posted
As for updated ship information, what's the point of them simply inventing stuff?
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Because that's what they did before. And I have a ship list to update
-------------------- "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
They could have added registry info for the Centaur, Honshu, and other ships whose registries appeared and were not mentioned in the encyclopedia.
Learning that a runabout model had been relabeled as Ganda, I would be curious to know if the model had a new registry number. Or NCC-73918's name.
Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
posted
The Shenzhou works well as a 24/25th century Miranda-class replacement but certainly doesn't fit into the 2250s. Moreover, it's supposed to be older than the Discovery but looks more advanced.
The Discovery is in my opinion the ugliest hero ship in Trek's history by a long shot and one of the ugliest top 5 Federation designs.
I think the E-D and Voyager have some unflattering angles too and I had my qualms about the blatant Akira rip-off the NX-01 was, but this has no saving grace at all. It looks like one of those horrible FASA kitbashes from the 80s or a pizza wheel and I hope it gets destroyed by the space vamps before the season is over.
And what's with these cut outs? All they do is lengthen transport ways.
Still believe in sequential registries, so if it is indeed a new design, 1031 will irk me as well. Probably supposed to be an inane in-joke.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I fully endorse Spike's post, only seeking to add that the Discovery secondary hull side view looks like the Sovereign. Indeed, the neck reminds me of a Galaxy, just with a more extreme Sovereign-esque angle.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
I feel the same way about the Walker-class that I did about the NX-class: I really like the design, but definitely agree it looks too advanced for its time period.
Looking at those views of the Crossfield-class, though... At least I've finally nailed down exactly why it offends my asthetic sense so much: The saucer is way too small. If the diameter of the saucer was at least as big as the distance between the outer edges of the nacelles, I could tolerate everything else.
-------------------- "Kirito? I killed a thing and now it says I have XPs! Is that bad? Am I dying?"
-Asuna, Episode 2, Sword Art Online Abridged
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Nacellle's are just a tad too long. Not digging the bronze/brown hull coloration or the very flat delta secondary hull. If the nacelle's were canted just tiny bit instead of being straight horizontal I think I'd tolerate her more. Otherwise I agree that its the ugliest hero ship yet.
-------------------- "Its coming on. I just saw the wall move..."
Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
posted
Wow. Agree completely on nacelle pylon angle. Upswept a hair would make the ship only somewhat less ridiculous, but a vastly improved form of ridiculousness.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Crossfield-class. Oh, well, I guess Scott Crossfield presumably getting a ship/class named after him isn't the end of the world. I'm just worried that the Walker-class is named after Gen. Edwin Walker..!
quote:In reality, longtime Trek starship designer John Eaves revealed that the class name is actually named after X-15 test pilot Joe Walker, who flew spaceplanes for the United States in the mid-1960’s.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
