Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Centaur Schematics
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov: [QB] EDIT: It seems I made a common mistake; perpective. I compared the top view after posting, and it seems the nacelles only appear to be larger than they really are. This leads to another question: Should the drawing be "real" 2D, meaning if component A is 1/1000 of the original size, component B has to be as large, without any perspective, or should I include the perspective. To be honest, the smaller nacelles looked even uglier than the larger ones. And because my drawings are always much more of a "drawing" than a real "schematic", I guess I should leave it like this, despite the error. How did we handle this usually? I tried to think of any other ship where prespective made such a difference, but I don't think there are many because I can't remember a single one. Any suggestions? Original post: [Where do the nacelles come from? I'm talking about the model kit here. I thought they used the Reliant and Excelsior AMT-kits for the model. But it seems the nacelles are larger than they should be. Since I'm absolutely sure there has been only one Excelsior kit (besides the E-B, which was the same scale), and I'm quite sure I made no mistakes (I tried Bernds officially corrected schematic and my version - which is based on the dimensions of the model itself.). The nacelles are definitely not based on two Excelsior-nacelle-bottom parts. Could they be parts of the Reliant-kit? I didn't try it yet, but I think the nacelles are actually parts of the Constitution-style Reliant engines.] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3