship when they glow so distinctly blue on the Mirandas? Is there a regulation about shuttlebay glow colors? There doesn't seem to be one on impulse engine colors...

In any case, even if the Medusa thingamabobs aren't complete assemblies (lacking the "door" part and the lower half), they could still be shuttlebays. The mechanical doors could have been jammed open, or the forcefields rendered inoperable, by battle damage...

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
There's a lot more. The E-refit's impulse engines glowed a dull orange-red at some times, but a bright blue at others...

The Reliant's shuttlebays also glowed bright blue -- or did they...

The E-D's shuttlebay doors -- from the inside -- usually show a ruddy glow of some kind through the translucent inner door panels. The outer doors of more recent ships -- the Galaxy and Ambassador classes, for example -- have opaque outer doors. The glow from the Miranda and Constellation shuttlebays (again, for example) is coming through the doors from inside. Supposing these are landing floodlights, I see them switching from blue to red, as red preserves night vision. And they switched to the opaque outer doors when pilots objected to flying toward what looked like powered impulse engines.

Don't ask me why Mirandas and Constellations didn't make the same switch -- the real-world explanation is they don't ponder such things, and just carry the models, unmodified from their first appearances, forward into a completely different timeframe. It would be something I'd modify in any "Special Edition" treatment, myself...

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
What if it's both.

Now, before you start conjuring up images of toasted shuttles flying into fusion plasma wake, hear me out. What if the extended box structures can be shuttlebays OR impulse decks? The former can provide extra evac room & the latter extra STL maneuverability. When I built my Juno-class model, I used the E-B saucer & I made the boxes shuttlebays because I had a better place to put the impulse deck. Why can't it be that on the E-B & Lakota they were IPS, but on, say, the Livingston & the Berlin they wanted extry shuttles?

Time & time again, we're told that every Starfleet ship is "modularly adaptable." Here's a new module. Here's more adaptability.
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
Personally, I often try hard to invent specific and special roles to any "modifications" done on a select few ships of an established design. In contrast, I try hard *not* to invent too specific roles for the gadgetry I see on "regular" starships - because if I decide that a component seen on two ship types is a vital thing (like a nav deflector) and then I see a third ship that lacks this component, I'm screwed.

The boxes on the Excelsior-mod saucer are definitely non-vital additions, since they didn't become a standard feature of all the Excelsiors. They must give the Ex-mod some special and specific capability. But if they are impulse engines or shuttlebays, they don't introduce any new capability, they just augment an existing one.

On a ship kitbashed from Excelsior components, however, the boxes could be crucial. A ship like the Centaur or the Medusa could lack shuttle capability altogether if not fitted with such boxes. Perhaps we could say that the 2290s saw the introduction of the first Excelsior derivatives, with the same saucer but without the secondary hull. This necessitated the invention of the shuttle boxes, and Starfleet then tried them out on a standard Excelsior just for the heck of it...

Any of the DS9 TM Excelsior-kitbashes could date from the 2290s, really, with prototype introduction followed by an extensive period of very low-intensity production - just as with the regular Excelsiors. That would nicely explain the use of Miranda components on the Centaur, or LN-64-lookalike nacelles on the Curry and the Raging Queen, since those were in abundance in the 2290s.

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by Fedaykin Supastar (Member # 704) on :
 
hehe

quote:

---

What if they seperate? And don't tell me they do it the Constitution way: 'Eject and forget'. In 200 years they didn't learn how to build a ship with the ability to seperate

---

...well they also didnt learn that seatbelts are pretty important and perhaps getting a bunch of fuses on the bridge consoles might be a safe investment too!

Buzz
 

---

Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Mighty Monkey of Mim:
The E-B MSD also completely omits the large protrusions on the secondary
hull.

---

quote:

---

Good point, but I think there's probably enough space in between for
whatever exhaust there is to dissipate without causing any bussard
damage.

---

Uh-huh. So you've got superheated ionized gas roaring out of the exhaust port at relativistic speeds straight into the engines. Anyone else out there think it's going to cool off to tolerable temperatures in the space of about 70 meters?

Guys, if we're going to go a few more rounds on this question, let's give it its own thread and go back to discussing the DS9 frankensteins, ok?
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
In the spirit of that, I've been noodling over a lot of stuff about the Centaur in my modelling endeavours. First of all, I've always known I wanted to base it off the E-B saucer so I would have those boxes for shuttlebays...

I've always had a problem with the screengrabs of the Centaur from "A Time To Stand". The windows visible on the bottom of the saucer would have to be on the floor. So I left those off for the time being.

Now with these pics from Mr. Drexler, I've been able to get a good layout for the windows on the top of the saucer. I did the port side first, and then mirrored the ones from the starboard side over to supplement, and am then using the resulting layout as a guide for the starboard side in its entirety. And hopefully, that's not unclear. I noticed in laying them out that there are clear spots for two radial corridors each port and starboard which have no windows above them.

