# OOB Review: POL880 and All Accessories!



## Model Man

Like the title says, here it is!

POL880: Standard Edition Kit
MKA004: Supplemental Parts Pack (pilot parts)
MKA005: Deluxe Accessory Set (light kit, weathering decals, photoetch)
MKA007/06: Light Kit
MKA008: Weathering decals
MKA009: Photoetch parts
MKA010: Registry Decals

Special thanks to Jamie Hood of Round 2 for sending me this package. It all goes back to him as these are sales demo pieces the company needs for internal purposes.

Part 1 is an overview of everything Jamie sent.
Part 2 covers unboxing the Gray Lady herself, culminating with a dry fit.
Part 3 hits all the accessories that will be available for this kit.
Part 4 will have some side-by-side with other 1/350 kits
Part 5 will be the round up.

This is a veritable ton of plastic to cover and I'm taking the time to show it all off in full detail.

I expect that each new video will get it's own entry in this thread as it posts. I'll also edit this post in particular with the new link as well so it's all tidy up here at the top.

Side note: 
Congrats to Paulbo for scoring the design job for the official photoetch set!

Without further delay, 
Part 1: The Overview





Part 2A: Unboxing the ship with a look at the directions and stock decals.





Part 2B: The Saucer





Part 2C: 2ndary Hull and Nacelles





Part 2D: All the Lil' Bits





Part 3A: The Supplemental Parts Pack





Part 3B: 1st look Lights and Weathering decals and photo etch.





Part 3C: More Lights and the Registry Decals.





Par 4A: Side-by-Side Tamiya CVN-65, AMT 650





Part 4B: Side by side Refit and Guest




...

Viewer requests are officially closed.
Collating all viewer requests across all forums now. Will try to shoot vid this weekend.


----------



## ClubTepes

Nice Tom,

I remember that feeling the first time I opened the first test shot.


----------



## Guy Schlicter

Hi Tom, I've never seen you with so much enthusiasm! Please get the second part downloaded today. I'm anxious to see the Enterprise model. Take Care Tom, Guy.


----------



## jaws62666

Man, ive been waiting for this baby for a very long time. I hope it is still on track for us 1701 members by the end of this month. I know Jamie said there was a slight delay , but the kits were in production


----------



## CLBrown

Aaaaguuughhhhh! That was EVIL, Tom... Evil!

Showing us all the boxes, but not showing us any of the contents... my brain is about to explode!

Seriously... great to see this, and I'm anxiously looking forward to the rest of the "show."

I'm especially glad to see that Paul got the "tap" to do the photoetch set (though it's only for the big bits, and I'm sure there'll be additional photoetch elements to come later, as "garage-kit" bits (shuttlebay, bridge, etc, details) which are evidently not present in that set.

I'm one of those who isn't 100% pleased with the "registry decals" numbering sequence... it's always annoyed me that the TNG crew "renumbered" the ships, and I entirely reject the idea that just because a chart in an office set for TOS had some numbers on it, these numbers HAD TO REFLECT the "Constitution-class" cruisers. For me, PERSONALLY, the "sequential numbers" (with a couple of exceptions for ships which were uprated to new specs, like the Constellation), is the sequence I want. So I won't be buying that decal set. But then again, I was never likely to buy them anyway, since my ship is absolutely going to be the ENTERPRISE! 

I'm really pleased to see that there's going to be a "deluxe accessory kit" which will have all the bits not present in the "deluxe 1701 club kit" (except for the aforementioned alternate registry decals). So, I'll just be buying two items... the deluxe kit, and the deluxe accessories. That's something I was hoping to see, and I'm pleased that they've gone that route.

I really... REALLY... want to see the bits in the box you've received. I'd be shocked if these weren't the "final, production approved" parts sprues. So you, RIGHT NOW, can confirm or deny all these things we've all been wondering about for months upon months...

GET BACK TO WORK!!!!


----------



## Fozzie

Talk about ending on a cliffhanger...!


----------



## jaws62666

Hey Model Man are you done with all of the segments or have you just told us the way the segments will be shown, and are still taping each one?


----------



## Model Man

I usually wait until an entire 'project' is done before posting, but in this case I'm still shooting and wanted to get this to you guys sooner than later. 

From what I can see so far, that 5 part layout is how I think it should all go. That's why the sidebar says "part 1 one of several" instead of being more definitive like I usually am.

As to being evil, I can only say "Mwu-hahahahaha!". :devil:
You can quote me on that. 

Wish I could keep all of these kits. But as mentioned, these are all internal sales demos for Round 2 and getting shipped back asap. Imo, Jamie wanted to get all this in front of everyone sooner than later to ease fears and whet some appetites. Sensible, I think. So technically, I still have to wait like all the rest of y'all. It is really cool to see everything though and I'm honored Jamie chose me to do this.

It's been a lesson in patience, I gotta say. From the time UPS dropped the box off to the time I got home with it to the time needed to set the lights and camera up to the time I strategized the process and made that first slice and unboxed everything was a full 4hrs. I then went and cut that overview video before I even opened the 1701's box, so it was another 5 hours before I even saw the ship itself! Everything in these vids is 'live' and impromptu. You are all seeing this as I saw it not much more than 24hrs after I saw it. This is going to be the fastest turn around on a video series I've ever done.

It's said that patience is the best spice... Well, this is gonna be one of the spiciest meatballs to ever hit the hobby, I think!

Lastly, it is my understanding that apart from a couple notes on a couple weathering decals, what we are all looking at is 'it'. This is the final production version being stamped in plastic as we speak. Other than that, i don't wanna hit anyone with spoilers.


----------



## paustin0816

what a thrill. I just have one thing to say.
must....seee....grid ...lines..../gasp


----------



## CLBrown

paustin0816 said:


> what a thrill. I just have one thing to say.
> must....seee....grid ...lines..../gasp


As I said before... POP! (that's the sound of my head exploding)


----------



## SJF

Thanks for the sneak peek, Tom! Looking forward to see more. 

Sean


----------



## Model Man

Be sure to thank Jamie! This was his idea to have me review the kit so early. Normally I'd be doing this weeks or months after the public release.


----------



## CLBrown

Well, I was hoping that they'd have finally dumped the gridlines, but I guess I'm not SHOCKED that they didn't... a lot of "ego" went into the addition of those to the kit, so they were not going to go away without a fight.

That said, there's no question but that the gridlines were reduced... and my hope, for some time, has been that they'd reduce them to "ultra-fine" levels, so fine that they'll be hard not to cover up just during painting, and should be very easy to fill in without too much trouble (though it'll require very, very fine-quality putty to entirely eliminate them, of course... I'm not sure what's going to be best in this case, just yet).

The decal issue is pretty obvious... they got sloppy during the coating operation. The main thing though is that the decals themselves look marvelous. I notice that the one "tailpipe decal" was clearly visible during your macro-level pan-over of the sheet, but were there others of that nature on there as well? There are a series of very, very fine textual decals which were printed for the 11' model, a number of which ended up being used, mainly underneath the several hatches on the underside primary hull. (Yes, I've got the correct text for those and have incorporated them into my CGI ship, though I'm really thinking that eventually I'll change them to be something more appropriate for an actual starship!)

As far as I could tell, excepting windows, there are only two colors of plastic there.. the basic hull gray and the copper. If that's not true, you'll likely want to point it out, as there may be subtle variations in color that a YouTube video just won't bring out. I was sort of expecting some of the trim bits (impulse deck linear accelerator, impulse exhaust assembly, nacelle aft shrouds, intercoolers, inner trench, etc, etc) to be a darker grey, and the nacelle aft domes to be pure white. Not a huge deal... I plan to entirely paint my model anyway, and may even vary in slight ways from the production version (I'm thinking that the aft domes may end up being something a bit more... "magical".... in appearance?)

I'm going to guess that the black and white windows will be the most commonly used, as they reflect the real in-studio appearance. In my case, I've already decided to use actual glass windows (microscope slipcovers for the smaller windows, microscope slides for the four topside "panels" which I treat as windows).

As far as lighting goes... well, I've been giving my lighting serious thought. I'm certain I'll buy the "deluxe accessories kit" but full expect to expand on it, possibly dramatically. For instance, the three front lights are what I treat as the main forward scanners, and they'll be "flashlight-quality" bright cool white LEDs. Other circular lights will be small "surface mount" cool-white LEDS (in rectangular surface-mount packages with circular dome emitters on the top surface). These all reflect scanners and sensors, The interior setpieces will be lit up with warm white LEDs. If the LED set in the lighting kit uses warm-white elements, I'll likely use that (though I may have to expand it a bit). If the LED set does NOT use warm LEDs, I'll have to work from scratch on those.

(FYI, for anyone who doesn't know what I mean, conventional white LEDs... what I called "cool white"... have a slight bluish tint. They scream "high technology" but are actually not very much like natural light, and are harder on the eyes. "Warm white" LEDs are very similar to conventional incandescent lamps, and provide a light which has a slight yellow tint, very similar to natural sunlight. Most lighting sources used in inhabited spaces will use that type of light, and it's scientifically proven to be the best light for the human eye (which makes sense, since our eyes are designed to work in our planet's natural light!).

I'm considering a few other lamp colors in a few areas... but haven't decided if any are necessary or appropriate. I was, for instance, thinking of something a bit more blue for the saucer "rec deck" section which will include the ship's swimming pool (not a full pool, more like one of those "forced flow, stationary swimming pools olympic swimmers use to train, and used as one of the main fitness facilities aboard.) I was also thinking about something different for the "landing bay observation dome" (red light is best for the human eye when looking at things in the dark, as the red light doesn't spoil human night-vision). The thing is, both of these are deviations from the on-screen version, so I'm not sure about either, yet. They both make perfect sense, from an engineering and a human-factors standpoint, but they'd be deviations from screen-accuracy.

As for the nacelle lighting... I'm very anxious to see that. I've been wondering if it makes sense to use that exactly as provided, or to put in additional elements to further "distort" the light provided by the LED circuit boards. Until we see this up-close-and-personal, it'll be hard to say for sure.

I get the impression you're not being permitted to unbag the parts... shame about that, but oh well, huh?

At least try to get some "macro" shots of the gridlines, the front sides of secondary hull, and the B/C deck superstructure, as well as you can through the plastic bags.

Thanks!


----------



## Guy Schlicter

very nice review Tom. I'm not one for big kits in this scale but it is of something I love and it is very well done.I am pleased with the muti color window options and I love that the sensor dish is molded in copper. Making it a breeze for people who don't want to do alot of detail work on it like me. I love the interior bridge decals and the others are well done too. As I said I'm not into big kits but I will pick one up when its available and do a simple paint job and a grand time assembling it. Thanks for the good review Tom and thanks to Jamie for letting us see the kit early.


----------



## robiwon

Get video again. I'm not to worried about the decals. I'm sure with the amount of attention to detail on this kit that the decals will arrive just fine. Hopefully you will be able to open the saucer bag!


----------



## Chris Pike

Great review... it is a phenominal job Gary, Jamie and the rest of the team have done here...


----------



## Hunch

Damn, I just KNEW they'd get those darned grid lines on there! How fine are they? Can you take a caliper to them for us? Got my bondo ready, should have them eliminated by the time the lighting kit hits the shelves, barring any major hold up on the club kits.
I'm sooo excited that its almost here I can hardly control myself! I've been driving the wife crazy for the last two weeks and I think she's about ready to divorce me. As long as I get the paints and the airbrush in the divorce...such is life!:tongue:


----------



## paustin0816

molded in cooper......that's pure genius


----------



## Paulbo

Good review. People are going to be VERY pleased with this kit ... I know I am!



Model Man said:


> ...Side note:
> Congrats to Paulbo for scoring the design job for the official photoetch set!...





CLBrown said:


> ...I'm especially glad to see that Paul got the "tap" to do the photoetch set (though it's only for the big bits, and I'm sure there'll be additional photoetch elements to come later, as "garage-kit" bits (shuttlebay, bridge, etc, details) which are evidently not present in that set...


Thanks!

The Supplemental Photoetch set is designed and will be available the day the kit starts shipping. It includes a bunch of parts, mostly for the shuttle bay and bridge, and is setup to make lighting even easier with etched masks for the windows and bridge consoles.

I'll have a more detailed post tomorrow. :wave:


----------



## Opus Penguin

Model Man, Thanks for these. You just made us all very excited over this kit. Great reviews!!!


----------



## SJF

I must admit to being on the fence about this kit. I've built my fair share of Starship Enterprises over the years, and at this point in my life I'd like to focus on something new and different. So I never paid much attention to the threads about it because I wasn't planning on buying it. 

But your second video changed my mind, Tom. Watching it, I realized that the most seductive thing about this kit is the sheer size of it. For instance, we finally have a decent shuttle bay, and a shuttle. But when I saw that the decal sheet actually had decals for the main viewscreen on the bridge, that really sold me on this. 

Besides, I already have the Refit and the Flying Hubcap from ST: Enterprise in 1/350th scale, so what's one more ship in the fleet? 

Another great review, Tom. Looking forward to the next part. And my thanks to Jamie for making this happen in the first place. 

Sean


----------



## Model Man

robiwon said:


> ... I'm not to worried about the decals...


I expect that this particular decal sheet just got roughed up coincidentally. I'm not too worried either. I think Jamie hand packed this kit to get it out to me and the actual arrangement of parts in the box, etc will be somewhat different than shown here.



Guy Schlicter said:


> ...and I love that the sensor dish is molded in copper... ...and do a simple paint job...


I mention that point coming up in the close up views of the parts. Molded in color has it's benefits, but as you will all see, there are some scuff marks and scrapes. In some cases, I think they are coincidantal to this particular kit, but some others may very well be molded into the plastic itself. The only way to tell would be to have two kits in hand.

And when you consider random molding errors that cause swirls in the colors, I think a basic paint job will be a minimal requirement.



Hunch said:


> ...Can you take a caliper to them for us?...


Calipers on standby. See below.



Paulbo said:


> ...The Supplemental Photoetch set is designed and will be available the day the kit starts shipping. It includes a bunch of parts, mostly for the shuttle bay and bridge, and is setup to make lighting even easier with etched masks for the windows and bridge consoles...


I thought and hoped you might, Paul! Kind regards, -t.



SJF said:


> ...I realized that the most seductive thing about this kit is the sheer size of it.


Ditto. 

I'll be shooting a side by side with the 650. Considering we've lived so many decades with that being our only version of the ship, I think it will be something of a shock to see how different it really is to the 'real' thing.

...
Regarding calipers note above, I am still a couple days away from shooting the wrap up video. I have to shoot the paint refs on the box tray which has some color calls on it. The request for putting calipers on the gridlines will get shot... As I go forward with the rest of the vids, is there anything anyone wants me to specifically cover or re-cover for more details?

Here's how things look right now...
Uploading sometime later tonight is the saucer which will be followed by the 2ndary hull and nacelles and a final Part 2D covering the rest of the parts and a quick dry fit. Those are still in final renders.

I've now shot the first look at all the accessory parts, but have not edited any of it yet. Hoping to start that process soon so I won't be skipping a day on these updates. If I can get them faster, I will. Otherwise, it's going to be about 1/day. I have obligations which interfere with 'fun things'.

Ahead of me still to shoot are the side-by-sides and then the final-look, wrap-up vid(s). Any requests will get dumped into the wrap. I've got one or two questions I'm hoping Jamie can answer before I get to that point as well as the color refs and calipers. 

Dump your requests here, but keep in mind some things are already shot and some things I can't show. For example, I'd love to fire up the lighting kit, but Jamie asked that I not open some of those bags as this pile of gear is for internal/sales/display purposes and have to be maintained as such. I expect to be shipping all this back to him by the end of the coming week or so.

Thanks to everyone for your kind comments. This was something of a surprise to me when Jamie said he'd be sending the boxes and something of an honor to be the 'face' on this.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Realize that at this late stage in the game, making any changes are an imposibility. Gridlines, however heavy or light are here to stay ,calipers will only reveal the degree of severety. The 'Grey Lady' is in her final version, you will have to simply live with what you get. All you armchair designers who believe you have some say in the matter will realise 'you don't'.


----------



## kenlee

Ductapeforever said:


> Realize that at this late stage in the game, making any changes are an imposibility. Gridlines, however heavy or light are here to stay ,calipers will only reveal the degree of severety. The 'Grey Lady' is in her final version, you will have to simply live with what you get. All you armchair designers who believe you have some say in the matter will realise 'you don't'.


Whatever gridlines are there will be far easier to take care of than the raised gridlines that existed on the old AMT Enterprise, bring it on, I have plenty of bondo.


----------



## CLBrown

Ductapeforever said:


> Realize that at this late stage in the game, making any changes are an imposibility. Gridlines, however heavy or light are here to stay ,calipers will only reveal the degree of severety. The 'Grey Lady' is in her final version, you will have to simply live with what you get. All you armchair designers who believe you have some say in the matter will realise 'you don't'.


I just re-scanned the thread, to see who said anything worthy of that "response" and I don't see a single one.


----------



## Ductapeforever

CLBrown said:


> I just re-scanned the thread, to see who said anything worthy of that "response" and I don't see a single one.


Not meant as a 'response'. Merely a statement prior to the inevitable comments made of the percieved remaining flaws in the kit.


----------



## Fozzie

Ductapeforever said:


> Not meant as a 'response'. Merely a statement prior to the inevitable comments made of the percieved remaining flaws in the kit.


Sadly, you're right about the "inevitable comments". But just from what I have seen so far, the positives of this kit far outweigh any negatives that are likely to be found. I hope that all of us remember and appreciate the tremendous effort that Round 2 went to to bring us something that is "not just another model kit". From the Herculean efforts to make it accurate, to all the builder-friendly and lighting-friendly extras, I think it is obvious to all of us that this kit is very, very special. Before going off on a rant because Round 2 didn't do that one little thing the way we would have liked, I hope that all of us temper our comments with the hundreds of details that they got right. They could have given us a kit far less special than this one appears to be--let's be grateful. I know someone will point out that "they're in it for the money", but that's just the bean counters. Jamie and Gary obviously were in it for more than just that.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Fozzie said:


> Sadly, you're right about the "inevitable comments". But just from what I have seen so far, the positives of this kit far outweigh any negatives that are likely to be found. I hope that all of us remember and appreciate the tremendous effort that Round 2 went to to bring us something that is "not just another model kit". From the Herculean efforts to make it accurate, to all the builder-friendly and lighting-friendly extras, I think it is obvious to all of us that this kit is very, very special. Before going off on a rant because Round 2 didn't do that one little thing the way we would have liked, I hope that all of us temper our comments with the hundreds of details that they got right. They could have given us a kit far less special than this one appears to be--let's be grateful. I know someone will point out that "they're in it for the money", but that's just the bean counters. Jamie and Gary obviously were in it for more than just that.




Finally, someone who celebrates the arrival of the 'Kit Of Dreams'. We have waited decades for this model, and it's nearly here. I don't care about grid lines, bridge alignment, Bussard collectors or any other trivialities. I am in total awe at the care and planning that went into the design of this kit. What few flaws that might still exist are of no concern. Gary, if you are reading this.......run, close your e-mail accounts before the onslaught soon to begin on the Galileo.


----------



## Guy Schlicter

Fozzie said:


> Sadly, you're right about the "inevitable comments". But just from what I have seen so far, the positives of this kit far outweigh any negatives that are likely to be found. I hope that all of us remember and appreciate the tremendous effort that Round 2 went to to bring us something that is "not just another model kit". From the Herculean efforts to make it accurate, to all the builder-friendly and lighting-friendly extras, I think it is obvious to all of us that this kit is very, very special. Before going off on a rant because Round 2 didn't do that one little thing the way we would have liked, I hope that all of us temper our comments with the hundreds of details that they got right. They could have given us a kit far less special than this one appears to be--let's be grateful. I know someone will point out that "they're in it for the money", but that's just the bean counters. Jamie and Gary obviously were in it for more than just that.


Even though I'm not one who was pushing for a 1/350 Original Enterprise model I will say I am very impressed with all the effort that went into it. I like very much the sensor and area behind are molded in copper. This kit will be the Ultimate model of the Original Enterprise and probably Round 2s hardest effort ever made to make a Star Trek model kit. When I build one I will do a simple build. Not to much paint because this model is truly outstanding right from the box.


----------



## jaws62666

I dont care about anyone else , but I cant wait for this kit to be in my hands. For Jamie and the Round 2 team to listen to our wants , and actually be a month or so from being in our hands, I cant thank them enough. No negative remarking or conjecture will change what the final kit will be. If you dont like it dont buy it. Any true Star Trek and model lover should be jumping up and down like a kid waitng to open up a gift under the Xmas tree. My only bicker is selfish, I want this kit now LOL. I cant wait for Gary's version of the Galileo as well. That is my next grail kit. I also cant wait for the Exploration Set, as I had several as a kid. No matter how small or un detailed the kit was I still want one. As someone else stated, just seeing the box brings back a ton of memories. Model man please give us the next review of the parts as soon as you can. Great stuff so far:thumbsup:


----------



## Model Man

Saucer vid added to the first post. Shooting for tomorrow night for next vid, 2ndary hull and nacelles.


----------



## jbond

I've had the Master Replicas Enterprise since its release so I don't have quite the burning need for this kit that some of you have--having said that, I got on the list for the release immediately and I definitely want to BUILD the old girl at this size, probably as a pilot version. And watching this box getting opened, I think I'm about as excited as everyone else. I'm already loving the way it's broken apart for ease of painting and I just can't wait to have the classic shuttlebay and shuttlecraft built. When I look at my garage and see all the grail kits that have been put out in the past few years it just amazes me how spoiled we all are. Thank goodness!


----------



## Fozzie

The saucer looks gorgeous, inside and out. The shape certainly looks right, and it looks like it should be easier to light than the refit. Did you all notice the channel for the dorsal? That certainly looks solid.

Why are there little ramps in front of some of the holes along the edge? Is this to help you angle the lights correctly or something?

As for the grid lines, I think it is impossible to really judge them by the video. So, Model Man, can you compare the grid lines against something we're all pretty familiar with, like the ones on the 1/350 refit _Enterprise_? How do they compare? They did seem to disappear when the camera moved any distance away. 

I can't wait to get my hands on one of these! Great job Jamie & Gary! :thumbsup:


----------



## spock62

Now THIS is an Enterprise model. After 45+ years we're finally getting a kit that will do this ship justice (the 1/1000 PL kit was good, just a little small for my tastes). Jamie, Gary and the gang at Round 2 deserve our sincere thanks for their efforts. Thanks Model Man for the videos, looking forward to the rest.


----------



## WarpCore Breach

Beautiful! Gorgeous!

I'm going to be one of those who will NOT be doing this kit as the Enterprise... got another ship in mind- and no, it's not covered by the supplemental sheet, either - so I trust that someone like JT will be doing up a template for custom names/numbers!

The fine grid lines don't concern me overly much, either since I don't intend to do the Enterprise.


----------



## Carson Dyle

jbond said:


> I've had the Master Replicas Enterprise since its release so I don't have quite the burning need for this kit that some of you have--having said that, I got on the list for the release immediately and I definitely want to BUILD the old girl at this size, probably as a pilot version.


Yeah, my thoughts exactly. 

I love my MR E, but this particular kit, of this particular subject, produced in this particularly well-researched and thoughtfully crafted fashion, demands to to built. 

Nice thing about building the (for me, 2nd) pilot version is I won't have to sweat the engine lights.


----------



## Maritain

I like the grid lines! Breaks up the bland surface.


----------



## Argonaut

Carson Dyle said:


> Yeah, my thoughts exactly.
> 
> I love my MR E, but this particular kit, of this particular subject, produced in this particularly well-researched and thoughtfully crafted fashion, demands to to built.
> 
> Nice thing about building the (for me, 2nd) pilot version is I won't have to sweat the engine lights.


Same here, though I'm going to build the first pilot ship. The only problem I"ll
have is not being able to display both my MR E and the kit at the same time!
Problems like this I can live with:tongue:


----------



## CLBrown

Fozzie said:


> Why are there little ramps in front of some of the holes along the edge? Is this to help you angle the lights correctly or something?


Think about how the part is made... and remember that the parts need to be MADE. Not being sarcastic... you'd be amazed how many professional engineers fail to think about this sort of thing when designing molded parts.

The manner of making windows was illustrated in the "mold images" shown earlier (including in the Wonderfest presentation). There's an "insert" in the mold, which is a separate part of the tool, for each of those window regions. In some cases (rim windows) this is a separate part. In others (the B/C deck superstructure) these are permanent parts of the tools. But either way, the molded parts need to be able to be "de-molded." that's why these look like they do.

I remember, earlier on, that R2 talked about having the windows inserted from the outside, individually. That approach would have permitted the whole ship to be painted, assembled.. and the windows to be added last. Clearly, they abandoned that concept... but I still plan to do MY windows that way... albeit not with the kit window parts.

EDIT:

Re: the gridlines... I'm debating how to fix (aka "remove utterly) them from the model. The issue, really, is that the gridline grooves actually cross some features I would have preferred to have kept, unaltered (say, the triangles... what I treat as "transporter emitters"... on the underside saucer).

Well, I guess I'm just going to have to do "rubbings" of the features I want to keep as physical features (as opposed to decal-only features or painted on features). This will mainly involve the "L" shapes near the impulse deck (which I treat as service access panels for drydock servicing of impulse reactors), and the transporter emitters, I think... plus a "gangway hatch" (ala TMP) on the unseen port side. These will all be done in the same manner, I think... very thin sheet material, cut to size and placed on the hull surface.

That's a LOT of putty work ahead of me... I'm guessing at least six tubes of squadron "red" (white putty), in the end, to ensure that there's no hint of those details left once the model's painted. And weeks worth of apply/sand/prime/inspect cycles. I plan to have a near-glass-like-finish in terms of smoothness... no porosity or granularity will be acceptable to me. I accept that I'm going to have to do it... but this is NOT the "fun" part of building, as far as I'm concerned. The idea of having to do that on the Revell kit is far less annoying, mainly because the Revell kit isn't as perfect, otherwise. It's easier to notice a missed note from the London Symphony than it is from a high school marching band!

On the POSITIVE side... I'm not concerned about the apparent "mis-fitting" issue Tom noticed, unless it's really a mis-located pin (in which case, that's something that'll need a repair job... if not in time for the first production run, at least in time for any subsequent production runs!) And I'm not at all concerned about the "scuffing" since the entire surface of this part is going to have to be recreated (puttying and sanding and priming, multiple times) anyway.

The shapes, of course, are nearly perfect.

I'm a bit concerned about the thickness of the plastic, actually. I mean, it looks good, but past experience has shown me that if the production facility decides to "shortcut" the mold process (decreasing cycle time, for example) this can easily result in warpage.

One thing that lept out to me was the presence of "knit lines" by each of the square panels (topside skylight windows, as far as I'm concerned). A "knit line" is something which results whenever a flow of plastic through a mold splits, then recombines... especially if the plastic is fairly cool at that point, and also especially if there's no "venting" at that location (and thus no easy means to allow trapped gas to escape).

The worst one I saw in the video was for the port, aft "rectangle" but I could make them out in all four cases. The "swirling" effect caused at the knit is very visible, and may well actually be "touch-detectable" from what I can see. These will be weak points in the molded part... so treat those locations very carefully! Knit lines sometimes also "shrink" differently from the solid plastic (especially if there's a fair amount of trapped gas in the knit joint) so multiple passes of resurfacing in that location may be necessary anyway, to ensure that there won't be a visible "sink mark" along the knit.

Overall, the parts are nice... better than any prior Enteprise, anyway! But it seems that, at least as far as the primary hull goes, it's going to be a foundation, rather than a finished form... with the majority of the fine detail being removed, and the entire surface being re-created.

Since I plan to use automotive lacquer on my kit (for the hardness and smoothness it will provide), I'm thinking I may well individually paint each part with lacquer prior to assembly (with only a finish paint job, to hide seams, on the assemblies). Some of my "new detail" will be added by simply masking locations and applying multiple layers of paint, resulting in "depressions" in the final paint where the masking was. So, I'm expecting to use more than just one or two coats of paint anyway. (Features I intend to do this way include the yellow panels just fore of the impulse deck... which I treat as impulse deck fuel system access ports, the shape atop the B/C deck superstructure, which I treat as a hatch... with the outline at hull surface, of course... and the various panels on the underside secondary hull and inside fantail. Plus, the details which will reflect the hatches for torpedo tubes, phaser ports, and thruster quads (all of which are "normally hidden" but will be detectable on my build-up).

So... the shape is right, but it's just the foundation... the ship's skin will be built up on top of that foundation.


----------



## liskorea317

Ductapeforever said:


> Finally, someone who celebrates the arrival of the 'Kit Of Dreams'. We have waited decades for this model, and it's nearly here. I don't care about grid lines, bridge alignment, Bussard collectors or any other trivialities. I am in total awe at the care and planning that went into the design of this kit. What few flaws that might still exist are of no concern. Gary, if you are reading this.......run, close your e-mail accounts before the onslaught soon to begin on the Galileo.


I have to say that I'm really impressed with the execution of this kit-the care that went into it, also listening to the fans and the communication from R2 about it. So theres a few things some may not like, so what? From what I've seen so far there's no issue on this kit that most experienced modelers here couldn't handle with their eyes closed. We wanted an accurate kit, they listened, they budgeted for it, they kept everyone in the loop as to its progress. And its nearly here. Whats not to be happy about?


----------



## ClubTepes

^^^^

I'm not sure why everybody is sweating the grid line removal so much.

Use Tamiya liquid primer. 
Paint it into the grid lines - right up to the detail you want to keep.
Then sand.

EASY. Done it many times.
On lines MUCH bigger than these.


----------



## Fozzie

liskorea317 said:


> We wanted an accurate kit, they listened, they budgeted for it, they kept everyone in the loop as to its progress. And its nearly here. Whats not to be happy about?


I'm happy!


----------



## liskorea317

Fozzie said:


> I'm happy!


Me too! And I'm also looking forward to the various works of art you guys are going to be building with this kit!


----------



## StarshipClass

I love the grid lines! I'm glad they're there and are recessed. I think it's definitely a good addition to the look of the kit (though I could have lived without them if they'd chosen to go the other way). 

Looks to be extremely well engineered and dead on in proportions. First time ever for that in anything above 1/1000th scale.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I don't mind the look of the fine saucer grid lines, except where they cross details they are not supposed to, and the part edge mis-alignment problem which disturbs me. But if you are going to have saucer lines then what about nacelle lines? I believe the 11 footer has a seam near the aft ends where it looks like the sections are screwed together. I never noticed any on the primary hull but you can't tell if they are there or not because of the museum paint job shading effect. Maybe to be uniform and consistent either have panel lines everywhere or none at all. Most of us could draw them on with pencil if we want to.


----------



## Model Man

Part 2C, 2ndary Hull and Nacelles!


----------



## Model Man

Not to get too far off topic, but as we are speaking of warp nacelles...
http://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html


----------



## Trekkriffic

Thanks for the great vids Model Man. I am so looking foward to working on something this BIG for a change! Gridlines don't bother me much; I plan to fill most of them in with Tamiya Basic polyester putty anyway and then redraw them in lightly using pencil. One nice thing about the hull being molded in the correct color is, once you insert the windows into the frames, mask, paint, and remove the masks, the frames along their edges will match the color of the rest of the painted hull. 
Oh yes... this is going to be GLORIOUS! :thumbsup:


----------



## BolianAdmiral

CLBrown said:


> Well, I was hoping that they'd have finally dumped the gridlines, but I guess I'm not SHOCKED that they didn't... a lot of "ego" went into the addition of those to the kit, so they were not going to go away without a fight.
> 
> That said, there's no question but that the gridlines were reduced... and my hope, for some time, has been that they'd reduce them to "ultra-fine" levels, so fine that they'll be hard not to cover up just during painting, and should be very easy to fill in without too much trouble (though it'll require very, very fine-quality putty to entirely eliminate them, of course... I'm not sure what's going to be best in this case, just yet).
> 
> The decal issue is pretty obvious... they got sloppy during the coating operation. The main thing though is that the decals themselves look marvelous. I notice that the one "tailpipe decal" was clearly visible during your macro-level pan-over of the sheet, but were there others of that nature on there as well? There are a series of very, very fine textual decals which were printed for the 11' model, a number of which ended up being used, mainly underneath the several hatches on the underside primary hull. (Yes, I've got the correct text for those and have incorporated them into my CGI ship, though I'm really thinking that eventually I'll change them to be something more appropriate for an actual starship!)
> 
> As far as I could tell, excepting windows, there are only two colors of plastic there.. the basic hull gray and the copper. If that's not true, you'll likely want to point it out, as there may be subtle variations in color that a YouTube video just won't bring out. I was sort of expecting some of the trim bits (impulse deck linear accelerator, impulse exhaust assembly, nacelle aft shrouds, intercoolers, inner trench, etc, etc) to be a darker grey, and the nacelle aft domes to be pure white. Not a huge deal... I plan to entirely paint my model anyway, and may even vary in slight ways from the production version (I'm thinking that the aft domes may end up being something a bit more... "magical".... in appearance?)
> 
> I'm going to guess that the black and white windows will be the most commonly used, as they reflect the real in-studio appearance. In my case, I've already decided to use actual glass windows (microscope slipcovers for the smaller windows, microscope slides for the four topside "panels" which I treat as windows).
> 
> As far as lighting goes... well, I've been giving my lighting serious thought. I'm certain I'll buy the "deluxe accessories kit" but full expect to expand on it, possibly dramatically. For instance, the three front lights are what I treat as the main forward scanners, and they'll be "flashlight-quality" bright cool white LEDs. Other circular lights will be small "surface mount" cool-white LEDS (in rectangular surface-mount packages with circular dome emitters on the top surface). These all reflect scanners and sensors, The interior setpieces will be lit up with warm white LEDs. If the LED set in the lighting kit uses warm-white elements, I'll likely use that (though I may have to expand it a bit). If the LED set does NOT use warm LEDs, I'll have to work from scratch on those.
> 
> (FYI, for anyone who doesn't know what I mean, conventional white LEDs... what I called "cool white"... have a slight bluish tint. They scream "high technology" but are actually not very much like natural light, and are harder on the eyes. "Warm white" LEDs are very similar to conventional incandescent lamps, and provide a light which has a slight yellow tint, very similar to natural sunlight. Most lighting sources used in inhabited spaces will use that type of light, and it's scientifically proven to be the best light for the human eye (which makes sense, since our eyes are designed to work in our planet's natural light!).
> 
> I'm considering a few other lamp colors in a few areas... but haven't decided if any are necessary or appropriate. I was, for instance, thinking of something a bit more blue for the saucer "rec deck" section which will include the ship's swimming pool (not a full pool, more like one of those "forced flow, stationary swimming pools olympic swimmers use to train, and used as one of the main fitness facilities aboard.) I was also thinking about something different for the "landing bay observation dome" (red light is best for the human eye when looking at things in the dark, as the red light doesn't spoil human night-vision). The thing is, both of these are deviations from the on-screen version, so I'm not sure about either, yet. They both make perfect sense, from an engineering and a human-factors standpoint, but they'd be deviations from screen-accuracy.
> 
> As for the nacelle lighting... I'm very anxious to see that. I've been wondering if it makes sense to use that exactly as provided, or to put in additional elements to further "distort" the light provided by the LED circuit boards. Until we see this up-close-and-personal, it'll be hard to say for sure.
> 
> I get the impression you're not being permitted to unbag the parts... shame about that, but oh well, huh?
> 
> At least try to get some "macro" shots of the gridlines, the front sides of secondary hull, and the B/C deck superstructure, as well as you can through the plastic bags.
> 
> Thanks!


