Lord Schutpp's Release Thread?

[USS Mariner]

Well, to prove that Season 1 got it right, take a look at these jewels from TNG: "Encounter At Farpoint."

USS Enterprise and USS Hood

tng.trekpulse.com/episodes/season1/1x01/screencaps2/farpoint2010.jpg
tng.trekpulse.com/episodes/season1/1x01/screencaps2/farpoint2011.jpg
tng.trekpulse.com/episodes/season1/1x01/screencaps2/farpoint2012.jpg

From several points of view, the Excelsior almost looks bigger[/i] than the Enterprise, but it's certainly much larger than 465m.

The only thing about the 300m Oberth...is that people think that there are two different ships (300m cruiser and 150m scout). THEY ARE NOT! This is the thing that always gets me testy, because if people can belive in that then we can start beliving in the hyper-scaling of the B'rel's that occured in later TNG's (even as early as TNG: "A Matter or Honor",) and other "fairly tales." Sometimes you have to take camera and put the ships back in proportion yourself, other wise It'll never make sense.

Now, I do realize that it's totally possible to "scale" a ship design using replicators, but Starfleet doesn't do that very often, probably because it's cheaper to build a totally new design rather than re-engineer the internals of the "new" ship.

[Atrahasis]

Yeah, Season 1 of course was 1987, and ST:VI was 1991(?), and ironically BOTH depict the Excelsior as a huge-ass ship that is 2 X the TMP Enterprise's length and about the same length as the Galaxy. What I feel to be the correct size for the ship, I might add.

It was only sometime AFTER this that there was scale tyranny and it was pegged at 1.5 X the TMP Enterprise's length.

My theory is that in some written literature, it was Gene himself who pegged the length of the ship at 1500 feet (TMP Enterprise beibg about 1000). I remember seeing this number and it being attributed ot Gene. But it was simply against rhyme and reason when the actual model is considered. Excelsior is simply too huge-ass to be so small! Consider the evidence:

[Atrahasis]

Obviously, the model makers and designers have always had their own ideas about how large a given ship is. But it's only after, whether it's at ILM itself or by some Paramount guy who writes a book, that scale tyranny is imposed that makes a ship smaller than it really is.

The good news is that the vast majority of the FX shots depict the Excelsior as the huge-ass size of 2 X Enterprise. So we have photographic evidence despite what some book says. FX shots by themselves are not necessarily conclusive evidence of size, but in the Excelsior's case we can scrutinize the model details and there is also a detailed schematic of the inside of it. All of that adds up to be pretty conclusive I'd say.

As for the differing Bird of Prey sizes, I think this might have been a FASA idea that later got translated onto the screen, out of desperation. I'd say there's enough visual and dialogue evidence to suggest that there's at least a larger cruiser-sized version of the ship that exists.

If that's the case, I don't see why we can't have the same for the Oberth. By the way, the damaged Oberth we saw in that episode was NOT a typical Oberth. Was it even Starfleet? The dialogue calls it a FREIGHTER and its registry number is NAR~(something), not NCC.

[USS Mariner]

Atrahasis said:

Obviously, the model makers and designers have always had their own ideas about how large a given ship is. But it's only after, whether it's at ILM itself or by some Paramount guy who writes a book, that scale tyranny is imposed that makes a ship smaller than it really is.

The good news is that the vast majority of the FX shots depict the Excelsior as the huge-ass size of 2 X Enterprise. So we have photographic evidence despite what some book says. FX shots by themselves are not necessarily conclusive evidence of size, but in the Excelsior's case we can scrutinize the model details and there is also a detailed schematic of the inside of it. All of that adds up to be pretty conclusive I'd say.

As for the differing Bird of Prey sizes, I think this might have been a FASA idea that later got translated onto the screen, out of desperation. I'd say there's enough visual and dialogue evidence to suggest that there's at least a larger cruiser-sized version of the ship that exists.

