# 1701 club update! 0004‏



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Just hit my email!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Great! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Can you believe what a piece of crap that thing is turning into? Way to go, so-called "experts."

Heh heh. Just kidding, Gary!


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

It must be nice having the Master Replicas version around for reference. 

Pretty slick box art as well.


----------



## rtbeuke (Sep 29, 2008)

All I can say is the more I see the more I like!


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

Once again, they asked not to republish any of the update, but they invited us all to paraphrase and discuss freely. So, I must say I really liked the thought and care going into the light kit. The update shows they're talking about LED strips (hopefully, warm LEDs, not blue), and engineering the interior of the kit to create light traps in the right places. Looks great.

They also said they're up to 1,500 club members.

And Gary hopefully put to rest the so-called bow light argument, although I'm sure the faithful will continue to argue despite the images he posted.

It looks like a great kit.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

I got my update as well. I really like how they are putting so much thought into the lighting kit. In the notes, they do mention the LEDs should be soft white to give off a yellowish instead of blueish glow. The mock ups do look fantastic. Now, I wonder who the mysterious Mr. X is? I wish they would add color to the digital model instead of the rainbow of colors they show it in. Maybe next update.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

I love Alex Ross's human portrayals. I think his Enterprise isn't "quite spot on" just yet, though... seems that the saucer edge is too thick. But his ability to capture (or CREATE) human likenesses is about the best I've ever seen.

As far as the kit goes... everything looks like it's coming along nicely. A couple of things that I caught in the pictures:

1) Yes, there is a literal motor for the "fan blades" in the nacelles. I hope that they don't go cheap on the motor... a good motor, even if it costs twice, three times, or even five times as much, will run cooler, longer, and much quieter... and will draw a lot less power overall, to boot. Cheap motors are NOT, in my personal experience, ever a "bargain."

2) There is what appears to be translucent, decal-covered panels which go inside of the windows to represent "sets" inside of them. Pretty cool.

3) The "landing pattern lights" issue seems to have been addressed, and nicely. And better still, the scheme used will allow us to add (non-flashing) landing bay floor lighting very easily... nice!

4) The shuttlebay no longer seems to be "forced perspective" but is an actual, proportional smaller set, patterned on what's seen on-screen but no longer identical to the filming "forced perspective" bit. If that's the case, I'm very pleased, as that's basically what I was planning to do on my own, anyway... though I suspect some folks may be annoyed.

5) I'm still not convinced that the nacelle pylon attachment methodology is sufficiently robust for a long-term kit, to prevent any sagging from ever occurring. An armature (whether wooden, as I plan to make, or metal, as I'm sure some others will do) will still be necessary if you want this model to last for the next couple of decades without losing its shape.

I DO like the significant reinforcement of the pylons themselves... though I, personally, will be removing all of that in lieu of a hard-wood core. What they've done ALMOST eliminates that as an issue.

6) It looks like the proposed "beveled mate" at the saucer edge has been abandoned. A shame, but I can see why that might have had to be let go (tolerancing issues, etc). Shouldn't be too rough puttying the seam on the outer surface of the saucer, though.

7) I'm still not seeing any indication that the bridge-let is made from transparent plastic, but it needs to be. I can see an after-market photoetch kit or even a full after-market bridge replacement, though... so if it's not in clear, a replacent will be. I like the fact that the bridge is in the exact scale (relative to the outside) as my CGI Enterprise's... where I calculated it as being just barely larger than a quarter (and several folks told me I was wrong, and that it needed to be about the size of a silver dollar!)

8) The etched grid lines seem to be 0.002"-0.005" wide... very visible, much larger than I'd understood things were going to. I'm hoping this is just for "line visibility" in the mockup models and will be reduced when the kit goes to tooling. Lines as wide as seen here will be a pain to fill.

9) That's an interesting compromise for the interior nacelle surfaces. Yes, the interior half of the nacelle is a continuous piece, not a "loop," but the interior surface is a plant-on feature. Replacing the interior part with a clear part, and cutting out that region on the nacelle inside half, will allow for "lighting" of that region for those who want it, but doesn't compromise the mechanical integrity of the nacelle half. Looks good, even though it adds a bit of cost overall to the tooling.

