9 PDF

[Robert Simmons]

Yeah, basically it's a practical impossibility to construct all of those stations to exact angles so you design them to some rationalized measurements that are "close enough" - which requires an eventual fudge factor to close up the circle.

Exeter's bridge was never a full circle, of course. Still, it made sense to use measurements to the nearest 1/4 inch (or whatever) rather than trying to cut to angles.

Well that might explain why the inner measurement in the platforms were all over the place varying from 35 17/32 inches to 35 7/8 inches to 35 13/16 inches to 35 3/4 inches. When I build my model that measurement dictated 36 inches on the nose. I just chalked up all variation on a the platforms due to how fast they were churning these out in their one month in that hangar.

 

[Mudd]

So it sounds as if their tolerances were a little less than 3/8 inch. We have no way of knowing what the practical building tolerance was on the Desilu version.

 

[Robert Simmons]

So it sounds as if their tolerances were a little less than 3/8 inch. We have no way of knowing what the practical building tolerance was on the Desilu version.

Well I have determined from the outset that I'm reaching deep and hard with my best crack at it to get it as close to the original bridge whatever their tolerances were. In the final builder's proof of the bridge I build for 9 PDF the differences will be nearly imperceptable to the untrained eye, some more visible, and others will be pretty pronounced and will be pretty obvious.

I'm building rulers for every TOS still of the bridge I work from. I've done some early dry runs of checking the McMaster measurements against the stills. From those early tests I can clearly see where he is accurate and where he is off on the outer bridge ring. I decided to wait until I had more of the bridge built before diving in on checking all those measurements each before building the final revised builder's proof of the bridge. One thing I noticed when building my McMaster study model is he is almost 100% accurate with a couple of exceptions in the center of the bridge. His accuracy and completeness seems to fall apart on the outer bridge ring. I don't know if this is due to his heart liked the center of the bridge more, and that is where he invested his most effort. Or he was rushing and had less time to give the outer bridge ring the same time and attention as he did the center of the bridge.

 

[Robert Simmons]

One thing I neglected to mention up till now is prioritizing the authority of any original set surviving pieces since they will be the final word on measurements and patterns. We know the helm and pedestal and the captain's chair are intact and that measurements have been taken to varying degrees on both. But I would like to call out for anyone knowing or having access to any surviving articles to arrange to have additional photos taken with larger rulers to nail down exact measurements as a baseline to set down sizes within the original overhead drawings to help establish measurements out from the center of the bridge. I've seen the photo set out there of the helm but would like some pics of the pedestal from a distance from different sides with large rulers. Those pics do provide useful information and I initially started building the corrected model with the helm, but additional pics from all sides with large full length measurements would lock in some open questions of over all length and angles. When surviving items are not available then the next method to establish measurements measuring stills against known measurements as starting points. Then after that then acetate traces of TOS stills against the model. In that order. Trust but verify.

EDIT: Michigan Mirror universe guys....that photos set of the helm would be a good place to start to make any corrections as you build from the McMaster bridge plans. You could be building the components out of your garages and have some stuff ready when you find your building. That's what Jimm Johnson and Joel Sarchett of Exeter did before they rented the hangar to film in which was smart. I'll try to get some adjusted outer ring measurements to you before you guys start on your outer ring parts. But just a few minimal critical ones since I'm not keen on prerelease goodies.

 

[Robert Simmons]

I really like what you are doing here, Finding plans and information to get started on my project is been hard. Michigan really needs a complete TOS set for film makers to use on their projects. Love it

Send me a PM. I have some concerns I would like to address. Just want to go over a few things with you as to the magnitude of the serious commitment you are ready to jump into. Not something to take lightly.

 

[Robert Simmons]

In preparation from MGagen's point of the 35.5 degree platform segments to make for a larger viewscreen platforms I've been working up a large scale protractor marked in 10 and 5 degrees to pencil in the angles when I begin on the final model of the bridge. Oversize helps to correct any measuring errors.

