# PL Refit Inaccuracies and Fixes



## capt Locknar

You asked for it and you got it. 

Please keep this thread to noting of Inaccuracies or fix problems. If you see something that may need fixing let us know, however do keep other types of comments off this thread so it is easier for people to scan through this section without having to go through 7654 comments to get to the next problem on the kit. 

And please keep it civil. 

Thank you


----------



## TrekFX

*Dorsal (engineering-saucer)*

Torpedo deck:

Issue: Aft section width should maintain width of engineering strongback/ dorsal spine. I think that the strongback area (below the vent thingie) also "sticks out" more in profile than the dorsal spine in photos, but it may be a matter of interpretation.

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent17.jpg

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent56.jpg

Possible solution: Aft walls of torp deck need to be gradually tapered in at the top. May need to add filler inside as the amount of material that will be removed probably exceeds the thickness of the plastic. Add a bit of styrene strip/sheet and putty as needed to the strongback, if it indeed needs it.

Issue/solution: Front section at the torp tubes should have more radiused edges inside and outside, decreasing radius going aft. Side wall planview looks good, so it's just a bit of sanding on the outside and a little fillet on the inside. 

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent61.jpg

Note: 6-14-05 Removed stuff about launcher tube area.


----------



## NCC1701-A

One of the inaccuracies as I stated was the warp conduit lines on the dorsal section not lining up the the impulse crystal.

What I ended up doing was putting the original lines with automotive glazing putty and the windows as well.

After that I ended up rescribing the warp conduit lines on the dorsal and redrilling the windows. Its about 2 millimeters smaller then the original but it blends nicely.


----------



## Trek Ace

I had already posted these observations on another site. I have added comparison photos for clarity:

*- the impulse deck (the clear piece with the exhaust ports)*
_The shape is totally wrong. It is too deep vertically and the lower portion should angle upwards, not go straight back._










*- the grooved reinforcement panels on either side of the top of the dorsal and where they intersect the hull separation line.*
_The rear "point" that curves downward should just intersect the line. Instead, it sticks down about 1/8-inch too far._


















*- the rear of the torpedo bay at the bottom of the dorsal (the "spine" behind where the photon exhaust sits).*
_From the point where it connects to the secondary hull "spine" it flares outward as it curves upward. It should not ever be any wider than the rear edge of the dorsal or the "spine" strip on the secondary hull.
The problem is the torpedo bay is too wide at the rear. It should taper in to the width of the rear edge of the dorsal._











There are still a few other things like the torpedo bay docking ports and dorsal panel lines. But, these first items jumped right out at me when I first inspected the parts out of the box. I noticed the hangar doors and rear fantail as well. But that has already been covered extensively elsewhere.


----------



## Trek Ace

Additionally,

- the two lower wide ports on the front left side of the secondary hull.
They line up with the upper three wide ports. They should not do this on the left side, only on the right side. The left side lower ones should be slightly forward of the upper three.










I'll be adding more details and photos as time permits.


----------



## portland182

Trek Ace said:


> .


I just noticed from your picture that the panel area at the bottom rear of the pylon is too wide. The rear edge of the panel should line up with the rear edge of the small rectangular detail (wart?) next to the dorsal spine.

This IS still a great kit though...

Jim


----------



## ArthurPendragon

portland182 said:


> I just noticed from your picture that the panel area at the bottom rear of the pylon is too wide. The rear edge of the panel should line up with the rear edge of the small rectangular detail (wart?) next to the dorsal spine.
> 
> This IS still a great kit though...
> 
> Jim


I believe it´s the photo angle ...


I´ve noticed some little problems too:

All viewports must be reduced in size a little. 

The cooper scribed oval detail at the warp drive engines are off too. 

A very simple detail must be reworked at the bridge module.

Also, the navigational lights clear insert pins are too short.


----------



## Trek Ace

My thoughts:

I want to add that I did not post these comparisons of the kit details versus the studio model in order to be critical of any one or group involved in the kit-making process. It's more of a curiosity, because I saw the photos of the plans and prototype parts that Thomas designed, and, like, for instance, the impulse engine detail, was nailed 100% in accuracy.

Fixes:

The impulse engines are probably best built over from scratch, using opaque and clear sheet plastic for a one-off, or making a master and casting a replacement part in clear resin. Thinning of the plastic along the top edge of the impulse deck is also required to bring it to the proper thickness.

The rear of the torpedo bay will have to be filed and sanded to a new contour to remove the "flair" of the spine edge. Will need to add filler or plastic inside before doing this.

The top dorsal grooved panels look like the downward angle may be too severe, causing the bottom point to dip too far below the hull separation lines.










Re-contouring the curve may be in order to move the bottom point up and slightly rearward to the correct position to intersect the separation lines. Plus, the engraved separation line looks to be a little too high on the kit, appearing to be where the top red border line appears on the studio model. Re-scribing the line just below the existing line would be in order to bring it into correct placement. [See above photo]

The two lower viewports on the port side fuselage could either be re-drilled slightly forward with partial plugs, or the section of hull immediately surrounding the ports could be cut out and the two viewports moved ahead the proper distance. Then the seams would be puttied and sanded smooth.

One other area of interest (actually two) are the conduit access plates on the inner halves of the warp pylons. They appear to be way too thick, and need to be reduced in height. Maybe the original plans called for a thickness of .1mm and it was read as "1mm".


----------



## CaptDistraction

Is it just me, or is the refit deflector too stubby when viewed from the side?

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent54.jpg



Many of the smaller details I will avoid fixing. I will most liky avoid this one as well. The main ones I am fixing are:

Rear torpedo deck profile
radius add to front of torpedo deck
shuttlebay door oversize/hangar receiver undersize (still not clear on that one)
Corrected angles on some of the spotlight holes on the secondary hull.
minor warp nacelle details 

Ones I will avoidtoo much work)
front profile and shapes of deflector housing
deflector accent pieces (x3) being too large
shape of the lower sensor spotlight housings (I'll put up a good pic of it)
any major rescribing

Lighting:
try to make an acceptable compromise on the bridge spotlight.


----------



## portland182

ArthurPendragon said:


> I believe it´s the photo angle ...


Trust me it's not.

Also where the pylons meet the hull on the original the curve is from the horizontal within the panel. on the kit it does not, it 'dives' in more steeply, right to the back of the panel line

Jim


----------



## klgonsneedbotox

I will take a look at mine and see if I recognize the difference. 

Has anyone looked at the phaser emitters on the saucer? Are they just a little too big? Not the curved rectangle shape, but the actual emitters themselves. I KNOW...THIS IS NIT (SP?) PICKING, I AGREE...but it's one of those things that just sticks out when I look at the saucer (no pun intended...sorta)...maybe it's just me.

BTW...this is a great kit...don't get me wrong...can't really ask for more for ~$50!


----------



## lonfan

Hey Not For Nuthin' I'm BY NO means an expert on all things Refit lol BUT after Cementing the Left And Right uh..Engines (I'm refering to Pieces 44,45 and 46,47) Well If you are looking at the Finished Ship DEAD STRAIGHT ON there is these little lights on the Front of the Nacelles (Clear Parts #266,267 and 268,269) The Holes for these Seem to be One Higher than the other (ALOT Higher than the other!) it seems to be the Same Amount off on BOTH Sides IS this intentional? Just wondering

John/Lonfan


----------



## Garbaron

Yes it is intentional, since it is the same at the studio model 

See:
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent43.jpg

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent70.jpg


----------



## Opus Penguin

lonfan said:


> Hey Not For Nuthin' I'm BY NO means an expert on all things Refit lol BUT after Cementing the Left And Right uh..Engines (I'm refering to Pieces 44,45 and 46,47) Well If you are looking at the Finished Ship DEAD STRAIGHT ON there is these little lights on the Front of the Nacelles (Clear Parts #266,267 and 268,269) The Holes for these Seem to be One Higher than the other (ALOT Higher than the other!) it seems to be the Same Amount off on BOTH Sides IS this intentional? Just wondering
> 
> John/Lonfan


It is intentional, and I have tried to find out why. From my research my guess is the higher one is to shine a spotlight on the edge of the saucer section (why I don't know but have seen the spotlight there), whereas the lower light is to shine on the Federation Pennant on the secondary hull. I have no idea if I am right, just used pictures as reference. I know one modeler used these lights to create that effect on their Bandai Refit. Looked really good.


----------



## ArthurPendragon

Garbaron said:


> Yes it is intentional, since it is the same at the studio model
> 
> See:
> http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent43.jpg
> 
> http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent70.jpg


These photos shows another problem of the PL refit which is impossible to correct... the bottom of the warp nacelles are TOO flat !


----------



## Richard38

*Cargo Deck*

Hello,

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

Richard


----------



## irishtrek

The engine nacelles cross beams are upside down and the docking ports on the travelpods are to big. That is the engine nacelles on the 2 shuttlecraft.


----------



## lastguardian

Richard38 said:


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


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

Shane


----------



## justinleighty

lastguardian said:


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


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


----------



## fokkerpilot

I'll go ahead and add some observations not brought up so far.

The biggest I have found is the lower aft section of the secondary hull requiring a lot of tension to pull up so the shuttle bay casing can be mounted onto the aft secondary hull. I look at 3 models I have. 2 I dry fitted with and without the shuttle bay installed and the same problem exists.

My conclusion: A bad batch of castings of the lower secondary hull.

Another inconveniece is the way the mounting pins conveniently block the bridge and planetary sensor lenses. 

Conclusive action: grind the pins off of each assembly.

And finally, Why a 4 piece secondary hull? This just seems plain stupid in my book.

Otherwise it's a great model with a lot of beef to it. It's just a shame that the castings are done by political prisoners in China. :jest:


----------



## ThomasModels

Opus Penguin said:


> The PL Refit kit must be pretty accurate for the most part. The accurizing kit does not contain very many parts compared to past accurizing kits for say ... the Ertl version. That is a good sign for me!!! I look forward to purchasing this product in order to make the most accurate representation that I can.


