:O I love the Excelsior Class!
I always thought the New Orleans class looked kinda ugly, a bit like a rusty, squashed Galaxy class
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o41/Lonestar2007/GNewOrleans1.jpg
Worst looking ship?
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
:O I love the Excelsior Class!
I always thought the New Orleans class looked kinda ugly, a bit like a rusty, squashed Galaxy class
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o41/Lonestar2007/GNewOrleans1.jpg
JoeZhang said:
How were the crew getting to the main hull on that class? using slides?
Well, regulars in Trek tech will be familiar with the years of debate over that, but the major theory is that the "main hull" is the saucer, and the big hull underneath is an unmanned sensor pod. It makes sense, given that the ship's mission was apparently detailed planetary survey. Nobody ever has to go into that hull except to perform maintenence and repair.
the Yeager, the 'Shelley' (Excelsior saucer stuck midway down a back-to front Excelsior secondary with HUGE runabout nacelles hanging down from the sides)
a LOT of FASA Klingon and Romulan designs.
personally, i LIKE the New Orleans and wish we coulda seen more of it and not as a crappy wreck
a LOT of FASA Klingon and Romulan designs.
personally, i LIKE the New Orleans and wish we coulda seen more of it and not as a crappy wreck
Steamrunner, Norway, Sabre and Akira all take joint first. The first 3 are just ridiculous and should, if used at all, have been pitched only as alien designs. There are several major races that could have used them. They all look sufficiently alien. The Akira was an example of over-indulgence. The basic layout is appealing and I've toyed with deflector/saucer combinations similar to that myself, but the devil here is in the detail and the detailing just isn't consistent or even in keeping with TNG-era trek.
All were, it seems, pet projects of artists and the fact that all have the most spurious, off-the-cuff class names that make no effort to even sound historical, never mind using historical references as a basis as has been the traditional practice, only underlines the fact that they are the extreme odd-balls of recent trek ship design. I ignore them whenever possible.
Now, you all bash the Yeager, but is that only because when you look at the Yeager, your educated eyes see half an Intrepid surgically grafted onto the remains of a Maquis raider? If you ignore the raider and try to view the design "cold", it actually has some merits. For instance, I much prefer the combination of nacelle design and nacelle pylon angle with the Intrepid hull. I think that aspect is better than the Intrepid class design. Also, I prefer the beefier, chunkier look of the stern of the secondary hull to the vanishing squib that is the tapering stunted tail of the Intrepid, which ends suddenly in that rounded little snub of a hangar and makes the entire secondary hull and tiny little nacelles look completely out of proportion with the bulbous, over-weight, pody triangular hull (this is most apparent in profile views. The ship looks quite good head on and from the forward quarter).
I once had the thought that the Yeager class is as close as Starfleet will ever come to the look and feel of the Bird of Prey!
Cheers,
All were, it seems, pet projects of artists and the fact that all have the most spurious, off-the-cuff class names that make no effort to even sound historical, never mind using historical references as a basis as has been the traditional practice, only underlines the fact that they are the extreme odd-balls of recent trek ship design. I ignore them whenever possible.
Now, you all bash the Yeager, but is that only because when you look at the Yeager, your educated eyes see half an Intrepid surgically grafted onto the remains of a Maquis raider? If you ignore the raider and try to view the design "cold", it actually has some merits. For instance, I much prefer the combination of nacelle design and nacelle pylon angle with the Intrepid hull. I think that aspect is better than the Intrepid class design. Also, I prefer the beefier, chunkier look of the stern of the secondary hull to the vanishing squib that is the tapering stunted tail of the Intrepid, which ends suddenly in that rounded little snub of a hangar and makes the entire secondary hull and tiny little nacelles look completely out of proportion with the bulbous, over-weight, pody triangular hull (this is most apparent in profile views. The ship looks quite good head on and from the forward quarter).
I once had the thought that the Yeager class is as close as Starfleet will ever come to the look and feel of the Bird of Prey!
Cheers,
http://planetside.firenebula.com/startre...0069147c630be05
Cheyenne Corvette
Cheyenne Corvette
I was going to say NX class, but then I got reminded of that awful Yeager class...
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I never liked the Enterprise-C in it's attempt to look like a link between the original Enterprise and the Galaxy class.It just looks swollen and malformed to me.
I like the Excelsior in spite of the fact that it was put in TSFS as a sort of chest-puffed out all-feathers, no-chicken type ship. We weren't ever really supposed to like it.
I like the Excelsior in spite of the fact that it was put in TSFS as a sort of chest-puffed out all-feathers, no-chicken type ship. We weren't ever really supposed to like it.
The Daedalus class.
oh, and i forgot that godawful Medusa class Excelsior kitbash with the three nacelles.
I'd take any ship seen in Trek over that photoshopped NX-01 pizza cutter that is the Enterprise-J...