IDK... the gridlines still look as deep as the last update, and the ones on the bottom saucer look especially too deep. I knew they weren't going to dump them either, but I also knew that they weren't going to get any finer, either. The gridlines really are a huge letdown, but I guess those modellers who have the time to fill them all in and sand them away will be able to do so, to fix this inaccuracy. Shame it has to be done in the first place, though.

In regards to the first video... that is an awful lot of packaging... I figured the deluxe edition would come in a bigger box, but to have all those extra boxes like that... IDK just how that would work in a retail store setting... what are all the LHS's that stock that version going to do, tape the boxes all together... keep them locked behind a counter? It just seems a bit cumbersome for anything other than mail-order, IMO.


----------



## CLBrown

Actually, the "deluxe kit" doesn't come in multiple boxes... the deluxe kit will include what's in the big box, plus what's in the "pilot parts kit." I understand that it's all supposed to be in one big box, and is somehow "special packaging." However, if they ship us all the standard kit, with the "pilot parts kit" shipped separately, I doubt many of us would complain TOO much.

I do still have a hope (a faint one, but a hope nevertheless) that they'll at least put the photoetch and weathering decals in there, if not the lighting kit.


----------



## Paulbo

BolianAdmiral said:


> IDK... the gridlines still look as deep as the last update, and the ones on the bottom saucer look especially too deep. I knew they weren't going to dump them either, but I also knew that they weren't going to get any finer, either. The gridlines really are a huge letdown, but I guess those modellers who have the time to fill them all in and sand them away will be able to do so, to fix this inaccuracy. Shame it has to be done in the first place, though.


Having a copy of the first test shot sitting in my office, I can definitively say that looking at these photographs, the gridlines are both SIGNIFICANTLY thinner and SIGNIFICANTLY less deep.

However, if you feel the need to fill them, though, a quick shot of automotive primer and 15 to 30 minutes of buffing will take care of them.



BolianAdmiral said:


> In regards to the first video... that is an awful lot of packaging... I figured the deluxe edition would come in a bigger box, but to have all those extra boxes like that... IDK just how that would work in a retail store setting... what are all the LHS's that stock that version going to do, tape the boxes all together... keep them locked behind a counter? It just seems a bit cumbersome for anything other than mail-order, IMO.


You do realize that that is NOT the deluxe edition. That is the STANDARD edition, as noted in the video, with the various accessory packs. I have no direct knowledge of this, but I would assume that the DELUXE edition will be packaged in a single box.


----------



## Warped9

I can't judge the gridlines until I see them, but if they are how we last saw them then I, too, will be filling them in. I'd have tolerated them if they were really fine, but anything more than that then they have to go.

That said I'm ecstatic about everything else about this kit and can't wait to get at it. And I definitely want that lighting kit.


----------



## CLBrown

Steve Mavronis said:


> I don't mind the look of the fine saucer grid lines, except where they cross details they are not supposed to, and the part edge mis-alignment problem which disturbs me. But if you are going to have saucer lines then what about nacelle lines? I believe the 11 footer has a seam near the aft ends where it looks like the sections are screwed together. I never noticed any on the primary hull but you can't tell if they are there or not because of the museum paint job shading effect. Maybe to be uniform and consistent either have panel lines everywhere or none at all. Most of us could draw them on with pencil if we want to.


Those lines are actually where the nacelle transitions from the solid wood region to the rolled-sheetmetal section.


----------



## Edge

I'll probably pass on my place in line. I can't justify spending > $150.00 on a kit I'm less than totally enthused about.


----------



## Warped9

Nice videos. And looking at them those gridlines look a lot better than what I saw last. This kit might just go from awesome to incredible.

Mind you there are still come nits. I don't think the gridlines are supposed to croos into the underside saucer triangles and they do on the kit reviewed. That would have to be fixed. Not all the saucer lines appear to line up either, so we're back to this issue.

Mind you the review video said this was pre-production so maybe one of the reasons for the delivery delay was to try getting in some final last minute tweaks.


----------



## Ductapeforever

I love this kit,.....personally just for spite, I hope they cover the Galileo with GRIDLINES !


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> Nice videos. And looking at them those gridlines look a lot better than what I saw last. This kit might just go from awesome to incredible.
> 
> Mind you there are still come nits. I don't think the gridlines are supposed to croos into the underside saucer triangles and they do on the kit reviewed. That would have to be fixed. Not all the saucer lines appear to line up either, so we're back to this issue.
> 
> Mind you the review video said this was pre-production so maybe one of the reasons for the delivery delay was to try getting in some final last minute tweaks.


Well, I'd already mostly decided to go ahead and make my "triangles" applied thin plastic, anyway... so that part won't be a huge issue for me.

I think that R2 will end up, eventually, regretting putting them on. They'll hear a lot about it over the next several years. It's not as bad as the "improvement" that Ertl made to the refit kit, adding extra detail to IT... though the amount of labor which will go into fixing it will be equivalent, I suspect. 

It won't keep us from buying the kit, but the kvetching will never go away, I suspect.


----------



## Ductapeforever

New 1701 club shirts........


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Warped9 said:


> Nice videos. And looking at them those gridlines look a lot better than what I saw last. This kit might just go from awesome to incredible.
> 
> Mind you there are still come nits. I don't think the gridlines are supposed to croos into the underside saucer triangles and they do on the kit reviewed. That would have to be fixed. Not all the saucer lines appear to line up either, so we're back to this issue.
> 
> Mind you the review video said this was pre-production so maybe one of the reasons for the delivery delay was to try getting in some final last minute tweaks.


You're right, in that the gridlines should not be crossing through the triangle shapes... IDK how they made a mistake like that.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Paulbo said:


> Having a copy of the first test shot sitting in my office, I can definitively say that looking at these photographs, the gridlines are both SIGNIFICANTLY thinner and SIGNIFICANTLY less deep.
> 
> However, if you feel the need to fill them, though, a quick shot of automotive primer and 15 to 30 minutes of buffing will take care of them.


That's not the point... the point all along has been and continues to be that there were no engraved lines on the physical filming model. There is simply no question of this. It is fact. Yes, some effort can be taken to remove them. The point is that it's effort that never needed to be expended in the first place, since they intentionally decided to go along with an inaccuracy which certain modelers will now have to correct.

In any case, what's done is done, unfortunately. The rest of the kit looks great, and I love everything else about it, especially that beautiful *Alex Ross* box art.


----------



## Warped9

BolianAdmiral said:


> ...the point all along has been and continues to be that there were no engraved lines on the physical filming model. There is simply no question of this. It is fact.


*CL*, the real point is what were those lines supposed to represent. It's understood they were supposed to represent a physical feature that would be too expensive to actually add so they used a cheap-and-dirty method to put them on. And they weren't put on perfectly either as close examination has revealed. But then the whole 11 footer wasn't perfect either. It certainly wasn't as detailed or exacting as the R2 kit will be. The 11 footer was sufficient for its intended purpose, but not really to withstand close up scrutiny---certainly not as comparable as the TMP refit filming miniature and I'm sure that wasn't absolutely perfect either.

I can't help but think of the forthcoming shuttlecraft kit and what I also went through to reconcile the full scale mock-up and the flying miniature. You have to make choices as to what seems to be the most true in terms of what we were supposed to see onscreen. I like the choices I made, but I'm sure someone else will differ. And there is no one around to inform us definitively what is supposed to be true so not everyone will be happy. And even if they were we still might not like the answer anyway _(if MJ and/or GR were still around to tell us the bridge definitely faced forward I'd still have a hard time accepting it because it doesn't make physical sense within the parameters of the design as shown)._ In like manner in my heart and mind the shuttlecraft can't be much more than 26ft.+ to be credible and I'll balk if someone insists otherwise---bigger than that and I just can't see it working properly within the design established _(and, yeah, thats even knowing its all fictional)._

I know the lines will never go away, but for myself I have to balance it against everything R2 has gotten right. Imagine that for the first time ever the gridlines are the only major element of (potential) contention in terms of each individual's sense of accuracy. Compare that to how many issues came with every previous model of the TOS _E_.


----------



## fire91bird

Does this kit represent the physical filming model or an idealized "real" Enterprise? Personally, I'd go for the latter.


----------



## Gary K

BolianAdmiral said:


> You're right, in that the gridlines should not be crossing through the triangle shapes... IDK how they made a mistake like that.


We didn't make a mistake because the grid lines absolutely, positively DID cross the triangles on the original Production version of the 11-footer. No doubt about it.

Gary


----------



## Warped9

Gary K said:


> We didn't make a mistake because the grid lines absolutely, positively DID cross the triangles on the original Production version of the 11-footer. No doubt about it.
> 
> Gary


Really??? Wow. That does seem counterintuitive. But again it's something that can be accepted or fixed to each individual's taste. No biggee.




fire91bird said:


> Does this kit represent the physical filming model or an idealized "real" Enterprise? Personally, I'd go for the latter.


Me too.


----------



## Gary K

Warped9 said:


> Really??? Wow. That does seem counterintuitive. But again it's something that can be accepted or fixed to each individual's taste. No biggee.QUOTE]
> 
> The craftsmen who built the 11-foot model 40-some years ago apparently didn't know as much about starship engineering as the Hobby Talkers.
> 
> Gary


----------



## CLBrown

Ummm... I'm not Bolian Admiral... I think you confused your screen names. 

As for that "being understood," well... not so much. 

There's plenty of "I heard that so and so told so and so's nephew that some other so and so said this." But I've never heard anyone say, clearly, what those were supposed to be.

In fact, as far as the original broadcasts (which were, don't forget, the ONLY viewing that the folks making these shows ever really expected their show to see), none of this would have been visible.

Yes, transfer film to DVD, show it on a modern TV set, and you can... BARELY... see the lines. Review archival photos and you can see them more clearly. But, on a 1966-era TV set?  There's no way you could see any of that. The lines were literally invisible, as far as the intended audience was concerned.

I still suspect, rather strongly, that the reason they were put down is for the same reason drafters used to create (and occasionally still do!) all variety of "construction lines" in their drawings. The "construction lines" are not there to be seen, and ideally get erased entirely once their purpose is done.

On the TOS ship, they had a lot of work done on the ship post-pilots, and they also fully intended to "re-decal" the ship regularly (so it could be shot from the port side... using "mirror" decals... or it could be shot as other ships) I don't think they really did much of that, but it was planned, anyway. And they'd want some way to easily get the markings where they were supposed to be... which, not coincidentally, is exactly what you'd use those super-fine pencil lines to do.

Now... it may well be true that Gene Roddenberry saw these construction lines, and, being ignorant of the process being used, decided that they were pretty cool and should serve some "in-universe" purpose. And maybe M.J. even bought into that argument as well.

It doesn't really change the facts that the ship, as originally conceived, had no such lines... and that on the intended audience's TV sets, the lines which were there would be totally undetectable.

I LOVE adding "reasonable expansions" to these ships...... but I do recognize that what I do, as much sense as it may make to me, need not be accepted by anyone else but me. I treat the triangles on the underside primary hull as the transporter emitters, but someone else may well treat them as landing gear, or sensors, or cargo hatches, or whatever. Unless it was "seen on- screen" and was INTENDED to be seen on-screen, nobody should have to accept it.

The grids weren't able to be seen on screen. And even today, on our higher-resolution examinations, they're just BARELY distinguishable, and they're definitely not "grooves in the hull."

Myself, I treat them as "tape appliques" for the shield... surface-mounted metal strips used to help the shield system be more uniform in its coverage by distributing the shield energy through the metal "tape." And that means it'll look like metal tape... dark grey, metallic strips on the hull surface.

Nobody else has to accept my take on this, of course. But nobody should have had to accept someone else's "non canon" take, either.



Warped9 said:


> *CL*, the real point is what were those lines supposed to represent. It's understood they were supposed to represent a physical feature that would be too expensive to actually add so they used a cheap-and-dirty method to put them on. And they weren't put on perfectly either as close examination has revealed. But then the whole 11 footer wasn't perfect either. It certainly wasn't as detailed or exacting as the R2 kit will be. The 11 footer was sufficient for its intended purpose, but not really to withstand close up scrutiny---certainly not a comparable as the TMP refit filming miniature and I'm sure that wasn't absolutely perfect either.
> 
> I know this is an issue that will never go away, but for myself I have to balance it against everything R2 has gotten right. Imagine that for the first time ever the gridlines are the only major element of (potential) contention in terms of each individual's sense of accuracy. Compare that to how many issues came with every previous model of the TOS _E_.


----------



## Ductapeforever

I'm sick of hearing about these GRIDLINES! They're on the model,...accept it and move on! Oh,... and take an antacid,...you'll sleep better!


----------



## jheilman

Gary K said:


> The craftsmen who built the 11-foot model 40-some years ago apparently didn't know as much about starship engineering as the Hobby Talkers.
> Gary


Too true.


----------



## Warped9

Gary K said:


> The craftsmen who built the 11-foot model 40-some years ago apparently didn't know as much about starship engineering as the Hobby Talkers.
> 
> Gary


Well, we've had forty years to mull it over. :lol:


----------



## CLBrown

deleted


----------



## Ductapeforever

jheilman said:


> Too true.


Precisely why I have such disdain for self absorbed 'Treknowlogists".


----------



## Model Man

CLBrown said:


> ...I treat the triangles on the underside primary hull as the transporter emitters, but someone else may well treat them as landing gear, or sensors, or cargo hatches, or whatever. ...


Personally, until about a year ago, I spent more than 35yrs thinking the triangles were because there was a Vulcan on the ship. An eyebrow is an eyebrow and Vulcan eyebrows even more so.


----------



## spock62

Regarding the grid lines, let's face it, whatever Round 2 chose to do would become a "damn if they do, damn if they don't" situation. 
1) If they had chosen to leave them off, some people would complain the lines are missing. 
2) If they had chosen to include decals to represent the grid lines, some people would have complained that the decals don't go on well/look to much like decals. 
3) If they had chosen to add grid lines (which is what they picked), some people would complain that the original filming miniature had the lines penciled on and it's a pain to fill them with putty. 
Round 2 couldn't win, no matter what they chose to do. 

Based on what we've been able to see, the fact that the only thing that some people feel is "wrong" are these grid lines, says a lot about the accuracy and engineering of this kit. IMO, if you don't like the lines, get yourself a good tube of putty or can of primer and be done with it.


----------



## Paulbo

spock62 said:


> Regarding the grid lines, let's face it, whatever Round 2 chose to do would become a "damn if they do, damn if they don't" situation.
> 1) If they had chosen to leave them off, some people would complain the lines are missing.
> 2) If they had chosen to include decals to represent the grid lines, some people would have complained that the decals don't go on well/look to much like decals.
> 3) If they had chosen to add grid lines (which is what they picked), some people would complain that the original filming miniature had the lines penciled on and it's a pain to fill them with putty.
> Round 2 couldn't win, no matter what they chose to do.
> 
> Based on what we've been able to see, the fact that the only thing that some people feel is "wrong" are these grid lines, says a lot about the accuracy and engineering of this kit. IMO, if you don't like the lines, get yourself a good tube of putty or can of primer and be done with it.


Hear hear.


----------



## Warped9

spock62 said:


> Regarding the grid lines, let's face it, whatever Round 2 chose to do would become a "damn if they do, damn if they don't" situation.
> 1) If they had chosen to leave them off, some people would complain the lines are missing.
> 2) If they had chosen to include decals to represent the grid lines, some people would have complained that the decals don't go on well/look to much like decals.
> 3) If they had chosen to add grid lines (which is what they picked), some people would complain that the original filming miniature had the lines penciled on and it's a pain to fill them with putty.
> Round 2 couldn't win, no matter what they chose to do.
> 
> Based on what we've been able to see, the fact that the only thing that some people feel is "wrong" are these grid lines, says a lot about the accuracy and engineering of this kit. IMO, if you don't like the lines, get yourself a good tube of putty or can of primer and be done with it.


Too true.


----------



## Dr. Brad

spock62 said:


> Regarding the grid lines, let's face it, whatever Round 2 chose to do would become a "damn if they do, damn if they don't" situation.
> 1) If they had chosen to leave them off, some people would complain the lines are missing.
> 2) If they had chosen to include decals to represent the grid lines, some people would have complained that the decals don't go on well/look to much like decals.
> 3) If they had chosen to add grid lines (which is what they picked), some people would complain that the original filming miniature had the lines penciled on and it's a pain to fill them with putty.
> Round 2 couldn't win, no matter what they chose to do.


I hate to say it, but I think you've missed number 4. If they had chosen to add the grid lines (which some people wanted) but made them too deep/wide.


----------



## Warped9

*GRIDLINES!!!* :beatdeadhorse:

_(...and he seems to be hitting that poor dead beast in the crotch, too.)_


----------



## jheilman

You want gridlines?

I got gridlines. Circa 1976.


----------



## CLBrown

jheilman said:


> You want gridlines?
> 
> I got gridlines. Circa 1976.


Ah, perfect... how'd you get ahold of this kit way back then, though?


----------



## Gregatron

Paulbo said:


> Hear hear.



Hear hear hear!


It would be far easier to fill in the gridlines (if you don't want them) than it would be to scribe them in by hand (if one wanted gridlines).


I do think R2 made the best decision, under the circumstances. The gridlines make it easier to build any possible variant of the ship. For example, the "Trials and Tribble-ations" and CGI/Remastered models have etched gridlines. The scribed gridlines allow for those variants to be easily built. And they're also there for anyone who just likes the scribed lines, accurate or not.


Look at it from the point of view of someone who WANTS the grid--when you consider how hard it would be to scribe those lines, a little putty and sanding looks like a frickin' cakewalk by comparison.


Granted, it's more work for those who want to build the grid-less pilot versions, or want to pencil the lines in for a more accurate look, but I think this is the best solution, overall.


I do kinda hope that someone comes up with a grid decal set, or maybe some kind of pencil-drawing template. Maybe some Aztec Dummy-ish vinyl templates?



And, really, there are _so_ many awesome things about this kit. This isn't the AMT model, with its massive number of inaccuracies. R2 has clearly gone to great lengths to cover all of the major variants of the model/ship. The grid is what I would consider a necessary evil to achieve that noble goal.


I don't see anyone saying that we'll need tons of aftermarket parts or major surgery to correct this model. For the grids, it'll just take some patience and elbow grease. And that's what this hobby is all about!



All things considered, we are absolutely spoiled. 

It's not as if R2 forgot that the ship has two nacelles instead of just one, after all. It's just a grid--no worse than dealing with the usual seams--just a bit trickier and more time-consuming.



Oh, and thanks for the great videos, Tom! Keep 'em coming!


----------



## Warped9

Here's the thing: before I pass judgement I'm eager to see and read the most recent 1701 Club update and I want to see the actual kit myself. Once I see it with my own eyes then I can make a more informed assessment.


----------



## Trek Ace

Boy, a lot happens when you're gone for a week!
Thank you for the videos, Tom. They are great.

After having watched the videos currently out and read the latest club update, I get the impression that we are not seeing the final product as shown in the videos. That there is still a 'final' version that has the even-thinner grid lines and polished surface on the saucer parts that we have not yet seen. I doubt if Jamie and co. would allow the final product to contain such imperfections after having spent so much time and effort to get this kit as close to 'perfect' as they could.

Even if somehow these were to be the final parts, I have seen nothing that represents a deal-breaker, or couldn't be addressed by even a moderately-skilled modeler. I am a little surprised to see other panel and outline details engraved into the saucer and teardrop surface that could otherwise be more accurately represented by decals alone. Again - not a deal-breaker, but just a little more filler and sanding to make right.


----------



## Model Man

Trek Ace said:


> Boy, a lot happens when you're gone for a week!
> Thank you for the videos, Tom. They are great.
> 
> After having watched the videos currently out and read the latest club update, I get the impression that we are not seeing the final product as shown in the videos.


Thanks, Ace... 

But, regrettably, you'd be wrong.  This is it. The final-final. No more tweaks.

I've gotten some notes from Jamie today re: points I bring up throughout the vids and expect a few more from him as he sees the rest of the series. I won't paraphrase his words here and now, but will cover those and other notes verbatim in the wrap vid(s).

So... This is the saucer as is. Grid lines, ultra-fine pebble texture, short pins which don't quite hold the halves together and all.

What we see here is what we are getting. 
For good or bad, in sickness and health from this day forward to death do us part. 
Live long and prosper.

(And thanks everybody for the kind words.)


----------



## Captain April

If lusting after a big ol' box of styrene is wrong, I don't wanna be right.


----------



## Trek Ace

Well, like I said earlier, nothing I've seen in your videos is a deal-breaker. If this is indeed the final product as you have stated, Tom, then I know that everyone involved has given their best effort, and I will be _very_ happy with it.

I already have a case of the kits and selection of the accessories pre-ordered, in addition to the Premiere club kit. So, it's too late to back out, now!


----------



## Model Man

Thanks, Ace!


----------



## ClubTepes

BolianAdmiral said:


> IDK... the gridlines still look as deep as the last update, and the ones on the bottom saucer look especially too deep. I knew they weren't going to dump them either, but I also knew that they weren't going to get any finer, either. The gridlines really are a huge letdown, but I guess those modellers who have the time to fill them all in and sand them away will be able to do so, to fix this inaccuracy. Shame it has to be done in the first place, though.
> 
> In regards to the first video... that is an awful lot of packaging... I figured the deluxe edition would come in a bigger box, but to have all those extra boxes like that... IDK just how that would work in a retail store setting... what are all the LHS's that stock that version going to do, tape the boxes all together... keep them locked behind a counter? It just seems a bit cumbersome for anything other than mail-order, IMO.


Having seen test shots 1, 2 AND 3, I can tell you the grid lines have gotten finer.


----------



## Warped9

What I can see in those videos is the incredible level of detail as well as the sheer number of parts. This kit a fan's wet dream, seriously. Looking at the final result overall it seems really short-sighted for anyone to get worked up over one potential contentious element.

The speckling or texture noticed on the saucer and dorsal might seemly be the result of early production parts and mightn't be in all kits. Of course if you're putting and sanding to fill the grid lines then it won't be an issue.

Weren't there supposed to be lines on the secondary hull as well as the nacelles and even the disal? I didn't see any and no comment was made about them, but it seems odd they'd include the saucer lines and yet not those on the rest of the ship. I'm referring to those few lines that run around the circumfrance of the support hull and nacelles as well as the one angled line on the dorsal.


----------



## StarshipClass

Ductapeforever said:


> Precisely why I have such disdain for self absorbed 'Treknowlogists".


Personally, I love the "Treknowlogists." And I do know what particular group you're referring to and understand what you're saying with the ill feelings and "crankiness" some folks have. However, I don't mind the emotions and I love the debates and the going over of facts, ideas, and imaginative solutions/resolutions, etc.--even if it gets a little heated and repetitive sometimes. 

It's all fascinating and it's pretty much what sci-fi modeling and fandom should be about: stimulating our imaginations. Kind of like what _Star Trek_ was all about for most of us. There certainly weren't enough shows to be successful in repeats compared to most syndicated programs of the day. It was the "spark" that got a lot of us going. Our imaginations blasted off after that.

I say let's hear everyone out: compliments and complaints_ ad infinitum_. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass

Warped9 said:


> Weren't there supposed to be lines on the secondary hull as well as the nacelles and even the disal? I didn't see any and no comment was made about them, but it seems odd they'd include the saucer lines and yet not those on the rest of the ship. I'm referring to those few lines that run around the circumfrance of the support hull and nacelles as well as the one angled line on the dorsal.


I'm not sure if I'm going to attempt to engrave those or just pencil them on.


----------



## John P

Oh my god, they detailed the left side and made the saucer perfectly round!!  That's so totally inaccurate to the filming miniature!!!!111 :freak: And it's made out of plastic instead of wood and sheet metal!!!!!**))(&^! I refuse to buy a kit that's so totally inaccurate to [email protected]

Oh COME now.


----------



## Warped9

John P said:


> Oh my god, they detailed the left side and made the saucer perfectly round!!  That's so totally inaccurate to the filming miniature!!!!111 :freak: And it's made out of plastic instead of wood and sheet metal!!!!!**))(&^! I refuse to buy a kit that's so totally inaccurate to [email protected]
> 
> Oh COME now.


The nerve, eh?


----------



## spock62

Dr. Brad said:


> I hate to say it, but I think you've missed number 4. If they had chosen to add the grid lines (which some people wanted) but made them too deep/wide.


Your right, add #4 to the list! 

Based on what we've seen in the videos, after a coat of primer, hull colors, gloss (for decals) and final flat finish, the grid lines will probably become very faint anyway. As for the pebble finish on the saucer, sanding with fine grit sandpaper should take care of that.


----------



## Gary K

Warped9 said:


> Weren't there supposed to be lines on the secondary hull as well as the nacelles and even the dorsal? I didn't see any and no comment was made about them, but it seems odd they'd include the saucer lines and yet not those on the rest of the ship. I'm referring to those few lines that run around the circumfrance of the support hull and nacelles as well as the one angled line on the dorsal.


For the record, I've scrupulously examined multiple high-res unpublished photos of the 11-footer that were taken in the mid-60s, and there were NO lines on the dorsal, nacelles, or secondary hull during the filming of the original show. I've also examined the model in person prior to the 1991-92 restoration, and I did NOT see any evidence of lines other than the ones on the saucer (and the pencil lines on the lower saucer were faintly visible through the paint applied during a previous restoration). Over the years a few puttied construction seams opened up as the model aged, and shaded lines were incorrectly added to those three areas during the most recent restoration. This is one of the many areas in which the R-G kit is inaccurate.

Gary


----------



## Warped9

Gary K said:


> For the record, I've scrupulously examined multiple high-res unpublished photos of the 11-footer that were taken in the mid-60s, and there were NO lines on the dorsal, nacelles, or secondary hull during the filming of the original show. I've also examined the model in person prior to the 1991-92 restoration, and I did NOT see any evidence of lines other than the ones on the saucer (and the pencil lines on the lower saucer were faintly visible through the paint applied during a previous restoration). Over the years a few puttied construction seams opened up as the model aged, and shaded lines were incorrectly added to those three areas during the most recent restoration. This is one of the many areas in which the R-G kit is inaccurate.N
> 
> Gary


Okay, so what I was seeing on drawings was something that was added after the fact rather than from the actuall 11 footer when the series was in production.


----------



## Gary K

Trek Ace said:


> I am a little surprised to see other panel and outline details engraved into the saucer and teardrop surface that could otherwise be more accurately represented by decals alone. Again - not a deal-breaker, but just a little more filler and sanding to make right.


Test shot #4 is sitting in front of me, and those hatch outlines are very faint. The outlines of all the hatches (the hatches, themselves, not the red/gray trim around them) were faintly scribed to make the model more builder-friendly. They provide a guide to allow less-experienced modelers to accurately apply the decals, and they also serve as a guide so more experienced modelers can open up the hatches and customize the model. The decals should completely cover the scribed outlines, but if they still bother you they can very easily be filled in. The belly hatches couldn't be scribed due to mold-release issues. 

Gary


----------



## kenlee

spock62 said:


> Your right, add #4 to the list!
> 
> Based on what we've seen in the videos, after a coat of primer, hull colors, gloss (for decals) and final flat finish, the grid lines will probably become very faint anyway. As for the pebble finish on the saucer, sanding with fine grit sandpaper should take care of that.


I almost always wet sand the surface of models anyway with 600 and 800 paper to remove the inevitable glue smear/fingerprint and to give the primer something to grab on to so the texture is not an issue to me. The only time that I do not sand the surfaces is when there is fine raised surface detail that needs to be preserved.


----------



## Gary K

Warped9 said:


> Okay, so what I was seeing on drawings was something that was added after the fact rather than from the actuall 11 footer when the series was in production.


You are correct, Sir!

Gary


----------



## MLCrisis32

One this is for sure there are some passionate Trek fans on these boards! :thumbsup:

While I understand some are upset I'm glad they put them on for those of us who like them. I wouldn't have the nerve to try and scribe lines on a 16" saucer. 

Also the Refit is "my Enterprise" but this is definitely my father's. I just need him to clear out a space so I can build him this!


----------



## jgoldsack

Grid lines, no grid lines, I am still getting this. This is the one model I have wanted to build in large scale forever, and no little silly detail that I can easily take care of if I wanted to is going to keep me from getting it, and building it.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I sure wish we could see the lighting kit lit up, but I understand Model Man's limitations in his video per Jamie's instructions. These videos just fire me up more. So if the model is delayed until November for club members, does this mean the kit will not be available to everyone else until December?


----------



## ffejG

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Personally, I love the "Treknowlogists." And I do know what particular group you're referring to and understand what you're saying with the ill feelings and "crankiness" some folks have. However, I don't mind the emotions and I love the debates and the going over of facts, ideas, and imaginative solutions/resolutions, etc.--even if it gets a little heated and repetitive sometimes.
> 
> It's all fascinating and it's pretty much what sci-fi modeling and fandom should be about: stimulating our imaginations. Kind of like what _Star Trek_ was all about for most of us. There certainly weren't enough shows to be successful in repeats compared to most syndicated programs of the day. It was the "spark" that got a lot of us going. Our imaginations blasted off after that.
> 
> I say let's hear everyone out: compliments and complaints_ ad infinitum_. :thumbsup:


Hear, hear. 100% This is part of the fun and what keeps it interesting so long after the fact. Also, I am thrilled with how this is coming out, grid lines or no. I have one special edition version reserved through the 1701 club and I will be getting a standard edition kit from my LHS. In the end I will have a 2nd pilot version and a production version - one for the office and one for home don't ya know.


----------



## liskorea317

Chris Pike said:


> Great review... it is a phenominal job Gary, Jamie and the rest of the team have done here...





CLBrown said:


> Ah, perfect... how'd you get ahold of this kit way back then, though?


They were commonly available in shops back in '76-I had bought a couple then. They were cheap too! Maybe 4 dollars or less with tax.


----------



## Tiberious

I'm pretty pleased overall. Pleased with the kit, despite a few issues that folks are having. Pleased at the effort made by all involved. And pleased at the debate going on here and on other similar venues.

I love the passion for detail that so many Trek fans and modelers are showing. I think any time people feel that the subject they love isn't meeting their expectations and are vocal about it, they're showing that passion. It's ok to disagree, so long as we respect each other. We've seen these debates so often, often becoming ugly. So far, not this time....I hope it stays that way.

I really enjoy CL's take on the technology behind the details. I can see reason in all of it, even if I feel it's a bit too TNG-based in some cases, I get it. I respect Gary K's research and knowledge. I could go on, but I'll always miss someone so please consider yourselves included in my list.

We're getting an amazing tribute to the Enterprise and to our hobby overall. It will be what we make of it give or take some extra effort or applied skills.

Be happy!

Tib

p.s. Just to toss another log on the fire, if the grid is intended to distribute the sheild energy (as I too believe it to be) shouldn't it be raised rather than inscribed?


----------



## CLBrown

Well said. 

I must admit, I personally find the sort of attitude so clearly shown by the tone of DTF's post to be the worst thing I see on here. The desire to mock, attack, and denigrate anyone who he happens to disagree with. Even using, as seen in this thread, a "pre-emptive attack" doctrine... "somebody will eventually say it and I just can't wait to attack them."

Seriously, guys... how much of this thread has now been spent whinging about how aweful other posters are, versus how much has discussed the lines?

Should that tell us all something???



