WIP - TMP Enterprise, deck by deck

[CTM]

So many questions, I've been away from this thread for a bit... so to try to answer as many as I can as quickly as possible:
AutoCAD R13 does do solid modeling, but the advanced complex curves are not easy to generate. The way I approached that in several cases involved using the edgesurf command, allowing me to use 4 poly-lines to define the shape, generating a 3-d poly-mesh object. It is essentially a 2-d face shaped and adjusted into 3-d space. I then take a 3-d "box" and trim it down, using the poly-mesh planes to define the edge of the solid object. That is how I dealt with some of the difficult complex curves on/around the Photorp deck. The remainder of the neck, I cheated. I defined essentially two separate ellipses, one running up the back of the neck, and one running up the front of the neck. I then joined them together (if you look very closely you can see the fusion line running up near the front of the neck - but not quite all the way to the front of the neck; starting with K-deck (the Photorp Deck is M) and continuing all the way up to the saucer.

"loft" is a foreign concept to me in CAD (although it shouldn't be).

So, here's the latest work on the neck - I still have to fit the Jeffrie's Tube (will run down inside the aft end of the neck), and bore the holes for the turbo-lift; and put in the doors, and fit the docking port, and put in the ladder/stairs in the ladder-well. Also, I need to finish building the structures on H-deck (where it starts to join with the Primary Hull). It might not look like much more than what was there a week ago, but there is quite a bit more work that has been put into the neck.

 

[CTM]

Another day's work added. I actually started working on filling out the lower decks of the primary hull - and have the basic framework for the primary hull built (but didn't render it). I have not built (at least as yet) a mechanism to separate the primary and secondary hulls. As I finish the neck interface, I will look at how to do that.

Four pictures tonight, wireframes and renders of the insie and outside of decks H-M.

 

[Praetor]

Wowser.

 

[Saquist]

Beyond Belief.
This is the closes will come to building this ship....
I can't wait to the finish.

 

[DiamondJoe]

Not to take anything from this, because it looks great and its taken alot of work, but it isn't right. This is more the fault of the designers in Treks 1 & 2 than you though. Specifically, your torpedo bays are waaayy too small. If you look at Trek 2, that one bay is bigger than what you have here, and if we accept that there are in fact 2 bays, then it creates more problems. Look at the width of the exterior structure of the entire torpedo bay and compare it to the bridge, and the landing bay, to get an idea of how much space is in there (ie, not much at all). Now, if there are 2 bays and the other bay is equal to the size of the one seen on screen, then they just don't fit into the structure (and there's certainly not enough room to get a funeral party in there). Also note that in the funeral scene there is another level above Kirk & party. Logically that level is part of the neck, and not the torpedo bay, as the bay isn't big enough to have 2 decks (look at the airlock size). Therefore if there are 2 bays then it makes no sense for there to be a seperate level above one of them. The only thing that makes an argument for there being 2 bays is the fact that it is trashed in WOK but looks undamaged later (perhaps damage control were just really efficient that day?)

Also, I think we have to accept that main engineering is further back in the secondary hull. Why? Because of that corridor we see in TMP and the first attack in WOK. There's no 2 ways about it: if engineering is where Shane Johnson and Mr Probert say it is, then that corridor extends into the deflector dish. It has to be further back for it to fit.

The torpedo bay in WOK looks pretty cool, but they dropped a major bollock on the design side. For one thing, there's nowhere for the intermix chamber, unless we accept that its between the torp tube arms. I think Shane Johnson came up with that solution because its the only one he could think of that allowed his layout to follow Mr Probert's design drawing, but it is ultimately pretty silly. Also, note that at the end of the inspection scene, alot of trainees disappear off to the rear of the bay - to engineering, perhaps? - which would strengthen the more logical assumption that engineering is further back. And the entire layout of the bay is baffling. To load a torpedo, the arm must retrieve it from storage (wherever that is) and lower it on to a long track, where it then travels (pretty slowly from the on-screen evidence) down to the launch tube. I'd estimate there's a minimum 30-second loading time for each torpedo because of this design - plenty of time for some nasty Klingon to pound your ship while you arse around loading your gun. Why not use the bay itself for torpedo storage so that they go straight into the launch tubes when needed?

As you are finding, I think the design problem with this Enterprise (and don't get me wrong - its the best looking of all of them) is that its just too small. The landing bay, and the shuttlepod docking at the airlocks in Treks 1 & 2, give a good sense of scale and size, but the interior set design of main engineering and the torpedo bay (or bays) bugger things up because they are not logically scaled. And there's a big corridor.

 

[Saquist]

I personally haven't done a comparison to the film from here but I tell you it's unlikely the two levels could fit in there but I don't know the internal volume we're dealing with. CTM could give an idea.

 

[CTM]

if you will note in this picture:

I have included a "pass through" to the deck above the torpedo bays that is definitively inside the neck. Certainly I could have implemented this as a single bay with a deck above, but we have a clear indication in TWOK that there are two bays. My choice is either to make one bay, or to make the two bays smaller than seen. Neither is a great choice. I said all along that some things just were not going to fit as seen on screen. If you can figure out a way to make it fit, more power to you. This is the compromise I made. Others could be made. A logical design would have been yet a third (or fourth) option. Certainly the design as seen in TWOK is not as efficient a design as it could have been.

 

[judge alba]

only just found this thread and have to admit what your doing CTM is bloody good

 

[DiamondJoe]

Don't get me wrong - I think this is fantastic, really, and I can't wait to see it all.

However I think that having 2 bays is more unworkable than 1. There's the size issue, of course, but also with your pass-through, the level above opens with a circular railing balcony overlooking the bay. I think if there were 2 bays, what you would see would be a half-circle, as the other half would overlook the other bay.

As I said I think the only realistic solution to this is to move engineering and the intermix chamber further back. Although we have Mr Probert's drawing, and Shane Johnson's deck plans, I think that what we see on-screen has to be the guide. There is no on-screen evidence that main engineering is at the extreme forward of the secondary hull, or that the chamber is mounted between the torpedo tubes, or that the chamber connects to the impulse crystal (or even if it is a crystal) and much logical evidence to suggest that none of these things are true. The existence of the corridor leading out of engineering would indicate that it must be located further back to allow for its passage.

It would be interesting to hear Mr Probert's thoughts on this...

 

[Saquist]

CTM,

The One Bay Option could allow for what we see in the movie so that beyond the inner tube doors the route splits into the tube one and two. I believe that's one of your options you've pointed out.

Diamond Joe. I disagree with your position on moving the Engineering Section.
Engineering is exactly at the juction between the Neck and the PTS and of Course directly bellow the deflection crystal of the impuse engines. Engineering as to be where it is.

In my opinion the most important thing isn't what we see in the Movie. It's the Plans themselves. Unless you're truely forced to change things because of an error in the design (Which happens all the time with 2D schematics ) then leave it alone. The designs were made in retrospective to other elements that aren't immediately seen. If you start changing things that are superflous just for how they look it may screw you in the end.

Like my guys say: Cut to fit/Paint to Match

 

[Cary L. Brown]

There are certainly issues with the TMP-era ship design. If you read the entire thread, you'll find that CTM is well aware of those.

That said... the idea of it "being too small" isn't the right answer. The size was established before the internal sets were designed, or laid out, much less built.

There are numerous "issues" with sets and props and SFX and you name it. But it's possible to keep the "spirit" of those, and even the look of those, without losing their functionality entirely.

The torpedo rooms may seem small, compared to what you think you saw on-screen. But really, are they? Remember... all the set "really" is, is a corridor with a railing-floor covering a track, a couple of consoles, and room to stand along either side of the track.

Is there any reason that the set seen in TWOK couldn't be "scaled down" slightly? It's a common practice, both in Trek and in filmmaking in general, to make sets larger or smaller than the REAL WORLD things they're supposed to represent (movie "Oval Office" sets are typically larger than the real thing, for example... and let's not even talk about movie "airliner interior" sets!)

So, which scene from TWOK would be impossible if the rooms are slightly smaller than "as filmed?"

They're not THAT much smaller. Not really. This ship is bigger than you're probably thinking.

CTM... if you could add a "human-sized" element to that scene, even if only momentarily, that might help people to envision what you're trying to do here.

 

[CTM]

CTM... if you could add a "human-sized" element to that scene, even if only momentarily, that might help people to envision what you're trying to do here.

Done. I don't have time to do anything more elaborate or detailed tonight, but the figure in this scene is approximately a 6-foot tall "man" (yes, I know it is primitive boxes ). It is a little smaller than the Photorp Bay shown in TWOK, but not by much.

 

[DiamondJoe]

Saquist

I disagree that the deck plans should be considered totally canon, and I think that what is seen on-screen should be. For one thing, none of the deck plans of the refit Enterprise that are floating around on the internet have ever been seen on-screen (unlike the plans for the Enterprise D or E, which are prominintly featured on various displays). They are simply suppositions made for fun. And yes, I'm aware that this is too (and I think its a hell of a job) but I don't see how you can get around the fact that there is a corridor that leads out of the engine room, which if the room is where you say it is, simply cannot exist. It has to be further back.

The guy in the bay does give a good idea of scale - thanks. I still feel that there has to be only one bay, though, and that as suggested the launch track splits into 2 tubes at the end. If you look at the end of the inspection in Trek 2, and the funeral scene, there is actually a fair amount of space in there - it doesn't seem particularly cramped.

Still - its all for fun and ultimately as you say there probably isn't a perfect solution. The one I would personally go with would be something like the one below, which someone else has already suggested. This way you fit engineering in nicely, the corridor matches and you free up space in the torpedo bay. The only slight issue, as far as I can see, would be that the bottom of the intermix chamber sits over the arboretum. However who says there actually is an arboretum there? We've never seen it and the windows glow blue. Wouldn't they be green? And isn't it slightly odd to have a garden deep in the engineering section of a ship where space is at a premium?

 

[CTM]

Saquist

I disagree that the deck plans should be considered totally canon, and I think that what is seen on-screen should be. For one thing, none of the deck plans of the refit Enterprise that are floating around on the internet have ever been seen on-screen (unlike the plans for the Enterprise D or E, which are prominintly featured on various displays). They are simply suppositions made for fun. And yes, I'm aware that this is too (and I think its a hell of a job) but I don't see how you can get around the fact that there is a corridor that leads out of the engine room, which if the room is where you say it is, simply cannot exist. It has to be further back.

The guy in the bay does give a good idea of scale - thanks. I still feel that there has to be only one bay, though, and that as suggested the launch track splits into 2 tubes at the end. If you look at the end of the inspection in Trek 2, and the funeral scene, there is actually a fair amount of space in there - it doesn't seem particularly cramped.

Still - its all for fun and ultimately as you say there probably isn't a perfect solution. The one I would personally go with would be something like the one below, which someone else has already suggested. This way you fit engineering in nicely, the corridor matches and you free up space in the torpedo bay. The only slight issue, as far as I can see, would be that the bottom of the intermix chamber sits over the arboretum. However who says there actually is an arboretum there? We've never seen it and the windows glow blue. Wouldn't they be green? And isn't it slightly odd to have a garden deep in the engineering section of a ship where space is at a premium?

I very seriously considered going with that, but if you look at Probert's intentions in this drawing http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:TMP_Enterprise_cut.jpg you can clearly see the botanical section defined, as well as the intermix chamber running straight between the impulse deck and the bottom of the secondary hull. Were I designing this ship from scratch, that is one of the many things I would change. The intent of the design team is clear, therefore I will attempt to match it as closely as possible.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I disagree that the deck plans should be considered totally canon, and I think that what is seen on-screen should be. For one thing, none of the deck plans of the refit Enterprise that are floating around on the internet have ever been seen on-screen (unlike the plans for the Enterprise D or E, which are prominintly featured on various displays).

No they weren't... there have never been "D" or "E" deckplans shown on-screen. The only "official deckplan set" for TNG came out after the series was over. (A better set was never truly released, by the way, but can be found on the 'net and makes, to me at least, a lot more sense than the one we got from Pocket.) There are, as far as I'm aware, no "deck plans" for the "E" anyplace.

The only "deck plans" that have ever seen screen time have been the FJ deckplans... which don't match the real TOS ship as seen on-screen anyway.

They are simply suppositions made for fun. And yes, I'm aware that this is too (and I think its a hell of a job)

That's not entirely true. Yes, it's being done as a "hobby" rather than to develop a real, buildable starship. (At least as far as we know!)

But it's not "just for fun." Trust me, I know... if it was "just for fun," in that sense, you could put anything anywhere, and not worry about trying to match up with anything, nor trying to apply logic.

My point is that this is as much a technical exercise as it is recreation. How do you reconcile totally contradictory evidence? What aspects are IMPORTANT, and what aspects can you afford to "wink and nod" at?

Ultimately, what you have to keep is anything which, if different, would change the context of what was seen on-screen. What you can afford to "tweak" is anything which can be justified as a "production mistake" or "production compromise."

For instance, the re-use of an existing set (the Klingon bridge) for making a torpedo room set is a "production compromise."

but I don't see how you can get around the fact that there is a corridor that leads out of the engine room, which if the room is where you say it is, simply cannot exist. It has to be further back.

Not true. You only have to change how long that corridor is. Instead of being 20 feet long, it becomes ten feet...

A more likely "compromise" from the original designer intent, I suspect, is the deck on which main engineering is located. It's quite clear that the intent is for the two angled "upwards" shafts at the end of the horizontal intermix chamber are supposed to be firing directly up the pylons, without any "jog" or interruption. I suspect, however, that the location we've been given by Andrew's original layout precludes that from being possible. Then, there's also that TWOK "drop-down door" which is also impossible if the engineering set is at the very spine of the engineering hull. Ultimately, engineering MUST be lower, I suspect.

But that's not so much based upon "it looks like this on-screen" as it is based upon "this is how the parts fit together most logically."

Your argument about that forward-leading corridor... seen ONLY ONCE, IN THE BACKGROUND, during TMP... is something that has no bearing on the storytelling whatsoever. If it doesn't fit, and everything else does... logic demands that that detail be the one which is "compromised" on, doesn't it?

The DESIGN INTENT was that the horizontal shaft run aft from the vertical shaft, and then branch to run up both pylons. The DESIGN INTENT was that the vertical shaft run from the base of the secondary hull, directly vertically, to the impulse deflection crystal.

Don't believe me? Check this out:
http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/TMP_MenuPAGE.html

The guy in the bay does give a good idea of scale - thanks. I still feel that there has to be only one bay, though, and that as suggested the launch track splits into 2 tubes at the end. If you look at the end of the inspection in Trek 2, and the funeral scene, there is actually a fair amount of space in there - it doesn't seem particularly cramped.

You've made your point. CTM has considered the issue and made his own choice. You, of course, are welcome to do your own version and implement it any way you wish, as are all of us. That's really the fun part anyway.

EDIT: While I strongly recommend browsing Andrew's entire site, in order to save confusion among those who don't want to look "everywhere," here's the relevant image, on this page:

http://probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/CargoBay-3.html

Looking at that, you can see that there IS room to move the engine room down a deck, without impacting anything significantly.

 

[DiamondJoe]

The Enterprise D cutaway could be seen in main engineering (during 'Generations' for example, when the Duras sisters view it via Geordi's visor). I think (although I could be wrong) that the E cutaway was displayed at the rear of the bridge.

That corridor is not only featured in TMP. During Khan's first phaser strike we see the cadets fleeing engineering and some of them exit through that door and out through the corridor. And I don't think there's even ten feet to spare there. And even if it is only seen twice - well, its still there, isn't it, no matter how many times you see it? And my argument isn't really about storytelling - its about the reconciliation with what is seen on-screen (ie, canonical Trek) with the technical realisation and design of the ship from a practical standpoint. I have seen Mr Probert's drawing and I appreciate that was the design intent. My point is that the intent doesn't mesh with canon, and concepts are simply that - concepts. Not final realisations.

I hadn't considered that drop-down door in engineering, and yes I think you're right - engineering must be lower down. And I'm sure I can't be the first to mention this, but how does that door manage to slice straight though the horizontal intermix chamber?

I wish I had the ability to do my own version! Unfortunately I do not possess the skills that CTM does or the necessary hardware. I think his version is terrific, but I just find that to shrink the torp bay by that much and to ignore an on-screen feature such as that corridor deviates a bit much from canon. Can't wait to see the finished ship though.

 

[CTM]

I wish I had the ability to do my own version! Unfortunately I do not possess the skills that CTM does or the necessary hardware. I think his version is terrific, but I just find that to shrink the torp bay by that much and to ignore an on-screen feature such as that corridor deviates a bit much from canon. Can't wait to see the finished ship though.

Which Canon are you adhering to? What was seen inside, or what was seen outside? What was seen inside won't fit in many cases (not just the ones we are discussing just this moment) in what was seen outside (another good example is the Rec Dec which will not fit in the saucer the way it is shown on screen). Want to label the actual ship seen on screen as canon-violation? When canon conflicts, you chose one, the other, or some compromise that allows both - even if neither fits exactly as seen.

 

[DiamondJoe]

Yeah I agree there's plenty of in-film mistakes. The rec dec is a great example - simply far too big. And your take is a really good compromise, as they do have to be made. I simply say (for the last time, I promise, as I'm probably starting to sound like a stuck record) that to have two torp bays is more unfeasible than one, and that main engineering should be further back, and slightly lower.

Anyway - I'll say no more on the issue, and simply look forward to seeing the finished article.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Yeah, totally unfeasible considering that we saw a torp bay blow up and not long later saw a clean, intact torp bay at the funeral.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The Enterprise D cutaway could be seen in main engineering (during 'Generations' for example, when the Duras sisters view it via Geordi's visor). I think (although I could be wrong) that the E cutaway was displayed at the rear of the bridge.

Ah, I see your error.

You're assuming that because someone did a "cross-section view" that this is either (a) accurate to what we see on screen, or (b) means that there are "deck plans" associated with it.

Neither is true.

In fact, for a great example of this look at DS9, and the Defiant. There are multiple versions of the "cross section" (what we call the "MSD" for "master situation display") Depending on which version you look at, the ship is a different number of decks thick. Does this mean that the ship "grew" a few decks during it's life? Nahhhh...

That corridor is not only featured in TMP. During Khan's first phaser strike we see the cadets fleeing engineering and some of them exit through that door and out through the corridor. And I don't think there's even ten feet to spare there.

All we REALLY see is cadets running out of the damaged area. Whether the corridor continues forward by some distance, or if it's a short "T" and they're fleeing to either side, ultimately, has no impact on the scene, and virtually nobody who didn't freeze-frame that sequence frame-by-frame would notice any details of that corridor. It's an exit. We don't know, and don't care, what's in front of Main Engineering. There's no STORYTELLING reason to be a stickler about something that you barely see for a couple of seconds of screen time, if by doing so you have to TOTALLY TRASH the primary design intent of the set in question.

The "vertical intermix shaft" goes from the bottom of the secondary hull to the impulse deflection chamber. PERIOD. If you don't want to buy that, that's your prerogative, and since the ship doesn't "really" exist, you can decide that in your own "personal canon." But the TMP ship is based upon this as one of the most central aspects of the design. To change it is sort of like saying that you don't really NEED that spine going from your pelvis to your skull.

And even if it is only seen twice - well, its still there, isn't it, no matter how many times you see it?

Not so much, no. The set no longer exists, so the only place it "exists" is on about 2 seconds worth of film, in the background.

I can live with it being "not exactly as seen" for those two seconds of film. Especially if you have to totally compromise the design of the ship, both in terms of internal arrangement and in terms of scale, to accomplish that trivial change.

And my argument isn't really about storytelling - its about the reconciliation with what is seen on-screen (ie, canonical Trek) with the technical realisation and design of the ship from a practical standpoint. I have seen Mr Probert's drawing and I appreciate that was the design intent. My point is that the intent doesn't mesh with canon, and concepts are simply that - concepts. Not final realisations.

Sorry, you're playing "revisionist" in order to make your PERSONAL PREFERENCE take precedence over some other items.

In other words... where two features don't necessarily "match" perfectly, you've chosen the one you'll reject and the one you'll keep.

That's perfectly fine... but it's NOT fine to insist that everyone else accept that the choice you've personally made is the one that they have to accept as well.

You clearly have a preference in how you look at things towards the existing sets. I have a preference towards making sets and external ship design "match up" properly. CTM has a preference towards implementing a physical version of a drawing set he has and turning it, with the least amount of "tweaking" possible, into a 3D "world."

All are OK. All are simply personal preference. After all, NONE of this is real.

You can make recommendations, but if your recommendations are rejected... please let it go. This is CTM's project, not yours, and he's doing this for his own purposes, not in order to meet YOUR requirements (or mine, or anyone elses!)

I've made my own suggestions to CTM, and he's taken a few and left a few alone, and that's FINE with me. I think his work is terrific, and a lot of fun to watch. Enough that I'm starting to think that I might try this one next, if I ever really get around to finishing my TOS one (I've been distracted by real life... specifically, the female portion thereof... recently! )