# Round 2 1/350 TOS Enterprise info thread



## robiwon

I thought I would put all this in one thread so that it might get stickied. 

The 1/350 TOS Enterprise will come in two versions, a "regular" and a "Premier Edition".

The Regular kit will be widely available and will only build the "Series" version of the ship. It will include a shuttle bay. The retail price is $129 but should hit hobby shop shelves at $100 according to R2.

The Premier Edition is by pre-order only.
http://www.round2models.com/1701club/
Only 1701 Premier kits will be available. The first 100 pre-orders recieve a gold shirt signifying they are part of the "1701 Club". The next 250 pre-orders recive a blue shirt. The last 1351 pre-orders recieve a red shirt. Sizes are large and X-large. The Premier will include extra parts to build one of three ships, 1st Pilot, 2nd Pilot, and the Series ship. It will also include a shuttle bay. It will have chrome box art. You will also recieve updates on the production of the kit, behind the scenes interviews, and never before seen photos of the 11 foot filming model on which the kit is based. The Premier edition is now only available for pre-order on the R2 website. The Premier edition will come out up to 2 months (maybe a little less) before the Regular version hits the store shelves. Those who pre-order wont pay anything until the kit is ready next year. The price will be $149.

It was asked about nacelle droop. We were told that they have a very good design engineered to prevent that problem. It was also asked (by me) if it would have grid lines. We were told that it would if they could do them on par with a Tamiya kit. If not, the lines would be removed and the ship issued as a smoothie.

Available seperately for both kits will be a photo etched set, decal set and a lighting kit. The lighting kit will have spinning fan blades for the bussards.

If those who were there at the anouncement agree with the accuarcy of this info could we get this thread stickied? There are numerous threads with the same questions being asked multiple times.


----------



## mach7

Excellent! 

Just what I needed, I can cancel my premier kit and wait for the regular kit.

At this price I'll only build the series ship. The extra packs sound very nice, and I'm sure I'll buy at least 2 of them. I'm guessing that no pricing was released on any of them? 

Thanks very much for the clarification.


----------



## Warped9

This is exactly the kind of clarification we all needed. Thanks.

I'm still glad I reserved a Premiere Edition because I'm seriously thinking of building a 1st pilot version. That said I'm sure there'll be aftermarket conversion parts made available later by either R2 or a third party for the Standard Edition. All things considered it would all probably come out to the same anyway. As far as the lighting goes I'll see how much that goes for and then decide.

If they can't make the grid lines really fine then I, too, would rather they leave them off and then individuals can add them in their own way if they wish.


----------



## Solium

@ robiwon- Thank you for the clarification. That explains it all. Since the limited edition will not include lights or motors I can just as well wait for the standard release. I am only interested in the series version anyway.


----------



## James Tiberius

I'm interested in building the series version too, but heck I started out just getting one 350 refit and I've got 2 now for TMP and -A, so I'll save the pilot pieces to make a second TOS 350 one day.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Thank you for the clarification. I hope they announce soon when they will provide the lighting, PE kit.


----------



## mach7

I wonder what will be in the photoetch pack? I would assume that the dome fan blades would be included with the lighting pack. The only other thing I can think of is the nacelle inside grill. Any thoughts what else would benefit from PhotoEtch?


----------



## scotthm

mach7 said:


> Any thoughts what else would benefit from PhotoEtch?


Possibly some shuttle bay parts?

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


----------



## Capt. Krik

Actually, I'm kind of curious about the decal pack. I wonder what that would include. I mean the kit will obviously come with the standard markings for the hull so what would be in the decal pack. Mirror Universe markings, some sort of quasi aztec pattern? Maybe additional ship names and registries.

I would think the photo-etch would also include the grill work on the nacelle pylons as well as the grilles on the nacelles themselves. Beyond those two things and possibly Shuttle bay details whose to say. Maybe a photo etch bridge interior since the kit will not contain a bridge interior.


----------



## zysurge

A couple more tidbits from their hour long presentation/announcement:


When they sent it out for quote, it came back 50% more expensive than they anticipated.
This will be their only Trek new tool for 2011 / 2012.
The lower saucer will not be one piece, as it will require window inserts, much like the 350 refit.
As a company, they are growing. They've hired a Marketing person, which they've never had before, and a couple of other new positions too.
The success or failure of this kit will determine the future of the 1/350 line.
I have full faith that this kit will be released. With all the hype they are trying to generate, they have to. Could it be delayed? Sure. Things happen, especially working with partners overseas. But it will happen.


----------



## Ductapeforever

I'm sure the aftermarket guys will be marketing full sheets of custom decals for a Mirror universe ship as well as a generic names and hull numbers for an entire fleet of ships. In this scale... I'm sure every stencil, graphic, name, and number will be replicated.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Yeah, no matter what, I'll get the standard edition, and only one of them at that. I do hope they release it as a smoothie, though... in all the publicity shots of Shatner and Nimoy posing with the model in their hands, the grid lines are either absent or extremely faint, so if the kit did have grid lines, I'd probably just sand them away. It's good to know they addressed the nacelle issues.


----------



## Carson Dyle

scotthm said:


> Possibly some shuttle bay parts?
> 
> ---------------


Yes, the kit will include a very cleverly engineered forced-perspective shuttle bay.


----------



## Model Man

Please, for no grid lines. It'd be easy for someone to add styrene strip of appropriate size if they want to.


----------



## Dr. Brad

Thanks for posting this. I'll definitely be getting one of the standard kits!


----------



## jaws62666

Carson Dyle said:


> Yes, the kit will include a very cleverly engineered forced-perspective shuttle bay.


And maybe some classic shuttlecrafts as well?


----------



## Carson Dyle

Yeah, something tells me the shuttle(s) will be accounted for.


----------



## Opus Penguin

jaws62666 said:


> And maybe some classic shuttlecrafts as well?


If not, we have the potential for aftermarket kits.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Model Man said:


> Please, for no grid lines. It'd be easy for someone to add styrene strip of appropriate size if they want to.


Yes I agree. I would rather not have grid lines unless they are faintly etched into the model. But I will be happy with whatever comes out. I will be in Washington DC next month. I plan to go to the Smithsonian and take lots of pictures of the big E.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Opus Penguin said:


> Yes I agree. I would rather not have grid lines unless they are faintly etched into the model. But I will be happy with whatever comes out. I will be in Washington DC next month. I plan to go to the Smithsonian and take lots of pictures of the big E.


There's no way to "faintly etch" TOS grid lines onto a model kit... TOS grid lines were simply way too subtle to get that out of a molded model. I'm hoping we get a smoothie, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

As for the Smithsonian model... just my personal preference, but I would never ever use the weathering/detail on that ship as a reference, with the hull panels and smudge effect so over-emphasized... they took the grand old lady and set her makeup to "whore". If you want a good Enterprise grid line/panel reference, use something like this:

http://darthmojo.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/originale-2008.jpg


----------



## mach7

The Smithsonian would not allow the top of the Enterprise to be repainted.

The top of the primary hull is original to when the Smith took delivery of it.

They have a mirror set up so you can see the top.

I have to agree that the rest of the paint is terrible, way over done.


----------



## Trekkriffic

Premium decals? With some of the terrible things I've read about the quality of R2 decals, I'll probably opt for an aftermarket set from someone like JT Graphics. I'm sure he'll come out with them at some point. 
And before I buy the accessory set, I'll wait and see how other modellers review it. If the review isn't so good, I'm sure ParaGrafix will offer a great PE set and there are plenty of sources that sell really quiet motors for the bussards. 
So... I think I'll wait for the standard kit to come out.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Here's an update...

http://www.collectormodel.com/round2-models/1372-round-2-models-wonderfest-recap/#comments


----------



## Trekkriffic

Weathering decals eh? Very interesting.


----------



## nautilusnut

> There's no way to "faintly etch" TOS grid lines onto a model kit... TOS grid lines were simply way too subtle to get that out of a molded model.


I beg to differ- there are aircraft kits by Fine Molds and Academy with panel lines so fine you can easily fill them with anything but the lightest coats of paint. A light sanding will also remove them. If they could achieve this, I'd prefer them to be on there as drawing them on accurately is difficult and I don't like having to hide all the decal film.


----------



## Spockr

*Did anyone receive a conformation email from R2?*

When I signed up for the 1701 club online R2 said I would receive a confirming email but none has shown up in my inbox after several days. Did any of you guys and gals who signed up receive that email from Round 2?

Regards,
MattL


----------



## Paulbo

BolianAdmiral said:


> There's no way to "faintly etch" TOS grid lines onto a model kit...


In his presentation, Jamie stated that if they couldn't get the grid lines done to their satisfaction, then they'd go for a smoothie.


----------



## Warped9

Spockr said:


> When I signed up for the 1701 club online R2 said I would receive a confirming email but none has shown up in my inbox after several days. Did any of you guys and gals who signed up receive that email from Round 2?
> 
> Regards,
> MattL


Yes. I reserved yesterday and I got a confirmation email immediately.


----------



## robiwon

Carson, thanks for posting that link to the update! So the accessory kit will include all the goodies in one kit. That's cool.


----------



## Bobj812

I got my confirmation email too. Remember to check your spam folder.


----------



## woof359

Thanks for the update, did they mention what the stand might look like ?


----------



## Larry523

Those Premier kit buyers who end up with red shirts, I would advise to build your models quickly. Given the average life-expectancy of a red shirt, you might not survive long enough to complete the kit!


----------



## spock62

Trekkriffic said:


> Premium decals? With some of the terrible things I've read about the quality of R2 decals, I'll probably opt for an aftermarket set from someone like JT Graphics....


Based on the new-formula decals Jamie had sent me, I wouldn't worry about the decals for any of their new kits. The decals should go on just fine.


----------



## Steve H

Carson Dyle said:


> Yes, the kit will include a very cleverly engineered forced-perspective shuttle bay.


Forced perspective due to the massive hunk of support structure for the pylons?


----------



## zysurge

Forced perspective because the shuttlebay as shown on TV would not actually fit into that area of the hull.

They said the bay would be scaled at 75% of what was shown on TV, to make it fit, then in forced perspective to allow plastic thickness and nacelle support structure.


----------



## Opus Penguin

BolianAdmiral said:


> There's no way to "faintly etch" TOS grid lines onto a model kit... TOS grid lines were simply way too subtle to get that out of a molded model. I'm hoping we get a smoothie, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.
> 
> As for the Smithsonian model... just my personal preference, but I would never ever use the weathering/detail on that ship as a reference, with the hull panels and smudge effect so over-emphasized... they took the grand old lady and set her makeup to "whore". If you want a good Enterprise grid line/panel reference, use something like this:
> 
> http://darthmojo.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/originale-2008.jpg


I agree with you. I would prefer a smoothie over grid lines. 

The pictures I planned to take were more for reference on the model itself, not the color. I know the repainting during the 1991 restoration was way overdone. So I am not using its current color for reference. I just wanted pictures of as much detail as I could to have mine look as close as possible. This is one reason I hope the photo etch kit will be great for this.


----------



## Opus Penguin

mach7 said:


> The Smithsonian would not allow the top of the Enterprise to be repainted.
> 
> The top of the primary hull is original to when the Smith took delivery of it.
> 
> They have a mirror set up so you can see the top.
> 
> I have to agree that the rest of the paint is terrible, way over done.


This would be the only reference for paint, or grid lines, that I would follow since it is pretty much as it looked when originally filmed.


----------



## John P

BolianAdmiral said:


> There's no way to "faintly etch" TOS grid lines onto a model kit... TOS grid lines were simply way too subtle to get that out of a molded model. I'm hoping we get a smoothie, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.


:freak: 

Haven't you bought any new model kits in the last decade or so? It's perfectly possible to make very fine recessed panel lines, teeny-tiny details... pretty much anything. Heck some of the cheaply-made limited run styrene aircraft models that come out of Eastern Europe have recessed lines so fine you can lose them with too many coats of paint.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

^

Again, TOS panel lines were not as emphasized as the TMP or TNG-era panel lines... they were extremely faint and subtle... I stand by my belief that it'd be virtually impossible to effectively mold that level of subtlety into a plastic kit. You are free to disagree with me, but I'd rather not take the chance, and would rather have a smoothie.


----------



## RSN

BolianAdmiral said:


> ^
> 
> Again, TOS panel lines were not as emphasized as the TMP or TNG-era panel lines... they were extremely faint and subtle... I stand by my belief that it'd be virtually impossible to effectively mold that level of subtlety into a plastic kit. You are free to disagree with me, but I'd rather not take the chance, and would rather have a smoothie.


Heck, what lines there were on the 11 footer were drawn on with pencil. If you can't scale down a pencil line 350 times, I hope it is smooth!


----------



## nautilusnut

*Round 2 1/350 TOS Enterprise info thread Reload this Page Reply to Thread*

Though it's true they were drawn in pencil. (Ive examined the original model's top) The mold could be made so the lines would be VERY fine and easily removed with primer. The radius lines are the hard ones to do well- this could be taken care of with them faintly engraved. You might even run a pencil down them. They would not show as engraved once painted. I really believe we'll get a smoothie and I'm ok with that- but it could certainly be done very petitely as some other kits show.


----------



## RSN

Dopey me, I was figuring the 350 reduction as if the lines were drawn on a full size ship. The filming miniature is only about 4 times the size of the Round 2 kit, so they would still be 4 times smaller than the 11 footer. I have never liked them personally, because they do not stand out in the episodes. It is personal taste, do you want to recreate the filming miniature or what you see on screen? I always lean toward the screen appearance. If they are there, I hope they are easy to get rid of.


----------



## Solium

Question, if the panel lines need to be so fine so as to appear in scale that primer will more than likely cover them, whats the point in putting them on?


----------



## Steve Mavronis

BolianAdmiral said:


> If you want a good Enterprise grid line/panel reference, use something like this:
> 
> http://darthmojo.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/originale-2008.jpg


Whoa! I'll be getting a regular series kit, and probably the etch set too. I'd prefer to draw my own lines on with pencil as well unless they are very fine like a light knife scribe. When are they going to take orders for the standard kit and photo etch upgrade? [Edit] Never mind, I guess after the Premier kit.

Also, where did that picture in the quote above come from by the way?


----------



## Warped9

Well if the lines are _very_ finely etched then they'll be visible only when the light strikes them a certain way which is cool.

I'm curious about these "weathering" decals someone mentioned upthread. What are we talking about here?


----------



## Fozzie

spock62 said:


> Based on the new-formula decals Jamie had sent me, I wouldn't worry about the decals for any of their new kits. The decals should go on just fine.


Can you elaborate on this...?


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> Well if the lines are _very_ finely etched then they'll be visible only when the light strikes them a certain way which is cool.
> 
> I'm curious about these "weathering" decals someone mentioned upthread. What are we talking about here?


Hi Warped9!

I'm sure it's like the "aztec" decals provided with other ships (most of which have some weathering implemented in them as well, right?).

The TOS 1701 did not have "aztec" patterns, but it does have other subtle appearance cues. Including, yes, subtle weathering, the "rust ring," the pencil lines on the topside primary hull, etc, etc.

Basically, this would appear to be "aztec-less aztec decals." That's my take on it anyway!


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Well, this is another thing... there probably will eventually be a set of TOS aztec decals, because unfortunately, the Defiant from ENT had an aztec pattern, and I have seen people put aztecs on TOS Connies... like the Kongo from Starship Exeter. It is correct? Of course not. Will there be many fans who want to do it? Of course.


----------



## mach7

Warped9 said:


> I'm curious about these "weathering" decals someone mentioned upthread. What are we talking about here?


I'm guessing the weathering will be like the latest repaint on the studio model done by the Smithsonian. Over done if you ask me (No one did  )


----------



## Warped9

^^ Good Lord, I hope not. I know the 11 footer in its original form had some weathering, but what the Smithsonian did to it is inexcusable.


----------



## robiwon

How about some pics of the 11 footer before the repaint?


----------



## mach7

I have some taken in 1976 with my old instamatic. I'll dig them out, scan them and post them. It will be a few days. I also have some taken in the late '80s but I don't know where they are but I'll look.

The Smith repainted the ship in the '70s and '80s so none of the shots I have are original paint.


----------



## Warped9

This is where it'll be nice to see some of those rare and previously unseen pics of the 11 footer in its original form from back in the day.

This is awesome: http://s52.photobucket.com/albums/g31/NCC-1963A/WF 2011/?action=view&current=DSC08064.jpg I'd love a copy of those drawings.


----------



## spock62

Fozzie said:


> Can you elaborate on this...?


Long story short: I had made a comment on the Round 2 blog that their decals weren't the greatest. Jamie replied and offered to send me some test samples of improved decals. A week later I received these "new-formula" (my description, not Round 2's) decals and he threw in a Cadet-Series Enterprise D kit too. Built the "D" using the provided decals. Based on my previous experience with Round 2 decals, these improved decals are much better, had no real problems. Just have to wet the model with plenty of water and use a setting solution, in my case Micro Set/Sol. Jamie emailed me saying that these "new-formula" decals are the standard their using from now on.


----------



## bigdaddydaveh

Carson Dyle said:


> Yes, the kit will include a very cleverly engineered forced-perspective shuttle bay.


Is this because the actual shuttle bay set/miniature won't actually fit inside and scale properly? Serious question here. I was not aware of a scale issue there.


----------



## Paulbo

bigdaddydaveh said:


> Is this because the actual shuttle bay set/miniature won't actually fit inside and scale properly? Serious question here. I was not aware of a scale issue there.


Yes - the "set" (read miniature used to film landing and takeoff) is too big in diameter and far too long.


----------



## Steve Mavronis

I'd just base the fit of the shuttle bay to the Matt Jefferies cross-section drawing with the rear bulkhead just aft of the engine pylons and contour it to the conical hull shape there. Simple.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Here is a good reference sight on the original color of TOS-E.

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/what-color-is-the-tos-enterprise/


----------



## Trekkriffic

mach7 said:


> I'm guessing the weathering will be like the latest repaint on the studio model done by the Smithsonian. Over done if you ask me (No one did  )


If what you guess is true, it would be interesting to see what it would look like with the weathering decals on the model followed by a light coat of the basecoat to tone them down. Done right I could see it looking pretty cool. Would take someone with a lot of courage to attempt it though on a model this large and expensive since it could also end up being a mess. The ideal would be to scale said "weathering " decals down to fit a 1/1000 scale Enterprise and try it out on the smaller kit first.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Interesting news from Jamie at the RC2 site:

"About more 1:350 scale/ large size kits, what I said in my presentation was that this one has to do very well for any chance of being able to do other large kits. That would include (in no particular order) 1:350 K’tinga, 1:1000 Enterprise D and 1:1000 Akira. If this kit won’t sell well enough in this size, nothing will.

Gird lines- We will attempt to engrave fine lines similar to the quality of engraved lines on a Tamiya aircraft hull. If we can’t get them that fine, we won’t have them at all."


----------



## Warped9

Opus Penguin said:


> Gird lines- We will attempt to engrave fine lines similar to the quality of engraved lines on a Tamiya aircraft hull. If we can’t get them that fine, we won’t have them at all."


Works for me. :thumbsup:


----------



## JeffG

Think I'll base the look of my build largely on the miniature that Greg Jein made for Deep Space Nine.


----------



## SteveR

Will there be an aftermarket set to make it look like the old AMT kit?


----------



## Larry523

^^^ Would that be called an "inaccurizing" kit?


----------



## JeffG

The deluxe edition will include a metal template to insure the engines will have the correct sag.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I asked about the Accessory Pack kit (approximately when it will be out, and what the PE parts will be). Here is the response I got from Jamie at RC2:

"I hope the accessory pack will be ready for release with the standard kit. There is a lot to be done before we can nail down dates. As for what will be included on the photoetch, that is for 1701CLUB members to learn as we go."


----------



## Solium

Opus Penguin said:


> As for what will be included on the photoetch, that is for 1701CLUB members to learn as we go."


So do the 1701Club members have to sign a sworn statement of secrecy? :freak:


----------



## Opus Penguin

No word on that, but I expect not. I think the club will just hear the news first before everyone else.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Opus Penguin said:


> As for what will be included on the photoetch, that is for 1701CLUB members to learn as we go."


No... that's for all prospective paying customers to know, thank you very much.

I suggest you tell her that.


----------



## Tiberious

The biggest problem I see with the accessory kit delay is that those of us who cough up the bucks for the 'premium' edition really can't build them as we have to wait for the accessory kit to come out to build our models.

I'm still grumbling over the lack of 'specialness' of the premium kit I guess....don't mind me 

Tib


----------



## John P

Curiously, my LHS tells me his distributor says the premium edition WILL be available for the store to order, and is not an exclusive. :freak:


----------



## CLBrown

BolianAdmiral said:


> No... that's for all prospective paying customers to know, thank you very much.
> 
> I suggest you tell her that.


Oh, c'mon... don't you get this?

(a) The model isn't even fully designed yet. So Round2 doesn't know the answer yet.

(b) Once they DO know the answer, they'll put this information out... to all 1701 or so people who signed up, in advance, for a kit.

(c) Once those people get that information, (and yes, I'm one of them)... we'll immediately repost it all over the freakin' internet. Basically, working for Round2 for nothin! (And we'll LIKE IT, DAMMIT, because we know something you don't... nyah-nyah-nyah!)

It's really a very smart approach... I can't see a single flaw with it.


----------



## falcondesigns

BolianAdmiral said:


> No... that's for all prospective paying customers to know, thank you very much.
> 
> I suggest you tell her that.


Jamie is a he.


----------



## JGG1701

John P said:


> Curiously, my LHS tells me his distributor says the premium edition WILL be available for the store to order, and is not an exclusive. :freak:


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&W=001607478&I=LXARNU&P=K
-Jim


----------



## falcondesigns

more hype than truth..........


----------



## woof359

I never heard any numbers on the 1/350th Refit but IM thinkng it sold well. not only does a big TV version sound good Im hoping for a 1/1000 Enterprise D . but if it dont happen I think well survive. (-:


----------



## CaptCBoard

Distributors will get the Premium kits that don't sell in the pre-release, IF R2 decides to go that way. They are making 1701 of them, so it would be foolish to not sell them. Of course, any Premium Kits sold through distributors won't include the T-shirt!

Everyone should keep in mind that the reason for the Premium Kit is to assure a quick return on the initial investment. If they pre-sell all 1701 kits, with the price being $150 per unit they stand to bring in $255,150. But, if they pre-sell only half of those kits, for $127,575, my guess is that will still cover their investment. The pre-sell is the only reason they can do the kit, but if the interest falls short of the minimum they must sell, the project can be cancelled and no one is out a dime, with the exception of the cost of the T-shirts! I would suggest that since no money has to be paid up-front, that anyone thinking of getting any version of this kit should sign up for the Premium Edition. In the end, with the cost of the accessory kit added to the cost of the Standard Edition, the price will be the same-- boosting the level of interest to the max and perhaps assuring the kit goes into production.

One thing is for sure-- if anyone receives a red shirt, the level of interest has gone beyond half!

Scott


----------



## John P

I'm told that if you signed up and got an email notification, you're in. I'm guessing that since I _didn't_ get an email notification the TWO times I signed up, that all 1701 are spoken for. This is a good thing, if that's the case.


----------



## Trek Ace

I signed up for the maximum of five Premiere kits. So, I imagine that many others signed up for more than one. If that's the case, then even if the total individual pre-orders were less than the 1701, the extra kits would be spread out over those who reserved more than one, and Round 2 would still meet their quota.

What they should do is have a "pre-order meter" on their website that show just how many kits are spoken for, and how many remain. Then, everyone could see where they were at with the pre-ordered kits.

I'm not concerned either way, because I just know that this will be the most successful of the big kits, the one they should have made nearly ten years ago.


----------



## John P

They certainly should have started with this instead of the NX-01. HiWay Hobby couldn't give those things away. Actually they DID give one to me for helping out with an event. I finally sold it about a month ago.


----------



## Warped9

I hope it's a success because I'd quite a like a companion kit;\: a 1/350 Klingon D7 Battle Cruiser.

Hmm...anyone for a 1/350 scale 1701D? :lol:

Actually I suppose 1/1000 D does make more sense.


----------



## iriseye

I ordered one, not only for myself, but for the hobby itself. 

This should be an interesting project.


----------



## RSN

Warped9 said:


> I hope it's a success because I'd quite a like a companion kit;: a 1/350 Klingon D7 Battle Cruiser.
> 
> Hmm...anyone for a 1/350 scale 1701D? :lol:
> 
> Actually I suppose 1/1000 D does make more sense.


A 1/350 K-7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Larry523

RSN said:


> A 1/350 K-7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


How about a 1/350 Fesarius?


----------



## RSN

Larry523 said:


> How about a 1/350 Fesarius?


Or a 1/350 Dyson's Sphere!!


----------



## Solium

Well lets hope those "1701" honor their gentleman's agreement and pay up when the time comes. It appears other online shops have a hard time receiving payment for some of their more expensive pre-orders.


----------



## Warped9

^^ Well I've got the money already on hand. Hell, I could pay now if they'd wanted it.


----------



## mach7

Solium said:


> Well lets hope those "1701" honor their gentleman's agreement and pay up when the time comes. It appears other online shops have a hard time receiving payment for some of their more expensive pre-orders.


Thats why I'm thinking of canceling mine. I don't want the pilot parts, I don't care about the special packaging, and I really could care less about the Tshirt.
All I want is the production ship with a nice lighting kit.

But I DO want them to build this kit so I feel I should be on the list and I'm not sure they will get all 1701 premier kits spoken for.


----------



## Jafo

Ah, but this is the time to give back and purchase one. Sure as Shi* there will be aftermarket parts for this kit if you dont like how it comes in the box. Be happy, have fun!


----------



## RSN

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Well I've got the money already on hand. Hell, I could pay now if they'd wanted it.


Ditto! :thumbsup:


----------



## mach7

Money is not the issue (well ok it will be for she who must be obeyed), neither is the accuracy. I'm sure this will be a very accurate kit and it will be worth all $149.

I am happy! I just wish I did not have to pay for all the extras I don't care for, but hey thats how R2 is doing it so I'm all in.


----------



## scifiguy67

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Well I've got the money already on hand. Hell, I could pay now if they'd wanted it.


same here!!!


----------



## RMC

well R2 has to make money,.....thats usually the bottom line......BUT I AM SO GLAD THAT THEY WILL HONOR STAR TREK BY DOING A 1/350 ORIGINAL ENTERPRISE


----------



## Model Man

John P said:


> I'm told that if you signed up and got an email notification, you're in. I'm guessing that since I _didn't_ get an email notification the TWO times I signed up, that all 1701 are spoken for. This is a good thing, if that's the case.



Just heard that while orders are going 'well', they are not closed-out. Mr. Hood was hoping they might be a little stronger, but expects them to spike when the monthly newsletter goes out. (I don't think they made any press releases or any other initial wide-marketing plans.)


----------



## CLBrown

Model Man said:


> Just heard that while orders are going 'well', they are not closed-out. Mr. Hood was hoping they might be a little stronger, but expects them to spike when the monthly newsletter goes out. (I don't think they made any press releases or any other initial wide-marketing plans.)


I certainly wouldn't have known to order had I not been told about this on another website... which led me back here, at the same time. And I've been watching the R2/PL site.

No, there's been little publicity so far, and most of it so far has been "word of mouth." I'd be really interested if they put out posters to hobby shops, and let the hobby shops take "pre-orders" in a more official sense... I suspect that the numbers would be quite impressive.

Most people will only, ever, buy one of these. Only a dedicated few will buy multiples. But there will be a LOT of "I'll buy one" types... more than they probably realize.

Most of those will not be in the market for the high-end stuff (lighting, etc, etc). Basically, this is for those of us who would have bought the Master Replicas ship if it were just a bit more affordable, and who were wary about quality issues. (Me, I just want to make it my way... my personal "love" will mean that the model will be more carefully done than any chinese factory would ever manage to accomplish!)


----------



## iriseye

> Originally Posted by Warped9
> ^^ Well I've got the money already on hand. Hell, I could pay now if they'd wanted it.


Me too. In fact, I had kind of hoped they would take the money on the pre-order.


----------



## robiwon

Jamie said the first email update on the kit should come out next month!:thumbsup:


----------



## Larry523

RSN said:


> Or a 1/350 Dyson's Sphere!!


OK, you win!  :wave:


----------



## ClubTepes

BolianAdmiral said:


> ^
> 
> Again, TOS panel lines were not as emphasized as the TMP or TNG-era panel lines... they were extremely faint and subtle... I stand by my belief that it'd be virtually impossible to effectively mold that level of subtlety into a plastic kit. You are free to disagree with me, but I'd rather not take the chance, and would rather have a smoothie.


I agree with others who have said that they can do panel lines so thin that you can hardly see them.

I, as a modeler would rather have the option of having them.

Since they are recessed, if you prefer a 'smoothie', all you have to do is brush a coat of Tamiya liquid primer into them and lightly sand.

Very quick, very easy, very effective and both groups can be happy.


----------



## SteveR

Second that. 
If they're that shallow, it's easier to fill them than to scribe them.


----------



## Larva

Whether scribed or raised, the real life dimension of the grid lines is conjectural. Matt Jeffries made no indication if they were to be raised or scribed. The fact that they are drawn on the 11-foot model in fine pencil, as 2-D detail, leads me to believe that's how they are intended to be... as 2-D detail. It is previous models of the Enterprise, such as the original AMT ship and the movie refit that create an expectation that the lines have dimension.


----------



## Warped9

If anything they should be very finely scribed and certainly not raised.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

I'd still opt for a smoothie kit, so that if wanted, I could just pencil in the lines... it's a real trick to nail down TOS panel detailing just right, and in my own personal opinion, I've seen VERY few attempts that got it just right. Most of the time I see people go overboard with it, along with the horridly wretched Smithsonian-style weathering.

I hope to God that they don't put RAISED lines on the kit... that would just be wrong... it sucked on the original AMT kits, and it would royally suck on this one, as well.


----------



## CLBrown

The grid, which was not visible on 1960s TV sets, was entirely 2-dimensional... drawn on by a fine artist's pencil.

IF it is provided, it should only be provided in that form... that is, in the decal set.


----------



## Fozzie

CLBrown said:


> The grid, which was not visible on 1960s TV sets, was entirely 2-dimensional... drawn on by a fine artist's pencil.
> 
> IF it is provided, it should only be provided in that form... that is, in the decal set.


I was gonna say that...though in a much more mundane fashion.


----------



## John P

I do NOT want a fine-line decal of a grid covering a huge 14" diameter saucer! That'll look horrible! It'll look like, well, ink lines on decals.

Finely recessed is the way to go. I'll be okay with a smoothie, too, but measuring and penciling the lines on evenly will be a challenge.


----------



## Warped9

John P said:


> I do NOT want a fine-line decal of a grid covering a huge 14" diameter saucer! That'll look horrible! It'll look like, well, ink lines on decals.
> 
> Finely recessed is the way to go. I'll be okay with a smoothie, too...


Exactly.


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> Exactly.


The kit itself needs to be smooth... because that's what showed upon the TV screen, and that's how the physical model was made.