10) i'm not convinced that the stand mounting is ideal... but should be able to be converted easily enough, just by drilling through the kit part and continuing the "rod" up to the spine element I intent to install (at the base of the neck). This will result in my model sitting on the existing stand just fine, but will sit several inches lower (which is also preferable from my standpoint anyway). Looks like the stand is a solid rod... I plan to replace that with a piece of steel tubing to permit wire-pass-through. I do NOT plan to have the thing run by batteries in the secondary hull, though that's clearly the design intent.

11) Yes, the design intent seems to be "use the inner portion of the deflector resonator rings assembly as a switch and as the battery access." Not really a fan of that concept, but it seems to work reasonably well as designed in, and most folks will be happy enough with that approach. Doesn't look like it'll be hard to just glue that bit into place permanently.

12) Seeing the nacelle lighting, I'm convinced that this is going to work nicely... though the TOS model lights weren't "digital" and had an incandescent fade/climb behavior which the LED-driven lights here won't, so it won't be a "screen-perfect" representation... but is likely as accurate as we'll ever be able to get.

13) I'm VERY happy with the proposed "cone reflector" for the lower dome... I was planning on creating one of these, anyway, but now I won't have to. I do plan to put transparent plastic "vanes" inside of that space, matched up to the radial lines on the dome itself... but that's not "canon" and what's proposed here is very much in matching with "canon." Great idea!

14) Re: the internal saucer structure... I agree with adding the "red" areas, but disagree with removing the "orange" ones. I say have them ALL in place. As long as they don't produce sink marks on the exterior, these add to the overall mechanical (and light-management) characteristics significantly. If they're removed, I'll just have to re-add them... I'd rather not have to.

I fully agree about the request to thin the internal walls and reduce the internal pins. The features as shown are likely to cause some visible "sink marks" on the exterior. The internal ribbing should be no more than 2/3 of the exterior thickness, and ideally only about 1/2 (draft angles will be key to determining the exact percentage, of course).

15) I LOVE the redesign of the neck-to-secondary-hull interface. And best of all, this will work well with the wooden-armature concept I plan to use with minimal removal of kit material, while the earlier version would have been significant compromised by the material cut-away work I'd have to have done.

16) Fascinatingly, the aft-most "red arcs" on the underside primary hull seem to have been placed in the same (WRONG) location on this mockup as they were placed on the Revell kit. (On the drawing seen in the same capture where these are to be removed, they are in the right locations, however.) I wonder why both the Revell kit and the Chinese tooling guys for R2 added these in the wrong location. Glad R2 has caught this error, though.

17) The interior lighting schema shown seems quite nice. I'm very pleased that they're using "warm white" LEDs, specifically... 3200K... which, as stated, look much more like incandescent lighting. Since I won't be worrying about "battery drain" at all, I expect to use all the various "optional" lighting elements, plus a few more (since I intend to have the interior a bit more "subdivided" into literal setpieces). Overall, very nice.

18) The shuttle looks good, but as noted before, it will benefit greatly from an aftermarket "photoetch upgrade" since the winglets are (necessarily) WAAAY too thick (a molding issue, really).

That's about it for my observations. I'm anxious to see the observations from the rest of you guys!


----------



## NTRPRZ (Feb 23, 1999)

I joined the 1701 club (I thought) but never have gotten any updates. Does anyone know what gives?

Jeff


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Wow, epic photos and info. This is really taking shape!!


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

They need to post images that can be read. It's hard to know what's going on when you can't read the text.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I'd like to see that Alex Ross art available as a framable (sp?) print

maybe a member exclusive


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Atemylunch said:


> They need to post images that can be read. It's hard to know what's going on when you can't read the text.


Right-click and save the images... you can then zoom in on them easily enough in your favorite photo-viewer software (I use 3DConnexion's viewer, where I can pan and zoom using my little "Spacenavigator" device, but you can use pretty much anything).

