Well, that's pretty much where I'm going with my 'retrofitting' of FJ's "Achernar" sub-class, into something close to what might have been the "Bonhomme Richard" sub-class (basically, MJ's version) while Honoring (hopefully) both FJ and MJ. I too, like other artist's plans, especially Shaw's, and I agree, his are looking like the best so far? I just thought I'd doodle around, and see what I could come up with as far as a compromise between FJ and MJ, just for fun.
Well, let me explain my understanding of the situation (which is a different take on the matter), based on the various studio models and how other fans have "semi-professionally" interpreted the differences (filtered through FJ). And, which after a lot of consideration, I believe is the 'best' scheme:
Primarily, we have three versions of the 11' model. In general, its considered that the 1st Pilot version represents the Constitution class as originally built. The 2nd Pilot version represents the Constitution class refitted to Bon Homme Richard specifications (and fans have generally assumed that the ships of that unseen class are basically identical to the WNMHGB version), finally there is the Production version, which represents the Constitution class (and also the Bon Homme Richard class) uprated to Achernar class
specifications.
However, the actual ships of the Achernar class are somewhat different in their appearance and design (being built about 20 years later), and are
identical to the Franz Joseph BoGP blueprints. In terms of functionality the newly refitted (post WNMHGB) Constitution class ships are equal to the Achernar, and there was no need to modify their hulls, deflector grid arrangement, internal layout, etc. -- those things work fine, and its just a bit more cramped than the newer design). Equipment was uprated, but the ship remained largely the same, i.e., it was retrofitted. This is one way to let fans attempt to have our cake and eat it too: The TV version is different, but the BoGP doesn't get thrown out and its uniqueness is recognized. The alternative is to say that the Constitution class had several subclasses within itself (separate from the later Bon Home Richard and Achernar designs), with very
significant design changes. Not cosmetic or minor changes.
So, to me, FJ's plans are their own (retconned) ship class, and don't need to be modified. But, we can take the information we have from the show and what FJ provides and apply that to making a (fan) reconstruction of what the inside of the Constitution/Bon Homme Richard classes
might be like. The structural differences (or if one prefers, defects) between FJ and the TV show now comes to the forefront, and we have to retcon FJ's plans to work inside the studio models and with the sets as built. That we appear to have some disagreement about who has the correct fan reconstruction of the ship complicates matters, but as long as the differences in the outer hull are not too severe -- and if we can figure out the right number and placement of decks -- we can make a close approximation. While I believe a reasonable solution to these differences may exist in the 11' model, I am not disinclined to accept the notion of competing ideas about the designs due to contradictory and incomplete information. To make it clear, I would rather have a
multitude of designs than angry disagreement over who is "right". IDIC
So, for a Constitution or (presumably) Bon Homme Richard deck plan,
I would prefer to work in the differences from FJ (the bridge, supporting 'command pod', the undercut, the size and shape of the secondary hull, etc. And if the model 'tells me' that FJ and TMoST deck description have the number of decks wrong, I'm all for chopping them out (it hasn't,
yet). And if the episodes clearly (without contradiction) 'tell me' that a room is on another deck, then if at all possible it should go there. At least that's how I would do it, that's what I would like to try to do.
Now other than the recent twist that Warped9 has recently suggested that we include the 33" model as the original form of the Constitution class, this pretty much sums up the situation -- and this new suggestion just adds another (seemingly premature) refit cycle into the mix (which I discussed in his thread on the matter: The differences can be explained with a minimum of redesigning, if one can accept a certain amount of inaccuracy). But, for the sake of this discussion, I think we can ignore this idea.
About those transporters, If I understand what you're getting at, I think it was FJ's intention to have the xptr platform overlap w/ the underside curve of deck 7? This was his way of giving a rational reason for why the pads were up on a platform, that, and because he thought they had to contact the hull surface itself? But that's just my two quatloos worth.
FJ didn't seem to know, or at least didn't put in the plans, that there was much of an undercut at all (we can say he might have known because of where he put the storage compartments on the deck, but that doesn't explain the corridors that go through the undercut (at best they would have to crawl, and I think its impossible).
The undercut fully bisects Deck 7 into an inner circle and outer ring which are only directly connected to each other (if at all) at the interconnecting dorsal. As positioned by FJ, the Transporters
are in the undercut, where it is impossible for them to exist, unless the estimates of the undercut on the studio model are grossly incorrect. I believe I have correctly repositioned the Transporter rooms so they are now out of the undercut, and the results are
not pretty (see graphic below -- just a demonstration, not a final design). As one can see in my supplied diagram, a great deal of work and thought are going to have to occur to keep the Transporters on Deck 7. The security area, however, may have to go to another deck, as its in the undercut and there is little room to relocate it unless we replace crew quarters on the deck with it.
