Mark_Nguyen wrote:
Bry: here, under "Bridgs_Ambassador" - http://www.webolutionary.com/truespa...ry/seanr/temp/
I see the E-C bridge as presented as acceptable - it shares a similar minimalist layout as the E-D bridge, with three aft stations, CO, plus two (or four if you believe that the forward console is manned - I'm not one of those :P) forward stations. All that's missing is flanking chairs for the CO and a tactical rail. Also, the Stargazer and Hathaway (and Lantree, if you want to go that far) had similar minimalist bridges. Hathaway is literally the same set piece, too.
Mark |
Yep, that's the one! Thanks for finding it.
I always felt this to be a much more logical representation of a step between Enterprises B and D...
Stargazer and Hathaway, being older vessels by probably a further 40 years over the Ent-C, I had no problem with using that bridge layout. But for the forerunner to the Galaxy class it's a little
too limited by budgetary constraints IMO.
I do like the idea of the rear stations continuing round the circumference of the bridge though, to give a full-sized module. That could have been interesting.
