Enterprise-A Questions

[BK613]

The closest I could find at Trekcore to the angle was the 'evasive starboard' return fire shots from TWOK, which do show just how the curve of the pylon can obscure the existence of the vents.

https://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/movie-02/screencaps/wrath-of-khan-2016/chapter18/st2-twok-dc-2442.jpg

https://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/movie-02/screencaps/wrath-of-khan-2016/chapter18/st2-twok-dc-2443.jpg

edit to add:
and in this shot from the same movie, you can really get a sense of how much it curves:

https://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/movie-02/screencaps/wrath-of-khan-2016/chapter17/st2-twok-dc-2270.jpg

 

[blssdwlf]

The closest I could find at Trekcore to the angle was the 'evasive starboard' return fire shots from TWOK, which do show just how the curve of the pylon can obscure the existence of the vents.

https://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/movie-02/screencaps/wrath-of-khan-2016/chapter18/st2-twok-dc-2442.jpg

https://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/movie-02/screencaps/wrath-of-khan-2016/chapter18/st2-twok-dc-2443.jpg

I agree that the curve can obscure the vents depending on the angle. In the case of TVH it seems to be the lighting is washing out the vent instead. The small vent is barely hinted at 1080p and not there in 480 (DVD). Screenshot crop is from 1080p.

 

[DSG2k]

Let's start by clarifying where we are.

It was suggested that this pylon lacks the small triangular vent on the outboard pylon up near the nacelle. Besides issues of having to have a custom or customized model to make that so, there was the counterpoint that it was an issue of visibility. That counterpoint ran something like:

As we see with the larger vent, the lighting and compositing in the scene has led to the vents being much lower in contrast to the hull . . . i.e. they're lighter than usual. That plus the angle of view where most of the vent is wrapped around the back side of the pylon is where the claim of no vent originated.

There remains a lot of nitpicking of evidence, for some reason, but the fact is that the presence of the vent is now acknowledged, an improvement on the previous view expressed was that it was not there.

That is exactly the view that I was hoping to change.

That said, I do want to address some of the ancillary things:

If SketchUp or any camera matching software is randomly throwing the whole model out of position and orientation when attempting delicate movements and you can eliminate user error then the model is not accurate enough for what you are doing.

Huh? Sorry, I must have been unclear. This is a manual process and user interface issue, not a model problem. SketchUp does have a camera match mode but I've never found it useful for anything not a rectangle so literally I am manually turning the model, "moving the camera" by various maneuvers, changing the field of view, et cetera, individually. One maneuver type requires turning the model with 'gravity' off to achieve pitch and roll, but as often when one does this the UI messes up and the entire model ends up *way over there*.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the model. I could literally be trying to replicate one of my own SketchUp screenshots with the very same SketchUp model and have the same problem.

The issue is akin to a more familiar sort of problem of drawing a box in the paint program of your choice, moving a piece of the image, then trying to put it back precisely but as you get close the box jumps on you. It does not mean that the piece of the image is somehow out of proportion or whatever. It's literally the same image, just there's a UI issue getting it matched back up manually.

I know you really want to be able to say there's something majorly wrong with the Wiley model, but there's not.

Here is the funny part. The small vent is already present in your screencap above (highlighted with red dots below). Still practically invisible to casual inspection.

Yes, I already pointed out that it was visible with my overlay shot of what appears to be the same frame. It is just that, from this angle, there's not a lot visible because the rest of it is either behind his head or curved around the pylon.

The visibilty of the front pylon edge gives a good spatial cue for positioning. I tried to maintain the angle and 'fly by' the Wiley 1701, but in any case you can see that, at a roughly proper angle, there's simply not a lot of that vent visible.

That is a far away shot and not like the close-up from TVH which is a different reason why you can barely see it.

No, the issue is of view angle and contrast, not distance. If you look at my shot, you can clearly see that there's a slight bit of angle change of the rear of the pylon as it approaches the nacelle. That's simply what the vent looks like from this angle . . . skinny, effectively invisible.

Other pics from other angles don't disprove that point, though I will admit to being amused at this shot from a much lower angle (and thus showing the vent area better) where the contrast is so low it is almost as bad for the purpose of vent visibility as the TVH shot:

but move the camera closer you can start to see it...

In any case, I think it is obvious at this point that this is a shot of the Constitution model. That said, all of this was based on arguing whether pieces of the Constitution model should be taken to represent an entire Constitution Class ship.

I am certainly happy to join in that argument when it comes to random saucers or pieces of saucers, nacelles, and even the BoBW secondary hull. I would prefer not to assume these are Constitution Class, especially given the re-use of designs of such large elements in that era for other known classes and ships.

However, here it is harder simply because there are more parts. It is not just a nacelle but also the pylon, and the pylon and its angle would tend to imply something to connect to that, for commonality with other Starfleet designs, would most likely be so close to a Constitution as to make it easier to just say it is one.

That said, I do not believe that was the intent of the effects team. In my opinion, it would not make sense to have the crew fly so close to a Constitution in this story context. They were simply flying by a random ship, visually demonstrating a busy Spacedock as with the other shuttle going the other way, and when they were planning to make the shot the earlier Miranda shots were probably done or had proven unsatisfactory. Only a review of the storyboard and/or making-of would confirm this sort of reasoning.

Then again, by only showing the slightest sliver of a Constitution, even that point can go either way.

 

[DSG2k]

The closest I could find at Trekcore to the angle was the 'evasive starboard' return fire shots from TWOK, which do show just how the curve of the pylon can obscure the existence of the vents.

Nice catch

 

[blssdwlf]

Let's start by clarifying where we are.

It was suggested that this pylon lacks the small triangular vent on the outboard pylon up near the nacelle. Besides issues of having to have a custom or customized model to make that so, there was the counterpoint that it was an issue of visibility. That counterpoint ran something like:

As we see with the larger vent, the lighting and compositing in the scene has led to the vents being much lower in contrast to the hull . . . i.e. they're lighter than usual. That plus the angle of view where most of the vent is wrapped around the back side of the pylon is where the claim of no vent originated.

There remains a lot of nitpicking of evidence, for some reason, but the fact is that the presence of the vent is now acknowledged, an improvement on the previous view expressed was that it was not there.

That is exactly the view that I was hoping to change.

If the evidence was there then I'll happily acknowledge it (which I did once I could see it). Up to that point, it just wasn't visible.

I was expecting the vent to be distinctly visible at that distance and angle (left - TSFS screenshot at 100% and right TVH screenshot at 100%). Instead it is smudged into the shadow of the pylon due to how it is lit

That said, I do want to address some of the ancillary things:

Huh? Sorry, I must have been unclear. This is a manual process and user interface issue, not a model problem. SketchUp does have a camera match mode but I've never found it useful for anything not a rectangle so literally I am manually turning the model, "moving the camera" by various maneuvers, changing the field of view, et cetera, individually. One maneuver type requires turning the model with 'gravity' off to achieve pitch and roll, but as often when one does this the UI messes up and the entire model ends up *way over there*.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the model. I could literally be trying to replicate one of my own SketchUp screenshots with the very same SketchUp model and have the same problem.

Then use a different app other than Sketchup?

The issue is akin to a more familiar sort of problem of drawing a box in the paint program of your choice, moving a piece of the image, then trying to put it back precisely but as you get close the box jumps on you. It does not mean that the piece of the image is somehow out of proportion or whatever. It's literally the same image, just there's a UI issue getting it matched back up manually.

I know you really want to be able to say there's something majorly wrong with the Wiley model, but there's not.

There are some obvious differences between Wiley's model and the actual filmed one, especially around the warp pylon area. Basing your argument on an inaccurate model is no better than a straw man argument, IMHO. I'm sure it is a lovely model. Just not for something like this.

Yes, I already pointed out that it was visible with my overlay shot of what appears to be the same frame. It is just that, from this angle, there's not a lot visible because the rest of it is either behind his head or curved around the pylon.

No, the issue is of view angle and contrast, not distance. If you look at my shot, you can clearly see that there's a slight bit of angle change of the rear of the pylon as it approaches the nacelle. That's simply what the vent looks like from this angle . . . skinny, effectively invisible.

Which is an interesting statement. You "clearly see that there's a slight bit of angle change of the rear pylon as it approaches the nacelle" but then call it "effectively invisible". You can clearly see it so it is not effectively invisible. Yet the TVH shot is effectively invisible since the vent is blended in with the shadow of the pylon and the only way you would know it is there is if you were really familiar with the Connie (this is what I'm acknowledging).

Other pics from other angles don't disprove that point, though I will admit to being amused at this shot from a much lower angle (and thus showing the vent area better) where the contrast is so low it is almost as bad for the purpose of vent visibility as the TVH shot:

Right, the curvature doesn't really have much to do with the TVH shot, IMHO.

