In that case, the drawing you posted showing the deck between the windows had the deck way too high. But if you look closely at that photo, the deck level is just about in the middle. The deck itself being lower than that. The officer's lounge set was not done the way it was intended and those don't line up to any windows on the model. They are aft viewscreens. So while we my know that they are the same set piece, like the redress of the many TOS sets, they are intended to be different spaces and how they fit in to the design does not have to be done exactly the same.
I would assume the bottom of the rim has equipment in it that causes the ship to have a saucer with an undercut, without the rim equipment (be it for the ship's exploration mission, shield emitters, or just enviromental support systems).
That would be primarily what the lower deck in the rim would contain, but also some crew areas - in the areas where the windows are.
Fair enough, I'll drop it by about 6 inches or so. The deck on the lower level could probably stand to be a little higher as well, which should even up the two levels somewhat. Does half a foot really count as "way off" though? But there are so few portholes on the lower half of the saucer rim - and as observed upthread, they could just as easily be sensor ports. That leaves the entire lower rim area free for structural integrity stabilisers, warp field emitter relays etc and nicely justifies the presence of the undercut.
As we have the rec deck utilizing that space, I think it is safe to say the equipment areas on that deck have plenty of room without impacting the recreation areas around the ports. And the lower windows are at a better level for looking out of while standing. And the increase in space in that area for the refit means they have the same space as the TOS Enterprise while still having recreational areas where the ports are. I am also taking the space allocated in the TMP cutaway poster for equipment on both decks around the rim, except in the rec areas. This is how I have been able to keep the same corridor spacing for both the TOS and Refit because both have the same space at the rim if you keep the corridors the same.
Ok, so when I brought up the undercut, I was talking about the secondary hull undercut, and that's why I mentioned the Excelsior's being so very long. The Excelsior does not have much of an undercut on the saucer, except for a ring around its middle. I was trying to suggest the reason for the secondary hull undercut might be that the shuttle facilities are designed as sort of "tacked on" to the tube-shaped hull, and that, as a design like the Exclesior's was up-fitted, a future version might one day have less undercut, which is what the Ambassador's design suggests. In the case of the original poster's project, I was suggesting that as he did his layouts, he could look to the saucer and see if he wanted to include drop-points for travel pods, which he chose not to do. I was thinking that this would address how ships without apparent shuttle bays could deal with evacuation in a crisis. Regarding the undercut of the saucer, I'm not sure what purpose it could serve. I don't think that the huge rec deck makes sense being in the saucer, regardless of the design, because a lesser ship might not need that kind of recreation facility. (When the show crew needs to assemble in Voyager, they just go to one of the cargo bays; otherwise smaller recreation faculties suffice..) Putting rec deck in the secondary hull means that you instantly gain the extra space in a plug-and-play fashion along with the engine and shuttle facilities. That was not what was designer intent, though, apparently. The only way that the rec deck being in the saucer makes much sense to me is that maybe this space is not so big or open on ships with no secondary hull. Perhaps it is smaller and part of it becomes cargo bay with access to turbolifts. Perhaps this is a travel-pod launching area for ships that do not have dedicated shuttle bay space. Reliant's starboard bay lines up with this general location, so it could line up with that. Perhaps these ideas will inspire some ideas for modifying the space to fit on the ship and how it might be altered to appear as it might have for TOS. If the goal was to view both versions of the ship as being as much the same as possible, this might spark some design paths
I consider the TMP refit rec deck to be a luxury of the expanded space. I think the TOS Enterprise had many smaller rooms linked with screens, which is what we see, but the refit design features the nice open space. Unfortunately there is no room for it in the secondary hull. There is only one deck above the cargo handling area and below the main engineering deck (with the horizontal shaft) and the space bellow the cargo area and aft of the botanical section gets curved very quickly so there is no room for the full size rec deck anywhere in the secondary hull. It has to be in the saucer. And as I'm following Kimble's cut away poster, it has to be in that location. I'm just making it much longer and assuming the set is missing the middle section. The Saladin class general plan (https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/uss-saladin-destroyer-scout.php) features twin shuttle bays on deck 8 where the refit has the pod docks/airlocks. So ships without a secondary hull can easily accommodate a hanger facility in the saucer.
