posted
I don't like to beg...but you will find my name listed on the Cheyenne reconstruction page.
Make it so... Art artbraune @ aol.com
PS: UM 16 - 5 = 11
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
quote:Originally posted by Spike:
quote:I have some pretty rare images of Okudagrams and stuff
That sounds interesting. What do you have?
Okudagrams? Let's see (some examples)..
category: standard the ship status display from late TNG, some pretty good shots of the 'Siege of AR-558'-modified chart (you can even figure out some names of the Klingons/Romulans);
category: diffcult to find the *original* of Gary Hutzels shot of the Moore (not an Okudagram, but while we're at it...), a good shot revealing some information of PADDs (crew duty roster for example), a shot revealing some detail of the library from Insurrection;
cartgory: woo-hoo I should have a clear picture of the datascreens of Lt. Chulak from DS9's 'Field of Fire', the screens revealing USS Pueblo and some exots from 7th season TNG, and if I check out some contacts I might be able to get my hands on a clear shot of the Wall Status Display from Star Trek 6.
I'm sure I forgot some, if you're looking for anything special, tell me.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
First of all, I think we will make the pics available as soon as Drexler gives permission to distribute them. Mark, did you already ask for the rest and for permission?
Now for the pics: Mark is right. The ships really look almost exactly as they are depicted in the DS9TM.
1. The "Raging Queen" (I first read "Racing Queen") is not exactly the ship we saw in "A Time to Stand". The nacelles are much like in the DS9TM drawing, but to me it seems as if they were tilted by about 30� from the horizontal position. They are fixed with what looks like main and auxiliary pylons, and the auxiliary pylons are attched to the impulse drive. The connection betwen the saucer and the rest doesn't become clear. There is some sort of "upside down ramp" at the saucer rear end.
2. The Intrepid/Constitution kitbash is just horrible. Imagine Drexler's illustration, but even much more colorful. Is "Elkins" a proper name?
3. Nothing more to say about the Constitution variant until we get more pictures of it.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I got the rest of the pictures today. I now have side & top views of all ships, plus two oblique views of the Yeager. Here�s the rundown for the new stuff:
Constitution variant top view: The nacelles are spaced a bit apart from each other, on short pylons. Fructose�s version of the ship on his website is just about accurate. There�s no name or registry on the saucer.
The �Centaur�: Although this ship was called the Centaur in the episode, that�s not what was written on the saucer. Unfortunately, the lettering & spacing is so small, it�s hard to read just what it says. It looks sorta like �Genesis� to me. The greeblies & the weapons pod ARE there; apparently Drexler just didn�t notice them or try to draw them in. There are also four greeblie �towers� near the rear of the saucer top. Here�s where Centaur modelmakers all around the internet will be collectively smacking their heads: The rear part of the Excelsior model is actually on top of the saucer! Let me explain. Imagine the dorsal view of an Excelsior engineering hull, with the shuttlebay & the �transwarp bubble� (or whatever it is), directly behind the bay. Well, that�s what�s on the saucer (facing the opposite direction). So like the Raging Queen, the shuttlebay is in front of the ship. The ship�s name is printed right on the shuttlebay, & the �bridge� is actually the transwarp bubble. There�s also coil/tube thingies all over the hull & on the pylons. Kinda hard to explain. The registry, as the Fact Files stated, is indeed NCC-42043.
The Yeager: Again, it�s pretty much how Drexler drew it, although the nacelles look as if they came off of the speedboat shuttle rather than the Intrepid. For all the continuity buffs out there, the ship�s name IS the U.S.S. Yeager, in direct contradiction with the Saber class ship of the same name. However, the registry is NCC-65674. The oblique shots look pretty good.
The 3-Nacelled Excelsior variant: Actually, this is my favorite ship of the bunch. I believe it was Timo who said that the ship would look much better if it were upside down. Well, surprise � it is! It�s the nacelles on the Excelsior pylons that are the first two, and the third nacelle is the one on the Constitution pylon. However, you can�t see this from the drawing, but there�s actually TWO Connie pylons holding the third nacelle. They�re inverted, so they start from the rim of the saucer & taper down to the nacelle. There�s a funky piece of ribbon or wire on the rear of the ship, presumably taking the place of the filming stand. There�s battle damage on the hull, & unfortunately no name or registry number.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
And adding to my worthiness, I'm the guy who first named the Shelley-class. Anyway, how about putting it up on a password protected thing, and thus keeping track of who's got access that way?
Mark
[ March 08, 2002, 19:46: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]
1.) Wasn't it Mike Okuda who said the Excel/Connie was named the Curry? How do we reconcile this? Besides, I thought there was no way the ship we saw onscreen looked the same as the one in the Manual?
2.) Now that a few more folks (I assume) have had a chance to look, is there any more insight as to which of the two registries for the Elkins and Raging Queen (Dukkie said either NCC-74121 or 74101 and NCC-42264 or 42284) is correct?
3.) Is the ship labeled The Raging Queen or just Raging Queen? (The previous posts are confusing.)
4.) Is the Elkins' secondary hull just an unmodified A-wing, or has it at least been partially/minimally disguised as a legitimate ship component?
Thanks, -MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
*rolls eyes at this banal techie clique backslapping*
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
So this is the ship that is really upside down!?! And it has 3 nacelles??
When you say constitution - do you mean refit at all? There is that little Connie Refit nacelle/saucer config.
And I reckon the Raging Queen is the ship that is in the distance, that looks somewhat like a miranda/shelly - near the D7 - explains the wierd nacelle angles Oh and couldn't they have changed that registry a little better - like 75466 instead of putting it back in the 6xxxx's Andrew
[ March 08, 2002, 22:45: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
It's not drawn upside down, it's just that the text says it has 3 nacelles, but from the side view you can't see how they're laid out, and many people thought it had 2 on top and 1 on the bottom, but it actually has 1 on the top and 2 on the bottom.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd like to know if these ships (Centaur and Yeager left aside) appeared in other episodes than "A Time to Stand".
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Monkey: That's not what our Minbari informant said in his post above. He said the Connie pylons taper down to the single nacelle they hold. So that makes the drawing upside-down. Either that, or the photo shows the ship upside-down.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm confused, if they are using the connie REFIT nacelle pylons for the ONE nacelle - these have always been shown going at an angle - not straight up or down... so how do they reconcile this, unless these pylons are the 'twos' and the exxie pylon is the 'one' (which works cause it's at right angles).
Oh, and are all the colour schemes all mixed and matched, or do they try and give it some semblence of uniformity?
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic