# Round 2 1/350 Enterprise Thread- The Next Generation



## James Tiberius

So with all the stuff that ensued on the other thread that is no longer alive, I didn't think the closing of a vauluable topic was fair to us all.

Here is a new topic to discuss the 1/350 Gray Lady in all her glory!

On a personal note, we all love star trek and the enterprise guys, lets all try to get along without any personal attacks from anyone. A difference in opinion is one thing, but name calling and hijacking threads is a completely different story. END RANT!

I for one am looking forward to the 1701 Club material regarding the studio model. I haven't been looking into background information for years on end and all this stuff will be new to me.


----------



## John P

Well, then to put a little information from the update into the thread:

The model will include three complete sets of windows: One set crystal clear, one set milky translucent white, and one set translucent smokey black. This will allow the builder to have clear windows (with the possibility of building interiors within), or white backlit windows to match the way the filming miniature was done, or clear black to give depth to unlit windows.

The plans so far do indeed show an engraved grid on the saucer, but remember R2 said that if they can't make the grid very, very, VERY fine, then they'll abandon it and give us a smooth model. That remains to be seen.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

That is great news about all those various window options... but do they specify if only the premium edition will have that, or will all those windows come with the standard issue kit as well?


----------



## Capt. Krik

I was very impressed with Round 2's update on the 1701. The attention to detail is quite remarkable. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think this is going to be the best representation of the Enterprise yet. Remember, if I'm right you heard it here first, kids.

**Sigh** Fall 2012 is such a long way off. Guess I'll go build some models and wait and dream.


----------



## James Tiberius

you could always turn the old AMT one into perfection and by the time you're done with that the R2 one will have been out for a couple of years!


----------



## Fozzie

I think this alone shows an incredible attention to detail:

"On the production version all 3 lights should be the same diameter - 0.121" (3.074mm). On the 2nd pilot version only, the flush center light should be replaced by a clear hemisphere with a diameter of 0.121"."

And what do you guys think of that shuttlecraft? Looks a lot more accurate than the AMT one. Too bad it will be so small!


----------



## James Tiberius

well that just means that there is hope for a larger one someday.

I was even thinking of how I could put a single led inside of the shuttlecraft parked inside the bay.


----------



## John P

BolianAdmiral said:


> That is great news about all those various window options... but do they specify if only the premium edition will have that, or will all those windows come with the standard issue kit as well?


They didn't specify any particular version, so I'd assume it's for the standard kit.

They also said they're trying to make as many windows as possible to be inserted from the outside, so they can be installed after the ship is painted, to avoid having to mask them.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Huh... not sure how that would work, but it sure sounds good.


----------



## KUROK

John P said:


> They didn't specify any particular version, so I'd assume it's for the standard kit.
> 
> They also said they're trying to make as many windows as possible to be inserted from the outside, so they can be installed after the ship is painted, to avoid having to mask them.


That's hot poop!
:thumbsup:


----------



## BolianAdmiral

This actually brings up an interesting question...

The more I think about John's announcement, the more I wonder... don't most modelers paint the major hull parts BEFORE inserting windows, even when inserting them from the rear?

The comment about not needing to mask them makes me wonder if both the saucer section AND engineering hull will have "customizable" window layouts/patterns, or if they will be window decals, or if the window arrangements will be set... I wonder if they might even have the "window spaces" as little tabs of thin plastic you can pop out from the hull for the windows you want, and just sand/paint over for those you don't.

IDK... the whole insert from outside thing has me a bit confused, because usually, I would assume people paint the hull, and THEN mount the windows, but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Solium

Appreciate all the updates. :thumbsup: 

If one was to press windows in from the out side after the model is painted I see a great possibility of accidentally scratching or marring the painted surface if one slips with their installation. The only way I can see windows popping in from the outside is if they are keep in place by a "forceful" snug fit. 

I would vote "no" on engraved grid lines. But that's all I will say. I made my vote. :wave:


----------



## robiwon

Well......you could put the windows in from the outside, mask, then paint. Plus, it isn't like it has as many windows as the Enterprise D.


----------



## James Tiberius

Well, I think it comes down to the usual "modeler's discretion" about how the windows are done. I plan on dry fitting like crazy on this build.

I'm sure this thing will have lots of little gremlins waiting to be taken care of just like the 350 refit or the 1k TOS.

If fit is an issue, just sand around the edges a little and Krystal Klear it in there at the end.


----------



## swhite228

Capt. Krik said:


> **Sigh** Fall 2012 is such a long way off. Guess I'll go build some models and wait and dream.


Fall is the public release of the production ship kit. The 1701 club kit will be released a little before the other kit....


----------



## Atemylunch

John P said:


> The model will include three complete sets of windows: One set crystal clear, one set milky translucent white, and one set translucent smokey black. This will allow the builder to have clear windows (with the possibility of building interiors within), or white backlit windows to match the way the filming miniature was done, or clear black to give depth to unlit windows.


And inserted from the outside. 
So that means we get 3 shots to get the windows placed correctly(six for the 2nd hull). Don't mind the rattle that's normal. 

But seriously inserting the windows from the outside would work. Each window would be tapered to the inside, so the window sets in place. But the only problem with this method, once you prime and paint the model, the window will not seat properly. The tapered surface would be raised by the paint, the window would no longer be flush with the hull. But just sitting outside of it. If you masked out the edges of the window, there is a possibility of the styrene being visible on the sides of the window. 

What I would like to see them do, is not bother with the windows on the base model at all. But make the model clear(like they are doing with a lot of kits these days), and apply the windows using paint masks. It solves a lot of problems, and it reduces the cost and time of producing the model. We have been doing this trick with garage kits for a while(in fiberglass). If they used this method the customization options would really be fun.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

^

Yeah, see, this is what I don't get... how can you mount the windows from the outside, and have them be flush with the hull, without sanding, which would defeat the point of painting the hull first?


----------



## SteveR

Atemylunch said:


> The tapered surface would be raised by the paint, the window would no longer be flush with the hull.


 You could sand two adjacent faces of the window to make it fit -- maybe in just a couple of swipes. (no need to sand four faces if the part is symmetrical) Maybe set up a bunch in a line, attached to masking tape and do them all at once.


----------



## RSN

Well, cosidering Round 2 designs and makes models for a living and this is not the first kit they have ever produced, I think I will trust them to know how create this kit properly.


----------



## falcondesigns

I would'nt.


----------



## John P

I suppose this thread is now going to go off on a tangent complaining about a feature of the windows that may or may not happen, like the last thread with the grid. Sorry I mentioned it.


----------



## StarshipClass

John P said:


> The plans so far do indeed show an engraved grid on the saucer, but remember R2 said that if they can't make the grid very, very, VERY fine, then they'll abandon it and give us a smooth model. That remains to be seen.


I can live with either one: smooth or very fine lines.

As for the windows, I really can't judge that until I have the model kit in my hands.

I'm looking forward to the customizing jobs some folks will do.:wave:


----------



## Warped9

I think presently we may be seeing what R2's ideas are on _what they would like to do_ and they depend on whether they can get what they want. If not then they'll go with alternative B or C.


----------



## Ductapeforever

John P said:


> I suppose this thread is now going to go off on a tangent complaining about a feature of the windows that may or may not happen, like the last thread with the grid. Sorry I mentioned it.


Kind of like walking barefoot in a yard full of dog poop!


----------



## robiwon

Do people here want to build a model or shake the box and have a completed, painted, lighted 3 foot model fall out? Cant tackle gridlines, don't wanna mask windows, wow, really???


----------



## Atemylunch

RSN said:


> Well, cosidering Round 2 designs and makes models for a living and this is not the first kit they have ever produced, I think I will trust them to know how create this kit properly.


Those guys are only human, they are far more interested in decreasing costs. Balancing that with ease of assembly, is not an easy job. 

I can't tell you how many kits are out there with gaps, mismatched parts etc. 



SteveR said:


> You could sand two adjacent faces of the window to make it fit -- maybe in just a couple of swipes. (no need to sand four faces if the part is symmetrical) Maybe set up a bunch in a line, attached to masking tape and do them all at once.


You would have to sand a 4 sides since the parts are tapered. You do run into a possibility of gaps in the parts. 


I do wonder about the wisdom of showing the design process. These discussions are going to get heated, especially on this board. Since it's mostly a Star Trek board, and the most critical of sci-fi fans are Trekkies. 
I feel sorry for the mods, they have their job cut out on this one.


----------



## CLBrown

As long as dissent is not suppressed, and the moderators are even-handed, and if the discussion of the KIT (including things we DON'T WANT) even if it's not "ohmygodweloveround2andwanttohavetheirbabieseventhoughweremen!!!" type comments are permitted, and discussion of the subject matter (if it in any way reflects how the model will be built) is permitted... things should be fine, shouldn't they?

On the other hand, if anyone who is remotely critical is silenced, then there's no point to come here at all, is there?

*Me, I plan to buy two smooth kits, or zero "engraved" kits.*

As far as windows go, that's pretty easy... you simply make the parts so that they'll be slightly inset from the outside of the hull (including a reasonable allowance for paint thickness). This is pretty easy to accomplish. Plastic injection-molded parts can normally be held to a tolerance of +/- 0.005" Assuming a paint thickness of 0.020" +/- 0.010" (which is pretty much standard when you include multiple coats and a primer layer), you'd simply tool the windows up to be inset by 0.036" from the outer surface when installed at nominal. EASY. And if you assume that the windows are "really inset" anyway... like what I've done in my CGI version (rather than being "flush" which has NEVER been the case with any real-build aircraft or spacecraft, has it?)... it's even easier. This means you can just inset them by a fixed amount (say, 0.070" +/- 0.010", including tolerance in the window and the hull)... this will be remarkably painless.

I have no concerns about the kit right now except for gridlines. *But these will be a show-stopper for me.* I do not plan to have to putty, sand, prime, sand, putty, sand, prime, sand... and HOPE that the putty's shrinkage doesn't eventually make these things show up under my final paint job. The physical model had no physical gridlines. So my model will have no physical gridlines. Or I will simply not buy one. It's not worth it to spend $150, plus all the other add-ins and supplies which will take this closer to $250, I'm guessing, if it will look "wrong" in the end.


----------



## scotthm

Atemylunch said:


> Those guys are only human, they are far more interested in decreasing costs. Balancing that with ease of assembly, is not an easy job.


I'm sure you're right.

Wouldn't it be less expensive to manufacture _and easier to build_ if the model were cast in clear and had no windows to install? I wonder why that doesn't seem to be an option. Surely they're not aiming for a snap together, no-paint-required model for something of this size and price.

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


----------



## falcondesigns

It's actually harder to do clear parts.........the material itself is the problem.


----------



## CLBrown

falcondesigns said:


> It's actually harder to do clear parts.........the material itself is the problem.


Correct.

Clear parts can only be made from pure resin... with no fillers or "alloying agents of any kind. When you get clear styrene, it is quite brittle and hard to work with, and not terribly strong.

Styrene used for kits normally has a percentage of vinyl added to it (to increase flexibility) and also some fillers (generally something mineral... calcium carbonate - "talc" - for example) to increase the hardness (and also to decrease cost).

Most plastic parts are actually a composite of a plastic "alloy" (multiple types of plastic) cast around some non-plastic material. For very strong plastic parts, this is usually long-fiber glass filiments, for instance, although long-fiber carbon "whiskers" are very effective, though very expensive. Pure plastic resin is nowhere nearly as robust as these composites.

Most models are made with talc-filled styrene/vinyl alloys.


----------



## RMC

we could always modify the crap out of the kit like we do anyway ! .........lol


----------



## Solium

I thought someone said clear plastic costs a lot more than opaque plastic? The cost at this size would be considerably more, thus not an option.


----------



## Trekkriffic

CLBrown said:


> Correct.
> 
> Clear parts can only be made from pure resin... with no fillers or "alloying agents of any kind. When you get clear styrene, it is quite brittle and hard to work with, and not terribly strong.
> 
> Styrene used for kits normally has a percentage of vinyl added to it (to increase flexibility) and also some fillers (generally something mineral... calcium carbonate - "talc" - for example) to increase the hardness (and also to decrease cost).
> 
> Most plastic parts are actually a composite of a plastic "alloy" (multiple types of plastic) cast around some non-plastic material. For very strong plastic parts, this is usually long-fiber glass filiments, for instance, although long-fiber carbon "whiskers" are very effective, though very expensive. Pure plastic resin is nowhere nearly as robust as these composites.
> 
> Most models are made with talc-filled styrene/vinyl alloys.



Now this is great stuff! 
Just the kind of information one needs to understand why a clear hull may not be the best option for windows. 
I completely concur with Mr Brown having built the clear Yamaguchi kit. 
That plastic was brittle as hell.


----------



## scotthm

CLBrown said:


> Clear parts can only be made from pure resin... with no fillers or "alloying agents of any kind. When you get clear styrene, it is quite brittle and hard to work with, and not terribly strong.


Thanks. I didn't realize that.

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


----------



## Griffworks

CLBrown said:


> As long as dissent is not suppressed, and the moderators are even-handed, and if the discussion of the KIT (including things we DON'T WANT) even if it's not "ohmygodweloveround2andwanttohavetheirbabieseventhoughweremen!!!" type comments are permitted, and discussion of the subject matter (if it in any way reflects how the model will be built) is permitted... things should be fine, shouldn't they?
> 
> On the other hand, if anyone who is remotely critical is silenced, then there's no point to come here at all, is there?


As I mentioned to you in a PM, there's no suppression of dissenting opinions going on at this time and won't so long as there's no disruption to the discussion itself. So, let's keep this thread on-topic, insults are kept out of posts and we all agree to disagree, things will continue on. So, let's keep it on-topic and enjoy the discussion - whether you want the grid or windows or want the kit cast in clear.


----------



## Trekkriffic

* "STAY ON TOPIC!"*


----------



## John P

:lol:!
Hey, Jeff, should we sticky this one?


----------



## Paulbo

Perhaps the thing to do is create a thread strictly devoted to the gridlines debate and a separate thread devoted to everything *but* the gridlines. Then those people who want to discuss the pros/cons of the engraved gridlines have a dedicated forum and those people who aren't don't have to read it and pipe in with comments about how they could care less about the gridlines.


----------



## CLBrown

scotthm said:


> Thanks. I didn't realize that.
> 
> ---------------


It would be the best possible option to shoot the parts from polycarbonate... the resin typically used for optical work. This is very strong and very tough, and would be IDEAL. Of course, that would also raise the cost of the kit to something in the range of $600 a pop, sooo.... polycarbonate is a lot tougher to inject, and has a higher viscosity at any give melt temperature. It requires tougher molds (which don't last as long anyway, under those conditions).

Styrene is very popular because (a) it's inexpensive (especially in the form used in models, with something like 30% "mineral fill" - aka talc), and (b) it's easy to process (low melt temperature, low flow viscosity, etc). Oh, and it's very easy to glue, and accepts paint well...

But an injection-molded polycarbonate model... damn, that would be a thing of beauty, wouldn't it?


----------



## Trekkriffic

Paulbo said:


> Perhaps the thing to do is create a thread strictly devoted to the gridlines debate and a separate thread devoted to everything *but* the gridlines. Then those people who want to discuss the pros/cons of the engraved gridlines have a dedicated forum and those people who aren't don't have to read it and pipe in with comments about how they could care less about the gridlines.



Yes. It would be nice not to have to read "between the _grid_lines" so to speak.


----------



## Paulbo

CLBrown said:


> ...But an injection-molded polycarbonate model... damn, that would be a thing of beauty, wouldn't it?


That it would!

But don't forget the other bane to injection molding PC - stress fractures. IM'd PC is very susceptible to crazing and cracking due to improper molding making it very finicky (read "expensive") - but when it's done correctly the effect is awesome and far superior to anything that can be obtained via clear styrene.


----------



## Kit

CLBrown said:


> It would be the best possible option to shoot the parts from polycarbonate... the resin typically used for optical work. This is very strong and very tough, and would be IDEAL. Of course, that would also raise the cost of the kit to something in the range of $600 a pop, sooo.... polycarbonate is a lot tougher to inject, and has a higher viscosity at any give melt temperature. It requires tougher molds (which don't last as long anyway, under those conditions).
> 
> Styrene is very popular because (a) it's inexpensive (especially in the form used in models, with something like 30% "mineral fill" - aka talc), and (b) it's easy to process (low melt temperature, low flow viscosity, etc). Oh, and it's very easy to glue, and accepts paint well...
> 
> But an injection-molded polycarbonate model... damn, that would be a thing of beauty, wouldn't it?


It would be very difficult to work with with hobbyist tools. Try sanding a CD and you'll see.

You certainly have a great deal of detailed knowledge. It's very impressive.

So put me down as being for the gridlines. I think it's a nice touch. I hope it doesn't really ruin the kit for people.

And can anyone share any more details from the Round 2 update? I'm not getting the Premiere kit, but would love to know more about it (and less about thermoplastic ploymers).


----------



## CLBrown

Paulbo said:


> That it would!
> 
> But don't forget the other bane to injection molding PC - stress fractures. IM'd PC is very susceptible to crazing and cracking due to improper molding making it very finicky (read "expensive") - but when it's done correctly the effect is awesome and far superior to anything that can be obtained via clear styrene.


Yep, you can't get by with low-tonnage presses, or low cycle times (you have to inject VERY hot, and then allow the parts to cool quite a bit while in-tool) or you get exactly those issues. And there are issues with part design that come into play then as well (remembering that the plastic shrinks as it cools)

Hence my ludicrously high estimate of the cost of the kit in that form.

Personally, I'd pay it. But I doubt many other folks would. (And, of course, it would be even more difficult to fill in gridlines on a polycarbonate model!)


----------



## Griffworks

John P said:


> :lol:!
> Hey, Jeff, should we sticky this one?


 Thy will be done!


----------



## John P

Paulbo said:


> Perhaps the thing to do is create a thread strictly devoted to the gridlines debate and a separate thread devoted to everything *but* the gridlines. Then those people who want to discuss the pros/cons of the engraved gridlines have a dedicated forum and those people who aren't don't have to read it and pipe in with comments about how they could care less about the gridlines.


That's exactly what they did over at Starship modeler.


----------



## Nektu

Just out of curiosity, how did Master Replicas address the windows? I have seen their model, and they looked pretty flush to the hull. Was the whole thing clear, and they masked the windows?

Best,
KK


----------



## BatToys

Will this be more accurate than the Master Replica?


----------



## Joeysaddress

I have a Master Replicas TOS E. If I remember correctly, it is moulded in a frosty ABS plastic. Then painted. The windows are laser etched after. I think that's what was on the booklet that came with it. However, it's in storage in the attic and it's too hot to dig it out now.


----------



## BatToys

Is the TOS Enterprise model limited to 32 inches because that was the weight limit for styrene?


----------



## USS Atlantis

No - it's to keep it to the 350 scale of the Refit 

The refit is longer than the TOS - both in universe and for the model


----------



## SteveR

Sorry to bring up the clear thing again, but why would the ship have to be completely clear for lighting windows? Wouldn't translucent white be more appropriate, since most of us don't want to see inside the cabins, and we'd probably frost the inside of the windows anyway ...? 
Of course, if translucent white styrene is just as problematic as clear, then ... Never mind.

Hey, since we're always light blocking the darn thing, maybe plain white styrene would be fine, if the backside of the windows were thin enough to let light through. Just a thought.


----------



## John P

^And a darn good thought. You might have to put the LEDS right up against the plastic to make the shine-thru bright enough, but it'd probably work.


----------



## SteveR

... Maybe include some vinyl lasercut window masks in the kit?


----------



## Captain April

Okay, so what'd I miss?


----------



## Warped9

Captain April said:


> Okay, so what'd I miss?


Well, you've got a lot of readin' to do.


----------



## Captain April

Actually, I've read pretty much all of it; just couldn't chime in.

For the record, I wouldn't mind gridlines if they're subtle enough, but otherwise, count me in the smoothie ranks. Besides, it's a given that _some_ sanding and putty work is going to be required, just as a simple fact of model building, and if I have to work around ultra-fine gridlines to avoid screwing them up in the process (which would just put me in the position of sanding the poor girl smooth regardless of what I thought about the gridlines), it might very well be that no gridlines is the best way to go, regardless of how subtle they can make them.


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> ^And a darn good thought. You might have to put the LEDS right up against the plastic to make the shine-thru bright enough, but it'd probably work.


For that sort of lighting, why would you use "point light sources" like LEDs?

I think that a "cold cathode tube," particularly the flexible type you can buy to "dress up" your computer, is the way to go. It's as low-heat as an LED, really, but it provides distributed light, not point light.

This stuff is starting to see use in high-end home lighting systems... 

http://www.cathodelightingsystems.com/products/132/flexible-cathode-light-strip

But it's most commonly used for computer guts illumination, or for "car jazzing up" purposes, these days, it seems.

I'm using a pair of the "purple" ones from here, for the engine nacelles on my 1:350 TMP Enterprise.

http://www.oznium.com/cathode-kit

To save money, instead of going flexible, I'm thinking that I'm just going to use several 4" segments of "white" to do internal illumination of the primary and secondary hulls. And there will be LEDs where we want point light sources (the spotlights, the scanners, blinkies and flashies, etc). I'm still debating the dorsal, though... with the framework in there and the wiring, I'm thinking that lightsheet might be preferable in that area. And of course, If I do that, I might just go ahead and use Lightsheet behind every window. After all, if I have to support one "patch" I can just piggyback off of that inverter to run a whole shipload, can't I?


for example...

http://www.flexolite.net/
(a high-end supplier)

or
http://electroluminescence-inc.com/ELtape.htm
The "tape" is ideal for model usage.

Or try here:
http://world-electroluminescent.com/new_EL_products.html

Or here:
http://www.lighttape.com/

Or here:
http://www.lighttapeinnovations.com/

Or here:
http://www.ellumiglow.com/EL-Tape-s/106.htm

Or here:
http://www.lighttape.com/what_is_light_tape.asp?ContentId=296

You can even try something like this...

http://www.glowire.com/basic_glowire_information.htm

which is pretty much the same stuff as above, but configured quite a bit differently.

Lots and lots of options for cool, non-localized lighting.

EDIT:

By the way, a basic primer in how to use lightsheet (and "light tape" which is the same thing, just in a thin strip)

You can cut the material, but you need to re-seal it afterwards if you do, or else it will eventually "burn out" due to humidity in the air.
http://www.lighttape.com/select_install_light_tape.asp?ContentId=301

You connect it this way. Note that that strain relief isn't necessary, as long as you can do something similar to secure the wiring in-model.
http://www.lighttape.com/select_install_light_tape.asp?ContentId=584

Here are some recommended adhesives to use (and the recommended edge sealant)
http://www.lighttape.com/select_install_light_tape.asp?ContentId=589

You can get away with using just one inverter/driver for the entire model, of course... it's based upon surface area being driven. See here:
http://www.lighttape.com/select_install_light_tape.asp?ContentId=379

Hope that's helpful.


----------



## SteveR

That was very helpful, CLBrown. Thanks! :thumbsup:


----------



## John P

What _WAS_ I thinking? :lol:


----------



## Kit

I don't know whether the Lightsheet-type products have become better, but I was sorry I used it years ago -- probably 8 or 9 years ago -- on an AMT refit. It looked great when I finished, although it was disturbing to hear the whine of the power inverter. I never was able to figure out how to keep it quiet, so that really limited my use of the lights -- and I used an inverter rated well for the load I put on it. 

But then, after only a few months, I started to notice that the light looked more blue. And it started to fade. I had the lights on for only a few minutes a week, yet after not too many months, the winodw lights had faded quite a bit. After that, I started to see other complaints on the web, saying the fading was a quality of the product.

I never had a short -- sealed it well with silicone gel on every edge I cut -- but the fading was terribly disappointing.


----------



## CLBrown

Kit said:


> I don't know whether the Lightsheet-type products have become better, but I was sorry I used it years ago -- probably 8 or 9 years ago -- on an AMT refit. It looked great when I finished, although it was disturbing to hear the whine of the power inverter. I never was able to figure out how to keep it quiet, so that really limited my use of the lights -- and I used an inverter rated well for the load I put on it.
> 
> But then, after only a few months, I started to notice that the light looked more blue. And it started to fade. I had the lights on for only a few minutes a week, yet after not too many months, the winodw lights had faded quite a bit. After that, I started to see other complaints on the web, saying the fading was a quality of the product.
> 
> I never had a short -- sealed it well with silicone gel on every edge I cut -- but the fading was terribly disappointing.


Hmmm... well, I've worked with it without problems, personally. But there are definitely different grades.

Interestingly, the "humm" you hear actually tends to come from the sheet itself, in my experience. But that's not necessarily intuitive. The "lighttape" faq even makes mention of that... but it's not what you'd expect.

The inverter can cause noise, too, but a well-built one never will. Just like a really cheap transformer will hum but a high-quality one will not. The hum in a transformer (or an inverter like this uses) is caused by the wires in the windings flexing as the electromagnetic field oscillates. A well-made device will not have loose wire in the windings... they'll be bonded, or even encapsulated, and thus will not hum.

Also... if you used SILICONE to seal the material, you used the wrong stuff.

From the "Lighttape" FAQ, again,



> Other adhesives: Since Light Tape® weighs only 1/4 pound per square foot, aggressive adhesives are never necessary for installation. Velcro or various adhesive foam tapes work for many indoor applications. However, DO NOT use silicone, Liquid Nails, or other non-approved adhesives. For example, silicone may seem like a viable option as it cures with water, but it reacts negatively with Light Tape®'s barrier encapsulation causing delamination and lamp failure.


I don't know who you bought your stuff from, but the odds are very good that the same issue was present in your installation. The silicone attacked the insulation on the device, and thus it failed extremely prematurely.

This is the sort of thing we engineer-types consider all the time... "material compatibility"... but most people never give it two thoughts.


----------



## Paulbo

Unfortunately it's a problem inherent with the EL film/rope lighting. There's apparently something in the phosphors that create the light that break down over time used. Too bad, too, as otherwise it's insanely cool stuff.


----------



## Kit

CL, you may be right about the hum coming from the material itself. It sure was annoying, especially since I didn't expect it at first. 

As far as the sealant, that didn't cause the degradation. The dimming was uniform over pieces I had trimmed and pieces I didn't trim. The light just...faded.


----------



## Paulbo

Kit - that's what I'm talking about. The phosphors have a half-life and degrade over the time that they're powered. Your dimming seems extreme based on the timing you've mentioned, but the overall affect is what one would expect from this type of material.


----------



## CLBrown

Kit said:


> CL, you may be right about the hum coming from the material itself. It sure was annoying, especially since I didn't expect it at first.
> 
> As far as the sealant, that didn't cause the degradation. The dimming was uniform over pieces I had trimmed and pieces I didn't trim. The light just...faded.


Of course that's what it did... but that doesn't prove that I'm incorrect.

You used silicone on a material which is incompatible with silicone. Naturally that's going to result in the material failing prematurely. You can say it didn't, but the basic formulation of this stuff is the same no matter who makes it, and everyone I've looked into who makes it tells you that you can't use silicone with it, or it will cause the material to degrade prematurely.

That said... it's also possible that you had low-quality material... perhaps the exterior layer (which is required to be air-tight) had pores in it, or was just too thin and was a low-quality film in general?

The good stuff will, frankly, not respond like what you saw, if handled properly. This is used for "mission critical" applications in aerospace cockpit systems, for "emergency exit" strips, and so forth, and must not suffer the sort of degradation you're talking about. These things aren't merely taken on "promises," but are tested... very, very robustly.

I know, for a fact, that good quality electroluminescent sheet, if used properly, will last a very, very long time (far longer than a bulb would, and on par with LED lighting).

It's possible you had low-grade material... and it's also VERY possible that the use of silicone resulted in the dramatically premature degradation which every manufacturer of the material I've dealt with associates with that chemical. (And maybe it was both.)

As for the material having a "half-life," that term is inaccurate, of course. This material is not based upon radioactive decay, after all. Like anything else (including LEDs or incandescent bulbs) there is a performance curve for the material... but it does not behave even remotely like it has a "half-life" (logarithmic degradation).

I'm sorry... I know that a lot of people used this and had bad results... because it was (improperly) sold as though it could just be "cut with scissors and used" and there was, undeniably, some low-grade material on the market being sold to hobbyists. But if you get good-quality material, and use it as the manufacturer directs, it will outlast your LEDs. (I've worked at a place that used it in aerospace apps.)


----------



## Kit

I'm sure you're right, and I did not obtain NASA-grade materials. It was still disappointing, though, and like I said, it happened even with panels I did not trim. 

My hope is that the big E will have plenty of room for LEDs. Long-lasting, colder than flourescents, and nice bright whites and colors without the blue tint or high voltage spillover whine.

I'm curious about the lighting kit R2 plans to produce. For me, the make-or-break will be the engine effects. I'm hoping for more than a ring of red LEDs and a simple chase circuit. Anybody -- did the email update say anything about that?


----------



## John Duncan

I'm sure that there will be someone who will make a proper lighting device for the bussards. I'm going to give it a try myself.

Half the fun of this kit will be what the aftermarket industry makes for it. Imagine a dreadnaught conversion? Fully lit.....incredible!


----------



## RSN

To give the proper effect, the lights in the engines should be multi-colored, like the Christmas light used in the filming miniature, under an orange tinted dome.


----------



## sg-99

A 1/350 Doomsday Constellation conversion is in the works:thumbsup:


----------



## LGFugate

From the Round 2 Blog:

"*TOS Enterprise Accessory Pack
*This will include weathering decals, photo-etched parts and _*a light kit including motors to turn the Bussard fan blades.*_ We have a target price for this but will announce it once the time comes to take orders on it."

(Italics are mine.)

http://www.collectormodel.com/ (May 17, 2011 edition)

Larry


----------



## Kit

Right, Larry, I saw that when it was first posted. Still leaves open the question of lights -- multi-colored? How many? 

I'm hopeful it will be good.


----------



## CLBrown

Ideally, they'll have tiny surface-mount LEDs on a black PCB... you can easily fit sixteen or so onto a layer if you use the smallest ones, even for the tiny little 1:1000 kit. So here, with a kit this large, they can go for larger, brighter ones. Then put a faceted diffuser over it, and a set of photoetch fan blades over the whole thing, spinning. It would be PERFECT, and (when mass-produced) would be pretty inexpensive. The only significant cost would be the "chaser circuit" to drive the lights, and the little motor (or more likely, gearmotor) to drive the fan. The light PCB and the diffuser would be virtually "free," and the photoetch fan set would be pretty cheap as well, assuming that there are other photoetch elements in the kit.


----------



## Kit

For some odd reason, this reminds me of an old Gahan Wilson cartoon. An eager young man, leaning forward in anticipation, sits before the desk of a distinguished gent with a loupe in one eye. The gent is saying something like, "I'm afraid that what you have here, Sir Reginald, is not an 1878 mint aigle d'or, but a bit of gold foil wrapped around a disk of stale chocolate."

I guess for me, it can be six or eight LEDs on a plastic disc that I can paint and line with aluminum for reflections. No doubt there will be photoetch parts; at least they said there would be. I just hope it looks cool.


----------



## CLBrown

The reason I suggested a PCB rather than a plain plastic disk is that this will reduce the wiring complexity dramatically. In fact, at this scale, the whole "chaser circuit" can be put on the reverse side of the PCB, so all you'll have to do is hook up 5V DC (two wires) to it to get your lights. Ideally, use a 5V motor for the "fan blades" as well, so two wires per nacelle will be all you'll need.


----------



## starlord

While I've watched a few of the shows, most of the time I dig out one of my Babylon 5 tapes and watch them. lots better.


----------



## starlord

I like Babylon 5 100% better.


----------



## jbond

I like Star Trek 200% better!


----------



## Krako

Received my 1701 Club t-shirt today! I got a blue one.


----------



## LGFugate

Me too, on both counts!

Larry


----------



## pagni

me 3


----------



## Opus Penguin

Still waiting. Maybe tomorrow.


----------



## pagni

*saucer sections*

Has there been any mention as to whether the saucer sections will be molded as a two piece sub assembly ? I am hoping they don't go the C57 route and mold the saucer sections in an assortment of pie wedges.


----------



## John P

Pretty sure it'll just be top, bottom, and separate sidewalls. Like the refit.

The C-57 was pie wedges because they have an upper size limit for parts of 24" - that's the biggest mold size their molding machines can handle. The Enterprise saucer is smaller than that.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

I thought it had been established that it'd be top, bottom, and various sidewall segments, depending on what kind of window arrangement you wanted?


----------



## Opus Penguin

Just received the second 1701 club update and have to say I am very happy with the direction they have taken this model, and support what they are doing with the utmost confidence. Even with the grid lines.


----------



## Warped9

Yep, just finished reading the update and I agree that this looks to be really well thought through. I really liked Gary's response to the gridline issue---it show's they're very aware of our, er, "conversations."

It also looks like they're also going with an offset bridge---sorry *CRA*. 

The devotion to detail they're going for is amazing. :thumbsup: To hell with Revell Germany's kits.

Got the update, but still no shirt. I'm surprised that they've got only 1300 folks signed up so far. I really hope they surpass the 1701 mark.


----------



## zysurge

Warped9 said:


> It also looks like they're also going with an offset bridge---sorry *CRA*.


Actually, the notes indicate they are designing it such that the bridge can be inserted wither way - offset or straight. They're covering their bases!


----------



## Warped9

^^ It looked like the turbo lift fit into that cylinder aft of the bridge so how could it be either way?


----------



## Fozzie

Warped9 said:


> ^^ It looked like the turbo lift fit into that cylinder aft of the bridge so how could it be either way?


Don't know but the notes clearly ask for a change to be made that will allow it to be installed either straight or offset.

Reading the notes was very encouraging! Lots of comments about "let's change this to make it easier to putty the seams" or "let's change this to give the modeler an option to build as they like" or "this is a problem on other versions of the _Enterprise_ we want to avoid". They really seem to be giving this a tremendous amount of thought and care.

I think this model is going to something very, very special! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

Fozzie said:


> Reading the notes was very encouraging! Lots of comments about "let's change this to make it easier to putty the seams" or "let's change this to give the modeler an option to build as they like" or "this is a problem on other versions of the _Enterprise_ we want to avoid". They really seem to be giving this a tremendous amount of thought and care.
> 
> I think this model is going to something very, very special! :thumbsup:


Agreed. It's very encouraging. :thumbsup:

Re: the gridlines question. They've got it at _.2 of a millimetre_ and are still trying for _.01 mm?_ *How can you argue with that degree of fineness on a 1/350 scale model? * Wow!


----------



## CLBrown

Fozzie said:


> Don't know but the notes clearly ask for a change to be made that will allow it to be installed either straight or offset.
> 
> Reading the notes was very encouraging! Lots of comments about "let's change this to make it easier to putty the seams" or "let's change this to give the modeler an option to build as they like" or "this is a problem on other versions of the _Enterprise_ we want to avoid". They really seem to be giving this a tremendous amount of thought and care.
> 
> I think this model is going to something very, very special! :thumbsup:


Yep, and THAT IS WHY some of us have been vocal about "what we want" (on both sides of some issues). Having this sort of back-and-forth... even impassioned back-and-forth... is what is going to lead to this being the best possible model for everyone's needs and desires. The various conversations re: this kit have had a positive impact, and as a result will give everyone a better result.

I like the way that the saucer is being constructed. It looks really good, honestly... light-weight but robust. Other than having to fill in gridlines (which I hate with a passion, but you guys already know that!), my "saucer concerns" are pretty minimal.

Regarding gridlines... if they have 0.2mm lines, in 1:350 scale those represent 7 cm grooves, while if they have 0.1mm lines, that's 3.5 cm grooves. on the "real" ship. A 7cm gap is way too large, but I can imagine a 3.5 cm weld seem between plates, which is something you might see on a contemporary non-military vessel (like a cargo container hauler) today, worst case. (Most seams will be half of that, and will be ground smooth, of course). But if they can do 0.1mm etched lines, I'll be a lot happier. People who want a more "robust" gridline pattern can then use those as guides to their own etching, as well. I'd say that 0.1mm etched lines would be an ideal compromise for everyone's interests.

I do have two comments about the saucer... one of which Gary can discuss if he shows up here, and the other which I think is actually wrong and needs fixing (but again, we can discuss).

The first issue is the radial lines on the lower dome. They're putting those on as engraved lines in the outer surface of that dome. I never had the impression that these were on the outer face... they looked like internal details to me. So, for someone who's seen the 11-footer (Gary or anyone else)... are those actually etched lines on the exterior of that part on the real 11-footer?

The second is the pair of red arced lines near the aft edge underside of the saucer. They look like they're in the wrong place... too far inboard. 

For the "very, very good" on the saucer... I really like the idea of the seam between the upper and lower saucer being angled (with interior rib supports) to make for an easier sanding/filling effort. I was hoping that they'd do the "choose your own approach" to the bridge, and I think that their bridge looks great. *I HOPE that the bridge is done in clear plastic, rather than opaque!* That way, we can use pin-vise drills to create lit "button panels" on each console, and so forth, very very easily, not to mention having backlit displays and so forth. And I'm glad that they've removed the 'bridge dome plug" in favor of a thin-shell bridge dome. And I think lots of people will be very happy about the option to place the bridge as they envision... though I'll never accept it any other way but with the "offset viewer." 

Overall, the saucer looks great.

The secondary hull also looks very good.

I'm concerned with the idea of twisting the deflector housing to get at the battery pack (???) and using the dish as a switch. That seems too "gimmicky" to me, and honestly I envision the big gaps required for movable parts to be a problem. I'd much,much rather go with a "hollow pipe" for the stand and just put the batteries and switch in the stand.

One thing that doesn't LOOK like it's been addressed is the "landing pattern light" array on the fantail lip. Ideally, that part should be made to allow it to be backlit, which probably means having that bit be clear. From what I can see, this is an opaque part of the main hull molding, which means it'll be nearly impossible to light it properly. Maybe they've addressed this and I just can't see it, in the images provided, but if they haven't addressed it, they really ought to... those light are quite visible on-screen, after all!

It looks like I'll be making my own landing bay interior if I choose to leave the doors open... the issues with the "LED gap" outboard of that interior are a non-issue in my design version... though my take on this ship "upscales" it (from 947' to 1067'). There's a significant gap between hull exterior and landing bay interior in my version, so LED space is not an issue. But R2 is (properly, I think) sticking with the 947' number. Since that's the widely accepted scale, it would be foolish not to go with that, wouldn't it? I just happen to be 100% convinced that 947' is too small, and the landing bay (not "hangar deck"... a hangar is where the craft are stored, so that's the next deck down!)



Overall, though, I'm very pleased with the take they've got here, and I think it's the best option overall. I don't mind scratch-building my own version of this interior... especially since, either way, I'm going to need to scratch-build my own landing bay clamshell doors (to accomplish the "nesting" approach you can see in the images I've thumbnailed, above).

As far as the nacelles go... well, it looks like they're really covering every possible "wishlist" item anyone could possibly want, including "filming miniature" options. I noticed that the interior sidewall on the nacelle is a separate part, and that the two radiator panels inside of that are both separate parts. This is even more complicated than I'd imagined, but I think I see why they're doing it this way. (And John should be pretty happy about this, huh?) By making the inner part this way, first, you avoid the knit-line problem (but need a fairly large additional part, which means cost, of course). BUT... you get an option for an after-market part. In other words... someone can make a "solid wall" resin part to go in to that space so that the model can reflect the "filming miniature" state. 

That's not a cheap approach... but I guess they really took both John's and my concerns (as well as others, I'm certain) into account. A more expensive kit to make, overall, but a lot more flexibility for "custom building." I still think this is "overkill" but hey, it won't hurt ME to have extra options I won't use... as long as it doesn't make the kit unprofitable for them, go for it. 

I do like what I can see about the LED kit, but it seems like there are only eight lamps (as opposed to many more for the "real" ship). I'm concerned that this might not give a good enough effect. Doubling the number of LEDs per nacelle seems to be a good idea... and sixteen LEDs versus eight LEDs means that you can still use a standard off-the-shelf chip to control the "chasing lights" which give half of that effect (with the "fan" being the other half).

I do like the idea of the little shaped lenses atop each LED, though, with the "fan dome" over all of those. I think it's a good approach, and my sole concern is the number of lamps used.

Finally, I really liked the original support structure as given by the Chinese team to affix the saucer to the secondary hull I get why R2 wants this "simplified" of course... the "building up in subassemblies" bit. But the original scheme would be much, much more robust. Of course, I intend to build up a metal frame inside of my kit anyway, and implementing my solution will be easier with the revised approach, so I'm not complaining (the new breakdown is easier for me to modify for my internal framing).

I'm quite a bit more edgy about the nacelle-to-secondary-hull attachment. I'm not convinced that what we see there will be suffient to keep the nacelles from bouncing and vibrating perpetually, and from sagging badly after a year or two.

It shouldn't be a PROBLEM for me, but I'm clearly going to just have to go in and remove most of the existing structure. I suspect I'll end up making solid (or "solid-ish") pylons... maybe using the kit parts as skins over a hard-wood or metal core?... and building up a more robust "socket" structure in both the nacelles and the secondary hull. I was always thinking I'd probably end up doing that anyway, but had been hopeful that the kit parts might be sufficiently robust to not require that.

I could be wrong, but I'm just uncomfortable with the pylon attachment as I see it there. It looks (a) hard to get properly aligned, (b) somewhat flimsy, and (c) subject to a lot of sagging.

Having pylons running through to the centerline of the secondary hull just seems much, much more robust. And so, that's what I'm going to do. Hopefully, years in the future, my model will still be stable ad well-aligned, even if all the rest have drooping nacelles.


----------



## Kit

Too much to read. Can you boil it down, as if it were a conversation?


----------



## Captain April

I scanned over the email, plan on going over it in more detail later.

I will admit to being a bit dismayed over the bridge placement (with all this concern over Jefferies' approach towards the gridlines, but not a whit about his stance that the bridge faced forward? Say it ain't so!), but if they're gonna make it an option to have it facing forward, then I'm content.

Speaking of the gridlines, looking at them as welds between hull panels is incorrect and misses the whole point. *It's the deflector shield emitter array*, so it's as big as it needs to be. In that vein, given that there's gonna be a grid whether I like it or not, I would've preferred it be raised, not engraved, although citing the Phase II model makes a compelling case for an engraved grid.

Using the deflector dish as the on-off switch makes for a nice homage to the original AMT kit, so no issues with that.

I am a bit concerned with how well having the neck as a separate piece will work, but I'm willing to be convinced.


----------



## John P

Yup, very happy about the nacelle parts breakdown. I'm also sure it was done that way so we can choose between the smooth pilot trench and the grilled production trench. I'm reasonably sure both parts will be included in the deluxe version, and I think they said something about releasing a parts kit for the pilot versions separately for the production kit when it hits the stores, so I doubt the aftermarket folks will need to make them. I personally hope the grills are molded in clear, but if not, this parts breakdown makes it easier for the average modeler to insert any aftermarket grills.

My only complaint about the update is that the text on the JPGs was too small for my old eyes to read!!


----------



## Fraley1701

> My only complaint about the update is that the text on the JPGs was too small for my old eyes to read!!


I hear you John! I had to really zoom in using my Web browser to read some of the comments. Overall, I am extremely pleased that Jamie and Gary are sharing so much developmental information with us! I certainly appreciate the amount of work going into this project and I have no doubt it will be an amazing model kit! :thumbsup:


----------



## Paulbo

Something I hadn't noticed before ... the markings on the bottom of the secondary hull and the darker areas on the bottom of the nacelles appear to be marked off with engraved lines. That'll be nice for painting the details in place rather than using decals.



Captain April said:


> ...Using the deflector dish as the on-off switch makes for a nice homage to the original AMT kit, so no issues with that...


That's how I took it as well.



John P said:


> ...My only complaint about the update is that the text on the JPGs was too small for my old eyes to read!!


Ditto! I was hoping that clicking on the images would take me to a higher res copy, but no dice.


----------



## Captain April

The teeny tiny text is why I only skimmed over the email. Once I get through resizing the pics, I'll probably have some fresh rants ready. :devil:


----------



## HabuHunter32

Just read the update and it's obvious to me that Gary and Jamie are doing everything possible to make this a kit of a lifetime! After 40 or so years the wait will be worth it! Kinda brings a tear to my eye...she's a beauty! Can't wait for test shot pics down the road. Untill then CGI will have to do..

Thanks Gary for your reasonings behind the direction the kit is taking. It shows alot of sensitivity tward all sides of the concerns voiced and is refreshing to say the least! It's also obvious that you love the Gray Lady as much as we do! :thumbsup:


----------



## MGagen

The update is indeed a wonderful treat.

On the subject of the bridge insert, it is definitely designed so "forward facing" partisans can install it that way, if they insist. This is only possible because the turbolift car isn't part of the mold.

If _I_ was in charge, I'd include the turbolift car as a tab on the part that fits in the exterior tube to properly orient the piece. The instructions would include a line that those wishing to install the bridge facing forward can either clip the turbolift car off the piece, or Dremel a hole in the exterior bridge dome to let it stick out into space.

<BUGS BUNNY> Ain't I a stinker? </BUGS BUNNY> 

M.


----------



## Captain April

That's why you're not in charge.


----------



## jheilman

<BUGS BUNNY>Of course you know, this means war!</BUGS BUNNY>

Only jesting.


----------



## charonjr

Thinking about the gridline issue: the pencil lines were about 1mm wide on the 11 footer. Scaled up 86 times to 947 feet, we get 86mm wide gridlines. So the "real" ship grid lines are 3.385 inches wide. Now we divide by 350 to get our model, which says these grid lines are .245mm wide. At .20mm, the grid is slimmer than it "ought" to be. 

In any event, these are not weld lines and have no corollary with contemporary engineering. We have to posit engineering techniques that exist 140 years from now, including deflector grid technology. This ain't your modern day navy, boys!


----------



## Warped9

If they get the lines down to .1mm for a 1/350 scale model that translates to an opening, space, (whatever) of just 1.3 inches on the full-size starship. That's a _very_ negligible opening on a ship nearly 1000ft. long. It then becomes very hard to see under certain lighting. Then I think you'll have a decent representation of the surface of the ship just as we see onscreen where the lines are sometimes visible and sometimes not. Even a .2mm. is pretty good. .2 of a millimetre is awfully small.


----------



## Solium

This is what the federation used for "grid lines".


----------



## Richard Baker

I went to the R2 Blog but the most current posting I can find features an Ambassador class hull damage decal story. Can somebody please post a link to the current TOS-E section being discussed?


----------



## jheilman

It's in the e-newsletter that members of the 1701 club receive.


----------



## Scorpitat

Gridlines, nacelles, shuttle bays,...Feh! Just give me the kit so I can start gluing my rendition of the great lady together. All these original ship detail discussions will go on ad nauseum, but all we really want is the kit. Thanks again Round 2, for making the icon in large detailed scale.

Scorp.

" If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon." - engineer Montgomery Scott


----------



## Ductapeforever

Richard Baker said:


> I went to the R2 Blog but the most current posting I can find features an Ambassador class hull damage decal story. Can somebody please post a link to the current TOS-E section being discussed?


They are discussing the recent TOS 1701 CLUB update, not available to the general public.


----------



## Richard Baker

Since I cannot afford to be a member of that group I understand why I cannot find anything on it. oh well- it sounds interesting.


----------



## Paulbo

Oops - posted in wrong thread.


----------



## Warped9

I'm enjoying the updates and discussions...and that I have a year to decide whether to build the Pike era version or the production version. Decisions, decisions...


----------



## Fury3

Solium said:


> This is what the federation used for "grid lines".


 
That is too funny!


----------



## Trek Ace

Buy several and build them both. 

It was nice to read about the bridge being positionable to avoid arguments. It still may take a little modifying to make it into the second pilot version, since that configuration was unique among the bridge layouts.

In the parts breakout pictures, it indicates that the saucer is to be split down the center lengthwise, top and bottom, similar to the cutaway model, including the teardrop and bridge module. However, no mention was made addressing the two pilot version bridge options.

Otherwise, I am quite happy with what I read with the text and what I could decipher of the detail callouts. Separate dorsal neck parts will allow for the different window layouts between the pilots and production version, as well as the different engine struts, pods, and impulse engine and bolt cover details.

I'm certain they will arrive at the best solution for the struts to connect between the lower hull and engine pods to ensure strength and rigidity, while still allowing for wiring conduits for the engine dome lights and motors.

So far, I'm very impressed with their commitment to getting things right. Gary Kerr's commitment and passion for the project is clearly evident in addressing even the smallest details.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Trek Ace said:


> In the parts breakout pictures, it indicates that the saucer is to be split down the center lengthwise, top and bottom, similar to the cutaway model, including the teardrop and bridge module. However, no mention was made addressing the two pilot version bridge options.


I hope this is not the case. Trying to fill the seam on the cutaway model was a nightmare. I hope this won't be the same case. I am not sure why they couldn't mold the saucer in one piece ( top and bottom) like with the refit.

The information on the lighting looks great though ... especially for the engines. Looks like it will simulate the actual 11 ft model.


----------



## Paulbo

Trek Ace said:


> ...In the parts breakout pictures, it indicates that the saucer is to be split down the center lengthwise, top and bottom...





Annotation on the Photograph said:


> NOTE: WE DO NOT WANT THE SAUCER TOP AND BOTTOM DIVIDED INTO HALVES. THESE PARTS HAVE BEEN CUT IN HALF TO SHOW A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE CROSS SECTION.


Phew!


----------



## Gary K

Trek Ace said:


> Buy several and build them both.
> 
> It was nice to read about the bridge being positionable to avoid arguments. It still may take a little modifying to make it into the second pilot version, since that configuration was unique among the bridge layouts.
> In the parts breakout pictures, it indicates that the saucer is to be split down the center lengthwise, top and bottom, similar to the cutaway model, including the teardrop and bridge module. However, no mention was made addressing the two pilot version bridge options.
> So far, I'm very impressed with their commitment to getting things right. Gary Kerr's commitment and passion for the project is clearly evident in addressing even the smallest details.


I suggested that they make the bridge spin like a carousel to make everybody happy.  PL didn't buy that idea, but modelers should easily be able to position the bridge however they want.

Don't don't excited about the lines on the bridge, saucer and elsewhere in the 3D graphics. These and various other lines on the hull are simply artifacts of the 3D rendering program and don't necessarily denote seams. This model does NOT have any freaky parting lines, and you will be very pleased with the way the saucer goes together - much better than the Refit's. Don't worry about the Pilot version options, either, as I think we've got all bases covered. The internal structure will be modified as required to ensure that nothing "droops" on this model.

Gary


----------



## Warped9

Gary K said:


> The internal structure will be modified as required to ensure that nothing "droops" on this model.
> 
> Gary


Awesome! Music to the ears. :thumbsup:


----------



## CLBrown

charonjr said:


> Thinking about the gridline issue: the pencil lines were about 1mm wide on the 11 footer. Scaled up 86 times to 947 feet, we get 86mm wide gridlines. So the "real" ship grid lines are 3.385 inches wide. Now we divide by 350 to get our model, which says these grid lines are .245mm wide. At .20mm, the grid is slimmer than it "ought" to be.


Huh?

Have you ever used a pencil which drew 1 mm lines? I haven't. Many conventional pencils will have ~ 1mm wide lead, but we SHARPEN THEM. I've never, in my life, seen a pencil line of the width you just mentioned. Magic markers, sure, but pencil lines? Hardly.

Realistically, a "semi-sharpened" pencil is going to draw a line of roughly 1/4 of a millimeter, not a full millimeter.

Mechanical "lead pointer" pencils use a heavier lead than normal wooden #2 pencils do... they're typically 2 mm. But they are heavily sharpened.

Conventional mechanical pencils normally draw lines which are 0.5 mm (though there are other, less common, sizes available), and that sort of pencil has been around for a long time... it's actually pretty likely that this is what was used on the 11-foot ship (since it never needs sharpened and draws a consistent line thickness)

Now, the 11 foot model is not exactly 11 feet, but I'll call it that for now. And, for the sake of argument, I'll accept that the ship is 947' long in "reality."

So, that means that the 11-foot miniature is 1 : 86.1. And 0.5mm pencil lines, at that scale would reflect 43.05 mm lines on the full-size ship. (There are 25.4 mm per inch, so this means that the lines are 1.695" wide.)

Now, scale this down to 1:350... that gives us 0.123 mm line width. And even if you were RIGHT, and they somehow used an unsheathed, unsharpened 1 mm lead across the hull, this would give us a line twice that width, or 0.246. Which rounds to 0.2 mm.


> In any event, these are not weld lines and have no corollary with contemporary engineering. We have to posit engineering techniques that exist 140 years from now, including deflector grid technology. This ain't your modern day navy, boys!


Prove it.

You just made a very positive statement... about something of which you have absolutely no actual, factual knowledge (nor, for that matter, do any of us).

But we DO know certain things, because we've seen in on-screen. There was another thread I read a while back talking about how there would never be "traditional fasteners" but that they'd instead us some form of esoteric matter. The response was to show, on-screen, a SPANNER WRENCH in engineering.

You say that there would be no weldments. But why not? Welds work, and work very well.

This sort of prediction, in my mind, falls into the same category as those predictions which said that we'd be taking our nutrition through pills at this point, and flying to work in our rocket jet-packs.

Bottom line... new technology supplements what we already have and what we already know. It does not UTTERLY REPLACE what we already have and what we already know.

There are elements of our modern building construction which are identical to techniques used by the ancient Egyptians, by the Greeks, by the Romans, and so on. Why? BECAUSE THEY WORK.

So, prove to me, either through on-screen evidence or through logical extrapolation, that welding would not be a technique used in Star Trek's future.


----------



## CLBrown

Opus Penguin said:


> I hope this is not the case. Trying to fill the seam on the cutaway model was a nightmare. I hope this won't be the same case. I am not sure why they couldn't mold the saucer in one piece ( top and bottom) like with the refit.


that's a misinterpretation... a "rapid prototype" part is shown in one image and it is split. But this is because of the limitation of rapid prototype technology. The CAD images (it sure looks like Autodesk INVENTOR, but I could be wrong) are very clear about the current part breakdown, and the current breakdown shown is not split, and is actually very nicely done.


----------



## CLBrown

Richard Baker said:


> Since I cannot afford to be a member of that group I understand why I cannot find anything on it. oh well- it sounds interesting.


I'm confused... are you saying you can't afford to buy this kit once released? Or do you (mistakenly) believe that you're being asked to spend money NOW?

I signed up, as did most of us, but nobody is being asked for money at this point, and we won't be asked until it's time for us to receive our kits, sometime next year. (Probably eight to ten months down the road still?)


----------



## CLBrown

Gary K said:


> I suggested that they make the bridge spin like a carousel to make everybody happy.  PL didn't buy that idea, but modelers should easily be able to position the bridge however they want.


As long as it's supplied in clear, what you've shown is pretty much ideal already.

I suspect that there will be some aftermarket "alternative bridges" made, made as modifications of the existing one, but with small portions replaced or repositioned. The bridge, as provided, does look quite good though for a "production" version. Again, as long as it's in clear, so we can do the tiny little detail lighting easily, everyone ought to be happy.


> Don't don't excited about the lines on the bridge, saucer and elsewhere in the 3D graphics. These and various other lines on the hull are simply artifacts of the 3D rendering program and don't necessarily denote seams. This model does NOT have any freaky parting lines, and you will be very pleased with the way the saucer goes together - much better than the Refit's. Don't worry about the Pilot version options, either, as I think we've got all bases covered. The internal structure will be modified as required to ensure that nothing "droops" on this model.


Well, I'm not too worried anyway... but there's only one spot on the current layout which draws concern at all, aFAIK, and that's the "pylon to secondary hull" joint.

By the way, the internal thinning of the nacelles, going aft, is a good idea. It's damned hard to do that in a molded part, without getting "necking" through irregular shrinkage, but if you can make that work, it should help quite a bit. Just expect to have to tweak the tooling several times to get the shape right if you go that route. (Seen it in automotive before...)


----------



## Ductapeforever

Who has to prove ANYTHING to ANYONE? This is a model of a FICTIONAL spacecraft from a Science Fiction Television show, and the model can, and should be interpreted by the builder to suit personal taste. If someone wants to glue ordinance to the exterior of the hull.....have at it and have fun.


----------



## Paulbo

CLBrown said:


> that's a misinterpretation... a "rapid prototype" part is shown in one image and it is split. But this is because of the limitation of rapid prototype technology...


As I noted above, the notation on the shot says that "THESE PARTS HAVE BEEN CUT IN HALF TO SHOW A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE CROSS SECTION." Where is it ever stated that it was done due to a limitation of the prototyping technology? Did I miss something?


----------



## CLBrown

Ductapeforever said:


> Who has to prove ANYTHING to ANYONE? This is a model of a FICTIONAL spacecraft from a Science Fiction Television show, and the model can, and should be interpreted by the builder to suit personal taste. If someone wants to glue ordinance to the exterior of the hull.....have at it and have fun.


Which was sort of my point. My "prove it" was in response to a very "positive" statement, as though "welding will be gone" is a fact. There is, of course, nothing to "prove," because, as you correctly point out, it's a TV show (and/or a series of movies/books/comics/etc)


----------



## CLBrown

Paulbo said:


> As I noted above, the notation on the shot says that "THESE PARTS HAVE BEEN CUT IN HALF TO SHOW A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE CROSS SECTION." Where is it ever stated that it was done due to a limitation of the prototyping technology? Did I miss something?


Nah... just my personal experience with how this process works. We'd often make only half of a symmetrical part (steering racks, wing attachments, etc) because there's not much to be gained by symmetry, and the cost is almost entirely related (in term of cycle time, which is the main cost-adder in doing this sort of prototyping) to the area of the platform upon which your part is built. If you can get what you need from 1/2 of the part, and if (in the process) you can get twice as many parts from the same cycle time, that's what you do.

Half-parts is far, far more common than full parts, when doing engineering study parts. So, seeing half-parts there was far less surprising, to me, than seeing full parts would have been.

I'll bet that you've done the same (at some level) when making photoetch layouts... develop half, debug that half, then (mostly) mirror it. If you can get what you need from a "half-size test shot" you do, right? You COULD do the whole thing all at once, but you gain little and it costs more. Of course, photoetch patterns aren't quite as costly... in this case, though, cost per unit is far higher.

Make sense?


----------



## Ductapeforever

CLBrown said:


> Which was sort of my point. My "prove it" was in response to a very "positive" statement, as though "welding will be gone" is a fact. There is, of course, nothing to "prove," because, as you correctly point out, it's a TV show (and/or a series of movies/books/comics/etc)


It's funny that the poster in reference chose to focus on welding being gone in the future when we were shown quite clearly in the teaser trailers of the JJ-prise under construction "welding" going on in the near darkness on the upper saucer.


----------



## Warped9

Ductapeforever said:


> It's funny that the poster in reference chose to focus on welding being gone in the future when we were shown quite clearly in the teaser trailers of the JJ-prise under construction "welding" going on in the near darkness on the upper saucer.


Which doesn't mean anything. So much of what we saw in ST09 was such total b.s. and has zilch to do with how TOS might have figured things.


----------



## CLBrown

Ductapeforever said:


> It's funny that the poster in reference chose to focus on welding being gone in the future when we were shown quite clearly in the teaser trailers of the JJ-prise under construction "welding" going on in the near darkness on the upper saucer.


Yep. And welding is merely a process by which two pieces of metal are joined, effectively, into a single continuous piece. I fully expect welding to be the main means of assembling metal for as long as metal exists... which means, pretty much, "forever."

