posted
I don't know where to find the Federation Starship Recognition Chart online, except on my hard drive, which isn't exactly online since it sits far away from where I sit at the moment and is on holiday anyway. Struggling to bring the Chart to you at the earliest convenience.
(whilst a lot of ships in this publication have had major details changed from their original appearance the Moscow is very consistent with what was shown in SFC).
Please note that my site is undergoing a bit of a revamp and a few bits will be dodgy for a short while.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "An armed society is a polite society"
Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Manjuice: Mike, dude, you posted the scan from Issue 6 like two pages ago.
hrm.. perhaps it is time to stop doing drugs..
PREHAPS NOT!?
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
hey, i didn't even post that pic, it was Captain Doh, and it was a month ago..
BTW, Woody, that is insane. i never got to be an advanced Trek glue-sniffer, but i built a few models in my day, and i got to say your work looks amazing.
have you decided whether you are using the Nordenskold sideview or the other USS Moscow one from the game? There's a pretty good difference between them.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
If it were my project, I think I'd use the "Moscow" one, with three exceptions: lose the satellite dish, lose the gigantic impulse thingy on the back of the saucer, and possibly make the bridge larger. I'd use the "Nordenskjold" versions of those three traits. But that one's neck and ventral saucer are just silly.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:have you decided whether you are using the Nordenskold sideview or the other USS Moscow one from the game? There's a pretty good difference between them.
Thank you very much! As far as the profile I'll be using, the USS Moscow is the closest. The main problem with most USS Moscow profiles is they don't match the original painting. In the elevation above it has the impulse section elevated above the saucer a good deal. In the painting the top of the saucer is flat as a pancake and if the impulse section rises above it, it is very slight. On mine the impulse section will be hanging down. My saucer will be convex like the elevation above, because I think it looks better. There is really no "official" pics of the bottom or side. I've played around with several side pics but they don't translate very well to a physical model. It will be very much like the Moscow elevation above but in my opinion sleeker. I have also decided to make the deflector dish part of the secondary hull, very much like the TOS Enterprise. My efforts have been made harder because I'm trying to engineer this as a resin kit. I'll be adding pic as I go because this project is for a Star Trek group scratchbuild with about 15 particapants. I'm hosting the build and I hope the how-to pics help our first time scratchbuilders. Anyone wanting to join let me know. The build ends on Dec. 1st.
-------------------- "An armed society is a polite society"
Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