I think that the "decal" suggestion has been given the same off-hand rejection that "the original ship design in the 2009 movie" was given, and the argument has just about the same level of merit.

See, the "2009 movie" argument, as it went, was that the original design was "old and dated and didn't look realistic." Which is pure nonsense, of course.. but was always supported by showing a badly-built AMT kit, painted with primary colors with a big, course brush.

This argument, by contrast, is assuming big, dark, heavy lines of black ink. But that's not really what I was suggesting, anymore than I was suggesting using a badly painted AMT kit on a string for the 2009 movie.

We KNOW that there are going to be "weathering decals" for this model and that these will include the subtle weathering from the original 11' model's series state (NOT THE SMITHSONIAN "RESTORATION," I hope!). The "rust ring" and other details would be part of those "weathering decals."

There is no reason that there can't be fine, light "gridlines" as part of that "weathering decal." In fact, that is the ONLY place that such "gridlines" have any business being. THE GRID ON THE ORIGINAL MODEL WAS MADE BY PENCIL LINES ON THE SURFACE, NOT BY RAISED RIBBING OR BY RECESSED GROOVING.

So, to put ribbing or grooving onto the model would be to make it INACCURATE.

FYI, I personally don't plan to build mine with a grid pattern at all... nor with any of the "weathering decals" for that matter. Or rather, not my first one, anyway... I might do a second one someday if I have the time...


----------



## Warped9

^^ If the kit is totally smooth then I will definately NOT add any grid lines whether by decal or painting or drawing or whatever means. If they have _very_ finely scribed lines that are only visible when the light strikes them a certain way then I can live with that as is. As for the weathering decals I must wait to see what those are like because if they're too clumsy looking then I'd rather add my own subtle weathering.


----------



## Gregatron

CLBrown said:


> The kit itself needs to be smooth... because that's what showed upon the TV screen, and that's how the physical model was made.
> 
> I think that the "decal" suggestion has been given the same off-hand rejection that "the original ship design in the 2009 movie" was given, and the argument has just about the same level of merit.
> 
> See, the "2009 movie" argument, as it went, was that the original design was "old and dated and didn't look realistic." Which is pure nonsense, of course.. but was always supported by showing a badly-built AMT kit, painted with primary colors with a big, course brush.
> 
> This argument, by contrast, is assuming big, dark, heavy lines of black ink. But that's not really what I was suggesting, anymore than I was suggesting using a badly painted AMT kit on a string for the 2009 movie.
> 
> We KNOW that there are going to be "weathering decals" for this model and that these will include the subtle weathering from the original 11' model's series state (NOT THE SMITHSONIAN "RESTORATION," I hope!). The "rust ring" and other details would be part of those "weathering decals."
> 
> There is no reason that there can't be fine, light "gridlines" as part of that "weathering decal." In fact, that is the ONLY place that such "gridlines" have any business being. THE GRID ON THE ORIGINAL MODEL WAS MADE BY PENCIL LINES ON THE SURFACE, NOT BY RAISED RIBBING OR BY RECESSED GROOVING.
> 
> So, to put ribbing or grooving onto the model would be to make it INACCURATE.
> 
> FYI, I personally don't plan to build mine with a grid pattern at all... nor with any of the "weathering decals" for that matter. Or rather, not my first one, anyway... I might do a second one someday if I have the time...



Agreed. After all, everyone hates the AMT Refit's (inaccurately) engraved aztec panel lines. R2 gave us a smoothie with aztec decals, or the option to paint the aztecs ourselves, which no one seems to have a problem with, and which is more accurate to the original miniature.

The only difference here is that the TOS grid is way less complex and worrisome than the aztecs!


----------



## Prologic9

I think a set of simple templates to make penciling on the lines easy would be better than any of the other options listed.


----------



## scifiguy67

Prologic9 said:


> I think a set of simple templates to make penciling on the lines easy would be better than any of the other options listed.


yep! agreed!!!


----------



## Hunch

I'll third that!


----------



## Opus Penguin

I remember one time someone casted brass versions of the deflector dish and aluminum tips for the 18" model. I am hoping someone is planning this for this version. I would love to have a metal one to replace what is sure to be a plastic one from the kit.


----------



## Warped9

Correct me if I'm wrong, but just as lines were penciled onto the saucer were there not lines also penciled onto the secondary hull and nacelles that were meant to perhaps suggest seams were different sections were fixed together? If so then would those lines be finely scribed as well (or decals provided for them)?

Candidly if they give us a smoothie (which I've no problem with) I would have no desire to mess around with that many decals all over the model. I'd leave it smooth.

Can anyone show us what some fine engraving or scribing on a good kit looks like? Sometimes an image speaks volumes.


----------



## CLBrown

Opus Penguin said:


> I remember one time someone casted brass versions of the deflector dish and aluminum tips for the 18" model. I am hoping someone is planning this for this version. I would love to have a metal one to replace what is sure to be a plastic one from the kit.


And if they do this, the base of the device should have the hinge... just like the real model did.

EDIT: In case anyone doesn't know what I mean... here's the hinge as I modeled it into my computer model (inside and out) Enterprise...


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Warped9 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but just as lines were penciled onto the saucer were there not lines also penciled onto the secondary hull and nacelles that were meant to perhaps suggest seams were different sections were fixed together? If so then would those lines be finely scribed as well (or decals provided for them)?
> 
> Candidly if they give us a smoothie (which I've no problem with) I would have no desire to mess around with that many decals all over the model. I'd leave it smooth.
> 
> Can anyone show us what some fine engraving or scribing on a good kit looks like? Sometimes an image speaks volumes.


Yes, images do speak volumes, and if you ask me, even this level of engraving is TOO deep:










The best option is to offer a smoothie, because as I've stated repeatedly, it's next to impossible to try to engrave TOS paneling and have it look good or correct.


----------



## Prologic9

Warped9 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but just as lines were penciled onto the saucer were there not lines also penciled onto the secondary hull and nacelles that were meant to perhaps suggest seams were different sections were fixed together? If so then would those lines be finely scribed as well (or decals provided for them)?
> 
> Candidly if they give us a smoothie (which I've no problem with) I would have no desire to mess around with that many decals all over the model. I'd leave it smooth.
> 
> Can anyone show us what some fine engraving or scribing on a good kit looks like? Sometimes an image speaks volumes.


Any lines other than those on the saucer section have been added after the fact, and don't belong. There is an actual seam on each nacelle, just behind where the pylon connects, that isn't meant to be seen.


----------



## Warped9

BolianAdmiral said:


> Yes, images do speak volumes, and if you ask me, even this level of engraving is TOO deep:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best option is to offer a smoothie, because as I've stated repeatedly, it's next to impossible to try to engrave TOS paneling and have it look good or correct.


No, that is _waay_ too deep and obvious. Hell, I know I've seen finer work on kits.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

^

The issue of panel line emphasis is the same in 2D as it is in 3D, be it a CGI or physical model... in his plans of the 1701, Alan Sinclair chose to render the panel lines in the same transparency level as the rest of the lines on the drawings. But that helps to create the illusion that the panel lines ought be emphasized, when in reality, they ought not be...

When I was drawing up my orthos of the U.S.S. Gemini, I wanted to find a way to convey the total subtlety of the TOS look, where the panel lines are almost not visible, save when the ship is seen from certain angles. My solution was to isolate the hull panel lines, and reduce them in opacity to a level of 20%. It looked much more authentic, but as you can see in the comparison pic below, they were almost invisible when the plans were reduced in size.










So, as Warped9 knows, I opted to just leave the hull panel lines off the 2D model, because it was pretty much impossible for me to duplicate the look I wanted at the size I had to work with. Again, this is just my two cents on this issue, but IMO, it's just better to lave off any detailing, and have a smoothie, that way the individual modeler can opt to draw/scribe the panels on or not.


----------



## Warped9

When I've wanted very fine lines in my drawings using Illustrator I make them of a very fine thickness. When they printed out you could barely see them on paper even at full size, which is what I was aiming for.


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> When I've wanted very fine lines in my drawings using Illustrator I make them of a very fine thickness. When they printed out you could barely see them on paper even at full size, which is what I was aiming for.


In addition, there's no real need to make your lines with black... they can be a grey (which, in printing terms, means "stippled black" of course).

Combine a "zero-width line" with a medium-grey color (not black, but darker than the hull color), and you get an almost, but not quite, invisible line. A near perfect match for the actual effect on the 11' model.


----------



## robiwon

Instead of quoting the wole post I'll simply say I agree with CLBrown's post #108. I hope for a smoothie. If I want grid lines, I will add them myslef. I will build mine the way I saw it on TV as that is the way_* I *_remember it. Being a SS modeler as well I do understand the reasons why some would want to build it as the way the actual filming miniature was built and painted. To each their own on this. But I hope R2 gives_* us *_the option to build it either way. Give me a smoothie with excellent thin light gray panel line decals or templates to draw our own lines please.

Whatever we do get, ultimately I will be very happy. It wont be the perfect kit for every builder, no kit has _ever_ done that. If I have to fill in some lines I can live with that too.


----------



## Warped9

robiwon said:


> Whatever we do get, ultimately I will be very happy. It wont be the perfect kit for every builder, no kit has _ever_ done that. If I have to fill in some lines I can live with that too.


Very well said.

Unfortunately sometimes things we post may come off as complaining when it's not meant as such. It's usually meant to be just conversational.


----------



## RSN

Warped9 said:


> Very well said.
> 
> Unfortunately sometimes things we post may come off as complaining when it's not meant as such. It's usually meant to be just conversational.


Tell me about it! :thumbsup:


----------



## Hunch

I'll be happy whatever way they decide to do it, as long as they do it!:thumbsup:


----------



## John P

BolianAdmiral said:


> Yes, images do speak volumes, and if you ask me, even this level of engraving is TOO deep:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best option is to offer a smoothie, because as I've stated repeatedly, it's next to impossible to try to engrave TOS paneling and have it look good or correct.


Well, it's nice that you picked the worst possible extreme hand-done case for your example, but you're still wrong that recessed lines CAN'T be done very VERY finely on the original molds by a modern professional mold maker.


----------



## Carson Dyle

After giving the matter some thought, I find I fall into the "finely-etched FineMolds-style" panel line camp. 

Yes, the studio miniature featured a pencil-line dish grid. And while I appreciate why some would want to replicate the filming model precisely, there are those (myself included) who feel pencil lines would not create an aesthetically pleasing effect on a 1/350 display model of this subject.

On screen, pencil lines can be a very effective way to convey a sense of scale and dimension, but in person pencil tends to look suspiciously like pencil.

Certainly one could scribe one's own lines over the surface of a "smoothie," but scribing is a tricky technique to say the least -- and in this instance achieving uniformity would most likely present a difficult challenge to the average modeler -- more difficult perhaps than some may realize (or be willing to admit). 

Current tooling and molding techniques allow for incredibly sharp, crisp, and shallow panel lines. Lines of this sort would be a cinch to get rid of if the builder so desired. Some have mentioned puttying or heavy priming as a means to do so, but really all that should be required is a little work with a sheet of 360 grit sandpaper. 

Decals in this instance are, so far as I'm concerned, not an option.

Just my five cents, fwiw.


----------



## John P

Oh, heck, I admit it - I can't scribe worth a damn!


----------



## nautilusnut

The photo of the engraved Enterprise model is rather misleading as it certainly is over-done. Check out this engraving on an Airmodel kit- not the elevators mind you, but the subtle rivets, panel lines and even "dimpling" of the skin around the rivets- And this is from a small company making limited run kits!



Subtle panel lines are certainly possible!


----------



## Bobj812

The less decals I have to work with, the better for me. Decals seem to hate me - "Nope, nope, I'm not sliding off. Nope, not gonna do it. Nada. Nope - oh hey, look at me - I just slid right off now and dropped down into the water into a hopelessly twisted tangled clump. I'm pretty much useless now. Ha-ha! You're screwed." 
They taunt me, and they're mean about it.
So being the incompetent I am, I would like finely scribed lines.


----------



## Tiberious

Don't forget those that shatter on you as you try to place them, Bob.....as I recently enjoyed while decaling a 'Mystery U.F.O' as a first build with my daughter......some teacher I am!

Tib


----------



## Opus Penguin

nautilusnut said:


> The photo of the engraved Enterprise model is rather misleading as it certainly is over-done. Check out this engraving on an Airmodel kit- not the elevators mind you, but the subtle rivets, panel lines and even "dimpling" of the skin around the rivets- And this is from a small company making limited run kits!
> 
> 
> 
> Subtle panel lines are certainly possible!


This ... I would be okay with.


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> Well, it's nice that you picked the worst possible extreme hand-done case for your example, but you're still wrong that recessed lines CAN'T be done very VERY finely on the original molds by a modern professional mold maker.


I believe this is the old Estes Rockets "flyable Enterprise," isn't it?

I have one of those, but never quite finished building it... I got past the model rocket stage before I got around to it.

I do remember... it was vacuum-form bits over cardboard tubes, for the most part... but it actually did fly, and could be recovered. I DID build the Klingon version and launch it a few times... 

Check them out here...

http://www.rocketreviews.com/estes-star-trek-starship-enterprise-frank-casey.html

http://www.rocketreviews.com/estes-star-trek-klingon-battle-cruiser-frank-casey.html

And if you're stupidly rich and want to try it out... 

http://www.amazon.com/VINTAGE-ESTES-STARSHIP-ENTERPRISE-ROCKET/dp/B004FC7NJ0

http://www.amazon.com/VINTAGE-KLINGON-BATTLE-CRUISER-ROCKET/dp/B004G2D8N4

Now, back on-topic...

I will be VERY UNHAPPY if this model comes with any form of inscribed or raised panel detailing. Simply stated... (a) there was no inscribed or raised panel detailing on the physical model, and (b) there as no inscribed or raised panel detailing visible on-screen.

If the model were to ship with any form of panel edging... ANY AT ALL... I will be forced to spend many, many more hours trying to remove the INACCURATE details from my model. Just as I did on the AMT 1701 model and on the AMT/Ertl 1701(refit) model.

I do not want to waste a single second doing that. I would be PISSED if they added this detail, which mainly exists in the public mind because of Franz Joseph, not because of actual aired Star Trek.

Sure, I'd probably give in and buy the kit anyway, but I'd be much less likely to pay as much. I mean... part of what I'd be paying $150 or so for is a model which is as accurate as it can be, without the requirement to spend half a year rebuilding it from scratch.

The model on-screen had no visible lines. The model itself only had the faintest of pencil-drawn lines, neither raised nor inscribed.


----------



## scotthm

Carson Dyle said:


> I find I fall into the "finely-etched FineMolds-style" panel line camp....
> 
> Just my five cents, fwiw.


I agree completely.

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


----------



## Paulbo

scotthm said:


> I agree completely.
> 
> ---------------


Ditto. As for filling them if included: 

As Jamie said they'd either be super-fine or not there at all. So assuming they'll be super-fine, they can be filled with Mr. Surfacer or Tamiya Fine Surface Primer, then smoothed out with an alcohol soaked q-tip.


----------



## falcondesigns

Whatever they give me,I can fill it or scribe it.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Paulbo said:


> As Jamie said they'd either be super-fine or not there at all. So assuming they'll be super-fine, they can be filled with Mr. Surfacer or Tamiya Fine Surface Primer, then smoothed out with an alcohol soaked q-tip.


Exactly.

For those like me who believe super-fine recessed lines would produce a more aesthetically agreeable grid pattern than pencil lines, the inclusion of a pre-etched grid would alleviate what might otherwise have been a challenging and time-consuming scribing job.

By the same token, removing the pre-etched grid via sanding, puttying, priming, or a combination of all three would be a simple task by comparison. The argument that this removal process would necessitate hours of finger-numbing labor leaves me scratching my head in confusion. Scribing panel lines is tricky; removing them is a cinch.


----------



## Warped9

It strikes me that very finely scribed lines could likely near disappear with a coat of paint. They would then be visible only if light strikes them just the right way. You can't get more subtle than that.


----------



## Seashark

Smoothie.


----------



## Nektu

I don't know how many MR TOS Enterprises you guys have seen, but some looked good, and others looked like hell, because of the damn grid lines! The fainter the better, or none at all, but that's evidence enough that drawing them on is really hard. 

KK


----------



## Warped9

If we get a smoothie then I'm okay with that and I'm not going to try adding any gridlines in any manner whatsoever. It is, after all, the way I saw the ship for decades on television and in my mind until the first remastering several years ago. And even then they were still very faint. It's when the design is resurrected on DS9 and ENT and then rendered in TOS-R that those lines become more apparent.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Nektu said:


> I don't know how many MR TOS Enterprises you guys have seen, but some looked good, and others looked like hell, because of the damn grid lines!


The grid on my MR E is pretty light, but it still can't help but read as pencil.


----------



## Scotty K

Personally, I think I would prefer a smooth version.

If I want to add grids and panel lines, I'll just do what I did on my 22" cutaway and paint them on:


----------



## John P

Very nice!


----------



## robiwon

Hey the forum is back up! I weas getting a little nervous.

ScottyK that build looks great. More pictures?


----------



## nautilusnut

Beautiful work! Please post a few photos of the completed model.

BTW, pencil lines, finely done- look great. You need to put a final, flat finish on the model to kill any shine, and they look like etched lines to the eye. If too dark, just overspray lightly with the hull color till barely visible.


----------



## Scotty K

robiwon said:


> ScottyK that build looks great. More pictures?


I really do not wish to hijack the thread by posting pictures here.

I have previously posted on a different thread, however; you can view them here:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=328247


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Scotty K said:


> Personally, I think I would prefer a smooth version.
> 
> If I want to add grids and panel lines, I'll just do what I did on my 22" cutaway and paint them on:


That is absolutely BEAUTIFUL! And thanks for posting links to more pics... I was also gonna ask that.


----------



## CLBrown

Nektu said:


> I don't know how many MR TOS Enterprises you guys have seen, but some looked good, and others looked like hell, because of the damn grid lines! The fainter the better, or none at all, but that's evidence enough that drawing them on is really hard.
> 
> KK


I worked summers as a draftsman (BEFORE CAD EXISTED) during college...

To get a good line, you need a very hard lead (6H at bare minimum, and the harder the better.. ideally 9H or even 12H if you can find it) and a very sharp point, which you sharpen after each line.

Here's someplace to start reading up on this stuff...

http://www.draftingsteals.com/catalog-pencils--leadholders----lead.html

You want a "lead holder" and a "lead pointer." (not called a "sharpener")

This is the most common version of lead holder from the "old days." It's ideal for this sort of work...

http://www.draftingsteals.com/20507.html

And while there are many "lead pointers," this is the one I have and I recommend it strongly...

http://www.draftingsteals.com/21090.html

And you'll need lead... I recommend you go with this if you want to put gridlines on the primary hull of the Enterprise at this scale... it will give a VERY faint, almost undetectable, line... of course, if you press too hard, it will slice right into the plastic, just like a hobby knife, too, so be careful.

Here's the lead I recommend... 

http://www.draftingsteals.com/2mmsadrlepkg16.html

You can try a harder grade, but you'll barely get any visible line at all unless you press so hard you'd cut through the paint, at least.

The idea is that you put the bare lead into the lead holder... put the lead holder into the pointer, and "spin" it (not rotating the barrel relative to your fingers, but rather spin the round part of the pointer, using the holder body to do so), and it gives a nearly-surgical point. (ALL drafters used to use these things, and they work very nicely).

If people have used regular #2 lead pencils, or standard mechanical pencils, they'll get a poor result... because both of those are intended for READABLE WRITING USE.

But in drafting, you use the hard leads to make super-faint lines that are barely visible, and use the soft leads (6B or softer) to make the "dark, readable" lines.

EDIT: You'll probably also want one of these, to clean the powder from the tip prior to each line, to ensure you don't drag along any particles while drawing...

http://www.draftingsteals.com/21093.html


ONE MORE EDIT:

Just for curiousity's sake, drafters used to do most of their work on a device very much like what you see here...

http://www.google.com/products/cata...a=X&ei=oa7lTYuLG83AtgexysjjCg&ved=0CDIQ8wIwAQ

This would be set to any angle, and could be slid in a very controlled fashion around the drafting surface. You still had to use conventional drawing techniques (including a LOT of "invisible" guide lines drawn with hard lead, as I was discussing earlier).

Basically, ANYTHING done prior to, say, 1992, was probably done on a setup like this. CAD didn't really start to take off until the late 1990s... I was an "early adopter" of Pro/ENGINEER back in 1996.


----------



## CLBrown

Scotty K said:


> Personally, I think I would prefer a smooth version.
> 
> If I want to add grids and panel lines, I'll just do what I did on my 22" cutaway and paint them on:


That's beautiful work...

I've seen your thread before (before I started posting here regularly, I mean).

I think you used the "recast suncatcher" nacelle cap effect, didn't you?

I'm a huge fan of that... no pun intended. I've been considering doing something similar to that, combined with "fan blades" (probably photoetched, on a tiny little low-speed motor) to give me my own effect.

Of course, if R2 provides a great setup out-of-the-box, I may not even bother... it remains to be seen just how much they'll do.

I can see their kit basically being the approach you've just used... since it's low-cost (relatively) and gives a spectacular (if not 100% screen-accurate) effect.


----------



## Gregatron

So, I presume that the lighting kit will reproduce the production model's effects (hopefully in their entirety--nacelle domes, blinker lights, and windows).

The first pilot model had no electronics, of course.

But the second pilot model has a slightly different setup--more blinkers, differently-colored blinkers, and even windows that blinked on and off.

I wonder if anything will be provided for those wanting to do an accurately-lit second pilot model.


----------



## scifiguy67

all i did on my "22" for grid lines was spray my color on a piece of paper & went to a art supply store & match it with a slightly darker colored pencile its faint but there.


----------



## John P

scifiguy67 said:


> all i did on my "22" for grid lines was spray my color on a piece of paper & went to a art supply store & match it with a slightly darker colored pencile its faint but there.


Dang, I never thought of that! Very clever idea!


----------



## jheilman

Indeed!

It's going to be a long wait for this kit, but it's fun anticipating it and working through all these discussions.


----------



## SteveR

Hmm ... How about a smooth model with cardboard templates for drawing the gridlines?

(just thinking mass-market)


----------



## Trek Ace

Thin brass strips work very well - about 1/4" wide. They can be easily bent to match the top and bottom contours of the saucer for drawing the radial lines while maintaining a straight edge. A beam compass is used for the circular ones.

I recommend using a very fine mechanical pencil, because the diameter of the lead remains constant as it's used. The lead from a sharpened wooden pencil gradually widens as it is used, and therefore makes it difficult to maintain a consistent line thickness.


----------



## CLBrown

Trek Ace said:


> Thin brass strips work very well - about 1/4" wide. They can be easily bent to match the top and bottom contours of the saucer for drawing the radial lines while maintaining a straight edge. A beam compass is used for the circular ones.
> 
> I recommend using a very fine mechanical pencil, because the diameter of the lead remains constant as it's used. The lead from a sharpened wooden pencil gradually widens as it is used, and therefore makes it difficult to maintain a consistent line thickness.


Did you read my post, earlier, about the use of drafting pencils?

A mechanical pencil will, even with the best available lead, make an unacceptably wide and heavy line, compared to a draftsman's "lead holder" and 9H lead, with a very sharp point (achieved with a special draftsman's tool called a "lead pointer"). We're talking an order of magnitude in the width of the line and the precision of the line, really...

All mechanical pencils are created with legible handwriting in mind. That's really not what you want here...


----------



## Warped9

I don't even want to _think_ about trying to draw the things on, either radial or circular lines. No thank you---if it's smooth then I'll leave it that way because that's what I saw on television.


----------



## robiwon

I think it's safe to say that if we get a smoothie people will build and add grids with pencil, decals and scribing. Some will keep it smooth. If we get grid lines people will build with the grids and people will fill them in. It doesn't matter how it comes because we will all do something to build it the way we want it to look. With that, I don't care if has, or doesn't have, grids.


----------



## John Duncan

So who's going to produce a PE stencil for the rust ring on the primary hull?

Hmm??


----------



## CLBrown

Mine will be smooth... no question. I just hope I don't have to spend a lot of extra effort to "convert" it into that state.

Mine will also not have the "rust ring" or any of the other weathering details. But we know that R2 is producing a "weathering decal set" and... well, c'mon, isn't it obvious that the rust-ring is just the most overt element of "weathering" on the ship?

My model will be a "perfect, idealized, fresh-out-of-drydock" version (albeit after the big refit post-galactic-barrier).


----------



## RSN

I have always considered the "rust ring" to be a contour enhancer, a bit like stage make-up on an actor. With the bright lights needed to film the miniature, the dark ring may have been nothing more than an artificial shadow, for lack of better wording. The Seaview miniature also had artificial shadows painted on the underside of hull detail. Just my feeling of why a Starship in space would have a ring of rust on the hull! I will be making my hull uniform in color.


----------



## Prologic9

It's not a rust ring, it's a set of 10 panels of a different variety, with clear edges on all sides, defined by the grid lines. Even if the ship were 'brand new' you could still expect to see some minor difference between these panels and the rest. 

And they're very important, if the Enterprise didn't have these panels, then--- oh I gotta go eat dinner.


----------



## CLBrown

Prologic9 said:


> It's not a rust ring, it's a set of 10 panels of a different variety, with clear edges on all sides, defined by the grid lines. Even if the ship were 'brand new' you could still expect to see some minor difference between these panels and the rest.
> 
> And they're very important, if the Enterprise didn't have these panels, then--- oh I gotta go eat dinner.


Well, since I buy the position that the 1701 was actually painted... there's no reason for any area of the ship to show any panel variation whatsoever. (The 1701(R) on the other hand, was bare-metal... or, if you follow original-designer-intent from Andrew Probert, "bare ceramic?")

The "rust ring" wasn't there in the pilots, was it? So... maybe that was caused by replacement of areas of the primary hull after getting toasted going through the barrier?

Oh, and... was dinner good? :wave:


----------



## Warped9

CLBrown said:


> My model will be a "perfect, idealized, fresh-out-of-drydock" version (albeit after the big refit post-galactic-barrier).


If I were to build a Pike era version (and I am considering it) then "fresh out of drydock" is how I'd do it.


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> If I were to build a Pike era version (and I am considering it) then "fresh out of drydock" is how I'd do it.


See, I see the 1701 as having (at least) two major rebuilds (BEFORE the "all but name rebuild" in TMP).

One thing that most people don't realize is that the "vacuum" of space is a VERY hostile environment for any material. People think that it's less harsh than, say, a planetary environment. But this is not true.

I'm sure that, if this was a REAL ship, one thing that would happen regularly would be that the entire skin of the ship would be replaced. (We do that on military aircraft pretty frequently, today, too.)

So... there may have been an "as-built" state, which lasted all the way through the visit to Talos IV. We don't know if there was some other version that existed prior to that, of course. And we know that at some point between Talos IV and Kirk's "non-5-year-mission" mission to penetrate the barrier (and that's about a 10-12 year window, isn't it?) the ship was rebuilt, with some significant (but not dramatic) changes. Major systems were basically the same... but there were alterations, both in external and internal configuration.

We DO know that, between the Barrier mission and the 5-year mission, the ship was altered dramatically... much moreso than during the previous (known) rebuild.

It is unreasonable to assume that, with major internal and external systems being swapped out, the skin would not be 100% replaced at that point as well. ESPECIALLY if windows, sensor panels, and the like were being moved around, removed, replaced, etc.

Personally, I accept that Pike commanded the Enterprise in her "as launched" form, but that a year or two after Talos, the ship got her first big rebuild. I accept that the barrier mission caused MASSIVE damage to the Enterprise, and this meant that the ship needed a full rebuild to bring her entirely up to specs again.

I postulate that this rebuild was largely based upon the full implementation of "replicator" technology... something previously considered experimental... into twelve of the fleet's Heavy Cruisers, an upgrade that basically turned them into "exploratory cruisers." The use of replicator technology allowed the ship to eliminate much of the requirement for on-board storage... food, clothing, spare parts, etc. This permitted, in essence, the full complement of a science vessel (equipment and crew) to be brought aboard what was previously a much more "pure military" vessel. The crew went from 200 to 430, and they carried a much larger complement of science labs and so forth.

So... we have "as built"... we have "a few equipment upgrades"... and we have "total mission redefinition." Those are how I see the three TOS 1701 versions we've seen.

So... all three "states" ought to have a "fresh out of drydock" state we can imagine. And all three states can also have a different, unique "weathered state." Or even multiple states (I'm sure that the 1701 which pulled into drydock prior to the TMP refit was a lot more "scuffed up" than the one which carried David Bailey out to the Fesarius!)


----------



## RSN

Orrrrrr, it was just a shadow enhancer for filming purposes?!:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## BolianAdmiral

As much as I'm a die-hard stickler for accuracy and adherence to canon, I must admit that I vehemently dislike that "rust ring" or "coffee stain", or whatever other pet names fans have for it... it simply makes no sense... rust cannot be in space... not with a 100% native spaceborne vessel. A shuttlecraft, or some ship which frequently has exposure to a planet's weather, yes, I can see that... but not the Enterprise.

That being said... if it is NOT rust, then what is it? I don't see how dirt would just magically accumulate in that one spot, and nowhere else on the ship. The one theory I have about a possible function it could serve has been slammed down by my buddy *TOS Purist*... I had speculated that the discoloration served to indicate that those panels were ejectable, as they covered the hull sections that could break away, serving as lefepods, since we never saw any blatant lifepods on the hull.

But other than that, I see no purpose for that ring of discoloration.


----------



## mach7

CLBrown,

A very well thought out post.

As for the "skin", we know that shields, force fields, inertial dampeners, tractor beams, and deflectors exist. I would postulate that al this technology would relieve the hull of most of the stress that it would experience. Temperature fluctuations might be the heaviest stress the skin would be exposed to.

To me this would mean that the skin would not need to be replaced very often. I have spent my adult life around large aircraft. The skin is not replaced often at all. Maybe on a heavy check (every 30000 hrs) some panels might get replaced. but aircraft are repainted more frequently. Many military aircraft have radar absorbent material that would need replacing much more often, but I can't think of a reason a large spacecraft would have this requirement. One last thing about aircraft, one of the greatest stresses comes from pressurization/depressurization cycles, something I hope the Enterprise does not experience.

Lastly, I remember reading that GR did not want any panel lines. His thinking was that the Enterprise was built of futuristic materials that would not show any lines. I think that was in The Making of Star Trek, but I'm not sure.

Anyway, if anyone cares, Mine will be a smoothie.


----------



## scifiguy67

John P said:


> Dang, I never thought of that! Very clever idea!


thanks!


----------



## Gregatron

Someone could do the unpainted, uncommssioned, NX-0002, "shakedown" version of the _Enterprise_ from John Byrne's CREW comic series...

http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0903/12/startrekcrew12.htm


----------



## BolianAdmiral

^

Aside from the NX number, that's a pretty frakkin' sweet image... do you have any more information on that comic? I'd like to get a copy.


----------



## scotthm

CLBrown said:


> It is unreasonable to assume that, with major internal and external systems being swapped out, the skin would not be 100% replaced at that point as well.


Actually, I think it would be unreasonable to assume that the entirety of the ship's hull would receive the same stresses and radiations and would therefore all be in need of replacement simultaneously. Why replace panels if they're still within spec?

This is also why I believe a totally uniform coloring is unlikely after the ship has been in service for a while.

It's a good thing we'll all get to paint our own ships as we see fit. :thumbsup:

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


----------



## Gregatron

BolianAdmiral said:


> ^
> 
> Aside from the NX number, that's a pretty frakkin' sweet image... do you have any more information on that comic? I'd like to get a copy.


For those who don't know, comics legend John Byrne (a huge TOS fan) has recently served as writer/artist for a number of IDW Comics TREK miniseries. All of the series have been great reads, and perfectly capture the look and feel of classic TREK. Highly recommended.

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Crew-John-Byrne/dp/1600105548

http://www.amazon.com/Romulans-Pawns-War-Star-Trek/dp/1600103693

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Leonard-Frontier-Doctor/dp/1600107486

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Assignment-Earth-IDW/dp/1600102913


Some of these stories also feature a number of Byrne's original starship designs, which are also pretty sweet. It would be cool to see some models of them.


The first issue of CREW features a very young Number One serving aboard the uncommissioned _Enterprise_ during its shakedown cruise. This version of the ship is essentially the first pilot version, unpainted, and with a few reverse-engineered tweaks to make the engines and such look a little bit clunkier and less refined. The "NX" number was imposed on Byrne by Paramount.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

^

Thank you for that! I am going to get those issues. Funny that Paramount insisted the NX number be so... that's kinda weird.

I'm really curious to see those other starship designs you spoke of... do you have any scans you could PM me?


----------



## Gregatron

At Byrne's forum, we talk TREK and TREK designs a lot. He's posted many of his designs and concepts there.

Here are some relevant threads:

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26440&PN=1&TPN=1

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29747&PN=1&TPN=4


Some Bird of Payne variants also appear in the ROMULANS storyarc.


----------



## fluke

*Not the 'FINAL ART' but I think it should be! 
*
...well....now after another looksie....I can see where better angels and facial expressions could be improved...oh and Kirk does not have a hottie in his arms.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Gregatron said:


> At Byrne's forum, we talk TREK and TREK designs a lot. He's posted many of his designs and concepts there.
> 
> Here are some relevant threads:
> 
> http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26440&PN=1&TPN=1
> 
> http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29747&PN=1&TPN=4
> 
> 
> Some Bird of Payne variants also appear in the ROMULANS storyarc.


Wow... again, thanks! So far I'm REALLY loving his U.S.S. Ventura design... I can totally see that working.


----------



## woof359

*awsome box concept*



fluke said:


> *Not the 'FINAL ART' but I think it should be!
> *
> ...well....now after another looksie....I can see where better angels and facial expressions could be improved...oh and Kirk does not have a hottie in his arms.




other than Shatner would want a fortune for his likness, its a fantastic Idea for box art, i need that in wall papper size, :thumbsup:


----------



## John P

BolianAdmiral said:


> As much as I'm a die-hard stickler for accuracy and adherence to canon, I must admit that I vehemently dislike that "rust ring" or "coffee stain", or whatever other pet names fans have for it... it simply makes no sense... rust cannot be in space... not with a 100% native spaceborne vessel. A shuttlecraft, or some ship which frequently has exposure to a planet's weather, yes, I can see that... but not the Enterprise.
> 
> That being said... if it is NOT rust, then what is it? I don't see how dirt would just magically accumulate in that one spot, and nowhere else on the ship. The one theory I have about a possible function it could serve has been slammed down by my buddy *TOS Purist*... I had speculated that the discoloration served to indicate that those panels were ejectable, as they covered the hull sections that could break away, serving as lefepods, since we never saw any blatant lifepods on the hull.
> 
> But other than that, I see no purpose for that ring of discoloration.


I don't think anyone ever meant it was actual rust, just that it was similar to the _color _of rust, for the sake of description.


----------



## MGagen

Of course it's not rust, and there's a reason it's only on the top front side. Apollo had been eating pomegranates and forgot to wash his hands...

M.


----------



## robiwon

Can someone post a picture of this "rust ring"?


----------



## Warped9

We know grid lines were penciled on (yuch!), but was there actually a yellowish colouration on the top forepart of the saucer?


----------



## Prologic9

Floating around the net is a screencap of the saucer paint pattern Greg Jein made for his T&T model, which would be of use here so someone should find that.


----------



## scotthm

robiwon said:


> Can someone post a picture of this "rust ring"?


Here is a picture of the upper part of the saucer.

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-001.jpg

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


----------



## RSN

scotthm said:


> Here is a picture of the upper part of the saucer.
> 
> http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-001.jpg
> 
> ---------------


With all due respect to Mr. Jein, his model is not an accurate representaion of the 11 foot miniature used in the original series. There was NO large round light on the forward, top, of the primary hull. For Pete's sake, just build the darn thing the way you want, there is no right or wrong. That is how I plan to approach it. I build for my own pleasure, not the praise of others. If you like it, you like it, if not, it is still on my shelf for me to enjoy!:thumbsup:


----------



## Prologic9

RSN said:


> With all due respect to Mr. Jein, his model is not an accurate representaion of the 11 foot miniature used in the original series. There was NO large round light on the forward, top, of the primary hull. For Pete's sake, just build the darn thing the way you want, there is no right or wrong. That is how I plan to approach it. I build for my own pleasure, not the praise of others. If you like it, you like it, if not, it is still on my shelf for me to enjoy!:thumbsup:


I'm more than aware of the differences between Jein's model and the original. He did manage to get the ring right, and the illustration was designed to show patterns clearly where they would be much more subtle when applied. The image is a worthy asset. 

And for Pete's sake, some of us will want to recreate the original model as closely as possible, weathering and all. That is how I plan to approach it, and I imagine many others will as well.


----------



## scotthm

RSN said:


> With all due respect to Mr. Jein, his model is not an accurate representaion of the 11 foot miniature used in the original series.


The link I provided is to a photo of the upper saucer of the original model, taken during its restoration. From what I understand, the top of the saucer was not restored and still has the original paint.

More photos of this restoration may be found here: http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=8672

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


----------



## Warped9

If I build a Pike era version it won't be exactly like the filming miniature. For example that miniature lacked detail on the inboard side of the nacelles as well as on the hangar bay doors. I would add those details. But I would want the window and lights arrangements of the 1st and/or 2nd pilot (because the 1st pilot version wasn't lighted) so I'd use the saucer domes and running lights of the 2nd pilot. Essentially I'd want a "working" Pike era version. I'd probably leave the engine domes opaque and red...although it would be interesting to see lighted domes with the nacelle spikes in place---hmm... The lower saucer running lights were set further aft under the saucer rather than being in line with the upper running lights.

But whether I make a Pike era version or a series Kirk era version I'd want it as I saw it in my mind all these years. That's why I wouldn't pencil or paint or decal any gridlines, but I would accept _very_ fine scribed lines if the model has them. I'd also include weathering.


----------



## John P

Better shot of the rust ring:
http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-048-sized.jpg

It's just a ring of panels with a slight brownish tint.

I did it on my destroyer conversion by just airbrushing a light, thin dusting of brown:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/shaitan.html

On this kitbash, I didn't even mask it, I just carefully brushed some brown pastel:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/kitbash/trekpage_minmus.html


----------



## Warped9

Is that ring supposed to go all the way around a full 360 or is just at the fore part of the saucer?


----------



## KUROK

John p. Will you do kit bashes in 350th scale?


----------



## scotthm

Warped9 said:


> Is that ring supposed to go all the way around a full 360 or is just at the fore part of the saucer?


I think these are about the best pictures you're going to find of the top of the saucer of the original 11' Enterprise model:

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-001.jpg
http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-007.jpg
http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-062.jpg

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


----------



## Warped9

A few things can be seen in those pics. Firstly, how sad to see the deteriorated state the miniature was in.  Secondly, the grid work is incredibly faint and subtle even as you get closer. Thirdly, it doesn't look like the yellowy ring goes all the way around.

It's also interesting detailing as opposed to all the greebles used for contemporary SF hardware.


----------



## woof359

then again, maybe the ship was intended to be white and they knew to make it look white on the TV they had to come up with a certain color, the concreat grey color was only a method of making it look white on TV and supose to be white in real life.

I do like the off grey color my self, my white PL Refit, sitting next to my greyish PL TOS looks good


----------



## scotthm

woof359 said:


> maybe the ship was intended to be white and they knew to make it look white on the TV they had to come up with a certain color, the concreat grey color was only a method of making it look white on TV and supose to be white in real life.


I think we may be sure that it was painted to get the proper look on film, rather than in person. Also, I think it's safe to assume that the original paint may have yellowed and darkened over the years.

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


----------



## Warped9

scotthm said:


> I think we may be sure that it was painted to get the proper look on film, rather than in person. Also, I think it's safe to assume that the original paint may have yellowed and darkened over the years.
> 
> ---------------


Agreed. Indeed in the TOS-R episodes I often think they made the ship's grey tone look too dark.


----------



## John Duncan

Wow, I mention "rust ring" and the debate starts.

It's on my MR TOS E and I guess I do not remember why it was put there. Presumeably it was on the original ship but it's been too long since THAT debate was on....


----------



## John P

I doubt it was supposed to look white on screen. It never did, anyway.
I always figgered big ships in the navy are gray, so it was natural to paint her gray.


----------



## John P

KUROK said:


> John p. Will you do kit bashes in 350th scale?


I hope to! I hoped to when I bought 8 of the 1/350 refit. Now I'm just wondering why the heck I bought *8* of the 1/350 refit! :freak:


----------



## jaws62666

Official Round 2 press release.
http://round2models.com/news/press-release110603


----------



## Warped9

Ah, so the lighting kit, weathering decals and photo-etch stuff will be a separate accessory package. The real distinction between the two editions is special packaging for the Limited Edition as well as alternate parts to make 1st pilot, 2nd pilot or series production version.

Got it.


----------



## ClubTepes

I seem to remember reading somewhere, where Gene Roddenberry said that he wished that the inboard grills of the nacelles of the TOS E had glowed blue. But it was never realized on the 11 footer.

Does anyone remember where this might have been written?


----------



## Seashark

When this thing finally makes it out, if no one wants thier 'pilot' parts; I would more than happy to take them off your hands.


----------



## Scotty K

Seashark said:


> When this thing finally makes it out, if no one wants thier 'pilot' parts; I would more than happy to take them off your hands.


When all is said and done, I can see quite easily that there would be a decent secondary market for those parts. I have a sneaking suspicion that the majority of people would want to build the production version of the ship, so the first and second pilot parts become expendable. Unless, of course, one would want to hold onto them for another build or kitbash down the line.

Speaking for myself, I would say that I'm leaning quite heavily toward a production build, so, yes, my parts _might_ be available...


----------



## Gary K

ClubTepes said:


> I seem to remember reading somewhere, where Gene Roddenberry said that he wished that the inboard grills of the nacelles of the TOS E had glowed blue. But it was never realized on the 11 footer.
> 
> Does anyone remember where this might have been written?


This was included in a estimate from the Howard A. Anderson Company, dated April 6, 1966, to convert the 2nd Pilot model into the Production version. The exact quote is: 

"13. Light source on inside area of both pods. $ 300.00"

The deal breaker was the fact that the exisiting nacelles, then referred to as "Pods", could not accomodate the planned lighting: 

"Items 13 & 14 - in the event that opening up the sheet metal pods for this work, the metal goes out of shape to render further work on existing pods useless - new pods will have to be made."

The exact nature of the desired lighting effect isn't known, but if I were to add lighting behind the inboard screens I'd probably go with some shade of blue or purple to be consistent with subsequent starships.

Gary


----------



## Jafo

This might be the only model I put lights in.....


----------



## ClubTepes

Jafo said:


> This might be the only model I put lights in.....


One man, alone in the dark.

click.

click.




click.


click.


----------



## ClubTepes

Gary K said:


> The exact nature of the desired lighting effect isn't known, but if I were to add lighting behind the inboard screens I'd probably go with some shade of blue or purple to be consistent with subsequent starships.
> 
> Gary


Thanks Gary.

Thats what I was thinking about as well. 

Is that estimate quote printed somewhere?
I do remember reading it.......somewhere.


----------



## Warped9

I once did some photomanips with that very effect. I'll try to find them.


----------



## Trekkriffic

ClubTepes said:


> One man, alone in the dark.
> 
> click.
> 
> click.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> click.
> 
> 
> click.


Nice!


----------



## Gary K

ClubTepes said:


> Thanks Gary.
> 
> Thats what I was thinking about as well.
> 
> Is that estimate quote printed somewhere?
> I do remember reading it.......somewhere.


I have a scan of the original memo, but I don't recall seeing it reprinted elsewhere. I have a vague recollection of posting the price quote online a few years ago. Is it possible that's where you read it?

Gary


----------



## Warped9

Found...


----------



## scifiguy67

Warped9 said:


> Found...


that's pretty!!!


----------



## ClubTepes

Warped9 said:


> Found...


Nice. I did something similiar years ago when I made my CG Entrprise.

After reading about the 'Roddenberry glow request', I decided I wanted to incorporate a TMP style grill work into my CG model.
This is a WIP result.




When I build mine, I'd like to make it a cross between what I've done on my CG model, the TOS.5 E, the 11 footer and the remastered E.

ahhhhhhhh. some day.


----------



## John P

Gary, I'm sure we wouldn't mind if those inboard grille parts were molded clear.


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> Gary, I'm sure we wouldn't mind if those inboard grille parts were molded clear.


Nah, there will be PHOTOETCH grills... and I'm sure there will be through-holes in those grills, right?

Just backlight the provided grillwork.

Of course, I'm sure that there will be after-market "clear" parts there, in case you want 'em... but I think that the photoetch will do the trick, and better, than any clear parts ever could... if this is something you want to do, I mean.


----------



## John P

We already know any photoetch is going to be a later accessory kit. What, you want big empty slots in the nacelles with nothing to put in them in the kit? A clear part is the way to go, PLUS a later photoetch grille for those who want it.


----------



## Warped9

John P said:


> A clear part is the way to go...


Yeah, but candidly if their intent is genuine accuracy then they're not likely to do that since that's not how the 11 footer was built and that's not what we saw onscreen.

And candidly I like the fact the TOS _E_ doesn't have the same blue glow that's been on Trek ships since TMP, but made really prominent from TNG onward.


----------



## Larva

We never see the TOS Enterprise jump to warp. Perhaps the nacelle grills flashed blue when it did.


----------



## Warped9

Larva said:


> We never see the TOS Enterprise jump to warp. Perhaps the nacelle grills flashed blue when it did.


We've seen moments when Kirk orders warp speed and we see the ship pull away and there is no blue flash. A lot of folks have simply become accustomed to seeing warp f/x from TMP onward.


----------



## Larva

Yes, we see it pulling away, but an actual visual effect for slipping passed sublight speed into warp speed was never established in TOS, it was all done with dialog a la Sulu announcing... "Warp 1."


----------



## Warped9

Larva said:


> Yes, we see it pulling away, but an actual visual effect for slipping passed sublight speed into warp speed was never established in TOS, it was all done with dialog a la Sulu announcing... "Warp 1."


Disagree. Indeed in "The Cage" they tried to show something (from the perspective of within the ship), but it wasn't very effective and for some possibly confusing.


----------



## Larva

If that was intended as a literal effect of jumping to warp, it comes, at least by today's standards, as a visually poetic interpretation. The bigger point is that the effects depart in 1967 didn't have a vision, concept, design, instructions plan for showing the ship jumping to warp speed. The same shots of the Enterprise leaving orbit to go to warp are used as stock for the ship leaving orbit at sublight. This is why it was SO important to Roddenberry that the warp jump in TMP be mind-blowing.


----------



## John P

Warped9 said:


> Yeah, but candidly if their intent is genuine accuracy then they're not likely to do that since that's not how the 11 footer was built and that's not what we saw onscreen.
> 
> And candidly I like the fact the TOS _E_ doesn't have the same blue glow that's been on Trek ships since TMP, but made really prominent from TNG onward.


But a clear part can be painted over to match the original with no problem whatsoever. It's just another piece of plastic. It doesn't really MATTER if it's molded in clear instead of gray. See? Everybody wins.


----------



## Larva

I agree. Clear is the best solution for that piece. Just as the nacelle domes can be painted to emulate the unilluminated pilot versions.


----------



## RSN

John P said:


> But a clear part can be painted over to match the original with no problem whatsoever. It's just another piece of plastic. It doesn't really MATTER if it's molded in clear instead of gray. See? Everybody wins.


Exept for the fact that manufacturers have said in the past that clear plastic is more expensive than colored. Do we want to add to the cost on a detail that did not exist....my gosh, look at the discussion over the window placement!


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> We already know any photoetch is going to be a later accessory kit. What, you want big empty slots in the nacelles with nothing to put in them in the kit? A clear part is the way to go, PLUS a later photoetch grille for those who want it.


No, I want a solid inside surface on the molded nacelle body, with no need to fill, putty, file, sand, glue, etc.


> But a clear part can be painted over to match the original with no problem whatsoever. It's just another piece of plastic. It doesn't really MATTER if it's molded in clear instead of gray. See? Everybody wins.


No... either Round2 loses (the tooling is more expensive, they keep the same sales price, thus cutting their profit margin) or the customer loses (the model's sale price goes up to keep Round2's profit margin where it ought to be).

You add additional parts to the model and you've just increased the tooling cost significantly.

Very few people will want to light that at all. The original model did NOT have any light source there.

If you want to light something which was never lit on the original show, you'll need to cut plastic, basically.

(FYI, I plan to do some cutting of plastic, but not here. See, I am going to have the four white rectangles on the top of the primary hull be large "skylight" windows into the gym, the auditorium/theater, etc. But I'll do that on my own time, and my own dime, and not ask R2 to modify the kit just to placate me, personally)

It would be STUPID for R2 to add significant tooling cost so that a half-dozen people can make a never-seen-on-screen modification to their models, now, wouldn't it?

I'll be impressed if they provide a kit that provides just what's seen on-screen, accurately. That means NO ETCHED OR RAISED LINES (except, perhaps, insofar as there were rivets and lines on the nacelle skin, which, as you may recall, was sheet metal). That means no special added feature to let you do something that is, frankly, a MODIFICATION.

That does raise the point, though... I wonder if they'll replicate the sheet-metal elements on the nacelle skin? These really was there, after all...


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> Yeah, but candidly if their intent is genuine accuracy then they're not likely to do that since that's not how the 11 footer was built and that's not what we saw onscreen.
> 
> And candidly I like the fact the TOS _E_ doesn't have the same blue glow that's been on Trek ships since TMP, but made really prominent from TNG onward.


TMP didn't have blue glow, by the way, anyway... 

The glow was actually purple/pink. (The color came from purple machinist's dye on the inside of the aluminum parts of the TMP nacelles.)


----------



## CLBrown

Larva said:


> If that was intended as a literal effect of jumping to warp, it comes, at least by today's standards, as a visually poetic interpretation. The bigger point is that the effects depart in 1967 didn't have a vision, concept, design, instructions plan for showing the ship jumping to warp speed. The same shots of the Enterprise leaving orbit to go to warp are used as stock for the ship leaving orbit at sublight. This is why it was SO important to Roddenberry that the warp jump in TMP be mind-blowing.


Roddenberry wasn't the only person involved in making Star Trek. And Roddenberry made some pretty bad calls from time to time. The idea of having it be "kewl and psychodelic" for TMP was... well, honestly, not all that "kewl" as far as I saw concerned. The TNG effect, at least, strikes me as less "70's laser light show while on drugs."


----------



## Prologic9

CLBrown said:


> (FYI, I plan to do some cutting of plastic, but not here. See, I am going to have the four white rectangles on the top of the primary hull be large "skylight" windows into the gym, the auditorium/theater, etc. But I'll do that on my own time, and my own dime, and not ask R2 to modify the kit just to placate me, personally)


Those were windows on the filming model as well, and I expect them to be light-ready on the kit.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

^

The TMP warp effect was cooler-looking than the blatantly 1970's-era clothing the crew was wearing in TWOK and TSFS.

IMO, as much as I vehemently hated JJ-Trek, I must admit that movie had the single best warp jump effect I have ever seen... it truly visually conveyed a sudden jump to FTL speeds in a powerful way.


----------



## CLBrown

Prologic9 said:


> Those were windows on the filming model as well, and I expect them to be light-ready on the kit.


I hope so....

You can sort of see the approach I'm taking in this image.


Basically, those are "skylight" windows in one of four large lounge/entertainment areas. They correspond with the primary hull edge windows, of course (it's surprising that most people don't seem to catch that part)... so all of the rim primary hull windows are also part of those lounges. There are two VIP cabins on deck 2 which have windows, and there are several windows on the (replaceable) lower primary hull "ring insert" sections, intended to support EVA operations. (Oh, and of course there's the bridge dome, but we all already knew about that.)

This isn't my "final" model, mind you... at the state you see here, my warp nacelles still had transparent skin (to let me work on the guts more effectively) and I hadn't added the character-based hull markings yet (both are in place now). My model is ALMOST done now, but I'm still partitioning the interior and tweaking the turbolift system a bit.

Basically, this is the version of the ship I plan to build, though... the version that exists in my mind. :hat:


----------



## BolianAdmiral

I don't think those are windows... though everyone is free to think of them how they wish. The reason I say this is yes, they do correspond to the forward window groups, BUT... they are also placed far enough inward from the edge of the hull that a corridor could easily stand between those skylights and the forward edge windows... so unless you think that the lounges would extend to other rooms across a hall, I don't think they're skylights associated with the forward window groups. Just my two cents on it.


----------



## ClubTepes

Warped9 said:


> Yeah, but candidly if their intent is genuine accuracy then they're not likely to do that since that's not how the 11 footer was built and that's not what we saw onscreen.
> 
> And candidly I like the fact the TOS _E_ doesn't have the same blue glow that's been on Trek ships since TMP, but made really prominent from TNG onward.


I would say though, that a clear part offers people the most options.

There is nothing to say that you can't paint any clear part that you feel should be opaque.

In the case of the windows, it seems the only way to do all the versions (1st pilot, 2nd pilot, production) is to offer ALL the windows as clear parts, then instruct the modeler which ones should be painted over.

Also, if the intent is genuine accuracy, there should be NO windows on the port side of the secondary hull along with the lack of other details.
Also then, there should be no hangar deck and no bridge.

I seems to me, that they should make a model of the 'starship' Enterprise, and let those who wish to make a model of the '11 footer' make the changes.
I doubt a general Star Trek fan who wants to build a big model of the Enterprise, will understand all the lack of detail on the port side.


----------



## Prologic9

BolianAdmiral said:


> I don't think those are windows... though everyone is free to think of them how they wish. The reason I say this is yes, they do correspond to the forward window groups, BUT... they are also placed far enough inward from the edge of the hull that a corridor could easily stand between those skylights and the forward edge windows... so unless you think that the lounges would extend to other rooms across a hall, I don't think they're skylights associated with the forward window groups. Just my two cents on it.


I don't consider them windows in the starship sense, but they're window's on the model, at least on the lit half of the ship.


----------



## Prologic9

ClubTepes said:


> I would say though, that a clear part offers people the most options.
> 
> There is nothing to say that you can't paint any clear part that you feel should be opaque.
> 
> In the case of the windows, it seems the only way to do all the versions (1st pilot, 2nd pilot, production) is to offer ALL the windows as clear parts, then instruct the modeler which ones should be painted over.
> 
> Also, if the intent is genuine accuracy, there should be NO windows on the port side of the secondary hull along with the lack of other details.
> Also then, there should be no hangar deck and no bridge.
> 
> I seems to me, that they should make a model of the 'starship' Enterprise, and let those who wish to make a model of the '11 footer' make the changes.
> I doubt a general Star Trek fan who wants to build a big model of the Enterprise, will understand all the lack of detail on the port side.


Starship or model, the nacelle grooves don't light up, and aren't intended to be lit up, regardless of whatever 'could-have-been' comments were made in the past. (As opposed to something like the impulse engines, which I would guess they will make lightable) 

Most likely the area behind the nacelle grills will be flat, solid plastic, to accommodate the pilot versions of the model which didn't have the extra detailing.


----------



## CLBrown

BolianAdmiral said:


> I don't think those are windows... though everyone is free to think of them how they wish. The reason I say this is yes, they do correspond to the forward window groups, BUT... they are also placed far enough inward from the edge of the hull that a corridor could easily stand between those skylights and the forward edge windows... so unless you think that the lounges would extend to other rooms across a hall, I don't think they're skylights associated with the forward window groups. Just my two cents on it.


Well, it's not just the forward two areas, it's also the aftmost two... there are four areas.

The 1701 has multiple areas which were represented by a limited number of barely-redressed sets (mainly engineering for larger areas). These include the gynasium and the auditorium... both seen first-season ("Charlie X" and "Conscience of the King").

As far as "my version" of the ship is concerned, that accounts for two of the four areas with windows and skylights, which are "one and a half decks high" (just like engineering).

This is also sort of supported if you assume that the "rec deck" in TMP wasn't the first/only time such a thing existed on a heavy cruiser design.

Most of the ship is corridors and cabins and so forth. I think that having a few "open spaces" in the ship would be crucial for the crew's psychological health.

Your mileage, of course... may vary.


----------



## John P

RSN said:


> Exept for the fact that manufacturers have said in the past that clear plastic is more expensive than colored. Do we want to add to the cost on a detail that did not exist....my gosh, look at the discussion over the window placement!


They wouldn't be any bigger than the clear engine inserts in the refit. Shorter even, I think (*measures 1/1000 and does quick math*). Oh, MUCH smaller! Are two 8.5" x 0.5" pieces molded clear instead of gray, in a kit with (probably) over a hundred parts, actually going to increase the price of the model beyond your means? Those are significantly smaller than those stupid clear stands that came with the original Reliant.

And the point is, if you don't want them clear - PAINT THEM. I probably will! But I'd like my friends who want to light them to have the option.


----------



## John P

CLBrown said:


> No, I want a solid inside surface on the molded nacelle body, with no need to fill, putty, file, sand, glue, etc.No... either Round2 loses (the tooling is more expensive, they keep the same sales price, thus cutting their profit margin) or the customer loses (the model's sale price goes up to keep Round2's profit margin where it ought to be).
> 
> You add additional parts to the model and you've just increased the tooling cost significantly.
> 
> Very few people will want to light that at all. The original model did NOT have any light source there.
> 
> If you want to light something which was never lit on the original show, you'll need to cut plastic, basically.
> 
> (FYI, I plan to do some cutting of plastic, but not here. See, I am going to have the four white rectangles on the top of the primary hull be large "skylight" windows into the gym, the auditorium/theater, etc. But I'll do that on my own time, and my own dime, and not ask R2 to modify the kit just to placate me, personally)
> 
> It would be STUPID for R2 to add significant tooling cost so that a half-dozen people can make a never-seen-on-screen modification to their models, now, wouldn't it?
> 
> I'll be impressed if they provide a kit that provides just what's seen on-screen, accurately. That means NO ETCHED OR RAISED LINES (except, perhaps, insofar as there were rivets and lines on the nacelle skin, which, as you may recall, was sheet metal). That means no special added feature to let you do something that is, frankly, a MODIFICATION.
> 
> That does raise the point, though... I wonder if they'll replicate the sheet-metal elements on the nacelle skin? These really was there, after all...


Folks, I'm talking about TWO PARTS the size of the margin on the bottom of a magazine page! Lordy, y'all are making it sound like Mayan Doomsday!

Gary? Jamie? What do you folks who actually_ know what you're talking about_ think?


----------



## Warped9

ClubTepes said:


> Also, if the intent is genuine accuracy, there should be NO windows on the port side of the secondary hull along with the lack of other details.
> Also then, there should be no hangar deck and no bridge.


I wish folks would stop bringing this up because it's silly. Yes, we all know there was no detail on the other side of the filming miniature and no one expects a model kit to replicate that.


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> They wouldn't be any bigger than the clear engine inserts in the refit. Shorter even, I think (*measures 1/1000 and does quick math*). Oh, MUCH smaller! Are two 8.5" x 0.5" pieces molded clear instead of gray, in a kit with (probably) over a hundred parts, actually going to increase the price of the model beyond your means? Those are significantly smaller than those stupid clear stands that came with the original Reliant.
> 
> And the point is, if you don't want them clear - PAINT THEM. I probably will! But I'd like my friends who want to light them to have the option.


MORE PARTS = MORE COST.

There may be, what, 100 people IN THE WORLD who would want this lit (since no on-screen version, nor any of the models, nor in anything but Gene Roddenberry's imagination for a short moment, nearly half a century ago, had it that way)

IT WOULD BE A STUPID BUSINESS DECISION TO DO SO. You are increasing the part count, the complexity of mold-filling, adding a knit line to the nacelle half which would not otherwise exist... the list goes on.

Bottom line... what you're asking for will add significant cost to the production of the kit.

WHICH EVERYONE WILL PAY EXTRA FOR.

FOR SOMETHING THAT VIRTUALLY NO ONE WILL WANT.

WHICH CAN EASILY BE ADDED WITH AN AFTER-MARKET GARAGE-KIT PART.


----------



## John P

Prologic9 said:


> Starship or model, the nacelle grooves don't light up, and aren't intended to be lit up, regardless of whatever 'could-have-been' comments were made in the past.


Yes, but wouldn't it be nice to offer the option to those modelers who would like to go a little farther than the production could afford and see what it would look like if Gene's idea was implemented, while those who want to stick to tradition can just _*PAINT OVER THE DARN THINGS *_like they were_ going to do anyway_ if they were opaque plastic?



> (As opposed to something like the impulse engines, which I would guess they will make lightable)
> .


 The impulse engines don't light up, and aren't intended to be lit up, regardless of whatever 'could-have-been' comments were made in the past. :tongue: They were black squares painted on wood. In one paragraph you declare it blasphemy to light one thing that wasn't lit, but _expected _to light something ELSE that wasn't lit.

If I wasn't already round the bend, you guys would send me there! :freak:


----------



## RSN

John P said:


> They wouldn't be any bigger than the clear engine inserts in the refit. Shorter even, I think (*measures 1/1000 and does quick math*). Oh, MUCH smaller! Are two 8.5" x 0.5" pieces molded clear instead of gray, in a kit with (probably) over a hundred parts, actually going to increase the price of the model beyond your means? Those are significantly smaller than those stupid clear stands that came with the original Reliant.
> 
> And the point is, if you don't want them clear - PAINT THEM. I probably will! But I'd like my friends who want to light them to have the option.


Well, my "means" are just fine. The point is, if you want to add something that in no way shape or form existed on the the ship we know as the Enterprise, you can modify it youself so we don't have to do extra work with seam clean-up!!:thumbsup:


----------



## John P

CLBrown said:


> MORE PARTS = MORE COST.
> 
> There may be, what, 100 people IN THE WORLD who would want this lit (since no on-screen version, nor any of the models, nor in anything but Gene Roddenberry's imagination for a short moment, nearly half a century ago, had it that way)
> 
> IT WOULD BE A STUPID BUSINESS DECISION TO DO SO. You are increasing the part count, the complexity of mold-filling, adding a knit line to the nacelle half which would not otherwise exist... the list goes on.
> 
> Bottom line... what you're asking for will add significant cost to the production of the kit.
> 
> WHICH EVERYONE WILL PAY EXTRA FOR.
> 
> FOR SOMETHING THAT VIRTUALLY NO ONE WILL WANT.
> 
> WHICH CAN EASILY BE ADDED WITH AN AFTER-MARKET GARAGE-KIT PART.


You're sure about that "significantly" bit, are ya? Two 8.5" x 0.5" inserts and their associated slots, much smaller than the very same type of thing that exists on PL's 1/350 AND 1/1000 refit's nacelles, _and_ on the NX-01's as well? Two parts. _Two _parts are gonna make the retail price skyrocket. "Significantly."

:freak:


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> Folks, I'm talking about TWO PARTS the size of the margin on the bottom of a magazine page! Lordy, y'all are making it sound like Mayan Doomsday!
> 
> Gary? Jamie? What do you folks who actually_ know what you're talking about_ think?


John, don't be an ass.

I've done literally hundreds of molded parts throughout my career. I've designed molded parts. I know what molds cost. I know a lot about injection molding.

What do you know about producing parts?


----------



## John P

RSN said:


> Well, my "means" are just fine. The point is, if you want to add something that in no way shape or form existed on the the ship we know as the Enterprise, you can modify it youself so we don't have to do extra work with seam clean-up!!:thumbsup:


A simple grille inserting into a slot the recess with overlap at the rim will have no seam showing at all. 

"Extra work?" Maybe you can have someone build it for you if you don't enjoy the work.


----------



## RSN

John P said:


> A simple grille inserting into a slot the recess with overlap at the rim will have no seam showing at all.
> 
> "Extra work?" Maybe you can have someone build it for you if you don't enjoy the work.


I am a little tired of your constant insults to other people’s comments. (No, I don’t think they are meant in good fun!) If your scratch building skills are half as good as your ability to criticize other people’s opinions, you should have NO trouble making your own lighted grills and inserts!:hat:


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> The impulse engines don't light up, and aren't intended to be lit up, regardless of whatever 'could-have-been' comments were made in the past. :tongue: They were black squares painted on wood. In one paragraph you declare it blasphemy to light one thing that wasn't lit, but _expected _to light something ELSE that wasn't lit.
> 
> If I wasn't already round the bend, you guys would send me there! :freak:


Have you watched the "remastered" version of Star Trek?

There, the impulse engines do "light up."

Personally, I don't want this provided in the kit, either... but at least there's a valid argument for doing that. NO VERSION OF THE SHIP EVER SEEN ON FILM EVER HAD LIGHT-UP GRILLS ON THE NACELLES. Most people catching TOS these days will see it in the "remastered" version, with the impulse engines "firing" at times.

My personal preference, again, would be for this (lightable impulse deck) to be an after-market part option. But there's at least SOME argument to be made to this end for the impulse drive, while there's none (except "wouldn't it be kewl") for this to be the case with the nacelle insides.

Do you know ANYTHING about mold design, or injection-molded part design? I'm asking a serious question, John... and would appreciate a serious answer. You say you're a technical illustrator, so you MIGHT have some amount of knowledge about this, though it's clear you have a lot less than I do. Do you know what a "knit line" is, for example?


----------



## John P

CLBrown said:


> John, don't be an ass.
> 
> I've done literally hundreds of molded parts throughout my career. I've designed molded parts. I know what molds cost. I know a lot about injection molding.
> 
> What do you know about producing parts?


Okay, sorry, I wasn't aware of that. So how "significantly" would my proposal increase the price of the kit? It's already retailing for $125. Will these two lousy parts add $5? $10? ONE dollar? Is it really such a "significant" increase in cost and effort? Would those Trumpeter airplane kits that include clear fuselage halves for the detail hound be "significantly" cheaper without them? Would Tamiya F-16 kits that include one clear canopy and one smoked clear canopy be 10 bucks cheaper without the extra? "Significantly?"

And btw, I'm not even planning on lighting the damn thing, and would probably paint such a clear part over. But I think it's be neat for my friends who WANT to do it to have the option. I practically don't even have a horse in this race, but I can't believe how vehemently people are arguing again TWO extra parts and a col option!

And wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if they're already planning to do it that way anyway? :lol:


----------



## John P

CLBrown said:


> Have you watched the "remastered" version of Star Trek?
> 
> There, the impulse engines do "light up."


The remastered atrocities don't count for squat when building a TOS E.


----------



## Warped9

CLBrown said:


> Have you watched the "remastered" version of Star Trek?
> 
> There, the impulse engines do "light up."


BUT that's not what we saw on the ship onscreen for decades. And TOS-R messed up so many other things I'd hardly consider it to be a definitive reference source.


----------



## John P

RSN said:


> I am a little tired of your constant insults to other people’s comments. (No, I don’t think they are meant in good fun!) If your scratch building skills are half as good as your ability to criticize other people’s opinions, you should have NO trouble making your own lighted grills and inserts!:hat:


And I'm a little tired of the eruption of anger over my simple suggestion, and the dogpile-on-John it turned into. IT WAS A SIMPLE SUGGESTION FER CHRISSAKES! And don't pretend y'all weren't being provocative too with your all caps. It's turned into one of those highway things where you try to pass a slow guy and he keeps speeding up to block you, and you overreact to block him 'cause, dammit, no way HE's gonna block you, and next thing you know everybody's doing 90 for no good reason.

Yes, I know what a knit line is; no, I have no experience designing molds; I have, however been building model kits since 1962, and have seen what CAN be _done with molds _these days.

Okay, it's 11 o'clock. I'm sorry this got out of hand. I'm going to bed now.


----------



## Prologic9

Warped9 said:


> BUT that's not what we saw on the ship onscreen for decades. And TOS-R messed up so many other things I'd hardly consider it to be a definitive reference source.


We've had two constitution models, with lighted impulse engines, in two other canon shows though. As well as lit areas on similar technology within TOS such as the shuttlecraft. It's accepted that they're one of the faux elements of the model. 

If it were a hindrance to engineer like the nacelles I'd say don't worry about it, but it's not. 

And if anyone is wondering, the reason we don't trust TOS-R is because TOS IMPULSE ENGINES GLOW BLUE!!!!!!!1


----------



## Warped9

If I accept the impulse engines as actually powerful antigravity generators then they certainly don't have to light up. And I don't consider other shows as "canon" in regard to TOS.


----------



## Gary K

John P said:


> Folks, I'm talking about TWO PARTS the size of the margin on the bottom of a magazine page! Lordy, y'all are making it sound like Mayan Doomsday!
> 
> Gary? Jamie? What do you folks who actually_ know what you're talking about_ think?


Okay, you kids, don't make me come back there!  

I'm busy trying to get all the corrections made to the CG model, and I'm not yet sure of the parts breakdown. My two-cents: 

1. Whether or not the inboard nacelle grills are molded in clear will partly depend on the parts breakdown and partly on how the parts fit onto the tools. If the tools for the opaque parts are too crowded, then the grills could perhaps be added to the tool for transparent parts. It's simply too early to get all worked up over the grills. The holes in the grills are only 0.015" in diameter, so etched metal is probably the best way to handle them. If a way could be found to make the plastic grills in a way that doesn't preclude lighting them from behind, then I'd be for that. Perhaps it's heresy to some, but personally I'd prefer to build my kit as the "real" starship I envision, not as a semi-replica of the 11-footer, which was, after all, simply a prop for a low-rated TV show that was built on a bare-bones budget. I have no problem with lighted impulse vents or purpley-blue lights behind the grills, but it's a free country and people can build their models however they see fit. And build a lot of Enterprise models so Polar Lights will see the light and greenlight additional new Star Trek models!

2. I don't know what to make of the lighted panels on the upper saucer. In real life, one panel was a painted white rectangle, while the other 3 panels and the round bow light were made from a milky, translucent sheet of Plexiglas or similar acrylic. I have technical issues with making these panels into skylights. Remember, in TOS they hadn't yet invented the magical force fields that keep air inside an open hangar bay and plug battle-damage holes in the ship. In "The Mark of Gideon" we see that the external windows have protective shutters, so would they really want 4 huge, vulnerable windows in the upper hull? And if the rooms were as brightly lit as the rectangles appeared on TV, the light would overwhelm the stars and people in the room would only see blackness (or the occasional planet). If you think about it, the ceilings in the rec rooms could be lined with video display devices that would allow any external view to be displayed (and enhanced, as required). So what are the lighted rectangles supposed to be? I dunno!

3. Btw, Greg Jein did add orange lights inside the impulse deck on the "Trials & Tribble-ations" Enterprise, but unfortunately they weren't filmed. In "In a Mirror, Darkly" the Defiant's impulse deck lit up with a blue-white light. In Gary's universe, the impulse vents glow orange while the engines are in idle, but ramp up to blue-white under full power.

Now back to work on a secret Moebius kit... 

Gary


----------



## robiwon

Guys, please. We are all passionate about this ship and the upcoming model. Bottom line is we don't know what will be included as far as details go, clear parts, etc. We know what the optional parts are right now. There is no sense in getting into arguments about a model that is still a year away based on what one person, 25, 500, or 10,000 people want in it.

I said it before and I'll say it again. It is not going to be a perfect model. There has never been a perfect model and there never will be. As much as we anticipate the release of the 1/350 TOS Enterprise, it is not going to be perfect for_ everyone_.

I'll add this again too, if your going to be paying $125 to $150 for a model I would hope that you have modeling skills to build it any way _you_ want to.

Now, with that being said, who is going to offer an aftermarket kit to make a Refit version? LOL :tongue:


----------



## Carson Dyle

Okay guys, I realize there are those who take this subject VERY SERIOUSLY, and that's fine. All I ask is that you kindly refrain from taking personal potshots at each other. Discuss, debate, and speculate all you want, but please do so in a civil manner. 

All reasonable and non-offensive opinions will be tolerated here. Reasonable people will disagree from time to time (heck, that's part of what makes threads like this interesting), but there's no call for being rude or disrespectful. 

If you've hung around here for very long you know I'm a pretty lenient moderator, but if this thread devolves into a bunch of baiting, condescension and name calling I'll have no option but to shut it down.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Gary K said:


> Perhaps it's heresy to some, but personally I'd prefer to build my kit as the "real" starship I envision, not as a semi-replica of the 11-footer, which was, after all, simply a prop for a low-rated TV show that was built on a bare-bones budget.


Amen.

Thanks for chiming in, Gary. Your "two cents" is worth somewhere between $2.99 and $19.99 in my book.


----------



## CLBrown

John P said:


> Okay, sorry, I wasn't aware of that. So how "significantly" would my proposal increase the price of the kit? It's already retailing for $125. Will these two lousy parts add $5? $10? ONE dollar? Is it really such a "significant" increase in cost and effort?


You need to amortize the cost of the part over the production life of the tool.

By transforming that nacelle half into a part with a large "hollow" in the middle, you need to increase the number of gates to at least twice as many points. You also need to increase the flow rate through the tool, meaning thicker sprues (and more wasted plastic per shot). You also end up having to reroute the cooling lines in the tool... it's more complicated when you need to have a "hot flow" all the way through a cavity but also need to maintain a reasonable cycle time (time from one part being ejected from the mold 'til the next one is ejected). A more complicated part has a longer cycle time... which adds cost to the part (and here, I'm talking about entire sprues as "parts," please understand), which adds cost even if it's not adding material.

You can just leave everthing as it is, of course, but then you end up with cold knit lines (where the plastic basically is guaranteed to fail along) and significant warpage.

It's definitely possible to make all variety of complicated parts through injection molding and have them turn out OK. But the more complicated the part, the more complex the molding process is, the more costly the tooling is, the longer the cycle time is, and the greater the scrap rate is. All of which leads to "increased cost" long before we even DISCUSS the cost of the additional parts.

As for the additional parts, well, we're talking about half a sprue dedicated to these "panels" if they were made separately, to cover both nacelles. The cost of tooling a typical sprue can be between $250,00 and $350,000, in my experience... but that's looking at high volume production. The simpler the tooling, the lower the cost, of course, but for the level of complexity you're looking at for a model of this nature, I'd say that's pretty much in the ballpark.

If you start adding REAL complexity to the tool... side-action slides and the like... the cost goes up dramatically.

A typical mold for a single-cavity "automotive connector" will run in the $80,000 range. That's one part, a simple two-part mold, with a hot-runner ("sprue-less") system. That's the sort of thing I've dealt with the most, by the way. But I've dealt with a LOT of plastic parts, from fine, precision gearing to large protective enclosures, to shock-absorbing carrier trays for vehicular systems, to aerospace components.

The more precise (and that means appearance, not just functionality) the product needs to be, the more costly the tooling is as well... since the part is almost never right the first time out of the tool. More passes "tweaking" the tooling to get it right means more cost, as well. And the more complicated the part, the more passes are required... polishing tooling surfaces to adjust the final location of the molded part surface, for example.

Finally, most of my work has involved molding done right at the facility, or at a local facility up the road... where I could monitor it directly. I have also had the misfortune to "work with" some chinese molding houses... who tend to disregard little issues like "specified cycle time" and "specified mold temperature" and "preheat cycle" and even THE SPECIFIC RESIN CHEMISTRY TO BE USED. (Imagine my joy at finding out that the chinese factory had chosen to disregard my specification and use NON FLAME RETARDANT RESIN in lieu of the highly-flame-retardant material we'd specified for our lithium-ion battery containment system.) 


> Would those Trumpeter airplane kits that include clear fuselage halves for the detail hound be "significantly" cheaper without them? Would Tamiya F-16 kits that include one clear canopy and one smoked clear canopy be 10 bucks cheaper without the extra? "Significantly?"


Can the sarcastic voice.

YOU ARE ONLY THINKING ABOUT THE PART. As someone who makes models... who actually does a degree of "creation" yourself, you, of all people, should be aware of the fact that the PROCESS is far, far more consumptive of resources than the "final product" might infer. Doing a really nice final piece may take MONTHS. Doing a "nearly identical" version that's "just good enough" can take just a few days. But you ought to know... it makes a difference.

Think about the process required to make your parts... not just the material in the parts. Think about the process to incorporate even "less material" in some areas. Think about it as a process, not just as "parts."


> And btw, I'm not even planning on lighting the damn thing, and would probably paint such a clear part over. But I think it's be neat for my friends who WANT to do it to have the option. I practically don't even have a horse in this race, but I can't believe how vehemently people are arguing again TWO extra parts and a col option!


Nobody has argued against "two extra parts." I have argued against altering two major parts in a way that increases tooling cost and makes the parts more likely to suffer from manufacturing defects, and FOUR additional parts on top of that. And I haven't argued it from the standpoint that "it's impossible" but rather from the argument that ANY BUSINESS MUST CONSIDER... 

... whether the cost to implement something will provide a benefit proportional to that cost.

That's the argument I've made. You think it's basically "no cost."

Well, it IS "basically no cost" if you get clear-cast-resin parts from a third-party garage-kit guy, and cut out those areas on the model yourself. In that case, you're only talking about someone making a pattern, making some RTV molds, and casting parts from those RTV molds. Those "replacement parts" will run you something like $30 a shot, and will take the better part of a day to install... but is that really too hard?

By contrast, the cost to implement a "feature" that is not true to the original subject matter, and is not desired by most of the people who would want to build the kit, is certainly not going to justify that investment on the part of Round2.


----------



## Warped9

Gary K said:


> Perhaps it's heresy to some, but personally I'd prefer to build my kit as the "real" starship I envision, not as a semi-replica of the 11-footer, which was, after all, simply a prop for a low-rated TV show that was built on a bare-bones budget.
> 
> Gary


:thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle

Gary K said:


> Whether or not the inboard nacelle grills are molded in clear will partly depend on the parts breakdown and partly on how the parts fit onto the tools. If the tools for the opaque parts are too crowded, then the grills could perhaps be added to the tool for transparent parts.


So, in other words, it _may_ be possible for the kit to include a couple extra transparent parts without any increase in cost to the buyer.

Thanks, Gary. Let that be the last word on this particular issue.


----------



## Gary K

robiwon said:


> Guys, please. We are all passionate about this ship and the upcoming model. Bottom line is we don't know what will be included as far as details go, clear parts, etc. We know what the optional parts are right now. There is no sense in getting into arguments about a model that is still a year away based on what one person, 25, 500, or 10,000 people want in it.


Well said. There will always be arguments over lighting, window placement, grid lines, etc., but in each case my personal inclination is to make the kit as flexible as possible. That is, try to design the kit so as not to preclude either option, and not force a modeler to perform major surgery on the kit to build it "his" way. For example, people have argued over whether or not to mirror the side windows on the saucer. Why not mirror the windows, but to provide a diagram showing which windows to putty/paint over to replicate the 11-footer? That way, everybody is happy. Of course, the guys at Polar Lights have the final say, but they're pretty cool when it comes to issues like this. Everyone just chill out until the model gets further along.



robiwon said:


> I said it before and I'll say it again. It is not going to be a perfect model.


WHA-?? How dare you, Sir! 

Gary


----------



## CLBrown

Gary K said:


> 1. Whether or not the inboard nacelle grills are molded in clear will partly depend on the parts breakdown and partly on how the parts fit onto the tools. If the tools for the opaque parts are too crowded, then the grills could perhaps be added to the tool for transparent parts. It's simply too early to get all worked up over the grills. The holes in the grills are only 0.015" in diameter, so etched metal is probably the best way to handle them. If a way could be found to make the plastic grills in a way that doesn't preclude lighting them from behind, then I'd be for that.


Nobody has an issue with that, of course. Anyone can build whatever they want, however they want. My argument, really, is about cost/benefit... and a feature that a few people, but not most people, will want... and which can be done cheaply through 3rd-party "garage kit" addon parts. (Besides, the garage-kit part industry needs SOMETHING to do for this kit, don't they?) 


> Perhaps it's heresy to some, but personally I'd prefer to build my kit as the "real" starship I envision, not as a semi-replica of the 11-footer, which was, after all, simply a prop for a low-rated TV show that was built on a bare-bones budget.


I don't think there's anyone who'd say "heresy" about that... 

Ultimately, to me, I like to think that there's a "real" 1701 out there and what we saw on-screen was just the closest they were able to come to presenting that.

Basically, if you wanted to, you'd be able to film the same exact shots, of the mythical "real Enterprise" and, if you weren't wearing your glasses, or if your eyes were a little tired, you'd never notice the difference.

This also allows us to all have subtly different views on what goes where and why... is the power generated in the nacelles, or in the secondary hull, or at the aft end of the primary hull for that matter? Is the lift tube on the centerline or is the main viewscreen on the centerline? Is the bridge sunk halfway into the B/C deck superstructure, or is it inside the dome? And so on, and so on...


> I have no problem with lighted impulse vents or purpley-blue lights behind the grills, but it's a free country and people can build their models however they see fit. And build a lot of Enterprise models so Polar Lights will see the light and greenlight additional new Star Trek models!


That last part, really, is where my own argument is coming from... maximizing profitability for this kit.

I'm sure I'll be buying two... one "1701 Club" version and one commercial version. One to be built as I envision the "real" ship, and one matching the on-screen version perfectly.


> 2. I don't know what to make of the lighted panels on the upper saucer. In real life, one panel was a painted white rectangle, while the other 3 panels and the round bow light were made from a milky, translucent sheet of Plexiglas or similar acrylic.


Yep. The one which is painted is the one where the windows aren't lit at all... isn't it? (Aft port). This is logical, since I strongly suspect that there was a single lamp placed inside the hull in each area which lit all of the windows and panels there...

I thought a lot about what possible purpose those areas would serve as "lighted panels." Honestly, it just made no sense to me. They HAVE to be "windows" of some sort. Maybe there might be some sort of sensors inside of a room... but only facing upwards? That makes no sense. Maybe these were "lifeboat hatches?" But then... why have them lit up?

Generally speaking, the things which were lit up were intended to represent windows of some sort, right? The sole exceptions were "turn signals," the nacelle caps, and the lower p-hull dome (which was, arguably, intended to be the main weapon platform originally, not necessarily a sensor!)

So... it was sort of a process of elimination for me to decide that they were "skylight windows."


> I have technical issues with making these panels into skylights. Remember, in TOS they hadn't yet invented the magical force fields that keep air inside an open hangar bay and plug battle-damage holes in the ship. In "The Mark of Gideon" we see that the external windows have protective shutters, so would they really want 4 huge, vulnerable windows in the upper hull?


Well, that assumes that big transparency panels represent something really brittle and fragile. While I hate the concept of "transparent aluminum" (metals are opaque by definition, due to the same free electrons which give them their other metallic properties, including their toughness), you should consider, for example, the plexiglass bubbles used on many submersibles. These typically survive when the rest of the vehicle fails, don't they?

I don't see them as any more or less "vulnerable" than the rest of the hull. Anything that could damage these "windows" enough to penetrate them would just as easily penetrate any other element of the hull, I think.

The "Mark of Gideon" shutters, to me, seem more for the benefit of the crew inside (psychologically), or perhaps for "silent running" operations, than being due to any hazard that "breakable glass" might cause.

But, as always, your mileage may vary.


> And if the rooms were as brightly lit as the rectangles appeared on TV, the light would overwhelm the stars and people in the room would only see blackness (or the occasional planet).


That applies to ANY window, though, doesn't it?

That's part of why I thought that these made the most sense as being "recreation rooms." We know that one of them is the auditorium that the Karidian Players used to put on their Shakespeare play... imagine, if you will, a big window, just out of view during those scenes, overhead, with a moving starfield. 

Rec rooms can be left dark, and might be left that way... or can be brightly lit, when appropriate, and they do not affect the ship's capabilities or functionality.

And there's no reason to assume that they can't be "shuttered" anyway... maybe the aft port one was "shuttered" while the other three were not?


> If you think about it, the ceilings in the rec rooms could be lined with video display devices that would allow any external view to be displayed (and enhanced, as required).


No argument there. If I were designing the Enterprise from scratch, I probably wouldn't have those four rectangles. But as it is, we need to figure out SOMETHING for them to do... and this just makes the most sense to me, personally.

FYI, here are two of my four "rec rooms" as I've created them, in section on my 1701 computer model... lacking internal setup, of course, but shown in relation to the exterior hull.










The internal population of the model is much further along now, of course, but these basic compartments remain pretty much as you see them here.

Imagine seating, on the slope, with the Karidian Players on the floor, just in front of the observation walkways, with setpieces blocking those windows of course!


> So what are the lighted rectangles supposed to be? I dunno!


Yep, but in "my own personal version" I do know what they are, and that's what I'm gonna do with my 1:350 Enterprise kit. :thumbsup:


> 3. Btw, Greg Jein did add orange lights inside the impulse deck on the "Trials & Tribble-ations" Enterprise, but unfortunately they weren't filmed. In "In a Mirror, Darkly" the Defiant's impulse deck lit up with a blue-white light. In Gary's universe, the impulse vents glow orange while the engines are in idle, but ramp up to blue-white under full power.


That's sort of how I see it as well... one thing I HATE about latter-day Trek models is the tendency to do everything in "primary color LEDs."

To me, the impulse engines themselves don't light up... but the superheated hydrogen used as propellant DOES light up, fluorescing based upon the exhaust heat (and thus the thrust level). Sort of like what you see with the VASIMR. (



)

Of course, if you think that the impulse engines are non-newtonian devices (I don't, personally) then maybe they're "LED-driven devices" and should glow primary red?


----------



## John P

Gary K said:


> 1. Whether or not the inboard nacelle grills are molded in clear will partly depend on the parts breakdown and partly on how the parts fit onto the tools. If the tools for the opaque parts are too crowded, then the grills could perhaps be added to the tool for transparent parts. It's simply too early to get all worked up over the grills. The holes in the grills are only 0.015" in diameter, so etched metal is probably the best way to handle them. If a way could be found to make the plastic grills in a way that doesn't preclude lighting them from behind, then I'd be for that.


:thumbsup:

Gary, that wording makes it sound like you were planning on making the grill a separate insert in the first place anyway.


----------



## HabuHunter32

Spock- "Dr. McCoy, you must learn to govern your passions...they will be your undoing"...
This has to be one of the most entertaining threads here on HobbyTalk in quite a while! Everyone is so passionate about this subject and all have the right to their opinions. When they differ it can get a little heated. On this board it is quite civilized for the most part. Thats why I come to HobbyTalk.. to hear what others that have similar interests think about all of these great kits and such. Take a breath and relax... In about 1 years time we will all on some level have our dream kit to build as each of us sees fit. Have faith in Jamie, Gary and Round2. I'm quite sure that the kit in the box will be a great starting point for whatever you want to do to build it your way. Just my opinion mind you. :wave:


----------



## CLBrown

I found a slightly better VASIMR video... showing the whole process from startup to full power. This, in my eyes, is what impulse power ought to look like!


----------



## Warped9

I'm trying to envision glowing exhaust from the impulse engines. It kind of counters Roddenberry's direction to Matt Jefferies that he didn't want to see any flaming exhaust plumes. But it could look rather cool anyway.


----------



## Gregatron

I personally feel that, while this model should remain flexible (which isn't hard, really--it all depends on how many optional bits R2 wants to throw in), it should stick to the model/ship as shown in the original series as aired from 1966-1969.

Sure, maybe Roddenberry and company may have wanted lighting effects for the impulse and/or warp engines, but that's not what we got.

First and foremost, I think the kit should be what we saw on TV, with some wiggle-room for those who prefer either idealized or screen-model-accurate versions.

Now, that said, any extra bells and whistles for those who want to pimp their model out would be great. There's nothing wrong with the inclusion of additional clear parts for those who want to tweak their models into a more idealized form, or do it in the Remastered style. My personal preference is for symmetrical windows (although I may change my mind on that, given some of the evidence, like Jefferies' blurprints).

I also feel that more is better in the sense of the windows. As Gary said, it would probably be best to include the idealized/symmetrical window patterns, with instructions on which windows to fill if you want more accuracy to the filming model. And the Remastered CG model also has some unique window patterns.

Really, something that would make this kit stand out even more would be some fairly detailed instructions on all of these options and variations--what windows to fill for different versions, etc. The individual builder can then decide what direction they want to go in with the stock kit parts.

But, at the end of the day, this is being touted as the ultimate kit of the ship from STAR TREK. Not STAR TREK Remastered, not "Trials and Tribble-ations", not "In a Mirror, Darkly". Any additional parts or instructions to build those versions would be very nice gravy for the kit, but I really think the model should stick to the original source material as its first priority. Any other bells and whistles would be nice, but not essential.

At the very least, we'll doubtless be seeing aftermarket sets for aztec paint templates, possible interiors (Bridge, etc.), and decals for the other _Constitution_-class ship names, assuming they're not included in the kit.


----------



## SteveR

Hey, as long as the overall shapes are right and it won't sag, I'll buy one. 

Everything else can be fixed or bought in the aftermarket.


----------



## Opus Penguin

IIRC they stated there will not be a sag issue. They will have a specially engineered way to prevent it from happening.


----------



## CLBrown

Opus Penguin said:


> IIRC they stated there will not be a sag issue. They will have a specially engineered way to prevent it from happening.


Hopefully an actual metal armature... which is what I plan to do either way, but it would be better if they provided it.

I'm still working out the armature for my TMP Enterprise kit, by the way. The BIG issue is the nacelle-to-secondary-hull attachment, but you also get forward sagging of the saucer on the dorsal if you're not careful, just not as much.

The TOS 1701 design is much better for resisting nacelle sagging... the box-beams making up the nacelle pylons are orders of magnitude stiffer than the "fins" making up the refit pylons.

The main issue is going to be how they implement the hangar deck (if one is provided)... will it be aft of the nacelle pylons (as I believe should be the case, and as Jefferies' drawings showed) or will they try to match up the various distorted versions seen on-screen.

Since I've worked out how the "real" 1701's nacelles attach (MY version, mind you!), I plan to do the same to this model. 



The nacelle pylons run all the way to the "keel" along the centerline of the secondary hull. There is also a compartmentalized "strongback" region at the top of the secondary hull... and the dorsal also goes all the way to the keel. So all of these are tied together very tightly. My physical model will follow the same approach, unless R2 makes a really terrific "better alternative."


----------



## John P

Post deleted.


----------



## CLBrown

Post deleted.


----------



## John P

Post deleted.


----------



## Kit

Post deleted.


----------



## John P

Post deleted


----------



## Solium

I won't be happy unless Round 2 incorporate elements of the Enterprise from the animated series into the final design. :lol:


----------



## John P

Solium said:


> I won't be happy unless Round 2 incorporate elements of the Enterprise from the animated series into the final design. :lol:


I see a market for a giant inflatable decoy version!


----------



## RSN

If Gary K is still reading, I have an actual, relevant, question. We know there will be a hangar bay. We also know that the hangar deck we saw in "Galileo 7" will not fit in the space between the engine supports and the doors. Would a forced perspective interior work with good effect, or would it be too short to create the desired effect?


----------



## Paulbo

That is exactly how Gary designed the shuttle bay - along with some rescaling. But holding up his "the show version" and "forced perspective/scaled version" it was pretty darned difficult to tell the difference looking through where the doors would be.


----------



## CLBrown

Everything is all about cost versus benefit. The mfg must make calls based upon that.

But we can make as many modifications as we like, including non-canonical "lighted nacelle grills" or mechanically-enhancing metal armatures or customized window patterns or aztec patterns or anything else.

I'm gonna build my version with a metal armature. If R2 provides that, I'll be happy. If they don't... I'll still be happy, if the model is screen-accurate. Making an armature won't be difficult... though it will add cost to my build-up.

FYI, I plan on using something like this for the pylon "cores." http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/k+s/k+s3015.htm

I'll laminate several "box beams" together with epoxy, and put rivets through to assist in sheer. These will go inside of the pylons, and all the way through the nacelle to the outside skin, and will meet up in the centerline of the secondary hull inside of a square aluminum extrusion (which can also serve as the "inside walls" for my through-the-window setpieces... minimal as they may be)... probably something from this, or something equivalent... http://www.americanaluminum.com/standard/squareTube

The dorsal will have a pair of box-beams at the approximate leading and trailing edges, with "fill" between them (plates, most likely) where there are no windows. It will terminate on a plate in the primary hull which will be flush against the inside top surface of the p-hull in that region.

I'm leaning towards just rivets and epoxy, but who knows, welding may end up being preferable, or may be necessary for supplemental strength.

I know this thing won't be TOO heavy, but I want it to be very robust... no "wiggling" of the nacelles if you walk by!


----------



## CLBrown

Paulbo said:


> That is exactly how Gary designed the shuttle bay - along with some rescaling. But holding up his "the show version" and "forced perspective/scaled version" it was pretty darned difficult to tell the difference looking through where the doors would be.


I'm confused.. which way did he design it? Entirely behind the pylons, or underneath the pylons?

I've always treated the shots we saw in the show as being shot through a fish-eye lens. Doing that, with a "behind the pylons" set, allows you to nearly perfectly match the shots from the show. (And fish-eye-lens shots naturally tend to match "forced perspective" shots of that nature as well, stretching out the apparent depth as well as providing exhanced "peripheral vision".)

FYI, here's how the nacelle pylon structure interacts with my version of the hangar bay...
       

Put a very wide-angle lens right at the forward wall, and you can almost perfectly match the on-screen appearance. It's all a matter of what your lens is...


----------



## RSN

Paulbo said:


> That is exactly how Gary designed the shuttle bay - along with some rescaling. But holding up his "the show version" and "forced perspective/scaled version" it was pretty darned difficult to tell the difference looking through where the doors would be.


Thanks!!! That sounds great to me! :thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle

Okay, I've deleted a series of personal remarks that lent nothing to a discussion of the R2 TOS E.

This is not the place for personal sniping. Please stay on topic. Those unable to comply with the rules of the board will receive time-outs.

Thanks for your cooperation.


----------



## Paulbo

CLBrown said:


> I'm confused.. which way did he design it? Entirely behind the pylons, or underneath the pylons?


Entirely behind the pylons.

He posted a side view on the boards many moons ago, but I didn't save a copy of it.


----------



## CLBrown

Paulbo said:


> Entirely behind the pylons.
> 
> He posted a side view on the boards many moons ago, but I didn't save a copy of it.


Glad to hear that's how it's being done... and that does go along with the whole "making the nacelle pylons sturdy" thing.

Anyone else save that picture? Or... Gary, do you still have that picture?


----------



## Gary K

RSN said:


> If Gary K is still reading, I have an actual, relevant, question. We know there will be a hangar bay. We also know that the hangar deck we saw in "Galileo 7" will not fit in the space between the engine supports and the doors. Would a forced perspective interior work with good effect, or would it be too short to create the desired effect?


Like I told people at Wonderfest, I had to shrink the hangar bay to 3/4 size in order to bring the observation corridors & control booths to the correct height, relative to the aft bulkhead. Even then the bay was still too long & wide to fit behind the pylons, so I decided to try a modified forced perspective. Instead of making the fwd bulkhead wider & taller than the aft bulkhead, as it should be, I made it the same size. Besides giving you the perception of a greater depth, it allows a bit of space for overhead lighting - and was easier to draw.  

Lastly, I used Autocad to compress the ceiling & side walls lengthwise to fit the available space. I brought a couple paper models of the regular & forced perspective bays to Wonderfest, and like Paul said, when you peek through the relatively small entrance into the bay you can't really tell which bay is the compressed one. 

The two shuttlecraft are based on the measurements I made of the original "full-size" prop, which was roughly 3/4 scale. If you place a 3/4 size shuttle into the 3/4 size hangar bay in the kit the shuttle has the appearance of its intended size.

Gary


----------



## RSN

Gary K said:


> Like I told people at Wonderfest, I had to shrink the hangar bay to 3/4 size in order to bring the observation corridors & control booths to the correct height, relative to the aft bulkhead. Even then the bay was still too long & wide to fit behind the pylons, so I decided to try a modified forced perspective. Instead of making the fwd bulkhead wider & taller than the aft bulkhead, as it should be, I made it the same size. Besides giving you the perception of a greater depth, it allows a bit of space for overhead lighting - and was easier to draw.
> 
> Lastly, I used Autocad to compress the ceiling & side walls lengthwise to fit the available space. I brought a couple paper models of the regular & forced perspective bays to Wonderfest, and like Paul said, when you peek through the relatively small entrance into the bay you can't really tell which bay is the compressed one.
> 
> The two shuttlecraft are based on the measurements I made of the original "full-size" prop, which was roughly 3/4 scale. If you place a 3/4 size shuttle into the 3/4 size hangar bay in the kit the shuttle has the appearance of its intended size.
> 
> Gary


Thank you Gary, it sounds like you did a great job on it. I imagine trying to get it all to make sense is a bit like trying to fit a square peg in a, smaller, round hole. Looking forward to the build. Glad it is a year, or more, out, I still have waaaay to many Irwin Allen kits to finish!


----------



## Gary K

CLBrown said:


> Glad to hear that's how it's being done... and that does go along with the whole "making the nacelle pylons sturdy" thing.
> 
> Anyone else save that picture? Or... Gary, do you still have that picture?


You should be able to find the old picture with a quick search of my postings. Here are a couple pics of the paper models I had at Wonderfest. Disclaimer: these are quick & dirty drawings, not the finished plans. In the photo below if you peek only through the entrance there's no real difference between the two bays.











However, viewed from above you can make clearly see the difference between the two. The foreshortened bay is only about 1-5/8" long.










Btw, the elevator/turntable in the PL kit will probably not be distorted.

Gary


----------



## jheilman

Brilliant Gary. I'm sorry I missed seeing this at Wonderfest. And even more sorry that I didn't get to meet you. Long ago(1998?), I was corresponding with Petri when I was building a CG Enterprise. He kindly offered advice on accurizing it. I had no idea how bad mine was until I saw his. Great guy.


----------



## CLBrown

Gary K said:


> However, viewed from above you can make clearly see the difference between the two. The foreshortened bay is only about 1-5/8" long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, the elevator/turntable in the PL kit will probably not be distorted.
> 
> Gary


Interesting... it appears that I can probably use the version you're providing, with only minor "tweaks," to represent my "personal version" (mainly the location of the elevator, near the fwd wall, and altering the fwd wall - no "walkway" up there, but an access panel for rear access to the main power energizer "tube assembly")

How much space did you leave (approximately) between the inner structure of the landing bay (the hangar is the deck below that, despite fan misuse of the term, though I know most people won't ever quite accept that!) and the outer hull? Is it comparable to what I posted in my post earlier today (5:27pm)?

And, as far as you know, is the hangar door assembly made up of all "flush" segments or are they "nesting" like I did mine?

EDIT: It's also worth noting, if you check out my images, that the shuttle I've "partly modeled" (for scaling purposes) isn't a replica based on either the exterior "prop" or the interior set. I've used Warped9's shuttle, which is probably the best-realized version I've ever seen. It's quite a bit larger than the "prop exterior" but, omitting the nacelles, the body is actually 24', which is how Kirk described the thing in-script.

(Someday, I'll finish that and turn it into a nice final model, but I gotta finish the interiors of the 1701 first... )


----------



## Gary K

jheilman said:


> Brilliant Gary. I'm sorry I missed seeing this at Wonderfest. And even more sorry that I didn't get to meet you. Long ago(1998?), I was corresponding with Petri when I was building a CG Enterprise. He kindly offered advice on accurizing it. I had no idea how bad mine was until I saw his. Great guy.


Yep, despite working practically 24/7, Petri will always try to find the time to help you. I gave him a bunch of my photos & measurements of the big Galileo from 1992, and he found time to build a model of it in Lightwave. I based the 3/4" shuttles in the PL kit on his LW model. It's interesting how the aft end of the big Galileo flares outward & upward - very much unlike the 22" studio miniature.

Gary


----------



## CLBrown

jheilman said:


> Brilliant Gary. I'm sorry I missed seeing this at Wonderfest. And even more sorry that I didn't get to meet you. Long ago(1998?), I was corresponding with Petri when I was building a CG Enterprise. He kindly offered advice on accurizing it. I had no idea how bad mine was until I saw his. Great guy.


I hadn't heard of Petri since we briefly talked about his POVRAY Enterprise, years ago... with one exception, that being his image of the Enterprise just before refitting in an early "Ships of the Line" calendar. I didn't TOTALLY borrow his idea for the red rectangle being a work-bee bay, but I do have that being the location where the workbees are stowed... just on either side of an airlock/corridor leading into the main cargo facilities. Yep, I borrowed that from him. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gary K

CLBrown said:


> I hadn't heard of Petri since we briefly talked about his POVRAY Enterprise, years ago... with one exception, that being his image of the Enterprise just before refitting in an early "Ships of the Line" calendar. I didn't TOTALLY borrow his idea for the red rectangle being a work-bee bay, but I do have that being the location where the workbees are stowed... just on either side of an airlock/corridor leading into the main cargo facilities. Yep, I borrowed that from him. :thumbsup:


As did I. Don't tell anyone, but there there's no way a shuttlecraft could descend in the hangar bay's elevator without bumping into the ship's fantail, but you sure could plug some workbees into the wall inside that opening in the fantail!

Another Petri claim to fame: when CBS Digital was planning the Remastered Star Trek series I saw the CG model of the Enterprise that they were planning to use. The model was - er, less than perfect, so I suggested that they use Petri's Lightwave model. Petri's model was several thousand times times the resolution they needed, and they had a hellish time converting it into Maya, but it served as the basis of the Remastered Enterprise and earned Petri an entry in the Internet Movie Data Base. CBS-D also used Petri's model of the Romulan BoP (and possibly other ships) in the series.

Gary


----------



## Warped9

Gary K said:


> It's interesting how the aft end of the big Galileo flares outward & upward - very much unlike the 22" studio miniature.
> 
> Gary


I started my adaptation of an integrated TOS shuttlecraft off the drawings of the fullsize filming mockup from Phil Broad;s cloudster.com site and the aft end does widen since the whole craft is something of a wedge shape.

I ended up with a vehicle about 26ft. in length overall and near exactly 24ft. if you subtract the nacelles and aft landing strut and plate assembly.

It's a long process, but as I've mentioned around here I'm working on a scratchbuild of the model based on my drawings. No, it isn't an exact representation of the show's fullsize mockup or the smaller "flying" miniature, but rather a "real" spacecraft integrating the exterior versions and the one interior set we saw onscreen.


----------



## Gary K

CLBrown said:


> How much space did you leave (approximately) between the inner structure of the landing bay (the hangar is the deck below that, despite fan misuse of the term, though I know most people won't ever quite accept that!) and the outer hull? Is it comparable to what I posted in my post earlier today (5:27pm)?
> 
> And, as far as you know, is the hangar door assembly made up of all "flush" segments or are they "nesting" like I did mine?


My ceiling is a little higher than yours because I had to allow extra space for those wedge-shaped thingies & the pair of air vents that are located between the aft opening and the curved ceiling - not to mention the recessed light panels in the ceiling. I made a guesstimate on the thickness of the parts, and it looks like there's just a hair between the ceiling & the inner hull at the aft end, and a little over 1/8" at the fwd end. All this may change, of course, when the factory actually designs to parts.

I'm not sure how the hangar doors are supposed to open - but based on the shapes of the door segments, I think "magically" is the operative word.  Those doors REALLY need a redesign!

Gary


----------



## RSN

Gary K said:


> My ceiling is a little higher than yours because I had to allow extra space for those wedge-shaped thingies & the pair of air vents that are located between the aft opening and the curved ceiling - not to mention the recessed light panels in the ceiling. I made a guesstimate on the thickness of the parts, and it looks like there's just a hair between the ceiling & the inner hull at the aft end, and a little over 1/8" at the fwd end. All this may change, of course, when the factory actually designs to parts.
> 
> I'm not sure how the hangar doors are supposed to open - but based on the shapes of the door segments, I think "magically" is the operative word.  Those doors REALLY need a redesign!
> 
> Gary


Sounds like many of the same problems we LIS people have trying to put all the details of the Juppiter 2 into one cohesive model. Compromise! :thumbsup:


----------



## John P

I was curious to see what you'd do with the never-seen forward wall of the hangar, Gary. Looks really good. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gary K

John P said:


> I was curious to see what you'd do with the never-seen forward wall of the hangar, Gary. Looks really good. :thumbsup:


Thanks. The upper level observation bay is based on Jefferies' plans in "The Making of Star Trek" and the Phase 2 design. I've been working on a redesign of the sec hull's interior that will allow for a fully functional landing bay that can actually handle full-size shuttles (in the 30 ft range), a shuttle maintenance/storage area, and a space for an unmodified Main Engineering set with a curved ceiling. I started with the basic layout of the Refit's interior, then modified & retrofit that design into the TOS ship's sec hull. The design works quite well, if I do say so, myself. 

Anyhow, the garage door in the fwd bulkhead opens into an airlock/passthrough inside the bracing for the nacelle pylons. At least it does in my imagination.

Gary


----------



## Warped9

Here's a question in regard to the shuttlecraft hangar area. In "The Immunity Syndrome" we see Spock go through a door leading into a large area with a shuttlecraft waiting for departure. Now is the shuttlecraft supposedly waiting on the flight deck and that door is located at the back (forward?) wall sitting near/underneath the nacelle pylon supports? Or is he entering into a bay underneath the flight deck? We don't see any details of the familiar flight deck around the waiting shuttlecraft, but of course TOS couldn't afford to show something like that unless perhaps they could have had a matte of it behind the shuttlecraft.


----------



## CLBrown

Gary K said:


> As did I. Don't tell anyone, but there there's no way a shuttlecraft could descend in the hangar bay's elevator without bumping into the ship's fantail, but you sure could plug some workbees into the wall inside that opening in the fantail!


Well, what I did was a little bit different. Obviously, no matter what we do, we always have to make "concessions" on most Sci-fi designs. Only the best are "close enough" not to notice... but none are perfect (For instance, I LOVE the Firefly class transport, and it works nicely... except for those aft-compartment steps which somehow seem to warp time and space, being half the height they ought to be!)

So, when I started doing my own version, I threw aside some of the "usual conceits" about the ship... like, say, the exact length. instead, I got the shape right, and started playing around with the size to make things fit. I tried the 947' and gave up on that pretty quick. I went to the 1080' number, which worked better... and then I just changed direction and stopped looking at specific numbers at all. I just tweaked the size to make things work... and derived the length from that, once it was all set up. So, my ship is an atypical 1067' in length (which, in metric, is just slightly above 325 meters). And that let everything "magically" fall into place.

I also used the McMaster bridge prints, which are slightly larger than the actual set, as well (but look perfect in my model, when viewed with a "point of view" perspective from inside).

I can put main engineering so that the main energizer (the "tube array") fits between the nacelle pylons in the secondary hull. I was able to make a hangar set that, with "wide angle lens," is a PERFECT match for what was seen on-screen, using Warped9's shuttle... and I can billet the entire crew (albeit not with all of them in private cabins... most are 2-to-a-room or 4-to-a-room, like typical military barracks).

Another interesting thing is that, at this scale, the "ring corridor" (at the exact size it was constructed on-stage) works very nicely through the primary hull on all but the very highest and very lowest decks, giving the primary hull a major "tube structure" which dramatically reinforces that region.

In my 1067' version, the secondary hull is laid out (in section) like this (I posted this earlier, but I'll describe things better here):









At the top, what seems to be "solid" here is actually a "waffle" region (the "strongback") which provides mechanical integrity and has compartments for various fluid storage and hardware. Right below this is Deck 16. We saw that deck in "In a Mirror Darkly," and that's the "service deck" where they chased the Gorn. The compartments above, on Deck 15, are mainly accessed from the corridors on Deck 16.

Deck 17's deck isn't present yet in my model... and won't be until I put in the rest of Main Engineering, which interrupts it at the aft end of the interior space, just forward of the landing bay. This has engineering offices and shops, and a few crew cabins on the outer hull.

Deck 18 is the "floor deck" of main engineering. (I have a little red guy standing right in the middle of the compartment's location, at the front of the spot where the floor console will eventually go.) It's also the deck that leads into the observation/control corridors on either side of the landing bay. There are other engineering spaces on this deck as well, and again, a few crew cabins and a rec room/lounge or two along the outer hull.

Deck 19 is where you find the floor of the landing bay, as well as the dilithium crystal room (underneath main engineering), and some other basic hardware. There are more cabins along the outer hull.

Deck 20 has the aft phaser and torpedo systems, and storage from some specialized shuttle "add-ons," in the in the fantail space. Forward of that is the shuttlecraft hangar deck, one level below the landing bay. Two shuttles are stowed (pointed nose-to-centerline) at the aft of this compartment, and two more are stowed in spaces underneath the pylons. The turntable elevator is near the forward wall of the landing bay and shuttle hangar deck. You'll also find the ship's keel right in the center of that deck. 

Deck 21 is the main cargo level. It has an extra-wide corridor running down the length of the ship, from the fantail hatch forwards. Along either side of this large corridor are, from aft to front, (a) shuttle fuel storage tanks (in the slanted regions), (b) workbee docks, 3 per side along the corridor, (c) an airlock door, and (d) multiple cargo compartments. There are a handful of cabins down there too, near the front of the ship.

Deck 22 is a "double-height" deck, with lots of equipment, large-item stowage, and so forth. It is accessible from the main (double-wide) corridor on deck 21, by retracting floor elements... so much of the material required to do field repair of the starship can be found here as well (hull patch material, etc). Also, near the front of the ship can be found the swimming pool (adjacent to the primary water processing and reclamation systems), a a largish rec room, a botanical garden (also there due to proximity to the water reclamation system) and yes, a three-lane bowling alley.

Below that, is what is nominally called "Deck 23" but it's not really a deck in the conventional sense.

At the aft is a cargo airlock (indicated by a white square with red outline). 

Just forward of that is a "special equipment bay," indicated by a rectangle of white with a dark grey outline. This has, on occasion, has been outfitted to carry an aquashuttle or a long-range scout craft (by the way, both will fit into that space, as shown on TAS, with no problem!)

Forward of that is the secondary hull fusion reactor complex, accessible by a "T-shaped" light grey area with dark grey outline. Similar "L-shaped" regions with the same color keying, on the primary hull, indicate fusion reactor and impulse drive element access for that hull.

Forward of that, a yellow circle with red outline, is the satellite deployment carousel. This is used to support one of the routine "secondary missions" of the Enterprise... dropping subspace relays whenever it's in unexplored space. At one point, however, these relays were repurposed, with the transcievers removed and replaced with UV lamps, to kill off a hostile infestation on a federation colony world.

Finally, forward of that, you'll find the tractor beam. 

All around that area are water tanks and other fluid-storage tanks, in another "strongback" structure.

I still haven't laid in all of the cabins and cargo bays yet, but the basic layout is totally finished. I'm not planning on modifying the layout much further. It all works beautifully.

Now... nobody has to accept my personal take on this, but this is the "real" Enterprise in my own mind, and that's what I'm gonna be building. I'll even have, as I inferred, little "sets" inside the various windows, though not all that detailed, I'm thinking (depending on how I do the windows... how transparent they can really be, I mean).


> Another Petri claim to fame: when CBS Digital was planning the Remastered Star Trek series I saw the CG model of the Enterprise that they were planning to use. The model was - er, less than perfect, so I suggested that they use Petri's Lightwave model. Petri's model was several thousand times times the resolution they needed, and they had a hellish time converting it into Maya, but it served as the basis of the Remastered Enterprise and earned Petri an entry in the Internet Movie Data Base. CBS-D also used Petri's model of the Romulan BoP (and possibly other ships) in the series.


Well, I'd heard that the first version that they used in TOS-R got replaced... but I'd heard that the first version was "too high res" and they eventually replaced it with a lower-res version. So... was his the FIRST version, or the second one? I'm intrigued now!


----------



## Warped9

Gary K said:


> I've been working on a redesign of the sec hull's interior that will allow for a fully functional landing bay that can actually handle full-size shuttles (in the 30 ft range), a shuttle maintenance/storage area, and a space for an unmodified Main Engineering set with a curved ceiling.
> 
> Gary


Your mention of shuttlecraft in the 30ft. range reminded me of when I tried to envision what different scaled Class F shuttlecraft would look like.

In this image the crewman is about 5'-10".









I finally settled on a 26.427ft. shuttlecraft as the best overall compromise.









A larger scaled vehicle starts creating problems in terms of entry and exit because the nacelle diameter increases with the scale as does the step-up height.


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> Here's a question in regard to the shuttlecraft hangar area. In "The Immunity Syndrome" we see Spock go through a door leading into a large area with a shuttlecraft waiting for departure. Now is the shuttlecraft supposedly waiting on the flight deck and that door is located at the back (forward?) wall sitting near/underneath the nacelle pylon supports? Or is he entering into a bay underneath the flight deck? We don't see any details of the familiar flight deck around the waiting shuttlecraft, but of course TOS couldn't afford to show something like that unless perhaps they could have had a matte of it behind the shuttlecraft.


As far as I'm concerned, he was entering from the side, not the forward wall.

There are two "cutouts" on either side of the landing bay. The ones furthest aft are the "service bays" (refueling and so forth... think of them as "gas pumps") And forward of those are another two "cutouts" which, as far as I'm concerned, are the main accessways into the landing bay. You can see those spaces here, though not fully defined in the CAD model:








(You can also see my hermetic "nesting segments" seal mechanism for the landing bay doors here... I'm hoping that the doors in the model will be like this, but if not, I'll have to make my own or modify the kit ones to show the "stepping" shown here...)

Yes, the door Spock entered through should have been a different shape... wide and sloping, not a normal rectangular door. I attribute this to "budget constraints." And yes, we should have been able to see the observation corridor on the other side, but again, I attribute that to budget constraints as well.

Your mileage may vary, but this is the most practical solution I was able to come up with.

Other opinions? I'm curious to hear 'em.


----------



## Warped9

^^ Interesting. Cary, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm trying to recall the arrangement of corridors as they approached that hangar entry. I think it's also the same door seen in "Journey To Babel."

In regard to the turntable/elevator. Was it definitively established as an elevator? I recall a discussion sometime way back when I was starting up my shuttlecraft drawings about how the elevator could work where it's situated. It would only go done partway and then slide downward on an angle I believe, or something like that.

I like your idea for the clamshell doors.


----------



## Gary K

CLBrown said:


> Well, I'd heard that the first version that they used in TOS-R got replaced... but I'd heard that the first version was "too high res" and they eventually replaced it with a lower-res version. So... was his the FIRST version, or the second one? I'm intrigued now!


As I understand it, Petri's Lightwave model was designed for still renders, not animation, and had a huge number of polygons because he'd modeled the actual surface of the ship, instead of applying texture maps in areas like the ridged nacelle endcaps. CBS-D would STILL be rendering the CG scenes for the series if they'd used Petri's full-res model, so they simplified it. It required a Herculean effort to meet the deadline for the series, but as time went by CBS-D was able to refine their original model of the ship, and they were allowed to redo some of the earlier footage.

Gary


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Interesting. Cary, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm trying to recall the arrangement of corridors as they approached that hangar entry. I think it's also the same door seen in "Journey To Babel."


They walk in from stage left... with the corridor running left to right. The door opens, and you're looking directly out at a shuttlecraft (with a plain, unadorned wall behind it).

So, in my image... they're walking aft, along the port side, into that access airlock compartment. The (incorrectly shaped) door opens, looking from port to starboard across the landing bay. As I said, you OUGHT to see the starboard observation corridor, and the access doorway on the starboard side as well, but it's not in the set (due to $$$ and the fact that it was, after all, "just a TV show")


> In regard to the turntable/elevator. Was it definitively established as an elevator? I recall a discussion sometime way back when I was starting up mu shuttlecraft drawings about how the elevator could work where it's situated. It would only go done partway and then slide downward on an angle I believe, or something like that.


Well, in my version, it can go down very easily. There are four "lift pylons" per edge of the platform, which retract into the deck below (between and around the three work bee docks on each side). It fits perfectly.

As far as it also being a "turntable," well, we see a turntable on the show, and the distance of the turntable to the doors puts it well within the doors and well within the "main bulkhead" structure between the bay proper and the clamshell doors. While it's possible to have a turntable separate from the elevator, I see no real advantage to doing so. It works just fine, at least in my scale. (On the other hand, virtually nothing works if you stick with the 947' foot scale... which is one of the key reasons I abandoned that scale early on.)


----------



## Warped9

I recall *aridas'* 947 ft. cutaway plans and he seemed to be able make the hangar area fit with the turntable/elevator.


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> I recall *aridas'* 947 ft. cutaway plans and he seemed to be able make the hangar area fit with the turntable/elevator.


Well, he did, sorta. There were a lot more compromises he made. I'm impressed by his work, but I wanted to have the hull structure have discrete decks (for structural purposes, as much as for convenience).

Here's his shuttle complex. It's impressive, granted.








I've never been crazy about all the "split-level" stuff going on there, though. And I don't like the phaser at the base of the fantail cutout... it has a very limited field-of-fire. That's why I put mine on the outer surface of the fantail lip (under retractable doors, just like on the primary hull), like this:








There are three small hatches there, staggered around the five fantail "landing signal lights."

The middle hatch retracts to expose the aft torpedo launcher, while the two outer two hatches deploy phaser cannon. The phasers have a much better field of coverage in that position than they do in the fantail cove.

EDIT: There's one other problem I have with his take... the "main bulkhead" between the bay proper and the clamshell doors doesn't protrude inwards enough, relative to the door. I tweaked my quite a bit to get it to look just right. This also allowed me to have the dome atop the hangar bay clamshell doors be an observation bay (accessible by crawlway, not corridor, but not DIFFICULT to get to). And that's where you'd see THESE perspectives...


----------



## Gary K

Warped9 said:


> In regard to the turntable/elevator. Was it definitively established as an elevator?


Yes. It was labeled as such in Matt Jefferies' plans of the hangar bay first published in "The Making of Star Trek".

Gary


----------



## Warped9

^^ Oh, I remember that. I was thinking that I don't recall anything about it being said onscreen. We actually saw the turntable function in operation, but not the elevator part of it.


----------



## CLBrown

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Oh, I remember that. I was thinking that I don't recall anything about it being said onscreen. We actually saw the turntable function in operation, but not the elevator part of it.


To be fair, except that MJ identified it as a "turntable elevator" even that scene doesn't CONCLUSIVELY prove that. After all, the shuttle could have been pivoting under its own power... not saying it was, just saying it COULD HAVE BEEN.

Honestly, the idea of there being an elevator does pretty much require that the shuttles be able to be moved around on the deck below, doesn't it? So... it actually seems silly that you'd need a turntable. The shuttle's "anti-grav footpads" basically work like giant coasters, letting the crew push the thing around when they're turned on, I'd say.

Maybe the "turntable" part is only a painted circle, and the shuttle was turning itself?

Not supported by anything but common sense... but it seems odd, now that I think about it, doesn't it?


----------



## Warped9

We never see more than one shuttlecraft on the flight deck, but of course we know they only had one small miniature. That said if there really isn't enough room on the deck further forward then you really couldn't have more than one on the deck I suppose. As such then you'd need an elevator to store the other craft below the flight deck.

We never saw this kind of thing, but it would have been neat.


----------



## Gary K

CLBrown said:


> To be fair, except that MJ identified it as a "turntable elevator" even that scene doesn't CONCLUSIVELY prove that. After all, the shuttle could have been pivoting under its own power... not saying it was, just saying it COULD HAVE BEEN.
> 
> Honestly, the idea of there being an elevator does pretty much require that the shuttles be able to be moved around on the deck below, doesn't it? So... it actually seems silly that you'd need a turntable. The shuttle's "anti-grav footpads" basically work like giant coasters, letting the crew push the thing around when they're turned on, I'd say.


I suspect that the existence of a turntable has more to do with the requirement to rotate a miniature shuttle on a minature hangar bay set in the 1960s than it does with any futuristic technology. 

If you want to speculate, I could see them powering down shuttles after they land, lowering them downstairs into the maintenance/storage area, and sliding remote-control anti-grav sleds under the shuttles to move them around. It's probably safer to power down a shuttle once it's inside the main ship, since accidents *can* happen. It's an imperfect analogy, but on aircaft carriers they tow aircraft once they've landed, even though prop & jet planes could theoretically taxi under their own power. Anti-grav sleds would probably be especially helpful if you need to move a shuttle that's powerless because it's undergoing repair or maintenance.

Or we could do as Gene Roddenberry wanted and just watch the show and accept what we're shown without worrying about all the details. Yeah, like I'm going to do THAT! 

Gary


----------



## scotthm

CLBrown said:


> I tried the 947' and gave up on that pretty quick. I went to the 1080' number, which worked better... and then I just changed direction and stopped looking at specific numbers at all. I just tweaked the size to make things work... and derived the length from that, once it was all set up. So, my ship is an atypical 1067' in length


So then, for you, this model will be at about 1/400 scale? Do you plan to resize all the windows on your build?

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


----------



## CLBrown

scotthm said:


> So then, for you, this model will be at about 1/400 scale? Do you plan to resize all the windows on your build?
> 
> ---------------


Not at all... my windows are in-scale to the model... the whole model is larger.

Interestingly, this is another area where my model's scale seems to match up better than it would at 947'. They're actually, as far as I can determine from screen captures, exactly the size seen in ... oh, I'm forgetting the title of the episode right now (getting old sucks!)... where Kirk is held captive on the replica Enterprise in order to have him get the girl sick... 

My rectangular windows are "viewing windows." The circular ones are for various sensor systems, and aren't for viewing use. All of the rectangular windows are the same size, except for a couple on the secondary hull which are about 2.5 times wider, forward of the hangar bay on either side. I've used 10' ceilings throughout the primary hull, but in the dorsal, I used 8.5' ceilings (making my floors thicker to provide additional stiffness to the dorsal). These "work in process" images will help you get the scale of those windows.

  

and that same space from inside (~8.5" ceiling)...



Now, look at the viewing window shot in that episode... and compare this to that. I think it's a remarkably good match, really...


----------



## John P

"The Mark of Gideon."


----------



## CLBrown

scotthm said:


> So then, for you, this model will be at about 1/400 scale? Do you plan to resize all the windows on your build?


By the way, it's actually 1:394. Here's another image... my current wallpaper, in fact... showing my final exterior, with the various little windows on the primary hull quite visible.



Now... here's an interesting tidbit... if the shuttles in the kit are at the "full-size prop" size (with a 21' hull), and you scale them up proportionally to my 1067' version of the ship, the shuttle's hull is just under 24' (which fits the series line about a twenty-four foot shuttlecraft, and which fits Warped9's size analysis).

I hadn't realized that, but I do now... it just seems to all fall together perfectly. :hat:


EDIT: Also, as I said before, the McMaster bridge prints work absolutely perfectly at this scale.. as seen here:


----------



## MGagen

CLBrown said:


> Now, look at the viewing window shot in that episode... and compare this to that. I think it's a remarkably good match, really...


I suspect you've already taken _this_ issue into account, but here's a study image I put together back in '03 that explores the relationship between deck levels and workable window placement. 



Most folks just assume that all the view ports are at eye level -- that if you look at a side view drawing of the ship you can sketch in the deck structure based on the window levels -- but that might not always be the case, for the reason shown above.

If I recall that scene from _Gideon_ correctly, it was placed high in a curved wall. If this was really representing the outer hull of the hangar observation gallery, then high placement would make good sense. That deck is well above the center line of the hull and the "real" hull curvature at that point would arch pretty sharply overhead. 

M.


----------



## CLBrown

MGagen said:


> I suspect you've already taken _this_ issue into account, but here's a study image I put together back in '03 that explores the relationship between deck levels and workable window placement.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks just assume that all the view ports are at eye level -- that if you look at a side view drawing of the ship you can sketch in the deck structure based on the window levels -- but that might not always be the case, for the reason shown above.
> 
> If I recall that scene from _Gideon_ correctly, it was placed high in a curved wall. If this was really representing the outer hull of the hangar observation gallery, then high placement would make good sense. That deck is well above the center line of the hull and the "real" hull curvature at that point would arch pretty sharply overhead.
> 
> M.


I did consider "eye level" for all of my various windows. This was yet another of the issues I took into account in my scaling. To get "as seen on TV" deck structures (~10', not counting interstitial materials), I had to scale the ship up and down a bit, which is largely what led me to shift to 1067' from the 1080' I'd tried (after abandoning 947')

It's true that you can make an 8-deck primary hull at 947 and have things work, though the bridge really doesn't go in the dome anymore. But worse, the windows no longer line up. At my size, I was able to make virtually all the windows line up perfectly with their documented on-model positions (and I compared this to multiple sets of prints while creating them.

My main references were Sinclair's and Casimiro's stuff, of course, but I also compared to Alan Everhart's and to the (low-res) stuff Thomas Sasser had put out with the 1:1000 TOS ship kit. I ended up tending to go closer to Sinclair's stuff most of the time... it just looked more like the on-screen ship as I envisioned it.

Here, you can see a tri-level overlay... the 3D CAD model, Sinclair's drawing, and Casimiro's drawing. The window locations don't really match up in either case, but I was able to put my own windows (the square ones are visible here, but I hadn't created the round ones at the time I made this image) into positions that were consistent with the decks I'd created AND, in most cases, very, very close to where the prints showed them. Since I'm not confident that either guy got the window locations "perfect," I'm fine with my own locations, and they seem to match up very well to screen-captures I've tried to replicate.










The "watermark numbers" are also inconsistent. I discovered that the "watermarks" start measuring backwards from the big bulkhead behind the deflector sensor array (the base behind the concentric cylinders, what I call the "resonator"). By doing that, I was able to develop a consistent unit that this was measured in which matches the positions very closely. It's not any existing unit in any known "terran" measurement system, but maybe it's a Vulcan unit, or something like that? In any case, the numbers DO make sense when taken from the bulkhead behind the sensor/deflector assembly.

With my scaling, I was able to place virtually every window at the same height from the decking. The only exceptions are those on the primary hull's lower decks, and those are actually placed similarly to what you showed, above. In fact, you can see some of them from inside, here:









The thing is, not every window is at that same height, even on the same ring... I had a choice of significantly (and detectably) deviating from the known images, or letting it slide in that one case.

Since the windows that are in that "high" location are next to what seem to be airlock doors, I've treated them as viewports with "couches" behind the for operators who are monitoring or controlling EVA operations outside that deck. There are only a few "too high" windows like that, after all... all on the starboard and fwd faces. The port windows are just fine.


----------



## MGagen

CLBrown said:


> The "watermark numbers" are also inconsistent. I discovered that the "watermarks" start measuring backwards from the big bulkhead behind the deflector sensor array (the base behind the concentric cylinders, what I call the "resonator"). By doing that, I was able to develop a consistent unit that this was measured in which matches the positions very closely. It's not any existing unit in any known "terran" measurement system, but maybe it's a Vulcan unit, or something like that? In any case, the numbers DO make sense when taken from the bulkhead behind the sensor/deflector assembly.


I puzzled about those station numbers myself for quite a while. They were clearly proportional, but what unit were they meant to represent? It wasn't until I discovered that the original intent was for the big model to be a ship in 1:48 scale that the true significance of the markings became clear. _They are actually scale inches in the original 540 foot configuration;_ and their zero point is right where you pegged it. I suspect these markings were indicated on one of the early BPs that Richard Datin was quoting from. When the ship concept was rescaled, the markings were not changed on the blueprint and so ended up on the model.

The markings are not exactly in the right positions, but they are close enough to prove the case. Here is an image I made about 8 years ago that shows the ideal placement of the numbers, with the actual location circled. The blue overlay at the front of the hull is from a preliminary Jefferies blueprint that calls out a "real world" scale.


CLICK TO ENLARGE.

The design process behind this ship and its intended scale are a special interest of mine. I have spent years studying it. My conclusions are somewhat different from yours, but I nevertheless find your work _very impressive_. 

M.


----------



## jheilman

I was expecting you to chime in on this one. :thumbsup:


----------



## Larva

Back in the 70's, in college, a buddy and I used to nitpick Star Trek to death (out of love for it). One of our biggest criticisms of the Enterprise as depicted on TV were the presence of windows in the 23rd century. Obviously, their true purpose on the filming model is to impart a sense of scale and human occupation. But in a real starship, there would be no need for so many transparent "windows." View screens and polarizing panels would take the place of such contemporary structures. But then again, putting the bridge the top of the saucer is also crazy talk, but makes for good visual placement and geographical drama.


----------



## Paulbo

My favorite nitpick back in the day was them showing a planet circling a single star, but when they'd get to the planet, they'd have 5 shadows from the studio lights.


----------



## CLBrown

Larva said:


> Back in the 70's, in college, a buddy and I used to nitpick Star Trek to death (out of love for it). One of our biggest criticisms of the Enterprise as depicted on TV were the presence of windows in the 23rd century. Obviously, their true purpose on the filming model is to impart a sense of scale and human occupation. But in a real starship, there would be no need for so many transparent "windows." View screens and polarizing panels would take the place of such contemporary structures. But then again, putting the bridge the top of the saucer is also crazy talk, but makes for good visual placement and geographical drama.


Well, considering the total volume of the ship, there really aren't MANY windows.

I have the following:

1) The bridge dome. ONLY because it was so clearly established... but it makes sense that, on the show, we only see a "black surface" up there... for exactly the reason you give.

2) The two VIP cabins on deck 2. They have these because they'd typically be used for VIPs like ambassadors, who would be given first-hand views of the planets they'd be visiting or negotiating with or so forth.

3) The four large primary hull "lounge" areas... for those occasions when a ship was near a planet or other body, and off-duty crewmembers wanted to be able to look at it first-hand. These areas will be able to shutter the windows as well, and will have plenty of display screens (full-wall ones, likely as not) as well. Not exactly "holodecks" but more like holographic displays.

(A side note... I'm currently interviewing for a potential new job with a company which makes actual holographic computer-driven displays... http://www.zebraimaging.com and to save you some time if you want to see examples... http://www.zebraimaging.com/gallery )

Down on the underside of the primary hull, there are a couple of viewing areas on two decks, mostly associated (again, in my version) with EVA operations, but also with a "viewing lounge" on the port side.

The dorsal" has a series of relatively small "privacy rooms" (plus the one big dining lounge I showed previously). These are basically places where you can go to "get away from things" (mainly, probably, for crew who share quarters), make private communications, or even get "alone time" with someone else in the crew (within the boundaries of acceptable military protocol... nobody in your chain of command, for example). They have windows, because the people inside might want to be able to look out at real starlight, or real phenomena, outside (with the lights off, obviously).

The secondary hull has a relatively small number of windows as well, really. (Remember the circular things are sensor windows, not viewing windows). The windows on this hull are mainly in lounge areas as well, not in cabins. So if the ship is in orbit, the folks taking a break from maintaining the engines can look out and see something... if there's something to see, on that side of the ship.

See, I tend to think that at least 50% of the time, the Enterprise would be expected to be in orbit over a planet. So one side or the other of the ship would normally be facing the planet, wouldn't it be? Very few cabins get windows, but many of the common areas and recreational areas do. In fact, virtually all of my "viewing windows" are in lounge/dining/rec areas, and only two cabins have windows (the two VIP cabins).

I agree... if I were designing a ship, most cabins and other non-working spaces would have full-wall holographic displays, where you can experience forrests or beaches or so forth, albeit not in "holodeck" form, just in visual form (remember, holograms aren't solid, no matter what TNG told us... they're visual tricks, nothing more, nothing less!) But this would be very useful for maintaining sanity. 

But think of this like having a "hi def tv" playing "fireplace" or "fishtank" BD. It's pretty cool, and it can trick the eye... but it's still not the same as REALLY seeing something, you know? So I think windows still have a place... but not EVERYWHERE, ya know?


----------



## CLBrown

MGagen said:


> The design process behind this ship and its intended scale are a special interest of mine. I have spent years studying it. My conclusions are somewhat different from yours, but I nevertheless find your work _very impressive_.


Thanks, M...

It's been a special interest of mine as well, pretty much continually for the entire 45 years of my life. :thumbsup:

The reason that not everyone finds the same set of conclusions about this ship is that, well... _it's not real._  If it were real, we'd all have to come to the same conclusions, and if we didn't, it would be possible to say that some of them were totally wrong.

In the case of David Shaw, for example, he's tried very hard to make his work a perfect replica of what Matt Jefferies put out as drawings, and what Richard Datin and the Anderson Company and so forth put out as physical models. That's a valid approach, especially if you're trying to do what's basically a "historical record of a TV show production." I think this has also been largely at the core of your own approach as well, if I'm not mistaken?

My approach is diametrically different, however. Not "contradictory" per-se... it's more like comparing "deductive reasoning" to "inductive reasoning." Both have their places, but you're attacking different parts of the problems you face, and approaching them from the exact opposite perspective. (Short form... one looks at an effect and tries to derive the cause... the other looks at a cause and tries to derive the effect.)

What I'm trying to do is to create a version of the Enterprise that looks like the ship seen on TV in 1966-69, accommodates the sets seen on TV in 1966-69, in proper scale, for the most part (but bearing in mind that budget and time constraints may have forced them to "cut corners" from time to time... ie, they never had a chance to build a full-size landing bay, nor an actual theater, nor an actual gymnasium, nor anything but a single corridor set, and so forth)

Basically, I guess it's like trying to keep the "spirit of the law" while basically letting the "letter of the law" slip if the two conflict. 

That's why I really don't CARE about the 947' number. Yes, in theory, it was "seen on screen," but I know with absolute certainty that nobody, in the late 1960s, saw that image in sufficient clarity to be able to derive the ship's size in any manner whatsoever. I would not make it three times the length, but I consider that to be an APPROXIMATE value, able to be deviated from quite a bit as required.

What's NOT able to be deviated is the fact that we have windows on the outer hull which indicate deck locations, or that we have a bridge that's on top and has a little "nub" on the back that was always intended to be the bridge elevator, or that we have a shuttle bay on the back (albeit one which we've only seen through a very distorted perspective) or that certain areas of the ship are established (typically... there are deviations, since it was just a TV show!) as being in certain parts of the ship (ie, main engineering being in the "lower decks").

I can accept that what we saw as a curved corridor outside of main engineering need not "really" have been curved at all... and only seemed that way because it wasn't practical to build the entire ship! And I can accept that the "tube cathedral" in main engineering was "sloped" in the show but that this was intended to be used for "forced-perspective" and in fact was supposed to be made up of identical rows of tubes.

I can accept that a few cabins need to have been private, but that most cabins were "really" shared cabins, but they weren't portrayed that way, due to the fact that there was only a single cabin set and they had to reuse it with minimal expense. (This includes ones we saw which are clearly "private cabins", including that of Ensign Garrovick, and maybe even of Yeoman Rand...though as Captain's Yeoman she'd probably need a private cabin, since otherwise she'd need an office elsewhere on the ship... or would have to spend a lot of time in the captain's cabin for her job!) 

If the story, as seen and told, could have been seen and told without gaining or losing anything, stylistically or contextually, or content-wise, I'm not "married" to that. I'm basically starting with "the effect" and working backwards to "the cause." 

And you know what? Since there has never been, and likely never will be, a "REAL" version of this ship to serve as the benchmark... my "figure out how to make it all make sense in-universe" and the opposing "document the production team's intent perfectly" approaches are both equally valid. Neither can ever perfectly fit the facts at hand... because the facts even contradict themselves from time to time!


----------



## MGagen

jheilman said:


> I was expecting you to chime in on this one. :thumbsup:


You know me too well... 

M.


----------



## Larva

A fun modification on this build-up would be "in dock" with cargo bays open and interior detail revealed. Maybe even dock ports that were hidden beneath smooth hull sections, and transport pods attached.


----------



## CLBrown

Larva said:


> A fun modification on this build-up would be "in dock" with cargo bays open and interior detail revealed. Maybe even dock ports that were hidden beneath smooth hull sections, and transport pods attached.


My assumption is that, for the TOS ship, most of the features of that nature were behind hull panels, in pressurizable compartments. Phasers, torpedo tube, airlock docking rings, etc.

Further, the RCS thruster system was there, but not marked with big yellow-and-red "safety marking" areas, and the jet exhausts were smaller, so the RCS system would have been invisible on a 1966 TV set.

I wouldn't, personally, go TOO far. The TMP "access hatches" were... well... over-the-top as far as I was concerned, unless they were actually swapping out equipment modules (replenishable elements of the life-support system, etc). Moving CARGO in and out... the Enterprise isn't a freighter, and the amount of cargo the ship carries is minimal. Even the (way oversized, IMHO) TMP "cargo deck" is way too large for this type of vessel, and makes remarkably poor use of internal space. It may look cool on screen, but as a DESIGN? Not so much...

Remember, this is an exploration and military, dual-use vessel. It is capable of SMALL cargo runs, but it is not designed for that purpose, nor is should such operations necessarily be "easy" as a result.

So, I'd only use a few hatches.

(FYI, in my case, the main cargo deck is in the secondary hull. There are two direct access paths to that cargo deck. The first is the red outlined hatch inside the fantail cove. The second is the aftmost of the markings on the underside secondary hull.)

I'm seriously thinking about a very TMP-ish "gangway hatch" on the port primary hull edge. It's not unreasonable to assume that, at least for a while, most ships would be outfit with a "standard" way to connect to support facilities. You don't want to have to reconfigure and refit every spacedock facility each time a different ship shows up, do you?


----------



## Warped9

CLBrown said:


> I'm seriously thinking about a very TMP-ish "gangway hatch" on the port primary hull edge. It's not unreasonable to assume that, at least for a while, most ships would be outfit with a "standard" way to connect to support facilities. You don't want to have to reconfigure and refit every spacedock facility each time a different ship shows up, do you?


Agreed. I'm thinking of doing the same thing.


----------



## Larva

Exactly what I was thinking.... the outlined areas on the secondary hull... exposed and revealing some kind of interior bay. The triangular "landing struts" on the saucer underside might warrant some similar exposure for maintenance.


----------



## CLBrown

Larva said:


> Exactly what I was thinking.... the outlined areas on the secondary hull... exposed and revealing some kind of interior bay. The triangular "landing struts" on the saucer underside might warrant some similar exposure for maintenance.


Well, nobody really knows what those are, except "triangular markings."

I've decided that (as far as I'm concerned) those are the transporter "emitters." My ship has two transporter rooms in the primary hull, and possibly a small cargo-appropriate unit in the secondary hull which would also be capable of handling people, but without the range or capacity (not in terms of weight, but in terms of data - in other words, as far as organic life is concerned) of the two main units.

You can treat the markings as anything you like... there's no real "canon" explanation for any of them, though there's a "remastered canon" partial explanation for the circular marking, of course.

For me, the secondary hull underside markings are (fore to aft) the subspace relay satellite deployment carousel... the secondary hull fusion reactor complex access hatch... the "special craft bay" (aquashuttles and long range couriers which are too large to be lowered to the shuttle hangar bay from the landing/launch bay)... and the underside cargo airlock.

Again, as far as I'm concerned, the primary hull underside markings are the transporter emitters and a pair of "red line marked" backup transceiver antennae. The top markings are a pair of L-shaped fusion-reactor/impulse drive component access hatches, a pair of adjacent yellow "dockyard refueling ports" for the primary hull hydrogen tanks (only needed when the ship is in heavy refitting where the fuel has been evacuated, or if the ship is forced to vent its hydrogen supply for safety reasons), four rectangles which are actually windows, and a circular mark which is a neutrino collector, at the front top of the primary hull (above the three main forward scanners). 

The B/C-deck superstructure has a red hatch at the aft "tip" which deploys towed sensor elements (including the towed "ion pod" which requires the ship's defenses to be deactivated... shields cut right through the umbilical) and a top hatch for the deployment of a wide-energy-spectrum telescope.

Oh, and along the bottom "tip" of the primary hull, there are several visible doors which are used for EVA maintenance and science operations.

The phasers and torpedo tubes are under hidden hatches, at the bottom "deck and a half" of the primary hull, of course. In my case, I have a total of six phasers down there (two forward, two port, two starboard) and two torpedo tubes (both forward) in that area. I plan to have similar "hidden" phasers... six of them... on the topside as well, but I need to place them carefully to coincide with mechanically appropriate spots in the "jefferies tube" areas of my primary hull. I put a pair of phasers and an aft tube on the aftmost surface... just below the landing bay decking.... also hidden inside the ship unless being used. I've actually placed very subtle, recessed panels in those locations, but theyr'e virtually impossible to see unless you're very close-up. (The idea would be that the panels would slide back a mere instant before the system would fire, then close again after firing, for maximum protection of the weapons systems, under screens, shields, and physical hull, when in combat.)


----------



## Warped9

While I have no intention of building my model in a drydock situation I must admit it would be rather a cool thing to see. I think the drydock and workpods would have to be a bit more TOS looking rather than TMP to look convincing. But it would be cool.


----------



## Prologic9

I wouldn't say Enterprise's cargo area is over-sized. The constitutions are built for long-range, long-term missions and have a wide variety of responsibilities. They carry large amounts of various cargo for needs like;


The long-term needs of their own crew and ship

Standard & Emergency supplies for colonization efforts, star-fleet outposts, etc. 

First Contact needs, where trade can still play an important role

A secondary cargo transport system for larger starbases, where they would use the ships out of convenience. If a Starship is scheduled to be at starbase X and later starbase Y, they may as well use that to the best of their ability. 

This would be the primary difference between a Constitution class and something like a Miranda class, which can perform largely the same on a technological level but wouldn't have the resources to do so for extended periods of time.

As to various hatches, I imagine the shapely markings as panels-- with a gangway hatch on the B/C deck. And I keep a large _Captain's Yacht _in the longest rectangle on the engineering's underside. So that takes up some 'cargo' room as well.


----------



## Warped9

Whenever I hear the phrase "Captain's Yacht" I imagine Picard hightailing it away as the rest of the ship blows up. _"Later, little people!"_ :lol:


----------



## Prologic9

Warped9 said:


> Whenever I hear the phrase "Captain's Yacht" I imagine Picard hightailing it away as the rest of the ship blows up. _"Later, little people!"_ :lol:


I always think of that Andy Probert painting of the D's Yacht, where they're using it as a mobile party room. And It's just silly, they aren't on the high seas, there's no visceral difference flying around on a small ship than being on what is already a luxurious flagship. It's pointless, and I don't believe they'd build that over something worthwhile. 

How cool would it be if there was a larger section their that separated to be a mobile science-lab space-station thingy? They could drop it off and leave it for crew to study long-term phenomena, or send it into dangerous zones they wouldn't expose the ship to. But I guess parties are cool too...

---

For TOS- era yacht, I came up with a brief backstory where they were essentially just larger warp-capable shuttlecrafts in an era where their smaller shuttles couldn't do warp. Every starship was required that have one for practical purposes, and the term "captain's yacht" came about as more of a joke which evolved into tradition.


----------



## CLBrown

Prologic9 said:


> I wouldn't say Enterprise's cargo area is over-sized. The constitutions are built for long-range, long-term missions and have a wide variety of responsibilities. They carry large amounts of various cargo for needs like;
> 
> 
> The long-term needs of their own crew and ship
> 
> Standard & Emergency supplies for colonization efforts, star-fleet outposts, etc.
> 
> First Contact needs, where trade can still play an important role
> 
> A secondary cargo transport system for larger starbases, where they would use the ships out of convenience. If a Starship is scheduled to be at starbase X and later starbase Y, they may as well use that to the best of their ability.
> 
> This would be the primary difference between a Constitution class and something like a Miranda class, which can perform largely the same on a technological level but wouldn't have the resources to do so for extended periods of time.


You missed my point. The space in the TMP was much larger than required, because it was WASTED SPACE. Huge volumes of empty air.

And "cargo" needs only relate to the ship itself, not to be a "freighter" carrying quatro-triticale to Sherman's Planet. That was my point! 


> As to various hatches, I imagine the shapely markings as panels-- with a gangway hatch on the B/C deck. And I keep a large _Captain's Yacht _in the longest rectangle on the engineering's underside. So that takes up some 'cargo' room as well.


My area, by default, carries THIS:

http://www.danhausertrek.com/AnimatedSeries/Copernicus.html

Although, on at least one occasion, they replaced that with this...

http://www.danhausertrek.com/AnimatedSeries/Aquashuttle.html


----------



## Prologic9

CLBrown said:


> You missed my point. The space in the TMP was much larger than required, because it was WASTED SPACE. Huge volumes of empty air. [/url]


There's nothing stopping you from assuming the space gets used though. We only get a glimpse of it while the ship isn't on active duty.


----------



## John P

Si, I always figured the cargo in the cargo bay was supplies for the 5-year mission, not actual to-be-delivered-somewhere UPS-style cargo. But you're right, Cary, about the extreme waste of volume in the layout.


----------



## John Duncan

With food replicators they had, you'd think they wouldn't have to carry anything like that. Unless there's things the replicators can do.

So you must have spare parts and uniforms....things too complex for the replicators.


----------



## Larva

In TOS, they had food "processors," not replicators. Replicators, according to the development for TNG, came about as a result of improved transporter technology. Same with holodecks. The onboard computer systems also become advanced enough to assemble atoms based on templates and plans, not requiring a buffering system. So real supplies were much more of a necessity back in the good old 23rd century.


----------



## scotthm

Larva said:


> Replicators, according to the development for TNG, came about as a result of *improved *transporter technology.


No wonder McCoy didn't like the transporters. They were used to reconstruct you on a planet's surface, but couldn't be trusted to reconstruct a decent meal for you. 

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


----------



## CLBrown

Larva said:


> In TOS, they had food "processors," not replicators. Replicators, according to the development for TNG, came about as a result of improved transporter technology. Same with holodecks. The onboard computer systems also become advanced enough to assemble atoms based on templates and plans, not requiring a buffering system. So real supplies were much more of a necessity back in the good old 23rd century.


That's pure interpretation.

The only things we know about in TOS, re: the food supply, are the following:

1) GR talked, during the creation of the series, about how the crew would never subsist on "nutrition pills" or the like, because if man enjoys eating bacon and eggs, man will continue to eat bacon and eggs (that's a rough paraphrase of his comments).

2) In "Charlie X" we hear about how they didn't have turkey on board, and the "cook" is making meatloaf instead... and it becomes real turkey. The emphasis here was "REAL turkey" (little known fact - this was Roddenberry reading that line!) So... we know that the Enterprise had a "cook" and he was making meatloaf at that point, and we know that the Enterprise did not carry "real turkeys." And we know that there was someone on the ship whose responsibility was food preparation, in some fashion or another.

3) We know that we saw a lot of little colored cubes. So, I presume that the crew ate a lot of melon-heavy fruit salad. (Perhaps they ate Spoo, too... you know, "the other blue meat?")

4) We know that Kirk ordered a "chicken salad and coffee" at one point, and got Tribbles all over it. This proves that the food doesn't simply get manufactured right at the slot.

5) We know that Nurse Chapel made "Plomeek broth" for Spock at one point.

6) Kids can choose various food items based upon the card they put into the slot, but not anything at all they like, only items "on the menu."

We literally do not know ANYTHING beyond that, do we?

So... here's how I see it.

The 1701 was outfitted with replicator technology, but it was not as "distributed" as it is on the 1701-D. They would have had a few replicators (maybe six or seven, max?) around the ship. Several would be in "part shops" in the engineering division. One would be in the Quartermaster's office, for creation of uniforms and other equipment. And likely there would be one food-replicator in the secondary hull and two in the primary hull.

However, there would be multiple dining facilities. So... the "cook" would operate these systems, "downloading" recipes from time to time at various bases, to keep up some variety. He'd set up the replicator to make certain items. Think of it as a restaurant menu. The centralized replicators would make your meal, and the food would be delivered to one of several messhalls via either a closed-circuit transporter (which seems most likely) of via a very, very speedy "mini-turbo-lift" system.

That's the only thing that seems to fit everything we saw on-screen. It also does fit as an "intermediate" step between "Enterprise" and "TNG," though of course TOS need not have to be "fit" into the "Enterprise" worldview, as far as I'm concerned. In this case, it does, though.


----------



## RSN

CLBrown said:


> That's pure interpretation.
> 
> The only things we know about in TOS, re: the food supply, are the following:
> 
> 1) GR talked, during the creation of the series, about how the crew would never subsist on "nutrition pills" or the like, because if man enjoys eating bacon and eggs, man will continue to eat bacon and eggs (that's a rough paraphrase of his comments).
> 
> 2) In "Charlie X" we hear about how they didn't have turkey on board, and the "cook" is making meatloaf instead... and it becomes real turkey. The emphasis here was "REAL turkey" (little known fact - this was Roddenberry reading that line!) So... we know that the Enterprise had a "cook" and he was making meatloaf at that point, and we know that the Enterprise did not carry "real turkeys." And we know that there was someone on the ship whose responsibility was food preparation, in some fashion or another.
> 
> 3) We know that we saw a lot of little colored cubes. So, I presume that the crew ate a lot of melon-heavy fruit salad. (Perhaps they ate Spoo, too... you know, "the other blue meat?")
> 
> 4) We know that Kirk ordered a "chicken salad and coffee" at one point, and got Tribbles all over it. This proves that the food doesn't simply get manufactured right at the slot.
> 
> 5) We know that Nurse Chapel made "Plomeek broth" for Spock at one point.
> 
> 6) Kids can choose various food items based upon the card they put into the slot, but not anything at all they like, only items "on the menu."
> 
> We literally do not know ANYTHING beyond that, do we?
> 
> So... here's how I see it.
> 
> The 1701 was outfitted with replicator technology, but it was not as "distributed" as it is on the 1701-D. They would have had a few replicators (maybe six or seven, max?) around the ship. Several would be in "part shops" in the engineering division. One would be in the Quartermaster's office, for creation of uniforms and other equipment. And likely there would be one food-replicator in the secondary hull and two in the primary hull.
> 
> However, there would be multiple dining facilities. So... the "cook" would operate these systems, "downloading" recipes from time to time at various bases, to keep up some variety. He'd set up the replicator to make certain items. Think of it as a restaurant menu. The centralized replicators would make your meal, and the food would be delivered to one of several messhalls via either a closed-circuit transporter (which seems most likely) of via a very, very speedy "mini-turbo-lift" system.
> 
> That's the only thing that seems to fit everything we saw on-screen. It also does fit as an "intermediate" step between "Enterprise" and "TNG," though of course TOS need not have to be "fit" into the "Enterprise" worldview, as far as I'm concerned. In this case, it does, though.


Sorry, the TNG "people" stated very clearly in tech books that the original Enterprise did NOT have replicator technology. I think the working kitchen in "The Undiscovered Country" pretty much shows us that. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9

I don't care what the TNG "people" retconned onto TOS because they weren't there when the show was created and it has no bearing on what the intent was for TOS. I also don't care what TUC showed because its implication that that's how it was was dumb. I grant that it makes sense that there could be facilities aboard for specialized individual dish preparation, but not shipwide.

l


CLBrown said:


> That's pure interpretation.
> 
> The only things we know about in TOS, re: the food supply, are the following:
> 
> 1) GR talked, during the creation of the series, about how the crew would never subsist on "nutrition pills" or the like, because if man enjoys eating bacon and eggs, man will continue to eat bacon and eggs (that's a rough paraphrase of his comments).
> 
> 2) In "Charlie X" we hear about how they didn't have turkey on board, and the "cook" is making meatloaf instead... and it becomes real turkey. The emphasis here was "REAL turkey" (little known fact - this was Roddenberry reading that line!) So... we know that the Enterprise had a "cook" and he was making meatloaf at that point, and we know that the Enterprise did not carry "real turkeys." And we know that there was someone on the ship whose responsibility was food preparation, in some fashion or another.
> 
> 3) We know that we saw a lot of little colored cubes. So, I presume that the crew ate a lot of melon-heavy fruit salad. (Perhaps they ate Spoo, too... you know, "the other blue meat?")
> 
> 4) We know that Kirk ordered a "chicken salad and coffee" at one point, and got Tribbles all over it. This proves that the food doesn't simply get manufactured right at the slot.
> 
> 5) We know that Nurse Chapel made "Plomeek broth" for Spock at one point.
> 
> 6) Kids can choose various food items based upon the card they put into the slot, but not anything at all they like, only items "on the menu."
> 
> We literally do not know ANYTHING beyond that, do we?
> 
> So... here's how I see it.
> 
> The 1701 was outfitted with replicator technology, but it was not as "distributed" as it is on the 1701-D. They would have had a few replicators (maybe six or seven, max?) around the ship. Several would be in "part shops" in the engineering division. One would be in the Quartermaster's office, for creation of uniforms and other equipment. And likely there would be one food-replicator in the secondary hull and two in the primary hull.
> 
> However, there would be multiple dining facilities. So... the "cook" would operate these systems, "downloading" recipes from time to time at various bases, to keep up some variety. He'd set up the replicator to make certain items. Think of it as a restaurant menu. The centralized replicators would make your meal, and the food would be delivered to one of several messhalls via either a closed-circuit transporter (which seems most likely) of via a very, very speedy "mini-turbo-lift" system.
> 
> That's the only thing that seems to fit everything we saw on-screen. It also does fit as an "intermediate" step between "Enterprise" and "TNG," though of course TOS need not have to be "fit" into the "Enterprise" worldview, as far as I'm concerned. In this case, it does, though.


And I think you've summed it up very well. :thumbsup:


----------



## CLBrown

RSN said:


> Sorry, the TNG "people" stated very clearly in tech books that the original Enterprise did NOT have replicator technology. I think the working kitchen in "The Undiscovered Country" pretty much shows us that. :thumbsup:


(a) The "TNG people" you refer to were not in any way involved with TOS.

(b) The "TNG people" were quite clear that the TNG tech manual was a GUIDE, and could be superceded at any time by anything seen on-screen. This is written right there in the preface.

(c) Many things happened on TNG did, in fact, directly violate materials created by the "TNG people" for the tech manual.

(d) The only things that are "canon" are the things that are seen on-screen.

(e) having a "working kitchen" is no indication of anything except that "there is a working kitchen." It does not preclude the existence of anything else, including a "replicator system."

Can you prove that the 1701-D did not have a "working kitchen" on it someplace? (For that matter... we KNOW that people, on occasion, cooked real food in TNG, don't we?)
_____

Attempting to "shoehorn" TOS into the mold of TNG is... well, it's backwards.

The only things we know about the food system in TOS are the things we saw on screen, during TOS. Those things are the things I stated.


----------



## Warped9

CLBrown said:


> (a) The "TNG people" you refer to were not in any way involved with TOS.
> 
> (b) The "TNG people" were quite clear that the TNG tech manual was a GUIDE, and could be superceded at any time by anything seen on-screen. This is written right there in the preface.
> 
> (c) Many things happened on TNG did, in fact, directly violate materials created by the "TNG people" for the tech manual.
> 
> (d) The only things that are "canon" are the things that are seen on-screen.
> 
> (e) having a "working kitchen" is no indication of anything except that "there is a working kitchen." It does not preclude the existence of anything else, including a "replicator system."
> 
> Can you prove that the 1701-D did not have a "working kitchen" on it someplace? (For that matter... we KNOW that people, on occasion, cooked real food in TNG, don't we?)
> _____
> 
> Attempting to "shoehorn" TOS into the mold of TNG is... well, it's backwards.
> 
> The only things we know about the food system in TOS are the things we saw on screen, during TOS. Those things are the things I stated.


:thumbsup:


----------



## RSN

Comments deleted.


----------



## CLBrown

Comments deleted.


----------



## RSN

Comments deleted.


----------



## CLBrown

The FUN in this, for me, is trying to make "real world sense" of something that isn't really real. That's the same "fun" for it for most hobbyists who are into this.


----------



## RSN

Comments deleted.


----------



## CLBrown

Comments deleted.


----------



## Carson Dyle

I've deleted a series of off-topic personal comments. 

Please do your best to stay on topic.

Thanks.


----------



## John Duncan

Wow, I threw a grenade into the thread, sorry.


Anyhow, there's no easy way to associate the available cargo space with the different eras, without lots of conjecture.

Bottom line, everyone builds the TOS E the way they like it, post pics and we will all be happy.

Hurry up, Round 2!


----------



## RSN

My apologies to any who read my deleted posts. I was coming at this from a different perspective. It did not mesh with the discussion at hand so I am sorry for not having the fun you all were having with the topic.
Ron


----------



## John P

Dang, I missed the fun!


----------



## Trek Ace

Hey,

How about that new big kit that Round 2 is making of the original series Enterprise?

Considered by some to be their "holy grail" kit. Something like this qualifies for a thread topic all it's own!


----------



## Chris Pike

Might be nice to do a version with all the various marked hatches opened with some conjectural detail of what lurks under those panels...??


----------



## Opus Penguin

It would be cool to put this model together with the 1/350 refit parts in a drydock diorama to show the conversion build from TOS-E to the Refit-E. I wouldn't take this on but it would be a cool project.


----------



## CLBrown

Opus Penguin said:


> It would be cool to put this model together with the 1/350 refit parts in a drydock diorama to show the conversion build from TOS-E to the Refit-E. I wouldn't take this on but it would be a cool project.


That's more than I'd be willing to take on in this manner... how to portray the conversion from one design to "an almost totally new" design with the same proportions but no evident structural-member similarities... 

I've always sort of assumed that the only reason that the TMP ship was still given the same name and navigational contact code number was due to some treaty... they were limited to building so many "new" hulls per year, but they could perform "upgrades." So... the "upgrade" is, in essence, an entirely new hull and entirely new systems, and is only the same ship "on paper."

It's quite a problem... how do you "convert" and have it seem to be a "conversion?" I think they'd tear one element of the ship down at a time... and build a new portion... then tear down the next section, and so forth... until everything had been replaced entirely.

They might even use some of the same metal, reforged into new components... to retain the per-treaty requirement for "original material."

Yeah, those 23rd-century bureaucrats are amazing, aren't they?


----------



## RSN

From what I remember of the lore at the time, only some internal structure was "original" after the refit. As Decker said, "...this is almost a totally new Enterprise!". Not sure of the source of my memory, but it explains the engine and neck mounts being off as well as other dimensions being "off". I have toyed with the idea of trying this with an TOS Enterprise, but I don't think I would use the "Big Girl'!


----------



## Trek Ace

I think that some of these discussions might best handled on the Trek BBS than on a modeling board. What occurs with 23rd century bureaucracy is best left to those who will have to deal with it two centuries from now.

I really like Opus' idea about an in-progress refitting in the drydock. I plan to pair a series and movie model together into the Phase II ship as depicted in the early Mike Minor concept painting of Matt's drawings from the mid-70's. I have a 1/1000 scale version in-progress right now to work the bugs out for the larger kits.

One version I plan to duplicate is the "stage version" of the model that will be about one-quarter scale, but represent the way the model looked sitting on it's gear head mount with wires running out to the switch box, and missing the port-side details, similar to what is pictured here in progress at 1/1000 scale:










One thing I hadn't done yet when I took this photo was "round out" the edges of the two struts. On the stage model, they were rounded on the sides. The 1/1000 model is incorrect in representing this feature, showing them looking more squared-off like two-by-fours. The AMT kit had the same problem. I don't think that most modelers catch that particular detail.


----------



## Kit

I agree with Trek Ace. These long theoretical discussion posts show a lot of thinking, and sometimes knowledge, but can we give them their own thread? I'm hoping we can still come here to talk about the forthcoming kit itself, but am finding these book-length posts difficult to work through while I'm sifting for chatter about the Round 2 project.

No offense to anyone.


----------



## CLBrown

Kit said:


> I agree with Trek Ace. These long theoretical discussion posts show a lot of thinking, and sometimes knowledge, but can we give them their own thread? I'm hoping we can still come here to talk about the forthcoming kit itself, but am finding these book-length posts difficult to work through while I'm sifting for chatter about the Round 2 project.
> 
> No offense to anyone.


Well, the kit is not going to be coming out for a year, and there isn't even a first-generation prototype due for quite a few months. So, either this forum will be filled with tumbleweeds, or it will be filled with speculative postings about what this element or that element of the ship MIGHT be, and how we, as individuals, may or may not be planning to build up the model, depending on what features may or may not be in the final kit.

Main issues so far have been (a) scale, (b) nacelle pylon attachment, (c) shuttle landing bay configuration, (d) windows, (e) extra details (hatches, etc), and appearance (paint/decal/scribing/etc). And yes, even "diorama" options which may or may not include a drydock and conversion sequence (as mentioned at the top of this page). All of which are in one fashion or another related to the model, as we may end up building it.

I don't see the problem, personally.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Trek Ace said:


> I think that some of these discussions might best handled on the Trek BBS than on a modeling board.


Agreed.

Generally speaking, I try not to overly moderate a given thread unless it's getting out of hand (e.g. trolling, baiting, insults, etc). Granted this is supposed to be a modeling forum, but if I were to consistently enforce a strict "stay on topic" policy I suspect it would take some of the fun out of the proceedings.

That said, I’m afraid I sometimes err on the side of allowing too much latitude re: off-topic posts -- as the last several pages of this thread clearly demonstrate. 

This original purpose of this thread was to function as a sort of clearing house for information re: the upcoming R2 1/350 Enterprise kit. Having temporarily strayed into the realm of speculative woolgathering, I respectfully request that we now try to limit our comments to a discussion of the 1/350 E model kit. The thread will remain stuck solely for that purpose.

Naturally those who wish to discuss peripheral Trek or other Sci-Fi-related topics are free to start their own threads.

Thanks for your cooperation.


----------



## Larva

Enterprise 1/350: I'm curious what the inner nacelle dome detail will be like if one chooses NOT to install the motorized spinning fan blades -- if that detail will be in the kit.


----------



## John Duncan

Can we assume that the dimensions and shape of the upcoming kit will be very close to the MR TOS E? Shouldn't they be pretty close, considering the scale is the same?

I was thinking of doing my own LED "spinning" plates for the bussards, using my MR as a pattern.

Someone should do dry transfer markings for it also.


----------



## Larva

Dry transfer markings are a great idea! Another great aftermarket opportunity for some enterprising young business persons.


----------



## Trek Ace

I imagine that it would be almost exactly the same size as the MR display model. It was also designed by Gary Kerr (if I recall correctly), so it should be very similar - only better. 
I have my own plan for the spinning blades and lights, too - unless Round 2 comes up with a better solution.

One major difference between my models and the MR version will be in the color temperature of the interior lights. I will be using "warm-white" LEDs for the interior lighting, which will effectively mimic the incandescent lighting of the studio model, as opposed to the cool, blue-white LED interior lights used by MR.


----------



## John Duncan

I recall the discussion of the cool LEDs back when we got our MR's. I agree that it would be better....though none of us was willing to rip open ours to change them out! Just too expensive to do that.

After a period of time thinking about what I wanted to do to the R2 kit last night, it dawned on me how odd it will be to have my MR on display and then at least one other TOS E based on the new kit. 

Almost seems silly.

Maybe we need a checklist of info that will be hashed out next year when we are waiting those last few weeks until release.

Paint colors and all that. I know we could fill up a huge thread on just that.


----------



## John P

Light ghost gray.


----------



## John Duncan

Actually I though you would say "Concrete". :dude:


----------



## Solium

Shouldn't there be a very subtle green tint in the grey base color?


----------



## scotthm

John Duncan said:


> Can we assume that the dimensions and shape of the upcoming kit will be very close to the MR TOS E? Shouldn't they be pretty close, considering the scale is the same?


I hope so. I know the MR Enterprise isn't quite 100% accurate, but if the Round 2 1/350 E comes as close to "perfect" as that did I'll be thrilled.

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


----------



## Paulbo

I'm guessing it will be even closer to "perfect" since Gary's done a lot more research since then. :thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR

Trek Ace said:


> One thing I hadn't done yet when I took this photo was "round out" the edges of the two struts.


Good catch. Would you "add to" or "subtract from" the struts to reproduce this roundness?


----------



## jheilman

If the thickness of the struts is accurate, I'd subtract material to round out the corners.


----------



## Trek Ace

The struts are the correct width on the 1/1000 kit, they're just blunt.

Here are some shots of the struts on the stage model:










There are two ways to correct this:

- Use a sanding block or stick to "round out" the edges

- Cut or file back the edges, and add 1/8" "half round" plastic strips to finish

Either way yields good results

With the 1/350 kit, this should be a moot point.


----------



## Kit

I've never seen those shots before. They're terrific. Are there more from that source available?


----------



## JGG1701

Comments Deleted.


----------



## Warped9

Comments Deleted


----------



## USS Atlantis

Comments Deleted.


----------



## Larva

Franz Josephs' post series technical blueprints put a pair of upper saucer photon torpedo launchers in the fore end of B deck where two round window-like dots appear. There is of course, no cannon TOS SPFX shot to support such a location... and though it makes sense to put launchers on the upper saucer someplace, Josephs puts them a tad close to the bridge and computer core for safety's sake. However, there aren't many other details on the upper saucer that might serve a similar function. The same two portholes could also serve to create a self-illuminated effect a la TMP refit Enterprise, although the angle isn't quite right.


----------



## CLBrown

Comments Deleted


----------



## Warped9

^^ :thumbsup:


----------



## Prologic9

Comments Deleted


----------



## Warped9

Comments Deleted


----------



## CLBrown

Comments Deleted.


----------



## CLBrown

Larva said:


> Here we go again.... gotta love the weapons locker situated conveniently on the galley bulkhead. Probably for defending against Rigelian recipe pirates. Great stuff.
> 
> But seriously... And speaking of weapons, Franz Josephs' post series technical blueprints put a pair of upper saucer photon torpedo launchers in the fore end of B deck where two round window-like dots appear. There is of course, no cannon TOS SPFX shot to support such a location... and though it makes sense to put launchers on the upper saucer someplace, Josephs puts them a tad close to the bridge and computer core for safety's sake. However, there aren't many other details on the upper saucer that might serve a similar function. The same two portholes could also serve to create a self-illuminated effect a la TMP refit Enterprise, although the angle isn't quite right.


Nobody knows what those two little circles are, but the fact that they aren't on "eye-line" with the rectangular viewing windows makes it pretty clear that they're not viewing windows.

In my case, those are actually extensible element which are part of the communications array. The main antenna is inside of the "teardrop" at the base of deck 2 around the perimeter. I treat the physics of this antenna as being the justification for the shape of this region. And in TMP, the antenna is actually exposed, on the outside... hence the dark-colored ring around the B/C-deck superstructure in TMP-era ships.

That's my solution... your mileage may vary. But you can see my little extensible probes pretty clearly in the high-res on this shot:


----------



## scotthm

CLBrown said:


> Again... the fact that the ship has a kitchen does not infer that the ship ONLY has a kitchen and nothing else.


I don't care what y'all decide, I'm _not_ building a kitchen inside my Round 2 1/350 Enterprise kit when I get it. That's _way too much_ trouble.

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


----------



## Trek Ace

Yeah. I don't think a kitchen was on the list to be included with the kit.

I'm very intrigued with Gary's hangar deck design, though. I once modeled a tiny hangar deck into one of the AMT kits. This one is nearly twice the size, so it should be possible to get a lot more detail in there.


----------



## CLBrown

Trek Ace said:


> Yeah. I don't think a kitchen was on the list to be included with the kit.
> 
> I'm very intrigued with Gary's hangar deck design, though. I once modeled a tiny hangar deck into one of the AMT kits. This one is nearly twice the size, so it should be possible to get a lot more detail in there.


Well, it does sorta have an impact on how I'm going to be building my version, since I intend to build little (basic) sets inside most of the windows... recess what I'm considering cargo hatches... etc.

But you're right, of course. 

Oh, and I AM going to make the little things on the floor-line of Deck 2 be "extensible antenna elements." The only question, right now, is if I'll just have them look the part or actually have little telescoping elements I can actually manipulate. I wonder if I can find a "telescoping antenna" small enough to work with?


----------



## CLBrown

I'm interested in what materials anyone has had the best luck with in making nice, viewable (if small) windows in models of this scale. I'm actually considering actually using real glass... maybe 1/16" plate glass?

EDIT:

Okay, here's what I'm going to use... these are tempered glass lab slides, so they're reasonably tough... and of optical quality

http://www.tedpella.com/histo_html/coverslp.htm#260300

I'll only need to get a glass-cutter to make the individual panes out of.

(Circular windows will just be kit-parts, most likely... remember, for me, those aren't viewing windows, they're sensor windows.)

FURTHER EDIT:

Since most people don't know glass thickness "gauge numbers," here's a reference:

http://www.microbehunter.com/2010/06/12/cover-glass-thickness-and-resolution/


----------



## Paulbo

CLBrown said:


> ...Oh, and I AM going to make the little things on the floor-line of Deck 2 be "extensible antenna elements." The only question, right now, is if I'll just have them look the part or actually have little telescoping elements I can actually manipulate. I wonder if I can find a "telescoping antenna" small enough to work with?


This is the stuff you want: http://www.starshipmodeler.biz/shop/index.cfm/category/222/albion-alloys.cfm 

Simply amazingly small tubing.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

I wonder how soon third-party parts makers will start to crank out the Franz Joseph phaser "nipples" for the saucer section, lol. You know 'tis bound to be happenin'.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

CLBrown said:


> No, they are not.
> 
> Again... the fact that the ship has a kitchen does not infer that the ship ONLY has a kitchen and nothing else.
> 
> We know that the NCC-1701-D had "manual food preparation" capabilities, too, after all...
> Nobody has to "know every nut and bolt" but many, many of us find that to be the "fun" part of this.
> 
> The trick is that there is no "right" answer... but any answer must be plausible, at least. The only way to get around basic physics is to have some form of "magic generator."
> 
> In Star Trek, the "magic generator" which allows you to get around this logistical issue is called a "replicator."


Yeah, they must have had replicators of some sort during the films, because they had stopped eating nothing but colored marshmallows.


----------



## Carson Dyle

I guess I wasn't clear...



Carson Dyle said:


> This original purpose of this thread was to function as a sort of clearing house for information re: the upcoming R2 1/350 Enterprise kit. Having temporarily strayed into the realm of speculative woolgathering, I respectfully request that we now try to limit our comments to a discussion of the 1/350 E model kit. The thread will remain stuck solely for that purpose.
> 
> Naturally those who wish to discuss peripheral Trek or other Sci-Fi-related topics are free to start their own threads.


*If you're intent on further debating the kitchen features of fictional starships then KINDLY START YOUR OWN THREAD.

FOR THE RECORD, THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS ROUND 2's 1/350 TOS ENTERPRISE MODEL. PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC.*


----------



## Trek Ace

BolianAdmiral said:


> I wonder how soon third-party parts makers will start to crank out the Franz Joseph phaser "nipples" for the saucer section, lol. You know 'tis bound to be happenin'.


I imagine that there will be quite an assortment of third-party products in 1/350 scale for this kit - especially when it comes to the Franz Joseph designs from the Technical Manual. I plan on kit-bashing both the Dreadnought ( mostly a scratchbuild) and my own take on the Transport Tug and container (with a variation on the tug design) for myself. I already have the in-scale drawings made up for those.

With all of the variations possible with this kit, I'm certain that it will be a best-seller for Round 2 for many years to come.


----------



## Larva

A prototype NX-1700 Constitution would be a great modified build from this kit.


----------



## Warped9

Considering the scale of this kit I could envision making home-made f/x somewhat easier, particularly including variant designs. We've all seen numerous cgi models of the TOS _E_ in short animations. Now we'll have a kit that (if well put together) could help someone create or recreate short f/x sequences.

I know it's something I have in the back of my mind.

Hmm...now all you'd need is a 1/350 scale doomsday machine. :lol:


----------



## James Tiberius

so how large would a mile wide "Maw" be in 1/350 scale?


----------



## USS Atlantis

4.6m (15')

Good luck getting it to fit in the living room


----------



## BolianAdmiral

We'll need a 1/350 battle-damaged _Constellation_ to go with it.


----------



## Larva

Always thought it would be cool to see a wrecked Constellation build up with life-boat panels blown-away, as if some crew escaped via pods when the planet killer attacked.


----------



## Trek Ace

Do it!


----------



## CLBrown

Larva said:


> Always thought it would be cool to see a wrecked Constellation build up with life-boat panels blown-away, as if some crew escaped via pods when the planet killer attacked.


It would probably make more sense to make it the Farragut, then... or one of the victims of M5.

We know that Decker beamed his entire crew down to one of the now-destroyed planets in that system. No trained crewmember would eject without the ship being damaged beyond all hope, unless so ordered by the chain of command. That would be a court-martial offense. He beamed all survivors of the attack down, "for safety," and they were all killed when that planet was destroyed.

For the Farragut, on the other hand, it makes perfect sense that some crew might use escape pods, as the "vampire cloud" decimated the crew deck by deck. Maybe Kirk was one of them?

And the ships destroyed by M5 might well have had a few survivors who got to pods and ejected. They'd expect a high likelihood of rescue, after all...


----------



## Kit

I hear there's a new kit of the Enterprise coming.


----------



## Capt. Krik

Kit said:


> I hear there's a new kit of the Enterprise coming.


 
See, this how all those nasty rumors get started! 

Seriously, I know a lot of people are calling this a Holy Grail kit. Well, for me it is exactly that. The Big E is probably my favorite fictional space ship. I've always love the clean look of this ship. I've built every version of this ship that has been released in styrene or resin. In the case of the old AMT 18 inch version several times. I just want to say Thank you to everyone at R2 who've made this kit a reality.

Live long and prosper!


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Kit said:


> I hear there's a new kit of the Enterprise coming.


It's a model of the Star Trak Enterprise ship.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Larva said:


> Always thought it would be cool to see a wrecked Constellation build up with life-boat panels blown-away, as if some crew escaped via pods when the planet killer attacked.


It might help if we knew just where the lifeboat panels (if any) are on the ship.


----------



## CLBrown

BolianAdmiral said:


> It might help if we knew just where the lifeboat panels (if any) are on the ship.


Be careful... that's not defined in the model, so you're not 'sposed to talk about that here.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

^

Well, if you're talking about a build showing exposed lifepod hatches, then it ought be, because then it becomes an issue of accuracy, in determining where such hatches ought be placed.


----------



## Trek Ace

Perhaps the lifeboats are hidden underneath existing hull panels on the saucer? Just because lifeboat stations are not called out in the Franz Joseph blueprints, doesn't mean that they couldn't be there.

There could be entire panels that would swing open, showing the lifeboat stations underneath. That would make for some intricate scratchbuilding of the details on a large-scale model like this one. Maybe the so-called "rust ring" could denote lifeboat stations? Just a thought. Hhhmmmmmmmmmmm...............


----------



## Carson Dyle

CLBrown said:


> Be careful... that's not defined in the model, so you're not 'sposed to talk about that here.


On the contrary, ideas for customizing the model along the sort of "lifeboat" lines being discussed are entirely appropriate to this thread, and therefore welcome.

As someone who enjoys "personalizing" his models, I appreciate hearing what types of additions and refinements others are contemplating. 

What I'd like to avoid are the sorts of lengthy, pontificating, theory-laden posts that offer nothing to the would-be modeler except confusion, frustration and bewilderment.


----------



## John P

Carson Dyle said:


> What I'd like to avoid are the sorts of lengthy, pontificating, theory-laden posts that offer nothing to the would-be modeler except confusion, frustration and bewilderment.


But that's my normal state of mind! :freak:


----------



## Larva

Life boat stations beneath the "rust ring" is a definite possibility and would be reasonable justification for that artifact. I was thinking of placing life boat stations in the outer rim underside of deck seven – thereby offering some visual cue and purpose for the saucer concavity – or stated more accurately – for the two-deck thickening of the saucer rim.


----------



## CLBrown

Carson Dyle said:


> On the contrary, ideas for customizing the model along the sort of "lifeboat" lines being discussed are entirely appropriate to this thread, and therefore welcome.
> 
> As someone who enjoys "personalizing" his models, I appreciate hearing what types of additions and refinements others are contemplating.
> 
> What I'd like to avoid are the sorts of lengthy, pontificating, theory-laden posts that offer nothing to the would-be modeler except confusion, frustration and bewilderment.


Whatever you say, Carson. Guess there won't be much of interest to see here, then. Just a lot of "Oh, wow, kewl, a star track model" posts.

I was sort of thinking that anyone who was planning to buy a $150 model, and then spend hundreds more $$$ and hundreds upon hundreds of man-hours building it would be likely to be interested in the subject matter of the kit, and probably would not be a "skill level one" builder.

I see plenty of discussions on this board re: production of a car (when talking about the kit of that car) or about the weapons capacity of an aircraft (when talking about a model of that aircraft). Yes, you CAN build up your F-22 with Vietnam-era bomb racks underslung on the wings, but that's not "correct, " is it? And those conversations here are entirely acceptable, aren't they?

I guess I was mistaken, though... oh well. I'll limit my future posts to one word "AWESOMENESSNESS!!!!" posts from now on, I guess. :thumbsup:


----------



## Larva

So many fun builder modifications will be possible for this kit: saucer-mounted shuttlebays, navigational deflector array, weapons, and travel pod docking ports akin to the refit, but revealed by open panels. Or a pre-Pike Enterprise, just imagining the ship prior to full commissioning, with open sections on the nacelles and dorsal, extra monitoring detail around the main deflector and saucer underside. No official starfleet livery, just NX-1701.

In 1967 my dad and I (age 8) would watch TOS on Monday nights together. We drew up the plans to build a 3-foot model of the Enterprise, based solely on what we could see on our small black and white TV. I would give anything to have those drawings now. Alas, we never built our model together... the AMT version came out shortly after and served as a substitute, but I will certainly think of Dad when I build this fine old ship next year with my own sons.


----------



## Carson Dyle

CLBrown said:


> I'll limit my future posts to one word "AWESOMENESSNESS!!!!" posts from now on, I guess. :thumbsup:


I'm sorry if you've chosen to take my "please stay on topic" request personally. 

FWIW, several HT members contacted me directly over the last few days to ask that I either close the thread or enforce a stricter "stay on topic" policy. I've chosen to do the latter because I think this particular model deserves its own, stuck, dedicated model-specific information thread. 

News regarding the model's release? Post it here.

Tips for lighting, painting, finishing, or weathering the model? Post them here.

Ideas for how to customize the model? Post them here.

Ideas for aftermarket products? Post them here.

Insights relevant to the ongoing kitchenware debate? Please feel free to start your own dedicated thread.

I personally don't care if this thread gets 1 post a month or 100. All I ask is that a reasonable effort is made to stay reasonably on topic. Seems like a reasonable enough request to me, and at any rate it's not one I make very often.

Those who choose to take any of this personally do so with my sincere regrets.


----------



## Gregatron

Larva said:


> Or a pre-Pike Enterprise, just imagining the ship prior to full commissioning, with open sections on the nacelles and dorsal, extra monitoring detail around the main deflector and saucer underside. No official starfleet livery, just NX-1701.


As previously noted, this was done in the IDW STAR TREK: CREW comic book series (which depicted the uncommissioned, unpainted _Enterprise_ as "NX-0002"), and would be a neat build.

*corrupted web site link*


----------



## John P

I don't think the E would ever have had an "NX" (experimental) registry. She wasn't meant to be the first ship of the class, and if we accept the "Constitution class" moniker, the USS Constitution was first. And if we accept FJ's NCC-1700 registry for the Constitution, then she may have sported "NX-1700" during design and trials. As a subsequent ship in a proven class, there's be no reason the the Enterprise to carry an "NX" registry. She'd logically wear her assigned "NCC" registry from the get-go.


----------



## Larva

And yet, she may still have gone through an uncommissioned shake down and outfitting period, like modern naval vessels.


----------



## Ductapeforever

In the US Navy Submarine service a new ship prior to commisioning is refered to as 
'PCU' followed by her hull number CU-744 for example, PCU stands for Pre-Commisioning Unit. She will be known by that untill she is christened and commissioned into Federal service.


----------



## John P

So while the prefix may be different at different stages of her life, the hull number always remains the same? Makes sense.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

The only ship to have the NX prefix would be the Constitution, which would be NX-1700, since she was the first ship of her class... just like how the U.S.S. Galaxy was the only Galaxy-Class ship to ever have an NX prefix, and the U.S.S. Excelsior, and so on. This is the system laid down by Okuda & Co. in the Tech Manual.

In terms of markings, we can speculate that before the 1701 got her "final" livery and markings, she probably had "test" paint coatings, like a color scheme on the hull to represent hull stress layers, or warp stress areas, etc. But her NCC number would always be just that... an NCC number, because she's not a naval experiment... she's the second ship in a production line.


----------



## Larva

In Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise (albeit totally non-cannon) Shane speculates that the refit was built WITHOUT the gray paint, thus explaining the pearlescent aztec plating... so if one accepted that explanation, he might consider building a newly constructed pre-Pike Enterprise without the gray coating, creating a new skin-look not yet invented. Might be very cool.


----------



## guartho

That sounds too challenging for me, but I definitely encourage someone more skilled to do just that. I'd really like to see it.

Now, the reverse... hmmm.. I wonder what a TOS-smooth gray-coated refit would look like. That I might be able to handle. This is why I need a case of 1k refits.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

I have a pretty clear idea of what I think an April-era Enterprise would look like, and if I can find the parts I need to do the bash as well as the money for a second 1/350 kit, I'll do it.


----------



## Jafo

This is why I need a case of 1k refits.[/QUOTE]

I bought a case myself!:devil:


----------



## SteveR

You've got a case of the refits?


----------



## Trek Ace

SteveR said:


> You've got a case of the refits?


Doesn't everyone? 

I also preordered five of the "Premiere" kits when I signed up for the 1701 club. I doubt if I will receive them all due to the number of other participants. Anyhow, I told a local shop owner to reserve a case of the "standard" kits for me, and several of the accessory kits, when they are available.

Next year can't come fast enough!


----------



## guartho

SteveR said:


> You've got a case of the refits?


If I was made of money I'd buy two cases. I am not, however, made of money  and I bought two models instead.


----------



## Larva

A fun detail on the new kit would be to make the deflector directionally steerable. The original design of the mounting post clearly was intended to look hinge-like. Making it an actual moveable part would be fun, and to my knowledge, it's never before been done.


----------



## guartho

Not on a physical model, but the New Voyages folks swung that thing back and forth like a baseball bat.


----------



## MGagen

guartho said:


> Not on a physical model, but the New Voyages folks swung that thing back and forth like a baseball bat.


I _had_ heard somewhere that New Voyages _swings both ways..._

M.


----------



## Warped9

Stepping away from the production series I noted an interesting detail in the models section of startrekhistory.com. Apparently on "The Cage" era version of the first pilot the engine domes were not painted a uniform red, but rather they were airbrushed in Pelican inks. The look wasn't a solid colour, but rather a swirled pattern. The colour was basically crimson, but appeared as various shades of red to brownish on film.

I only mention this because I'm contemplating building "The Cage" era version...or more accurately a lighted version of the Pike era ship. In those colour photos the ship also looks a very light grey.

One could rationalize that the overall colour of the hull could have darkened over the years.


----------



## jlwshere

Larry523 said:


> Those Premier kit buyers who end up with red shirts, I would advise to build your models quickly. Given the average life-expectancy of a red shirt, you might not survive long enough to complete the kit!


Well said!


----------



## jlwshere

*Shocked and Stunned*

I usually come onto this board just to check the latest news concerning the TOS E in 1/350, so I am taken aback that I am over a month behind the times. This is most excellent news.

I was actually a nay sayer as to whether or not this was going to see production based on the news - no news- delayed news - push backs etc., and while it is still "another" year away, I've got my 2 reserved. This is one I will actually build.

I do hope we will see some sort of production proof before the end of the year.


----------



## Jafo

SteveR said:


> You've got a case of the refits?


I sure did, 1 kit for OOB build and the rest for kitbashing.:wave:
here is a link to a pic of my 1st kitbash using that kit at Wonderfest this year.
http://s52.photobucket.com/albums/g31/NCC-1963A/WF 2011/?action=view&current=DSC08088.jpg


----------



## James Tiberius

So did I miss the end of June newsletter/info thing that was supposed to show up?


----------



## Model Man

With the holiday weekend here in the States, it might have slipped to this coming Tuesday.


----------



## Trek Ace

I hope that they send out something official soon. The only confirmation I received from signing up with the 1701 Club on the website was a reply on May 15th stating that "Updates to your personal preferences and mailings were successfully saved."


----------



## Opus Penguin

I just got back from DC, and while there, visited the old Gray Lady in person. I had hoped to get good pictures. However, they have it in a dark area of the basement in the gift shop at the Air and Space Museum. Also the lights in the case that are supposed to light it up were off. The camera I had was decent, but I could not use flash without risk of getting the glare on the case. Attached is a picture I got of it, and as you can see it is was pretty dark so I could not get really good photos. The model has some wear and tear. There is a spot where it looks like the top part of the saucer is separating from the bottom part. Also one of the plastic lenses for the three lights under the saucer section in the back popped out of its spot. So the model looks like it has not been kept up in repairs.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

That model is not the Gray Lady... it's a wretched monstrosity of overweathering.


----------



## mach7

unfortunately it is the grey lady. 

She has just been given a terrible makeover. 

The Smithsonian should set up a fund to restore her to filming condition. I would donate to that in a heartbeat.


----------



## John P

It's like seeing one of those little 9-year-old girl beauty contestants, all tarted up in too much makeup.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Except in this case the "9-year-old girl beauty contestant" is considerably older.

It's really more of a "What's the Matter with Baby Jane?" situation...


----------



## liskorea317

Yikes!


----------



## BolianAdmiral

mach7 said:


> The Smithsonian should set up a fund to restore her to filming condition. I would donate to that in a heartbeat.


Why? It would still be the same clueless idiots doing the restoration work.


----------



## jheilman

It would be the same organization, but 20 years later, we can hope there are new individuals making decisions. Maybe one could decide a proper restoration is in order? Or maybe they could decide it's time to donate the ship to the sci-fi museum where it probably would get a proper restoration.


----------



## mach7

BolianAdmiral said:


> Why? It would still be the same clueless idiots doing the restoration work.