Spent the week rebuilding the library of stills. Two seasons to go.

 

[MGagen]

Robert,

I'm so glad my study of the bridge is proving useful.

I don't believe that any of the studio bridge layouts specified angles with degrees on them. They would have been made for carpenters, not engineers. The preliminary sketch is a good guide to how it was probably done: "This piece is this long and that piece is that long and they intersect like this." The angles would have just fallen out in the process.

But I believe Jefferies was very smart to anticipate that there would be a cumulative error which he could make up for with his viewscreen wedge. My analysis of the wedges by degrees is an after-the-fact illustration that the wedges weren't symmetrical and that Jefferies knew this when he drafted the soundstage layout.

One other point to keep in mind when comparing stills of the bridge: There were actually two bridges and there are minor visual differences between them! The first was constructed of wood at the old Culver City stage and was used for both The Cage and WNMHGB. Not all wedges were wild in this version. Later, when series production moved to Gower Street, parts of the bridge set were brought over from Culver, but the outer consoles were replaced by fiberglass casts off one of the better constructed consoles. The new ring was then made with all wedges wild. Also, the upper section of each wedge and the lower section (starting with the black backboards with the blinkies) were independent. They could remove each independently in order to insert a camera. As such, the alignment of the top halves with the bottom halves my vary a bit from picture to picture.

M.

 

[Robert Simmons]

Robert,

I'm so glad my study of the bridge is proving useful.

I don't believe that any of the studio bridge layouts specified angles with degrees on them. They would have been made for carpenters, not engineers. The preliminary sketch is a good guide to how it was probably done: "This piece is this long and that piece is that long and they intersect like this." The angles would have just fallen out in the process.

But I believe Jefferies was very smart to anticipate that there would be a cumulative error which he could make up for with his viewscreen wedge. My analysis of the wedges by degrees is an after-the-fact illustration that the wedges weren't symmetrical and that Jefferies knew this when he drafted the soundstage layout.

One other point to keep in mind when comparing stills of the bridge: There were actually two bridges and there are minor visual differences between them! The first was constructed of wood at the old Culver City stage and was used for both The Cage and WNMHGB. Not all wedges were wild in this version. Later, when series production moved to Gower Street, parts of the bridge set were brought over from Culver, but the outer consoles were replaced by fiberglass casts off one of the better constructed consoles. The new ring was then made with all wedges wild. Also, the upper section of each wedge and the lower section (starting with the black backboards with the blinkies) were independent. They could remove each independently in order to insert a camera. As such, the alignment of the top halves with the bottom halves my vary a bit from picture to picture.

M.

Everything helps. Thank you for the insight. I know from a friend that Mario Putzman was involved in the design and execution of the bridge and a couple of other sets. I've been meaning to check more into his involvement. My intent from the outset has been to have the final output expressed in feet and inches. ( sorry about that metric dudes. ) And your illustration using angles to identify that to me is fair game. And if it is valid why question it? It explain some funny stuff I had a hunch on about the bridge but could not put my finger on. Oh by the way I just had it dawn on me that I'll need to go back and mark the protractor in 2.5 degree marks since those will be centerline as center for 5 degrees per segment. DUH! ( facepalm )

 

[Tallguy]

Robert, what a terrific project. Now that I think on it I'm amazed that the gold-ish standard for the bridge is the McMaster plans and those are almost 40 years old!

I'm looking forward to your engineering and briefing rooms.

 

[Patrickivan]

Wow! Looking great!

 

[Robert Simmons]

Thanks guys. When I finish rebuilding my image reference library I should resume making regular progress to report.

 

[Robert Simmons]

One thing I forgot to mention is that anyone contributing to this project will be credited as each release is published. That means anyone no matter who they are. I personally have interest only in the data set and no interest in the politics in fandom that divides people on these things. I personally wish and prefer everyone would be of the same mind and interest concerning concerning the yielded public information as a result of this. This is nothing but my tossing out the welcome mat for everyone to participate pulling this data together for everyone and everyone share in the collective credit.

Two seasons of stills rebuilt and one to go. After that is line drawings reference.

 

[Donny]

Hey there. I recently used the McMasters plans for building a CG rendition of the bridge, and it should be noted that the "dome" sections above each bridge module are arced taller than the McMasters plans indicate.

Not sure if you knew this already, but it's a problem I ran into when doing my CG renditions. Otherwise, the McMasters blueprints proved to be fantastically accurate. Here's a screenshot demonstrating the difference:



http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=212119&page=36

 

[Robert Simmons]

Hey Donny. Yeah the shorter vaulting on the outer ring ceiling in the McMaster plans has been a really big burr under my saddle for me for a long time. As well the aspect proportions on the upper display frames appears less wide and taller in TOS pics verses McMaster which seems shorter in height and wider. It's really pronounced in that same spot on the Exeter bridge which was done from the McMaster plans like the other bridges. The When I dive in on doing the measurements I want to see if that is a indicator of that area of the bridge is not at the exact radius from bridge center or the frame in McMaster is not tall enough. I'm pretty certain it's one of the two. When I did some acetate traces of the upper display frames and compared it against the drawing I could see they were way off. I've decided to use traces to check everything and more is off than I first thought. Not noticeable otherwise. Another thing I want to address is the curved roll top on the outer consoles being abscent in McMaster. Then the screen sizes on the lower part of the outer ring consoles. One thing I want to lock in off the bat is the radial measurements from bridge center. I've already got the vertical measurements. My main concern if there is any variation in the inner bridge ring distance that would contributing to throwing the consoles and thus the upper display frames further out from bridge center causing the mismatch. Other things like the turbolift alcove dimensions are off, the bevel on the turbolift door frame, main viewscreen depth too deep, profile of the helm is off, etc. Things not easy to see unless side by side shots are used to contrast the difference. My main beef is the dimensions and not so much the window dressing on the bridge. There are some details I think do need to be added such as the screen pattern on the lower screen panels on the outer bridge consoles. In short I just want to go back and tighten all the measurements where they look and feel more in tune with the dimensions of TOS stills.

Matt told me about your work and it looks great. I hope the new version of the software makes it easier for you to get the results you been shooting for.

 

[Robert Simmons]

Progress 5-31: Finished rebuilding my still library into separate set folders. Now to rebuild the line art reference to go with that and I should be ready to resume work on the models by the end of next week.

Previously when handing the transporter model down the spiral stairs to my son, the foam core it is mounted to snapped, and the model crashed and 3 of the zebra panels were broke. The rest of the model survived with no damage. I'll need to rebuild those when I start on modeling the final revision to the chamber ceiling supports. Hoping to make up for lost time. Pic updates to follow.

 

[Robert Simmons]

This - is - awesome! Fascinating!

I'm impressed seeing the amount of passion for accuracy, this is a great project. Kudos!

While my own deck plan project is still in its WIP infancy, eventually I will have to rely on accurate reproductions.

I'm most curious to see how you will handle Dr. McCoy's office.
Both the "Journey to Babel" set drawing and Matt Jefferies' paper model of the set (much smaller than yours, obviously) had the skull shelf set too far back.

In my main deck 7 draft I had already tried to fix that, but now it seems that the desk is too much in the way.

Again, great job, I'll definitely stay tuned.

