Public Resource Enterprise.
- Thread starter KirkTrekModeler
- Start date
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
Yes, great. I think we should go with your prints and add the correct measurements. Let's not go any further than need be. If Charles, or Adam want to work with us, cool. I know someone else I'll contact as well.
Shaw said:
Sure, I made a preview image for it this time...
[image]http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/1701_reference-s.png[/image]
Click to enlarge
If you guys want, I could put together a PDF of my notes on the 11 foot model. It may take a few days. I had been collecting them as references for any future attempt to build that model and, well, I'm not very organized (they aren't all together in one place).
As for putting out interim plans, we really should approach either Sinclair or Casimiro with the info. If either is still actively interested in this subject, then they would most likely welcome our collective efforts.
After skimming over this thread, I'm only guessing here and am a little slow so please bare with me, that the primary goal is to gather as much accurate info, measurements, dimensions, etc. on the eleven foot model and document it for all to see.
Why? I mean it's already been done. A couple of times. ChuckPR suggested using the MR model as a starting or reference point and was shot down. It is to date, by far the most accurate representation of the eleven foot model ever created and would come in very handy for the less informed who are looking for specific details that they may not be familiar with or sure of. Right now, it's as close as you'll be able to get to the original model.
ask.
I guess it could make you feel better about the whole 'let's blueprint and make the world's most correct set of plans of the 1701 and I'll host it all on my site' concept if someone "supposedly in the know" would volunteer info and pledge allegence. It probably could happen but by taking pot-shots like the one made above at those you desire information from could effect in a negative way their willingness to assist with and share images, numbers, line drawings, specs and everything else useful.
Until then I've taken the liberty of adding a little something to this comparison diagram. Enjoy!
Shaw, you're using inaccurate fan drawings to determine that a licensed product full of research, care and attention to detail is off. Snap out of it man!
Chuck, the model was mastered in china from specs provided to them that were taken directly off the filming model. Again it's as close as you can get to the original model!
Why? I mean it's already been done. A couple of times. ChuckPR suggested using the MR model as a starting or reference point and was shot down. It is to date, by far the most accurate representation of the eleven foot model ever created and would come in very handy for the less informed who are looking for specific details that they may not be familiar with or sure of. Right now, it's as close as you'll be able to get to the original model.
I don't think that will be necessary. You could always, now here's an idea that's way out there,
ask.
I guess it could make you feel better about the whole 'let's blueprint and make the world's most correct set of plans of the 1701 and I'll host it all on my site' concept if someone "supposedly in the know" would volunteer info and pledge allegence. It probably could happen but by taking pot-shots like the one made above at those you desire information from could effect in a negative way their willingness to assist with and share images, numbers, line drawings, specs and everything else useful.
Until then I've taken the liberty of adding a little something to this comparison diagram. Enjoy!
Shaw, you're using inaccurate fan drawings to determine that a licensed product full of research, care and attention to detail is off. Snap out of it man!
Chuck, the model was mastered in china from specs provided to them that were taken directly off the filming model. Again it's as close as you can get to the original model!
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
If you have so much and you're willing to share, then share. I'm sorry, but a copy of a copy is still a copy.
Kirk Trek Modeler!
Kirk Trek Modeler!
Thomas,
Maybe I'm missing something... what pot-shot?
An accurate representation of the model is going to be to scale with the original. That means that the ratio of any two measurements will be the same if the model is accurate. If the 11 foot model is 134 inches long and 59.25 inches wide, then the length over width of any accurate scaled representation of it is going to equal approximately 2.2616. If the Master Replicas' model is 32.46 inches long, it would need to be about 14.35 inches wide to be accurately scaled to the 11 foot model. But according to their site, it is 16 inches wide.
I'm sorry, but if that 16 inch measurement is even relatively close (plus or minus 1 inch) to what the model actually is, that is a massive error. I don't need any drawings to spot that one a mile away.
I'll totally concede that the measurements listed on their site may be completely wrong, but one would hope that before asking $1,200 they would at least take a minute to double check the accompanying description for errors.
If that was the pot-shot you were talking about, I'd remind everyone that I've been constantly showing my work-in-progress to everyone so that people will point out glaring errors like that in what I present. When someone pointed out a grammatical error on one of my projects I sure didn't take it in any negative way. I would hope that we are all able to take close examination of our work as constructive, specially since many of us toile away on our own on this stuff for hours, and errors in our own work disappear to us because we are so familiar with it.
I know my work contains errors in it, and this is based strictly on the fact that I worked on it pretty much alone. At this point, the only way for me to spot the errors I made will be to build what I drew. The moment that something I drew doesn't work on a physical model or the physical model doesn't match the references I was originally working from, I'll make note of it. After I have found all those errors, I fully plan on going back and fixing them.
As for the "I mean it's already been done" comment... sure, I'm not suggesting reinventing the wheel. But information that is hidden from the public is equivalent to information that doesn't exist for the public. So even if I was given this info but was restricted from sharing it, the problem still exists that the info is missing from the public domain. And that alone makes this a worth while effort in my book.
I spent well over 90 hours researching and drawing my three foot plans (and I'm sure that I'll put in at least that much more before I'm done), and I released everything to the public without restriction. Why? So anyone that wants the info can have it.
So yeah, I'm sure that I could get access to this information from someone if I promised not to share it, but that is exactly what I believe we are trying to avoid here.
If you think about it, what if a publishing company decided after the first dozen or so printings of the dictionary to stop because it had already been done. I'm sure that anyone who had one of those copies would wonder why anyone would work to create another dictionary, but for the thousands of people who didn't have a dictionary... it would be a very worth while project.
I'm pretty sure you have the equivalent of an Enterprise dictionary... this project is for the rest of us who don't.
Maybe I'm missing something... what pot-shot?
What drawings? I was going strictly off of the info that was given on the Master Replicas' web page.
An accurate representation of the model is going to be to scale with the original. That means that the ratio of any two measurements will be the same if the model is accurate. If the 11 foot model is 134 inches long and 59.25 inches wide, then the length over width of any accurate scaled representation of it is going to equal approximately 2.2616. If the Master Replicas' model is 32.46 inches long, it would need to be about 14.35 inches wide to be accurately scaled to the 11 foot model. But according to their site, it is 16 inches wide.
I'm sorry, but if that 16 inch measurement is even relatively close (plus or minus 1 inch) to what the model actually is, that is a massive error. I don't need any drawings to spot that one a mile away.
I'll totally concede that the measurements listed on their site may be completely wrong, but one would hope that before asking $1,200 they would at least take a minute to double check the accompanying description for errors.
If that was the pot-shot you were talking about, I'd remind everyone that I've been constantly showing my work-in-progress to everyone so that people will point out glaring errors like that in what I present. When someone pointed out a grammatical error on one of my projects I sure didn't take it in any negative way. I would hope that we are all able to take close examination of our work as constructive, specially since many of us toile away on our own on this stuff for hours, and errors in our own work disappear to us because we are so familiar with it.
I know my work contains errors in it, and this is based strictly on the fact that I worked on it pretty much alone. At this point, the only way for me to spot the errors I made will be to build what I drew. The moment that something I drew doesn't work on a physical model or the physical model doesn't match the references I was originally working from, I'll make note of it. After I have found all those errors, I fully plan on going back and fixing them.
As for the "I mean it's already been done" comment... sure, I'm not suggesting reinventing the wheel. But information that is hidden from the public is equivalent to information that doesn't exist for the public. So even if I was given this info but was restricted from sharing it, the problem still exists that the info is missing from the public domain. And that alone makes this a worth while effort in my book.
I spent well over 90 hours researching and drawing my three foot plans (and I'm sure that I'll put in at least that much more before I'm done), and I released everything to the public without restriction. Why? So anyone that wants the info can have it.
So yeah, I'm sure that I could get access to this information from someone if I promised not to share it, but that is exactly what I believe we are trying to avoid here.
If you think about it, what if a publishing company decided after the first dozen or so printings of the dictionary to stop because it had already been done. I'm sure that anyone who had one of those copies would wonder why anyone would work to create another dictionary, but for the thousands of people who didn't have a dictionary... it would be a very worth while project.
I'm pretty sure you have the equivalent of an Enterprise dictionary... this project is for the rest of us who don't.
Mr. Shaw, take another look at my previous post and note the content of the quote. I was not making note of the possibility that desired information would not be forthcoming from anything you said.
BTW, the drawings and research that you have put together on the other stuff you have posted look really great! I also offer my apologies to you Mr. Shaw for the misunderstanding my posting had caused you. I would be pleased to help you out in any way that I can if you'd like.
The drawings you have refered to here and in a previous post where those drawings were sampled and comped with photos:
I cannot speak for whomever wrote up, or reviewed the MR website adspace, but is it not possible that those numbers on the site are in err and not the model itself?
BTW, the drawings and research that you have put together on the other stuff you have posted look really great! I also offer my apologies to you Mr. Shaw for the misunderstanding my posting had caused you. I would be pleased to help you out in any way that I can if you'd like.
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
If you have something to show, then show it. If you know all there is to know, then please enlightem us.
You have been acting like you have all of the answers...
Please, enlighten us all, or shut up.
You have been acting like you have all of the answers...
Please, enlighten us all, or shut up.
---WARNING: SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC POST---
Frankly, I don't quite trust them yet.