PerfesserCoffee said:


> Personally, I love the "Treknowlogists." And I do know what particular group you're referring to and understand what you're saying with the ill feelings and "crankiness" some folks have. However, I don't mind the emotions and I love the debates and the going over of facts, ideas, and imaginative solutions/resolutions, etc.--even if it gets a little heated and repetitive sometimes.
> 
> It's all fascinating and it's pretty much what sci-fi modeling and fandom should be about: stimulating our imaginations. Kind of like what _Star Trek_ was all about for most of us. There certainly weren't enough shows to be successful in repeats compared to most syndicated programs of the day. It was the "spark" that got a lot of us going. Our imaginations blasted off after that.
> 
> I say let's hear everyone out: compliments and complaints_ ad infinitum_. :thumbsup:


----------



## CLBrown

Gary K said:


> Test shot #4 is sitting in front of me, and those hatch outlines are very faint. The outlines of all the hatches (the hatches, themselves, not the red/gray trim around them) were faintly scribed to make the model more builder-friendly. They provide a guide to allow less-experienced modelers to accurately apply the decals, and they also serve as a guide so more experienced modelers can open up the hatches and customize the model. The decals should completely cover the scribed outlines, but if they still bother you they can very easily be filled in. The belly hatches couldn't be scribed due to mold-release issues.
> 
> Gary


Good job, then... 

I'm planning on at least a few hatches being made from thin magnetic stainless steel... mainly those over the impulse deck and under the fantail... so I can remove them and show interiors underneath.

That what you intended matches my plans makes it clear that your thinking was sound. A feature whose best use is so clear is a good feature!


----------



## Guy Schlicter

after watching part 3 of Tom's review and seeing the Enterprise put together its beginning to get me interested. I am a true fan of the Original Enterprise and all of this is firing up my interest. I like the way this kit is engineered where if you don't want to do alot of work you don't have to.That will be me. I will build mine as the Where No Man Has Gone Before Enterprise with the accessary pack. I also like the color its molded in. Heck Round 2 and Jamie went all out on this kit and then some so the least I can do is buy one. Guy Schlicter.


----------



## Warped9

I've decided it's an idealized Pike era version for me. That means there'll be a few production details added to make it look more finished (as I envision it).


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I want to build the series production standard Kirk era Enterprise, but I'm tempted to use the pilot series engine exhaust caps with all the holes. But are the later ball ends supposed to glow or solid?


----------



## Model Man

I like the idea of a cross-breed ship. They intercut all the different shots so often in every episode that all three ships represent the one. Or the many. Or... 

That's why I like building other names as they can be any version ever seen. Now, it can be any variant of not only decals, but parts!


By the way, is anyone giving consideration to the size house people are going to need to house these things? Granted, it's not as big as the Refit, but boy the two next each other says VOLUME. Wow.

Ideally, I'd like to find a 1/350 Space Shuttle and 1/350 Tall Ship to recreate the TMP wall display. 

Btw, we're almost down to last calls for requests. Did I miss any detail you want to see more of on the plastic? The accessory parts should start posting later today. I want to have the wrap up by the weekend. Wow! One full week to do this! Lucky thing I'm unemployed this week!


----------



## Gary K

Steve Mavronis said:


> I want to build the series production standard Kirk era Enterprise, but I'm tempted to use the pilot series engine exhaust caps with all the holes. But are the later ball ends supposed to glow or solid?


The white or glowing appearance of the Production version's balls was just a trick of lighting. There was no wiring connected to the balls, and they were simply painted hull gray, with no evidence of white paint underneath. There's a DVD documentary on George Pal's failed attempt in the 1970s to create a TV series sequel to his classic "War of the Worlds" movie. If you check out the interview with Matt Jefferies you can see the stbd nacelle of the 11-footer propped up aaginst the wall behind him. In normal office lighting you can easily verify that the ball was simply painted hull gray.

Gary


----------



## Trekkriffic

On the subject of the balls, I concur with Mr. Kerr that they are hull grey. 
The only thing I might do myself to "jazz" them up a bit would be to give them a shot of Testors Gloss Pearl Clearcoat.


----------



## Opus Penguin

That is good to know. I thought they were white.


----------



## Captain April

A question about the window inserts: We've got clear, we've got dark, are the third set white or glow-in-the-dark? From the video, they look rather translucent, as glowy plastic tend to do.


----------



## CLBrown

Trekkriffic said:


> On the subject of the balls, I concur with Mr. Kerr that they are hull grey.
> The only thing I might do myself to "jazz" them up a bit would be to give them a shot of Testors Gloss Pearl Clearcoat.


To me, the spheres are the sole "magic bits" in the nacelles... these are the bits which warp space/time.

I envision them as being big ceramic-coated spheres... so the outside looks like fine china. But if... "energized"... some weird effects would be happening. It would likely see sparkly, electrostatic discharges all over the surface. Almost a "shimmering" effect, very uniform, but not "flat."

That's how I see it. So paint them white, or light them, or leave them "unpowered"... all should be fine, and "accurate."

My 2¢.


----------



## Captain April

But....we've seen the ship at warp, and despite certain viewers' questionable eyesight, those balls never lit up. Never, never, never. So while it might be a nifty effect in certain fanfilm versions, there's no way it can be termed "accurate" by any definition of the term that bears any resemblance to reality.


----------



## CLBrown

Captain April said:


> But....we've seen the ship at warp, and despite certain viewers' questionable eyesight, those balls never lit up. Never, never, never. So while it might be a nifty effect in certain fanfilm versions, there's no way it can be termed "accurate" by any definition of the term that bears any resemblance to reality.


What is it with people deciding what other people are allowed to think, say, etc? 

Having "lit" spheres is every bit as "ok" as having etched gridlines. Or of having the port side of the ship symmetrical to the starboard side, or of having transparent windows, or. .. well, the list goes on and on and on.

The spheres do appear white, or lit, on-screen, at least part of the time. And the ONLY thing that really counts insofar as this fictional ship is concerned is "does it look like the ship I see on my screen?"


----------



## Model Man

Captain April said:


> A question about the window inserts: We've got clear, we've got dark, are the third set white or glow-in-the-dark? From the video, they look rather translucent, as glowy plastic tend to do.


They're translucent white, translucent 'black' and clear.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I wonder what the thought process was in the evolution of the engine end caps from pilot to production version that led them to ultimately go with the balls? Image from Google search:


----------



## Warped9

The balls do look best, but I don't mind the 1st pilot version. I've never cared for the WNMHGB version.


----------



## Trekkriffic

Warped9 said:


> The balls do look best, but I don't mind the 1st pilot version. I've never cared for the WNMHGB version.


I like them either holey or ballsy best myself.


----------



## Gregatron

Gary K said:


> Test shot #4 is sitting in front of me, and those hatch outlines are very faint. The outlines of all the hatches (the hatches, themselves, not the red/gray trim around them) were faintly scribed to make the model more builder-friendly. They provide a guide to allow less-experienced modelers to accurately apply the decals, and they also serve as a guide so more experienced modelers can open up the hatches and customize the model. The decals should completely cover the scribed outlines, but if they still bother you they can very easily be filled in. The belly hatches couldn't be scribed due to mold-release issues.
> 
> Gary



I'd figured as much. But I seem to recall reading that the eyebrows/triangles on the saucer underside were scribed on the real model. Is that right? Were any of the markings actually scribes, or were they all just markings?


----------



## Gregatron

Gary K said:


> The white or glowing appearance of the Production version's balls was just a trick of lighting. There was no wiring connected to the balls, and they were simply painted hull gray, with no evidence of white paint underneath. There's a DVD documentary on George Pal's failed attempt in the 1970s to create a TV series sequel to his classic "War of the Worlds" movie. If you check out the interview with Matt Jefferies you can see the stbd nacelle of the 11-footer propped up aaginst the wall behind him. In normal office lighting you can easily verify that the ball was simply painted hull gray.
> 
> Gary



It's a really simple optical illusion. I painted the balls on one of my 1/1000 kits the exact same Gull Gray as the hull--the darker cowling separating the balls from the rest of the nacelles gives the illusion that they're a lighter color.


----------



## CLBrown

Steve Mavronis said:


> I wonder what the thought process was in the evolution of the engine end caps from pilot to production version that led them to ultimately go with the balls? Image from Google search:


No idea what the "real" thought process is, but I'd be surprised if it didn't reflect the same impressions most of us get:

1) Pike-era. This is very plain... visually uninteresting.

2) WNMHGB. Much more visually interesting, but it does seem to infer "rocket engines" which I know that Roddenberry, etc, wanted to avoid.

3) Series-era. Also very visually interesting, but not in any way able to be confused with "rockets." Seems more "magical" ("Crystal balls" on the nacelles, after all!)

That's how I personally see it. I suspect, but cannot prove, of course, that this is what they were thinking as well.


----------



## Gregatron

Steve Mavronis said:


> I wonder what the thought process was in the evolution of the engine end caps from pilot to production version that led them to ultimately go with the balls? Image from Google search:



Of course, there's a fourth variation--the "smoothy" endcaps of the first pilot 11-footer.

As the story goes, the blueprints and the three-footer had the rectangular plate detailing, but said detailing was not added to the 11-footer. It's a matter of personal preference as to what's more accurate. 

Although, the detailed endcaps of the three-footer were seen in the first pilot, so I suppose that's the canonical version.


Also, of course, the vent details on the second pilot were painted on, not molded-in. Anyone up for an aftermarket decal set? I did the same thing for my 1/1000 second pilot build--I sanded a pair of endcaps smooth, and made vent decals.

http://enterproject.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/decals-and-details-part-deux/




So, in terms of covering all of the variant/accuracy bases, we'd still need:

1. A second pilot-specific lighting kit, with the extra blinkers (including the dorsal and secondary hull _window_ blinkers).

2. The afforementioned second pilot nacelle endcap vent markings.

3. Decals for the dark gray/unlit windows, which were merely painted on the real model. Of course, the 1/350 kit features molded windows, but the most hardcore purists will surely want to fill those windows and represent them with paint/decals.

4. Some sort of decals or templates for the penciled-on saucer grid.


Paragrafix's upcoming PE set has already got the pilot bridge interior differences covered. Let's see....what else to cover all the variants? Pilot-era fonts for the shuttle marking decals, maybe? Remastered and/or "In a Mirror, Darkly"-style Aztec decals and phaser bumps? That missing red pinstripe around the base of the first pilot's bridge dome? 

There have been numerous variants of the design--from the pilots, to the CG models used in canonical productions, to the "Trials" physical model, to even the NASM renovations. 


All of these interpretations are valid, like 'em or not. The R2 kit should serve as an excellent foundation for anyone wanting to build any of these variants, to say nothing of Scouts, Dreadnoughts, etc.


----------



## Gary K

Gregatron said:


> I'd figured as much. But I seem to recall reading that the eyebrows/triangles on the saucer underside were scribed on the real model. Is that right? Were any of the markings actually scribes, or were they all just markings?


For whatever reason, only the triangles, which Datin says they referred to as "landing gear covers", were scribed into the plastic saucer. All the other markings on the ship were accomplished with paint & decals. Btw, the kit's decal sheets do include the tiny lettering next to two panels on the underside of the saucer.

Gary


----------



## Gregatron

Thanks for the confirmation, Gary! 


The scribed markings are, as noted, nice for novice modelers, but easy enough to eliminate for those with more experience (if they so desire).


Y'know, like the gridlines!


----------



## Wattanasiri

This kit is shaping up to be a classic even though it has not yet been put on sale. It will be interesting to see the creative versions of this model people will build where they incorporate their visions of how their model should look.


----------



## Warped9

Warped9 said:


> I've decided it's an idealized Pike era version for me. That means there'll be a few production details added to make it look more finished (as I envision it).


I photoshopped this some years ago to see what it could look like. It somewhat illustrates the direction I'm leaning towards.


----------



## JGG1701

First: I want to thank Model Man for all the great video reviews that he has done on the TOS Enterprise. 
Second: With all these model pieces , this build is starting to look as intimidating as the 1/350th Refit.
Third: Can someone tell me where the heck is the "bowling alley?"
-Jim


----------



## Warped9

JGG1701 said:


> First: I want to thank Model Man for all the great video reviews that he has done on the TOS Enterprise.
> Second: With all these model pieces , this build is starting to look as intimidating as the 1/350th Refit.
> Third: Can someone tell me where the heck is the "bowling alley?"
> -Jim


FJ put it in the secondary hull. Of course, Riley was delusional so he might have been imagining a bowling alley where none actually existed.


----------



## kenlee

JGG1701 said:


> First: I want to thank Model Man for all the great video reviews that he has done on the TOS Enterprise.
> Second: With all these model pieces , this build is starting to look as intimidating as the 1/350th Refit.
> Third: Can someone tell me where the heck is the "bowling alley?"
> -Jim


Deck 21, right below the shuttlecraft maintenance hangar.


----------



## JGG1701

Found it!!!








-Jim


----------



## Captain April

When all was said and done, I decided to make the bowling alley one of the selections in the holographic recreation room (a.k.a., the early holodeck) we saw in TAS' "The Practical Joker".

Made life a lot simpler.


----------



## Model Man

Here's the first look at the Accessory Packs! These are the extra parts that the 1701 Club is getting bundled with their Premiere Edition and what will be available as a separate purchase for the standard edition of the kit. Enjoy.

Part 3A of C: MKA004 The Supplemental Parts Pack


----------



## JGG1701

Just to be clear on this *ONCE & FOR ALL*, The 3 boxes that you have just shown us (including the light kit) *WILL* be included for the 1701 members Premiere Edition Kit? 
-Jim


----------



## Trek Ace

I understood that it is ONLY the contents of the Supplemental Parts Pack with the 1st and 2nd Pilot parts that will be included in the Premiere kit. The other accessory kits (including the lighting kit) will not be included and will have to be purchased separately.


----------



## Model Man

JGG1701 said:


> Just to be clear on this *ONCE & FOR ALL*, The 3 boxes that you have just shown us (including the light kit) *WILL* be included for the 1701 members Premiere Edition Kit?
> -Jim


Only the Supplemental Parts Pack to create the 1st or 2nd Pilot is included with the Premiere. That's been stated from WF2011. The lights, weathering decals, PE, alt registry numbers are all extras.


----------



## paustin0816

looking forward to the photo etch set now....curious to see them


----------



## Tiberious

Not sure where the idea that the light kit came with the 1701 club edition, though for the extra money we're spending a discount wouldn't break my heart 

Tom, great overview of the kit, thank you!


----------



## JGG1701

Tiberious said:


> Not sure where the idea that the light kit came with the 1701 club edition, though for the extra money we're spending a discount wouldn't break my heart
> 
> Tom, great overview of the kit, thank you!


Just wishful thinking , I guess.
-Jim


----------



## Model Man

Part 3B: Intro to the lights with full look at the weathering decals and photo etch.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

That inboard nacelle grill lighting is an interesting option!


----------



## Warped9

Steve Mavronis said:


> That inboard nacelle grill lighting is an interesting option!


Yeah, and it's white rather than the blue that's become pretty much standard from TNG onward.

Okay, I'm going to risk sounding dumb here, but what exactly is photoetch and why is it supposedly so great?


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> Yeah, and it's white rather than the blue that's become pretty much standard from TNG onward.
> 
> Okay, I'm going to risk sounding dumb here, but what exactly is photoetch and why is it supposedly so great?


The short form... photoetch is a process, not a material. The material used is most often brass, but other metal materials can be done this same way, quite easily.

The advantage is that you can get very, very fine detail, which is almost impossible to make with other processes.

The process involves coating a plate of metal with a "photoresist" material, then exposing (using a standard photographic process) some artwork onto the material. Some of the photoresist is "cured" by this process, while the remainder is left uncured, and can be washed away easily. Essentially, you're creating a "mask" using a photographic method.

Once this is done, you can immerse, or coat, the plate of metal with an acid solution, which literally dissolves the exposed metal, while not affecting the coated material (except for whatever would eventually leach in from the edges).

It's possible to do multiple passes using this process, with one pass being used to remove a portion of the thickness of the material, and the other pass being used to entirely "eat" through the material. Lots of the better photoetched parts are done that way, and the set Paul worked up for this kit certainly uses that process on the "Starfleet badge" and the "Nameplate" bit.

You get very, very sharp, fine, photographic-quality details. But it's essentially a 2D process, not a 3D one. At best, it's 2D in two layers.

Now, by comparison, injection molded plastic parts cannot have the same level of sharp, fine detail.

Oh, and one other thing... the metal plate used in this fashion is entirely opaque, while plastic (and most other modeling materials) is translucent and does permit some light to pass through.

Make sense?


----------



## Warped9

CLBrown said:


> Make sense?


Got it. Thanks.

I can see the value of such a process for certain applications. I don't know if I'm sold yet on using it for the 1/350 _E_. I'll have to think about it.

How difficult is it to use?


----------



## Opus Penguin

It is very easy to use. However, as stated in the video, you need to be careful not to bend it unless intended. Using them adds a bit of depth and realism. They are much recommend.

As for the clear bridge, I was recently thinking how I wished they molded the bridge in clear for easier lighting of the panels and displays (an area where photo etching would really work). Now to see it will be included in the light kit has me more sold.


----------



## Warped9

I won't be including the bridge to be seen because I don't accept the bridge dome as transparent and it wouldn't look like what I see onscreen.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Warped9 said:


> Got it. Thanks.
> 
> I can see the value of such a process for certain applications. I don't know if I'm sold yet on using it for the 1/350 _E_. I'll have to think about it.
> 
> How difficult is it to use?




Paul has an excellent video here on the basics.


----------



## Gary K

Warped9 said:


> Got it. Thanks.
> 
> I can see the value of such a process for certain applications. I don't know if I'm sold yet on using it for the 1/350 _E_. I'll have to think about it.


I'm not getting any kickbacks from Paul at PGMS, but I think the photo-etched grills are essential for this kit. There's no way that injection molding can replicate the pattern of holes exactly, and nobody in their right mind would want to drill out 1001 holes with a mini-drill or make sure that they're painted black. And if you're going to light the inboard nacelle trenches like Roddenberry wanted to do, then photo-etch is the only way to go.

Gary


----------



## jbond

Here's another dumb question, Gary--I thought the pilot version impulse decks were radically different than the production version--I keep remembering a bunch of smaller rectangular vents instead of the two big ones on the production version...but the brief view we got of the impulse deck piece in the supplementary parts pack makes it look substantially like the production version. I must be crazy because no one else has mentioned it and there's no way your team would overlook such a major detail.


----------



## Gary K

jbond said:


> Here's another dumb question, Gary--I thought the pilot version impulse decks were radically different than the production version--I keep remembering a bunch of smaller rectangular vents instead of the two big ones on the production version...but the brief view we got of the impulse deck piece in the supplementary parts pack makes it look substantially like the production version. I must be crazy because no one else has mentioned it and there's no way your team would overlook such a major detail.


What - me forget something? Perish the thought! 

The impulse deck was a big ol' chunk of solid, carved wood stay stayed the same shape in all 3 versions of the model. A semi-flexible, textured wall-covering material (see Pt 1 of my SF&FM article for a photo) covered the outer ends of the Production version. The material was just stiff enough to disguise the slightly more curved ends of the wooden deck, as seen in plan view.

The 1st Pilot deck was identical to the Production version, except it didn't have the texture wrap to hide its curvier sides. The 2nd Pilot version was the same, with the addition of 4 pairs of black circles (probably decals) to simulate exhaust ports.

The PL kit includes 2 decks - a plain Pilot deck and a Production deck. It took over a dozen attempts to get that difference across to the factory. The Pilot deck is modeled after the 1st Pilot version. The original thought was to provide locator holes for the 2nd Pilot vents on the back side of the part so modelers could drill out the vents, but that plan fell to the wayside for various and sundry reasons. In the final kit the 4 pairs of 2nd Pilot vents are depicted with decals, the same as on the studio model. Hopefully that will preclude the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments by the studio model purists.

Gary


----------



## Model Man

Here is the final vid in the Accessory pack series.





We're getting close to the end and are now down to some side-by-sides. Next is the 350 TOS next to Tamiya 350 CVN-65 followed by our old, old friend, the AMT 650 1701.

In Part 4B, we'll get a look at 350 TOS and Refit. So nice! There will be a special 1/350 guest as well. That video will finish with a look at three, 1/350 Enterprises huddled together! It's a beautiful sight to behold!

Last requests for The Wrap. Is there anything I missed that you want me to show again? 

I've got the box tray for color calls, someone wanted calipers on the grid lines and a comparison to the Refit's grid, I think I can show the lighting kit basically lit up and flashing, another person wants me to crack a beer and chillax after this whirlwind week of plastic frenzy. 

Any other second looks I'm not thinking of?


----------



## Model Man

I should note that in ~28hrs, Shuttle Endeavor will land just 2 miles from where I now sit. That may cause some delay in the production pipeline. Rest assured that any footage I get will be on my yt channel and posted somewhere here as well.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Endeavor just flew by here this morning!


----------



## Jiver

Thank you, Round2, for bringing us a high quality and complete model. Scifi modeling has come a long way and at last you made it possible to put ourselfs on the same height as our military modeling colleagues.
And no, I don't care about the gridlines, infact, I'm happy with them. I don't see myself drawing pencillines on a 1/350 model. That only works on tv.

Cheers


----------



## Trekkriffic

You know, regarding the bridge being seen or not thru the dome, has anyone thought about making the dome opaque but making the bridge hull section under the dome (A-deck?) on top of B-C deck removeable so you could view the bridge underneath mounted to the top of B-deck? That way you could have the best of both worlds. Depending on how the kit is constructed you might have to cut off A-deck from B-C deck if it's molded as one piece although I'm sure most of us could do that without too much difficulty.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Trekkriffic said:


> You know, regarding the bridge being seen or not thru the dome, has anyone thought about making the dome opaque but making the bridge hull section under the dome (A-deck?) on top of B-C deck removeable so you could view the bridge underneath mounted to the top of B-deck? That way you could have the best of both worlds. Depending on how the kit is constructed you might have to cut off A-deck from B-C deck if it's molded as one piece although I'm sure most of us could do that without too much difficulty.




The kits clear parts are molded in three versions: opaque, clear, and smoke, it would be a simple matter to use the opaque version of the dome cap ,leaving it removable.


----------



## Gregatron

By the way, Gary, there's something I keep forgetting to ask about--


In early episodes, the saucer underside's blinker lights appear to be red and green, just like on the top. Footage shot for later episodes features white lights on the lower saucer (as most models and replicas depict them as).

Has your extensive research uncovered anything on that? Were the bulbs replaced, or something?



And, as an aside, there's also the pre-production model (as seen in the TMOST photos) with the reversed saucer underside numbers and the (apparently) missing nacelle fanblades, which is yet another interesting variant.


----------



## Trekkriffic

Ductapeforever said:


> The kits clear parts are molded in three versions: opaque, clear, and smoke, it would be a simple matter to use the opaque version of the dome cap ,leaving it removable.


Wow! They DID think of everything! Very cool.


----------



## Gary K

Gregatron said:


> By the way, Gary, there's something I keep forgetting to ask about--
> 
> 
> In early episodes, the saucer underside's blinker lights appear to be red and green, just like on the top. Footage shot for later episodes features white lights on the lower saucer (as most models and replicas depict them as).
> 
> Has your extensive research uncovered anything on that? Were the bulbs replaced, or something?


Can you give me the name of an episode where I can see an example? I know of at least one episode (The Immunity Syndrome) where the elements were printed slightly out of register, and the underside lights appeared to change color from white to red.



Gregatron said:


> And, as an aside, there's also the pre-production model (as seen in the TMOST photos) with the reversed saucer underside numbers and the (apparently) missing nacelle fanblades, which is yet another interesting variant.


Yes, those photos were taken immediately after the conversion into the Production version & before any filming commenced. As you probably know, those registry numbers were soon reversed to make them more legible to viewers. Also of note: all the bulbs inside the domes were originally uncolored, and the idea was to ramp up the intensity of the lights as the power of the engines increased. I'm assuming they were replaced by Xmas lights because the show was broadcast "in living color - on NBC".

Gary


----------



## Gregatron

Thanks as always for the info, Gary!


As for the lights, a good number of those early first season-era Production model shots seem to feature red and green lights on the underside of the saucer. They're even more visible in the Blu-Ray versions.

It seems like by mid-to-late season one (the rear-angle, phaser-firing shot in "The Alternative Factor", the shots with the _Botany Bay_ in "Space Seed", etc.), the lights had turned white.


As a starting point, here are some random SD screencaps of a few of the shots I'm talking about:












































(Note that this last one is a flopped shot--with backwards registry decals) that was usually shown UNflopped, but features the distinctive red and green lights on the OPPOSITE sides, almost as if they'd switched out the bulbs along with the decals.



And here's a great source for researching shots of the model and where they appeared:

http://www.trekplace.com/tosfxcatalog.html




Also, has it ever been pinned down for sure whether the topside saucer's second pilot blinkers were white or red/green? There are some unused film clip stills of the upper saucer that seem to show clear/white bulbs:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdofthegalaxy/3669509746/in/set-72157619514479789


However, in this clip, the lights do seem to be red and green:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdofthegalaxy/7627996840/in/set-72157619514479789


At the very least, it seems certain that the second pilot's underside saucer and bow lights were white.


----------



## goodtexan

Wasn't going to buy this model until I saw this review. Great review! But there is no way I would call it Enterprise. The saucer looks like a carved up pizza. Maybe I'll call it the USS Little Caesar, Capt. Papa John commanding. At the rate the Enterprise is "evolving", it will have wheels in a few years. The fact that you can't see the wheels is proof that they are actually there. Just kidding. Can't wait until the kit is availabe.


----------



## Paulbo

What is the problem with the engraved lines? As has been shown, they're so fine that a coat of automotive primer and quick run with a foam sanding block will eliminate them if you don't want them.

Smoothy resin replacement parts? 99.9% of the difficulty we used to have to go through with models of Enterprise has been eliminated, and the final 0.1% that some people want to do away with is a problem? I just don't get it.

I've got a 1st generation test shot sitting in my office with the "huge" grid and it's the most gorgeous model of Enterprise I've ever seen.


----------



## Rallystone

Tom, if I haven't missed 'last call', could we get a quick shot of the forward Engineering hull sides, between the swoosh and the deflector? I noticed in one of the studio model shots in SFM 26 (pg 38), that the bottom two horizontal bars jut forward from the rest, and was wondering if this got replicated?
It looks to have been molded separately anyway... Thanks. And great work on this video series!


----------



## spock62

I think it's great that the lighting accessory pack comes with a wall plug for power. Much better then using batteries (which I believe was the original plan) IMO.


----------



## Gregatron

Tom didn't cover how the system is turned on and off, though. Hmm. A switch or button of some kind? Twisting the deflector/sensor dish?


----------



## Model Man

Rallystone said:


> Tom, if I haven't missed 'last call', could we get a quick shot of the forward Engineering hull sides, between the swoosh and the deflector? I noticed in one of the studio model shots in SFM 26 (pg 38), that the bottom two horizontal bars jut forward from the rest, and was wondering if this got replicated?
> It looks to have been molded separately anyway... Thanks. And great work on this video series!


Will do.

Another thing I want to cover is how well everything slots together. This is a very well fitted kit and assembles like a cream so far from the limited dry fit I've done.



Gregatron said:


> Tom didn't cover how the system is turned on and off, though. Hmm. A switch or button of some kind? Twisting the deflector/sensor dish?


A switch is the one thing that is not included in this kit. You would have to unplug from the wall or the stand where the wall wart plugs into. 

It would be a simple matter to wire your own switch into the mix. If anyone doesn't have one laying around, or needs extra LED supplies, www.modelersbrand.com is always a great place to check! 
...

So, the one thing that really needs to be seen at this point is the lights in action. So this weekend I will power it all up. 

Depending on how much of a tangle it looks like, I may be able to hand place lights in particular places of the ship to give the feel of how they will look in situ, but I won't be doing anything more complicated than that. I have to be more delicate than any other modeler simply because this is all getting packed up again.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

How do lighted and motorized kits hold up over time? It would suck if one of the nacelle motors died but I would enjoy it will it lasted


----------



## Model Man

Steve Mavronis said:


> How do lighted and motorized kits hold up over time? It would suck if one of the nacelle motors died but I would enjoy it will it lasted


LEDs are generally good for 50,000 hours. I don't know about motors. But if it is well matched to the power supply, it shouldn't have any problems. Depending on how you go about constructing it, I think you can probably give yourself 'access ports'. Paulbo suggested magnets to hold the bussards in place for example.

Id' sya don't run it 24/7/365 and it will last a good long time. Your results may vary, past performance no guarantee of future potential, void where prohibited.


----------



## Paulbo

Rallystone said:


> ...I noticed in one of the studio model shots in SFM 26 (pg 38), that the bottom two horizontal bars jut forward from the rest, and was wondering if this got replicated?...


The bars that are cut off flush are the result of damage. If you look closely, you can see that they're not "cut" straight and are obviously damaged. They're all supposed to extend beyond the "solid" part of the ship.



Steve Mavronis said:


> How do lighted and motorized kits hold up over time? It would suck if one of the nacelle motors died but I would enjoy it will it lasted


I noted on another forum that the front portion of the nacelles (forward of and including the baffles) is a separate part making it very easy to make the bussard assembly removable for replacement of the LEDs and/or motors.


----------



## Rallystone

Thanks, Paul! I went back to the issue in question to have a closer look, and see if I could see it in any other shots, or pics of the new model itself. And what do ya know, right on the cover!


----------



## jheilman

The story I was told is that, originally, all eleven of those ribs extended past the hull. But somehow, the top nine were broken off. I suppose the ship could have been bumped by equipment and they broke off right at the hull edge?


----------



## jheilman

Oops, you beat me to it.:thumbsup:


----------



## Opus Penguin

Model Man said:


> Will do.
> 
> Another thing I want to cover is how well everything slots together. This is a very well fitted kit and assembles like a cream so far from the limited dry fit I've done.
> 
> 
> 
> A switch is the one thing that is not included in this kit. You would have to unplug from the wall or the stand where the wall wart plugs into.
> 
> It would be a simple matter to wire your own switch into the mix. If anyone doesn't have one laying around, or needs extra LED supplies, www.modelersbrand.com is always a great place to check!
> ...
> 
> So, the one thing that really needs to be seen at this point is the lights in action. So this weekend I will power it all up.
> 
> Depending on how much of a tangle it looks like, I may be able to hand place lights in particular places of the ship to give the feel of how they will look in situ, but I won't be doing anything more complicated than that. I have to be more delicate than any other modeler simply because this is all getting packed up again.


I would like to be able to hear how quiet or noisy the motors are.


----------



## Captain April

jheilman said:


> The story I was told is that, originally, all eleven of those ribs extended past the hull. But somehow, the top nine were broken off. I suppose the ship could have been bumped by equipment and they broke off right at the hull edge?


Sounds like how my grandfather dealt with a 64 1/2 Mustang that had a broken spinner on one of the hubcaps; he broke off all of the others to match.


----------



## Gary K

Gregatron said:


> As for the lights, a good number of those early first season-era Production model shots seem to feature red and green lights on the underside of the saucer. They're even more visible in the Blu-Ray versions.


That's a good catch. I don't know why they changed the color of the bulbs, but I assume they were still experimenting to get the right "look" for the ship. Maybe they thought the lower red/green lights were overkill.



Gregatron said:


> And here's a great source for researching shots of the model and where they appeared:
> 
> http://www.trekplace.com/tosfxcatalog.html.


Yep. I know of this site & think it's a useful resource. Compared to modern TV shows, it's amazing how a handful of shots was stretched over 3 years of episodes.



Gregatron said:


> Also, has it ever been pinned down for sure whether the topside saucer's second pilot blinkers were white or red/green? There are some unused film clip stills of the upper saucer that seem to show clear/white bulbs:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdofthegalaxy/3669509746/in/set-72157619514479789
> 
> However, in this clip, the lights do seem to be red and green:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdofthegalaxy/7627996840/in/set-72157619514479789
> 
> At the very least, it seems certain that the second pilot's underside saucer and bow lights were white.


Be VERY cautious when you're viewing restored shots. In many cases the originals were so color-shifted toward magenta that they has to be desaturated & recolorized by hand, and the restorer may have mistakenly added the wrong colors. I've never seen a photo with the 2nd Pilot's upper nav lights illuminated, so as far as I know they simply glued two clear domes onto the saucer for the 2nd Pilot & added actual light bulbs during the conversion to the Production version.

Now you'll have to excuse me. Yesterday I got some invaluable reference materials on the 22" filming miniature of the Galileo, and I've got some drawing to do. It's really cool stuff that clearly reveals the true shape of the model. How's that for a tease? 

Gary


----------



## slingshot392

Really great reviews Tom, I think some of your best ever! You really went into detail and modelers will definitely know what they are getting for their money, whichever package they buy.

Some really great info Gary! Learned a lot about the Enterprise just in this thread.

This model is definitely a leap ahead in sci-fi modeling the way the parts virtually snap together, Round 2 should be commended for their effort. No matter which way they went with parts of it, there will always be modelers that differ, that's just part of modeling and our likes and dislikes, no way to make everybody happy all of the time. But this model should make most people very happy, especially the modelers that don't really frequent the boards and just pick this up in the hobby store.

I wish I could get one, but right now, money is too tight being on long-term disability. Maybe someday. Also though, one of Tom's videos changed the way I model, in one of his videos, he said before he starts a model, he always makes sure he has a place to put it. At the time I was building some 1/8 scale cars and after the video, I stopped because I realized I had no place to put them. Same with some other models I had and have since either given away or sold. If I ever did the big Enterprise, I would just have to do the standard and hang it from the ceiling, but even then I don't know if I would really have the room. But what a beautiful model!


----------



## JGG1701

I have a question regarding the motors::wave:
Does one spin clockwise & the other spin counter clockwise?
Or do I have to wire it differently to do this?
Thanks,
-Jim


----------



## Warped9

Gary K said:


> Now you'll have to excuse me. Yesterday I got some invaluable reference materials on the 22" filming miniature of the Galileo, and I've got some drawing to do. It's really cool stuff that clearly reveals the true shape of the model. How's that for a tease?
> 
> Gary


Tease.

Yeah, I'll be very curious to see how you reconcile the differing bottoms of the full-size mock-up and the miniature. The angle of the underside is quite different on both versions. I think it's quite possible to reconcile the two (I managed it) but then I adapted the miniature's bottom onto the mock-up's underside because the greater angle of the mock-up's afforded me more interior space to play with.


----------



## Gary K

Warped9 said:


> Tease.
> 
> Yeah, I'll be very curious to see how you reconcile the differing bottoms of the full-size mock-up and the miniature.


So will I. It's not just the bottoms. We're talking about two completely differently-shaped spaceships here - analogous to having the Jupiter 2 represented by both a slab-sided plywood mock-up and the gently-curved 4' fiberglass miniature.

Gary


----------



## Model Man

JGG1701 said:


> I have a question regarding the motors::wave:
> Does one spin clockwise & the other spin counter clockwise?
> Or do I have to wire it differently to do this?
> Thanks,
> -Jim


iirc, I believe the directions state that you have to reverse the polarity of one motor to get it to spin backwards. The line was about matching red to red and black to black except where stated and I think that motor was the one exception.

I will do a more thorough look at the lighting kit lit up. That's definitely an important thing. I hope to shoot that this weekend. This is now 7days of nearly full time work -and going on ten!

Are we ready for the first of two side-by-sides?
Tamiya CVN-65 and the AMT 650. It's kinda shocking to see the shuttle next to a Tomcat, a shuttle on a carrier elevator, a Tomcat in the hangar bay.


----------



## JGG1701

Model Man said:


> .........
> I will do a more thorough look at the lighting kit lit up. That's definitely an important thing. I hope to shoot that this weekend. This is now 7days of nearly full time work -and going on ten!


Thank you sir.
Hope you get at least a day off soon.
-Jim


----------



## Warped9

Gary K said:


> So will I. It's not just the bottoms. We're talking about two completely differently-shaped spaceships here - analogous to having the Jupiter 2 represented by both a slab-sided plywood mock-up and the gently-curved 4' fiberglass miniature.
> 
> Gary


It's why I leaned more towards accepting the full-size mock-up as the more real version while incorporating elements of the miniature primarily because the mock-up was the one we saw more of and more closely as well as its greater detail.


----------



## ClubTepes

Warped9 said:


> Yeah, and it's white rather than the blue that's become pretty much standard from TNG onward.
> 
> Okay, I'm going to risk sounding dumb here, but what exactly is photoetch and why is it supposedly so great?


I had a lot to do with the light kit. 

Its white simply because its the same color LED strip and clear plastic.

Coloring the light is simple enough, and what if you like purple, instead of blue as what Probert wanted on the refit?

I have seen some of the 'blue' after market parts for previous kits and wasn't happy with the shade of blue. So it seemed better to let the modeler choose a color.

The nice thing about the ribbon, you could buy some blue from Paul and it should fit right into the connectors. You can also increase the amount of ribbon if you like. Its pretty standard stuff.


----------



## ClubTepes

Opus Penguin said:


> It is very easy to use. However, as stated in the video, you need to be careful not to bend it unless intended. Using them adds a bit of depth and realism. They are much recommend.
> 
> As for the clear bridge, I was recently thinking how I wished they molded the bridge in clear for easier lighting of the panels and displays (an area where photo etching would really work). Now to see it will be included in the light kit has me more sold.


You get a clear bridge and hangar deck in the light kit.


----------



## Opus Penguin

ClubTepes said:


> You get a clear bridge and hangar deck in the light kit.


I knew about the hanger. I just didn't know about the bridge. Very cool!!


----------



## CLBrown

ClubTepes said:


> I had a lot to do with the light kit.
> 
> Its white simply because its the same color LED strip and clear plastic.
> 
> Coloring the light is simple enough, and what if you like purple, instead of blue as what Probert wanted on the refit?
> 
> I have seen some of the 'blue' after market parts for previous kits and wasn't happy with the shade of blue. So it seemed better to let the modeler choose a color.
> 
> The nice thing about the ribbon, you could buy some blue from Paul and it should fit right into the connectors. You can also increase the amount of ribbon if you like. Its pretty standard stuff.


It's a nice add-on to permit the lighting of the nacelle interiors. I argued against including this as part of the main kit, a while back, because most builders won't want this "non-screen-accurate" detail on their build, and suggested it would be best served as an after-market "addon" part.

They did add significant cost to the model, overall, by creating the option for this feature, of course, and EVERY buyer will be paying for that. That was my argument, back when this was being proposed, against doing it. Not that I didn't want anyone to have the option of lighting the nacelle trench if they wanted to do so.

If the price of the kit really has gone way up since the original proposed purchase price was circulated... this sort of detail is likely a notable contributor to that added cost. So it may decrease overall sales as a result.

But for those of us who are really dedicated to building this, yeah, it's a nice feature to have. And at least, a big chunk of the cost of making the trenches "lightable" was broken out into the photoetch and light kit, huh?


----------



## Warped9

On the one hand I'm somewhat intrigued by the idea of lighted inboard nacelles, but then I'm now so used to seeing it unlighted that it also strikes me as rather gimicky. Not everything hi-tech has to be a light show.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Warped9 said:


> On the one hand I'm somewhat intrigued by the idea of lighted inboard nacelles, but then I'm now so used to seeing it unlighted that it also strikes me as rather gimicky. Not everything hi-tech has to be a light show.


Same here. I like the idea, but will not do this to more match on-screen look. The exception is the impulse engines. I may still have them be able to glow red.


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> On the one hand I'm somewhat intrigued by the idea of lighted inboard nacelles, but then I'm now so used to seeing it unlighted that it also strikes me as rather gimicky. Not everything hi-tech has to be a light show.


Agreed. In fact, it's a TROPE from TNG (which in itself was an oversimplification of what was seen in TMP) that the ship has huge areas lit up by primary color LEDs. At least in TMP, the lighting was less obtrusive, overall, and less "bright primary colors" based (it still annoys me when we see sky-blue inner nacelle grills on someone's TMP Enterprise, as the color of those was really given by the purple-tinted machinist's metal die used on the inside of those inner grills!) And the "grey to orange to blue" graduated illumination for the deflector in TMP was far, far less objectionable than the "primary blue" color used post-TMP. And, of course, the impulse engines also went from "off" to "dull red" to "bright orange" all the way up the scale to "hot blue/white"... which at least made some sense... just like you'd expect to see with hot, hot metal!

Lighting is more effective when used SPARINGLY. For the TOS ship, I just don't personally see any advantage to having these lit up. And while I hear stories about Roddenberry "intending" this, I've never seen any indication of that having been part of the TOS series thought process... but rather an early 1970's "revision" Roddenberry put out (at the same time he was taking credit for everyone else's work on the show as well!)


----------



## Warped9

I've never cared for the reddish impulse engine look myself. I certainly really disliked them doing that to the shuttlecraft on TOS-R. I can see going for some more physical detail, but I think I'll leave them dark. I have quibbles about the impulse engines being actual reaction thrust units because the ship has only rearward facing units (what about reverse thrust?). I've long liked the idea that the ship's impulse drive was actualy a sophisticated anti-grav system on a gross scale as opposed to the hand-held anti-grav units we've seen the crew use.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

If I go the whole 9 yards with the light kit and stuff, I'll have my dad (who's an electronics wiz) help me with a multi-switch box to turn these optional features on or off. Also as far as the motorized bussards, I wonder if the same spinning effect would be simulated without actually spinning the 'engines' and instead use a alternating dual-color LED scheme (via custom DIY circuit board that could be made) to 'move' the lighting effect in a circular pattern if done right. Has anyone attempted this on previous models?


----------



## Gary K

CLBrown said:


> For the TOS ship, I just don't personally see any advantage to having these lit up. And while I hear stories about Roddenberry "intending" this, I've never seen any indication of that having been part of the TOS series thought process... but rather an early 1970's "revision" Roddenberry put out (at the same time he was taking credit for everyone else's work on the show as well!)


Like it or not, Gene Roddenberry did, in fact, decide to overrule your objections and add lighting to the inboard nacelle trenches. I have a scan of the memo from the Howard A. Anderson Company, dated April 6, 1966, that gives a quote of $300 to perform the work, but warns that new "pods" will have to be contructed if the existing sheet metal goes out of shape during the conversion. The additional cost for two brand-new nacelles was apparently the deal-breaker for the lighting idea.

Gary


----------



## paustin0816

CLBrown said:


> It's a nice add-on to permit the lighting of the nacelle interiors. I argued against including this as part of the main kit, a while back, because most builders won't want this "non-screen-accurate" detail on their build, and suggested it would be best served as an after-market "addon" part.
> 
> They did add significant cost to the model, overall, by creating the option for this feature, of course, and EVERY buyer will be paying for that. That was my argument, back when this was being proposed, against doing it. Not that I didn't want anyone to have the option of lighting the nacelle trench if they wanted to do so.
> 
> If the price of the kit really has gone way up since the original proposed purchase price was circulated... this sort of detail is likely a notable contributor to that added cost. So it may decrease overall sales as a result.
> 
> But for those of us who are really dedicated to building this, yeah, it's a nice feature to have. And at least, a big chunk of the cost of making the trenches "lightable" was broken out into the photoetch and light kit, huh?


Its funny that they would go through such an effort to include the option to do something that never materialized. Yet we still have gridlines albeit small ones. I'm almost suprised they havent offered a gridless saucer as an optional part seeing as they seems to have thought of everything else.But if you factor in top and bottom you would be talking about 1/3 of the kit


----------



## Edge

Gary K said:


> Like it or not, Gene Roddenberry did, in fact, decide to overrule your objections and add lighting to the inboard nacelle trenches. I have a scan of the memo from the Howard A. Anderson Company, dated April 6, 1966, that gives a quote of $300 to perform the work, but warns that new "pods" will have to be contructed if the existing sheet metal goes out of shape during the conversion. The additional cost for two brand-new nacelles was apparently the deal-breaker for the lighting idea.
> 
> Gary


That's fine but they weren't lit on screen and that's how they should stay.


----------



## Gary K

Edge said:


> That's fine but they weren't lit on screen and that's how they should stay.


That is your opinion, and nobody is forcing you to use the nacelle lights. Polar Lights decided to include the lights as an option for those who have a different opinion. 

Gary


----------



## CLBrown

Edge said:


> That's fine but they weren't lit on screen and that's how they should stay.


Well, there's nothing wrong with anyone who wants them lit to have the option to make them lit, just as there's nothing wrong with anyone who wants engraved gridlines, or who wants windows which have actual setpieces behind them (rather than black or translucent white windows), or so on, to have what they want.

The trick is to avoid pushing an "agenda" on those who may not share that agenda. In the case of the lit trenches, it's fine how R2 has done this. I personally don't want it that way, but others do.

The issue isn't with having the option. The issue is with "who pays for the option?" If the cost of the overall kit has been signficantly altered, to accomplish something that only a very small subset of all builders will want, that's BAD BUSINESS. Increasing the cost reduces the sales, and places an additional (unjustified) cost burden on those who DO purchase it but who don't want that "feature."

If I were the one leading this kit production, I'd have produced it with a single "windows" set... mixed smokey black and translucent white bits... which would represent the as-seen-on-screen version. I'd have left everything else to after-market options. I might repop the windows sprues in clear, all black, all white, etc, and make that available as an after-market item, though... but why make every modeler pay for parts they'll never use?

I'd have made the nacelle inboard trenches be part of the nacelle. I'd have gone ahead and made "inset" areas where the photoetch could go, and I'd have included that photoetch in the kit proper (as it really does add to the appearance of the kit in every case). And if someone wanted to light that up, they could just cut away the plastic behind those (using the outlines as a guide) and insert clear plastic behind there. For the number of folks who'll do that, this level of customization (which is far, far less involved than filling all the gridlines) would be a trivial matter.

That was always my argument... not that it shouldn't be an option... just that the majority who don't want to pay for this option shouldn't be forced to subsidize the minority who do want it.

That said... it's a minimal issue, really. A few extra dollars per model each and every one of us has to spend... no more than a couple of paintbrushes.

The gridlines are a bigger issue, because we're talking many, many hours (and lots and lots of putty, extra layers of primer/paint, extra cycles of sanding, etc) to remove them. And I really, strongly believe that the majority of builders of this kit would prefer them not to be there. It'll be interesting, in a couple of years, to do a study of how many "well built" versions of this there are, out there, without lines versus those with. 

Until we see that, it's all still pure speculation... along, frankly, with a significant chunk of "personal equipment size comparision".

Who knows? Maybe in two years, they'll do another "pop" of this kit, without lines. The "with lines" versions may become as rare and valued as the "smoothie" Ertl kit became.


----------



## CLBrown

Gary K said:


> Like it or not, Gene Roddenberry did, in fact, decide to overrule your objections and add lighting to the inboard nacelle trenches. I have a scan of the memo from the Howard A. Anderson Company, dated April 6, 1966, that gives a quote of $300 to perform the work, but warns that new "pods" will have to be contructed if the existing sheet metal goes out of shape during the conversion. The additional cost for two brand-new nacelles was apparently the deal-breaker for the lighting idea.
> 
> Gary


Be careful not to mischaracterize things. Roddenberry most certain did not "decide to do this." He may well have considered it (I'd love to see the scanned memo... any chance you can post it? That's be really interesting to see!). But he clearly didn't "decide to do so," because it didn't happen.

It may be that the reason he "decided not to do so" had more to do with timing and cost issues than with "cosmetics," but nevertheless, he didn't decide to light them.

Or rather... the production team (of which Roddenberry, again his own press to the contrary, was only ONE MEMBER AMONG MANY) made a choice not to go in this direction. Maybe Roddenberry really, really wanted them lit, but Lucy said "no more money down the tubes on this show, since I just learned it's not about a USO tour!"

The reality is... this is a "what if?" concept. Much akin to doing the "Matt Jefferies original shuttle concept" in lieu of the final shuttle concept (or rather "concepts" since you have a big chore ahead of you blending the three versions into one semi-consistent whole!).

It's also very much like talking about the "Probert Ambassador" versus the on-screen Ambassador. I really, really like Andrew's version of the Ambassador class... and never cared for the on-screen version. But the on-screen version is, and will remain, the "real" version, nevertheless.


----------



## Warped9

Probert's design... :thumbsup:


I gotta admit I'd really like to talk with *Gary* about the shuttlecraft, but then I'm probably one of many.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Well at least the flexibility is there on this kit to do whatever one wants. That is a key feature to open up possibilities for cool builds. The best part of all is having those window inserts!

I'm going to build based a strict TOS production on-screen ship design, if I can get a hold of a kit in case they sell out.

But it would be interesting to see others build a slightly modified post-TOS upgraded version with these extra lighting options similar to some of the excellent 3D renders I've seen lately, particularly the 'VektorVisual' version shown in another thread here.


----------



## Warped9

True. While I have my own ideas it will be interesting to see other approaches.


----------



## nautilusnut

The Enterprise in STMP was to originally have a neat light effect where-as an energy pulse was flowing between the Nacelles as the ship was in warp drive. Doug Trumbell stated in "Cinefex" magazine that in order to have done the optical work for that effect each shot of the ship would have required an extra day- and because the film was scheduled to be in theaters on a certain date (which they could not miss),the effect was dropped. This lighting effect of the pulsating engines was built in, but never used on film. This effect WAS available to those modelers that built the AMT model using Paul Newitt's circuit board. The inboard grills of the nacelles pulsated with a hypnotic purple glow.

Cheers to Round Two for making this option of the "unused" trench lights available.


----------



## CLBrown

Steve Mavronis said:


> Well at least the flexibility is there on this kit to do whatever one wants. That is a key feature to open up possibilities for cool builds. The best part of all is having those window inserts!
> 
> I'm going to build based a strict TOS production on-screen ship design, if I can get a hold of a kit in case they sell out.
> 
> But it would be interesting to see others build a slightly modified post-TOS upgraded version with these extra lighting options similar to some of the excellent 3D renders I've seen lately, particularly the 'VektorVisual' version shown in another thread here.


Well, it would be "non-trivial" to do Jason's (aka "Vektor's") version of the ship from this model. While the overall shapes and proportions are close, there are dramatic differences as well (for example, the engine nacelles are more "barrel-shaped" and not a straight taper, and the edge contours of the saucer aren't identical to the TOS ship.

Doing a "Deg3D" version, on the other hand, would be quite possible. He added a ton of detail, but didn't change any principle shapes... so some substitutions, some "cut and modify" jobs, and you could do his ship from this model (and I hope to see someone do so).

I'd love to see Jason's version done up as well, but that's not a "conversion" so much as an "almost totally new Enterprise."

For anyone not familiar with Deg's work... check it out here:

http://deg3d.biz/splash_TOS.5_E/TOS.5_E.html


----------



## Gary K

To avoid being bogged down in endless quibbling, I'm going to join Frank Winspur, Dave Metzner, and Jamie Hood and take an indefinite hiatus from Hobby Talk. I have actual work to do, personal equipment to compare sizes of, and agendas to push.

Gary


----------



## Opus Penguin

Good luck Gary! Great job on your work!


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Yes Deg's version has some beautiful lighting, the kind that would be fitting for a TOS era movie.


----------



## Ductapeforever

paustin0816 said:


> Its funny that they would go through such an effort to include the option to do something that never materialized. Yet we still have gridlines albeit small ones. I'm almost suprised they havent offered a gridless saucer as an optional part seeing as they seems to have thought of everything else.But if you factor in top and bottom you would be talking about 1/3 of the kit


When referencing the gridline issue remember we're not just talking about the upper surface of the saucer. BOTH the saucer TOP and the saucer BOTTOM have the gridlines ! So for those of you wishing for resin replacement parts understand that to deal with the issue BOTH parts would have to be replaced ! Which as I stated before would add SIGNIFICANT weight to the model jeapardizing the structural integrity of the rest of the model. Also an eighteen inch resin saucer would most likely cost at least as much as the original kit if not DOUBLE it. And to use the existing light kit the saucer bottom would have to be cast in a two part HOLLOW mold, anyone with any experience with resin casting knows what a daunting task that would be with parts this size. Give it up gentlemen,....fill 'em or forget 'em, that is your only option.


----------



## fire91bird

I'm not sure what was meant by "agenda", but it does imply some sort of ulterior motive beyond giving customers a choice and unfortunately seems to have been enough for Gary K as well. It has to be frustrating to add features and options for the benefit of the customer only to be slammed for it. In the case of the gridlines, I think if you look at it objectively, Round2 made the correct choice. No doubt they were aware people wanted them and some did not, but they felt it was reasonably easy to remove them if you didn't want them, but much harder the add them if you did. It was the right choice. It's unfortunate that we seem to focus on these details, when in fact, the kit is quite amazing. I had the good fortune to see the actual kit at Wonderfest and in, my opinion, anything they improved beyond that is just gravy (light kit excepted). You know it really seems the only option they left out was a optional blank left side for those insisting that it must match the 11 footer, but apart from that they have tried to address every other variant of Enterprise and I think they deserve some major kudos for what they've done so far.


----------



## Edge

Gary K said:


> That is your opinion, and nobody is forcing you to use the nacelle lights. Polar Lights decided to include the lights as an option for those who have a different opinion.
> 
> Gary


Absolutely and if they want to put a My Little Pony decal on it, they can do that too.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Gary K said:


> To avoid being bogged down in endless quibbling, I'm going to join Frank Winspur, Dave Metzner, and Jamie Hood and take an indefinite hiatus from Hobby Talk. I have actual work to do, personal equipment to compare sizes of, and agendas to push.
> 
> Gary


A very wise choice, you won't have to read all the endless squabling over who wants what feature or kit extra. They'll get what they get....like it or not. A sound business decision on your part Gary. See you on the other side !


----------



## BlackbirdCD

Gary K said:


> To avoid being bogged down in endless quibbling, I'm going to join Frank Winspur, Dave Metzner, and Jamie Hood and take an indefinite hiatus from Hobby Talk. I have actual work to do, personal equipment to compare sizes of, and agendas to push.
> 
> Gary


It's just not a fun place to discuss Star Trek or science fiction models anymore. Good move and I look forward the upcoming kits. They really are looking amazing.

Chris Doll


----------



## ffejG

fire91bird said:


> ... unfortunately seems to have been enough for Gary K as well. ...


I was very sorry to see that too. Once again, enthusiastic sources of terrific information have been pushed away by people who can't keep their dogma on a leash. Also, concerning the trench inserts, aside from the lighting option I believe those are also required to do the pilot versions that had smooth trenches. Isn't that so?


----------



## paustin0816

I don't want to see anyone driven away. The kit is amazing. I cant wait to get it myself. And really can't wait to see what others do with it. That's going to be the real treat.


----------



## Carson Dyle

BlackbirdCD said:


> It's just not a fun place to discuss Star Trek or science fiction models anymore.


I respectfully disagree, Chris.

As with any forum (especially Trek forums), there will inevitably be posts from irritating people making irritating comments. It goes the territory. These sorts of arguments and debates have been occurring on HobbyTalk for as long as I've been a member, i.e. over a decade.

That said, for sci-fi fans and starship hobbyists "of a certain age" (48-to-53, approx) there are few sites that cover the 50's, 60's and 70's-era subjects we middle-aged modelers have come to love as well as HobbyTalk.

Do a HobbyTalk Forum search for the TOS, Irwin Allen, 60's Fox, or "2001" vehicle of your choice (for example), and I promise the conversation will be more in-depth and consistently better informed than what you're likely to find on just about any other modeling forum.

No doubt HobbyTalk attracts its share of bullies, big mouths and malcontents, but it's still a great place to rap about the movie designs of Harper Goff, Matt Jeffries, Bill Creeber, Fred Ordway, etc. 

Am I sorry to see Gary go? Yes and no. On the one hand, I value his take on all things Trek. On the other hand, Gary sweats to get this stuff right, and I know it brings him no joy to have his hard work and tough choices picked apart and second-guessed by those who think they know better. Since dissenting opinions are not likely to disappear from this or any other forum anytime soon (nor should they), I think Gary is making the right call by tuning-out for a while. Life is frustrating enough without having to justify every creative, engineering, or manufacturing call you make to a bunch of online nit-pickers. Who needs the aggravation? 

So Bon Voyage, Gary. Happy drafting, and for God's sake have fun cooking us up some nifty new models!


----------



## spock62

Gary K said:


> To avoid being bogged down in endless quibbling, I'm going to join Frank Winspur, Dave Metzner, and Jamie Hood and take an indefinite hiatus from Hobby Talk. I have actual work to do, personal equipment to compare sizes of, and agendas to push.
> 
> Gary


Can't blame the guy, he and the folks at Round 2 have developed one heck of a kit, yet people insist on putting their efforts down just to make a point. I could understand disappointment if the kit had some serious inaccuracies or omissions, but this isn't the case here. 

Don't like the grid lines? Break out the putty/sandpaper/primer (and let's be real here, you won't be using THAT much putty, lines look pretty shallow). Don't like the glowing nacelles? Don't use that part of the light kit. 

As far as the cost going up due adding features that maybe only a small percentage of modelers would want, I would think most people that purchase this kit and it's accessory packs would appreciate it. There are many kits out today that offer extra parts and decals to do different versions, are the companies that produce these kits wrong in doing so too? While I can understand not wanting to pay extra for something you might not want, there are many that DO want it. Besides, you don't have to buy the accessory packs if you don't want them.

Hope Gary reconsiders, his insights into the development of this kit are interesting and welcome. Come back Gary!


----------



## JeffG

Daaayuuum!!! What an awesome kit!


----------



## Dr. Brad

Sorry to see you go (for now), but thanks for all your input, Gary. And, FWIW, as a result of this thread, I just preordered my kit! I can't not have it! (how's that for a double negative?). Looking forward to getting it! Please come back for some shuttlecraft discussions!

Oh, and not that it's a big deal, but I'm leaning toward painting the ship more like the remastered version, as much as I love the original. And, I have to admit, I do find the idea of glowing nacelles appealing, though I can certainly understand why some wouldn't.


----------



## Edge

Gary K said:


> To avoid being bogged down in endless quibbling, I'm going to join Frank Winspur, Dave Metzner, and Jamie Hood and take an indefinite hiatus from Hobby Talk. I have actual work to do, personal equipment to compare sizes of, and agendas to push.
> 
> Gary


Sorry to hear that and for my part in the Jack A$$-ory, you have my apologies.

Having had the great opportunity to work on Star Trek games (SFC) and run their Boards, I have to say the level of discourse her is pretty mild, in comparison. But, to quote Harry Callahan: "A man's got to know his limitations."


----------



## harrier1961

Gary K said:


> To avoid being bogged down in endless quibbling, I'm going to join Frank Winspur, Dave Metzner, and Jamie Hood and take an indefinite hiatus from Hobby Talk. I have actual work to do, personal equipment to compare sizes of, and agendas to push.
> 
> Gary


Gary, sorry to see you go.
I, for one, want to give a big shout out and thanks to you, Jamie, and Round2 for what will promise to be an awesome model.
Too bad certain members here are too effen anal about this and think that their opinion and "what they see" as the Big E is the only way to go instead of acknowledging that there are many ways to interpret the Enterprise.
It is, after all, a model of a fictional ship.

As for me, I'm painting it as the way it is currently hanging in the Smithsonian.
How's that for elevating people's bloodpressure?

Andy.
:wave:


----------



## Edge

harrier1961 said:


> Gary, sorry to see you go.
> I, for one, want to give a big shout out and thanks to you, Jamie, and Round2 for what will promise to be an awesome model.
> Too bad certain members here are too effen anal about this and think that their opinion and "what they see" as the Big E is the only way to go instead of acknowledging that there are many ways to interpret the Enterprise.
> It is, after all, a model of a fictional ship.
> 
> As for me, I'm painting it as the way it is currently hanging in the Smithsonian.
> How's that for elevating people's bloodpressure?
> 
> Andy.
> :wave:


The Miarecki-Prise! Good luck with that.


----------



## Tiberious

I'm sorry to see you go too Gary. I hope that you at least lurk and PM from time to time. I hope that some of the discussion here and elsewhere has had some benefit in drawing out thoughts that might have otherwise not occurred to you along the way. I think that is the greatest benefit to us here, exposure to other ideas or points of view that we won't always agree with.....it's a shame that several folks have to get angry or abusive in their execution.....oddly enough though I didn't see a whole lot of shenanigans in this particular thread. Strong feelings, sure, but relatively tame....but as with all things written, tone can often be interpreted in many ways by each reader.

Anyhow, thanks for everything!

Jim


----------



## CLBrown

Gotta say, folks... this is the internet. And this, in particular, is a DISCUSSION FORUM. Which means "discussion." Which means "putting out different ideas and thoughts, and replying to those ideas and thought with different ideas and thoughts."

On a topic like this one, it's inevitable that some people will not agree with other people. Interestingly, there do seem to be some people who get pretty upset when other people don't simply 100% conform to the first person's thoughts and ideas. It's sad to see, but it does seem that, here more than most places on the 'net, this is a common issue.

One thing I really am tired of is the insults leveled at anyone who disagrees, in particular. There aren't a lot of folks who do that, but they're quite vocal about calling people names and so forth.

Gary has every right to participate, or not participate, in any discussion he wants to. So if he's not finding it "fun" to participate in this one, that's his call. The job is done, anyway... at least until "run #2" of the kit, should that come to pass, when they may or may not make revisions to the kit (and based upon prior history, some revisions are probable to happen... just like the revisions from the Gen 1 refit to the Gen 2 refit kits).

I must admit, I find it odd when people take anything but the most fawning of attention to be so deeply offensive that they feel it's no longer worthwhile to participate, though. In the real world, where we all live, getting "fawning adulation" is almost unheard of.. and most of us would find it deeply disconcerting if we did find ourselves in a place where anything we said was treated as absolute, unquestionable, and inviolable. I mean, Kim Jong Il may have been able to expect that sort of treatment... but that's because people who questioned his claims to have completed a perfect round of golf the first time he ever played the game were rounded up and "disappeared."

We're all grown-ups here. (At least I think we are... if there are any per-adolescents posting here, I apologize in advance.) Not one of us... not me, not anyone else here, whether a "mere poster" nor an employee of a model-making company nor someone who had the remarkable good fortune to examine a studio model at some point, should be treated as a religious figure. We should all be treated as human beings, due equal levels of respect... and with similar levels of "tolerance" for those viewpoints which may not agree with our own.

The overwhelming majority of folks here do clearly seem to get this. But for those who don't... whoever they may happen to be... remember, we're all just folks. This isn't a class-based system, where some are "subjects" and others are "rulers."

As for "agendas," by the way... anyone, anywhere, who claims that they've got no personal agenda is lying. Every last person has things which they, personally, view as more or less important. There's nothing nefarious about having a personal agenda. The trick, as I said, is recognizing that your own personal agenda may not be someone else's personal agenda, and recognizing that it's not OK to expect everyone else to conform to your own agenda.

Let's say that again... EVERYONE has an "agenda." You do. I do. Gary Kerr does. ANYONE who said "I have no agenda" is either fully lobotomized, or is lying. What's most important to one person is not necessarily what's most important to the next person. Nor should it be. We're all individuals. And as long as we bear in mind that other individuals may not care about the same things we do, and don't NEED to care about the same things we do... then we're doing the best that human beings can do.


----------



## slingshot392

Tom, if it's not too late, could you do a quick side-by-side with the 1/1000 original series Enterprise since it from the same company and show any differences. I have a feeling this might be too late, but I just thought of it.


----------



## Warped9

Model Man said:


> Are we ready for the first of two side-by-sides?
> Tamiya CVN-65 and the AMT 650. It's kinda shocking to see the shuttle next to a Tomcat, a shuttle on a carrier elevator, a Tomcat in the hangar bay.
> 
> OoB Review: 1/350 TOS Enterprise Pt4A: SIde-by-Side CVN65 & AMT 1/650 - YouTube


If I'm not mistaken the carrier in the illustration being compared with the starship _Enterprise_ is the _Forrestal_ and not the CVAN-65. Just saying.


----------



## CLBrown

Ductapeforever said:


> When referencing the gridline issue remember we're not just talking about the upper surface of the saucer. BOTH the saucer TOP and the saucer BOTTOM have the gridlines ! So for those of you wishing for resin replacement parts understand that to deal with the issue BOTH parts would have to be replaced ! Which as I stated before would add SIGNIFICANT weight to the model jeapardizing the structural integrity of the rest of the model. Also an eighteen inch resin saucer would most likely cost at least as much as the original kit if not DOUBLE it. And to use the existing light kit the saucer bottom would have to be cast in a two part HOLLOW mold, anyone with any experience with resin casting knows what a daunting task that would be with parts this size. Give it up gentlemen,....fill 'em or forget 'em, that is your only option.


That's NOT the "only option" though. You're thinking of pouring a cast-resin part. But that's not the technique you'd want to use if you were going to do this. You've use the same technique used to make "fiberglass" car bodies... which can result in a very, very strong, very very light panel. The resultant part would not be heavier and weaker, as a cast-resin part likely would be. It would be much stronger, and much more dimensionally stable, than the injection molded part is.

True, you'd lose most of the "interior detail. You'd need to hand-cut the windows (drilling and then filing to shape). The interior "wall structure" would be lost (but could be reproduced using sheet materials... and anyone who wanted to do this would likely do so using brass or aluminum sheet, I think).

The cost would be pretty high. The Deboer Hulls models use a similar process, though they use thicker walls than would be required here. The 6' TNG Enterprise model used this process as well. We're likely talking about $200 or so just for these parts, unless volumes were high enough to justify the initial expense of doing this. (Per-part-set cost would likely run $100 or so, but that's not taking into account the cost of creating the pattern and molds, which is fairly labor-intensive and would need to be amortized across the production run.)

Check with any auto shop which does body work on "fiberglass" bodies. They can likely quote you what this would cost, if you don't believe my numbers.

Do I expect this to happen? No, I really don't. Because I just don't see enough people wanting to buy it to make it worth the while for the producer. 

But it would NOT mean the huge, bulky mass of a cast-resin part. It really, really wouldn't. From a purely MECHANICAL standpoint, a part made using this process would be far superior to the part provided in the kit.

The increase cost simply would outweigh the benefits...

No, I think it's more likely that we'll eventually see a "run #2" of this kit, and I suspect (though only time will tell) that they'll choose to polish off the raised lines in the mold (raised lines in a mold product recessed lines in a part, remember). I suspect that they'll do so in response to a ton of reviews, both individual and "profession," talking about the topic.

The comments on Youtube have been largely negative about the lines. The comments on every site, forum, etc, I've seen have been uniformly negative. It seems that it's a roughly 66% anti-grid-line, 33% pro-grid-line response, so far. Of course, these are the most vocal people... the "silent majority" has yet to express an opinion either way.

Most of those who are "pro" do state that they like having the "extra detail" to dress up a ship they've always considered "plain and uninteresting." I haven't seen much discussion, anywhere but here, where anyone has said that the presence of the lines makes it "more accurate" (in their eyes). But I'll grant, I haven't read 100% of all postings made on the topic. Just those on the model sites, and sci-fi sites, which I follow... and of course the comments on the review videos as posted on YouTube.

