In your opinion. For all we know those support beams are meaningful but not in a way you imagined it to be.
In this case I hope that Doug Drexler is commenting in this thread rather soon. He interviewed Matt Jefferies and according to his 1970's Star Trek Posterbook
article, Jefferies went for a "Hornblower Effect" and designed various items according to "identification by association" (and in my opinion
did a great job doing so). To rationalize these blatantly obvious structural beams to be something else would be missing the target, IMO.
But, since you are emphasizing screen accuracy and requesting feedback and these visual issues can't be hidden away with the overscan technicality then they do become legitimate questions, IMHO.
Fair enough. But I thought that the set of restrictions I communicated a couple of posts earlier had made it clear that although screen accuracy has a top priority / weighs in most, it doesn't mean screen accuracy at all cost
In the "Thermian Approach" you advocate you usually put items under a magnifying glass but totally blend out what the producers of the series had intended to suggest to us. While this may appeal to general audiences, I doubt they would really appreciate the work and effort you put into it.
The people most likely to appreciate your work are devoted TOS fans, but I'd dare to say that most of these / us are well aware of what the producers had intended (e.g. shuttlebay with a U-shaped and straight
Observation corridor) and are likely to expect to see this reflected in new deck plans. As a strictly personal and biased opinion I feel we owe
the producers and individuals like Matt Jefferies this amount of respect.
And the example of the Galileo shuttlecraft (exterior vs. interior size) is a constant reminder that 100% screen accuracy is not possible, thus we have to find a compromise that's palatable to the majority of Trekkers, which should always be the mission goal. YMMV