The problem of scale I'm proposing be solved by keeping the saucer the same size as a stock Excelsior saucer. The Miranda-style bridge is then reworked to be simply a raised superstructure behind the forward cowling, and the bridge dome I've replaced with the domed prototype bridge module of the NX days of the Excelsior. Fits perfectly. And that forward cowling, as I said elsewhere, makes a spectacular navigational deflector.

Lastly, I'm resculpting the remaining four dorsal phaser banks into four mini phaser strips, of Ambassador tech, but still very primitive. The ventral phasers are still ball turrets.

I just wanted to share all this as a suggestion for other modellers and drafters out there, to get feedback, and also to get ideas for what I should do about the ventral windows, the phaser cannons, and the torpedo pod... Also, to get your views on what I should use for the dorsal side greeblies.

--Jonah

[ March 18, 2002, 05:15: Message edited by: Peregrinus ]
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
Call me a purist, but I think it would be a good idea to keep the phasers, the phaser cannon and the pod as they are, and also to include those floor-mounted windows. This may have been the first ship for which such great numbers of portholes were built, and the engineers simply got a bit overeager in their desire to give every cabin a clear view into space...

I'm all for calling the bow "doors" a deflector array, and the coloration should then reflect that. Otherwise, I suggest subdued "Starfleetish" colors instead of the ones we see in the Drexler photos.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on the scaling basis of the ship. I've always wanted the Centaur to be as small as she looks in comparison with the Jemmie bug in "A Time to Stand", and using the Miranda bridge and roll bar as scaling benchmarks would give exactly that result.

(Also, I like to think that this is the oft-mentioned but never-seen Renaissance class; and at least USS Aries of that class is supposed to carry at least one shuttlepod. So I like to think that some ships have the shuttlebay boxes while others don't. I'm a sucker for "mission-customized" ships anyway...)

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 

quote:

---

Then again, just because the 23rd century shipwrights might have been able to build ships that
separate and reattach doesn't mean they would want to. Even in the 24th century, this
capacity is considered a novelty, and a curiosity of little operational value.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shik:
What if it's both.

Now, before you start conjuring up images of toasted shuttles flying into fusion plasma wake, hear me out. What if the extended box structures can be shuttlebays OR impulse decks? The former can provide extra evac room & the latter extra STL maneuverability. When I built my Juno-class model, I used the E-B saucer & I made the boxes shuttlebays because I had a better place to put the impulse deck. Why can't it be that on the E-B & Lakota they were IPS, but on, say, the Livingston & the Berlin they wanted extry shuttles?

Time & time again, we're told that every Starfleet ship is "modularly adaptable." Here's a new module. Here's more adaptability.

---

Who says that the shuttles have to leave through a door? what if the platforms on top of the bay are the starting ramps for the shuttles, much like the DS9-Runabout bays? If that's the case. the red-glowing plates could be additional exhaust ports for the ship's engines.
 

---

Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus:
In the spirit of that, I've been noodling over a lot of stuff about the Centaur in my modelling endeavours. First of all, I've always known I wanted to base it off the E-B saucer so I would have those boxes for shuttlebays...

I've always had a problem with the screengrabs of the Centaur from "A Time To Stand". The windows visible on the bottom of the saucer would have to be on the floor. So I left those off for the time being.

Now with these pics from Mr. Drexler, I've been able to get a good layout for the windows on the top of the saucer. I did the port side first, and then mirrored the ones from the starboard side over to supplement, and am then using the resulting layout as a guide for the starboard side in its entirety. And hopefully, that's not unclear. I noticed in laying them out that there are clear spots for two radial corridors each port and starboard which have no windows above them.

The problem of scale I'm proposing be solved by keeping the saucer the same size as a stock Excelsior saucer. The Miranda-style bridge is then reworked to be simply a raised superstructure behind the forward cowling, and the bridge dome I've replaced with the domed prototype bridge module of the NX days of the Excelsior. Fits perfectly. And that forward cowling, as I said elsewhere, makes a spectacular navigational deflector.

Lastly, I'm resculpting the remaining four dorsal phaser banks into four mini phaser strips, of Ambassador tech, but still very primitive. The ventral phasers are still ball turrets.

I just wanted to share all this as a suggestion for other modellers and drafters out there, to get feedback, and also to get ideas for what I should do about the ventral windows, the phaser cannons, and the torpedo pod... Also, to get your views on what I should use for the dorsal side greeblies.

--Jonah

---

I think those are no windows at all. No matter if the saucer is Excelsior-size or the bridge is Miranda-size, those windows don't fit. The wall is too flat - the windows would be on the floor - and there are too many.
So either the ships has been constructed for a species that is roughly 50 centimeters 'tall' or they serve a different purpose. Maybe some exhaust ports. Or predecessors of the Intrepid-sensorplates.

[EDIT] Just want to test something...



[EDITED AGAIN] Arrr... it seems my new web host works.

[ March 18, 2002, 08:06: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I say stay true to the studio model (as gad-awful as mess as it is) and don't go making "adjustments." Yeah, there's some damn weird shit going on with that ship, but it's all part of it's charm...