The process can be improved... dramatically, perhaps... but it will never really go away. (I can imagine welds where there is no detectable weld joint once the weld is finished, for example... and I suspect that by, say, the year 2266, that'll be possible and perhaps even commonplace.)


----------



## Richard Baker

CLBrown said:


> I'm confused... are you saying you can't afford to buy this kit once released? Or do you (mistakenly) believe that you're being asked to spend money NOW?
> 
> I signed up, as did most of us, but nobody is being asked for money at this point, and we won't be asked until it's time for us to receive our kits, sometime next year. (Probably eight to ten months down the road still?)


 Going through major surgery last year destroyed my financial situation. I have had to sell off a lot of model kits, a lot of them out of production and impossible to replace, just to keep the home going and car in repair. There are a lot of big ticket kits out that I will probably never get a chance to buy because no matter how much I may want them, I will not have funds to pay for them. Yes, I would like to have a TOS-E kit. If and when are beyond my control and I am not going to plan on buying something that I cannot afford right now. I hope that may change, but it could be years away.
This does not mean I don't enjoy learning about how it will be made or how it will be engineered, I love models and everything about them. Unfortunately the real world circumstances I am faced with prevent me from holding a lot of these in my own hands- I can hope otherwise and maybe one day I can own a TOS-E. Until then I have to live through others enjoyment, I am just happy a kit is finally getting produced.


----------



## TrekFX

Ductapeforever said:


> It's funny that the poster in reference chose to focus on welding being gone in the future when we were shown quite clearly in the teaser trailers of the JJ-prise under construction "welding" going on in the near darkness on the upper saucer.


I have it from reliable sources that as the build continued out in that reclaimed cornfield on the rural outskirts of Northwest No Where, Iowa, the near-nascent mosquito and black fly population received an enormous boost in population due to a new abundant ready-to-eat feast of food (people...)

The "welding" is actually the most up-to-date (in future-world) application of autonomous android "bug zappers." They are still a bit slopping in targeting. So we call it "multitasking."

Wish I had one for those humid New England fly-fests. But how would I recharge them?

Further off-topic: am I the only one who gets tense to, in present tense, describe future-tense in terms of past-tense?


----------



## John P

I try not to _get _tense!


----------



## John P

Kit said:


> Too much to read. Can you boil it down, as if it were a conversation?


He really can't.


----------



## Trek Ace

Gary K said:


> This model does NOT have any freaky parting lines, and you will be very pleased with the way the saucer goes together - much better than the Refit's.
> 
> Gary



Thank you for clearing that up, Gary. It's good to know that the saucer top and bottom halves will be complete, and not split as with the cutaway kit.

The images in the club email were only about half the size that they should have been in order to decipher the extremely fine text that accompanies them. The two photos of the split saucer halves on update0002-05.jpg (the contours of which actually look like AMT kit parts) are what led me to believe that this was the case with the new kit. 

The resolution on my monitor is such that the images and resulting texts are too small to read clearly. I could not easily make out the disclaimer that indicated that the split saucer halves were for illustration purposes only. I have since moved copies of the images to another, low-resolution display, which allows for the text to be much larger in comparison (scaling up the images in photoshop does not help), and have since read all of the accompanying notes on all images.

I have one question for you, Gary.

There are several references to the engine dome clamps in the 0002 update. In some plates, they appear to be spaced at 120 degrees (like in the AMT and 1/1000 PL kit). In others, they appear to be correctly spaced around the dome similar to the original miniature (with the upper dome clamps closer together than the bottom), as illustrated in this photo of the 11-foot miniature:










Which orientation will the dome clamps be represented in?

Thanks, Gary. As always, brilliant work. The project is in good hands.


----------



## Richard Baker

Where on earth (?) did you find such a perfect up close view of the Bussard dome? That is spectacular!


----------



## Gary K

Trek Ace said:


> I have one question for you, Gary.
> 
> There are several references to the engine dome clamps in the 0002 update. In some plates, they appear to be spaced at 120 degrees (like in the AMT and 1/1000 PL kit). In others, they appear to be correctly spaced around the dome similar to the original miniature (with the upper dome clamps closer together than the bottom), as illustrated in this photo of the 11-foot miniature:
> 
> Which orientation will the dome clamps be represented in?
> 
> Thanks, Gary. As always, brilliant work. The project is in good hands.


The upper two dome clamps are spaced at right-angles to one another on the 11-footer, and they WILL be that way on the PL model. If you remember the CG rendering that Jamie Hood showed at Wonderfest last spring the nacelles were essentially upside-down, so we ARE making progress! 

Gary


----------



## CLBrown

Trek Ace said:


> There are several references to the engine dome clamps in the 0002 update. In some plates, they appear to be spaced at 120 degrees (like in the AMT and 1/1000 PL kit). In others, they appear to be correctly spaced around the dome similar to the original miniature (with the upper dome clamps closer together than the bottom), as illustrated in this photo of the 11-foot miniature:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which orientation will the dome clamps be represented in?


I was not aware of that... I'd always believed, as had most of us, that the tabs were equally spaced. That's the sort of thing you can only find out by a very, very detailed study of the model. (Now, to figure out why these three sensors, in-universe, would be arranged as they are!)

One other thing is very visible on this image. I've known about this for some time, but lots of people don't, and I'd love to know more. There's a little "bump" visible on the top of the nacelle. I've always treated this as a running lamp (one fore, one aft, atop the nacelles, in red or green depending on port or starboard).

But I've never really been able to make it out clearly on-screen, and have never seen a truly detailed close-up image of it in real life... and when I saw the ship (pre-repaint job) at the Smithsonian, it was too high to see the tops of the nacelles clearly.

SO... what are these, really, on the 11-footer?


----------



## Captain April

They're on the three-footer, so...


----------



## Gary K

Captain April said:


> They're on the three-footer, so...


They were also on the 11-footer. When the model arrived at Ed Miarecki's shop in 1991 only one nacelle had a small "light" on it, and it was not original to the model. I've got hi-res photos of the model taken in the 60's, and they definitely show that the "lights" were on the nacelles. They appear to have been hemispherical domes mounted in shiny metal bezels - perhaps they were surplus indicator lights from some type of electronic control panel?? Whatever the case, they apparently were just a couple bits of detail that were added to the Pilot version model and weren't illuminated.

Gary


----------



## CLBrown

Gary K said:


> They were also on the 11-footer. When the model arrived at Ed Miarecki's shop in 1991 only one nacelle had a small "light" on it, and it was not original to the model. I've got hi-res photos of the model taken in the 60's, and they definitely show that the "lights" were on the nacelles. They appear to have been hemispherical domes mounted in shiny metal bezels - perhaps they were surplus indicator lights from some type of electronic control panel?? Whatever the case, they apparently were just a couple bits of detail that were added to the Pilot version model and weren't illuminated.
> 
> Gary


Were they both fore and aft or just fore? I BELIEVE that there's one about midway back on the ring behind the nacelle domes, and another one on the ring just aft of the intercoolers, forward of the aft dome cowling. I know others have put both onto their own Enterprise build-ups, as well, so I'm not sure if I'm remembering, clearly, what I saw on the 11-footer or if I'm incorporating bits remembered from other build-ups...


----------



## Warped9

I love seeing this kind of detail. It's interesting how our view of our beloved _E_ has evolved over the years as we learn more and more about it. In some respects we're learning more about it now than when the show was in production or just a few years into syndication. Amazing.

For example not that long ago I was adamantly opposed to the gridlines. Since I've learned and accepted that they were actually there all along. I'm not faulting TOS' production crew and those who built the model because they had to make do with what they had at hand, but now PL will do those lines the way they were really meant to be done.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Warped9 said:


> I love seeing this kind of detail. It's interesting how our view of our beloved _E_ has evolved over the years as we learn more and more about it. In some respects we're learning more about it now than when the show was in production or just a few years into syndication. Amazing.
> 
> For example not that long ago I was adamantly opposed to the gridlines. Since I've learned and accepted that they were actually there all along. I'm not faulting TOS' production crew and those who built the model because they had to make do with what they had at hand, but now PL will do those lines the way they were really meant to be done.


Bravo ! Very well thought out and said !


----------



## Captain April

Trek Ace said:


>


Okay, what's the story behind this picture?


----------



## John P

"Once upon a time, there were three little screws..."


----------



## Trek Ace

Actually, there are six screws (per dome). 










I have hundreds (or probably even over a thousand) pictures of the _Enterprise _and other stage models. Most of them are B&W. Some are color. Most have never been published, and are packed away. I manage to dig out a few, every so often.


----------



## jheilman

And any time you need someone to dig through your archives and scan them all for posterity, let me know.


----------



## Warped9

^^ Awesome! :thumbsup: Over the years we imagine exotic and unusual shapes and we then see the reality and realize the real power of suggestion.


----------



## John P

Is that just a little unpainted wooden tab!?


----------



## KUROK

Reflections on the shiny dome... Was it taken at the gift shop?


----------



## Captain April

I was mainly wondering about the story behind that particular photo, i.e., at what point in the model's history was it taken? The reflection in the dome, is that the NASM gift shop?

BTW, I'd also be willing to do grievous bodily harm to a person of your choice for the chance to dig through your archives. :thumbsup:


----------



## jheilman

Could be wrong, but something's telling me this shot was taken long before the Enterprise entered the Smithsonian.


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> Is that just a little unpainted wooden tab!?


 Looks like a typical cast-iron angle to me. That sort of texture is common for cast-iron metal brackets, of the type frequently found used in fencing and the like. It does appear to be painted, of course, but if that's not metal, I'd be really stunned.


----------



## Gary K

CLBrown said:


> Were they both fore and aft or just fore? I BELIEVE that there's one about midway back on the ring behind the nacelle domes, and another one on the ring just aft of the intercoolers, forward of the aft dome cowling. I know others have put both onto their own Enterprise build-ups, as well, so I'm not sure if I'm remembering, clearly, what I saw on the 11-footer or if I'm incorporating bits remembered from other build-ups...


Aside from the "light" between the nacelle rings and dome, there are no other "lights" that I'm aware of on the 11-footer's nacelles. There are a number of screws that attach the wooden endcaps onto the metal nacelle tubes, and as the putty concealing them has shrunk & cracked over the years some people have mistaken them for design features. Could that be what you're thinking about?

And btw, that b&w nacelle tab doesn't look like the ones in my hi-res 1960s photos, but it bears a remarkable resemblence to the tab that Ed Miarecki added to the restored 11-footer that's sitting in the NASM's gift shop. 

Gary


----------



## Prologic9

Even in the show you can see the Tab area was different then, and it looks like the screws (?) could be tightened by hand? Or maybe it was just detail that's been lost?


----------



## Captain April

jheilman said:


> Could be wrong, but something's telling me this shot was taken long before the Enterprise entered the Smithsonian.


Likewise, hence my confusion.


----------



## charonjr

Well, I was using a one millimeter mechanical pencil. I have several different thickness leads down to 0.25 mm. A ballpoint pen also makes a 1mm line. It's not uncommon and hardly the realm of magic markers. Even CL, you, confirmed my figures using the very same math I did.

I suppose you to be an engineer or lawyer, as in some of these threads you argue points in either specialty. It does not, however, give the right to browbeat or bully any of us.

Your point is taken. It's "just" a TV show. So why bother to attempt to imagine future technologies? The flying Bell rocket belt exists. Fuel limitations are the only reason it has not fulfilled the dreams of the 50's. While nutritionally complete food pills don't exist, survival ration bars do, as well as vitamins. The "happy pill" exists in the form of anti-depressants. 

Those who saw Star Trek and other science fiction shows used their imaginations and have brought elements of those times into reality. Research on a functional form fitting plasma as a shield exists at this time. Rail guns for the Navy are 7 years away. Nuclear fueled rockets have been tested, though they are not politically expedient. A nuclear power supplied probe is, at this moment, 4 years from passing Pluto. I saw it launched myself at Cape Canaveral in February of 2005. Cell phones and computers and diamond vapor deposition are fact. 

My point is, that while we use certain technologies now and, in the case of welding or animal husbandry or agriculture, have been doing so for centuries, even thousands of years, just because an imagined technology does not exist now, does not mean it will not in the future. 

Why, even now, there is research into particles that have been recently detected to be going faster than light. They are looking at any reason that this is wrong, because if they cannot find one, the conclusion is that Einstein won't have been entirely correct.

Welding will be a continued staple of construction. But that doesn't mean that we must not imagine other ways of construction that could be quite different than anything we have known. One hundred years ago, plastic did not exist. It's discovery revolutionized our world. Two hundred years ago, radio did not exist. It's discovery revolutionized the world. Same thing with internal combustion engines or airplanes!

If man is ever to spread his wings among the stars, he must use his imagination and he must think to bring what he imagines into fruition.


----------



## Warped9

Prologic9 said:


> Even in the show you can see the Tab area was different then, and it looks like the screws (?) could be tightened by hand? Or maybe it was just detail that's been lost?


Even if they are screws I seriously doubt they were supposed to represent oversized Starfleet fasteners of some sort. They're evidently meant to represent something, even for just added detail, like the pencil lines that have been debated for so long. Maybe they were meant to suggest running lights or some other only they couldn't be bothered to light them or it was too much trouble.


----------



## Richard Baker

I like the fact there could be parts or equipment on the ship without an obvious function. Considering the level of technology shown in the series (and later ones), there are conditions and systems totally beyond what we have to deal with today. Trying to showhorn greebly into functions we can relate to does not always work. 
There are things on the ship which detect/measure/control stuff we have no knowledge of and that makes the ship more 'real' to me.


----------



## Warped9

Richard Baker said:


> I like the fact there could be parts or equipment on the ship without an obvious function. Considering the level of technology shown in the series (and later ones), there are conditions and systems totally beyond what we have to deal with today. Trying to showhorn greebly into functions we can relate to does not always work.
> There are things on the ship which detect/measure/control stuff we have no knowledge of and that makes the ship more 'real' to me.


Agreed.

And when you look at the above pic you see how subtle those gridlines really are. It really flies in the face of what I've seen some modellers do on much smaller scale kits as well as the present horrendous restoration on the 11 footer.


----------



## CLBrown

I've decided that, for me, having 0.1mm wide by 0.1mm deep grooves would be ideal. I'll still have to fill them in, but doing so will be relatively painless. For those who want "TMP-like" gridlines, however, they can use these as guides for the tip of their scribing tool, and with several light-pressure passes can get great big, deep grooves.

0.2mm x 0.2mm will be a bit more of a hassle to fill in, and is most likely out of scale to what's seen on-screen on the top of the primary hull anyway. But it's still doable, just less convenient.

I'm back home now, and no longer on my little netbook... and seeing the pictures on my 30" monitor makes a lot of things a bit more clear than the little netbook screen permitted me to see.

In particular, I just noticed that the general scheme being suggested by Gary for attachment of the nacelle pylons is actually largely equivalent to what I've had in mind as well. The only place where what I have in mind varies significantly from his color-coded mockup is that my idea would have the pylon ends going in a bit further into the nacelles or secondary hull (in the case of the nacelles, all the way through to the outer surface, and in the case of the secondary hull, all the way to the centerline). I also had decided on a full circular bulkhead forward of the pylons in the secondary hull, not just aft of the pylons as is in Gary's mockup.

Then again, I do tend to "over-engineer" things (if in doubt, design in a 2x safety factor...) What he has there may be perfectly sufficient... it's certainly better than what the Chinese team proposed (which is what I was referring to in my earlier comments). But the longer the moment arms are for those attachment points, the more robust they'll be, and there's opportunity to make them more robust.

This said... I will likely have the bits supporting this be made from, I've decided, hardwood laminated plywood (the type you can get in hobby shops) for those internal bulkheads. Mainly because it's easier to work with than metal, accepts glue easily, is not subject to warpage (at least not the the same extent as softwood plywood is), and most significantly, will not be subject to "creep" with age (as all styrene plastic parts are). So, hardwood cores for the pylons, going into a hardwood sheet plywood replica of what Gary's shown (in plastic) for his own proposal, but going as deep as possible.

I'm leaning towards using a hardwood dowell across the inside top of the secondary hull as the basic "spine" of the ship. My standpipe will likely go through into that, but will enter through the kit part.

The saucer will have a hardwood plywood "donut" to provide some additional stability, but there will be no need to make any internal ribbing (in fact, it looks like I'll have to relieve the ribbing somewhat to commodate my "donut") to make for a very rigid saucer. This will add weight, but will make the saucer a lot more robust as well. I'm debating whether I want to use polyfoam to fill in the major regions (leaving only "light box" spaces behind windows and the like) to make it even more robust.

The dorsal is going to be interesting. I'm leaning towards putting lightsheet behind the windows, and then having the two kit halves laminated as skins over a solid wood core. I'll be able to socket this into the "spine" in the secondary hull, and onto the "donut" in the primary hull. Alternatively, I could just provide individual cut-outs behind individual windows... possibly distributing light via fiber-optics from a single light source?

One thing I've already entirely decided upon is that I'm going to make my windows out of laboratory microscope slide covers... optical-quality glass, and quite thin. I will have actual little "sets" inside of these. Fortunately, the bridge already has a great start... and while there are a few things that may need to be tweaked on that bridge (possibly replacing the molded-in chairs with piano wire bases and bent metal chairs, for example), it's still much better than expected, and once I see it in person, I may not even choose to do the chairs bit. (As long as it's in clear, it's nearly perfect already.) 

But other "setpieces" are going to be a bit "creative" and not necessarily things which have been seen on-screen. (The four topside rectangles will be over rec rooms, like the ship's gymnasium, the ship's auditorium (where the Karidian players performed), a "lecture theater," and a rec-deck similar to what is seen in TMP.) All behind glass, and likely all lit by discretely-placed optical fibers from a central, high-intensity white LED.

The construction of the primary hull, in particular, seems very well-suited to this approach. I'm very happy with it. The "lit compartments" are already largely defined by the internal rib structure, for example.

As for the secondary hull... well, I suspect that it'll be the same thing, but my big question for now is whether it's going to be POSSIBLE to do what I really want to do... to put in a way of opening and closing the landing bay doors. Short of some extraordinarily detailed (and ludicrously pricey) sheetmetal work, I'm at a loss as to how to accomplish what I WANT to make... doors that open and close on their own. Any suggestions are appreciated, of course!


----------



## mach7

Warped9 said:


> Even if they are screws I seriously doubt they were supposed to represent oversized Starfleet fasteners of some sort. They're evidently meant to represent something, even for just added detail, like the pencil lines that have been debated for so long. Maybe they were meant to suggest running lights or some other only they couldn't be bothered to light them or it was too much trouble.


Nah, They are obviously the magnetic monopoles needed to power the bussard collectors!


----------



## CLBrown

charonjr said:


> I suppose you to be an engineer or lawyer, as in some of these threads you argue points in either specialty.


Yes, you're correct, I'm a senior level design engineer, mostly working in R&D type work, and have spent a significant amount of time involved in legal activities as well (primarily involving business law, as you might imagine). So, where I have expertise, I do tend to speak from that position.

There are areas I have little or no expertise, but since I generally avoid talking about those topics in any detail, you'll likely not have noticed it.


> It does not, however, give the right to browbeat or bully any of us.


Fortunately, I did neither.

You should be careful to use words according to their actual meanings, as opposed to using them as weapons. A case in point is the word "bully." You used this word offensively there, and you used it incorrectly, no less.

See, bullying means attempting to create a change in attitude or behavior through the fear of negative consequences. Often through threats of physical violence, but just as often through other forms of threats. For example, some teachers "bully" their students into conforming to the teacher's political perspective, because the student fears a poor grade if they dispute their teacher's ideology.

As far as I'm aware, I have no authority over you, nor any ability to cause undesirable events to happen to you. So, "bullying" is, by definition, impossible, isn't it?

Please be more thoughtful about your use of words. Using loaded terms like that is, in fact, a form of "bullying" in itself, as once you claim that, there are potential negative consequences for the person you used the term against.

It's called discussion. I disagreed with a strongly stated claim you made, and I supported my claim with a logical argument. You can then respond in kind... that's how discussion works.
____________

Now, I don't disagree with any element of what you went on about through the rest of your post, above, except this... you seem to be of the impression that what you're saying in some fashion is an argument against my own point. It is not. I am not in any way "anti-progress." I simply have a view of progress which is different from what yours, as you've expressed it, would seem to be.

See, to me, everything is built upon what came before. *Scientific and technological progress is an ADDITIVE process, not a "supplantive" process.* In other words, when we develop a new technology, we add it to what we already have, we don't delete something we have and replace it with the new concept.

Occasionally old concepts do go away, but that's the exception, not the rule. And in the case of metal-working, welding is almost guaranteed not to "go away" in favor of something else. We'll just develop means to make finer, more uniform weldments... to the point where, eventually, there may not be a detectable weld-joint at all.

Now, for TMP, Andrew Probert had it in his mind that the TMP Enterprise's hull wasn't metal at all... but was some form of "spun ceramic matrix" (perhaps with metal as part of the matrix?). Yet that was never really adopted as part of "Treknology" and since then, it's been established semi-canonically that starship hulls are primarily metallic (see the TNG tech manual).

Please don't conclude that I'm somehow "anti-progress" merely because I see progress as an additive process rather than a supplantive one.


----------



## CLBrown

mach7 said:


> Nah, They are obviously the magnetic monopoles needed to power the bussard collectors!


I treat 'em as part of a "subspace field sensor."

Now, what parts make up a subspace field sensor... well, there's a doohickey, and three whatzits, all connected by a thingamabob.

The screw obviously represents the duotronic-based, duranium-encased transphasic doohickey.


----------



## RSN

Where does Scotty store that *HUGE* allen wrench he would need to make repairs on those engines?!!!


----------



## Gary K

Warped9 said:


> And when you look at the above pic you see how subtle those gridlines really are. It really flies in the face of what I've seen some modellers do on much smaller scale kits as well as the present horrendous restoration on the 11 footer.


The markings on the saucer are actually less subtle than you might think from looking at this photo, which has made too many passes through the optical printer. The of pair of stripes aft of the teardrop-shaped B/C deck section are blood-red in real life, but in the frame cap they appear as fuzzy gray stripes with just a hint of red in them. Likewise, the small rectangles are actually bright yellow, and the outlines of the L-shaped blocks are much more distinct in person. The grid lines show up better in person, too, but the reflective nature of the graphite causes them to fade away somewhat at certain lighting/viewing angles.

Btw, Ed Miarecki has confirmed that the two b&w photos of the nacelle show the restored 11-footer, so neither the dome, fan blades, nor tabs are original. The tabs are made from gray Kydex. When Ed originally installed the tabs he made sure that the smooth side was exposed, but somebody apparently reinstalled the tab with the grain exposed.

Gary


----------



## jheilman

See, I told ya I could be wrong.


----------



## Trekkriffic

Carry on. Reallly enjoying this discussion.


----------



## CLBrown

Trekkriffic said:


> Am I nuts or do the retaining straps look like leather? My father's hobby was leatherworking and I swear they have a very leathery grain to them.


That makes sense, too...

Kydex isn't a chemical formulation, it's a business trade name. The company which makes it is also named by this name.

The actual chemical formulation is an alloying of acrylic and polyvinyl chloride, with the "alloying" done (along with some additional polymerizers) to enhance flexibility.

The result is a tough, flexible plastic, generally provided in sheet form. It's often molded to have an "organic-like" texture to represent wood grain or leather grain. In fact, it's the stuff that most modern holsters are made from.

http://www.kydex.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kydex

It what that obviously-fake-organic texture that made me suspect it was a cast-iron bit... I have pieces of my own fence with that exact texture on it. But my .40S&W case, holster, etc, are made from this material, and it's damned resiliant!
http://www.the-m-factor.com/html/gallery_case.html


----------



## Warped9

Here's a question: what would cause weathering of a ship's hull in space? If it's not moving at fast relativistic velocities in normal space (for extended periods) but rather just goes to warp which is not in normal space then what would cause weathering?


----------



## falcondesigns

Those orbits of all the planets they visited,debris from the different atmospheres,space dust......


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> Here's a question: what would cause weathering of a ship's hull in space? If it's not moving at fast relativistic velocities in normal space (for extended periods) but rather just goes to warp which is not in normal space then what would cause weathering?


Well, for one thing, having a Romulan nuclear device detonate just a few hundred meters off the bow would probably have a bit of an impact on the hull.

Flying through galactic barriers is probably fairly rough on a ship.

Spiraling down into the upper atmosphere of a frozen planet where water transformed into a chain molecule which acts like "super-alcohol" might cause a bit of friction wear.

One has to wonder what Orion weapons striking shields (with most, but not all, of their energy absorbed) does to the substrate hull. Or Romulan plasma bolts, or Gorn energy bolts, or Klingon disruptor cannon.

There are probably even some "Apollo-shaped" fingerprints on the hull...

Now, you should consider if it's possible that the massive energies of traveling inside of a bubble of subspace might have some damaging effects. Not saying that it would, but it MIGHT.

Not to mention the fact that there is no such thing as a 100% efficient machine which means that even with deflector shields and the "sweeper" deflector beam, some particles inevitably must impact on the ship's hull.

There is a LOT which the ship has gone through during its life. And space, remember, is not a "perfect vacuum," by any reasonable measure.

The real question, really, in my mind, would be "what would the ship look if there was no deflector beam and no screens or shields?"

The odds are, without those, the ship would have "worn away to nothing" long, long before we ever saw it.


----------



## Prologic9

One thing most people assume without thinking about is that the ships artificial gravity is limited by the ships hull. That wouldn't really serve any purpose, and I imagine they would actually want it to extend a few meters outside.

I like to think that's why the top of the saucer has so much weathering on it, as it has the strongest gravity-well pulling various sediments to the hull.


----------



## Trekkriffic

I heard a joke one time that the rust ring was caused by the nicotine stained fingers of the Special FX techs.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Trekkriffic said:


> I heard a joke one time that the rust ring was caused by the nicotine stained fingers of the Special FX techs.


Apollo's fingerprints !


----------



## charonjr

CLBrown said:


> I've decided that, for me, having 0.1mm wide by 0.1mm deep grooves would be ideal. I'll still have to fill them in, but doing so will be relatively painless. For those who want "TMP-like" gridlines, however, they can use these as guides for the tip of their scribing tool, and with several light-pressure passes can get great big, deep grooves.
> 
> 0.2mm x 0.2mm will be a bit more of a hassle to fill in, and is most likely out of scale to what's seen on-screen on the top of the primary hull anyway. But it's still doable, just less convenient.
> 
> I'm back home now, and no longer on my little netbook... and seeing the pictures on my 30" monitor makes a lot of things a bit more clear than the little netbook screen permitted me to see.
> 
> In particular, I just noticed that the general scheme being suggested by Gary for attachment of the nacelle pylons is actually largely equivalent to what I've had in mind as well. The only place where what I have in mind varies significantly from his color-coded mockup is that my idea would have the pylon ends going in a bit further into the nacelles or secondary hull (in the case of the nacelles, all the way through to the outer surface, and in the case of the secondary hull, all the way to the centerline). I also had decided on a full circular bulkhead forward of the pylons in the secondary hull, not just aft of the pylons as is in Gary's mockup.
> 
> Then again, I do tend to "over-engineer" things (if in doubt, design in a 2x safety factor...) What he has there may be perfectly sufficient... it's certainly better than what the Chinese team proposed (which is what I was referring to in my earlier comments). But the longer the moment arms are for those attachment points, the more robust they'll be, and there's opportunity to make them more robust.
> 
> This said... I will likely have the bits supporting this be made from, I've decided, hardwood laminated plywood (the type you can get in hobby shops) for those internal bulkheads. Mainly because it's easier to work with than metal, accepts glue easily, is not subject to warpage (at least not the the same extent as softwood plywood is), and most significantly, will not be subject to "creep" with age (as all styrene plastic parts are). So, hardwood cores for the pylons, going into a hardwood sheet plywood replica of what Gary's shown (in plastic) for his own proposal, but going as deep as possible.
> 
> I'm leaning towards using a hardwood dowell across the inside top of the secondary hull as the basic "spine" of the ship. My standpipe will likely go through into that, but will enter through the kit part.
> 
> The saucer will have a hardwood plywood "donut" to provide some additional stability, but there will be no need to make any internal ribbing (in fact, it looks like I'll have to relieve the ribbing somewhat to commodate my "donut") to make for a very rigid saucer. This will add weight, but will make the saucer a lot more robust as well. I'm debating whether I want to use polyfoam to fill in the major regions (leaving only "light box" spaces behind windows and the like) to make it even more robust.
> 
> The dorsal is going to be interesting. I'm leaning towards putting lightsheet behind the windows, and then having the two kit halves laminated as skins over a solid wood core. I'll be able to socket this into the "spine" in the secondary hull, and onto the "donut" in the primary hull. Alternatively, I could just provide individual cut-outs behind individual windows... possibly distributing light via fiber-optics from a single light source?
> 
> One thing I've already entirely decided upon is that I'm going to make my windows out of laboratory microscope slide covers... optical-quality glass, and quite thin. I will have actual little "sets" inside of these. Fortunately, the bridge already has a great start... and while there are a few things that may need to be tweaked on that bridge (possibly replacing the molded-in chairs with piano wire bases and bent metal chairs, for example), it's still much better than expected, and once I see it in person, I may not even choose to do the chairs bit. (As long as it's in clear, it's nearly perfect already.)
> 
> But other "setpieces" are going to be a bit "creative" and not necessarily things which have been seen on-screen. (The four topside rectangles will be over rec rooms, like the ship's gymnasium, the ship's auditorium (where the Karidian players performed), a "lecture theater," and a rec-deck similar to what is seen in TMP.) All behind glass, and likely all lit by discretely-placed optical fibers from a central, high-intensity white LED.
> 
> The construction of the primary hull, in particular, seems very well-suited to this approach. I'm very happy with it. The "lit compartments" are already largely defined by the internal rib structure, for example.
> 
> As for the secondary hull... well, I suspect that it'll be the same thing, but my big question for now is whether it's going to be POSSIBLE to do what I really want to do... to put in a way of opening and closing the landing bay doors. Short of some extraordinarily detailed (and ludicrously pricey) sheetmetal work, I'm at a loss as to how to accomplish what I WANT to make... doors that open and close on their own. Any suggestions are appreciated, of course!



CL, I like your approach! You've given me things to think about in terms of re-enforcing the internal structure. Thanks!


----------



## charonjr

CLBrown said:


> Yes, you're correct, I'm a senior level design engineer, mostly working in R&D type work, and have spent a significant amount of time involved in legal activities as well (primarily involving business law, as you might imagine). So, where I have expertise, I do tend to speak from that position.
> 
> There are areas I have little or no expertise, but since I generally avoid talking about those topics in any detail, you'll likely not have noticed it.Fortunately, I did neither.
> 
> You should be careful to use words according to their actual meanings, as opposed to using them as weapons. A case in point is the word "bully." You used this word offensively there, and you used it incorrectly, no less.
> 
> See, bullying means attempting to create a change in attitude or behavior through the fear of negative consequences. Often through threats of physical violence, but just as often through other forms of threats. For example, some teachers "bully" their students into conforming to the teacher's political perspective, because the student fears a poor grade if they dispute their teacher's ideology.
> 
> As far as I'm aware, I have no authority over you, nor any ability to cause undesirable events to happen to you. So, "bullying" is, by definition, impossible, isn't it?
> 
> Please be more thoughtful about your use of words. Using loaded terms like that is, in fact, a form of "bullying" in itself, as once you claim that, there are potential negative consequences for the person you used the term against.
> 
> It's called discussion. I disagreed with a strongly stated claim you made, and I supported my claim with a logical argument. You can then respond in kind... that's how discussion works.
> ____________
> 
> Now, I don't disagree with any element of what you went on about through the rest of your post, above, except this... you seem to be of the impression that what you're saying in some fashion is an argument against my own point. It is not. I am not in any way "anti-progress." I simply have a view of progress which is different from what yours, as you've expressed it, would seem to be.
> 
> See, to me, everything is built upon what came before. *Scientific and technological progress is an ADDITIVE process, not a "supplantive" process.* In other words, when we develop a new technology, we add it to what we already have, we don't delete something we have and replace it with the new concept.
> 
> Occasionally old concepts do go away, but that's the exception, not the rule. And in the case of metal-working, welding is almost guaranteed not to "go away" in favor of something else. We'll just develop means to make finer, more uniform weldments... to the point where, eventually, there may not be a detectable weld-joint at all.
> 
> Now, for TMP, Andrew Probert had it in his mind that the TMP Enterprise's hull wasn't metal at all... but was some form of "spun ceramic matrix" (perhaps with metal as part of the matrix?). Yet that was never really adopted as part of "Treknology" and since then, it's been established semi-canonically that starship hulls are primarily metallic (see the TNG tech manual).
> 
> Please don't conclude that I'm somehow "anti-progress" merely because I see progress as an additive process rather than a supplantive one.


Hi CL, I apologize. It was not my intent to misuse words. I was reacting on an entirely emotional level. I am susceptible to this due to bipolar disorder. Meds help, but are not 100% effective. When you criticized my assumption of a 1mm pencil bead, I was upset by this and over responded (I have PTSD, too, which doesn't help).

Now that I know your point of view, I respect it. I just have ideas about creating hulls using nanotechnology or even large scale replicators. So I didn't see the need for seams that would have to be welded in the traditional fashion. This is a supposition on my part, as you are correct in pointing out, I have no means to prove my statement that this technology could be available in a couple of hundred years. I was just thinking that the Trek universe could include such technology, despite TNG's definite denial of nanotech in several episodes.


----------



## John P

CLBrown said:


> I treat 'em as part of a "subspace field sensor."
> 
> Now, what parts make up a subspace field sensor... well, there's a doohickey, and three whatzits, all connected by a thingamabob.
> 
> The screw obviously represents the duotronic-based, duranium-encased transphasic doohickey.


This is my favorite post of your ever! :lol:


----------



## ClubTepes

CLBrown said:


> Well, for one thing, having a Romulan nuclear device detonate just a few hundred meters off the bow would probably have a bit of an impact on the hull.
> 
> Flying through galactic barriers is probably fairly rough on a ship.
> 
> Spiraling down into the upper atmosphere of a frozen planet where water transformed into a chain molecule which acts like "super-alcohol" might cause a bit of friction wear.
> 
> One has to wonder what Orion weapons striking shields (with most, but not all, of their energy absorbed) does to the substrate hull. Or Romulan plasma bolts, or Gorn energy bolts, or Klingon disruptor cannon.
> 
> There are probably even some "Apollo-shaped" fingerprints on the hull...
> 
> Now, you should consider if it's possible that the massive energies of traveling inside of a bubble of subspace might have some damaging effects. Not saying that it would, but it MIGHT.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that there is no such thing as a 100% efficient machine which means that even with deflector shields and the "sweeper" deflector beam, some particles inevitably must impact on the ship's hull.
> 
> There is a LOT which the ship has gone through during its life. And space, remember, is not a "perfect vacuum," by any reasonable measure.
> 
> The real question, really, in my mind, would be "what would the ship look if there was no deflector beam and no screens or shields?"
> 
> The odds are, without those, the ship would have "worn away to nothing" long, long before we ever saw it.


Nice bunch of reasons.
:thumbsup:

Lets not forget, anything the ship might have gone through under Pike's and April's commands.


----------



## Captain April

Hey, there wasn't a scratch on that ship when I handed her over to Pike, so leave me outta this!


----------



## charonjr

With water molecules in nebulae, if the ship had a high iron, non-steel content, it could rust I suppose.... Nahhh.


----------



## Solium

Come on! We already have self cleaning ovens. You don't think were not going to have self cleaning Starships by that point in time?


----------



## Warped9

Considering everything it's been throughout it's amazing it doesn't look more weathered and battered.


----------



## Gregatron

Gary K said:


> They were also on the 11-footer. When the model arrived at Ed Miarecki's shop in 1991 only one nacelle had a small "light" on it, and it was not original to the model. I've got hi-res photos of the model taken in the 60's, and they definitely show that the "lights" were on the nacelles. They appear to have been hemispherical domes mounted in shiny metal bezels - perhaps they were surplus indicator lights from some type of electronic control panel?? Whatever the case, they apparently were just a couple bits of detail that were added to the Pilot version model and weren't illuminated.
> 
> Gary


As my own research has concluded, there were also tiny, non-functional red and green "lights" on the pilot saucer. For the series version, the big red and green flashers were placed next to these lights on the upper saucer, while the flashers on the bottom saucer replaced the faux lights.

The question I still have is--was there a faux light on the bottom of the secondary hull, on the box at the bottom of the deflector housing? Many people seem to think there is, but I still can't tell.


----------



## Prologic9

Gregatron said:


> As my own research has concluded, there were also tiny, non-functional red and green "lights" on the pilot saucer. For the series version, the big red and green flashers were placed next to these lights on the upper saucer, while the flashers on the bottom saucer replaced the faux lights.
> 
> The question I still have is--was there a faux light on the bottom of the secondary hull, on the box at the bottom of the deflector housing? Many people seem to think there is, but I still can't tell.


There's certainly always been a 'bump' there, you shouldn't have any trouble finding reference for it. I don't think it was ever a faux light though, it's not the same shape as the others and I've always seen it painted as part of the hull.


----------



## Gary K

Gregatron said:


> As my own research has concluded, there were also tiny, non-functional red and green "lights" on the pilot saucer. For the series version, the big red and green flashers were placed next to these lights on the upper saucer, while the flashers on the bottom saucer replaced the faux lights.
> 
> The question I still have is--was there a faux light on the bottom of the secondary hull, on the box at the bottom of the deflector housing? Many people seem to think there is, but I still can't tell.


I was speaking only of pseudo-lights on the nacelles. The 1st PIlot upper saucer had small hemispherical "lights" outboard of where the Production version's nav lights were located. For the 2nd Pilot they were replaced by "lights" that were shaped like half a blunt teardrop, and these "lights" remained on the Production version.

The bump on the bottom of the sec hull appears to have been the rounded head of a bolt and was painted hull color. And yes, all these features will be on the PL kit.

Gary


----------



## CLBrown

Gary K said:


> The 1st Pilot upper saucer had small hemispherical "lights" outboard of where the Production version's nav lights were located. For the 2nd Pilot they were replaced by "lights" that were shaped like half a blunt teardrop, and these "lights" remained on the Production version.


Okay, I thought I'd gotten my research on these down pretty well, but I suppose it's possible that I've mixed bits from the pilot and production versions...

Here's what I've got (with an exactly 6' tall human figure for scale).


It sounds like they may have put an "aircraft wing lamp lens" (which are generally airfoil-shaped) over the bulb.

See here for some examples...
http://www.koppglass.com/Aircraft.html

Anyone have any detail photos to share?


----------



## Gregatron

Gary K said:


> I was speaking only of pseudo-lights on the nacelles. The 1st PIlot upper saucer had small hemispherical "lights" outboard of where the Production version's nav lights were located. For the 2nd Pilot they were replaced by "lights" that were shaped like half a blunt teardrop, and these "lights" remained on the Production version.
> 
> The bump on the bottom of the sec hull appears to have been the rounded head of a bolt and was painted hull color. And yes, all these features will be on the PL kit.
> 
> Gary



Speaking of the lights, have you determined whether the functional blinkers on the second pilot upper saucer were red and green, or white/clear? Thanks!


----------



## SteveR

Y'know, it just hit me ... With all this talk about such minute details, I now realize that it may finally be possible to make a really dead-on accurate model of the TOS E, right down to the tiny screws, leathery straps and duct tape, thanks to you guys who've collected the reference material. 

Life is good.


----------



## Warped9

Even with all the archival photos and news we've gotten over the years it wouldn't surprise me if there'll be at least one or two things we'll yet learn when we finally open the box of this kit.

I can just see it: _"Hey! So that's what that's really like! I had no idea."_


----------



## JeffG

I still wanna know what the lighted squares are on the upper surface of the primary hull! And for that matter, we know its there, but what exactly IS the rust ring?


----------



## Ductapeforever

JeffG said:


> I still wanna know what the lighted squares are on the upper surface of the primary hull! And for that matter, we know its there, but what exactly IS the rust ring?





I think they are skylights above astrology labs. As for the rust ring I would guess some sort of artifact in the paint showing through from a previous color that didn't cover well. I also think the Easter Bunny's name is Bruce,....but don't hold me to that.


----------



## CLBrown

Ductapeforever said:


> I think they are skylights above astrology labs. As for the rust ring I would guess some sort of artifact in the paint showing through from a previous color that didn't cover well. I also think the Easter Bunny's name is Bruce,....but don't hold me to that.


Er... I presume you mean ASTRONOMY...

I guess they could have four labs studying whether Kirk's "sign" means he's best suited to hook up with the green girl or the purple girl this week... :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

Ductapeforever said:


> I think they are skylights above *astrology* labs.


:lol:


----------



## Richard Baker

Bud Lights...


----------



## Warped9

Well, it was the '60s. _"Good, good, good, good vibrations..."_ --The Beach Boys.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Senility is my friend !


----------



## ClubTepes

jheilman said:


> Could be wrong, but something's telling me this shot was taken long before the Enterprise entered the Smithsonian.


Looks like the gift shop to me.


----------



## jheilman

Yup, Gary confirmed that a few pages back.:thumbsup:


----------



## Trek Ace

The photos of the first mock up have arrived from Round 2 in the 1701 club update 003. This certainly looks promising!


----------



## Opus Penguin

The prototype looks nice. If they get the imperfections fixed this model will be fantastic. Love the clear impluse engine grill openings to allow for lighting.


----------



## Paulbo

Drat! I was hoping I was going to be the first to post about this. It just arrived in my in-box and it looks super!


----------



## Fozzie

I'm very excited about the entire front section of the nacelles...looks GREAT!


----------



## mach7

Wow, I like!

I like the bussard domes, the 3 prongs look to be a bit too thick. I know a real nitpick. I can easily live with/make it the way I want.

So far the grid lines don't look bad. I would like them thiner, but not bad. 2-3 coats of primer and 2-3 coats of paint will make them very hard to see. I'm not sure I like them going around the edge of the saucer but whatever.

I really like the shuttle bay. It looks nice. I hope they can lick the nacelle sagging, thats a lot of mass hanging on the pylons.

does anyone have any thoughts on how to handle the neck windows? It does not look right looking thru the neck and out the windows on the other side. I was thinking of a sheet of styrene in the middle between the windows. That would give it some depth.

It looks like it is coming along very nice indeed.


----------



## HabuHunter32

Yes indeed, the mock up looks quite good and should be fantastic once she's finished! I will not be lighting mine so I will be sanding the back of the window parts so they have a frosted look. Not clear. I'll have to wait untill I see the kit once I get it in my grubby hands! :thumbsup:


----------



## scifimodelfan

Love the pics and can not wait for the model, looking good.


----------



## CLBrown

I think that the "prongs" are actually accurate, there. The problem is that, with the more recent "renovations" at the Smithsonian, these bits were replaced with significantly thinner material (and instead of the one screw, the new bits have two.)

Regarding the new windows "showing through" to the other side, in the dorsal, I LOVE this. So, "your mileage may vary." What you dislike, I like, a lot.

In a few cases, there will be something blocking this (usually the turbolift shaft, enclosed by walls obviously), with a small walkway area, but for the most part, I intend to allow "see all the way through" to be present in those on my own buildup.

I've decided how I'm going to do my dorsal. I'll have a block of hardwood (oak, most likely, since that's readily available, or possibly cherry?) which I'll shape to fit inside of the two halves, as closely as possible. Then I'll cut out the areas where there are windows... in some cases, making them "through-holes" and in a few others, just hollows in one side. Likely, I'll do some very basic "set-dressing" inside... mostly with paint and a few decals, but in at least one room (the one with the long row of horizontal windows) I'll dress it up with some simple tables and chairs to make for a "lounge" set.

I'll have a single light source in the dorsal, and that will NOT be exposed to the outside at all, but will be a super-bright "natural, warm white" LED with a series of 0.040" optical fibers tracing from that compartment to the area just above each window.

The windows themselves will be microscope slide cover glass, cut to shape and inserted inside hollowed areas (using the existing window frame shapes, of course). Note that I don't consider the round things "windows"(at least not VIEWING windows) but rather sensor emplacements, or "windows" behind which sensor hardware is found, so these will likely use the kit-supplied elements, or perhaps will simply be filled with clear resin of some sort?

For doing interior "set pieces" there's no reason to be TOO detailed... paint, and rough shapes, will be more than sufficient to give the right effect. It's really the interplay of color, of light and shadow, as seen through these windows which will "sell" the ship, in my opinion.

Of course, for those who are wanting to build the ship "exactly as seen on-screen," they won't want to do this at all, and will only want "plain white" or "plain black" rectangles and circles. That's fine... just not what I, personally, want to see.

Regarding the model "mockup," well... remember, this is not a MOLDED element, and the production molds do not yet exist. It's a "simulation" of the molded part, but (as the update clearly tells us) has some elements which are not "production-intent" (ie, the friction-assembly features) and it's made of "resin" (most likely, this was produced using stereolithography and is principally a photo-cured epoxy resin). This is standard practice in "real-world design" and I'd be surprised if the model industry deviated from that practice.

Overall, the only real complaint I'd have would be the nacelles and the "saggy, droopy" issue I was concerned about earlier. I think that Gary's proposed improvements will help dramatically (see the last update) but I still think that they'd be well-served to go even further than they THINK they need to go... "overdesign" in this regard can't hurt and can only help.

So, the nacelle pylons really need to go all the way to the centerline of the secondary hull (which works just fine considering the depth of the landing bay setpiece), and should be supported by solid circular bulkheads from both the front and the rear (with the rear also being the foremost wall of the landing bay). That will provide very robust alignment and twisting resistance at the secondary hull attachment point.

At the same time, something similar needs to happen at the nacelles themselves. Gary's markup in the earlier update helps a lot there as well, but again, it can be even more robust than he requested, and can go all the way to the opposite wall of the nacelle.

Finally, the pylons are going to "twist" regardless, unless they have a robust internal structure. Now, since the pylons are not glued together right now (if I read this last update correctly), you'd fully expect a lot more effect from torque than you'll see once you're gluing things, but the pylons themselves need to be strengthened.

The idea, from a molded-part standpoint, would be to create an internal "waffle" structure in both halves of each pylon, ideally with some interlocking features between the two halves as well. This need not preclude wire pass-through (which I'd put into the curved leading and trailing edges).

In fact, my own plan is to use the pylon molded parts as "skins" over hardwood planks, and to run wiring up the front and aft as I described above. But while the addition of this internal "waffling" will make life a bit harder for me, since I'll have to remove it, this will dramatically improve the kit for those who don't want to have to do anything but buy it and glue it together according to the instructions.

There is one thing I noticed on the nacelle which struck me as potentially "wrong." I did notice that at the top aft centerline of the nacelle, the inset "ring" seems to be interrupted at the top centerline of the nacelle. I always believed that this ring was continuous, running 360 degrees around the diameter there. So, this struck me as wrong, but my information re: that little "trench" is incomplete, so I'm curious if this is correct (and what we've all believed for ages is wrong?) or if this is a minor defect in the part design?

I did notice that the "landing lights" beneath the landing bay are not set up to be illuminated. These lights are very, very visible on the "real" ship in aft shots, aren't they? That's a problem, and it will be a bit of a pain to manually make "windows" there for backlighting. That's really my one "big" complaint... ie, a flaw which does not seem to have even been considered yet.. and it seems like this is something that should be allowed for up-front, doesn't it?

Overall, I think that it looks great.


----------



## Paulbo

CLBrown said:


> ...I did notice that the "landing lights" beneath the landing bay are not set up to be illuminated. These lights are very, very visible on the "real" ship in aft shots, aren't they? That's a problem, and it will be a bit of a pain to manually make "windows" there for backlighting. That's really my one "big" complaint... ie, a flaw which does not seem to have even been considered yet.. and it seems like this is something that should be allowed for up-front, doesn't it?...


A piece of photoetch skinned over that area (after a suitably large notch is taken out of the plastic) will be the easiest fix. Hmmm ... I wonder where one would get that? :wave:


----------



## Warped9

I'm loving what I see in this update! The cutout windows are super---eat your heart out Revell Germany. We don't see the gridlines that much and I think they'll do even better on the finished model. What really impresses me is that even with the sagging and twisting pylons and nacelles and open seams and all of these resin parts the overall shapes and details look right.

This is going to be amazing!!! :thumbsup: Hell, it already is!


----------



## Prologic9

CLBrown said:


> I think that the "prongs" are actually accurate, there. The problem is that, with the more recent "renovations" at the Smithsonian, these bits were replaced with significantly thinner material (and instead of the one screw, the new bits have two.)


It certainly shouldn't be flush with the hull like that, I chalked it up to the scale of the model.


----------



## Gary K

Several threads on the Polar Lights Enterprise are running simultaneously, so rather than post dozens of replies and wear out my welcome, I thought I'd consolidate my comments into one statement and cross-post it in each thread. Just a thought, but would it be possible to consolidate all the commentary into one thread? Anyhow, here are my two-cents:

1. Probably the most important info to disseminate: the grid lines on the styrene kit will be thinner than those on the current mock-up. 

2. If there's any confusion, the 11-footer had grids on the top, sides, and bottom of the saucer - not just on the top.

3. The bridge and the teardrop-shaped structure below it were completely repainted during the 1991-92 restoration. The rest of the upper saucer is still untouched.

4. We know the 3 tabs that hold the mock-up's domes in place are too thick. I've got excellent photos of the original acrylic tabs, and the model's tabs will be fixed so they match the originals.

5. Fine textures, like the diamond pattern inside the intercooler loops, are not on the mock-up and will be added during tooling. I'm not sure what texture PL has planned for the domes, but you could do a pretty good job with some 600-grit sandpaper. FYI, Richard Datin said that he purchased two clear 7" domes for $15 and had them finely sandblasted by Abrasive Art to be translucent for $2.50.

6. The Chinese made some parts opaque instead of clear on the mock-up, but they'll be corrected.

7. To clarify about the triangles under the saucer: on the 11-footer the long sides of the triangles are engraved, with gray trim on the inside edges, and a curved half-round is screwed to the base of the triangle. The original series never delved as deeply into the technical details as the later shows did, but eleven years ago William McCullars said to me that Richard Datin had told him that the triangles were supposed to be part of the emergency landing gear. I recently asked William if he could find that in writing, but unfortunately, William couldn't find that in an email from Datin and thinks that Datin told him this over the phone. 

I suspect that in reality, curved half-rounds were screwed to the bases of the triangles because they fit the curved hull much better than a straight "hinge" would have. Try gluing a straight rod to the lower hull of an 18" Enterprise kit and you'll see what I mean. If this were a real spaceship, the actual hinge mechanism would probably be located safely inside the outer hull, like the landing gear on the space shuttle and modern aircraft. As for the function of the half-rounds - I wouldn't be surprised if they were there because they looked cool. I know professional model makers and designers in Hollywood & at ILM, and believe me, "because it looks cool" plays an important part of the spaceship design process.  

Landing gear doesn't necessarily have to support the saucer. I was corresponding with a well-known Star Trek designer a few years ago, and he hypothesized that the expendable lower sensor dome would bear the brunt of the saucer's weight, similar to the case with the C-57D, and the landing gear would merely have to brace the saucer and keep it from tipping over. 

Lending credence to the TOS E's theoretical landing gear is the fact that the Refit had 4 landing pads on the underside of the saucer - and the Refit didn't have any transporter emitters, which weren't "invented" until The Next Gen debuted eighteen years after TOS went off the air. Of course, a modeler is free to assign a name or a theoretical function to any part of his own model.

8. The Franz Joseph blueprints are interesting in their own right, but they weren't published until 1975 and can't be used to retroactively "prove" the existence and/or locations of rooms and other features on the 1960s ship.

Gary


----------



## Captain April

Are the landing approach lights on the fantail on the list of lighted parts to be added?

As for the grid lines, since everyone seems happy with the ones we see, the news that they'll even be finer on the actual model can only be seen as very good news.

In other news...



> 8. The Franz Joseph blueprints are interesting in their own right, but they weren't published until 1975 and can't be used to retroactively "prove" the existence and/or locations of rooms and other features on the 1960s ship.


_*THANK YOU!*_


----------



## Gary K

Captain April said:


> Are the landing approach lights on the fantail on the list of lighted parts to be added?


I should think they'll be clear.

Gary


----------



## Warped9

This just keeps getting' better and better. :thumbsup:


----------



## John P

Holy, cow, I didn't even _notice _the grids in the photos at first!
Excellent job!

Did I understand the update to say that the test shot is resin? That's heavier and more flexible than styrene, so I imagine that just exacerbated* the nacelle sag we see. It may not be so hard to prevent in the final kit (but don't let that stop you from building in as much bracing as you can!)


*me likey using big werdz!


----------



## Captain April

Some of the parts are resin...


----------



## Gary K

John P said:


> Holy, cow, I didn't even _notice _the grids in the photos at first!
> Excellent job!
> 
> Did I understand the update to say that the test shot is resin? That's heavier and more flexible than styrene, so I imagine that just exacerbated* the nacelle sag we see. It may not be so hard to prevent in the final kit (but don't let that stop you from building in as much bracing as you can!)


Whatever the material is, the parts look like regular styrene kit parts at first glance, but they're more delicate than styrene. On the mock-up of the 8-window Seaview's lounge you could practically break the beams in the observation lounge by looking at them too hard! (Btw, I'm currently making corrections to the styrene test shot)

FYI, the clear parts in mock-ups usually aren't polished. That's done when they create the tooling.

Gary


----------



## Fozzie

I can't tell you how much seeing the mock up shots has elevated my excitement level about this model. It looks soooooooooooooo good! Even better than I had hoped.


----------



## jheilman

Very well done. Can't wait to build this baby!


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> Holy, cow, I didn't even _notice _the grids in the photos at first!
> Excellent job!
> 
> Did I understand the update to say that the test shot is resin? That's heavier and more flexible than styrene, so I imagine that just exacerbated* the nacelle sag we see. It may not be so hard to prevent in the final kit (but don't let that stop you from building in as much bracing as you can!)
> 
> 
> *me likey using big werdz!


Technically, all polymers are "resins" by definition. Styrene is a resin. Polycarbonate is a resin. Generally, what we in the "hobby world" refer to as "resin" is actually a specific polymer known as "polyurethane." Polyurethane is a "thermoset" resin rather than a "thermoplastic" resin... which means that it's created by a two-part chemical reaction and is not formed through melting and molding.

Thermosets are used for room-temperature fabrication, and for things which must not melt at high temperatures. The electrical outlets, switches, and cover plates in your home are all thermoset plastic parts (generally, polyurea based polymers).

Polyurethane is nice because it's pretty dimensionally stable (from mold-fill to cured state), especially if you use a significant filler (aluminum powder is popular for "tough" parts... but mineral fillers (essentially talc - ground limestone - is most common) are the most common filler.

In this case, I strongly suspect what you're seeing is what I mentioned earlier... a photo-reactive epoxy. This is commonly used in stereolithography.

If anyone is unfamiliar with stereolithography, you should look into it. It's a GREAT process for making this sort of item. And some of the more recent resins are actually reasonably robust (the earliest resins were an ugly clear yellow tint, tended to distort with age, and rapidly became brittle).

About twenty years ago, this was rare and expensive. Today, it's much more commonplace, and costs less than 1/3 of what it used to, and gives much better results.

Anyone interested should check it out. Here's a passable starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereolithography

The advantage of this is that you can produce a dimensionally-accurate, handle-able version of a file exported directly from your CAD package, without the need for tooling of any kind. Virtually every product I've ever worked on involved, at some point, an SLA (slang short for stereolithography) "non-functional prototype."

Sometimes these are "all assembly" sets, and other times it's done as individual parts, and sometimes it's a simplified rep (missing unnecessary components and features). I've frequently taking my SLA parts into the field to do "form/fit/function" evaluations (with this non-functional but dimensionally-correct object) in real-world situations.

The biggest one I ever worked with was a steering rack and column assembly, while at Ford. This consisted of a generally cylindrical shape of over four feet in length and another cylindrical "chunk" representing the drive motor and torque sensor package which extended another foot or so at right angles. We actually used that to "test fit" in multiple vehicle frames, before spending money to develop a casting tool for the steering assembly.

Eventually, a tech dropped it, and it ended up in about 3,000 fragments. Like I said, it embrittles rapidly.

I strongly suspect that the parts seen here were fabricated by this method.


----------



## ClubTepes

^^^^

Years ago, when I heard about the different methods of rapid prototyping, I thought that the hobby shop of the future wouldn't contain any model kits.

It would be a place with a couple of these machines and you would go in an buy a 'kit'.
Much like the paint department at any Lowes/Home Depot/etc. 

The hobby shop would 'print/grow' your kit on request (saving them space) and you could have it done in whatever size you wanted (within the limits of the machine).

The ability of the 'any size, any scale' idea would be especially beneficial to the sci-fi modelers for the obvious reasons of everybody wanting their stuff in different sizes.

For the model 'companies' it would eliminate the expense of producing the tooling in different scales.


----------



## SteveR

ClubTepes said:


> The hobby shop would 'print/grow' your kit on request (saving them space) and you could have it done in whatever size you wanted (within the limits of the machine).


I see this happening, too ... but not for kits -- for miniatures. The machines will be like Coke machines. Once it becomes financially more attractive than current means of production, it'll happen.

Remember those machines at amusement parks, that would form souvenir plastic animals?


----------



## charonjr

Currently, the Makerbot, a DIY 3D Printer costs $1299. A prebuilt one adds another $300 on to the price. It's a opensource device based on the RepRap. These machines can have problems, and you have to be the expert to repair it. There are forums to help and other brands you can try. Most seem to use ABS or PLA filament. PP3DP.com has a small one prebuilt for $2500 from China. 

Once you assemble it (takes an hour or so), the Makerbot and competitors have a desktop printer footprint. They have an effective build area of 5x5x5 or 8x8x(forgot) inches. You buy one or five pound rolls of filament for $9 or $20, and off you go. The things you can make with it can take an hour or longer depending on the size and complexity of the piece. The pieces require cleanup to remove the extra filament extruded as the device prints out the piece. The resolution of the latest ones is measured in 5-20 microns for the xyz axes, much better than the tenths, hundredths or thousandths of an inch that used to be the case.

Reading the forums, these can be pretty sturdy, but also can have their fair share of problems.

If I can ever afford to get one, I could take your designs, realize them in Lightwave, then print them out for you. Someday.


----------



## CLBrown

charonjr said:


> Currently, the Makerbot, a DIY 3D Printer costs $1299. A prebuilt one adds another $300 on to the price. It's a opensource device based on the RepRap. These machines can have problems, and you have to be the expert to repair it. There are forums to help and other brands you can try. Most seem to use ABS or PLA filament. PP3DP.com has a small one prebuilt for $2500 from China.
> 
> Once you assemble it (takes an hour or so), the Makerbot and competitors have a desktop printer footprint. They have an effective build area of 5x5x5 or 8x8x(forgot) inches. You buy one or five pound rolls of filament for $9 or $20, and off you go. The things you can make with it can take an hour or longer depending on the size and complexity of the piece. The pieces require cleanup to remove the extra filament extruded as the device prints out the piece. The resolution of the latest ones is measured in 5-20 microns for the xyz axes, much better than the tenths, hundredths or thousandths of an inch that used to be the case.
> 
> Reading the forums, these can be pretty sturdy, but also can have their fair share of problems.
> 
> If I can ever afford to get one, I could take your designs, realize them in Lightwave, then print them out for you. Someday.


"3D Printed" parts are a lot weaker than SLA parts, and you're usually limited to a pretty small size.

With "3D Printing," you're basically using a "hot melt ink" which solidifies at room temperature. But leave it in a warm location and it will sag almost immediately. Put a light bulb in it and it will turn to goo in seconds. I've used a few of these for professional purposes... we stored them in the fridge 'til needed, and carried them to our customer to show them off in a cooler with ice packs inside, so that the heat of the sunlight on them in the car wouldn't destroy them.

Your best options for "semi-permanent" solids are through SLA (by far the best option, because the final part is essentially solid), with "selective laser sintering" running a close second place. (SLS involves spraying or wiping a thin layer of solid particles, then scanning with a high-output laser to "sinter" the particles together. You end up with a material roughly the texture and solidity of, say, cake... albeit obviously made from some other material.

SLS works very well in some circumstances, and is the best way to make high-quality METAL prototypes (though this requires a very high-output laser, obviously, to sinter the metal particles together). Some high-efficiency gas filters are made this way... the gaps between metal granules make for a very capable, highly controlled way of screening out particles above a certain size.

But the typical desktop "3D Printer" is NOT something you want to use for anything you wish to have last more than a few days, which you wish to handle even slightly roughly, or which you hope to never sag.

Seriously, guys, if you want to do this, go SLA... stereolithography. There are some really good resins available, and you can get very fine detail and high dimensional accuracy.

I have no ties to these guys other than having used their services and having been happy with the results, but here's who I, personally, recommend you go to if you want to do this:
http://www.quickparts.com/

I've got a copy of my "Vega class" in this material, from those guys, and it's worked out very well for me.
http://www.quickparts.com/UserFiles/File/SLA_Accura_Bluestone.pdf


----------



## Kit

Similarly, the Sinclair dinosaurs that were made on the spot by machines at the 1964 Wordl's Fair would sag if left on the car's package shelf. 

Of course, they were molded, not printed, which is all the technical explanation needed.


----------



## CLBrown

Kit said:


> Similarly, the Sinclair dinosaurs that were made on the spot by machines at the 1964 Wordl's Fair would sag if left on the car's package shelf.
> 
> Of course, they were molded, not printed, which is all the technical explanation needed.


Yep, a very-low-melt-temp material, more like wax than like a conventional plastic.


----------



## John P

I think my bronto from the '64 World's Fair is still in my spare parts box!


----------



## charonjr

Rats! Thanks for the heads-up, CL! Appreciated!  I had thought that the use of ABS plastic extrusion would have made the part solid and reliable. I'm just used to seeing ABS sheet, which, of course, is made by an entirely different method. 

You just saved me from spending $1300! Thanks!


----------



## swhite228

Lots of pictures of the ship from IHobby Chicago were posted at Starship Modeler.
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/EVENTS/jl_2k11ihobby.htm


----------



## Warped9

This thing is just looking awesome. :thumbsup: I agree, when they get the gridlines down to the fineness they want it will be excellent. Note already that under certain lighting you can't even see them even as they are presently.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

I'm sorry, but those lines are pretty garish: http://www.starshipmodeler.com/EVENTS/jl_imma2k11/r2_4099.jpg

They're almost as deep as the lines on the refit kit, and are totally noticeable... especially considering that they stand out prominently in even some of the blurred photos. They're simply too deep for a TOS-era ship. I'm pretty sure they can't be refined any further, since that would not only render this preview model obsolete, but would require Round 2 to invest more money into them. I'm pretty sure this is what we'll be getting.


----------



## Ductapeforever

I wish folks would zip it on the grid lines issue. Here's a thought, use your skills as a modeler and either fill 'em if they're engraved or sand 'em off if they're raised. Round 2's putting them on like it or not, no use argueing about it any further. If that's the worst complaint about the Big 'E' , I have no problem with it.


----------



## Fozzie

BolianAdmiral said:


> I'm pretty sure they can't be refined any further, since that would not only render this preview model obsolete...


R2 has already stated this model is obsolete and that changes will be made to it based on their experience with it. They specifically mentioned they will need to make changes to the base, the round vents circling the nacelles, fit problems, and sagging/twisting problems with the pylons & nacelles. While gridlines were not specifically addressed in the newsletter that included pictures of the mockup, it was addressed in the one that came out just a few weeks earlier in which they stated they were sure they could get them shallower and thinner.


----------



## Warped9

^^ Agreed. I'm confident that the final prototype will likely blow us away. One of the things that is already noticeable about this model in this scale is the way we're getting a better sense of perspective in close-up shots, something that doesn't come out the same way in smaller scale models.


----------



## Richard Baker

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Agreed. I'm confident that the final prototype will likely blow us away. One of the things that is already noticeable about this model in this scale is the way we're getting a better sense of perspective in close-up shots, something that doesn't come out the same way in smaller scale models.


Capital ships need big models.


----------



## Captain April

At the very least, it looks like can relax on my search for a new E-C model.


----------



## ibbilly

Ductapeforever said:


> I wish folks would zip it on the grid lines issue. Here's a thought, use your skills as a modeler and either fill 'em if they're engraved or sand 'em off if they're raised. Round 2's putting them on like it or not, no use argueing about it any further. If that's the worst complaint about the Big 'E' , I have no problem with it.


What he said!!!!!


----------



## ClubTepes

BolianAdmiral said:


> I'm sorry, but those lines are pretty garish: http://www.starshipmodeler.com/EVENTS/jl_imma2k11/r2_4099.jpg
> 
> They're almost as deep as the lines on the refit kit, and are totally noticeable... especially considering that they stand out prominently in even some of the blurred photos. They're simply too deep for a TOS-era ship. I'm pretty sure they can't be refined any further, since that would not only render this preview model obsolete, but would require Round 2 to invest more money into them. I'm pretty sure this is what we'll be getting.


A little brush on Tamiya Primer and a little sanding and you should be able to get rid of them no problem.


----------



## Ductapeforever

To hear some people talk about the gridlines, one would think they were discussing terminal cancer. Life as they know it will be over if they are on the kit. I find this line of thinking insane. This kit has the potential to be the most accurate and detailed model of the Enterprise in ANY scale, and they choose this as the be-all end-all issue?


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Ductapeforever said:


> I wish folks would zip it on the grid lines issue. Here's a thought, use your skills as a modeler and either fill 'em if they're engraved or sand 'em off if they're raised. Round 2's putting them on like it or not, no use argueing about it any further. If that's the worst complaint about the Big 'E' , I have no problem with it.


You are quite free to wish that, good Sir.

I truly hope they can get the lines to be even thinner, but I'm afraid as long as they're even on the ship, they cannot say that it's the most accurate 1701 model... I'm sorry, but they just can't.

The original wooden 11-footer had lines that were _penciled _on, yes... but nothing was ever _physically _engraved onto the wooden saucer. By the same token, the Custom Replicas 1/650 1701 kit did not have anything engraved upon it's saucer, and it is considered to be totally accurate.

In any case, as the photos and Round 2 have indicated, the lines are there, regardless. A shame, but it is what it is. I am curious to see how they will solve the issue of the nacelle sag on a model that heavy.

I do like that the detailing on the impellers/ramscoops is on the inside, so those who want a smooth outer surface and who won't be lighting it can just paint over them and have it look completely smooth.

I'm kind of curious why the folks at Round 2 chose not to glue the proto-kit together and paint/detail it... yeah, it's only a mock-up, but it would be cool to see just how it would look, fully assembled, and with all the color and markings and perhaps lights on it.


----------



## fire91bird

BolianAdmiral said:


> You are quite free to wish that, good Sir.
> The original wooden 11-footer had lines that were _penciled _on, yes... but nothing was ever _physically _engraved onto the wooden saucer.


So are you modeling the 11 foot shooting model? Make sure you leave that pesky left side off.


----------



## Warped9

This is a model many of us have been waiting for seemingly forever. And it's being put forth as the best representation of our cherished TOS _E_ that's ever been done. Many of us have held our own mind's eye image of the ship for decades and it can be a bit unsettling to have that challenged. It can also be unsetting because we can get worked up about it being exactly right. But "exactly right" can also be a matter of interpretation. So it's easy to see how one might fret over its development.

It has to be reiterated that this model is of a "real" starship _Enterprise_ and *not* a television show filming miniature. To that end it's going to challenge some long held ideas of the ship. We have to be able to trust in other people's ability to perform and allow them to proceed as they see fit to reach their stated goal. And it has to be acknowledged that it's quite a gesture on R2's part to allow us to follow the development of this kit so openly, including the obstacles along the way.

So far I think they're doing an admirable job and I see no need yet to doubt their ability to reach their stated end result.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Warped9 said:


> This is a model many of us have been waiting for seemingly forever. And it's being put forth as the best representation of our cherished TOS _E_ that's ever been done. Many of us have held our own mind's eye image of the ship for decades and it can be a bit unsettling to have that challenged. It can also be unsetting because we can get worked up about it being exactly right. But "exactly right" can also be a matter of interpretation. So it's easy to see how one might fret over its development.
> 
> It has to be reiterated that this model is of a "real" starship _Enterprise_ and *not* a television show filming miniature. To that end it's going to challenge some long held ideas of the ship. We have to be able to trust in other people's ability to perform and allow them to proceed as they see fit to reach their stated goal. And it has to be acknowledged that it's quite a gesture on R2's part to allow us to follow the development of this kit so openly, including the obstacles along the way.
> 
> "So far I think they're doing an admirable job and I see no need yet to doubt their ability to reach their stated end result.


Bravo ! Author...Author ! But I'll take it just a step further....it's JUST A MODEL ! Open to interpretation and left to the skill and imagination of the artist. I have two reserved , and look forward to seeing someone build it as a 'Barbie Dream Starship' painted hot pink with flower decals ! Yeah Baby


----------



## Warped9

For the longest time I, too, resisted the notion of gridlines even after I saw conclusive evidence that they were indeed there on the 11ft. filming miniature. But I now recognize that much of my resistance to that detail was partly due to how poorly I thought it was replicated on many models both physical and 3D cgi. In many of those models, both computer and physical, the lines were often too blatant, particularly on small scale kits from 1/2500 up to the AMT 18 and 22 inters and now currently the Revell Germany kit. They're either engraved too deeply and broadly or painted/penciled too darkly and conspicuously. The terrible restoration paint job on the original 11 footer is probably a major factor in this as many modellers might have taken their cue from that.

But I can't deny that the lines were there even as I see that they were intended to be subtle. I really think that R2 is aiming for the best solution in trying to fashion a surface detail that the original penciled lines were intended to represent. I think they will get them as fine as the *.1mm* they're reaching for and that on a 1/350 scale model it will work quite well and acceptably. The icing on this is that such fine detail will also be rather easy to eliminate should any individual modeller wish to do so. Very little filler will be required and even a couple of coats of paint might just do the job.

I can only suggest: relax, it's all going to work out fine.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

^

But .1mm is simply too deep for that scale... I'm sorry, but it just is. The only TOS-E that could come close to looking like that, would be the horrid CGI version used for TOS-R, and that overall model is inaccurate... the gridlines are too emphasized, the hull color is all wrong, etc. The original-footage TOS didn't depict the ship and the gridlines in such a manner.

Besides, we all talk about the wretched raised gridlines on the old AMT kit... well, the Round 2 repop chose to (correctly) eliminate those, and give us a smoothie, which is as it ought be, which sadly, makes the Round 2 AMT repop more accurate than this 1/350 ship, lol... especially considering that Round 2 took enough care with the repop to make the Bridge the correct shape, too.

I have admitted they were on the 11-foot model... but they _were not engraved into the physical hull of the ship model_... they were penciled in. People on this board are telling me and others who dislike them, _"Why don't you show your skill as a modeler, and putty over them and sand?"_ Well, by the same token, what's wrong with them showing us their talent, by penciling them in? 

Like I said, in any case, it seems as though there's nothing more to be done, since the wretched lines are there, and they're gonna stay there. That's fine... it saves me over a hundred bucks. I just hope that they truly CAN get the effect they want, and that it does actually end up working... but I know it won't.

I will anxiously await to see the WIP pics of your build, *Warped9*, because I know that if anyone on Earth can make an accurate TOS-E, it'd be you... so if yours looks as good as I think it will... maybe it will convince me.  In the meantime, I will take your advice and just sit back and relax.


----------



## Warped9

*.1mm* in 1/350 scale translates to 1.3779528" or just over 1-3/8" inches on an actual 947ft. starship. That's pretty damned small and awfully fine detail on a large scale model. Seriously I doubt that anyone could do better in just drawing the lines and be less noticeable.


----------



## Ductapeforever

If folks have no plan to purchase the kit in the first place because of this 'percieved' flaw, then in my thinking , voicing their opinion is not important and of little or no value, because as my old Football coach would say "They have no skin in the game!"


----------



## HabuHunter32

The preliminary I-Hobby display model is showing alot of promise and I think will make 99.9% of us happy in the end. Some folks will never be happy no matter what. It's the IPMS mentality to pic apart every thing to death that stopped me from going to model shows back in the 80's. I'm happy if the subject looks like what it is suposed to represent without glaring flaws. For some the gridlines are a glaring flaw and thay are entitled to their opinion and I can respect that. For me the gridlines are a non issue. It's everyones personal choice as to what they can accept or not. Either buy the kit or don't. After all of the debate no one is going to convince the oposing veiwpont on some one who can't accept this perceived flaw. I respect both sides and have made my choice. Individuality of opinion is a good thing and gives us all something to think about while waiting for the 1/350 Gray Lady.


----------



## Trek Ace

The way I see it, if someone chooses not to buy the kit because of a detail they do not like, then that just means one more kit for the rest of us. 

There were (and still are) several inaccuracies in the 1/1000 kit. None of which was a deal-breaker for me (I have bought over two dozen). Thankfully, some of them have been corrected (the decals), but others remain.

They are:
- The huge "trench" along each side of the dorsal
- The engine pylons (the edges are squared off, instead of half-rounds)
- The dome clamps (all three spaced at 120 degrees apart instead of the top two spaced at 90 degrees apart, and 135 degrees from the bottom clamp)

Even with these inaccuracies, who chose not to buy the kit? How many even knew they were there? 

Regardless, that little jewel remains the most accurate commercial model kit of the _Enterprise _ever released, until the new 1/350 scale kit comes out.

The new kit is in good hands. Let's move on past the grids and discuss what are plans are when we finally get the "grail" kit of our favorite ship.


----------



## Paulbo

This has been argued so many times, on so many locked threads, by so many members. What's the point of rehashing it yet again - at this late date NOBODY is going to get swayed by the other side's arguments.


----------



## Warped9

Paulbo said:


> This has been argued so many times, on so many locked threads, by so many members. What's the point of rehashing it yet again - at this late date NOBODY is going to get swayed by the other side's arguments.


True. It can be said that repeating one's already stated position is a way of somehow asserting the rightness of our opinion. Sometimes we can feel (without even realizing it) that if we state our view firmly and often enough we'll get our point across. Of course the real result is we usually end up feeling no one is hearing us or seems to get it. I know because I've felt that way many times before until I finally accepted that very few people care about what I think because they are already convinced of the rightness of their own opinion.

In the past I've fallen into heated disagreements about some of the most trivial things until I started to consider, _"What the hell am I arguing about? Who really cares about this anyway."_ :lol: I'm getting worked up over nothing and not accomplishing or persuading anyone of anything. :lol:

I can still fall into griping about some things, but I do make an effort to temper it and put things into a larger perspective. I base this on the sober realization that _nothing_ is ever perfect.

Now...forget about gridlines. I want to know if there really is a gold outline around the letters of the ship's registry and name. :lol:


----------



## RSN

Trek Ace said:


> The way I see it, if someone chooses not to buy the kit because of a detail they do not like, then that just means one more kit for the rest of us.
> 
> There were (and still are) several inaccuracies in the 1/1000 kit. None of which was a deal-breaker for me (I have bought over two dozen). Thankfully, some of them have been corrected (the decals), but others remain.
> 
> They are:
> - The huge "trench" along each side of the dorsal
> - The engine pylons (the edges are squared off, instead of half-rounds)
> - The dome clamps (all three spaced at 120 degrees apart instead of the top two spaced at 90 degrees apart, and 135 degrees from the bottom clamp)
> 
> Even with these inaccuracies, who chose not to buy the kit? How many even knew they were there?
> 
> Regardless, that little jewel remains the most accurate commercial model kit of the _Enterprise _ever released, until the new 1/350 scale kit comes out.
> 
> The new kit is in good hands. Let's move on past the grids and discuss what are plans are when we finally get the "grail" kit of our favorite ship.


I swear, I am not rying to stir up a hornets nest, but are those gridlines on the lower saucer and the rim, added to the photo or do they stand out more on the original model here due to the contrast?


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Trek Ace said:


> The way I see it, if someone chooses not to buy the kit because of a detail they do not like, then that just means one more kit for the rest of us.
> 
> There were (and still are) several inaccuracies in the 1/1000 kit. None of which was a deal-breaker for me (I have bought over two dozen). Thankfully, some of them have been corrected (the decals), but others remain.
> 
> They are:
> - The huge "trench" along each side of the dorsal
> - The engine pylons (the edges are squared off, instead of half-rounds)
> - The dome clamps (all three spaced at 120 degrees apart instead of the top two spaced at 90 degrees apart, and 135 degrees from the bottom clamp)
> 
> Even with these inaccuracies, who chose not to buy the kit? How many even knew they were there?
> 
> Regardless, that little jewel remains the most accurate commercial model kit of the _Enterprise _ever released, until the new 1/350 scale kit comes out.
> 
> The new kit is in good hands. Let's move on past the grids and discuss what are plans are when we finally get the "grail" kit of our favorite ship.


That's very true... the 1/1000 kit does have many issues, but the 1/1000 kit is also far less than one hundred dollars, lol... that's why it's not a deal-breaker, because it's very affordable, and people can afford to buy many copies, and many aftermarket parts to fix stuff and accurize it.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Warped9 said:


> True. It can be said that repeating one's already stated position is a way of somehow asserting the rightness of our opinion. Sometimes we can feel (without even realizing it) that if we state our view firmly and often enough we'll get our point across. Of course the real result is we usually end up feeling no one is hearing us or seems to get it. I know because I've felt that way many times before until I finally accepted that very few people care about what I think because they are already convinced of the rightness of their own opinion.
> 
> In the past I've fallen into heated disagreements about some of the most trivial things until I started to consider, _"What the hell am I arguing about? Who really cares about this anyway."_ :lol: I'm getting worked up over nothing and not accomplishing or persuading anyone of anything. :lol:
> 
> I can still fall into griping about some things, but I do make an effort to temper it and put things into a larger perspective. I base this on the sober realization that _nothing_ is ever perfect.
> 
> Now...forget about gridlines. I want to know if there really is a gold outline around the letters of the ship's registry and name. :lol:


I'm sure someone like Thomas Models or PNT Graphics might offer a set of 1/350 decals with gold outlines on the NCC number and name... I wouldn't be surprised if someone does.


----------



## Capt. Krik

Warped9 said:


> For the longest time I, too, resisted the notion of gridlines even after I saw conclusive evidence that they were indeed there on the 11ft. filming miniature. But I now recognize that much of my resistance to that detail was partly due to how poorly I thought it was replicated on many models both physical and 3D cgi. In many of those models, both computer and physical, the lines were often too blatant, particularly on small scale kits from 1/2500 up to the AMT 18 and 22 inters and now currently the Revell Germany kit. They're either engraved too deeply and broadly or painted/penciled too darkly and conspicuously. The terrible restoration paint job on the original 11 footer is probably a major factor in this as many modellers might have taken their cue from that.
> 
> But I can't deny that the lines were there even as I see that they were intended to be subtle. I really think that R2 is aiming for the best solution in trying to fashion a surface detail that the original penciled lines were intended to represent. I think they will get them as fine as the *.1mm* they're reaching for and that on a 1/350 scale model it will work quite well and acceptably. The icing on this is that such fine detail will also be rather easy to eliminate should any individual modeller wish to do so. Very little filler will be required and even a couple of coats of paint might just do the job.
> 
> I can only suggest: relax, it's all going to work out fine.


WOW! Exactly what I was thinking. I swore if there were gridlines I was all set to start filling and sanding. Now that I see them, I kind of like them. If R2 can get them a tad finer they'll be perfect. Even if they can't I still don't think they look bad. In the second update Gary Kerr made some persuasive arguments for including the grid. I really couldn't argue with his logic.
For my money that model is looking damn fine. Bring her on, Gridlines and all.


----------



## CLBrown

RSN said:


> I swear, I am not rying to stir up a hornets nest, but are those gridlines on the lower saucer and the rim, added to the photo or do they stand out more on the original model here due to the contrast?


That image is photoshopped. Those lines are not present in the original image.

There are some very high-resolution images seen from just prior to the 1992 restoration which show the presence of a few very, very fine pencil lines on the underside of the primary hull. I am unconvinced that they were present originally (again, going from an original, credited comment by Datin in a published interview, not by any "hear-say" claims), but if those lines as seen in the high-def pre-1992 images are accurate, and if those were present during filming, they are SO subtle that they would be invisible on screen. The width and darkness of lines present to give the image as seen above would be something on the order of 1/8" wide lines. We're talking about "heavy sharpy lines," not the superfine drafting-pencil lines which were visible in the one image I've seen where anything was visible at all.

So, showing an altered image hardly supports either argument.

I believe that there should be no engraved gridlines on the model. I also believe that, since some folks want them, the 0.1mm wide by 0.1mm deep lines are an acceptable (if, for me, inconvenient) "compromise," since they will be pretty easy to fill in (as I will be doing on BOTH build I intend to create).

ON THE OTHER HAND, we can safely say that the lines on the prototype parts seen in these images are well above that, and are actually larger than the 0.2mm x 0.2mm which have been discussed as what was the "original design intent."

This comes as no surprise, when you consider how to part was manufactured. This was not made by making a mold and then shooting a part tree out of that mold. It's a PROTOTYPE PART SET. I can't say with absolute certainty, but I am convinced that this is an SLA ("stereolithography apparatus") manufactured part set. I could be made using other techniques, but most of those other techniques would have resulted in a part far, far less robust than we see here (ie, the nacelles wouldn't sag, they'd have already have broken off under their own weight, most likely!)

An SLA part is built up in layers, and has a much "wider" tolerance range (ie, less fine detail) than a molded part can achieve. SO... I suspect that the gridlines seen here are something on the order of a half a millimeter in width, rather than the fine size which has, if I understand correctly, been settled upon.

Basically, change those into lines which are about 1/5 the width and depth you see there, and that's what you should expect to see on the final model, as I understand it.

I'm not happy that I'll have to fill them in, but filling in 0.1mm (0.004") lines is going to be much, much easier than filling in 0.5mm (0.020") lines.

FYI, most of you guys have built models using Plastruct sheet, I'm sure... and you've likely used 0.020" thick sheet. Look at those lines, and tell me that I'm off base in judging that to be the approximate size of the lines in those prototype parts.

That's due to a limitation on the part resolution... you can get higher resolution, but doing so dramatically increases part production cycle time, and thus increases the cost of the prototype part.

I have not bent on my insistence that the model "should not" have these lines. But as long as they're tiny lines, which can be used as "etching guides" for those who want more, or can be easily filled in by those of us who don't want them at all, and are so fine as to be "nearly undetectable" by those who want to do nothing at all to alter their kit, well... I think that 0.1mm (0.004", less than the thickness of a piece of paper) is entirely acceptable. No "troweling in" of putting will be required, which is something which has been a NIGHTMARE on the old AMT kits, and which I still have PTSD flashbacks over to this day! :freak:

I'm satisfied with the compromise. But it IS a compromise... between what you see on the "prototype parts" here (TMP-sized 0.020" "canyon" gridlines) and what I (and others) want (a smooth hull with no visible markings of this nature at all).


----------



## fire91bird

I'm curious how they are going to address the nacelle droop. I'm glad they acknowledged it in the update, but it's sure to be a challenge.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Have any photos been released yet showing what the interior shuttlebay will look like?


----------



## Captain April

Regarding the gridlines on the underside of the saucer, thanks to the wayback machine and the late lamented cloudster.com....










At this point, the model hasn't even been fully reworked into what we commonly refer to as the "production version", and is a around eight years away from the hamfisted curators at the NASM.

See those grid lines?

Oh, a reminder: the saucer was vacuformed plastic, not wood.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Give it up , .... there are some folks who just can't accept unrefuted evidence. It's all a conspiracy to modify a model to suit our dastardly evil construction plans. It's our agenda to force them to buy this model to support the manufacturers capitalistic business plan to get rich.


----------



## Trek Ace

Another shot of the underside grid lines.










The 1960's version of Photoshop was pretty good at rendering these lines, but it took a while on the old zinc-plated, vacuum-tubed PC that it was running on.


----------



## CLBrown

The image shown earlier isn't the same images as seen later. The image showing those BIG BOLD LINES, earlier, does not look like that. The CRA image, from above, shows some very subtle lines, but since every detail seen there is pure "production version," I'm a bit at a loss to see why we're being told that this is "pilot version" (for example, the little "turret" wasn't there on the pilot versions, was it?).

I accept CRA's image, but look at how SUBTLE those lines are... compared to the earlier image, in particular. They are barely discernable using a high-quality film camera... and would have been utterly invisible on a standard NTSC TV screen.

The earlier image is an original-series SCREEN CAPTURE, though, isn't it? Except, again, you have those lines, which don't quite perfectly follow the contour of the lower hull, and which do not show the "grain" that the rest of the image shows. And which are not visible from a standard-definition NTSC image taken from DVD or BD today. You may see this sort of thing on the HD, CGI images, but not on the original TV effects images. I've seen that image hundreds of times, and have a screen-cap right here which I believe is from that same sequence, and no such lines are visible.

Now, Trek Ace's image, right above, shows a couple of circular lines, but only one is not one of those three "deeply engraved" circles, isn't it? And can anyone pick out radial lines there?

I can see subtle SHADING effects, but no clear, distinct lines, of the sort which would appear to be channels or grooves.

The image shown earlier shows a grey line, heavy and largely monochromatic, no less... which does not match either image above. Yet both images above are film images, and the earlier image is a video image.

Hence, I still conclude that the earlier image is... "enhanced"... through the addition of those heavy, visible lines.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Jimmy Hoffa was found today...pumping gas at the local Walmart. This announcement brought to you by "Occupy Round 2"


----------



## Kit

CLBrown said:


> The image shown earlier isn't the same images as seen later. The image showing those BIG BOLD LINES, earlier, does not look like that. The CRA image, from above, shows some very subtle lines, but since every detail seen there is pure "production version," I'm a bit at a loss to see why we're being told that this is "pilot version" (for example, the little "turret" wasn't there on the pilot versions, was it?).
> 
> I accept CRA's image, but look at how SUBTLE those lines are... compared to the earlier image, in particular. They are barely discernable using a high-quality film camera... and would have been utterly invisible on a standard NTSC TV screen.
> 
> The earlier image is an original-series SCREEN CAPTURE, though, isn't it? Except, again, you have those lines, which don't quite perfectly follow the contour of the lower hull, and which do not show the "grain" that the rest of the image shows. And which are not visible from a standard-definition NTSC image taken from DVD or BD today. You may see this sort of thing on the HD, CGI images, but not on the original TV effects images. I've seen that image hundreds of times, and have a screen-cap right here which I believe is from that same sequence, and no such lines are visible.
> 
> Now, Trek Ace's image, right above, shows a couple of circular lines, but only one is not one of those three "deeply engraved" circles, isn't it? And can anyone pick out radial lines there?
> 
> I can see subtle SHADING effects, but no clear, distinct lines, of the sort which would appear to be channels or grooves.
> 
> The image shown earlier shows a grey line, heavy and largely monochromatic, no less... which does not match either image above. Yet both images above are film images, and the earlier image is a video image.
> 
> Hence, I still conclude that the earlier image is... "enhanced"... through the addition of those heavy, visible lines.


There's nothing to indicate those lines were added in the first image, or that it was enhanced by their addition. Look more closely, and you can see the radial lines and more than one circular line in the most recent images.


----------



## Captain Han Solo

Ductapeforever said:


> Jimmy Hoffa was found today...pumping gas at the local Walmart. This announcement brought to you by "Occupy Round 2"


 
LOL!!!!:tongue::tongue:


----------



## ClubTepes

Ok, how about this.....lets talk about how we might build this model.
Is anyone planning on doing scouts, dreadnaughts, tugs, something new?

I for one am looking forward to doing the 'ultimate' destroyed Constellation and a TOS.5 Enterprise.

I may make the Constellation a .5 version as well to give me greater freedom to rework the damage.


----------



## SteveR

I'm definitely looking forward to doing some subtle weathering on it to give it scale ... but just to a TOS E, no kitbashes. No time!


----------



## Captain April

You expect me to shell out over a hundred bucks for a model, put in all that work, _*and then take a blowtorch to it!?!*_ I don't think so.

Unless I get insanely lucky again, like I've done with my two 1/350 NX-01's, and get a couple for some ludicrously low price.


----------



## RSN

Trek Ace said:


> Another shot of the underside grid lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1960's version of Photoshop was pretty good at rendering these lines, but it took a while on the old zinc-plated, vacuum-tubed PC that it was running on.


Thank you Captain April and Trek Ace. Those are the images I remember seeing years ago that showed the phaser mount and the lower gridlines. This is all the proof that I need to see, to know the gridlines should be there. I am sure some will continue to argue over the size and depth, but it is a moot point. This photo shows they were there, no matter how much one wants to "spin" the visual refference. I can see why they were drawn on, I don't think anyone wanted to be the person to go too deep while engraving them and ruin the vacuformed hull! :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN

CLBrown said:


> The image shown earlier isn't the same images as seen later. The image showing those BIG BOLD LINES, earlier, does not look like that. The CRA image, from above, shows some very subtle lines, but since every detail seen there is pure "production version," I'm a bit at a loss to see why we're being told that this is "pilot version" (for example, the little "turret" wasn't there on the pilot versions, was it?).
> 
> I accept CRA's image, but look at how SUBTLE those lines are... compared to the earlier image, in particular. They are barely discernable using a high-quality film camera... and would have been utterly invisible on a standard NTSC TV screen.
> 
> The earlier image is an original-series SCREEN CAPTURE, though, isn't it? Except, again, you have those lines, which don't quite perfectly follow the contour of the lower hull, and which do not show the "grain" that the rest of the image shows. And which are not visible from a standard-definition NTSC image taken from DVD or BD today. You may see this sort of thing on the HD, CGI images, but not on the original TV effects images. I've seen that image hundreds of times, and have a screen-cap right here which I believe is from that same sequence, and no such lines are visible.
> 
> Now, Trek Ace's image, right above, shows a couple of circular lines, but only one is not one of those three "deeply engraved" circles, isn't it? And can anyone pick out radial lines there?
> 
> I can see subtle SHADING effects, but no clear, distinct lines, of the sort which would appear to be channels or grooves.
> 
> The image shown earlier shows a grey line, heavy and largely monochromatic, no less... which does not match either image above. Yet both images above are film images, and the earlier image is a video image.
> 
> Hence, I still conclude that the earlier image is... "enhanced"... through the addition of those heavy, visible lines.


I see all of these, which are not the 3 "deeply engraved" circles. Just sayin', they are there if you want to see them! :thumbsup:


----------



## Edge

I'm no expert but that sure looks like wood to me. Perhaps plastic over wood at most?


----------



## RSN

ClubTepes said:


> Ok, how about this.....lets talk about how we might build this model.
> Is anyone planning on doing scouts, dreadnaughts, tugs, something new?
> 
> I for one am looking forward to doing the 'ultimate' destroyed Constellation and a TOS.5 Enterprise.
> 
> I may make the Constellation a .5 version as well to give me greater freedom to rework the damage.


I am not going to do anything to draw attention to the gridlines, i.e. I will not be weathering the ship in a way that may lead to the lines "popping" out. I will let them speak for themselves. I also don't think I will be adding the "Rust Ring" on the top of the saucer. I personally feel that this was put on the model like a woman appying blush to her cheeks, as a way for the contours to stand out more during filming. Again, just my personal preference, I will be using just a straight light gray hull color.


----------



## Captain April

Edge said:


> I'm no expert but that sure looks like wood to me. Perhaps plastic over wood at most?


Someone else explain this to him...


----------



## RSN

Captain April said:


> Someone else explain this to him...


As I understand it, there was a wood "plug" anchoring wooden reinforcemant ribs for the vacuformed shell to attach to. What you see in the photo is the hole drilled in the wood "plug" to allow for lighting the lower dome. (How was that Captain April?!!)


----------



## CLBrown

Guys...

What is this "simplistic" thing here... I mean, seriously, guys YOU ARE MODEL BUILDERS, aren't you? Has the term "multi-media construction" never crossed any of your minds? 

The overall shape of the primary hull is made from two large therma-formed sheets of plastic (I don't know what type of plastic it is. but suspect ABS, since that was readily available in large sheet back then, and it thermoforms easily).

The turned features on top and bottom are manufactured from wood. They seem pretty clearly to be good old fashioned pine... based upon the color and grain.

There is almost certainly a framework inside of that primary hull, and that's very likely made from wood as well. But the SKIN OF THE PRIMARY HULL IS PLASTIC.

We've all made models using these same techniques, haven't we? In the case of the Round2 Enterprise, I plan on having a wooden frame inside of my model, in fact, with the molded parts forming the skin on top of that framework.

It would appear that the core of the Enterprise primary hull is a hollow cylinder of wood, and that there are a series of radial "frames" extending beyond that at even intervals. (I would be surprised if those frames weren't hand-cut from plywood flats.). It is likely that there is a "ring" of wood on the top face , and possible the bottom face, of the outermost ring, to hold it all secure. The plastic skin is then laid on top of that, and the top and bottom detail "chunks" are laid on top of that skin.

I've built several starship models using that same general scheme, and if you really think about it, this is not all that dissimilar to what you'd expect to be done if they were building a "real" version of the ship - start with the core, attach frames, then skin over the frames, and build the outer features once the general hull construction was in place.

So... "Is the Enterprise primary hull made of wood?" YES.

Also... "Is the Enterprise primary hull made of plastic?" YES.

And, for that matter, "Is the Enterprise primary hull made of glass? Of metal? Of paint, and glue, and nails, and staples, and tape, and... the list goes on?" YES.


----------



## CLBrown

RSN said:


> I am not going to do anything to draw attention to the gridlines, i.e. I will not be weathering the ship in a way that may lead to the lines "popping" out. I will let them speak for themselves. I also don't think I will be adding the "Rust Ring" on the top of the saucer. I personally feel that this was put on the model like a woman appying blush to her cheeks, as a way for the contours to stand out more during filming. Again, just my personal preference, I will be using just a straight light gray hull color.


I agree. For that matter, I've always suspected that the primary hull bottom surface "undercut" was done for the same reason... because if you don't have SOMETHING to convince the eye, given filming conditions, it's likely that the saucer would end up looking like a big oval balloon most of the time.


----------



## Warped9

I never noticed the rust coloured ring until I saw enhanced images of the ship.


----------



## Landru

I can't find any blu ray screen caps of the original effects, but to me and even on the DVDs the gridlines are _clearly_ visible. 

Seriously though, if you buy a model and don't like something about it, say the _'inaccuracy of it'_ then why don't you just fix it? 
Isn't that half of what sci/fi modelling is all about? Otherwise why do they sell hobby filler???


----------



## Trek Ace

I know that the new kit will contain both open and closed production version hangar doors. But, I wonder if there will be a "smooth" hangar door option for the pilot conversion. Otherwise, the modeler would need to fill in the grooves to achieve the smooth pilot doors like in this frame:










The pilot doors were also sans the control booth and lighted port at the top.


----------



## Captain April

^ That aspect was pointed out in one of the update pics...


----------



## Larry523

Captain April said:


> <---snip---> thanks to the wayback machine and the late lamented cloudster.com....


Slightly OT, but the late lamented cloudster.com appears to be back up at long last! Now, back to our regularly scheduled bickering...


----------



## Warped9

Larry523 said:


> Slightly OT, but the late lamented cloudster.com appears to be back up at long last! Now, back to our regularly scheduled bickering...


Just checked this out. Awesome news! :thumbsup: He also still has my shuttlecraft drawings posted there. I'll have to forward him my TAS shuttlecraft drawings as well we originally planned.


----------



## Captain April

[Cartman]

Shweeeeet!

[/Cartman]


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Warped9 said:


> Just checked this out. Awesome news! :thumbsup: He also still has my shuttlecraft drawings posted there. I'll have to forward him my TAS shuttlecraft drawings as well we originally planned.


We need updates on your TOS shuttles projects!!!  :thumbsup:


----------



## enterprise_fan

Now I didn't search/read each previous post so I didn't see if anyone has brought this before so forgive me if this old news. As for paint getting into the window holes here's my take on it. If there is going to be three different sets of windows in this kit why not use one unused set to keep the paint out of the holes. Use tape on the inside to keep the windows in place during painting. If the subassembly is already glued together use water soluable glue (Elmers)the windows in place.

As for how the windows will fit in place on the model, this is my take on how they "may" do it to keep them from being pushed all the way through the hole. 

PS
I don't draw for a living so please don't rip my drawings to badly.


----------



## Paulbo

From a couple of the photos I saw without the "glass" in place, I'd say that's pretty close. I'm thinking of using Micro Kristal Klear in the windows as that kind of bezel will look perfectly in scale with super-thin clear material instead of the thick plastic parts.

(And not too shabby for the pic - it shows what you want it to.)


----------



## CLBrown

That's pretty much what I'm planning on doing as well, Paul...

FYI, here are the materials I plan to use to do this:

1) Microscope slide covers: they're very optically-clear, they're very thin, and (for the thickness) they're relatively "tough."

Here are the ones I've put on my "Amazon wish list."
http://www.amazon.com/Thermo-Scient..._9?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1320895937&sr=1-9

2) To cut those to size, a precise glass-cutting tool (and a cutting mat) are required. I already have a cutting mat (you can find them in most hobby shops), but I didn't have the glass cutting tool. This is the one I've chosen.
http://www.amazon.com/Fletcher-Terr...8U/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1320895987&sr=8-16

3) And to bond the windows in place< chose this. It's basically a cyanoacrylate ("super-glue") but it's optimized for use with glass, and is perfectly optically clear.
http://www.amazon.com/Henkel-233841...BBM8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320896286&sr=8-1

EDIT: By the way, I only plan to do that for rectangular windows. I'll use the "kit parts" for the round ones. I consider the rectangular ones "windows" (for human viewing purposes) while the round ones are "sensor portholes" and thus will not have any thing "viewable" behind them. I DO plan on having (mostly very simple) "sets" inside the various windows... mainly just walls with paint/markings, though perhaps a few simple objects in places where it might make a difference (like the lounge in the dorsal with windows on both sides)


----------



## John P

I've got a 27" monitor, and I _still _have to scroll right to read this thread thanks to that way-too-big picture!


----------



## Paulbo

No matter how big a monitor is, at 1920 x 1080, a 1938 x 1311 image ain't gonna fit.


----------



## John P

Yeah. I gotta stop reading this thread, I can't stand scrolling any more.


----------



## Just Plain Al

Extra large pictures don't irritate me near as much as getting the same pictures quoted and re-quoted. Some people are still on dial-up, and to them that's just as rude as the jumbo size pictures. Possibly more so.


----------



## Warped9

John P said:


> Yeah. I gotta stop reading this thread, I can't stand scrolling any more.


I love my Apple Magic Mouse for this. Came with my new iMac. No wheels or buttons, just stroking with your finger...which can be nice at times. (-:


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> I love my Apple Magic Mouse for this. Came with my new iMac. No wheels or buttons, just stroking with your finger...which can be nice at times. (-:


yeah, but for games, I think that thing would have to suck, wouldn't it?

I mean, I need at least five buttons on my mouse, plus/including a wheel... :drunk:


----------



## Warped9

^^ I don't play computer games. Doesn't interest me.


----------



## jheilman

Have the magic mouse at work and love it. :thumbsup:


----------



## Hunch

I can see people getting annoyed at large pics. Scrolling to read can be a pain, but if the pic is not a link to a bigger pic I'll suffer so I can grab a copy of the larger photo. 
Especialy it its the bird in question!


----------



## publiusr

An idea for simplifying TOS builds... 

In many trek models, you have problems with nacelles 'drooping.' Actually the AMT nacelles don't droop--they are aligned with the strongback (upper surface) of the secondary hull. Were the secondary hull a simple tube, this would be fine. But it is a cone section--as are the nacelles. The centerline of the nacelles is to line up in parallel to the centerline of the secondary hull. 

Now most model kits have the warp nacelle to be assembled as a whole as well as the secondary hull, and the same with the secondary hull. So the interface between hull and nacelles, and getting the nacelle support pylon to line up right all makes for a nightmare. Having a straight strut connect two conical tubes--having the angles work out--all awful. 

Now imagine this instead: 

There are many A-frame type brackets used to hold things together. So imagine an A-frame where the joins between secondary hull nacelle, and intervening pylon are milled instead. 

I don't have a scanner so imagine this as the top down view of the a-frame bracket, with secondary hull in the middle--looking down: 

----Fore 

l l==V==l l 

-----aft 

= (nacelle) 
ll (pylon) 
>Sec tube 


warp==sec==warp, where "==" is the nacelle support pylon. 

What this does is to instantly line up all the parts, with nacelle bits added forward and aft--and secondary hull bits added forward and aft. 

The point in all this is that all surfaces to be joined together are now perfectly FLAT and self-aligning. 

The milling of the bracket does all the work, and the joins between segments are not joins but molding detail now. Now this bracket might be broken down lengthwise (port-to-starboard) so as to allow ease of molding, so long as the nacelle-to-pylon--to-secondary-hull interface is maintained. 

This concept works best with TOS designs, so perhaps those of you with good CGI skills can use this for templates for physical modeling plans you might have.


----------



## CLBrown

Publiusr,

What you're talking about is pretty much what every "armature" approach involves, and I agree (at least as far as I can follow) with what you're saying. The trick is to get a "skeleton" structure which is properly aligned... likely using the sort of frame approach you define. In my own case, I intend to do it using hardwood for the TOS ship, though I see the existing steel frame armature for the TMP ship which you can get, among other places, from CultTVMan's shop, as being very, very nice for that ship.

You can build up an internal "skeleton" with whatever rigging features you need to get it perfectly aligned... and then build the ship itself up as a "skin" on top of that internal skeleton. That's my own intention, and I think that's what most folks who want to do a really robust build-up are likely going to do as well.


----------



## publiusr

It is just that so many woes are had when you build three tubes, and try to attach them together using sticks--then pull your hair out. By having the V-frame--what I should really call it--between the forward section of the secondary hull and the aft section--the nacelle supports and the line up is part of the model. So the secondary hull is in three pieces. 

Forward secondary hull tube
V-frame bottom
Aft secondary hull

Here, the interfaces are perfectly flat.

Same with the nacelle cones
Forward nacelle tube
Top of V-frame (one to either side)
aft nacelle tube

Also--flat surface to flat surface.

No pylon tabs or slots of any kind.

This is best done by some folks at scifi-meshes.com, where they can do a TOS model and cut it into pieces.

Then some milling: http://www.cartertools.com/3Dpath.html http://www.rolanddga.com/products/milling/

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-c...arves-amazing-3d-shapes-out-of-foam-20110820/
http://revoseek.com/information-technology/star-trek-crew-3d-printer-reality/

Now--you are not going to be able to mill out an entire enterprise, in that the armature will be bumping into things and there will be blanks left in the obstructed areas. But this way--things are flat join to flat joins. The best way to describe this is that each nacelle has three pieces. Forward--tube/top-of-V-frame--aft-nacelle.

Repeat.

Slit scan objects cheaply 
http://makeprojects.com/Project/Flatten-3D-objects-using-Slit-Scan-photography/761/1 
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=155626&page=2


----------



## Warped9

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:


----------



## John P

I'm gonna just add a post in the hopes it bumps to another page so I can read further posts without scrolling the gorram window 2.5 miles to the right.


----------



## John P

No? Rats.


----------



## SteveR

Here's 300.


----------



## Nova Designs

I am really impressed with the progress of this kit... and the box are is KILLER!


----------



## StarshipClass

John P said:


> I'm gonna just add a post in the hopes it bumps to another page so I can read further posts without scrolling the gorram window 2.5 miles to the right.


I'm not sure that it is necessary to scroll on that page: if you'll just reduce the scale of the window, you'll be able to read everything--with a microscope!










:wave:


----------



## John P

You can do that?
And where's this text wrap feature?


----------



## jheilman

Hmm, I just joined the 1701 club a couple weeks ago. I didn't get the latest update though.


----------



## SteveR

Write them ... They'll send you the link.


----------



## StarshipClass

John P said:


> You can do that?
> And where's this text wrap feature?


It's not a text wrap. I'm talking about holding the [Ctrl] key down while hitting + or - to change the scale of the window. OR you can hold the [Ctrl] key down and move the wheel on your mouse.

And, yeah, it's of limited use when the scale has to change too much due to a large picture. It can make the font way too small to see.


----------



## John P

Oh that!


----------



## CLBrown

PerfesserCoffee said:


> It's not a text wrap. I'm talking about holding the [Ctrl] key down while hitting + or - to change the scale of the window. OR you can hold the [Ctrl] key down and move the wheel on your mouse.
> 
> And, yeah, it's of limited use when the scale has to change too much due to a large picture. It can make the font way too small to see.


A lot of keyboards have "hotkey" versions of this as well... I have a Logitech diNovo for my HTPC that has keys just to do this sort of zooming (not that you NEED them, as the standard Win hotkeys work just fine, but still...). When reading a page from the La-Z-boy on your TV, the "zoom page" feature is a huge benefit... but it also works nicely the other way, for times when a page has too much info to fit onto a screen.

Ultimately, though, I've come to accept that, unless it's your own thread (ie, started by you with the express intent of putting out info on your own work), it's better to either go with smaller images (1024x768 is ideal, IMHO), or, if you want a full high-resolution image, use a thumbnail.

Those of us who are using big freakin' monitors do need to take into account those with smaller monitors. I use a 30", 1920x1080 in my office, but right now, since I'm traveling, I'm on a "netbook" with a much smaller screen and a lower resolution to boot... and it's sobering. 

Thumbs are our friends... :wave:


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Warped9 said:


> 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:


Word. I've always loved *Alex Ross*, and his depictions of both Superman and Batman are my hands-down favorites. Any artwork done by this true master will be breathtaking. I hope he releases the box art as a poster print you can purchase after the kit is released.


----------



## John P

CLBrown said:


> Thumbs are our friends... :wave:


 Ya can't open doorknobs - or text-message - without 'em!


----------



## Mr. Wabac

Had a look at the latest update for the "E" - this kit looks awesome.

I have to ask a very stupid question on a very sticky subject - the grid lines.

Since I haven't researched the ship that much I did notice something today. The gird pattern shown in Matt Jefferies drawing of the Enterprise doesn't appear to match the kit.

From the impulse engines forward to the Port or Starboard navigation lights I count six lines on the Jefferies drawing but seven on the kit.

I'm sure that the "people in the know" know what they are doing and that seven is correct, and that the Jefferies drawing has never matched the actual filming miniature, but just thought I would mention it just the same.

Of course the other conclusion is I can't count or see anymore...


----------



## Mr. Wabac

OK - checked the restoration photos and it is indeed seven lines; which is what I figured. The Jefferies drawing does differ from the actual miniature.

When looking through the restoration photos, I hadn't noticed all of the fine cracks in the original paint job. I guess my eyes still work.


----------



## Hunch

Mr. Wabac said:


> When looking through the restoration photos, .


Eh? Where might one find such restoration photos if you dont mind me asking?
Jim


----------



## swhite228

Hunch said:


> Eh? Where might one find such restoration photos if you dont mind me asking?
> Jim


At one point there were about 150+ posted on the web in 2 different forums.
There were a bunch at the Trek Prop Forum which may be gone now and require a membership to view.

Kurt Kuhn's Model Magic site has a bunch of them posted in an open area
here:
TOS ENTERPRISE

other tos restorations are:
Klingon D-7

and
Both the Tholian, and Aurora Studio Model 

You will also find reference to the Enterprise A , Reliant, NG Romulan Bird of prey and several other models there.


----------



## John P

swhite228 said:


> At one point there were about 150+ posted on the web in 2 different forums.
> There were a bunch at the Trek Prop Forum which may be gone now and require a membership to view.
> 
> Kurt Kuhn's Model Magic site has a bunch of them posted in an open area
> here:
> TOS ENTERPRISE
> 
> other tos restorations are:
> Klingon D-7
> 
> and
> Both the Tholian, and Aurora Studio Model
> 
> You will also find reference to the Enterprise A , Reliant, NG Romulan Bird of prey and several other models there.


GRID LINES!!!!!


----------



## Mark Dorais

The penciled gridlines are there... but.....as subtle a ghost's eyelash!


----------



## Captain April

But they're still there.


----------



## mach7

John P said:


> GRID LINES!!!!!



Oh boy!............


----------



## Hunch

swhite228 said:


> At one point there were about 150+ posted on the web in 2 different forums.
> There were a bunch at the Trek Prop Forum which may be gone now and require a membership to view.
> 
> Kurt Kuhn's Model Magic site has a bunch of them posted in an open area
> here:
> TOS ENTERPRISE
> 
> other tos restorations are:
> Klingon D-7
> 
> and
> Both the Tholian, and Aurora Studio Model
> 
> You will also find reference to the Enterprise A , Reliant, NG Romulan Bird of prey and several other models there.


Thanks SWHITE!:wave:


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Captain April said:


> But they're still there.


Yep, in all their penciled-in, NON-engraved glory.


----------



## Hunch

I'll be doing mine in super fine pencil, then misting on more grey and then the weathering and rust ring. You'll have to be three inches away to see them (just like the photos).:thumbsup:


----------



## KUROK

Hunch said:


> I'll be doing mine in super fine pencil, then misting on more grey and then the weathering and rust ring. You'll have to be three inches away to see them (just like the photos).:thumbsup:


My thoughts exactly!
:thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

Wow. Last night I actually dreamt about opening the box for the 1/350 _E_...only for some reason I dreamt of it moulded in white plastic. Weird.


----------



## StarshipClass

Warped9 said:


> Wow. Last night I actually dreamt about opening the box for the 1/350 _E_...only for some reason I dreamt of it moulded in white plastic. Weird.


For gosh sake, man! TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW! 

*WERE THERE ENGRAVED PANEL LINES ON THE KIT????*


----------



## swhite228

The Enterprise kit and the other kits are now in the R2 catalog...










And


----------



## Captain April

So, I'm guessing the one accessory pack is the one with the lights, while the other one is the one with the pilot parts?


----------



## Opus Penguin

That's what I was going to ask. I wonder what the cost will be and when it will be released?


----------



## Warped9

PerfesserCoffee said:


> For gosh sake, man! TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW!
> 
> *WERE THERE ENGRAVED PANEL LINES ON THE KIT????*


Yes. But I did imagine it white plastic so I wouldn't put too much credence in what I imagined. :lol: Still, I guess there's no reason why it couldn't be moulded in white plastic, but grey does seem more likely.


----------



## Warped9

Captain April said:


> So, I'm guessing the one accessory pack is the one with the lights, while the other one is the one with the pilot parts?


Looks that way...unless one is getting the Premiere edition which I understood includes the alternate parts. The lighting accessory pack would still be separate. Have I got that right?

Hmm, it's been awhile since an update, hasn't it?


----------



## swhite228

Warped9 said:


> Looks that way...unless one is getting the Premiere edition which I understood includes the alternate parts. The lighting accessory pack would still be separate. Have I got that right?
> 
> Hmm, it's been awhile since an update, hasn't it?


Correct! The larger box is the lighting kit which isn't a part of the Premier Kit.

The posting at Trekcore said the next update would be sometime this week...which could mean anytime in Feb.


----------



## Warped9

swhite228 said:


> The posting at Trekcore said the next update would be sometime this week...which could mean anytime in Feb.


:thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass

Warped9 said:


> Yes. But I did imagine it white plastic so I wouldn't put too much credence in what I imagined. :lol: Still, I guess there's no reason why it couldn't be moulded in white plastic, but grey does seem more likely.


That's cool man! Thanks for that vital info! You may be right on the white plastic, too!:thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

Of course my first AMT _Enterprise_ and Klingon Battle Cruiser were also moulded in white and so for some reason I always think of them that way. Even when I opened the box for the PL 1/1000 _E_ I knew it made more sense for it to be moulded in grey, but I still half expected white. Some perceptions are hard to get rid of. :lol:


----------



## Captain April

Well, the repop of the 18" kit was in white, so...


----------



## StarshipClass

Warped9 said:


> Of course my first AMT _Enterprise_ and Klingon Battle Cruiser were also moulded in white and so for some reason I always think of them that way. Even when I opened the box for the PL 1/1000 _E_ I knew it made more sense for it to be moulded in grey, but I still half expected white. Some perceptions are hard to get rid of. :lol:


I know exactly what you mean. The later versions of the AMT 1701 in blue and gray were a bit shocking to look at and hard to get used to.


----------



## fluke

mach7 said:


> Oh boy!............


Double OH BOY!

Thats why I like the TOS Enterprise! Simple and NO FRACKING AZTEC!!!

and mine is going to look like it did on TV in 1968 when I started watching it.....OFF WHITE with a ( *touch* of blue ish grey )

Lets leave the RIVET counting to REAL subjects like P-51 Mustangs and fracking Tanks for crying out loud I don't care if the 'Model' is
in a museum....its what we saw on TV that counts and NOT the enhanced crap later on.

pant pant pant......some one had to say it.


----------



## Mark Dorais

fluke said:


> Double OH BOY!
> 
> Thats why I like the TOS Enterprise! Simple and NO FRACKING AZTEC!!!
> 
> and mine is going to look like it did on TV in 1968 when I started watching it.....OFF WHITE with a ( *touch* of blue ish grey )
> 
> Lets leave the RIVET counting to REAL subjects like P-51 Mustangs and fracking Tanks for crying out loud I don't care if the 'Model' is
> in a museum....its what we saw on TV that counts and NOT the enhanced crap later on.
> 
> pant pant pant......some one had to say it.


AMEN to that!!!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Paulbo

fluke said:


> ...Lets leave the RIVET counting to REAL subjects ...


Jason Nesmith: Stop for a second, stop. It's all real. 
Brandon Wheeger: Oh my God, I knew it. I knew it! I knew it!


----------



## fluke

LOL :tongue:


----------



## spock62

fluke said:


> Lets leave the RIVET counting to REAL subjects like P-51 Mustangs and fracking Tanks for crying out loud I don't care if the 'Model' is
> in a museum....its what we saw on TV that counts and NOT the enhanced crap later on.


Well, I assume your being sarcastic, but, to me, "rivet" counting is not the same as wishing to paint a model the color of the original, wither it be a studio model or a real life plane/tank/ship/car/etc. While I can understand why you would paint the R2 Enterprise kit as you saw it on screen, (it looked either white, light blue or gray depending on the episode on my TV) it doesn't mean that the rest of us that want to paint it the actual colors of the studio model are wrong in doing so. But, that's the nice thing about this hobby, everyone can make a kit as they see fit.


----------



## starlord

I have never built one of those models, I am thinking of doing one, so I can hang it in front of the two Warbirds that I am working on.


----------



## StarshipClass

spock62 said:


> . . . But, that's the nice thing about this hobby, everyone can make a kit as they see fit.


Yep. I suspect we will all each go for the personally and individually "idealized" version of the ship each of us has in his mind. I doubt many will try to recreate the studio model with all its imperfections no matter how interesting such a project might be.


----------



## Captain April

Not at over a hundred bucks a pop, no.

Now, trying to do that with the 1/1000 version, yeah, since I think it's safe to say all of have a small stack of those in our stashes.


----------



## spock62

Captain April said:


> Not at over a hundred bucks a pop, no.
> 
> Now, trying to do that with the 1/1000 version, yeah, since I think it's safe to say all of have a small stack of those in our stashes.


Yep, I've got about 5-6 1/1000 scale kits in my stash and it seems that everytime I go look, I find another one! Much cheaper way of doing alternate paint schemes. 

At $100+, I'd stick with the standard gray scheme for the Big E. But if I had the bucks, I'd be tempted to do another in say a blue/gray scheme.


----------



## fluke

I must make it clear that I did not mean to offend. It just seems that 'some' Trek builders can suck the fun right out of the hobby.

I say Thank the Gods that we are getting this DREAM KIT and build that sucka they way you see fit! 

Oh yeah! 

Just think...sure we all have waited what?....40 years for such a prize...but lets face it....a kit this size would have been a mess till now. Can't wait! The day this kit is on my LHS shelf my hobby desk will be prepped and clear for landing! :tongue::hat::thumbsup:


----------



## spock62

fluke said:


> I must make it clear that I did not mean to offend.


No offense taken.



fluke said:


> It just seems that 'some' Trek builders can suck the fun right out of the hobby.


That's an understatement. 



fluke said:


> Just think...sure we all have waited what?....40 years for such a prize...but lets face it....a kit this size would have been a mess till now. Can't wait! The day this kit is on my LHS shelf my hobby desk will be prepped and clear for landing! :tongue::hat::thumbsup:


Never thought I'd see the day that a large scale, accurate Enterprise kit would be made. Based on what I've seen and heard of the upcoming kit, Round 2 deserves a big "Thank You" from all of us!


----------



## StarshipClass

Captain April said:


> Not at over a hundred bucks a pop, no.
> 
> Now, trying to do that with the 1/1000 version, yeah, since I think it's safe to say all of have a small stack of those in our stashes.


Concur! :thumbsup:


----------



## spock62

For a good look at the Round 2 Enterprise assembled and painted, check this out: http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=42476


----------



## scotthm

spock62 said:


> For a good look at the Round 2 Enterprise assembled and painted, check this out: http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=42476


Now that's something to get excited about. I'm not a big fan of the pilot versions of the Enterprise, but that's one good looking model.

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


----------



## BolianAdmiral

^

That does look nice.


----------



## charonjr

I just found out that the Premier 1701 club kit does not include the lighting kit? That's upsetting: Why should I pay $50 for a handful of detail parts for the pilot versions?

Apparently there was an update that I didn't get. The last was about the grid lines and whether they'd be fine enough.

When is the production version of the kit coming out? December? God, now I'm wondering whether I should pay the extra $50 for the August release (or is it September). Damn, I'm displeased!


----------



## CLBrown

The lighting kit was never supposed to be part of the kit, as sold... it was always described as a separate item.

The "pilot" parts are going to be available separately, or part of the main kit if you get a "premier" copy. That was always the case.

As a 1701 club member, you get one of these "collectors edition" kits, with the extra parts, custom packaging (as I understand), the t-shirt (which we already received), some form or certificate... and I think that's pretty much it, right?

If I've missed anything, please, chime in.

The whole point of the 1701 club thing was to show interest... to justify the pretty major up-front cost of making this kit. The advantages are... less tangible, I guess, if you're thinking long-term. The kit is gorgeous (excepting those grid-lines... but we'll bypass that particular rotting horse corpse for the moment).

So... to get a basic kit will run over $100. To get a lighting kit to add onto that is about $50 (and that seems pretty reasonable if I understand the complexity of the lighting kit being provided), but that's an option... you don't HAVE to pay for the lighting kit if you don't want it (which seems like a POSITIVE to me, and likely to most folks).

Likely the "pilot parts kit," which will also be available separately, will run something like $30.00. That's based upon the number of parts we're talking about (which will include window fixes, additional decals, and so forth, not just a handful of "major parts," remember)

Oh, and it's entirely possible that the cost we're talking about might also include shipping/handling (which, for a kit this size, is not measured in pennies).

I personally have no problem with the cost of the 1701club/premier-edition. $200 for the full kit will likely come to only 1/2 of the total "build cost" to do this right, anyway, and I'll be looking at months of man-hours to get this done right (I am going to make glass windows, using microscope slide covers, and have little setpieces behind all the windows, based upon my own personally-developed internal layout for the Enterprise). This is the "build of a lifetime" for me... and I'm prepared to do what it takes to get this... just like I was prepared to pay $800+ for a Master Replicas Tricorder (as an example).

The market for this kit isn't the "mass market," really... it's the "devotee" market, mainly. (The little kit is a mass-market kit.) They'll sell enough of these to make an up-front profit, no doubt, and the tool will continue to turn a profit for many years to come. But it's not something that every 8-year-old will have a copy of, like the old AMT kit used to be when we were growing up. :thumbsup:


----------



## Opus Penguin

CLBrown said:


> So... to get a basic kit will run over $100. To get a lighting kit to add onto that is about $50 (and that seems pretty reasonable if I understand the complexity of the lighting kit being provided), but that's an option... you don't HAVE to pay for the lighting kit if you don't want it (which seems like a POSITIVE to me, and likely to most folks).


Are you guessing at this price on the light kit or do you have some inside info? I never heard an announcement on the lighting kit price. If that is correct, that will be a major bargain. Also you forgot to mention the photo-etch coming out for the kit as well from RC2. I am guessing that will be around $20 since Jamie stated it will be more the vent areas of the ship.


----------



## Kit

I think Opus may have something. The lighting kit may cost more than $50. But say it does. I agree with what I think is CL's larger point. This is a good value all around.


----------



## CLBrown

Opus Penguin said:


> Are you guessing at this price on the light kit or do you have some inside info? I never heard an announcement on the lighting kit price. If that is correct, that will be a major bargain. Also you forgot to mention the photo-etch coming out for the kit as well from RC2. I am guessing that will be around $20 since Jamie stated it will be more the vent areas of the ship.


I seem to recall reading that "$50 target price" for the light kit, but I could be mistaken... nope, no "inside info" here. There ARE folks who could provide some inside info, but I suspect they're not able to (in most businesses, only the "sales" guys are even permitted to talk about dollars, after all!)

I THOUGHT I read that $50 number, either here or in one of the newsletters, from someone at R2. And it really would be a reasonable number... while, say, $100 would be an outrageously high number for the same kit. (Realistically, it ought to cost R2 about $25 in parts/labor/materials to put this together.)

I think that was in one of the multiple threads on this model which the old moderator closed in a huff... but again, that's just my memory, and I'm getting a bit old to trust my memory explicitly! 

The motors will doubtlessly be the only significantly pricey component... and at the time I SEEM to recall this number being tossed out, I specifically remember mentioning that I'd rather pay more for really quality motors (quiet, long life) than have them save a few pennies to give us cheap motors which would grind and whine and fail in a few months.

We know what goes into the light kit. A single flasher circuit (555-based?), some steady-state lamps, a few single-layer flexible PCB elements with LEDs for the lighted window locations (fabbed in one process step)... leaving out the engine lighting, the cost would be pretty low. The engine elements, however, do have some complexity... both for the flashing and spinning-fan-blade elements. They'll make up the lion's share of the cost of the light kit... and that's as it should be.

$50... a very reasonable price for the add-on we're talking about, and it ought to sell pretty well. $75 would get grumbles and would reduce the sales a bit, but would still sell nicely. $100... and the sales will drop through the floor, and there will be dozens, not hundreds, of these kits sold.

But I'm not an "insider," I'm just putting out my (reason and fact-based, mind you) opinion.


----------



## Captain April

I seem to recall the fifty dollar figure being mentioned on more than one occasion, even if only as a general target for the light kit.


----------



## fernieo

There's the Wonderfest Test shot up on Ebay, Some photos of the parts are up there. Do a search for Enterprise test shot.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I sure hope the $50 is the correct price and includes decent quiet motors. I heard a few comments on the videos that they were almost inaudible. Here's hoping.


----------



## Fozzie

Opus Penguin said:


> I sure hope the $50 is the correct price and includes decent quiet motors. I heard a few comments on the videos that they were almost inaudible. Here's hoping.


I commented to Jamie on how quiet they were. He quite honestly replied that that was because we were in a noisy room and that they were much more noticeable in a quiet room. Despite that, they did NOT make any kind of grinding noise that I could detect.


----------



## mach7

I'm not sure but I think I read the lighting kit would be $89.


----------



## charonjr

Ok, I'll chalk it up to another lysdexia fit that I associated the lighting kit as being part of the Premiere Edition. Heck, if it does get expensive, I'm sure garage providers can come up with less expensive alternatives. Or I could just plan, get the parts and do the labor myself.

My local hobby shop said they are planning on pricing the Production version at $98. Well, that'll be good for additional kits. And I have committed to the $150. I can only hope it's as all of you have said.


----------



## Hunch

Despite the "lines" however big or small, it WILL be the greatest model kit ever produced.:thumbsup:


----------



## Opus Penguin

I am buying the deluxe one as a member at $150 because I want to support RC2 in making this model, and hope they will produce a 1/350 k'tinga or TOS D-7. I could just buy the cheaper one but am really thankful they made this.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Here's the thing,...in my opinion , money is no object ! I have waited Four decades for a model such as this. It is the 'Holy Grail', the 'Rubiat', and the 'Ark of the Covenant' all rolled into one. As a modeler, this is "THE MODEL" of my career. I have saved money in a separate account ever since this was announced. With two kits reserved, I have a lot invested. I have more than enough cash squirreled away to buy lighting kits, photo-etch, decals, resin parts , plus anything the aftermarket throws at us and $1500 bucks to pay for a custom display case to put it all in. I'll put more up if necessary. Bring it on Round 2...bring it !


----------



## charonjr

I'm agreed. I was tired that day and finding my expectations were aligned with reality was a little jolting!  I've got the $150 ready to go and am likewise interested in supporting R2.


----------



## Trek Ace

I have five premiere kits reserved (but may only receive one), so I am all for this kit. I've been holding on to the Tamiya 1/350 scale CVN-65 _USS Enterprise_ carrier kit for nearly a decade now, in anticipation of the (eventual) release. I wanted to build and display them together, based on Matt Jefferies' size comparison plan.

http://www.trekcore.com/specials/albums/sketches/STTOS_Drw_2Enterprises.jpg

Now, the carrier is scheduled to be decommissioned at the end of the year, following it's final mission, and will most likely be retired before I can get both kits completed and displayed together. Regardless, I am ecstatic this kit is finally coming to fruition.


----------



## Warped9

I've got a premiere edition on order and I'm ready to pony up. And, yeah, I'll likely pop for the extra lighting kit as well.


----------



## CLBrown

Someone (sorry, I forget who...) mentioned a photoetch kit, above. I do recall a very brief discussion of that at one point, though I have to admit to being at a bit of a loss as to what details would require photoetch, other than "interior setpiece" work and fixing some unavoidable (in plastic) issues with the shuttle.

Does anyone know what is planned for that photoetch kit?


----------



## CLBrown

charonjr said:


> Ok, I'll chalk it up to another lysdexia fit that I associated the lighting kit as being part of the Premiere Edition. Heck, if it does get expensive, I'm sure garage providers can come up with less expensive alternatives. Or I could just plan, get the parts and do the labor myself.
> 
> My local hobby shop said they are planning on pricing the Production version at $98. Well, that'll be good for additional kits. And I have committed to the $150. I can only hope it's as all of you have said.


You know, if you're planning to build a PILOT version, you have absolutely no reason to buy the "light kit" anyway. It'd be far, far easier and cheaper to rig up the lighting yourself... and it would be a huge shame to let the intricate nacelle-dome lighting elements go to waste.

Myself, I will absolutely buy the kit, because I really want my model to look like the Enterprise I've carried around in my brain since I was born (in 1966). Anything that differs from how I see the ship, in my imagination, will be "unsuitable" to me. And the lighting is a central part of that.

I'm impressed at the quality of the light kit so far, though I'm actually thinking about replacing the LEDs in the nacelles with some long-life incandescents, just to get the "rise" and "fall" of light intensity. Not saying I'm GOING to... I need to see the final effect, first. It's a balancing act between light-source life (incandescents will, inevitably, burn out... LEDs, if treated properly, will outlive me!) and "effect fidelity." If the "fidelity" is good enough... the LEDs definitely stay.


----------



## Opus Penguin

CLBrown said:


> Someone (sorry, I forget who...) mentioned a photoetch kit, above. I do recall a very brief discussion of that at one point, though I have to admit to being at a bit of a loss as to what details would require photoetch, other than "interior setpiece" work and fixing some unavoidable (in plastic) issues with the shuttle.
> 
> Does anyone know what is planned for that photoetch kit?


I asked Jamie and he said details were not set yet, but they were focusing on vent areas of the ship (probably the nacelles and impulse engines).


----------



## Paulbo

Oops. Wrong thread. Carry on.


----------



## RossW

I've been feverishly working on my electronics system for this kit and here's what I have so far:






I've used PIC micro controllers for all the lights as it allows me to fade in/out the LEDs (to simulate incandescent bulbs) using pulse width modulation (PWM). There's a chip for the running lights (I can toggle between 1.5 sec on/0.5 sec off [my personal favourite], 0.5 sec on/1.5 sec off [MR version] and 0.75 sec on/0.833 sec off [Corbomite Maneuver]. The onboard flash memory remembers which mode and starts up with that mode on the next power on) and one for the strobes (they flash at twice a second).

For the nacelle engines, I have rotary encoder which lets me speed up or slow down both motors to get the right speed I want (if you push the knob down it returns to the default speed). Again, the onboard flash memory stores the last set motor speed for next power up. The same chip which controls the motors handles the steady-on lights (here i've wired up 5 amber LEDs in a star-shape, plus 1 blue LED) and there are 3 chips to flash 2 LEDs each at various rates (which themselves change a bit - a video I saw of an old '50s Christmas light set had each of the 15 bulbs blink at different rates but I'm not about to have 7 chips).

I would very much appreciate comments on the nacelle lights - I really want to get the look right before I start the kit as the number of wires could change if I add another blinking chip, for example.

Just the nacelle motors/lights:






Edit: Can't get embedded YouTub video links to work - anyone know how to do that (galaxy_jason)?


----------



## Captain April

I think it might have something to do with your videos being unlisted.


----------



## charonjr

You're right, CL, the first pilot wasn't lit, IIRC. I want to light the Production version. I'll just have to save my pennies for the light kit. Or get RossW's, or re-learn my electronics enough to make my own.


----------



## Warped9

If I do build a Pike version it will be lighted and also have a few elements of the production version to make it more complete. Details such as the hangar doors detail and nacelle inboard grills.


----------



## CLBrown

This is a response to RossRW's electronics kit (and videos).

*****************

Definitely a nice setup... and folks, remember, this is a prototype, and some bits will "improve" over time.

I presume you plan to make a populated PCBA... of course, if you plan to sell this as a breadboard, it's not going to get a lot of attention except from the uber-hardcore.

I like the light options you've provided... so anyone can have their kit look like they expect it to.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with PWM'ing the LEDs... do you have a feel for what that's going to do to the lamp life? I'm not saying it's going to cause a problem, only that I'm concerned that it MIGHT cause one. Of course, if it works... it'll be orders of magnitude better than incandescents for the same effect. (I've dealt a lot with pulse-width-modulation... aka PWM... but primarily in terms of BLDC motor control, not lighting control.)

My biggest gripe with what you presented is the poor quality of the domes you used... remember, folks, they're gumball machine content "domes," and I'm sure that whatever comes later will look a lot better.

I'm looking at the shots from Wonderfest for the fans on the R2 lighting kit... and the've got the "fan" and the dome elements down perfectly. The lighting itself isn't up to snuff (as yours is)... so, if I had to choose a solution today, I'd be inclined to use your circuitry and their fan.

Also, the little gearmotors (?) you were using seem very, very loud. The R2 motors, while not "silent," seem to be quite a bit better from a noise (and thus likely LIFE) standpoint.

I'm sorry I don't have actual RECOMMENDATIONS... just "observations"... but I hope this helps, at least a little bit!


----------



## RossW

Thanks for the comments, CLBrown! I really appreciate them. Let me tackle your concerns one-by-one:

(1) I've drawn the circuit in Eagle CadSoft so the idea is to use that to lay out the physical PCB.

(2) I've been PWM'ing LEDs for a while now - doesn't seem to affect them but then again I don't have years worth of data to tell one way or the other.

(3) The domes are just temporary - I needed something to do the test. The kit itself will come with the domes for the final proudct

(4) I'm not sure what you mean by the fan from the Round 2 build-up at WFEST is better. Both have motors driving a 'dome' with something to represent the 12 spikes (painters tape in my case - TEMPORARY!). Again, I'll use what's in the kit (presuming the main model kit contains the inner dome) when I get it. Might need some aftermarket photoetch ...

(5) My tiny metal gear motors are the same ones galaxy_jason used on his 1/1000 TOS E kit (they're from Pololu; 1:210 gear ratio). Both are louder than they should be because (a) I damaged the gears on the one on the right (port side) with too-long screws when attaching it to my test plate, and (b) the one on the left (starboard side) with hot glue when attaching the disc with LEDs to the test plate (the shaft coupler is rubbing against the glue and I can't get down to cut it out). But, I thought the motors at WFEST **were* very loud (at least to me). My plan is to cover the gear motors with a plastic housing and then insulate around them (which is why I went with the same motors as used in a 1/1000 kit - they're small so I should have room to wrap them up).


----------



## CLBrown

RossW said:


> (1) I've drawn the circuit in Eagle CadSoft so the idea is to use that to lay out the physical PCB.


I'm not familiar with Eagle's software... but then again, I've mainly used this sort of thing in commercial enterprises, and even then, I would be doing the MCAD work, not the ECAD work... and other folks I'd be working with would be doing PCB layouts at the trace level.

You'll have to let me know what you think of it. At home, all I have is some Linux GPL'ed material which has, to date, failed to impress me enough to want to use it.


> (2) I've been PWM'ing LEDs for a while now - doesn't seem to affect them but then again I don't have years worth of data to tell one way or the other.


Well, as I said, all my PWM work has involved driving brushless DC servomotors (generating 3-phase sinusoidal waveforms from DC.)

I guess I'm just prejudiced, in a sense... having been taught, through education and experience, my entire life, that LEDs aren't really able to be controlled for brightness unless you're dramatically over- or under-driving them (in which case, my education taught me that you'd be shortening device life by orders of magnitude)

But... it may well be that this isn't as much of an issue as I BELIEVE it to be. I mean, I've only got "book smarts" on this particular topic, not direct real-world experience. I'll gladly defer to those who've actually DONE IT. :thumbsup:


> (3) The domes are just temporary - I needed something to do the test. The kit itself will come with the domes for the final proudct


Understood... and as a "temporary" demonstrator, they're more than adequate.


> (4) I'm not sure what you mean by the fan from the Round 2 build-up at WFEST is better. Both have motors driving a 'dome' with something to represent the 12 spikes (painters tape in my case - TEMPORARY!). Again, I'll use what's in the kit (presuming the main model kit contains the inner dome) when I get it. Might need some aftermarket photoetch ...


I'm only saying that, at least as far as things stand TODAY, the "fan blades" R2 has produced capture the on-screen appearance nearly perfectly already. I'm not inferring that you won't get to the same point... just that you're not there yet, with this first-generation prototype.


> 95) My tiny metal gear motors are the same ones galaxy_jason used on his 1/1000 TOS E kit (they're from Pololu; 1:210 gear ratio). Both are louder than they should be because (a) I damaged the gears on the one on the right (port side) with too-long screws when attaching it to my test plate, and (b) the one on the left (starboard side) with hot glue when attaching the disc with LEDs to the test plate (the shaft coupler is rubbing against the glue and I can't get down to cut it out). But, I thought the motors at WFEST **were* very loud (at least to me).


Well, you've heard both "IN PERSON" while I've only heard yours in the videos you posted. So it's not a fair comparison. I can only say, there are clear "gear grind" noises from the motors you have. I heard none of that in the R2 model on display. For the moment, I'll attribute that to the damage you mention, however.

An ideal motor arrangement will not be totally silent... its impossible to achieve that. However, there are things that you can pick up on.

1) Bearing "buzz"... infers low-quality sleeve bearings. Usually a mid-range tone. These will grind away over time, and the unit will rapidly fail. This is very common in "toy" motors, or in cheap kitchen appliances, for example, and I've heard it in some power-tool motors which had been punished beyond their reasonable ability to survive. This is really something you get with sleeve bearings, not so much with ball bearings (which make an entirely different sort of noise).

I THINK I could make out "bearing buzz" in the video you posted...

2) Gear grind... since few motors operate at the exact speed you want (and almost none, and certainly none which are reasonably priced!), you need a reducer gearbox. Gears which are well-lubricated, machined to close tolerances, and properly supported (to eliminate excess "backlash" between gears)... they can be almost totally dead-silent. (though, audible noise is seldom the issue... it's usually life and vibration which are concerned. For example, surgical cameras are usually very, very quiet, but "security cameras" will "grind" pretty loudly as they pan... or at least, they used to. We've all heard this sound... at least in sci-fi movies, if not in real life!

Now, you also get "winding chatter" on motors... each time the magnetic field alters as the motor rotates, the forces on the copper windings alter as well, and thus the windings can vibrate. A potted, encapsulated or otherwill secured motor won't do that. You can also do pretty well to protect against this by using "bondable wire" (which has a varnish which acts as a glue which bonds the windings into what's effectively a single, if porous, mass of copper).

Realistically, we should look for a motor with high-tolerance bearings, ideally powdered-metal with oil infiltration. It should have bonded windings. And the gearbox should be a high-precision planetary gear setup.

Of course, that's going to run (at WHOLESALE) something like $30 per motor, as opposed to something like $10 per motor for the more common variety. "Retail" prices will be 150% or more of what I just stated, most likely. 

Me, I'd be willing to pay that sort of $$$ to get my Enterprise "perfect." But I know I'm in the minority in terms of being willing to put in that sort of motor, at that cost.


> My plan is to cover the gear motors with a plastic housing and then insulate around them (which is why I went with the same motors as used in a 1/1000 kit - they're small so I should have room to wrap them up).


DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON... 

Motors generate a lot of heat. Doing what you proposed is a potential problem (of course, so is what R2 is doing, in theory at least).

If you want to do what you've just described... you need to have a thermal-management scheme in place. I'd recommend a hard-mount of the motor to an aluminum "rod" inside of the motor, with aluminum foil attached to that rod and lining the nacelle... so the heat is conducted from the motor to the rod to the foil, and will be distributed nearly uniformly throughout the nacelle exterior as a result, rather than producing the inevitable (and possibly catastrophic) "hot spot" that you'd get by taking that "wrapping it up" approach.

In fact, I'm concerned about that for the R2 version as well...

A better way to deal with noise might be to put some form of pseudo-"anecoic foam" inside of the nacelle... textured styrofoam blocks, space randomly, with soft foam in the gaps, less "tall" overall. That would absorb much of the noise of the motor, while still at least permitting it to ventilate itself through the interior of the nacelle (which your proposed wrapping would not permit).

I'm an engineer, so I MIGHT be overthinking things here... I'm not sure that any of the issues are actually problems... we work based upon data, not supposition, after all... but I'm just imagining POTENTIAL problems, and potential solutions to those potential problems. (The term for this is a "functional FMEA" process, in case anyone's familiar with the concept... where FMEA stands for "failure mode effects analysis." You figure out what MIGHT go wrong, and then design in ways to avoid that, or to detect it before shipping in some cases... or, I guess recently, to come up with a way of dealing with failures "in the field" if your bosses determine that doing actual quality control on the production line is a cost which can be reduced! 

But... "wrapping" the motor? That sets off all sorts of warning bells for me, unless you provide an alternative heat-rejection pathway.


----------



## Ductapeforever

I plan on two variable potentiometers and resistors to control speed and heat.

I have a 1/32th scale Monogram Phantom P-51 that is motorized , built in the early seventies that I did the same thing to. Three decades later, still going strong and no heat issues.


----------



## RossW

CLBrown:

I've only just started on Eagle CadSoft but it's pretty cool and seems to work well (once you get used to the peculiar way you search for parts to add to your schematic). I've attached a PNG file which shows what I have so far. The program will convert it to a PCB trace (supposedly it will also autoroute traces, which I'm hoping works as advertised - I've never been good about laying out parts/traces) and then you can export it for submitting to a PCB board house. There's Windows/Mac/Linux versions and a freeware license (limited by board size).

As for the domes/fan blades, I'm really hoping that what we saw at WFEST (as far as these parts are concerned) will be in the kit itself and not available only in the planned light kit. GaryK?

I'm new to working on motors so any advice would be appreciated. I'm using PWM to control the motor RPM through a 2N2222A transistor (with a diode to prevent reverse voltage) hooked up to a regulated +6V. As for 'wrapping' them, my plan was to insulate only around the inside of the nacelle parts, leaving air between that and the motors. Does that make sense?

Here's the motor I'm using and the brackets to attach the gears. I'm not convinced these will be the final motors I'll use (as I feel the same way about this kit as you: I've been waiting 30 yrs for this one and I'll do whatever it takes to make it the best I can possibly do) so if you know of other motors that are better/quieter/longer lasting, just let me know.

Ductapeforever:

You can use a pot to control motor RPM but the motor manufacturer I bought mine from said this wasn't a good idea - too much engery is dissipated from the pot (in the form of heat) and for low RPMs (as we're using here) it could cause problems on startup. Having said that, this is exactly what galaxy_jason did for his 1/1000 kit and maybe since the motors aren't going to run continuously this won't be a problem. The other reason I went with a PIC micro controller is it was easy enough to program the motor RPM to return to a default value which unless you mark with a pen on the pot you wouldn't be able to do. I'm not knocking your approach - there's always more than 1 way to do something.


----------



## Ductapeforever

As I stated above , the Monogram 1/32 Phantom P-51 kit I built as a kid is nearly 45 years old. It has a 3 volt motor that my father and I modified with a variable pot from Radio Shack limited by a resistor ( I forget the value ). This model has run for countless hours over the years ( Many times at IPMS shows for 4 or more hours steady with absolutely no heat issues.) The low voltage when potted down must limit the heat ( If any ) created by the motor. I am more than satisfied by the performance and if the 'Big E' gives me the same kind of performance , well....I'll be dead and gone *IF* and when it ever fails.


----------



## Gary K

RossW said:


> As for the domes/fan blades, I'm really hoping that what we saw at WFEST (as far as these parts are concerned) will be in the kit itself and not available only in the planned light kit. GaryK?


As far as I know, what you saw at WonderFest will be in the standard kit, but the lighting kit will include some cool differences. I can't say more or Jamie would have to kill me. 

Gary


----------



## RossW

Thanks Gary! Are you able to comment on my lighting system or will Jamie kill you over that, too? We had talked earlier about magenta vs red and I went with 2 magenta LEDs and 1 red (looking at StarTrekHistory.com I think I shouldn't have made 1 of the blues steady-on - maybe only the ambers are always on?)


----------



## Gary K

RossW said:


> Thanks Gary! Are you able to comment on my lighting system or will Jamie kill you over that, too? We had talked earlier about magenta vs red and I went with 2 magenta LEDs and 1 red (looking at StarTrekHistory.com I think I shouldn't have made 1 of the blues steady-on - maybe only the ambers are always on?)


I have absolutely no expertise whatsoever regarding lighting, other than the ability to change a lightbulb, so my comments on your lighting system would be limited to something like, "That sure looks purdy". But it looks to me like the amber lights were always on, with the other colors being flashers. 

Gary


----------



## RossW

Having spent the last 1/2 hr being hypnotized by the engine light study at StarTrekHistory.com, I've drawn the light placement as seen in the attachment. Some of the lights may be questionable, and it looks like there's more than 12, but comments would be appreciated.


----------



## Gary K

RossW said:


> Having spent the last 1/2 hr being hypnotized by the engine light study at StarTrekHistory.com, I've drawn the light placement as seen in the attachment. Some of the lights may be questionable, and it looks like there's more than 12, but comments would be appreciated.


I don't think that there aren't that many lights in the dome, and maybe you're seeing reflections in the mirror shards inside the dome. The the space inside the domes was limited: domes were 7" in their outside diameter, and the inner fan mechanism had to fit inside. I don't think that you could cram all that many Christmas lights inside that area. 

Gary


----------



## Captain April

Especially those big honking 1960's Christmas lights.

There were only ten lights in each dome, half flashing, half steady, of various colors, depending on which one burned out last and whatever was handy to replace it with (same with the bridge consoles, btw).


----------



## jheilman

Yeah, what Cap said.:thumbsup:


----------



## Opus Penguin

I just hope light kits, photo etch, and extra parts to make all versions of the ship are out at the same time. I am anxious to get started on this and I am hoping to buy everything at that time. The lighting looks fantastic. I hope Jamie lets you say more about it soon Gary.


----------



## Gary K

Opus Penguin said:


> I just hope light kits, photo etch, and extra parts to make all versions of the ship are out at the same time. I am anxious to get started on this and I am hoping to buy everything at that time. The lighting looks fantastic. I hope Jamie lets you say more about it soon Gary.


In each dome in the standard kit the 5 always-on amber bulbs are actually modeled after C7 Christmas bulbs, while the 5 flashers are spheres about the same diameter as the filaments in the original clear C7's. The spheres give you more of a pinpoint of flashing light, similar to what we saw on the show. 

I'll say this about Jamie - he's working within a budget to give all of you the most bang for your buck with this kit. He deserves a round of applause for allowing crazy people like me to keep nagging the factory in China until they get everything right.

Gary


----------



## CLBrown

Gary K said:


> I don't think that there aren't that many lights in the dome, and maybe you're seeing reflections in the mirror shards inside the dome. The the space inside the domes was limited: domes were 7" in their outside diameter, and the inner fan mechanism had to fit inside. I don't think that you could cram all that many Christmas lights inside that area.
> 
> Gary


An interesting point.... 

I agree about the bulbs vs. mirrors... and I've seen the cap internals you're putting into place. But... are you guys doing anything to model the mirror-shards? I'm wondering how to make that happen in this scale of kit? Without the mirror shards, the effect won't be "just right" after all.

I'm not sure how to do it... short of using actual bits of a broken dental mirror (which, now that I think about it, might not be a bad idea... they're not that expensive and the bits would work nicely... hmmmm)


----------



## RossW

I'm planning on breaking up a mirror to use in my kit - to heck with superstition!

Gary - I like the idea of using smaller 'bulbs' for the flashing lights. All my LEDs are 5 mm (too big for the final version, but good enough for my tests) and I if I whittled the blinkies down it might look better. I'll give it a shot.


----------



## CLBrown

There are lots of different sizes/shapes of LEDs, but in general, most "discrete" devices you'll find will be either 5mm or 3mm in size. There are some 1mm discretes I've found, but I can't seem to recall where.

Anyway, one of my favorite LED sources...

http://www.ledtronics.com/products.aspx?page=18

I've also bought some from these guys...

http://www.superbrightleds.com/

Vishay is a big producer of circuit-board components, including plenty of surface-mount LEDs. These can be a LOT smaller than the discrete devices we usually think of. In general, you need a PCB to mount these onto, though (though I've seen people successfully solder them onto wire leads).

http://www.vishay.com/leds/

Just for some ideas... hope it helps.


----------



## nautilusnut

As for the glass shards- I've thought for awhile about using a cut-up compact disk. It's super-shiney, cheap and not nearly as dangerous as glass. Can't say I've done it yet- but it seems reasonable.


----------



## CLBrown

nautilusnut said:


> As for the glass shards- I've thought for awhile about using a cut-up compact disk. It's super-shiney, cheap and not nearly as dangerous as glass. Can't say I've done it yet- but it seems reasonable.


Hmmm... the diffraction effect of the CD won't look "quite" like the classic effect, of course, but it might look good. I'd love to see the results of a build-up using this!


----------



## Gary K

RossW said:


> I'm planning on breaking up a mirror to use in my kit - to heck with superstition!
> 
> Gary - I like the idea of using smaller 'bulbs' for the flashing lights. All my LEDs are 5 mm (too big for the final version, but good enough for my tests) and I if I whittled the blinkies down it might look better. I'll give it a shot.


A couple thoughts:

At the present time the kit doesn't include any provisions for replicating the broken mirror shards. Modelers will have to improvise a few things on their own.

The space inside the 1.25" diameter inner dome is extremely tight. Beware of using pieces of a regular mirror because a scale shard would only be 1/4 the thickness of a regular mirror. You might want to consider gluing tiny pieces of silver mylar (or even aluminum foil if you need to save $$) to the plastic inside the domes.

Gary


----------



## John P

^Beat me by 5 minutes. I was thinking crumpled aluminum foil as a "good enough" replacement.


----------



## Opus Penguin

This may work too:

http://www.bare-metal.com/


----------



## nautilusnut

If you're gonna use foil, candy bars, such as Neslie's Crunch, come in super-thin, extremely shiny foil. It's far thinner than regular aluminum foil- of course, you'll have to dispose of the useless chocolate bar. :wave:


----------



## Paulbo

Might tinsel work also? I was thinking that it could tacked down within the space ...

OTOH, I like the really foil idea - much easier. Cigarettes often have textured foil that could help mix up the light a bit.


----------



## jheilman

Paulbo said:


> Cigarettes often have textured foil that could help mix up the light a bit.


*"Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit smoking"*


----------



## Captain April

Wouldn't chroming the parts in question take care of that issue?


----------



## CLBrown

Captain April said:


> Wouldn't chroming the parts in question take care of that issue?


That was actually my thought... as something that R2 could accomplish "in-kit."

Of course, merely chroming wouldn't be quite sufficient to get a really nice mirror effect, but it would be good enough for an "out of the box" solution.

What you'd really want to do would be to mold a transparent block of plastic with "locally applied" areas of chroming, on surfaces oriented and shaped like the classic mirror locations (if anyone has any idea where those ARE, which I don't!). Basically, molded "posts" off of the interior backplane with flat, faceted, angled top surfaces. (the "posts" might actually help break up the light when viewed from the side, as well... which is why I suggested having the SIDES of the posts be unplated, and only plating the top surface).

To get a really, really good effect, you'd want to do the "future-dip" approach on top of the chrome-plated surface. This wouldn't be something that R2 would "pre-supply" however... they'd be able to do the plating but not the "super-high-gloss top-coat" which it really needs. We, the end-users, would need to do that on our own.

I'm actually sort of liking this idea... but making it work means having at least a general idea of where the mirror bits actually were in the original engine-dome setups... and I don't have a clue.

But I'm betting SOMEONE out there has some great photographic, and anecdotal, evidence which would help to arrive at that. And I suspect someone has actually built up a replica, in "studio scale," at some point, which they experimentally tweaked to match the on-screen effect pretty closely. And I'm certain that some folks have spent inordinate amounts of time getting their CGI model's nacelle domes to look "just right" as well, in many cases by modeling the dome configuration from the filming model.

So, between those sources... none of which I have access to, sadly... I think a dedicated "replication engineer" type could reverse-engineer the mirror placements pretty accurately and get a clear-molded part with "mirror top" faces in certain locations which would replicate the effect pretty accurately.


----------



## RossW

CLBrown - see my post #386; there's a link to StarTrekHistory which shows the mirror shards in a colour-coded image.


----------



## Kit

RossW said:


> CLBrown - see my post #386; there's a link to StarTrekHistory which shows the mirror shards in a colour-coded image.


That's a really well-known image. But I take my hat off to you if you are really going to replicate the exact pattern of mirror shards. Do you think you should also hang studio lights over your display to get the exact pattern that was used to photograph the original model,since they had a certain effect on the model lights? Do you think your eye will discern the difference? 

Maybe I'll throw a little foil in there on mine. Have some fun.


----------



## Captain April

Crumpled up aluminum foil and super glue, problem solved.


----------



## CLBrown

All snide answers aside...

I do think I'm going to try to get mirror surfaces in approximately the right places, to get the effect to be as accurate as possible to what's seen on-screen. Those shards are a lot bigger than I expected. I think I can cut those out of a cheap "shower mirror" I saw at Bed Bath and Beyond earlier today, which uses whats effectively a little plastic mirror which is very thin, on a clear plastic base. (I'm always on the lookout for bits I can use, even if being dragged out to shop for sheets!) Here's the item... pretty cheap and has a really nice mirror to use for this purpose.

http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?SKU=16157732

Remove the (very thin) mirrored sheet from the main body. It's a plastic mirror surface, and .. cut it up into bits approximately shaped like what's seen on the image... mount those on posts of clear material, and "future" them to make them very, very shiny.

Should work very nicely, and should give a very "as seen on film" effect.

The problem I have with aluminum foil is that it's really not a mirror-surface. It's not intended to be. Yes, you can "buff" it to get a passable surface, but that's not going to last. Also... aluminum oxidizes, and does so quickly, so if you DO get it to a nice, shiny finish, a few days later it'll be dull grey anyway unless you have it in an oxygen-free environment.

(As a side... the oxide which forms on aluminum is one of the reasons which aluminum is considered a good structural element... aluminum oxide is, in essence, ceramic... so if you look at, say, an aluminum lamp post, it forms a white-grey "patina" which is a very effective protectant for the underlying metal. And if it gets "nicked" or scratched... with a small amount of aluminum consumed in the process, the "protective surface" actually self-heals. But this aluminum oxide coating is NOT good for "mirror" effects.)

Anyone wanting to know more about this... here's a decent start. Go down to the subsection titled "Oxidation."
http://www.keytometals.com/Article83.htm

And I had no access to that image, so Kit's assertions aside, >I< appreciate the help-out by Ross.


----------



## Fozzie

CLBrown said:


> I think I can cut those out of a cheap "shower mirror" I saw at Bed Bath and Beyond earlier today, which uses whats effectively a little plastic mirror which is very thin, on a clear plastic base.


Auto supply stores often have plastic mirrors which can be cut to shape to replace broken door mirrors.


----------



## Fozzie

After looking at the referenced photo of the mirror shards inside the dome, there is no way they could have been identical in size, shape, and placement between the two nacelles. So exact size, shape, and placement aren't as important as just having something in there to bounce the light around and "fill" the dome.


----------



## Captain April

I think it's safe to say they just took an old bathroom mirror, smashed it, and glued in the pieces where they'd fit.


----------



## Kit

Fozzie said:


> After looking at the referenced photo of the mirror shards inside the dome, there is no way they could have been identical in size, shape, and placement between the two nacelles. So exact size, shape, and placement aren't as important as just having something in there to bounce the light around and "fill" the dome.


That was what I was suggesting, in the hope of being helpful. There's so much in this kit that will ikely be worthy of extra time and attention, it seems counter-productive to go down the rabbit hole seeking details that make no difference in the result.


----------



## Trekkriffic

You can buy cheap craft mirrors to smash up from _Michaels_ too. They are small so hopefully you will get less than 7 years of bad luck.


----------



## TrekFX

A while back I picked up an LED tactical flashlight and as part of the "try me" display pack it had a little right-angle blister with a nice little *thin* plastic mirror. I set it aside as replacement material for the mirrors in the 1/24 1970 Plymouth Superbird I for some reason feel compelled to build someday! (Actually when I was a kid a local teenager (lucky bastrad) had a yellow one. I thought it was the koolest thing ever. Apparently it was a lasting impression, like Star Trek!)

So there's thin plastic mirror material out there.

I was just gonna glue a bit of a mylar emergency blanket (a balloon would do) to thin plastic and cut it up, good 'nuff!


----------



## Opus Penguin

I am just curious if, at this scale, it would really enhance the lighting by putting mirror scraps in the nacelles. Since they are so small in comparison to the original model, and the lighting looks almost dead on now, are the mirror shards really necessary?


----------



## TrekFX

Probably more than anything the random scatter, setback from the bulbs and angles of the mirrors sort of "multiplied" the number of apparent point-sources inside the dome. The domes were small and the bulbs were big, so anything to make things more sparkly for the camera... and the same probably carries through to the 1/350 since the designers are taking pains to really replicate the form factor of the original configuration. It may be just one of those little "somethings" that sets one build apart from the next.


----------



## TrekFX

Trekkriffic said:


> You can buy cheap craft mirrors to smash up from _Michaels_ too. They are small so hopefully you will get less than 7 years of bad luck.


By my calculations you'd be in for 0.02 years. About 7.3 days.


----------



## Paulbo

Opus Penguin said:


> I am just curious if, at this scale, it would really enhance the lighting by putting mirror scraps in the nacelles. Since they are so small in comparison to the original model, and the lighting looks almost dead on now, are the mirror shards really necessary?


I was thinking about this later - since the lighting will be done with LEDs (directional) instead of incandescents (omni-directional) the mirroring probably won't do a whole heck of a lot.


----------



## ClubTepes

Paulbo said:


> I was thinking about this later - since the lighting will be done with LEDs (directional) instead of incandescents (omni-directional) the mirroring probably won't do a whole heck of a lot.


There is something in there to diffuse the 'directional' leds.


----------



## RossW

You can sand the outside surface of an LED to make it less directional.


----------



## TrekFX

Or take a little guy (non-diffused SMD LED) and build little christmas lights! Just think, SMD device is filament, a little peg makes a base, and a drop of clear resin (or, for absolute scale fidelity, create little envelopes from clear sheet. You figure out how!!) for the glass body.

Does this enter the realm of extreme? Pretty freekin' close I would guess!

But I would think if little clear "bulbs" are part of the kit, they can be drilled out and an SMD or other submini device stuffed in there and called pretty damn good 'nuff!


----------



## checksum

I have a question about the lighting kit and painting. Do I need to install the lighting kit first and then assemble the Sub-Assemblies and then paint? Or do I need to paint the Sub-Assemblies... then install the lighting kit? 
Sorry if its a stupid question...


----------



## Opus Penguin

checksum said:


> I have a question about the lighting kit and painting. Do I need to install the lighting kit first and then assemble the Sub-Assemblies and then paint? Or do I need to paint the Sub-Assemblies... then install the lighting kit?
> Sorry if its a stupid question...


No this is not stupid, it is an excellent question. I feel much of it depends on your skillset and what you want to do first. Generally, I spray the inside of the model with dark colors to prevent light leaks, then build the model with the light kit inside. This may be done in sections depending on the model. Afterwards I would prime and paint the outside (after masking areas like windows and such where light does need to show through). This is a very rough idea, but it really depends on how you tackle it. With what I am guessing with this kit, at least until I see the lighting kit with the model itself, I will probably follow this process. I will likely finish off the bridge and hanger deck first in order to be ready to install inside the kit, then work on the rest of the ship in sections.


----------



## CLBrown

Paulbo said:


> I was thinking about this later - since the lighting will be done with LEDs (directional) instead of incandescents (omni-directional) the mirroring probably won't do a whole heck of a lot.


Actually, an LED is no more, or less, directional than an incandescent lamp. The "directional" nature of the device is based upon the shape of the lens structure surrounding it.

Many discrete LEDs are not directional. You can buy discrete LEDs with lenses which are designed to be directional but those are uncommon... and mainly in the non-visible range (for door sensors and the like).

In general, an LED designed to be used as a point light source will lack the "reflector" element behind the anode and the shaping of the lens. A "directional" one will look like the second image on the right hand side of this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

The directional ones are often a bit more expensive, in my experience, too.

But even with the "directionality" it's not really TOO directional, for the most part. The dome shape of a typical LED acts very much like a point-light-source.

Most incandescent lamps are also "directional" and for the same reason... the lens/reflector elements in the lamp.

I get the impression that, at least if you use the Round2 lighting kit, this will be a non-issue anyway. They've got little clear plastic bits, shaped and oriented like old-fashioned light bulbs, and there appear to be light sources mounted remotely, "flooding" their light up some sort of clear post and into the molded "pseudo-lamps."

I actually sort of expect R2 will be providing us a little PCBA (printed circuit board assembly) with surface-mount lamps on it, and "light guides" molded onto the "lamps" rising from that board up to the appropriate positions.

This, I think, may be a very good approach... for "normal light level" rooms, anyway. It's possible that the lamps, if mounted directly out there, might be too bright to give the right effect.

I wish I could repost the image from the R2 newsletter where they showed the little molded lamps, but we're not supposed to do that, and I keep my agreements, even if I think that they're potentially a bit silly. 

My grandmother used to have some ceramic "christmas tree" items she'd made... opaque, with a single light source inside, but with these glass or plastic (I can't recall, she's been gone a long time!) decorative bits shaped like bulbs or stars or whatever, with long posts as part of the clear bits, which went through holes in the ceramic "tree" body. The effect was quite nice... almost as if the light source was inside of each little clear bit.

I think that's the approach that Round2 is taking here. The LEDs themselves are likely not out there "suspended in space" at all, but are surface-mount devices, on a single PCBA, back behind the dome.

Anyone from R2 care to confirm/deny?

EDIT:

I went back to the updates... and discovered that the images are "web-served" and not part of the emails themselves... and that they've been pulled from Round2's web server in most cases, so the emails that came out are now largely "empty space"... sigh.

However, Update 007 is still "available" and there are images of the molded "light guide" bits I mentioned in that email, still on the server.

EDIT 2: 

I thought I'd see if I could find a "christmas tree" of the sort I was talking about... here's an example:

http://www.etsy.com/listing/83911335/wishing-for-falling-snow-ceramic?ref=sr_gallery_5&ga_includes[0]=tags&ga_search_query=ceramic+christmas+tree&ga_page=1&ga_search_type=all&ga_facet=ceramic+christmas+tree&ga_view_type=gallery

And here's some stuff that might come in handy... for those of us who might want to play with different lighting appearances...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CERAMIC-CHR...404?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4a9c66fe6c


----------



## Kit

Those ceramic Christmas trees are a cool reference; I knew exactly what you meant even before I clicked on the links. And that's very much what the Round 2 photos look like. But If I remember them correctly, those trees had a bit of a fiber optic effect. The light shined through only at certain angles, kind of like an old projection TV, where it doesn't look bright if you aren't positioned in front of it. Wouldn't it be better to just have the LEDs stick out through the plastic backing?


----------



## checksum

Opus Penguin said:


> No this is not stupid, it is an excellent question. I feel much of it depends on your skillset and what you want to do first. Generally, I spray the inside of the model with dark colors to prevent light leaks, then build the model with the light kit inside. This may be done in sections depending on the model. Afterwards I would prime and paint the outside (after masking areas like windows and such where light does need to show through). This is a very rough idea, but it really depends on how you tackle it. With what I am guessing with this kit, at least until I see the lighting kit with the model itself, I will probably follow this process. I will likely finish off the bridge and hanger deck first in order to be ready to install inside the kit, then work on the rest of the ship in sections.


Thank you for the quick answer. I like most people cannot afford the lighting kit right now. But I DO want to have it. But I also want to be able to get started while I save up for the lighting kit. I just dont want to start and get everything going only to figure out later that I did it in the wrong order. 
So thanks for the insight...


----------



## Ductapeforever

Planning something ahead of time is great, however I believe I will PATIENTLY wait for the light kit to see exactly what I'm dealing with. I don't know about anyone else but this project will be on my workbench for a very long time to allow for aftermarket goodies before I procede any further. The rest of you guys build away, I for one have all the time in the world.


----------



## CLBrown

Ductapeforever said:


> Planning something ahead of time is great, however I believe I will PATIENTLY wait for the light kit to see exactly what I'm dealing with. I don't know about anyone else but this project will be on my workbench for a very long time to allow for aftermarket goodies before I procede any further. The rest of you guys build away, I for one have all the time in the world.


A sound perspective... you don't want to "rush" this.

In my case, I'm planning ahead, but not actually WORKING yet. I have the design for each of my little internal "setpieces" but I'm not going to actually cut material until I know exactly how much space there is inside the hull in those locations, for example, or exactly how to shape them. I know how I plan to set up my internal reinforcements, but again, until I have parts in hand (and am able to "test fit" things) there's no reason to proceed, as the odds of my getting it right, now, are slim to none. I have the little glass sheets I plan to use for my windows (mainly microscope slide coverslips, except for the four topside panels which I think will be actual microscope slides themselves) but I'm not about to start cutting the glass to size until I can see the windows and figure out exactly how to put them into their "window sills." And so on and so on.

This kit is a lifelong dream for most of us... (gridlines notwithstanding!)... and it would be foolhardy to rush through the process. I doubt I'll have the kit built even a year after I receive it... not entirely anyway. And once it's done... I intend for it to be my "masterpiece"... no flaws or imperfections will be acceptable to me.

I want a museum-quality representation of the "real Starship Enterprise" of which we saw occasional newsreel footage back in the 1960s, here on Thermia. That's my plan for this kit... "What would the Thermians do?" :thumbsup:

(still, I think I'll really enjoy seeing the first "exact scale replica of the filming miniature" version someone makes, too!)


----------



## TrekFX

I am so with you on this. If someone asked me if all models on Earth were to be swept away, all but one, what is the one kit I would want to keep. It would be this one, even though there are "better" subjects I 'spose. A 1/32 F-22 done right would be nice, but I can hang more dreams on the E. 

I looked up that image from R2 of the lighting kit. Looks like your right, there's probably a board with LEDSs feeding through to the clear "bulbs." Remembering that the original bulbs were held up/spaced on nails, those little opaque pedestals could be swapped out for acrylic rod or thick FO to simulate nails (painted to block) to open up some more air space in those close confines behind the domes, freeing up room for "mirror bits" to do their thing. In the end (reality) it may not even make a significant difference, but I like contingency plans!


----------



## Ductapeforever

Folks are going to have a rough time not molesting this kit when recieved, but as for me , I will make a cursory inspection , investigating the areas of interest then its back in the box while I wait and see what magical items the aftermarket folks come up with. This may be my only kit for a long time as I will devote whatever time it takes to build her into a Museum Quality Masterpiece. 
I have set aside almost $2500.00 dollars for the kits and any aftermarket items but most will go into the climate controled and lighted Museum Display case and table I have picked out for her. Nothing is too good for this kit.


----------



## Paulbo

TrekFX said:


> ...with LEDSs feeding through to the clear "bulbs."...


D'oh! I forgot about the clear bulb pieces.


----------



## CLBrown

Kit said:


> Those ceramic Christmas trees are a cool reference; I knew exactly what you meant even before I clicked on the links. And that's very much what the Round 2 photos look like. But If I remember them correctly, those trees had a bit of a fiber optic effect. The light shined through only at certain angles, kind of like an old projection TV, where it doesn't look bright if you aren't positioned in front of it. Wouldn't it be better to just have the LEDs stick out through the plastic backing?


Well, there is a degree of directionality in them, absolutely... but that's why the shapes and texturing on the bits exists. The "twist bulb" shape I showed, for example, has a helical series of grooves going up to the tip. So, the visual effect is scattered, and it has an almost "flame-like" look. Spherical "bulbs" of this sort often have "globe-type" groove patterns on them to do the same thing. And some even have included metallic flecks to break up the light internally.

I actually think that this is going to turn out really nicely. The combination of internal mirroring, and "bulbs" of this sort (hopefully molded in color), either as-provided by R2 or, potentially, using the smallest of these "christmas tree" items... inside of the rotating fan-blade "inner dome" (I'm pretty sure that's how R2 has done it, similar but not identical to what's done on the little 1701)... and if the domes themselves are actually an amber color (not "clear" or even "clear but painted" but actually molded in clear amber!), I think that the effect will be absolutely PERFECT.

R2 can do this very easily, as long as they don't try to include the "clear colored" bits on a common sprue with other kit parts, but instead mold them in large batches and put individual parts from those batches into the box. (Say, mold a sprue of 36 clear amber "nacelle domes" in one shot, including two from that sprue per boxed kit). It's not that bad of a logistical "nightmare" despite what I know the production crew will argue (having heard similar arguments many times in my own career).

Same thing with each of the little molded "lamps." They should be in color. And, ideally, the LEDs on the PCBA would be in color as well.

Now... one additional "nice thing" about doing it this way is that, if the PCBA is spaced slightly back from the lamps, you get spill light from ALL light sources into each bulb. This means that overall lighting seen in the finished model will seem a lot less... "discrete?" You'll see a more natural, organic lighting effect, because individual switching effects will not be totally localized, but will be slightly distributed (ie, a small amount of light from "green light #1" will still make it over to "yellow post #3" and will show up in the bulb portion of that... though most of the light in that post will be from "yellow LED #3."

This might even be sufficient to eliminate the need to PWM the LEDs to get dimming (though I REALLY like the idea of PWMing them if that can practically be done in the space available!)


----------



## RSN

Contrary to some points of view, the Christmas tree lights that the effects team used when making the Enterprise in 1966, shined in every direction equally, with the exception of to the rear where the plug was. That is why the mirror pieces were put into the dome, to reflect multiple lights and blend the colors together like a rainbow. LEDs tend to be brighter from a dead on perspective and get duller as you look at them at an angle. This will make it harder to get that blended effect through the dome.

One thing that is hard to picture, until you see it, is the effect of film vs. video/naked eye on lights. On film, lights take on much more of a glow, especially when filters are used. The naked eye and video tape tend to see the light in a more stark nature, making it look far brighter than it did on film. The best example of this for me is seeing the Lost in Space Robot on video tape today. The flashing lights all look to flare much more than on the show, which were softened by the motion picture film.

Just my thoughts on trying to capture the "look" of the nacelle effect.


----------



## RossW

I agree with your assessment, RSN. I vividly remember our family's 50's/60's era Christmas lights and they were solidly coloured and shone in all directions. My experience with LEDs is the opposite (the LEDs I have are clear while unlit and while I chose the max viewing angle available, they're still not like incandescents). That's why I'm going to try sanding them and using Tamiya clear colours on them.


----------



## Opus Penguin

As an FYI, Jamie reported on the RC2 site that the next club update MAY come out at the end of the month. He has much to include in it but is focusing on final packaging and instructions for the kit so doesn't have time to throw an update together. Plus he will have a new baby very soon so will be off for about a week or so. So we may not hear much news until next month. Congrats to Jamie on the addition to his family, though.


----------



## Captain April

Just to clarify, we're talking these old fossils...



















So I wouldn't worry about any faceted shaping going on. Keep it plain.


----------



## CLBrown

Captain April said:


> Just to clarify, we're talking these old fossils...
> 
> So I wouldn't worry about any faceted shaping going on. Keep it plain.


The faceted shaping on those "ceramic christmas tree lights" is to avoid the aforementioned "fiber optic effect"... that is, to make the visual effect MORE like what you get from bulbs, not less. The addition of those elements to those molded bits redirects the light output from the "bulb" into many different directions. If you don't do that, the majority of the light performs exactly as suggested... it will shine forward, with very little shining to the sides. The faceting is a way of getting past that problem.


----------



## Captain April

Howzabout mirroring the backside of the fan blades?


----------



## Trek Ace

That's the way I'm doing mine. The way the original was done.


----------



## Hunch

Ductapeforever said:


> Folks are going to have a rough time not molesting this kit when recieved, but as for me , I will make a cursory inspection , investigating the areas of interest then its back in the box while I wait and see what magical items the aftermarket folks come up with. This may be my only kit for a long time as I will devote whatever time it takes to build her into a Museum Quality Masterpiece.
> I have set aside almost $2500.00 dollars for the kits and any aftermarket items but most will go into the climate controled and lighted Museum Display case and table I have picked out for her. Nothing is too good for this kit.


I'm with you on this one. While I dont have that kind of scratch saved up, I will be building all three versions and keping them in a giant display case I will fabricate myself. I may even mold the the saucer section after filling in any lines to make the other builds easier. Nothings too good for this kit(s).

EDIT: I also want to add that I hope R2 tightens us club members up with any and all hi-def pics they may have of the three incarnations of this bird to aid in creating exact masterpieces for those of us in for the long haul. They did mention in the beginning that they would give us access to high quality pics after all.


----------



## mach7

I'm thinking just bare metal foil the entire inside backplate with chrome. That will probably come close. If I want to get really detailed I'll just use some flat grey to paint over the non-mirror areas using the trek history photo as a guild.

I'm guessing that the back plate part in the kit won't be molded flat like the filming model, so that will make getting an exact replica of the filming model hard. Unless the back plate is rebuilt.

Last Christmas I found some LED Christmas light bracelets at the hardware store. The LED's have a classic bulb shape, Now I just have to remember where I put them.


----------



## TrekFX

It's fun to toss around different ideas. Maybe we'll be lucky and the simplest solution will end up nailing the "look."

Prof. TrekFX's philosophy-for-the-day (Cue the Bullwinkle's Corner theme, please...)

I've been working on a super-secret project (not really) and what I'm finding to be an absolute Truth in "selling" a part or effect is the interaction of myriad SUBTLE factors. Of course, you need to get the foundation right and solid. But little, stupid little things can make or break it.

I was reworking a part. A small part. By all photos, official drawings et al it was correct in plan and profile. But holding it and looking at it, it was just wrong. What was it?

It was what plans and photos don't always yield: countour, shape and interaction of shapes/angles. Many (most) on the part were just wrong. They beauty of it (once you can call all the reshaping work "fun!") was often the correction of one or two issues cascaded into instant correction of one or two more. THAT was magic!

So back to the TOS nacelle, There's a gross effect (a fan with 10 flashing lights behind it.) What do we really see when we look at it? Do we see 10 lights? Do we see bits of mirror? Do we see nails and wire? Do we need a pixel-perfect exact replica of every little detail to sell the effect? Maybe just addig a pinch of large-flake silver glitter will be that magic "aha!" Maybe we need to add scale nails!


----------



## CLBrown

TrekFX said:


> It's fun to toss around different ideas. Maybe we'll be lucky and the simplest solution will end up nailing the "look."
> 
> Prof. TrekFX's philosophy-for-the-day (Cue the Bullwinkle's Corner theme, please...)
> 
> I've been working on a super-secret project (not really) and what I'm finding to be an absolute Truth in "selling" a part or effect is the interaction of myriad SUBTLE factors. Of course, you need to get the foundation right and solid. But little, stupid little things can make or break it.
> 
> I was reworking a part. A small part. By all photos, official drawings et al it was correct in plan and profile. But holding it and looking at it, it was just wrong. What was it?
> 
> It was what plans and photos don't always yield: countour, shape and interaction of shapes/angles. Many (most) on the part were just wrong. They beauty of it (once you can call all the reshaping work "fun!") was often the correction of one or two issues cascaded into instant correction of one or two more. THAT was magic!
> 
> So back to the TOS nacelle, There's a gross effect (a fan with 10 flashing lights behind it.) What do we really see when we look at it? Do we see 10 lights? Do we see bits of mirror? Do we see nails and wire? Do we need a pixel-perfect exact replica of every little detail to sell the effect? Maybe just addig a pinch of large-flake silver glitter will be that magic "aha!" Maybe we need to add scale nails!


I suspect, honestly, that the majority of us will alter the lighting kit to one degree or another. And thus, I doubt that any two "builds" will look quite the same.

I really like the idea of using a bits of a CD for some of the mirror elements. In particular, I think having that as the "backplane" for the dome area might work very nicely, especially when viewed from head-on. It will both reflect and scatter.

I think that the big conical "mounts" shown in the photos for the lamps in the "as shipped" kit part are too big, but I MIGHT choose to use the "ceramic christmas tree" bits that R2 provides, depending on how they work... likely, though, I'll put the long bits going up to the "bulbs" inside of metal tubing, rather than using the plastic part as-provided.

If the "bulb" bits aren't very effective, I think I will try using the smallest of those "ceramic christmas tree" items I found earlier (see my post a couple of pages back) in lieu of them. They will be slightly larger than the "original effect" bulbs, but I think that they'll give a really slick effect, and may be more convincing (to my eye) due to how they share, and break up, the lighting inside of there.

I will definitely be using a bunch of "sliced up thin mirror material" throughout there. I'm going to GENERALLY refer to the archival image, but I think I'll try to make it a bit more radially-symmetrical, and will have the two nacelles be mirror-images of each other in terms of how the mirroring is laid out. Again, if the R2-provided "bulbs" are very effective, I'll replicate the original-model pattern reasonably closely, but if not, and if I'm using some other "bulb" elements, this may deviate a bit more.

I keep going back and forth here... a "perfect representation of the model" may not work well in-scale. Or it may work perfectly. Only experimentation will really tell, won't it?

But in any case, the odds of any of our kits being confused for someone else's kit are... slim, I think.

MY kit will have absolutely no physical gridlines, but will have very, very fine pencil lines (drawn with a super-hard, "9H", drafting lead using a lead-pointer). I envision the grid as being applied tape, rather than big grooves in the hull... something akin to the material you may have on your car's rear window for the defroster. So that's what I'm shooting to replicate.

My windows will not look like the on-screen windows... because I'll have "real" setpieces behind every single one. (My SCANNERS, on the other hand, will probably use the kit bits... and FYI, as far as I'm concerned, the little round "windows" are not windows at all, but are scanners and so forth.)

My impulse deck will actually have a fine grill, with "exhaust cones" inside of those grills (made of mirror material... or maybe CD material?) and flickering LED effect inside (trying to figure out the best way to get the "flicker"... I'm leaning towards a white and a blue LED in there... with the white being brighter and being mounted forward of (and thus "behind") the blue one... and the blue flickering via a simple digital circuit (I can match both exhausts using the same sequence, so this shouldn't be too costly to make happen.) I plan to make the impulse deck "switchable" of course.

My landing bay (as far as I'm concerned, the "hangar" is the deck below there, where the shuttles are stored!) may use bits of the kit structure, but the forward wall will almost certainly be altered. I suspect that someone will produce photoetch "inspection corridor" and "control room" elements (hint-hint) and I'll likely use those in lieu of the molded kit areas. The plan is to be able to look in through the "exterior" windows at those gallery locations and see all the way through into the bay, and even (in theory) out the other side of the ship!

We'll need to find some appropriate "1:350-ish" scale figures which can be painted up to look like TOS starfleet crewmen and women. The men will likely be easier to find that the women... how many beehive-headed, miniskirt-wearing 1:350 figures are out there today???

The shuttle will likely be replaced by a third-party item... it's nice, for a molded part, but a really good shuttle will require photoetch and resin, I think, at that scale.

I wonder if there's any way to practically make the dish "aimable," since that's clearly the original "design intent."

I've given up on having actual retractable panels on the ship at this scale... but do plan to have my retractable panels for phasers, torpedos, etc, be "physically present." The technique won't be too complicated... the last layer (or two?) of base hull color will be masked in those locations, and I'll apply a fine "ink wash" to fill in the little edges of those masked areas after removing the masking, so there will be a slight, but visible "outline" to each very slightly recessed "panel."

EDIT: For anyone who's curious what I mean by "retractable panels," here's my approach. There are actually six phaser cannon, kept in the crawlspace area around the periphery of Deck 11 (which is really just a slightly larger crawlspace for access to the phaser emitters and lower sensor array). The phaser capacitors and phaser control room are found on Deck 10, just above. Also on Deck 10 are the two forward facing torpedo tubes, whose openings are behind slide-back panels near the centerline (with the same cross-sectional profile as the TWOK torpedo casing, by the way!).

I'm going to create those features, and several other similar features, through the "masked paint and light wash" effect I mentioned before.



The glass windows will not go in until the entire ship is painted and complete. (The "from outside" approach is both to allow them to go on without needing to mask, and also to permit me to replace them more easily if one breaks at some point in the future.) It's important to me that there be optical-quality glass in every "window" so the ship's interior can be seen through them. And yes, I have figured out exactly what rooms (or corridors, in the case of a few locations on the secondary hull) will be behind each window. I've got it all laid out, but will need to "fit" things together a bit more carefully once I've got the model in-hand.

My PAINT JOB is where I'm still uncertain... do I want to make the paint job look just like the original miniature, or do I want it to look more like "what's on my TV screen." I guarantee it won't look like the Smithsonian travesty... but it may be even more subtle than the original TV filming miniature. "What would the Thermians do," remember... if details were not visible on-screen, or were very subtle (even if quite easily visible on the model), they need to be "on-screen subtle" on the model I'm making, I think.

But... the nacelle domes... that's the easiest thing to brainstorm on right now. Because we're just now starting to address it. :thumbsup:

**************

EDIT:

Here are the two best options I've found for 1:350 crew. The figures aren't carrying WWII munitions, or wearing Japanese Navy uniforms, or so forth... and are "generic" enough to work.

The first one is Tamiya's 1:350 set. There are 144 figures in here, and each is probably quite serviceable as a TOS crewman. No crew-women, however... but maybe you can tweak them into women somehow???

http://www.modelhobbies.co.uk/shop/tamiya-1350-ship-crew-figures-pieces-12622-p-13998.html
or
http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/tam/tam12622.htm

The second is not modeled, but is color photo-etch. These would require some repainting to make into Trek figures, but they're actually not bad and the total repainting wouldn't be too dramatic. For "behind windows" use, I think these might make more sense!

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/details/edu/detail_edu_17501.shtml


----------



## TrekFX

I have a set of 1:350 Preiser figures, "Merchant Seamen" I think it's called. They come pre-painted (like... merchant seamen, mostly blue if I recall but just showing them a bottle of red paint could fix that, they're so tiny!)

These things are utterly exquisite and exquisitely expensive, but for a scene-seller they're right up there. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157630547415714/

Sorry 'bout the sucky photography!


----------



## Warped9

Impulse engines. In every cgi render I've seen, no matter what the colour (and especially red), it always looked wrong to me. I could see wanting more physical detail on/in those impulse exhaust ports, but the lighting always looked wrong. Of course I could envision a more subtle yellow light effect from within, but otherwise I'll leave them dark.


----------



## CLBrown

I'm really, really leaning towards those Eduard figures... for those which are going to be behind windows.

However, I think I'm also going to need some of the 3D figures, mainly for my four primary hull "rec deck" areas, for the bridge, and MAYBE for the landing bay.

Anyone ever found any seated 1:350 figures? While it's possible to convert these little guys into seated positions, it seems... challenging. (My best bet would be to cut 'em off at the waist and make seated legs from scratch... at least as far as I can envision right now.)

Well, there is THIS one...

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/misc/fujimi/350-fjm-figs2/fig-review.html

They seem to have some seated figures in the mix... but the detail is pretty soft.


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> Impulse engines. In every cgi render I've seen, no matter what the colour (and especially red), it always looked wrong to me. I could see wanting more physical detail on/in those impulse exhaust ports, but the lighting always looked wrong. Of course I could envision a more subtle yellow light effect from within, but otherwise I'll leave them dark.


Well, I don't want them "red," I want mine to be "white-hot" when on. I've always found the primary-color effects to be... disappointingly cartoonish.

For me, I see the impulse engines as basically being a VASIMR type engine... so this is the effect I'm going for:






(FYI, the VASIMR is a REAL propulsion system, albeit still in the "experimental" stages... read more here or here. Of course, not everyone believes this will work, and though I personally find Zubrin to be a bit of a "blowhard" sometimes, he's still well-respected in the community, and he has no faith in the idea... see here.)


----------



## Prologic9

They should be blue to compliment the Bussards. The correct answer is blue.  ;


----------



## Warped9

Prologic9 said:


> They should be blue to compliment the Bussards. The correct answer is blue.  ;


Looks nice, and is certainly much better than red. But t still looks odd to me. I might just leave mine dark.


----------



## Prologic9

Warped9 said:


> Looks nice, and is certainly much better than red. But t still looks odd to me. I might just leave mine dark.


A lot of times I'll do a render where having them lit doesn't feel right, and find leaving them transparent but unlit is a good way to add a little complexity/realism. For the model you could even put something inside, a sort of vaguely seen emitter mechanism. 

Just an idea.


----------



## ClubTepes

Prologic9 said:


> They should be blue to compliment the Bussards. The correct answer is blue.  ;


I really like your render of the E. Care to expound on some of your textures and stuff?


----------



## Warped9

Prologic9 said:


> A lot of times I'll do a render where having them lit doesn't feel right, and find leaving them transparent but unlit is a good way to add a little complexity/realism. For the model you could even put something inside, a sort of vaguely seen emitter mechanism.
> 
> Just an idea.


That more interesting to me.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Cult TV man's site has the 1/350 assessories for the TOS 'E' available for pre-order from Round 2. I think most of you will be quite shocked at the additional costs.

....and you thought the kit itself was expensive! Be afraid...........be very afraid.


----------



## Warped9

Ductapeforever said:


> Cult TV man's site has the 1/350 assessories for the TOS 'E' available for pre-order from Round 2. I think most of you will be quite shocked at the additional costs.
> 
> ....and you thought the kit itself was expensive.


Whoa! The alternate parts kit is very fair, but that lighting kit with added decals is significantly more than the model kit itself and way out of line.

That can't be right.


----------



## Ductapeforever

The posted prices are the manufacturers retail suggested prices. Cult's discounts are fine but won't make a significant difference to most modelers.
Round 2 is raping you on the add on's.

I am afraid that the Premiere kits will be significantly higher than the expected $125 to $150 prices based on what is being asked for the assessories. I'm laying odds at $189.00 per kit. At these prices Round 2 will take a bath on these kits, and I wouldn't count on a second run either. I predict their sales to tank, and they'll loose their shirts.


----------



## Captain April

I've been hearing that it's starting to become cheaper again to manufacture stuff like this domestically, if only because you don't have to deal with the clueless middle men in China (eliminating language, cultural, and distance barriers can be quite a time and money saver), so maybe if they moved the operation back home...


----------



## Ductapeforever

I feel sorry for you guys who were expecting to pay arond $100 to $125 bucks on the kits. Hope you saved money for the last year and a half like I did. I commited to two kits, at these prices I'll buy ONE only and cancel the other one. I'll wait for aftermarket stuff and may not light the damn thing.
Round 2 should be ashamed.


----------



## Prologic9

Ductapeforever said:


> I feel sorry for you guys who were expecting to pay arond $100 to $125 bucks on the kits. Hope you saved money for the last year and a half like I did. I commited to two kits, at these prices I'll buy ONE only and cancel the other one. I'll wait for aftermarket stuff and may not light the damn thing.
> Round 2 should be ashamed.


If you break it down it looks like the lighting kit will be between $80-100. The photoetch and decals would be $50-$60 each. How are those prices unfair?

A regular kit is $120. The extra parts set is $30. These are both included in the "1701 Club" versions that shockingly cost $150. Can you believe these are exactly the prices they quoted last year?

Are you mad it's not all free?


----------



## liskorea317

Prologic9 said:


> They should be blue to compliment the Bussards. The correct answer is blue.  ;


Or maybe green?


----------



## liskorea317

Ductapeforever said:


> I feel sorry for you guys who were expecting to pay arond $100 to $125 bucks on the kits. Hope you saved money for the last year and a half like I did. I commited to two kits, at these prices I'll buy ONE only and cancel the other one. I'll wait for aftermarket stuff and may not light the damn thing.
> Round 2 should be ashamed.


I socked some cash away for the kit and all the extras, and I'll wait a bit to see what comes out of people like Paragrafix and TSDS before I start any kind of build. I actually can't wait for it because it will join my three 18 inch kits and three 1000 scale PL kits as the center piece on my desk shelf.
I also invested in an air cleaner-a big needed item in Seoul because the air is foul-to keep the dust at a minimum. Now if I can just get my office all organized life would be great!


----------



## ffejG

If you look around on Cult's Trek subjects catalog pages you will see the individual package breakdowns. His price on the additional decals will be $26, the pilot ships parts package will be $26, the photo-etch will be $36 and the light kit will be, gulp, $140. Although disappointing, I am not surprised the light kit is expensive. I was hoping it would be under $100 but considering everything that is in it and that it has a degree of pre-assembly provided I am not surprised they couldn't provide it cheaper. All the other kits are well within the range we have come to expect for such add-ons. I certainly wouldn't characterize what is being done here as raping us. 

I was hoping to buy a second kit to build an un-lit second pilot Enterprise but I may have to spend that money on the light kit instead. I will be very interested to see if the aftermarket can bring in a comparably featured light kit that may require much more assembly but for a much lower cost.


----------



## falcondesigns

You guys are too funny........ justifying something that's too expensive is illogical.........


----------



## Warped9

I'm committed to a Premiere kit that will already have the alterrnate pilot parts so I've no problem with that. The additional decals, other than the weathering decals what else could it have that I really need? The alternate pilot decals should already be in the Premiere kit along with the alternate parts.

The lighting kit raises eyebrows and candidly at this point I'm skeptical about the price Cultvman is presently quoting.


----------



## ffejG

No illogical justification going on here and no one is making any of us buy anything either. From my long experience building models for pleasure I don't see anything out of line with the rest of what is offered by other companies out there. Have you looked at the prices on armor and aircraft after market accessories? Have you priced any lighting kits for other models from the regular suppliers? This is what it has cost for quite some time. I don't like it either and it doesn't mean I will be spending $140 on a light kit. It's just the way it is. 

That's why I look forward to what others might do. Also, Warped9 has a very good point. We haven't heard anything from Round 2 on this yet. Maybe there will be an adjustment.


----------



## falcondesigns

Keep telling yourself that and you might start to believe it,and Cult's prices are right on the money from R2's mouth.


----------



## fire91bird

falcondesigns said:


> You guys are too funny........ justifying something that's too expensive is illogical.........


Too expensive based on what? The prices seem in line with other aftermarket items.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Trekmodeler's lighting kit for the refit was about $280. RC2's cost doesn't seem unreasonable to me especially if it is plug-and-play like Trekmodeler's was. It is expensive for the average modeler, and hopefully the different parts of this will be available separately to help in that matter, but I don't understand what everyone was expecting. When it was quoted the light kit would be $50 I thought that sounded way too low compared to what I have seen on the internet for other lighting kits. So for a combo, it may not be a deal, but at an expected cost.


----------



## Trek Ace

All tallied, the total price for the kit and required accessories to build a fully-featured series production version is still only about 1/3 the cost of the Master Replicas piece, with accurate color temperature of the lights and the ability to detail and finish it to your own personal taste without compromise.

I would say that this is quite a bargain.


----------



## jaws62666

The pricing might seem a bit hight for the acessories , but how long have we all waited for this grail kit. i will definately be buying one complt set , and taking my time to do it right. thanks round 2 for finally making this dream a reality


----------



## Warped9

You know, looked at that way puts it a different light. The MR TOS _E_ started at a grand and went north from there. And that was for a somewhat flawed replica. The R2 _E_ be in the $400-$500 range with all parts and supplies and for a more exact replica made to your tastes.


----------



## RSN

As much as I am waiting for this kit, if Round 2 changes the price too much from the estimate they gave when I ordered one from them, then I will be passing on the kit altogether. I gave my word I would purchase one on good faith and if they end up underestimating the cost and raise the price too high, I will have no problem considering the agreement null and void.

For me, there is only one Holy Grail, anything else is just an object. I will not pay a reidiculous amount of money for anything, no matter how much I think I "need" it. At the end of the day, it is just plastic.


----------



## Hunch

I'm guessing their $150 estimate for the "club" kit will be about right. I'll cough up the bread for the lighting kit cause I'll NEED the motors, plus another $3.00 for the bondo to fill the lines = one happy customer!
Anyone thinking the lighting kit would come in under a bill is not aware of what lighting kits go for.
PLUS, down the road I'll be grabbing two more kits to make all the versions I'll NEED. 
Its a good time to be a modeler.


----------



## John P

R2 should be ashamed? _Ashamed_?!?!? Really!??? :freak:


----------



## Prologic9

ffejG said:


> If you look around on Cult's Trek subjects catalog pages you will see the individual package breakdowns. His price on the additional decals will be $26, the pilot ships parts package will be $26, the photo-etch will be $36 and the light kit will be, gulp, $140. Although disappointing, I am not surprised the light kit is expensive. I was hoping it would be under $100 but considering everything that is in it and that it has a degree of pre-assembly provided I am not surprised they couldn't provide it cheaper. All the other kits are well within the range we have come to expect for such add-ons. I certainly wouldn't characterize what is being done here as raping us.
> 
> I was hoping to buy a second kit to build an un-lit second pilot Enterprise but I may have to spend that money on the light kit instead. I will be very interested to see if the aftermarket can bring in a comparably featured light kit that may require much more assembly but for a much lower cost.


I see the individual listings now. Actually if you add up the sale prices it still comes out to $220 so that bundle is a pretty good deal. Unfortunately no one needs "weathering decals."

The lighting kit by itself is too expensive, and it won't be hard to find better options for that kind of money. Although the final assessment will depend on what it includes. I've been expecting a minimal kit that gets the job done, if they're really going all out with it that could be a very nice price.


----------



## Trek Ace

A good friend of mine stated humorously years ago that "only chumps pay retail".

Applying that philosophy, there are always bargains to be had. A little (re)searching can often save you a LOT of money. These kits and accessories are no exception.

Shop around. You'll be surprised at the discounts you can find. I've saved tons of money on models, tools, accessories and Blu-ray discs of favorite movies and TV shows just by being a persistent bargain hunter.


----------



## Warped9

Trek Ace said:


> A good friend of mine stated humorously years ago that "only chumps pay retail".
> 
> Applying that philosophy, there are always bargains to be had. A little (re)searching can often save you a LOT of money. These kits and accessories are no exception.
> 
> Shop around. You'll be surprised at the discounts you can find. I've saved tons of money on models, tools, accessories and Blu-ray discs of favorite movies and TV shows just by being a persistent bargain hunter.


True.

Of course a lot depends on what exactly is in this lighting kit. If it's all the required parts already largely preassembled and then basically plug-and-play (so to speak) then that's an entirely different thing than having to acquire and assemble and adapt everything from scratch. In a very real sense they could be saving you a crapload of labour.

A lot will depend on each individual's perception and sense of value.


----------



## jheilman

And everyone's comfort level in assembling their own lighting.


----------



## CLBrown

Well, I'm a bit shocked and surprised (and not sure I entirely BUY) the price for the bits listed by CultTVMan. You guys may accept it without question... but I'm a bit dubious.

A "suggested retail price" for the lighting kit of $170? That's just outrageous, no matter WHAT's in it... unless there's real matter and antimatter being combined, I suppose. And while I understand that some folks believe CultTVMan may have received his pricing info from R2... I find that difficult to believe, considering that, at last word, the lighting kit design wasn't even totally finished. So I'll remain skeptical until I see otherwise.

Then again... I remained skeptical that JJ Abrams was missing the mark so badly on ST'09 at first, too. I accepted it eventually, but I didn't WANT to... so this might be the same thing.

I will need to see a lot more value in that lighting kit in order to justify that level of price (well above the cost of the kit itself).

Again, what are we REALLY talking about? Most of the "kit" features are simple to make and to implement. The main issue, frankly, which most of us might have to struggle with would be related to the nacelle domes. Everything else, I can implement myself in a pretty short period of time with very little associated cost (ie, maybe 20% of the cost of this lighting kit for EVERYTHING except for the nacelle domes). Very little labor, very little part cost.

The domes themselves aren't THAT complicated... unless, of course, R2 is using "PWM dimming" as our friend here in this forum has suggested. If they're doing that... then I can see how the cost might potentially be that high (including a reasonable markup). If the lamps are merely FLASHING ON AND OFF, there is no possible way to justify that price point for this kit.

We are, after all, talking about a pair of basic PCBAs with surface-mount lamps, behind the domes. That part, I could get fabbed myself for less than $5 a pop, including all lamps, resistors, etc. Assuming a basic "on-off" flasher circuit, well, we'd be talking about maybe $25 per board if they're very-low-volume, and the price drops as volume of production increases.

If they go with a full PWM solution, with ten channels per nacelle... we're talking about something close to $50 per controller board. That's the ONLY way that they could possibly justify this cost. ("PWM" is how you make LEDs seem to "dim" across a range of light output without radically over or under driving them (which reduces their lifespan dramatically), in this context.)

In other words, as I said before... $50 is a real bargain, $75 will lose some sales but will still sell well, $100 will lose a LOT of sales, and will only be bought by the truly hardcore. $170? That's just crazy talk, unless this is the most incredibly perfect "light kit" ever produced.

The real question, then, is... how will we know? Someone's gonna have to buy one, build it up, and give a full review of the thing, including high-frame-rate, high-def videos.

I'm afraid R2 has priced that kit way out of the market. I won't pay anything like that unless I know that it's perfect in every possible way.


----------



## fire91bird

Have you guys actually priced the lighting kits out there? Yes, $170 is expensive, but they're ALL expensive. Don't forget this one includes motorized fans along with the blinky lights. I, too, was hoping it wouldn't be a premium price, but it's in line with other aftermarket kits. By the way I saw the one at Wonderfest and it was quite impressive.


----------



## RSN

I know Steve and respect him as a businessman. If Culttvman has it listed, I would be confident that the price came from Round 2. Time will tell.


----------



## CLBrown

fire91bird said:


> Have you guys actually priced the lighting kits out there? Yes, $170 is expensive, but they're ALL expensive. Don't forget this one includes motorized fans along with the blinky lights. I, too, was hoping it wouldn't be a premium price, but it's in line with other aftermarket kits. By the way I saw the one at Wonderfest and it was quite impressive.


Agreed about the fan element of what was at Wonderfest, but the lighting effect wasn't working there... it was just "on/off" repeatedly. So we really still have no idea what the LIGHTING part of that will look like. But yeah, the "fan" part of it was really nice... and I can't imagine doing better with that part on my own.


----------



## Trek Ace

I think that CultTVMan's service is second to none. But, he is not always the least expensive choice out there. Again, shop around.


----------



## Captain April

I can definitely do without the weathering decals, but I'm gonna need a lighting kit, if only because I sprung for a lighting kit for my NX-01, currently slumbering in the garage awaiting repair and refit.


----------



## scotthm

Ductapeforever said:


> I feel sorry for you guys who were expecting to pay arond $100 to $125 bucks on the kits. Hope you saved money for the last year and a half like I did.


I don't understand the relationship between wanting the model to cost < $150 and needing to save money for a year.

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


----------



## FlyAndFight

For me, a lighting kit is mandatory. There's just no way I'll have this ship displayed as if dead in the water (space), especially at 1/350 scale. It just begs to be lit up, as does the Refit.

With that being said, the lighting required for this one is no where near as complicated or numerous as what is found on the Refit Enterprise. The only really complicated part would be the spinning nacelle domes. The rest is simply interior/window lighting, possible impulse engines and a set of position lights.

Edit: Excellent discussion, by the way.


----------



## Ductapeforever

scotthm said:


> I don't understand the relationship between wanting the model to cost < $150 and needing to save money for a year.
> 
> ---------------


The point I was trying to make has no real relation other than I began setting money aside a year and a half ago and have sufficent funds to purchase said assessories. I planned ahead. Folks on a fixed income who didn't expect the higher prices would get an unpleasent surprise.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Just saw the light kit will sell by itself for $140 and the photo etch for $36 at CultTVman by themselves. Not bad if you ask me. I don't need the decals so will order the others separately.


----------



## Gregatron

I noticed that the promo photo of the pilot part pack features a "Cage" bridge without a red stripe around the base.

Some time ago, my research had indicated that the first pilot bridge had a red stripe, which was subseuently eliminated along with the other bridge markings.


Hey, Gary--if you're listening, did your research confirm or deny the existence of that stripe? Or is it just missing from the advert photo?


----------



## Gary K

Gregatron said:


> Hey, Gary--if you're listening, did your research confirm or deny the existence of that stripe? Or is it just missing from the advert photo?


The stripe was there. It (and a few last-minute color revelations) simply didn't make it into the graphics.

Gary


----------



## Gregatron

Cool! Thanks!


----------



## Gary K

Gregatron said:


> Cool! Thanks!


To clarify a bit: the stripe on the 1st Pilot bridge was red, while it appears to have been repainted gray for the 2nd Pilot. As far as I can determine the "stripe" was simply the Plexiglas base that they glued the lathed wooden bridge onto. During the conversion into the Production version they removed the bottom half of the bridge and glued the upper half to the Plexiglas base, except this time they trimmed the base and blended it into the bridge better so it wasn't noticable.

Gary


----------



## sg-99

Having a little fun with the sticker shock:thumbsup:


----------



## SFCOM1

Gary K said:


> To clarify a bit: the stripe on the 1st Pilot bridge was red, while it appears to have been repainted gray for the 2nd Pilot. As far as I can determine the "stripe" was simply the Plexiglas base that they glued the lathed wooden bridge onto. During the conversion into the Production version they removed the bottom half of the bridge and glued the upper half to the Plexiglas base, except this time they trimmed the base and blended it into the bridge better so it wasn't noticable.
> 
> Gary


Thanks Gary, I was wondering about that too, as I have seen that on several sites that had detailed pics of _Enterprise_ as they were filming the model for the pilot episodes.


----------



## ibbilly

Ductapeforever said:


> The posted prices are the manufacturers retail suggested prices. Cult's discounts are fine but won't make a significant difference to most modelers.
> Round 2 is raping you on the add on's.
> 
> I am afraid that the Premiere kits will be significantly higher than the expected $125 to $150 prices based on what is being asked for the assessories. I'm laying odds at $189.00 per kit. At these prices Round 2 will take a bath on these kits, and I wouldn't count on a second run either. I predict their sales to tank, and they'll loose their shirts.


Well, they already sent out the shirts !!!!


----------



## Opus Penguin

Gary K said:


> To clarify a bit: the stripe on the 1st Pilot bridge was red, while it appears to have been repainted gray for the 2nd Pilot. As far as I can determine the "stripe" was simply the Plexiglas base that they glued the lathed wooden bridge onto. During the conversion into the Production version they removed the bottom half of the bridge and glued the upper half to the Plexiglas base, except this time they trimmed the base and blended it into the bridge better so it wasn't noticable.
> 
> Gary


Sorry for my ignorance, but what stripe? Can someone post a pic?


----------



## CLBrown

Opus Penguin said:


> Sorry for my ignorance, but what stripe? Can someone post a pic?


I don't recall ever seeing that either... though, admittedly, my focus has always been on the production-type ship, with the pilot versions treated (by me) as items of relatively minor interest.

I was never aware that the bridge was on top of a slab of plex, anyway... I wonder if that was mainly to permit it to be easily removed (for bulb replacement?) or if that was for some other reason?

I always just sort of assumed that the bridge was permanently affixed, and that to swap bulbs they'd take the dome out. But... hmmm... if the light was behind the plex, you'd have two layers of diffusion, so you'd never see a "point light" effect ike you would if the light source was inside the bridge proper. So... that seems like a possible justification.

In my own case, my bridge will look only somewhat like the filming miniature... I intend to have the bridge "setpiece" be the sole source of lighting there, so it won't look quite like what we see on-screen under most conditions. I'm also treating the "lighted rectangles" the same way... as skylight windows over recreation decks (the ship's auditorium/theater, the ship's gymnasium, a rec-deck similar to what we see in TMP, and one other which I'm still debating on the exact purpose of... possibly a lap-swimming pool?). NOT what we see on-screen... but I'm in the "What would the Thermians do?" mode where the TOS ship is concerned. 

But if you really want the model to look like the production "on-screen" version... this approach (using a diffuser pane at the base of the bridge, under the dome) might give the best approach!


----------



## Gregatron

Opus Penguin said:


> Sorry for my ignorance, but what stripe? Can someone post a pic?













It still looks to me like a pinstripe that's the same color and width as the two vertical stripes on the front of the dome. And notice the teensy gap between the stripe and the very bottom of the dome, where it meets the B/C deck structure.


----------



## Captain April

Remember, the pilot version wasn't lit, so access to lights is probably not the reason for the setup.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Gregatron said:


> It still looks to me like a pinstripe that's the same color and width as the two vertical stripes on the front of the dome. And notice the teensy gap between the stripe and the very bottom of the dome, where it meets the B/C deck structure.


Thanks for this clarification. I don't plan to build this version but it is very interesting to notice the details that others point out.

On a side note regarding the placement of the bridge, did anyone check out this forum? Talk about adding more fuel to the fire on how it should be positioned. Per this forum, the command center was off center from the viewscreen AND turbolift in the pilots. Talk about a weird set.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=119751&page=29


----------



## Hunch

In the pic above the turbolift kinda goes...nowhere!


----------



## charonjr

falcondesigns said:


> You guys are too funny........ justifying something that's too expensive is illogical.........


Live long and Profit.:tongue:


----------



## Warped9

I became aware of that red line around the base of the bridge dome not too long ago. It's yet another of those interesting details we've learned about with better resolution pictures and detailed studies like Gary Kerr's.


----------



## Trek Ace

That line is very subtle.

I hope we won't start seeing these big, huge, broad red lines around the base of pilot bridges when the kit comes out, like what often happens with the ring behind the main sensor dish housing being painted bright red or solid copper for what was just subtle weathering on the studio model.


----------



## CLBrown

Hunch said:


> In the pic above the turbolift kinda goes...nowhere!


That imagery is very, very clear... which leads me to believe that this is from the "remastered" material, not the original. I don't believe that the original material, which as far as I know exists solely as NTSC standard-definition video, would permit that level of detail to be seen, would it?

I tend to disregard the "new shots" from the "remastered" episodes as a primary reference. Sure, they're pretty, but they're not necessarily accurate.

Then again, that COULD be a first-generation film reel, as that's how the shows were originally sent to the network, right? Though, I believe, the syndication distribution, throughout the 70s, was done on tape, rather than on film, wasn't it? (I'm asking, not stating... someone here might know better than I do.)

In any case, we know that the "remastered" shot DID show the bridge in "screen-fwd" orientation, but the orientation of the original film shot was much less evident... as the planes of the primary hull and the bridge set never even matched up through the entire traveling shot. (I think they were off by as much as 15 degrees at one point!)

This is an inevitable artifact of the pre-computer days... they shot the model, they shot the set, and they manually "matched" the bits... but the match wasn't very accurate. In the days of motion-control cameras, you could do this better, and with computer move-matching, you can get it perfect... but in the mid-1960s, the shot was inevitably flawed, and that's OK... because the shot wasn't intended to be technically perfect, it was intended to serve a STORYTELLING purpose... to set up, in the audience's mind, that the bridge set was actually inside of the miniature they were seeing on-screen... that it was all part of a unified world. It worked very well for that purpose.

But the simple fact is... the bridge, as shot, must be offset. The "nub" at the back of the bridge dome was intended to be the lift tube, and is clearly indicated as such by Matt Jefferies.

Yes, he originally intended for the bridge to be symmetrical around the ship's centerline, with the display facing forward, and yes, the bridge set was altered during filming (as I recall, at the director's request) in order to make the bridge set more effective to photograph.

But it's easy to move a big computer-monitor/TV-screen. It's a lot harder to move an elevator shaft.

As far as I'm concerned, the "remastered" shots merely missed an opportunity to fix this misconception among so many fans... and perpetuated an impossible belief.

I remember, early on, when someone (I think it may have been here?) suggested that the ship kit should come with a bridge module interior complete with lift car... and that this would demonstrate, once and for all, that the lift car had to be in the aft position. And yes, if you wanted to put it "screen-fwd" you'd have to cut off the car in order to do so (meaning that the lift cars are, evidently, made on Gallifrey?)

In my ENLARGED Enterprise... which is 1067', not 947'... I got the bridge to fit into the dome nearly perfectly, got 11 decks into the primary hull (per the writer's guide... which is somewhat unreliable, of course, since I know I couldn't get a fleet of 747s into the hangar facility!), and I got the on-screen sets to fit into the ship, and to line up properly with the windows all throughout the ship (with only very small tweaks to window positions, less than a quarter meter at most). But this could ONLY work with the lift tube being at the rear, as is seen in the model.



















If you don't do that, the only other option is to put the bridge on deck 2, rather than in the "bridge dome." But the intention was clearly, from that very first shot, to show that the bridge was in that dome.

(I'm ignoring the worse problems that came up in the last two TOS_era Trek films when the lift tubes would have had the same "TARDIS-effect" requirements... not to mention that the bridge in those films would never have fit into the model's bridge dome in the first place, unless the ship were MASSIVELY larger than specified!)


----------



## Warped9

It's an old debate, but I don't have a problem with an offset bridge. With advanced Trekkian inertial systems you'd never sense any difference from the inside even while knowing the bridge's actual offset orientation.

From an "in universe" perspective a turbolift offset from the bridge's centerline allows the Captain to be more easily aware of who is stepping onto his or her command deck just by glancing a bit over their left shoulder. They needn't have to turn themselves all the way around.

Just a thought.


----------



## Gregatron

CLBrown said:


> That imagery is very, very clear... which leads me to believe that this is from the "remastered" material, not the original. I don't believe that the original material, which as far as I know exists solely as NTSC standard-definition video, would permit that level of detail to be seen, would it?


It's a screencap from the pre-Remastered, standard-definition DVD.


Also, the CG Remastered shot features a totally CG _Enterprise_ and bridge interior that transitioned into the live-action footage.

The remastered version of the original effects footage (in other words, the new HD transfer of the original effects, without CG tinkering, as seen thanks to seamless branching on the Blu-Rays) retains the exact same composite as has always been seen.


----------



## RSN

It is a lot of discussion, but the bridge as seen in the photo from "The Cage" above, (The original and not remastered as far as I can tell), is neither off center to line the turbolift up with the miniature exterior or centered and facing forward. Even with the turbolift being off-set in the shot, the helm and captain's chair are far from facing forward. It is an imaginary vehicle, make it how you want, there is no right or wrong since the seies itsself never showed us anything definitively one way or another. :thumbsup:


----------



## CLBrown

RSN said:


> It is a lot of discussion, but the bridge as seen in the photo from "The Cage" above, (The original and not remastered as far as I can tell), is neither off center to line the turbolift up with the miniature exterior or centered and facing forward. Even with the turbolift being off-set in the shot, the helm and captain's chair are far from facing forward. It is an imaginary vehicle, make it how you want, there is no right or wrong since the seies itsself never showed us anything definitively one way or another. :thumbsup:


But, but, but... the REAL ENTERPRISE is the way I, personally, think it is! 

Hey, guys... that coat fits well, but the sleeves are a bit long, aren't they? Ah, that's better... they're all tied up now. :freak:

Seriously... you're absolutely right... but that's not going to stop the ongoing, never-ending debate, and we all know it! :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Gregatron

And, perhaps most relevant to this discussion, several shots from TOS clearly showed us that the Bridge interior's ceiling was *opaque*, which means you wouldn't be able to see into the Bridge from outside the ship. We can therefore assume that illuminated sensor equipment was nestled in-between the outer dome and the inner ceiling.

The TNG Bridge had a "spacelight" ceiling/window. The TOS Bridge didn't.

The "Cage" shot gives the impression of a "spacelight", but that's probably more artistic license that served the needs of the shot than anything else. Franz Joseph picked up on that for his manual, and presented a clear, domed ceiling for his Bridge diagram.


It's great that Round 2 is including a Bridge interior for those that want to exercise some artistic license, though!


----------



## Opus Penguin

For what it is worth, here is the pre-remastered version of the opening of "The Cage" showing the transition into the bridge (at about the 46 sec mark):






Here is the remastered version with transition at the 53 sec mark:






Interestingly, when you see the crewman walk into the turbolift, he turns to the left as if this is a hallway leading to the turbolift. If that is the case, the orientation would be correct.


----------



## RSN

CLBrown said:


> But, but, but... the REAL ENTERPRISE is the way I, personally, think it is!
> 
> Hey, guys... that coat fits well, but the sleeves are a bit long, aren't they? Ah, that's better... they're all tied up now. :freak:
> 
> Seriously... you're absolutely right... but that's not going to stop the ongoing, never-ending debate, and we all know it! :beatdeadhorse:


Well it shouldn't end the discussion, that is the fun part of fandom, but at some point we have to realize that there is just no way to reconcile everything.


----------



## Gregatron

Note that, in the Remastered version, the angle of the ship's direction has been subtly altered from the original in order to match the live-action footage.

If they'd tried to go for an offset Bridge in the CG shot, then the angle of the ship's approach to camera would have been notably different from the iconic original, with the result that the _Enterprise_ would appear to be flying almost directly toward the camera, rather than coming in from screen-left.

The FX team may very well have discussed using this revised shot as an opportunity to have an offset Bridge, but the limits of being stuck with the live-action footage would have meant that the shot would look very different in composition (regarding the ship's direction of travel).

Seems to me that they went with a mostly-forward-facing Bridge in order to retain the overall look of the iconic, original shot.


----------



## CLBrown

Gregatron said:


> Note that, in the Remastered version, the angle of the ship's direction has been subtly altered from the original in order to match the live-action footage.
> 
> If they'd tried to go for an offset Bridge in the CG shot, then the angle of the ship's approach to camera would have been notably different from the iconic original, with the result that the _Enterprise_ would appear to be flying almost directly toward the camera, rather than coming in from screen-left.
> 
> The FX team may very well have discussed using this revised shot as an opportunity to have an offset Bridge, but the limits of being stuck with the live-action footage would have meant that the shot would look very different in composition (regarding the ship's direction of travel).
> 
> Seems to me that they went with a mostly-forward-facing Bridge in order to retain the overall look of the iconic, original shot.


Yeah... I agree. Though, I think it would have been possible to make the shot work, just by rotating a bit as you zoom into the top of the dome. The "approach" of the shot could have been identical to the original shot, with just a little "flourish" at the end to match the set.

Just transition to an angle like this as you approach the top of the dome:


I can imagine the debates over this by the "remastered" team, can't you? I suspect that the debates got... lively. Because, frankly, there's no solution that could make everyone perfectly happy.

***********************



Gregatron said:


> And, perhaps most relevant to this discussion, several shots from TOS clearly showed us that the Bridge interior's ceiling was *opaque*, which means you wouldn't be able to see into the Bridge from outside the ship. We can therefore assume that illuminated sensor equipment was nestled in-between the outer dome and the inner ceiling.
> 
> The TNG Bridge had a "spacelight" ceiling/window. The TOS Bridge didn't.
> 
> The "Cage" shot gives the impression of a "spacelight", but that's probably more artistic license that served the needs of the shot than anything else. Franz Joseph picked up on that for his manual, and presented a clear, domed ceiling for his Bridge diagram.
> 
> 
> It's great that Round 2 is including a Bridge interior for those that want to exercise some artistic license, though!


Well, I'd argue that the on-set shots are more "dubious," as they weren't uniform... and because Roddenberry (who, mind you, I don't "worship" like some other folks do) had always intended for the ship to have a big window on top of the bridge.

Whether or not that makes any sense is another matter. But in TNG, he insisted that the 1701-D have a dome windows on top of the bridge module as a call-back to the TOS bridge design, which in his mind always had a dome window on top.

Personally, I'd never design a ship with a big glass dome on top. It's pretty much a USELESS design feature, serving no purpose whatsoever (I mean, what do you expect to see through there???)

In most of the shots where we see a "bridge ceiling," though, excepting in the second pilot, the "ceiling" is black. Well, I treat that as a fairly ineffectual means of illustrating the "blackness of space" up there. 

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Warped9

In the TOS-R shot the change the ship's orientation to make the bridge face forward, but there's no way the turbolift could fit there as it's shown.

And while it's crude by today's standards the original is closer to correct it trying to line up the turbolift with the aft tube. It's not perfect but it's closer.

Believe or not I still prefer the original shot's banking approach of the ship even though the model is too brightly lit and there are no lighted windows yet. I just like the dynamic of the original shot better and the new shot just looks too dark for my taste.




Gregatron said:


> The FX team may very well have discussed using this revised shot as an opportunity to have an offset Bridge, but the limits of being stuck with the live-action footage would have meant that the shot would look very different in composition (regarding the ship's direction of travel).
> 
> Seems to me that they went with a mostly-forward-facing Bridge in order to retain the overall look of the iconic, original shot.


Maybe, but they made so many other changes throughout TOS-R that it seems odd they would feel constrained by this one.


----------



## RSN

I was always under the impression that the dome was clear, simply based on that shot from "The Menagerie", (Since we never actually saw "The Cage" back in the day!). When I saw the Enterprise D I was even more convinced when I saw that Gene had recycled the same design element. So for me, that is how I will always look at it, even if it does not make much sense for a spaceship.


----------



## hankster

Ductape: If you have a personal issue, take it to email. We do not need this on HobbyTalk.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Warped9 said:


> Maybe, but they made so many other changes throughout TOS-R that it seems odd they would feel constrained by this one.


Mike Okuda stated this shot was the most challenging in all of the remastering so there might have been some lively debates.


----------



## CLBrown

Opus Penguin said:


> Mike Okuda stated this shot was the most challenging in all of the remastering so there might have been some lively debates.


During those debates they played the "Amok Time" battle music in the background, I suspect!


----------



## Captain April

Opus Penguin said:


> Mike Okuda stated this shot was the most challenging in all of the remastering so there might have been some lively debates.


Doubtful. Mike asked Matt Jefferies about this very issue, and not only was it his stance that the bridge faced forward, but it never would've occurred to him to have the bridge facing anywhere BUT forward. Bob Justman made similar statements.

So, the whole idea of an offset bridge is a nonstarter in my book. It faced forward, end of statement. The question is how to make that work.


----------



## CLBrown

Captain April said:


> Doubtful. Mike asked Matt Jefferies about this very issue, and not only was it his stance that the bridge faced forward, but it never would've occurred to him to have the bridge facing anywhere BUT forward. Bob Justman made similar statements.
> 
> So, the whole idea of an offset bridge is a nonstarter in my book. It faced forward, end of statement. The question is how to make that work.


Be careful... you're making statements which I don't think you can support. Can you provide an exact quote for either of those (Matt Jefferies or Bob Justman)? Date, time, source, etc?

I get it that you're dedicated to the idea, and you're welcome to run with that idea (including moving the bridge down to deck two, as you've done). But that's YOUR PERSONAL SOLUTION to the issue, not "the only possible right solution."

Did M.J. intend for the bridge to be symmetrical around the ship's centerline? Sure. Did they change that during filming of the first pilot? Yep. Did M.J. ever... EVEN ONCE... state that the nub at the back of the dome on top of the ship was anything but the lift tube, or that the dome was anything other than the bridge?

You can say it's a "non-starter" and it's fine if that's how you, personally, feel, but that doesn't mean that you're right. You also tend to go against M.J.'s expressed opinions about how the Enterprise engines work... using Elaan of Troius as your supporting argument, in that case, as I recall, for there being a centralized "warp core" as opposed to M.J.'s concept that the engine nacelles are where the reactions take place (ie, the aerospace model, not the automobile model, for propulsion).

I just don't agree with your take on things. The simplest solution, to me, is that the bridge stations (including the big computer monitor which is called the main viewscreen) can be arranged anyway you want... but the lift shaft is hard and fixed location. There's literally NO argument I've ever heard for why it's important that the screen be at the exact front of the interior of this room. It's not like it's a WINDOW, now, is it?

But you can treat it that way, if you like, and there's no issue with that. I presume, then, that when you build your big 1:350 TOS Enterprise, you're going to leave out the little bridge interior entirely? Nothing wrong with that approach... as has been said before, it's a fictional ship, so there's no ABSOLUTE RIGHT or ABSOLUTE WRONG answer.... right?

I just think that the "offset screen" thing makes a lot more sense than putting the bridge somewhere other than inside the declared "bridge dome," personally.


----------



## RSN

I do know that I have heard/read something from the production people stating that the bridge faced forward. I am sorry, but I do not remember the circumstance or the source. Over the last 32 years I have dealt with many of the people involved in making "Star Trek" so the particular person I attribute this piece of knowledge escapes me. 

What I do remember was they specifically said that the original design for the bridge had it facing forward with the turbolift directly behind the captain's chair. this made it too hard to set up shots dramatically. From a head on shot, over the helm, looking at the captain, there would have been no activity in the background, just dead space. The 3/4 view, shooting from the side, would afford them a more dramatic angle to see people exiting the lift as well as including the station either to the left or right of the doors. They even went on to say that this was addressed in the design for the bridge in ST:TMP, by having two offset doors which now made it clear that yes, the bridge faces forward!

I cannot make anyone believe this, since I have no written or video proof, but I do know it to be true, not just how I want it to be. It could have come from one of the actors, or even from Gene himself when I sat in his office with him! :thumbsup:


----------



## jheilman

Yeah, I think it's pretty much been agreed that originally the bridge was to have faced forward, but for camera angle reasons, the turbolift was positioned where it ended up. The discrepancy has sparked one of the most intense debates about the ship ever. I don't think there is a correct answer to this. Do you go with original design intent and conflict what was seen onscreen? Or the opposite which many find to just be strange. I know my preference, but every modeler can make their own interpretation.


----------



## SteveR

Here's my thought, along the lines of others':

They wanted everyone to face the screen, front & center of the room. 
The best camera angle was off to the right, 3/4, as RSN wrote.
Dramatic entrances would be made from the elevator, so the elevator must occupy an important place in the frame. Try center of frame.
Therefore the elevator was placed in the back corner.

As for the model? Which looks better? A bump centered, on-axis, or one off-axis? So they went with a bump on-axis. Or maybe sets & miniature departments didn't talk to each other, so an off-axis bump wasn't considered.

So they don't match. Sometimes interiors and exteriors don't -- you guys have seen enough SF to know that. (e.g. 2001)


----------



## Opus Penguin

These debates actually ended up changing my mind on how I will do it. After watching the opening of "The Cage" and hearing some of the reports on how it should have been I am leaning strongly to having my bridge face forward. I was originally going to have it offset, but am beginning to believe it was meant to face forward.


----------



## RSN

SteveR said:


> Here's my thought, along the lines of others':
> 
> They wanted everyone to face the screen, front & center of the room.
> The best camera angle was off to the right, 3/4, as RSN wrote.
> Dramatic entrances would be made from the elevator, so the elevator must occupy an important place in the frame. Try center of frame.
> Therefore the elevator was placed in the back corner.
> 
> As for the model? Which looks better? A bump centered, on-axis, or one off-axis? So they went with a bump on-axis. Or maybe sets & miniature departments didn't talk to each other, so an off-axis bump wasn't considered.
> 
> So they don't match. Sometimes interiors and exteriors don't -- you guys have seen enough SF to know that. (e.g. 2001)


Forget SF, try fitting the 2 story "Brady Bunch" sets on the soundstage, into the 1 story ranch used for the exteriors!!!


----------



## jheilman

If you use the bridge insert, the turbolift dooors will open out into space. You would also need to move the doors to line up with the tube. Or drop the entire bridge lower so it wouldn't matter.


----------



## Warped9

No problem with an offset bridge.


----------



## SFCOM1

RSN said:


> Forget SF, try fitting the 2 story "Brady Bunch" sets on the soundstage, into the 1 story ranch used for the exteriors!!!


That Brady Bunch house was a TARDIS. Everybody knows that!


----------



## Captain April

A forward facing bridge fits just fine in the pilot bridge dome. And that's the key to my solution; it's not that I'm dropping the bridge down to Deck 2, I'm lowering the whole dome down about one deck's worth. Relative to the dome, the bridge is right where it's always been. It's the ship that's moved relative to the bridge.

And, oddly enough, that famous cross section of MJ's does indeed show the bridge lowered down to about Deck 2, so I may very well be onto something with this approach.


----------



## Trek Ace

It's too bad that Round 2 is not marketing two different light kits for the_ Enterprise_.

There could be a less-expensive one intended for the 'pilot' version with just lighted ports and running lights, and then the moe expensive 'production' version which would also include the lights and motors for the warp engines. Buying the full lighting kit just to do a pilot version seems overkill.

In any case, I'm certain that there will be the competing aftermarket lighting kits available by year's end. The prototype for one of them looks extremely promising. I especially like the option of changing the cycle rates for the running lights to suit individual tastes. Heck, I would buy just the circuit to do that, if it were available.


----------



## CLBrown

Captain April said:


> A forward facing bridge fits just fine in the pilot bridge dome.


Has anyone, to the best of your knowledge, ever PHYSICALLY (either in model form or in computer-3D forn) placed the bridge inside that dome? I know you've shown 2D views... but you've made some bad assumptions (ie, the FLOORPLAN might fit, but remember that the ceiling height is not a perfect 2D projection of that upwards!)

The pilot dome is taller, but not dramatically wider at the base. I don't believe it's sufficiently enlarged at the base to permit what you suggest. But if someone's shown it in a true 3D fashion, that would be proof, I suppose.


> And that's the key to my solution; it's not that I'm dropping the bridge down to Deck 2, I'm lowering the whole dome down about one deck's worth. Relative to the dome, the bridge is right where it's always been. It's the ship that's moved relative to the bridge.


Huh? I guess that sounds a little odd to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you... but isn't that like saying that when I get in my car and drive someplace... I'm not moving, it's the planet that's moving relative to me?


> And, oddly enough, that famous cross section of MJ's does indeed show the bridge lowered down to about Deck 2, so I may very well be onto something with this approach.


Well, his cross-section has a few problems... yes, it does. It shows only eight decks on the primary hull... and this means that none of the decks match up with the window positions. There are also issues with shape and proportion... that diagram doesn't actually match the physical model as seen on-screen.

I love M.J.'s work... and I consider him, absolutely, to be a primary source, don't get me wrong. But as an engineer myself, I fully understand that the final product is not necessarily perfectly represented by "concept sketches" at all points in the development cycle. M.J. created the ship design, and the concept behind it, but the final execution isn't a perfect, unaltered version of his concepts. There are, inevitably, ways in which the two deviate from each other.

It's the final product... the ship, including model and sets, as seen on-screen, which ultimately is most important. Original design intent comes in at a close, close second. For example, had there never been anything on-screen which stated that power generation occurred in the nacelles, and the "Elaan of Troius" reference was the ONLY reference to power generation, that would override M.J.'s "design intent" about power generation occurring in the nacelles.

Of course this ship doesn't actually exist... there is no "real" Enterprise. So the closest we can get to that is to try to match up what's seen on-screen, first and foremost, and then filling in gaps or uncertainties with "design intent."

I've always enjoyed seeing your drawings, CRA... I really have. I don't agree with everything you've done, but it's still fun to check it out. I also don't agree with things Aridas has done, but I love his work as well. And I don't expect everyone, or anyone, really, to agree with everything I've done, either. But I've put a lot of thought into it, and a lot of effort, making things ACTUALLY FIT, and actually make sense, as if they were real (or could be real). 

I known you've got a working computer again, after the troubles you went through a couple of years ago. Have you ever considered trying to do a full 3D "layout?" I think that would be really fascinating... and I'd enjoy seeing how it turns out! It won't look like my version, but that's OK... I'd still love seeing how it DOES work out. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

Strikes me that you wouldn't even need a full up 3D model. All you'd need is the shell of the exterior bridge dome and the outer shape of the bridge set with turbolift. Then you see what it takes to put the two together. I'd also like to see the difference between a 947ft. ship and a 1080ft. (give or take) ship.

One of the issues in knowing (or determining) the exact dimensions of the respective shapes as well as the correct scale(s). Note that while 947ft. is a generally accepted measurement it isn't explicitly stated onscreen. The only reference is a poorly visible recreation of one of MJ's drawings from _The Making Of Star Trek_ projected onto one of the briefing room tri-viewers in "The Enterprise Incident" I believe.

Personally I like *CL's* approach in trying to make things fit as we saw them onscreen as closely as possible. It's essentially the same approach I used when working out my drawings for the TOS shuttleraft. The trick is deciding how much weight to give every bit of information you can get hold of.


----------



## RSN

A quick "Google" shows a number of references to Matt Jeffries himself stating that the helm faced forward and that the turbolift was moved for dramatic reasons. It also stated that it was not until Franz Joseph's Technical Manual in '75, was it stated that the bridge was at a 36 degree angle from center. Take all that for what it is worth and build it how it looks good to the individual! :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

For me it' got to look like it actually fits.


----------



## Paulbo

I've been going back looking over the 1st and 2nd pilot bridges and actually LOOKING at them, rather than just thinking "oh, they changed the colors, cut some holes in the railing, etc. etc. - the posts showing the weird changes in where the port-side consoles lined up and that the helm/nav station isn't looking directly at the screen were real eye openers and I wanted to see them for myself. 

Thanks for posting.

I will NOT be correcting them for my buildup


----------



## CLBrown

RSN said:


> A quick "Google" shows a number of references to Matt Jeffries himself stating that the helm faced forward and that the turbolift was moved for dramatic reasons. It also stated that it was not until Franz Joseph's Technical Manual in '75, was it stated that the bridge was at a 36 degree angle from center. Take all that for what it is worth and build it how it looks good to the individual! :thumbsup:


Well, I did a quick "Google" for the terms "Jefferies Enterprise Bridge Forward" and found quite a few references... mostly related to the ongoing internet debates (and more than two or three involving assertions by fans CLAIMING that MJ said this or that, but without any attribution).

What we know is this... MJ originally intended for the bridge to be symmetrical around the ship centerline. And that's perfectly reasonable. And we know that the bridge was altered (supposedly due to the filming director for the pilot, but that's not supported by any fact I know of) to aid in filming "dramatic impact." And we know that the bridge is intended to be in the dome, and that the "nub" is intended to be the lift shaft. We know the size of the sets, and the APPROXIMATE size of the ship.

Moving from that point, there are several approaches you can take:

1) toss out one or more of the above "knowns" entirely.
2) relocate the bridge until one of the above need not be tossed out.

Here's a pretty good thread, from a while back, reviewing the placement of the bridge:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=44981

This was done well before I started my own TOS Enterprise (I was working on my "ringship" at that point). But it was largely what inspired me to start my own.


----------



## Kit

Paulbo said:


> I've been going back looking over the 1st and 2nd pilot bridges and actually LOOKING at them, rather than just thinking "oh, they changed the colors, cut some holes in the railing, etc. etc. - the posts showing the weird changes in where the port-side consoles lined up and that the helm/nav station isn't looking directly at the screen were real eye openers and I wanted to see them for myself.
> 
> Thanks for posting.
> 
> I will NOT be correcting them for my buildup


Nicely said.


----------



## RSN

CLBrown said:


> Well, I did a quick "Google" for the terms "Jefferies Enterprise Bridge Forward" and found quite a few references... mostly related to the ongoing internet debates (and more than two or three involving assertions by fans CLAIMING that MJ said this or that, but without any attribution).
> 
> What we know is this... MJ originally intended for the bridge to be symmetrical around the ship centerline. And that's perfectly reasonable. And we know that the bridge was altered (supposedly due to the filming director for the pilot, but that's not supported by any fact I know of) to aid in filming "dramatic impact." And we know that the bridge is intended to be in the dome, and that the "nub" is intended to be the lift shaft. We know the size of the sets, and the APPROXIMATE size of the ship.
> 
> Moving from that point, there are several approaches you can take:
> 
> 1) toss out one or more of the above "knowns" entirely.
> 2) relocate the bridge until one of the above need not be tossed out.
> 
> Here's a pretty good thread, from a while back, reviewing the placement of the bridge:
> 
> http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=44981
> 
> This was done well before I started my own TOS Enterprise (I was working on my "ringship" at that point). But it was largely what inspired me to start my own.


Here is one page that gives a quote from Jeffries himself: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Constitution_class

Here is the quote if you don't want to look for it in all that text: 

"According to production designer Matt Jeffries, dramatic necessity required the turbolift to be moved from its planned centerline position (as seen on the 
Enterprise model). This off-set placement allowed characters to walk onto the bridge and enter scenes without being blocked by actors sitting in the command chair."

Well, for me, I just like the design aesthetic of the command cahir and helm looking forward turbolift doors be darned. I just hope that when I put my bridge in that way the "Roddenberry Police" do not kick in my front door and revoke my Flight Crew Certificate he sent me back in the day. I mean, it was signed by James Kirk himself!!


----------



## Rallystone

Just an idea. We've seen on the show that the turbolift cars can travel horizontally as well as vertically. If the bridge were offset inside the dome to allow a 'corridor' of sorts ringing the bridge, then maybe the car comes up the tube, then offsets to the side, aligning with the doors, and clearing the shaft for other cars if necessary. Shaft stays where it is, doors stay where they are,
command console faces forward, and everything works, at least from an engineering standpoint. Thoughts?


----------



## RSN

Rallystone said:


> Just an idea. We've seen on the show that the turbolift cars can travel horizontally as well as vertically. If the bridge were offset inside the dome to allow a 'corridor' of sorts ringing the bridge, then maybe the car comes up the tube, then offsets to the side, aligning with the doors, and clearing the shaft for other cars if necessary. Shaft stays where it is, doors stay where they are,
> command console faces forward, and everything works, at least from an engineering standpoint. Thoughts?


That is how I always envisioned it. Before I am told that the dome is too small for such a thing, please remember, I believe the lower deck of the Jupiter 2 can fit comfortably inside the 48 foot diamiter hull!!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Paulbo

RSN said:


> ...please remember, I believe the lower deck of the Jupiter 2 can fit comfortably inside the 48 foot diamiter hull!!!! :thumbsup:


LOL!

What about the engine deck that was just there in the one episode?


----------



## RSN

Paulbo said:


> LOL!
> 
> What about the engine deck that was just there in the one episode?


Now you are just talkin' crazy man.......reeeeeeal crazy!!!!!


----------



## Captain April

Rallystone said:


> Just an idea. We've seen on the show that the turbolift cars can travel horizontally as well as vertically. If the bridge were offset inside the dome to allow a 'corridor' of sorts ringing the bridge, then maybe the car comes up the tube, then offsets to the side, aligning with the doors, and clearing the shaft for other cars if necessary. Shaft stays where it is, doors stay where they are,
> command console faces forward, and everything works, at least from an engineering standpoint. Thoughts?





RSN said:


> That is how I always envisioned it. Before I am told that the dome is too small for such a thing, please remember, I believe the lower deck of the Jupiter 2 can fit comfortably inside the 48 foot diamiter hull!!!! :thumbsup:


There is onscreen footage to support this. At least once, we've seen the motion indicator showing horizontal movement before opening onto the bridge. Also, in "The Squire of Gothos", we see two loads of passengers arrive on the bridge only a couple of seconds apart, meaning that first car got out of the way of the second car almost immediately. A physical impossibility if there's only one tube servicing the bridge.

And none other than Andrew Probert suggested to me that the bridge doesn't necessarily have to be perfectly centered under that dome (ironically, he mentioned this _after_ I'd tried precisely that route, and subsequently rejected it).


----------



## jheilman

Rallystone said:


> Just an idea. We've seen on the show that the turbolift cars can travel horizontally as well as vertically. If the bridge were offset inside the dome to allow a 'corridor' of sorts ringing the bridge, then maybe the car comes up the tube, then offsets to the side, aligning with the doors, and clearing the shaft for other cars if necessary. Shaft stays where it is, doors stay where they are,
> command console faces forward, and everything works, at least from an engineering standpoint. Thoughts?


Yes, certainly not a new idea, but to get it to work, you have to lower the bridge quite a bit.

If you have the time, here is the grandaddy of TOS Enterprise sizing threads from my buddy MGagen. Covers a lot more than just bridge placement, but it's in there.

How big is the TOS Enterprise?


----------



## CLBrown

Rallystone said:


> Just an idea. We've seen on the show that the turbolift cars can travel horizontally as well as vertically. If the bridge were offset inside the dome to allow a 'corridor' of sorts ringing the bridge, then maybe the car comes up the tube, then offsets to the side, aligning with the doors, and clearing the shaft for other cars if necessary. Shaft stays where it is, doors stay where they are,
> command console faces forward, and everything works, at least from an engineering standpoint. Thoughts?


That can work.. if you either (a) alter the exterior appearance of the bridge dome (to include that "corridor"... there's simply not space for that in the existing dome), or (b) dramatically upsize the ship (or dramatically downsize the bridge), or dramatically upsize the bridge dome relative to the ship.

Again, I recommend looking at the linked discussion I referred to in my last post, above. It's not a matter of "mechanics," it's simply a matter of being able to FIT.

If we don't alter the ship in some pretty significant ways from what was seen on-screen, there's only one solution that works.

M.J. did, clearly, prefer a fwd-facing bridge... which is why, when asked to revisit the design for a new series, during the early 70s, he "fixed" the issue by putting in two symmetrical lift tubes, a feature which stayed in place all the way through ST-IV. (Post-ST-IV, the new bridge set simply couldn't work in a ship the size of the Enterprise... but then again, the "ST-V" Enterprise apparently had 79 decks, soooo....)

The really interesting bit in this, to me, is that so far I've seen virtually every argument made by people who've done 3D work involving fitting interiors into the exterior end up being in line with my position. I enjoyed, in particular, the linked thread, above, where Phil Broad evidently did a 3D model which led him to a very similar set of conclusions to what I've come up with. Virtually every 3D-model solution anyone's done ends up with two conclusions:

1) The bridge lift is at the rear
2) The ship is just too small at 947', and needs to be about 25% larger (from Phil's "roughly 100 feet larger" to the most commonly accepted 1080', to my own "experimentally determined" value of 1067').

The only person who I'm aware of who's done significant 3D logistical work focused on sticking with the 947' length has been David Shaw... who's put together a lot of great TOS-E reference materials and has created some pretty impressive blueprints of the various filming miniatures (including the only decent set of 3'-model prints I've seen). He choose to stick very closely to the 947' length, and ended up having to compromise on interior set sizing as a result. A fair approach, but it "invalidates" all the interior shots in the series, particularly the corridor shots (which have a 10' ceiling height, and is the "standard ceiling height" I chose to use in my own work, with only a few locations in the ship having different heights).


----------



## Warped9

I've never really been comfortable with the idea of sinking the bridge just so it can face directly forward. You end up with an offset turbo shaft which just strikes me as too weird. Then again you do have to sink it to some extent because that nub directly behind the bridge dome isn't tall enough to accommodate the turbolift for the bridge to sit higher. I'm more comfortable with upsizing the ship's scale if need be, but as I've said before I can live with an offset bridge.


----------



## CLBrown

RSN said:


> Here is one page that gives a quote from Jeffries himself: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Constitution_class
> 
> Here is the quote if you don't want to look for it in all that text:
> 
> "According to production designer Matt Jeffries, dramatic necessity required the turbolift to be moved from its planned centerline position (as seen on the
> Enterprise model). This off-set placement allowed characters to walk onto the bridge and enter scenes without being blocked by actors sitting in the command chair."
> 
> Well, for me, I just like the design aesthetic of the command cahir and helm looking forward turbolift doors be darned. I just hope that when I put my bridge in that way the "Roddenberry Police" do not kick in my front door and revoke my Flight Crew Certificate he sent me back in the day. I mean, it was signed by James Kirk himself!!


Ya know, I heard a rumor that Kirk didn't actually sign all of those... he got some random red-shirted guys to do it for him...


----------



## MGagen

CLBrown,

Save your breath rather than engage Capt April about bridge placement. I had a nearly two year exchange with him on this very issue starting back in 2003. He is impervious to facts. 

One of my early posts on the subject outlined every possible way of making the bridge face forward, including dropping it nearly all the way down to deck 2 (a solution which he somehow "discovered" for himself over 18 months later). I also demonstrated why, if it is in the dome, it must face to the side. This marathon started as a sincere effort on my part to help him out with his blueprinting project, but soon became a humorous exercise in testing just how far someone will go to avoid acknowledging reality. It began in a thread of his on TrekBBS called "Okay, let's try this again....", but we engaged here on HobbyTalk as well. Some of the TrekBBS stuff has dropped off by now, but I have much of it archived.

I believe some of our exchanges here are in the "Scale" thread JHeilman referenced, although if you go back to re-read that one, keep in mind that my views on scale are modified somewhat as the thread progresses due to new references surfacing.

As for addressing whether the pilot dome could contain the bridge facing forward, here's an image I prepared for Capt April back in July of 2004. It features a pilot dome with a 50 foot diameter base which is what Capt April was maintaining the dome was. It shows why it doesn't work. I produced a later image with a more accurate dome that still didn't work, but this was the first one. A blast from the past.



I have always sympathized with those who want a forward facing bridge. I'd like one myself. But it just doesn't work, if you believe scale means anything. 

M.


----------



## Trek Ace

I have no desire to further hijack this thread, but I agree with MGagen, and applaud his herculean effort to illustrate making the 'inside' fit within the 'outside' and clearly show why an offset bridge is the only reasonable conclusion in matching the set to the model.

Most of the directors certainly got it, placing the 'roll' axis of the bridge turbolift to align with the roll axis of the ship.



















The rotated bridge only effects three seated positions. No other bridge stations face directly forward, nor do very many chairs on the rest of the ship. So, why all the fuss?

When the kit is released, you can have the option of facing the bridge any way you want - because it's your model.

Let's move on and return to talking more about the coming model kit.


----------



## Trek Ace

Okay. One more!


----------



## RSN

CLBrown said:


> Ya know, I heard a rumor that Kirk didn't actually sign all of those... he got some random red-shirted guys to do it for him...


Wait........WHAT?!!! Somebody forged Captain Kirk's signature on my certificate from Mr. Roddenberry?!!!!


----------



## StarshipClass

SFCOM1 said:


> That Brady Bunch house was a TARDIS. Everybody knows that!


Here's an interesting philosophical conclusion relating to that: 

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20591943,00.html



> Sherwood Schwartz once explained to the Los Angeles Times that the San Fernando Valley house used for the exterior shots was chosen because ''we didn't want it to be too affluent, we didn't want it to be too blue-collar. We wanted it to look like it would fit a place an architect would live.'' In other words, the exterior struck the right emotional note for audiences, and logic be damned. I can live with that. In fact, audiences will forgive almost any lapse in logic if the story does its primary job well — and that is to move us, scare us, tickle us, and give us characters worth knowing. The Brady house made no sense, but I still wanted to live there. . . . The best purveyors of pop culture know that poetic truth trumps literal truth every time. Stanley Kubrick said that ''a film is — or should be — more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings.''


----------



## RSN

As someone who loves to challenge "Facts" on a subject that has no real basis in fact, therefore, no definitive conclusion can be drawn, I present this image from the restoration of the 11 footer. To me the proportions are off for the turbolift to be coming all the up through B deck. It is far wider than it is high, based on the proportions of the set piece used with the actors, indicating that it is a bit sunken below the line of the bridge dome showing that the argument for the sunken bridge theory is a valid one. SO as I said, there are no real facts to say that anyone is right or wrong........just sayin'!! :thumbsup:

Hey, dig those grid lines!!!


----------



## swhite228

I always thought the bridge faced foward and the lift upon reaching the bridge slid over to the door allowing the elivator car to seal the bridge off from attack from the elivator shaft.
But then again I've never spent years trying to rationalize Hollywood thinking.


----------



## RSN

Trek Ace said:


> I have no desire to further hijack this thread, but I agree with MGagen, and applaud his herculean effort to illustrate making the 'inside' fit within the 'outside' and clearly show why an offset bridge is the only reasonable conclusion in matching the set to the model.
> 
> Most of the directors certainly got it, placing the 'roll' axis of the bridge turbolift to align with the roll axis of the ship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rotated bridge only effects three seated positions. No other bridge stations face directly forward, nor do very many chairs on the rest of the ship. So, why all the fuss?
> 
> When the kit is released, you can have the option of facing the bridge any way you want - because it's your model.
> 
> Let's move on and return to talking more about the coming model kit.


To burst the bubble on this hypothesis, the camera could only go from left to right to simulate the ship moving and since the elevator was moved to create a dramatic shot just like this, the camera was usually placed at this angle, so there are far more shots like this of the ship tilting. The actors are actually moving along the axis of the helm from side to side and not the camera angle. In one episode, when the ship came to a sudden stop, the helm operators were thrown directly forward over the console and in yet anoter episode with another sudden stop, Kirk was thrown directly back into his chair, (Actually lifting the pltaform off the floor!) toward the communication staion. Both of these shot indicate that the bridge faced directly forward. 

There were shots in engineering that showed the set pitching from front, where the entry door is located, to rear, where the forced perspective engine assembly was, but the ship was supposed to be going from side to side. Are we to infer from this that Main Engineering was sideways in the ship? No.

These shots were only staged for dramatic reasons, not for accuracy of the set placement in a fictional ship.


----------



## CLBrown

RSN said:


> As someone who loves to challenge "Facts" on a subject that has no real basis in fact, therefore, no definitive conclusion can be drawn, I present this image from the restoration of the 11 footer. To me the proportions are off for the turbolift to be coming all the up through B deck. It is far wider than it is high, based on the proportions of the set piece used with the actors, indicating that it is a bit sunken below the line of the bridge dome showing that the argument for the sunken bridge theory is a valid one. SO as I said, there are no real facts to say that anyone is right or wrong........just sayin'!! :thumbsup:
> 
> Hey, dig those grid lines!!!


I ended up making several "compromises" when doing my CG Enterprise, in order to "make everything work," and the lift tube height is one of those. I kept the diameter of the tube but extended it slightly upwards. (I also subtly altered the shape of the B/C deck structure, just because the overly "pointy" bit at the back bothered me... and I shifted windows very slightly so that they'd all be at the proper "eye level" on each of my decks).

As for gridlines, of course, those are reasonably clear in that shot... as are paint chips, scratches, and the like as well. They were never visible in STD TV resolution on my set... but I plan to add them to my model, in the way that they were added to the real model, with very fine pencil lines. Those lines, to me, will represent "applied tape" on the hull surface. After all, I view the grid as basically being a "waveguide," and that can be done quite easily with channels, with "foil tape" or with raised "pipe" on the surface. The TMP-era ships had channels, but for me, the TOS ship had "tape" of the same type found in our windshield antennae on cars these days.

Different approaches, and no "right" or "wrong" answer... I, personally, look forward to seeing the first build-up of this kit with a full, etched-in grid pattern across the entire hull (including dorsal, nacelles, and secondary hull) as well. :roll:


----------



## MGagen

Thanks for the kind words, TrekACE!

Here's an analysis I put together several years ago to demonstrate the placement of the bridge within the dome. It uses the Sinclair plans, which were the most accurate publicly available at the time. Note the small inset from Jefferies own section view which shows that he intended for the bridge to sit low in the dome. The top of the turbolift at station corresponds to the height of the exterior tube. Also, note how closely the turbolift aligns with the tube in the top view. It's even closer when you use a more accurate exterior blueprint.:



And here's an image I put together in '07 showing how well the bridge fits into the original pilot dome as Jefferies drew it on the construction plans:



Finally, it is patently obvious that Jefferies knew that the bridge had to be skewed as it was depicted on the show. The proof is that he corrected the problem with his dual turbo Phase II design.

M.


----------



## Chris Pike

MGagen said:


> Thanks for the kind words, TrekACE!
> 
> Here's an analysis I put together several years ago to demonstrate the placement of the bridge within the dome. It uses the Sinclair plans, which were the most accurate publicly available at the time. Note the small inset from Jefferies own section view which shows that he intended for the bridge to sit low in the dome. The top of the turbolift at station corresponds to the height of the exterior tube. Also, note how closely the turbolift aligns with the tube in the top view. It's even closer when you use a more accurate exterior blueprint.:
> 
> 
> 
> And here's an image I put together in '07 showing how well the bridge fits into the original pilot dome as Jefferies drew it on the construction plans:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, it is patently obvious that Jefferies knew that the bridge had to be skewed as it was depicted on the show. The proof is that he corrected the problem with his dual turbo Phase II design.
> 
> M.


 
That's great info, it is very hard to argue against that analysis as it just fits so perfectly. It just leaves me with just one question...some have suggested that the ship was originally intended to be at a smaller scale - maybe even half the size? - and very soon re-scaled up, something I'm not sure is correct or not, but if so, does the bridge set fit the (taller) dome then? surely the turbolift shaft exterior bulge ends up too small? any ideas?? or is the original half scale idea pure conjecture and maybe not true at all (which is my hunch)?


----------



## RSN

Chris Pike said:


> That's great info, it is very hard to argue against that analysis as it just fits so perfectly. It just leaves me with just one question...some have suggested that the ship was originally intended to be at a smaller scale - maybe even half the size? - and very soon re-scaled up, something I'm not sure is correct or not, but if so, does the bridge set fit the (taller) dome then? surely the turbolift shaft exterior bulge ends up too small? any ideas?? or is the original half scale idea pure conjecture and maybe not true at all (which is my hunch)?


That probably comes from Captain Pike giving the crew number at around 204, if I remember right, in "The Cage". Kirk always referred to the crew compliment as 430. I would assume some speculated that the ship was intended to be half the size. Since the windows didn't change all that much from pilot to production, i don't buy that. They just made up a different number for the crew........more red shirts to bump off!!!!


----------



## CLBrown

RSN said:


> That probably comes from Captain Pike giving the crew number at around 204, if I remember right, in "The Cage". Kirk always referred to the crew compliment as 430. I would assume some speculated that the ship was intended to be half the size. Since the windows didn't change all that much from pilot to production, i don't buy that. They just made up a different number for the crew........more red shirts to bump off!!!!


The "scaling" of the ship was done in mid-development. A very interesting reference to this can be found by looking at the diagram next to the bridge turbolift. David Shaw treated that as "pressure compartments" in his work, but it's pretty clear that the original intent was that this diagram showed actual deck layouts in the original scale.

This seems to put the bridge inside the area which I typically refer to as the "B/C-deck superstructure," and what we now know as the bridge dome was probably either a dedicated sensor compartment or perhaps a weapons array (just like the "matching" feature on the bottom was?)

Pike's 200-crew number makes a lot of sense for a ship the size of the TOS ship, if you think of that ship needing to carry around supplies (food, water, air, replacement parts, etc, etc). The ship's size is actually a bit small to carry twice that many people for any length of time (without at least weekly resupply operations, like aircraft carriers or cruise liners get).

My own take has always been that, between Pike's version of the ship and Kirk's "series" version of the ship, they got replicator technology installed (food slots, for example) and that prior to that they need to carry a huge supply of TV dinners and the like along with them. (Space-Swanson!) With replicator technology, they freed up a huge amount of internal volume in the ship... enough to put in nearly the full complement of a dedicated science/research vessel.

So, under Pike, the Enterprise was essentially a military cruiser. And to me, under Kirk's first command (a dedicated "beyond the barrier" mission) it was largely the same ship, but with some minor system updates. But the barrier mission just TRASHED the ship, and so Enterprise got a major refit (along with eleven others from among a larger total population of Heavy Cruisers), all of which were sent off on long-range exploratory missions which had previously been impractical for ships of this size and complexity.

In other words... early replicator tech allowed the pure-military vessel Pike commanded to become an "explorer" ship, for Kirk's 5-year-mission, and allowed folks like Marla McGivers to tag along for the mission. Much of the ship's original cargo space could be converted to living quarters, offices and labs, to give the ship the capabilities of a full science mission as well as its original military/diplomatic/police functionality.

That's my take... nobody else need agree, obviously! 

Now... the ship, in the scale shown on the "by the lift" diagram, would not be able to support even 200 people. It might, practically, support as many as 36 people, but likely no more than that.


----------



## RSN

CLBrown said:


> The "scaling" of the ship was done in mid-development. A very interesting reference to this can be found by looking at the diagram next to the bridge turbolift. David Shaw treated that as "pressure compartments" in his work, but it's pretty clear that the original intent was that this diagram showed actual deck layouts in the original scale.
> 
> This seems to put the bridge inside the area which I typically refer to as the "B/C-deck superstructure," and what we now know as the bridge dome was probably either a dedicated sensor compartment or perhaps a weapons array (just like the "matching" feature on the bottom was?)
> 
> Pike's 200-crew number makes a lot of sense for a ship the size of the TOS ship, if you think of that ship needing to carry around supplies (food, water, air, replacement parts, etc, etc). The ship's size is actually a bit small to carry twice that many people for any length of time (without at least weekly resupply operations, like aircraft carriers or cruise liners get).
> 
> My own take has always been that, between Pike's version of the ship and Kirk's "series" version of the ship, they got replicator technology installed (food slots, for example) and that prior to that they need to carry a huge supply of TV dinners and the like along with them. (Space-Swanson!) With replicator technology, they freed up a huge amount of internal volume in the ship... enough to put in nearly the full complement of a dedicated science/research vessel.
> 
> So, under Pike, the Enterprise was essentially a military cruiser. And to me, under Kirk's first command (a dedicated "beyond the barrier" mission) it was largely the same ship, but with some minor system updates. But the barrier mission just TRASHED the ship, and so Enterprise got a major refit (along with eleven others from among a larger total population of Heavy Cruisers), all of which were sent off on long-range exploratory missions which had previously been impractical for ships of this size and complexity.
> 
> In other words... early replicator tech allowed the pure-military vessel Pike commanded to become an "explorer" ship, for Kirk's 5-year-mission, and allowed folks like Marla McGivers to tag along for the mission. Much of the ship's original cargo space could be converted to living quarters, offices and labs, to give the ship the capabilities of a full science mission as well as its original military/diplomatic/police functionality.
> 
> That's my take... nobody else need agree, obviously!
> 
> Now... the ship, in the scale shown on the "by the lift" diagram, would not be able to support even 200 people. It might, practically, support as many as 36 people, but likely no more than that.


I like it!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chris Pike

RSN said:


> That probably comes from Captain Pike giving the crew number at around 204, if I remember right, in "The Cage". Kirk always referred to the crew compliment as 430. I would assume some speculated that the ship was intended to be half the size. Since the windows didn't change all that much from pilot to production, i don't buy that. They just made up a different number for the crew........more red shirts to bump off!!!!


Yes, my thinking exactly....the crew increase after The Cage has probably been confused with scale increase, pity those red shirts!


----------



## jheilman

Chris Pike said:


> ...some have suggested that the ship was originally intended to be at a smaller scale - maybe even half the size? - and very soon re-scaled up, something I'm not sure is correct or not, but if so, does the bridge set fit the (taller) dome then? surely the turbolift shaft exterior bulge ends up too small? any ideas?? or is the original half scale idea pure conjecture and maybe not true at all (which is my hunch)?


I'll answer with a couple quotes from the thread I flagged up-page. And trust me, MGagen isn't simply stating his opinion. He has researched and incorporated set plans and spoken to Richard Datin.



MGagen said:


> The ship was designed to be 540 feet in length initially. This means the large studio model was INTENDED to be 1:48 (a perfectly logical scale of 1/4" = 1'). Some time after the scale drawings were drafted someone (probably GR) decided the ship needed to be bigger. At that point, the decision was taken to make it 947 feet. Yes this is a bastard scale, but at that point it really didn't matter, since it was already drafted (and at least the small study model built).





MGagen said:


> I've also had it confirmed to me by someone in the know that the original bridge dome seen in the pilot configuration is actually the same as the Production dome. They merely chopped a section off the bottom to make it shorter. As a result, the pilot dome was a little bit wider at its base, but not wide enough to contain the bridge set if the ship is 540 feet long. It would be very interesting to know what the bridge dome looked like when the ship was on the drawing board at that scale.


----------



## Trek Ace

All right, then.

Since I'm anxious to get the topic back on to the coming model kit, I propose a solution to both the bridge orientation and the "real" ship scale:

*The Bridge Orientation:*

The bridge normally faces directly forward (i.e. the three chairs - captain, helm and navigator, as well as the main view screen). When someone enters or exits the bridge via the turbo elevator, the entire bridge interior spins 36 degrees to align the bridge elevator doors with the available turbo elevator car. Upon arrival or departure, the bridge then spins back to orient itself to a forward position. Of course, none of the crew would notice the spinning motion, since there would be anti-rotational and anti-centrifugal force fields to counteract the spinning motion.

The solution is that EVERYONE is right! The bridge BOTH faces forward and offsets 36 degrees. End of discussion on the bridge orientation.

*What SIZE is the ENTERPRISE?*

In the year 2187, the Federation Council issues a revision to the linear measurement if a standard "foot". Since the various races have different sized feet, It was felt to be racist to always refer to a human foot for measurement. So, it was decided that an average foot size among the races would be adopted that measured out to approximately 14% larger than a standard human foot, or 13.685 inches in length. This new measurement, labeled a "Federation Foot", replaced the standard foot as a unit of measure (although they still could convert to it).

Therefore, a design plan that calls out for a starship length of 947', would actually measure out at 1080' using the "old" standard scale. This would also fix any discrepancies with lengths and scales of shuttles, deck heights, etc.

See! Problems solved. The bridge is in both orientations, and the "real" ship is BOTH 947' and 1080' in length!

Now, let's get back on topic and discuss the model!


----------



## RSN

Trek Ace said:


> All right, then.
> 
> Since I'm anxious to get the topic back on to the coming model kit, I propose a solution to both the bridge orientation and the "real" ship scale:
> 
> *The Bridge Orientation:*
> 
> The bridge normally faces directly forward (i.e. the three chairs - captain, helm and navigator, as well as the main view screen). When someone enters or exits the bridge via the turbo elevator, the entire bridge interior spins 36 degrees to align the bridge elevator doors with the available turbo elevator car. Upon arrival or departure, the bridge then spins back to orient itself to a forward position. Of course, none of the crew would notice the spinning motion, since there would be anti-rotational and anti-centrifugal force fields to counteract the spinning motion.
> 
> The solution is that EVERYONE is right! The bridge BOTH faces forward and offsets 36 degrees. End of discussion on the bridge orientation.
> 
> *What SIZE is the ENTERPRISE?*
> 
> In the year 2187, the Federation Council issues a revision to the linear measurement if a standard "foot". Since the various races have different sized feet, It was felt to be racist to always refer to a human foot for measurement. So, it was decided that an average foot size among the races would be adopted that measured out to approximately 14% larger than a standard human foot, or 13.685 inches in length. This new measurement, labeled a "Federation Foot", replaced the standard foot as a unit of measure (although they still could convert to it).
> 
> Therefore, a design plan that calls out for a starship length of 947', would actually measure out at 1080' using the "old" standard scale. This would also fix any discrepancies with lengths and scales of shuttles, deck heights, etc.
> 
> See! Problems solved. The bridge is in both orientations, and the "real" ship is BOTH 947' and 1080' in length!
> 
> Now, let's get back on topic and discuss the model!


Why didn't Starfleet go metric? Also, how close do you have to be to the turbolift doors in order for the rotation to activate? I mean, what if you are just walking from the engineering station to the communication station, is that enough to trip it. If it waits until you enter the alcove, the door would not be able to open as fast as we saw it in TV!


----------



## CLBrown

Trek Ace said:


> All right, then.
> 
> Since I'm anxious to get the topic back on to the coming model kit, I propose a solution to both the bridge orientation and the "real" ship scale
> 
> ,,,
> 
> Therefore, a design plan that calls out for a starship length of 947', would actually measure out at 1080' using the "old" standard scale. This would also fix any discrepancies with lengths and scales of shuttles, deck heights, etc.
> 
> See! Problems solved. The bridge is in both orientations, and the "real" ship is BOTH 947' and 1080' in length!
> 
> Now, let's get back on topic and discuss the model!


*POP!!!*

(that was the sound of my brain exploding!) :devil:


----------



## Paulbo

LOL! Love it, Ace!

Very imaginative on both counts. (I buy the length argument, but even in the unlimited energy days of Star Trek I can't go for the spinning bridge idea )


----------



## Captain April

I offer up the following from ye olden days of 2007:



> Originally posted by *Yours Truly:*
> 
> I still say the best way to determine the "true" size of the ship is as follows:
> 
> Given that the official stance is that the bridge faces forward (just ask Mike Okuda; tell him I said "hi"), and that in that (in)famous shot in "The Cage" we see the bridge more or less sitting at the base of the upper dome at the Deck 1 position, and that the diameter of the bridge interior is about thirty feet (give or take a foot or so, depending on which plans you're using), simply determine how big the pilot version dome has to be to accommodate a forward facing bridge, and adjust your figures for the rest of the ship accordingly.
> 
> Have at it.


----------



## RossW

Got the new SF&FM #26 in the mail today - wow! The articles by Gary & Jim Small are fantastic as are the accompanying photos. 32 pages of model glory!

One thing I don't think I ever noticed before - in the photos of the 11' that Gary took (and seemingly replicated on the Round2 kit as built up by Jim) the 'spokes' on the nacelle domes are on the outer hemisphere. I always thought they were only on the interior hemisphere which rotated and that the outer hemisphere was smooth and frosted. Does that mean there are spokes on the inner hemisphere as well? Does anyone have photos of the 11' pre-restoration that shows this too?


----------



## Opus Penguin

Where can you order that?


----------



## Warped9

Opus Penguin said:


> Where can you order that?


I'd also like to know.


----------



## MGagen

Trek Ace said:


> When someone enters or exits the bridge via the turbo elevator, the entire bridge interior spins 36 degrees to align the bridge elevator doors with the available turbo elevator car. Upon arrival or departure, the bridge then spins back to orient itself to a forward position. Of course, none of the crew would notice the spinning motion, since there would be anti-rotational and anti-centrifugal force fields to counteract the spinning motion.


Of course, on occasions when Kirk dashes for the lift at high speed, the rotational force is too much for the inertial dampening fields. Uhura, who is always perched delicately on the very edge of her chair, is thrown off it and lands with a thump on her lovely secondary hull...

And now we return to our regularly scheduled program.

M.


----------



## Gregatron

Warped9 said:


> I'd also like to know.


You can order it directly from the SFFM site. I just ordered one from fabgearusa.com. CultTVman and SSM will probably carry it eventually.


----------



## RossW

I ordered it direct from them but Cult should have them soon.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Cult now has them. I just ordered.


----------



## Fozzie

Opus Penguin said:


> Cult now has them. I just ordered.


So did I.


----------



## charonjr

Don't forget that the bridge has no inertial mass when under the damping fields. You don't have to worry about the energy to spin it: it's negligible.


----------



## CLBrown

charonjr said:


> Don't forget that the bridge has no inertial mass when under the damping fields. You don't have to worry about the energy to spin it: it's negligible.


There's no reason to draw that conclusion, and plenty of reasons not to.

Think about it. Aboard the ship, do the crew instantly accelerate to near-infinite velocity due to exhaling? No? Why not? In regards to the ship's internal frame-of-reference, yes, inertia is very much a fact of life.

The issue, really, is "how finely is the inertial control system subdivided?" I mean, is it by square meter of decking? Is it deck-by-deck? Or is the entire ship inside of a "compensation field" of some sort?

All the evidence I've seen seems to indicate that there is some ship-wide field, extending through every section of the ship, and likely beyond the interior, which is protected by inertial compensation of some sort.

It's easy to say "no inertia" but try, just for a moment, to envision what would actually happen in a situation where there were no inertial effects. You might as well try to envision a situation where NONE of the laws of physics apply. Because inertia... which is a corollary of the basic "mass physics" we're all familiar with... is so utterly fundamental to the universe we live in that I think the removal of that would eliminate our ability to exist.

And yes, as a result, I DO think Uhura would end up as MGagen described!

(though, to be fair, I really think that the actress chosen to play Uhura was a bad choice... "pretty" in a very "eurocentricized" way, but not at all like I ever envisioned Uhura to be like. Here's someone who I think would have been a great choice to play Uhura... and yes, she's actually AFRICAN! http://genevieveofficial.com/ )


----------



## Warped9

CLBrown said:


> I really think that the actress chosen to play Uhura was a bad choice... "pretty" in a very "eurocentricized" way, but not at all like I ever envisioned Uhura to be like. Here's someone who I think would have been a great choice to play Uhura... and yes, she's actually AFRICAN! http://genevieveofficial.com/ )


Yep, she is definitely more credible looking to play Uhura. :thumbsup:


----------



## charonjr

CL is right. It depends on how finely the damping field is applied. I was applying the notion to the question of having the bridge spin to put the lift doors in place. It could be it's own reference frame, within which everything would behave normally, but which, as a whole, the field would work its magic on the reference frame only.

However, that would negate all the fun stuff we've come to love: Uhura flying into the lift alcove or Kirk and Rand getting a cozy moment together while under Romulan attack. And TOS, as read, never mentioned inertial dampening. 

It might not be necessary if the propulsion uses the Alcubierre warp drive which postulates a flat space-time within a warp bubble. The bubble could be made to do anything, not affecting the ship within. This is similar to what TNG postulated.

But, again, TOS never stipulated how warp engines work. We have to rely on sources like the Making of Star Trek to get an idea of what GR was thinking of.


----------



## RSN

What if the bridge maintained a fixed position in the universe and the Enterprise rotated arount it to line up the turbolift with the doors??!!!!!


----------



## RossW

Well, now, that's just silly.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Um ... Shouldn't we get back on topic about the model? I just received word the SF&FM magazine regarding Gary's info on the research into the model is on its way. Hope to have it before the end of the week.


----------



## RSN

Wait.....what.....there is a model coming out? Why didn't I.......staff.......STAFF!!!!!!


----------



## jaws62666

My magazine will be here tomorrow


----------



## Opus Penguin

Just got the SF&FM magazine. Very nice!! Article has fantastic history and many pictures of the 11 footer as well as the model itself.


----------



## Warped9

On this startrekhistory page you can see some very rare shots of the 11 footer as well. Just click on the "previous" arrows on the 11 footer image to see them.


----------



## Captain April

And with that first-ever pre-Smithsonian pic of the port side, we can now say, definitively, that yes, Virginia, they *did* put the registry and pennant on the port nacelle.


----------



## mach7

No, They had a set of reverse decals that they applied for the few shots they showed the other side. Then they flipped the film so it showed forward. Does that make sense?


----------



## RSN

mach7 said:


> No, They had a set of reverse decals that they applied for the few shots they showed the other side. Then they flipped the film so it showed forward. Does that make sense?


Yes, they did, but the photo evidence Captain April is talking about clearly shows the registry number on the left side with all the wires coming out of it for the lighting modifications. Take a look for yourself on the link and you will see! :thumbsup:


----------



## CLBrown

RSN said:


> Yes, they did, but the photo evidence Captain April is talking about clearly shows the registry number on the left side with all the wires coming out of it for the lighting modifications. Take a look for yourself on the link and you will see! :thumbsup:


Absolutely correct.

The model was originally built so that all sides were "filmable." When they retrofit the ship to be lightable, this necessitated some jerry-rigging. (It's a shame that they didn't build the miniature with lighting in mind, at least, from the outset... even if they couldn't justify spending the extra money up-front on lighting it!).

The reason the port side was never "really seen" after the renovation was that they'd had to rig the wiring to that side of the model. Had this not been the case... ie, if they'd just ran cable through the model as built originally, even if the cable wasn't connected to anything... it's likely we would have seen a lot of "port side" shots throughout the series, without the need to use the "reverse decals" which were a CHEAT to fake being able to see that side of the ship!

The one thing that's "odd" about this is the nacelle trench on the starboard nacelle. There is no physical trench on that nacelle (there's a painted region which is sort of "representative" of that trench, but no actual trench). This is the one item which makes you wonder... why? Did they run out of money during the miniature fabrication, and cut this for cost? It's strange...


----------



## Warped9

When you really look at the 11 footer it's a mix of "awesome" and "ouch, too bad." They were pushing the limits (budget, resource and time) of television production as opposed to what might have been done with the resources of a feature film.

You can also see why and how Gary and R2 are trying to recreate the ship the 11 footer was meant to represent as opposed to just slavishly replicating a televiosn filming miniature.


----------



## mach7

RSN said:


> Yes, they did, but the photo evidence Captain April is talking about clearly shows the registry number on the left side with all the wires coming out of it for the lighting modifications. Take a look for yourself on the link and you will see! :thumbsup:


You are correct sir!

My bad.


----------



## RSN

mach7 said:


> You are correct sir!
> 
> My bad.


It's all good, that is why we are here, to help eachother out.


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> When you really look at the 11 footer it's a mix of "awesome" and "och, too bad." They were pushing the limits (budget, resource and time) of television production as opposed to what might have been done with the resources of a feature film.
> 
> You can also see why and how Gary and R2 are trying to recreate the ship the 11 footer was meant to represent as opposed to just slavishly replicating a television filming miniature.


Yep... and that's what we all want. The only issue with that comes up when it's a matter of opinion, or taste, which creeps in (as in "gridlines"). For some folks, what was "supposed to be there" may not be the same "supposed to be" that other folks may think was "supposed to be." 

Overall, we know that the ship was supposed to be symmetrical, or mostly so anyway... and that the ship was not supposed to have wires duct-taped to the port side. :drunk:


----------



## Captain April

CLBrown said:


> Absolutely correct.
> 
> The model was originally built so that all sides were "filmable." When they retrofit the ship to be lightable, this necessitated some jerry-rigging. (It's a shame that they didn't build the miniature with lighting in mind, at least, from the outset... even if they couldn't justify spending the extra money up-front on lighting it!).
> 
> The reason the port side was never "really seen" after the renovation was that they'd had to rig the wiring to that side of the model. Had this not been the case... ie, if they'd just ran cable through the model as built originally, even if the cable wasn't connected to anything... it's likely we would have seen a lot of "port side" shots throughout the series, without the need to use the "reverse decals" which were a CHEAT to fake being able to see that side of the ship!
> 
> The one thing that's "odd" about this is the nacelle trench on the starboard nacelle. There is no physical trench on that nacelle (there's a painted region which is sort of "representative" of that trench, but no actual trench). This is the one item which makes you wonder... why? Did they run out of money during the miniature fabrication, and cut this for cost? It's strange...


My suspicion is that when they started out building the model, the initial idea was to finish both sides, but at some point (before finishing up the secondary hull, but after the port nacelle had been painted), probably after the accountancy department did some number crunching, they figured it would be a lot cheaper to just finish one side and use reversed decals to fake shots of the port side, should they be required. The two bits that indicate that, to me at least, is the aforementioned lack of a trench on the starboard nacelle, and the lack of a boxlike structure on the secondary hull up by the deflector housing, or even the trench for one (and remember, the model had no lights for the first pilot, and wasn't designed for lights in the first place, so we can't look to that as a reason).

At the very least, we now know that registry was there on the port nacelle and wasn't a creation of the Smithsonian team.


----------



## Hunch

Quick question. Is there ONE good book that has lots of photos of the three different E's? I'm on a slim budget right now, but eventually will make all three versions and dont want to have to spend a fortune collecting tons of books to get enough info. For instance- I'd love to get my hands on that new mag with the model AND the pics of the eleven footer but alas, not enough bread (unless of course it has ALL the info I'll need, but I doubt it does).
Can anyone think of a really good book off hand?
Jim


----------



## pagni

Oddly enough there isn't such a book. 
Your best bet would be to scour thru various internet sites.
Star Trek History has a few good reference photos.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Patience,..Grasshopper.....patience !

Good things come to those who wait...........


----------



## Gregatron

Whoa!

Can ya tell us more, Ductapeforever?


----------



## Ductapeforever

Sorry Classified ......need to know basis only.

Those of you familiar with my Jupiter 2 guide will understand the format.

Very early in this process, legal issues to be delt with, that kind of stuff.

No estimate on a date of release yet. Stay tuned.


----------



## Hunch

Ductapeforever said:


> Sorry Classified ......need to know basis only.
> 
> Those of you familiar with my Jupiter 2 guide will understand the format.
> 
> Very early in this process, legal issues to be delt with, that kind of stuff.
> 
> No estimate on a date of release yet. Stay tuned.


Well then, good timing for my post I guess. This looks to be the book I'm after and Ive got plenty of patience so all is right with the world (not really).


----------



## Trekkriffic

Ductapeforever said:


> No estimate on a date of release yet. Stay tuned.


*"But I want it NOW!*


----------



## Ductapeforever

Trekkriffic said:


> *"But I want it NOW!*


You've been a 'Bad' girl. Go To My Room !


----------



## Warped9

Trekkriffic said:


> *"But I want it NOW!*


Brat.


----------



## Paulbo

Trekkriffic said:


> *"But I want it NOW!*


She's a bad egg.


----------



## Captain April

_:dude:
_


----------



## Captain April




----------



## woof359

*sci-fi modler*

Well the Fed-Ex guy was nice enough to drop off issue #26 yesterday, right on the front porch just before a huge rain storm.......Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

but any way after leafing thru it I now know the impulse Engine are covered in a textured material ? man there just no end on new info since Round 2 decided to bring out this kit. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

woof359 said:


> ...man there just no end on new info since Round 2 decided to bring out this kit. :thumbsup:


It's fascinating. No matter how detailed and accurate you might have thought you were being before this kit is revealing all sorts of things many of us just never had an inkling about.


----------



## Nova Designs

woof359 said:


> but any way after leafing thru it I now know the impulse Engine are covered in a textured material ? man there just no end on new info since Round 2 decided to bring out this kit. :thumbsup:


Actually that isn't particularly new information... I've know than since at least 1990.


----------



## jheilman

Same here, but since about 1998. 

I don't know how much of the info is really new, but until recently, it was info that was perhaps more difficult to obtain. So I would say the amount of info easily available now is far greater than it was even 10 years ago.


----------



## woof359

from looking at one of Garys pic of the unrestored 11 footer the bridge dome was green ?


----------



## Trek Ace

The previously "restored" bridge dome was green. Courtesy of Rogay, Inc.


----------



## Husker Adama

So when is the 1701 Club version coming out again?


----------



## Opus Penguin

1701 Club will get the model next month.


----------



## John Duncan

Wow, better get the check book ready!


----------



## Hunch

Opus Penguin said:


> 1701 Club will get the model next month.


I hope you are right. I'm gonna sleep with that baby (wife will have to take the couch :tongue.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I asked Jamie on the RC2 site and he stated he is putting together the next club update which will answer this question. Hopefully it is on-time and ready to be released to club members next month.


----------



## Warped9

After all these years looks like Christmas will be early this year.

- Complete TMP soundtrack released
- 1st season TNG remastered for HD on Blu-Ray
- Entire TOS series soundtrack released
- 1/350 scale TOS Enterprise released

Wow!!!


----------



## JGG1701

I apologize if this has been answered already:
Will the "1701 member kit" have the lights & motors with it?
-Jim


----------



## Warped9

JGG1701 said:


> I apologize if this has been answered already:
> Will the "1701 member kit" have the lights & motors with it?
> -Jim


The member's kit includes the alternate parts to build any of the three versions, but I don't tink it includes the lighting and motors kit. I'm not sure it includes the weathering decals either, but I'm not concerned with that myself.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Jamie already confirmed the light kit and decals will be out in October; they will not come with the kit next month for members.


----------



## jheilman

Yeah, the light kit is an additional purchase.


----------



## woof359

*sounds*

i need a CD of star trek back ground sound effects so I just let it play in the work room, just another was a keeping her out (-::hat:


----------



## Warped9

woof359 said:


> i need a CD of star trek back ground sound effects so I just let it play in the work room, just another was a keeping her out (-::hat:


Well, coming this fall the _entire TOS soundtrack_ is being release in a 15 CD set.


----------



## Paulbo

woof359 said:


> i need a CD of star trek back ground sound effects so I just let it play in the work room, just another was a keeping her out (-::hat:


I've got that CD somewhere. One of these days I should rip all the tracks from it ... after I find it, that is.


----------



## jheilman

Trek Sound Effects @ Amazon


----------



## woof359

*Wright Patterson*

were spending the week end checking out the Museum here, well ordered the recording later tonight from the motel, many Thanks


----------



## Warped9

I have a few Trek soundtracks including the sound f/x CD mentioned above. I also have The Cage/WNMHGB soundtrack as well as the Varese Saraband recordings and one other with music from "Is There In Truth No Beauty" and "Spectre Of The Gun." I also have the soundtracks for TMP, TWOK and TFF.


----------



## Opus Penguin

From what I read the 15 CD set may not be a done deal. The company is checking to see how many people would buy it first. If you are interested in it, go to the link below and fill out the form. It is NOT a pre-order and it does NOT commit you to buy. It is just a form to help them gauge interest.

http://lalalandrecords.com/StarTrekMailingList.html


----------



## Warped9

Opus Penguin said:


> From what I read the 15 CD set may not be a done deal. The company is checking to see how many people would buy it first. If you are interested in it, go to the link below and fill out the form. It is NOT a pre-order and it does NOT commit you to buy. It is just a form to help them gauge interest.
> 
> http://lalalandrecords.com/StarTrekMailingList.html


Well we know it's being remastered so maybe it's a matter of how they'll package it. This is, after all, a niche market product.


----------



## Trek Ace

It's definitely coming. The list is to help gauge how large a run (3000,5000,+) to license. There are some additional clearances for vocals that are being worked out that will determine final content of the set.

Great music to model by.


----------



## Nova Designs

I am so going to get this!


----------



## J2 builder

I just ordered a 1/350 Enterprise and this thread is going to be a big help. Thanks guys!


----------



## JGG1701

Trek Ace said:


> Great music to model by.


Agreed! :thumbsup:
Now how much is this?
Can't find the price on the site.
-Jim


----------



## Opus Penguin

They haven't announced price yet.


----------



## Trek Ace

There have been projections of somewhere between $150 and $200. They'll announce the final pricing and details soon. So far, this is shaping up to be a great year for _Star Trek_ models and music!


----------



## Warped9

While reading comments regarding the recent announcement that the _Galileo_ shuttlecraft will be the next "holy grail" kit many have us have been waiting for I came across something I might have missed being mention elsewhere. 

Is this for real that the big _E_ will be moulded in different colours, such as two shades of grey, copper for the nav dish and nav rings/housing and such? Wild! They seem to be thinking about the paint challenged among modellers while they'll also be supplying a correct paint guide for the experienced painters. Jamie also said that the lighting kit will include properly coloured lights where required? Cool.


----------



## LGFugate

Jaimie said the Big E will be molded in two shades of gray, clear, and a darker clear. He hasn't said anything about other colors for molding. The light kit will be in the appropriate colors for the location it goes into.

Larry


----------



## Warped9

LGFugate said:


> Jaimie said the Big E will be molded in two shades of gray, clear, and a darker clear. He hasn't said anything about other colors for molding. The light kit will be in the appropriate colors for the location it goes into.
> 
> Larry


Sweet!


----------



## Opus Penguin

Jamie stated when asked if they would be molded in the color they are meant to be: 

"Everything in the kit is injected in the color that it should be except for the smaller colored clear parts which are all plain 'water' clear. BUT if you buy the light kit, we even through in properly colored clear replacements for those."


----------



## Warped9

Opus Penguin said:


> Jamie stated when asked if they would be molded in the color they are meant to be:
> 
> "Everything in the kit is injected in the color that it should be except for the smaller colored clear parts which are all plain 'water' clear. BUT if you buy the light kit, we even through in properly colored clear replacements for those."


Yep, that's what I heard. Sweet!


----------



## Hunch

Being one of the 1701 members I'm hoping to get mine in September. I am completely stoked for this and once the kit arrives I'll be using the time in between until the light kit is for sale to "feel" out the parts and get my game plan together. If theres grid lines I'll have plenty of time to fill them, and any other thing I dont like. Great time to be a modeler!:thumbsup:


----------



## Opus Penguin

Same here!


----------



## Warped9

Hunch said:


> Being one of the 1701 members I'm hoping to get mine in September. I am completely stoked for this and once the kit arrives I'll be using the time in between until the light kit is for sale to "feel" out the parts and get my game plan together. If theres grid lines I'll have plenty of time to fill them, and any other thing I dont like. Great time to be a modeler!:thumbsup:


Same, although I won't be bothered by the lines if they get them as fine as they're aiming for. And if they don't then there won't be any grid lines at all and I'll be okay with that too.


----------



## Captain April

Judging by the latest test shot we've been privy to, I think the grid lines as they stand are well within the tolerance levels.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I agree. However, any finer will make it even better.


----------



## CLBrown

Opus Penguin said:


> Jamie stated when asked if they would be molded in the color they are meant to be:
> 
> "Everything in the kit is injected in the color that it should be except for the smaller colored clear parts which are all plain 'water' clear. BUT if you buy the light kit, we even through in properly colored clear replacements for those."


This is very interesting... of course, there's no question but that the model needs to be painted, anyway (all styrene is naturally translucent, even if it has a significant amount of "mineral fill" content, so painting is an absolute MUST).

The main place this will come in handy will, I guess, be that if you accidentally "nick" the completed model at some point in the future, or otherwise have incomplete or insufficient coverage, it won't stand out all that much.

It's a smart choice, but that sort of thing really comes in MOST handy for the "amateurs" who just slap it together and put the "stickers" on. I really can't imagine too many folks likely to spend this much for a kit this large, which will take up this much space... just "slapping it together." 

Can you?


----------



## Ductapeforever

Skill levels vary, but I respect any modelers choice of how they finish a kit, I was in their shoes once. Skill and experience don't come overnight.


----------



## CLBrown

Ductapeforever said:


> Skill levels vary, but I respect any modelers choice of how they finish a kit, I was in their shoes once. Skill and experience don't come overnight.


Oh, I agree. I'm just saying... the odds of a "beginner modeler" buying this kit are probably fairly slim.

I think that the 1:1000 kits are purposefully designed to appeal to the "casual modeler," though they CAN be made into very high-quality builds. The 1:350 kit is far beyond what the average "casual builder" is likely to try.

Sure, there'll be a few "casuals builders" who'll try this one out... but I can't imagine that they'll make up very much of the market for this kit, can you?


----------



## Ductapeforever

If they're smart, they'll buy one and sock it away untill their skills improve. As it won't always be available.


----------



## Rallystone

Just wondering if anyone knows of any after-market kits in the works for this?
Maybe verrrrry tiny crew members for the bridge? The way it sounds, I can't image much more was left out...:thumbsup:


----------



## Paulbo

Rallystone said:


> Just wondering if anyone knows of any after-market kits in the works for this?
> Maybe verrrrry tiny crew members for the bridge? The way it sounds, I can't image much more was left out...:thumbsup:


Working on that as we speak ... it's a quite complete kit, but there are some tweaks to be added. :wave:


----------



## Warped9

- Alternate parts for other versions (covered by R2)
- Weathering decals (covered by R2)
- Lighting kit (covered by R2)

Other possibilities:
- miniature crewman
- extra shuttlecraft
- alternate name and registry decals
- modification kits for other starship classes such as destroyer/scout, frigate, transport/tug...
- alternate base stand(s) (something individual modellers could rig themselves)
- drydock kit with TOS style work pods or space trucks (like MJ's early sketches)
- battle damage parts (could also be done by individual)


----------



## Paulbo

When you mentioned the alternative ship classes, I thought you were a little whacked, Warped9. But then I thought about how this model goes together so much differently than the old 18 incher and realized that it's _easier_ to mod than the old kit - and the super-thick plastic makes it easier to make strong bonds.

Hmmmm. (Puts thinking cap on and begins examining possibilities.)


----------



## CLBrown

Rallystone said:


> Just wondering if anyone knows of any after-market kits in the works for this?
> Maybe verrrrry tiny crew members for the bridge? The way it sounds, I can't image much more was left out...:thumbsup:


There are several different "1:350" figure kits out there, which (with minimal repaint work) would work very well for this kit.

I plan to pick up one small set of true 3D figures... mainly for the bridge, and my four "rec deck" spaces in the primary hull. Everywhere else, I'll use some Eduard 2D pre-painted photoetch figures (with, as stated before, some minimal repainting) for "behind the windows" purposes.

There's no real need to be "kit specific" figures. Just search for 1:350 figures and you'll find the same ones I've found. I really do recommend the Eduard ones for "behind windows" but I've never been a fan of 2D figures which can be viewed from multiple perspectives... those NEED to be pure 3D.

One set, in particular, has some seated figures. They're supposedly Japanese navy figures, but with minimal effort can be turned into bridge crew, or seated figures in lounges, I think. I'll have to carefully remove the Japanese WWII headgear, mainly...

The only REAL problem is that I can only find MALE figures, and certainly no MINISKIRT-WEARING figures. So... I guess we'll just have to say that none of the female crew will be near any of the windows in my build-up!


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> Other possibilities:
> - miniature crewman


Pre-paint, photoetch (Eduard-style) TOS figures would be a huge timesaver... if anyone wants to produce anything like this. As well as some 1:350 3D TOS figures... we can make do with existing male figures, but we need MINISKIRT FEMALES, which I can't find anywhere, nor can I find any thing "convertible" to fulfill this role.


> - extra shuttlecraft


I'll go a step further, and say "all new shuttlecraft." Not because the kit-supplied part is BAD, but it has certain features which are just a bit "off" due to having to be injection-molded.

A really good after-market shuttle will consist of recast kit nacelles, resin replication of the upper and lower hull regions, and most importantly, PHOTOETCH to make up the "fins" and "nacelle pylons" for the shuttle.


> - alternate name and registry decals


Not "alternate" exactly... rather, a "set of characters" type sheet (there've been many of this type throughout the years) allowing us to do our own naming, numbering, and even "kerning."

A few extra details... say, yellow-black checkerboard (which is the non-canon method of showing that a kit is an "experimental" or "prototype" design), maybe a diplomatic banner set, or a Starfleet Medical logo (seen on Crusher's ship in "All Good Things," and copied (with tweaks) from the 1970s "Medical Reference Manual").

Maybe even some alternative "more pre-TOS" markings... like banners using the UESPA "swish" instead of the series "swish?"

Or maybe some TOS-style lettering... same typeface... but with a white and then a red band outlining them (ala TMP).

And I'm sure SOMEONE will come up with a TOS-style lettering sheet with the "gold outline" (which is really only caused by decal-film yellowing on the original miniature, but lots of folks like to be part of their model decal sets).


> - modification kits for other starship classes such as destroyer/scout, frigate, transport/tug...


Well, they've set the model up so that this can be done pretty easily with the nacelles... but I can't see spending that much $$$ for a "kitbashing" kit. Only the wealthy can play that game... 

I'll stick with the 1:1000 for any future "bashing" I'll do. Most of what I've done before was with the AMT and ERTL kits, and while the AMT 18" kit is fine for "bashing," the ERTL TMP ship is almost too large to be practical for that purpose, unless you have an entire "museum" to display your builds...

But if people WANT to do this... the kit definitely allows for it.


> - alternate base stand(s) (something individual modellers could rig themselves)


Something akin to the "TWOK shield display base" which has become popular?

I'm not sure what you'd use for an "alternative" TOS base, though... any ideas?


> - drydock kit with TOS style work pods or space trucks (like MJ's early sketches)


I plan to use the TMP-style work bees as part of my buildup. The only difference will be the paint job. Yellow, still, but with more red/white detail markings.


> - battle damage parts (could also be done by individual)


I can imagine some custom photo-etch to form the damaged hull plating for, say, the Constellation. Some additional photoetch and resin parts, and maybe even some brass rod, could make up the rest of the damaged interior.

The trick is... you can't really do "generic damage kits." It'd need to be specific to one ship, and likely that would be for the Constellation. Anyone see another way to do this?


----------



## Paulbo

CLBrown said:


> ...The trick is... you can't really do "generic damage kits." It'd need to be specific to one ship, and likely that would be for the Constellation. Anyone see another way to do this?


http://www.paragrafix.biz/product_detail.asp?PartNum=PGX134 ?


----------



## Captain April

Of course, then the question is who's gonna shell out over a hundred bucks for one of these puppies only to carve it up into a battle damaged hulk? And then deal with dweebs like me who point to the AMT model as the "accurate" version? :devil:


----------



## CLBrown

Paulbo said:


> http://www.paragrafix.biz/product_detail.asp?PartNum=PGX134 ?


Well, while that's a nice tool... a starting point... it's not a full "damage kit," really... it's just for the punctured hull plating. Nicely done, to be sure, but if you wanted to do, say, the Constellation, this wouldn't really even help, would it?

The reason I said what I said was more related to how I just don't see people buying this huge, expensive kit to carve up, unless it's to replicate something iconic... like the "remastered" version of the Constellation.

And to do that right, you'd need more than just perforated plating... you'd need internal structure, nacelle details, etc, etc. There have been great addon parts of this nature made for the AMT 18" kit, and also for the Ertl TMP kit (for the ST-III self-destruct Enterprise).

I love those... but I'm not going to spend a couple of hundred bucks to creat them. I want my ship to be PRISTINE.


----------



## Paulbo

You asked about "generic damage", so I posted a reply about generic damage. As far as what's behind the damaged hull plates, that's what the spares box is for.


----------



## Warped9

As I understand it the stand for this kit will be a cylindrical pole (likely metal) set within a spherical base. That spherical base could be replaced by any number of designs.

I like the idea (if possible) of having a support of strong clear material similar to that seen on many aircraft models conveying the semi-illusion of the model floating over the display surface. It could as simple as replacing the metal cylinderical pole with a plexiglass or acrylic one, or you could get a bit more elaborative or stylistic.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Weight will play a factor in selection of materials for a custom base, I recommend staying with the metal rod concept, possibly hidden in some other medium.


----------



## Warped9

Ductapeforever said:


> Weight will play a factor in selection of materials for a custom base, I recommend staying with the metal rod concept, possibly hidden in some other medium.


Agreed. I'm just throwing an idea or two out there. At present I've no idea what this kit will weigh once you include lights and all.


----------



## Captain April

Without the lights, probably around the same weight as the 1/350 refit.


----------



## Warped9

Captain April said:


> Without the lights, probably around the same weight as the 1/350 refit.


I don't have one of those (I know, blasphemy) so I don't know what that weighs.


----------



## Captain April

It ain't light, I can tell you that.


----------



## Trek Ace

Too bad they couldn't have made the base of the new 1/350 model a 1:1 scale replica of the 11-footer's main sensor/deflector dish. Now THAT would have been something!


----------



## Hunch

Captain April said:


> Judging by the latest test shot we've been privy to, I think the grid lines as they stand are well within the tolerance levels.


Are you talking about the pics from the last newsletter? Those lines were BIG. If not, fill me in please.


----------



## Warped9

Hunch said:


> Are you talking about the pics from the last newsletter? Those lines were BIG. If not, fill me in please.


The lines from Test Shot #3 seen on the 2012 Wonderfest video were the best we've seen so far and they weren't bad.


----------



## Kit

CLBrown said:


> ...we need MINISKIRT FEMALES, which I can't find anywhere...


Well, none of us are getting any younger.


----------



## Warped9

Some interesting dioramas could be done with this model.

- drydock (already mentioned upthtread)
- the cube buoy from "The Corbomite Maneuver"
- the Melkotian buoy from "Spectre Of The Gun"
- "Space Seed" (for which you'd need a 1/350 _Botany Bay)_
- "The Corbomite Maneuver" (for which you'd need a 1/350 _Fesarius)_ :lol:
- "The Corbomite Maneuver" (for which you'd need a 1/350 _Fesarius_ scoutship---this one is actually doable)
- "For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky" (for which you'd need a 1/350 Yonada asteroid ship :lol:
- "The Doomsday Machine" (for which you'd need at least the maw of the planet killer equal in size to at least your garage door) :lol:
- "Balance Of Terror" (for which you'd need a 1/350 Romulan BoP)
- "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" (how hard can it be to scratchbuild an invisible scoutship?)
- "Who Mourns For Adonais?" (you'd need an oversized and barely visible right hand)
- "The Trouble With Tribbles" (for which you need a 1/350 Station K-7)
- "Requiem For Methuselah" (well, Duh! ...actually all you'd need is a full size replica of Flint's hand-held device)
- "Beyond The Farthest Star" (for which you need a 1/350 alien pod ship)

I'm sure there are other possibilities.


----------



## CLBrown

Captain April said:


> It ain't light, I can tell you that.


Yep, and with the tendency for all plastics to "creep" over time when loaded, I've been very reluctant to build that kit until I have a "non-creepable" armature for it.

I know that there's a very nice, welded frame which has been made (CultTVMan has, or at least had, them for sale, though he doesn't make them himself, as I understand) for that kit. I think it's an absolute requirement to prevent this ship from, over time, deforming under its own weight.

Of course, I fully expect that'll be an issue for the upcoming kit as well. As great as I think the plastic design work is on the R2 TOS E... about as good as you can get using nothing but styrene... it WILL eventually sag. No way to avoid that, unless you put a "not-creeping" armature inside.

Plastic simply deforms... "plastic flow" is the technical term, and not in the sense of "it's made of plastic" but rather "as opposed to elastic... meaning permanent deformation." It deforms any time it is subjected to a constant force. Like, say, its own weight under gravity.

If you build either kit, you need to either develop a stand which will support all elements (not just a single point), or you need to have a robust internal structure... or you need to accept that you will suffer sagging of the saucer and nacelles, relative to the engineering hull, over time.


----------



## Warped9

Yep, an armature is a good idea. I, too, like the idea of added support.


----------



## CLBrown

Hunch said:


> Are you talking about the pics from the last newsletter? Those lines were BIG. If not, fill me in please.


Youtube the most recent "Round 2 Wonderfest" presentation... the one from just recently, not the one from last year.

Along with Jamie's talk, and some input from both Gary Kerr and ClubTepes (who you'll both find here!), they also put up some images, during the presentation video, which were not necessarily part of the presentation at the time it was given.

They showed a comparison between the "first pass gridlines" and the "third-pass gridlines" in one image, but as I understand, were still trying to reduce them even more. (Though some folks seem to be reading those as "the final state," and only R2 official word can truly make clear which position is correct!)

I see them, even though dramatically improved, as still being "too big." The final lines will, I suspect, end up being about 1/2 the size of the lines shown in "test shot #3." But I have no inside information, per-se... just a clear understanding of how molded part development goes, and a clear idea of what the "best" option is (your mileage may vary).


----------



## CLBrown

Paulbo said:


> You asked about "generic damage", so I posted a reply about generic damage. As far as what's behind the damaged hull plates, that's what the spares box is for.


No argument there, Paul... and what you've made up, especially for the ST-II/ST-III damage states for the 1:1000 kit, is outstanding.

All I was saying is that damage is not something you can really do a "kit" for unless you're either talking about very generic stuff, or a very, very complex kit.

Making a "Constellation damage" kit for the 1:350 R2 TOS ship would be a MASSIVE undertaking. And, with the exception of providing the "correct" hull plating damage for that ship (which I think you'd be able to provide, very nicely) I think that the "spares box"... along with tons of rod, sprue, aluminum foil, etc, etc... would make up the lion's share of that project.


----------



## Warped9

Since this is such a subject of interest we can see what has been discussed about it most recently. This pic is from the R2's Wonderfest 2012 presentation (seen on YouTube) which anyone can see and not from the 1701 updates (which actually haven't seen this pic yet).

Test shot #3 is the latest they have on the gridlines. It's still not what R2 wants. Apparently they're going for one more try to get what they want and continuing to reiterate that if they can't get what they want then there won't be any gridlines. Either way I think it'll be a win for us. Note this image was added after the test model was shown at the R2 booth and after the presentation was filmed.


----------



## fire91bird

Well, as I mentioned in another post, I'm thinking #3 is probably it, judging by the timing alone. They showed #1 at Wonderfest, they were waiting for #2 and they now we have #3. If the kit is supposed to be out next month, do they really have time for a #4? The video is a bit confusing, but it seems where the text says they are wanting better is just repeating what is being said in the Wonderfest presentation. I think #3 is what we should expect.


----------



## Fozzie

Warped9 said:


> Test shot #3 is the latest they have on the gridlines. It's still not what R2 wants.


Definitely a big improvement shown in test shot #3. Not only less wide, but not as deep either.


----------



## Warped9

fire91bird said:


> Well, as I mentioned in another post, I'm thinking #3 is probably it, judging by the timing alone. They showed #1 at Wonderfest, they were waiting for #2 and they now we have #3. If the kit is supposed to be out next month, do they really have time for a #4? The video is a bit confusing, but it seems where the text says they are wanting better is just repeating what is being said in the Wonderfest presentation. I think #3 is what we should expect.


But they reiterate #3 isn't what they want. So if it isn't and they can't get better then the word is "no gridlines."

Even if we did get #3 it doesn't look like it would be much effort to fill them. Hell, it looks like a coat of primer and paint and they'd almost disappear.


----------



## fire91bird

Well, I guess it's open for interpretation what it is they are reiterating. To me, it seems like the text is sort of like closed captioning for the discussion in the Wonderfest presentation, but the video is a bit confusing for sure. If you factor in the timing, though, it seems highly unlikely they'd have time for another round of test shots. We'll find out for sure with the next newsletter or the actual kit in any case. I agree #3 is probably going to work for most folks, and I'll be happy if that's what we get. I still say if the grid lines are the worst thing we're debating, Round 2 has done a great job. Imagine if the basic shapes were wrong.


----------



## Warped9

fire91bird said:


> I still say if the grid lines are the worst thing we're debating, Round 2 has done a great job. Imagine if the basic shapes were wrong.


Agreed, but folks can get pretty passionate. Fact is over the years consumer goods have generally gotten better to the point that we can often expect something to be exactly as we want it all the time and can feel very inconvenienced when it's not. Some of the things we can get upset about today our parents and grandparents wouldn't have blinked at. (-:

More to the point---consider the recent Revell Germany TOS _E,_ a kit that has too obvious lines _and_ incorrect shapes. R2's 1/350 will have that trumped in every respect.


----------



## Fozzie

I don't think _anyone _is going to say that they didn't get the basic shapes right, especially after seeing the build-up at Wonderfest. Gridlines or not, I expect that 99% of the consumers of this kit are going to be absolutely thrilled with the final product.


----------



## jheilman

fire91bird said:


> Well, as I mentioned in another post, I'm thinking #3 is probably it, judging by the timing alone. They showed #1 at Wonderfest, they were waiting for #2 and they now we have #3. If the kit is supposed to be out next month, do they really have time for a #4? The video is a bit confusing, but it seems where the text says they are wanting better is just repeating what is being said in the Wonderfest presentation. I think #3 is what we should expect.


Exactly.


----------



## Opus Penguin

We should hopefully know more and get any confirmation in the next club update which should be any day.


----------



## fire91bird

I actually find the grid line discussion fascinating because it speaks to what it is we are trying to depict. Are we trying to duplicate the studio model or is the studio model itself only a representation of the "real thing"? I like to say if you don't model a blank left side, then you've chosen not to replicate the studio model. So if you're not doing a studio model, then you have to ask what various physical details are supposed to represent. It's interesting to hear the various rationales. Does a different interpretation make it inaccurate if you have a reason for it? The bridge for instance, I think should face straight ahead, but I can understand why someone would want it off-center.


