RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,577
Posts: 5,423,732
Members: 24,809
Currently online: 485
Newest member: Super Scout

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Coto Drama Sold To Fox
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Braga Inks Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Remastered Original Series Re-release
By: T'Bonz on Sep 11

UK Trek Ships Calendar Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Sep 10


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 > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old March 11 2014, 09:04 AM   #121
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Squiggy wrote: View Post
Mytran wrote: View Post
Images such as this one seem to be crying out for some part of the saucer visible in the middle distance.
Pretty sure that image or angle never appeared in the series.
Wiki sources it as being from "The Drumhead."
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline  
Old March 12 2014, 04:56 PM   #122
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Of course, the real reason the Enterprise-D was externally identical in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and all the "Parallels" universes is because they couldn't afford to build new models (ironically, the very reason the Enterprise-C looks so much like a Constitution-class ship and not an Excelsior/Galaxy hybrid). Diane Duane's novel Dark Mirror, free of budgetary limitations, describes a very different and far more fearsome mirror universe Enterprise-D. JJ's big budget reboot showed a far larger and vastly different NCC-1701, after a 25-year divergence.

And of course, the real reason the crew is always (virtually) the same is because Trek is a fantasy world and alternate twins of main characters is a well worn trope. It's fun to see might-have-been versions of the crew!
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline  
Old March 12 2014, 05:27 PM   #123
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Of course, the real reason the Enterprise-D was externally identical in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and all the "Parallels" universes is because they couldn't afford to build new models (ironically, the very reason the Enterprise-C looks so much like a Constitution-class ship and not an Excelsior/Galaxy hybrid).
Better be careful what you are saying here or some people might criticize you for having looked too long at this:



But that's the way I feel about this. The Sternbach Enterprise-C's illuminated lower saucer sensor dome, the front shape of the warp nacelles and the cylindrical shape of the engineering hull had always reminded me more of the TOS Enterprise than a believable hybrid between the Excelsior Class "B" and the Galaxy Class "D".

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

Last edited by Robert Comsol; March 12 2014 at 05:39 PM.
Robert Comsol is offline  
Old March 12 2014, 07:27 PM   #124
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Better be careful what you are saying here or some people might criticize you for having looked too long at this:
Either that, or being careful not to throw thinly-veiled insults at people who have the audacity to disagree with your opinions
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old March 13 2014, 03:41 PM   #125
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

I'm not aware I have been insulting anyone, but it is obvious that you and a few others found the alternate interpretation I presented offensive and have vocally expressed that.

And I don't have any problem whatsoever with anybody disagreeing with my opinions. However, I presented evidence and drew conclusions, so I don't think it's inappropriate to ask for comments that explain "why" my conclusions are supposed to be crap.

If you have a problem that David Carson and Ronald D. Moore relocated events from our universe into a "parallel time line" (David Carson) or universe with "Redemption II", then your quarrel is with those, not the "messenger".

But if the Enterprise-C that returned to our universe is not the one featured in "Yesterday's Enterprise", then it's only proven "real" within this parallel and/or alternate universe and the "real" look of the one that left ours depends entirely on how to value the conference lounge display of the "D" versus the one of the "E" - and that's a matter of opinion, then.

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  
Old March 13 2014, 08:13 PM   #126
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Play nice, everyone. Or not. Meh.

Anyway- I'm not sure why there's such an obsession over evolutionary designs being so closely related between the Enterprises. It's just not needed. There's no reason for the E-C as it was presented to be out of place just because it looks a little behind the times compared to the E-B to D. It's just one of many different class of Starships in the fleet.

I've re-evaluted my opinion of the E-C as seen on TNG. I remembered seeing that episode for the first time when it came out and just LOVED seeing a new ship and it was the ENTERPRISE! It was so cool. Not an awe inspiring design, but it didn't have to be. It was the story behind the ship that mattered.

I'd still like to see Probert's Real C as he designed her, and would still have no issue with it being in a re-made CGI into that episode, but one way or the other, the E-C is the E-C as it is in canon (written or shown).

