capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Aridas, thanks so much for the info. i thought i was simply crazy in that i could never find pics of those ships.
BTW, on the matter of Hermes revisionism,i don't think that its impossible to reconcile the different attempts at designing and redesigning it.. perhaps only a couple of vessels were built of the Franz Joseph configuration, then more vessels could have been built as a variant with the dorsal deflector. we havent actually seen the whole class though, and one of my favorite parts of SotSF was that it showed many variations witihn single classes of starships. this way, the FJ version remains accurate as the prototype, but we can tailor the rest of the class to better fit our aesthetics and understanding of Treknology..
the same goes for the Federation dreadought.. i see lots of room for in-class variation.. it was a huge wagon, im sure they revised it a few times there was lots of room for improvement.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Masao: StarCruiser: Yeah, you're not likely to see any elliptical dishes on my ships (or variations of other people's ships). My idea of the TOS design aesthetic is that it relies on fairly simple circles and straight lines. So, I will continue to work within my TOS parts box without borrowing fromTNG or ENT. As Dax said: "I love classic 23rd century design." Of course, your idea of what TOS looks like may differ from mine.
Another editorial comment: If I were FJ, I might be surprised that anyone took my work as some sort of gospel that must be religiously adhered to. If he were still around, he would readily admit that his schematics have numerous inaccuracies in relation to onscreen images and perhaps even illogical components (such as the dish on a stick).
I'm disappointed. Is no one going to bitch about the registry? (adapted from TAS)
PS to MM: It's oil and water.
I don't care for the registry either, prefer the FJ approach there (forget that "assigned as produced" stuff).
I don't particularly care for the NX-01 design either, but I have no issue with a simple eliptical disk as I don't think it's that far off from the classic Jefferies look (by the way - TOS is by FAR my fav - grew up with it).
Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: BTW, on the matter of Hermes revisionism,i don't think that its impossible to reconcile the different attempts at designing and redesigning it.. perhaps only a couple of vessels were built of the Franz Joseph configuration, then more vessels could have been built as a variant with the dorsal deflector. we havent actually seen the whole class though, and one of my favorite parts of SotSF was that it showed many variations witihn single classes of starships. this way, the FJ version remains accurate as the prototype, but we can tailor the rest of the class to better fit our aesthetics and understanding of Treknology..
the same goes for the Federation dreadought.. i see lots of room for in-class variation.. it was a huge wagon, im sure they revised it a few times there was lots of room for improvement.
Accepted, but why can't view the original configuration alongside the refits? As I stated earlier, some of us will come along here and see the Hermes and Federation as they are drawn here, and accept this particular drawing as original. I'm not bashing Masao's interpretation of Hermes (though I WOULD bitch about the hull number. I prefer Aridas's take in that department), but when you start bending and shaping Mr. Franz's material to fit artistic liscence, I get a little edgy if the original source material is not cited, literally in this case.
Like I said, I am a fan of refit specifications for Star Fleet vessels (Afterall, my favorite design is the Enterprise Class as a worthy refit of Constitution), so do not take my suggestions as an attack on creative liscence.
For example, Reverend did a fine job of presenting the original studio of Enterprise alongside a rendering of the FJ blueprints for USS Constitution.
-------------------- All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by. . .
posted
Except that this is Masao's Starfleet Museum, and not FJ's or anyone else's Museum. And knowing the quality of both the EAS and SFM sites, I'm sure credits will be given wherever due.
quote:Originally posted by Harry: Except that this is Masao's Starfleet Museum, and not FJ's or anyone else's Museum. And knowing the quality of both the EAS and SFM sites, I'm sure credits will be given wherever due.
Again, accepted Harry. I did not presume that Masao would re-draw FJ's original work and leave it go un-credited. Its just perhaps wishful thinking that the original drawing might be presented alongside this refit to compare and contrast. Makes for decent engineering discussion.
-------------------- All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by. . .
Your cutout on the bottom of the Federation is not out of line at all. On a sketch FJ did in '73 or so it had a more pronounced slope which allowing for the crudeness of the sketch could have been considered a cutout. Also in that drawing he placed the shuttle bay at the rear and had a much smaller "sensor dish" below it.
