Topic: Is anybody ever going to do a fully-corrected Niagara drawing?
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
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.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
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).
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Ohhhhh...now I get it. You altered the niagara's nacelle-to-secondary hull proportions. Christ, I'm thick...
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
'*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).
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?
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
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.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
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.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
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.
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).
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) 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.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