The text is there, in all the images, albeit just barely readable in a few cases.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

I haven't read the lengthy post from CL, so forgive me if he mentioned this already, but you want to see something cute? Take a good look at the Alex Ross head-on color proof drawing of the E. The shape's not quite right, but one detail is accurate to the 11-footer, if not the eventual kit: No "finger" on the port side of the secondary hull!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

This kit is sounding better and better- I am enjoying the reports here and the descriptions are excellent!


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

*Sweet!*

Alex Ross?!?!! SUH-WEEEEEEET!!!!!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Edge said:


> It must be nice having the Master Replicas version around for reference.


It is. I figure it's fair to use the Master Replicas Enterprise since I designed it, too. 

Gary


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

Gary,

Very nice work. I am so eager, though, to see as many of the double-secret probation reference images you have that I have to ask: Will some of them be released? Why don't the people who own them want to release them widely? I'm really curious.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I take back what I said about the last update we received ... THIS is the best update yet!

As a great fan of the TOS E, I am very pleased with the attention to detail being put to this kit and the "no, we're not accepting X because it's not quite right" attitude displayed. Would that all kits put out were given this level of care.

P.S. Neat idea using the Easy LED-esque lighting system. Simple and easy to install. Personally I'm a fan of cool white LEDs - they are closer to sunlight and, though perhaps not accurate to the incandescent lamps used in the original ship, the interior sets were shot with daylight filtered lighting which the cool white simulates much closer than warm white LEDs. (Remember that our eyes automatically filter warm white for cool white when we're in a room lit only with incandescents - cameras can't do that, which is why you need filters on an old style film camera to make interior photographs look normal instead of yellowish.)

If people want the yellower light of incandescent lighting, it's very easy to add a drop of clear amber paint to the top of an LED to get that color temperature.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

I am so impressed by the care and thought being shown on all aspects of this kit! They are really thinking about the Modeler and the entire modeling experience. Just awesome!

(Love the bridge!)


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Gary K said:


> It is. I figure it's fair to use the Master Replicas Enterprise since I designed it, too.
> 
> Gary


Of course, no offense intended. Plus I learned something new (that you did the design work for it as well).


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Fozzie said:


> ...(Love the bridge!)


Ditto! Though I've got my twisted brain already working on updates to make the first pilot version


----------



## RMC (Aug 11, 2004)

this kit is going to be fantastic !


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Gary K said:


> It is. I figure it's fair to use the Master Replicas Enterprise since I designed it, too.
> 
> Gary


Show off. 

Regarding the dissertation on the "bow light", very educational, but I'll stick with my position that it wasn't intended to be lit, since it wouldn't have been all that tough to do if they wanted to.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Just got the most recent 1701 Club update.

Awesome! These guys are really sweating the details. And in regards to the box art I can only say *AWESOME!* Art work by proven illustrator *Alex Ross*(!), one of the very best in the business.

This just keeps getting better and better. :thumbsup:


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

I LOVE the little tiny bridge module! So much opportunity for a PE kit later. PE railings, figures, capt. chair, etc.....


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Looks flippin fantastic from my couch! This is looking to be a dream kit come true! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Will the lighting kit will be offered separately as a stand alone item or is it just included in the deluxe edition? Now my brother wants one with all the bells and whistles and he pre-ordered a standard kit. If the deluxe kit comes with the lighting kit I will trade my deluxe kit when I get it and he will pay me the difference since i'm not into the lighting thing.

Please refresh my memory someone. I know I read it somewhere but i'm getting old...


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

The deluxe kit does not come with a lighting kit. The lighting kit will be sold as a seperate item. Hopes are it will be available about the same time or shortly after release of the kit. A plug and play version like Moebius is offering for their Jupiter 2 kit would be great. However, if some soldering is involved that would be fine.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Fantastic update!! I am anxious for this one to come out.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

I joined the 1701 just in time and got this update.

WOW!

