No, simply because the Huron did not yet exist and I’m trying to avoid any post TOS influences. Also the Huron doesn’t strike me as something Matt Jefferies would design, at least not as squared off as the TAS design.
I understand what you are saying, but it’s still using something that didn’t yet exist. I have already caught myself thinking about things I have seen over the years since the show ended production—it’s very hard to defend against. And, mind you, it’s not impossible for someone of one era to envision an idea that someone else many years later will also envision independently. I’m just trying to be as faithful as I can to the parameters I set out for myself.
I can't argue with the man here. I never liked those "robotic freighters" from "More Tribbles More Troubles" As to the F4 idea. Turn it upside down. I'm not saying it will be good, but give it a look. Also "Ane Modular Transports" I don't know that Jefferies would do this but I did. 23rd and later container ships. Not stuck in anything.
The Huron and robot freighters of TAS do have something of a TOS vibe to them, but like the TAS shuttlecraft they have a different design language than Jefferies used in TOS. As such thats why I am trying to adopt something of his mindset to fill in some of these unseen designs.
Didn't mean to be a spoilsport. Just thought I'd point it out. As you then said in post #203, similar concepts can be designed years apart quite independently. I don't envy your task of trying not to be influenced by what came after TOS! But look forward to see what you come up with.
For me design often involves a lot thinking while outwardly looking like I’m not doing much of anything at all. Periodically I will sketch out something that might seem interesting—sometimes it leads me forward, sometimes leads to nothing after all, or leads me in a different direction altogether. It’s time consuming or at least it seems so to me. And then at some point things somehow coalesce into a coherent and integrated concept, something I can turn around in my head and see it from different angles to clarify how everything goes together. I somehow see it in 3D in my mind before I resume sketching and then building in 3D. Mind you I can still stumble into a blind alley and find the result unsatisfying, which leads me to backtrack and rethink the whole thing all over again. Yeah, thats where I am presently. But...something is hovering at the edges of my mind, something I feel close to bringing into focus...
Trying something out. Trying for something looking older and a bit clunky. I’m not entirely sold on this idea, but it might be massaged into something workable. Size wise it could be about the size of the Enterprise’s secondary hull. I envision a lot of bulky and intrusive machinery aboard so that it’s not that spacious even for a small crew. I’m actually tempted to eliminate the lower nacelle.
I will rework the current model because I see what I could do better. Even so I haven’t given up on the sub like idea either.
And thank you for continuing in keeping such a discipline. It's easy to be influence in getting off focus and get trapped into fan-wankery.
There is more than one way to skin a tribble. This is of a physical model. To wit the Round 2 1/1350 refit.
^^ Cool, but are you sure you put this in the correct thread? I’ve seen your models on Facebook in the Star Trek TOS group.
Well it is not my model. I'm on the forum. Just an example of what can be done with physical models, as wonderful as CGI is. I'm a touch old school. Frankly, I wish I could build half that well. But credit where credit is due. I am not Mark Myers.
It’s entirely possible to make cgi look like a physical model, but it takes skill and time. A number of devoted fans have done it.
As a still image, I would whole heartedly agree, but in motion...not so much. I am sure it could be done, as you say, but it is seldom done (if ever) as you say. Nevertheless, on with the ships! I do not wish to take this masterful thread further off topic. (my apologies for adding my 2 cents on the issue)
A physical image telegraphs something to the human brain and thats tricky to emulate. For one thing real objects are often imperfect in form and motion whereas cgi is often too sharp, too perfect.
Okay then. I've chosen to explore a different direction without rethinking everything that has been discussed. I still want that smallish and somewhat cramped idea of a more utilitarian type of design, but without looking almost like a WW2 submarine or a obvious saucer based design. Superficially this could be seen as similar to the TAS robot freighter, but I did make an effort to ignore that. And I think I can say that this design language is distinctly different from the squared and sharp edged language of the TAS freighter. Again this is meant to be about the size of the Enterprise's secondary hull or smaller with a crew of about 20-50. As I worked this out it struck me that it could possibly be reused later for perhaps the Beagle referenced in "Bread And Circuses." Mind you the Antares is referred to alternately as a survey vessel as well as a cargo or transport ship. As such it could be more specifically a survey ship that can do occasional duty as a cargo transport. Now the Antares crew were wearing older Starfleet tunics so that strongly supports the idea the Antares is indeed a Starfleet vessel. On the other hand it's said in "Bread And Circuses" that Merrick commanded a merchant vessel after failing to qualify for a starship command. Does that mean the Beagle wasn't a Starfleet vessel or was it a Starfleet merchant marine vessel? If the latter than the Beagle could be of the same type as the Antares and this miniature could be reused.
1001 likes. That just SAYS “Antares” better than anything else—it feels *right* Pimenta’s take is too good—a capital ship—an early Section 31 spy ship. The TOS-R ship from Charlie X is what poor picked on Huron should have been—with the TAS Huron being a huge lost years design the Orion’s couldn’t touch...