USS ENTERPRISE HAYNES OWNERS MANUAL (Part 3)
- Thread starter Starlock
- Start date
Well, we could always do what the fans have always done.
Do it ourselves.
Do it ourselves.
Works for me. And we seem to have done pretty damn well, too.
If you really managed to produce an entire book with diagrams and cutaways and lots of other stuff about all Enterprises and receive no fanboy criticism and nitpicks about it, I'd buy it. You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?
No criticisms at all is probably too tall an order to be realistic, since every book that's come down the pike, official or not, has had some broadside or another fired against it, sometimes justifiable, sometimes not.
I think at best, one could hope for a consensus of getting the least amount wrong.
I think at best, one could hope for a consensus of getting the least amount wrong.
Well, first things first, we'd need those finished drawings from Shaw. From what he's shown so far, the pilot dome is plenty big enough to handle a forward facing bridge, and that's all we need.
How many folks around here have given us at least a cross-section of the TOS E? At least five or so? And there are a couple of others right now doing 3D deck-by-deck layouts?
And there'd also have to be consensus on what materiel to include. Does it focus on one era or all of them? O know I've no interest beyond TOS/TMP, but that's just me.
And there'd also have to be consensus on what materiel to include. Does it focus on one era or all of them? O know I've no interest beyond TOS/TMP, but that's just me.
Aye, for me as well. Heck, I am committed to the ultimate completion of my Surya-Class plans, which I have stated from the start I would make available to all for free. The point is, that because it is something I love doing, and have a very vested interest in, the result will (hopefully) be awesome, because as a fan, I understand the source material, and am trying my damnedest to be faithful to it.
I just can't see why it's so hard for the PTB to give the fans something of substance and quality... the Haynes book is truly no more than an RPG supplement. And like I said, that alone doesn't tick me off... what bothers me as both a fan and customer, is that stuff was left OUT of the book, when we were made to believe it would be IN the book. I don't like to be lied to as a customer, and even less as a fan.
Bolian...maybe they're setting you up for the 'companion volumes' that are sure to come....
Rob
I actually have two copies of the manual because of a shipping error. I actually have enjoyed it for its pretty pictures and a few new nuggets of technical insight (probably a gift from the great Okuda). I agree, it does remind me of something from a RPG. And it is a kind of wanting for content. These days its hard to beat the internet as a corpus of raw information.
I'm going to purchase a copy to add to my Collection of Trek Tech Books but I'd rather see Fan produced material
and Like some others I prefer the TOS/TMP time line. Not
too Crazy about Uber sized starships that take multiple large
pages to get a decent drawing scale of them.
So Bring on the the work guys you've got my Vote
and Like some others I prefer the TOS/TMP time line. Not
too Crazy about Uber sized starships that take multiple large
pages to get a decent drawing scale of them.
So Bring on the the work guys you've got my Vote
About two years ago I had this grand and ambitious idea for a subsection of a website I have in mind. I want to call it the Starfleet Command Library, and it would have all manner of stuff that either I did myself as well as material from others whose work I thought really nailed the target. The subject matter would focus on the TOS/TMP era and extrapolate from that. It's safe to say that nothing pre TOS would have any relation whatsoever to ENT, FC or anything else derived from contemporary Trek.
One of my ideas was to include variations on the same subject. For example: numerous individuals have created excellent dec-by-deck arrangements of the TOS E in cross section. Off the top of my head there's aridas, CRA, Shaw, Professor Moriarty, Tallguy and others. So why not present all their works in comparison (or in links) and let individuals decide for themselves which seems most likely? Of course an ambitious notion would be to try for some sort of cooperative effort to arrive at something of a more definitive layout for the ship. Many have arrived at similar solutions for the layout while there would need to be discussion to arrive at some consensus and agreement on points of divergence for this approach to work. And I don't think it's totally unlikely. When I was doing my TOS shuttlecraft drawings although I had an overall vision I was open to insightful and constructive input that helped me hone the final result.
My TOS and TAS shuttlecraft were/are to be the first installments of the Starfleet Command Library and indeed Starfleet Command Library is printed on every sheet I've produced so far.
This also could be more than just a collection of schematics. It would be possible and even desirable to have written articles on aspects of Star Trek history and timeline, technology, science, etc. I already have a couple done already including a chronology, warp speed and impulse formulas and starship development.
One of my ideas was to include variations on the same subject. For example: numerous individuals have created excellent dec-by-deck arrangements of the TOS E in cross section. Off the top of my head there's aridas, CRA, Shaw, Professor Moriarty, Tallguy and others. So why not present all their works in comparison (or in links) and let individuals decide for themselves which seems most likely? Of course an ambitious notion would be to try for some sort of cooperative effort to arrive at something of a more definitive layout for the ship. Many have arrived at similar solutions for the layout while there would need to be discussion to arrive at some consensus and agreement on points of divergence for this approach to work. And I don't think it's totally unlikely. When I was doing my TOS shuttlecraft drawings although I had an overall vision I was open to insightful and constructive input that helped me hone the final result.
My TOS and TAS shuttlecraft were/are to be the first installments of the Starfleet Command Library and indeed Starfleet Command Library is printed on every sheet I've produced so far.
This also could be more than just a collection of schematics. It would be possible and even desirable to have written articles on aspects of Star Trek history and timeline, technology, science, etc. I already have a couple done already including a chronology, warp speed and impulse formulas and starship development.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Yeah, I was hoping that it was going to be more of a gag-gift sort of thing, soft cover, no color pictures, just B/W pics and schematics showing you how to tear down a warp reactor for an overhaul.
There is enough "official" Treknobabble to pull most of this off and you could fill in the rest of the details with creative engineering thinking like Syd Mead.
Instead, this is more of a glossy picture book for kids. It's not really a coffee table item or something amusing to tuck in with the rest of your shop/repair manuals.
They should've handed this project to David Mack. His Starfleet Survival Manual is exactly the sort of book this one should've been.
I bought the book about two weeks ago and read it in a night. When I returned to this thread just now, after a few days away from the BBS, my first thought was, "oh yeah - I need to pick myself up a copy of the Haynes manual!"
I forgot that I read the book. And that I own it.
The TNG Tech Manual, this is not.
I forgot that I read the book. And that I own it.
The TNG Tech Manual, this is not.
I don't think that's a problem with the book.
My copy just arrived in the mail. Haven't read any of the text yet, but it looks (and feels) great! The style of LCARS presentations, and various cutaways, remind me of the UK "Fact Files", but what fun to have all the Enterprises in the one manual.
I can see where the techie types wanted something twice as thick and twice as detailed, but this is a very attractive coffee table book, which I can see being browsed by the various, broader, book-buying demographics, not just ST book collectors.
I can see where the techie types wanted something twice as thick and twice as detailed, but this is a very attractive coffee table book, which I can see being browsed by the various, broader, book-buying demographics, not just ST book collectors.
Anyone heard of any official statement from SciPubTech about the cutaways?