 You might want to wait then. No disrespect to Mr. Zangrando, but those are not the most accurate accurizing parts. The forward side engine nacelle details are no where near being the correct shape or have correct engraved detail. There is another correction part that addresses the entire forward 1/4 of the nacelle, which has that 'accurizing part' modeled accurately this time, correctly shaped housings and detail.

Fokkerpilot, it is very possible the plastic wasn't entirely cooled when ejected from the tool, causing distortion. We've seen it in the past. Maybe the new folks will work a little differently.

The bridge and array mount pins were a misinterpreted design flaw. All specs called for the holes in the saucer and clear lens part to accomodate LEDs. Instead of following the same specs which had no large locator pins, so they put corresponding pins in the bridge and array.

The secondary hull was spit up into those four segments to allow for the inclusion of all engraved panel lines, hull plating and other misc details on all four sides. The choice in doing so was an engineering thing.


----------



## ArthurPendragon

ThomasModels said:


> You might want to wait then. No disrespect to Mr. Zangrando, but those are not the most accurate accurizing parts. The forward side engine nacelle details are no where near being the correct shape or have correct engraved detail. There is another correction part that addresses the entire forward 1/4 of the nacelle, which has that 'accurizing part' modeled accurately this time, correctly shaped housings and detail.


Hmmm... They look right for me... but... you know... I may be wrong...


----------



## ThomasModels

ArthurPendragon said:


> My parts match with all drawings and with the model photos.


Not all of them.

http://dlmparts.com/images/640_Pendradon_Parts_web.jpg
When looking aft from fore, the forward engine parts are not flat, or slightly rounded on the ends with engraved lines in them as on your 'accurate' part.

Knowing that you have only the limited access of online images to build from, further proof of inaccuracies here:
http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent28.jpg (adjust gamma)
http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent37.jpg
http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent43.jpg

I also find it interesting that the discussion and ultimately the creation of 'accurate' parts came up immediately after I gave a peak to HobbyTalk members, an index of correction images submitted during the design and tooling process of the kit. Some of those images pointed out the needed design changes to the test shots, coincidently, similar changes as on your 'accurate' parts!

I'm glad I could help!:thumbsup:

Yes/No? Should we/Shouldn't we?
You guys really should make up your minds!


----------



## fokkerpilot

ThomasModels said:


> Fokkerpilot, it is very possible the plastic wasn't entirely cooled when ejected from the tool, causing distortion. We've seen it in the past. Maybe the new folks will work a little differently.


 

Thomas, I never gave that a thought. Maybe I'll try the boiling water trick which works on Ertl's EC pylons. Over all the kit kicks butt. 

Thanks!!

By the way, I am in no way condemming Thomas for some of the quirks. His attention to design detail is beyond reproach. Just had to toss that in there.


----------



## ThomasModels

I haven't even looked at that model in some time (Ack!) but I recall wanting to remove something like 2 or 3mm off each half of the warp nacelles along the bottom join line to make them narrower. Of course you'd have to realign them on their pylons and realign the aft outboard little wing thing to get things to sit straight.


----------



## irishtrek

The 3 pieces that go on the sides and bottom of the deflector housing why are there 2 different shapes for these? The only photos I've seen where they look different is of the studio model with out those covers.If you look real close at a photo of the Enterprise-A fom any of the last 3 films then you'l see that the covers are there. No offense to Thomas Sasser or any one else who might have had a hand in desining this kit.


----------



## woozle

The 'proper' pieces where lost at one point and a set of 'back-up' pieces where made out of darth vader tie figher parts. I think, it was for the filming of ST IV. Thomas cought the difference when almost none of the rest of us did.


----------



## ThomasModels

Woozle is correct. Only one scene in one of the six TOS movies showed that alternate part. It was in the beauty pass of the -A when she flew past camera in the final scene of Trek IV. Actually, I caught the difference when *no one* else did! And they still haven' caught it!










Anyway, there was only one designer for the 1/350 scale kit. PL was not a huge conglomerate with dozens of people in the design department. One guy picked the subject, another designed the kit breakdown, including the number of parts, what would be clear and what would be opaque and what features would be included.

Remind me to tell you that before I was hired, how very close the TOS 1701 came to being a simple 1/1400 scale snap kit with zero build options, just cuz it would 'fit the box'. For establishing a *new* scale in trek models, you're welcome!


----------



## bigjimslade

*Refit Windows*

The one thing about the refit kit that bugs me is the large windows where you paint the frames.

I used .06x.06 strip to fill the frames of rec deck and they look great. I intend to fill the gaps with resim.

I have some polyester sheet to use for the arboretum and plan to use .04 sheet with frame cust. The polyester is much truer optically than the kit parts.

What I am wondering about is the lounge windows. Has anyone done anything with them. If so, what?


----------



## woozle

ThomasModels said:


> I haven't even looked at that model in some time (Ack!) but I recall wanting to remove something like 2 or 3mm off each half of the warp nacelles along the bottom join line to make them narrower. Of course you'd have to realign them on their pylons and realign the aft outboard little wing thing to get things to sit straight.


Is it my imagination, or should the bottom of the nacelles be rounded... or would it look right if you narrow the bottoms of the nacelles by 4mm?


----------



## Marco Scheloske

ThomasModels said:


> The secondary hull was spit up into those four segments to allow for the inclusion of all engraved panel lines, hull plating and other misc details on all four sides. The choice in doing so was an engineering thing.


Ah, the secondary hull, the reason why I didn't start my refit till yet. I still don't understand why such a well engineered kit has such a huge fitting problem at such a relevant part - the top of the secondary hull. Not only the gap problem on the nacelle joints, but also the fit problem to the side panels. I really wish that a replacement part for that area would be made...

Greetings from Germany
Marco


----------



## CaptDistraction

mine fits pretty well minus the nacelle pylon joints, which will be an easy fill. However, I do think I will have to cut off some (.10") of the reinforcement cross that sits on the top of the shuttlebay, as my kit won't squeeze together as it sits.


----------



## Garbaron

Mine is an almost perfect fit too. Need to reduce the pylon supports a bit so ther will be no gap, but otherwise no roblems fit wise here either


----------



## REL

Mine came with two big frizbee's in the box, they don't even fly very well. I was thinking of puttying in the holes on the top and maybe then I can throw it more than 10 feet and it will stay level. Oh, and one of the panel lines on the frizbee's are like 1/32 of an inch too far to the left so I want a refund.


----------



## Steven Coffey

Which panel?


----------



## REL

I'm not sure now, when my dog caught it in his mouth he bit it off. But it was definitely off, I'm sure of it, nothing like the studio model.


----------



## Captain April

That kind of begs the question....who's gonna do up this kit as the blown-up version from ST III?


----------



## RossW

Looks like the aft torpedo exhaust on the dorsal (refit vs. A) is identified incorrectly in the instructions: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=134840


----------



## starseeker

Is it just me, or do the engine pylons (like the Ertl kit) seem not quite thick enough? From all the references I can find, they seem to be between .060 and .080" thin. Not a lot to be sure, so that probably falls under the category of nit-picking. Horizontal panel lines on the engineering hull are as as much as 1/8" off, the engineering hull docking hatch does not line up properly with either the panel line or its proper position inside the cargo bay, and the botanical windows are also about 1/8 - 3/16" too high on the side of the hull. I've had one of my refits taped together and sitting on a desk since June while I've been trying to finish other projects. I've just noticed that the top rear of both pylons is starting to warp very considerably under the weight of the nacelles, the nacelles pulling down and away from the ship. Supporting the arguement on another thread that an armature will be necessary for this beast.


----------



## drewid142

I don't know about the accuracy issues but as for the armature... I've got two of the armatures, but I did a simple test build of the kit and it holds together just fine without them. I suppose adding a bunch of weight for lighting might increase the stress, but I was impressed with how sturdy she was just built right out of the box. No pics, as i didn't paint it or anything... just a simple test build to see what issues i might run into on the "real" build.


----------



## SteveR

The armature issue has been discussed elsewhere on multiple boards, so I won't go into it here. 

Regarding the docking ports on the secondary hull, I too find that they sit up a little too high. However, regarding their lining up with the cargo bay interior, since even the filming miniature's docking ports don't line up or match Probert's concept cross-section, that inaccuracy can probably be forgiven.


----------



## starseeker

Wow, you're right, the engineering docking port way too high on the minature in comparison with Andy Probert's cross-section. Rats, I really wanted to reconcile the interior with the exterior, too.


----------



## irishtrek

Besides who's to say there's not a ramp just inside the docking port?


----------



## Trek Ace

St:tmp.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox

Ok...admittedly, this is knit-picking...please don't flame me...I love this kit... :thumbsup: 

After looking at pictures of several fantastic builds on this site and others, I kept wondering what it was about the lower dome and spotlight area that made me think it looked different than the studio model.

I went back and looked at the studio model pics (cloudster site) and realized that several of the angles on the PL refit piece are different than those on the studio model.

I am in the process of making these corrections with my kit (simply using an exacto knife and sanding) and will post some pics of my altered piece when complete.

Here's kinda what I am going after...Trekmodeler, I hope you don't mind, I used one of your pics for the "before and after" scenarios. The top pic is the original piece and the bottom is what I am suggesting. The red circles on the top pic indicate areas for modification.

Let me know what you guys think...


----------



## klgonsneedbotox

Here's 2 quick pics of my modified piece. There is no paint on it yet and the spotlight inserts are not present.

Sorry..these are a little blurrier than I had hoped for...


----------



## ArthurPendragon

Talking about "innacuracies" at the PL Refit, take a look at this: 

http://fesarius.hp.infoseek.co.jp/polar01.shtml 

The text in japanese, but the photos tell it all... I've never spot so much to accurize at that model !!!! 

He even rescribed the concentric deflector lines ... Is he correct ? 

:?


----------



## klgonsneedbotox

Wow...now that's a serious effort he has undertaken.

I suddenly feel so...inadequate...  

But seriously...that takes a lot of time and effort just to recognize the differences let alone make the actual fixes. Based on the resized/relocated ports/windows and the changes to the ridges on the sensor dish housing (I noticed those as well before), I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he is correct with the deflector lines (without having really looked into that previously).