Can't wait to get it.

The decision to use "warm white" LEDs is one of the most important choices on the kit, IMHO. Using the modern bluish-white LEDs is not accepted by the eye which sees it as a 60s era prop.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Dear Lord, I hope we don't have to reduce the length to TWEET size...


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

I'll enjoy this board a lot more if we can just get them to fit on one screen, like the good ol' days.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Kit said:


> I'll enjoy this board a lot more if we can just get them to fit on one screen, like the good ol' days.


Good gage ! If your post is longer than what can easily be read on ONE screen then...YOU ARE WRONG ! Please be polite...not like the borish
know-it-alls we have to put up with at company Christmas Parties. Don't be THAT GUY.

Truthfully....if you really have a need to share 'all' of your knowledge on any given subject, start a blog !


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Great update! I'm really getting excited now, and that box art looks AWESOME!


----------



## Fraley1701 (Sep 3, 2003)

Ductapeforever said:


> Good gage ! If your post is longer than what can easily be read on ONE screen then...YOU ARE WRONG ! Please be polite...not like the borish
> know-it-alls we have to put up with at company Christmas Parties. Don't be THAT GUY.
> 
> Truthfully....if you really have a need to share 'all' of your knowledge on any given subject, start a blog !


Well said! :thumbsup:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Thanks for understanding guys....we now return to our forum, already in progress !


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

And yet another round in the "do things as I want them done or shut up and go away" school of thought. (Sigh)

"Tweet" length posts? Really? Is there actually anyone here who lacks the ability to scroll? How many of use don't have scroll wheels on our mice?

Honestly, I find the "tweet" length posts to be totally useless and totally pointless. More about "group hugs" than about discussion, much less about sharing information or opinions.

I get DTF's point. But I find one-liner posts to be a total waste of time. They say NOTHING. A post that says "wow, cool update" may be all someone wants to say, but it fails to add anything to the conversation. I'd never tell people who only make on-liner posts to stop making them, though. That would just be obnoxious.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

CLBrown said:


> And yet another round in the "do things as I want them done or shut up and go away" school of thought. (Sigh)
> 
> "Tweet" length posts? Really? Is there actually anyone here who lacks the ability to scroll? How many of use don't have scroll wheels on our mice?
> 
> ...


So , what are ya tryin' to say?? 
-Jim


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

CLBrown said:


> And yet another round in the "do things as I want them done or shut up and go away" school of thought. (Sigh)
> 
> "Tweet" length posts? Really? Is there actually anyone here who lacks the ability to scroll? How many of use don't have scroll wheels on our mice?
> 
> ...


While I may not agree with everything in CL's 'novel', I have to agree that posts of that length should not to be discouraged.

I don't understand curtailing anyones opinion in favor of the weakest computer link in the chain.

Lots of good info in the update, I can't wait for this thing.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I just skip over the long ones.....life is too short!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

ClubTepes said:


> While I may not agree with everything in CL's 'novel', I have to agree that posts of that length should not to be discouraged.
> 
> I don't understand curtailing anyones opinion in favor of the weakest computer link in the chain.
> 
> Lots of good info in the update, I can't wait for this thing.


That's sort of my point. I don't expect "everyone to agree with me." Far from it. In fact, I'd love to hear what you disagree with, or what you think I may have gotten wrong, or whatever. That's what discussion is all about, after all. I promise, I won't take it personally (unless you start taking about my deodorant use or something instead of the model!) :thumbsup:


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

While CL's post was long, I did read most of it. I find your take on things actually refreshing. It's nice to see more than just "wow, cool, this is going to be awesome" posts. I do have to admit I'm guilty of a lot of short posts though.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

I'm certainly not advocateing banning excessive length posts, nor did I say the information contained therein wasn't of value, all members here on Hobbytalk have an equal say in voicing their opinions. I simply stated that many members here use older computers with older operating systems and browsers which make reading these 'novelettes' a pain in the royal southern posterior! Look at any other board on the net and with only a few exceptions MOST posts are at best one or two paragraphs on average. On some boards, Moderators limit the length of posts just as they limit image size,...let's not even get into bandwidth issues. It's simply a matter of polite manners not to 'overwhelm' a reader. If these individuals started blogs on the subjects they are pontificating about, I would be the FIRST to sign up as a follower. Just saying....


