RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,786
Posts: 5,217,567
Members: 24,218
Currently online: 751
Newest member: Doctor Who

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


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 October 3 2013, 06:47 AM   #301
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post
...After I laid out the decks on the refit, I copy/pasted into a new layer and adjusted the outline of the TOS ship to closely match the refit saucer's diameter in a plausible way. Then, I adjusted where the decks fell to where it to where it looked like it made sense.
Ah, then maybe I should ask - what was the thought in making the refit 415 metres (1361 feet)? Or was this in turn related to the new size of the Excelsior?
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3 2013, 09:23 PM   #302
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Correct - that was related to the new Excelsior size. Mostly, it was maintaining the official size ratio between the Excelsior and Enterprise.

It started as an exercise - "If the Excelsior is really this big, how would the Enterprise look next to it if I blew it up to match?" So I made the Enterprise 2/3 the length of the Excelsior, and adjusted a wee bit to make the saucer edge decks work. The TOS Enterprise and Miranda scaling were both derived from this, but the Oberth was not. The Oberth was simply based on the wrecked Vico model from TNG.

Just realized I forgot to reply to KingDaniel yesterday...

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
The Reliant's saucer rim windows have always looked wrong to me. As if the modeller put one row in the centre of the rim, realized his mistake and crammed another row just underneath to better resemble the Enterprise's two-deck arrangement - only if there were two decks, the upper row would be ankle-high and the lower would be overhead.

The solution, of course, is a three or four-deck saucer rim
Yeah - generally agreed about those little window clusters. That's partly why I am rather happy that the study I did put a half-deck above and a half-deck below. Room for various sundry utilities and whatnot, plus it makes those windows a bit less crummy.

I have yet to try to actually see how the big ships line up vis a vis the windows on the models. I know how the Excelsior's windows do, of course, since that was my jumping off point. Perhaps I'll look into that this evening.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 03:18 AM   #303
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Ok, I found some decent drawings to compare to the above scaling. Here's the full image, and detailed studies are afterward.


First up, the TOS Enterprise, using Sinclair's drawings of the eleven-footer.

Pretty good for the most part, IMO. The saucer and secondary hull are both pretty much perfect, with the odd misplaced window here and there.

Next up, the refit Enteprise:
Pretty good, but not quite as good as the TOS ship. The docking ring looks a little big, and the botanical garden window seems a little too big. Still, not bad. And again the saucer is pretty much perfect. The landing deck not aligning with the hangar bay door lower area bothers me a bit.

Next, the Miranda:

It's a little hard to see my green lines, and the drawing I found to use doesn't quite match up with the outline, but accounting for that I think it's about as good a match as the refit. Plus, the windows in the aft area align really well.

Finally, the Oberth:
Again, the drawing isn't perfect, but the saucer windows align fairly well... even if the dome windows don't really align with anything.

Thoughts?
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 03:39 AM   #304
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

@Praetor - on the TMP Enterprise, are you referring to the circular docking port on the engineering hull not lining up with the flight deck of the shuttlebay? If so, it's because the docking ring is higher than the deck and you'd need a ramp to come down. (Andrew Probert made that clarification.)
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 12:11 PM   #305
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Regarding the issues with the E-refit, maybe the decks in the secondary hull are simply a little taller? At the very least we know that the ceiling height for Main Engineering is 12'
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 04:05 PM   #306
The Librarian
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

The botanical garden being a bit off makes sense to me, since it would need a larger space than normal and so its interior might not line up with the rest of the deck. You'd need room for plants, soil, and whatnot unless all you plan to have is a few flowers.
The Librarian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 05:07 PM   #307
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
@Praetor - on the TMP Enterprise, are you referring to the circular docking port on the engineering hull not lining up with the flight deck of the shuttlebay? If so, it's because the docking ring is higher than the deck and you'd need a ramp to come down. (Andrew Probert made that clarification.)
Yessir. Thanks for reminding me of that.