In any case, I think it is obvious at this point that this is a shot of the Constitution model. That said, all of this was based on arguing whether pieces of the Constitution model should be taken to represent an entire Constitution Class ship.

I am certainly happy to join in that argument when it comes to random saucers or pieces of saucers, nacelles, and even the BoBW secondary hull. I would prefer not to assume these are Constitution Class, especially given the re-use of designs of such large elements in that era for other known classes and ships.

However, here it is harder simply because there are more parts. It is not just a nacelle but also the pylon, and the pylon and its angle would tend to imply something to connect to that, for commonality with other Starfleet designs, would most likely be so close to a Constitution as to make it easier to just say it is one.

That said, I do not believe that was the intent of the effects team. In my opinion, it would not make sense to have the crew fly so close to a Constitution in this story context. They were simply flying by a random ship, visually demonstrating a busy Spacedock as with the other shuttle going the other way, and when they were planning to make the shot the earlier Miranda shots were probably done or had proven unsatisfactory. Only a review of the storyboard and/or making-of would confirm this sort of reasoning.

Then again, by only showing the slightest sliver of a Constitution, even that point can go either way.

Yeah, it seems to boil down to "those nacelles are attached to a federation starship, but we don't know what class it is since we can't see what it is connected to" versus "it can only be Constitution class ships because behind-the-scenes the production crew only had that model and the Reliant on hand with those kinds of nacelles."

 

[DSG2k]

Then use a different app other than Sketchup?

It's fine for my purposes. Normally I wouldn't have bothered with such ultra-precision, nor would I have needed to, since the first version of overlay got the point across quite adequately.

There are some obvious differences between Wiley's model and the actual filmed one, especially around the warp pylon area. Basing your argument on an inaccurate model is no better than a straw man argument, IMHO. I'm sure it is a lovely model. Just not for something like this.

I don't think pointing to an irrelevant area (i.e. not under discussion) is much better, but congrats for finding something different to point to. Of course, I don't think we can call it "an inaccurate model" at that point, realistically, at least not without looking like we're trying to evade the conclusions that can be drawn by its use.

Which is an interesting statement. You "clearly see that there's a slight bit of angle change of the rear pylon as it approaches the nacelle" but then call it "effectively invisible". You can clearly see it so it is not effectively invisible.

I assume this attempted send-up is purely based on an accidental misunderstanding of what I said. Clearly seeing an angle change in the pylon line and not clearly seeing the vent itself isn't contradictory in the slightest.

Right, the curvature doesn't really have much to do with the TVH shot, IMHO.

(Shrug) Okay.

Yeah, it seems to boil down to "those nacelles are attached to a federation starship, but we don't know what class it is since we can't see what it is connected to" versus "it can only be Constitution class ships because behind-the-scenes the production crew only had that model and the Reliant on hand with those kinds of nacelles."

It's not just the behind-the-scenes argument. If we had a saucer and neck only, for example, we couldn't automatically claim Constitution because the Jupp exists. However, here we have nacelle and pylon, and not just a pylon but one at the proper angle for a Constitution, which as far as I recall exists nowhere else, even in FASA. Put simply, Occam certainly supports the Constitution argument.

Naturally, one can always leave an open mind for some other class, even if we see basically half a ship, or even all but a smidgen . . . it just gets less and less teneble as an actual position. Given that we know other Constitutions exist at this point, there's really very little reason to reject that this is one.

 

[publiusr]

This might make for a good 1701-A

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[blssdwlf]

It's fine for my purposes. Normally I wouldn't have bothered with such ultra-precision, nor would I have needed to, since the first version of overlay got the point across quite adequately.
I don't think pointing to an irrelevant area (i.e. not under discussion) is much better, but congrats for finding something different to point to. Of course, I don't think we can call it "an inaccurate model" at that point, realistically, at least not without looking like we're trying to evade the conclusions that can be drawn by its use.

If the front of the warp pylon isn't accurate how can you claim that the rest of the warp pylon is accurate? What conclusion would you draw? "Oh well, trust me, the side curvature is right even though the artist couldn't get the front right..." It may have been adequate to you, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I assume this attempted send-up is purely based on an accidental misunderstanding of what I said. Clearly seeing an angle change in the pylon line and not clearly seeing the vent itself isn't contradictory in the slightest.