I was originally planning on building a museum quality replica of the model using the same materials as Datin had. But I've scaled back that idea to first build a 22 inch version making use of available parts and decals for a ship of that scale to try and find those errors that I am sure are present in my current plans.
The more detailed oriented people who are looking at these plans the more likely we'll be able to find and remove errors.
If the original 33 inch model is truly gone for good, then this may be the only way to share it with future generations.
(Sorry for hijacking the thread a little for this post).
Well, since you offered... would you mind downloading and looking over my drawings of the 33 inch Enterprise for errors?
Frankly, I don't quite trust them yet.
I was originally planning on building a museum quality replica of the model using the same materials as Datin had. But I've scaled back that idea to first build a 22 inch version making use of available parts and decals for a ship of that scale to try and find those errors that I am sure are present in my current plans.
The more detailed oriented people who are looking at these plans the more likely we'll be able to find and remove errors.
If the original 33 inch model is truly gone for good, then this may be the only way to share it with future generations.
(Sorry for hijacking the thread a little for this post).
The exterior plans on my sets are just colorized Sinclair drawings. It's the interiors where I'm mixing it up.
If I may, in Thomas' case, his information is of a confidential nature, since it came from Paramount in the performance of a licensing deal, and is therefore not exactly open for full public dissemination.
Not the same thing as in previous disputes with those who will remain nameless.
Incidentally, Thomas, just what did you do to that overlay that's different from when I whipped it up? It may be the result of my computer again deciding to compress graphics (in spite of the settings in the browser commands) but I don't really see anything different. Except that it's slightly more blurry (see previous comments about compressing graphics and computer defiance).
The Smithsonian owns the physical model of the Enterprise, but Paramount Studios undoubtedly still owns the copyright on the design, as well as the right to publish blueprints or anything else based on that design. Just 'cuz it's in a public museum doesn't make it public domain.
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
Excuse me? What exactly have I done?
The gentleman acted as though he had answers. If indeed he had asnwers, then why not provide those answers instead of just talking about said answers?
How does that warrant a warning?
The gentleman acted as though he had answers. If indeed he had asnwers, then why not provide those answers instead of just talking about said answers?
How does that warrant a warning?
^ See my post above.
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
Just cuz it's in the musuem doesn't ..... ART?
I must say of Thomas that he does deserve credit for sharing.
The first drawing he shared at this link:
http://www.thomasmodels.com/overlay.jpg
contains the overhead and side view blueprints he specifically did for the 1701.
Though another source has provided me a copy of it.
Until he posted it just now I had no way of knowing that what I was sent was indeed a legitimate copy.
Now that is obviously the case.
This is the first time I know of where he has posted undistorted versions of his blueprints anywhere.
And they are comparable in quality to Gary Kerr's.
So guys, let's stop for a second, pause and look at what was offered and acknowledge that Thomas has provided us with info that IS of value.
And he is one of the very few people who could conceivably, legitimately get in trouble over sharing this info with us.
So let's give the guy a little credit, as he is indeed sharing info that hasn't been made publicly available before.
Personally I'll just flat out say it. Thanks Thomas. :thumbsup:
And to also ask, since we're in for a penny, how about being in for a pound and showing us a set of front and rear views too?
Pretty please?
The first drawing he shared at this link:
http://www.thomasmodels.com/overlay.jpg
contains the overhead and side view blueprints he specifically did for the 1701.
Though another source has provided me a copy of it.
Until he posted it just now I had no way of knowing that what I was sent was indeed a legitimate copy.
Now that is obviously the case.
This is the first time I know of where he has posted undistorted versions of his blueprints anywhere.
And they are comparable in quality to Gary Kerr's.
So guys, let's stop for a second, pause and look at what was offered and acknowledge that Thomas has provided us with info that IS of value.
And he is one of the very few people who could conceivably, legitimately get in trouble over sharing this info with us.
So let's give the guy a little credit, as he is indeed sharing info that hasn't been made publicly available before.
Personally I'll just flat out say it. Thanks Thomas. :thumbsup:
And to also ask, since we're in for a penny, how about being in for a pound and showing us a set of front and rear views too?
Pretty please?
You mean this one?
The one I cooked up on my computer a week or so ago?
To be clear, I'm not accusing Thomas of anything. He just said he "added" something to it, not that it was his.
And for the record, that overlay consists of Shaw's 3 footer plans and Casimiro's 11 footer drawings. Whatever Thomas added, I'm not seeing, mainly for technical reasons (if someone could email me his version directly, I'd be appreciative).
KirkTrekModeler
Commander
^^^ You're exactly right. If there were more accurate info available, we wouldn't be doing this.
Trek on!
Trek on!
Similar threads