----------



## scottnkat (May 11, 2006)

Ductapeforever said:


> ...well lets say I would rather pound my testicles flat with a wooden mallet than go to all the extra hastle of reading these encyclopedic length diatribes.


Wow - I'm still stuck on this comment - holy ouch!!!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Oh, ....and before someone takes issue with the type of computer I have, let it be known I have a $2700.00 dollar high speed, top of the line Apple based MAC system, with multi core processor and Mozilla browser. So I'm not the 'victim' here.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Moral of the story: Remember that after the third paragraph, folks' eyes tend to glaze over, and the likelihood that the megapost you lovingly put together will just get skipped entirely.

Like the Bard said, brevity is the soul of wit. If you can get your point across in half the length, for chrissakes, _*DO IT.*_


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Or as Mr. Spock once put it:

"I fail to understand why humans tend to say, in ten words, what could as easily be said in no more than five."

(Took me a few years to get that joke, having been 10 years old when I heard it).


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

"Indeed."


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Capt. Krik said:


> The deluxe kit does not come with a lighting kit. The lighting kit will be sold as a seperate item. Hopes are it will be available about the same time or shortly after release of the kit. A plug and play version like Moebius is offering for their Jupiter 2 kit would be great. However, if some soldering is involved that would be fine.


Thanks, thats what I thought. Now my brother can pre-order the lighting kit and I can keep my deluxe kit!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Calling other members posts/opinions "diarrhea of the mind" isn't remotely conducive to adult discussion. If you don't like what someone has to say, skip it.

As to the "older computer" comment...? To have such an issue means that your OS needs to be update from something other than an older OS or you need to change you settings to uncheck "word wrap". If word wrap doesnt fix it, then its a software issue, not so much a computer age issue. I reccommend the latest software for both ease of reading forums, as well as security related issues. Of course, this may require one to spend the $500 or so for the latest, smokin' fast laptop that's available. 

Regardless, stop with the insults and treat others with respect. I won't sensor someone just because a couple of people don't like what they have to say. Should I start doing that, I'd simply get rid of anyone who goes out of their way to insult others.....


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Wow, I'd love to be getting these updates, but the cash just isn't there right now for this kind of investment. But from you all have said, this kit sounds amazing. Will it be perfect? Obviously not. But it sure sounds like it's going to be terrific! There will be some amazing builds!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Kit said:


> Gary,
> 
> Very nice work. I am so eager, though, to see as many of the double-secret probation reference images you have that I have to ask: Will some of them be released? Why don't the people who own them want to release them widely? I'm really curious.


I don't know why various people don't want the images released, but I'll respect their wishes. I'd really love to see the publication of a coffee table sized book with all these pictures included, but I doubt that'll happen anytime soon. 

Gary


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

> Oh, ....and before someone takes issue with the type of computer I have, let it be known I have a $2700.00 dollar high speed, top of the line Apple based MAC system, with multi core processor and Mozilla browser. So I'm not the 'victim' here.


Man, I don't wanna sound like a chump, but if you're having trouble scrolling past posts, then you don't have a "high speed" computer. Furthermore, who these days spends $2700 on a computer?!! Even top of the line Macs are well under $2000. 

Regardless, critiquing the length of discussion posts is a little tiresome. I mean, seriously? People are really that bothered by it?


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

I'm not the one having computer problems, my computer is used for work also it's capable of running any software. I use it for Cad drawings and wire frame models.

I was talking about folks with older computers and older operating systems such as Win 98, Win Xp, and Win Vista and any version of Internet Explorer...my computer is fine.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Can we please get back to Update 4 instead of comparing who has spent what on their computers?

Gary, is the bridge piece going to be a single part or multiple parts? Will there be a seperate viewscreen? Would be nice if it was a clear piece.