Always wonderd what FJ's reaction was when someone said.... Yo Franz, that dish thingy on the front of the Enterprise is a deflector dish....
IP: Logged
posted
There is always room for subclass discussions in engineering. Take the Constitution (II) in comparison with the Tikopai and Enterprise Class' in SotSF for instance.
It would be interesting if Masao would present this refit specification as a possible subclass variant for the Hermes, by choosing one of the appropriated names from the FJTM. Think?
-------------------- All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by. . .
quote:"I'm not sure how you would end up with a square rear like in your revision."
It's hard to explain in words, but it would be even harder for me to try to figure out how to show you in Cinema 4D, due to my lack of experience with my chosen CGI software. So words will have to suffice. The deflector housing is circular in cross section at the front, just behind the dish. It would gradually become rectangular in cross section until it is fully rectangular with a width that matches the width of the dorsal. At that point it smoothly tapers into the dorsal, just ahead of the flush vents. So, if you could extract the deflector housing from the ship and look at it in isolation, it would be circular at one end, and at the other be rectangular, with the rectangle being the height of the original circle, but the width of the dorsal.
I'm assuming that the deflector housing is smaller in diameter than the maximum width of the dorsal. If it is larger, then the cicle at one end will have to taper to a square that is the width of the dorsal.
Now I know what it means when they say that a picture is worth a thousand words. I could have sketched it and scanned the sketch and posted the thing in the time it took to describe it. If you don't understand my convoluted explanation, I will try to do just that.
quote:Originally posted by Anduril: Interesting work Masao.
May just have to put them in 3D form.
Your cutout on the bottom of the Federation is not out of line at all. On a sketch FJ did in '73 or so it had a more pronounced slope which allowing for the crudeness of the sketch could have been considered a cutout. Also in that drawing he placed the shuttle bay at the rear and had a much smaller "sensor dish" below it.
Always wonderd what FJ's reaction was when someone said.... Yo Franz, that dish thingy on the front of the Enterprise is a deflector dish....
posted
This is my take on this. FJ's schematics were an attempt to accurately represent the onscreen appearance of the Connie. However, he made a lot of errors. So, I can't accept the differences between his schematics and the filming models as anything but errors. I can't see them as an attempt by him to make "variants" or early versions of Constituion. So, using more accurate, modern schematics to build ships in the FJ style is fitting and proper.
I don't think I would post FJ's schematics in the museum article. First, doing so would be a violation of copyright. (of course I could ask Karen Dick for permission, which I have gotten in the past to use her father's picture on a patch). Second, I don't think they are acturate representions of an existing ship. Third, FJ has his ideas and I have mine!
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Does it really make sense to have such a crucial component hanging from a little thread with no support? Even with structural integrity fields, that don't make no sense!
Here's the approach I took when making my movie-era Saladin / Hermes type ship...
Sorry about the fuzziness of the pic - I was having a bad camera, lighting etc day.
Cheers!
Jim.
-------------------- It's life Jim, but not as we know it...
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Wiggy! I takke it your nacelle is off for refit or something but the nacelle pylons replacing the "neck to nowhere" is a cool idea.
I'm undecided about the deflector though....Someone would have to be down there for maintence, emergency controls and repairs.
Plus it's a HUGE target sticking out like that!
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Wiggy! I takke it your nacelle is off for refit or something but the nacelle pylons replacing the "neck to nowhere" is a cool idea.
I'm undecided about the deflector though....Someone would have to be down there for maintence, emergency controls and repairs.
Plus it's a HUGE target sticking out like that!
The nacelle (all half-a-meter of the scratch-built thing) hadn't been fitted at that point.
Here's a view from the front (again, apologies for the fuzzy pic)
It's not actually that big - smaller diameter than the Enterprise's deflector. Plus I had to have it big enough for the Space Energy Field Attraction Sensors to fit on the side and look like they were in proportion. Although it does give it a certain Mickey Mouse ears look
2nd pic I've posted after finally getting into gear and using that 5MB of homepage that came with my account...
-------------------- It's life Jim, but not as we know it...
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Check out the following pics I mocked up using parts from the Ptolemy myself and Reverend made. It shows the part can be made, but the results look a little different from those drawn. Not uncommon of course, turning 2D designs into 3D models usually involves rejigging parts like this.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
