posted
Mr Asamov, those outlines look right too me, i would agree to it....but to be fussy isnt it an 'A-Wing' hull instead of an 'X-Wing' hull???
but besides that...its good.
Buzz
-------------------- "Tom is Canadian. He thereby uses advanced humour tecniques, such as 'irony', 'sarcasm', and werid shit'. If you are not qualified in any of these, it will be risky for you to attempt to decipher what he means. Just smile and carry on." - PsyLiam; 16th June
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Yup, you're right. The A-Wing. Just a small error. But TPTB may forgive me because this is not a Star Wars-Tech forum.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Cap'n - thanks! That makes it very clear! At least I was on the right track about the connie/intrepid bash... that saucer gives it away.
Oh, and how that Raging Queen comes to life when you mark in the boarders!
I'm still puzzled over what this A-wing exactly looks like - not a big SW tech head - I have an idea of what they look like - I think... one crashed into the Bridge of the Executor? Anyway can someone maybe do an 'above' schematic/grab one and tweak it - to give us an idea as to what they have done to it to fit it with the intrepid hull etc - we know what that looks like from lots of angles.
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
I was looking for a sideview of an A-Wing, but there is none, as far as I can tell. Oh boy, they always tell us how fantastic and wonderful Star Wars is, but if it ever comes down to something like a simple schematic, they have none. We can be really happy we're Trek-fans.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I've found out who the Elkins is named for. Judy Elkins was a VFX coordinator on DS9. Way back in the 80's, she was also a animator for TWOK.
So, do I earn a peek?
-MMoM
P.S.
I'm really having trouble visualizing this whole Centaur saucer thing. Can someone at least post a simple (crude, cut & paste, anything) illustration of the point?
Thanks, -MM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
That's amazing! It almost convinces me that there is actually a Raging Queen besides the Curry - although I still have the impression that the Curry damage patterns are identical to that on the Raging Queen. Or did they shoot the scene with the Curry, modified the model and then inserted the RQ into the background?
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So just what is the deal here? Are those pictures EVER going to get posted? Do you really think he would have even sent them to you if they needed to be kept from being viewed?
Sorry, just venting...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
One of the rare times I will ever agree with Mim. So when can we see these models? It's not like they're a closely guarded secret...unless they are. Mark (Dukhat) have you gotten any word from Drexler on whether we can have them previewed on this board?
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Fact is, Drexler wouldn't have sent out the photos in the first place if they weren't meant to be seen. At the very least, he would've mentioned that they're not to be distributed. What's the problem?
posted
Since the Elkins is the only ship that actually combines recognizable elements from two distinct eras (Intrepid hull, Constitution nacelles) instead of from adjacent eras (Connie nacelles on Excelsior hulls), I think the ship might warrant a more detailed excuse/explanation than the rest.
The idea that one could attach mismatching nacelles to damaged ships like so many spare tires is just not believable. If it were that easy, surely we would be seeing much more ships deliberately refitted with modern nacelles (see the other thread). In fact, the whole "Paramount kitbashes are Starfleet shipbashes" idea just plain sucks.
So here's an alternate idea: the A-wing plus the pylons plus the nacelles equals one whole tugship, dating from late TOS movie era. The said tug is hauling a surviving Intrepid (or more probably Yeager, given the low rego) primary hull... It would be a much prettier tug than the one we saw hauling the Frederickson!
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Mim and all the others are right. Look at my sig!
When I looked at the Elkins from the DS9TM first I thought the secondary hull is a reuse of the flying bomb from BoBW. And with those Danube-phylons/Constitution-nacelles, it looked like the soliton wave testship from TNG (as far as I know, the testbed for the drive was a reuse of the bomb). That wold have made sense, an old design used as a tug. But since it is an A-Wing, how dioes it work? I really don't think Starfleet has tugs looking like A-Wings with warp-nacelles flying backwards.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic