Considering I am basing my TMP deck-by-deck on an old copy of Strategic Design's TMP plans.... I would say that is a distinct possibility.
Strategic Designs' TOS Conny plans
- Thread starter Forbin
- Start date
Considering I am basing my TMP deck-by-deck on an old copy of Strategic Design's TMP plans.... I would say that is a distinct possibility.
Interesting take on it, but not of much use to me, because of the corridor issue, and some other bits.
Unfortunately, not all of us have dedicated 'hobby' rooms like you do, Forbin.
I'm actually really full on hobby room myself, and can't even take another BOOK, much less a poster set, unless it's something I can directly use. :S
For those of us working along similar lines, there's a tendency to view stuff like this through the prism of "is there anything that might solve some problems I'm having?" or "is this guy doing a better version than I am?"
In any case, the last thing you want is to be accused of stealing from the other guy, which puts up another impediment in the notion of simply enjoying them for their own sake.
In any case, the last thing you want is to be accused of stealing from the other guy, which puts up another impediment in the notion of simply enjoying them for their own sake.
I was going to start a thread on these until I saw this one. I for one am impressed. I don't care if it doesnt match up exactly to what we see on screen. Heck, episode to episode didnt always match up. However, these are more credible as a working starship than Josephs plans. Furthermore, because of the similarities between these deck plans and TMP Enterprise, it gives criedence to the idea that a full refit where entire decks are ripped out and replaced wasnt neccasary. Instead technology was updated. I don't think its unfair to say that TOS Enterprise didn't have a warp core just because it wasnt stated on screen. I for one will take these as to be the representation of the Enterprise from 2266-2269.
I have an older set of Schmidt's blueprints of the Enterprise A, so I'm not sure if I need the new ones.
I have an older set of Schmidt's blueprints of the Enterprise A, so I'm not sure if I need the new ones.
First let me state that I have enjoyed all of David Schmidt’s previous publications. I own Starfleet Dynamics, Starfleet Prototype, and the Enterprise-A Deck Plans.
Here’s some of what I like about the new Strategic Design Constitution-class plans:
- Bridge is offset.
- Saucer Landing pads are identified.
- Hangar Deck design.
- Location of Main Engineering (If Engineering is to be placed in the secondary hull, I much prefer the location as presented in these plans instead of directly forward of the Hangar Deck. Truth be told, I still somewhat prefer the Franz Joseph location in the saucer. There are valid arguments to support the FJ location, such as an adjacent circular corridor, and 400 some-odd crewmen being trapped BELOW Main Engineering in Day of the Dove.)
Here’s what I don’t care for:
- Phaser Banks and Photon Tubes are same as Franz Joseph plans. No Weapons of any sort are identified at the location from where we see them fired throughout TOS.
- The “ret-conned” rec-deck, cargo bay, and “invisible” docking ports on the secondary hull. No reason that these have to be the same as on the refit-Enterprise. Decker himself said that it was “an almost totally new Enterprise.” And, Schmidt has even acknowledged that the Motion Picture Enterprise was a “rebuild.”
I am much more impressed with the new Enterprise-class plans (yes, I ordered the E-class variation of these plans), with perhaps the exception of a rear-firing photo tube placed right below the Hangar Deck (also on the Constitution-class plans). Additionally, I can’t seem to figure out where the turbo-shaft coming from the interconnecting dorsal lines-up between decks 6 and 7. Wondering if that’s an error...
Here’s some of what I like about the new Strategic Design Constitution-class plans:
- Bridge is offset.
- Saucer Landing pads are identified.
- Hangar Deck design.
- Location of Main Engineering (If Engineering is to be placed in the secondary hull, I much prefer the location as presented in these plans instead of directly forward of the Hangar Deck. Truth be told, I still somewhat prefer the Franz Joseph location in the saucer. There are valid arguments to support the FJ location, such as an adjacent circular corridor, and 400 some-odd crewmen being trapped BELOW Main Engineering in Day of the Dove.)
Here’s what I don’t care for:
- Phaser Banks and Photon Tubes are same as Franz Joseph plans. No Weapons of any sort are identified at the location from where we see them fired throughout TOS.
- The “ret-conned” rec-deck, cargo bay, and “invisible” docking ports on the secondary hull. No reason that these have to be the same as on the refit-Enterprise. Decker himself said that it was “an almost totally new Enterprise.” And, Schmidt has even acknowledged that the Motion Picture Enterprise was a “rebuild.”
I am much more impressed with the new Enterprise-class plans (yes, I ordered the E-class variation of these plans), with perhaps the exception of a rear-firing photo tube placed right below the Hangar Deck (also on the Constitution-class plans). Additionally, I can’t seem to figure out where the turbo-shaft coming from the interconnecting dorsal lines-up between decks 6 and 7. Wondering if that’s an error...
I just checked my FJ plans are you are indeed correct. My bad...
So that seems even odder to me: that Schmidt’s underside saucer phaser placement is further forward that Joseph’s.
So that seems even odder to me: that Schmidt’s underside saucer phaser placement is further forward that Joseph’s.
Offset bridge is an automatic deal breaker for me.
Oh, I'm all for the forward-facing bridge! Ziz's solution to that is just fine with me. I also agree with Dan's "didn't likes".