In the outer ring -- if I remember it right -- you basically only have the outer most ring of quarters (and impulse engineering), the forward sensors (or whatever one wants to call them) and the outermost corridor. Access to the deck now becomes an important issue. As you can see the massive changes required weren't hashed out by me overnight, and it may take some time to present a full diagram (even in rough form).
My thoughts on this are still in a state of flux right now, particularly in regards engineering, I'm thinking of swapping FJ's port and starboard deck 6 and 7, on either side of main engineering, as this allows for part of FJ's "energy converter" to be part of the set we saw in "The Enemy Within", seen here...
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x05/theenemywithin178.jpg
The offices and tool shops would then be on deck 6, this also makes sense of Scotty's line from "The Naked Time", where he orders a crewman to go "UP" to his office and pull the plans for the door mechanism to main engineering (on deck 7).
I'm still not sure about the best way to go, as to the corridor outside, with the door being essentially offset, this poses some problems, as does the undercut in the hull? I welcome any ideas in area.
Being topologically challenged it would probably be helpful to someone like me to see "swaps" side-by side, kind of like the PCR set comparison. Implications might be revealed that I might otherwise miss. But if its too much work I'll figure it out eventually. Comparison to FalTorPan's reconstructions would also be of great benefit. What may happen is that an earlier, smaller version of the set works and a later, larger version doesn't, which points us to several possibilities.
Well, at the disk longitudinal centerline, the undercut (presumably) doesn't exist for the width of the top of the Interconnecting Dorsal. In other words, if the ID is attached to the saucer, it would be logical to continue saucer decks at the ID into the ID. But some people think, for good reason, that the ID separates on the saucer end, not the secondary hull end, and if so perhaps the disconnect area is "messier" in design than we would like. In either case, an argument can be made that the Primary Hull and ID overlap creates a continuation of Deck 7 through the undercut. More problematic is the circular corridor outside of the set (I don't think there will be one, due to the undercut), and the fact that the lateral sides of the impulse engineering set are presumably going to be impacted by the undercut (i.e. to the sides of the "floor" area of the set). The FJ Deck 6 part will be fine, but anything to the side on Deck 7 of impulse engineering will have to deal with the undercut, I believe. On the plus side, we now know
why some people are entering Engineering from the upper deck side access points!
A possibility I have been considering is making the actual impulse engine area shorter and moving the engineering set aft somewhat to make room for the corridor.
I don't like this idea, and am fairly unsure if it will work, but it is an alternative to the serious problems imposed by the undercut. Making space for the circular corridor puts the set back into continuity and solves access problems at the same time, so drastic measures must at least be considered. After that we may try Tardis technology, after all they seemed to be using it in TMP's engineering set!
The sickbay also changed after the first seaon, such as the Doctors lab...
And the infamous lab where Spock is blinded, the set for which, was built where McCoy's office would later be..., (I wanted to post pics but trekcore doesn't seem to want to cooperate on these images, so Ill try agin later?)
And finally a pic of the 'hearing room' as we saw it in the 1st season...
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x11/themanagerie1_790.jpg
I'm not sure that they were always meant to be one lab. We could argue ourselves into the ground on that one. If there is a structural difference, definitely yes, if not its a "maybe" on
not being the same room.
Have you checked if the hearing rooms resemble the Captain's Office area? I'm not sure if its marked on FJ's version of the plans.
Apologies for the long windedness, I must be in the wrong thread!
+++++++++
yotsuya,
Now that I think about it, the FJ plans are the first time a Transporter Emitter was shown. While he marked the hull on the plans as transparent to energy, they are not shown on the exterior views. But when you get to Ents D & C, they are finally shown on the hull.
I hadn't looked at them that way before, and just a few weeks ago they were bothering me, because some of the areas clearly can't be used for windows in FJ's plans because there is essentially no, or very difficult access, to these "transparent" areas. So I was thinking of them as sensors
in his mind, but your suggestion is at least as good or better. But I don't think they are positioned directly adjacent to the transporters... will have to check that out at home. Thanks for the input!
+++++++++
Please do post the phaser control room again. It's not that different, and with Worfin's permission, well... I wouldn't want to upset him! LOL.
Canon IS Canon.
Also, I thought you should know, several of your TrekCore links don't work.
So have you seen my Cutaway view of the primary hull?
I'm dying for feedback.
Is this the part where I say something about my squirrelly wrath?
TrekCore worked fine for me yesterday, no problems today, with TM's links. May be having intermittent problems?
Sorry for the lack of feedback, I have been overwhelmed of late. Keep on VRMLing!
I simply meant that me and computers don't get along too well, so I'm probably the last person you'd want to try to teach?