(shrug) It's how you wrote it. The angle change of the pylon you point as "clearly the vent" and yet you then call it "effectively invisible". So yes it reads as a contradiction.

It's not just the behind-the-scenes argument. If we had a saucer and neck only, for example, we couldn't automatically claim Constitution because the Jupp exists.

That sounds suspiciously like a behind-the-scenes argument. And a behind-the-scenes counter argument would be the Jupp wasn't created until late in DS9's run which is years after The Voyage Home. That would rule out the Jupp being a possibility, so the bts argument goes.

If we had a saucer and neck only, why couldn't we say "we don't know without seeing the rest of the ship" rather than pidgeonhole ourselves into it has to be this specific class? How could we possibly know all the classes of ships star fleet has and say there aren't others that use some of the same parts?

However, here we have nacelle and pylon, and not just a pylon but one at the proper angle for a Constitution, which as far as I recall exists nowhere else, even in FASA. Put simply, Occam certainly supports the Constitution argument.

Well if you're going to pull in printed materials then there is the Belknap class which dates back to 1985, one year before TVH. From the TVH angle that nacelle and warp pylon could come from a Belknap as well as a Connie. Or any kit-bashed fan ship of the time that happens to have a similar warp nacelle and pylon arrangement.

Naturally, one can always leave an open mind for some other class, even if we see basically half a ship, or even all but a smidgen . . . it just gets less and less teneble as an actual position. Given that we know other Constitutions exist at this point, there's really very little reason to reject that this is one.

Unless you are making a film that is trying hard to only show one Connie, the hero ship Enterprise, and not "confuse" the viewers with a whole bunch of other Connies. IIRC, this is the same reason that a Connie does not appear in TNG like when the Stargazer was originally a Connie but replaced at the last minute with a new ship and Constellation dubbed over the Constitution class dialogue. YMMV.

 

[Ithekro]

This might make for a good 1701-A

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Reasonable development.

 

[Dukhat]

Unless you are making a film that is trying hard to only show one Connie, the hero ship Enterprise, and not "confuse" the viewers with a whole bunch of other Connies. IIRC, this is the same reason that a Connie does not appear in TNG like when the Stargazer was originally a Connie but replaced at the last minute with a new ship and Constellation dubbed over the Constitution class dialogue. YMMV.

The producers were absolutely ready to reuse the TMP Enterprise model as the Stargazer. At the time, they weren't worried that the audience would think it was the TMP Enterprise, because the entire episode was about the ship being the Stargazer. Literally the only reason why it was replaced at the last minute was because Greg Jein decided to make a new model on time and under budget, based on the yellow desktop model in Picard's ready room which was never actually meant to be the Stargazer.

As for that ship in TVH, we all know that IRL it was the TMP Connie model because what else would it have been. That's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is that since we only see a small part of the model in the shot, it can be speculated that in-universe it could be a different class using similar components.

 

[DSG2k]

If the front of the warp pylon isn't accurate how can you claim that the rest of the warp pylon is accurate?

I have tried to make the point very respectfully, as my goal was polite correction and not bombing you, but the continued resistance typing suggests that I need to be blunt: this argument of yours is just absurd.

The point about pylon curvature and view angle could have been adequately demonstrated with two cylinders joined in a T and shown at the proper angle with a vent drawn on the outboard rear quarter of the pylon cylinder, or a picture of two Coke cans held together as I point out how you can't read the label when held just so.

I like you and didn't want to disagree about your 'missing vent' error in a dismissive way, hence going to the trouble of using a proper model, but the fact that you keep trying to dig some sort of points out of the discussion after acknowledging the vent's existence is not a good look. It would be wiser to drop it than to continue this weird tirade about a ninety-nine-point-whatever (or ninety-point-whatever if you prefer) percent accurate model being completely unsuitable for any demonstration of basic gross detail of any kind just because you missed the whole concept as it related to the vent initially. It's just silly, especially when you try to pull the Belknap maneuver later.

(shrug) It's how you wrote it. The angle change of the pylon you point as "clearly the vent" and yet you then call it "effectively invisible". So yes it reads as a contradiction.

This is another example of you trying to falsely assign 'intellectual criminality' to me, adding to the claims of strawmanning, et cetera. I offered you the option to withdraw by recognizing that as a misunderstanding, but you decided to keep pushing. That was an error in judgement, made all the worse by the fact that, in order to keep trying to press your attack, you have employed a false quotation. (I will still try to give the benefit of the doubt here and assume that was an accident.)