It would be easy to remove these on subsequent production runs, but the first run will absolutely have them. So... those of us who do like them will be happy this time, and those who don't like them are "stuck" this time, with a model which is ALMOST what was hoped for, but not quite.

Or as Maxwell Smart would say... "missed it by THAT much."


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> If I'm not mistaken the carrier in the illustration being compared with the starship _Enterprise_ is the _Forrestal_ and not the CVAN-65. Just saying.


Yep, even M.J. wasn't a demigod.


----------



## fire91bird

Nah, forget it.


----------



## Warped9

I respect *Gary's* decision, but I will miss his input...hopefully temporary. His is an _informed_ input because he has first-hand access to archival materiel and resources the vast majority of us might never see.

But I'd like to summarize my view of this kit by comparison.

- AMT/ERTL 1/650 TOS _Enterprise_ - a trusty kit that fired a lot of our imaginations even as we each discovered how woefully inaccurate it was. For a very long time it was the only go-to representation of the TOS _E_...unless you could scratchbuild.

- The PL 1/1000 TOS _Enterprise_ - A wonderful and very nice little kit that (until recently) was as accurate as you could get out-of-the-box unless, again, you could scratchbuild. Its one small failing (in some eyes) was that it was, well...small.

- The Revell/Germerny 1/600 TOS _Enterprise_ - A disappointing substitute for the original and repopped AMT/ERTL 1/650 kit. Disappointing in that its inaccuracies are so obvious when the resources were available to do a better job. In my eyes I'd take the PL 1/1000 kit over the R/G kit anytime.

- The PL 1/350 TOS _Enterprise_ - "The Holy Grail" kit fans have been waiting for for so very, very long. Is the kit perfect? Well, thats a matter of opinion, but all things considered the one thing that might be considered "off" is a matter of individual perspective. Set that one easily addressed issue aside and you have _the most_ accurate representation of the beloved TV starship. I daresay that in some respects it's actually better than the original 11ft. filming miniature upon which the 1/350 kit is based. The original filming miniature only had to withstand being seen through the poor resolution of 1960's era television sets. The 1/350 has to withstand the scrutiny of devoted fans eyeballing it from mere inches away.


----------



## Paulbo

Warped9 said:


> ...The original filming miniature only had to withstand being seen through the poor resolution of 1960's era television sets. The 1/350 has to withstand the scrutiny of devoted fans eyeballing it from mere inches away.


Nicely said. I've never read it stated so concisely.


----------



## Wattanasiri

Thanks Modelman. The videos have been great.

What a fantastic model kit! All of those extra features and options will make it possible for people to really exercise their imaginations. This has turned out to be much more than the 1:350 TOS Enterprise model kit everyone used to hope would be produced some day. Thank you Round 2.


----------



## spock62

Warped9 said:


> ...But I'd like to summarize my view of this kit by comparison.


Spot on summary!


----------



## Shaw

Ductapeforever said:


> Also an eighteen inch resin saucer would most likely cost at least as much as the original kit if not DOUBLE it.




Why would anyone want to replace a part that is a little over 14 inches in diameter with one that is 18 inches?


----------



## Warped9

Re: photoetch.



Ductapeforever said:


> Paul has an excellent video here on the basics.
> 
> http://youtu.be/eIUJKzC3RME


Yes, that was interesting and helpful. Thanks. I will watch the other videos as well.


----------



## Warped9

Gary K said:


> Now you'll have to excuse me. Yesterday I got some invaluable reference materials on the 22" filming miniature of the Galileo, and I've got some drawing to do. It's really cool stuff that clearly reveals the true shape of the model. How's that for a tease?
> 
> Gary





Warped9 said:


> Tease.
> 
> Yeah, I'll be very curious to see how you reconcile the differing bottoms of the full-size mock-up and the miniature. The angle of the underside is quite different on both versions. I think it's quite possible to reconcile the two (I managed it) but then I adapted the miniature's bottom onto the mock-up's underside because the greater angle of the mock-up's afforded me more interior space to play with.





Gary K said:


> So will I. It's not just the bottoms. We're talking about two completely differently-shaped spaceships here - analogous to having the Jupiter 2 represented by both a slab-sided plywood mock-up and the gently-curved 4' fiberglass miniature.
> 
> Gary


He's going to have a time of it. The underside alone is crazy between the full-size mock-up and the flying miniature. And never mind the disparities between the two versions the shape of the underside as suggested by the front end and the shape as suggested by the aft end gives you two different and somewhat conflicting forms. It can be done, but it's nuts.


----------



## Model Man

Part 4B: Side by side Refit and Guest





...

Viewer requests are officially closed.

Wow. I thought my day was long, but you guys went to town in 24hrs.!

For me, it was asleep at 10pm last night, up at 330am this morn, OTD 4am, at Griffith Park 430am, sunrise 6:40am, hike up MT Hollywood (1,619ft) 8am, 1st of several shuttle sightings and passes 1130am, hike down to car 1pm, out of park traffic jam 2pm, home 430pm, nap 500pm, dinner with gf 630pm, reading all posts across all forums and email admin 8pm.

Looks like a got some decent shots of Endeavour on each of it's 3-5 passes it made around us. This was the perfect spot to see the entire County. Will post when done.

Collating all viewer requests across all forums now. About to go thru all 16 pages here, see what I missed in the last day or so and any other clarifications. Will try to shoot vid this weekend.


----------



## WarpCore Breach

Massively cool set of videos, MM!

Thanks for compiling those, it was a true thing of beauty to watch each segment unfolding!


----------



## Model Man

slingshot392 said:


> Tom, if it's not too late, could you do a quick side-by-side with the 1/1000 original series Enterprise since it from the same company and show any differences. I have a feeling this might be too late, but I just thought of it.


I don't own a 1k version, so can't. Otherwise would have. Sorry about that.



Warped9 said:


> If I'm not mistaken the carrier in the illustration being compared with the starship _Enterprise_ is the _Forrestal_ and not the CVAN-65. Just saying.


Re-reading the picture it says CVA-65 which means it could have been the pre-nuclear enteprise. That ship has a complicated history and pretty sure the while the keel was never changed, the overall length was. Would need a steel navy guy to chime in from the military boards on that.

Clip


CLBrown said:


> ...No, I think it's more likely that we'll eventually see a "run #2" of this kit, and I suspect (though only time will tell) that they'll choose to polish off the raised lines in the mold (raised lines in a mold product recessed lines in a part, remember). I suspect that they'll do so in response to a ton of reviews, both individual and "profession," talking about the topic.


I've got $5 that says otherwise. There's no way. The parts are too big to retool for any reasonable cost for any reasonable amount of sales compensation.

...

Alright, I've got 12 requests from the boards to shoot, but still have a blistering amount of comments from the vids to check out.

Back in a day or two. Try not to burn the house down, everybody.


----------



## CLBrown

Model Man said:


> No, I think it's more likely that we'll eventually see a "run #2" of this kit, and I suspect (though only time will tell) that they'll choose to polish off the raised lines in the mold (raised lines in a mold product recessed lines in a part, remember). I suspect that they'll do so in response to a ton of reviews, both individual and "profession," talking about the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> I've got $5 that says otherwise. There's no way. The parts are too big to retool for any reasonable cost for any reasonable amount of sales compensation.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about "retooling" at any level other than some "polishing." IF they wanted to do so, the "retooling" cost would involve only (a) annealing the tool (since for a production tool, the final step is usually a heat-treatment to fully harden the tool), then (b) polishing the surface (far easier than what was gone through in order to reduce them in size each time), and finally (c) re-hardening the tool.

Not "free" but by no means expensive, nor difficult. Now, if they tried to go in the other direction... making them LARGER... it would effectively require one half of the mold to be replaced.

On a typical two-part mold, of the size we're talking about here, the tool cost is usually something just in excess of $100k, including all mold-base elements (cooling lines, ejector systems, etc). The cost to polish one interior surface of the tool would run something like $8K including both "heat treatment" cycles, possibly less (I'm basing this on US-based labor, after all).

The changes to the 1:350 "refit" parts were far, far more extensive and costly than what I suggested could happen.

Of course, there's no guarantee that this will happen, but there's no technical, or budgetary, reason it can't. And if, as I suspect will prove to be the case, the main complaint (maybe the ONLY complaint, other than cost?) regarding this kit will be this... and if it's a very prevalent complaint... it's entirely possible that they could make this change for a second production run.

After all, the changes to the mounting system with the "Polar Lights" (generation 1) refit for the "Round 2" (generation 2) release were based upon, not any physical issues with the base (in fact, the original base was a bit more stable than the gen2 version), but rather upon customer complaints about the "ugly" factor of the original base. They spent a lot, to make a change, which was based upon customer concerns. By contrast, this would be trivial to change.

My prediction is that most every review will list the lines as the one "issue" with the kit. Every individual review, every "formal" review, every "buyer" review (on sites like Amazon) will rave about the model, with the sole exception of complaining about the grid.

My prediction is also that there will be sufficient sales of this kit to warrant a second run in two years or so. And that, at that time, they'll make some changes to the kit, based upon customer "wish lists." That is, after all, their principle business model.

But... that won't change what we're getting now. What we have now is what we have now. It's not gonna change. Timing just won't support that, even if there were (presently) any real desire to do so on R2's part.


----------



## Captain April

Model Man said:


> Re-reading the picture it says CVA-65 which means it could have been the pre-nuclear enteprise. That ship has a complicated history and pretty sure the while the keel was never changed, the overall length was. Would need a steel navy guy to chime in from the military boards on that.


I wasn't aware that boat was ever _not_ nuclear. She certainly was by the time that drawing was made.


----------



## Warped9

Model Man said:


> Re-reading the picture it says CVA-65 which means it could have been the pre-nuclear enteprise. That ship has a complicated history and pretty sure the while the keel was never changed, the overall length was. Would need a steel navy guy to chime in from the military boards on that.


Apologies. I'm misremembering something. The _Forrestal_ was referred to in _The Making Of Star Trek,_ but the illustration is of the CVAN-65. And the CVAN-65 has indeed always been nuclear although she has been refit over the years.


Great reviews. Thanks. I definitely want the lighting kit as well as likely the photoetch. The deluxe accessory pack is intriguing even though it costs more than the _Enterprise_ kit itself---at least that's how the preorder price is listed on Culttvman's site.


----------



## CLBrown

Absolutely a great service you've just provided, Tom.

I was actually sorta expecting the "surprise guest" in the side-by-side video to be the Master Replicas Enterprise... but seeing the AW Romulan vac-form (which, as I understand, is made off of Rel's resin version) was nice.

I also appreciated your comments on the "questionable scale" issues there. Since nobody actually knows the real scale of the ship, there's quite a bit of confusion on that issue. As I stated when I started making up my Romulan BOP recently, I'm sticking with Mike McMaster's dimensions. I can't confirm this anymore, for the obvious reason that Mike's no longer around to check in with, but my memory tells me he got the overall size of the ship from Wah Chang (who made the ship, and kept the mini, but who also isn't around anymore... sigh). And his approach to the rows of round "porthole windows" on the ship is what I'm using... and also what I use on the TOS Enterprise... ie, round "portholes" are actually lenses for sensor/scanner hardpoints, not "human viewing windows." (Or, I guess, "Romulan viewing windows?") So, there was no correlation between spacing of those round portholes and the deck spacing inside the ship.

So... if you use the McMaster (and, if what I remember is true, Wah Chang) ship size, it's quite a bit smaller than the REL size. I suspect it's as much a matter of personal taste as anything else.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, the McMaster size was the pretty much universally accepted size. It got adopted by all of the tabletop board game businesses, was used in most all novels, and so forth. FASA, in the late 80s and early 90s, was the first to deviate from that at all... and they did the same thing they did with the Klingon BOP... they said that there were multiple ships which were identical externally but different internally and at widely different scales. And while that always sounded bizarre to me, it's the only way to "reasonably" make it work where the KBOP model was used in such a wide variety of ways, and presented in such a wide variety of scales, during early TNG. So, I think to make "arguing factions" happy, they carried this over to the RBOP as well... and thus the REL-sized BOP and the McMaster-sized BOP might both exist "in universe."

In fact, this makes a lot more sense with the RBOP than it ever could with the KBOP, since the RBOP's shape is much more... practical?

I really would have enjoyed seeing the R2 kit next to an MR Enterprise... but I'm sure that, once some of these have been built up, we'll see a number of side-by-side comparisons that way, huh?

EDIT: I've posted this elsewhere (in my thread) in full size, but to help see what the "McMaster" scale for the RBOP is relative to the Enterprise, here are the two in-scale to each other (this is my 1067' Enterprise, but the RBOP is upscaled to the same degree, so this image works perfectly for the McM RBOP and the 947' Enterprise as well).


----------



## Warped9

A 1/1000 RBoP would be rather small then. A 1/600 would be okay I guess. A proper 1/350 would be sweet.

I guess I'm one of the few who has never really cared for KPoB.


----------



## Fozzie

Warped9 said:


> I guess I'm one of the few who has never really cared for KPoB.


Brother! :thumbsup:

I got sick of seeing that ship, esp. when it was both the small size depicted in STIV and as big as the NCC-1701-D...


----------



## Rallystone

Just a quick chuckle - I had a dream last night about a special edition STAR TREK run of Q-Tips! Each swab had been designed to look like the Enterprise nacelles. You'd think I'd be wondering which end to use, but I was digging through the box to see if they had all the end cap pilot variations!


----------



## Model Man

Fozzie said:


> Brother! :thumbsup:
> 
> I got sick of seeing that ship, esp. when it was both the small size depicted in STIV and as big as the NCC-1701-D...


big ditto there!

My personal taste says that RBoP is way too small to be as formidable as it was. Given that the D-7 as about as wide as the 1701, I'd go with the BoP being about as wide.

All told I've got 18 viewer requests and notes to address.


----------



## jbond

So "every review" of the TOS 1/350 is going to mention the gridlines as a negative factor, even though plenty of people on this thread have said they're perfectly fine with the gridlines? Is this event going to happen in the mirror universe?


----------



## kenlee

The whole gridline debate just blows my mind. There is plenty of evidence to show that they did in fact exist on the original studio model, they were on the drawings made by Jefferies himself so I do not see the problem. In my opinion the route taken to represent the gridlines was the best way to go, for those who do not want them, it is easy to get rid of them. The model being produced WILL have the gridlines so why continue to beat that dead horse, it is senseless.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

jbond said:


> So "every review" of the TOS 1/350 is going to mention the gridlines as a negative factor, even though plenty of people on this thread have said they're perfectly fine with the gridlines? Is this event going to happen in the mirror universe?


Doesn't matter. There are more than enough positive things about the overall accuracy and features of this kit to negate the panel line criticism. I could live with it or without it. I'm kind of neutral but could deal with either outcome. If they are there and you decide to keep them, then the only issue is correcting any part misalignment around the rim. I still can't wait to put in my pre-order. My nephew is on board with me to do the same and get this kit too so we can make ourselves each one, plus I need to use his airbrush skills!


----------



## Warped9

jbond said:


> So "every review" of the TOS 1/350 is going to mention the gridlines as a negative factor, even though plenty of people on this thread have said they're perfectly fine with the gridlines? Is this event going to happen in the mirror universe?


The internet is full of the most vocal of those with an opinion and particularly an entrenched opinion. It certainly isn't representative of consumers as a whole, but how can one judge what most purchasers are thinking?

I see both sides to this argument. The lines were not engraved on the 11 footer---they were drawn. I don't think we'll ever know what was truly intended, but they were certainly not an obvious detail that could be seen clearly. 

The view that such a faint detail be left to the discretion of the individual modeller does have validity, just as much as the view the detail be included either as a finely etched or scribed detail or as a decal to be used at the modeller's discretion. Beyond that I'm hard pressed to offer a more definitive opinion until I see the kit myself firsthand. Certainly I do feel that such a fine detail, if a physical one, should indeed be a _very fine_ one. If that isn't possible then I would lean to leaving it off altogether and let the individual modeller worry about it.

I will have to see it myself before I can assess whether I think R2 got the detail fine enough. Certainly in *ModelMan's* reviews the lines don't look very apparent from a reasonably short distance, but that still isn't the same as seeing it yourself where lighting conditions will be optimal for a firsthand assessment.

I do have a strong opinion about the lines themselves (in that I don't really care for them), but thats also based on seeing them done so poorly on so many models I've seen. You can barely see the damned things on the 11 footer (originally) and yet modellers were plastering them on 1/1000-1/650 scale kits where they (by all rights) should have been totally invisible. I also fault the horrible repainting job done the original 11 footer several years. I'm sorry if that offends someone's friends or acquaintances around here, but I have to call a spade a spade.

My lack of enthusiasm for the gridlines is _greatly_ offset by _absolutely everything else_ Gary and Jamie and R2 got right. What they accomplished is incredible. With the exception of the PL 1/1000 most everything on previous TOS _E_ kits (beyond the basic shape) was way off in terms of accuracy. The 1/350 is dead on in every respect save perhaps one, and that exception is a matter of perspective in terms of execution.

I do have another thought. If it were learned the lines were added to the 11 footer for any reason other than for want of added detail then by all means they shouldn't have been included, for much the same reason R2 didn't include all the wiring hanging out the unfinished port side of the 11 footer.

My hope is that R2 achieved its stated goal with the lines. If so then a little primer and painting will address the issue nicely. If not then I have a little extra work ahead of me.


----------



## Gregatron

My mind is also blown. I'm saddened and disgusted by the buildup of comments that's led Gary to depart, because I was having a great time interacting with him, and am deeply appreciative that'd he'd take the time to interact with us at all. Same with Jamie.


As noted previously, we've been totally spoiled by this kit, and by the willingness of Jamie, Gary, etc. to be so open about its development. The people at Round 2 have clearly worked incredibly hard to make this the best kit possible. They've covered every conceivable base short of what the aftermarket will eventually bring. 

The basic kit already has a ton of bells and whistles. Yet, there are no less than FIVE official, optional accessory sets (light kit, PE, weathering decals, pilot parts, alternate markings) that will be available. That is unprecedented, I believe.

You can't please everyone, of course.

I believe that R2 went with the best option by including the gridlines. If you like 'em, leave 'em. If you don't, fill 'em. Use a little patience, creativity, and problem-solving ingenuity. Be a MODELER. As noted, what about those who want scribed grids? What would they do with a smoothie? How hard would it be to hand-scribe all of those lines?


That one gridline quibble aside, I'm sure that this model will be super-accurate, and will go together like a dream. That's a far cry from the good 'ol AMT kit. 


Are we now so spoiled that we need a kit to be 100% perfect out of the box, with no need for customization or, y'know, _*work*_ to make it just the way we want it? Go buy the Master Replicas model if you don't like the grids, want a completed model out of the box, and don't want to put any work or creativity into what is surely going to be a fantastic foundation of a kit.


On a fundamental level, I think it's flat-out rude to constantly quibble with Jamie and Gary over the gridlines and such. Round 2 has labored for a long time on this kit. A lot of blood, sweat, and tears have clearly gone into it. And, the results are quickly becoming apparent. There's been nothing quite like this before.


Asking polite questions is one thing. Stating one's opinions in a respectful manner is another thing.

But to be so forceful, repetitive, sarcastic, and bitter-sounding is just plain _rude_. The grids are there. It's been explained why they're there. They wouldn't be there if Jamie wasn't satisfied with them. Deal with it and move on. Don't bother repeating the same argument again and again while expecting a different result each time. That's the definition of insanity, after all.


If the Internet had existed in 1966, and fans had hit AMT over the head with constant complaining about the gridlines, AMT's people probably would have said something unfit for publication, rather than taking the time to explain the reasons for their decision, and also showing photos of test shots.



TREK fans and modelers can be a little obsessed with the subject matter. Round 2's people have been very generous in maintaining a relationship with the fandom, and providing many, many glimpses into the creative process behind the kit.

Unfortunately, these two facts seem to have led some to feel they have some sort of ownership in TREK and the kit.

R2's willingness to communicate with us does not mean that we can waltz around and dictate to them how to run their business. They make products. We choose whether or not to buy them. They've gone the extra mile, and have taken in fan input for consideration while making their product. They have every right to use or ignore that input at their discretion.

Instead of complaining about decisions that are now set in stone, vote with your wallets.


I am sure that if this kit were released in a vacuum, with no fan-relations from Round 2 whatsoever, then people would still complain about it. The difference here is that since R2 has had very open fan-relations, those people who are complaining now have the opportunity to be flat-out rude, and bite the hand that feeds.



All that said, I'm not getting into any arguments about this, and I've said my piece. So, no one should bother trying to bait me.


I believe in a little thing called the "golden rule". I wish more people did. Back to--hopefully--rational discussion of the kit, and Tom's videos.


'Nuff said.



Back to you, Tom! Love the videos!!!!


----------



## Ductapeforever

We only seemed to have two or three 'militant' folks obsessed with the gridlines who were exceedingly vocal in their displeasure. It is attitudes that are 'my way or the highway' backed by lengthy bone numbing debate in support of their opinion that burns my tailfeathers. As a model kit, we are left with our interpretations on our 'vision' of how we should build it. Round 2 gave us the best comprimise with a choice to keep or remove the offending lines. I applaud that decision.
The folks in question have made their opinions well known 'ad nausium'. I doubt there remains a single member of Hobbytalk who is not aware of their views. In that light it is my hope that the subject not be brought up again on this board so that we can celebrate what in my opinion is the kit of the century.
It saddens me that overly opinionated Hobytalkers seem to drive away the most knowledgeable and helpful of members and representatives of the Hobby Industry. Can't say I blame 'em though. No wonder we're left begging for information on new kits.
In short 'Cap it guys, we're all sick of hearing about it. If you wish to continue harping on the subject, take it to the Trek boards and leave the Hobby discussions here."


----------



## Warped9

I don't know what else I could add to the subject. All I can do is wait for the kit itself.

In the meantime I've got some other models to work on: my Revell Batman, a variant of a PL 1/1000 TOS _E_ and my 3D shuttlecraft.


----------



## fire91bird

I too am appalled at the treatment that some of our most valuable resources in this hobby have been subject to here lately. I can not express how disappointed I am Gary K felt it was no longer worth the effort to share his knowledge with us, but I certainly understand why. He didn't have to share anything with us and in turn his facts and motives are questioned. Then I read a reply to Paul B in another thread and I'm just blown away. It's just so undeserved.

Since I have no doubt that a certain voice will continue to expound at great length, I have made the effort to discover how the ignore feature of this board works. I think that will be a bigger annoyance than anything I could actually say. 

Anyway, I hope this doesn't get me banned, but I have found that any discussion about the Enterprise - a subject near and dear to me - turns into a tedious exercise in endurance, so I guess I don't care if it does.


----------



## Model Man

jbond said:


> So "every review" of the TOS 1/350 is going to mention the gridlines as a negative factor, even though plenty of people on this thread have said they're perfectly fine with the gridlines? Is this event going to happen in the mirror universe?


In the mirror universe, the grid was engraved and Round 2 chose not to put them on and is now facing the backlash by those without scribing skills. -And the engines were lit and R2 didn't include enough lighting to do it right.
...

Bashing, for lack of a more subtle synonym, people who hate the lines is equally as bad the bashing of the grid lines themselves. Shutting one side out of a conversation/debate/argument makes a monologue and for pedantic fawning. 

No one should be told to shut up or be barked down for expressing themselves. Shameful. Conversely, it's one thing to make a negative point, another to hammer it home incessantly. I've got the same thing going on in the video comments.. 

If you're sick of reading about other people bashing the lines, get over yourselves and skip the posts. If you're sick of the gridlines, fix the problem or don't buy it in the first place.


----------



## Warped9

I know what it is to have a strongly help opinion. It's not bad as long as you know when to rein it in and not try to push too hard and try to persuade everyone else. In the past it led to frustration until I learned to ease up upon realizing that it doesn't matter if not everyone has the same viewpoint. I try to control what I can in relation to myself and let go of the rest.


----------



## spock62

Found: two part solution to fixing gridline "problem". Apply 'A' to saucer surface. Sand with 'B'. Repeat until gridlines are flush with surface. (Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to inject a little levity into the discussion!)


----------



## CLBrown

I'm always amazed by reading comments by people who seem to find opposing viewpoints to be "disgusting" and engage in direct, aggressive, personal attacks on those people, supposedly because those people are "meanies."

Also, folks, please go back a few pages here and review what went on... a couple of posters raised an issue with the lit nacelles. Despite all the overt attacks leveled at ME over this issue, you might want to read what I, personally, said in that exchange. I said that I thought it was find that the lights were included, and that it was a smart idea to put them into lighting kit rather than the main kit. I did point out that, yes, I'd objected to this early on in the kit's development, mainly due to the additional cost every model builder would be paying for the kit as a result of putting in this option (which few model builders will likely choose to use, as it's not screen-accurate), but by moving the parts ot an "option" kit, the cost to the "average" modeler is really pretty low, something like two cheapo paint brushes.

In other words, I was trying to BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN THE TWO POSITIONS. I was not one of those ripping into Gary, I was actually defending the decisions made by R2 on this issue.

Yet, the moment I did so, I was ripped into by the usual crowd, and have been consistently attacked since then. One guy took it into another thread, ripped into me, and when I asked him to step back and dial it down, the thread got locked.

Look back in this thread. How many "offensive" posts were made? Why were they "offensive?"

I'll tell you my perspective. There are people in this world who just can't accept any form of criticism, at any level. Two posters had an issue with the lit nacelles. I tried to find a "common ground" between the two positions (Gary's position and the "objector's" positions). I tried to be friendly with Gary... but he was clearly uninterested in responding in kind. That's not my problem, it's his.

Gary made one statement which wasn't accurate. He said that "Roddenberry decided to light the nacelles." I suggested that he might want to restate that. I don't doubt that he has the memo he said he has... I even expressed interest in seeing it, in part because I wanted to let him know I wasn't accusing him of just making it up, and also because, frankly, I love this stuff and I'd appreciate seeing the memo, entirely on it's own merit.

I just pointed out that while it's likely true that Roddenberry looking into lighting the nacelles, and it's entirely possible that he really WANTED them lit, even back then, either he eventually decided not to do this (possibly for aesthetic reasons, possibly for financial or timing related reasons), or perhaps he was never really in the position to make the decision at all (after all, it was all Lucy's money at the time, not Gene's money... and Herb Solow is on record as having had to say "no" to Gene's extravagances on a number of occasions... so maybe this was one of them?)

I pointed out that this feature is an interesting "what if" feature, but not one that the "real" ship ever had. But that it's nice that the feature was included.

I thought that this would be a nice "bridging of two sides to find common ground."

I didn't expect to have Gary throw a temper tantrum over it. And let's be clear... we're talking about a total of maybe FIVE POSTS in one thread which weren't really directed at him, anyway, just objecting to one feature (and for the record, I wasn't one of those objecting, remember).

Grown-ups should be able to take a little dissent without stomping off in a huff. Shouldn't they?

Hell, I take direct personal attacks on here from some of you (DTF, for instance) on a very regular basis. I guess I've just got a thicker skin... and maybe a bit more perspective on how important all this stuff really is? There's not a thing anyone here can say to me which can hurt me, either emotionally, or psychologically, or physically. I come here because there are folks here who I enjoy discussing things with, sharing thing with, and sharing a common interest with.

But barely a day goes by without someone (DTF, most often, these days) telling me that I'm not welcome and should go away. If the entire population here were of that mindset, I wouldn't come here in the first place. But this is just a small, vocal, aggressively hostile "clique" and they don't represent the population here as a whole, now, do they?

I'm a fast writer. I type as fast as I can talk, and I can talk pretty quickly. And it seems that I can type faster than some folks can read, based upon the complaints about my writing. But here's a suggestion... if you don't want to read what I have to say... DON'T READ WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. Last I checked, I wasn't holding a gun to anyone's head, forcing them to read anything. So I'm having a really hard time imagining why some people are so vocal about objecting to the posts I make here from time to time which are more than one sentence long!

In fact, I do believe that it's possible to BLOCK a poster, so their posts won't even show up. I know this is possible on other websites... I've blocked one or two people from time to time... mainly dumb kids posting obscenities and the like... so if you really hate what I have to say that much, feel free to block me. Then you won't have to read what I have to say. And anyone who does have an open mind, and is interested in discussing different aspects of different topics, well... they'll still be able to read and interact. See? Everybody wins!

Again... there were just a few "critical" posts, in this thread, about the lighting of the nacelles... Gary stepped in, defended his choice, and when he wasn't treated as Mohammed on the mountain, but was engaged in DISCUSSION of the topic instead, apparently decided it was time to leave. Which is, in the end, his right. 

But, since then, there have been how many pages, how many posts, OFF TOPIC, based upon people bemoaning how awful it is that Gary has "left?" It's not like he's banned... let's be clear. This is HIS CHOICE, and ONLY HIS CHOICE. Nobody asked him to go away. Nobody accused him of anything nefarious... only of being a "mere mortal human being."

He could "come back" right now. There's nothing to stop him from doing so. I, personally, would welcome that. And I, personally, would still enjoy seeing the scanned memo he mentioned, from G.R. to Robert Abel, suggesting the nacelle lighting. I've never seen that, and I'd like to.

But this is a discussion forum. Not a "blind adoration forum." Anyone who comes to a discussion forum needs to understand that "discussion" usually means different opinions can, and will, be raised. Including occasional "criticism" of someone's deeply-held beliefs, and their personal priorities... which, for the record, is what an "agenda" is, by definition.


----------



## CLBrown

spock62 said:


> Found: two part solution to fixing gridline "problem". Apply 'A' to saucer surface. Sand with 'B'. Repeat until gridlines are flush with surface. (Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to inject a little levity into the discussion!)


Oh, no problem... and that's fine.

But... I'm guessing lots of you guys have built the Ertl refit kit, and know that the gridlines on that kit were wrong. Not just too big, but also just "wrong" (wrong size, wrong place, wrong shape, etc).

So, how many of you puttied in the existing lines, then tried to scribe new lines? And how many of you discovered just what happens when you'd try to scribe a new line which happened to cross an existing, puttied-in, line?

The filler material is much softer than the base material. Scribing a new line, across an existing (puttied) line, is VERY difficult. It's nearly impossible to do it in an single pass.

I eventually gave up on ever getting good results this way.

I'm guessing more than one or two of you have had the same experience.

Yes, you can putty in the lines, and if you're not doing anything else, it can work OK. But if you're doing ANYTHING but putting paint on top of this, it becomes problematic.

In my case, as I've said many times before, I plan to use 9H (the hardest available) drafting lead, sharpened to a needle point, to make very, very fine lines on the model (as close as humanly possible to what was on the 11' model, in scale to what was on that model).

I also know, from personal experience, that "puttied in" lines usually leave slight "artifacts" on the surface, unless you perform multiple passes of paint/sand/inspect/refill/lather-rinse-repeat. This is more of an issue when dealing with very fine pigment... less of an issue when dealing with more "coarse-pigment" paints, which have so much inherent texture that the "artifact" texture is lost.

I have an "agenda" of my own here... I care about things that some other folks don't care about. I want a surface which is flawless, even on close-up inspection. I want my pencil lines to not "cut into" the soft putty underneath the paint... which means AT LEAST a very, very hard paint (automotive lacquer, not normal model paint), and may well mean using a very, very hard filler as well (I'm thinking white milliput, which I've had good experience with in the past, though it's a challenge to work with!)

I don't expect anyone else to have the same "agenda." And I'm not asking anyone else to change what they're going to do to conform to what I plan to do. 

But filling, for me at least and for some subset of modelers, will be much more challenging than the joke. 

And there will certainly be plenty of modelers who will be very unhappy that they have to do it in the first place. How many? As I've said before... there's no way to know yet. All we have so far is the "vocal minority" (on both sides of the issue). But, as I've said before, the "silent majority" have yet to express their own opinions. Once they do... then we'll see.

And as I said, if (as I personally expect will prove to be the case) this is the one big complaint that this kit gets... (and for all you "worship it or die" types, realize, that's me PRAISING THE REST OF THE DAMNED KIT!!!)... am I the only one who thinks that R2 might respond to that by making a very simple (and inexpensive) tweak to the kit for the second run?


----------



## Trek Ace

On the other hand, most people can only take so much constant bludgeoning on every point of minutia with such overblown retort, that they just decide that any further effort to share information in this environment is a wasted one, and the energy expended in attempting to do so could be better spent somewhere else.

I feel a great sense of loss that Gary feels alienated in a forum that he used to find such great pleasure in so graciously sharing his information with us on the making of this (and other) kits. He did so unselfishly and passionately, and those of us who truly appreciated his effort to do so.

This young man's life has been blessed with what he feels to be extraordinary circumstances and opportunities in which he was able to channel his passion into a truly unique vocation that is, no doubt, the envy of many persons who participate on this board, and, through his posts, allowed others to share his experience vicariously.

It's too bad that certain entities here cannot appreciate the unique privilege that was afforded us by his contribution to this forum, and we are diminished without it.

I could continue with my misgivings, but I realize that to go on and on might very well classify me in the category of a 'blowhard' - a dubious honor that I would rather have bestowed upon someone else.


----------



## slingshot392

Model Man said:


> big ditto there!
> 
> My personal taste says that RBoP is way too small to be as formidable as it was. Given that the D-7 as about as wide as the 1701, I'd go with the BoP being about as wide.
> 
> All told I've got 18 viewer requests and notes to address.


