posted
I actually replaced the bottom "bridge" with a connie planetary sensor pallate. It makes more sense that way.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
-Looks better! Especially if one assumes the third nacelle is an afterthought to an originally two-nacelled class...
-That way, it's the top half of the saucer that has the E-B extensions. I'm positive that the modelmaker would follow the standard aesthetic of "upper trailing edge and lower leading edge may receive extra stuff" that makes for fast-looking cars.
-On the same vein, the E-B extensions aren't complete - they lack the original bottom part, which was attached to the bottom half of the saucer in the E-B kit. No sane modelmaker would leave the *top* of these structures uncovered/unfinished this way. Such imperfections are always swept *under* the rug.
-Ditto for the other dangling bits of the ship's stern. They look good from "above" but not from "below" when two nacelles are up. Ships are not made to look better from "below" unless they are specifically to hover above the camera, often menacingly so. I can't imagine such a role for the kitbashes.
-The decorative markings are on the upper pylons when two nacelles are up. Again, aesthetics would call for markings on the upper part of the ship rather than the lower (Miranda class notwithstanding).
Finally, the motion control rod socket need not be "up" or "down" specifically - but it *must* be on the side that has the two nacelles, because the other side cannot accommodate a socket (the single nacelle there is on the way). So this should not be considered an aesthetics choice the modelmaker was free to make. Even if he handed over a finished product and specifically said "this side up!" the motion-control people would drill the hole wherever *they* knew it had to go.
But here's another viewpoint for balance: the three-naceller is the only ship that *wouldn't* be able to stand on a tabletop for the artist to admire if the two nacelles were up... I mean, apart from the Connie kitbash. But *that* model does have a definite "down" established.
quote:Originally posted by Timo: My arguments for two nacelles up:
-Looks better! Especially if one assumes the third nacelle is an afterthought to an originally two-nacelled class...
-On the same vein, the E-B extensions aren't complete - they lack the original bottom part, which was attached to the bottom half of the saucer in the E-B kit. No sane modelmaker would leave the *top* of these structures uncovered/unfinished this way. Such imperfections are always swept *under* the rug.
Timo Saloniemi
I noticed this too: I had to fill the enginnering section directly between the naceles (and that part would be glaringly face up on a model with the third nacelle in the dorsal position. The other reason that the third nacelle is dorsal is that i'm always right and everyone that disaggres with me is, of course, wrong. And the Defiant is 170 meters long. And Perigrines are 25-32 meters long. And the Jenolin is 230 meters long. And the Government is really out to get us...
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course there are only four relevant pieces of 'evidence' to consider with this. Without positive identification on screen, the only things we have to go by to determine orientation are two DS9:TM diagrams (main and silhouette) and the two studio model pics.
So if you have two nacelles up, you have an entirely copper colored deck 1, which to me looks strange, and a nicely colored lower sensor.
The Starfleet symbols were placed where there was room. Assuming 1-nacelle up was correct, where could you fit a symbol? Nowhere. So they put one on the bottom. Hardly conclusive.
I'm not sure what is meant by the Enterprise-B extensions you refer to Timo. If you mean the extra impulse engines, take a look at the model shots I linked above...the saucer shape from Excelsior makes it so you can't put the rest of those pieces there.
The semi-circular area at the junction of the pylons was easily covered with a piece of plastic. If only we could see a name and/or registry on the studio model, we might have a better time of reaching a definite conclusion.
posted
Just to clarify the E-B extension thing: yes, I mean the impulse engines. Or shuttlebays, which in this particular design at least would probably be a better function for those boxes. I mean, the ship already has four impulse nozzles! And the lack of red plastic plates on the side boxes could be taken to mean the red glow was an atmosphere-holding forcefield even in the original, and is turned off on the Medusa.
I know they couldn't be finished to their E-B glory because the structure of the Medusa precludes it. And I think the modelmaker, once faced with this problem, would have made sure that the ugly unfinished half would be the underside, not the topside.
Too bad the model wasn't named. Which begs the question: why the heck not? I mean, it was painted and all. But I could believe the modelmaker got fed up with creating *one* set of cut-and-paste decals not available from the box, and never did the "optional" decals on the underside or the nacelles. Which would mean the decorated topside *is* the hidden one with the third nacelle...
...But only assuming that the ship got any decals at all. Save for the Starfleet arrowheads. Perhaps cutting and pasting the letters one by one was not rewarding enough for the modelmaker. (Or did these guys have access to a decal printer?)
quote:Originally posted by Timo: ...But only assuming that the ship got any decals at all. Save for the Starfleet arrowheads. Perhaps cutting and pasting the letters one by one was not rewarding enough for the modelmaker. (Or did these guys have access to a decal printer?)
Timo Saloniemi
Possibly the model was the last one built before filming and time wa an issue. The modelers seem to have learned the lesson of the Wolf 359 models and evidently not felt the need to make bueatiful models that would never get any scrutiny on screen (except from us psychos!). Speaking as someone that's built the Medusa, Niagra, Freedom, Elkins, Yeager, Centaur and is building the Springfield I have to say that much more effort went into the 359 models: too much for the threeseconds of screentime most of them got really.
My largest reason for thinking the Medusa's side view was inaccurate is that so many of the other side views were incorrect (along with lots of "placeholder text"). having just built the Niagra, I had to scrutinize the pics of the study model and re-work a lot of the nacelle pylons and phaser strips that are wholly incorrect in the fan schematics and the STTM version was totally off. The nacelles are waaay too forward, the bridge decks are just copied from the Freedom and not at all like the model and for some reason the shuttlebay is considered to be shorter than on the Ambassador when the studio model actually has it's own blown off! The ship has no neck either! Us fans can be as unintentionally misleading as the Magazine was when doing reference for CGI and physical models. (steps down off soapbox)
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
