posted
Here's some schematics of Cyrano's shuttle from TAS's "More Tribbles, More Troubles." I'm not completely happy with it. I had a lot of trouble with the rear view, especially those wingy things.
posted
Masao, that design is pretty accurate to me. I have had trouble designing that ship as well, by hand. It is a very unique shuttle. Good job.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Alan, I agree with you on the nacelle angle in that second pic. But that pic was so weird looking, especially the width of the front of the ship, that I didn't even notice the angle.
I'm working on the Carter Winston shuttle. It's a pretty dull little ship, but I'll see what I can do with it.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It looks like whoever drew that profile shot (from the episode, not Masao's fine effort) based it off of that perspective shot since there are allot of errors in the profile that are consistent with a bad interpretation of perspective. This is particularly evident in the positioning of the equatorial crease in relation to the deflector ring and the arrangement of the canopy. I made similar mistakes when I had to interoperate Sternbach's T'Pau sketch into the Surak-Class schematics, especially when it came to the strange and confusing angles that both designs seam to posses.
Here is what I believe the design was originally intended to look like.
posted
Reverend's "reverse engineered" version looks more like what we would expect it to have looked like in TOS. But the "space truck" feel of the original design isn't that bad either.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Ah great! I'm in a tinkering mood now. Sorry about hijacking the thread Masao but I just watched Burton's version of "Planet of the Apes" and got some inspiration from that egg pod thingy and it's landing gear.
I'm not sure what scale this thing is supposed to be so I might have made it a little too small for a trader's shuttle. I presume thats what it's meant to be, am I correct?
BTW, going by that perspective shot again, I'd make the width of this thing about 50-75% more than your current schematic has it.
posted
It's a "one-man scoutship of common design," according to Spock in the episode. IIRC, Cyrano Jones was an asteroid scouter or some-such, in addition to peddling various items on the side.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Go ahead, Rev. I just wanted to make an accurate representation of the ship's appearance on screen. Feel free to riff on it as much as you want. It's not my design, after all.
In these matters, I tend to give more weight to a side view or top view than to a perspective view.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Ah great! I'm in a tinkering mood now. Sorry about hijacking the thread Masao but I just watched Burton's version of "Planet of the Apes" and got some inspiration from that egg pod thingy and it's landing gear.
I'm not sure what scale this thing is supposed to be so I might have made it a little too small for a trader's shuttle. I presume thats what it's meant to be, am I correct?
BTW, going by that perspective shot again, I'd make the width of this thing about 50-75% more than your current schematic has it.
Reverend, you have some good ideas going on here. It sure is amazing what watching a good sci-fi movie can do. I can not wait to see more of your ideas.
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Masao: Go ahead, Rev. I just wanted to make an accurate representation of the ship's appearance on screen. Feel free to riff on it as much as you want. It's not my design, after all.
In these matters, I tend to give more weight to a side view or top view than to a perspective view.
Normally I would agree but in this case I'm inclined to make an exception since the side view looks like someone has copied the details from the perspective and squished it to one side, displaying no insight as to how this ship would look in 3-D. With the Aquashuttle I was lucky enough to get a pretty good top view, but even then the nacelles were drawn much bigger here than anywhere else and it really showed on the front view. What I think is the best thing to do when interoperating TAS ships is to get the basic proportions, ignore most of the obvious errors and try to capture the essence of the design, try and think what it would have looked like if it was an actual model rather than a drawing.
After all, how can you make an accurate drawing of something that changes shape and proportion in every other shot?
From a cannon point of view you can put down the discrepancies between your work and the original material to the inherent nature of 70's animation, something that applies to every aspect of the show from the uniforms with their HUGE insignia to the characters with their simplified facial features.
As for the differances between our schematics, perhaps one of them is the 23rd century equivilant to the Concordski.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