The first episode with the Romulan Bird of Prey was based on a well-known movie about a U. S. World War II submarine (just can't remember the name of hand). It was a very clever rewrite of that movie and apparently that is why the Romulan Bird was able to cloak and just had the powerful plasma weapon and was such a small ship. Just like the World War II submarines were slow, if they could get in position, they could take out large war vessels with their torpedoes, that if the torpedo was seen, it was possible to evade them. It's been quite awhile since I have seen that episode, but it seems like the Enterprise got knocked for a loop when the Romulan Bird stuck out some debris (just like the submarines would do when they were in trouble) and it was a nuclear weapon that exploded something like 100 m from the Enterprise! I remember my brother and I sitting up and taking notice at that. Even the way the Enterprise fired its photon torpedoes was like a destroyer dropping depth charges. One of my favorite episodes.


----------



## CLBrown

slingshot392 said:


> The first episode with the Romulan Bird of Prey was based on a well-known movie about a U. S. World War II submarine (just can't remember the name of hand).


The title was "The Enemy Below," as I recall...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050356/


----------



## Warped9

_The Enemy Below_ with Robert Mitchum.


----------



## swhite228

Trek Ace said:


> On the other hand, most people can only take so much constant bludgeoning on every point of minutia with such overblown retort, that they just decide that any further effort to share information in this environment is a wasted one, and the energy expended in attempting to do so could be better spent somewhere else.
> 
> I feel a great sense of loss that Gary feels alienated in a forum that he used to find such great pleasure in so graciously sharing his information with us on the making of this (and other) kits. He did so unselfishly and passionately, and those of us who truly appreciated his effort to do so.
> 
> This young man's life has been blessed with what he feels to be extraordinary circumstances and opportunities in which he was able to channel his passion into a truly unique vocation that is, no doubt, the envy of many persons who participate on this board, and, through his posts, allowed others to share his experience vicariously.
> 
> It's too bad that certain entities here cannot appreciate the unique privilege that was afforded us by his contribution to this forum, and we are diminished without it.
> 
> I could continue with my misgivings, but I realize that to go on and on might very well classify me in the category of a 'blowhard' - a dubious honor that I would rather have bestowed upon someone else.


This is the best post I've seen today!!!


----------



## spock62

CLBrown said:


> ...The filler material is much softer than the base material. Scribing a new line, across an existing (puttied) line, is VERY difficult. It's nearly impossible to do it in an single pass.
> 
> I eventually gave up on ever getting good results this way.
> 
> I'm guessing more than one or two of you have had the same experience.
> 
> Yes, you can putty in the lines, and if you're not doing anything else, it can work OK. But if you're doing ANYTHING but putting paint on top of this, it becomes problematic....


Regarding the putty, you mentioned using Milliput. Never tried it myself, but I have used Aves Apoxie Sculpt, which dries very hard. This might be a good putty for what you intend to do.



CLBrown said:


> ...am I the only one who thinks that R2 might respond to that by making a very simple (and inexpensive) tweak to the kit for the second run?


IMHO, if sales fall far short of expectations, primarily due to people disliking the molded in gridlines, maybe R2 would consider redoing the saucer parts. Of course, that would P.O. the people that do want the lines. Depends on which camp is the majority and how sales are/aren't effected. But, from the way it sounds, Jamie, Gary and the gang at R2 put a lot of thought into this kit and concluded that adding the gridlines was better then leaving them off. Something tells me sales of the kit won't be affected negatively by that choice. But, maybe 2 or 3 years down the line, if the kit is profitable, R2 might consider releasing smoothie saucer parts as an "accessory" package. Just guessing here, I have no "insider" info on R2's operations or decision making processes.


----------



## JeffG

I like the gridlines myself. Reminds me of how the E looked that was built for DS 9. And we all remember how gorgeous that looked when we saw it.I'm busting my brain more on whether to put the bridge in straight or at the angle.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

JeffG said:


> I like the gridlines myself. Reminds me of how the E looked that was built for DS 9. And we all remember how gorgeous that looked when we saw it.


I love the Greg Jein version built for that DS9 episode.

BTW, all this talk about how to detail the Round 2 model made me go back and look at some of the first restoration photos here, good resource! - http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=8672

I know the original has no panel lines on the main engineering hull, but if one were to add them how about basing them on following the actual wood comstruction planking lines you can see during restoration? Also on at least one of the nacelles it looks like it was built in sections based on the photos. These illustrations by David Shaw depicts the nacelle sheet seams:


----------



## Warped9

JeffG said:


> I like the gridlines myself. Reminds me of how the E looked that was built for DS 9. And we all remember how gorgeous that looked when we saw it.I'm busting my brain more on whether to put the bridge in straight or at the angle.


I'm in the minority here. it was okay but didn't wow me.


----------



## JeffG

Warped...out of curiosity, what didn't you like about it or that you would have changed?


----------



## Warped9

JeffG said:


> Warped...out of curiosity, what didn't you like about it or that you would have changed?


I know it was a model and not cgi, but something was off in how it was filmed. I can't put my finger on it, but something wasn't telegraphing for me. Maybe it was the way it was lighted? I don't know. I also didn't like what they did to the Klingon D& with all that plating. I disliked applying contemporary Trek aesthetics onto TOS.


----------



## RSN

Warped9 said:


> I know it was a model and not cgi, but something was off in how it was filmed. I can't put my finger on it, but something wasn't telegraphing for me. Maybe it was the way it was ;sighted? I don't know. I also didn't like what they did to the Klingon D& with all that plating. I disliked applying contemporary Trek aesthetics7onto TOS.


I know what you mean about how that DS 9 Enterprise model looked. Can't express it, but to my eye, something just popped out as "off". In a way, I almost prefer the look of the CG Enterprise in the HD versions.


----------



## Gregatron

JeffG said:


> I like the gridlines myself. Reminds me of how the E looked that was built for DS 9.


My point exactly. The kit will allow one to build that variant, if desired.


----------



## John P

Maybe somewhere down the line they can release a Special Edition kit with smooth saucer?


----------



## teslabe

I have to put out a BIG THANK YOU, Tom, for doing such a fine job with your reviews. I have my preorder in for the TOS Enterprise, then after seeing the side by side with the refit, I ordered that from Amazon, got a great price ($65.95 with free shipping), it will be here this Friday......:woohoo:


----------



## JGG1701

I would still like to know HOW this guy (Scotty) did his grid lines" post # 19

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=328247&highlight=six+years+in+the+making&page=2
-Jim


----------



## BolianAdmiral

JGG1701 said:


> I would still like to know HOW this guy (Scotty) did his grid lines" post # 19
> 
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=328247&highlight=six+years+in+the+making&page=2
> -Jim


Yeah... those are quite simply, PERFECT. Some great technique he's got.


----------



## Captain April

Y'know, the AMT had those gawdawful gridlines for almost the entirety of its production history, only losing them with the most recent Round 2 repop, and that kit was the best selling model kit of all time, so it seems rather odd to make an argument that more subtle and more accurate gridlines would adversely effect sales of this version, which is arguably the most highly anticipated model kit of all time.

Some people just have to hold on to dear life for a reason to gripe, or their life just doesn't seem complete, I s'pose.


----------



## Boom175

CLBrown said:


> Oh, no problem... and that's fine.
> 
> 
> I have an "agenda" of my own here... I care about things that some other folks don't care about. I want a surface which is flawless, even on close-up inspection. I want my pencil lines to not "cut into" the soft putty underneath the paint... which means AT LEAST a very, very hard paint (automotive lacquer, not normal model paint), and may well mean using a very, very hard filler as well (I'm thinking white milliput, which I've had good experience with in the past, though it's a challenge to work with!)


I've edited your post for space. You may want to try using cyanoacrylates and an accelerator to do your filling of the panel lines. However do NOT wait for the super glue to fully cure before you start sanding, by then the "super glue" will be harder than the kit plastic. 
ANY solvent based filler will shrink over time, its just there nature. That's why I use "super glue" as my filler of choice on my models (primarily A/C)
Just apply some accelerator to the surface and then a bit of gap filling super glue, wait a bit and wet sand. Use a LOT of water it helps "lubricate" your sandpaper and prevents it from clogging up.
Hope that helps!!


----------



## Captain April

Maybe the next thread should be titled "How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Gridlines".


----------



## Wattanasiri

Captain April said:


> Maybe the next thread should be titled "How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Gridlines".


So true...and life is so short.


----------



## Trek Ace

The grids and engraved panels on the new kit do not concern me at all. My right arm still aches just thinking about all of the scraping and sanding off of the raised grids I've done on the AMT kits over the decades. These will be NOTHING to remove compared to those!


----------



## [email protected]

Boom175 said:


> I've edited your post for space. You may want to try using cyanoacrylates and an accelerator to do your filling of the panel lines. However do NOT wait for the super glue to fully cure before you start sanding, by then the "super glue" will be harder than the kit plastic.
> ANY solvent based filler will shrink over time, its just there nature. That's why I use "super glue" as my filler of choice on my models (primarily A/C)
> Just apply some accelerator to the surface and then a bit of gap filling super glue, wait a bit and wet sand. Use a LOT of water it helps "lubricate" your sandpaper and prevents it from clogging up.
> Hope that helps!!


What about laying the finest Evergreen rod stock or stretched sprue from the kit itself into the grid lines and welding it down with solvent-type cement? That way, you're sanding nothing but styrene.

Myself, I'm not bothered by the engraved lines. A couple of coats of primer, paint, glosscote for decalling, dullcoat, etc., and I imagine they'll be all but gone. :thumbsup:

Tom


----------



## John P

[email protected] said:


> What about laying the finest Evergreen rod stock or stretched sprue from the kit itself into the grid lines and welding it down with solvent-type cement? That way, you're sanding nothing but styrene.


I've heard of that being done. Certainly worth a try!


----------



## johnF

That was my thought also. I've used kit's plastic as filler on more than a few kits, and it works great. Just make sure you fill the holes or engraved lines fully so you don't get any air pockets. I'm sure there will be more then enough sprue with the kit to do this.


----------



## spock62

johnF said:


> That was my thought also. I've used kit's plastic as filler on more than a few kits, and it works great. Just make sure you fill the holes or engraved lines fully so you don't get any air pockets. I'm sure there will be more then enough sprue with the kit to do this.


Both this and the super-glue method would work fine. I've tried both methods on a couple of kits with great results, though not on a scale of the Enterprise saucer parts. 

Also, I posted the question of wither or not Round 2 would ever consider releasing a revised, smooth version of the saucer in the future on their blog. Jamie's answer and his thoughts on model forums in general is here:

http://www.collectormodel.com/polar-lights/1652-star-trek-model-kits-galileo-shuttle/#comments

This should put and end to the debate on wither or not the gridlines will be removed. He also makes many good points regarding discussions of kits and what's REALLY important in life. A good read.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Captain April said:


> Y'know, the AMT had those gawdawful gridlines for almost the entirety of its production history, only losing them with the most recent Round 2 repop, and that kit was the best selling model kit of all time, so it seems rather odd to make an argument that more subtle and more accurate gridlines would adversely effect sales of this version, which is arguably the most highly anticipated model kit of all time.
> 
> Some people just have to hold on to dear life for a reason to gripe, or their life just doesn't seem complete, I s'pose.


No, not really. The AMT kit didn't cost a hundred dollars. This one will. Even more if you opt for the deluxe version. If I drop a hundred bucks on a kit, I expect to not have to do a whole lot of extra work fixing mistakes that never should have been there in the first place.


----------



## harrier1961

BolianAdmiral said:


> No, not really. The AMT kit didn't cost a hundred dollars. This one will. Even more if you opt for the deluxe version. If I drop a hundred bucks on a kit, I expect to not have to do a whole lot of extra work fixing mistakes that never should have been there in the first place.


"Mistakes" in your mind, not everybody's mind. That is the point.
It is better to have them as anybody can eliminate them. But to have to put them on for those who want "their" version to be "accurate" is a lot harder.

Just a thought.
Andy


----------



## enterprise_fan

After spending the last few days trying to get through all the ( insert your own term ) here, I remember why I don't post any personal observations. I am in the minority, I like the grid lines. I only thought of it recently but I like the idea of lighting up the inboard side of the engines. Being given the opportunity to light them appeals to me. But I will also incorporate the option of an on/off switch incase I lose interest in having them lit. (going back into hiding now)


----------



## Paulbo

Can't we just drop this already?

The gridlines exist. They're going to exist in the molds for a long, long, long time, if not forever. Griping about them isn't going to make them magically go away. For the people who don't want gridlines, don't buy the kit.

I wonder what the original AMT kit went for if it were translated into 2012 dollars.


----------



## Trek Ace

enterprise_fan said:


> After spending the last few days trying to get through all the ( insert your own term ) here, I remember why I don't post any personal observations. I am in the minority, I like the grid lines. I only thought of it recently but I like the idea of lighting up the inboard side of the engines. Being given the opportunity to light them appeals to me. But I will also incorporate the option of an on/off switch incase I lose interest in having them lit. (going back into hiding now)



Don't hide. That's a great option to incorporate, if it doesn't already exist in the light kit. I plan on doing that myself on one of the builds. I also plan to make the rear end caps removable on each engine pod, so that different colors of gels and diffusion could be inserted over the 'white' LEDs to make them blue, purple, orange - whatever I'd want.


----------



## Ductapeforever

I like to think about what Gene wanted on the filming miniature had they given him the budget to do what he wanted. I will do mine as I think he intended.


----------



## Shaw

Paulbo said:


> I wonder what the original AMT kit went for if it were translated into 2012 dollars.


Fortunately we can compare the price of a 1966 AMT Enterprise with today's models using a real gauge for most model builders and hobbiest... the minimum wage. The 1966 AMT Enterprise model sold for $2.00 (the suggested retail price), and the minimum wage at the time was $1.40. The current minimum wage is $7.25, so the effective equivalent would be about $10.35 (it would be $14.22 if done by adjusting for inflation).

So the original kit cost about half the price (I believe) of the current Round 2 re-issue. And while the first kit came with lights, the latest version comes with really cool decals. It would have been nice if the current kit had more of the original kit's finer features, but the current kit builds to a nice straight model (the original had a sag built into the design... apparently no one test built the kit before making the molds).

Of course my 1966 AMT Enterprise cost me about $100.00, and by the time I'm done building it it'll have run me almost double that (recreating authentic decals, replacing the original lighting with LEDs, and a few other small underlying improvements). But in the end I should end up with an authentic (though idealized) original AMT model of the Enterprise... a nice piece of history being the first run of the most popular model kit ever and a representative of the AMT models used in TOS.


----------



## TrekFX

Ductapeforever said:


> I like to think about what Gene wanted on the filming miniature had they given him the budget to do what he wanted. I will do mine as I think he intended.


So do I...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8021124126/in/photostream

I like the idea of having the option, and photoetch to make it both pretty and easy. Since the original grilles were perforated anyway, you can do a true "original state" replica, then flick a switch and hello! Light!

The photo is a composite I did ages ago just as a visualization. Here's a point to ponder regarding the current restoration and the degree of weathering. I agree that there's something off, I think maybe it's just that the airbrushing of the lower saucer is just too smooth and too sloppy, if that makes any sense. It just looks like insufficiently-blended spray passes, not a natural aging. As far as the degree/intensity, I took a bunch of good clean shots that looked pretty garish, then processed them to simulate contrast/saturation loss and grain buildup consistant with the matting/compositing tech of the era. And it really made the thing look good, as in very much like we would have seen on the ol' 23-in CRT bigscreen of the day.


----------



## Trekkriffic

TrekFX said:


> So do I...
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8021124126/in/photostream
> 
> I like the idea of having the option, and photoetch to make it both pretty and easy. Since the original grilles were perforated anyway, you can do a true "original state" replica, then flick a switch and hello! Light!


Count me in for the option of switching on the light behind the grills. 

Very cool composite Trek!


----------



## Paulbo

Cool analysis Shaw. Did a bit of figuring myself after reading your post ...

$100 "de-inflationed" to 1966 would be $14.09, or 7 times what the 18" Enterprise cost. Given a 31" length (I think that's right), the volume of the 1/350 is 5.1 times the original which would make you think it would go for $10.20.

However, the the thickness of plastic is more than 1.7 times that of the original kit, so just on the amount of plastic we're probably looking at a comparable cost. Add to that, the parts count, I don't think it's out of order to think that this new ship is actually LESS expensive than the original 18 incher.

That's leaving aside the purely aesthetic issues of having a 99.9% accurate Enterprise. I've given the 0.1% to anti-gridline faction.

Given that, I think the 1/350 TOS Enterprise is a bargain.


----------



## Mike Warshaw

Trekkriffic said:


> Count me in for the option of switching on the light behind the grills.
> 
> Very cool composite Trek!


Nice photo, Mikey.


----------



## Warped9

spock62 said:


> Also, I posted the question of wither or not Round 2 would ever consider releasing a revised, smooth version of the saucer in the future on their blog. Jamie's answer and his thoughts on model forums in general is here:
> 
> http://www.collectormodel.com/polar-lights/1652-star-trek-model-kits-galileo-shuttle/#comments
> 
> This should put and end to the debate on wither or not the gridlines will be removed. He also makes many good points regarding discussions of kits and what's REALLY important in life. A good read.


Yep, that pretty well settles it and I'm content to leave it at that. I'd say that any further discussion regarding this issue should pretty much be focused on sharing different ways to modify/remove the lines (if thats what one wants to do with their kit).


----------



## Captain April

I'm starting to lean towards lighting those grills meself. After all, it's been made pretty damn easy, and I'm planning on lighting it anyway, so what the hell....


----------



## Warped9

Lighting the nacelle inboard grills is interesting, but ultimately it just clashes too much with the ship I know in my mind and on the screen. It might have been an idea they had---and if they'd done it we'd all be used to it now---but they didn't follow through and their passing intent doesn't matter (to me) anymore.

I also feel much the same way about the impulse engine ports---seeing them lighted (particularly in red) just looks wrong (to me).

That said I'm glad the option is there to do it with relative ease.


----------



## BARRYZ28

If the gridlines are fine enough, a high fill automotive primer and wet sanding will take care of it quite nicely. Otherwise a non-shrinking two part automotive spot putty and wet sanding will also take care of it. 

On a different note, since when has any experienced modeler built a kit without modifying or customizing it in some way or another. I can't remember a recent kit in the past few years that I’ve built box stock without minimal paint work or weathering.

Anyway, I will buy two kits at least and probably the lighting kit.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I have a question. If one chooses not to light the engine grills to stay strick TOS, then would it make sense not to use the etches brass accessory set and just stick with the lighting kit? Do the plastic grills look good enough in anyone's opinion to do without brass replacements?


----------



## Model Man

Steve Mavronis said:


> I have a question. If one chooses not to light the engine grills to stay strick TOS, then would it make sense not to use the etches brass accessory set and just stick with the lighting kit? Do the plastic grills look good enough in anyone's opinion to do without brass replacements?


I can sneak a side by side of the plastic vs/ PE into the queue. I'm looking to start shooting most of the viewer requests tonight. Having just got back from a deep cleaning at the dentists (my wallet too!), we'll see how talkative I am when the novacaine (sp) wears off in a couple hours. 

That makes a total of 20 different points I'll be addressing in this last round up.


----------



## ClubTepes

Ductapeforever said:


> I like to think about what Gene wanted on the filming miniature had they given him the budget to do what he wanted. I will do mine as I think he intended.


Hear hear, Duct. More power to you.


----------



## enterprise_fan

From what I can see from the videos from Model Man several things will have to happen before final assembly;

1) If smooth surface is preferred then all grid lines should be filled in at this time. All exterior parts need to be primed and painted the color of your choosing. (PE added now)

2.1) If lighting the kit is your preference then coat the interior with a light blocking substance followed by a reflective substance.

2.2) Assemble lighting for each section and test said module before closing. Note: Don't forget the windows of your choice where needed.)

3) Add your preferred decals to subassembly at this time. Smaller parts are easier to handed than the entire model when fully assembled. (refrain from putting decals around the joint areas at this time. These areas may need to filled in and repainted after joining subassemblies.

4) After model has had time to set up spray entire model with dull coat to seal all decals.

5) Sit back and enjoy your work.

In the simplest of terms, and a very condensed time line, does that sound about right?


----------



## Warped9

Ductapeforever said:


> I like to think about what Gene wanted.... I will do mine as I think he intended.


GR initially intended Spock to be half Martian with a steel plate in his stomach. Nimoy and all the writers have been doing it wrong all these years. :lol:


----------



## slingshot392

JGG1701 said:


> I would still like to know HOW this guy (Scotty) did his grid lines" post # 19
> 
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=328247&highlight=six+years+in+the+making&page=2
> -Jim


Masking, paint, & lots of talent.


----------



## Ductapeforever

ClubTepes said:


> Hear hear, Duct. More power to you.


Thanks Mike for the words of encouragement. This is after all a model of a model of a fictional ship. Gene Roddenberry had a vision of the ship as he would have liked to have seen it. I would like to bring mine as close to that vision as possible. Budgets being what they are, the gridlines , the lighted grills on the engines and other details would have been on the filming miniature if the money would have been available from inception. In that spirit that is how I would like to build her. I have a few surprises up my sleeve in store for you guys when I get her finished, but I intend to take my time, to allow for any other aftermarket goodies to show themselves, and to be my crowning achievement to my modeling career.


----------



## Gregatron

This kit is all about *options*.

Optional pilot parts, optional decals, optional lighting accommodations for the Bridge, Hangar, impulse engines, and nacelle grilles.

And options for the gridlines. Leave 'em, and depict the DS9, Remastered, or an idealized version. Remove 'em, and do a studio-model-accurate version.


It's all about options! It's not as if Round 2 is throwing a one-size-fits-all kit at us, AMT-style, with no possibility for variants (after all, it took AMT several years to add in decals--_inaccurate_ decals--for alternate ship names and numbers).


----------



## Zombie_61

Here's the _real_ question: How many of you are going to fill in the gridlines, then draw them on with a pencil afterwards? :devil:

I really have to stop reading this thread, or I'm going to end up buying one of these kits even though I really can't afford it and wouldn't have the space to display it after I'd built it.


----------



## Warped9

Zombie_61 said:


> Here's the _real_ question: How many of you are going to fill in the gridlines, then draw them on with a pencil afterwards? :devil:


If I fill in the lines I certainly won't be trying to scribe or draw them afterward. If I find them fine enough as is out-of-the-box (and even finer after painting) then I'll just let them be other than touching them up so they match around the rim.


----------



## John P

My first one will be one of the pilot versions, so I'll _have _to fill the grids! Makes me wonder how I'm going to align the registry decals.


----------



## fire91bird

Gregatron said:


> This kit is all about *options*.
> 
> Optional pilot parts, optional decals, optional lighting accommodations for the Bridge, Hangar, impulse engines, and nacelle grilles.
> 
> And options for the gridlines. Leave 'em, and depict the DS9, Remastered, or an idealized version. Remove 'em, and do a studio-model-accurate version.
> 
> 
> It's all about options! It's not as if Round 2 is throwing a one-size-fits-all kit at us, AMT-style, with no possibility for variants (after all, it took AMT several years to add in decals--_inaccurate_ decals--for alternate ship names and numbers).


Exactly! Round 2 should be commended for making a kit that can depict just about any version a modeler might want. It's quite an impressive achievement.


----------



## KUROK

Zombie_61 said:


> Here's the _real_ question: How many of you are going to fill in the gridlines, then draw them on with a pencil afterwards? :devil:
> 
> .


Guilty, as charged!!!!


----------



## Model Man

In the wrap up videos, I address the apparent misalignment of the sides and top grids (not as bad as first glance indicated, only 2-3 are out of alignment and then only by a grid line's width at most, get ultra close to the saucer surfaces, compare TOS grid to Refit, throw calipers at them and show off the peebly surfacing to which I read from one of Jamie's notes on that. Should be up tomorrow sometime. I think there will be 3 installments, not sure yet, I still have more to shoot.

I've spent the last few hours scrubbing through my low-rez, original-cut, avi's of season 1. The grid is apparent as early as Corbomite and BalO'Terror. Found a couple examples where 3-4 lines appear to be horizontal on the pylons, several concentric's possible on the nacelles (though not as prominent as I'd thought), there's a strange concentric ring just behind the deflector dish and possible concentric rings around the 2ndary hull. And not to mention the TONS of weathering all over the place. I never realized how excessive it was before this morning! And not just he blue and green streaky kind and most certainly not confined to the upper saucer.

Anyone ever notice the two, parallel black streaks at the top and bottom of the back-end, nacelle boxes on the inner port side? Step thru Ent Incident when 1701 makes a break for Fed space. The very last few frames, you'll see them -and all the weathering streaks just behind the bussard rim. 

Tons!


----------



## Joeysaddress

*Hi Res Photos taken?*

Hey Model Man Tom...were you able to take any Hi-Res photos of the 1/350 TOS E and if so, will you be allowed to post them? Great Vids. Can't wait to get mine!! Joey


----------



## TrekFX

Model Man said:


> I've spent the last few hours scrubbing through my low-rez, original-cut, avi's of season 1. The grid is apparent as early as Corbomite and BalO'Terror. Found a couple examples where 3-4 lines appear to be horizontal on the pylons, several concentric's possible on the nacelles (though not as prominent as I'd thought), there's a strange concentric ring just behind the deflector dish and possible concentric rings around the 2ndary hull. And not to mention the TONS of weathering all over the place. I never realized how excessive it was before this morning! And not just he blue and green streaky kind and most certainly not confined to the upper saucer.
> 
> Anyone ever notice the two, parallel black streaks at the top and bottom of the back-end, nacelle boxes on the inner port side? Step thru Ent Incident when 1701 makes a break for Fed space. The very last few frames, you'll see them -and all the weathering streaks just behind the bussard rim.
> 
> Tons!


Absolutely! It's one reason why I think the Miarecki restoration, while seeming "off" somehow, may be closer to reality than many believe.

Another exercise from long ago...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8023175487/in/photostream


----------



## TrekFX

A few more dusted off...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8023324563/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8023322137/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8023326449/in/photostream

Wish I could grab blu-ray with my computer!


----------



## Tiberious

A couple of things that stick out to me.

1. Options - absolutely. While most wouldn't be exercised by me, this kit isn't FOR me, it's for US. So I'm 100% behind having options available so long as it's practical for the development/sales of the kit.

1b. That said, there's no way that I'd do any kind of G.R. wish options and consider it canon. This isn't against Gene (directly) nor against those who made decisions then or now. It's (oddly enough) because of George Lucas. YES! I'm so sick of his revisionist history mentality that I'm a fan of the way things are, not how someone felth they should've been (maybe) 40+ years ago. But if this is the way you want to build it, I say GO FOR IT! 

2. I'm surprised and disappointed over some of the quality issues Tom has discovered. The failure of the gridlines, especially as important and contraversial as they've been, to match up precisely is a concern. It will be very difficult to fix this for many of us...but I think crucial to maintain the quality that this kit demands. The pebbled surface is, I hope, an anomaly.

Nothing here is a show stopper, just an observation. I'm absolutely still amazed by what's been accomplished here!

Tib


----------



## TrekFX

Model Man said:


> I've spent the last few hours scrubbing through my low-rez, original-cut, avi's of season 1. The grid is apparent as early as Corbomite and BalO'Terror. Found a couple examples where 3-4 lines appear to be horizontal on the pylons, several concentric's possible on the nacelles (though not as prominent as I'd thought), there's a strange concentric ring just behind the deflector dish and possible concentric rings around the 2ndary hull. And not to mention the TONS of weathering all over the place. I never realized how excessive it was before this morning! And not just he blue and green streaky kind and most certainly not confined to the upper saucer.
> 
> Anyone ever notice the two, parallel black streaks at the top and bottom of the back-end, nacelle boxes on the inner port side? Step thru Ent Incident when 1701 makes a break for Fed space. The very last few frames, you'll see them -and all the weathering streaks just behind the bussard rim.
> 
> Tons!


Is it real?...

In the "over-the-shoulder" shots (as in the approach to K-9 oops K-7! in Tribbles) do you see anything going on with the nacelle tops? I swear sometimes it seems like there's a lengthwise line and perhaps a panel or something up there. I never got around to a fancy photo-analysis.

Also, I can't remember where they are on the Web, but there are some good hi-res black-and-white photos. They're really contrasty so the brights are blown out but you can pick up a lot of the weathering like those streaks at the aft nacelle.

By the time I'm done I'll have a daft nacelle instead of a head!


----------



## Trekkriffic

Theee were definitely weathering streaks on the secondary hull and nacelles. Just look at any of the original still shots showing closeups of the secondary hull in profile or the shots over the back of the saucer between the nacelles. 
I used the 1/1000 kit as a test bed so my 1/350 will look much the same as far as weathering:

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/Trekriffic/TOS Enterprise 1-1000 scale/IMG_1684.jpg
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/Trekriffic/TOS Enterprise 1-1000 scale/IMG_1677.jpg
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/...prise 1-1000 scale/Outdoor Shots/IMG_1489.jpg

The gridlines are done in pencil but are so subtle you have to get up real close to see them. 
I don't plan on using the weathering decals but will withhold from saying I'll absolutely not use them until I get a good look at them.


----------



## Captain April

I offer up the following without comment, other than to point out that this is from "The Cage"..

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0031.jpg


----------



## enterprise_fan

Having a George Carlin moment--- Why is it called weathering on a spacecraft when there isn't air in space? :jest:


----------



## Opus Penguin

Because when building the model you have to decide "weather or not" you want to add it. :freak:


----------



## Ductapeforever

enterprise_fan said:


> Having a George Carlin moment--- Why is it called weathering on a spacecraft when there isn't air space? :jest:


Why do we 'park' on a driveway and 'drive' on a parkway?

Why are there locks on the doors of 7-eleven stores that are open 24 hours?

Isn't the mysteries of the Universe grand?


----------



## Trekkriffic

enterprise_fan said:


> Having a George Carlin moment--- Why is it called weathering on a spacecraft when there isn't air space? :jest:


Weren't there a few times the E got scorched entering a planet's atmosphere? Might have something to do with it.


----------



## Nova Designs

enterprise_fan said:


> Having a George Carlin moment--- Why is it called weathering on a spacecraft when there isn't air space? :jest:



There's no air in space? But there's an air in space museum?
-Homer Simpson.


----------



## Model Man

enterprise_fan said:


> Having a George Carlin moment--- Why is it called weathering on a spacecraft when there isn't air space? :jest:


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

http://www.spaceweather.com/

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SWN/index.html

Perhaps the wiki should be changed to note that sci-fi modelers have used space weathering to great effect for longer than since 1990's. 

It also doesn't say much about the deleterious effects of particulate matter traveling at hyper velocity or near-relativistic speeds, nor the accumulation of carbon scorching for atmospheric entry nor other high energy events such as the common space blaster or meglomaniac earth space probe or inter-galactic war machine can commonly cause.

...
As to all the ref photos of weathering, I hadn't realized how low rez my low rez avi's are. If you want to simulate what it was like to watch tv ~40yrs ago, make a one hour, 350mb avi of a vhs tape. All the fun of 640x480 on a 12" tv, but not quite the modern compression artifacts of today.


----------



## robiwon

Ductapeforever said:


> Why do we 'park' on a driveway and 'drive' on a parkway?
> 
> Why are there locks on the doors of 7-eleven stores that are open 24 hours?
> 
> Isn't the mysteries of the Universe grand?


OT I know but I have to add, why do they call them buildings when they are already built? Why do they call them apartments when they are all stuck together?

Thank you, now back to your regulary scheduled program.....


----------



## KUROK

Tiberious said:


> The pebbled surface is, I hope, an anomaly.
> 
> Tib


I would imagine that is there to help paint stick better, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Trekkriffic

KUROK said:


> I would imagine that is there to help paint stick better, wouldn't you say?


I would think the "pebbly" surface would only be a concern for those who choose not to paint their model as it is apparently being molded in the "correct" colored plastic although what is "correct" or not is a matter that has been discussed ad infinitum. I can't imagine any of the skilled modellers posting in this thread are going to leave their E "naked" though.


----------



## Model Man

As well as the saucer surfacing, I have a note from Jamie on the injected colors that I was going to cut or keep. Guess I'll keep it for the color call chapter.

Somewhere, someone mentioned why marbling can occur in the plastic that had to do with injection temp vs. near-instant cooling phase and if the plastic was pulsed into the mold rather than streamed. In the case of the copper, it also had to do with the metallic dye?

While I still have to take a close look at certain parts colors next to each other to be sure they're not all one uniform exterior gray, the neck is not two-tone, the old bussard caps are not maroon, etc. 

Granted it's not a pre-painted model, but neither does the kit seem to be injected with more than several of the ten particular color calls for the ship. I've seen exterior gray and copper so far, discounting the tri-colored windows and lighting kit trees...

It looks like:
5A: Covering a few notes on release dates/prices, clearing confusion on Standard vs. Premiere and Saucer notes. Should have that late tonight, PST or early tomorrow.

5B: Fit and Fiddly bits. All the misc calls for looks at parts like the def. dishes, etc.

I haven't shot any of these yet.
5C: The Color Calls mentions the injected colors, decal notes and a close up of the box tray showing off the colors and decal placement

5D: Sweeping Up has all the minutia.

5E: The Lighting Kit Lighted Up. Says it all and should be the final note.


----------



## Nova Designs

Gary K said:


> To avoid being bogged down in endless quibbling, I'm going to join Frank Winspur, Dave Metzner, and Jamie Hood and take an indefinite hiatus from Hobby Talk. I have actual work to do, personal equipment to compare sizes of, and agendas to push.
> 
> Gary



Folks, we need to stop right now and pay attention to this. 