If that's the case, I don't see why we can't have the same for the Oberth. By the way, the damaged Oberth we saw in that episode was NOT a typical Oberth. Was it even Starfleet? The dialogue calls it a FREIGHTER and its registry number is NAR~(something), not NCC.

Thanks for the Excelsior pictures.

Here's the TUC scene for completeness. ~ www.trekreview.com/mov/tuc/tuc803.jpg

Anyway, I still think it's stupid to assume that the Oberth has a "sister" design. The Klingons may like scaling and re-designing hulls to their fancy (which I still don't personally belive but it's irrelevant ;D,) but I think that it's unnecessary to do the same with the Oberth and the Vico, which was a civilian vessel. Keep in mind that we can EASILY seem the windows on the Grissiom and Pegasus, so that provides some scale.

[Atrahasis]

Yes, they probably did screw up on the design for the Grissom, but what can we do about it really? Personally, I can compromise and allow myself to think that the windows on it may be the same style as the other ships but are not the same size.

[Lord Schtupp]

lol Im finding it difficult to keep up with the leading edge of topics here of late but this thread spawned several interesting ones.

The Oberth just judging by its stIII appearence doesnt seem above 500 ft - thats still a pretty big ship if you think about it - so I like the 120M figure but I agree decks are minimum 2.5 meters tall.

I like the oberth design a lot really, I had the impression like 120 crew mostly scientific outfitted in a really deluxe interior. needs rear phasers though ;D

[Atrahasis]

Yes, lots of interesting discussions here. In fact, we even covered some philosophy about how government intelligence services and academics go about finding the truth: Look at something as if you're seeing it for the first time, and strip away ALL assumptions.

[Lord Schtupp]

Ok whaddya think: Heres an F-NCL or DD prototype (tentativly USS Mustang) ive been working on for the past two weeks, mainly on the hull. The shuttle bay is barely big enough to land and rotate an admin shuttle!

225 meters long. mesh is 99% done at 3050 (target 2500 oh well)polys, planning on 3 1024x textures

[Lord Schtupp]

make that 95% done ;D

I thought this class a little too small for the requirement of detachable hull/saucer separation, too small for a 5 year mission. 6-month patrols, starbase duty etc. Its impulse engine is therefore one unit top of the engineering hull. no holodecks on this baby.

oh cool i just got autopromoted

[Atrahasis]

Yummy, interesting ovals on the warp engines. What timeframe is the ship meant to be?

[zerosnark]

Oh I like this ship. . .

. . .as for roles. . .um. . that is hard.

First: this shuttle bay does not look that small. Certainly bigger than any DD bay I have seen!

As I mentioned in another forum, I am now thinking of a very restricted number of roles for fed ships.

Basically, simply Tug, Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Dreadnaught. BUT: The feds would could very well design "long legged" and "short legged" ships. A ship with a 5 year mission would be "long legged" and probably designated "heavy".

So: The Connies are "Heavy Cruisers". The Saladins, with no real shuttle bays, single warp nacelle would a "destroyer". Heck, if it were not for the goofy power curve on these ships, the 4xphotons and 6xP1's would make it a "cruiser".

This ship, presuming it was power tight, with something like 2 photons and 4-6 P1's but still posessing a decent shuttle bay, dual warp nacelles, presumably some cargo room, would be a "heavy destroyer". Similar to the Destroyat. Hmmm. Maybe arm this ship with 0 photons and 10 P1's like a destroyat?

Of course. . .it begs the question. . .does the Federation NEED a Heavy Destroyer?

[Lord Schtupp]

Atrahasis said:

Yummy, interesting ovals on the warp engines. What timeframe is the ship meant to be?

Oh mid/late TOS. TAS if you will. Textureing will help. I modified the engines enough to make them unique but not so much as to not make it reconizable as a Fed TOS warp unit. I started with a standard looking warp, but seems silly to simply scale the one type up and down for the various ship sizes.

Guest-zerosnark said:

Oh I like this ship. . .

. . .as for roles. . .um. . that is hard.

First: this shuttle bay does not look that small. Certainly bigger than any DD bay I have seen!

