Saquist
Commodore
That's great...but how is that related to the impulse engines as discussed in the Haynes Manual?
USS ENTERPRISE HAYNES OWNERS MANUAL (Part 3)
- Thread starter Starlock
- Start date
That's great...but how is that related to the impulse engines as discussed in the Haynes Manual?
I flipped through the book again when I was in Chapters yesterday still naively trying to justify myself to buy the book but just couldn't lol. The horrible Enterprise-E cutaway (and folded too damn it) just was the cincher for me. My favorite ship and they messed up the cutaway. Damn. A better cutaway was the one from one of the final issues of the Star Trek Communicator Fleet Files. I miss those.
^ The folds in the pages are very annoying.
I bought it and I was very disappointed because I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. I was hoping for more information on the B/C (where was the bridge drawings for those ships?). I agree with what's been said previously, it's a great RPG supplement or an introduction to Trek in general, but I guess I was expecting something on the level of the TNG/DS9 manuals, and got let down. It felt more like a grade school primer, and the section on alternate realities felt like it was just thrown in as an excuse to get a picture of the NuEnterprise into the book.
Yeah I was disappointed that they didn't do actual art for the bridges and used photos instead. As well as the lack of art I didn't like the layout at all either. The written sections contained info that most fans would have already been aware of. As some of us have pointed out this seems to be generated towards new or the casual fans as opposed to hardcore fans.
For the next edition(should there be one) how much work would it be to make the necessary corrections?
I just saw the new Star Trek magazine, and read their laughingly kiss-ass review of the Haynes book, LOL... the authors were going on about how "painstakingly researched" and "true to what we saw on TV" this thing is, and how the cutaways are the most detailed ever made...
I'm toying with the idea of emailing their editorial department with a link to this thread, as well as the link to the Amazon reviews, lol.
I'm toying with the idea of emailing their editorial department with a link to this thread, as well as the link to the Amazon reviews, lol.
^ Do it! Maybe next time they will take note of what's expected rather than what will do.
E-mail sent... hopefully they'll actually READ the thread, though I doubt anyone will respond, who was involved with the book. But I did explicitly tell the Magazine folks that THIS is the voice of the fans, if they want to listen to it.
Some of the fans. A drop in the ocean.
And STM editor Paul Simpson hangs out in the TrekLit pages.
^
Well, to my surprise, Paul did in fact personally reply to my email, and he said that he read through this thread. But he also said that people here kept saying that stuff in the book is wrong, without saying what is wrong. I have to disagree with that...
Number one, the initial publicity for this book clearly led us to believe that the pictures of the tricorder and communicator from TOS would be depicted in the "Haynes exploded view" detail... they were not. So right there, this book was misleading. Second, the TOS shuttle is woefully wrong... there have been actual blueprints out there, like the Phil Broad plans, that would have been an excellent reference. Instead, they gaffed that up. Beyond the TOS shuttle, people have given numerous examples in this thread about things that were wrong in the book.
And also, as has also been stated here... it simply was not a "tech" book... it was more like an RPG primer on the most basic of ship information, and little to no nitty-gritty tech stuff. Instead, all we got was a rehash of what happened in the films and episodes.
Paul said that the authors will be disappointed in the reaction to this book. To that I say GOOD! We were disappointed by seeing the wasted potential of this book, lol. Maybe next time, they won't half-ass stuff, and actually give us something of quality. The TNG Technical Manual is by far the gold standard, IMO... and that book is now a decade old... so if they can't even match that level of quality... IDK what to tell them.
Well, to my surprise, Paul did in fact personally reply to my email, and he said that he read through this thread. But he also said that people here kept saying that stuff in the book is wrong, without saying what is wrong. I have to disagree with that...
Number one, the initial publicity for this book clearly led us to believe that the pictures of the tricorder and communicator from TOS would be depicted in the "Haynes exploded view" detail... they were not. So right there, this book was misleading. Second, the TOS shuttle is woefully wrong... there have been actual blueprints out there, like the Phil Broad plans, that would have been an excellent reference. Instead, they gaffed that up. Beyond the TOS shuttle, people have given numerous examples in this thread about things that were wrong in the book.
And also, as has also been stated here... it simply was not a "tech" book... it was more like an RPG primer on the most basic of ship information, and little to no nitty-gritty tech stuff. Instead, all we got was a rehash of what happened in the films and episodes.
Paul said that the authors will be disappointed in the reaction to this book. To that I say GOOD! We were disappointed by seeing the wasted potential of this book, lol. Maybe next time, they won't half-ass stuff, and actually give us something of quality. The TNG Technical Manual is by far the gold standard, IMO... and that book is now a decade old... so if they can't even match that level of quality... IDK what to tell them.
^^ Good for you! 
I can't believe he said he read through this thread and then claim no one here pointed out specifics! Maybe someone should do a nitpickers guide to the Haynes book.
Hmm... But then it would mean actually having to buy the thing. Still, it might be worth it just to get our point across.
I can't believe he said he read through this thread and then claim no one here pointed out specifics! Maybe someone should do a nitpickers guide to the Haynes book.
Hmm... But then it would mean actually having to buy the thing. Still, it might be worth it just to get our point across.
The TNG Tech Manual is 20 years old.
It would be nice for us to have an accurate manual. Any chance of that happening short of some of us doing the revisions?
^ Probably not. I think plenty of examples have been pointed out in the thread with what's wrong in the book or what we generally have been displeased with. Perhaps the review was towards more casual fans. It is true that trek tech fans are a microcosm of the general fandom but that doesn't mean we should be discarded. I think I've been converted to your guy's side now 
^
Yeah... they shouldn't misrepresent the book in such a glowing review... if anything, they could at least acknowledge that it does have some shortcomings, and say that while it may not satisfy the most die-hard fan, it will be enjoyable to the casual Joe Blow who just wants a basic Trek "tech" book.
But since the Star Trek magazine sees no need to print the truth, they won't miss me as a customer. One less thing to spend money on every month or so.
Yeah... they shouldn't misrepresent the book in such a glowing review... if anything, they could at least acknowledge that it does have some shortcomings, and say that while it may not satisfy the most die-hard fan, it will be enjoyable to the casual Joe Blow who just wants a basic Trek "tech" book.
But since the Star Trek magazine sees no need to print the truth, they won't miss me as a customer. One less thing to spend money on every month or so.