Strategic Designs' TOS Conny plans
- Thread starter Forbin
- Start date
Not impressed. I still prefer aridas sofia's cutaway of the Enterprise and his working out of the ship's layout. Moreover, I don't care much for attempting to fit post-TOS technology -- i.e. warp core -- onto the original 1701.
That would be an interesting idea if that's what they did. But "warp core" isn't more like TMP, it's more like TNG. This is very disappointing.
Thanks for posting the excerpt, Forbin. You just saved me $60.
Marian
Another way of saying that it didn't match their preconceived notions of what it is "supposed" to look like.
Nothing wrong with that.
I happen to like seeing if there is a reasonable way to fit it all together coherently. This looks like a reasonable tack on it. I am impressed, even if it doesn't fit with my preconceived notions.
Yes, damn all those 1942 diesel battleships for not having 1990s aircraft carrier tech all over them! World War Two naval buffs just suck and are completely unreasonable!
And these stupid SAILS on the Constitution? The plans definately need to be reworked to have that fission control room in it. What were those idiots thinking!
Oh, be nice. There's nothing morally wrong with viewing TNG's take on warp drive as a "soft reboot" and applying it retroactively. I think that's what TPTB intended, which is why both ENT and First Contact featured TNG-style warp drive.
It's not what *I* want, but if someone else likes it that way, it's not like they're being mistaken. Just a different take on the universe. Hence I said "I'm disappointed", not "they suck".
Since these plans are print-on-demand, perhaps someday SD will offer alternate versions of the labeling. Perhaps even registries to order. Having "NX-1833" on the Avenger plans was another turn-off for me.
Marian
It's not what *I* want, but if someone else likes it that way, it's not like they're being mistaken. Just a different take on the universe. Hence I said "I'm disappointed", not "they suck".
Since these plans are print-on-demand, perhaps someday SD will offer alternate versions of the labeling. Perhaps even registries to order. Having "NX-1833" on the Avenger plans was another turn-off for me.
Marian
Oh, I agree completly, aridas' are the best so far of any (at least in cutaway), but I like this attempt too, even if I disagree with elements of it.
If you want to talk 1942 (historical) naval architecture, I can point you at a few good forums. I personally am a rivet-counter when it comes to that sort of thing, and get quite pissed when they put a SuperCarrier - or even a modernized Essex in place of a Pre-War carrier. Enough for me to walk out of the film, or change the channel. If you aren't going to do it right, then don't bother. These were real ships, crewed by real sailors fighting (and dieing) in a real war. Real engineering problems were dealt with in designs, and real consequences were met.
If you want to talk Star Trek (Futuristic Science Fiction) you've come to the right place. The practicalities of implementing what was seen on TV vs. what could actually fit.... there is much room for debate. These were not real ships, not crewed by real people, who were not fighting in a real war. Real engineering problems were ignored, and no consequences of the lack of engineering done were met.
Apples, Oranges.
You perhaps forgot who I am?
But my point, really, is that I don't get why so many fans insist that everything in TNG was exactly the same as TOS, and vice versa... despite their being an 80 year difference in technology. (And, in at least two cases, explicit generational technical upgrades in the meantime). It's a logical fault.
Of course these are not real ships, but there is a dramatic rule to follow here. What's happening is that TNG-centric fans are rewriting and redoing TOS in order to fit their pre-concieved notions, despite explicit mentions in TOS to the contrary. And, unfortunately, this is often done explicitly to be contrary (witness a lot of Okudaisms applied to TOSR).
"I never forget a face."
People playing fast and lose with futuristic designs is par for the course. Unfortunately, the same can be said for historic and even contemporary designs. Most people wouldn't believe how much of a difference there is between "how it is" (or was) and "how everybody thinks it is"
I for one like what I've seen, and may just spend the $$ to order a nice new full color set.
Forbin, thanks for posting the excerpt. Yeah, there might be some issues, but it's certainly an interesting take on the ideas. And my understanding is that Strategic Design does a quality product.
Gosh we're a grumpy lot. Can't imagine why Pocket doesn't feel like publishing any more Trek manuals.
Gosh we're a grumpy lot. Can't imagine why Pocket doesn't feel like publishing any more Trek manuals.
Of course, it is also a bit silly to insit that everything is different from TOS to TNG. I figure there' some stuff that is the same, some stuff that is quite different, and some things you might recognize from one era to the next.
True, but when they actually say several times that it's a completely new drive system... I don't think that means 'it's just like TNG, only with red instead of beige plastic mouldings!'
