I think he needs to add the 2270 "Love Instructor Regulations and Best Practices" to one of his sets.
Donny's Refit Enterprise Interiors (Version 2.0)
- Thread starter Donny
- Start date
I sorta already went there, as below. ↓↓↓
Getting back on topic, Donny could label a door in the Enterprise "Love Instructor Advice 5¢" but thave the door forever locked and a sign hanging there reading "The Doctor in OUT".
I think it would be more of a civilian thing.
You're not suggesting that Starfleet is not civilian, are you?
I am pretty sure Donny has seen all of these, but in the event any of these are new to him or helpful in some way, here's a bunch of set blueprints that were auctioned a while back (link).
Okay, I started to get the itch to start some work again and am gearing up to make the most out of the weekend. Might deviate from sickbay to do something *new* for a change....as of Friday evening, I'm aiming to start modeling a travel pod complete with interior. No promises, stay tuned 
[EDIT] Annnnnd.....what I always assumed were completely accurate schematics....the David Kimble Travel Pod schems are definitley showing some slight errors upon studying photos of the filming miniature....grrr....
[EDIT] Annnnnd.....what I always assumed were completely accurate schematics....the David Kimble Travel Pod schems are definitley showing some slight errors upon studying photos of the filming miniature....grrr....
Last edited:
That’s a shame. I suspect all subsequent schematics were trace-overs of that original design, which was always considered by the fandom as the gold standard.
The most glaring differences are in the aft of the pod. You'll see the pod extends a bit more above and below the docking ring by comparing this screencap with the schematic, I can, of course, adjust things. It's just odd because I always assumed the David Kimble schematic to be foolproof, and yes, as you say: many third-party schematics were based off of Kimble's.
It also looks like Kimble's schematic gives the rear of the travel pod a taper in the rear that the model doesn't show, unless that's just a camera perspective issue.
Hmm, I measured the relative heights of the parts above and below the door -- keeping in mind that blueprints flatten perspective so the print shows the convex sides and roof that aren't visible in the photo -- and I got about the same proportional height for the part above the door, give or take about 1/12, but the part below the door is about 1/3 higher in the photo than in the blueprint, proportionally.
Yes, I've taken perpsective into consideration, as I always do.
Yeah, that's definitley due to perspective, as the pod does taper back:
I don't doubt it. What I meant was that I had to remind myself how perspective worked in blueprints. It's been a long, long time since drafting class in high school (and I never liked that teacher).
You may already know about this:
https://third-wave-design.com/2018/03/25/door-jam/
https://third-wave-design.com/2018/03/30/ill-take-door-3-monty/
https://third-wave-design.com/2018/03/25/door-jam/
https://third-wave-design.com/2018/03/30/ill-take-door-3-monty/
Yep! Fortunately for me, I modeled the docking ring (both the “male” and “female” ends) last year before I began modeling the Refit Enterprise exterior model, so I’ve already sorted out all the kinks with that one.
Are you going to do the TVH version with the extended rear hull and giant thruster on the back? (How people got in and out of this version is beyond me since in doing that they got rid of the only entryway)
Same way they get into the spacedock tug.
Nope. I tend to ignore the fact that they did that to an otherwise beautiful model.
Yeah, I would too.
Gotta love those ILM designs... they sure do look pretty but have some really weird stuff that's hard to reconcile with the practicalities of how a ship might actually function.