I'm sure Thomas could tell us...

In any case...the effort is impresssive.

Can't wait to see the finished product.

BTW...check out some of the rendered images at the home page ...

http://fesarius.hp.infoseek.co.jp/index2.htm


----------



## Heavens Eagle

Don't just check out the rendered images. He also has a number of drawings and detail comparisons between the TMP and A versions. The detail also goes so far as to have drawings showing lines and markings as well as it looks like some portholes on the Starbord side are removed on the A. IIRC that particular panel was removeable for armature mounting the actual model. Too bad that there isn't some way to translate the Japanese to english so we can get all the information.


----------



## StarshipClass

REL said:


> Mine came with two big frizbee's in the box . . .




That's EXACTLY what I thought when I first opened the box!


----------



## Garbaron

@ Heavens Eagle 

Well I think by now it should have become common knowledge around here that prior to shooting the FX for ST IV TVH the starboard side panel covering of the mounting point got lost and was replaced with a new covering lacking the five view ports the original part featured. 

Regarding the work see at this link http://fesarius.hp.infoseek.co.jp/polar01.shtml 

I am always amazed on how some ppl really go over the edge with model building… 
I mean rescribbing the deflector lines…. I for my part can not see any inaccuracy in PLs rendition of them. And relocating the view ports by about 1mm… that is ridicules. And I really have no clue why he is reworking the deflector housing since that parts seams to be accurate to the studio model.


LOL and I just saw that he introduced an inaccuracy himself (third last picture on that page)!

I don’t know if he wants to build the Refit or the A but in any case his starboard side view ports will be wrong! He clearly “fixed” the afore mentioned covering section to mirror the three view ports at the port side (note that he filled the middle view port) but it should either have five as originally featured on the PL Refit or none at all (A version). To bad I can’t speak Japanese or I would point him to his mistake.

Well guess that happens when you take it too far… you loose focus and start fixing things that where not even wrong.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox

Garbaron 

Maybe what he is doing with the PL Refit is what makes it fun for him? Everybody has some aspect of the building process that they enjoy more than others.  

You also have to consider, if he created rendered images, then he spent a lot of time analyzing the studio model (one would assume) in order to try and make his cgi refit accurate (even if he did miss some things). I can only assume that the process he undertook to create the cgi refit is what led him to alter his PL refit.

Personally, I have always believed that even an inaccurately molded kit (they all are to an extent...it's the nature of the beast) can look nice, as long as it captures enough of the essence of the original. I have seem some ERTL refits that I think look better than PL refits simply because the entire presentation is better. So, I agree with you on accurizing to the "nth" degree...as least as far as my own builds go. But for some others, that desire for accuracy and making modifications to achieve it, may be what they get the most enjoyment from. :thumbsup:


----------



## starseeker

I honestly can't see anything wrong with the grid lines on the saucer either. Don't know what that's all about. But it's wierd what people will do. For example: I'm detailing my hangar bay to look as close to a 1/350 scale version of Probert's design as I can get, I mean, trying for a stupid degree of accuracy, and up on the saucer I'm seriously considering putting the rec deck underneath the VIP lounge where it was originally suggested that it go. I'd use the 4 flush-fitted giant windows from Mr. Probert's design, and the interior design of the TMP set, modified for the different windows. I think it would look really sharp, I'd have a rec deck that can actually fit inside the E, and it's totally non-accurate. I could have the window section removable and the 2 squares of saucer that I'd remove could fit back into their place. But that's part of the fun of modelling something that makes no sense, you can make up your own rules.


----------



## Nova Designs

Well, its an impressive effort, but I can't say that I agree with a lot of what he's doing. Not everyone sees the same thing and I guarantee you that guy does not have access to the actual miniature, only photographs, so all he's doing is extrapolating. Just because he sees something that he thinks is one way, that doesn't mean it is that way--no matter how much he studies something. 

I can tell you for a fact that his CGI model has some obvious flaws to it, and if he's basing his Polar kit off that then he's only making it more innaccurate, not less so.

I have personally seen plenty of people who have claimed to have studied studio models (this and other models) for _years_ etc... etc... only to build completely innaccurate CGI and physical models.

So don't take too much stock in what this guy is doing. He feels that he is making the model more accurate... that's great for his enjoyment. But I don't honestly think he is making it more accurate. I'm not trying to slam the guy, for what he's doing I just think his efforts should be kept in perspective. Seems like every time someone does something like this people assume that the changes are valid and start wondering if they should be doing them as well. After all the holy grail of Star Trek modelers for a lot of guys is a 100% accurate refit model.


----------



## Krako

I started all of this by posting the Fesarius link over at starshipmodeler in an attempt to help folks by referencing one of Fesarius' awesome CG renders. I really feel bad that I did now, because of the way people have reacted to his PL build. He's never posted anywhere that I know of and said "look at me! I'm building a super-accurate refit!" He's just a kindred spirit, who's obviously got the same level of love and respect for the refit as the rest of us. And, whether you think his CG Enterprise is 100% accurate or not, those renders are some of the coolest images of the Enterprise that I've ever seen.

I've corresponded with Fesarius via e-mail, and I can tell you that he is a very nice and very generous guy. Could we all cut him some slack on here, please???


----------



## Nova Designs

I think you're taking my comments a little too hard. I'm not trying to criticize him or accuse him of grandstanding. My point is that sometimes people see a guy going crazy on a model like he is and say to themselves, "OMFG look at that! This model is so messed up and I can't build it unless I accurize it like that!" And they do so with without even realizing that maybe the changes being made aren't correct or even necessary.

I've seen that so many times.... and have been a victim of it myself, especially concerning the old 18-inch Ertl TOS Enterprise and the Ertl Refit. A lot of those kits errors were much more glaringly obvious. I can tell you all that nitpicking took a lot of the enjoyment out of building. 

Don't confuse that with me thinking anything bad of "Fesarius" or his work. I hold no animosity towards him whatsoever. I just don't think that you can hold anything other than the real deal up as a _reference,_ something of which there is a LOT of good material available.


----------



## ArthurPendragon

Krako said:


> I started all of this by posting the Fesarius link over at starshipmodeler in an attempt to help folks by referencing one of Fesarius' awesome CG renders. I really feel bad that I did now, because of the way people have reacted to his PL build. He's never posted anywhere that I know of and said "look at me! I'm building a super-accurate refit!" He's just a kindred spirit, who's obviously got the same level of love and respect for the refit as the rest of us. And, whether you think his CG Enterprise is 100% accurate or not, those renders are some of the coolest images of the Enterprise that I've ever seen.
> 
> I've corresponded with Fesarius via e-mail, and I can tell you that he is a very nice and very generous guy. Could we all cut him some slack on here, please???



I didn´t point out to his work as a criticism... I was curious about he´s work and decided to let the rest os us take a look just to share opinions, but not criticisms.

He have the right to do anything he wants to have the model the way HE wants it (I do it all the time, so I´m someone to blame too, at this matter).

BTW, I believe hes work is simply outstanding, and congratulate him !!!

No slacks, truly. Keep up that work, the way he thinks it´s better !


----------



## H.Erickson

Nova Designs said:


> Well, its an impressive effort, but I can't say that I agree with a lot of what he's doing. Not everyone sees the same thing and I guarantee you that guy does not have access to the actual miniature, only photographs, so all he's doing is extrapolating. Just because he sees something that he thinks is one way, that doesn't mean it is that way--no matter how much he studies something.
> 
> I can tell you for a fact that his CGI model has some obvious flaws to it, and if he's basing his Polar kit off that then he's only making it more innaccurate, not less so.
> 
> I have personally seen plenty of people who have claimed to have studied studio models (this and other models) for _years_ etc... etc... only to build completely innaccurate CGI and physical models.
> 
> So don't take too much stock in what this guy is doing. He feels that he is making the model more accurate... that's great for his enjoyment. But I don't honestly think he is making it more accurate. I'm not trying to slam the guy, for what he's doing I just think his efforts should be kept in perspective. Seems like every time someone does something like this people assume that the changes are valid and start wondering if they should be doing them as well. After all the holy grail of Star Trek modelers for a lot of guys is a 100% accurate refit model.





> I think you're taking my comments a little too hard. I'm not trying to criticize him or accuse him of grandstanding. My point is that sometimes people see a guy going crazy on a model like he is and say to themselves, "OMFG look at that! This model is so messed up and I can't build it unless I accurize it like that!" And they do so with without even realizing that maybe the changes being made aren't correct or even necessary.


I have to agree with Nova here, and I too do completely applaud and totally respect Fesarius’s efforts. He has absolutely incredible renderings which I’ve greatly enjoyed and have been inspired by. I’ve also looked very long and hard at Fesarius’s design correction diagrams, but like Nova stated I too think that there is some extrapolating here. I also totally agree with Arthur's statements:



> I didn´t point out to his work as a criticism... I was curious about he´s work and decided to let the rest os us take a look just to share opinions, but not criticisms. He have the right to do anything he wants to have the model the way HE wants it (I do it all the time, so I´m someone to blame too, at this matter).
> 
> BTW, I believe hes work is simply outstanding, and congratulate him !!!
> 
> No slacks, truly. Keep up that work, the way he thinks it´s better !.


----------



## Krako

Thanks for the clarifications, guys. I just hate seeing someone's efforts not given the same level of respect that each of us would expect for our own efforts. 

Since I can't interpret Japanese, I can't tell for sure what he's trying to do. It'll be fun to see how his refit turns out. If he puts the same level of creativity and talent into it as what he's done on his CG renders, it'll be very cool (regardless of if it's "accurate" or not)!


----------



## Richard Compton

I've been to that guy's page before. His CG stuff is great, specifically where he integrates the interiors into the model. His shuttlebay complex, and also the render showing all of Engineering sitting inside the ship. It's just very very cool.


