quote:Originally posted by aridas: Ingram is so much more in keeping with the look of Trek ships. When Rick Sternbach says he wishes he could have used some of Todd Guenther's designs, I'm sure that is one of the ones he is thinking about.
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: the first, unbastardized version of the Ingram was passable, except the nacelles were dinky lookin.. i actually like the structure of the saucer and secondary hull.. kind of looks like an evolutionary step between the two ships, Excelsior and Connie refit
Version one is allright if the nacelles were thicker and that silly miranda rollbar that's serving as the nacelle pylons is replaced. It definitely looks lower tech than the standard Excelsior though. Version two is cool if the ship had Excelsior nacelles....VERY simmilar to my own USS Albion. Version three is idiotic: connie refit engines 200% larger is just a bad idea. Version four is an Excelsior amputee. Terrible. Best bet: just use the Merced class from ASDB with more detail instead as a stepping stone between the standard Excelsior and the Refit version.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, I was asking when was the first time we saw an Excelsior class' nacelle glow while at sublight. Thank you for your information, Siegfried.
And yes, that always-glowing nacelles were weird. It was even more weird when it was estabilished in Peak Performance that warp-glow-on-sublight doesn't even require working warp core...
Oh, and I think that all Ingrams are ugly
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Originally posted by aridas: Ingram is so much more in keeping with the look of Trek ships. When Rick Sternbach says he wishes he could have used some of Todd Guenther's designs, I'm sure that is one of the ones he is thinking about.
Ummm...no.
No, as in "No, I know which ones he meant"? If so which? Or was that "No, I don't like that idea and hope that's not one of the ones he meant"? Personally, I liked the Ingram, particularly the enlarged aft shuttle bay, but did not agree with the idea that all Excelsiors would be refit to that configuration. And "Space Control Ship" seemed to me to be a very awkward way to say "Carrier".
-------------------- Darkwing If you don't drink the kool-aid, you're a *baaad* person - Rev Jim Jones It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion - William Ralph Inge Almond kool-aid, anyone? - DW [email protected]
Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The only one I really like is the "refit" version, as those different nacelles don't look so bad. Personally, I think she'd look better w/the Excelsior nacelles. Leave the rest as is, tho, as I kind of like the way the main hull components look.
quote:Originally posted by Darkwing:[b] And "Space Control Ship" seemed to me to be a very awkward way to say "Carrier". [/QB]
More like "amphibious assault ship" than "carrier". Something that can take a planetary base and likely hold it and the sky above was the definition in both sets of the Ingram class blueprints. Only thing you'd need is "Marines" (some sort of ground forces) and a fleshing out of any fighters she carries and you'd be good to go. If a one-word description must be used, I'd call her more of a battleship than a carrier.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Darkwing: No, as in "No, I know which ones he meant"? If so which? Or was that "No, I don't like that idea and hope that's not one of the ones he meant"?
Actually it was more a response to the statement "Ingram is so much more in keeping with the look of Trek ships." But your second option works as well...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Darkwing & Griffworks both seem to be aiming at the same thing: the "Space Control Ship" designation ITRW stems from the then-topical "Sea Control Ship" concept that resulted in the Iwo Jima, Tarawa etc. etc. amphibious assault carriers.
However, even if this is what Guenther meant (and he did give the ship a rather pronounced shuttle hangar), it need not be true in the Trek universe. "Sea Control Ships" don't really control the sea - they control beaching areas. But Starfleet ideally would be more logical in inventing its designations, so a SCS should actually control space, not planets.
So I'd rather say that the SCS is a fancy future analogy to Air Superiority Fighter, a superb space combatant that can deny a certain area of space from enemy starships. Depending a bit on how one views the treknology of space superiority, one could also consider the SCS a future AEGIS, a multi-targeting interception system (hence the increased number of phaser banks).
In any case, my favorite Ingram is #2, with the thick customized nacelles and streamlined hangar, and without the silly pylon phaser cannon. Going by real-life naval analogy, multiple distinct types of ship-to-ship artillery became irrelevant when fire control increased to the point that battles were decided at the maximum practical range of the biggest cannon already, leaving nothing for the smaller ones to do. So a multi-cannon-type ship evokes feelings of the WWI era, while WWII probably is what one should aim at post-TOS. In fact, here's what I'd like to see:
ENT/pre-1600s: Random collection of nonstandardized guns aboard, with some pre-gun armaments (i.e. plasma cannon) still in use
pre-TOS/sailing ship heyday: Uniform rows of multiple yet poorly performing standard cannon
TOS/WWI: multiple types of high-performance cannon
post-TOS/WWII: one primary gun type merely supported by decidedly secondary other systems
TNG/late 20th century: very low numbers of very advanced "post-cannon" weapon installations (strip phasers)
post-TNG/cycle begins anew: mixed armaments when earlier state-of-the-art no longer is potent enough
posted
It should be noted that only the first and fourth Ingram configurations were created by Guenther. The second and third were done by some guy on the internet.
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The nacelle glow changed with the appearance of the CGI Excelsior used for DS9. While it was normally the top blue part of the nacelle that glowed with the black sides remaining unlit, the new CGI model had the top blue remain unlit while the sides now emitted a blue glow. This is similar in nature to the change done to the Miranda's nacelles in CGI form. Now, as in the case with the USS Majestic, the nacelle's were lit on the inner sides.
Check out the DS9 screencaps at Pedro's Shiporama to see for yourself.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
As mentioned in a couple of earlier posts, the first Excelsior seen with always glowing nacelles was the new 3' miniature built for "Flashback". The same miniature was seen in DS9 as the Malinche and the Fredrickson (in "Favor the Bold"). The later CG Excelsiors had always on nacelles too.
It's been said that the original ILM miniature did have wired nacelles, but for some reason they chose to never make use of the ability. I actually prefer the look of the Excelsior with non-glowing nacelles too, although it might just be that the original miniature looks so much better than the later models.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
