Tin_Man,
We seem to be disagreeing on when "upgrades" should be counted as subclasses or conversions to a different class. You seem to be saying that Production 1701 does fall into this pattern, but that the Pilots do not. I say, based on the work of others, that the differences between the versions indicate upgrading Constitution to meet the specs of newer classes, or official conversion to those class (the difference in the latter being largely a matter of semantics).
Since the Pilot I version of 1701 does not look like FJ's design, and neither does Pilot II or Production I/II, I tend to disagree. We never see on screen a ship that resembles FJ, the closest we come is the differently inaccurate Constellation, so it seems logical to me to "promote" the BoGP to the unseen Achernar class, which 1701 has been refit to somewhat resemble. The advantage of the scheme I support is that we are never shown any of FJ's other CA classes on screen (for good reason, they didn't exist yet) and consequently (other than the names FJ gives them) we know nothing about them, but by going with what I outlined we get to know what they all look like, and keep the BoGP in continuity by switching its class. To me its an elegant solution to several problems. But to each his own.
If you're ignoring the modern reconstructions of the studio model, that's fine, but as I said: if that's the case there's not much reason to mess with FJ, he's got a design that works independently of what we saw on TV. But that's just me. But I think I understand what you are aiming for: mostly FJ, but consistent with the sets. People can adapt FJ to make whatever ship they want, I certainly don't own the design, and what I offer is friendly advice. I've seen a lot of designs down the years, and my personal experience is when you try to factor in what everyone else has done it makes for a more consistent, and therefore enjoyable, expanded universe. But I'm one of those... fellows... that likes to pretend that on some level its all real!
On the other hand, I can't speak for the CC or anyone else's reconstruction of the undercut (not having looked closely at them yet, and DS is not officially 'done'), but for Alan Sinclair the question is whether there really is going to be room for someone to crawl? It would be better used for liquid storage, such as all that slush deutrium the impulse engines need, in that area, IMHO. There is no space (that I can see), whatsoever, for the transporter room as positioned by FJ, once we shoehorn the BOGP into AS's reconstruction. So, yes, to me its a major issue. See my human interface 24-Deck reconstruction for the severity of the undercut [yellow lines] ( http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv118/whorfin777/CS-AlanSinclair-24Deck-SB.jpg ) , which essentially reinforces the FJ-AS comparison ( http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv118/whorfin777/CS-FJ-AlanSinclair-StdArticulation.jpg ), and here is my current rough estimate of what the undercut makes inaccessible, per Alan Sinclair:
[BTW, I'm having problems with the links in this post going to a different URL than what shows up in the text of the post, and what I am inserting, repeatedly). Either this is some sort of strange cache error with my browser, or there is a problem with the BBS code. Just make sure you are going to a URL that matches the text in the post. Apologies for any inconvenience.]
No, in the plans, at least as labeled on the FASA versions (I haven't checked the harder to read FJ), Deck 7 has an office for the Captain near the transporter room and chapel (starboard side). Normally, this is one place I would expect disciplinary action to occur, and presumably this is where Rand spends much of her time. But looking at it, I think its smaller, at least until the revisions I'm proposing all get worked out. I think (maybe) all the department heads have a labeled office somewhere in the plans, separate from their quarters, at least in the FASA version of the plans. Which is the way it should be: can't be having underlings being disciplined in one's bedroom now, can we?
We seem to be disagreeing on when "upgrades" should be counted as subclasses or conversions to a different class. You seem to be saying that Production 1701 does fall into this pattern, but that the Pilots do not. I say, based on the work of others, that the differences between the versions indicate upgrading Constitution to meet the specs of newer classes, or official conversion to those class (the difference in the latter being largely a matter of semantics).
Since the Pilot I version of 1701 does not look like FJ's design, and neither does Pilot II or Production I/II, I tend to disagree. We never see on screen a ship that resembles FJ, the closest we come is the differently inaccurate Constellation, so it seems logical to me to "promote" the BoGP to the unseen Achernar class, which 1701 has been refit to somewhat resemble. The advantage of the scheme I support is that we are never shown any of FJ's other CA classes on screen (for good reason, they didn't exist yet) and consequently (other than the names FJ gives them) we know nothing about them, but by going with what I outlined we get to know what they all look like, and keep the BoGP in continuity by switching its class. To me its an elegant solution to several problems. But to each his own.
If you're ignoring the modern reconstructions of the studio model, that's fine, but as I said: if that's the case there's not much reason to mess with FJ, he's got a design that works independently of what we saw on TV. But that's just me. But I think I understand what you are aiming for: mostly FJ, but consistent with the sets. People can adapt FJ to make whatever ship they want, I certainly don't own the design, and what I offer is friendly advice. I've seen a lot of designs down the years, and my personal experience is when you try to factor in what everyone else has done it makes for a more consistent, and therefore enjoyable, expanded universe. But I'm one of those... fellows... that likes to pretend that on some level its all real!
On the other hand, I can't speak for the CC or anyone else's reconstruction of the undercut (not having looked closely at them yet, and DS is not officially 'done'), but for Alan Sinclair the question is whether there really is going to be room for someone to crawl? It would be better used for liquid storage, such as all that slush deutrium the impulse engines need, in that area, IMHO. There is no space (that I can see), whatsoever, for the transporter room as positioned by FJ, once we shoehorn the BOGP into AS's reconstruction. So, yes, to me its a major issue. See my human interface 24-Deck reconstruction for the severity of the undercut [yellow lines] ( http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv118/whorfin777/CS-AlanSinclair-24Deck-SB.jpg ) , which essentially reinforces the FJ-AS comparison ( http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv118/whorfin777/CS-FJ-AlanSinclair-StdArticulation.jpg ), and here is my current rough estimate of what the undercut makes inaccessible, per Alan Sinclair:
[BTW, I'm having problems with the links in this post going to a different URL than what shows up in the text of the post, and what I am inserting, repeatedly). Either this is some sort of strange cache error with my browser, or there is a problem with the BBS code. Just make sure you are going to a URL that matches the text in the post. Apologies for any inconvenience.]
No, in the plans, at least as labeled on the FASA versions (I haven't checked the harder to read FJ), Deck 7 has an office for the Captain near the transporter room and chapel (starboard side). Normally, this is one place I would expect disciplinary action to occur, and presumably this is where Rand spends much of her time. But looking at it, I think its smaller, at least until the revisions I'm proposing all get worked out. I think (maybe) all the department heads have a labeled office somewhere in the plans, separate from their quarters, at least in the FASA version of the plans. Which is the way it should be: can't be having underlings being disciplined in one's bedroom now, can we?
Last edited:
