# Refit Interior Blueprints



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

Thanks for the welcome, Chuck.

I decided it might be best to start a new thread. Any and all discussions relating to the interior layout of the Refit are welcome here. I will admit that my own bias is toward the TMP-TSFS (original) refit. I see the -A as having a totally different interior layout.

- Dave


Here is a layout of the cargo bay as I see it. This is based on my research using various sources - the movies, Kimble TMP blueprints, Scott's Guide, and info from Andy Probert's website.

The black elements show the cargo bay sized using the Kimble TMP blueprint cargo pod dimensions. The red overlay shows my best guess at the size of the cargo bay based on the live action stage set that was built and filmed for TMP. Both cargo bay outlines are located relative to the turbo elevator tubes. I am assuming that the tubes are located in line with the exterior docking ports.

As you can see, the filming set lower level of the cargo bay appears to be too large to fit within the exterior hull.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Have you scaled the Kimble print to 1000' LOA (rather than the 990' he states)?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

If I could make a suggestion:

It might be a good to idea post - if possible - any seperate detail sections like the cargo bay within a complete outline of the secondary hull(regardless of view - port/starboard/above/below/fore/aft...).

That way problems with scale can be almost immediately checked.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Just pasting in links to interesting relevant images you can find on a thread over at trekbbs and at probertdesigns.com

The cross-section on probertdesigns.com confirms that the lift tubes should line up with the docking ports.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> Have you scaled the Kimble print to 1000' LOA (rather than the 990' he states)?


Yes, my set of TMP blueprints has the LOA specified as 304.8m => 1000'. 

I very carefully scaled each sheet. I took multiple measurements, length beam, PH, SH, whatever I had numbers for and averaged the results. It did take me a while to realize that the discrepancies I found for the SH were the result of a typo on the blueprints. The printed SH LOA of 121m was actually a transposition of 112m. That was corrected years ago.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

ZStar said:


> Yes, my set of TMP blueprints has the LOA specified as 304.8m => 1000'.


That's just a little confusing. It is specified on the blueprints as 304.8m, which is 990'. I think you mean you did rescale it to 1000' (307.7m).

I hadn't noticed the transposition of 112/121. I scale mine by measuring the overall length, determining scale based on 1000' "actual"; and then measuring individual items. So, I never used his stated dimensions of individual hulls and such.

This brings up another question I've pondered in the past:
Is Kimble's ship off in proportions to account for the 1% length error, or is it just mis-scaled. (I know there are lots of details that don't match the final miniature. But what about the proportions?)

Specifically:
- are the primary hull, secondary hull, and nacelles sized correctly relative to each other?
- are they positioned correctly relative to each other (i.e., are the pylon length and angles correct?) (I know the nacelle pylons don't mount to the nacelles in the correct places.)


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

I apologize for not making the context of my earlier graphic clearer. It is a little awkward. It represents a chunk taken out of the lower half of the SH, approximately where the lowest dark green level is in the Probert section. As a result, the contours will not correspond directly to the centerline outline of the SH if you were to overlay a correctly scaled top or bottom view. My hull and floor contours were carefully determined from transverse sections made along the length of the SH. 

Thanks for bringing over the images from TrekBBS.

Does that help?



> That's just a little confusing. It is specified on the blueprints as 304.8m, which is 990'. I think you mean you did rescale it to 1000' (307.7m).


Unless the TPTB have redefined the meter, all of my real world reference books say 1ft = 0.3048m => 1000ft = 304.8m. I am not sure how you arrived at 304.8m = 990ft. 



> This brings up another question I've pondered in the past:
> Is Kimble's ship off in proportions to account for the 1% length error, or is it just mis-scaled. (I know there are lots of details that don't match the final miniature. But what about the proportions?)


According to Andy Probert, the Kimble blueprints represent the “as designed” proportions and features. The model makers deviated from those plans in some places, especially the SH contours. The Kimble blueprints show what I call the “pop bottle” pinch back by the shuttle elevators and workbee bays. The filming model has a more “football” shape to the SH.

Without “ground truth” measurements taken directly from the filming model, you can get as many proportional measurements as you have photographs. I know, I have poured over all the pix I could lay my hands on. I have measured and remeasured.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Yes, 304.8m = 1000'; I'm an idiot.

Nobody quote me on that, though, please. 

The 1% error was mine, not Kimble's.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

ZStar said:


> It represents a chunk taken out of the lower half of the SH, approximately where the lowest dark green level is in the Probert section.


Yes, it was clear what the "ext hull at lower cargo deck ceiling" line was.
I'm not clear on the "interior floor line," though. I think it means "interrior hull line at lower cargo deck floor" and thus represents both the reduction due to curvature of the hull and the thickness of the hull. Correct?


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> I'm not clear on the "interior floor line," though. I think it means "interrior hull line at lower cargo deck floor" and thus represents both the reduction due to curvature of the hull and the thickness of the hull. Correct?


Yes, the floor line indicates where the inner hull surface meets the cargo deck floor. I assumed a hull thickness of 30cm or about one foot. The hull thickness is measured perpendicular to the external surface. The floor is intersecting the curving hull at an angle to the local hull perpendicular so the depicted thickness may be a little greater than 30cm. That probably doesn't show at the resolution of the image. I can provide another diagram if my description is not clear.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> I apologize for not making the context of my earlier graphic clearer. It is a little awkward. It represents a chunk taken out of the lower half of the SH, approximately where the lowest dark green level is in the Probert section. As a result, the contours will not correspond directly to the centerline outline of the SH if you were to overlay a correctly scaled top or bottom view.


If one were literally displaying a transverse slice of the ship, then of course you would not see the wider overhead view from the higher mid-line.

But it is still possible to draw it's position inside of just such an outline.

True the filming miniature and the Refit have differences in their exact shape.

However, I believe the overall secondary hull fore-to-aft proportions are essentially the same. A top centerline view of the Secondary hull might not be extremely accurate in it's port and starboard curves.

But the length fore to aft should still be accurate.

So it's not impossible to put the drawings within such a centerline, even if the ship is not that wide at that "slice" the largest centerline outlines can still be shown. They will still be extremely usefull for scaling purposes because the length fore to aft is known, *and potentially ridiculously helpful as to how quickly you catch errors and what errors you catch.*

*More* importantly, doing all work within such an outline(even if it's known to be off here and there on the port and starboard curvatures) will often allow you to instantly catch mistakes you wouldn't otherwise catch.

*Most importantly*, if you plot the interior faithfully within the errantly contoured drawing, you should be able to show all the points where the official blueprints and/or interiors are wrong.

Trust me, I've done hours apon hours of work on laying out interiors on more then one occassion, only to realize it just didn't fit the way I just imagined or assumed it was supposed to.

I've learned that assumptions are your enemy! They can make tons of time and effort become suddenly useless!

Ever since then, I've tried to make it a strict habit of always drawing things within the largest cross-section of the object in question.

Sometimes I will start with a drawing like Probert's side profile with the colored sections and then transpose the smaller section for more detailed drawing. But you should always start at least by doing that rather then just working on an interior piece without a view of the entire background it will be plugged into. Usually now, I don't transpose anything, if I'm drawing some little detail into the secondary hull its inside of a huge file that has the entire secondary hull at high resolution. I've become so paranoid about this problem that I'm often guilty of having as big as 120MB or larger file. It can be a pain without having a decent amount of ram or hard drive space - but if you do have both it's preferable to transposing the smaller section. You can never go wrong by drawing a detail, within an equally detailed drawing of the entire object you are working on.


Always show how big the section is and where it goes as you go along and you'll be a much happier camper.

It's no fun wanting to slap yourself for having done tons of work that you suddenly realize must now be totally reworked.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay,

Fantastic Source material! :thumbsup:

I understand and don't expect source material like this to be "plugged in" to anything.

This is very interesting stuff.

With this and a little more info, a large portion of the secondary hull might actually be able to be drawn accurately in an orthographic manner.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Pertinent info from another thread:




ZStar said:


> My own research agrees with USS Columbia. Fitting the cargo bay as depicted in Probert’s matte painting becomes very tight. Compared at the widest part of the secondary hull, the fit is comfortable, with room to spare outboard of the cargo alcoves. However, at the aft end of the cargo bay, the lower outboard alcoves get very close to the outer hull. It largely depends on how you size the cargo pods.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

You said you weren't as interested in the -A, but here's interesting plan of its hangar anyway, from Gary Kerr.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

Thanks for the tip, Chuck. When I'm working on a set of blueprints, I don't normally work within a copy of the max outline. I usually start from the exterior views so that I have a well defined surface. Then I start making sections and slicing planes so that I can have well defined limits for each deck. Once I have each deck volume well defined, then I start in on the details. I think I work in a similar fashion to what you have described.



> I've learned that assumptions are your enemy! They can make tons of time and effort become suddenly useless!


Amen! I had already gone through the process descibed above before I realized the transposition of the 112m SH LOA into 121m. As I was working, I was thinking that the SH proportions didn't look right but I put more faith in the dimensional number. It was one of those "Duh! Oh, s**t!" moments when I realized the truth.

The image I posted was just clipped and cleaned to minimize the clutter and image size. 

Columbia, thanks for pointing out the Kerr drawing at Cultman. I have seen those. Wow, would I love to see a high res set of his refit prints.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> Amen! I had already gone through the process descibed above before I realized the transposition of the 112m SH LOA into 121m. As I was working, I was thinking that the SH proportions didn't look right but I put more faith in the dimensional number. It was one of those "Duh! Oh, s**t!" moments when I realized the truth.


It could be a little worse.

At least you aren't the guy who worked for NASA who forgot to convert his Mars landing calculations from metric back into English(or was it vice versa?) and lost an entire space probe!!!

Something tells me that's going to be a mistake he never makes a second time! :lol:


*"Gee, you're home early honey."*

"Yeah, well. I made one little screw up at work and they fired me..."

*"That's outrageous! What happened?!?"*

"I sort of forgot to convert a few numbers and caused a Martian Space Probe to crash."

*"Oh. Well. Okay. Why did they have to fire you? Couldn't you just pay to replace it?"*


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

There seems to be no completely accurate blueprints in existance of the Refit as built.

Countless people have remarked how accurate Thomas' PL Refit was to the filming miniature.

The overall contours of the kit are pretty much unchallenged as accurate.

There were a few small errors almost all of which were supposed to be corrected by the manufacturer before mass production began.

But the worst of these to my knowledge were a couple of errant scribe lines that should have been changed and a slight retouching of the neck thickness.

The decal placement drawings in the instructions of the kit are not scaled properly.
They have different portions that are proportionally incorrect.

They have so many corrections and differences that they do seem to be almost intentionally distorted so as not to be used as orthographic blueprints.

However, since the kit itself is known to be accurate I was able to take some measurements and figured out I could get what appears to be a 100% accurate rendering in blueprints to the kit's measurements by breaking down the views into smaller segments and adjusting those parts of the drawings.

It's a pain in the but to use calipers and measurements in order to match up the drawings with the actual measurements on the kit parts, but it is doable.

I have only done it on a couple of the elements, due to the time involved.

But if someone wanted to do the same thing they could scan the PL instructions, break them down into their seperate elements, and then properly scale each distorted part of the drawing, they could probably come up with a complete set of orthographic prints of the kit.

And the kit is allegedly much more accurate to the contours of the actual filming miniature then the TMP blueprints.

Just for the heck of it, I then took TMP blueprints and did them in the same scale as the extrapolated views from the PL Kit.

Here is how the two match and differ, I've overlayed them.

As far as I know, this is the first publicly available analysis that has shown the difference between the pre-production TMP blueprints and the contours of the final filming model(in so much as the contours of the PL Refit are more accurate.)

I'm pretty sure that Garry Kerr was given all info needed to make an accurate Autocad rendering of the Refit as built, based on the posts he has made of certain parts of the Refit, and the naming and numbering conventions attached to those files(which indicate they are but a few of a buttload of files, suggesting that he has a complete set of Autocad files of the Refit.)

However, I don't suggest we hold our breath waiting for them to become publicly available. 

There are reasons for this, of course. I'm just facing the facts that they won't be available anytime soon. 

The only part of the PL kit that I know of that physically needs work other then a couple of scribe lines is the neck of the ship has to have it's thickness adjusted.

However that thickness is not visible from a side orthographic, so this drawing should be extremely accurate.

The PL kit's outlines are in black, TMP equivalent blueprint in red.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> The only part of the PL kit that I know of that physically needs work other then a couple of scribe lines is the neck of the ship has to have it's thickness adjusted.


The most detailed Kerr drawing at CultTVman is a front view if the torpedo tubes and neck. Assuming (always dangerous) the Kerr drawing is realtively undistorted and accurate, I get width dimensions of 12m (~40') for the torpedo deck and 7m (~23') for the neck. These correspond very accurately with measurements off my PL refit. 

Does anyone know what these dimensions are "really" supposed to be?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

ZStar said:


> I had already gone through the process descibed above before I realized the transposition of the 112m SH LOA into 121m.


That dimesion would make the secondary hull proportion look about like on the old South Bend toy Enterprise refit.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> The most detailed Kerr drawing at CultTVman is a front view if the torpedo tubes and neck. Assuming (always dangerous) the Kerr drawing is realtively undistorted and accurate, I get width dimensions of 12m (~40') for the torpedo deck and 7m (~23') for the neck. These correspond very accurately with measurements off my PL refit.
> 
> Does anyone know what these dimensions are "really" supposed to be?


Nope. As there are no official drawings.

Could you post links to those other Kerr drawings you are talking about(and any other you know of?)

If you are looking at the very front in both cases that may be why you aren't seeing any problem. I vaguely remember that the PL kit allegedly(never paid attention at the time) had some problem with how much it tapered towards the rear.

So that might explain why there doesn't seem to be a problem if the drawings you are talking about are only of the front, or if you only checked the front portion.

Thomas did painstaking research and put as much as he could into the model

(again the couple of physical problems I know about he had slated to be corrected, but somehow the chinese company ignored his last few revisions and went straight to production. The reason I know this is because he had a thread here documenting the entire process of making the master and had published a list or corrections he was sending a couple of months or so before the kit ever went into production), 

but because of legal reasons I doubt he can share his orthographics. That probably had to do with why the individual elements of his drawings were distorted in the kit instruction drawings.

However, I know from past experience that when people do this, they often will intentionally screw up the X and Y axisae of individual parts of the 2D drawing then paste them back together at strategic points.

If you can break up the drawing at the right places, find the percentages along the X and Y that they distorted them, you can correct them.

Sometimes there will even be an entire subsection that is totally undistorted thrown in with the rest of the drawing, such as where two different off shoots of the drawing plug into the undistorted portion.

But to be accurate even in such seeming apparent cases it is crucial to verify this by physical measurements of the model against the would be blueprints.

But the good news is with the Refit it is not that difficult to do such verifications.
Both Thomas' model and the subject have the obvious advantage(from a measuring and verification standpoint) of all those vertical and horizontal lines.

So it's easy to check and confirm(with calipers, not rulers of course) if the reworked drawing is accurate to the actual PL kit.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

ZStar said:


> The most detailed Kerr drawing at CultTVman is a front view if the torpedo tubes and neck. Assuming (always dangerous) the Kerr drawing is realtively undistorted and accurate, I get width dimensions of 12m (~40') for the torpedo deck and 7m (~23') for the neck. These correspond very accurately with measurements off my PL refit.
> 
> Does anyone know what these dimensions are "really" supposed to be?


Of course, we'd expect the PL kit to match Kerr's drawings in these regard, as the drawings were available to Thomas when he mastered the kit.
As to the "real" size, I don't think you can do any better than Kerr's dimensions, unless you get a chance to measure the actual model.

(I think Kerr did get just such a chance, though I'm not sure. I know he got his hands on the original 11-footer.)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Here you go, Chuck: http://culttvman.com/kerrplans2.html


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Nope. As there are no official drawings.


Well, there are plenty of "official" drawings, e.g., Kimble's original blueprints, those in Mr. Scott's Guide, etc., all officially authorized by Paramount. (IIRR, the Kimbles are specifically called "official" on the package.) There just aren't any official, released, *accurate* ones (accurate to the model as built).




> (again the couple of physical problems I know about he had slated to be corrected, but somehow the chinese company ignored his last few revisions and went straight to production. The reason I know this is because he had a thread here documenting the entire process of making the master and had published a list or corrections he was sending a couple of months or so before the kit ever went into production),


Thomas posted a bunch of pictures marked up with his requested changes (some of which probably got made and some not). Was this on them? (I wish I had saved all those images while he had them up.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Well, there are plenty of "official" drawings, e.g., Kimble's original blueprints, those in Mr. Scott's Guide, etc., all officially authorized by Paramount. (IIRR, the Kimbles are specifically called "official" on the package.) There just aren't any official, released, *accurate* ones (accurate to the model as built).


That was the question, "Does anyone know what these dimensions are "really" supposed to be?"

Since I had just said a couple of times earlier in this and other threads no one has ever publicly posted accurate drawings of the filming miniature "as built," I didn't feel the need to keep repeating the same qualifications to the statement over and over.

A more accurate and direct answer, now that I think about it, would have been 

"I'm sure someone *could *tell us, but I would not hold my breath waiting for them to drop accurate blueprints in our laps. 

Paramount and the one or two fans who have the ability to produce such plans *have not done so in 28 years.* I don't see them falling over themselves to do it anytime soon."


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

It was meant to be funny. I originally had a , but I didn't like it (in preview). None of the smileys seemed right for the slightly humorous intention.

I did put "official" in quotation marks to draw attention to the technicality I was raising.

A bit touchy, aren't you?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Well, there are plenty of "official" drawings, e.g., Kimble's original blueprints, those in Mr. Scott's Guide, etc., all officially authorized by Paramount. (IIRR, the Kimbles are specifically called "official" on the package.) There just aren't any official, released, *accurate* ones (accurate to the model as built).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is the "this" you are talking about?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

"This" is the thickness of the neck needing correction.



> I vaguely remember that the PL kit allegedly(never paid attention at the time) had some problem with how much it tapered towards the rear.


Sorry for being unclear. With so many posts in a short time, it's easy to lose context when I'm lazy about quoting.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Okay, since I've decided to try and do some prints of Thomas' PL Refit model in order to get more accurate blues of the Refit movie filming miniature, I thought I would go back and find as many of those physical errors that need correcting.

I one started with Thomas' model and corrected such errors, what we will be left with should be the most accurate publicly available drawings of the Refit filming miniature.

Anyone else who has info, especially backed up by pics and drawings, please contribute.

Here's a quote of a Trek Ace entry on the subject from days gone by. Thanks, Trek Ace!



Trek Ace said:


> I had already posted these observations on another site. I have added comparison photos for clarity:
> 
> *- the impulse deck (the clear piece with the exhaust ports)*
> _The shape is totally wrong. It is too deep vertically and the lower portion should angle upwards, not go straight back._
> ...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Note: "official" :tongue:


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Nice reference photos! Did you get these out of the "pl refit inaccuracies" thread? (I've been meaning to go catch up on that thread. I've also been meaning to build one or two of my PL refit models  )


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Nice reference photos! Did you get these out of the "pl refit inaccuracies" thread? (I've been meaning to go catch up on that thread. I've also been meaning to build one or two of my PL refit models  )


Yep. And through the grace of Trek Ace's posting.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Note: "official" :tongue:


And we all know official means accurate, don't we?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here again is a parts used for the wrong version listed error.



JadesDarkHeart said:


> Okay so I am working on my refit and I notice what I think may be a mistake in the instructions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Interesting issue as to using Probert's cross section for the filming miniature. Apparently even Probert's cross section does not agree with the filming miniature as completed.

I never thought to check on that but that's easily done.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I've checked Probert's cross section and as I suspected it seems to match neither TMP or the PL Refit's measurements.

All three, from the side orthographic view look similar very near the front, they each vary widely, however once you get towards the back of the ship. The probert cross section setting the hanger deck higher then both the previous two drawings.

After pouring over countless photos at cloudster.com (thanks again for your website, Phil) it seems undeniable that PL's refit is extremely close to the filming miniature. MUCH MUCH closer then either TMP Refit Blueprints or Andrew Probert's layout cross section.

This causes no problem for the interior. Actually the filming miniature and the PL model both leave more room for an interior then does either the Probert cross-section or TMP blueprints. 

There is more room in the fantail, more room above the shuttlebays.

So there is no conflict with the filming miniature and what was seen onscreen of the TMP Refit's interior. The extra space come in areas that are not seen, like behind the cargo bay containers and above the ceilings.

If I can find an attachment or two I can part(I'm at my attachment quota) with I'll try to post the composite with the Probert cross section overlay added.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Have you thought to consult w/Mr. Probert about your findings, Chuck? He's _very_ fan oriented where stuff like this is concerned. In fact, he's probably as much of a geek as the rest of us when it comes to esoteric stuff like this. At WonderFest '05 he gave an hour long session where he answered all kinds of questions along these lines after giving out a veritable treasure trove of information before hand. You'll likely find him very accessible if you take the time to shoot him an email.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Sounds like a great idea.

I had heard he was a great guy, and even that he said several positive things about the PL refits' accuracy.

I'd like to spend a lot more time reworking the drawings of the Polar Lights model and fixing them where they appear to conflict with the filming miniature(and are distorted so they don't even match the model kit).

My main goal is to get as accurate an external set of drawings as possible before trying to insert a few of the known details of the interior.

If he is as big a geek as we are, he might want to see how his drawing differs from TMP blueprints and the filming miniature,

but it's not as anyone could expect him to do anything about that. Those were working drawings done to flesh out ideas.

Once I have more info, it will be interesting to compare them. But I'm not sure how much use he would have for them, unless maybe one of us can convince him to get Paramount to let him do a set of blues.

Considering how Paramount still has the CGI Enterprise they had built for The director's cut of TMP, and assuming it is accurate to the filming miniature, it should be very easily doable for them.

But at this point all I can say about it is that his cross section sketch doesn't match TMP blues nor the filming miniature, which is an appropriate point for the purposes of doing an interior/exterior set of blueprints. However pointing out to Probert that his drawing doesn't match the filming miniature out of a clear blue sky and out of context might come across as criticism where none is intended.

If I thought it might help somehow in getting a more accurate set of blues it might be worth it. 

But since that's unlikely, I'd rather not take the chance of making the guy feel insulted.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

One thing to point out, ZStar.

If you have a 1:350th Polar Lights kit and study it's cargo bay, you might come to the erroneous conclusion that it is out of scale widthwise(port to starboard).

Actually this is not the case, the cargo bay insert was done originally exactly to scale. At the point forward to the shuttlebay level and further it was trimmed so that lighting could be added behind the viewports.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I've checked Probert's cross section and as I suspected it seems to match neither TMP or the PL Refit's measurements.


A bit surprising, as I thought Kimble's prints were based on Proberts drawings. Perhaps he just made a few errors when he redrew them. Have you compared probert's cross section to his drawing in the design patent? (US Design Patent D260789 (you can view via google patent search).) This is obviously a slightly earlier drawing, but it would be interesting to see if the proportions changed by the time of his cross section that has the cargo bay design drawn on it.



> If I can find an attachment or two I can part(I'm at my attachment quota) with I'll try to post the composite with the Probert cross section overlay added.


If you email me the pic, I'll host it and post it here.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Considering how Paramount still has the CGI Enterprise they had built for The director's cut of TMP, and assuming it is accurate to the filming miniature, it should be very easily doable for them.


I've read lots of criticism of its accuracy. (I don't recall any specifics, though.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm not assuming it's perfect. But it has to be somewhat accurate.

It would certainly be better then starting from scratch.

I'm not concerned with thinks like sheen and aztecing. After 28 years, at least an accurate set of orthographics would be appreciated.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

It may indeed have just been criticism of the aztecing and minor details.
They certainly should have gotten the proportions right -- they had the luzury of actually measuring the physical model. Lucky bas&^%#s!


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

I have a long busy day and you guys fill up two full pages - way to go!

I think proberts SH matches the Kimble prints closely, doesn't it? I'll have to dig into my notes. One thing I noticed on both is that the windows and docking port are a little lower than on the filming model. I also believe that the CGI refit from the director's cut has the lower window and docking port configuration. 

I don't know why the filming model was made the way it was. It puts the floor level of the docking port about 6-8' above the flight deck level. In fact all the exterior features appear to be about half a deck above where the interior sets/matte would indicate the decks should be spaced. 

One of the PH profiles that Probert has on his website appears to be based on the earlier Matt Jefferies contours. Look at the top structures and the lower navigational dome.

http://www.probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/TMP.ENT-RecDeck.html



> If you have a 1:350th Polar Lights kit and study it's cargo bay, you might come to the erroneous conclusion that it is out of scale widthwise(port to starboard).


I'm not quite following what you are saying here. My analysis of the PL cargo bay leads me to believe it was undersized about 15-20%. There are only 3 alcoves at the front end and 4 should fit as we see on film at the aft end. It has been a while since I did the math so I can't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head. I figured it was done to allow ample room for lighting.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> I'm not quite following what you are saying here. My analysis of the PL cargo bay leads me to believe it was undersized about 15-20%. There are only 3 alcoves at the front end and 4 should fit as we see on film at the aft end. It has been a while since I did the math so I can't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head. I figured it was done to allow ample room for lighting.


That was brought up earlier:



Richard38 said:


> Hello,
> 
> has anyone else noticed that the cargo deck is not wide enough the kit is 3 containers wide and should be 4 containers wide...
> 
> Richard





lastguardian said:


> The cargo deck was narrowed to allow modelers to light the windows in the secondary hull.
> 
> Shane


 


justinleighty said:


> Plus, the floor decals still allow for what we saw in the movie: Four rows in front, three rows in the back.


Are you saying you think the bay is too short fore to aft, or just the width?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Okay, I missed a part measurement on my last Blues comparison.

I've replaced the one on the previous page with a more accurate one here:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=40715

In this one, the PL refit blueprint is in green, TMP blueprint in red.

There is less of a difference then I thought, though there is still a difference.

One thing I would point out is how much more accurate the scribe lines on the Secondary hull are on the Polar Lights model then the TMP blueprints.

Check them against pics of the filming miniature like this one from Phil Broad's website(thanks again Phil!).

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent48.jpg

Others can be compared from this link on Phil's site:

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPEnterpriseEngineering.htm


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

P.S. I'm going to reinsert the Probert drawing and recheck it too...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

ZStar said:


> One of the PH profiles that Probert has on his website appears to be based on the earlier Matt Jefferies contours. Look at the top structures and the lower navigational dome.
> http://www.probertdesigns.com/Folder_DESIGN/TMP.ENT-RecDeck.html


This isn't the MJ design; it's later than that. They actually built the model this way, then went back and reworked those details. The reason may have been to add the "projectors" for the saucer spotlights. (But the pre-mod pictures do show at least some of the spot light effects. (And the rec deck windows on the saucer edge.))

See this picture.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Okay, here is a composite of the Probert drawing(in blue) with what I feel is a fairly accurate drawing of at least the portions I'm showing here of the PL model(and hopefully by extension the filming miniature, at least in this re-proportioned drawing). The Probert drawing is still substantially different from the PL miniature and all the pics I've studied as you get to the last third of the drawing nearest the hanger bay. The tail end of the secondary hull is jacked up way higher then either the PL Refit, filming miniature, or TMP blueprints...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I think it could be distortion in the photo of Probert's diagram.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

For consistency sake I did a composite of all three, though it's a bit difficult to read.

Probert's cross section is Blue, the PL Refit Green, and TMP blues in RED.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> I think it could be distortion in the photo of Probert's diagram.


It would be one heck of a distortion! Notice how the scribe lines closely match TMP blues though...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Ooops!

Meant to post this here:

So we have PL model to TMP blues, PL Refit in Green, TMP drawing in Red:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=40715




PL model to Probert, PL Refit in Black, Probert in Blue:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=40718




And PL model, TMP Blues, and Probert Cross section. PL Refit in Green, TMP drawing in Red, and Probert's drawing in Blue:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=40719


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Yup, the probert drawing is definitely skewed. It's rotated slightly counter-clockwise. (Clockwise in your mirrored version). Notice that the "deck lines" slope upward toward the bay rather than being parallel to the lower edge of the image. There may be other distortion as well.
There's a cleaner version of the drawing posted some time back at trekbbs. (This one is a different scan -- notice text in the upper-right corner that's missing in the one on probertdesigns. I is also square with the page.)

Argh! Can't find the link. Still looking, though.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Yup, the probert drawing is definitely skewed. It's rotated slightly counter-clockwise. (Clockwise in your mirrored version). Notice that the "deck lines" slope upward toward the bay rather than being parallel to the lower edge of the image. There may be other distortion as well.
> There's a cleaner version of the drawing posted some time back at trekbbs. (This one is a different scan -- notice text in the upper-right corner that's missing in the one on probertdesigns. I is also square with the page.)
> 
> Argh! Can't find the link. Still looking, though.


The front vertical line of the ship is perfectly parallel.
Plus most of the first fore part matches up perfectly as it's rotated now.

No matter how much you try and dicker with it, turn in clockwise in my mirrored view, the hanger bay will still be too high and *then the hull outlines at the front of the drawing will no longer match either*, so then even more of the drawing will be out of wack.

So you either have a case of the first third or so of the general outlines(if not the scribe lines) of the ship aggreeing and the rear not agreeing.

Or you could try and turn the view clockwise(or counterclockwise) and have virtually nothing matching, not even the front end.

Plus, the image shows no signs of any kind of lens distortion that I can see. It looks like a scan, not a photograph to me.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I hate when I know about when I've seen something but can't find the darned thing.
Anyway, after an absurd amount of searching, here it is:


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I noticed the labels added pointing out a human in the control room. Cool.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Notice that the floor of the landing bay is on the centerline of the secondary hull. (And in this image, they're on the same y-axis position in the image, which is not the case with the other scan of this diagram.)

Your altered PL diagram also has the floor of the landing bay on the centerline.

(These are assuming the little "sensor" doohickey on the side of the main deflector is on the center line.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

They are two totally different drawings. I'm not sure where that original version on his webpage came from, but it is greatly distorted.

The one you posted above still has some areas that are off compared to the final filming miniature(especially noticable near the shuttlebay and near the pylons and aft neck area), but it is tremendously closer to the general outline of the filming miniature.

The general contours, with some noticable exceptions mentioned above and some other minor ones, are a lot closer to both the filming miniature and the PL kit.

Here's a comparison of your new drawing overlaped over the PL Refit.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> I hate when I know about when I've seen something but can't find the darned thing.
> Anyway, after an absurd amount of searching, here it is:


What an idiot I am!

I've spent about a dozen hours drawing outlines and scaling drawings today!

So much time that I didn't sit back and fully look at this drawing's details.

It is a rough but virtually complete cross section of the secondary hull and fin!!!!

Now that I have what I believe to be an accurate outline of the filming miniature's neck and secondary hull all I should have to do now is some very detailed transposing!

This drawing is incredible!

Thanks U.S.S. Columbia!  :thumbsup:


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> They are two totally different drawings. I'm not sure where that original version on his webpage came from, but it is greatly distorted.


Well, they are two totally different *scans* of the very same *drawing*. (I guess that's what you meant.) However, as I said, this better scan is of the drawing at a different time: it shows the note in the upper-right corner that's absent on the distorted scan.

It does look like it matches very nicely to the PL. This is your corrected PL outline, right? Did you look at how the clean scan of the Probert drawing matches the Kimble print?

BTW, what software do you use to scale, rotate, and overlay these images? I'd like an inexpensive program that will do that sort of thing.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

(OT) Just thinking about the notation "impulse shaft" on the vertical shaft in Probert's drawing...

It doesn't say "intermix" anywhere on the diagram. (And the term "warp core" hadn't been invented yet.) Perhaps he intended that the M/AM reactors are in the nacelles! The "energy" shafts coming down from the nacelles, into main engineering, and up to the impulse engine could be merely energy transfer conduits (big ones carrying a LOT of energy, of course). The consoles in the "main engine room" are for monitoring and controlling the distribution of power from the warp engines to the impulse engine. (This also fits nicely with the theory some favor of the warp nacelles providing a subspace field but the impulse engines doing the actual moving of the ship in the warp field. An opposing argument has been that the secondary hull can operate separately from the saucer and would need some form of impulse of its own, but Probert did add four little, separate thrusters on the back of the secondary hull (and I think he stated they were for use when the hulls were separated).)

I recall in Roddenberry's TMP novelization the description of tiny (pin-point sized) bits of antimatter being used for impulse drive. I don't recall whether he specified that the reaction was taking place in the shaft. (Not that his novelization is canon anyway)


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

The idea of the M/AM reactors being in the necelles and just feeding the energy back through the horizontal and verticall shafts is very interesting. However, what would be the point of carrying the vertical shaft down to the bottom of the SH? 

I have tended to favor the idea that the reaction takes place along the full length of the vertical and/or horizontal shafts with the AM being fed from the bottom. By spreading out the reaction surface the thermal and containment stresses would also be distributed.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I'm thinking there may be a blow-away hatch on the bottom of the hull and a port on the bottom of the shaft so the plasma can be vented rapidly out the bottom of the shaft in an emergency.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Well, they are two totally different *scans* of the very same *drawing*. (I guess that's what you meant.)


Remember what they say about guessing and assuming.

Nope not what I meant. 
They are two totally different drawings.
For one thing the drawings vary in the details present.

More importantly, if a scan screw up produced all the radically different x-y proportions subtly done in multiple parts of the picture(this is NOT just a case of one part stretched out and the rest of the picture undistorted, there are multiple parts that are proportionally different)

someone has the worlds first thinking scanner designed to make a photo look undistorted yet make the elements useless for creating an accurate view of proprietary information.

There are too many multiple spots unrelated to one another that were distorted, yet with all that distortion the drawing is made to appear as if it were drawn with a consistent hand. No evidence of unintentional mechanical distortion are present.

Paramount distorted the views seen of the Polar Lights 350 scale Refit kit in the same way. Some of it is subtle, some of it overt. All designed so you can't just use it as an exacting set of blueprints.

The reason being that they own the rights to an official set of Blues that they can decide from time to time to republish and make money off of.

The earlier drawing was manipulated so it was unusable as a blueprint. It's not a matter of "Oops! The scanner screwed up." 

That's also why I'm so thankful you found the unscrewed-with second one you posted above. :thumbsup:

But I was not word parsing. I meant they are two different drawings, the first one was intentionally made useless.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> The idea of the M/AM reactors being in the necelles and just feeding the energy back through the horizontal and verticall shafts is very interesting. However, what would be the point of carrying the vertical shaft down to the bottom of the SH?


That's simple!

It's a matter/antimatter trap!

If some newbie engineer or someone else drops their ring in the matter/antimatter flow, it falls to the bottom of the shaft.

It's really a pain, but they then shut down the matter/antimatter reactor cold, then just climb down the shaft and retrive the ring! :tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> I'm thinking a blow-away hatch on the bottom so the plasma can be vented rapidly out the bottom of the shaft in an emergency.


I think what you meat to say was ...

*Darn! Now I'm doing it!* :lol:


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Remember what they say about guessing and assuming.


I know what they say about assuming. I didn't assume. I guessed, and stated it as a guess!



> Nope not what I meant.
> They are two totally different drawings.
> For one thing the drawings vary in the details present.


Well, there were two possibilities, and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I "guessed" (not "assumed"!) what you meant.

1. You meant they were two scans of the same drawing, WHICH THEY ARE.
2. You really meant they were two separate drawings, WHICH THEY CLEARLY ARE NOT!

Unless, of course, Probert went to the second drawing and meticulously copied all of his notes from the first diagram in precisely the same handwriting on the second one.

Now, it is possible that one is a photocopy of the other and they aren't just different scans of the same drawing at a different time but are actually different scans of different copies of the same drawing, but in any event THEY ARE CLEARLY THE VERY SAME SOURCE DRAWING.



> There are too many multiple spots unrelated to one another that were distorted, yet with all that distortion the drawing is made to appear as if it were drawn with a consistent hand. No evidence of unintentional mechanical distortion are present.


This from the guy that originally claimed "the image shows no signs of any kind of lens distortion that I can see. It looks like a scan, not a photograph to me." (Despite the fact that I'd already explained that it was rotated and may have had other distortion, in contrast to a cleaner scan that was forthcoming.)

Because of the distortion, it looks more like a photograph than a scan to me. But I'm no expert in lens distortion. Perhaps you are and are qualified to conclude that the distortion that's evident is not "lens distortion." I can't tell what the cause of the distortion is.

I can, however, see what's plainly before my eyes: they are two images of the same original drawing. One is distorted, yes. One has additional text in the upper-right corner, yes. But both have no fewer than 14 identical callouts written on them in exactly the same positions in exactly the same handwriting. How can you deny they are the same?!

Can you explain how they could be "totally different drawings," please?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The first one was distorted to make it unusable as a blueprint.
Paramount probably required it of Probert in order to let him post it.

An employee at PL had told me and Thomas has confirmed that in regard to the views of his Refit model printed in his instruction sheets Paramount required them to be distorted so they were not directly usable as blueprints.

They consider the exact dimensions proprietary info.

The distortions you talk about were not caused by a scanner.

I don't know how else to explain it to you.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The earlier drawing was manipulated so it was unusable as a blueprint. It's not a matter of "Oops! The scanner screwed up."
> 
> That's also why I'm so thankful you found the unscrewed-with second one you posted above. :thumbsup:
> 
> But I was not word parsing. I meant they are two different drawings, the first one was intentionally made useless.


Drawing.
(in best possible Inogo Montoya voice) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." 

Do you mean "images"? "Copies"? "Printings"? "Lithographs"?

Probert is an artist that draws drawings (and paints paintings).
It sure looks like he drew *one*. We've seen multiple images of that one drawing that are not equally undistorted. How very strange indeed!

Was the first delibarately manipulated by or at the behest of Paramount so as to be inaccurate? That's quite a conspiracy theory! Have any evidence to support it? (For example, a quote from Probert indicating that he clears the postings of his artwork with Paramount Legal would help.)


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Now, it's not *inconceivable*  that the "unscrewed up" image has been intentionally digitally manipulated to make it more accurate than the original. I think it's unlikely; but I haven't asked the guy that posted it if he did anything besides add his typed comments and colored highlights. (I wasn't able to find the thread where the image was posted, only the link to the server that holds the image.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Was the first delibarately manipulated by or at the behest of Paramount so as to be inaccurate?
> 
> That's quite a conspiracy theory!
> 
> Have any evidence to support it?


Yes.

Not really, it's business as usual.

Yes.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I think what you meat to say was ...
> 
> *Darn! Now I'm doing it!* :lol:


I don't get it. What I wrote has a minor grammatical error, but I thought it was understandable anyway.

What I meant (or "meat" as you say  ) was that the shaft goes to the bottom of the engineering hull to provide a flush port. A hatch would blow off (or just open) on the lower surface of the hull, exposing the bottom of the shaft. A port at the bottom of the shaft would open (or blow off) and let the plasma inside drain out into space. A little upward acceleration of the ship would help it drain faster, if the artificial gravity isn't effective.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The first one was distorted to make it unusable as a blueprint.
> Paramount probably required it of Probert in order to let him post it.
> 
> An employee at PL had told me and Thomas has confirmed that in regard to the views of his Refit model printed in his instruction sheets Paramount required them to be distorted so they were not directly usable as blueprints.
> ...


Perhaps not. Nor were they caused by someone drawing a "totally different drawing." Was the *image* of the drawing deliberately manipulated to avoid having precise dimensions? It's a possiblity, though it seems extremely unlikely. In any case, a manipulated image of a drawing does not constitute a "totally different drawing."


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Yes.
> 
> Not really, it's business as usual.
> 
> Yes.


Do present this evidence, please!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Now, it's not *inconceivable*  that the "unscrewed up" image has been intentionally digitally manipulated to make it more accurate than the original. I think it's unlikely; but I haven't asked the guy that posted it if he did anything besides add his typed comments and colored highlights. (I wasn't able to find the thread where the image was posted, only the link to the server that holds the image.)


It's not a matter of if it was, it was.

I'm hoping you have some experience with Photoshop or some other such program if not some of this may not make sense to you.

One example of how these things were done. Look at the shuttlecraft end of the ship. Somewhere near the ships bottom and top outlines, where the curve was such that it would not be noticed, the hull lines were cut and that portion(without touching the center of the ship and all those lines mind you!) of the ships outermost outline - along with the clamshell door details and outline - was rotated almost an inperceptible degree.

Mind you none of the other interior lines, windows or other details within the secondary hull drawing had their angle changed or moved(impossible if this were an unintentional scanner distortion).

The result? Then end of the ship is unnaturally cocked up yet the front remains and every detail with the outline that was almost inperceptibly changed remains in alignment.

What does this do? If you align the rear properly, the front goes out of alignment. If you align the front properly the rear goes out of alignment.

This is just one small example of what was done, the easiest one to explain.

Scanners don't pick and choose thin lines that go all over the page, ignoring all the other lines around them top to bottom, and then rotate them at the exact place in the outlines curves where it wouldn't be noticed - all the while ignoring all the other thin lines and objects the pass by.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> It's not a matter of if it was, it was.


So now you're saying that the clean picture was manipulated rather than the distorted one? (I _can_ better accept that a fan deliberately improved an image than that Probert deliberately corrupted it.)



> ... This is just one small example of what was done


A good way to test your hypothesis would be to reproduce it.

Either photoshop the clean one yourself to look like the distorted one, or photoshop the distorted one to look like the clean one. If you can (substantially), then you've proven it's possible, which is a necessary element of proving it *was* done.
Could you at least highlight the lines that moved adjacent to lines that didn't in this "selective distortion" process so that I can better understand what you're claiming?


Regarding the Paramount conspiracy notion, a quote comes to mind that's somewhat applicable. The wise soul who invented the saying is cleverly known as "Anonymous" in references I've seen.


> Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.


Here, substitute "accident" for "stupidity" and I think you will have found how the first image (not drawing!) got distorted.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> Do present this evidence, please!


I didn't say I would share the evidence. I just said I had it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> So now you're saying that the clean picture was manipulated rather than the distorted one? (I _can_ better accept that a fan deliberately improved an image than that Probert deliberately corrupted it.)


_Another GEICO moment...(_you really need to get a TV and watch some of those commercials)

*What!?!* 


No.

I believe that somebody got a copy of the undistorted image. However that happened.

What someone shares with friends, or legitimately shares with work partners, etc. and what they put up on their personal company' professional home page are two different things.

Someone might share all kinds of files they perhaps shouldn't technically share. But wouldn't post it on the website of the company they own for obvious legal reasons.

Maybe he sent the file to someone working on TMP directors cut and someone copied it from that work hard drive and distributed it.

Who knows?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> A good way to test your hypothesis would be to reproduce it.
> 
> Either photoshop the clean one yourself to look like the distorted one, or photoshop the distorted one to look like the clean one. If you can (substantially), then you've proven it's possible, which is a necessary element of proving it *was* done.
> Could you at least highlight the lines that moved adjacent to lines that didn't in this "selective distortion" process so that I can better understand what you're claiming?


Actually if you have anything approaching normal vision you can do it yourself.

Scale and overlay the two drawing in two different layers(setting a second layer to 50% transparency before pasting).

Choose "Rotate" and rotate whichever is the top layer.

You should see that you will never get the two to match, and if you have reasonable vision the points of distortion will be almost immediately clear.

Consider it a fun project. Like finding Waldo. 

I have spent tons of hours fixing the distortions in the Thomas Refit drawings, so I have come to be able to catch those things very easily.

Before that I had to use similar skills to piece together a cross section of the TOS Enterprise done by a person who had only posted it in small chunks that had various degrees of X-Y distortion.

If you figure out who you are, TOS cross-section person, don't worry. I only pieced it together for my own unnaturally high level of curiosity and won't post or email it to anyone.

But whether or not you have such skills unless you are near blind you won't have a problem seeing that the lines of each will never match correctly.

Rotate and stare at the layers as much as your heart desires.

Knock yourself out. The two won't match.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> _Another GEICO moment...(_you really need to get a TV and watch some of those commercials)
> 
> *What!?!*


Sorry, let me try it again. I'll re-quote your quote including your quote of my quote! (Like that sentence?  ) It will make more sense when you see it below:



Chuck_P.R. said:


> uss_columbia said:
> 
> 
> > Now, it's not *inconceivable*  that the "unscrewed up" image has been intentionally digitally manipulated to make it more accurate than the original. I think it's unlikely; but I haven't asked the guy that posted it if he did anything besides add his typed comments and colored highlights. (I wasn't able to find the thread where the image was posted, only the link to the server that holds the image.)
> ...


Notice that you are replying in the affirmative to what you quoted me saying. I was saying it is possible that the *undistorted* image was the result of someone manipulating the *distorted* one to be *more* accurate. Your reply not only agreed that what it was possible but declared that that is certainly what happened. In other words you are saying that what happened is someone cleaned up the bad image, not that someone dirtied up the good one.

So, I replied:



uss_columbia said:


> So now you're saying that the clean picture was manipulated rather than the distorted one?


Not what you meant? Well, I wouldn't want to assume that you mean anything other than precisely what you say! 




Chuck_P.R. said:


> I believe that somebody got a copy of the undistorted image. However that happened.


A copy of the undistorted image now? So you do concede that there aren't two "totally different drawings" now?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Actually if you have anything approaching normal vision you can do it yourself.


I guess you missed the part where I said I don't have any software that can do these things. I asked what you use. I'd like to get a tool that can do layers, overlays, resize, rotate, etc.; but I don't want to spend much for it. Got a recommendation?




> But whether or not you have such skills unless you are near blind you won't have a problem seeing that the lines of each will never match correctly.


Probably true. But your assertion isn't just that they don't match (which is plain to see). You state that the mismatch is not the kind of thing that could arise through any accidental, natural source of distortion (such as lens distortion) but could only happen due to deliberate manipulation. (Formerly (and un-retracted), you claim they are simply not images of the same drawing.)

Can you demonstrate that the nature of the distortion cannot be due to lens distortion or perspective (i.e., shooting the picture form an angle not normal to the plane of the image).

What if the drawing wasn't very flat when it was imaged? (There's a noticeable crease in it, but it isn't noticeably non-flat.)

Anyway, you're the one with the extraordinary claim, so the burden of extraordinary evidence is on you.

(See two images of obviously the same drawing, you claim:
1. they are two different *drawings* not two different *images* of the same drawing; and
2. that the distortion in the first image could only be the result of deliberate manipulation designed to hide the correct proportions.
Extraordinary!)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> I guess you missed the part where I said I don't have any software that can do these things. I asked what you use. I'd like to get a tool that can do layers, overlays, resize, rotate, etc.; but I don't want to spend much for it. Got a recommendation?


For the best drawing program most people I know use Adobe Illustrator.

I only break out Illustrator if I'm starting from scratch, as I'm very familiar with Photoshop and have both a new version and an older version that still has some drawing tools.

I love the Photomerge feature on the new version, but other then that use the older version.

Ideally you could get a package with Illustrator, Photoshop, and Pagemaker. I don't know if they still sell it that way.

To save some money you could try buying a used copy on Ebay. Even if it's one or even a coupld versions old if you save tons of money it would be worth it. Especially if you can get the three software bundle cheap!



uss_columbia said:


> Probably true. But your assertion isn't just that they don't match (which is plain to see). You state that the mismatch is not the kind of thing that could arise through any accidental, natural source of distortion (such as lens distortion) but could only happen due to deliberate manipulation. (Formerly (and un-retracted), you claim they are simply not images of the same drawing.)


I claim they are not the same drawing. They may have started out as the same drawing.

But when you overlay the two and no matter how much you rotate either one and there is zero way to make them match without distorting portions of either - then they aren't the same drawing no matter what the original source.

I thought I had been specific when I mentioned one of the ways the first one was distorted.

The shuttlebay is cocked up in the air at an awkward angle.

The outer outline of the ship of course curves upward to form the jacked-up shuttlebay. The outline I'm talking about is the outermost line that extends above around and below the shuttlecraft. Those lines and the side view of the door structure are cocked up in the air.

Yet inside of that distortion, the horizontal scribe lines and some of the other hull details should also bend upward if it were some kind of mechanical skewing or lens distortion. 

They don't.

Specific thin lines bend upward, but all the other thin lines above, below, and near them do not.

A scanner is not going to fail by picking out a thin outline, follow it backwards, around other objects and then again forwards, and only change the tilt of that one outline.

I don't know how else to explain it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> the distortion in the first image could only be the result of deliberate manipulation ...
> Extraordinary!)


Though you're not to share the source material, I don't think that you feel any longer that the above statement is so extraordinary.



Regardless, we seem to be wasting a lot of time on this subject.

It is pointless to waste more time as to why the first drawing is screwed up.

The fact remains we do have a good scan whose general contours coincidentally are very close to the filming miniature.

The only thing to do now is tweek the drawing of the PL refit until it most exactly fits the filming miniature and insert Probert's cross section into that.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

No, I still think accident is more likely than deliberate manipulation. (However, it's possible that image analysis will persuade me to agree with you.)

And of course, I still think it's the same drawing in both images. To believe otherwise would be simply delusional. The fact that both images are not equally faithful, undistorted reproductions of that one drawing does not cause the one drawing to become two separate "totally different drawings." However, I'm tired of the fruitless discussion; this is the last I intend to say about the matter.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

They're the same, they are just different?

Let me explain something. If they are not the same, they are by definition different.

It's that simple.

You keep on trying to come up with this hair you insist on splitting thinner and thinner and thinner as to whether or not these different drawings originally were the same.

Who the heck cares? What difference does it make? 

They are now different. One is accurate and the other one isn't.

I'm going with the accurate one.



If you want to make it your life's mission to forensically detail how an accurate drawing became inaccurate have at it.

I'd be happy to study your findings.

But they are two different drawings now. I choose to go on and use the accurate one.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

If you take the Karl Tate Christies photo, eadsc07329, and enlarge it to the same size as the PL Refit, and then take the Probert cross section from Probert's site, and enlarge it to the exactly the same size as the PL Refit, and then lie the two images over each other, you will see an almost perfect match in profile, except for some curvature around the deflector in the photo. The details are of course early version vs shooting miniature. As for the distortions that are possible in scans, photos, etc, when I was trying to do some Excelsior sketches, I came up with every sort of aberration imaginable, and some I still can't explain but just have to accept, which I mention in that thread. Bottom line as far as distorted images go: absolutely anything is possible, even if its "exactly" the same photo simply downloaded from two different sites.
By almost perfect, I mean agreement within 2% or so. You will never, ever be able to do better than that with anything that has been photographed, scanned, downloaded, etc.
Now peace out, dudes.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I printed the clean image. Checked the print to see that it was still "square" (impulse shaft perpendicular to deck lines; all lines straight). I then took some images from the printout to experiment with the types of distortion I'd see.
Here's a result that's pretty similar to the so-called deliberately modified image. I did not do any sort of image manipulation whatsoever other than crop the image. I provide a resized (reduced 50% in each direction) version inline below and the full, unresized version here.








It seems pretty clear from this that the types of distortion seen in the image on probertdesigns.com could be adequately explained by unintentional distortion. There's no need to bring conspiracies into it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

You continue to use the term conspiracy.

Not wanting to get sued is a conspiracy in your mind.

So be it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> I printed the clean image. Checked the print to see that it was still "square" (impulse shaft perpendicular to deck lines; all lines straight). I then took some images from the printout to experiment with the types of distortion I'd see.
> Here's a result that's pretty similar to the so-called deliberately modified image. I did not do any sort of image manipulation whatsoever other than crop the image. I provide a resized (reduced 50% in each direction)


Ummm...

I'm not sure if I'm going to get this point across.

But if you reduce something by 50% in each direction, you have not proportionally changed anything.

So you are surprised that two such images look alike?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> If you want to make it your life's mission to forensically detail how an accurate drawing became inaccurate have at it.


It was merely a short side mission to try to get you to admit that there's a difference between an *image of a drawing* and *the drawing itself*. The mission failed.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Ummm...
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm going to get this point across.
> 
> ...


What are you going on about? Of course my 50% preview image posted here looks the same as the full-sized image at the link. They're the same picture. I just provided the larger one for more accurate measuring.

The point is that these images, with no deliberate image manipulation, exhibit the same type of distortion seen in the probertdesigns.com picture of his drawing. This is due, unsurprisingly, to the fact that the camera is positioned a little off from center or not held parallel to the plane of the paper. (If it had been centered and parallel, there would still be some spherical aberation (I think that's the right term), but it would be progressive as you move off image center. That would be unavoidable.)
The type of distortion seen here is hard to avoid without careful setup.
Note: this isn't the worst distorted picture. It's very easy indeed to get this type of distortion in a photograph of a drawing.
(It's obvious that part of my image is out of focus, too. This would be easily avoided by using more light and a smaller aperture to increase the depth of focus.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The point being? Since none of us have the original, and one of the two looks accurate and one doesn't. I'm going to choose to use the more accurate one.

I don't care if one came from the original and one didn't, or both originally came from the same drawing. All that is certain is one is inaccurate and one isn't 

I'm going with the more accurate one.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

The sound you're no longer hearing is the lack of me continuing to hit my head against the brick wall of unreason.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay, here is an overlay of the two images that are different, but the same(whatever that means).

Both are exactly the same scale.

The first 20% or so of the ships match up absolutely perfectly, as a matter of fact.

The rest, not so much.

Knock yourself out trying to match them.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

Folk, I need to level with you and to hopefully get this discussion back on track…

I was one of the artists working with Shane Johnson on his proposed Scott’s Guide revision. In 2005, when he was gauging the interest in a revision, I contacted him. I offered him the use of a set of deck plans that I had worked up on my own. Shane seemed a bit wary at first but after we exchanged a few mails on the subject, I made a set available to him. About a day after he received the prints, he sent me a one line email:

“Please give me a call collect this evening.”

I figured I had made a favorable first impression. 

The bulk of the work was done during the mid to late 90’s. My primary and only “reliable” sources were the movies, the Kimble blueprints, and Scott’s Guide. I had no access to any non-published information. Since that time, a great deal has become available via the internet. Over the years I have periodically tweaked and corrected the prints as new information became available. Working with Shane Johnson and through him, Andy Probert, I made a number of additional changes. The result was a complete set of deck plans that Shane had hoped to include in his revision of Scott’s Guide. The Franz Joseph style samples that Shane posted at the time were from my set of plans.

As, I am sure you are all aware, that revision did not happen. All I can say is that the publisher did not express any interest in the project.

I have been playing around with some ideas for a major revision of the plans. The reason I started this thread is that I was hoping to develop a consensus as to how extensively I should revise things. As they stand now, the plans reflect the Kimble blueprint contours (with a few minor corrections) and the Scott’s Guide deck descriptions (with only a handful of deviations). 

I am trying to decide should I stick with the Kimble Secondary Hull contours (designer’s intent according to Andy Probert) or change to the contours of the filming model? Should I keep the 11 deck Primary Hull as described in Scott’s Guide or do I reduce it to 8 or 9 decks in accordance with Probert’s and Jefferies’ deck spacing? Any thoughts?

Will these plans ever be published? I don’t know. However, I do believe that there are always possibilities…

I am attaching a copy of the internal elevations sheet from my set. Enjoy and let the discussion begin…

- Dave


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Fantastic!
Regarding revisions: I don't think it's too important on the SH contours. I would, however, favor reducing number of decks to match Probert's deck spacing. (Since it's a virtually all new ship compared to the original 1701, MJ's deck spacing can receive less weight but should still be considered, especially where it agrees with Probert's.)

Of course, if you are blueprinting 1701-A, you can deviate from Probert's spacings, too -- it's yet again a new ship with many very significant internal differences.

In short, do whatever seems believable to you in the space you have to work with, and people will like it. (And in any case, people will nitpick the details no matter what you do!)


Paul

p.s. I would definitely buy the prints.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I have to vote for a set following the filming miniature.

Think about it, it's never been done before.

Other then being able to scan it in easily, what is the advantage of using the TMP blues?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I would also recommend going with the Probert/Jefferies deck spacing. Even those are tight fits, 11 decks in the Primary Hull is unbelievable.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Plus, will Kimble and/or Paramount be happy with someone simply copying their already released(inaccurate) prints and shoving in the interiors?

Do you want to just be some guy who filled in Kimble's blueprints?

Or would you like to be the first person to do a completely accurate set, outside and in?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Do you have a Polar Lights 1:350th Refit kit?

As said earlier, it appears to be extremely close to the filming miniature.

Blueprints of it with corrections where it deviates from the filming miniature, should allow one to create a very accurate set of blues of the filming miniature.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Other then being able to scan it in easily, what is the advantage of using the TMP blues?


The advantage would be if you've already done it that way. If you were starting from scratch, I'd say follow the filming miniature, naturally. However, if you already have it done with the slightly different contours, I don't think it's worth the effort of making minor adjustments to the interiors.

What are the most significant hull contour differences? Are talking feet or inches of impact on the interior spaces?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm glad you are considering all options, ZStar. And that you are open to the idea of doing a set of blues that no one has ever done before, a set accurate to the filming miniature.

I'm sure you know that it will take perhaps a good deal of adjusting what you already have done.

But if you were not willing to consider doing that, you wouldn't have asked for suggestions in the first place. Heck, if all you cared about was what was easiest you would just leave your blues as they are and not even be here. That would be easiest.

I'm glad you are open to doing something original rather then just stuffing drawings into other blueprints.

Kudos!


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> I don't think it's worth the effort of making minor adjustments to the interiors.


On the other hand, I am recommending throwing away whole decks, so ... never mind.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> The advantage would be if you've already done it that way. If you were starting from scratch, I'd say follow the filming miniature, naturally. However, if you already have it done with the slightly different contours, I don't think it's worth the effort of making minor adjustments to the interiors.


The differences between the filming miniature and TMP blues aren't minor.
Go to cloudster.com and compare your TMP blues to the photos there of the miniature.

People who do blueprints usually are all about being precise.

It's an inherent part of their nature, or they wouldn't be doing blueprints to begin with.

I think ZStar understands that just going with what he already has would be easiest. But since he is asking for opinions chances are he doesn't want to just do whatever is easiest.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

As I indicated, the bulk of the work was done in the 90's. At the time, the only source I had for the overall exterior was the Kimble blueprints. Nothing was scanned. I hand measured and plotted every line. In some local areas I was able to see that the filming model deviated from Kimbles prints and I eye-balled the corrections. I have also made a few local corrections based on photos that I have found on the web in recent years. 

Yes, I have the PL refit. When I held that in my hands, it was the first time that I realized just how far off Kimble's SH was. The filming model proportions make it so much easier to reproduce the arraingement in Probert's matte paintings.

Both the Probert and Jefferies layouts indicate 8 decks in the PH. I can easily eliminate the B and J decks as described in Scott's Guide. That gets me down to 9 decks. 

An irony of the generally higher ceilings is that I still need to have the turbo elevator cars function with the lower ceiling height out at the rim. The only way to connect the PH network with the SH network is to run a shaft a short distance around the lower rim to get it behind the vertical intermix shaft. The rim thinkness is so limited that no matter what I do the lower rim deck will have less than an 8' ceiling. In that light, it hardly makes sense, from an engineering standpoint, to have more headroom elsewhere.



> Plus, will Kimble and/or Paramount be happy with someone simply copying their already released(inaccurate) prints and shoving in the interiors?


That is the pickle that has kept me from self-publishing. The Scott's Guide revision seemed like the only chance I was going to have at publication without copyright infringement.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> An irony of the generally higher ceilings is that I still need to have the turbo elevator cars function with the lower ceiling height out at the rim. The only way to connect the PH network with the SH network is to run a shaft a short distance around the lower rim to get it behind the vertical intermix shaft. The rim thinkness is so limited that no matter what I do the lower rim deck will have less than an 8' ceiling. In that light, it hardly makes sense, from an engineering standpoint, to have more headroom elsewhere.


That vertical intermix shaft where the turboshaft was in the TOS ship is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen!

I never saw it until a few days ago.

I don't remember that part of the power conduit being onscreen in TMP, was it?

If not I would toss that part of Probert's cross section.

I would move that conduit up diagonally to the primary hull along the aft rear ridge of the interconnecting fin, and do the turboshaft just as it was in TOS.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> What are the most significant hull contour differences? Are talking feet or inches of impact on the interior spaces?


The greatest change that I am aware of is in the SH. Back by the shuttle elevators and workbee berths the gain is as much as 3' on either side of the hull. That is enough for a comfortable access corridor without having to make the frame members converge too much along the sides of the shuttle elevators. The frame members there can actually carry straight aft from the cargo bay with the wider contours.

Thanks for the compliments. Yes, I have put a lot of though into these plans. Yes, I want them to be perfect. 

The trouble is, how do you define "perfect" when canon conflicts with itself? The Rec deck and the forward running engineering corridor are two of the biggies. Then there is the half deck offset between the SH external features and the deck locations indicated by the interior shots...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> The trouble is, how do you define "perfect" when canon conflicts with itself? ...


Tell me about it! Ever try to enlarge a TOS shuttlecraft exterior to the point where you could fit a canon interior inside of it? Then there's the dozen different ways you can choose to handle the windows and the door where the two come together.

Trust me, I know what you mean.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

ZStar said:


> The greatest change that I am aware of is in the SH. Back by the shuttle elevators and workbee berths the gain is as much as 3' on either side of the hull. That is enough for a comfortable access corridor without having to make the frame members converge too much along the sides of the shuttle elevators. The frame members there can actually carry straight aft from the cargo bay with the wider contours.


Well that's a definite win!

As to the "impossiblisms" like the corridor off into space, they are best ignored, I think.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> That vertical intermix shaft where the turboshaft was in the TOS ship is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen!
> 
> I never saw it until a few days ago.
> 
> ...


The upper part of the shaft was never shown on film (unless it was added to the Director's cut - I've never seen it - really). However, I do feel that when canon does not provide, documented designer intent is the next best thing. For that reason I am reluctant to re-route the vertical intermix shaft. If I was content to ignore Probert's intent (even if it was dictated by higher powers) I would not be thinking about reducing the number of decks in the PH.

There are areas where I have deviated from both canon and designer intent but only in relatively minor ways and with what I concidered compelling reasons.



> Tell me about it! Ever try to enlarge a TOS shuttlecraft exterior to the point where you could fit a canon interior inside of it? Then there's the dozen different ways you can choose to handle the windows and the door where the two come together.
> 
> Trust me, I know what you mean.


I think we understand one another perfectly.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

(never mind)


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> As to the "impossiblisms" like the corridor off into space, they are best ignored, I think.


That is exactly what I did. In my cross section you can see that I have a small room for monitoring the Nav Def across the transverse corridor forward of Main Engineering.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> The upper part of the shaft was never shown on film (unless it was added to the Director's cut - I've never seen it - really). However, I do feel that when canon does not provide, documented designer intent is the next best thing. For that reason I am reluctant to re-route the vertical intermix shaft. If I was content to ignore Probert's intent (even if it was dictated by higher powers) I would not be thinking about reducing the number of decks in the PH.
> 
> There are areas where I have deviated from both canon and designer intent but only in relatively minor ways and with what I concidered compelling reasons.


I understand where you are coming from. But since it was never seen, and since it causes the turbolift system to become almost unbelievably convoluted instead of incredibly straightforward as it was in TOS, 

I think redirecting that one portion of the conduit would be a compelling reason.

Just keep the idea in mind and think it over. No need to decide immediately.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay, ZStar, what drawing tools/programs are you using to work on these?


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> BTWay, ZStar, what drawing tools/programs are you using to work on these?


I use a program called EasyCAD. It is the 2D program sold by the company that sells the 3D CAD program FastCAD. It is incredibly fast and efficient. My biggest file of F deck, with nearly 370 crew quarters, loads in seconds and has a disk footprint of only 608KB. The intended reproduction scale is the same as the original FJD blueprints, 1"=10m. That makes the full size sheets about 36" x 11".


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I'm not sure which part of the conduit you guys are talking about. Enlighten me, please? If it's any part of the vertical shaft, diverting would seem to be a problem unless you don't let it go up into the "impulse deflection crystal" as Probert intended, many (non-canon) books state, and most people presume it does. While this connection was never seen, I think the intent is quite clear. Likewise, the vertical lines on the connecting dorsal have been understood to correlate with the shaft.

However, there is precedent for having the conduit take a jog before connecting to the "deflector": Reliant. It has two such "deflectors": one top and one bottom, and they are far from being aligned directly atop one another. In Mr. Ruprecht's (sp?) blueprints, he has transfer conduits running all over the place to connect to both deflectors and to the warp pylons. It's definitely not as clean as on the 1701 refit!


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> I'm not sure which part of the conduit you guys are talking about. Enlighten me, please? If it's any part of the vertical shaft, diverting would seem to be a problem unless you don't let it go up into the "impulse deflection crystal" as Probert intended, many (non-canon) books state, and most people presume it does. While this connection was never seen, I think the intent is quite clear. Likewise, the vertical lines on the connecting dorsal have been understood to correlate with the shaft.


This was always my take on the configuration. The Kimble cutaway poster certainly implies the vertical shaft extends all the way up to the deflection crystal from Main Egineering, right behind the dark neck panels. Check it out here:

http://home.comcast.net/~woozletrek/cut-away_enterprise-A.htm

I know the poster has the -A on the hull but that is the only change I am aware of to the image which was originally released shortly after TMP.

I am willing to consider re-routing the vertical shaft but I think it would also require relocating Main Engineering farther aft. That introduces problems of its own. To move ME far enough aft that the upper shaft is behind the torpedo bay will result in the lower shaft running into the cargo bay and/or botanical garden.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

It seems absolutely right where it is. It's inconvenient for the elevators, but I think the M/AM reaction system would get higher design consideration than the lifts.

(Now, if the cargo deck wasn't so enormous, the vertical intermix shaft could be moved back several feet, along with the deflection crystal above it, or the shaft could angle as it goes up through the pylon as Chuck suggested. But the cargo deck is what it is.)


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> (Now, if the cargo deck wasn't so enormous, the vertical intermix shaft could be moved back several feet, along with the deflection crystal above it, or the shaft could angle as it goes up through the pylon as Chuck suggested. But the cargo deck is what it is.)


I don't think the deflection crystal could be moved back enough without it really distorting the appearance of the impulse housing. I think the vertical arraingement is too well established to change. Besides, engineers being the conservative bunch that they are, would probably opt for the simple straight up solution, especially for the first intallation of the new power plant.

I know the diflection crystal looks flashy but what is its purpose? If you need it to redirect the plasma flow to the impusle engines, why don't you need a similar arraingement to feed plasma up the nacelle shafts?

In relation to the refit, the Reliant's power plant and impulse engine configuration has puzzled me for a long time. Why two deflection crystals? There is only one pair of impulse engines. Why the offset between the top and bottom DCs? How do we reconcile the Reliant's impulse engines being located so much closer to the DC than the refit's impulse engines? I ask this because the visible exhaust vents appear nearly identical which would normally imply very similar internal configurations.

Just asking questions because inquiring minds want to know...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

ZStar said:


> I don't think the deflection crystal could be moved back enough without it really distorting the appearance of the impulse housing.


True enough. Moving the main engineering back would have consequences on the ship. I wasn't proposing this as a change, just saying it would have been possible to do things that way in the first place.



> I think the vertical arraingement is too well established to change.


I agree.



> If you need it to redirect the plasma flow to the impusle engines, why don't you need a similar arraingement to feed plasma up the nacelle shafts?


Well, there are similar conduits that appear to go up the nacelle pylons. The horizontal shaft from main engineering splits and seems to go right up the pylons. (The angles aren't actually quite right as seen, I think; but we get the idea.)

I'm sure you know this, so I think I must be misunderstanding you.



> In relation to the refit, the Reliant's power plant and impulse engine configuration has puzzled me for a long time. Why two deflection crystals? There is only one pair of impulse engines. Why the offset between the top and bottom DCs? How do we reconcile the Reliant's impulse engines being located so much closer to the DC than the refit's impulse engines? I ask this because the visible exhaust vents appear nearly identical which would normally imply very similar internal configurations.


I'm afraid it's very hard to make in-Trek-universe sense of something that was simply done in reality because ILM thought it looked cool.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> Well, there are similar conduits that appear to go up the nacelle pylons. The horizontal shaft from main engineering splits and seems to go right up the pylons. (The angles aren't actually quite right as seen, I think; but we get the idea.)
> 
> I'm sure you know this, so I think I must be misunderstanding you.


Yes I know the feed channels are there. On my plans they branch straight to port and starboard, angling up slightly, go through the walls and then bend and angle up the pylons. Straight lines coming down the pylons intersect several meters below the engineering deck.

What I was trying to ask is if the large complex deflection crystal is required to split and channel the plasma flow to the impulse engines why isn't there a similar large deflection crystal required at the end of the horizontal shaft to split and channel the plasma flow up the warp pylons. It is just as sharp a bend in the plasma flow and even more energy should be flowing up to the nacelles than goes to the impule engines.



> I'm afraid it's very hard to make in-Trek-universe sense of something that was simply done in reality because ILM thought it looked cool.


Yes, just like the three rows of windows on the Reliant's forward slopes. At best there is only room for two and a half decks. I have a set of Mike Rupprecht's Avenger blueprints (They are great! well worth the investment) but I feel you have to be willing to suspend your disbelief that three decks can actually fit above the nominal PH space.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> I am willing to consider re-routing the vertical shaft but I think it would also require relocating Main Engineering farther aft. That introduces problems of its own. To move ME far enough aft that the upper shaft is behind the torpedo bay will result in the lower shaft running into the cargo bay and/or botanical garden.


Actually I started staring at that high res image of the Kimble cuttaway before reading the paragraph above.

I know we only saw the back half of engineering in TMP. I had always assumed there was a lot more to Main engineering then the rear wall section we saw.

According to Kimble's cross section, there wasn't! There is virtually nothing to Main engineering forward of that wall section we saw in TMP.  

Now, it makes sense that we didn't see the entire engineering section from both a production standpoint and it wasn't necessary to see it considering the plot.

However, the idea that Main engineering is now contained inside a room that is smaller then a gazebo my aunt used to have in her backyard is a bit much.


Having said all that, I don't think it is necessary to move ME in order to relocate the conduit along the inside of the back of the interconnecting fin.

Sure, it is an indirect connection. But no more so then the one that goes up the former Turboshaft at a right angle, and certainly makes more sense then jaunting it downward to nowhere for no apparent reason(other then as a ring trap, that is!). You could have it follow the slant along the inside of the rear of the interconnecting fin, then have it jaunt forward a bit to then eventually fit into the crystal, perhaps at an angle.

I don't think it's necessary to move ME backwards to do that. As I said, it makes as much sense to branch off at a slope as it does to branch off at a right angle or go straight downward to nowhere as it does now.

I might consider pushing ME backwards a room length or two for totally unrelated reasons - such as it's unbelievably small where it is.

Ship designs after the refit had larger Main Engineering sections, ships before did too. It makes no sense to shove ME into such a small space.

It's not necessary to push her further back in order to branch off at a slant and not use the Turbolift area,

I would move her back maybe one or two room lengths for the totally different reason that the area is too small.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> I'm afraid it's very hard to make in-Trek-universe sense of something that was simply done in reality because ILM thought it looked cool.


Let's give credit where credit is due.

You are upset that ILM didn't follow a preliminary set of blueprints that Paramount published without fact checking so they could make a quick buck.

We have no idea what the TMP blueprinted ship would have looked like in 3D.

It exist nowhere other then pen and ink.

For all we know the model may have resembled the blueprints exactly at some point(don't believe for a second that the guys who used to work for ILM could not read blueprints)...

and once at that point chances are someone in production, perhaps even a technical director, saw it looked cool on paper but not so cool in real life.

Changes to models are ordered all the time for that very reason. Sometimes the directors are right sometimes the directors are wrong.

Look at how the people working on Enterprise were told not to use the predecessor to the D-7 that was built because it didn't have enough lights - a wrong decision by the way.

Chances are 99.9999999999999999% that someone in production told ILM to make the changes.

ZStar has pointed out that it wasn't until he held a Polar Lights 350th Refit in his hands that he realized that the filming miniature had it's contours changed in a way to allow the inclusion of most of what was drawn in Probert's and Kimble's cross section.

Whereas TMP blueprint version does not.

As I said, it's unlikely that ILM made these changes on a whim of their own. I would not be surprised if at whatever point in the model's construction one of the production people realized the blueprints didn't agree with everything drawn in Probert's cross section.

They might have realized that not even everything Probert planned to show would fit properly.

Maybe it all happened by pure accident(unlikely).

Maybe ILM got a wild hair up their butts(unlikely).

But the end result was a model that was enlarged in a way that now allows most of what was intended to be in the interior to be in the interior.

The filming miniature in that way is a tremendous improvement over the lame blueprints that Paramount allowed to be published without fact checking.

If ILM is solely responsible for the changes, then kudos to ILM!


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

^ ILM didnt' build the TMP Enterprise. We're talking about Reliant.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> To move ME far enough aft that the upper shaft is behind the torpedo bay will result in the lower shaft running into the cargo bay and/or botanical garden.


Lower shaft? We don't need no stinkin' lower shaft!


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

... and we did see the lower shaft on-screen. (Kirk looked down at the lower shaft going wayyy down into the matte painting  )

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=6&pos=25

It looks like 5 levels below engineering (six below where Kirk's standing), plus "the cloud."


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> ZStar has pointed out that it wasn't until he held a Polar Lights 350th Refit in his hands that he realized that the filming miniature had it's contours changed in a way to allow the inclusion of most of what was drawn in Probert's and Kimble's cross section.


I just want to clarify something here. I don't know why the contours of the filming model SH differ from the Kimble prints. It is my understanding, directly from Andy Probert, that the Kimble prints accurately reflect the "as designed" contours. Something happened on the way to the model shop. At CultTVman check out the Kerr drawing titled "Nacelle Details" (scroll down):

http://www.culttvman2.com/dnn/Featu...24/Gerry-Kerrs-Movie-Enterprise-Diagrams.aspx

There is a note that the pylons were thickened due to the weight of the nacelles. Perhaps the SH contours were changed to allow for more structural support where the pylons are anchored inside the model. Unlike the "real" thing, the model had to support its own weight in 1g, at various mounting angles. 

I do not think the contours were changed because the model shop knew that more internal space was needed for what Probert painted. If the model shop were that well informed, why did they put the docking ports half a deck (6'-8') above where Kirk and Scott come out of the airlock on the cargo bay balcony? There can't be more than 10' between the outer hull and the inner airlock door.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> ... and we did see the lower shaft on-screen. (Kirk looked down at the lower shaft going wayyy down into the matte painting  )
> 
> http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=6&pos=25
> 
> It looks like 5 levels below engineering (six below where Kirk's standing), plus "the cloud."


Well then that definitely sucks!

I'm definitely going to have to watch TMP DVD again tonight.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> I just want to clarify something here. I don't know why the contours of the filming model SH differ from the Kimble prints. It is my understanding, directly from Andy Probert, that the Kimble prints accurately reflect the "as designed" contours. Something happened on the way to the model shop. At CultTVman check out the Kerr drawing titled "Nacelle Details" (scroll down):
> 
> http://www.culttvman2.com/dnn/Features/Articles/tabid/74/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/24/Gerry-Kerrs-Movie-Enterprise-Diagrams.aspx
> 
> ...


The docking port is a problem. But not being able to fit the entire interior seems to me to be a bigger one.

However the contours ended up changed, it seems as if it helps everything fit properly, miss-aligned docking bay aside.

The docking bay door is still a smaller error on their part then an engineering exit that leads into space.

Watch that first step! :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar, do you have TMP on DVD?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

ZStar said:


> I do not think the contours were changed because the model shop knew that more internal space was needed for what Probert painted.


Most likely, the model was either built (sans detailing) or well on its way by the time Probert designed the interior. It seems likely he didn't yet have ready access to it and thus fit his interior to the drawing without updating the drawing to match the as-built contours. Or maybe he was just too busy to take measurements of the model and correct the existing profile drawing.

We know, though, that the model was built before the rec dec design was finished. (On Probert's site, he talks about this and shows pictures -- they modified the windows on the saucer rim on the already-built model to be the rec dec.) Probert doesn't say whether he worked on the rec dec or the cargo deck first, so we can't be sure (without more information than is on his site) whether the model was built when he designed the cargo bay.

(It's worth noting that he didn't design the cargo bay from scratch. The physical set was already built; he had to figure out how to make it fit within the ship with changes limited to what would be on the matte painting if possible.)


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> ZStar, do you have TMP on DVD?


No, I don't. I keep telling myself, "one of these days..."

Here is another quirk I have faced. I have never managed to get my cargo bay proportions to match Probert's. Maybe it is the result of the filming set being built larger than can fit (as shown at the top of this thread). Maybe it has something to do with the lens distortions introduced during filming. Maybe my measurements are just wrong... 

In the attached image the red rectangles outline one half of the opening between the cargo bay and the shuttle elevators. As you can see, Probert's proportions are much wider than mine. The blue lines represent how wide my opening would have to be to match Probert's proportions. Note that I have clipped the turbo shafts for clarity.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> The docking port is a problem. But not being able to fit the entire interior seems to me to be a bigger one.
> 
> However the contours ended up changed, it seems as if it helps everything fit properly, miss-aligned docking bay aside.
> 
> ...


You are quite correct. in the context of watching a movie it's not a big problem. However, when trying to produce a consistent set of internal and external blueprints, things like the docking port issue will keep a person awake at night. :freak:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> No, I don't. I keep telling myself, "one of these days..."


Email me your snail mail info and I might be able to help you out...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> Here is another quirk I have faced. I have never managed to get my cargo bay proportions to match Probert's. Maybe it is the result of the filming set being built larger than can fit (as shown at the top of this thread). Maybe it has something to do with the lens distortions introduced during filming. Maybe my measurements are just wrong...
> 
> In the attached image the red rectangles outline one half of the opening between the cargo bay and the shuttle elevators. As you can see, Probert's proportions are much wider than mine. The blue lines represent how wide my opening would have to be to match Probert's proportions. Note that I have clipped the turbo shafts for clarity.


I did notice that your landing bay, shuttle hanger areas seemed shorter, but I was just eyeballing that, haven't compared them in any way.

I see what you mean about the width issue.

I think both the length and width issues stem from the use of matte paintings. They really were not done as a real set. There are a couple of issues with it that Probert points out himself on his website.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> I did notice that your landing bay, shuttle hanger areas seemed shorter, but I was just eyeballing that, haven't compared them in any way.


If you make an overlay, I think you will find that my elevation matches Probert's remarkably well. Even more remarkably, all of the deck spacings and major features were establish in my plans nearly ten years before I ever saw Probert's elevation. It was scary when I made my first overlay.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Wow! I haven't done an overlay of your plans yet.

But I've spent the last couple of hours looking at the Gary Kerr blueprints.

Although they are super low res, by increasing the resolution artificially and increasing the brightness I've been able to get a blurry but proportionally accurate template against which to compare my reworking of the Polar Lights distorted drawings.

The Gary Kerr drawings, I've determined, are not in any way distorted the way Polar Lights was forced to distort what they put in the PL Refit kit drawings.

True, the lines are too heavy and blurry for them to be used as blueprints, 

But by reworking the PL instructions until they proportional match the blurry but proportionally correct Gary Kerr files you linked to, ZStar, an orthographically accurate set of blues CAN be produced. It will take a lot of work, but it can be done.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Check out how well my rework of the Refit blues line up with the Gary Kerr blues!


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> Check out how well my rework of the Refit blues line up with the Gary Kerr blues!


It does look like you have managed to achieve a good match. I'm curious to see how well you can get the rest of the ship to match up. Can you give me some idea of what you had to do? 

Was it just a matter of stretching in one direction or another? 

Did you have to work on multiple small areas? If so, how did you get the individual pieces to match up when you put them back together?


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Check out how well my rework of the Refit blues line up with the Gary Kerr blues!


Looking good so far!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> Can you give me some idea of what you had to do?


The first thing I had to do was remove those insanely numerous decal placement lines.

I did that on the underside view last night. It took me over twelve hours, and that's just to remove the existing pointless lines, not to rescale anything. :freak: 



ZStar said:


> Was it just a matter of stretching in one direction or another?


You make it sound simpler then it is, and tons less tedious, but the short answer is mainly yes but that's not all.

Once you scan and start dealing with the decal instructions you'll realize that in both over and under views the halves to the top and bottom of their centerlines don't match. I made sure the views were level down to a single pixel at the center, but they still didn't match. So I had to pick a half, fix it and flip it. Requiring the removal of decals after saving them to another file.




ZStar said:


> Did you have to work on multiple small areas? If so, how did you get the individual pieces to match up when you put them back together?


Yes. 

The key was using the vertical scribe lines from the side of the secondary hull.

Another key is to copy and paste(not cut and paste) during placement.
Afterwards the most difficult lines to blend back into the drawing are of course the curves. 

Tons of cutting, pasting and minute rotations of line segments were required to get those lines to blend seamlessly. 


It's tremendously tedious work.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

Wow! Chuck, it sounds like you have taken on an insane task. Who am I to talk? :tongue: 

I just did a quick scan of the TMP refit top view and checked for cross centerline distortions. At a quick glance, it looks like the PH and SH are symmetrically undistorted aside from the known asymmetries like the hatches. The nacelles are another matter. 

Does that sound like what you are seeing?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Do you mean the Refit Instructions from TMP Polar Lights kit?

Or TMP official blueprints?

It sounds like you are looking at TMP blueprints.

I'm working on a new set of blueprints using the PL instruction drawings as the base and fixing it based on a combination of direct measurements of the model and now Gary Kerr's undistorted drawings.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> Do you mean the Refit Instructions from TMP Polar Lights kit?


I'm talking about the PL decal placement sheet. The top view for the TMP decals not the -A.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm using the A top saucer view right now and am flipping it once the decals are stripped, for use in the other overhead view.

In the A saucer drawing, once you level the drawing it still is a little asymetrically laid out along the centerline.

This is most apparent when you cut the deflector crystal in half. 

I cleaned up the overhead view(except for the saucer) you are talking about about a week ago.

If I remember correctly a few details from the top and bottom half of the SH area(yep, not even worth talking about the differences in the nacelles) did not match up.

Even when perfectly leveled, you cannot just flip the drawing as a whole.

I ended up cleaning the bottom half below the centerline and then flipping the drawing.

Yes, by just eyeballing the SH and PH they look damn good.

But without something to compare it to, who can know if they are proportionally correct?

They are not proportionally correct to the PL's model, nor the Gary Kerr blueprints.

Plus it's been stated by the kit designer that actual accurate drawings of the filming miniature are considered proprietary information and that was the reason for the intentional distortions in the drawings. He's not at liberty to share such info as the accurate drawings.

Which is why the Gary Kerr blues are such a fantastic find!
Thanks for the link!

They are not optimal, even usuable, in and of themselves for the entire ship contours, but I believe they can be used to check such drawings, as my composite above shows.

But still it is better to use hard measurements of the model first and only Kerr composites afterwards, as the Kerr files are so low resolution.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

I pieced together the two Kerr views with the highest res of the SH and neck. I then overlaid them on my elevation view. The SH contours match up pretty good all things considered. The deck locations are almost dead on top of one another. I do see that the botanical garden windows on the Kerr drawing over lap the cargo bay - there is that half deck offset again between interior and exterior. 

The only real problem I see is that Kerr's PH is significantly above mine. That implies my neck is the equivalent of about 1m short and therefore my PH and SH are a little closer together than on the filming model. 

I can see that part of my problem is that I located my hulls and nacelles in such a way as to match the "official" overall extents (304.8m x 141.7m x 71.3m). What is highly probable is that the model as built does not match those proportions exactly. 

Since I am not likely to get my hands on a detailed and accurate set of plans or the actual filming model itself, I will just have to settle for "close enough for government work."


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Look through the detail files of the Kerr drawings. ZStar.

There is a tremendous amount of info there that should allow you to near perfect your drawings, assuming Kerr's drawings have not been distorted - which I so far see zero evidence of but still will check.

Right now I'm bogged down with removing all those pain in the but lines that criss-cross the drawings for decal placement.

Once I have all that done I'll start measuring and cross checking again.

I had planned on doing just the side view of the secondary hull, but I guess my compulsiveness has gotten the best of me. :tongue:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

BTWay, while doing measurements of the Polar Lights model and comparing them to the distorted drawings in their decal sheets...

I have noticed that the few mistakes made in the model itself are NOT present in the decal drawings(neck thickness, impulse engine issues, flat nacelle bottoms). None that I know of, at least.

No need to redraw the few small errors that are in the kit.
So that is a relief.

It should have occured to me earlier that that would probably be the case, as the model's master was finished exactly to the plans, the final corrections simply were not executed at the factory before production.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

Chuck, have you progressed far enough to tell how accurate the PL decal sheet side views are? In particular, have you found any distortions in the PH? 

I think I have a good handle on the SH contours from my own work. The biggest difference I have found is that Kerr's shuttle bay control room is slightly higher and farther forward than on my elevation.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I've only accuratized the side view of the ship including the neck.

The nacelles were off, but no big surprise there. I don't know about the PH yet as I'm still creating the "clean" versions of the other views.

I did start on something different for awhile to break the monotony.

By sizing the two down to the pixel level, I was able to exactly match up the Kerr details of the Side View with the Kerr detail of the interconnecting fin.

This is important as it includes both the farthest forward points of the SH as well as the farthest aft part of the Secondary Hull. Crucial for checking scaling.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here's how it looks:


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> By sizing the two down to the pixel level, I was able to exactly match up the Kerr details of the Side View with the Kerr detail of the interconnecting fin.


I did the same thing. To make things clearer, I mirrored the upper SH contour to the bottom and closed the front end of the nav def.

Here it is overlaid on my elevation. You can see the only significant differences are at the shuttle bay control room, back of the neck and the PH.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Kewl!

I just overlayed my reproportioned (based on PL model) drawing over the Kerr side view.

Check out how they align!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ZStar said:


> I did the same thing. To make things clearer, I mirrored the upper SH contour to the bottom and closed the front end of the nav def.
> 
> Here it is overlaid on my elevation. You can see the only significant differences are at the shuttle bay control room, back of the neck and the PH.


Those match up tremendously well, now that I have had a few minutes to study the pic.

So are you going to rework your blues?

I have no idea how easy or not easy that is with Easycad...


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

It looks like a real good match between the corrected PL decal image and the Kerr drawing. Great work!

I wonder why the lower phasers don't seem to line up as well as everything else?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Probably another of the details moved just enough to make the distortions almost incomprehensible.(They never bet on a hard headed guy like me trying to undo all of them).

It is almost a work of art that they did so many barely perceptible distortions that throw using the drawings as blueprints out of whack, yet the drawing still resembles the ship very well even before correcting the distortions.

I'll add that to the list of details to check. I'll have to measure the model to make sure which is off, but it most probably is the decal sheet and not the Kerr drawing, if everything I've seen so far is any indication.

BTWay thanks for the heads up, I hadn't noticed that!

That's the advantage of working on stuff like this in a thread.

It always helps to have a few other pairs of fresh eyes.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> Those match up tremendously well, now that I have had a few minutes to study the pic.
> 
> So are you going to rework your blues?
> 
> I have no idea how easy or not easy that is with Easycad...


Thanks, it is satisfying to see that all the years of careful measurement and comparison have paid off. 

It's a pain being a perfectionist. Yes, I'll have to rework some parts. I knew my shuttle bay door and control room area never looked quite right. I'll have to keep working with these Kerr drawing and the PL decal images and see what else needs fixed. I know that my pylon contours are a bit off so those are on my list, too.

I'll have to get all my external views back together in one file so that I can easily project changes. It is straight forward but time consuming. The early versions of the program did not have any automated projection capabilities. I don't know if my latest version does. Up until now, most of my work with the newest EasyCAD has just been tweaking the drawings. I have been making minor localized changes with little need for projecting from one view to another.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> BTWay thanks for the heads up, I hadn't noticed that!
> 
> That's the advantage of working on stuff like this in a thread.


You are welcome.



> It always helps to have a few other pairs of fresh eyes.


...especially if the current pair are going a little buggy from the strain. :freak:


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Okay, I'm really confused by this thread. I had decided that you were just trying to make up some updated hypothetical interior blueprints that match someone else's older hypothetical blueprints, but now you're starting to talk about fixing errors on the PL model? Did I get that right? And you're basing this on the PL kits decal placement diagram? How do you know the decal placement diagram matches the model? Maybe it just matches someone's drawing. Unless you're a whole lot better with a contour gauge than I am, the only way you're going to be able to tell if the model is accurate to the millimeters you seem to be after is by cutting it in half and actually (preferably) tracing of measuring or scanning it. And all that will tell you is how close it matches someone's drawings. You still haven't tried matching it against any photos of the miniature, or comparing it in any way to the miniature. So what will you be accurate compared to? For the tire and many of these spokes, if not the whole wheel, see the PL inaccuracies and fixes thread and, if it's still there, lestadelc's thread on on the cargo bay starship modeller.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

starseeker said:


> Okay, I'm really confused by this thread. I had decided that you were just trying to make up some updated hypothetical interior blueprints that match someone else's older hypothetical blueprints, but now you're starting to talk about fixing errors on the PL model? Did I get that right? And you're basing this on the PL kits decal placement diagram? How do you know the decal placement diagram matches the model? Maybe it just matches someone's drawing. Unless you're a whole lot better with a contour gauge than I am, the only way you're going to be able to tell if the model is accurate to the millimeters you seem to be after is by cutting it in half and actually (preferably) tracing of measuring or scanning it. And all that will tell you is how close it matches someone's drawings. You still haven't tried matching it against any photos of the miniature, or comparing it in any way to the miniature. So what will you be accurate compared to? For the tire and many of these spokes, if not the whole wheel, see the PL inaccuracies and fixes thread and, if it's still there, lestadelc's thread on on the cargo bay starship modeller.


Sorry you have exceeded the twelve question per post limit. :tongue:



Seriously though 99.9% of your questions are answered in the thread itself. It has not been a linear process, and my aims have changed during this, but it is all centered around getting an accurate interior, which also requires an accurate exterior.

To answer your questions about comparing the PL kit to the modeling miniature, thousands of people have already done that with the result that only about four or so details are off.

On the issue of 



starseeker said:


> And you're basing this on the PL kits decal placement diagram? How do you know the decal placement diagram matches the model?


That question has been covered several times in this thread.

It doesn't match the model or the filming miniature.

Making the drawings match the model is pretty much most of what we've been discussing and I have been working on, for the reasons stated in the thread.

With the thousands apon thousands of people who have tried to pick apart and critique the PL Refit compared to the filming miniature, all these people can count on one hand the physical inaccuracies(once assembled - not pre-assembly fit issues). 

The more I study this $50 model, the more I am in awe of Thomas' ability as a kit designer.

There is NO denying his talent as a kit designer. It's a shame that they didn't implement the final revisions he documented in a thread here once(link?), but even without those changes this is a remarkable kit.

I was only concerned about the few inaccuracies as far as they effected the drawings.

However, as mentioned in the thread, the drawings do not have the errors that the kit does. The kit would not have had the flaws it does have the manufacturer not failed to execute the final corrections done on the master.

The PL kit is so accurate because it was the first and only kit built based directly on Gary Kerr's Autocad files created from the original filming miniature.

The PL kit instructions were required by Paramount to be distorted so they could not be lifted and used as blueprints.

However the kit, minus the handful of small errors, is still otherwise true to those Kerr blueprints and the filming miniature.

When thousands apon thousands of ridiculously anal retentive Trekkers pick apart and critique a model...

and can still only be able to count the errors on one hand...

That is an accomplishment!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Weird.



There has never been any publicly available Refit blueprints accurate to the filming miniature. Yet only four people seem to be interested.:freak: 




What's up with that?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I don't know how many fingers your people have on one hand, but on my world it would take many, many hands to count the errors that have been documented on just this site. For eg, see the very best guide to accuratizing the Refit that I've found so far: http://www.showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/index.htm
Beautiful work going on there.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

starseeker said:


> I don't know how many fingers your people have on one hand, but on my world it would take many, many hands to count the errors that have been documented on just this site. For eg, see the very best guide to accuratizing the Refit that I've found so far: http://www.showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/index.htm
> Beautiful work going on there.


No offense to the guy doing the work, he isn't trying to make the needed accuratizing seem as if it is more then it is. He is just trying to build a model he finds to be a good balance between interior and exterior.


Perhaps I should have made a clearer distinction between exterior and interior issues(*not that there ever can be an accurate interior for the Refit - more on that later*).



There are only about 4 or 5 errors that are noticable apon close study.

The two errors this guy has listed that I haven't yet seen are questionable at best.

He claims things like 0.02 inch differences in width of certain kit parts based on observations of photographs!  

Photographs, even when taken with the express purpose of documenting such things, are not representative of the actual object by the undeniable effects of lense distortion angle and perspective.

To claim that this or that part is off by 2 one hundredths of an inch due to inspections of photos is questionable at best.

We all know what the few errors are, they have been documented all over the place.

Other then a couple of claims about a part being off by .02 inches and another photo based claim that one slant is off by a hair, most of what he documents are the stuff documented here.


He has broken the elements down and counted each part of the fixes differently, but it's still the same errors documented here.




The reason it *appears* as if he is correcting a lot is *almost all *of his detailing and "accuratizing" involve the *interior* of the ship.

Someone could technically claim the interior is inaccurate. But that person would only be telling you half the story.

The simple truth is the interior seen onscreen *would never fit* into a properly scaled exterior.

It would be impossible to put an accurate interior into an accurate exterior.

*So most of what the guy is doing is not correcting anything - he is simply building another inaccurate interior he feels is closer to what was seen onscreen.* 

Hey, there is no harm in that. He looks to be doing a good job, but it's a little unfair for you to count that is any part of the PL kit's inaccuracies.

There is no such thing as an accurate interior for a properly scaled Refit.

They could have left the kit with a completely accurate interior by not giving us anything at all to work with. 
Which would have made for a lot less satisfying kit for us, but saved them a ton of time, effort and money.


With the kit interior, the decision was made to try and show the most obvious elements of the interior as well as could be done and still leave a little room for lighting.

One can make the interior that came with the Polar Lights kit larger, but you can never make it large enough.

So really, their is no way to fully accuratize the interior as an accurate interior would simply not fit.

It's therefore a little unfair to call the PL interior inaccurate as an accurately scaled interior is literally impossible.

Unless you possess tardis technology, that is. :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

starseeker said:


> Unless you're a whole lot better with a contour gauge than I am, the only way you're going to be able to tell if the model is accurate to the millimeters you seem to be after is by cutting it in half and actually (preferably) tracing of measuring or scanning it.


 
I missed this in the middle of all the other questions.



The scanning idea isn't too bad. I don't think I'll need to resort to that though.

I'm pretty good with a caliper.


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> Okay, I'm really confused by this thread. I had decided that you were just trying to make up some updated hypothetical interior blueprints that match someone else's older hypothetical blueprints, but now you're starting to talk about fixing errors on the PL model?


Starseeker, when I started this thread it was with the intent of trying to gain a better understanding of the exterior and interior for the purpose of producing a complete and consistent set of interior and exterior blueprints of the refit. When I started my blueprint project, over 13 years ago, the only sources I had for the exterior were the movies on VHS (hardly useful for making accurate measurements of the filming model) and the Kimble TMP blueprints. The Kimble prints were the best and to my knowledge only set of publicly available blueprints for the refit exterior that could in any way be traced back to the TMP production. They were "official" so I worked with what I had.

Over the years, I corrected flaws I became aware of based on what I considered to be more reliable information. However, for all intents and purposes I had a complete set of blueprints by '97. The set just wasn't as accurate as it is now. Even now there is room for improvement as more reliable information has become available in the form of the PL refit model (and flaws and corrections threads), the tantalizing glimpses of the Kerr drawings, and the PL decal placement drawings which are reportedly closely based on the Kerr drawings.

When I started the blueprint project I had a number of guidelines in mind:

1)	Be as faithful as possible to what was seen on screen, interior and exterior without resorting to “Tardis” effects. Whatever I put on the inside would fit within the outside.

2)	Be as faithful as possible to other “official” documentation for areas/dimensions not explicitly defined on film. This includes the Kimble blueprints and Scott’s Guide and a few publicized behind the scenes images and articles.

3)	The blueprints would represent a consistent and logical whole. (Granted, “consistent and logical” were largely defined by my own interpretation and knowledge of official info and “accepted” Treknology.) Any mistakes, errors, changes relative to canon, or omissions are my responsibility.

4)	Produce a set of blueprints that equaled or exceeded the level of thought, detail, and craftsmanship that went into the original Franz Joseph blueprints. For all its flaws, the Booklet Of General Plans is still the gold standard by which I measure all other blueprints. I did try to learn from FJ's mistakes.

To quote Chuck P.R.:



> The simple truth is the interior seen onscreen would never fit into a properly scaled exterior.
> 
> It would be impossible to put an accurate interior into an accurate exterior.


These statements are absolutely true. As a result, my blueprints represent a balance between “minor” modifications to both the exterior and interior in order for everything to fit together with a minimum of deviation from what is seen on film. In my mind, to be absolutely faithful to the filming model would result in unacceptable changes to some interior sets or illogical or contrived internal arrangements. I will be happy to discuss specific areas if there is interest. I will also be happy to answer any questions regarding the elevation sheet I attached to post #95, page 7 of this thread.

I recognize that there are inaccuracies in my exteriors and I am working to correct those differences where possible without compromising the whole. I want the blueprints to be as accurate and complete as possible. That was my intent in starting this thread. Chuck P. R. and USS Columbia have been very generous in helping me identify what we believe to be reliable information. Many thanks, guys.

I freely admit that without access to the filming model, nothing is guaranteed absolutely reliable.

Thank you for your interest.

- Dave


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

In case anyone is interested, this is how things are progressing.

While I've been able to get the secondary hull portions of these views pretty accurate, I still need to do some work on the PH and I am just now realizing I need to do much work on the nacelles and interconnecting pylons.

But this is where I am so far...


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

Chuck, those views look nicely cleaned up. 

I can't tell from the image you posted but did you clean up the impulse engine in the side view. I noticed on my PL instruction sheet that the side views of the IE are slightly different between the TMP version and the -A. In this case, I think the -A side view is more accurate.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I didn't notice that about the side views.

I'll check it out though. 

Thanks!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hello! _[Is echoed through the ghost town, as tumbleweeds roll past, all had abandoned the thread - having long since lost interest...]_


----------



## ZStar (Sep 7, 2005)

> Hello! [Is echoed through the ghost town, as tumbleweeds roll past, all had abandoned the thread - having long since lost interest...]


I'm still here but I am starting to wonder the same thing. I had a very busy weekend and little time to work on the important stuff... :lol:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

You've got mail!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Hope you got everything I sent, ZStar yahoo mail acts kind of flaky with big files.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Has anyone saved all the "fix" files that Thomas once allowed access to?

I have a few, thanks to ZStar, but there were tons he had posted along with small pieces of the Kerr blueprints in them.

Did anyone else save them that perhaps didn't have their hard drives fried as was mine?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

They looked like this file, although not all had photos, some just snips of the blueprints...


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

I thought I had saved many of them, but I can't find them. Either I misplaced them in moving between computers, or I never got around to actually saving them. (I have a huge list of "to-follow-up-on" links I never get around to following-up-on.)


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Thanks for checking.

Doesn't look like too many people saved the info.

That's the way the ball bounces I guess.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Zstar!

You still out there my friend?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Yeah, I know guys.

It's a six year old thread.

Just checking to make sure that Zstar is still inhaling and exhaling.


----------