The best explanation for the phasers ever (IMHO) was Tom Sasser's blueprints, showing the ring around the lower sensor dome as a rotating phaser turret.
The best explanation for the phasers ever (IMHO) was Tom Sasser's blueprints, showing the ring around the lower sensor dome as a rotating phaser turret.
Boy, it is a good thing I had that feature on my first set of plans back in 1991.
When did these Sasser plans come out? I know mine were being sold at conventions at least through 1996 (though I only got paid the one time when I sold the originals in 1991).
That's how I did it on mine, after comments from Sasser to that effect.
And after "In A Mirror, Darkly..." I added that feature to the hangar deck homing beacon, with photon torpedo tubes on either side of the fantail.
Thanks for the product review. And the kudos from those who like them.
Regarding the 'similarity' between the TOS and TMP-TWOK ships:
- We thought long and hard on this. There were several directions we could have taken. I finally decided to approach the matter in the matter of the USN. When a Los Angeles Attack Sub or Aircraft carrier is refit/rebuild, the decks stay in the same places, even though new holes may be cut and old holes patched to allow for new equipment installations/replacements/removals. Of course, we'd see that as a no-brainer, right? But where do you draw the line between the 'old' and the 'new'? We figured that such items as compartments, corridors, turboshafts would remain more or less extant - although they may be extended, or moved to bypass new equipment. And the new equipment (such as a new warp core or computer core) would be mounted where the original was placed - we assume there was a good reason for the original placement, ergo that location would still be logical/necessary. Thus life-support, hangar, weapon hard point positions et-al remain very similar.
One ship was not 'copied' from the other. In truth or fact, I designed them sin parallel - with my researcher Tim constantly ensuring that we kept as close to video/cinema viewed sets as possible. But I did try to keep a 'TOS' mindset when approaching the original, and then a 'TMP'-rebuild mindset while working on it.
Remember, the reason the corridor outside the TOS Main Engineering was curved is that there was only one place in the soundstage that set could be built - and at that I think Matt J. was a genius for making it so realistic. In the same way, the reason the corridor outside the TMP Main Engineering seems to extend for dozens of meters is that there was only one place in the soundstage that set could be built.
One thing I learned from Alex R. - never try to please everyone - you'll just upset everyone. These plans are as 'accurate' (if such a term can be used to describe a vessel which never existed and whose layout was determined by budget and soundstage area availability.
BTW: Forbin, yes I consider the use of that screenshot to be 'fair usage'. You were careful to keep the resolution as low as possible to show your point. Thanks.
- Dave
Regarding the 'similarity' between the TOS and TMP-TWOK ships:
- We thought long and hard on this. There were several directions we could have taken. I finally decided to approach the matter in the matter of the USN. When a Los Angeles Attack Sub or Aircraft carrier is refit/rebuild, the decks stay in the same places, even though new holes may be cut and old holes patched to allow for new equipment installations/replacements/removals. Of course, we'd see that as a no-brainer, right? But where do you draw the line between the 'old' and the 'new'? We figured that such items as compartments, corridors, turboshafts would remain more or less extant - although they may be extended, or moved to bypass new equipment. And the new equipment (such as a new warp core or computer core) would be mounted where the original was placed - we assume there was a good reason for the original placement, ergo that location would still be logical/necessary. Thus life-support, hangar, weapon hard point positions et-al remain very similar.
One ship was not 'copied' from the other. In truth or fact, I designed them sin parallel - with my researcher Tim constantly ensuring that we kept as close to video/cinema viewed sets as possible. But I did try to keep a 'TOS' mindset when approaching the original, and then a 'TMP'-rebuild mindset while working on it.
Remember, the reason the corridor outside the TOS Main Engineering was curved is that there was only one place in the soundstage that set could be built - and at that I think Matt J. was a genius for making it so realistic. In the same way, the reason the corridor outside the TMP Main Engineering seems to extend for dozens of meters is that there was only one place in the soundstage that set could be built.
One thing I learned from Alex R. - never try to please everyone - you'll just upset everyone. These plans are as 'accurate' (if such a term can be used to describe a vessel which never existed and whose layout was determined by budget and soundstage area availability.
BTW: Forbin, yes I consider the use of that screenshot to be 'fair usage'. You were careful to keep the resolution as low as possible to show your point. Thanks.
- Dave
Forgot to add: The whole point of a standardized cargo container is that it can be transferred to any vessel - even if the other one isn't of the same 'generation' as the first. Thus the similarity in the Cargo Bay. If you look closely, there are differences - as many as we thought we could add.
BTW - thanks for the 'heads-up' on the sample images for the new ships.
These images were outdated. They've been replaced.
These images were outdated. They've been replaced.
David,
Did you generate these plans in some CAD program? If you follow my thread elsewhere, I am building my TMP model based (in part) on an older version of these plans (black and white only, acquired at a convention many many years ago), and I find fitting things in the actual ship to require some significant changes. I'm just curious how you did the actual layout/drafting.
Did you generate these plans in some CAD program? If you follow my thread elsewhere, I am building my TMP model based (in part) on an older version of these plans (black and white only, acquired at a convention many many years ago), and I find fitting things in the actual ship to require some significant changes. I'm just curious how you did the actual layout/drafting.
I appreciate it, David - I was a little nervous. But I wanted to share with the class.
