RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,543
Posts: 5,513,283
Members: 25,143
Currently online: 488
Newest member: JackieM

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 29 2009, 05:14 PM   #301
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

^^ Those look great Bernard, the second one even looks like one of MJ's ideas for Phase II.

P.S. somewhat OT, but check this out, especialy the second group, which I've never seen before!
http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/...ead.php?t=7570

Last edited by TIN_MAN; August 30 2009 at 01:54 AM.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2009, 01:07 PM   #302
Bernard Guignard
Captain
 
Bernard Guignard's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Thanks Tin Man
Those cage pictures were neat to bad they were not larger
__________________
Live Long and Prosper Technically
Bernard Guignard
Project Manager TreknoGraphx
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trekno...yguid=89237652
Bernard Guignard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2009, 04:41 PM   #303
Tallguy
Fleet Captain
 
Tallguy's Avatar
 
Location: Beyond the Farthest Star
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

BTW, here are a couple of renders I did a while back with the turbolift on center. After all these years with the lift offset it looks a little weird...

__________________
-- Bill "Tallguy" Thomas
"All I ask is a tall ship..."
Tallguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2009, 09:29 PM   #304
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Tallguy wrote: View Post
BTW, here are a couple of renders I did a while back with the turbolift on center. After all these years with the lift offset it looks a little weird...

Cool! That is sorta weird at first, but after one gets over the initial adjustment, there's something that feels "right" about it, at least to me.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2009, 07:27 AM   #305
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

That's cause it looks like the bridge of the Reliant.

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars...ns/Page_58.jpg

Last edited by Captain Robert April; August 31 2009 at 07:39 AM.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2009, 06:52 PM   #306
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
That's cause it looks like the bridge of the Reliant.

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars...ns/Page_58.jpg
Nope, sorry, that's not the reason. It does look like the Reliant, I was aware of that when I posted, and thought of mentioning it, but decided against it since I considered it irrelevant. Especially since nothing else about the Reliant bridge, such as the railing or the console design and arrangement, is remotely comparable.
The reason it looks "right " to me, I think, is there seems to be an economy and efficiancy to this layout, such that all the parts fit together perfectly, both ergonomically and technicaly, especially when the intended relationship with the outside dome and T/L housing is kept in mind.
There seems to be, by comparison, something "disjointed" about the bridge as we we have it, as if it's "perfect symmetry" in all its related parts has been broken, but this only becomes evident when the two layouts are compared.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2009, 07:26 AM   #307
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Ooooooooooooooookay.....
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2009, 10:49 PM   #308
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Here's the latest version I've managed to dig up so far...

Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2009, 10:57 PM   #309
AudioBridge
Captain
 
AudioBridge's Avatar
 
Location: USA - Nemo me impune lacesset
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Here's the latest version I've managed to dig up so far...

I don't know, CRA. It looks like there is a lot of wasted space around your sunken bridge. I know you said maximizing space wasn't a priority for you, but do you at least envision some kind of equipment or machinery in all that area above and around your bridge?
AudioBridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2009, 11:06 PM   #310
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

That area is classified.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2009, 09:45 AM   #311
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Don't you mean "black box"?
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2009, 07:01 PM   #312
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

No, the black box is down on Deck 7, in Rec Room 4, next to the cappuccino machine.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2009, 08:22 PM   #313
Ziz
Commodore
 
Ziz's Avatar
 
Location: NY
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

There's a "blonde" joke that comes to mind...
__________________
Modular Models - Build your fleet YOUR way.
Ziz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2009, 12:54 AM   #314
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Thought I’d let things settle down a little bit, and collect my thoughts, before continuing. I think I’ve distilled the essence of my thoughts. So here goes...

Though my curiosity has been satisfied on a few points in the previous rounds, because I have been repeatedly frustrated in my attempts to keep this focused on the issues I wanted to talk about, I honestly still have some questions about how and why you’ve taken the route you have? Previously, we seem to have gotten bogged down in minutiae about T/L positions, and repeatedly put off topic by those who would reduce this to a simple issue about the bridge orientation. It seems the mere mention of a certain famous someone who popularized a certain solution to a technical inconsistency, is enough to get everybody seeing red and rolling their eyes. So I will steer clear of this and other “hot button” issues in this round and just state here for the umpteenth time, and for the record! This discussion is not, nor has it ever been, about the bridge orientation, it goes beyond (or at least, intends to) this simple either or, this or that, false dichotomy. So I don’t want to hear any more accusations of “waging religious battles”, or “pointless discussions”, “To-MAY-toe. To-MAH-toe”, etc. etc.! So try to keep this caveat in mind as we proceed, shall we, “a quarter has more than two sides; it has edges and corners too”!

What is this all about then, you may ask? Simply put, we should all be aware of the extremes we go to, and know when to admit we’ve overstuffed the plumbing, and then step back and take a fresh look at where we may have gotten carried away. A “solution” to a production inconsistency should not introduce still more inconsistencies. IOW, "if the ‘cure’ is worse than the ‘disease’, what have we gained"?