No, The last train wreck was contracted out to I believe Ed Miarecki, a true Star Trek Fan. He just took the restoration in, What I would call, the wrong direction.

The top of the saucer has never been repainted, so we know the original color.
It should not be hard to restore her to the filming era.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Well, sadly, I fear if it were done now, they'd botch it up even more by adopting a _"Let's all use TOS-R as our reference."_ philosophy... some of you may think they wouldn't do that, but I don't have that much faith in the universe, lol.


----------



## trekkist

Interesting(?) experience last time I shot the model at the Smithsonian: my digital wouldn't work, sans flash (too dark), but my handy old SLR turned out some damn fine images...


----------



## John P

They had the shields up!


----------



## Model Man

As official news, these vids should probably get buried here amongst the 31 pages of theorizing.


----------



## Warped9

^^ I watched those videos earlier. Yep, they're informative, particularly what Gary Kerr had to say, but they don't really reveal much of anything new that hasn't already been said in these forums several times already.

Hearing it in their own words really does nail home the fact that this kit is a big deal for Round2 and a lot is riding on it. Certainly not the company itself, but the very prospect of future 1/350 scale kits for the foreseeable future. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall this degree of hand wringing over the development and release of the 1/350 TMP refit. Or maybe I missed it somehow?

Anyway, as had been said elsewhere, this is indeed a dream kit for many of us, but in more practical terms something in the 1/1000 to 1/600 scale does make a lot more sense for the company (in terms of cost) and for the modeler (in terms of display space).


----------



## LGFugate

The initial release of the TMP 1/350th Enterprise was in a different era and by a different company. We hadn't yet hit the big recession and credit wasn't a problem for Polar Lights. Right after the kit was announced, Tom Lowe, the owner of PL, sold the business to Racing Champions, a much larger company. Once again, more money to carry the project thru to completion with in a time of more abundant credit and consumers having more available cash for such purchases.

Nowadays, credit is tight. More consumers are in low-end jobs or are jobless. Many have endured pay cuts to stay employed. Prices for everything are way up. Round 2 (owned by Tom Lowe) is a much smaller company that includes the AMT and Polar Lights brands. For them to commit to the production of a very large injection-molded styrene kit with oil prices high and the economy uncertain, and with a largely unknown audience potential is a major, MAJOR undertaking. Excuse my language, but it takes real gonads  to do this just to please us die-hard fans!!

If this venture fails, there is no reason at all for them to try to produce more kits in this huge scale. the price of both the Premier and Standard kits is daunting to me, but I plan on purchasing at least one, to make sure they know the effort and risk is appreciated. (Plus, of course, I WANT ONE!!!) 

Larry


----------



## Kit

On the other hand, I don't recall this kind of handwringing over the development and release of the big Seaview, or any other Moebius product.


----------



## RSN

Kit said:


> On the other hand, I don't recall this kind of handwringing over the development and release of the big Seaview, or any other Moebius product.


Moebius is a much different company. They don't have a Corporation to deal with, they can develop a business plan without the restrictions of being a subsidiary in a large company.


----------



## Kit

Round 2 doesn't have a corporation over it, either. Moebius is owned by Frank; Round 2 is owned by Tom. Both are small, privately held companies, with the same level of independence.


----------



## RSN

Kit said:


> Round 2 doesn't have a corporation over it, either. Moebius is owned by Frank; Round 2 is owned by Tom. Both are small, privately held companies, with the same level of independence.


Sorry! :thumbsup:


----------



## jheilman

Yeah, I'm in the crowd that has taken large pay cuts to stay employed. But I'm still saving up for this kit. It's a must have for me.


----------



## scifiguy67

jheilman said:


> Yeah, I'm in the crowd that has taken large pay cuts to stay employed. But I'm still saving up for this kit. It's a must have for me.


same here! by the time the kit come out i will be able to buy three and build all versions of the ship!


----------



## Kit

RSN said:


> Sorry! :thumbsup:


No worries! I'm with the folks here. Making less money than I did ten years ago, but saving up for this kit. 

I don't know that the economy is necessarily the killer factor making it tough for companies, becuase I've long heard that hoobies, if not recession-proof, are at least insulated from the worst effects. Guys with passion will find a way to spend for what they love to do. But I do think something else is going on in with model kits. They're aimed at a shrinking base of older folks, who are getting older all the time, and there's a lot of product out there competing for our pocketbooks. It amazes me that guys like Atlantis can make a go of it with obscure subjects like the Aurora animals, but more power to'em.

The big E, though, seems like a rare opportunity to base a product on the single most iconic science fiction subject. My only worry is that we all have plenty of kits of it in other scales, the Revell kit is coming, and that might impact sales.


----------



## Kit

Hoobies! Heh. Sorry for typos.


----------



## Larva

The first 1701 Update just arrived via email. Interesting to read about the process of creating this kit.


----------



## TohoFan

Yes I got my update too:thumbsup: Alot of details. Looking forward to tis kit!


----------



## robcomet

It annoys me something chronic that because Round 2 aren't able to sell this kit to the UK, I'm not able to read the updates. I'd love to know all about the development but damn licensing prevents me.

Rant Over.

Sorry!

Rob


----------



## Warped9

Got my 1701 update. :thumbsup:

Reading their intended approach and devotion to the smallest detail is awesome. They are really taking pains to get this right. Fantastic!


----------



## Ductapeforever

robcomet said:


> It annoys me something chronic that because Round 2 aren't able to sell this kit to the UK, I'm not able to read the updates. I'd love to know all about the development but damn licensing prevents me.
> 
> Rant Over.
> 
> Sorry!
> 
> Rob


Rob, send me your e-mail I'll forward you mine.


----------



## James Tiberius

lol yeah no lie, send people some email addresses via PM and we'll make sure you're caught up


----------



## robiwon

Well this blows. I just checked my e-mail and no newsletter! I was second in line at the sign up table. I even checked my junk mail foldder, nothing! I left a post on the websites blog area. Hopefully Jamie sees it....................


----------



## Ductapeforever

Anyone who would like to recieve Round 2's Newsletter update, PM me your e-mail addy's and I will be Happy to forward you a copy of mine.


----------



## robiwon

PM sent. :thumbsup:


----------



## BolianAdmiral

I just read the update that was posted on another forum that confirms that the model will indeed include the utterly stupid and useless engraved grid lines, totally ignoring the fact that the original model never had them, and thus making this model far less accurate than would be otherwise.

I would HIGHLY suggest to Round 2 to drop the silly idea of these useless gridlines... not only is it a stupid detail which the original model never had, but it is something which many modelers, myself included, will have to invest extra time and work ELIMINATING from the model, which means that basically Round 2 will be wasting money on something stupid that modelers DON'T want, lol.

I'd suggest they forget about the gridlines, and save that extra tooling money, but I also don't expect them to actually listen to someone who will potentially pay the money they're asking for this product, but a sliver of hope springs eternal, I suppose. The gridlines will cost money in tooling to be put on the model... many fans and modelers are telling you they do NOT want the gridlines. Seems like simple numbers to me... I'd opt to save that money, if I were Round 2, and in doing so, please more customers... win-win.

I'd FAR prefer a smoothie, but if the model has panel lines, I AM getting rid of them, so hopefully someone from Round 2 reads this, and realizes that having them equals wasted money in tooling and production costs.


----------



## Warped9

We shouldn't get our shorts in a knot yet over the gridline issue. Firstly they have to make sure they're going to get what they want in terms of quality. Also a very finely engraved or etched line is not the same thing as a drawn or painted or decaled line. An etched line will only show when light hits it at a certain angle wherein shadow can then make it visible. Otherwise you shouldn't be able to see it. And then at a distance something finely etched likely won't be visible at all if it's properly scaled. 

And shots of the filming miniature do indeed show the grid lines albeit faint. They were there on the production version of the miniature. The lines are even sometimes visible on certain shots in my dvd season sets of the series.


----------



## scotthm

BolianAdmiral said:


> I would HIGHLY suggest to Round 2 to drop the silly idea of these useless gridlines... Round 2 will be wasting money on something stupid that modelers DON'T want, lol.


I like what they're showing in the update with the gridlines, and the attention to detail, but I really like that little shuttlecraft model they're working on for this project.

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


----------



## Capt. Krik

THE GRID LINES! Jamie said that if they can't get the grid lines fine enough that they would be dropped altogether. So either they will not be there or they will be so fine that they can be filled and sanded with no problem if you don't desire them.


----------



## Fozzie

Has anyone ever done anything with the windows like they are proposing? All windows available in 3 styles: clear, milky white, transparent black. I find that intriguing.

The corrections noted in the various images they provided show an incredible attention to detail. I'm very optimistic at this point that this is going to be a very special kit.


----------



## Paulbo

Cool! I'm looking forward to another 8 pages of debate about the engraved gridlines! (He says sarcastically.)


----------



## BolianAdmiral

I *highly* doubt they'll be able to get the quality they're after, and even if they do by some miracle get "Tamiya-like" fine lines... the fact remains that there were NEVER any engraved lines on the original models... the panel lines we saw were penciled in.

Seriously... this is the kind of stuff I hate when people pull... they claim they're gonna go for uber-accuracy, and then after everything else is perfect, they go ahead and do one thing that just ruins the rest of it.

I don't want ANY damn panel lines on this model... they weren't engraved on the 11-footer, and if I have to waste all that extra time and energy filling them in with putty, to correct what Round 2 got wrong, it'll be while grumbling against Round 2 for not being able to leave well enough alone, and just give us an accurate smoothie.

They're asking us to pay over a hundred dollars for this kit... if I'm to do that, I want to be sure I'm happy with my purchase. They said in the update that nothing is final yet, so I'm saying right now, if anyone from Round 2 is listening or will listen... do NOT put panel lines on this thing! I DON'T want them! If they spend the money to make the kit with them, it will be a waste for them, because I will simply get rid of them, lol... and that's if they are "Tamiya-fine", like they say... if they're not, and they look even worse, I may opt not to buy this kit at all, and wait until a third-party company comes out with a smoothie 1/350, and buy that one.


----------



## Ductapeforever

I can assure you this will be the only 1/350 scale model of the 'Grey Lady' and we're lucky to get this one. Panel lines are not accurate I admit, but it's a small price to pay for accuracy. Those folks who want them can leave 'em, and those who don't...use your skills as a modeler and remove 'em. Nuff said! If you don't want to buy the kit, fine...you will be one of very few people who have waited 40 plus years who won't.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

^

Not really... not at the cost they're asking.

And 'nuff said to you... there WILL be other kits... at the very least, some other folks will be putting out replacement smoothie parts for those who don't want to fill in and sand the existing parts, so there will at least be that option. The downside to that, is that you'll have to buy a new saucer or whatever, to replace the one that Round 2 got wrong, furthering the cost.

If you want to blow over a hundred bucks on an inaccurate model, be my guest.


----------



## Prologic9

I'd love an outlet to correct their corrections, rofl. The panels lines shouldn't cross onto the lower saucer "triangles" at all. The triangles are a solid layer of, I'm guessing, sheet styrene. The dark grey outlines were painted on.


----------



## Ductapeforever

That's your opinion and I respect that. I've waited 40 plus years for this kit. They could mold it in tie dyed psycadelic colors with bull horns on the saucer, and I'll happily spend the money for the kit and spend what ever amount of time to fix the things they get wrong. But I'll let 'em make the kit first and not armchair design the thing for 'em.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Ductapeforever said:


> That's your opinion and I respect that. I've waited 40 plus years for this kit. They could mold it in tie dyed psycadelic colors with bull horns on the saucer, and I'll happily spend the money for the kit and spend what ever amount of time to fix the things they get wrong. But I'll let 'em make the kit first and not armchair design the thing for 'em.


^

And you're the perfect customer for them... someone who will blindly pay cash up-front for something, with no expectations for it whatsoever. That's what all companies love and feed on.

I'm not like that... I like quality in what I pay for, and if someone is asking me to pony up over a hundred dollars for a MODEL KIT... I wanna be damn sure the money is well-spent, and the product of sufficient quality. I'm not looking out for Round 2... my concern is the consumer, which is a mindset companies hate.

But in this instance, we have a situation where BOTH can win... the grid lines were never engraved, and thus are not accurate. I, as well as many fans see this as a grail kit, and want accuracy... so why spend needless money tooling for details that are unwanted?

Some of you here know me from the Trek BBS... well... remember way back when, when we all first heard about the Haynes Guide for the Enterprise? Remember all the high hopes we had for it, not only being accurate, but being big and comprehensive? Remember how that all turned out? I don't want to see this kit become that.

My point is that people like you are looking at this kit with rose-colored glasses, and are just caught up in the excitement of having a 1/350 TOS ship, and are willing to reserve it with a commitment to buy without ever even seeing the product beforehand. Not me... I won't buy anything until I see it, and unless it meets my standards to justify the cost.

And *Prologic's* post only confirms the fact that if the option is there, people WILL buy aftermarket parts to correct Round 2's errors. But why have any errors to begin with?


----------



## Ductapeforever

I have a case reserved...I probably won't get it, but I reserved it. But bear in mind, it is way too early to be freaking out now over design elements that are not written in stone!
Gary Kerr is here...and reading ever word. I know Gary's passion for detail and I trust he will put forth his opinions on all design elements. Gary is one of a very few who is concidered an expert on this subject, if he has any pull with Round 2, I'm sure he will do his best to put out a museum quality kit. For the love of Pete, this is only the first update, when the damn thing goes to tooling with railroad tracks on top of the saucer I'll panic, till then I'll wait and see.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

^

Great... I'm delighted someone who is considered an "expert" is here, and I'm glad he's known for his passion for detail. And I'm equally delighted he's listening to every word here... hopefully, it will show in the final product.

If he's an expert, he knows we should have a smooth hull. If he has a passion for detail, he knows we should have a smooth hull. And if he's listening to every word here, he should know that I, along with many (if not most) others, want a smooth hull.

It is because it is so early in the game, that I want to get out how much I want a smoothie... BEFORE it's too late, and they start cranking out INaccurate kits with gridlines on them.

So yes... we'll wait and see if this Gary Kerr actually is listening.


----------



## charonjr

I understand both sides of the argument presented here regarding the shield grid lines. But, JFC! Give it a rest with the personal assaults. It makes for tired reading.

Matt Jeffries had the lines on his blueprints. You can freeze frame shots of the upper hull in Doomsday Machine and see the grid lines plainly. While they were penciled on the TOS saucer, I expect that is due to the vacuum forming method of the time. Penciling was probably easier than engraving the detail in the time available to produce the model.

Note that the both the Phase 2 and Refit were to have grid lines. The Refit lines were engraved.

I could go into saying something really stupid: for historical accuracy to the shooting model (no grid lines), shall we also have no port side details and huge power conduits snaking up the pylons to the nacelles?

It is too easy to argue extremes and these arguments have been said many a time before.


----------



## jheilman

Yeah, we can lose the anger in the debate. It's a subject we all feel passionately about, but lets see what happens. I will buy it either way. Not because I'm a mindless dupe, but because this will probably be the most accurate, big TOS E model available in my lifetime. And I can fill in the lines if they exist on the final. I can't see anyone making aftermarket hull replacements minus the lines. It's seam filling and sanding. It may even be as simple as a coat of primer and sanding. I just want the size, accurate shapes and proportions. A smoothie would be ideal, but it's not a deal-breaker for me if it's not.


----------



## Paulbo

HAL 9000 said:


> Look (BolianAdmiral), I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.


Or here's another idea - if you don't like the engraved grid lines, don't buy the kit.


----------



## spock62

All this fuss over grid lines? While I understand why you wouldn't want them, unless their trenches, isn't it rather easy to fill them in? At least you guys have the $$$ to purchase this kit, my current employment situation prevents that for now.


----------



## Atemylunch

I have a few cents to add here for what it's worth. 

The production SSM did have gridlines, but they were applied at the studio. The production model when delivered didn't have them, neither of the pilot versions had them. 
They were applied at Roddenberry's instance, I got the impression they did it because Gene made a stink about it. 

I do understand the passion, for I wish they would leave well enough alone. After all if your expected to place sensor bands around the refit saucer. I don't think scribing a grid on the model would be much of issue(especially if one makes military models). I think that should be the modelers choice, I hate the idea of having to fix such things. It only brings up all of the fun we have with so many of AMT's kits, or should I say they make more work for the modeler than necessary. I can't tell you how many times I've wet sanded a model only to find all of gaps I filled has washed away. Or worse the gap that won't go away. 

If worse comes to worse I can make an aftermarket replacement. We will just have to see what they put out. It could be worse, they could match the model to what it looks like today. 

I'm concerned about so much focus on the windows, the Refit's windows are awful. You still have mask them out to paint the model. Because I don't know how to place windows in the saucer after I closed it up? It would be better to make the model clear, and leave the window placement up to the modeler.


----------



## Warped9

Seriously folks, just give this another perspective for a second. What were the penciled in grid lines on the production version of the filming miniature supposed to suggest? That there was a very fine detail there that because of poor resolution of CRT televisions for many years was invisible. But it was there and it was meant to suggest something. Now when the episodes were remastered for dvd (and long before Blu-Ray and TOS-R) some shots on the dvd sets made the lines now visible because of the better picture and resolution.

Now what is the unseen side of the filming miniature _supposed_ to look like given it was unfinished. For all intents and purposes in what was done on the show it was meant to be essentially symmetrical with the familiar always seen side. Yes, that's been debated as well and it is free for interpretation and speculation.

The essential point is some things on that filming miniature were not perfect but they were meant to suggest something. The penciled in grid lines were put there to be just barely visible. And I've had personal issues when I've seen some folks putting quite visible grid lines on an AMT or PL 1/1000 scale model where at such a scale such a detail is ludicrous (in my view) and should never conceivably be at all visible.

When I open the box of the 1/350 when I get it and see if they've managed to get the fineness they appear to be aiming for then I can respect that and accept it. Because I also know that if they do it right then those lines, especially after painting, will be hardly visible and as they should be. Now if things unfold wherein they feel they cannot get the precision they want and opt to leave the model smooth then I can certainly live with that as well. And if smooth then I won't bother trying for something they couldn't get themselves at the factory. But lines or not this kit is still going to cost us the same---we won't be getting a reduced price if the lines aren't there.

Yes, the worst case scenario would be where they go with etched grid lines and the factory gets it wrong. But seriously I think it's far too early to get worked up about that yet. I'm inclined to give these folks the benefit of the doubt at this point and wait to see what unfolds. To some extent you have to trust in other people's ability to perform. Or put another way I don't see Round2 as being habitual screwups. For the most part I think they do pretty damn well, certainly well enough to give them a chance to see what they'll do.

In my own projects there are times that I have a preconceived idea of what I'd like to do. Quite often I get what I want, but sometimes no matter how well intentioned I find that something I want is out of my reach to deliver. Then I reassess what I'm aiming for and change my plans accordingly.

Let's just wait and see for awhile before we just assume they're going to mess it up.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Perhaps Gary could chime in here and answer, or the decision might just be something out of his sphere of influence. I'll be happy either way.


----------



## Warped9

Ductapeforever said:


> Perhaps Gary could chime in here and answer, or the decision might just be something out of his sphere of influence. I'll be happy either way.


I'd say they've already answered this question. They're PLANNING to TRY getting a _very fine precision_ for the gridlines. IF they fail to get the precision and fineness they want then they are going to FORGET about the grid lines and make the kit with a smooth hull.

That seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Look... my whole point is, why even HAVE this debate? The general consensus is that a smoothie would be preferable, so why even TRY to make gridlines on the model, when none were on the shooting model? It just seems so stupid, and a waste of time, energy, and money, that will likely be passed on to the modeler, who will have to waste more time, energy, and money to cover up said engraved lines.

I mean, Round 2 is telling us about all this early on, so I would think if they know that enough people don't want the lines on the kit, they would actually be content to listen to that, and not even bother with tests. I mean, I could tell, just from watching the video from Round 2 that nobody wants those damn lines... just before the question about the lines comes up, they mention the motors for the spinning impellers, and everyone's like "YEAH! COOL!" and so on... but as soon as they mention the gridlines... nothing... cue the obligatory cricket chirps, lol. Nobody wants them, lol.

And *Hal 9000*, if you don't like what I have to say, you don't have to read it. But I have every bit as much right to express my views as you do, and will continue to do so.


----------



## jbond

I look forward to the next year of hearing everyone's opinion delivered at exactly this decibel level. Don't hold back, people--there's still time to put every post in ALL CAPS. That shows 'em you mean business!


----------



## Ductapeforever

BolianAdmiral needs to follow the board guidelines, personal attacks and insults are not tolerated.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Then tell *Hal 9000* not to tell me to take a chill pill... I don't tolerate attacks, either.


----------



## Ductapeforever

We all understand your passion for the subject matter, but you are getting a bit rude with some of your comments. The 'chill pill' is sound advice as we try to have civil but spirited debate.


----------



## BolianAdmiral

No, it's not sound advice, because he obviously takes issue with what I have to say, as you do. And since you're trying to single ME out, and not also cite *Hal 9000*, maybe I should PM the Admin of this site, and let him know that both of you are violating board rules in attacking ME... how's that?

If you don't like what I say, you don't have to listen. I'm not gonna be told to be quiet OR take a pill.


----------



## robiwon

I want the grid lines. The original ship had penciled gridlines. If they are finely engraved I will be happy. They said they wouldn't do them if they couldn't do them thin enough. 

Honestly, if all someone wants to do is just slap the kit together and dosen't want grid lines then yeah, I could see the frustration of having to fill them in. But were modelers, we can take care of that right?

I said it before, no model is perfect and none ever will be. You can't please everyone. It would seem that if R2 wants to do grids then that may be the majority or the way they feel it's most accurate.

Getting into flamming matches with other members voicing their opinions is also nonsence, regardless of where you stand on the issue. 

If you want grids then say so, if you don't, then say so. Don't argue amongst each other. Tell R2 on their blog. They may change it and decide not to do them. Remember, the model is still a year away.

This is supposed to be a hobby and a family oriented modeling site with in depth and spirited discussions, not bashing other members over their opinions. 

I think everyone should keep that in mind. This is my thread and if this kind of posting continues I'll have the Mods lock my own thread and everyone can carry on in someone elses thread.

I'm off my soapbox now. I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming........................................................................


----------



## Hunch

I believe they should make it as close to the filming model as possible, only with detail on the left side. To me, anything that was not on the miniature is not accurate. But they will do what they will do, and if I need to fill and sand I'll have to live with it.


----------



## scotthm

BolianAdmiral said:


> If you want to blow over a hundred bucks on an inaccurate model, be my guest.


I know those windows they'll be putting on the port side of the secondary hull are nowhere to be found on the original model, but I'm buying this thing anyway. I figure I can just putty over them.

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


----------



## Warped9

It's funny in a way. The old AMT kit was something of a blank canvass because so much of it was inconsistent with what we could see onscreen. And yet folks made it probably the most commercially successful sci-fi model kit ever. To get the AMT _E_ more accurate (in detail) took a lot of work and you still really couldn't get there because there were inaccuracies in the very shape of many of the major components. The PL 1/1000 was a dream in its own way as the most accurate kit of the TOS _E_ yet made and yet it wasn't perfect although its shortcomings were incredibly minor compared to the AMT kit. If there was one real complaint about the PL 1/1000 (and I couldn't be the only one who felt this) was that some of us felt the scale was too small---we wanted/preferred something closer to 1/600 scale (such as the forthcoming Revell/Germany kit). And some of us were vocal about it (some more than others) when the kit was first announced and before it was produced.

Now we have a kit coming that should exceed our fondest hopes, blowing away anything that has come before...and we're hung up on one potentially easily fixed detail that may _or may not_ actually be on the kit.

Gotta love fans. :lol:


----------



## StarshipClass

Warped9 said:


> Seriously folks, just give this another perspective for a second. What were the penciled in grid lines on the production version of the filming miniature supposed to suggest? That there was a very fine detail there that because of poor resolution of CRT televisions for many years was invisible. But it was there and it was meant to suggest something. Now when the episodes were remastered for dvd (and long before Blu-Ray and TOS-R) some shots on the dvd sets made the lines now visible because of the better picture and resolution.
> 
> Now what is the unseen side of the filming miniature _supposed_ to look like given it was unfinished. For all intents and purposes in what was done on the show it was meant to be essentially symmetrical with the familiar always seen side. Yes, that's been debated as well and it is free for interpretation and speculation.
> 
> The essential point is some things on that filming miniature were not perfect but they were meant to suggest something. The penciled in grid lines were put there to be just barely visible. And I've had personal issues when I've seen some folks putting quite visible grid lines on an AMT or PL 1/1000 scale model where at such a scale such a detail is ludicrous (in my view) and should never conceivably be at all visible.
> 
> When I open the box of the 1/350 when I get it and see if they've managed to get the fineness they appear to be aiming for then I can respect that and accept it. Because I also know that if they do it right then those lines, especially after painting, will be hardly visible and as they should be. Now if things unfold wherein they feel they cannot get the precision they want and opt to leave the model smooth then I can certainly live with that as well. And if smooth then I won't bother trying for something they couldn't get themselves at the factory. But lines or not this kit is still going to cost us the same---we won't be getting a reduced price if the lines aren't there.
> 
> Yes, the worst case scenario would be where they go with etched grid lines and the factory gets it wrong. But seriously I think it's far too early to get worked up about that yet. I'm inclined to give these folks the benefit of the doubt at this point and wait to see what unfolds. To some extent you have to trust in other people's ability to perform. Or put another way I don't see Round2 as being habitual screwups. For the most part I think they do pretty damn well, certainly well enough to give them a chance to see what they'll do.
> 
> In my own projects there are times that I have a preconceived idea of what I'd like to do. Quite often I get what I want, but sometimes no matter how well intentioned I find that something I want is out of my reach to deliver. Then I reassess what I'm aiming for and change my plans accordingly.
> 
> Let's just wait and see for awhile before we just assume they're going to mess it up.


I think you've summed it up quite well. I concur.:wave:


----------



## robiwon

O.K. Andy emailed me and said they missed an "r" in my address. I got my newsletter this morning!


----------



## RSN

I would suggest to anyone who has issues, with what they think the final model will look like a year or more from now, should send E-Mail after E-mail to Round 2 directly and tell them how much you do not want gridlines. It has been made clear they do visit this site like they used to, and since no one here can make the change, it just seems like a waste to bombard this thread with countless complaints about something that may not make it into the final product anyway! Just my opinion.


----------



## Marco Scheloske

robcomet said:


> It annoys me something chronic that because Round 2 aren't able to sell this kit to the UK, I'm not able to read the updates. I'd love to know all about the development but damn licensing prevents me.


I feel with you. I live in Germany = no Round 2 Enterprise mails.


----------



## Paulbo

Warped9 said:


> ...Now we have a kit coming that should exceed our fondest hopes, blowing away anything that has come before...and we're hung up on one potentially easily fixed detail...


"We're" not hung up on the grid lines. There appears to be one person who is obsessed with the grid line.

I do, however, agree that this kit should exceed our fondest hopes.


----------



## StarshipClass

FWIW regarding the grid line:

I think if the decision were mine, I'd go with a very fine rendition of the grid lines engraved into the model accurate to the penciled on panel lines of the original. 

I think smooth is fine but the production model was very nicely detailed and the panel lines were visible on the close up shots of the ship. The addition of the lines, if done accurately, would add much to the visual appeal of the model kit.


----------



## John P




----------



## Jafo

Too late, the 1701 update email just said the panel lines are IN!


----------



## John P

Okee doke.


----------



## Carson Dyle

It's threads like these that make me miss being this forum's moderator.

NOT.



Obviously the subject of panel lines generates some pretty strong opinions around these parts. Here's hoping some of the same passion, expertise, and energy on display in this "discussion" will eventually get channeled into the construction of an actual model.


----------



## Ductapeforever

Suits me fine, I have yet to decide if I want them there or not. But this gives everyone a choice, on or off. Should someone decide to remove them and can't because they don't have the skill, either practice untill you do, or hang up your X-acto knife and take up knitting!


----------



## Griffworks

I know we're all passionate about this kit coming out, but we all need to respect each others opinions. If you don't like what someone says and wish to comment on it, be respectful. But remember that if you _do_ make a comment, expect that other folks will respond to those comments and won't always agree with you.


----------



## Hunch

Jafo said:


> Too late, the 1701 update email just said the panel lines are IN!


Jafo- Where did it say that? All I got was a bunch of pics on revisions to the grid lines for the 3-D mockup. I was under the impression that when the model is tooled if they cannot get the lines small enough they would eliminate them.
Please dont take this as a slam on you or R2 'cause I'll be happy either way (just happier if I did not have to fill and sand
).


----------



## John Duncan

I'm just interested in the kit coming out. I had to fill grid lines in the AMT Refit with a trowel so a few fine lines would not kill me.

Actually, unless they are huge honk'n grooves I'll just build as is.

Send good vibes to R2, people...good vibes.....


----------



## BolianAdmiral

Griffworks said:


> I know we're all passionate about this kit coming out, but we all need to respect each others opinions. If you don't like what someone says and wish to comment on it, be respectful. But remember that if you _do_ make a comment, expect that other folks will respond to those comments and won't always agree with you.


I'm fine with people disagreeing with me... heck, it's obvious at this point that a lot of you disagree with me, for whatever reason... but the one thing I will not at all tolerate, is someone telling me to "chill" or anything like that... and the fact that *Ductapeforever* chose to take *Hal 9000's* side, without acknowledging that Hal 9000 also used "rude" wording, meant that he was taking sides, and attacking me, which I won't tolerate... if you think I've been rude, fine, so be it... but don't you dare single me out, and ignore someone else's rude comment to me... THAT is what I am angry about, not the fact that someone disagrees with me.

The Mods and Admins can choose to ignore that if they like. I won't.


----------



## Hunch

John Duncan said:


> I'm just interested in the kit coming out. I had to fill grid lines in the AMT Refit with a trowel so a few fine lines would not kill me.
> 
> Actually, unless they are huge honk'n grooves I'll just build as is.
> 
> Send good vibes to R2, people...good vibes.....


Believe me friend, I am VERY happy about this release. Moreso than anything I've heard all year!:thumbsup: AND if the grid lines are on the kit and fine as hair I may leave them.


----------



## Griffworks

BolianAdmiral said:


> I'm fine with people disagreeing with me... heck, it's obvious at this point that a lot of you disagree with me, for whatever reason... but the one thing I will not at all tolerate, is someone telling me to "chill" or anything like that... and the fact that *Ductapeforever* chose to take *Hal 9000's* side, without acknowledging that Hal 9000 also used "rude" wording, meant that he was taking sides, and attacking me, which I won't tolerate... if you think I've been rude, fine, so be it... but don't you dare single me out, and ignore someone else's rude comment to me... THAT is what I am angry about, not the fact that someone disagrees with me.
> 
> The Mods and Admins can choose to ignore that if they like. I won't.


 And that gets the thread locked.... 

I tried to deal with you in a discreet fashion via PM, but see you're simply spoiling for a fight. No more Trolling from you or I'll take action - said action being a 7-Day BAN for you. As I've already told you in PM, feel free to contact Hankster directly.


----------