----------



## starseeker

After everyone on this site has downloaded Karl Tate's incredible pics of the A in NY, it's got to be time to get this thread started again. 
Is it just me or do the A's pylons look much thicker on the miniature? I've searched until I'm half-blind and I can see no signs of ribbing in the recesses of the pylons on the A, which most people (incorrectly?)say is supposed to be there.
In some photos, the purple grills inside the nacelles are clearly visible on the A.
I never noticed the multi-colored panels on the hangar bay doors before.
Again, is it just me, or is the TMPs original pearlescent colors showing thru the A's re-paint job, esp on the saucer?
Again, it's so subjective, but in photo eaDSC07441, is the clearly blue strongback in most photos reflecting the much debated green tint?


----------



## Raist3001

> I've searched until I'm half-blind and I can see no signs of ribbing in the recesses of the pylons on the A, which most people (incorrectly?)say is supposed to be there.


You are correct, there is no ribbing in the recessed areas of the pylons.


----------



## Flux Chiller

Loads of things I never noticed, now we have such close up pics. But hey, you never see that level of detail in the subdued light of the films, so I don't care too much. Personally I am still more interested in a ship that looks more like the celluloid version than just the model in very bright light. Not an easy thing to achieve.

Going back a page, I missed the Japanese guy's astonishing draftmanship and engineering work on the refit. What a credit to the world of model builders.


----------



## starseeker

Why has this thread been unstuck?
The new photos of the Refit have prompted me to start going over everything I've downloaded over the years. In addition to everything already noted above:
1. I've always had scale questions about the E but w/o any dimensions from either the design or the miniature, those have to wait. 
2. Upper hull grid lines. Despite Fesarius I still can't find anything to indicate that the saucer grid lines are noticably out of whack, unlike the engineering hull lines.
3. Seems like the phasers are not quite big enough, that they need to be just 1/16" taller and very slightly wider.
4. The frames around the lower sensor lights are too square. They should be angled from the hull more. The sensor body between the lights also meets the hull too squarely, the angle there should be much sharper. The ribs from the base of the dome extend too far and the detail overall is too soft. This piece would be perfect for a resin replacement part. 
5. Karl Tate's photos show that the docking port on the side of the saucer stands proud of the edge of the saucer.
6. Upper dome is also too ribbed. 
7. I thought so! I mentioned this before and the Tate photos seem (to my eye and ruler, anyway) to confirm the fact that the main sensor is a good 1/8" too short on the model. Best fix is to saw the dome holder in half, shim with styrene and sand and putty and replace that trio of frames and putty and sand some more. That's this am's project for me, I think. 
8. The pylons are blueprint thickness correct but too thin for the miniature. 
9. Biggest surprise: The front of the nacelles, the portion in front of the flux jammer whatever, is nearly 1/4" too short. It is also not angled enough. The front angle should match the model's angle for the flux whoosis frame. A very nasty fix - not the depth so much but the angle. Anyone with a resin replacement to the rescue?
9 1/2. Very small quibble: some of the tiny bumps and boxes on the nacelle aren't in the right places. They are not symmetrical on the nacelles on the miniature.
10. The bulge on the bottom of the pylons where nacelles connect is angled more at the back, not as blunt.
11. The nacelle top two flat layers are not quite thick enough, and their edges are too soft. Easy fix is just to sand them off and replace them with thicker layers of styrene. Possibly top coat one of the layers with curved thin brass to open the front (?) and back edges as on the minature.
12. And of course the Taft pictures show how the details around the hangar bay have been oversimplified, another call for a resin replacement. Are you listening, Arthur and Don?
13. The engineering hull lines, ports, and botanical bay location, but that's been much mentioned on various threads already.
That's about all from me for this am. Who's next with their list?


----------



## starseeker

14. Rec Deck windows too small, not tall enough.


----------



## Raist3001

I have found that there is a large gap in the neck once the impulse engines are applied to the primary hull. I have 4 refits, and had to open each one to see if this problem was present in a naked kit. And it was. The gap is also present when the DLM impulse engines are used. Not sure if this has been mentioned, but has anyone else had this problem?


----------



## marc111

I havent got that far yet, but I expected it with the DLM part.

On another note here are a couple more that I am correcting:
1) The lower sensor dome is missing the broad raised band around the base of the dome.

2) The rear slanting surface of the dorsal should be a uniform width from top to bottom. In the kit it is the correct width at the top, but thins as it approaches the base. This is part of the reason the base area around the torpedo exhaust grill doesn't lok quite right.

3) The small slanting wall projections at each side of theoutermost part of the lower sensor dome where the lights are need to be extended slightly by add-on pieces to match properly. Also the forward facing flat top surface must e extended slightly.

4) If you are doing the refit, the exhaust grill itself is correct at the rear but is too wide at the front wider end. For the refit it should be less wide than the dorsal at the wide end.

5) and possibly mentioned earlier the vertical line of windows is slightly too far away from the raised detail running up the dorsal and the top most window in that line is slightly too low.

6) By correcting the DLM nacelle grill parts by filing in the overall curved contour and recutting /widening the groves you get a really close match to the real grills.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## Trek Ace

This one's for starseeker:

 m-i-n-*i*-a-t-u-r-e


Good call on those details, by the way.


----------



## bigjimslade

*Pylon Connection*

On the movie model, the rear ends of the pylons match up to the rear end of the lower bulb on the the warp engines.

http://204.2.104.176/karl/christiesaucday01/pages/eaDSC07319.htm

On the model, the bulb extends beyond the pylon,.


----------



## Daikaiju1

An' it looks like the OUTSIDE of the inner warp grilles is dark purple, not just the light that shines thru it. or is it just me...


----------



## fokkerpilot

It would have been nice to have the saucer rim molded into either the upper or lower saucer halve. The other bug-a-boo I have with this kit is the the 4 piece secondary hull. Yes, I realize there are grid line differences between the refit and the "A". A 2 piece section would have been much better to work with. Grid lines could have been re-scribed by the builder.

Even with the curent configuration, some of the window placements are out of whack. There are multiitudes of discrepancies with this kit, but those have already been mentioned. This may have been a good design on paper. Polar Lights obviously screwed it up when they "ad-libbed" during the tooling process.


----------



## SteveR

Daikaiju1 said:


> An' it looks like the OUTSIDE of the inner warp grilles is dark purple, not just the light that shines thru it. or is it just me...


Yep, the ribs are purple, even when not lit.


----------



## marc111

One more inaccuracy:
On the rear surface of the nacelles a small "U" shaped piece with bumps is inserted around the center detail. The parts go into place as labeled in the kit and fit correctly.

However based on the following closeup:
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent46.jpg

The pattern of the bumps (look closely for the large square bump that appears just above the horizontal wing) is opposite to that shown on the cloudster and Christies pictures. For the best accuracy these two pieces need to be swapped and placed on the opposite nacelle compared to what is indicated in the instructions.

There are two indents at the bottom open end of the "U" shaped piece to allow it to fit correctly with the center detail piece. In order to swap the pieces and have everything fit correctly you need to file the shorter indent until it is the same length as the longer indent on the other side. This will allow you to then put each U piece on the opposite nacelle and bring the bumps into alignment with the photos. 

If you want to get really picky you can also then adjust the number of some of the other bumps for a closer match as well.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## marc111

One more:
The slots for the rec room windows are slightly too narrow. The top edge of the top slot and the bottom edge of the bottom slot need to be filed out until they are even with the innermost groove in the wall section. See the closeup at cloudster:
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent27.jpg

and the recent Christies pictures especially.

http://204.2.104.176/karl/christiesaucday01/pages/eaDSC07464.htm

Mark


----------



## starseeker

Re: Fesarius:
I've been pouring over every photo of the top of the Refit that I have, Photoshopping the best ones to size, and measuring and remeasuring, and after hours of this, there is absolutely no question in my mind that the panel lines on top of the saucer on the PL Refit kit are accurate. The easiest picture to confirm this from is one that I have that is numbered 1701a1.jpg. I don't know where or when I got it, but virtually everyone reading this should have it stored somewhere. It's a top view looking back at the Refit. Just enlarge to the PL kit's size and measure. Close enough. If you do that with every damn picture you have of the top of the saucer, you'll see that the panel lines are accurate.
So I have no idea where Fesarius got alternate grid line diameters from. 
In attempting to sort out accuracy issues with the PL Refit, I started with David Kimble's TMP blueprint package and Photoshop enlarged it. In fact, if you enlarge his plans by 1.9018X, they are an absolute, precise match of the PL Refit kit. The one huge exception is the front of the nacelles. I'll explore that in more detail maybe tomorrow if I get some time. 
Smaller but still significant exception is the panel lines. My plan is to first see how accurate Kimble's plans are compared with all photos of the E that have appeared in the years since, esp the Christie's shots. And the Kimble panel lines are not accurate. Once I figure out where they differ from the photos, I can compare the full size drawings to the PL Refit. 
Note: don't look for pretty here. I'm just trying to figure out how this thing is supposed to work.
The panel lines are not accurate on the side of the eng hull, nor is the window placement. A rough scribble of where the correct panel line and window placement should be is attached. If you took a section of the hull directly aft of the garden windows, the cross section of the panel lines would match the second attachment. The circular cutout should be about 92mm. ( The middle "Panel Line" should be "Center Line".) You can see how the panel lines, windows, etc need to be moved somewhat. That also requires a change in the inner structure to move and support the garden/cargo bay. 
It appears that between Andy Probert's design of the cargo bay and the making of the miniature, the panel lines and docking hatch placement was changed to accommodate the pennant. So the hatch is not even with the deck level nor is it vertical. 
There seems to be a very slight difference in the profile of the area surrounding the sensor/deflector dish. I'm talking about tiny differences in the order of a millimeter or two from the kit.
The kit captures the small difference from the Kimble drawing of the curve of the fantail.


