posted
IIRC, the Centaur did make it into the last update of the Encyclopedia, with the DS9 TM schematic. Class and registry weren't mentioned.
Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
... which means tht either they did not know the registry or they did not want us to know. For obvious reasons.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
....and they missed the shuttlebay at the front of the ship!!! Worse still, the Star Trek Magazine is running a feature on the Centaur next issue and the CGI image in the preview is of the inaccurate version from the DS9TM!!!
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Hmmm.. Taking another look (I enlarged the picture a bit), it DOES look like it has the correct structures. At least I see the 'forward shuttlebay', and the greeblies behind the bridge.
I had the same suspicions that it might be some of Mojo's work.
posted
Whatever the shadow thing ahead of the bridge is, It certainly alters the traditional Excelsior superstructure. The "pedestal" below the bridge would never go that far forward in an unmodified Excelsior saucer. Whether it's shown as in the model, or retouched somehow, remains unclear. But virtually all superstructure detail appears roughly correct, including the big blue-topped bridge and the small towers atop the impulse nozzles. At least to my wishful eye.
The only thing that could be missing would be the greeblies on the saucer rim, and that can be because of low resolution.
quote:....and they missed the shuttlebay at the front of the ship!!! Worse still, the Star Trek Magazine is running a feature on the Centaur next issue and the CGI image in the preview is of the inaccurate version from the DS9TM!!!
Um, perhaps you haven't been paying attention. We all know there's going to be an article in the Magazine about the Centaur. That's why this topic was started in the first place. And if you had read any of the last seven pages of this post, you would know that the CGI pic is NOT the inaccurate DS9TM version.
-------------------- "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
1) The original poster should have given a more specific name to the thread, which would help limit the scope of the discussion.
2) A new thread should have been created whenever someone felt like deviating from the original topic (I am merely guilty of replying to such deviations). This would have prevented seven pages from forming.
3) The UBB should enforce replies to specific people, which results in a thread whose subthreads are more visible.
The second option is best, although the other two do help. Nobody should have to read seven pages of uncategorized discussion when it is so easy to subdivide it into various topics, by simply creating a new topic, i.e. "U.S.S. Centaur: size"
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
1) The original poster should have given a more specific name to the thread, which would help limit the scope of the discussion.
2) A new thread should have been created whenever someone felt like deviating from the original topic (I am merely guilty of replying to such deviations). This would have prevented seven pages from forming.
3) The UBB should enforce replies to specific people, which results in a thread whose subthreads are more visible.
4) Posters could bother to read the first post before replying.
1) The original poster should have given a more specific name to the thread, which would help limit the scope of the discussion.
2) A new thread should have been created whenever someone felt like deviating from the original topic (I am merely guilty of replying to such deviations). This would have prevented seven pages from forming.
3) The UBB should enforce replies to specific people, which results in a thread whose subthreads are more visible.
The second option is best, although the other two do help. Nobody should have to read seven pages of uncategorized discussion when it is so easy to subdivide it into various topics, by simply creating a new topic, i.e. "U.S.S. Centaur: size"
Boris
Say what?
You may be right in that smaller, more specific threads are more manageable in some respects, (ie, you can get individual questions answered quicker and more directly than if you lump a bunch together, hence my reluctance to post an all-inclusive "Shiplist questions" thread) but that manageablility is negated if there get to be too many threads with similar or directly related topics runing at the same time. When such a thing occurs, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep track of who posted what in which thread, etc.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Why? Given the number of times the topic changes, why is the first post more important than the others? Furthermore, I just clicked on the U.S.S. Centaur topic and it took me to the last page, so the first page isn't even the obvious starting point.
If you are afraid that people will not read your reply because it isn't in the "hot" topic, but rather a new one, the newsgroups have an established way of handling this:
Centaur's size (WAS: U.S.S. Centaur)
As for who posted in which thread, why is that a problem if everybody stays on topic? The moderator could easily move any stray posts into a new thread. It's only that I am not sure if the moderators would have time for such constant policing, and this is where the specific reply function of the newsgroups comes in -- it automatically gives things more structure. Or maybe people should simply get into the habit of creating new threads.
I have not created a new thread on this subtopic because according to the current policy, it would be something for another section of the boards, which is a lot different from posting a subtopic of the U.S.S. Centaur.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
