Also planned is the Ptolemy, the Paladin (a Saladin variant of my own design, similar to the Loknar), the Federation Dreadnought, and a TOS Miranda-type.
[EDIT: Again, please link large images. Thank you.]
[ February 25, 2002, 13:57: Message edited by: Topher ]
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I already have a link to your page on my frontpages, so that should be fine. I'm in the process of tracking down image credits for all the graphics ive stolen over the years, in preparation for going legit. Usually, for my starship index in the galactopedia, ill shrink the pic down to 300px, transparency the bg and then add a credit to the entry too, if its cool
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
An adherent to non-chronological registries, I see. But lovely.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
CaptainMike, thanks, I'll put a link to your site on my links page too...
Shik, there is method to my madness. I actually support the chronological reg theory, to a point, although it's evident that they may have been somewhat 'looser' during the TOS period. The Saladin schematic pic from the TM carried a registry of NCC-500, so mine's not beyond the realms of implausibility.
The only real problem crops up when you compare the obvious similarities between this ship, the Ptolemy and the Constitution, and then take note of the registry conflicts, for in essence, these ships all hail from the same design family.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: Shik, there is method to my madness. I actually support the chronological reg theory, to a point, although it's evident that they may have been somewhat 'looser' during the TOS period. The Saladin schematic pic from the TM carried a registry of NCC-500, so mine's not beyond the realms of implausibility.
Uhh...except that it's lower than NCC-500, the reg of the prototype??? Of course you know I don't care about such things...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Besides, if you've read Diane Carey's 'Dreadnought!' you know the Saladin-class USS Pompeii had a registry of NCC-424, which obviously shows Saladins suffer from the Constitution-registry disease.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:The Saladin picture of the Manual does say NCC 500, but it doesn't say USS Saladin, so this picture doesn't necessarily portray the prototype.
What? That's the number of the Saladin, if you'll just glance over to the opposite page... Besides, what else would the drawing be of but the prototype? All the ships in the book are represented by their class prototypes...
But you're most correct that the TOS ships had some rather...odd...(and similar) peculiarties.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Ah, there's a simple explanation to this. I no longer have the actual tech manual, it disappeared some time ago, perhaps in an old apartment. I relied only on scanned pictures taken off the net to build these ships.
I won't therefore argue that the Saladin has a reg of NCC 500, but this ship model is the USS Vostok, NCC 479.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
Ah, I'm sorry. I figured you had the whole book to look at, but if you don't than you couldn't have been expected to know that. Anyhow, your ship isn't any worse than the NCC-1017 Constellation or any of those other lower-than-1700 Connies.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Hey Red, are you going to do a Hermes? A simple modification, just remover the phaser banks from the upper saucer surface and the photorp tubes...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Eventually yes. I have a huge list of ships to do, including all known canon, or semi canon ship types. I've got 30-some already. But the difference between the Hermes and the Saladin is really negligible, so I expect it will just be a Saladin modification that would take me five minutes.
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