----------



## starseeker

Still studying the upper primary hull. Every single picture I scale to the PL kit still has the concentric panel line match PL kit's. The impulse engine unit seems dead on from above, tho we all know the back of the unit is way off.
The bridge unit also scales extremely well. I can't see how any part of it is over sized.
Moving on: there is a problem - tho very slight - with the concentric rings on the bottom of the primary hull. They are not evenly spaced, as they appear to be in photos. If you number them starting at the running light with ring 1 and end up at the sensor bed with ring 7, the spacing between ring 5 and 6 is perfect, making ring 1 is correct, ring 2 is slightly outboard, ring 3 is slightly inboard, ring 4 is pretty much dead on and rings 5 and 6 are slightly inboard. None of them are off by more than 2 mm. Enough to worry about? Not for me, that's for sure. The overall width of the sensor bed also seems dead on. Again, I don't know what prompted Fesarius to re scribe all of this so radically.
And, people have talked about the lower sensor being inaccurate. From photos of the bottom of the Refit, the width of the sensor unit seems dead on compared with the resat of the bottom of the primary hull. If the width is accurate, then this almost dead on looking at it view should give the shape pretty accurately. Make this attachment 52.5mm wide and lay your sensor bed over top, and it's almost perfect. The PL Refit's doesn't flare out quite as widely at the base of the front extension as it should, but aside from the soft detail the PL Refit's looks close enough to an exact match size and shape wise.


----------



## Gunstar1

It's not the shape of the lower sensor array looking from below that bugs me... it's the profile (see attached of studio model). The PL part profile is far too rectangular (reminds me of the crummy AMT part)... not just the 4 light-housing-protrusions, but the circular "pyramid" on which the sit. So far, no one else has addressed this issue.

Glad to hear I don't have to rescribe the grid lines. Yuck!


----------



## starseeker

The PL lower dome assembly is very close in overall footprint and height to proper size as far as I can tell. The dome itself is very close to the proper diameter and height. As you say,Gunstar, it's the details. 
Attached are a couple of photos with my superimposed details drawn on top. Comparing the reconstructed photos to the PL kit part, the main differences are:
The flat base that the dome sits on is too narrow in diameter.
The slanting tops of the three shot extensions are therefore too long.
The forth extension to the front is still too short.
The "vertical" sidewall to the outer cylinder is too vertical - it should have a much greater angle. It is also too tall around its circumference.
The "vertical" sidewalls of all 4 extensions are too vertical - they too should have a greater angle.
The ends of the 4 extensions are vertical and should angle back from their bases.
The tops of the 4 extensions (the "under roofs"??) are flat when they should be curved.
The outer ends of the 4 extensions are too square - they should be curved more but to a wider radius then the inner cylinder.
The 4 "square" blocks on the dome are too square, too large.
And of course all the details inside the 4 ends are missing. 
You know, I started this thinking that the lower dome assembly had a couple of detail problems but now that I finish that list, I realize that there's very little of it that can be saved. Easiest to cut off the dome and scratch a whole new part. Okay, there I do agree with Fesarius. 
Unless someone comes up with a decent aftermarket piece. 
PS The Ertl Refit needs one, too. 
Anyone?...


----------



## marc111

Thanks for the excellent comparison Starseeker. I had picked up on the wide strip around the base of the dome, the slanted leading edges, curving the front ends of the projections and the need to lengthen the front projection. While slightly bothered by the wall slants I had not realized they were that far off. Now the question is scratch build one or can I figure out an additional set of modifications that make the kit part acceptable. Hmmm.

Mark


----------



## marc111

Starseeker,
On the nacelles, to correct the front slant angle you need to make your vertical cut just in front of the two projections that frame the front of the top horizontal grill. If you cut further back you get the correct slant but not the correct length nose effect in front of the detail. See my web page (My Refit Insanity) thread for comparison and cut line pictures. I have my nacelles modified and now I need to complete the grill extensions. More pictures to come.

Mark


----------



## starseeker

Marc111 As long as you're not taking my word for anything. Measure everything 300 times yourself before touch a blade or sandpaper or Milliput. This is all so iffy.
Turned my brain into bad guano last night reading thru 20 plus pages of what I thought might be an interesting thread. But besides 20 plus pages of the same people nattering back and forth once again that they have the "real" blueprints to various Enterprises that they had promised their sources not to share with anyone, I did discover that Gary Kerr may indeed have visited various miniatures, possibly in the company of Andy Probert, and that his Cultman drawings may indeed be reasonably accurate, and that David Kimble may have been involved at some point, too. 
So in the hope that this is not an exercise in futility, here is the Kerr/Kimble version of the sensor dish area profile compared to the PL kit, and also overlaid on a brightness/contrast adjusted segment of my favorite Christie's side view of the miniature. 
And I'm not sure it proves anything at all. 
To my eye, comparing all the photos of the E, they seem more like the balance of Kerr/Kimble proportions. It's very subtle. It just doesn't seem (to me, and possibly to me alone) that the PL kit is quite right there. Even overlaying the lines on the photo doesn't do anything definitively. 
So was this an exercise in futility? Hey, at least it's only one post and two attachments.


----------



## marc111

Starseeker,
On the contrary, I have been taking your efforts very seriously as you are approaching the questions from the same point of view as I do. We have been in high agreement so far. My one minor disagreement has been with the way you made the cuts on the front of the nacelle. My comparisons indicate that the nose is slightly longer on the miniature than on the kit and thus my difference in the place I made that vertical cut line. Otherwise your angle fix is what I shall be using. I will try and post a pic tonight.

Your comments on the lower sensor dome and the saucer have been right on as far as I can see.

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

Do you have access then to high res files of Gerry Kerr's schematics? I can only find low quality images on the cult-tvman site. They do look better than Kimball's, and may be the next best thing to measuring distorted photos, though I may overlay measurement grids as imaginary planes (x/y grids that match the photo distortion) over studio model photos to make some of my own measurements.....
.... speaking of which, have either of you been compiling your measurements in any way? Partly just to organize all the info, but I'm pondering measuring everything and putting into some diagrams, like Kerr's.


----------



## marc111

Starseeker,
Thanks for the forward engineering hull comparison. referencing your drawing:
1) I agree with your conclusion (and the Kerr/Kim views) on the size of the two forward-most rings being equal instead of how they appear on the kit. This can be corrected by spacing the clear PL kit deflector piece forwards by .040 as I show on my web page.

2) I find that my comparison of the back rings more closely match the KIM reference rather than the Kerr reference in that I concluded that the rearmost ring was not wide enough on the kit and that if one added to its width by .030 you then also got visual lessening of the width of the next ring forward best matching the photo views. I do not believe they are equal in width.

The whole entire body may be slightly short as you show. I'll admit I did not check that aspect as you have just done. However it could be difficult to fix.

Gunstar1
For the most part I have been compiling the conclusions rather than the measurements themselves. Most are posted on my Web page.

Good comparison,
Mark


----------



## marc111

OK, As promised, I have used multiple views to compare the front of the nacelles and I get the same angle change result as Starseeker does. To be honest I was convinced the first time I saw his examples. However in order to establish some numbers for how far forward to push the nose I had to do some comparisons of my own. 

As a part of that process I used photoshop to produce the overlay below. This is from one of the best perpendicular views of the forward nacelle I could find. I used photoshoop took a picture of the kIt nacelle and then lined up the size and view. I was able to produe a good match at all points marked "A" indicating a good match. 








Like Starseeker's comparison this also shows the miniature nose (at the horizontal bar) forward of the kit nose. My comparisons led ,me to the conclusion the kit nose needs to be moved forward by .125" (B). One thing that jumped out and was confirmed in other comparisons is that it was the area forward of the raised detail that follows the line of the upper horizontal grill back to the dome light, that needs to be extended. The kit nose is too abrupt. This is the upper left point "A" in the picture. Extending at this point is easy but it will require more work on the grill than the original place to cut that Starseeker suggested.

Let me know what you think,
Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

This may help (it's based off of the same Christie's pic that Mark is using). I replaced the photos with traced vector graphics in adobe Illustrator (after overlaying in photoshop). This is from a previous thread posting. I chose the christies shot that was furthest away for minimal distortion. I was at least 8ft away from the PL parts when I took the pictures.

Warp Engine Comparison (see pdf)


----------



## marc111

This also is a good comparison. As I look closely at the side view it looks like if you reduce the size of the PL outline ever so slightly and then line up that top grill feature the bottom front corner and the nose results will line up with mine.

The line drawings suggest that the whole front of the kit nacelle might be a little short, yet when I look at the alignment on my view and check the bottom buldge the pylon attaches to my view is congruent at both the top and bottom.

I will admit I was not at 8 ft when I photographed the kit part. I was at more like 1/2 that distance. Still the shot is so perpindicular and I maintained that along with a similar aim point.

The details are so close at this point they only way to really be more certain may only be to measure the studio model

Wish I had illustrator. Being able to draw the lines comes in handy.

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

Very handy. You can do lines in photoshop, but it would be more time-consuming. As an example of the fun you can have with Illustrator, here's a little preview of my Impulse Engine treatment. I'll be making my own decal grilles - not happy with the quality of any I've seen. I blew up one of the older shots of the Enterprise engine close ups and traced every detail with vector lines in Illustrator - down to each and every little imperfection in the studio model piece. You can't use this for both sides though - the details are different (for all insane persons present). Once I get my DLM accurizing piece ACCURIZED, then I will fit the graphic to the final engine piece.
I'm almost done with the starboard side. What do you think?


----------



## starseeker

There is a great Christies picture of the Refit from a distance, from the side, that is tremendously useful, eaDSC07329.jpg, for anyone who's downloaded these. I photoshopped its nacelle to match the size of the height of the PL Refit, as well as Dave Kimble and Gary Kerr's plan views. 
Kimble's does not match in profile very well. His is a perfect match horizontally from the curve on the bottom of the nacelle, right back to the back tip, and also matches Kerr's almost dead on in all those respects. But Kimble's nacelle front angle is too great, and the overall height of the nacelle toward the front is very different, not nearly as tall. My suspicion is that Kimble had access to some actual studio blueprints that he based work on, and that ILM made some changes in the building. (That would also explain why his engineering hull panel lines make sense, and why they are different on the miniature: ILM needed to paint on pennants.) 
Gary Kerr's drawings are an almost perfect match when laid over the photo. The side view of the nacelle below is that enlarged photo with the essentials of Kerr's plan traced over top. As you can see, even with a bit of distortion in the photo, the match is almost perfect. So my suspicion there is that Kerr really did have access to the miniature and that is what his drawings are based on. 
The main differences with the PL kit from both the photos and Kerr's drawing are the angles of the front of the nacelle, the angle of front of the platform for the grilled part-ellipse, the shape of that grilled part-ellipse (which everyone has noticed), the thickness of the "wing" that circles around the front of the nacelle tip, and the thickness of the bulge where the pylons join. The spotlight hole on the kit seems small compared to the drawings. Maybe use a larger LED there. The stepped detail on top of the nacelle is rather soft on the model and could use a sand off and replacement of the layers. 
The smaller attach shows a scan of the kit part with the flux detail sketched over it a little more carefully than the overall side view, esp that angle. Ignore anything else you see in the rest of that scan as the image is pretty distorted. PL kit is solid lines in this, Kerr is dashed. 
The last scan is just Kerr's cross sections. You can see there that the profile of the kit's parts are close, but could be rounder on the bottom, the bottom bulge should be much deeper than the kit's part, and that the "wings" around the front tip of the nacelle don't extend to the sides enough.


