quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: [QUOTE]Sorry, no, it IS the (Magicam-built) TMP ship. The giveaways are: --The nacelles are Richard Taylor's art-deco-ish design (more complex overlapping curves than on the Phase II model) --The hangar deck is TMP shape (Phase II's was TOS shape) --The Impulse engine is Andy Probert's design (Phase II model had TOS type) --Rec Deck Windows --Proportion of saucer (larger on TMP ship) --The Officer's Lounge windows were Andy Probert's concept and didn't exist on the Phase II model --The TMP Aztec panel paint job
As to the superstructure, remember, the ship was built first with a Phase II-ish superstructure (Bridge and top decks), which Andy Probert then redesigned when they decided to make the ship self lit.
(I asked Andy about the Phase II model and he said he'd never seen it in person, just photos.)
Looking at that pic, though, I have to say I'm in the pro-pinstripe camp.
OK So, I mis-spoke exactly what I was meaning, but you still know what I meant. It's definitely NOT the TMP Enterprise, as the hangar doors are not detailed exactly as we see them in ST:TMP and beyond. Also, the Bridge and B/C deck are pre-TMP.
Thus, it is not the TMP Enterprise, but the predecessor in the design phase.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: OK So, I mis-spoke exactly what I was meaning, but you still know what I meant. It's definitely NOT the TMP Enterprise, as the hangar doors are not detailed exactly as we see them in ST:TMP and beyond. Also, the Bridge and B/C deck are pre-TMP.
Thus, it is not the TMP Enterprise, but the predecessor in the design phase.
Yeah, it's close but not quite.
I disagree about the hangar deck, tho. I think it's the same as the final version...but it's lit from below so the shadow of the fantail is partially obscuring the doors.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree, the fan-tail hatch is the same as final, as far as I can tell.
One thing I've always wondered was... when I looked at this version of the Enterprise as it is in THAT pic.
If they actually softened the edges of the saucer after this. I mean I wonder if they increased the radius of the rounding of the edges. This version always seemed to 'feel' sharper there. More like the TOS Enterprise's. Also look at the edges at the back of the connecting dorsal. Those too also seem much sharper, but I can't tell if It's an illusion from the back-lighting.
Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TheYoshinator: One thing I've always wondered was... when I looked at this version of the Enterprise as it is in THAT pic.
If they actually softened the edges of the saucer after this. I mean I wonder if they increased the radius of the rounding of the edges. This version always seemed to 'feel' sharper there. More like the TOS Enterprise's. Also look at the edges at the back of the connecting dorsal. Those too also seem much sharper, but I can't tell if It's an illusion from the back-lighting.
Andy told me he enlarged the saucer right off, so Magicam built it at that size, and that was it. They changed the superstructure and lower dome, but that's all. The edges didn't change. I suspect the fantail is the same.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TheYoshinator: If they actually softened the edges of the saucer after this. I mean I wonder if they increased the radius of the rounding of the edges. This version always seemed to 'feel' sharper there. More like the TOS Enterprise's. Also look at the edges at the back of the connecting dorsal. Those too also seem much sharper, but I can't tell if It's an illusion from the back-lighting.
The B&W pics on Phil Broad's Cloudster.com site have the same sharper look - I think it must have something to do with the B&W photography. Also, the model probably had a lot less coats of paint than it did by the time TUC rolled around. All that paint build-up probably added another couple of mm to the model
-------------------- It's life Jim, but not as we know it...
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Sorry, burning question of the moment alert:
Has he ever mentioned anything about the 'control room' above the hanger doors? On the refit model, it's just a bulge with painted-on windows, that glow red. Was taht a detail that got half-finished or is it actually supposed to be a control room? I realize that what we saw in ST: V is irrelevant, but the new hanger set didn't leave room for, or use, a control room above the bay doors.
-------------------- joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh (some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning) The Woozle!
Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I've always wondered that myself, tho I disagree that they're just "painted-on" windows. They appear to be well-flushed windows in most of the pics I've seen, and that includes the B & W pics at the StarshipBuilder site.
Anyhow, I believe the original intent was for it to be the primary hangar control room. I was under the impression that one or more controllers would be able to view out thru either the outside set of windows or an internal set of windows just over the bay doors that would look forward into the hangar bay. I drew this conclusion from the various pics/screen caps from TMP that appear on your site, Woozle, as well as some few other pics I've seen along those lines.
Technically, there's no reason why there couldn't be two hangar bay control rooms, tho it would be a waste of personnel, IMO. You could have the one that handles all approach control aspects and would hand-off to the interior control room from ST:V, which would handle actual landing & taxiing operations. That scene in ST:V certainly didn't show anyone in the outer control room windows, tho that doesn't mean someone wasn't there. It's also possible that there are automated systems in place that don't actually require anyone in the outer control room, but standard procedure - when the ships not on a skeleton crew - calls for someone to be there to at least monitor in the event of systems failures.
Just my thinking on it all.
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I think I'm going to spin-off a new thread, so the ANDY thread doesn't get to off track.
-------------------- joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh (some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning) The Woozle!
Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