I'd know I'd LOVE to have a model of Probert's C. Maybe in my fleet it would be a limited run class that fell out of favour for the D and only a few were made.
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!
Patrickivan is offline  
Old March 14 2014, 12:17 AM   #127
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
(ironically, the very reason the Enterprise-C looks so much like a Constitution-class ship and not an Excelsior/Galaxy hybrid).
The TNG E-C looked to me like a proper in-between an Excelsior and the E-D, IMHO. It had the bent warp pylons, the nacelles had the back half of the Excelsior's and the front of the E-D, the Excelsior's slanted edge saucer with the dorsal/ventral saucer curves of the E-D.

Other than the small lit ventral saucer dome similar to the TOS E and the cigar-ish front of the engineering hull like the E-A there isn't that much to connect it to the older TOS-E/TMP E, IMHO.

Probert's E-C looked alot more like contemporary or successor of the Galaxy-class rather than an in-between from an older generation ship and the Galaxy... Still, nice ship design though.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline  
Old March 14 2014, 03:02 AM   #128
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
Anyway- I'm not sure why there's such an obsession over evolutionary designs being so closely related between the Enterprises. It's just not needed. There's no reason for the E-C as it was presented to be out of place just because it looks a little behind the times compared to the E-B to D. It's just one of many different class of Starships in the fleet.
Quite true. If we take registry numbers into account (at least assuming they're chronological), then both the New Orleans class and the Steamrunner class were built around the same time. However, you couldn't have two more completely different designs of ship. They are dissimilar in almost every way, yet they could have been constructed right next to each other. Plus, look at the NX-01. It appears to have every indication of being a more advanced design of ship than the TOS Connie that came a century later. But it's not.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old March 14 2014, 11:46 AM   #129
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
Anyway- I'm not sure why there's such an obsession over evolutionary designs being so closely related between the Enterprises. It's just not needed. There's no reason for the E-C as it was presented to be out of place just because it looks a little behind the times compared to the E-B to D. It's just one of many different class of Starships in the fleet.
I concur. And none of my interpretations diminish the role of the starship class created by Rick Sternbach and seen as a VFX model (and as the Enterprise-C in the alternate universe of “Yesterday’s Enterprise”) throughout several episodes on screen.
Which of the two Enterprises-C is the better in-between between the "B" and the "D" is entirely a subject or personal taste and opinion (though I should add, that in my alternate universe sketch, the deciding factor for the presentation was the attempt to sync the phasers to the ships. Obviously, both TOS phaser and Enterprise-B are entirely conjectural. I speculated that in this "poor" Federation alternate reality, certain designs would be in use much longer than in ours).

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
I've re-evaluted my opinion of the E-C as seen on TNG. I remembered seeing that episode for the first time when it came out and just LOVED seeing a new ship and it was the ENTERPRISE! It was so cool. Not an awe inspiring design, but it didn't have to be. It was the story behind the ship that mattered.
[bold emphasis mine] I wholeheartedly agree (IMHO, story concerns have a higher priority than treknological aspects). And the way I have to take it, both the statements of Ronald D. Moore (2002) and David Carson (2008) suggest that the Enterprise-C in this episode (still) served as the plot device to enable Tasha Yar to have a meaningful death (apparently at the Battle of Narendra III).

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
I'd still like to see Probert's Real C as he designed her, and would still have no issue with it being in a re-made CGI into that episode, but one way or the other, the E-C is the E-C as it is in canon (written or shown).
Another parallel event featuring the Probert Enterprise-C sounds great to me. But the bridge schematics of the "C" would have to be altered, too. But then, it would still be stuck in an alternate universe that had no connection to ours.

Of course, the Sternbach Enterprise-C is canon for the alternate universe, but the one from "Yesterday's Enterprise" is not the ship that travelled back to our universe, according to "Redemption II", because in our universe the Tasha Yar that came from the future died a meaningless death (unless execution for having tried to escape should be considered a "meaningful death" or the Enterprise-C was duplicated upon return to our universe and one Tasha died meaningfully defending Narendra III while the other one got captured and was eventually executed).