----------



## starseeker

Wow, just caught up with the couple posts previous to my last that I didn't notice this am. Does my stuff ever look shabby by comparison. And redundant, too.
Nice work marc and gunstar!!
Like the profile work, gunstar. I still haven't had the nerve to cut one of my nacelles in half and see how it compares to Kerr's. Soon...


----------



## Gunstar1

Thanks! Did you get a chance to see the impulse engine grille graphic?


----------



## marc111

Starseeker, In one sense I am glad you first missed the last couple of posts. You analyzed from yet a third perspective and it lends a lot of weight to our conclusions to see the high degree of agreement in each of the views. I hadn't directly commented on it , but had noticed the way the area around the flux grills is of slightly on its angles as seen in all of our comparisons.

Gunstar1: I like the decal but need to be at home to look at photos so I can admire the exactness that I suspect is there. 

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

you could compare the engine graphics to any of the original-condition B&W pics (taken at end of TMP filming) or any color pics prior to Christie's (somehow the grilles were ripped out and lost....poor old E.)


----------



## starseeker

Then I remembered that this is going to be a Reliant nacelle anyway.
I really really hope I've made a mistake here somewhere. Or that Gary Kerr's profiles are wrong. 
The dashed lines are profiles traced from cross-sections of a cut up PL nacelle. 
At the nose, the band that runs across the front of the nacelle tip is in the right place compared to the nacelle bottom. There's just a lot more height above that cross piece. The PL nacelle bottom is pretty close, but the nacelle should be considerably wider on top. 
At the centerline, the PL nacelle cross section is too oval. It should be based on a cylinder 1 1/2" dia. Here the height is good overall, except that the final bulge at the bottom where the pylons meet isn't deep enough. This could be because ILM widened the pylons from the original blueprint size so that they would bear the weight of the nacelles. The PL kit's pylons may have been based on the blueprint/Kimble thickness. The top layers are too rounded. Photos show that, too. 
Or Kerr's drawings might be in error. But the properly scaled side view is a virtually perfect match with the Christie's photo... I suspect the same scaled profiles are probably right, too, then. 
Rats, this is a big fix. But these profiles look better when compared to photos, don't they?
I hope I've done something wrong somewhere.


----------



## marc111

Starseeker: Wow you cut up a nacelle. That's dedication. I need to spend a quiet evening tomorrow and stare at nacelle comparisons before I can comment. At first glance one thing that bothers me on your cross sections is that while some of the raised detail on the top of the nacelle is a bit shallow, it has not looked to me like the nose is off that far in height. 
Also my photo comparisons of the nose have not shown the discrepancy in angle of the side walls that your tracing shows. If you examine the photo overlay below you can see that the angle of the sides matches up quite well with the kit part being slightly wider. This also matches Thomas's own correction drawings that I checked after doing my own look.








Could there be a mismatch in the particular location of the plane along the length of the nacelle that you are using for the comparison?

Nor am I coming up with as much discrepancy on the bottom bulge. I will have to look some more to comment intelligently.

Gunstar1. Your grill is a really accurate copy of the following cloudster image. Kudos.








I have also been looking at this screen cap from STTMP.








As I look at the engines lit in this picture it seems to me that the grill lines are a constant width across the width without the shrinkage in width that shows up in the Enterprise-A model shot.

Also in this unlit B&W shot of the model that we know is the refit rather than the A they also appear to be constant width lines.









This is leading me to conclude that maybe the grill detail was redone between the Refit and the A.

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

Re- the impulse engine grilles -----
hm.... I'm not sure what you mean by "constant width"... I have all the same color and B&W shots, and I've superimposed (always adjusting for distortion angle) the vector image over all other photos and it matches perfectly.... the little "imperfections" that I mentioned (as far as how each slit starts and ends and changes in thickness) are consistent with the B&W images, screencaps (I, II, III), and cloudster images. To my knowledge and eyes, the engines were never modified in terms of the grille detail, until totally ripped off (neon tube is even exposed!) sometime before Christie's. 

Note how some of the slits are thicker, some have the "narrowing effect" coinciding with the inner, "lighter toned" trapezoid shape, some ends of the slits are more square, some come to a point, and they are not "predictable" with where they start and end (inner edge/right and outer edge/left). These inconsistencies in the graphic are apparent and identical in all said images. Could you clarify what you think does not match up?

I think I'll need to look at the engines again, but I think that I'm in agreement with Mark on the sidewalls of the Warp engines (see my pdf from earlier). I don't think height needs to be changed much, but the top and front end needs some major detail changes:

The grilles that run along the top and curve down towards the front... the PL kit has them too high up in their channels.

The rounded surface (front/top) containing the channels is too tall. The next bulge up is what needs to be taller.


----------



## starseeker

I always thought that the difference in the width of the grill louvers was due to a film/diffraction effect from the light source behind the grill. That they should really all be of an even thickness. ??
This is an edit of an earlier this am post in which I was still in shock at how different the PL traces were from the Kerr cross sections and wondering if the Kerr cross section could be trusted.
Then I looked at marc's overlay and thought I'd reduce it to the size of the Kerr and see how they compare. One of the attachement below shows Kerr's cross section in solid and marc's widest lines in dashed. I'm not sure I should have used those lines?
They were pretty close, I thought - still surprising in how different the PL cross would be. Then I thought I'd go back and look at pictures of the miniature. 
Marc, below is a different front view of the nacelle than you use - md_enta-53. If you make the Kerr cross and this puppy both 50mm high, even tho there is a little curvature in the photo, they are almost a dead on match. 
Here are a couple of crops of the top of the nacelle. The top bulge has an obviously much more vertical sidewall and the spacing of each segment from center of each step is almost even. And I realize that the reason that the bulges toward the front of the nacelle are more pronounced than in mid-section are because of those hollow steps lengthwise along the curved sections. 
I'd be really curious about how your analysis would work if you used a different front view.


----------



## marc111

Gunstar1, You may be correct. WhatI meant re the engine grills is that when I look at the black and white image / screen cap and expand or enhance it I do not see a clear neckdown circa the lighter patch as is seen in the enterprise A picture. It may be my eyes or the photoresolution as the A picture is a much higher resolution shot. I may also be slightly biased as well as I think it looks better with even width lines. As I look at the black and white on a different monitor there is more of a suggestion of a neck down in width in that area than on my home monitor. Guess I'll still frame the DVD on my TV to convince myself, cause you are dead on with your graphic when I look at the A photo.

Mark


----------



## starseeker

For the first time, this thought just hit me: Any thoughts on how to get these brilliantly engineered rock solidly interlocking snap tight and also cemented together with superglue nacelles with wires running thru them off of the model not only for a serious rebuilding purposes but with leaving enough intact to put the thing back together again?


----------



## starseeker

No amateur astronomer would in any circumstances advocate looking at or near the sun with your naked eye. So unless you have welder's glass or a specific solar filter, use a different light source. But I've always thought that the effect of the width of the impulse grills was the same thing as if you block out the sun with something long and narrow, like a tree branch. The intense light source diffracts around the tree branch and makes it seem narrow for that particular stretch. Film captures that effect even better than the eye, tho w/o permanent retinal damage. That shimmering panel at Spocks station on the TOS E, and the bg to the Green Hornet credits use the same effect - an artist named Moire (sp?) made the use of diffraction/interference really popular back then. Telescope makers use the same thing - the Ronchi test - on our optics. It seems like there could be something behind the grill (the light source in the centre, the sides of the mounting space?) that may be causing a diffraction/interference effect that makes the grill slats seem to widen and narrow. The grill could be acting as a diffraction grating, or ILM could have used a diffraction grating (either a "real" one or anything clear with evenly spaced parallel lines will do) as a diffuser for the impulse light effect. (In fact, I'm going to use one of mine - cool idea!) If the light source is close to the grill, then the effect would remain almost stationary. If the light source or whatever it is is farther behind the grill, then if it's diffraction/etc the effect should shift a little from different viewing angles. That's something you could look for. 
I'd always assumed I'd make what changes to the nacelle were needed in situ. You know, a couple of layers of styrene to make soft edges more defined, like that. Now that I think about it, it's just the scale of corrections that's changed a bit. It can still be done by applying layers. Only more of them. And not all of them flat. Sigh.


----------



## Gunstar1

I know what you mean by the effect of a silouette in front of intense light. This does not happen in the movie though. See attached b&w screencap. The inner trapezoid is there even with engines off. Also, look at the previous posted pic of engines turning on.... the light source is actually not at the center of the inner/lighter trapezoid, it's off to the left a little bit (on left engine) - on top of that, the light source is a bent, rounded neon tube (see christies pics) and so the light source is more oval - it almost seems that the inner trapezoid effect was meant to simulate the engine source.
This engine grille effect (thinner lines in the middle) is actually standard for many star trek models - the vulcan shuttle (warp sled), the Enterprise D, -B, to name a few that come to mind.


