RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 147,034
Posts: 5,802,604
Members: 26,062
Currently online: 435
Newest member: The Historian

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Learning Curve
By: Michelle on Jul 31

Star Trek: The Exhibition In Washington State
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

August-September 2015 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Shatner To Pen Book On Nimoy
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Star Trek Beyond Building Continues
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Trinneer In Western Horror
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Beam Me Up Scotty Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

UK Auction To Feature Spock Costume
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Pine To Star In Wonder Woman
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Pegg Teases Elba Character
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 18 2011, 05:50 PM   #46
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
Did I offend you by challenging your preconceptions about Star Trek? Feel free to not post in the thread anymore. If you got "I'm better than you" from this thread, that's between you and your insecurities.
QED
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2011, 06:04 PM   #47
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

Vance wrote: View Post
Daniel, people have been doing this for 40 years now. For you to come up and say "look how clever I am with PSP! I'm smarter than all of you combined and was able to make off of this work because I'm a super genius" is frankly pretty fucking insulting.

Past that point, the fact that your measurements are very off, ignores little tidbits like blurr lines, set reconstructions, statements by the people who made the models and sets, etc, proves your work as pointless and useless.

But, please, Daniel, please go on about how much better you are than the rest of us and how much we should take your half-assed job on pixel-bashing as the gospel truth. That'll really help the rest of us out. Thanks.


He is in now way saying that he's smarter than anyone or insulting anyone.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2011, 06:06 PM   #48
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

Vance wrote: View Post
KingDaniel wrote: View Post
Did I offend you by challenging your preconceptions about Star Trek? Feel free to not post in the thread anymore. If you got "I'm better than you" from this thread, that's between you and your insecurities.
QED
You may think that it demonstrates what you say about him.
But you are just as wrong as you were before.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2011, 09:47 PM   #49
timelord1010
Captain
 
timelord1010's Avatar
 
Location: Sector 001
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

This seems to be how all threads end that have anything to do with the Abrams Enterprise size. This could have been avoided if someone took a few hours and scaled the ship properly. Yes, Star Trek is fiction, but at least the guys who designed the ships and technology from TOS to ST: Enterprise took pride and great care in the work they did and treated the audience with respect. I can't say the same about some of the stories the writers came up with

I can't believe Mr. Abrams and company treated Star Trek this way. This is the show that was so popular that the US Government named a real spaceship, the first Space Shuttle, after the TOS Enterprise. When I watch the new movie I keep reminding myself this is a bizarro alternate universe.
timelord1010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2011, 11:11 PM   #50
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

timelord1010 wrote: View Post
This seems to be how all threads end that have anything to do with the Abrams Enterprise size.
I think that it's simpler than that. I think that there's a subset of NuTrek fans (illustrated in this thread) that honestly believe that the new movie is the 'right' Trek and that everything else should be changed to match the new movie.

And no level of personal attack, arrogance, or absurd petty hatred is too much for these fans to push forward.

All this is despite the word of Abrams that these very issues were deliberately ignored in the first place and no one should be looking to the new movie for Technical details.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2011, 12:49 AM   #51
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

Vance wrote:
I think that it's simpler than that. I think that there's a subset of NuTrek fans (illustrated in this thread) that honestly believe that the new movie is the 'right' Trek and that everything else should be changed to match the new movie.
Re-read the thread. You're the one making this a childish old vs. new Trek thing. I enjoy both.
And no level of personal attack, arrogance, or absurd petty hatred is too much for these fans to push forward.
Are you serious? The only hatred in this thread is coming from you. It's a TV show in a fantasy universe, nothing more. If you can't cope with the discussing and questioning aspects of it, leave.
All this is despite the word of Abrams that these very issues were deliberately ignored in the first place and no one should be looking to the new movie for Technical details.
Yet some of us still enjoy speculating about it, and you saying "Stop talking about nuTrek tech!" isn't gonna change that.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2011, 04:36 AM   #52
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

Wait wait wait, let's back up and change topics here.

How, exactly, did we decide that the accepted scale for the E-D isn't a load of crap? I mean, shoving Ten Forward into the lower rim would scale up the crew quarters windows so much that they wouldn't really match the interior sets, right? Just curious, since looking at pictures of the six-footer, it doesn't seem to quite mesh.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2011, 04:38 AM   #53
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: Quietly chuckling
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

Vance wrote: View Post

But, please, Daniel, please go on about how much better you are than the rest of us and how much we should take your half-assed job on pixel-bashing as the gospel truth. That'll really help the rest of us out. Thanks.
Vance, I think you can dial back a bit. No need for a flame war to develop on this. Thanks.

I can speak only for myself, but one thing I've come to accept as a Trek fan (with no small amount of reluctance) is that in some instances, the production staff don't pay enough attention to the little details to keep everything as consistent as it should be. Sometimes it bothers the heck out of me that some things related to Treknology have become as inconsistently portrayed as they have (registries, for example), but there's nothing that can be done. * shrugs * The entertainment factor (and perhaps the profitability factor) always comes first.
__________________

"If you think you're brave enough to walk the path of honor, then follow me into the dragon's den."