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
I'd know I'd LOVE to have a model of Probert's C. Maybe in my fleet it would be a limited run class that fell out of favour for the D and only a few were made.
That had been a project a couple of year's ago. If my observations and conclusions gain momentum, and once fans realize they could have two starship classes instead of just one (if they only accepted the premise change of "Yesterday's Enterprise" by "Redemption II") it could be a nice side effect to put this project back on tracks (and especially since 2011 there are authentic CGI drafts to build it).

If I may, I'd like to provide again my rationalization proposal why we didn't see more ships like the Probert Enterprise-C in our universe (except for the conference lounge display of the "D"):
Assuming that the Probert Enterprise-C of our universe was the starship that was ultimately destroyed at Narendra III but with the possibility of survivors being taken captive and interrogated, Starfleet was afraid that the Romulans might have learned vital technical specs about the "Probert Starship Class" and therefore stopped building more starships of this design to be on the safe side. YMMV.

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  
Old March 14 2014, 01:16 PM   #130
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
(ironically, the very reason the Enterprise-C looks so much like a Constitution-class ship and not an Excelsior/Galaxy hybrid).
The TNG E-C looked to me like a proper in-between an Excelsior and the E-D, IMHO. It had the bent warp pylons, the nacelles had the back half of the Excelsior's and the front of the E-D, the Excelsior's slanted edge saucer with the dorsal/ventral saucer curves of the E-D.

Other than the small lit ventral saucer dome similar to the TOS E and the cigar-ish front of the engineering hull like the E-A there isn't that much to connect it to the older TOS-E/TMP E, IMHO.

Probert's E-C looked alot more like contemporary or successor of the Galaxy-class rather than an in-between from an older generation ship and the Galaxy... Still, nice ship design though.
I get what you mean- there are clearly elements from both ships that stray from what could be perceived as some kind of lineage. Probert's makes sense of course because of his design of the C & D. You can see Excelsior influences in his C in the lower half of the secondary hull and Saucer. I'm not suggesting that your point is any less valid- I agree with your description of the C's bent pylons, et c. I think my contention primarily lies in Probert's being a more refined. But as we know, secondary models didn't get the attention that designers and builders would have liked.

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Patrickivan wrote: View Post
Anyway- I'm not sure why there's such an obsession over evolutionary designs being so closely related between the Enterprises. It's just not needed. There's no reason for the E-C as it was presented to be out of place just because it looks a little behind the times compared to the E-B to D. It's just one of many different class of Starships in the fleet.
Quite true. If we take registry numbers into account (at least assuming they're chronological), then both the New Orleans class and the Steamrunner class were built around the same time. However, you couldn't have two more completely different designs of ship. They are dissimilar in almost every way, yet they could have been constructed right next to each other. Plus, look at the NX-01. It appears to have every indication of being a more advanced design of ship than the TOS Connie that came a century later. But it's not.
Re- TOS Connie/ NX-O1. I really think ST:E did a great job in emphasizing that the TOS Connie is superiour when they made In a Mirror, Darkly. The awe the crew had in the Defiant, and the power she conveyed, was a great tool for showing the viewer that NX (albeit alternet reality- whatever) was NOT close to being as powerful as TOS's Connies. One of my favorite ST:E episodes.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Patrickivan wrote: View Post
Anyway- I'm not sure why there's such an obsession over evolutionary designs being so closely related between the Enterprises. It's just not needed. There's no reason for the E-C as it was presented to be out of place just because it looks a little behind the times compared to the E-B to D. It's just one of many different class of Starships in the fleet.
I concur. And none of my interpretations diminish the role of the starship class created by Rick Sternbach and seen as a VFX model (and as the Enterprise-C in the alternate universe of “Yesterday’s Enterprise”) throughout several episodes on screen.
Which of the two Enterprises-C is the better in-between between the "B" and the "D" is entirely a subject or personal taste and opinion (though I should add, that in my alternate universe sketch, the deciding factor for the presentation was the attempt to sync the phasers to the ships. Obviously, both TOS phaser and Enterprise-B are entirely conjectural. I speculated that in this "poor" Federation alternate reality, certain designs would be in use much longer than in ours).

