• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Daedelus, ala April

In other news, I just got a semi-new laptop yesterday (a former GSA office drone Dell Latitude CPi, running Win XP Pro with a DVD ROM drive; not bad for fifty bucks :D ), so once I get it up to snuff, I should be able to cook up something.
 
I am currently on the hunt for a slightly updated version of Paint Shop Pro (looking to get 9.0 off of eBay soon).

Once that's secured and installed, work should proceed.
 
OK, here's Aethernaut's take:

exterior05db7a.jpg

Very interesting, indeed.

You know what? I would love to see elements of this design combined with elements of Karim Nassar's take on the Daedalus and Forbin's kitbashed S.S. Reeses.

There are elements in each of these ships that I like which are absent from the others.

From Aethernaut's drawings, I like the lines and the textures. I especially like the connecting tube. Aethernaut made it thick and gave it a distinctive structure.

Karim Nassar invented a another very interesting idea: He took the nacelle pylons and moved them further back on the tube, and moved the tube so it sits on top of the secondary hull, rather then just flowing into the upper-bow of it. I also really like the textures of the hulls and nacelles on Nassar's design, and the shape of the front of the secondary hull.

Forbin's S.S. Reeses is really special. I like how the dish is back on the front of the secondary hull and how the connecting tube is elevated, leading into the very bottom deck of the pseudo-saucerette, thus allowing clearance for the navi-deflector.

I'd love to see a design that combines these things into one post-ENT ship.

It would be neat to see a Daedalus (or variant of same) that has a saucerette like Forbin's, but maybe shaped a little more spherically and with some of the textures from the other two. The connecting tube could combine
Aethernaut's and Nassar's designs, and the secondary hull could put a Forbin-like dish on the front of Nassar's design, with warp nacelles like a cross between the three, if that's possible.
This is what Archer's Enterprise should have looked like!
 
Which would bring us right back to the same reason the design was rejected forty-odd years ago, i.e., it's rather dorky overall, no matter how you gussy it up.
 
This is what Archer's Enterprise should have looked like!
I'm really starting to get tired of this phrase, no matter what design it gets applied to.
 
I don't know. I can't get the thing to fully boot up enough to get that info (and thanks to the way Apple does things, I'm not entirely sure where to get that info anyway). I do know it's running Mac OS 9.2, but something is hanging up the process.

It might have something to do with the AOL disk it refuses to eject (I'd like to find the dimwit at Apple who thought it was a good idea to NOT have an eject button).
 
I believe that holding down on the mouse button during boot-up will eject a disc from the optical drive.

It sounds like your iMac is either one of the original iMac models (first introduced in 1998) or somewhere back in that time frame. These machines did not use Intel processors; the were driven by PowerPC G3 processors manufactured by either IBM or Motorola/Freescale.

Just in case you were not aware of it: The Macintosh operating system is indeed different than anything you may be accustomed to on Windows. From a Mac user's perspective, that's the point. Apple is un-Microsoft. And also in case you are not aware: Windows software will not run on a Mac, any more than it would run on DOS. Wrong operating system. EXE files will not run. Macintosh-based software runs on a different architecture. Unless your Paint Shop Pro comes in a version that runs on Mac, it will not run at all on your "new" machine.

Newer Macs use Intel processors (2006 and newer); they can load WinXP or Vista and run both MacOS X and Microsoft OSs easily. Older Macs (early '06 and back more than 6 yrs.) with G4 processors could run Windows under hardware emulation. Macs of the vintage I believe that you have are way too old for that; they don't have the horsepower to handle a recent operating system.
 
This is what Archer's Enterprise should have looked like!
I'm really starting to get tired of this phrase, no matter what design it gets applied to.

Seconded. The NX-01 was, IMHO, a fine design.

Are we then assuming that there is a disconnect, or a loose connection, between the Starship Daedalus and the Daedalus-class of Federation starships, of which the U.S.S. Essex was a member?

If you're referring to the Daedalus from the ENT novels, there's no evidence for *or* against it being the class ship for the Daedalus class. It could be that same ship, it could also be completely different. If it's the latter, then the USS Daedalus was probably built as a memorial/tribute to the loss of the original ship and its crew.

Non-canonically, I do believe that subsequent ENT novels *do* treat the novel-version Daedalus as the class ship, and even have the Essex, Horizon and Archon as being already in existence when ENT takes place. They do not, OTOH, say anything about what the ship actually looks like. So they leave that wide open.
 
Last edited:
I'll have to try that space bar and/or mouse button bit.

UPDATE: Didn't work.

Okay, this time it worked. In fact, I'm using right now. :D Thanks for the help, folks.

Apparently, there's a relatively steep learning curve on this puppy, so don't expect a lot of output from this side of the operation for a while yet.

At least the sucker works...
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top