Knight Exemplar
Unicron is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2011, 08:58 AM   #54
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

There is a difference, however, with the occasional misstep due to the various pressures of producing a weekly television series, and not only deliberately ignoring anything resembling technical consistency, but bragging about deliberately ignoring technical consistency. Especially since maintaining a certain level of consistency and credibility was one of Star Trek's hallmarks back in the day.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2011, 02:15 PM   #55
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

timelord1010 wrote: View Post
This seems to be how all threads end that have anything to do with the Abrams Enterprise size. This could have been avoided if someone took a few hours and scaled the ship properly. Yes, Star Trek is fiction, but at least the guys who designed the ships and technology from TOS to ST: Enterprise took pride and great care in the work they did and treated the audience with respect. I can't say the same about some of the stories the writers came up with

I can't believe Mr. Abrams and company treated Star Trek this way. This is the show that was so popular that the US Government named a real spaceship, the first Space Shuttle, after the TOS Enterprise. When I watch the new movie I keep reminding myself this is a bizarro alternate universe.
O for god's sake, get a grip!

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
There is a difference, however, with the occasional misstep due to the various pressures of producing a weekly television series, and not only deliberately ignoring anything resembling technical consistency, but bragging about deliberately ignoring technical consistency. Especially since maintaining a certain level of consistency and credibility was one of Star Trek's hallmarks back in the day.
Nothing really 'pressured' TNG's creative team to go over Probert's head to 'deliberately ignore' the layout of the ship and turn the saucer's one-deck rim into a two-deck rim.
They contradicted the ship's exterior with the Ten Forward set.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2011, 03:44 PM   #56
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
How, exactly, did we decide that the accepted scale for the E-D isn't a load of crap? I mean, shoving Ten Forward into the lower rim would scale up the crew quarters windows so much that they wouldn't really match the interior sets, right? Just curious, since looking at pictures of the six-footer, it doesn't seem to quite mesh.
I think you got it backwards. Most of us just assumed that ten-forward itself was a load of crap, and therefore didn't have any bearing on the Enterprise model.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19 2011, 04:25 PM   #57
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
Wait wait wait, let's back up and change topics here.

How, exactly, did we decide that the accepted scale for the E-D isn't a load of crap? I mean, shoving Ten Forward into the lower rim would scale up the crew quarters windows so much that they wouldn't really match the interior sets, right? Just curious, since looking at pictures of the six-footer, it doesn't seem to quite mesh.
It's a sticky one. They not only introduced the 4-foot model of the Enterprise, altering the rim, but the deck layout of the ship differs between the TNG Technical Manual (as seen on the engine room wall, complete with ducky, Nomad, Rodenberry's plane and friends) and the later E-D floorplan blueprints.

Similarly, Voyager's scale is screwed up by it's magic shuttlebay (it's different in every episode) and the hanger door, which is too small to fit the Delta Flyer let alone the other ships seen parked somewhere inside in "Drive"

DS9's Defiant sprouts decks and shuttlebays at random.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20 2011, 05:24 AM   #58
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
There is a difference, however, with the occasional misstep due to the various pressures of producing a weekly television series, and not only deliberately ignoring anything resembling technical consistency, but bragging about deliberately ignoring technical consistency.
Oh yay, another apocryphal half-reference with no source. How exciting.

Especially since maintaining a certain level of consistency and credibility was one of Star Trek's hallmarks back in the day.
Credibility.

Right...


KingDaniel wrote: View Post
DS9's Defiant sprouts decks and shuttlebays at random.
And also expands and shrinks three times an episode for no obvious reason. It was designed to be a specific scale, but was then changed for dramatic reasons by the production staff...

Which is... um... exactly why STXI sucked
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20 2011, 09:21 AM   #59
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

Just throwing in another bit of guesstimation: The TOS Enterprise could be scaled up to 348m from reconstructing the shuttle and flight deck using the original FX.

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
Here's a quick comparison chart of the ships at my corrected sizes:

This is the "no fudge" scale. The Enterprise-D and NX-01 are their original/official sizes, the TOS Enterprise scaled up to match Drexler's scale redshirts and Exclesior to match the bridge dome. And please take all this with the pinch of salt it's intended.

Shit, I misspelled starship.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20 2011, 02:59 PM   #60
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
There is a difference, however, with the occasional misstep due to the various pressures of producing a weekly television series, and not only deliberately ignoring anything resembling technical consistency, but bragging about deliberately ignoring technical consistency.
Oh yay, another apocryphal half-reference with no source. How exciting.

Especially since maintaining a certain level of consistency and credibility was one of Star Trek's hallmarks back in the day.
Credibility.

Right...


KingDaniel wrote: View Post
DS9's Defiant sprouts decks and shuttlebays at random.
And also expands and shrinks three times an episode for no obvious reason. It was designed to be a specific scale, but was then changed for dramatic reasons by the production staff...

Which is... um... exactly why STXI sucked
Yeah when Defiant went up against the Klingons in Way of the Warrior Defiant is clearly a Good Chunk of a Vorcha.

Then we see Defiant fly under a Galor and it's as small as it was the Episode Defiant..

Yet we see Defiant is comparable to a Bird of Prey in Length and we see these tiny bird of prey along side the Vorcha in the Station battle.

DS9.

THE worse job ever of scaling in the known universe.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
ship sizes

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.