This, right here, is why I and so many other long time members don't post much on HobbyTalk any more, even though I have been a member here since... good grief, 1996 (yes I know it says 2000). 

I think internet forums on the whole have devolved into meaningless pissing contests, they are more about being dominant and beating others in arguments than actually DOING the thing being discussed. There are a few of you guys that do amazing work and continue to inspire me (when I actually have the time to build models any more), and that is the reason I still come here.

There are also too many people who will argue every point, write lengthy diatribes, complain about everything under the sun, and beat down any opposing views with sheer aggression. I sometimes think that we all forget how fortunate we are that this forum occasionally provides us access to people like Gary, who have invested MANY YEARS and countless hours studying, being open-minded and truly learning everything they can about the thing they love. Precious few ever get the kind of access he has had, not just to the model, but the history, the people and the documentation surrounding it. He is to be respected and admired, because he has EARNED the access he got through his talent, expertise, trustworthiness and friendships which he has nurtured over the years.

When I see people, who have done precisely ZIP in this field arguing and insisting that they, who have nothing more than baseless opinions, are right and he, who has years and years of intimate experience is somehow wrong, it just burns me up.

And now, once again, another rare and valuable person is being driven off in frustration due to the stupid, thoughtless, irrational, myopic and stubbornly opinionated personalities on this forum.

You who are at fault should be ashamed and should apologize to Gary for being essentially jerks. Frankly, I feel much more strongly than that but I don't want to be banned for profanity.

You who are here all the time and didn't dog pile the hell out of those responsible should also be ashamed. 






BlackbirdCD said:


> It's just not a fun place to discuss Star Trek or science fiction models anymore. Good move and I look forward the upcoming kits. They really are looking amazing.
> 
> Chris Doll


I completely agree, Chris, and it hasn't been for a very, VERY long time.

Pardon my anger, but I am really sickened by the rudeness and thoughtlessness than I am seeing here.


----------



## Warped9

I hope Gary can be enticed back because it was a pleasure having his insight. I don't think I contributed anything to him departing, but on the remote chance I might have I am sincerely sorry.


----------



## Model Man

Part 5A, The Wrap.
Covering a few random notes on release dates and prices, clearing confusion on Standard vs. Premiere and lotsa Saucer notes.


----------



## Warped9

Model Man said:


> Part 5A, The Wrap.
> Covering a few random notes on release dates and prices, clearing confusion on Standard vs. Premiere and lotsa Saucer notes.
> OoB Review: 1/350 TOS Enterprise Pt5A: The Wrap: Std vs Premiere & Lotsa Saucer - YouTube


Thanks Tom. Great wrap-up and really appreciate those added quoted words from Jamie.

So while those purchasing the standard kit will have to pick them up from some retailer or other the 1701 Club members will be contacted by R2 about purchasing the premiere edition directly from R2. Have I got that right?


----------



## Model Man

Warped9 said:


> Thanks Tom. Great wrap-up and really appreciate those added quoted words from Jamie.
> 
> So while those purchasing the standard kit will have to pick them up from some retailer or other the 1701 Club members will be contacted by R2 about purchasing the premiere edition directly from R2. Have I got that right?


Yah, I should have mentioned that. Following Jamie's club and general blog posts is the way to go there. 

I talk with Jamie here and there, but I don't coordinate to any large degree and I don't know the Round 2 mind. I'm not an employee or paid sponsor of any kind, so don't know official information beyond what most know.


----------



## StarshipClass

Paulbo said:


> Cool analysis Shaw. Did a bit of figuring myself after reading your post ...
> 
> $100 "de-inflationed" to 1966 would be $14.09, or 7 times what the 18" Enterprise cost. Given a 31" length (I think that's right), the volume of the 1/350 is 5.1 times the original which would make you think it would go for $10.20.
> 
> However, the the thickness of plastic is more than 1.7 times that of the original kit, so just on the amount of plastic we're probably looking at a comparable cost. Add to that, the parts count, I don't think it's out of order to think that this new ship is actually LESS expensive than the original 18 incher.
> 
> That's leaving aside the purely aesthetic issues of having a 99.9% accurate Enterprise. I've given the 0.1% to anti-gridline faction.
> 
> Given that, I think the 1/350 TOS Enterprise is a bargain.


I think you're exactly right! :wave:


----------



## StarshipClass

Warped9 said:


> I know it was a model and not cgi, but something was off in how it was filmed. I can't put my finger on it, but something wasn't telegraphing for me. Maybe it was the way it was lighted? I don't know. I also didn't like what they did to the Klingon D& with all that plating. I disliked applying contemporary Trek aesthetics onto TOS.


I've also noticed that there's something not quite right. Just the same, I've liked Jein's version as a variation on the original but you're right--it's _different _somehow.

It may have something to do with the saucer thickness throwing things a little out of proportion--or maybe not. The saucer edge may actually be the right thickness but because the underneath of the hull does not have the tapering near the edge (but instead has the flat rim similar to the TOS 34" special effects model) it could seem to be thicker from certain angles. I'm not really sure.

Maybe the bulge on top of the saucer is too high?


----------



## TrekFX

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I've also noticed that there's something not quite right. Just the same, I've liked Jein's version as a variation on the original but you're right--it's _different _somehow.
> 
> It may have something to do with the saucer thickness throwing things a little out of proportion--or maybe not. The saucer edge may actually be the right thickness but because the underneath of the hull does not have the tapering near the edge (but instead has the flat rim similar to the TOS 34" special effects model) it could seem to be thicker from certain angles. I'm not really sure.
> 
> Maybe the bulge on top of the saucer is too high?


Dontcha hate that? "There's *something....*"

I haven't looked over the Jein version in a while, but could a contributing factor be the photography? We got used to seeing the original a certain number of ways. For DS-9, it looks like shorter lenses giving the new one a greater sense of size and depth... like how in the image you show, the saucer looks huge and the nacelles converge forever! There's also Gary Hutzel's trademark low-angle high-key contrastly lighting (a beautiful thing...) versus the fairly flat lighting and process-compromised contrast of the old clips. Combined with some small proportional deviations in the model, could add up?

Given Greg's regard for the show I doubt he'd go out of his way to f... mess with it to any great extent.


----------



## jbond

Maybe it's just the fact that it was a smaller model and so it could not be photographed in the same ways that the 11-footer was.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

jbond said:


> Maybe it's just the fact that it was a smaller model and so it could not be photographed in the same ways that the 11-footer was.


Yeah that and camera lens angle causing more optical distortion than we are used to seeing on this ship. [Edit] - looking at the screen cap below the saucer rim does appear thicker.


----------



## Gregatron

Preamble: The DS9 model is its own unique variation, and, while somewhat inaccurate compared to the original 11-footer, it is not "wrong". In fact, it's really amazing that Jein, Kerr and company whipped it up in such a short amount of time.


That said, it does feel a bit "off" compared to the TOS version. 

* The lower saucer sensor dome is a little too big and bulbous.

* The saucer rim is a more than a bit too thick.

* Too many fanblades in the nacelle domes.

* The darker gray highlights seem a little too dark, and the intercoolers are that darker color, which is inaccurate.

* It has that optical illusion-induced copper ring (instead of hull-color) behind the deflector dish housing.

* The sensor/deflector dish seems a little flat.

* That thing that starts with "g" and ends with "ridlines". Ahem.

























All that said, the model is still a fine interpretation of the design, and is a perfectly viable version to build using the new 1/350 kit as a basis. And it's a great episode! Setting aside any comparisons to the original, the model shots are lovely, and give the ship the appropriate weight, which can't really be said for the CG Remastered version.


I saw one of the for-sale replicas of the replica at the old Viacom store in Chicago in the late 90s (and still have the photos I took of it). It was impressive to see in person, although the sensor/deflector dish was missing.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

Model Man said:


> Part 5A, The Wrap. Covering a few random notes on release dates and prices, clearing confusion on Standard vs. Premiere and lotsa Saucer notes.


Thank you! Yeah I don't feel the saucer halves are misaligned beyond any acceptable tolerances. Maybe it even varies by a hair from kit to kit, who knows. Once the part seams are made invisible they should blend together good enough to the perception by the naked eye to bother worrying about. Those 2 bottom triangles and anything else like them with the lines cutting through can be filled in too just like a seam. Looking forward to part 5B for the other bits to cover on your punch list.


----------



## Fozzie

Some especially helpful shots in that last bit of video and useful information on the finish from Jamie. 

The gridlines look thinner and shallower than the refit gridlines.

What is included in the premiere kit is exactly what I heard at the beginning and what I have been expecting since day one.

All of this information is great! Can't wait to get my hands on the kit!


----------



## Warped9

Fozzie said:


> Some especially helpful shots in that last bit of video and useful information on the finish from Jamie.
> 
> The gridlines look thinner and shallower than the refit gridlines.


Yeah, I gotta say that in the videos the lines don't look bad, but then it's still not the same as seeing them in person. Still from what I can see it looks like a coat of primer (and maybe a sanding) and then paint will go far in minimizing those lines.


----------



## Dr. Brad

As far as the Jein Enterprise goes, it does have it's flaws, but I still remember how great it was to see it on screen again - I'd never thought to see the TOS Enterprise in a new Trek episode of any kind!  As I recall Jein and co built it on their own time - can anyone verify that?


----------



## Gregatron

Dr. Brad said:


> As far as the Jein Enterprise goes, it does have it's flaws, but I still remember how great it was to see it on screen again - I'd never thought to see the TOS Enterprise in a new Trek episode of any kind!  As I recall Jein and co built it on their own time - can anyone verify that?


http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2008...starships-tribble-ations-retrospect/#more-389

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/rockin-it-old-school/



It's amazing that this was built in less than two weeks. And, for that time period--and the short build turnaround--, it's very accurate.


----------



## jaws62666

Tom, when will we be graced with the rest of the videos


----------



## Model Man

As of now, I haven't finished shooting pt5c. Think that will be done tonight. Maybe posted tomorrow, probly Sat morn. If not, then Sat night.

Shooting 5d "Lighting the lights and spinning the domes" will be delayed until at least Sunday with editing to follow and posting early next week. I thought there might be a 5e, but nope. Three plus the lights.

The delay: Saturday is an event known among droid and astromech builders as R2-LA. The ninth annual in this case. I have to finish prepping Lemon's and the T-65 for the event.

If you want to see a few dozen droid builders discussing and displaying their droids of various stages of completion, check out www.r2la.com, streaming around noon PST and into the evening. There could well be a full dozen working droids there and a number of partials and starters. 

Being a trek thread, I grok that Star Wars ain't your thing.


----------



## paustin0816

Wow...stunning I cannot wait


----------



## Fozzie

I gotta say I was hugely impressed by how he snapped that thing together and then wiggled it around. He's right, there's no way you could do that with the refit. It certainly does seem to be well engineered. Just one more thing that we can thank Jamie for!

Every one of these videos makes me more and more anxious for it to be released!


----------



## Grumpy Popeye

I enjoyed the "guest location" over at Steve Neil's! The whole video series actually!


----------



## AJ-1701

Great video series Tom... After seeing them I was onto culttvmans and pre ordered the lady herself, the light kit, the additional pl pe set & Paul's additional pe set. Well I was always going to get one eventually anyway. So review just sped things up a tad...  As for grid lines..







all things are possible..









Cheers,
Alec


----------



## Dr. Brad

Gregatron said:


> http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2008...starships-tribble-ations-retrospect/#more-389
> 
> http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/rockin-it-old-school/
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing that this was built in less than two weeks. And, for that time period--and the short build turnaround--, it's very accurate.


Ah, thanks for that! Wow - ten days!!!? Amazing indeed!


----------



## robiwon

Lets be careful about the kettle calling the pot black. This thread is not about who got banned from this forum or who has been banned from the RPF and SSM. This thread is not a soap box.


----------



## Captain Han Solo

Looking forward to this kit very much!Thanks for posting the videos Tom!!


----------



## jaws62666

Model Man said:


> As of now, I haven't finished shooting pt5c. Think that will be done tonight. Maybe posted tomorrow, probly Sat morn. If not, then Sat night.
> 
> Shooting 5d "Lighting the lights and spinning the domes" will be delayed until at least Sunday with editing to follow and posting early next week. I thought there might be a 5e, but nope. Three plus the lights.
> 
> TOM, We are hanging with baited breath waiting for the last 2 vids. Any chance on seeing any today/


----------



## Model Man

No, sorry. Tomorrow night earliest.


----------



## RMC

*great review Tom,.....thanx !*


----------



## Scotty K

JGG1701 said:


> I would still like to know HOW this guy (Scotty) did his grid lines" post # 19
> 
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=328247&highlight=six+years+in+the+making&page=2
> -Jim


I've been following this thread sporatically, and only recently have come back to read all of the entries that I had missed. I hadn't realized that my build was referred to; thanks for the kind words.

If you go a little further down to post #29, I explain briefly how I did my grids; perhaps you would like something with a little more detail?

Rather than hijack this thread, I suppose I could start another one with regard to how I did my gridlines, if you folks would like me to do that...

And to Model Man Tom, a *BIG THANK YOU* for devoting the time to do the kit reviews; they are incredibly informative!


----------



## Opus Penguin

I would like to see you do that. With the heated discussion on gridlines it would be nice to see how someone did it more accurately.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Slightly off topic:

Attention all aftermarket suppliers, the TOS shuttle in the kit will need to be resin cast by someone if you wish to add more than one in the bay. After an e-mail conversation with Jamie at Round two. Parts will *NOT* be available through customer service. As the shuttle parts are scattered on different sprues and also will *NOT* be available in the parts pack. So just a heads up.


----------



## jaws62666

Tom, are we any closer to the last 2 videos. :thumbsup:


----------



## Model Man

Not much closer, sorry. Look for it this weekend. With the space shuttle last week, the astromechs this past weekend and some deep computer maintenance ongoing, the wrap up footage is waiting to be edited and I haven't shot the lighting kit yet.


----------



## kenlee

Model Man said:


> Not much closer, sorry. Look for it this weekend. With the space shuttle last week, the astromechs this past weekend and some deep computer maintenance ongoing, the wrap up footage is waiting to be edited and I haven't shot the lighting kit yet.


Take your time, it will be well worth the wait.


----------



## Model Man

Color Calls and Final Last General Notes.





Still to do, shoot the lighting kit lit up. Hopefully this weekend.


----------



## paustin0816

As a total newb as far as photoetched parts go, I have some questions. I understand that they are made of brass and offer a level of detail that plastic cannot provide. But my question is about the color. They are brass colored and thus need to be painted correct? My concern is that I will loose that amazing detail once I paint them. How is this typically dealt with. Thanks in advance


----------



## Model Man

paustin0816 said:


> As a total newb as far as photoetched parts go, I have some questions. I understand that they are made of brass and offer a level of detail that plastic cannot provide. But my question is about the color. They are brass colored and thus need to be painted correct? My concern is that I will loose that amazing detail once I paint them. How is this typically dealt with. Thanks in advance


Airbrush gently and lightly. Once the holes fill on PE, they're difficult to clean out manually and ruins the effect, imo.


----------



## liskorea317

Model Man said:


> Color Calls and Final Last General Notes.
> OoB Review: 1/350 TOS Enterprise Pt5C: The Wrap: Color Calls and FInal Notes - YouTube
> 
> Still to do, shoot the lighting kit lit up. Hopefully this weekend.


A pint of Guinness to celebrate? Good taste, my good man! And appropriate!


----------



## JeffG

Model Man...you rock! And congrats to the team that made this kit possible. Especially my good friend, Mike.


----------



## Fernando Mureb

Tom, thank you so much for the excelent work!!! Outstanding!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Hunch

Enjoyable Vids and I too share in your joy (and beverage taste) of this moment in modeling history.
Well done.


----------



## Warped9

Model Man said:


> Color Calls and Final Last General Notes.
> OoB Review: 1/350 TOS Enterprise Pt5C: The Wrap: Color Calls and FInal Notes - YouTube
> 
> Still to do, shoot the lighting kit lit up. Hopefully this weekend.


Damned awesome reviews, Tom! Thanks! :thumbsup:


----------



## enterprise_fan

After seeing all your reviews on the TOS 1/350 Enterprise and its various add-ons I feel like a kid waiting for Christmas. 

Thank you Modelman Tom for giving us the heads up on the colors we will need to detail The Gray Lady to our own liking but there seems to be a typo on the box. The overall color of the ship was not given a number so there are 11 colors, not 10, needed unless you are not counting color no. 6 optional flat white as alternate hull color. In your video color no. 6 is also used to cover the upper and lower sensor domes.

Next to the (I don't want to mention the dreaded "G" word) the other heated topic here is the lit necells. More than a few at this forum want to light them up like their later counter parts. Is it possible for you to light them up in your next video so we could see what that option looks like?


----------



## Captain April

I'm pretty sure he's just gonna light up the lights themselves to show how they work, not put them in the nacelles.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, thouigh.


----------



## JGG1701

JGG1701 said:


> I have a question regarding the motors::wave:
> Does one spin clockwise & the other spin counter clockwise?
> Or do I have to wire it differently to do this?
> Thanks,
> -Jim


Anxiously waiting for this question to be answered.
-Jim


----------



## TrekFX

Typically with a DC motor like these, you can just reverse polarity on the power leads to reverse rotation. The instructions probably indicate this.

Tom may have made a quick mention of this in one of the videos.


----------



## WarpCore Breach

Also really looking forward to the final video in this amazing review series that Tom's done so far. 

This is going to be an AWESOME model kit and a model kit milestone when this kit and its accessories are released.


----------



## Captain April

For the record, on the eleven footer the fans did, indeed, spin counter to each other. Not sure which one did what, but on a guess, I think the starboard one went clockwise and the port one went counterclockwise, but that also depends on whether a given film clip is running forwards or backwards (they did tend to switch things around at times).


----------



## JGG1701

Found this interesting........




Looks like R2 got it right , just want to know how....




Cool eh?
-Jim


----------



## WarpCore Breach

There are also scenes in original (non-remastered) episodes where the engine rotation shown above is in the opposite direction. I believe one specific example of this can be seen in the opening scenes in "The Tholian Web".

As I understood it, the engine rotation scenes were extended by reversing the the film that was shot of the engines, so the engine 'blades' would suddenly reverse themselves.

I'm going to guess that we'll probably be given the building option of choosing which direction we'd like to have our engine blades spinning, but of course I don't know that for a fact.


----------



## Hunch

WarpCore Breach said:


> There are also scenes in original (non-remastered) episodes where the engine rotation shown above is in the opposite direction. I believe one specific example of this can be seen in the opening scenes in "The Tholian Web".
> 
> As I understood it, the engine rotation scenes were extended by reversing the the film that was shot of the engines, so the engine 'blades' would suddenly reverse themselves.
> 
> I'm going to guess that we'll probably be given the building option of choosing which direction we'd like to have our engine blades spinning, but of course I don't know that for a fact.


As Trekfx stated- Its probably just a matter of reversing the polarity (reversing the wires).


----------



## ClubTepes

Hunch said:


> As Trekfx stated- Its probably just a matter of reversing the polarity (reversing the wires).


Sure is.


----------



## ClubTepes

Tom,
Just watched the call out video. Very nice.

You were looking for plastic Impulse Grills. #104?
There is a single clear part for the impulse engine openings.
It has no specific detail on it.


----------



## enterprise_fan

It stands to reason, the ship does have reverse doesn't it. Well the blades spin one way for forward and reverse their rotation for going backwards just like a boat on water.:jest:

(ducking out of the way of flying bottles of Romulan Ale)


----------



## TrekFX

... and 5-speed manual tranny!


----------



## Captain April

Still waiting for the obvious Doctor Who joke....


----------



## Dyonisis

Captain April said:


> Still waiting for the obvious Doctor Who joke....





> "What is a T.A.R.D.I.S.?"


 Is this the joke you were waiting for? Hhhmmmm.....maybe not. 

I'm sorry, I couldn't think of anything funny, or related to you post. At least I tried. :tongue:

~ Chris​


----------



## Captain April

About reversing the polarity....


----------



## Dr. Brad

TrekFX said:


> ... and 5-speed manual tranny!


Come one!!! Seriously? 5-speed? 6-speed at least!


----------



## Dr. Brad

Captain April said:


> About reversing the polarity....


Oh wait, there was still a question to be answered?


----------



## kenlee

Dr. Brad said:


> Come one!!! Seriously? 5-speed? 6-speed at least!


Well, there was a gearshift on the refit helm console.


----------



## Dyonisis

On the T.A.R.D.I.S. ???? Was this a six speed? Or am I getting the wrong item? :freak:

~ Chris​


----------



## Dr. Brad

kenlee said:


> Well, there was a gearshift on the refit helm console.


Heh. Yeah, I remember that scene!


----------



## [email protected]

Dr. Brad said:


> Heh. Yeah, I remember that scene!


The "gearshift" on the helm console was the director's idea. He wanted to show Sulu doing something more than just pushing a button to put the ship into warp drive.


----------



## SteveR

"Pedal to the metal!"


----------



## sapper36

Man - Did I get the stink-eye from Mr. Takei for asking about that gearshift at a convention when I was about 14 or so.


----------



## enterprise_fan

Dyonisis said:


> On the T.A.R.D.I.S. ???? Was this a six speed? Or am I getting the wrong item? :freak:
> 
> ~ Chris​


With your back to the door take three steps to the right and you will find a zig zig plotter that looks alot like a five speed transmission shifter. Or at least that is what I've been told.


----------



## jaws62666

OK where are you Tom . we need to see some light action:thumbsup:


----------



## Model Man

I'm here. Reformatting my main computers HDD's into a single 7.5tb Raid 5. For those in the know, this takes some time. Apologies.

On another note, there are a few typos throughout the instructions which slipped past the 1st production run grammar checkers. Errors will be corrected for the 2nd production run, but all the packaging for this initial run is printed.

A color call that was just commented on in the last video was just brought to my attention, so and I checked with Jamie. Dark Ghost Grey is 1741 and is the correct color, not Light Ghost Grey which is what 1728 is. So ignore the 1728 number and go for Dark Ghost Grey, 1741.


----------



## Nova Designs

Hahaha, love the Guinness salute! I can't believe you were able to chug that beer and still talk without burping! LOL!


----------



## enterprise_fan

Knowing the size of the starship we are eagerly waiting for there might a run on a certain colors at your local Hobby Shop. Would anyone like to speculate on how much Tamiya JN Gray 81312 XF-12 paint will be needed to make the "OLE GIRL" GRAY?

I don't have a bottle of Tamiya paint on hand at the moment but I do have a spray can. The can says it has 100 ml of paint inside, How much paint will we need to "hoard", aquire or buy to adequately cover the Gray Lady?


----------



## Captain April

With the old 18" model, a good ol' can of gray primer from the hardware department would last me through two, maybe three, models.

For this one, though, I think I might need two or three cans. And I'm talking the tall ones. I shudder to think how many of those little cans from the hobby shop it'll take.


----------



## JGG1701

Captain April said:


> With the old 18" model, a good ol' can of gray primer from the hardware department would last me through two, maybe three, models.
> 
> For this one, though, I think I might need two or three cans. And I'm talking the tall ones. I shudder to think how many of those little cans from the hobby shop it'll take.


Yes Capt'n but what do you use as a paint/decal sealer?
-Jim


----------



## sg-99

For paint go to Ace hardware and get a pint of shady cove and a bottle of Testors enamel thinner, use a 60/40 mix and that color I believe is a 99% match :thumbsup:


----------



## Trekkriffic

sg-99 said:


> For paint go to Ace hardware and get a pint of shady cove and a bottle of Testors enamel thinner, use a 60/40 mix and that color I believe is a 99% match :thumbsup:


Good luck getting a pint. I had to buy a quart!

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/Trekriffic/TOS Enterprise 1-1000 scale/IMG_1318.jpg


----------



## Dyonisis

Trekkriffic said:


> Good luck getting a pint. I had to buy a quart!
> 
> http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/Trekriffic/TOS Enterprise 1-1000 scale/IMG_1318.jpg


 You bought the right stuff, Sir! That will be more than durable enough for any model. It's alkyd (oil based), and you should get more than ample coverage for this purpose. Just do me, and the rest of us a favour - WEAR A RESPIRATOR MASK when spraying this stuff. Whether you smoke, or not you definately don't want any of this stuff in your lungs!! 

~ Chris​


----------



## TrekFX

Trekkriffic said:


> Good luck getting a pint. I had to buy a quart!
> 
> http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/Trekriffic/TOS Enterprise 1-1000 scale/IMG_1318.jpg


I noticed that the labels reads "ounces," "shots" and "half shots."

Does this make it better than Tom's Guinness "chug"...? :hat:


----------



## Hunch

Can anyone attest to the accuracy of the Tamiya J.N. gray 81312 xf-12 (slightly lightened) as stated on the box? And also, slightly lightened by how much? 1/100? More? less? Want to get as close as possible- then mix up my own using good old Testors as a substitute.
Trying to keep away from brands/kinds of paint that I am not used to.
James


----------



## Trekkriffic

Dyonisis said:


> You bought the right stuff, Sir! That will be more than durable enough for any model. It's alkyd (oil based), and you should get more than ample coverage for this purpose. Just do me, and the rest of us a favour - WEAR A RESPIRATOR MASK when spraying this stuff. Whether you smoke, or not you definately don't want any of this stuff in your lungs!!
> 
> ~ Chris​


It's really thick in the can. The label says "interior" but the guy at ACE says it's also used on farm equipment. Tough stuff.

I spray in my garage right next to the open garage door. I've never had any issues with breathing paint into my lungs and I've been doing it for years. Usually I'm not taking a lot of deep breaths as I spray; then again, most of my models are relatively small so the airbrushing goes pretty quick. For something as large as the 1/350 though I think I will wear a respirator.


----------



## swhite228

sg-99 said:


> For paint go to Ace hardware and get a pint of shady cove and a bottle of Testors enamel thinner, use a 60/40 mix and that color I believe is a 99% match :thumbsup:


It's what I did when they had the free sample day


----------



## TrekFX

Hunch said:


> Can anyone attest to the accuracy of the Tamiya J.N. gray 81312 xf-12 (slightly lightened) as stated on the box? And also, slightly lightened by how much? 1/100? More? less? Want to get as close as possible- then mix up my own using good old Testors as a substitute.
> Trying to keep away from brands/kinds of paint that I am not used to.
> James


Ages ago I was looking for a good match for a 1/1000 PL and made some swatches of various paints. I liked the JN Grey straight from the bottle, close enough for my needs and no additional fuss. Compares very favorably to the famous "Concrete" color chip, and Tamiya paint has excellent qualities and quality. You might want to experiment with it... there's a lot of advantages to high-quality water-soluble acrylics. And they smell pretty. 

I think the official recipe calls to lighten it with 10% white.


----------



## Hunch

TrekFX said:


> Ages ago I was looking for a good match for a 1/1000 PL and made some swatches of various paints. I liked the JN Grey straight from the bottle, close enough for my needs and no additional fuss. Compares very favorably to the famous "Concrete" color chip, and Tamiya paint has excellent qualities and quality. You might want to experiment with it... there's a lot of advantages to high-quality water-soluble acrylics. And they smell pretty.
> 
> I think the official recipe calls to lighten it with 10% white.


Thanks for the info. I'm just not set up to shoot acrylics at this time. So, I'm going to lighten up the JN gray then mix up a good match with testors to get it spot on.
Anyone already have a testors mixture that they want to share with the class?
James Webb


----------



## Hunch

If no one else comes up with an oil based alternative to the JN gray I'll be posting MY mixture of Testors paints to duplicate the color once I've got it nailed down. Being old school I only use Testors (and some water colors for washes, accents, etc.). I'll be using Graphite and other materials to duplicate the weathering (rust ring etc.) but my main concern is the over all hull color.
I try to stay away from the more toxic stuff as well as my spray booth is only set up to handle so much. Going all out on this baby as I'm sure many of us are!

Can't wait to see what Model Man Tom comes up with for the lighting video, really enjoyed all the other vids.:thumbsup:


----------



## Trekkriffic

Here's the recipe Paul Newitt came up with for Testors enamel paints:

For Testor’s Model Master use the following:

•FS 17875, Insignia White, Testors# 1745
•FS 34159, Sac Bomber Green, Testors# 1793
•FS 36440, Flat Gull Grey, Testors# 1730

Mix as follows (to match “Concrete”):

•1 part green
•6 parts grey
•23-25 parts white

I used this mix for my ISS Enterprise build:

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/Trekriffic/ISS Enterprise/IMG_1039.jpg


----------



## Shaw

So on the color question...

If "Concrete" (given as 162, 171, 163) is the accurate color of the Enterprise, then the hue of J.N. Gray is about as close as I've seen to the correct color (it is off by 11%, compared to 56% for Light Ghost Gray and 42% for Gull Gray). So in that way, this is a great color for a model of the Enterprise.

But here is the thing, if Tamiya's color sample is a correct representation of the color, it has the same brightness as both Light Ghost Gray and Gull Gray (80%), so all three colors are more than 10% (about 13%) brighter than Concrete. So I'm not sure where the _slightly lightened_ part comes into play when it is already lighter than the accurate color. If anything, it needs to be darkened to be a true match.

So yeah, J.N. Gray unaltered should appear about the same (in brightness) to either Gull Gray or Light Ghost Gray, which I think most people who build these models have been happy with for quite a few years now. Lightening it would push it towards something like Camouflage Gray (which has a 90% brightness, but is off by about 37% in color). I think that anyone who can airbrush their models should use J.N. Gray... but for those of us still stuck using cans, Light Ghost Gray and Gull Gray are perfectly reasonable _poor man's_ substitutes.


----------



## Captain April

I think with a three-foot model, you wouldn't want to lighten it at all from the baseline of the actual model. Lightening shouldn't even come into the equation until you get down to the size of the 18" model, and even then only a bit.


----------



## StarshipClass

We had a similar conversation back in 2009: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=248431&page=3

My formula is, as far as I can tell, an exact match to the "concrete" color sample which, even if slightly off (which is unavoidable) from the original, is a great color, IMHO:



Using Testor's Model Master flat paints:

1 part SAC Bomber Green #1793

2 parts Flat Gull Gray #1730

8 parts flat white #2142


----------



## John P

So there's no Tamiya spray bomb to match the little 33ml bottles of XF-12?


----------



## ClubTepes

Captain April said:


> I think with a three-foot model, you wouldn't want to lighten it at all from the baseline of the actual model. Lightening shouldn't even come into the equation until you get down to the size of the 18" model, and even then only a bit.


There is no atmosphere in space. So scale lightening shouldn't apply.

This effect is always due to the perceived distance and the amount of scale atmosphere between you and the subject.


----------



## Dyonisis

ClubTepes said:


> There is no atmosphere in space. So scale lightening shouldn't apply.
> 
> This effect is always due to the perceived distance and the amount of scale atmosphere between you and the subject.


 Correct. The light that they use in the studio is so that the model can be seen. However, in outerspace there's no atmosphere to reflect the suns' rays from. The only light is from the sun, but only in direct exposure. If you're too far away, or the sun is blocked, you won't see anything. 


~ Chris​


----------



## Dr. Brad

Captain April said:


> I think with a three-foot model, you wouldn't want to lighten it at all from the baseline of the actual model. *Lightening* shouldn't even come into the equation until you get down to the size of the 18" model, and even then only a bit.


Or even lighting! Just joking with you . And you're right. Just wondering, would how well your eyes can resolve details have anything with how colours are perceived in space? I wouldn't think so, but perhaps at "extreme" distances - say at a distance where I can see the ship in question, but can't make out any hull details?

Edit: Now that I think about it, "lightening" is the right word. My mistake!


----------



## Captain April

ClubTepes said:


> There is no atmosphere in space. So scale lightening shouldn't apply.
> 
> This effect is always due to the perceived distance and the amount of scale atmosphere between you and the subject.


Realistically, you're absolutely correct, but those aren't conditions we're accustomed to in our everyday lives, so unless there's some scale lightening is used, the object looks "off".

This also plays into the whackadoos who insist that the moon landings were actually played out in a Nevada soundstage, but that's a whole 'nother kettle o' gagh.


----------



## StarshipClass

I'd wager that there's enough dust in some areas of space to have at least some diffusion effect though it might take light years to notice and the object would be too small to see  :tongue:


----------



## John P

Well, if you're going to look at it through an entire _nebula_, sure!


----------



## Trekkriffic

The stars like dust...


----------



## jaws62666

Tom with the latest Club release and news of prepayment any day, how close are we to seeing the light video. :thumbsup: Congrats on the 1 Mil views.


----------



## enterprise_fan

Model Man said:


> I'm here. Reformatting my main computers HDD's into a single 7.5tb Raid 5. For those in the know, this takes some time. Apologies.


jaws62666 - You post beat mine by a few minutes.

I'm sure that there is more than just you and I waiting for the last installments of Model Man's review of the TOS 1/350 Enterprise from Round 2. Hey Model Man, how close are we to seeing the Gray Lady all lite up?


----------



## BARRYZ28

Bring on the video updates!


----------



## RossW

Hey Tom - would you be able to tell me the diameter of the warp engine LED circuit board?


----------



## Model Man

Looks like I've missed a few pages of paint talk. 

...
I'll try to get the diam next time I am at the bench.
...

I opened the lighting kit this weekend and have shot prelim footage and hit an impasse.

I want to show the kit off. However, reading through the directions it became evident that plastic parts construction gets involved very fast and somewhat deeply. The idea here is to review, not build. So, I've been stuck on how much to do or not do at all.