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
I've re-evaluted my opinion of the E-C as seen on TNG. I remembered seeing that episode for the first time when it came out and just LOVED seeing a new ship and it was the ENTERPRISE! It was so cool. Not an awe inspiring design, but it didn't have to be. It was the story behind the ship that mattered.
[bold emphasis mine] I wholeheartedly agree (IMHO, story concerns have a higher priority than treknological aspects). And the way I have to take it, both the statements of Ronald D. Moore (2002) and David Carson (2008) suggest that the Enterprise-C in this episode (still) served as the plot device to enable Tasha Yar to have a meaningful death (apparently at the Battle of Narendra III).

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
I'd still like to see Probert's Real C as he designed her, and would still have no issue with it being in a re-made CGI into that episode, but one way or the other, the E-C is the E-C as it is in canon (written or shown).
Another parallel event featuring the Probert Enterprise-C sounds great to me. But the bridge schematics of the "C" would have to be altered, too. But then, it would still be stuck in an alternate universe that had no connection to ours.

Of course, the Sternbach Enterprise-C is canon for the alternate universe, but the one from "Yesterday's Enterprise" is not the ship that travelled back to our universe, according to "Redemption II", because in our universe the Tasha Yar that came from the future died a meaningless death (unless execution for having tried to escape should be considered a "meaningful death" or the Enterprise-C was duplicated upon return to our universe and one Tasha died meaningfully defending Narendra III while the other one got captured and was eventually executed).

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
I'd know I'd LOVE to have a model of Probert's C. Maybe in my fleet it would be a limited run class that fell out of favour for the D and only a few were made.
That had been a project a couple of year's ago. If my observations and conclusions gain momentum, and once fans realize they could have two starship classes instead of just one (if they only accepted the premise change of "Yesterday's Enterprise" by "Redemption II") it could be a nice side effect to put this project back on tracks (and especially since 2011 there are authentic CGI drafts to build it).

If I may, I'd like to provide again my rationalization proposal why we didn't see more ships like the Probert Enterprise-C in our universe (except for the conference lounge display of the "D"):
Assuming that the Probert Enterprise-C of our universe was the starship that was ultimately destroyed at Narendra III but with the possibility of survivors being taken captive and interrogated, Starfleet was afraid that the Romulans might have learned vital technical specs about the "Probert Starship Class" and therefore stopped building more starships of this design to be on the safe side. YMMV.

Bob
I'm always in awe of those who want to take the time to wrap their heads around anything time travelly. One of the reasons I hate time travel episodes, especially recently with the premise of alternate realities, are that they are just to convoluted for me. Don't get me wrong, a lot of the best ones involved time travel and alternate realities- I'm just not a big fan of the device.

But I won't argue right or wrong with those interested in presenting their point of view on a subject so subjective.

I think I'm the person who wants to see it all. The original and new ideas. I want my cake and to eat it too, god damnit!
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!
Patrickivan is offline  
Old March 14 2014, 05:38 PM   #131
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
Re- TOS Connie/ NX-O1. I really think ST:E did a great job in emphasizing that the TOS Connie is superiour when they made In a Mirror, Darkly. The awe the crew had in the Defiant, and the power she conveyed, was a great tool for showing the viewer that NX (albeit alternet reality- whatever) was NOT close to being as powerful as TOS's Connies. One of my favorite ST:E episodes.
In the context of the episode, yes, it's clear why they had to steer the overall attitude toward a feeling that the TOS Connie was in fact superior to the NX-01. And yes, I also think they did a good job with that. However, I was talking more from a real-world standpoint. In that regard, the NX-01's look and technology are clearly superior to a ship designed in the '60's with the budget they had.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old March 14 2014, 06:00 PM   #132
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Patrickivan wrote: View Post
Re- TOS Connie/ NX-O1. I really think ST:E did a great job in emphasizing that the TOS Connie is superiour when they made In a Mirror, Darkly. The awe the crew had in the Defiant, and the power she conveyed, was a great tool for showing the viewer that NX (albeit alternet reality- whatever) was NOT close to being as powerful as TOS's Connies. One of my favorite ST:E episodes.
In the context of the episode, yes, it's clear why they had to steer the overall attitude toward a feeling that the TOS Connie was in fact superior to the NX-01. And yes, I also think they did a good job with that. However, I was talking more from a real-world standpoint. In that regard, the NX-01's look and technology are clearly superior to a ship designed in the '60's with the budget they had.
I see what you mean now. Agreed.