Mytran wrote: View Post
Regarding the issues with the E-refit, maybe the decks in the secondary hull are simply a little taller? At the very least we know that the ceiling height for Main Engineering is 12'
Great point. I hadn't quite gotten there, but I think maybe so. I'm making an effort with these to keep the refit and the TOS decks as consistent as humanly possible, so it might be something I'd do for both.

As for the landing deck not aligning with the bottom of the doors, I've concluded it's a simple matter to lift the landing deck from the deck to allow for more deck space in the hangar beneath... of course if I increase all the engineering hull deck heights, that may no longer matter.

The Librarian wrote: View Post
The botanical garden being a bit off makes sense to me, since it would need a larger space than normal and so its interior might not line up with the rest of the deck. You'd need room for plants, soil, and whatnot unless all you plan to have is a few flowers.
Another great point.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5 2013, 12:02 AM   #308
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Praetor wrote: View Post
I'm not interested in addressing the Abramsverse ships, really, at all. I also don't need them for my purposes.
Since I seem to be the only one who IS, I'll add that to my "pet projects" queue.

From that analysis, however (inspired by King Daniel among others) I'm getting into the idea that there's no reason for the decks on starships to actually be continuous; and that a considerable bit of space may exist between them, which would actually explain the undercut for the saucer pretty nicely. That would mean some of the rooms/modules/compartments situated on those decks would have a bit of wiggle room for how they fit into the ship; a conference room might have a ten-foot ceiling while crew quarters are only eight, corridors are only seven, etc.

That might account for the lack of lineup between windows and deck spaces, especially if one assumes that some "plubming paths" built into the ship require parts of the deck to be raised or lowered to accommodate them.

The Excelsior model actually was scaled much larger than has been generally accepted, as I think I've proven. I'm following the logical conclusion of that to see what other classes scaled to match would be like.
I'm not sure that it matters, considering how rarely the other classes appear in the same frame with the Excelsior (and then only in DS9, which has widespread scaling issues of its own).

In this entire process, though, try to remember that length isn't nearly as important as volume. The JJ-prize, for example, is VOLUMETRICALLY about as large as an Ambassador class starship while even a 622 meter Excelsior would be about 2/3rds of that.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 5 2013, 03:43 PM   #309
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Mytran wrote: View Post
Regarding the issues with the E-refit, maybe the decks in the secondary hull are simply a little taller? At the very least we know that the ceiling height for Main Engineering is 12'
Agreed. The deck above main engineering and 5 decks below it are 12' tall based on the engineering scenes. The cargo bay scene also corroborates a 12' deck height going further back.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 6 2013, 08:40 AM   #310
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
From that analysis, however (inspired by King Daniel among others) I'm getting into the idea that there's no reason for the decks on starships to actually be continuous; and that a considerable bit of space may exist between them, which would actually explain the undercut for the saucer pretty nicely. That would mean some of the rooms/modules/compartments situated on those decks would have a bit of wiggle room for how they fit into the ship; a conference room might have a ten-foot ceiling while crew quarters are only eight, corridors are only seven, etc.

That might account for the lack of lineup between windows and deck spaces, especially if one assumes that some "plubming paths" built into the ship require parts of the deck to be raised or lowered to accommodate them.
NOW you're speaking my language! Ever since I visited the USS Alabama, spent the night, and got to crawl all over that ship, I've realized that it makes no sense to have continuous decks or standard deck heights. The ship (ANY ship, really) is designed to house the equipment it carries first, and any personnel considerations come a distant second. (Unless you're talking about a luxury yacht, but even it has crew areas that aren't exactly easy to walk around.)

I've also come to the conclusion that having corridors everywhere also make no sense, but that's a discussion for a different time!
__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 6 2013, 12:58 PM   #311
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

B.J. wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
From that analysis, however (inspired by King Daniel among others) I'm getting into the idea that there's no reason for the decks on starships to actually be continuous; and that a considerable bit of space may exist between them, which would actually explain the undercut for the saucer pretty nicely. That would mean some of the rooms/modules/compartments situated on those decks would have a bit of wiggle room for how they fit into the ship; a conference room might have a ten-foot ceiling while crew quarters are only eight, corridors are only seven, etc.