Jamie is cool with me building one basic bussard. I'll light that up and do some minimal wiring otherwise. This isn't my kit to build, modify or make decisions about, so I can't just tear into it any which way I like.

It's going to take some days more. Perhaps by this coming weekend. I had a few easy vid projects in the pipe that the Enterprise's arrival nipped in the bud last month. Cranking one or two of those out asap is my priority while otherwise shooting the lighting kit as well.

Thanks for the patience.


----------



## Model Man

enterprise_fan said:


> ...Hey Model Man, how close are we to seeing the Gray Lady all lite up?


My previous post suggests it, but I want to stress that 'all lit up' is not in the cards whatsoever. 

Simply passing some leds behind the hull just shows an empty hull. It's the 3 choices of windows that make the scene; and those are trees that won't be plucked.

With nothing to see there, that pretty much leaves the bussards. And really, isn't that what this kit is all about? :thumbsup:


----------



## Dr. Brad

Model Man said:


> Thanks for the patience.


No thanks for doing these. Heck, I wasn't going to buy one of these, but thanks to you, my wallet is going to be lighter!  The good thing is, that because it's the TOS E, my wife won't complain as much as she otherwise might!


----------



## Opus Penguin

Model Man said:


> Jamie is cool with me building one basic bussard. I'll light that up and do some minimal wiring otherwise. This isn't my kit to build, modify or make decisions about, so I can't just tear into it any which way I like.


This is pretty much all I wanted to see. I want to see how they improved the lighting since Wonderfest. If you can include the fan blades that would be cool too, but I am interested in how it looks lit up.


----------



## enterprise_fan

So I guess lighting from end cap to end cap is out of the question.

I totally understand Jamie not wanting too much shown before the kit is released to the public. What I have seen so far makes me want to buy it even more. 

Thanks to all for putting so much work into making it possible.:thumbsup:


----------



## Joeysaddress

*A wishin', a hopin', a prayin'*

So hopeful that a certain video gets posted this weekend!


----------



## Model Man

I've only just wired the lights and such together a few moments ago. I don't expect the video to post tonight.

A couple notes:

: I am surprised at how fast the motors spin.

: Either motor and either fan blade in any combination, spins off-axis just slightly, creating a dash of a wobble.

Outside of the full nacelle housing, they are 'loud', but certainly no louder than any other motor of that size or spin rate. I expect that once fully sealed, the sound would drop significantly. Also, I think one could baffle some of the sound with a few small pieces of foam, if one wanted to.

The entire assembly is friction-fit, so you can take the entire thing apart if needed down the line -a very nice touch!

There are 10 lights. 5 steady, 5 blinky. There is no guide as to which colored bits of plastic go on which blinky, merely stating to use a random mix of red, blue and green. The amber/orange 'bulbs' being the steady colors. 

Hopefully someone can track down a good ref for which blinky lights were which color. After all this effort and money, no one is going to want to get the colors wrong. But, since the entire thing is friction fit, you could change them at will.

What else...

The directions state to use a dull varnish or sanding to diffuse the plastic shapes/housing. I'd suggest Rustoleum Frosted Glass as your best bet. However, that's something I cannot test at this time, just intuition.

Treat the pcb's _very_ tenderly. In both cases, one of two sets of wires had flaky solder points and broke off with minimal handling. It's an easy enough fix to be sure -if you have a fine-tipped soldering iron, helping hands, magnification, some experience and the willpower.

Also, please keep in mind this is a demo, not an assembly guide. There's only so much I can do, for many reasons.

I'll see what i can get on video and when. Thanks for waiting.


----------



## StarshipClass

Model Man said:


> I'll see what i can get on video and when. Thanks for waiting.


Great info! :thumbsup: Thanks!


----------



## ClubTepes

Model Man said:


> I've only just wired the lights and such together a few moments ago. I don't expect the video to post tonight.
> 
> A couple notes:
> 
> : I am surprised at how fast the motors spin.
> 
> : Either motor and either fan blade in any combination, spins off-axis just slightly, creating a dash of a wobble.
> 
> Outside of the full nacelle housing, they are 'loud', but certainly no louder than any other motor of that size or spin rate. I expect that once fully sealed, the sound would drop significantly. Also, I think one could baffle some of the sound with a few small pieces of foam, if one wanted to.
> 
> The entire assembly is friction-fit, so you can take the entire thing apart if needed down the line -a very nice touch!
> 
> There are 10 lights. 5 steady, 5 blinky. There is no guide as to which colored bits of plastic go on which blinky, merely stating to use a random mix of red, blue and green. The amber/orange 'bulbs' being the steady colors.
> 
> Hopefully someone can track down a good ref for which blinky lights were which color. After all this effort and money, no one is going to want to get the colors wrong. But, since the entire thing is friction fit, you could change them at will.
> 
> What else...
> 
> The directions state to use a dull varnish or sanding to diffuse the plastic shapes/housing. I'd suggest Rustoleum Frosted Glass as your best bet. However, that's something I cannot test at this time, just intuition.
> 
> Treat the pcb's _very_ tenderly. In both cases, one of two sets of wires had flaky solder points and broke off with minimal handling. It's an easy enough fix to be sure -if you have a fine-tipped soldering iron, helping hands, magnification, some experience and the willpower.
> 
> Also, please keep in mind this is a demo, not an assembly guide. There's only so much I can do, for many reasons.
> 
> I'll see what i can get on video and when. Thanks for waiting.


We did some tests in the development of the light kit.

Spray the outside of the domes however you want.
But if you spray the inside, you run the danger of what you spray pooling up inside and making an uneven look.

My suggestion is to use fine steel wool #0000 on the inside of the domes (outside also if you like) and spray the outsides.

Also, perhaps Gary can confirm this......I don't think the blinkies colors remained consistant throughout the series. Bulbs burn out, get replaced etc...

What do the colors represent??
What are the blinkies? I tend to believe that since the bussards are sucking in hydrogen, they are also going to suck in the occasional unwanted particle.
So, the constant amber glow is caused by the hydrogen, and the blinkies are that occasional particle of something else, and therefore would not be consistent in location, or color. So do what you like.


----------



## Model Man

Good notes, Mike!

I happened to watch Tribbles last night and as 1701 departs K7, there is a good long shot of the ship in that showing at least the starboard blinkies. 2 or 3 greens at 1 and 6 o'clock and a red at 11 o'clock. Missed the color at 8 o'clock. Didn't catch the port nacelle colors at all.

I figure there are a few shots like that throughout the series showing them off to some degree. I'm hoping someone might be able to collect the footage or at least make good reference notes for what colors on which show and when.

Mike- How are the 'fan blades' treated? Leave them plain clear plastic or are the they painted at all? Also, should the round bulb housing that sits on the pcb (sorry I don't have the part# handy) be painted black or gray to kill the light bloom the leds cause?


----------



## SteveR

ClubTepes said:


> My suggestion is to use fine steel wool #0000 on the inside of the domes (...) and spray the outsides.


Cool. This means we can use gloss paint on the outside because the _inside_ would diffuse the fan blades & lights. :thumbsup:


----------



## ClubTepes

SteveR said:


> Cool. This means we can use gloss paint on the outside because the _inside_ would diffuse the fan blades & lights. :thumbsup:


Here are my thoughts.

Its all up to you on your preference of diffusion.
I'd say for sure use steel wool on the inside of the outer dome.
The effect is nice, but not very diffusing.
So I'd say the dull coat on the outside of the outer dome is also a good thing.

You could also use the steel wool on the fan blade part if you like.

I think the most important thing is to really scuff up the fake bulbs.
Steel Wool and dull spray.
Their purpose is to diffuse the directionality of the LEDs. so they don't act like a flashlight, but rather the omnidirectional christmas tree type bulbs used in the 11 footer.

For Tom's question on the housing part.
I did one silver and one black to see how they looked.
Its up to you. I thought I'd like black, but I liked silver instead.
There are a lot of possibilities here.
You could use chrome foil on this part if you like.
Crinkle it up a little to take away some shape of the housing and maybe catch a glint of light like the mirrors.
It will be interesting for me to see what people do with this aspect of the kit.


----------



## Trekkriffic

Concerning light diffusion I plan to paint the LEDs with this:










Pactra Acrylic Fluorescent Overcoat. 

It goes on as a thick, very opaque white paint causing the LED to glow much like a frosted light bulb. You can even tint it different colors with acrylic paint.

For bouncing the light around inside the dome has anyone considered smashing up one of those tiny craft mirrors you can get at stores like Michaels? Smash it up and glue the bits in at odd angles just like they did with the 11 footer?

Anyway those are my thoughts.


----------



## Captain April

Trekkriffic said:


> For bouncing the light around inside the dome has anyone considered smashing up one of those tiny craft mirrors you can get at stores like Michaels? Smash it up and glue the bits in at odd angles just like they did with the 11 footer?
> 
> Anyway those are my thoughts.


That might be the demarcation point of where you have officially overdone it...


----------



## RossW

Actually, I had wondered the same thing Trekkriffic and met with an equally disdainful reply. However, someone suggested that rather than use a mirror (probably still too thick for the intended scale), crumple up some aluminum foil (shiny side out) or Bare Metal Foil and place that around the bulbs. That's what I'll try first.


----------



## Bobj812

Captain April said:


> That might be the demarcation point of where you have officially overdone it...


Not to mention 7 years of bad luck...


----------



## Trekkriffic

RossW said:


> Actually, I had wondered the same thing Trekkriffic and met with an equally disdainful reply. However, someone suggested that rather than use a mirror (probably still too thick for the intended scale), crumple up some aluminum foil (shiny side out) or Bare Metal Foil and place that around the bulbs. That's what I'll try first.


I dunno... some of those little mirrors are pretty thin. Tell you guys what, when I get my kit I'll experiment and if it looks good I'll take some pics. I'm sure I'm not the only one who'll be experimenting and sharing ideas. That's the great thing about this forum after all. 

:thumbsup:


----------



## robiwon

Mirrors from a doll house store might work. Hmm....


----------



## TrekFX

They sell glitter that might do the trick.


----------



## ffejG

TrekFX said:


> They sell glitter that might do the trick.


That's what I was thinking. Large silver "boat flake" maybe.


----------



## kenlee

Some auto parts stores also have plastic "peel and stick" mirror material. It is sold in sheets that are around 5x11 inches, while not a perfect mirror (it is like a funhouse mirror) it can be easily cut to any shape and is about the same thickness as .030 evergreen stock.


----------



## RossW

I drew this diagram after watching the beginning of 'The Tholian Web' over and over again. I'm not sure if the exact colours/placement really matters as I'm sure they replaced burnt out bulbs with whatever they had on hand.


----------



## Scotty K

One might wish to consider mylar; I use it to reflect light inside some of my models. It would be easy to work with (no sharp edges like the mirrors), easy to cut and paste. Just a thought...


----------



## Captain April

Yeah, that'd probably the way to go.


----------



## ClubTepes

Trekkriffic said:


> Concerning light diffusion I plan to paint the LEDs with this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pactra Acrylic Fluorescent Overcoat.
> 
> It goes on as a thick, very opaque white paint causing the LED to glow much like a frosted light bulb. You can even tint it different colors with acrylic paint.
> 
> For bouncing the light around inside the dome has anyone considered smashing up one of those tiny craft mirrors you can get at stores like Michaels? Smash it up and glue the bits in at odd angles just like they did with the 11 footer?
> 
> Anyway those are my thoughts.


I'm not familiar with that product. I'd be very careful and test it first. 
I'm afraid it might knock down the intensity of the LEDs too much.


----------



## robiwon

Do we know anything about the motors themselves that are in the lighting kit? What brand or the specs? I couldn't hear how loud they were at Wonderfest when they had them on because of the crowd or if they were even running. If the motors are loud that leads me to believe the commutator is running on two bronze Oilite bushings. That's where most of the noise will be coming from. We made need to turn to our slot car brethren for small ball bearings or our indoor mini RC helio pilots for better quality motors.


----------



## RossW

I picked up the same motors as galaxy_jason used on his 1:1000 TOS E (see here) and they are about as loud as the motors R2 had at Wonderfest. Adding some 0.1uF caps to the motor terminals helped, but I also plan to wrap the inside of the nacelles with 1/4" thick foam to try and dampen the sound without overheating the motors.

If anyone knows of some super quiet motors that would work in this kit, please reply.


----------



## Trekkriffic

ClubTepes said:


> I'm not familiar with that product. I'd be very careful and test it first.
> I'm afraid it might knock down the intensity of the LEDs too much.


I use it for coloring LEDs and for illuminating large areas inside a model where you DON'T want a spotlight effect. So, for the purposes I use it for, I'm not concerned with the intensity so much as I'm looking to spread the illumination out over a wider area within a confined space. It works very well for that especially if you paint the inside of the model white. If your goal is to have an intense beam of light then, no, it would not work well for that purpose. Having said that, if you were to install Superbright or high illumination white LEDs and paint them with this overcoat tinted, say, green, blue, and orange I think they would still be plenty intense enough especially in a small space like that of a bussard dome. 
Your advice to test first is, of course, sound advice.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Wow. yeah I have those for the DST Medical Scanner conversion I did. They can be on the loud side.


----------



## John P

I think the problem with the motor noise is that they're using 2-stroke leaf blower motors instead of quieter 4-stroke lawn mower ones. Perhaps an aftermarket muffler system is in order...


----------



## RossW

That's what the nacelle end cap balls are for, aren't they?


----------



## Captain April

Who Midas was one of Starfleet's subcontractors.....


----------



## Model Man

Hey guys, the delay in shooting the bussard is good as I can now incorp some ideas from here, like sound levels @ different distances, an open-ended bussard shot to judge spacing for pieces of foil, mylar etc.

I will get a shot of the nacelle lit up in different colors without using the included LEDTape. The photoetch was sent back to Jamie weeks ago, so I can't get a shot of that. That would look sweet. But, I will have a shot of the kit plastic grills lit up, no diffusion.

I have plugged the bussard into my variable power supply and will show the ramp up from .2v to 12v full power. It's an interesting effect that, if it could be captured with chips, would be sweet. First, the fan comes to life with a slow spin. The five oranges fade up like the morning sun. Soon, the other five colors begin chirping. The symphony speeds up to full power and maintains. It's sweet. 


Any other specific requests?


----------



## JGG1701

Model Man said:


> Any other specific requests?


Clockwise or counter-clockwise please? Or is it just how you wire it?
Thanks,
-Jim


----------



## Model Man

JGG1701 said:


> Clockwise or counter-clockwise please? Or is it just how you wire it?
> Thanks,
> -Jim


It's jsut how you wire it. Whichever side it is, you just reverse the polarity when wiring it up. No problems.


----------



## JGG1701

Good deal.
Thanks.:thumbsup:
-Jim


----------



## John P

REVERSE THE POLARITY!!!!


There goes the starboard power coupling!


:lol:


----------



## enterprise_fan

:wave: I have a question.

Does the lighting kit include the navigation lights, if so do they blink?


----------



## Warped9

enterprise_fan said:


> :wave: I have a question.
> 
> Does the lighting kit include the navigation lights, if so do they blink?


The lighting kit includes everything you need.


----------



## Opus Penguin

enterprise_fan said:


> :wave: I have a question.
> 
> Does the lighting kit include the navigation lights, if so do they blink?


Here is a video of the prototype model seen at Wonderfest. Take in mind, the lighting was not perfected yet and was not where Jamie said they wanted it to be. However, this gives you an idea on what is included in the light kit and how it works. All you see that lights up is in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gUBBm6qetxI


----------



## jaws62666

Tom any closer to the video


----------



## Model Man

Teaser.





I just haven't been able to devote the time needed to this shoot. 

Hopefully, this will satiate the thirst. I'm editing footage I shot 10 days ago, but know that it was mostly fluff that I think I'm gonna throw out and shoot all over again.

I hope to have the video by the time the light kit goes on sale. :thumbsup:


----------



## Marco Scheloske

Hm... I'm not very impressed.


----------



## SteveR

Marco Scheloske said:


> Hm... I'm not very impressed.


The thin tape may be the factor: we see too much.


----------



## Model Man

It's tough to see the clear blades move under a clear dome with clear plastic bulbs. The diffusion is really needed.


----------



## Hunch

Once the clear surfaces are defused it should look great. and I for one, can certainly live with that tiny bit of noise. Thanks for the sneak Tom!:thumbsup:


----------



## Opus Penguin

The motor is a bit on the noisy side but it can be worked with. My only concern is that at 12 amps the fan blades look like they may be spinning too fast (around 2 or 3 looks to be right but I am not sure if that is accurate). Is that just me or is this a normal spin at 12 amps? It is hard to tell when watching the shots from the original series effects. Lighting seems to look good, but hard to tell with a clear dome. diffusing the light would give a better idea, but I understand Tom's limits of what he can do.


----------



## Trek Ace

I believe Tom meant to say 12 volts, not amps.


----------



## Trekkriffic

Opus Penguin said:


> The motor is a bit on the noisy side but it can be worked with. My only concern is that at 12 amps the fan blades look like they may be spinning too fast (around 2 or 3 looks to be right but I am not sure if that is accurate). Is that just me or is this a normal spin at 12 amps? It is hard to tell when watching the shots from the original series effects. Lighting seems to look good, but hard to tell with a clear dome. diffusing the light would give a better idea, but I understand Tom's limits of what he can do.


I concur. 2-3 volts looks about right.


----------



## [email protected]

*Variable Power Supply?*

Is the lighting kit going to supply us with a "variable power supply?" If not, I don't see the point of demonstrating it that way.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I am no expert on motors, so is there a way to add some kind of resistor to the motor to have it spin slower, or should I just plan on investing in motors with a slower spin that are 12 volts? I know where I can get a motor that is 120 RPM at 6 volts, but not sure how to add that to a 12 volt power supply without blowing the motor.


----------



## Sparky

I have been planning to experiment with and possibly add to the final build up an adjustable voltage regulator IC circuit (probably based on the LM317 IC) between the control board and motors. That would allow me to dial the motor speed to my liking. I am concerned though if there would be room to add another circuit board. Will see, just a possibility.


----------



## Nova Designs

A resistor is what I was considering too Opus... I like the way it looks at about 6 volts...


----------



## Opus Penguin

Sparky said:


> I have been planning to experiment with and possibly add to the final build up an adjustable voltage regulator IC circuit (probably based on the LM317 IC) between the control board and motors. That would allow me to dial the motor speed to my liking. I am concerned though if there would be room to add another circuit board. Will see, just a possibility.


Could add it to the base instead of inside the model.


----------



## Nova Designs

Actually I was just thinking that the voltage regulator would be an awesome power up or going to warp effect, since it would be a warp speed that the bussards would be going full on, right? Just something to think about.


----------



## Sparky

Opus Penguin said:


> Could add it to the base instead of inside the model.


That is an excellent suggestion. I could envision mounting the circuit board with a small potentiometer on the underside the base and being able adjust the speed even after the model is built. 

I was thinking about a circuit something like this one without the 1N4001 diodes and with the 12VDC power supply: 

http://www.eleccircuit.com/simple-miniature-motor-controller-by-lm317/


----------



## RossW

I've been working on my own custom lighting system for this kit which uses PWM to slowly spin up the engines to full speed. It allows for adjusting the RPM (again, via PWM) which is then saved to memory on one of the chips so it starts up next time to the saved value. Pushing on the knob toggles the port engine direction from CCW to CW (not shown in the video below); pushing and holding the knob for > 2 sec returns the speed to factory default.






Just the engines: 




Since these movies were made, I've moved to 5 independently blinking lights with built-in randomization to make them as much like 1960's Christmas lights as possible. I've also consolidated all the code down into 2 chips: 1 for all the lights and 1 for the motors.


----------



## Nova Designs

That looks pretty good!


----------



## Trekkriffic

Nova Designs said:


> That looks pretty good!


That is pretty nice. I wish there were a way to make the dominant lighting be amber (always on) with the colored lights less obtrusive and more subtle. 
I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else or not. 
I wonder what woudl happen if you were to take this effect with 5 multicolored LEDs and combine them with 3-4 amber colored LEDs always on and then frost the domes (perhaps with mylar or some type of broken up mirror-like material around the LEDs to bounce the light around) if you'd have something pretty close to what we saw on screen.
Let the experiments continue!


----------



## RossW

Trekriffic - that's what I've got: 5 amber steady on + 5 blinkers. I think I'll play with higher inline resistors for the blinkers to reduce their brightness.

And I bought some Bare Metal Foil for the mirror part; haven't tried it yet though.


----------



## Fernando Mureb

Model Man said:


> Teaser.
> The Money Shot - YouTube
> 
> I just haven't been able to devote the time needed to this shoot.
> 
> Hopefully, this will satiate the thirst. I'm editing footage I shot 10 days ago, but know that it was mostly fluff that I think I'm gonna throw out and shoot all over again.
> 
> I hope to have the video by the time the light kit goes on sale. :thumbsup:


Hey Tom

IMHO, the spin velocity shown at about 20 seconds of your video, would be a good pace to simulate the miniature effect. What do you say?


----------



## Trekkriffic

RossW said:


> Trekriffic - that's what I've got: 5 amber steady on + 5 blinkers. I think I'll play with higher inline resistors for the blinkers to reduce their brightness.
> 
> And I bought some Bare Metal Foil for the mirror part; haven't tried it yet though.


So you do. I should have watched your first video before commenting. I have to say I prefer the slower rotation speed of about 60 revolutions per minute to some of the higher speeds I've seen demonstrated. By the way, is it canon that faster speeds indicate higher warp velocities?


----------



## Model Man

Opus Penguin said:


> The motor is a bit on the noisy side but it can be worked with. My only concern is that at 12 amps the fan blades look like they may be spinning too fast (around 2 or 3 looks to be right but I am not sure if that is accurate). Is that just me or is this a normal spin at 12 amps? It is hard to tell when watching the shots from the original series effects. Lighting seems to look good, but hard to tell with a clear dome. diffusing the light would give a better idea, but I understand Tom's limits of what he can do.





Trek Ace said:


> I believe Tom meant to say 12 volts, not amps.





Trekkriffic said:


> I concur. 2-3 volts looks about right.



Yeah, I meant volts when I say amps. That demo was from .2v to 12v.



[email protected] said:


> Is the lighting kit going to supply us with a "variable power supply?" If not, I don't see the point of demonstrating it that way.


Cos it looks cool as heck seeing them come to life like that. To me, anyway. 




Nova Designs said:


> Actually I was just thinking that the voltage regulator would be an awesome power up or going to warp effect, since it would be a warp speed that the bussards would be going full on, right? Just something to think about.


I agree! To me that looks so cool spinning the fans up as the lights fade in. A circuit that would spin them up to full speed and back down again would be so nice to have. 

I think I lost a quote in this multi-quote thing...

I personally like the fan speed well below the 12v power. BUT without diffused plastic and everything in place, there's no way to really know. I'll be putting a potentiometer on the fans so I can choose the speed later.


----------



## Gary K

Trekkriffic said:


> So you do. I should have watched your first video before commenting. I have to say I prefer the slower rotation speed of about 60 revolutions per minute to some of the higher speeds I've seen demonstrated. By the way, is it canon that faster speeds indicate higher warp velocities?


The original plan was to increase the brightness of the bulbs and the RPMs on the fan blades to indicate higher warp velocities, but that plan fell by the wayside. More details will be forthcoming in Pt 3 of the SF&FM article, which I'm preparing to send to Mike Reccia tonight.

Gary


----------



## Opus Penguin

All this talk on varying the speed of the fan blades has me wanting to do this now. I have a brother-in-law I will ask to help me with this. However, I would like all the lights on by the time it reaches the 3-4 volt speed.I'm guessing I will have to wire up the fan blades separate from the lights. If I can get this down this will make the kit that much cooler.


----------



## ClubTepes

Marco Scheloske said:


> Hm... I'm not very impressed.


Well, its not really fair to judge 'out of context' as it is.

There is no diffusion on the domes. Your also not looking at the whole model....etc.

While the fan blade speed is a matter of opinion and I kind of go along with the notion that the fan blade speed should vary with how fast the ship is going...... look at it like this.


If your not happy with the speed of the fan blades, it is a lot easier to slow them down, than it would be to speed them up if you had thought that they were going too slow.

In order to slow them down - I believe all you have to do is add a resistor between the Bussard circuit board and the motor. 

But, if the fan blades had turned slower and you wanted them to go faster, you'd have to get a different power supply, run separate power lines through the model to the motors. Then, you still might not be happy with the speed. And your also more apt to burn them out.


Its nice that Tom did voltage call outs as he ramped up the speed of the motor.

If you want to change the speed of your motor, find the voltage you like best and determine the resistor you need to drop the voltage down from the starting voltage, to what you prefer. But also keep in mind that electric motors also have a voltage 'range' that you should stay within.

You can't put a resistor 'before' the bussard circuit board, because as you can see by the video, it takes a certain amount of voltage to get the blinkers to work.

An industrious person could also make the fan blade speed 'variable' without too much trouble.
That would likely involve running a wire down to the stand to a 'potentiometer' and back up to the motors.

Now the guy who does that, and ties it into a sound effect of the warp engines ramping up or down would be really cool.


----------



## Nova Designs

ClubTepes said:


> Now the guy who does that, and ties it into a sound effect of the warp engines ramping up or down would be really cool.


Exactly what I was thinking, that would be so cool! :thumbsup:


----------



## Model Man

Wow. 
This ebayer is charging USD $1500 for his/her Premiere Edition! Or buy it now for $1701.00

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Polar-Light...150942060?pt=Model_Kit_US&hash=item337d9f936c

Get it while it's hot!

PS. The cheapskate doesn't even throw in free shipping! lol.


----------



## Model Man

From one of my youtubers...
Hi Tom, great videos for this kit. I want to let you and others know that I found out tonight from 2 hobby stores here in Micigan that one of the paint colors listed has been discontinued by Testors. I lucked out at the one store and was able to get a couple of bottles that the owner pulled from the display for Testors.

*2039 Canadian Voo Doo Grey is history. *
---------------------------------------------

Does anyone know a good way to confirm this? And if so, what might be a replacement?


----------



## TrekFX

Model Man said:


> Wow.
> This ebayer is charging USD $1500 for his/her Premiere Edition! Or buy it now for $1701.00
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Polar-Light...150942060?pt=Model_Kit_US&hash=item337d9f936c
> 
> Get it while it's hot!
> 
> PS. The cheapskate doesn't even throw in free shipping! lol.


Here's a bargain:

If you're looking to save some money on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/350-Star-Trek-Enter-Stnd/dp/B004C5GWEW/ref=pd_rhf_ee_p_t_4

Ships about 11/13-11/14, (shipping a meager $54.65.) Grand total $391.21. Gotta go shake my piggy bank.

That ebray thing's a hoot.


----------



## RossW

Hi Tom - would you be able to provide the bussard circuit board diameter? Also, are all 10 LEDs arranged symmetrically around the board?


----------



## idman

Model Man said:


> From one of my youtubers...
> Hi Tom, great videos for this kit. I want to let you and others know that I found out tonight from 2 hobby stores here in Micigan that one of the paint colors listed has been discontinued by Testors. I lucked out at the one store and was able to get a couple of bottles that the owner pulled from the display for Testors.
> 
> *2039 Canadian Voo Doo Grey is history. *
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Does anyone know a good way to confirm this? And if so, what might be a replacement?


Looks right your right I've looked at all my online supply sites and they all say discontinued....


----------



## JediPuju

Maybe Ill set up an ebay auction $1500 for 1 bottle of canadian voodoo grey.
Buy it now for $2039 !!


----------



## SteveR

Model Man said:


> *2039 Canadian Voo Doo Grey is history.*


"Looks like we've had our glitch for this mission." :thumbsup:


----------



## Model Man

Good news. The lighting video is now shot and in the can. Next is to edit all the footage down into something presentable. That will take me a couple days, but the tough part is over. I cover the bussard in a bit more detail and show off a few options on the nacelle lights.

What I do not do is plug the standard blinkers into the main board. That is a lot more detailed and would require a more in-depth study of the instructions than I am able to commit to and more than a 'review' warrants. 

I also cannot provide a circuit diagram. For the best look at the boards, dig up whichever video I cover that in. Once the light kits are released, someone here will likely show off the pcb in more detail. There are also circuit diagrams floating around to replicate the blinking that does go on for other scales of the ship.

So, stay tuned. I will have the video in a few days. It's really cool to see the kits landing in people's hands. I hope to have mine soon too!

Lastly, has anyone heard anything in any of the other topics about a replacement for Canadian voodoo gray yet? I haven't written to Jamie about the news. I figured he, Gary or Mike might already know and be working on a substitute. Meanwhile, everyone raid your LHS for any dust collectors! You might just get lucky and score a few bottles.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Het Tom, did the kit come with different colored Bridge domes or were they only available in the light kit? There were three right, clear ,opaque, smoked ?


----------



## Joeysaddress

The bridge and lower sensor domes did come in the multiple colors you listed.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Joeysaddress said:


> The bridge and lower sensor domes did come in the multiple colors you listed.


Thank you sir!


----------



## Model Man

Finally, at long last, the epilogue to the review series...

Part 6 of 6. A little Look at the Lights, Lit.





Live Long and Prosper, y'all!


----------



## Trek Ace

Thanks for the final installment, Tom!


----------



## Model Man

I'm grateful to Jamie for allowing me giving me the opportunity to bring these reviews to everyone -and to hold on the light kit and ship as long as he did so I could finish all this off. I would like to have shown the PE in the nacelles as well, but he needed that and all the other accessories for ihobby the other month.

Thanks Jamie! And thanks to all the modelers here and at the other forums for all your kind words! :hat:

(~500 posts and ~30,000 views here at HT alone!)


----------



## Hunch

Cool Tom! A must buy for sure!:thumbsup: Thanks for all the nice vids,
Jim


----------



## paustin

I cant wait to see what everyone comes up with those nacelle lights, very exciting


----------



## SJF

Fantastic job, overall, Tom! Thanks for the sneak peek. :thumbsup:

Sean


----------



## Opus Penguin

Thanks for the review Tom, especially with all the videos. You made the wait for the kit a little more bearable. Wonderful job!


----------



## enterprise_fan

Thank you for showing what the nacelles look like all lite up. 

I would like to think that if a reflective material was placed in front of the LEDs, and inside the nacelle, that it would reflect enough light to help eliminate any "dead" spots.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Model Man

enterprise_fan said:


> Thank you for showing what the nacelles look like all lite up.
> 
> I would like to think that if a reflective material was placed in front of the LEDs, and inside the nacelle, that it would reflect enough light to help eliminate any "dead" spots.
> 
> Any thoughts?


It's worth a test. Without seeing it in person, I would think the reflective material would do just that, reflect bright and dead spots. You could also use two strips of LEDTape offset from each other, that might help. 

On the Refit, I put on strip in the top and one in the bottom facing upa nd down, not directly against the grill. That works very well. But on the TOS, there are internal ribs which prevent one from attaching the strips flat to the inner surface.

Once I get my personal kit next week, I will be doing some further tests and will psot them here.


----------



## Dr. Brad

Thanks for doing all these videos, Tom. At least, I think I should be thanking you! My wallet, on the other hand, isn't thanking you!


----------



## Captain April

Model Man said:


> It's worth a test. Without seeing it in person, I would think the reflective material would do just that, reflect bright and dead spots. You could also use two strips of LEDTape offset from each other, that might help.
> 
> On the Refit, I put on strip in the top and one in the bottom facing upa nd down, not directly against the grill. That works very well. But on the TOS, there are internal ribs which prevent one from attaching the strips flat to the inner surface.
> 
> Once I get my personal kit next week, I will be doing some further tests and will psot them here.


Sounds like a job for one's favorite shade of reflective paint.


----------



## onigiri

Im doing my premiere kit as the Constitution based on the premise she was used as a 'test bed' for the TMP technology. She will be aztecked and nacelle lighted as well as having saucer sensor bands, reaction control thrusters etc. Its also an excuse not to deal with the gridlines  Also thinking on doing the nacelle endcap balls in clear and adding TMP style phaser banks. Im not adding the dorsal photon torpedo launcher though as I want it to retain the proper profile. Waiting for all that Aztek Dummy Aztek goodness and the rest of the of the aftermarket goodies.


----------



## Bobj812

Many, many thanks for all of these videos, Tom. You had me sold early on, and I appreciate the time and effort you took in showing us this kit.


----------



## Model Man

As a post-script to this series, I finally got my Premiere edition and a generous gift of an Artist Proof version from Jamie Hood for my help on the Wonderfest video of 2012. 

Thank you very, much Jamie. It is deeply appreciated!

This monthly 'On the Bnech' video covers me unboxing my Premiere, a look at the beautiful chrome box art and the COA buried deep inside.

Now that all these kits are shipping and arriving in folks hands, reports are starting to emerge of warped parts, specifically the lower saucer nipple area and the clear fan blade stem seems to be off-kilter. I had hoped it was only my review kit that had the stem problem, but apparently it is very wide-spread. I didn't notice the saucer warp on the review kit and I haven't looked at either of my premiere kits yet.

I read of these reports after I sealed my premiere's back up and buried them in my retirement stash. I will have to dig them out and see if I also got warped parts. I won't be following up on that in this thread. 

With this, I am done until I start building and I don't know when that will be yet.






Thanks for watching, everyone! It was my pleasure.


----------



## wjplenge

Thanks for the great job reviewing the kit. It helped me feel maintain the excitement buy giving me info to work on my prebuild plan while waiting for my standard edition to arrive.


----------