----------



## starseeker

This is a crop from the miniature of the A. I have no idea which A iteration it might be. This shows what appears to be a diffraction pattern of something seen thru parallel etched clear something. The something making the pattern is what ever it is we can see in the Christie's pictures. Besides being monumentally unspecific, this only proves (or indicates very strongly) that at some point the impulse grill in the A was all parallel and only even slats. Note how the slats don't just widen but even seem to bleed into one another in places. 
Searched thru every picture I can think of and they show nothing relating to the original Refit part. Except: I have in a magazine one grainy photo of Andy Probert sitting in front of the partially draped (the deflector dish) original Refit. You can almost see the grill pattern. But not quite clearly enough to say anything for sure. But I have seen a much better version of this picture attached in a thread somewhere. Someone out there has a better version of it, and I bet that will show the original grill very clearly.


----------



## Gunstar1

Here's the pics. 
The reason why your pic is acting funny ("lines bleeding into each other") is because its a low res file, and the pixels are trying to best interpret the available info. I have the higher res pics here. Middle pic is from Christie's, showing the exposed neon tubing. 

Compare the other 2 pics to the screencap of E going into impulse in TMP. Its the same - identicle. Note the notch in the upper left of the left engine which is not in the right engine (in all pics with grilles) 

I don't believe the grilles changed or were ever replaced from when Magicam built the ship. The only modification ILM ever did was dulling the paint, battle damage, making the greens blue, replacing surface marking decals, and the attraction sensor pieces for IV (only IV). Now unfortunately, as seen in the pic here from Christie's, whatever material that held the grilles has been ripped off of the ship, leaving the innards for all to see.

I did my homework on the impulse engines years ago, since that was the part on the AMT kit that I hated for its innacuracy, and the part on the studio model that I thought was very important for the look and feel of the ship.


----------



## starseeker

I see it! At least I can't explain what I see in this any other way. Damn, that means I have to redo my photoetch. Edit ... And this is the same picture I see on your attachment above... Sigh.


----------



## Gunstar1

hmm... are you doing photoetch because you are lighting the engines? I've not yet dealt with photoetched pieces... I'm planning on just printing mine as a decal, but it'll be as a vector graphic so that it will be just as clean as cut metal - as opposed to various pixellated decal options. 

I will soon be done with the starboard engine grille - how bout this - you send me a scanned sketch of the outline of your impulse piece (the edges of the left and right main trapezoids) and I will adjust the grapics to your outline and you could use that for either photoetching or decal ( as my graphics are based on a 2D photo, each side needs to then be distorted - in AdobeIllustrator - to the correct proportions and angles of the final DLM kit piece, which I still need to modify, but I could easily set it up to fit yours )


----------



## starseeker

Thanks, gunstar. Very kind offer that I will definitely keep that in mind. I'm doing up some artwork right now that I should be able to copy this into. Before that, tho, I'm going to double-double check the impulse unit based on the Christie's photos (and now that I noticed it for the first time??) the side view on the Kerr schematic and make sure I'm not going to be re-sizing/shaping that, too. (How is it that so much that I thought was nicely locked down is changing?) (How did I not pay particular attention to the Kerr before this? I used his drawings to make (start) a 1/220 A hangar deck. Never noticed the rest of the E.)
Removed my redundent attach above and added this one in its palce:


----------



## marc111

I am also leaning towards Gunstar1 being correct on the grills. He has done a lot of verry good homework on this one. I poped in the directors cut DVD and did a frame by frame at that first point where the refit goes into impulse the first time and you can see that they actually brought up the lighting as a rampup to the full intensity. It allows you to completely correlate the max intensity spot to the location of the neon tube in the Christies photo. Maybe my eyes are playing tricks or its the TV resolution but the darn grill stripes look constant width to me in those frames. So next I put the DVD into my PC so I could look at it on my monitor. I cropped the screen capture and what I got is below.








It sure looks like constant width lines to me. Would you interpret the image differently.

Confused,
Mark


----------



## starseeker

And now I don't. See it, I mean.
I, too, went thru the DVD and the VHS early this am. I think it's exactly the moment of the screen capture of marc's, above just as the impulse engines light up, that the grill on the left has a pattern, but the grill on the right of the screen doesn't. As the grills brighten, the pattern on both sides increases. But asymmetrically. The pattern goesn't go as many grill layers down on the right as the left. Which brings me back to diffraction. 
Below isn't a screen cap, its from the STTMP Photostory book. It's not as clear as I'd like, but it's res pushes my max attachment size. It shows a little more fuzzily but still shows that the grill on the right seems all straight lines.
Also, whatever picture I look at, I notice that the top 2 and bottom 2 grill lines are thinner than all the others. 
Also, the DVD, at index 2026, after Scott (he's so young!!) takes Kirk past the E for the first flyby, circles the ship for a second pass, just before they dock, there's a great shot of the unlit grills, and again the one on the right is so mos def just straight lines. Only the one on the left shows the pattern. 
Also, is the impulse crystal glowing orange?? How else to explain the orange glow reflecting from the top of the impulse deck.
And, very clearly, when the self-illumination switches on, what I always assumed was the tail fin RCS - it comes on the moment the light shines on the registry # on the nacelle. Is that a spotlight or a RCS thruster. 
And if those things that I always assumed are RCS thrusters are thrusters, why are they all illuminated along with the windows? Wouldn't they only light when they're in use??


----------



## starseeker

Found this shot of the nacelle in one of my ILM books, while looking for grill details. Also found a Great shot of the Excelsior (another thread). This is probably available on the net somewhere, but just thought I'd post it briefly to show the steepness of the curves on the upper nacelles. They really could be matching the Kerr cross sections.


----------



## marc111

Starseeker:
1) yes the impulse crystal glows redish-orange in STTMP. It changed to blue in later movies.
2) Yes I see the smae straight line pattern in your image as well.

3) The RCS Thruster lights / nacelle outter spot light coming n at the same time kind of bothers me as well. One of them could be lighting the nacelle.

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

I'm trying my best to convince you guys that the lines in the grilles do not stay the same thickness! Take a look at the attached. 

Impulse crystal is red red. I had a thread about lighting and whatnot a while back....


----------



## starseeker

The more I look, the more confused I am. Your image D, left hand grill, just doesn't match the right hand grill. Some photos, there's definitely something there. Others, there definitely doesn't seem to be. That the effect changes with light and is asymmetrical = vague circumstantial evidence that makes me lean toward something inside the miniature bleeding thru. That the neon tubes are in roughly the same place as where the effect occurs, more circumstantial evidence to my mind. Tho not near at all conclusive. It still could be the shape of the physical grill itself. I may have to try to replicate this effect somehow. For sure I'm going to use some kind of diffraction grating/diffuser inside.
Mark - actually the excellent photo I found of the Excelsior is in "ST Where ... Before ...History in Pictures" of the Refit pulling into spacedock, pg 60-62, and it shows this bizarre lighting I'd totally forgotten about. No, that the "Enterprise" on the bottom of the fantail remains lit I did remember, but on the pennant on the side of the eng hull, in addition to the starfleet insignia head of the pennant, there is bright light shining perfectly for the full length and just between the long red lines, illuminating "starship...federation...planets" 
What the ???
Is that where the second nacelle spot points? Or is this transparent aluminum?


----------



## Griffworks

starseeker said:


> Mark - actually the excellent photo I found of the Excelsior is in "ST Where ... Before ...History in Pictures" of the Refit pulling into spacedock, pg 60-62, and it shows this bizarre lighting I'd totally forgotten about. No, that the "Enterprise" on the bottom of the fantail remains lit I did remember, but on the pennant on the side of the eng hull, in addition to the starfleet insignia head of the pennant, there is bright light shining perfectly for the full length and just between the long red lines, illuminating "starship...federation...planets"
> What the ???
> Is that where the second nacelle spot points? Or is this transparent aluminum?


IIRC, that's yet another of those points where light from _Enterprise_ herself couldn't possibly, phyiscally be played if you use the ship itself and all known light sources. It's yet another example of external light sources used to light the studio model. 

Aren't dental mirrors wonderful?


----------



## Gunstar1

The left grille IS NOT the same as the right, as I've said before. This further proves that the grille never changed, (because they stay that way in all 6 films) and that the cloudster pictures are accurate. Can't you see the effect in the studio model shots from cloudster? Look at any unlit engine shots in the movies - there is always the brighter trapezoid spot in the middle of each engine (before you even get close enough to see the grille pattern). Are you saying that the cloudster images are not the same studio model?


----------



## marc111

First Gunstar 1, Thank you for posting that last graphic.
I am now convinced you are right.
1) The grills are slightly different right to left sides. The upper outside corner patterns are a good example.
2) No one but a crazy modeler would replace the grills, keeping that kind of small idiosyncracy in place. And there is not evidence that the modelers that worked on the E for touchups were that level of careful.

I am still fascinated by how much they look like uniform width lines when lit up.


----------



## starseeker

Hmmm, wonder where this mornings reply went to. Someone's reading it, going, "what the...?"
It went something like: No, you're definitely seeing something. I see it too - the picture I posted that was the same as the picture you posted just before. But I just can't figure out if it's the grill or something behind the grill. I'm 75% convinced that the grill is all even slats, altho of different thicknesses near top and bottom. But that doesn't make sense. No, 75% convinced all even slats with something refracting the light near the edges on all sides. I've got some more figuring to do on this.


----------



## bigjimslade

starseeker said:


> Re: Fesarius:
> In attempting to sort out accuracy issues with the PL Refit, I started with David Kimble's TMP blueprint package and Photoshop enlarged it.


Got to say that the Kimble blueprints are not very accurate. I won't go into a long list of obvious errors. However, being consistent with these blueprints does not convince me of being authoritative.


----------



## bigjimslade

starseeker said:


> Still studying the upper primary hull. Every single picture I scale to the PL kit still has the concentric panel line match PL kit's. The impulse engine unit seems dead on from above, tho we all know the back of the unit is way off.


It looks to me like the the impulse engine on the model flares out slightly to the rear. The PL model has the sides parallel.


----------



## starseeker

Just using them as a place to start. They're on paper, they show something purporting to be the Es shape from all angles. Then compare them to everything else that can be found and find out where the differences are. Given, as I said earlier, that the PL kit, with the exception of a few things like the nacelle forward ends (and possibly the cross section) is an almost perfect enlargement of the Kimble plans, they seem like a reasonable place to begin. I'm starting to think that if the PL kit WAS a completely perfect enlargement of the Kimble, there's be less to fix. But what would be the fun of that?