You say, CRA, that in the main, you are adhering to ‘designer intent’ (DI) in your plans. Although I have no doubt you sincerely believe this, I honestly don’t see this as being the case. Your own cross section above speaks more eloquently of this than anything I could ever say! I’m not trying to pick on you in your own thread, you can ultimately do anything you want with your own design, just think of me as your devils advocate, nitpicking your plans to help make sure there the best they can be by forcing you to defend your position! I like a lot of your ideas in your plans, I really do, but I’m afraid I cannot agree with some of the things you’ve done, not when there are better alternatives to consider.
For example; If it’s a perfectly forward facing bridge we want, (to make my point more objective, and therefore hopefully more persuasive, I will not use my own preferred solution), as AudioBridge and Tallguy have suggested, moving the T/L housing on the dome -though not a perfect solution- is way preferable (in my opinion) to repurposing the “nub” and putting the bridge at the bottom of the dome, and then sinking it into the B/C deck superstructure! As long as we keep the main shaft on the centerline, moving only the top deck or two’s worth of shaft to port, this allows us to stay -in one stroke- much closer to ‘DI’ in most particulars, than your alternatives, while solving the mismatched T/L positions without further ado! My point is, even if this alternative compromise does involve slight deviations from ‘DI’ and “the way we saw it on TV’, if it allows, in the long run, for a far simpler and more overall consistent, and ultimately much less egregious solution, than the ones proffered by you, then why shouldn’t we take them? Therefore, all this is also about applying common sense, and not choosing more complicated alternatives when simpler ones will do. "Occam’s Razor" applies here.

And appealing to fan's (in universe) concerns about protecting the bridge and T/L shaft, is not sufficient justification for lowering the bridge and hiding the T/L, because first of all, remember, this is not our sandbox we’re playing in, if MJ wanted his bridge in the dome -above the B/C decks- with an exposed T/L (and he did), then who are we to overturn this? We’re supposed to be working with what we have, not re-inventing the wheel! And second of all, as has been oft pointed out, on a ship with shields, and probably a ‘hardened’ dome structure, this should not be a major concern, because if all defenses are down, then you’re screwed anyway, and the bridge crew would have long since retreated to the auxiliary control/battle bridge/emergency bridge, (take your pick).
As for the exposed T/L housing, the same considerations apply here as above, so appealing to the idea that the T/L housing is exposed and vulnerable does not justify putting it inside the dome (and repurposing the ‘nub’), The thing for us to do, is to try to figure out why (from a fictional POV) the housing would need to be exposed. Fan tradition already answers this by assuming this is a T/L escape point, since the lifts act as lifeboats! This has the advantage of “killing two birds with one stone” as it were, it answers some fan concerns as to why the shaft should be exposed, and it also addresses fan concern as to the lack of lifeboats. All this falls under, “If it aint broke, don’t fix it”!

Well, that’s about it, I guess? Tried to be somewhat more succinct this time, hopefully I was clearer in getting my point across so just as hopefully, any replies will also be more to the point?

Last edited by TIN_MAN; September 4 2009 at 04:31 AM.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2009, 02:03 AM   #315
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
Thought I’d let things settle down a little bit, and collect my thoughts, before continuing. I think I’ve distilled the essence of my thoughts. So here goes...

*REALLY BIG SNIP*


You say, CRA, that in the main, you are adhering to ‘designer intent’ (DI) in your plans. Although I have no doubt you sincerely believe this, I honestly don’t see this as being the case.
Your problem is twofold. 1) You're overthinking the designers' intent, and 2) you're including too many designers in your list. Hint: FRANZ JOSEPH SCHNAUBELT IS NOT ONE OF THE DESIGNERS OF THE ENTERPRISE! He's just as much a Johnny-come-lately as any of us. He just got published earlier.

Your own cross section above speaks more eloquently of this than anything I could ever say! I’m not trying to pick on you in your own thread, you can ultimately do anything you want with your own design, just think of me as your devils advocate, nitpicking your plans to help make sure there the best they can be by forcing you to defend your position! I like a lot of your ideas in your plans, I really do, but I’m afraid I cannot agree with some of the things you’ve done, not when there are better alternatives to consider.
For example; If it’s a perfectly forward facing bridge we want, (to make my point more objective, and therefore hopefully more persuasive, I will not use my own preferred solution), as AudioBridge and Tallguy have suggested, moving the T/L housing on the dome -though not a perfect solution- is way preferable (in my opinion) to repurposing the “nub” and putting the bridge at the bottom of the dome, and then sinking it into the B/C deck superstructure! As long as we keep the main shaft on the centerline, moving only the top deck or two’s worth of shaft to port, this allows us to stay -in one stroke- much closer to ‘DI’ in most particulars, than your alternatives, while solving the mismatched T/L positions without further ado! My point is, even if this alternative compromise does involve slight deviations from ‘DI’ and “the way we saw it on TV’, if it allows, in the long run, for a far simpler and more overall consistent, and ultimately much less egregious solution, than the ones proffered by you, then why shouldn’t we take them? Therefore, all this is also about applying common sense, and not choosing more complicated alternatives when simpler ones will do. "Occam’s Razor" applies here.
Have you given one millisecond of thought to what would be involved in moving a turboshaft over to port? As opposed to just chopping off the top ten feet and lowering the bridge? You honestly think MOVING THE FUCKING SHAFT WOULD BE EASIER!?!

Two questions: What are you smoking? And did you bring enough for the whole class?


And appealing to fan's (in universe) concerns about protecting the bridge and T/L shaft, is not sufficient justification for lowering the bridge and hiding the T/L, because first of all, remember, this is not our sandbox we’re playing in, if FJ wanted his bridge in the dome...
And here is where the wheels fall off your wagon.

IT AIN'T FJ'S SHIP!! IT'S NEVER BEEN FJ'S SHIP!! Which is why, not only do I not give a fetid dingo's kidney what FJ did on his plans, anything he DID do is suspect.

Try again.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
enterprise deck plans

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 10:59 AM.

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