Fortunately ST:E was able to be creative with that 60's design, eh? Dramatic contemporary lighting techniques, and the ship CGI'd with more detail up close. But ya- there was no getting around a lot of things that we know to be very 60's. The computers/displays being the primary one, and the brightly coloured piping/conduits being another.
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!
Patrickivan is offline  
Old March 14 2014, 07:34 PM   #133
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Dukhat wrote: View Post
However, I was talking more from a real-world standpoint. In that regard, the NX-01's look and technology are clearly superior to a ship designed in the '60's with the budget they had.
Yeah the look and budget of the ST:E series NX-01 appears more modern, but functional-wise the aesthetically-older looking ship was superior in capabilities. It's a bit like saying the interior of the TARDIS looks steampunk-era but clearly it packs some sophisticated technology.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline  
Old March 15 2014, 02:51 AM   #134
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
However, I was talking more from a real-world standpoint. In that regard, the NX-01's look and technology are clearly superior to a ship designed in the '60's with the budget they had.
Yeah the look and budget of the ST:E series NX-01 appears more modern, but functional-wise the aesthetically-older looking ship was superior in capabilities. It's a bit like saying the interior of the TARDIS looks steampunk-era but clearly it packs some sophisticated technology.
Excellent analogy. Just as we clearly cannot judge the TARDIS's technology and capabilities simply by its appearance alone, neither can we judge the same in the Trek universe. From a visual standpoint only, the progression from the NX-01 through the TOS Connie to the TMP Connie would seem to make no sense; it looks more like the TOS Connie would have come first, then the NX-01, and finally the TMP Connie. But that's not the progression. Hell, there's even a progression disparity with Starfleet uniforms. The TNG unis have way more in common with the TOS unis than the TMP red jackets that were between the two.

Therefore, there's really no disparity with the "in-between" design of the Enterprise-C fitting in between the Excelsior and the Galaxy class.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old March 15 2014, 03:59 PM   #135
Rarewolf
Rear Admiral
 
Rarewolf's Avatar
 
Location: Devon, England
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
(ironically, the very reason the Enterprise-C looks so much like a Constitution-class ship and not an Excelsior/Galaxy hybrid).
The TNG E-C looked to me like a proper in-between an Excelsior and the E-D, IMHO. It had the bent warp pylons, the nacelles had the back half of the Excelsior's and the front of the E-D, the Excelsior's slanted edge saucer with the dorsal/ventral saucer curves of the E-D.

Other than the small lit ventral saucer dome similar to the TOS E and the cigar-ish front of the engineering hull like the E-A there isn't that much to connect it to the older TOS-E/TMP E, IMHO.

Probert's E-C looked alot more like contemporary or successor of the Galaxy-class rather than an in-between from an older generation ship and the Galaxy... Still, nice ship design though.
That's pretty much how I feel as well. Between Constitution and Sovereign there's several blind alleys - much of the Galaxy's more unique features are undone when it's successor comes along. The Probert design fits rather well between D & E!

Has anyone ever done a morph between the ships?

Edit - answered my own question. It's at warp speed though!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9vWARxP1pM
__________________
"Weaselling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals - except the weasels" Homer Jay Simpson
Rarewolf is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

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 02:52 PM.

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