As I mentioned in another forum, I am now thinking of a very restricted number of roles for fed ships.

Basically, simply Tug, Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Dreadnaught. BUT: The feds would could very well design "long legged" and "short legged" ships. A ship with a 5 year mission would be "long legged" and probably designated "heavy".

So: The Connies are "Heavy Cruisers". The Saladins, with no real shuttle bays, single warp nacelle would a "destroyer". Heck, if it were not for the goofy power curve on these ships, the 4xphotons and 6xP1's would make it a "cruiser".

This ship, presuming it was power tight, with something like 2 photons and 4-6 P1's but still posessing a decent shuttle bay, dual warp nacelles, presumably some cargo room, would be a "heavy destroyer". Similar to the Destroyat. Hmmm. Maybe arm this ship with 0 photons and 10 P1's like a destroyat?

Of course. . .it begs the question. . .does the Federation NEED a Heavy Destroyer?

Everyone needs a heavy destroyer:)

Ok I started out building with the FNCL model from FD13 imported alongside as a guide, i was simply gonna rebuild that old"New Light Cruiser" design. well as you can see one change led to another. Then I wanted the engineering hull to be cool looking and all componenents proportioned roughly the same as the Connie. The engineering hull started in shape as the mid-fuselage of a p-51 mustang, hence the name. But two weeks of micro moving vertexes turned it more into that of a piper cub, or the roofline of a 66-67 Dodge charger. Anyway I then made the warps like the spinner/oilcooler part of a p51 to make up for it. ;D

Size wise - it really is a DD, 2 Phot, 6 phas1 2 ph3 basic armament. warps are 8 power, 1/2 move.

I never really liked the single nacelle ships. They look like they lack manuverability.

[USS Mariner]

Lord said:

Ok whaddya think: Heres an F-NCL or DD prototype (tentativly USS Mustang) ive been working on for the past two weeks, mainly on the hull. The shuttle bay is barely big enough to land and rotate an admin shuttle!

225 meters long. mesh is 99% done at 3050 (target 2500 oh well)polys, planning on 3 1024x textures

Alright, that's unfair. You KNOW what I think of the bottom sechull curve... ;D

The ship in general does look great though, although I'd suggest three 120 degree small clamps instead of the ENT-style arrangement you have now, would fit in more with the Conny which has teeny clamps but would still be interesting to look at.

The secondary hull, hmm, I just don't like the "flatbed" look, very un-nerving when you consider the extreme curviness of the rest of the hull. Would it be possible to give the center of the roof a little more "rise?"

Otherwise, great job! If you want to find that "Modified Vertical Block" type that TSP used on his Connie, he has PSP files of it in his Conny download, though no font is avalible.

[Lord Schtupp]

Guest-zerosnark said:

This ship, presuming it was power tight, with something like 2 photons and 4-6 P1's but still posessing a decent shuttle bay, dual warp nacelles, presumably some cargo room, would be a "heavy destroyer". Similar to the Destroyat. Hmmm. Maybe arm this ship with 0 photons and 10 P1's like a destroyat?

Yes its a multi-role fleet type DD, plasma, drone, scout, etc. versions are intended. No all phaser varient though.

The shuttle bay is 6mx10x20m allowing standard shuttle ops, such as they are.

[Lord Schtupp]

Mariner said:

Alright, that's unfair. You KNOW what I think of the bottom sechull curve... ;D

The ship in general does look great though, although I'd suggest three 120 degree small clamps instead of the ENT-style arrangement you have now, would fit in more with the Conny which has teeny clamps but would still be interesting to look at.

You know how that curve on the connie came to be? Its in about half the effects shots of the E, were the black matting creeps into the mask of the studio model image a little greater on the back half of the sec hull bottom than the front half during the rotoscoping process, thus given the curve hull effect. Thats why all these older connie plans have that curve, and the latest and greatest CAD plans do not.

The four clamps are there because four propeller blades on a p51. Ill keep them at four but I agree they need to be smaller.