Also, was the hanger bay modified from your original forced perspective design?


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

As a poor deprived (!!!) UK based fan, I enjoyed CL's post. I took my time to read it and, without him giving away too many details, I've a good idea what's in Update 4. So thank you. Now I'm getting back to my Revell Routemaster!

Rob


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I crave inforamtion about this kit and I do not care about the lengths of posts as long as they have good information in them.
Back to the main topic- I would be interested in the answer to Robiwon's question about the bridge also.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

I'd really like to see a "Making of The Enterprise" magazine issued with the kit, consisting of the photographic images we are seeing in the updates, some of the rare photos that are being used for reference, interviews with the designers, etc. I'm not suggesting they drive the cost up, but it would be very nice to have such a reference "manual" included with the kit.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

I've sparred with CL, so I want to take care to say this respectfully. I don't think it's the length alone that I find so numbing, although if you look around, you can see that most respectful dialogues, and certainly the ones that are fun, do not include so many long, long posts. It's more that once a thread is cooking along, and people are going back and forth, those posts are like tying a big weight to the coversation. He's put together a digital version of the Enterprise that's required a lot of thought, and I feel like he keeps inserting that thinking, and that rendering, into conversations, and the posts are so long that the momentum can't be recovered.

CL, I recognize you have engineering knowledge and definitive opinions. I think you'd be fun to have a beer with. I just wish you didn't bring them to bear with full force so often. It really is stultifying to enough of us, judging by the comments, or at least to me, that it kills the enjoyment. It's a form of hijacking, whether you mean it to be so or not. And you could share that knowledge easily and without that effect if you simply started a few fresh threads dedicated to what you have to offer, and fed the conversation more sparingly in other threads.

Also, I think there are plenty of people here who are smart, and who I like to hear from, and I'm only asking you to allow threads to breathe a little more so hopefully, they'll pitch in more freely. In my opinion, their posts are as valuable as yours.

Said with all respect.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Simply stated, this conversation is not about me... or DTF, or Kit, or anyone else. It is about the Round2 1701 Club update #4. Any conversation in the thread should be about that update. Anyone who has something to say about the Round2 1701 Club update #4, or who wants (permissible) information from that (but who, like some members here, are legally not permitted access to the update itself) can get that, and can discuss it, in this thread.

Isn't that the point?

I find it fascinating that so many posts have been dedicated to personal issues, and so little has been dedicated to the actual update. In fact, so far, almost no discussion of the actual update has occurred.

I posted a series of "bullet points" which were basically just a couple of sentences long in each case. I was hoping that this would stir up discussion, not of how a few posters here really, really don't like ME... but rather, of what they saw, thought, observed, etc, in the update email.

Can we PLEASE drop the personal discussion entirely? If people want to post "cool update," that's fine. If people want to post "I noticed this about somethong in photo #7, and here's what it is," that's fine, and frankly that's what I, PERSONALLY want to see. That is, other folks giving actual thoughtful analyses of what's in the update.... regardless of whether or not it's in agreement or in disagreement with what I may personally think.

So far, the only such conversation I've seen has been one poster mentioning that he actually would prefer "cool white" LEDs rather than "warm white" LEDs... and mentioning how a builder can alter that by a drop of clear paint on the LED if desired. And while I don't personally agree with that approach, it's an entirely valid and on-topic suggestion... and thus contributes to the discussion.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

_Seriously_...? 

OK, since folks seem to think they have to dwell on something other than the Subject, this is the absolute last - and frakkin' OBVIOUS - warning I gave earlier. I'll turn this thread around, go home and lock this thread *if you can't start acting like adults in a HOBBY FORUM*. 

*Plus, I'll Ban the next offender.*


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

From what I gather in this last update the Hangar Deck is now the correct length in the secondary hull intead of beign foreshortened. IIRC it was foreshortened to allow for the pylon attachment assembly to be in front of it. How was that resolved with the deck now extending between the pylons?