Bob

Bob,
Now that I have all the stills restored I decided to shift focus before diving back in on the transporter room and give some attention to what you mentioned concerning the skull cabinent. Started measuring the Journey To Babel stage plan of McCoy's office and cross checked against all the stills I have of his office, and there is indeed a problem. What I discovered is it begins at the doorway which shows it straight on the side of the skull display case when it is actually matching the same angle of the other side of the door but runs longer and then has a right angle of about 6 inches and a shallower angle of the outer doorside wing of the skull case. In essence it is a flipped reverse of the doorway into Kirk's Quarters office area. I marked out on my printouts the corrected floor plan of the Skull display case and it's matching left and right wings, but ran in to a 9 inch descrepancy between the end of the skull showcase meets up with the wall wall panel next to the door between McCoy's office and The Sickbay Examination Room. So I kept checking against stills of the Examination room and found the "Journey To Babel" blueprints of the wall panels depicted between the 2 doors nearest the corridor is incorrect. And I think I found where the 9 inch error happened on the plans. I'll try to make some corrected drawings of the Examination Room and McCoy's Office floor plans that is corrected from the stills which will depict the Examination room 9 inches less across. Also corrected the left side of the door in the Examination room which is straight and not angled like the right side, and I think this is where the 9 inch error on the plans originated forcing the error ( read fudge...possibly due to not cross checking the previous 2 sets of floor plans of Stage 9 and getting all information measurements from the sets before making the drawings and guessing to fill in the incomplete infromation. ) in McCoy's office Doorway and Skull shelf display.

I trust this is the error you were talking about in the Skull cabinent. But the problem runs much deeper than that causing what I think was a fudge on the part of the Steve Sardanis who drew this sheet for the Stage 9 floor plans. I will have to remeasure those areas from the still corrections on the drawings I'll be revising. I'll have the new meausurements after I get the new drawings done. The ones you see in these two pics here reflect the measurements in the errors in the original drawings.

EDIT: I just pulled out the plans for the "Charlie X" and "Balance Of Terror" and the Examination Room door matches my pencil revisions to the doorway. Nice to be confirmed by 2 previous sets of David Marshall's floor plans. I should have checked them first and saved me an entire afternoon working this out.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I'm looking forward to your corrected visualization of the skull cabinet with interest.

Another issue I'd like to address is the sickbay door frame. The frame part (nearest to the main corridor) either extends too much or the entire partition wall needs to be thicker.

Here is a screenshot from "The Ultimate Computer" that hopefully illustrates the problem I'm having.

Then the back wall of the transporter room shows two turbo lift options although there was never more than one in the actual footage.

My scepticism towards the accuracy of the "Journey to Babel" plan has increased over time. Where the set parts match the Season One plans you mentioned, I'd think we are on the safe side but for the other areas these should be double-checked, IMHO.

Bob

 

[Robert Simmons]

For now I am going to consider the skull cabinent solved. As to the door between the Examination Room and the Bed Ward I'll check into that this evening. My read from the plans is that wall/ door is 6 inches deep. WARNING: any measurement you see on my copies of the drawings on on any of the first study models I've built do not reflect true measurements of the panels but the exact measurement from divider dead center to divider dead center. So to adjust for what you see subtract 1 inch and 1/2 for the spacer between any of the panels to get a true measurement for the panels on my models.

As to your concerns over the 2 turbolift doors in the corridor at the back of the Transporter Room. Try to think of the Stage 9 plans as a tool to plan the variety of options on how they wanted to dress out each part differently to represent different areas of the ship. Although I do subscribe to the inboard Sick bay Med Lab related sets as all interconnected, I do not hold the same view for the outboard sets being representational of where they sit in the ship due mixing and matching details like you mentioned.

Concerning the previous 2 sets of plans...I got lucky. In the areas of the new sets they are for the most part a close representation of what was standing. But the 2 prior sets are not accurate when it comes to the transporter chamber given the larger number of pads seen in those drawings.

 

[Robert Simmons]

Bob,
I checked some stills of that doorway you mentioned and noticed that in some episodes a wall comm panel is set right in the middle if that door threshhold. If you know the size of one of those then you can work up the depth of the threshhold by figuring out how much space is on either side. I'll see if I can find the dimensions of one of those panels. I have yet to research the dimensions of one of those.

 

[Robert Simmons]

Decided to get a few things off my chest before resuming work in the Transporter Room. This is one of them. Tonight's progress test fitting and eyeballing to match. Tomorrow will be the lower partitions and plumbing boxing it in. Part sizes and alignment will be fine tuned later.