----------



## SFCOM1

If Test shot #3 is how the grid lines would be, I can work with that. If the model arrives with no engraved lines. Was considering very faint pencil lines like the ones present on the original filming model. Of course that would take for ever and a serious amount of measuring (and a massive radial compass ;-D)


----------



## Warped9

If the final model doesn't have any gridlines then I WILL BE ROYALLY PISSED!

Kidding. :lol:

Actually if it comes without gridlines I'll be fine with that and I won't bother trying to add them either. If they were supposed to be barely noticeable on an 11ft. filming miniature then they should be next to invisible (or close to it) on a 3ft. model anyway.


----------



## Trek Ace

SFCOM1 said:


> If Test shot #3 is how the grid lines would be, I can work with that. If the model arrives with no engraved lines. Was considering very faint pencil lines like the ones present on the original filming model. Of course that would take for ever and a serious amount of measuring (and a massive radial compass ;-D)


That's why I keep this guy around:


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> If the final model doesn't have any gridlines then I WILL BE ROYALLY PISSED!
> 
> Kidding. :lol:
> 
> Actually if it comes without gridlines I'll be fine with that and I won't bother trying to add them either. If they were supposed to be barely noticeable on an 11ft. filming miniature then they should be next to invisible (or close to it) on a 3ft. model anyway.


I'd argue a step further than that.

The 11' model was built, not to be inspected up-close, but rather on a 1966-ish TV screen, at very low resolution (since it's analog, and since some scan lines were always "off-screen" this varies a bit, but in general, the number is assumed to be 704×480).

There is not any chance that the super-fine pencil lines were actually visible on a 1966-era TV set. Yes, you may be able to detect them in person, or using DVD transfers on an HD set... but none of that existed at the time, nor did anyone have any reason to imagine that we'd be looking at their work when the time would come when we'd be able to do so.

I know it's been argued, and may well be true, that the pencil lines were added at Roddenberry's behest, but they were so fine as to be literally undetectable on the original (and only expected) broadcasts of the show. I've always suspected that the "lines added because Roddenberry wanted them" story might well be apocryphal, though I have no way of proving that. I suspect that it's one of those stories which has been passed around, and become more and more accepted, but unless I were to hear it from a FIRST HAND SOURCE, I'll remain skeptical about it.

Why do I feel skeptical? Well, simply because I worked, early in my career, on a drafting table. I know how you make accurate shapes and so forth. You draw very, very fine pencil lines to serve as guides... and if they're fine enough, you leave them once the main drawing is done, or else you use an erasing template and erase them once their "job" is done.

These very, very light, fine lines... to me, they seem to be something you'd really need in order to accurately place markings and the like on the hull. The markings you'd be able to see, on-screen... but the pencil "construction lines" would be absolutely invisible to the intended audience.

I know, I'm in the minority here on this issue... but I really don't buy that the story we've all been told, third, fourth, seventeenth, and one-hundred-thirty-second-hand, is necessarily true. Only a first-hand account would be reliable, from my perspective.

But in any case, I WILL have very, very fine pencil lines on my model, made using a drafter's lead-pointer, and 9H (super-hard) lead, so that the lines will be almost invisible... just like they were on the 11' model.


----------



## Gregatron

fire91bird said:


> I actually find the grid line discussion fascinating because it speaks to what it is we are trying to depict. Are we trying to duplicate the studio model or is the studio model itself only a representation of the "real thing"? I like to say if you don't model a blank left side, then you've chosen not to replicate the studio model. So if you're not doing a studio model, then you have to ask what various physical details are supposed to represent. It's interesting to hear the various rationales. Does a different interpretation make it inaccurate if you have a reason for it? The bridge for instance, I think should face straight ahead, but I can understand why someone would want it off-center.



This, of course, all comes down to the individual modeler.


For me, personally, the specific texturing of the model is the way to go. The gridlines were drawn on, and therefore so subtle that they could barely be seen--even in HD! As the story goes, Jefferies didn't even want the gridlines on there, so subtle is better.

In-universe, it could very well be argued, based on the filming model's texturing, that the lines were flush with the saucer's surface. An analogy I've used before is that they might be like the heating elements in a car's rear windshield--dark lines that are _visible_, but not raised or engraved.


I feel obligated to honor to the 11-foot model's colors, detailing, and overall appearance and textures. I will not add 1/350 people or interiors behind the windows (with the exception of the hangar deck). Since the Bridge interior set seemed to have an opaque ceiling, I see no need to use the kit part (unless more evidence comes along that the ceiling really was a "window"--still need to do more research on that).




It's a fine line between replicating the specific detailing and texturing of an imperfect studio model, and replicating the fictional spacecraft that the model represents.

Of course, that imperfect model is what was seen on-screen, so even little things (like scribed vs. penciled gridlines) can look oh-so-subtly "wrong" to my eye.

The real gray area is the portside's B/C deck and saucer rim windows. Of course, since this kit model represents the fictional spacecraft, one can't just leave the portside unfinished, and the starboard inner nacelle trenchless. It MUST be _somewhat_ idealized.

Therefore, the only real sticking point is the window pattern. Do the portside windows become symmetrical and idealized, or do they match the non-symmetrical look of the filming model? Was that a stylistic choice (as Jefferies' AMT/TMOST blueprints indicate), or just a compromise due to the portside not being seen on camera, and the work to create the extra windows therefore not being needed?


Really, in terms of the most basic decisions a modeler has to make, it comes down to the gridlines and the windows. 

Everything else is simple, aside from modelers' personal tastes on matters like hull colors, weathering, and aztec-style hull plating. Those are the only other real "gray areas".


----------



## Gregatron

CLBrown said:


> I'd argue a step further than that.
> 
> Why do I feel skeptical? Well, simply because I worked, early in my career, on a drafting table. I know how you make accurate shapes and so forth. You draw very, very fine pencil lines to serve as guides... and if they're fine enough, you leave them once the main drawing is done, or else you use an erasing template and erase them once their "job" is done.
> 
> These very, very light, fine lines... to me, they seem to be something you'd really need in order to accurately place markings and the like on the hull. The markings you'd be able to see, on-screen... but the pencil "construction lines" would be absolutely invisible to the intended audience.



Interesting theory, but the notion or reversible/removable markings came during the second pilot, for which the model had no gridlines. 

Perhaps the lines were added for production because they planned on doing more reverse-decal shots, but that (apparently) never happened.

Also, why go to all that trouble with a pencil, rather that just place the decals by eye (and with the use of reference photos for proper decal placement)? Even if the placement was off a few mm--or even inches--it really wouldn't be noticable on-screen.


----------



## Warped9

CLBrown said:


> But in any case, I WILL have very, very fine pencil lines on my model, made using a drafter's lead-pointer, and 9H (super-hard) lead, so that the lines will be almost invisible... just like they were on the 11' model.


You've just given me an interesting idea. If the model comes without gridlines I could see drawing only a very few and very faint lines to help place my decals, but not bother with the rest of it.


----------



## CLBrown

Trek Ace said:


> That's why I keep this guy around:


That's pretty sweet... I've never seen that particular tool before.

Me, I'm going to be using THIS to make my circumferential lines... while I'll use one of THESE to make my radial lines.

The lines will be drawn using one of THESE leadholders... with THIS lead used, and sharpened to a needle tip using one of THESE.

Using a very light touch, and re-sharpening after each line, I should get lines which are identical in appearance to what's seen with "normal drafting pencil" lead on the 11" miniature. Pretty much undetectable at all, unless you get right up on top of the model, and subtle no matter what.

It'll work best using a hard, automotive lacquer paint. That's my big issue right now... finding the right paint to use. Something that will be really, really hard, and really, really smooth. (House paint, even if it's exactly the right color, just won't cut it, as far as I'm concerned!)


----------



## Trek Ace

CLBrown said:


> That's pretty sweet... I've never seen that particular tool before.


I bought it back in the early '60s. It has served me well ever since.


----------



## Warped9

^^ Very nice. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gary K

CLBrown said:


> These very, very light, fine lines... to me, they seem to be something you'd really need in order to accurately place markings and the like on the hull. The markings you'd be able to see, on-screen... but the pencil "construction lines" would be absolutely invisible to the intended audience.
> 
> I know, I'm in the minority here on this issue... but I really don't buy that the story we've all been told, third, fourth, seventeenth, and one-hundred-thirty-second-hand, is necessarily true. Only a first-hand account would be reliable, from my perspective..


Matt Jefferies explained his recollections re. the hull of the Enterprise to Mike Okuda, and Mike relayed them to me. I know it's not a sworn affidavit, but that's good enough for me.

The fact that Jefferies included the lines on the Enterprise plans that were printed in "The Making of Star Trek" (and which Majel sold at Lincoln Enterprises) kinda leads me to suspect that he intended them to be seen. Jefferies also included the lines in his painting of the Enterprise that graces the cover of his biography, "Beyond the Clouds". And do I see the "bow light" on the saucer plans, too? 

Gary


----------



## Warped9

Gary K said:


> Jefferies also included the lines in his painting of the Enterprise that graces the cover of his biography, "Beyond the Stars".
> 
> Gary


Uh, I believe the book is _Beyond the Clouds: The Lifetime Trek of Walter "Matt" Jefferies, Artist and Visionary._


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> Uh, I believe the book is _Beyond the Clouds: The Lifetime Trek of Walter "Matt" Jefferies, Artist and Visionary._


Right... "Beyond the Stars" is George Takei's autobiography.

In any case, I understand the arguments to the contrary. Everyone has their respective minds made up already. The bottom line, really, is that the lines, as created on the model, could not be seen on the hardware which the images were being presented to (late 1960s TV sets).

The only thing that's "unquestionable" re: this fictional spaceship is what we've seen on-screen (and even then, we have to accept that it's "seen through gauze" so to speak... hence the bridge seems to swing wildly around inside the bridge dome in "The Cage" opening shot... while I doubt anyone seriously thinks that's what was "really" happening!).

As long as the ships which exist in our respective minds can look like the ship seen on-screen in 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969... and in syndication throughout the early to mid 1970s... anything beyond that is all gravy. It's only when the ship starts looking different than what we've seen... say, like the Revell kit's forward secondary hull and underside primary hull, just for example... that we've got a major issue.

Nobody REALLY knows the exact scale of the ship. Nobody REALLY knows if there would be "real lines" on a "real ship," and if they DID exist, if they'd be inscribed grooves, or if they'd be a form of conduit laid atop the hull, or if they'd be what I, personally treat them as (and at least one other person, above in this thread, seems to agree)... as "foil tape" applied to the hull, much as antennae or heater elements, today, are often applied as "film" to car windshields.

For me... in my own "personal canon," these are simply E/M waveguides. A waveguide can easily be any of the above. All it really has to do is concentrate electromagnetic fields to allow controlled flux distribution. So... the original state of the Enterprise had no such elements. They applied them onto the TOS(series) ship as part of the major systems upgrade between WNMHGB and the series... and the primary hull defense system was enhanced by putting down this "foil tape" to serve as waveguides.

For TMP, the ship got an entirely new skin, and they put in another, more permanent, form of waveguide, as part of the new shield system.

That's how I see this. But, since it's a make-believe ship, nobody else has to agree with me.

For me, it's metalized foil tape, not "grooves," on the hull. Why? Because (a) that will do the job, (b) it's an easy "in service" retrofit, and (c) it most closely matches the real appearance of the real physical model.

Oh, and as far as that "bow light" is concerned... I strongly suspect that they actually planned, at some point, to have a big bulb lamp there, just like on the port and starboard. I actually tried putting one there on a build I did years ago, and I think I know why they removed it.

It just looks silly... it becomes a CLOWN NOSE on the bow of the ship. But yeah, I do believe that this was originally intended to be a lamp position... though I'm not 100% convinced that the plexiglass plug which ended up in that spot was actually "illuminated" or if it was just a plug. It matters not at all to me, though... for my "personal canon" version of the ship, this is part of the forward scanner array (along with the three front-center circular ports). So in my version... yeah, that little flat circular bit is lit.


----------



## Gary K

Warped9 said:


> Uh, I believe the book is _Beyond the Clouds: The Lifetime Trek of Walter "Matt" Jefferies, Artist and Visionary._


Ack! And I just looked at the book before I posted...

Gary


----------



## Warped9

I have a question regarding something perhaps a bit less contentious and not usually discussed: weathering.

We know there are weathering decals to be available as a separate item. Are these to be made by R2? And just how subtle are these decals? I've always envisioned the weathering to be subtle and certainly not harsh or extreme.


----------



## Warped9

CLBrown said:


> ...for my "personal canon" version of the ship, this is part of the forward scanner array (along with the three front-center circular ports).


I've never noticed that "plug" until better pics of the ship began surfacing in the '90s (for me anyway). I can also see it as part of the forward sensor array if we accept those three lighted circles as sensors. They could also be interpreted as windows although on the 2nd pilot version of the ship the centre one blinked off-and-on. If set a bit further back that "plug" could also be an EVA hatch similar to what we saw in TMP when they went out on the hull. I don't know if I'd want this plug lighted, though. I might just paint it white.


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> I've never noticed that "plug" until better pics of the ship began surfacing in the '90s (for me anyway). I can also see it as part of the forward sensor array if we accept those three lighted circles as sensors. They could also be interpreted as windows although on the 2nd pilot version of the ship the centre one blinked off-and-on. If set a bit further back that "plug" could also be an EVA hatch similar to what we saw in TMP when they went out on the hull. I don't know if I'd want this plug lighted, though. I might just paint it white.


I've been thinking about how I'd do this, in-model. My first idea is to have several layers of metal (photoetched, or just very carefully hand-machined?), all sandwiched. The "white circle" would be inset, just below the surface of the hull. The layers of metal would form a "ring of lights" around the inside perimeter of this little circle (sort of like what the TMP ship has around the sensor/deflector dish, except white rather than blue or orange), and shining mostly inwards.

The lights will ring this little "platform." For me, the idea is that it's the same general tech as the TMP ship has around the dish... some sort of "subspace sensor array."

But... you know, you could treat it as a "hull access lift" ala TMP... and the exact same approach I just described would work equally nicely, wouldn't it?

Hmmm...

FYI, folks... the ship I'm going to build is not "exactly" the TOS ship... it's my personal take on what a "real" version of the ship would be like. So, I know that this is not going to look identical to what the "filming miniature" looked like in that spot, or in a number of other spots.

The plan, for me, is that if you took the ship I'm making up, and shot it at 1966-level TV resolution, you'd never be able to tell the difference... but if you shot it in 4K resolution, today, it would look like a real, high-tech spacecraft.

It's sort of the same approach Deg or some of the other folks have taken... but I'm just making less overall design tweaks (since their various versions do look noticeably different from the series ship, even if seen "out of focus.")

I'm pretty sure that the model I'll build up will be unique, which I'm perfectly happy with. I'll also be pleased to see all the other takes people will have, from a "pure TOS mini except without the production shortcuts" to "perfect replicas of the filming miniature" to, I suspect, a few "FJ-ized" versions...who knows what else? 

I'm actually hoping someone will do a DEG ship or a Vektor ship...


----------



## Warped9

CLBrown said:


> ...the ship I'm going to build is not "exactly" the TOS ship... it's my personal take on what a "real" version of the ship would be like. So, I know that this is not going to look identical to what the "filming miniature" looked like in that spot, or in a number of other spots.


I think a few of us might go that route. I'm still intrigued by the idea of a finished Pike era ship. The 11 footer wasn't really complete initially and so I'd add some details from the later versions such as lighted windows, WNMHGB style running lights, lighted upper/lower saucer sensor arrays and the grille work along the inboard side of the nacelles. I love the series' version, but this would still be the _Enterprise_ only just realized a bit differently.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Warped9 said:


> Since this is such a subject of interest we can see what has been discussed about it most recently. This pic is from the R2's Wonderfest 2012 presentation (seen on YouTube) which anyone can see and not from the 1701 updates (which actually haven't seen this pic yet).
> 
> Test shot #3 is the latest they have on the gridlines. It's still not what R2 wants. Apparently they're going for one more try to get what they want and continuing to reiterate that if they can't get what they want then there won't be any gridlines. Either way I think it'll be a win for us. Note this image was added after the test model was shown at the R2 booth and after the presentation was filmed.


I have to admit that the 3rd test looks leaps and bounds better than the previous one. But I still want the lines gone. In any case, like you said *Warped9*, either way... if they're even finer than this or gone, it'll be cool. As for the weathering issue... of course, that's something that's up to each individual modeler, but speaking for myself personally, I would use a new and clean look, like the model in the publicity photo:










Of course, that's just me.


----------



## Warped9

BolianAdmiral said:


>


I gotta say I've always liked how the impulse or whatever detail on the top aft of the saucer looked on the 3 footer as seen here.


----------



## John P

Engraving gridlines if they give us a smooth hull: Don't do it on the plastic! Something I've tried successfully on the 1/1000 Enterprise is putting on a slightly thicker coat of primer, then using a VERY sharp, hard pencil to draw the gridlines on. Press down hard enough to score through the paint down to the plastic. Then put on your final coat. This makes them only as deep as the paint!


----------



## Warped9

John P said:


> Engraving gridlines if they give us a smooth hull: Don't do it on the plastic! Something I've tried successfully on the 1/1000 Enterprise is putting on a slightly thicker coat of primer, then using a VERY sharp, hard pencil to draw the gridlines on. Press down hard enough to score through the paint down to the plastic. Then put on your final coat. This makes them only as deep as the paint!


Can you show us what the final result looks like?

I can see adding lines to the top of the saucer and perhaps a few on the secondary hull and nacelles, but I don't even want to think of the hassle of adding those lines to the saucer rim and down undetneath. If R2 doesn't do it then I'm certanlly not going to bother.


----------



## Hunch

Thats a good idea John. 
For me, the lines will only be seen from about 2' or closer. Any distance further away from the model will appear smooth. I'm going to mask off microscopic lines and fill them with lead dust. I've perfected my masking (and weathering) style over the years and have already gotten the effect I'm looking for so I'm pretty much ready in that dept.
Round 2 has done such an amazing job on this thing that I want it to look exactly like I saw it on TV (minus the fuzzieness from so many passes thru the optical thing-a-ma-jig).
Since I'll be doing all three incarnations (eventually), the first two won't need the grid lines, right? That will be a breeze! 

Gary- any words you could share on the final grid line front? If that's not your dept. I totaly understand, AND I'd like to add- Thanks. You've done some amazing work here and should be very proud of your accomplishments.:thumbsup:
Jim


----------



## Warped9

The gridlines are just about the only thing left to talk about until we actually have the kit in hand. Gary and R2 have everything else well taken care of.


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> Engraving gridlines if they give us a smooth hull: Don't do it on the plastic! Something I've tried successfully on the 1/1000 Enterprise is putting on a slightly thicker coat of primer, then using a VERY sharp, hard pencil to draw the gridlines on. Press down hard enough to score through the paint down to the plastic. Then put on your final coat. This makes them only as deep as the paint!


Yep... that would go along with the technique I plan to use, if I didn't use a hard automotive lacquer, and pressed a bit harder han I plan to, as well! Great care will be necessary to PREVENT that from happening.


----------



## CLBrown

BolianAdmiral said:


> I have to admit that the 3rd test looks leaps and bounds better than the previous one. But I still want the lines gone. In any case, like you said *Warped9*, either way... if they're even finer than this or gone, it'll be cool. As for the weathering issue... of course, that's something that's up to each individual modeler, but speaking for myself personally, I would use a new and clean look, like the model in the publicity photo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, that's just me.


I have found that "weathering" works best, for me, when I use pastel chalk which is almost, but not quite, the same color as the base paint... either slightly darker or slightly lighter. I NEVER weather with black chalk.

I have used "washes" in a few cases, but generally I prefer not to. I use washes only in cases where that would be what's really happening to a device/vehicle/etc (say, like if you're doing the engine block of a car and it's coated with grime and oil, for example).

I usually use super-fine sandpaper and pastel and "grey-shades" pastel chalks... make a small amount of very fine powder, use a very soft artist brush, and gently brush the powder over a surface. As a general rule, I don't like having the streaks even be "consciously visible" at all... ie, unless you stop to pay attention, you won't notice them, but if you really look, they're definitely visible. That's sort of the effect that the TOS ship had (prior to the "restoration" I mean.

So... once my Enterprise is fully painted, decaled... everything but the installation of the clear bits (microscope slide slipcover bits for windows, etc), I'll likely grind some grey-shades chalk and put on some very subtle weathering. I doubt I'll use the "weathering decals," though I suspect that they'll be quite acceptable for most builder's purposes, and likely will be pretty close to the "filming state" of the model (at least the late-second-season condition of the model... remember, the model did see ongoing "maintenance" throughout the series).

Any weathering needs to be ALMOST invisible, as far as I'm concerned. Just enough to give the model a sense of scale. A "pristine" model will inevitably look just a little bit too "toy-like," I suspect.


----------



## Warped9

CLBrown said:


> I have found that "weathering" works best, for me, when I use pastel chalk which is almost, but not quite, the same color as the base paint... either slightly darker or slightly lighter. I NEVER weather with black chalk.
> 
> I have used "washes" in a few cases, but generally I prefer not to. I use washes only in cases where that would be what's really happening to a device/vehicle/etc (say, like if you're doing the engine block of a car and it's coated with grime and oil, for example).
> 
> I usually use super-fine sandpaper and pastel and "grey-shades" pastel chalks... make a small amount of very fine powder, use a very soft artist brush, and gently brush the powder over a surface. As a general rule, I don't like having the streaks even be "consciously visible" at all... ie, unless you stop to pay attention, you won't notice them, but if you really look, they're definitely visible. That's sort of the effect that the TOS ship had (prior to the "restoration" I mean.
> 
> So... once my Enterprise is fully painted, decaled... everything but the installation of the clear bits (microscope slide slipcover bits for windows, etc), I'll likely grind some grey-shades chalk and put on some very subtle weathering. I doubt I'll use the "weathering decals," though I suspect that they'll be quite acceptable for most builder's purposes, and likely will be pretty close to the "filming state" of the model (at least the late-second-season condition of the model... remember, the model did see ongoing "maintenance" throughout the series).


Great info! Thanks! :thumbsup:



CLBrown said:


> Any weathering needs to be ALMOST invisible, as far as I'm concerned. Just enough to give the model a sense of scale. A "pristine" model will inevitably look just a little bit too "toy-like," I suspect.


Agreed. I feel much the same.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

I

I also agree with that last bit. However, a pristine 1701 need not look "like a toy"... I think it looks rather good:


----------



## LGFugate

I'm curious - how does a starship, which never enters an atmosphere (okay, one time) get "weathered"? I can understand some carbonization from unshielded ray-based weapon hits, or blast damage from a near-hit by a photon torpedo, but rust? Why would there be iron (or low-grade steel) used in a starships' hull? And, where would the water come from to cause it to rust? Materials left outside the ISS for months at a time do not show "weathering"...

Larry


----------



## BolianAdmiral

It doesn't, and wouldn't. But good luck convincing many people otherwise.


----------



## Trek Ace

The_ Enterprise_ took a few dives into planet atmospheres through the years before taking the final plunge into the Genesis planet. That's where the weathering streaks would come from.

_The Naked Time _and _Tomorrow Is Yesterday_ immediately come to mind.


----------



## CLBrown

LGFugate said:


> I'm curious - how does a starship, which never enters an atmosphere (okay, one time) get "weathered"? I can understand some carbonization from unshielded ray-based weapon hits, or blast damage from a near-hit by a photon torpedo, but rust? Why would there be iron (or low-grade steel) used in a starships' hull? And, where would the water come from to cause it to rust? Materials left outside the ISS for months at a time do not show "weathering"...
> 
> Larry


"Weathering" is really not quite the correct term, but it's close.

There are lots of forms of "wear and tear" which a space vessel sees. Not NORMALLY related to "weather," though.

Space is not, of course, an actual VACUUM. It's a "near vacuum," but there's no shortage of particles... grit... gas... etc. If you're just drifting, you'll barely notice this, but if you're moving at high velocities, this would become something akin to being hit by a sandblaster. And while it may be argued that at "warp," you're actually in a little bubble universe, and not "really" moving at all, relative to that "bubble universe," I think we all acknowledge that impulse drive does involve physical motion (whether or not the motion is assisted by any form of field-effect aid).

But even given that... your "bubble" would be scooping up whatever impinges on the front surface of the bubble, and that would then "wash" over the surface of the ship. So the "sandblasting" analogy likely remains accurate.

Further, there's (as you mentioned) weapons fire, big green glowy hands, alien microbes, the "furnace blast" from doomsday machines, and on and on... 

So, you ABSOLUTELY expect surface wear-and-tear. It's just not "weathering" per-se, since it's not really "weather" which is causing it.

***********
As far as "rust," I agree, it's very unlikely to occur (and thus why I don't plan to use "rust" even though we're all familiar with the "rust ring"). But I absolutely disagree about the assumption that there would not be iron involved in starship construction.

We hear various "unobtainium" like names used in Trek, but there's no reason to assume that these are new elements. They are, more likely, names for specific ALLOYS.

Remember the basic periodic table.

http://www.ptable.com/

The most abundant materials in the universe are the lower numbered items. The larger the atomic number, the more unstable, and more difficult to work with, the materials become.

Metal strength is based upon the basic electromagnetic force. Essentially, metals shed some (or all?) of their bound electrons, which form an "electron sea" in which the atomic nuclei "float."

This is what gives metals their unique strength, unique "malleability" and "springiness" and so forth... and also why metals are opaque, FYI. Metals do not have "molecular structures" or even "molecules" at all, by definition. If you react a metal with something else, you get a SALT, not a metal. (And yes, rust... aka "iron oxide"... is a salt.)

You'll notice that all the best "structural metals" we're accustomed to using are in the first row of the "transitional region" of the periodic table, with iron (Fe) being right in the middle of the row. This is why iron has the nice, balanced set of properties it gives us... lots of strength, but also lots of resilience and manufacturability.

When you think about REAL SCIENCE... it becomes quite clear why iron-based alloys (of which "carbon steel" and "stainless steel" are the most common) are the best construction materials, overall, we have.

Aluminum is on the bare edge of being a "metal" at all. But it has some great advantages... it generates an oxide layer which is self-healing and very tough (that's ceramic, by the way... and is technically also a "salt"). It has excellent castability and machineability. It's got terrific TENSILE STRENGTH. But it has almost no resilience, no "springiness," so it's only useful for applications where it's in tension, not when it's subjected to bending, compression, etc. Again, this comes back to the basic question - how many electrons will a metal atom shed, and how strongly are the nuclei attracted to the resulting "electron sea?"

I believe, wholeheartedly, that iron-based alloys will remain the primary construction material for high-load applications, as long as we live in this universe, with this particular set of laws of physics, and this particular type of matter from which everything is made.

If you want to do something else... you'll need to abandon this universe entirely.


----------



## jheilman

And I don't think anyone would agree that the "rust ring" is _truly_ rust. Just describes the color. If the ship were rusting, Scotty would have it drydocked, cleaned up and repainted.:thumbsup:


----------



## TrekFX

In "The Making of Star Trek," didn't they say the ship components were built at the San Francisco yards (on Earth) and then moved to orbit for final assembly?

I mean, I know it's all just backstory in a fictional universe, but maybe that great salt air did a little work as parts waited around?


Or, for a more spacey explanation, just say there was some outgassing at seams/joins that caused some discoloration. Happened to the shuttle a lot during re-entry. We can say exposure to hexadecadeon radiation (or its close cousin, fingernails on a chalkboard) gives it a "weathered" look.


----------



## CLBrown

TrekFX said:


> In "The Making of Star Trek," didn't they say the ship components were built at the San Francisco yards (on Earth) and then moved to orbit for final assembly?
> 
> I mean, I know it's all just backstory in a fictional universe, but maybe that great salt air did a little work as parts waited around?
> 
> 
> Or, for a more spacey explanation, just say there was some outgassing at seams/joins that caused some discoloration. Happened to the shuttle a lot during re-entry. We can say exposure to hexadecadeon radiation (or its close cousin, fingernails on a chalkboard) gives it a "weathered" look.


The only issue with that is the direction of the "weathering" seen on the ship. It all tracks back along the direction of travel. Which would mean that the nacelles, secondary hull, and saucer all sat around POINTING STRAIGHT UPWARDS during that whole period. Seems... impractical.


----------



## Warped9

BolianAdmiral said:


>


WOW! Just *WOW!!!* :thumbsup:


I know it's not "official," but I want to put a gangway hatch on the port side of the saucer rim as extrapolated backwards from TMP.


----------



## Trekkriffic

That looks like Steve Neill's half-scale Enterprise model.


----------



## CLBrown

That does look pretty nice, yeah...

I'm curious what I'm looking at. Is that a repaint job on a "Master Replicas" Enterprise?


BolianAdmiral said:


> I
> 
> I also agree with that last bit. However, a pristine 1701 need not look "like a toy"... I think it looks rather good:


----------



## BolianAdmiral

It's not Steve's, but it is the Custom Replicas model. I found these images via a Google search... IDK who the modeler is.


----------



## Trekkriffic

BolianAdmiral said:


> It's not Steve's, but it is the Custom Replicas model. I found these images via a Google search... IDK who the modeler is.


So would that have been mastered by Richard Long (REL) then?


----------



## ajira99

Whew!! Read through all 49 pages of this thread -- information overload, but it just shows what a passionate subject this is! Now I just need to balance my need to find another job ('cause layoffs are fun ), deal with lingering issues with settling my father's estate and try not to dip into the "fun fund" I previously set aside for a few videogame releases and this model kit. Is it Fall 2012 yet? 

Seriously though, I love these large-scale kits (having multiple NX-01's, Refits, etc.). I'm already dizzy from anticipation of a quality Classic Enterprise model (finally), so if anyone ever announces an Enterprise E (1/700 scale or so) in a ~$200 range I wouldn't be able to handle it!


----------



## jheilman

Here's a CR Enterprise next to an MR replica at Wonderfest 2006. The MR (right) is 1/350.










And here's builder Sean Sides (left) with John Eaves.


----------



## Warped9

I never get tired of looking at that ship. :thumbsup:


----------



## jheilman

OK, couple more. I like the weathering on this one and will hope to get something similar.


----------



## Warped9

In these pics his gridline work is impressively subtle.


----------



## jheilman

Yeah, I think this is exactly what many here are looking for. Something that is really visible close up, but disappears at a slight distance.


----------



## Warped9

BolianAdmiral said:


>


I love this shot. It evokes a familiar iconic fly-by angle yet seen from the opposite (and finished!) side. :thumbsup:


----------



## BolianAdmiral

^

Me too... and I just love the perfect impeller effect he created in the domes.


----------



## Warped9

*The* _Enterprise..._ The one and only...

(inner geek glimpsed) :lol:


----------



## StarCruiser

I'm quite aware of your inner geek (strangely nearly identical to mine...hmmm). :wave:


----------



## Warped9

Warped9 said:


> *The* _Enterprise..._ The one and only...
> 
> (inner geek glimpsed) :lol:


No bloody *A*, *B*, *C*, *D* or damned *E*.


----------



## CLBrown

jheilman said:


> Yeah, I think this is exactly what many here are looking for. Something that is really visible close up, but disappears at a slight distance.


Exactly!


----------



## Gary K

Hunch said:


> Gary- any words you could share on the final grid line front? If that's not your dept. I totaly understand, AND I'd like to add- Thanks. You've done some amazing work here and should be very proud of your accomplishments.:thumbsup:
> Jim


Thanks. The grid lines? Oh, I've had the 4th test shot of the saucer sitting around here for a week or two, and in my opinion - oops, Jamie wants to save that info for the next 1701 Club update. Ain't I a stinker? 

Gary


----------



## Warped9

Gary K said:


> Thanks. The grid lines? Oh, I've had the 4th test shot of the saucer sitting around here for a week or two, and in my opinion - oops, Jamie wants to save that info for the next 1701 Club update. Ain't I a stinker?
> 
> Gary


The word is "tease."

Can you give us an idea when that next update might be, hmm?


----------



## Gary K

Warped9 said:


> The word is "tease."
> 
> Can you give us an idea when that next update might be, hmm?


According to the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, the word is "stinker". 

No idea when the next update is. Jamie has been working like a dog trying to tie up all the loose ends on the Enterprise kit, as well as work on new models - and have a baby.

Gary


----------



## Warped9

Gary K said:


> According to the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, the word is "stinker".
> 
> No idea when the next update is. Jamie has been working like a dog trying to tie up all the loose ends on the Enterprise kit, as well as work on new models - and have a baby.
> 
> Gary


Well, I can't argue with you if you're going to quote scholars.


----------



## jheilman

The genius that is Bugs Bunny.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I hope the update is soon. It is waaay overdue. I mainly want to know when the kit will be available for club members at this point. I have been slowly building my inventory of things I will need to build it. Even have a new place to do the modeling all set up.


----------



## John P

Chalk/Pastel weathering: Whatever you do, do NOT do it BEFORE you give the model a coat of Future (if you're even going to give it a coat of Future). Even medium gray pastel dust turns very, very dark when it gets wet, and any dust lighter than medium gray dissapears completely. Strangely enough, this doesn't happen with Dullcoat or Micro Flat.

Weathering in space: There's a lot of crap out there to fly thru! Nebulas! Free-floating molecules of, um, stuff! Stellar radiation! Micrometeorites! Giant amoeba farts!


----------



## Captain April

Don't forget the ever popular ion storms, and the occasional pot shot from the occasional hostile ship...


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> Chalk/Pastel weathering: Whatever you do, do NOT do it BEFORE you give the model a coat of Future (if you're even going to give it a coat of Future). Even medium gray pastel dust turns very, very dark when it gets wet, and any dust lighter than medium gray dissapears completely. Strangely enough, this doesn't happen with Dullcoat or Micro Flat.


Yep, odd but true-ish. I only use Future to provide the decal-able surface and to seal over decals. A dull laquer goes on then, then the wash/chalk/etc... weathering is easier to do well on a matte surface... then is sealed by a very light coating of the same laquer...  not too much, at first... then a final, heavier seal coat once the chalk is "fixed."

The trick with chalk is that it can get picked up and washed around by any heavy layer of fluid... like Future, or like ovedoing it with a clear coat for that matter.

Also, I stay away from dullcote these days... it yellows too much.


----------



## Nova Designs

My god that CR model is truly magnificent.... if only I had the money. And the time. And the skill.... and the SPACE!


----------



## Phillip1

Fellow Modelers,

I wanted to share what I did to weather my 22" Enterpise that I finished a couple of years ago. Like many here, I feel a good weathering job is critical to making a good replica, but is difficult to do. Below are descriptions and some photos of what I did.
>1st Image: A school compass was used to cut a masking semi-circle template for the "rust ring". 
>2nd Image: The template is put on the primary hull. The grid lines have already been drawn using the compass for the circles, and strips of masking tape laid down for the vertical lines.
>3rd Image: DML's decal placement instructions were enlarged to the same size of the kit to help with gridline and decal placement. The rust ring was airbrushed on with a weak wash of medium brown paint. The streaking is gray and brown pastel dust applied with a soft brush. A Q-tip was stroked over the dust (front to back) to create a "trailing off" effect.
>4th Image: The finished model showing the primary hull top.
>5th Image: An overall top view showing that the grid lines are really only noticable when viewed fairly close up.
>6th Image: Secondary hull close up shot showing the same medium gray pastel dust weathering, using the Q-tip method described above. 
>7th Image: Some of the same type of weathering can be seen on the warp engine supports as well as the warp engines themselves.

My model has a slight sheen to it that was achived by applying thin coats of future at 50psi. No Dullcote was used. Like others have stated the pastels should the last item added. Appying Dullcote or Future to them is a bad idea. My two cents worth anyway. I cannot wait to try this again on the 1/350 kit!

Gary-I am really enjoying the Sci-fi & Fantsay Modeller Vol. 26 issue. Your love for the subject really comes through.

Phillip1


----------



## jheilman

Gorgeous paint job.


----------



## CLBrown

While I'm not a huge fan of that kit... it has several glaring inaccuracies... that's an exceptional build up. (I put the 22" kit into he same category as the recent Revell version... it could be some other ship, but not Enterprise.)


----------



## Shaw

BolianAdmiral said:


> As for the weathering issue... of course, that's something that's up to each individual modeler, but speaking for myself personally, I would use a new and clean look, like the model in the publicity photo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, that's just me.


I agree, I like the clean look... specially for a display model. :thumbsup:




I understand the argument that some of you guys are making for weathering your models, but honestly, I didn't weather my last Enterprise model and I really didn't miss it (though I was building a replica of a model rather than a model of a starship). I'll be playing with weathering on my practice build that I'm finishing up, but I'm hoping that it'll be hardly noticeable (specially in photos).


----------



## CLBrown

Shaw said:


> I agree, I like the clean look... specially for a display model. :thumbsup:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the argument that some of you guys are making for weathering your models, but honestly, I didn't weather my last Enterprise model and I really didn't miss it (though I was building a replica of a model rather than a model of a starship). I'll be playing with weathering on my practice build that I'm finishing up, but I'm hoping that it'll be hardly noticeable (specially in photos).


Well, the trick is to remember that SUBTLE is better... 

When I first started playing with weathering... doing washes, doing heavy "dirtying"... it really worked... in some cases. But those cases were "accurate" because they looked like someone else's model, not because they looked like something in reality would actually look. I did this on Star Wars models, which were notoriously FILTHY... and were supposed to be. I went a bit more subtle on my "Narcissus" shuttle, but this still benefited greatly from wash-and-chalk work.

But then I tried to do a REAL subject... in particular, two military aircraft I've actually flown in. I did a "Cobra," and I did a "Hawkeye." In both cases, I knew the actual real-world aircraft, and knew first-hand what it was really supposed to look like.

My first cobra, I tried to use the techniques I learned on Sci-fi models... and it just looked like crap to me. And that's where I realized... all my "weathering" techniques were learned to replicate filming models from sci-fi movies, not to actually model real wear and tear on real craft.

So... paid a lot more attention to how the "sheen" of the surface varies, depending on wear. On how paint appears when first applied, and how it changes over time and exposure. (Or how exposed metal changes with exposure as well.)

It's one thing to make something dirty... that's easy. It's something else entirely to make something WORN.

We can all see this, every day. Look at your car, for example. Little dings, little chips... paint that varies in texture and appearance, over time, due to exposure, fading, "frosting" of the surface, etc. 

So... I always try to "weather" to reflect that sort of wear, rather than to reflect "dirty streaks and muck." I use a chalk which is very close to the color of the paint, or which reflects the expected "oxidation color" of the metal, or so forth, and just do it in very subtle, almost undetectable, ways.

Think real-world... not "sci-fi tropes"... and it'll be far, far more effective.

And remember... SUBTLE is what we want, not "Smithsonian restoration." Like with the effects you see on a real aircraft, or auto, or whatever else... even after a fresh washing.

If you notice it... unless you're specifically looking for it... it's too much. Like with so much else... the trick to fooling the eye into believing something is real is to have SUBLIMINAL details...including subliminal "weathering."


----------



## Opus Penguin

So what color pastels chalk do you recommend for the 1:350 E? I am looking at this technique for weathering and sure don't want it to look like the Smithsonian job.


----------



## CLBrown

Opus Penguin said:


> So what color pastels chalk do you recommend for the 1:350 E? I am looking at this technique for weathering and sure don't want it to look like the Smithsonian job.


What color? Well, it's not "A" color.

Here's an example of what you'll want to get...

http://www.greatart.co.uk/CRETACOLOR GREY CHALK PASTELS ASSORTMENT-chalk-pastels.htm

You might also want to get these, which allow more "earthy" tones... though I don't plan to use anything but the grey tones. The second set would be more useful for an exact replica of the studio model, I think...

http://www.amazon.com/Cretacolor-Grey-Chalk-Set-Sticks/dp/B001BYNSNA

You'll also want at least one stick of WHITE... something like this...

http://www.amazon.com/Quartet-Alpha...d=1346253829&sr=1-11&keywords=white+art+chalk

Probably your best bet to "fix" the chalk would be something like this, with your normal surface sealant on top of it.

http://www.amazon.com/Fixative-Prov...qid=1346253865&sr=1-1&keywords=chalk+fixative.

I just use normal sealant, though... but in very, very fine layers, not "coating" so much as "lightly misting" over and over. 

For me... my PERSONAL style of weathering... I match the paint color as closely as possible, and use this to apply "fading" or "surface abrasion" or "frosting" or whatever. I'm not, personally, trying to put "mud streaks" onto the ship.

But the "as shown on TV" weathering actually had more color variation than what I plan to use. (Not surprising, since the ship was intended to be seen, as referred to previously, only on 1966-era TV sets, so nothing less would have even been "subliminally" visible!)

The trick is that you can MIX these powders to get just the right tone for any spot you want... think of it like you're "painting" with powders rather than with liquids, and keep a "mixing pallet" to get the tones just right, just like a painter would.

EDIT:

One other thing... you'll need a coarse-hair brush (something cheap and disposable) to "mix" your colors. You'll then want a very, very FINE brush, with soft, fine hair, to actually apply the powder. And you'll never want to use much pressure when brushing it on. Remember, you're DUSTING, not "painting," as you apply it to the model.


----------



## 67657

On the note of "Enterprise weathering"; someone should do a model of the Big E going through the starship equivalent of a car wash, with crews scrubbing the weathering off! :lol:


----------



## Trek Ace

...and Kirk would feel cheated if the attendants didn't offer him a dash towel.


----------



## pagni

The 1701 club should be getting shipping notices soon eh ?


----------



## Warped9

pagni said:


> The 1701 club should be getting shipping notices soon eh ?


Yep. That Wonderfest video presentation and the articles in SFFM26 have whetted my thirst for more news.


----------



## Opus Penguin

pagni said:


> The 1701 club should be getting shipping notices soon eh ?


Jamie says he has it written. Just looking to get it published. Won't be sooner than after the holiday this weekend.They are also working on the pre-order system for club members.


----------



## Warped9

Opus Penguin said:


> Jamie says he has it written. Just looking to get it published. Won't be sooner than after the holiday this weekend.They are also working on the pre-order system for club members.


Well, this update might be the one that finally spills the beans: they managed to get the very fine gridlines they wanted or there won't be any at all.


----------



## Opus Penguin

That's what I suspect. But I am more interested on when they will expect payment from club members.


----------



## Warped9

Opus Penguin said:


> That's what I suspect. But I am more interested on when they will expect payment from club members.


That one I'm ready for.

_Oh man, the forty year wait is almost over!_ :woohoo:


----------



## Hunch

Warped9 said:


> That one I'm ready for.
> 
> _Oh man, the forty year wait is almost over!_ :woohoo:


Aint it great, brother?:thumbsup:


----------



## John P

The club kit will be great to practice on - with the pilot parts, I can do the pilot ship without worrying about lighting it. Concentrate on assembly and painting.


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> The club kit will be great to practice on - with the pilot parts, I can do the pilot ship without worrying about lighting it. Concentrate on assembly and painting.


Yeah, but you're a madman! 

We mere mortals will only ever see a single kit, most likely... and I'm still trying to figure out where I'll PUT IT! (Yes, there are negotiations involved in that sort of thing... my girlfriend says I can put it in the living room, but only if I agree to let her paint it purple and sparkly!)


----------



## Captain April

Ooooooooooh, that's getting into dealbreaker territory....


----------



## John P

CLBrown said:


> Yeah, but you're a madman!
> 
> We mere mortals will only ever see a single kit, most likely... and I'm still trying to figure out where I'll PUT IT! (Yes, there are negotiations involved in that sort of thing... my girlfriend says I can put it in the living room, but only if I agree to let her paint it purple and sparkly!)


Oh, I wanna see you do that! :lol:


----------



## Nova Designs

A purple, sparkly Enterprise... my wife would like that too!


----------



## Warped9

I've managed to have a place set aside for it in the family room. A few nick-nacks are going to move elsewhere or into a storage box somewhere.


----------



## Trek Ace

Nova Designs said:


> A purple, sparkly Enterprise... my wife would like that too!



Like it's beaming out of the Tholian Web!


----------



## pagni

I've pre-ordered drool bibs, adult diapers and sedatives in anticipation of the arrival of "the box" on my front porch.....In T- ? and counting.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

pagni said:


> I've pre-ordered drool bibs, adult diapers and sedatives



Well that paints a pretty picture...


----------



## scotthm

CLBrown said:


> I'm still trying to figure out where I'll PUT IT!


I feel your pain. I have a Polar Lights 1/350 Enterprise refit kit, an Atomic City 1/350 Klingon D7 kit, and two of REL's 1/350 Star Trek kits (Romulan Bird of Prey and K'Tinga) to build--and I have a MR Enterprise. And now I plan on ordering one of these. I must be crazy.

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


----------



## mach7

scotthm said:


> I must be crazy.
> 
> ---------------


Yup, but your in the right place!


----------



## RSN

CLBrown said:


> Yeah, but you're a madman!
> 
> We mere mortals will only ever see a single kit, most likely... and I'm still trying to figure out where I'll PUT IT! (Yes, there are negotiations involved in that sort of thing... my girlfriend says I can put it in the living room, but only if I agree to let her paint it purple and sparkly!)


Keep the negotiation going. You will paint the Enterprise purple and sparkly if you can also paint her purple and sparkly. See what she comes back with!!


----------



## swhite228

RSN said:


> Keep the negotiation going. You will paint the Enterprise purple and sparkly if you can also paint her purple and sparkly. See what she come back with!!


That will probably cost him dinner and a movie!


----------



## StarshipClass

CLBrown said:


> Yes, there are negotiations involved in that sort of thing... my girlfriend says I can put it in the living room, but only if I agree to let her paint it purple and sparkly!


Would the Enterprise then be considered to be "bling-bling?" 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bling-bling


----------



## CLBrown

swhite228 said:


> That will probably cost him dinner and a movie!


More likely, it'll force me to watch "Glee" with her... (YIKES)


----------



## JGG1701

CLBrown said:


> More likely, it'll force me to watch "Glee" with her... (YIKES)


Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!








-Jim


----------



## robiwon

Oh crap, I have to find a place for it? I better start moving furnature around. My 1st. anniversary is the 24th!


----------



## woof359

*missing 33 inch prop*



Shaw said:


> I agree, I like the clean look... specially for a display model. :thumbsup:
> 
> so, this is the so called missing 33 incher? is Kirks shirt suppose to be green or gold in this picture? the ship looks off white ,n ot cement greenish.
> 
> 
> I understand the argument that some of you guys are making for weathering your models, but honestly, I didn't weather my last Enterprise model and I really didn't miss it (though I was building a replica of a model rather than a model of a starship). I'll be playing with weathering on my practice build that I'm finishing up, but I'm hoping that it'll be hardly noticeable (specially in photos).


so, this is the so called missing 33 incher? is Kirks shirt suppose to be green or gold in this picture? the ship looks off white ,n ot cement greenish.


----------



## CLBrown

woof359 said:


> so, this is the so called missing 33 incher? is Kirks shirt suppose to be green or gold in this picture? the ship looks off white ,n ot cement greenish.


Regarding the tunic color... it's not "green" nor is it "gold." It's a unique color which has elements of both. It CONTAINS green, but it's not ENTIRELY green, nor is it ENTIRELY gold. I believe that someone actually came up with a proper RGB definition of the tunic color at some point, but I can't recall exactly the values.

Now... there are other interesting uniform-color issues, in the earlier pilots. The Command tunics were something largely tan, sort of "khaki" in fact, but with a bit more color saturation than would normally be the case with khaki.

The thing is, most folks think that there were only two different tunic colors, but this is not true. In lieu of the later "red" shirts, they had what's almost a "salmon" color. It's fairly difficult to draw a distinction on TV, but look closely, and you'll see it. THREE COLORS, not two.

For the series, they made all the colors more vivid, with the "services" group being changed from salmon to red, the sciences group going from pale blue-grey to a deep sky blue, and command going from this "dark, saturated khaki" to something with a lot more yellow, but plenty of red and blue as well.

Some people just make it a bright yellow color, which is wrong. "Gold" actually has significantly more blue in it than that, but also more red.

So...  THIS item's color is utterly incorrect...

But THIS item gets the color just about perfect.


----------



## Shaw

woof359 said:


> so, this is the so called missing 33 incher?


Well, it isn't "so called missing", it really *is* missing. In 1978 Roddenberry loaned the 33 inch model to _Robert Abel and Associates_ who were working on _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_, and the model was never returned. My understanding is that Roddenberry asked Bob Abel about the model, but that Abel was unaware of it's whereabouts. As both Roddenberry and Abel are no longer with us, this was as far as I had pursued the matter. Considering that the original Klingon model was broken up while on loan (but was eventually returned to the Smithsonian), I'd guess that the 33 inch Enterprise model was disassembled and eventually thrown away.



woof359 said:


> is Kirks shirt suppose to be green or gold in this picture? the ship looks off white ,n ot cement greenish.


That has been the problem we've had with the color of the Enterprise for years... under different lighting conditions, the color appears different. I've found this out first hand in photographing my model which varies blue-green to brownish-gold tent, and from a dark gray to an off white. When hit with studio lights in some shots with the actors, it comes off as a pale tannish gray while in others (specially the ones with Nimoy holding the model) it appears quite blue (due to the light splash off his shirt).

This is (as *CLBrown* has pointed out) the same issue with the shirts. And because everyone's monitors are calibrated differently, unless you've actually seen these things in person, you're just seeing a best estimate of the colors.


----------



## Captain April

Well, that's the first time I've heard a name associated with who Roddenberry loaned the model to.

As for the tunics, the main issue isn't with the color, it's the material. For the first two seasons, they were velour, and velour can look different colors depending on how the material is brushed. In the specific case of the command tunics, the intended color was something of a avocado green, but as the Phase II folks can testify, the tunics look one way on the hangar and completely different when someone is actually wearing them. Add in the colored lights on set and the helpful color mixers who didn't get the memo that Nimoy is _supposed_ to have the complexion of chicken soup and kept "correcting" his skin tone (and thus effecting every other color in the scene, which often included Shatner and his allegedly green shirt), and you have the perfect recipe for a totally obscured color.


----------



## Trek Ace

As to the whereabouts of the original "three-footer", I don't believe it was Abel who possessed it when it was "lost", but rather within the possession of another contractor who packed it when moving to a larger facility. I don't believe it was ever "unpacked" when the move was complete.

As to the color of the command uniforms, they were always the same color, from the first pilot on. Here is a photo showing the exact color of the uniform shirt together with another shirt that some of us may have in our possession and can verify _it's_ color. I know that the color in this photo is authentic, because I took it myself. 










Now, what was this thread all about...??? Oh, yeah. A certain model kit... Hey, it's September!!!


----------



## jheilman

Is it ready yet??


----------



## CLBrown

Well, now, I know you must've just mis-spoken, since the shirts in the first pilot are different from the shirts in the second pilot, which are different from the shirts used during the first season, which are different from the shirts used in the second season, and then the third season got yet another iteration.

The colors used in the first pilot and second pilot are similar, if not identical... but the colors, for ANY of the tunics, from the pilots to the series are not the same. They're "similar" but not the same. And, of course, that's no real surprise, since each time they made new uniforms (the insignia, the collars, etc, all varied as well... they were all-new uniforms each time out, albeit similar in plenty of ways).

By the way, that's an interesting shot... but without telling us where that shirt came from, it's hard to treat it as terribly relevant. If you can tell us that this shirt is an actual first-run filming uniform (I know that a few exist, still, but not many), that would make it pretty relevant, of course, but you haven't volunteered any info.

If it's a filming uniform... my guess would be that it's a second-season uniform shirt. If not, it could be a replica uniform patterned upon the second season uniform shirts. It doesn't seem to be the same heavy velour that they used during the first season (with the terrible, terrible shrinkage issues) but it's also evidently not stretch knit used in the third season, at least as far as the visible texture would tell us.

As far as color goes... while it definitely looks more "green-tinted" there than it would on the screen, that's to be expected, with the film that they shot on at the time. It definitely has a lot more red than you'd let into any color which you could really call "green" though. (True greens have little if any red in them, after all.)


----------



## Shaw

Trek Ace said:


> As to the whereabouts of the original "three-footer", I don't believe it was Abel who possessed it when it was "lost", but rather within the possession of another contractor who packed it when moving to a larger facility. I don't believe it was ever "unpacked" when the move was complete.


Interesting... did someone working for _Robert Abel and Associates_ convey that information to you? I had only tracked it down to _Robert Abel and Associates_ (and the subsequent conversation between Roddenberry and Abel) in September of 2010 via Susan Sacket, and because Abel wasn't able to give Roddenberry any additional details, I assumed there wasn't really any left to follow. The topic came up again (unfortunately) a couple weeks ago and Susan didn't seem to have any additional details. Considering Roddenberry's level of annoyance at the situation, I would have thought that if Abel had any clue as to it's whereabouts (like the involvement of another contractor), he would have passed that information along.

If you have better information than I have, there are some people who might want to be in contact with you about this. I'll send them a link to your post. I'd rather not have any additional involvement in the matter.


----------



## Captain April

An original tunic from the time of the show would be useless because there's another annoying aspect of velour: it fades, sometimes rather dramatically. Blue tunics from the pilots have now turned magenta, for example.

In the case of the pilot uniforms versus the regular series, command has always been that same avocado green. A big fat hint is the color of the collars; velour may change colors before your eyes, but those ribbed collars are still nice and green. The services tunics were the tan'khaki ones (which looked too similar to the command ones, hence the introduction of the infamous red shirts).


----------



## [email protected]

Captain April said:


> An original tunic from the time of the show would be useless because there's another annoying aspect of velour: it fades, sometimes rather dramatically. Blue tunics from the pilots have now turned magenta, for example.
> 
> In the case of the pilot uniforms versus the regular series, command has always been that same avocado green. A big fat hint is the color of the collars; velour may change colors before your eyes, but those ribbed collars are still nice and green. The services tunics were the tan'khaki ones (which looked too similar to the command ones, hence the introduction of the infamous red shirts).


I read that the cotton velour shirts worn during the first and second seasons were shrinking each time they were washed and were periodically altered to keep them fitting the actors reasonably. For the third season, a polyester double-knit was used that would be the same size every time it was worn. Check out the last few episodes, the shirts fit much better. How could the color could be consistent when they changed to an entirely different material? And I've heard the color described as an "olive gold."


----------



## CLBrown

Olive-gold is a good description, I think...

The problem is that we males tend to see colors in "simplistic" terms. There are, in the end, only six colors to most of us! It takes real training for me to not call "burgandy" "purple" and the same comes up here... 

Which is why we should defer to women to describe this color!


----------



## RSN

CLBrown said:


> Olive-gold is a good description, I think...
> 
> The problem is that we males tend to see colors in "simplistic" terms. There are, in the end, only six colors to most of us! It takes real training for me to not call "burgandy" "purple" and the same comes up here...
> 
> Which is why we should defer to women to describe this color!


In art school the first thing we were taught was that all humans have a very poor color memory. Try going to the store and buy sheets to match the wall color in your room. Almost every time, it will not match the way you wanted to when you get home unless you take a sample of the wall color. Just sayin'!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Opus Penguin

Just submitted an entry on the RC2 blog asking about the 1701 club update. I am waiting on the reply. Hopefully we will see it this week.

UPDATE: He replied. He states he will being trying hard to get the update out this week.


----------



## Warped9

Awesome! :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April

[email protected] said:


> I read that the cotton velour shirts worn during the first and second seasons were shrinking each time they were washed and were periodically altered to keep them fitting the actors reasonably. For the third season, a polyester double-knit was used that would be the same size every time it was worn. Check out the last few episodes, the shirts fit much better. How could the color could be consistent when they changed to an entirely different material? And I've heard the color described as an "olive gold."


That was another problem. Velour shrinks every time it's dry cleaned, and the costumes were all dry cleaned every night. Couple that with how Shatner would start the season lean, trim, and in peak physical shape, and through the course of the season start to skip the workouts and not eat as healthy, you had the nasty combination of the ever shrinking uniform on the ever expanding captain. Again, compare, say, "The Corbomite Maneuver" with "Operation: Annihilate!". In the course of one season, we went from the shirt practically hanging off of Shatner to where it's almost a sausage casing. He was never, strictly speaking, "fat", but the ill-fitting costume certainly made him look that way.


----------



## RSN

Captain April said:


> That was another problem. Velour shrinks every time it's dry cleaned, and the costumes were all dry cleaned every night. Couple that with how Shatner would start the season lean, trim, and in peak physical shape, and through the course of the season start to skip the workouts and not eat as healthy, you had the nasty combination of the ever shrinking uniform on the ever expanding captain. Again, compare, say, "The Corbomite Maneuver" with "Operation: Annihilate!". In the course of one season, we went from the shirt practically hanging off of Shatner to where it's almost a sausage casing. He was never, strictly speaking, "fat", but the ill-fitting costume certainly made him look that way.


Velour shrinks from moisture. Someone actually put the first season shirts in a washing machine and did not have them dry cleaned, which is the only way to clean them safely. That is why almost from the start, all the shirts were too small. When new ones were made for the second season, better care was taken with them. "Lost in Space" never had this problem with the velour shirts they used as they were always dry cleaned and the one I have is still in good condition even after nearly 50 years, though it has shrunk due to exposure to humidity during that time.


----------



## Hunch

Update this week possibly? That does sound AWESOME. I check my Email everyday, and thats rare for me to do! I tell you I feel like a little freakin' kid again!


----------



## Fozzie

Trek Ace said:


>


I saw a series-original tunic at a convention MANY years ago and, while my "color memory" might be bad, the color in this photo is pretty much what I remember seeing. I was shocked at how green it was.


----------



## CLBrown

Fozzie said:


> I saw a series-original tunic at a convention MANY years ago and, while my "color memory" might be bad, the color in this photo is pretty much what I remember seeing. I was shocked at how green it was.


Yep... the film used back then, like all photographic film, has a real effect on what you see.

In fact, if you recall back in the days when every camera used film, you may recall that boxes of film had color involved. Most people, I think, assumed that the color of the box was just "marketing" but it wasn't. Different formulations of film were more or less sensitive to various colors, so the color of the box in fact would normally tell you a lot about the "color bias" of the film stock. 

Kodak film had a strong yellow-orange bias. And most TV shows were shot using Kodak film. Now... think about that... if it's biased TOWARDS yellow-orange, it's biased away from blue. Reduce the amount of visible blue in that tunic, and it becomes much more orange-tan, and less green.

You can see this in other ways, on many films and shows shot on this sort of film. Plant life seems slightly more yellow. Skies appear more grey, and less vividly blue. Blue lights seem almost white, unless the blue is very vivid.

So, it's unsurprising that the shirt's color is shifted across the color wheel, away from the "blue" side and thus more towards the "orange" side.

See the "color wheel" on this page:

http://realcolorwheel.com/tubecolors.htm

The fabric color of the series uniforms falls about halfway up the intensity ladder on sector 36 on the wheel. But the color seen on-screen is in the adjacent sector, sector 1, or maybe even in sector 2, at the same diameter on the wheel.

Personally, I think that sector 35 is the max I'd call "green" on that wheel, and the other limit of what I'd call "green" would be sector 28. Below that, it's "blue" and above it, it's "gold." But it's a continuum, not a set boundary, so your mileage may vary.


----------



## John P

AgfaChrome. GAH! Easy to find in our memory shoebox - just look for the magenta photos.


----------



## woof359

*Enterprise D*

Im finishing up my Enterprise D, first i went with flat white, it just didnt look right, so I went with Egg blue, closer to the studio color, but its not what I remember seeing on TV so Ill probly go back to flat white with maybe a tint of Egg blue. guess its just how it look to each on TV:freak:


----------



## John P

The D? The D is an azure blue and pale green aztec pattern. It can be seen REALLY well in the new remastered Blu-Rays. The best match I've found for the blue is German RLM 76 (WWII camo color). For the green, 50% British Sky Type S and 50% RLM 76.


