USS ENTERPRISE HAYNES OWNERS MANUAL (Part 3)
- Thread starter Starlock
- Start date
I find it rather annoying that terms like "refit" and "uprated" are used on designs that clearly are significant alterations internally, and only retain similarities superficially. I much prefer treating the TMP-era Enterprise as being an Enterprise class improved heavy cruiser and being the testbed essentially for the new model.
A "refit" is when you re-fit a vessel for its next tour or mission. It can be as little as inspection, or entail repairs, equipment replacement, and resupply. What it can not do is fundamentally alter the capabilities of the vessel.
An "uprating" is when you change the capabilities of a vessel in a fundamental way. Changing the gun-calibers into new categories, changing the engine type, etc. These can be minor, but it's usually done to bring an older ship in line with current demanded capabilities. IE, the NCC-1701 in 2271 was indeed refit, but the design was uprated.
An "uprating" is when you change the capabilities of a vessel in a fundamental way. Changing the gun-calibers into new categories, changing the engine type, etc. These can be minor, but it's usually done to bring an older ship in line with current demanded capabilities. IE, the NCC-1701 in 2271 was indeed refit, but the design was uprated.
Well, I think most would agree that Shaws work is most valuable, and the thing to do would be to have the original dozen starships to each be a different artist. Casimiro for production, Masao for Constitution as built, three footer as Constellation class uprate, AMT Constellation as built. Everhart, sinclair, etc as Republic, etc. McMaster as Excalibur.
So all the major takes are represented, with a chaper on Modularity by Vance.
I think that's fair all round.
I guarandamntee ya that even that would start a minor holy war.
Remember those images of a tricorder and communicator that went missing from the manual?
Waste not.... Want not...
Waste not.... Want not...
I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry.
I hated the book. Thought it was too simplistic. It had tons of screen shots and hardly any good engineering schematics. The old TNG and DS9 tech manuals were far better in quality and could be used as valuable references for the writers. The Haynes manual gives you nothing not in memory alpha.
I want good ENT and VOY tech manuals. I bet Michael Martin would write an excellent ENT tech manual. Maybe get Drexler to illustrate.
I want good ENT and VOY tech manuals. I bet Michael Martin would write an excellent ENT tech manual. Maybe get Drexler to illustrate.
I know their manual wasn't exactly a road map for my Saturn when the head gasket blew.
Should'a gotten a Chilton's...
^ LOL. Haynes branched into fantasy because their real stuff wasn't any good. They needed something people wouldn't be relying on with REAL machinery.
If star wars got an incredible cross sections, why can't trek? Those guys would have done a far better job. CBS doesn't seem to care about quality or to bother researching what us consumers REALLY want.
If star wars got an incredible cross sections, why can't trek? Those guys would have done a far better job. CBS doesn't seem to care about quality or to bother researching what us consumers REALLY want.
Paramount
Of course. It's always Paramount.
"Oh, we can't let someone spend effort on something. That wouldn't be shitty enough."
"Oh, we can't let someone spend effort on something. That wouldn't be shitty enough."
More like, "They want us to pay HOW MUCH for the license!?!"
Because it requires a double license. If Pocket wants to do a cross-section book - and they hold the exclusive license for ST tie-in books - they'd have to pay their usual royalty to CBS plus an "Incredible Cross-sections" license to the owners of the DK imprint. If Pocket tried on their own, and it looked too much like a DK concept, then DK could sue.
If DK wanted to do it on their own, they'd have to coordinate with Pocket/Gallery (and work with their editors) and CBS Licensing. Again, two lots of red tape.
DK used to belong to Dorling Kindersley (UK), but their over-investment in "Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace" sent the original publisher to the wall.
^ Yep. I remember the comment. I think it was here but I forgot what it was pertaining too. I'd grab a DK Star Trek Visual Guide or Visual Dictionary in a nano!
Well my opinion on the Haynes Manual hasn't changed since taking it out from the library. They dropped the ball big time on this book. It's possible we hyped this up on our end but they didn't do a very good job with advertising thing that aren't even in the book. All the criticism that we've given the book is extremely valid. Fans can do better, have done better, and will always do better because I believe to some degree even amongst the disagreements we know what we want to see in material like this. Publishers are assuming they know what we want. I would take a copy if I got it as a gift from someone, or used a gift card but I wouldn't buy this.
Well my opinion on the Haynes Manual hasn't changed since taking it out from the library. They dropped the ball big time on this book. It's possible we hyped this up on our end but they didn't do a very good job with advertising thing that aren't even in the book. All the criticism that we've given the book is extremely valid. Fans can do better, have done better, and will always do better because I believe to some degree even amongst the disagreements we know what we want to see in material like this. Publishers are assuming they know what we want. I would take a copy if I got it as a gift from someone, or used a gift card but I wouldn't buy this.
We have the advantages of not paying for anything, not dealing with studio nitwits and clueless shareholders, and not really having anything resembling a deadline.
In my case, there's one out of three... but, thank God I don't have to deal with deadlines.. they would make me cry. :P