I'm the one who discovered this, back in 2003. Up to this point, no one had made any sense out of the markings. I felt they must reflect some real-world measurement, but it wasn't until I began corresponding with Richard Datin that I found the key to making sense of them. The numbers aren't perfectly situated, but they are too close to be accidental. One of the construction blueprints that Datin still had at the time gave real life scale measurements. This was not the final blueprint, but a preliminary one; and it was for a smaller ship design. This scale would have rendered the ship as finally built 540 feet in length. The final model, scaled per this preliminary blueprint, causes the numbered station markings to fall out as scale inches. Here's my original image comparing the actual placement of the markings with their ideal locations. M.
It does make a lot of sense, but I still question how the numbers line up to the final design in any meaningful way because for 1837 to be that far back, the size of the ship would have been smaller that 540 or at least the size of the secondary hull would have to be smaller. But it makes sense that Jefferies would send out preliminary drawings to find out if his design was buildable and to get a quote. In what I've read from Gary Kerr, the size of the models was determined by the maximum size that Datin could build (with the smaller model being 1/4 the size of the full model). So it is quite clear there was communication about the model before construction of the 33 inch model began The in universe scale was immaterial except for determining the size of the windows, which I understand from David Shaw, the construction drawings did not have. But everything on the two models was in nice even fractions of an inch. But the scale of the in universe ship was set at 947 before the construction drawings were sent over and the size and placement of the windows confirms that by the time they were put on, everyone was on the same page with the scale.
The measurements would not necessarily line up. The front of that hull had a nose cone cover and the rear was truncated without an undercut.
Here are some posts from yesteryear that some of the new folks here may like- from Shaw http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/jefferies_cross_sections.jpg and--from someone called whorfin: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/tos-enterprise-wip.119751/page-20#post-5120162 Of course, I'm thinking more about externals.... Combine some of the ships here: https://photobucket.com/gallery/use...25lQ2hhcnRTaGlwczJfenBza2Z0cXpxaHAucG5n/?ref= With fleshed out details of the ships here: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/pros-and-cons-of-franz-josephs-plans.81961/page-3#post-2594439 https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/eng...rprise-revisited.297971/page-35#post-12903238 And you could have a nice ship chart of the 12 original Connies. The ship display looks a bit like the Dinky offering. I'd love to see "skin" on it.
Not really an "internal" but nice all the same https://www.informationisbeautifulawards.com/showcase/1229-star-trek-tropes-poster
I decided to put all my TMP work that doesn't related to the TOS plans in its own thread. https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/enterprise-evolution-from-tos-to-tmp.300617/
Related to this I just had a journey into the variations of the original 18" AMT model kit. While there are quite a number of small variations (such as the box and color of plastic), structurally there were only 3 versions. The original version during the run of the series, a slightly modified version where the Pylon mounting was substantially changed (and the stand), and the the full retool in 1975. I was on a quest to identify the kit I had as a kid and it turns out is was the second one. Probably not the hardest version to find as the 78-early 80's one modeled in blue I have never actually seen.
here's part one of an article on that subject with many details. https://culttvman.com/main/a-history-of-the-amt-enteprise-model-by-jay-chladek-part-1/
That was my source. I was more concerned about actual changes to the model itself while he included all the changes in colors and box designs.
I am going to make a concerted effort to finish my Excelsior, TOS, and Phase II drawings. Each will include the deck plans with the cross section. Excelsior and TOS will have three different versions to the set.
After a long drought, I have something to add. the first step to finishing the cross section is to have things to put in it. The saucer is mostly crew quarters so having accurate crew quarters drawings seemed the place to start.