View Single Post
Old April 24 2009, 10:29 PM   #11
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Another take on the Original Enterprise...

Shaw wrote: View Post
Sinclair's bridge is larger than the model's and his turbo lift shaft is nearly a third taller, so for what you are wanting to do, those plans were the best choice... specially if you decided to use the McMaster's bridge plans, which are about 14% larger than the original set plans.
Interesting... I know that you got ahold of a really good set of Desilu studio plans at some point... I don't have access to those (care to share?) I like the McMaster plans, and honestly, I think that when I "walk around" in my little bridge here, it really does feel like the same room we saw in the series. I recall that it was either you who determined, or you who pointed out in this forum, the little "every section isn't exactly 18 degrees" thing, wasn't it? And you know I appreciate the work you've done, too... though I still like my approach better.
So to get a bridge that is 14% larger into the Enterprise, I can see where having the Enterprise be about 14% larger as well would solve a ton of issues. And avoiding Casimiro's plans (which have the correct dimensions for the bridge dome and turbo lift shaft compared to the actual model) also side stepped issues that would have been a problem even after scaling up the overall dimensions.
I'm not entirely convinced that either one is "more right" than the other in every regard. In fact, in my CAD model, I'm keeping a "style guide" view of both up, and using both as references (turn one on, then turn the other on, and see which makes the most sense to me). There are a ton of differences, but all are very subtle. And short of doing a laser-scan of the original model (which, by now, has probably "drooped" a lot anyway) I'm not sure we have any real way to tell, other than by seeing which one looks most like the visual effects shots from the original show when "filmed" in an equivalent fashion.

For me, the models based upon the Sinclair version "look more right." But that's as much perception as anything else. However, I'll take you (who've clearly spent a lot more time than I have in recent months studying this very issue) as probably being "more right."

I know you've been trying to squeeze everything into a 947' hull... and I've been following your work with great interest. Doesn't matter which one is "right"... as long as neither one ends up using a brewery or an apple store or the corridors from "The Andromeda Strain" inside!
Plus Casimiro has done a better job on matching the original window placement, which again would be inconvenient (and best avoided).
Windows, in particular, are going to be different on my ship than on EITHER of those plans. Very very close to both, certainly, but I'm going to try to get a consistent "eye level" centerline for the windows, which I don't believe can really be achieved with ANY of the versions we've seen so far.

It's worthwhile to note one assumption I'm making here. Square shapes are actually windows. But circular ones are SENSOR WINDOWS or other non-sightseeing-purpose aperatures. For instance, I've got the two little guys in front on Deck 2... which are too low to be windows... as something entirely different. Unlike FJ, who made them "torpedo tubes," I've made them extendible elements of the subspace transceiver array. This comes from an idea I came up with for the TMP Enterprise... that the odd little "inset ring" around the B-C-deck superstructure was actually really the main subspace transceiver antenna. So for the pre-refit ship, that's also in the same region of the ship. This is unsupported, really, but it's an idea I've had for a long time and I really like it. (FYI, this makes the "helm wheel room" from ST-V be at the front of B-C-deck on the 1701-A... which puts it adjacent to the tranceiver array.)

Speaking of "conceits" (or personal influences, unsupported by on-screen evidence), I have two other things you'll notice on my bridge.

First, I've replaced the steps from the "real" bridge with solid steps. I just don't see any advantage to having them be done as they were on the original set, if they were real (on the other hand, having them done that way on a "wild set" makes perfect sense... easier for a single teamster to pick 'em up and carry them out of the way).

Second... you'll notice that the big display panels above each station don't have the one, or two, "inner displays" present. This is because I've ALWAYS looked at these big screens as just that... big screens. It just so happens that Kirk always like having a pair of display "windows" up on that screen at any given time, for each station. But there's no reason that they couldn't be configured any way that you wanted. They're just huge, rectangular screens.

I've also left out all the display panels or control panels or so forth. That's an area where, within the realm of reasonability, I have no issue with altering what the bridge looks like. Instead of a board of backlit jellybeans on either side of the main viewscreen, for instance, I'd rather have a pair of big rectangular "secondary display screens" which can display ANYTHING (but normally show ship's status displays).

In other words... what you see in my "bridge set" here is what would be kept from the original if a "real" update were done... the features that should be completely consistent between both "old" and "new." Make sense?

Last edited by Cary L. Brown; April 24 2009 at 10:45 PM.
Cary L. Brown is offline