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Pity... I was hoping for a bit more support for a "cleaned-up" version of this puppy -- one that is meant to stand up to close scrutiny.

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 
OK, here is my final version of the Medusa. I think it will be up at EAS soon, and it's at my page. Here's a direct link:

[EDIT]
Forget that, it'S still at my page, but this is a perfect chance to try the flare upload system...

http://lobotomy.pleh.net/~flareupload/uploads/742/Medusawn.jpg
[/EDIT]

(The version at EAS wont have name/registry, this one has.)

[ March 24, 2002, 15:33: Message edited by: Cpt. Kyle Amasov ]
 

---

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
*screams* a *TOP* view... love it with the colours. Did we get to see a photograph of the top... I can't remember - we got a side view - was that the only pic of the Medusa DD sent?

Nice work - please we have to see more ;o)

Andrew
 

---

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
No, we had a top view photo.

Is the general assumption that there are two Connie pylons coming off the bottom of the saucer that come together in a V, below which is the lower nacelle? A front view would be pretty cool.

Oh, and while we're at it, would anyone become shocked and dismayed if I said I've actual come to like this ship quite a bit? It (along with the Connie-based affair) is perhaps the best of the ATtS kitbashes, and would fit in quite OK as a standard ship design from the late 23rd/early 24th centuries. Certainly seems a bit unfair to continue calling it the Medusa, no?

[ March 24, 2002, 22:04: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Last Unicorn pegged it as the Chimera class, for what it's worth...

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_Tom:
A front view would be pretty cool.

---

Here it is:

front view

Hehe, what do you say? Wrong ship? Oops.
Let me see what I can do for you, but first of all I wanted to try another kitbash or the Freedom-class or something totally different (Norway anyone?)

quote:

---

Oh, and while we're at it, would anyone become shocked and dismayed if I said I've actual come to like this ship quite a bit? It (along with the Connie-based affair) is perhaps the best of the ATtS kitbashes, and would fit in quite OK as a standard ship design from the late 23rd/early 24th centuries. Certainly seems a bit unfair to continue calling it the Medusa, no?

---

I like it, too, that's why I did it.
 

---

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
Amasov! Yes... something different - the Norway/First Contact ships (except Akira... atm) would be GREAT - I'm sick of seeing those bloody Encyc schematics as the only ones around (or those nasty Fact Files line drawings).

I too, like your Niagra schematic - I noticed now you have a front view to that too! Everything has a little 'shadow' - is there anyway of giving the deflector/most of the blue parts some depth/shadow?

Yes, I've just viewed the Tri-Ex-Nac (i.e. Medusa)'s top view - yeah I remember seeing it

Oh, BTW, again - just how fucking cool is Bernd's site!?!

[ March 25, 2002, 17:03: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
 

---

Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :
 
Hey Peregrinus, I'm with you on the "cleaned up" version. I'll probably get around to building a true to life Centaur replica someday myself, but for now I'm planning the more austere, less freakish type to go with my prior E-B/Centaur kitbash. Check out the model railroad part of your local hobby store for detail parts - vents, AC units, etc. They make great greeblies.

Robert
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Thanks, Robert. I hadn't thought of that...

Care to join me on an Elkins, too?

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :
 
Sorry, but that one is just TOO freakish. I couldn't bear the thought of chopping up one of my two remaining Voyager models only to mutate it into that freak of nature. Plus, doing THAt do an otherwise unoffending F-14 borders on the criminal. Kidding! Now, the Yeager is another story. I might get around to doing that one, someday.

Oh, if you can find some cheap armor models, there are plenty of little odds and ends in there to greebly up your Centaur.

Robert
 

---

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
 
You people in the US are lucky - models must be very cheap - they've always been VERY expensive here. (I guess the importing etc.)
 

---

Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :
 
Actually, they were very cheap after AMT/ERTL stopped production. I grabbed about twenty Excelsiors and Enterprise-Bs at $4.99 USD apiece at a closeout store. Kitbashing heaven, here I come! Unfortunately, they're now becoming rather scarce at those low prices. Supply and demand, like everything else.

Robert
 

---

Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
 
except gasoline of course:

When the demand is low sell high
when the demand is high sell higher
when the demand tampers off sell even higher
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
God bless our Thief-In-Chief and his oil baron cronies...

...cuz no one else will...

--Jonah

[ March 27, 2002, 21:00: Message edited by: Peregrinus ]
 

---

Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
 
Last I checked it was worse when Clinton was in office...
 

---

Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
 
delete double post

[ March 28, 2002, 15:43: Message edited by: J ]
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
I don't remember Clinton restricting gasoline because the prices were getting too low... Please don't get me started. The paper trail is there, and I don't want this turning into a political poop-flinging match...

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by J:
Last I checked it was worse when Clinton was in office...

---

Maybe you should check again...
 

---

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
thats the problem with the world. you say no one should fling poo, but the right after thats said, some monkey flings poo! gaddamn monkeys always fling poo.. its what monkeys do.

monkey, dont fling poo

[ March 29, 2002, 23:45: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
 

---