------------------ "No, thanks. I've had enough. One more cup and I'll jump to warp." (Janeway, asked if she would like some coffee in "Once upon a Time") www.uni-siegen.de/~ihe/bs/startrek/
posted
It looks really good to me. The only problem I see is the Defiant length, which goes directly against canonical data. Of course, I don't want to see this turn into yet another Defiant length argument.
------------------ "Angels and Ministers of Grace, defend us" -Hamlet, Act I, Scene IV
posted
We've been through this before...saying that the VFX aren't canon is saying the show isn't canon. I mean, what good are lengths that aren't used on the show?
posted
Now, about the Freedom... For the sake of discussion, I'll go along w/ the idea that that is the actual design (though I would prefer more proof before embracing something so... atrocious...). Now, if I had to guess, I'd say that all the W359 kitbashes were made out of the same size model kits as the NO and Cheyenne. Therefore, the Freedom (and Niagara, if you had included it), should be scaled assuming it has a much smaller nacelle than a regular Galaxy. I'll go mess around in Photoshop and see what I come up with...
------------------ "Silence, you contemptible shrew!" -Stewie, The Family Guy
posted
TSN: I don't care so much about a few meters, but I might change the figures for the Galaxy, Excelsior and Intrepid in the next update.
The Akira could be 464m. I kept it at 440m, for this is already too big compared to the Steamrunner, for instance, *Frank *, nevertheless, I don't want to scale up the latter or scale down the Akira *Frank *.
Is the Prometheus figure from the Star Trek Magazine? Sounds correct.
The 381m length for the Centaur given in the DS9TM seems to be coincidentally correct, considering that all other kitbash dimensions are completely wrong.
Maybe I will scale the Oberth down in the next update, I forgot about the 120m.
Freedom: We can't be sure how this one was built. The saucer doesn't look like a Galaxy saucer (although it is probably one).
Niagara: It would have wasted too much area . I'm waiting for any evidence that it really looks like in the FF.
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
TSN: I don't really see any basis, on the model or in VFX to suggest 171m as the length. The number doesn't even come from the designer, it originated while the Art Department was drawing up scale charts for the Visual Effects, perhaps by a person scaling the ship next to that one-mile DS9 used in the charts. Ryan McReynolds suggested a few days ago that it may simply be a misread 360' (109.7m) figure, which as I then noted in my pages would likely be measured off of that fairly accessible Drexler's cutaway.
The issue is that there is no reason to assume that DS9 is a mile wide when shown with the Defiant. Otherwise why not assume this for every starship, and then recalculate all the official numbers, resulting in 35m runabouts or 500m Galaxies? No, for normal starships we assume that the problem lies with the DS9 diameter, and that there is *range* of optically distorted values, 700-2300m.
We really have to do the same for the Defiant. If all the other evidence suggests a 110m size, then what this means is that DS9 is 700m wide optically in all the docking shots, *not* that the Defiant is bigger. Some of you may still believe that there is more to this figure, but to me personally it is about as valid as the DS9 Tech Manual numbers from the ships section.
Jim Phelps
watches Voyager AFTER 51030
Member # 102
posted
Bernd: The Prometheus figure was given by Rick Sternbach in his forum as 1360 feet, read directly off of his blueprints after a sleepless night of pondering about that 535m long deck-line analysis-Prometheus I brought up.
*.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