----------



## CLBrown

Yep... the model on TNG is a mix of duck-egg blue (which is slightly green-tinted) and another shade of of similar blue, but with more of a shift towards purple. The two shades are very similar and you only see the variance when side by side.

I used the real model colors as a starting point, but mixed them (at about 2/3 to 1/3 ratio) to make them even more similar, which helps with visual "scaling." I also blended in about a 36% mix of light ghost grey to both... which "desaturated" the colors in the same way tat multiple optical-printer passes would for the filmed image.

My result looked, at least to me and to everyone I've shown it to, just like the original broadcast show SFX model as seen on-screen.


----------



## John P

Probert has the actual colors listed online somewhere, but as Pantone colors - you have to find your best paint match from there.

Andy says:


> "The fans were very concern that we were replacing the original series. In order to soften some of the anxiety I wanted the two ships to be colored basically the same. Well, because of the low degree of technology compared to today, when the original Enterprise (which was actually a warm pearl gray) was filmed it picked up a lot of the blue spill [light used in the visual effects process] and therefore became bluish. What I did was indicate that the paneling of the _D_ be painting in two shades of blue. One is a duck egg blue, and the other is kind of a sky blue, which is the base color the hobby kits are molded in. By mixing the two blues together I was hoping cinematically that there would be a close tie-in with the color of the original ship." However, the blue was neutralized when the ship was filmed, leaving it the familiar gray.


There's a color chart part way down this page:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galaxy_class_model


----------



## Captain April

Sounds like standard gray primer to the rescue once again...


----------



## woof359

*re painted*

I repainted the sections again tonight, egg blue, when dry I gonna mist it with flat white, not acurate but it's the way I remember it from TV. I was sitting down there looking up at the 1/350 refit on its shelf, its huge.... man the TOS is gonna be great:hat:


----------



## onigiri

Actually several tunics from the pilot(s) were re-purposed for the first season.
These had to be dyed to match the newer tunics but you do see them, sometimes prominently. Mantrap is a good example. When you see a crewmember with a 'split cuff' you are looking at a repurposed tunic.





CLBrown said:


> Well, now, I know you must've just mis-spoken, since the shirts in the first pilot are different from the shirts in the second pilot, which are different from the shirts used during the first season, which are different from the shirts used in the second season, and then the third season got yet another iteration.
> 
> The colors used in the first pilot and second pilot are similar, if not identical... but the colors, for ANY of the tunics, from the pilots to the series are not the same. They're "similar" but not the same. And, of course, that's no real surprise, since each time they made new uniforms (the insignia, the collars, etc, all varied as well... they were all-new uniforms each time out, albeit similar in plenty of ways).
> 
> By the way, that's an interesting shot... but without telling us where that shirt came from, it's hard to treat it as terribly relevant. If you can tell us that this shirt is an actual first-run filming uniform (I know that a few exist, still, but not many), that would make it pretty relevant, of course, but you haven't volunteered any info.
> 
> If it's a filming uniform... my guess would be that it's a second-season uniform shirt. If not, it could be a replica uniform patterned upon the second season uniform shirts. It doesn't seem to be the same heavy velour that they used during the first season (with the terrible, terrible shrinkage issues) but it's also evidently not stretch knit used in the third season, at least as far as the visible texture would tell us.
> 
> As far as color goes... while it definitely looks more "green-tinted" there than it would on the screen, that's to be expected, with the film that they shot on at the time. It definitely has a lot more red than you'd let into any color which you could really call "green" though. (True greens have little if any red in them, after all.)


----------



## ClubTepes

John P said:


> Probert has the actual colors listed online somewhere, but as Pantone colors - you have to find your best paint match from there.
> 
> Andy says:
> There's a color chart part way down this page:
> http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galaxy_class_model


Nice link John.

Reading the article a bit, I'm curious if anyone knows the process described in the article regarding the resin they used for the translucent hull.

"These molds then served as a tool into which heated glass reinforced plastic was poured. Vacuformed, i.e. the air sucked out of the space between the mold and the plastic to achieve a perfect fit, this eventually resulted after cooling off in a cast, once the flexible mold was pulled off, to be used to construct the final model with. The resin chosen was transparent,"

I always thought it was simply a fiberglass resin.

If done today, considering the size of the studio model 1/350  and the size of that saucer, if someone were to do a 'D' in studio scale, is there a better product than what they used back then?


----------



## John P

I thought it was fiberglass too! Then again, "fiberglass" refers to the cloth, which is then coated with a clear resin.


----------



## CLBrown

ClubTepes said:


> Reading the article a bit, I'm curious if anyone knows the process described in the article regarding the resin they used for the translucent hull.
> 
> "These molds then served as a tool into which heated glass reinforced plastic was poured. Vacuformed, i.e. the air sucked out of the space between the mold and the plastic to achieve a perfect fit, this eventually resulted after cooling off in a cast, once the flexible mold was pulled off, to be used to construct the final model with. The resin chosen was transparent,"
> 
> I always thought it was simply a fiberglass resin.


What they just described is, BY DEFINITION, what "fiberglass resin" is. 

"Fiberglass" is not a material. It's a type of COMPOSITE.

The use of glass fibers as a fill material in plastic materials is very, very common. Long-glass fibers are used whenever practical, but shorter fibers are more common, as they're more effective for use in injection molding. And in some cases, the glass material is applied as a "fabric" with the resin applied over (and through) it.

Why use glass fibers? Well, glass has very, very good TENSILE STRENGTH (the ability to resist the force you apply when you pull two ends of a string, for example). But, of course, it's quite terrible in bending. In compression, it's good for a short time, but the moment any flexure occurs, it goes from compression into bending mode and almost immediately fractures.

So, you create "composites" to carry the benefit of one material into another type of material.

Plastic resins are almost always pretty weak, especially in tension. But you've seen a lot of large plastic parts used in load-bearing applications. They're always a composite, consisting of a resin carrier and some form of "fill."

Another great example of a "composite" is concrete... solid stone bits carried in a carbonate "carrier." It's very good under compression, but not so good under bending or tension. Reinforced concrete puts "rebar"... long steel rods... into the concrete, giving a mixture of the tensile strength of steel with the compressive strength of concrete.

When you hear the term "fiberglass," it can be referring to the pure glass fibers (such as you may have in your attic, serving as insulation. But more often, you're hearing something which OUGHT TO BE DESCRIBED as a "fiberglass composite."

There's one other bit in the above which is completely wrong, by the way. The quote references "pouring" and then mentions "vacuum-forming." These are unrelated processes, as most of us know. The molds did not use "vacuum-forming," they simply have VENTS in the tooling to prevent trapped air. ALL MOLDS, of any kind, need to be vented... but that does not make them "vacuum-forming" tools.

Re: "Fiberglass composite" materials... the following link is a passable starting point, I guess, though there are bits which I think are "misleadingly" written, especially in the opening sections (which infer that there is "one material" by this name... it's not, it's a MASSIVE FAMILY of composite formulations).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiberglass



> If done today, considering the size of the studio model 1/350  and the size of that saucer, if someone were to do a 'D' in studio scale, is there a better product than what they used back then?


Not likely. The base resins haven't changed in any significant way for quite a few years... polyester, polycarbonate, polyethylene, polyurethane, polystyrene, and so forth. The formulation of the glass used hasn't changed much either. The process methodology is pretty much a "developed art" which hasn't altered in any meaningful way for a very, very long time.

Any new materials would be minor, "incremental" steps. There may be a material composition someone has come up with which might have better optical clarity while retaining the strength advantages provided by the long glass fibers inside the polymer matrix, for example. There may be improved means of laying down the fibers, but that would not be anything "impossible" previously, just potentially "not done at the time."

There are a few new processes which were very rare back then which are more common today, but none of which would be suitable for this application. I'm a big fan, personally, of using "foam injection molding" to obtain strong, lightweight large structures... the foam forms a nice skin effect on the outside (adjacent to the mold surfaces) but is quite porous internally. This provides great ballistic energy-dissipation capabilities, excellent strength, relatively light weight, and so forth. That techique "sort of" existed at the time of TNG, but has been developed into a production technique over the past decade and a half or so. The problem is, this is not a great technique for fine detail, nor for optical clarity... and thus would be useless for this application.

NO, the odds are, if they were going to build a physical model, they'd use the same general techniques today that they used back then. It's not all that long ago, anyway, is it? (And if you say yes, I'm going to go get a wheelchair and eat some strained peas!)


----------



## charonjr

Lex, I know I'm gonna get rapped in the mouth for this, but how would I start building a starship out of fiberglass? Or should I?


----------



## charonjr

Which D studio scale? 2 foot, 4 foot or 6 foot? A 1/350 scale D (2109') will be 72.30857" long....

I used to have a "1/1000" 27 inch (actually 1/937.33 using 2109' length) brass metal 1701 D from Masterpiece Replicas. I was stupid enough to lend it out as collateral for a loan to fix my car engine years back, when it was stolen from my lender in Portland, OR. with a bunch of other collectibles he had (5' D, etc.). BTW, if anyone sees it (#30) that baby belongs to me and I'll pay back the $800 I borrowed as a reward. And I still should pay back $800 to my lender for fair shakes.

Since I miss my Masterpiece Replicas brass 1701-D, I'm decided to go ahead and study the build principles behind the 6 foot, 4 foot and 2 foot originals. Thank heavens for all those old mag photos and newer internet resources. An 18" AMT/Ertl will be sacrificed to get the station ribs for the hull contours, then blown up to the size needed. Got to find a shop with a fine enough saw blade. Winter project: engage....


----------



## woof359

checking supplies, I found I was out of transparent red and needed some copper, so shoot me if I picked up a couple of EGG PLANES at the same time (-:


----------



## ClubTepes

charonjr said:


> Which D studio scale? 2 foot, 4 foot or 6 foot? A 1/350 scale D (2109') will be 72.30857" long....
> 
> I used to have a "1/1000" 27 inch (actually 1/937.33 using 2109' length) brass metal 1701 D from Masterpiece Replicas. I was stupid enough to lend it out as collateral for a loan to fix my car engine years back, when it was stolen from my lender in Portland, OR. with a bunch of other collectibles he had (5' D, etc.). BTW, if anyone sees it (#30) that baby belongs to me and I'll pay back the $800 I borrowed as a reward. And I still should pay back $800 to my lender for fair shakes.
> 
> Since I miss my Masterpiece Replicas brass 1701-D, I'm decided to go ahead and study the build principles behind the 6 foot, 4 foot and 2 foot originals. Thank heavens for all those old mag photos and newer internet resources. An 18" AMT/Ertl will be sacrificed to get the station ribs for the hull contours, then blown up to the size needed. Got to find a shop with a fine enough saw blade. Winter project: engage....


Well, considering the fact that the 6' studio model WAS 1/350, why make a 6' 'studio scale' model of anything other than the 6 footer. Which is what I also consider the real lines of the 'D'.

The 4 footer just looks weird around the deflector disd to me.

I remember those 1/1,000 brass 'D's. I wish I had one now.
How were they for proportions and accuracy?

I'd be careful using a AMT/Ertl 'D' as a basis for a larger model.
I can't speak about the lines of the secondary hull, but the saucer doesn't maintain the correct contour around the sides - thats why the phaser strip sags around the edges.

I remember someone like REL saying they had the 'contour lines' for the 'D'.

Are these available anywhere?


----------



## woof359

no matter how inaccurate the AMT and Ertl stuff is, nothing could be worse than the gold ships in Picards ready room


----------



## Warped9

woof359 said:


> no matter how inaccurate the AMT and Ertl stuff is, nothing could be worse than the gold ships in Picards ready room


Yeah, those were really bad, even moreso now that we can see them in HD.


----------



## Captain April

Weren't those, for the most part, AMT models painted gold?


----------



## charonjr

Club, yes the 1/1000s were very nicely done. The only flaw was that the bridge module was cast with 8 windows for the conference room, rather than 7. It would definitely benefit from today's lighting technology.

Are the AMT saucer contours that far off? I had thought the phaser sag issue was due to the attempt to keep the strip equidistant from the saucer edges? Perhaps I am not remembering correctly. Didn't Probert or someone involved with the design and aztecing work with AMT to make sure it was done right? Of course, the top saucer grid isn't properly symmetrical.

Recommendations anyone?

BTW, the wiki page that talks about the D hero models, does say that all of the golden models, except the -E, were kits filled with resin, the electroplated. FWIW.


----------



## CLBrown

charonjr said:


> BTW, the wiki page that talks about the D hero models, does say that all of the golden models, except the -E, were kits filled with resin, the electroplated. FWIW.


I think maybe there's some confusion going on...

For the first couple of years of TNG, the forward wall of the CONFERENCE LOUNGE (what should have been called the "command briefing room" I think), just behind the bridge, had a series of really odd, 2D/3D "extruded" ship representations on it. Eventually, they ripped out that wall and replaced it with a ribbed wall with no decorations of that sort. Mainly, because it did sorta look like crap if reviewed up-close. NONE of the "ships" up there were from models. It's more like they were sculpted from playdough, as far as the detail and accuracy is concerned.

Now, for the flicks set on the 1701-E, they had a similar lounge at the aft of the bridge, and they had gold-plated models of various ships. THOSE were mainly commercial model kits, electroplated gold. While they looked better, they were very clearly the "stock" kits, just gold-plated.

It's hard to blame the production crews, either for the TV show or the movies. They WERE on a budget, after all, and those set elements were there mainly as "backdrop" or as "something for Picard to get mad about and smash," after all!


----------



## BolianAdmiral

CLBrown said:


> 2D/3D "extruded" ship representations


The actual term is "half-hull model". I actually really liked that version of the wall, and was pissed when they changed it... those models showing the Enterprise lineage made the ship feel special, IMO.


----------



## CLBrown

BolianAdmiral said:


> The actual term is "half-hull model". I actually really liked that version of the wall, and was pissed when they changed it... those models showing the Enterprise lineage made the ship feel special, IMO.


Well, I said "odd" because of things like the nacelles extending all the way back to the wall and so forth (something I've never seen before or since).

"If I was king," of course, I'd have had the original version of the wall reworked, to have better-quality sculpts, but kept the same general character of that wall. And apparently Picard felt similarly, as he had a similar wall put in on the 1701-E. :thumbsup:


----------



## John P

charonjr said:


> Lex, I know I'm gonna get rapped in the mouth for this, but how would I start building a starship out of fiberglass? Or should I?


I think first you have to make a solid master model, then make molds off of that, then cast the glass resin parts in the molds. Pretty much the same way resin model kits are made.


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> I think first you have to make a solid master model, then make molds off of that, then cast the glass resin parts in the molds. Pretty much the same way resin model kits are made.


Exactly correct.

The complexity comes from having to introduce the glass fiber into the resin you're using (which can be virtually any available resin).

Since you'll be trying to get a nice appearance, you won't want to mix the glass into the resin initially (which is what's normally done for industrial applications). The reason is that it becomes VERY visible. If you've ever seen a black plastic part with what seem to be white/grey "swirliness" elements in it, you're seeing what a long-glass-fiber part looks like.

For the sort of thing you're talking about, you'll want to read up on how "fiberglass" auto bodies are made. In those cases, they lay down a thin layer of the resin, allow it to partly cure, apply another layer and (while still "wet") lay a glass fabric "mat" on top of that (often, but not always, in the form of strips... 3" wide or so... almost like bandages!)... partly cure... repeat if desired/appropriate (hard to say if you've got it right by any method other than "experience," I'm afraid) then more resin atop that, to seal the inside surface.

When doing it this way, your "mold" is just a half-mold, not a two-part mold (like is usually used in injection molding), and is, in fact, quite a bit more like the half-molds used during vac-forming (you can even use the same mold for both, though you'll have to drill out the vent/suction ports, which will become clogged with resin when you do this!)

Absolutely, you'll need to apply a general film of liquid "mold release" before applying any resin to the tool. And you'll need to wash that entirely away once done.

This sort of work, when done at home, is typically going to be done with a 2-part thermoset type resin (epoxy, urethane, etc). In commercial applications, it's usually done with a heat-cured resin (often a polyurea, like is used in electrical switchplates and the like), which will give better, more consistent results, but requires much more robust mold manufacture and... well, a big-ass oven.

There are plenty of books you can find re: doing work on "fiberglass" auto bodies. I strongly recommend you find at least one or two of these and go through them in detail. It's a "non-trivial" task you're talking about taking on, but the art is well-developed. That's how Ferrari makes all its car bodies, after all!


----------



## charonjr

CLBrown, I'll find a couple of manuals. Rather reminds me of the first manual I bought to teach me about airbrushing. Quite useful. Thank you! 

Anyone have thoughts regarding the D's saucer contours, best sources, etc.?


----------



## charonjr

BTW, dug out Rick Sternbach's Enterprise D boxed set blueprints. They are precisely 27 inches. If I can match the AMT saucer bow and profile curves to the blueprints, I think I can trust it for the overall saucer shape. 

Unless anyone has better ideas?


----------



## fluke

What is the latest on the suggested retail price? THANX! :wave:


----------



## charonjr

Hi Fluke! How are you?

RE: Latest Update with two to three weeks between Premiere and Standard releases in November/December: I'm giving up my Premiere. Anyone want it?

Update does not mention price of 1/350 1701.


----------



## charonjr

Well if REL does have accurate blueprints, I don't know that he would just give them away.


----------



## Trek Ace

fluke said:


> What is the latest on the suggested retail price? THANX! :wave:



The latest I've seen from online shops is that the suggested retail price for the Standard Edition kit has recently risen from $119.99 to $159.99.


----------



## fluke

Thanks Ace! even 150.00 would be considered a GOOD price for a kit of this scale, quality and magnitude


----------



## Hunch

I hope they (PL) stick to the $150 originaly quoted to club members and dont up the price on us !
I'm most worried about the cost of the light kit. Need those motors. Got to have it looking the biz after all the work it will take to fill and smooth the "lines".
I'm really looking to build all three configurations depending NOW on how much work it will be to fill the lines.
Maybe we'll get lucky and after the third or forth run (you know this thing is gonna set records for a kit this size) they will sand off the mold lines and offer a smoothy! Not holding my breath though.
And NO, I'm not complaining. I LOVE this kit and am really greatfull they are putting it out at all!:thumbsup:
Thanks you to all involved for making a grail kit come true.:dude:


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Hunch said:


> I hope they (PL) stick to the $150 originaly quoted to club members and dont up the price on us !
> I'm most worried about the cost of the light kit. Need those motors. Got to have it looking the biz after all the work it will take to fill and smooth the "lines".
> I'm really looking to build all three configurations depending NOW on how much work it will be to fill the lines.
> Maybe we'll get lucky and after the third or forth run (you know this thing is gonna set records for a kit this size) they will sand off the mold lines and offer a smoothy! Not holding my breath though.
> And NO, I'm not complaining. I LOVE this kit and am really greatfull they are putting it out at all!:thumbsup:
> Thanks you to all involved for making a grail kit come true.:dude:


I really don't think you'll have to wait very long to get your wish... I'm fairly sure some third-party producer will offer a smoothie saucer to go with this kit, as well as other parts needed to make kitbash designs, like the FJ Dreadnought, Ptolemy, and so on.


----------



## Ductapeforever

BolianAdmiral said:


> I really don't think you'll have to wait very long to get your wish... I'm fairly sure some third-party producer will offer a smoothie saucer to go with this kit, as well as other parts needed to make kitbash designs, like the FJ Dreadnought, Ptolemy, and so on.


A 'smoothie' would be an improbability, a resin saucer would be horendously expensive, most likely exceeding the cost of the original kit. In addition a resin saucer would be problematic to mold without warping and then you would have the issue of the added weight. So good luck with that !


----------



## jheilman

As has been covered, I will be shocked if anyone takes the time and expense to create a replacement saucer for this when builders can simply fill these fine grid lines. And as pointed out, what kind of sag issues would you have with a hunk of resin that big?:freak:

But hey, prove me wrong. Just can't see enough demand to make it work for anyone.


----------



## John P

Not to mention the dreadnought is a _completely _new ship, saucer and hull, and only uses the nacelles from the Enterprise, AND needs an extra nacelle. A conversion that size (the ship is 320 meters long - 36" long at 1/350) would be better off as a vacuform. But who among us would buy TWO $150 Enterprise kits _only _to get the nacelles? It'd have to be a full kit. Too big for the 'normal' resin we see in garage kits. Fiberglass would work (see REL's large starship models), but it'd cost a bundle.


----------



## CLBrown

Now guys,

It wouldn't be TOO hard to make a replacement saucer. Why everyone is assuming it'd need to be a big solid mass of polyurethane is very surprising, and pretty well off-base.

The main argument isn't "can you do it" (you ABSOLUTELY can, and it wouldn't be that difficult to do!). The argument is... "is it easier to just fill in the gridlines."

The best way to make a replacement hull would be to take the existing part, fill the lines, paint/sand/repeat/over-and-over, and make a solid (not rtv rubber) reverse pattern off of that. Then make the hull using the same techniques used (as described earlier) to make "fiberglass" auto bodies. Brush on a "skin layer" of your preferred casting resin... allow to "mostly cure"... lay a fiberglass-fabric "mesh" saturated with the same resin (either as strips, or as a mat)... then a "sealing" layer of resin on top of that. The result is a relatively thin, very robust (moreso than the injection-molded part) hull section.

The main advantage of that, over the "fill it yourself" approach, is related to how the entire surface would be made of a single material, with a single set of material properties. I mean, we can fill in gridlines, and potentially have it look "right"... but since the putty is not the same as the plastic in terms of thermal expansion rate, hardness, etc, etc, there will always be an issue of potentially having the grid "re-appear" later, especially if you're modifying the parts in some way (say, trying to do a conversion to some other type of ship, or doing a "battle damage" version...)

It would NOT mean a "huge mass of plastic." It would not mean "lots of warpage." BOTH would actually be better served, frankly, by the approach I just described.

The issue is only one of time to make this happen, and cost of the parts... and a basic "cost/benefit" comparison. For most potential purchasers, the cost would be greater than the benefit, I suspect. And for potential producers, the same likely applies.

But that's based upon my assumption, for now, that removal of the gridlines is relatively simple and basic, and not terribly difficult or frustrating for the average "no lines" builder.

If it turns out that this is the main "negative" for this kit (as I strongly suspect may turn out to be the case), and if fixing it (properly!) is harder than it's being sold as being... I wouldn't be too shocked to see something like this come along.

I do agree about the dreadnought... new saucer, new secondary hull, new pylons and dorsal, different nacelle mounting points/sizes, and the C/L nacelle being significantly differently configured (dual trenches)... but for any of the other FJ (or FJ-ish) ships out there, I can easily seen "conversion" kits.

The value of those kits will be led by "how much does this cost?" If the "standard kit" cost really does end up being in the $150 range, as some sites are now inferring, the sales of this kit will be few and far between, I suspect. The $100-ish "basic kit" cost is where this kit needs to be in order to sell a lot of copies. I THOUGHT this was all, already established, months ago, so I'm hoping that we're just seeing websites putting in bad numbers without any real info from the source!

I can easily see scouts, tugs, frigates, etc, from this kit... though rarely, compared to the 1:1000 kits, obviously... if the kit sells or under $100. 

I think I'd be one of the few who'd shell out for a "fiberglass recast without lines" for the saucer. Because I really, really want a perfect, glass-smooth surface where there are no visible artifacts of where the lines "used to be." And where my "pencil" operation to put on the (to me, more accurate) super-fine pencil lines reflecting metallic "tape" across the hull surface will not have the potential to dig in as it crosses the "puttied" spots.

Using putty, I'm going to have to use very, very hard (automotive-quality) paint... which will add a huge amount of cost to my final build. And yes, I'm still pissed about being forced to jump through all these hoops to remove what are "speculative improvements" which some people THINK were "what was supposed to really be there" but over which there's a lot of disagreement. The reality is, there were no etched lines in the production model, so we're looking at details added to this which are inaccurate to what was seen on-screen, because some people think it "woulda/shoulda/coulda have been that way."

It's just making it a LOT harder to make a "screen-accurate" version of the ship. And having the "screen-accurate" saucer, even at a cost of more than the actual kit, would be worth it to me. Your mileage, of course, may vary.


----------



## jheilman

Well, the materials issues aside, I stand by this part of my post. :thumbsup:



jheilman said:


> ...I will be shocked if anyone takes the time and expense to create a replacement saucer for this when builders can simply fill these fine grid lines.


Again, we'll see. Even the effort to create it isn't the real issue. The only driving force that _might_ get this done would be demand. I just don't see enough people:

1) Demanding a replacement saucer and
2) Willing to pay possibly over $100 additional for it

But, if it happens, we'll probably know sometime next year.


----------



## Warped9

As I've already said I'm withholding judgement until I actually see the kit firsthand.


----------



## John Duncan

I did get my update too.

How many of us fanatics signed up for more than one kit? Last year when we were all jumping around hypered up on sugar, chocolate and the idea of a TOS E kit I signed up for FIVE of these.

Now that I am sober and out of Trek rehab, I'm not so sure I can do that.

Anyone else in this position? I absolutely know I want more than one kit...but I want the other accessories too.


----------



## Warped9

I signed up for only one premiere kit. If I ever do a variant then I'll do it off the standard kit.


----------



## Ductapeforever

I signed up for two premier kits and began saving up funds for them when the kits were first announced, as a result I have more than enough money after putting away a hundred bucks a month for the better part of a year and a half, with plenty left over for a custom case, table, and all the assesories currently announced. Planning and forthought paid off in spades !


----------



## John P

Based on the number of shirts I got, I signed up for three, but only because I forgot I signed up. Twice. Ain't old age great?


----------



## TrekFX

John P said:


> Based on the number of shirts I got, I signed up for three, but only because I forgot I signed up. Twice. Ain't old age great?


Absolutely. Well, maybe. Uhhh.... what was the question?


----------



## John P

Anyhoo, the plan is to build the premiere kit as the pilot version, without lighting, as practice, then buy a regular kit with all the frills and lighting, built as the production version, hopefully done a perfectly as possible.

Aaaaand then one to build as a destroyer.


----------



## Captain April

Frankly, I always wonder about folks who draw up elaborate plans of how they're gonna change something before they even have a chance to see if the thing they're planning on changing is perfectly fine just as it is. As an example, judging by the internal structure molded into the pieces, I don't think this kit has any need for an additional armature, unless you're planning on hanging lead weights from the thing or using it as a weather vane.

I generally think it's best to build it straight the first time. Then you'll have a better idea of what to change, or if anything needs to be changed at all.


----------



## CLBrown

Captain April said:


> Frankly, I always wonder about folks who draw up elaborate plans of how they're gonna change something before they even have a chance to see if the thing they're planning on changing is perfectly fine just as it is. As an example, judging by the internal structure molded into the pieces, I don't think this kit has any need for an additional armature, unless you're planning on hanging lead weights from the thing or using it as a weather vane.
> 
> I generally think it's best to build it straight the first time. Then you'll have a better idea of what to change, or if anything needs to be changed at all.


Well, the issue with the "armature" thing has do do with the life of the model. There's plenty of plastic there, so "short term" it will be plenty robust.

But all plastic materials, styrene or otherwise, "flow" under any form of load. (for that matter, so does glass... go look at the windows in a very old house, with original windows, and you'll discover that they're much thicker at the bottom than at the top. They weren't MADE that way, the glass actually flows downwards, very slowly, due to the effects of gravity!)

No matter how robust the plastic is, the parts will always be under a mechanical load (unless the model is kept in zero-gravity) and the plastic within these parts will undergo plastic deformation (where "Plastic" does not refer to the material, but rather to the type of deformation... "plastic deformation means "permanent" while "elastic" means "non-permanent")

So, longer term, the parts of this model which are under the greatest load (the pylon attachment points, the base of the dorsal, etc) will see the largest "plastic deformation."

The reason to use an armature isn't to prevent short-term sagging, it's to prevent long-term deformation of the model, which is unavoidable with plastic parts. Short term, you're right, there'd be no reason to worry about it. The kit construction is about as robust as you can get with molded polystyrene... very nicely done.


----------



## jheilman

CLBrown said:


> But all plastic materials, styrene or otherwise, "flow" under any form of load. (for that matter, so does glass... go look at the windows in a very old house, with original windows, and you'll discover that they're much thicker at the bottom than at the top. They weren't MADE that way, the glass actually flows downwards, very slowly, due to the effects of gravity!)


I had heard that one about glass in the past and researched enough to politely disagree. Findings indicate they WERE made that way. And while glass can flow (at very high temperatures or over incredibly long periods of time), if it did to the degree to account for the thickness variance in 18th century windows, we should see a correspondingly larger flow in 15th century windows. But we don't. 

More...

about.com
cmog.org

Now, I have to wonder just how valid a concern flow is to this styrene kit? It's certainly fine to take every precaution, but would it be noticeable in 5 years or 50 years?


----------



## CLBrown

jheilman said:


> I had heard that one about glass in the past and researched enough to politely disagree.


Actually, it's not untrue. It's something which can even be detected on the glass on modern skyscrapers. When some panes were replaced on the Sears tower a few years ago, there was clear "flow" in those panes... which was why they'd gotten "too thin" on the top edge and had to be replaced in the first place!

Glass, for the record, is a specific state, not a specific material. The stuff we usually call "glass" is made up of various oxides of silicon, but all amorphous materials have a "glass" state they transition to at a specific temperature, while above that temperature, they are "plastic." This is actually a key element of how glass is worked, in the first place. Think of how a "glass-blower" works the material, in the "plastic" state... then cools it, to where it transitions back to a "glass" state.

It's not a sudden transition, though... it's more of a sliding scale. But, for the purposes of manufacturing, there's a particular temperature where the amorphous structure does substantially "lock" into place, which is called the "glass transition temperature." Here's a pretty decent article describing this:

http://www.siliconfareast.com/tg.htm

And yes, the parallels between amorphous silica and amorphous polymer chains are quite strking... and yes, plastic (when cold enough) has its own "glass transition" it goes through.

http://plc.cwru.edu/tutorial/enhanced/files/polymers/therm/therm.htm

Yes, I know, I know, there are always skeptics who deny this stuff, but we're talking basic materials science, so you really need to look at the pedigree of the "skeptic." After all, there are skeptics who can make strongly-argued cases for us never having landed on the moon, or who claim that there's no way that the WTC could have collapsed without it being an "inside job" or so on and so on.

If you ever read an argument on this where someone describes it as a "supercooled liquid" you already know that the person making that argument is not aware of even basic principles of materials science.

The trick with amorphous materials is that they DO have liquid properties and don't have a set transition temperature. Water, at 31.9 degrees F, is solid. At 32.1 degrees F, it's liquid. The transition occurs all at once.

Metals do the same thing. Sodium chloride does the same thing. Only... ONLY... amorphous materials change state on a sliding scale rather than on an instantaneous basis.

This is the reason that plastics are able to be molded, and why glass is able to be "blown" or extruded or so forth. It's not a "supercooled liquid," it's an amorphous solid.

All amorphous solids undergo "creep" anytime they're under load. It's not only a characteristic of the material, it's a NECESSARY characteristic of the material... without that characteristic, you could not mold the material.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/creep

Metals can also undergo "creep" but unlike with amorphous solids, metals only undergo "creep" when the loading is above a certain level. Below that level, all loads result only in ELASTIC deformation. This is why metal makes great springs, while plastic makes for pretty poor springs. (Or rather, plastic can make for decent "normally unloaded" springs... like snap-tabs... but is useless for "always loaded" springs.)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003239508990155X

http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~complex/research/amorphous.html

Now, the "debunking" of this is mainly based upon a true, but largely irrelevant, issue... the fact that much MEDIEVAL GLASS was manufacturing using a process called "crown glass."


> Now, I have to wonder just how valid a concern flow is to this styrene kit? It's certainly fine to take every precaution, but would it be noticeable in 5 years or 50 years?


A valid question.

If this was pure, unfilled polystyrene... the issue would be moot, because there's no way that polystyrene could bear up under the loading this kit will cause itself. Pure polystyrene, which is CLEAR, is quite brittle. You've used clear polystyrene before, most likely, as most "clear kit parts" are pure, unfilled polystyrene.

In this case, it's most likely that the kit is using an "alloy" of something like 90% styrene, 10% polyvinyl chloride, as the resin... then, from that resin, it's about 70% resin, 3% colorant and other additives, with the remainder being finely ground calcium carbonate (talc) as a filler. In other words, it's a COMPOSITE material.

"Creep" will still occur in talc-filled polystyrene, but it's slower, as the granules of filler material tend to "lock up" against each other, and they need to slip past each other to allow creepage. Long-fiber-glass-filled polystyrene is even more resistent to creepage... which is why that's normally what's used in long-intended-life applications.

The issue with "how much creep will be seen" relates to "how much load is there at any point in the model?" Think about where the high-stress locations on the model will be. That's where the deformation will be greatest.

I haven't run FEA analysis, nor looked at the specific materials used in this kit. I don't know the specific grade or manufacturer. Here's a datasheet from a top-quality styrene grade I've worked with, though.

http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=3284e539fa4b484ca6f3ef555ec763b1&ckck=1

When you review this, note that there are different "flow" characteristics under different conditions. Because there's not a real "transition" temperature like with, say, ice.

There are over 2,000 different styrenes on Matweb... and this is mainly US/EU vendors, and doesn't necessarily include Chinese vendors, for example. You can review lots and lots of different styrene formulations. But in every case, you'll find materials which deform at different rates, under different loads, at different temperatures. And none which are "totally immune to deformation," of course.

My concern is that there are several points in this model which will see very high loading. The pylon structure, in particular, is heavily loaded, but there are other heavily loaded points elsewhere as well. The mass of this kit is not insubstantial. The loads will be quite high. And where the material is loaded that heavily, it will undergo "creep." There's literally no way around it.

This is why you'll never see plastic, or glass for that matter, used as a primary structural component. both serve excellently in certain roles, of course, but not as primary structural elements.


----------



## jheilman

OK, bye.

I'm not going to go through all the links in that post. I researched numerous sites in the past and recently that stated how and why glass does *not* flow. I read enough that I was satisfied. Done.

I still question the need for an armature in this kit. Anyone own a built AMT kit that's really old? Sagged over the years?

You know, in the dictionary if you look up "redundant" the definition is "see redundant."


----------



## Captain April

I've got some very old AMT kits that are just as sound as they day they were made, so that would be a "no."


----------



## pagni

if anything the polystyrene becomes more rigid and brittle as it ages


----------



## John P

I still have models I built in the 1970s. They look the same. Of course I haven't done a photographic comparison with pictures of the kit as it was then, in case there's been a 0.01% "flow" or whatever. But I'm pretty sure "styrene flow" is irrelevant in the life of a model kit.

Sag is another matter.


----------



## jheilman

And looks like sag have been engineered out of this kit, yes?


----------



## RSN

What does the Screen Actors Guild have to do with building a model kit? Buitld 'em right and you won't have a problem. I never have in 40+ years of building.


----------



## Dave in RI

Since this kit is so close to being in our grasps, I was wondering if anyone could tell me (or point me to where I can find out) when this kit was first announced. 
Also, how long was it in pre-production before that announcement was made?

Just curious.


----------



## Paulbo

It was *officially* announced at Wonderfest 2011 (May). That annoncement was accompanied by a lot of 3D CAD layouts, so it's anyone's guess when the development began. 

Perhaps someone "in the know" will post with further information, but recent events have made that unlikely.


----------



## Dave in RI

Paulbo said:


> It was *officially* announced at Wonderfest 2011 (May). That annoncement was accompanied by a lot of 3D CAD layouts, so it's anyone's guess when the development began.
> 
> Perhaps someone "in the know" will post with further information, but recent events have made that unlikely.


Thank you.

Yes, though I lurk mostly and visit Hobby Talk on weekends, I know to what events you're referring to. As like many here, this is also my "grail" kit and thought it would be neat to know when the kit was "conceived" as I hold it in my hands.


----------



## Paulbo

It occurs to me that, as hinted, Gary's article in the next issue of SciFi & Fantasy Modeller will have more information on the early development of the kit. I think this should be really fascinating reading.


----------



## Blufusion

I have the polor iights model of the refit. and God Hoping I don't pass before I buld it. I knnow this doesnt fit here. But when is someone gonna make a Battlestar Galactica acurrate kit form the orginal series. I want it to be 24 to 36 inches long and be accurated. Can anyony tell me why the people that hold this wonderful model from a great show z> not just go ahead and say Lets give the fans what they want.


----------



## RSN

Blufusion said:


> I have the polor iights model of the refit. and God Hoping I don't pass before I buld it. I knnow this doesnt fit here. But when is someone gonna make a Battlestar Galactica acurrate kit form the orginal series. I want it to be 24 to 36 inches long and be accurated. Can anyony tell me why the people that hold this wonderful model from a great show z> not just go ahead and say Lets give the fans what they want.


Moebius Models announced they will be producing an original series Galactica in scale with the ships they produced from the new series. Not sure how big that is but I think about the same size as the old Monogram kit.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Blufusion said:


> I have the polor iights model of the refit. and God Hoping I don't pass before I buld it. I knnow this doesnt fit here. But when is someone gonna make a Battlestar Galactica acurrate kit form the orginal series. I want it to be 24 to 36 inches long and be accurated. Can anyony tell me why the people that hold this wonderful model from a great show z> not just go ahead and say Lets give the fans what they want.



Ones on it's way from Moebius,...same scale as the original Revell kit sadly but a whole new tooling and accurate.


----------



## Tim H.

Anybody want to build two? I'm sure the Trek Station in Vulcan, Alberta (official Star Trek capitol of Canada) would love to have one of these on display.


----------



## Hunch

I was wondering... is there any chance that the lighting kit will be available early to those of us in the 1701 club? Or, does it not matter because the kits will be released at around the same time? Just wondering...
Jim


----------



## Ductapeforever

I believe the general release will all be at the same time.


----------



## Ductapeforever

New shirt design....


A "plank owner" is an individual who was a member of the crew of a ship when that ship was placed in commission. In earlier years, this applied to a first commissioning; since then, it has often been applied to one who was part of a recommissioning crew as well.The term applies here to the Premier kit owners as well. "Plank owner" is not an official Navy term, and has consequently been variously defined by different Navy units.


----------



## Warped9

Ductapeforever said:


> New shirt design....
> 
> 
> A "plank owner" is an individual who was a member of the crew of a ship when that ship was placed in commission. In earlier years, this applied to a first commissioning; since then, it has often been applied to one who was part of a recommissioning crew as well.The term applies here to the Premier kit owners as well. "Plank owner" is not an official Navy term, and has consequently been variously defined by different Navy units.


Cool! :thumbsup:


----------



## Ductapeforever

I'm bored ...bonus for you guys, Commissioning crew patch, 1st crew.

........back to designing other stuff.


----------



## John Duncan

Where do we order the shirts? :thumbsup:


----------



## Ductapeforever

John Duncan said:


> Where do we order the shirts? :thumbsup:



Haven't given too much thought about making them available as shirts yet, but I can , with enough interest put them on Cafepress. Just let me know.



Speaking of shirts, I'm not responsible for this one, but happy to pass the info along just the same.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/USS-Enterprise-Fire-Rescue-Firefighter-T-shirt-L-/320053272275

Other sizes available in his ebay store.


----------



## John P

Back to the Tamiya XF-12 color choice - I was looking for it at the hobby shop this weekend, and it apparently only comes in the 33ml bottle. That ain't enough! And I couldn't find JN gray in a Tamiya rattle can. Anybody know if it (or a good substitute) exists? Maybe it's a different code number?


----------



## Captain April

I'm liking my idea of the big rattle cans of gray primer from Wal-Mart better and better. Pretty close to the right color, large quantity, and cheap enough that even I can afford a couple cans in a bad month.


----------



## robiwon

I would love to do it with Tamiya rattle cans, but it would be expensive! They just go on sooo smoooth! I have an airbrush and an older compressor, but I'm not comfortable with using it. I will see what is available in large Primer cans, but may ultimately go for the closest Tamiya rattle can. I'm not a rivet counter, or in this case a "pigment counter", so close enough is going to be good for me. No one around me does models and I can handle your guys criticism!

:wave:


----------



## John P

Tamiya has Japanese ARMY gray in a rattle can, but I know it's not the same. Although the cap color is nearly the same as the XF-12 cap color.


----------



## woof359

*Tamiya chart*

http://www.tamiyausa.com/articles/feature.php?article-id=72

Im leaning toward XF19


----------



## wjplenge

John Duncan said:


> I did get my update too.
> 
> How many of us fanatics signed up for more than one kit?QUOTE]
> 
> I Kind of did, I signed up for the premiere edition as a collectable and preordered a standard edition to actually build. I'm hoping there is a delay between the kits being released and the lighting kit. I'd like to preorder the lighting kit too but not knowing when it's coming out if it was released with the kits I'd be in a bit of a bind paying for it all.


----------



## MartinHatfield

wjplenge said:


> I Kind of did, I signed up for the premiere edition as a collectable and preordered a standard edition to actually build. I'm hoping there is a delay between the kits being released and the lighting kit. I'd like to preorder the lighting kit too but not knowing when it's coming out if it was released with the kits I'd be in a bit of a bind paying for it all.


According to all sources, including our supplier, the kits and the extra detail sets and lighting kits are going to be released at the same time. Our distributor even offered a special deal giving us the kit and four of the detail sets(including the lights) and an extra base for $100.00 less than to buy them separately.


----------



## SteveR

Regarding the gray, if the exact colour is too expensive, would it be practical to use an inexpensive primer for the base then apply a greenish tint over that to nail the colour?


----------



## Captain April

I'm going with the gray primer and calling it day as far as painting the hull goes.


----------



## JGG1701

Captain April said:


> I'm going with the gray primer and calling it day as far as painting the hull goes.


Hey Capt'n.
What do you use as a "seal coat" for the decals & paint?
Thanks,
-Jim


----------



## John P

I thought seal coats were illegal. Though I think my mother still has her mink...


----------



## fluke

Thats it! Some one get a rope!


----------



## Captain April

Plain old dullcoat seems fine.


----------



## JGG1701

Captain April said:


> Plain old dullcoat seems fine.


Tamiya lacquer or ......................????
Thanks,
-Jim


----------



## Captain April

Probably Testors.


----------



## JGG1701

Forgive my ignorance....... Testors lacquer?:freak:
I heard it "yellows" over time.
-Jim


----------



## Captain April

Look, even if I manage to pick this up in the next couple of months, assembly is going to be a loooooooooong ways off, so how I'm gonna seal the decals is so far down on the list of priorities right now it's not even worth a chuckle.


----------



## JGG1701

Sorry if I asked too many questions.
I was only try to find out other possible means to approach a less exspensive way to paint this 1/350th since Tamiya paints will be expensive.
_*Just asking is all.*_
-Jim


----------



## mach7

I know the Tamiya paints are expensive, but they go on so nice and dry so hard it's going to be hard for me to shell out $300 for the kit and not spring for the $40-50 for the good paint. But as others have said it will be a while before I get building so I can see what others are doing.


----------



## SteveR

JGG1701 said:


> Sorry if I asked too many questions.


I didn't think you were asking too many questions. :thumbsup: But since they're split up, the early ones might be forgotten -- a consequence of format.


----------



## TrekFX

I would concur on the Tamiya paint. Sometimes we have no choice but to spend a little (or a lot...) more for quality. It would be regretful to have put a lot of money and time into a kit, then a few years later have the efforts eclipsed by an increasingly- discoloring finish.

I did an aztec experiment over twenty years ago, and the Tamiya flat white I used for the base coat shows very little sign of yellowing. And it's durable! The old AMT refit saucer I used as my "volunteer subject" has been, shall we say, less than gently-handled and usually just left floating around in a box, on a shelf or wherever with who-knows-what all over it. The other day I gave it a quick wash while I was doing the dishes (!) and it still looks pretty darn good!

For the pearl coat I used Future with Tamiya Flat Base added to dull it and Pearl-Ex powders. It too is holding up well considering the abundant abuse it's seen. And the biggest thing I enjoyed about the whole experiment was it was all water clean-up and didn't stink to high heaven like enamels or lacquer.


----------



## woof359

*paint*



woof359 said:


> http://www.tamiyausa.com/articles/feature.php?article-id=72
> 
> Im leaning toward XF19


guess since Ill be using a rattle can, it well be AS-20


----------



## BubbaKhan

*Polar Lights email for 1/350 Enterprise*

Has anyone got the order email from Polar Lights for the 1/350 TOS Enterprise yet???


----------



## SFCOM1

Not yet,

But it could be any day! (i Hope)


----------



## BubbaKhan

Me too; this is worse than Christmas - at least you know what day that will happen!


----------



## Opus Penguin

We should hear something soon. I expect the model will not actually arrive until late November.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Just checked with Jaime, he says it could come out literally any time now. It is expected to be out this afternoon, but if not, then sometime this week.


----------



## rkoenn

If we buy from Round 2 as part of the 1701 club does anyone know the price and also does this model differ from the retail model? I guess I am asking if the 1701 club model is more costly and if so are there extras that make it worth the cost. And of course you can double the cost buying all the lighting and enhancement accessories. I am definitely buying one but haven't decided for sure yet from who or what accessories to get for it. I will probably end up splurging and doing the whole package.


----------



## jheilman

If you are a member of the 1701 Club, you can get the Premiere edition which includes the parts pack to make the pilot versions and unique packaging. It is more expensive, but I don't think the final pricing is known yet.


----------



## Larry523

The wait is over at last! I just received the ordering instructions and placed my order. The final price was $149.99, so no surprise there. According to the website, I was #237 to order, if I read it correctly. The instructions, and the site, only provided a way to order the premiere kit. The light kit, and any other optional accessories, apparently aren't available yet. I'm sure they'll be added soon. :thumbsup:


----------



## Paulbo

I seem to remember from published sources that everything else will be available in 3 weeks or so.


----------



## Warped9

The price stated in the email is right on target with what was once mentioned quite some time ago. No problem.


----------



## woof359

*number please*

I was #410, I wonder if they well hit the 1701 mark ?


----------



## Fozzie

woof359 said:


> I was #410, I wonder if they well hit the 1701 mark ?


They should. At one point they said there were over 2,000 names on the list.


----------



## Captain April

Well, I'm still planning on skipping this one and waiting for the regular version in a month or two. For one thing, I won't have the money for this puppy for another few months, and I plan on doing the production version, so I have no real use for those pilot pieces.

And I won't feel the least bit guilty wearing my 1701 Club t-shirt, so there!


----------



## SFCOM1

Captain April said:


> Well, I'm still planning on skipping this one and waiting for the regular version in a month or two. For one thing, I won't have the money for this puppy for another few months, and I plan on doing the production version, so I have no real use for those pilot pieces.
> 
> And I won't feel the least bit guilty wearing my 1701 Club t-shirt, so there!


I know how you feel. I had to pull back from mine, as an unexpected real world expense of a critical car repair has "assimilated" my funds saved for this kit. 

I am honored to have been included with this group, and yes there are nearly a thousand on the wait list. So I am confident they all will be purchased. Oh, BTW. I ordered the pre-sale from Steve (@ culttvman) to replace this. Price is good, and it will be months before any store in Phoenix will carry this model anyway!. We are quite the "Hind end of Space" for modelers.


----------



## swhite228

SFCOM1 said:


> it will be months before any store in Phoenix will carry this model anyway!. We are quite the "Hind end of Space" for modelers.


Try living in Tucson! 

It isn't much better here...of the 3 general hobby shops in the area the Ace Hardware on 22 st. is the best! They will have the kit and probably the extras when it comes out.

Hobby Town MIGHT have the kit because it's the holiday buying season.

Competition Hobby...probably special order and then hastle when you go to pick it up.

Can't wait to see if Hobby Lobby gets the kit as our store is supposed to open by Dec.


----------



## LGFugate

It's very doubtful that Hobby Lobby will carry the kit. They suffered badly from carrying the 1/350th Refit and NX-01, and they only carry a very small number of thr smaller, simpler Star Trek and Star Wars kits. Larger non-aircraft and non-armor kits don't sell for them and end up in the clearence aisle. (Examples: the Revell-Germany 1/96th scale Saturn V, the Atomic City Mercury Capsule, the Round 2 1/350th Refit and NX-01.)

Larry


----------



## charonjr

Swhite! Nice to meet another modeler in Tucson! Has Sean indicated if ACE is going to stick with $97?


----------



## woof359

I learned a lot about the production version of the Enterprise since this thread started, I was wondering about the clear dome above the bridge, is it as big as the kit part ? or should some of it be masked and painted ?


----------



## swhite228

charonjr said:


> Swhite! Nice to meet another modeler in Tucson! Has Sean indicated if ACE is going to stick with $97?


I don't know. I haven't been in Ace for a few weeks and Sean hasn't been working when I visited the last 2 times. They are good about prices they quote so I hope so.

Did you get a price on the lighting kit???


----------



## charonjr

No. Last time I saw Sean was August. He said the distribution company had kept quiet about that one. I'll call him and post his response.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Somebody post a scan of your numbered certificate so the folks who didn't order the Premier kit can see what it looks like.


----------



## woof359

*air brush*

kicking around the idea of using my air brush for painting the hullinstead of a rattle can, what size bottles are people using that well be doing the same thing ?


----------



## Opus Penguin

woof359 said:


> kicking around the idea of using my air brush for painting the hullinstead of a rattle can, what size bottles are people using that well be doing the same thing ?


I will be using an airbrush. Most seem to be leaning toward Ace Hardware's Shady Cove as the base color. You can buy it in quart size I believe.


----------



## swhite228

Opus Penguin said:


> I will be using an airbrush. Most seem to be leaning toward Ace Hardware's Shady Cove as the base color. You can buy it in quart size I believe.


Done right you can get a can free!
Last time the had the free sample day I got a quart of Shady Cove along with a laugh when the Ace salesperson said outloud that he had memorized the mix for the paint.
When I asked if it was a popular color he said not really but they had mixed 10 samples of it that day and were asked about using it on plastic a lot.


----------



## LGFugate

> Somebody post a scan of your numbered certificate so the folks who didn't order the Premier kit can see what it looks like.


/<Sheldon>
Open it just to scan the serially-numbered special certificate? Are you mad? It's a mint-in-box collectable!
/<Sheldon>



Larry


----------



## Ductapeforever

LGFugate said:


> /<Sheldon>
> Open it just to scan the serially-numbered special certificate? Are you mad? It's a mint-in-box collectable!
> /<Sheldon>
> 
> 
> 
> Larry




Of course this applys only to those who plan to actually build theirs!


----------



## Havok69

I am so building mine - and that certificate is getting framed and displayed right along with it...


----------



## Opus Penguin

Havok69 said:


> I am so building mine - and that certificate is getting framed and displayed right along with it...


I was thinking of doing the same.


----------



## Prowler901

Havok69 said:


> I am so building mine - and that certificate is getting framed and displayed right along with it...


Exactly! :thumbsup:


----------



## Epsilon

So now that these things are on their way, I'm wondering what might be a good way to paint the Bussard Collectors because [gasp!] I'm not lighting mine up! I'd love to, but the additional $150-200 is just a smidge too rich for my wallet! (Not my tastes, mind you... but my wallet!)
Ideas???


----------



## Warped9

Well, I might be making a Pike era version so I'll also likely be painting my nacelle caps. The Kirk era series version would be more amber like coloured, but the Pike era is more crimson red coloured with a touch of magenta to them (from what I've read).


----------



## Ductapeforever

Epsilon said:


> So now that these things are on their way, I'm wondering what might be a good way to paint the Bussard Collectors because [gasp!] I'm not lighting mine up! I'd love to, but the additional $150-200 is just a smidge too rich for my wallet! (Not my tastes, mind you... but my wallet!)
> Ideas???


Tamiya Clear Red Acrylic Tint, black fans underneath!


----------



## Captain April

^ Also, since apparently includes two extra spikes for the main deflector dish, you could come up with something pilotish...


----------



## swhite228

charonjr said:


> Swhite! Nice to meet another modeler in Tucson! Has Sean indicated if ACE is going to stick with $97?


$130+/- is the Ace price as of yesterday.

The lighting kit there is some question on.
It will likley be special order, and they were told by their distributer that there were 2 versions of the light kit, an electronics only kit, and a kit with the electronics and the colored plastic parts.

Given the suggested retail price quoted it seems like the one with the colored parts might be the deluxe kit with the photo etch and decals, there was no price given for the all electronics kit.

They are expecting the kit in mid December.

On a side note this was posted on the MegaHpbby Facebook page.
"Coming Next Week to Megahobby.com the Long Awaited 1/350 Original Enterprise!
http://www.megahobby.com/PREORDERNOTYETRELEASEDStarTrekEnterpriseNCC-17011/350PolarLights.aspx


----------



## Warped9

I also want to rig sound f/x as well as the lighting.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Warped9 said:


> I also want to rig sound f/x as well as the lighting.


I may do the sound and get a sound board from BigDAWGS, but will do this as an after-thought when finished with the model.


----------



## RossW

I got one of the greeting card kits from BigDAWGS and loaded it with the 'Warp' sound effect. It's too long (over 30s) to use with the motor spin up code i've done on a PIC, though. Anybody know where to get a .mp3 or .wav file of the warp engine sound which takes around 3-5 s to get to full speed?


----------



## Warped9

I got one off the _Star Trek_ sound f/x CD and modified it myself on the computer with GarageBand.


----------



## RossW

I've done that before for a ringtone, so ill give it a try (I have the same CD)


----------



## Blufusion

as for me i wasnt able to get this kit . I have been out of the building phase for about 25 yrs and getting back into it. Right now im working on the Bandai Voyager kit. and I have worked it one wee and just now have the first engine almost built. Im a perfectionist. hope to have it finished bt the 1st of the yr. I had this kit for 8 yrs and just now getting to it.


----------



## woof359

*wheres it gonna sit ?*

like most, I had to think where I would *get* permission to display this kit after it's done. Like the Refit, shelf space was out of the question so I made a custom wall hung stand sort of. Now I need to get Kirks ship done so I know how tall the TOS sits on its stand.Once thats done I can figure how far below the ceiling the new stand like doo-dad well be.


----------



## Havok69

woof359 said:


> Like the Refit, shelf space was out of the question so I made a custom wall hung stand sort of.


That sounds interesting. Would you mind posting a picture of it?


----------



## woof359

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## John P

That's... big! It kind of overpowers the model. Which ain't easy!


----------



## woof359

*shelf*

I agree, like the kit which was suppose to be my prototype first build I used stuff lying around the house to come up with something to hold it up. the TOS will have a much smaller shelf like thing but still in wood since its in the basement family room and help warm it up.


----------



## Warped9

woof359 said:


> Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Yeah, big, but it gives me an interesting idea which I'm going to ponder.


----------



## Nova Designs

I think it would be a lot less overpowering if the backplate wasn't a big disc... although it does carry the saucer theme along...


----------



## John P

Also if the ship wasn't jammed into the rafters where you can't see it!


----------



## Warped9

For display I want mine at eye level or tabletop level so I can appreciate it from different angles. But that stand still gives me ideas.


----------



## woof359

I thought of having mine lower, but knew sooner or later some one would bump into an engine, SPLAT !


----------



## WarpCore Breach

Knowing how big the Refit model is... that almost looks like a round coffee table stuck to the wall!! :wave:

Strictly in my own opinion - the round part does kind of overpower the model, at least in the angle of the picture. (not a criticism. Just an observation.) Thanks for posting your display option!


----------



## woof359

*shelf*

table part is correct (-:


----------



## JGG1701

Awesome build woof!!!:thumbsup:
-Jim


----------



## engineermrscott

*Arived*

Hi all,
Got #95 today. WOW WOW WOW!!!
Very impresive.
As soon as I can get the lights, it will be built.
Still pondering hull color. My Cut-Away looks great in white w/satin clear.
Yes, the 11ft. is grey, but it was under bright lights when filmed, looked white on tv.
Refit/A are white?? Yea D IS grey...
I want to build as model of "prototype", not filming model.
LLAP,
John


----------



## John P

D isn't gray, D is blue and green.

From Probert himself:


> One thing has probably caused more debate than else: the Enterprise's color. The model is very definitely blue, but on screen the ship is gray. Probert explains that there is a very good reason for this. "The fans were very concern that we were replacing the original series. In order to soften some of the anxiety I wanted the two ships to be colored basically the same. Well, because of the low degree of technology compared to today, when the original Enterprise (which was actually a warm pearl gray) was filmed it picked up a lot of the blue spill [light used in the visual effects process] and therefore became bluish. What I did was indicate that the paneling of the _D_ be painting in two shades of blue. One is a duck egg blue, and the other is kind of a sky blue, which is the base color the hobby kits are molded in. By mixing the two blues together I was hoping cinematically that there would be a close tie-in with the color of the original ship." However, the blue was neutralized when the ship was filmed, leaving it the familiar gray.


Watch the new Blu-Ray TNG episodes and you can clearly see the greenish (Duck egg blue) panels . Probert has the pantone color chips somewhere online. Can't find them at the moment.


----------



## Captain April

I say go with gray. That's how it came out on screen, so that's how it should look on the shelf.


----------



## John P

To itch his own.


----------



## WarpCore Breach

Ah, the old "how the model was painted" vs. "how it looked on TV" debate.

The Enterprise-D ALWAYS looked grey to me, with only hints of blue and green.

The TOS Enterprise looked grey, white, blue, green.... depending on the shot and what year I saw the particular episode during it's long rerun sequences.


----------



## Warped9

WarpCore Breach said:


> The Enterprise-D ALWAYS looked grey to me, with only hints of blue and green.


Same here.


----------



## engineermrscott

Thanks John,
The correct grey she will be. Yea, the animated E was grey...no lighting effects there.


----------



## StarshipClass

engineermrscott said:


> Thanks John,
> The correct grey she will be. Yea, the animated E was grey...no lighting effects there.












The TAS 1701 always looked like a reflective silverish metallic to me.


----------



## Hunch

Sadly, that looks more accurate than the original AMT kit.


----------



## publiusr

Very long secondary hull there. I wonder if anyone tried to model that. There was a japanese TOS kit that seemed to have a similar sec hull.


----------



## Captain April

The cutaway seemed to take a lot from the TAS version...


----------



## StarshipClass

publiusr said:


> Very long secondary hull there.


That's so the extra large shuttlebay will fit inside. There was a modification made to the engineering hull after _TOS_ and before _TAS._


----------



## onigiri

Got mine today. I ordered late and still got #30. Definitely random. All I can say is wow.


----------



## John Duncan

So who's gonna build the TAS version? John P?

Someone's gotta do it.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

So now that the kit is out, is there anyplace where all the club update pictures can be seen?


----------



## wjplenge

BolianAdmiral said:


> So now that the kit is out, is there anyplace where all the club update pictures can be seen?


I doubt there will be, the pictures from the 1st five e-mails of the 10 updates are broken links now.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Nope, as a matter of fact those of us who archived the updates have discovered the pics in the emails disappearing. Unknown why.


----------



## Warped9

These pics will see-destruct in five months..._poof!_ :lol:


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Well that sucks... wish my external hard drive hadn't gone belly-up now. Note to everyone... DON'T buy Western Digital, lol.

On another note, Happy Thanksgiving, to all the American peeps here.


----------



## robiwon

I forgot to save the emails on my work computer, where they were sent, and their all gone!


----------