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Richard Baker said:


> From what I gather in this last update the Hangar Deck is now the correct length in the secondary hull intead of beign foreshortened. IIRC it was foreshortened to allow for the pylon attachment assembly to be in front of it. How was that resolved with the deck now extending between the pylons?


Although I can't view the update, the thought has ocurred to me that one way to overcome having the pylons inserted into the spine of the secondary hull, and therefore limiting the size of the shuttle bay, would be to make a curved piece of brass (or some other metal) that could be epoxied in place to conform to the upper inside arc of the secondary hull with two sections of rectangular tubing projecting thru holes in the hull upwards at the requisite angle of the nacelle pylons. These would slide into slots in the pylons. So instead of the pylons sticking into the hull the hull would stick into the pylons. I'm sure there are others smarter than I who could express this more eloquently but this just seems to be a simple, clean solution to the problem; whether or not R2 uses this approach is beside the point.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It looked to me like the hangar simply stops at the pylons.

The pylon mount they're suggesting looks good - a long, straight extension "tab" on the pylon base that feeds into a deep slot in the hull, which itself is partly formed by a large internal insert. That didn't look like it left any room for the hangar to extend forward.

That's personally fine by me. Despite the "mythology" of a huge, cavernous hangar, I'm fine with a more realistic approach.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Hangar looks fine to me. Seriously, this looks like an amazing kit, with a lot of care put into it and a lot of pre-pro details shared with the club. (Hey, I just signed up, didn't cost anything.) i haven't been this excited about a kit in a long time. Just sayin'.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

robiwon said:


> Gary, is the bridge piece going to be a single part or multiple parts? Will there be a seperate viewscreen? Would be nice if it was a clear piece.
> 
> Also, was the hanger bay modified from your original forced perspective design?


The one-piece bridge you saw in the update photo is what you'll get - except it'll be further accurized by the time the kit reaches production. A one-piece bridge seems perfectly adequate since the bridge can only be viewed from a straight down perspective and through a 3/4" diameter dome. I don't recall off the top of my head whether or not it'll be cast in clear, but it wouldn't surprise me. Technically speaking, only the 1st Pilot version should have a clear dome, since they clearly showed an opaque, domed bridge ceiling in "Is There In Truth No Beauty?".

The hangar bay is going to retain its forced-perspective design since there's a LOT of plastic & LEDs competing for space behind the pylons.

Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Hell, they showed the ceiling in "Where No Man Has Gone Before".

In any case, it's still an open debate over how much of that shot in "The Cage" was showing a clear ceiling and how much was poetic license.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

^^^^^^^

Even today, we have glass that can get darker in sunlight etc.

And, I think different groups are/were making glass that could become opaque if some kind of charge were run through it.
So I believe that there is no reason that the dome glass couldn't have qualities such as that.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

John P said:


> That's personally fine by me. Despite the "mythology" of a huge, cavernous hangar, I'm fine with a more realistic approach.


My hanger bay is going to be invisible, as will be my bridge.

But... I like what they're doing with these. It shows a lot of attention to detail.

---------------


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

I'm another who signed up for the club, but did not get this update. 

Emailed R2 about it.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Gary K said:


> The one-piece bridge you saw in the update photo is what you'll get - except it'll be further accurized by the time the kit reaches production. A one-piece bridge seems perfectly adequate since the bridge can only be viewed from a straight down perspective and through a 3/4" diameter dome. I don't recall off the top of my head whether or not it'll be cast in clear, but it wouldn't surprise me. Technically speaking, only the 1st Pilot version should have a clear dome, since they clearly showed an opaque, domed bridge ceiling in "Is There In Truth No Beauty?".
> 
> The hangar bay is going to retain its forced-perspective design since there's a LOT of plastic & LEDs competing for space behind the pylons.
> 
> Gary


I got the impression, from what I could pull out of the update, that you were going to use "strips" of some sort of very thin PCB material with surface-mount LEDs, to save space. I guess I thought I was seeing that, by doing that instead of using conventional leaded LEDs, you were able to make the thing fit in a "non-forced-perspective" fashion (ie, as a straight-walled chamber). Of course, I wasn't taking a straight-edge to the renders, sooo...