That might account for the lack of lineup between windows and deck spaces, especially if one assumes that some "plubming paths" built into the ship require parts of the deck to be raised or lowered to accommodate them.
NOW you're speaking my language! Ever since I visited the USS Alabama, spent the night, and got to crawl all over that ship, I've realized that it makes no sense to have continuous decks or standard deck heights. The ship (ANY ship, really) is designed to house the equipment it carries first, and any personnel considerations come a distant second. (Unless you're talking about a luxury yacht, but even it has crew areas that aren't exactly easy to walk around.)

I've also come to the conclusion that having corridors everywhere also make no sense, but that's a discussion for a different time!
It really does help explain window positioning issues. It's a shame that so many on screen and published material shows the same standard deck arrangement. Personally, I've generally accepted oddities in each deck including height variances through out. It just makes sense.
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!
Patrickivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 05:46 AM   #312
Workbee
Commander
 
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Wow! Been away for a while. Love the discussion here. Great work as always Praetor.

B.J. wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
From that analysis, however (inspired by King Daniel among others) I'm getting into the idea that there's no reason for the decks on starships to actually be continuous; and that a considerable bit of space may exist between them, which would actually explain the undercut for the saucer pretty nicely. That would mean some of the rooms/modules/compartments situated on those decks would have a bit of wiggle room for how they fit into the ship; a conference room might have a ten-foot ceiling while crew quarters are only eight, corridors are only seven, etc.

That might account for the lack of lineup between windows and deck spaces, especially if one assumes that some "plubming paths" built into the ship require parts of the deck to be raised or lowered to accommodate them.
NOW you're speaking my language! Ever since I visited the USS Alabama, spent the night, and got to crawl all over that ship, I've realized that it makes no sense to have continuous decks or standard deck heights. The ship (ANY ship, really) is designed to house the equipment it carries first, and any personnel considerations come a distant second. (Unless you're talking about a luxury yacht, but even it has crew areas that aren't exactly easy to walk around.)

I've also come to the conclusion that having corridors everywhere also make no sense, but that's a discussion for a different time!
I recently visited the USS Iowa down her in Long Beach and I have to concur. It isn't practical or even realistic to expect that all decks have the same height. Ships, unlike high rise buildings, are constructed around function requirements that apartment complexes, office buildings or even luxury cruise ships are not subject to. My take is, (and it looks like this has already been adopted) let the windows help inform the deck spacing, rather than try to impose a constant deck spacing throughout the ship and trying to squeeze the windows in.

WB
__________________
“I was wondering why the people who would never dream of laughing at a blind or a crippled man would laugh at a moron?” - Charly Gordon
Workbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 09:51 AM   #313
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Analogies to 20th Century warships have been presented here. What about luxury cruise ships? Do these have the same issues? (I consider the Enterprise to be a ship somewhere between both extremes).

Regarding the TOS Enterprise the Making of Star Trek said there are 16 engineering decks and according to my preliminary examinations these would match perfectly with the exterior windows and assuming an average height of 10'. However, the deck floor is noticably thicker on the center deck (or flight deck level).

Praetor, considering there is not that much space in the connecting dorsal of the TOS Enterprise these windows would beg for explanation assuming your deck lining were accurate.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 01:58 PM   #314
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Dare I suggest again that these are sensors, not windows?

Or perhaps, little private rooms built into the spaces around the dorsal superstructure (as in the TMP novelisation)? That could account for at least some of the numerous lights in this (as you say) very compact area of the ship.
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 03:41 PM   #315
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: Scaling the Excelsior Filming Model

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Analogies to 20th Century warships have been presented here. What about luxury cruise ships? Do these have the same issues? (I consider the Enterprise to be a ship somewhere between both extremes).
I'd say yes, they do have the same issues, especially when you're in the "working areas" of the ship. Sure, most of the passenger areas have a constant deck floor, but even then, the deck heights vary quite a bit. Starfleet ships wouldn't need to cater to too many passengers, as most people aboard them are part of the crew and are there to work.
__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
excelsior, uss excelsior

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 02:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.