Regarding this image:

... I said: "If you look at my shot, you can clearly see that there's a slight bit of angle change of the rear of the pylon as it approaches the nacelle. That's simply what the vent looks like from this angle . . . skinny, effectively invisible."

Your continuing effort to claim self-contradiction on my part is obviously invalid, so there will be no points for this, either. Talking about the line of the gray pylon hull having a slight but obvious angle change and noting that the vent itself is effectively invisible because it is so skinny (and with no little strip of hull visible past it, I would add, due to the angle) are not remotely contradictory. If one was unaware of the existence of a vent or other TMP pylon details, one might think the pylon we see had just a whiff of Phase II notch at that point.

The attempted nitpicking continues against the notion that a saucer-and-neck viewed by themselves can't be claimed as a Constitution because the Jupp, which reuses them, exists. You reply:

That sounds suspiciously like a behind-the-scenes argument.

That's ridiculous. The Jupp is a screen-used model. It is no more invalid to reference it then it would be to make reference to Galaxy Class-shaped parts not being unique due to various BoBW and other models visible as little more than blobs.

If we had a saucer and neck only, why couldn't we say "we don't know without seeing the rest of the ship" rather than pidgeonhole ourselves into it has to be this specific class?

Because, at the end of the day, your fanciful head-canon and denialism is not relevant. I have tried to be agreeable about entertaining the possibility of a separate class, but the more you insist that we *must* accept the existence of such a thing, the harder a line I tend to hew. There is simply no evidence for any other class with the observed pylons and angles, even amongst the FASA non-canon that I brought up to try to help you out.

Using your same reasoning, there are a lot of things that we cannot disprove. Why, there are ten Federation Class battleships just around the Spacedock bend, doncha know. Or, I could say that the Romulans have placed an invisible pink unicorn on the bridge holding a teapot with the name "Bertrand Russell" on it, and that this was the source of the chair squeak in Star Trek V, along with being the cause of all kinds of other things I might not like. Hell, I already told you I don't like the idea that it is a Constitution in that scene at all. However, unless you can demonstrate the existence of another class that matches the observation, then the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is a Constitution.

Well if you're going to pull in printed materials

That FASA reference was a kindness where I was trying to find you some justification that you didn't have, not an invitation to dive even beyond FASA into "any kit-bashed fan ship of the time" as you did. Yikes. We're talking about stuff you could reasonably pretend was being represented on screen with obvious Connie bits, and you sailed way past that.

there is the Belknap class which dates back to 1985, one year before TVH. From the TVH angle that nacelle and warp pylon could come from a Belknap as well as a Connie.

Oh good grief. The Belknap pylons resemble the Constitution in broadest strokes only . . . The angle of pylon and the nacelle are many degrees different, and the pylon itself is significantly longer fore to aft.

(I thought you were the one who was trying to be all insistent on absolute precision from the model I was using lest I be guilty of strawmanning and other intellectual criminality, yet, when it suits you, *this* is what you try to argue?)

Unless you are making a film that is trying hard to only show one Connie, the hero ship Enterprise, and not "confuse" the viewers with a whole bunch of other Connies.

As noted, that's why they didn't show the whole Connie. As I believe I also said, it would have been better to show a sliver of Miranda nacelle (and then we could argue if it was a Soyuz or any other variant and have a grand old time), but they showed a piece of a Constitution, a ship type for which no known variant classes exist. Until you can find one, then accept that it will be labeled as such, and recognize your preference to imagine it otherwise as merely your own emotion and nothing more.

I would reflect on that emotion, too . . . it has already led you to ignore what was already visibly present on the screen because you preferred otherwise, not to mention this continuation of the exchange. Might be a good idea to rein that in.

 

[publiusr]

I just wish Bezos would let Kerr scan the bloody thing.

Is there a program that can turn a physical model scan into blueprints?

Borge’s character of Funes the memorius could not accept the the dog he saw in the morning was the same he saw later on.

Might the filming model wear…droop…then get a nip and tuck—changes beyond using three cans of matte spray or whatever?

I think in ST VI they used a 1/537 but made it more accurate—no 3D print aftermarket bits there—that deserves a tale.

Sometimes I wonder if there was a different head for Bruce the animatronic shark—the photo of Kinter’s attack made Bruce’s nose seem more pointy—all other scenes it was more wide.