As far as I'm personally concerned, M.J. showed us a flight deck, or landing bay (a hangar is where craft are stored, mind you, not where they're launched from or land in - which means that the hangar is underneath the landing bay, despite fan tradition to the contrary) which terminates at the pylon structure... and the only "real" evidence that might infer otherwise was from a force-perspective model set.

I was able to virtually perfectly replicate the model set's visual in a landing bay which starts at the aft edge of the pylons... including matching the doors. This only meant that the camera position was "magic"... meaning that the camera was actually forward of that point. But no portion of the setpiece seen needs to be forward of the pylons.

Of course, we got an extended set in TOS-R, but I tend to disregard that for "historical" purposes. It's a fun shot, but it's not "canon" as far as I'm concerned. Other folks' mileage may vary, of course!

If the in-kit setpiece is forced... I guess I'll have to build it from scratch. But that shouldn't be too much of a concern, ultimately... the geometry is pretty basic, after all. And if there's really a major concern re: LED placement... well, 1mm LEDs (rare, but available) may be necessary... or, maybe, "light guides" and remotely-placed lamps? I'm sure that there's some way of getting around that, even though it may not be cost-effective for the kit's commercial lighting rig...

Re: the bridge... again, if it's made it clear, I think it's pretty much ideal as is... with only a few of us really crazy types wanting to make it any more detailed (and relying on photo-etch and so forth to accomplish that). It wouldn't make sense to put any more detail into that little piece for the purposes of the kit itself.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

scotthm said:


> My hanger bay is going to be invisible, as will be my bridge.
> 
> But... I like what they're doing with these. It shows a lot of attention to detail.
> 
> ---------------


I'm still trying to figure out a way of having the landing bay doors be configurable. I WISH I could work out an actual mechanism to do it, but that's nearly completely impractical (OK, it could be done, but you'd be spending hundreds of dollars just on the door subsystem, with precision stamped doors, a fine gear-driven slide for the base, some sort of precision bearing for the center top... it's just as well to say it's impossible, really. So... maybe it'll be a "pop one out and pop another in" approach?

I agree, MOST of the time you won't want the landing bay doors standing open. But some of the time... it'd be nice to have it that way. Of course, I intend to have a "through-view" situation... where you can see from the outer windows into the inspection corridor, into the landing bay, and (theoretically at least) all the way to the other side of the ship. (I'm really pleased, so far, with my experiment using slide-cover glass for windows, by the way, so yes, if you got close enough you could do that, I'm convinced!)


----------



## spawndude (Nov 28, 2007)

jheilman said:


> I'm another who signed up for the club, but did not get this update.
> 
> Emailed R2 about it.



Nor did I!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I am glad the Hangar Deck will be sized to fit the space, I am not a fan of how much space is shown to be wasted on the Refit, with the Cargo Bay and the Hangar Deck. Between the way it looked in the film and the way the model represents it, it looks like the secondary hull is mostly hollow!

Just a quick history lesson, planes were launched from the Hangar Deck on both the Hornet and the Yorktown in the late '30's and early '40's. This was not pursued because the catapult needed was too bulky, it would seem by the time the 23rd century rolled around, things were improved and they called it the Hangar Deck.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Are anyone elses page numbers running backwards on this thread? Instead of showing 1,2,3,4,5, I get 5,4,3,2,1.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

robiwon said:


> Are anyone elses page numbers running backwards on this thread? Instead of showing 1,2,3,4,5, I get 5,4,3,2,1.


_????_ No.


----------



## sliuman (Mar 23, 2004)

same for me...backwards.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Yup. Weird numbering since day 1. (It went into the second page almost instantly.)


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

The chronometer is running backwards Captain!


----------



## Just Plain Al (Sep 7, 1999)

I noticed the page numbers but didn't say anything because it would have been a useless one line post :devil:


----------