----------



## Gunstar1

I, being a graphic designer of relatively sound mind, hereby state that I believe all confusion regarding the impulse engine grille is the result of trying to anylize low resolution images (including screencaps) where what would normally be a clean line is a fuzzy mirage leading one's mind astray.

I was browsing thru my library and found some more images that might clarify things for people. All but 2 are from when the studio model had just completed filming in TMP. One is a promo shot (before filming), and another is cloudsters (wherever that stuff came from). Enjoy!

http://andy.grams.googlepages.com/ImpulseAgain.jpg


----------



## bigjimslade

Gunstar1 said:


> I, being a graphic designer of relatively sound mind, hereby state that I believe all confusion regarding the impulse engine grille is the result of trying to anylize low resolution images (including screencaps) where what would normally be a clean line is a fuzzy mirage leading one's mind astray.


IN pictures 1 &2 there looks like a narrowing. In 3-5 it does not.

I do point out that such a "narrowing" could easily be an optical illustion equivalent from digital imagine. You have light pixels against dark pixels when scanned at low resolution the boundaray between the two ends up as a band of grey pixels. When you enlarge it creates a light areas that does not really exist.


----------



## uscav_scout

So here's a good question...if building the refit the IMPULSE should be red-orange...(I won't get into the crystal). But in ST V, the IMPULSE was blue-white. There is also a promo shot of the E in the dry dock with the blue-white engines...the nacels are also lighted up too. Check out the Art of Star Trek book.

Seriously I'm trying to do this model on the cheap...OK so I've spent close to 400 already on lights (which I have little knowledge how to do) , paint, masks, poto-etch stuff (which I have no idea how to work with, didn't have this stuff when I was 13!) 

Really though, compared to the AMT...This model rocks! Stand sucks though (another thing that I need to figure out) 

RECON


----------



## uscav_scout

One other thing that has been bothering me for about 15 years...in ST III, when leaving space dock, the E is backing up. The IMPULSE engines are thrusting forward! Now I, did flunk out of college (hence, why I'm still in the Army), but how do you back up when you thrusting forward? I know the RCS thrusters cant be that strong!

I know this has nothing to do with the whole PL Inaccuracies and Fixes thing, but I just had to gei it out there.

RECON


----------



## marc111

bigjimslade said:


> It looks to me like the the impulse engine on the model flares out slightly to the rear. The PL model has the sides parallel.


Just to clarify, the PL kit impulse deck also flares out to the rear. It is not parallel. I just measured it with vernier calipers.
Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

Thanks for checking Mark - hooray! One less thing to fix!

As far as the impulse engines coming out of spacedock, I think it's just an inconsistency created by the fact that in II-VI the engines are almost always on, even if stationary. Kirk even says "one-quarter impulse". Just a convenience of plot devices and what looks cool onscreen. TMP is the only relatively logical portrayal... but even in TMP there are inconsistencies... but it looks dang cool.


----------



## scifibear2

Gunstar1 said:


> I'm trying my best to convince you guys that the lines in the grilles do not stay the same thickness! Take a look at the attached.
> 
> Impulse crystal is red red. I had a thread about lighting and whatnot a while back....


 Gunstar1,

You're right. They aren't. At least the way I seem them is like a heat register vent, louvered, the bright trapezoid shape is not behind the lourvers, it's a difference in the shape of each louver, there's more surface area of the louver suface in the areas of the trapezoid. Is that what you're trying to say. I was never sure how to get that effect, because I didn't know how it was created. But, its becoming ever so clear how it could have been that way.


----------



## Gunstar1

See impulse clooooose ups.... I'm betting on 2 scenarios:

1- that there IS ALSO a lighter trapezoid shape behind the "thinned out" area in the grilles. 

or

2- that the grilles are actually 3D: look at the middle image...it almost looks as if each grill line (only where they are thick) is casting a shadow underneath. The transluscent material (it's kinda milky, not clear) on which the grille sits may be getting some of that shadow

I'm leaning towards 1 in that I'm picturing each engine (left and right) is like a nozzle (like turkey feathers on an F-14's engine) for vectoring the thrust...also each could be viewed as a chamber...in which sits a "filament" (the lighter trapezoid shape) from where the poer/thrust originates.... this makes sense with the light source (when lit) is right at (almost) the lighter trapezoid.... kinda creates the effect that the lighter shape would be further inside the engine..... I'm attaching a pdf of some schematics I whipped up to try and clarify the idea.....


----------



## starseeker

Now I'm convinced that they widen and narrow. 
Completely baseless conjecture: They seem to widen at the point where the neon light is brightest, possibly to diffuse the light behind more evenly, to reduce hotspots on camera, and make the grills seem even? But if that's true, do we want to model the varying thicknesses if we're not going to have hotspots if we're using more even light sources?


----------



## Gunstar1

I think it has nothing to do with camera effect. I believe it is purely stylistic design, with the intention of giving it a functional vectoring quality (see pdf with previous post) The cutaway view I did on the pdf is to show what it may look like in the world of Star Trek, in comparison to the structure of an F14 tomcat engine (not the best comparison maybe, but it's what came to mind)


----------



## marc111

A couple of comments.
Like Starseeker I wonder if they were playing lighting games and wanting things to come out more even or some other subtle gradiation effect. I think it would be interesting with LED lighting to try the grill with and without the thinning effect and see how things look.

On the subject of Star Trek Impulse Engines, They are NOT an action/reaction drive. Thus no vectored thrust. No possible reaction drive could accelerate the ship to .5 C that quickly unless you also reduce inertia to zero. Most descriptions have it as a drive which acts on the ship as a whole and accelerates it to sublight speeds. We should not think of the glowing effect as rockets.

My Two Cents,
Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

True true, but I think that the ship was designed before there was the depth of explanation and detail that there is today in the world (and extended world) of Star Trek. I'm not saying that the whole vectored theory is a result of how the ship was designed functionally, but aesthetically - such that certain things about it remind us of various froms of technology today (1979) so that the ship "makes sense" to the average Joe - not just the hyper-analytical star trek fan.

Maybe I should not be using the term "vectored"... would "directed" or "channeled" make more sense to people? I'm not suggesting that the direction of the thrust changes (though there is no point in defending what is inconsistent in the world of star trek).....


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

dupe message sorry!


----------



## irishtrek

Gunstar1 said:


> Maybe I should not be using the term "vectored"... would "directed" or "channeled" make more sense to people? I'm not suggesting that the direction of the thrust changes (though there is no point in defending what is inconsistent in the world of star trek).....


That's what the manuvering thrusters are for.


----------



## Gunstar1

my point is that the engines are "on" or "thrusting" even when going backwards or stationary (in films after TMP). Inconsistent.


----------



## irishtrek

The point I'm trying to make is that there is NO atmosphere in outer space so there for a vectored thrust would be usless on a starship which is one reason why the ships have manuvering thrusters.
And besides it would make no senes to shut down the impulse engines when using the thrusters to go into reverse, up, down or even sideways.


----------



## Gunstar1

I think we're losing sight of the goal of this thread - innacuracies of the PL model, in this case, investigating what is going on with the studio model impulse engine grilles, and explaining why the apparent narrowing in the grille lines such that a lighter and smaller trpazoid shape appears, even when engines are off. 
The only pertinent facts here are what images we see onscreen and from photos of the miniatures.


----------



## irishtrek

You've got a point there.
To make the impulse grill look more interesting, perhaps? Does it really matter?


----------



## bigjimslade

Gunstar1 said:


> See impulse clooooose ups.... I'm betting on 2 scenarios:
> 
> 1- that there IS ALSO a lighter trapezoid shape behind the "thinned out" area in the grilles.


I think this is what you are seeing. It looks like there is a trapazoid mask behind the grill that is causing the illusion of widening in low resolution images.


----------



## Gunstar1

I suggest you look at ALL images in the last dozen posts or so. The concensus is that there is widening. What there hasn't been concensus on is that (I believe as you do) there is ALSO a lighter object where the grille widens.


----------



## irishtrek

Looking at an onscreen image og the impulse exhaust you can definetly see how they are lit up, the "distortion" that you refer to can be seen clearly which tells to me that it is deliberate. Just check out the post made by trekace on page 1 of this thread.


----------



## Flux Chiller

Gunstar1 said:


> The concensus is that there is widening. What there hasn't been concensus on is that (I believe as you do) there is ALSO a lighter object where the grille widens.


I agree with you, the edges of the lighter object are too well defined to be just the effect of the grill lines widening in that area.


----------



## Gunstar1

I just posted a new thread (PL refit Impulse decals) where you can now download accurate engine grilles.... for the sake of best accuracy, I hope you take a look and give some feedback, if you don't even want to use them.... though I think anyone who's put any effort into doing this model right would want to use them... they are literally traced (in adobe illustrator) from high high high res pictures of the studio model.


----------



## Gunstar1

*Impulse Engine Accuracy*

Impulse Engine PDFs 


Link above goes to a couple of pdf's that go into some comparisons/detailing with the DLM impulse part (which everyone should get!) compared to the studio model. DLM part is great but needs some tweaking..... 

(1) Impulse Engine Comparison:
this shows studio model photos compared to pics I took of the DLM part, and corresponding wireframe drawings I overlaid in Illustrator. Should be obvious, but original is blue lines, DLM is red lines.

Here's a key to help understand what's going on:
-I've ignored panel detail for the sake of clarity
-Various blue colors: corresponding flat surfaces - top(light), face(sky), underside(dark)
-Black: the vertical plane where, as you can see on the original miniature, is painted black (along with everything that's on the inner-sides of the engine "frame")
-Orange: anything orange denotes a rounded/curved surface.

Things to look for:
-The DLM part has no curved/rounded surfaces (and the PL kit topside is sharp-edged as well)
-The DLM part is more rectangular than trapezoidal (note sky blue surface)
-The DLM part juts out in the middle too far (see pics at bottom of pdf)
-The original has LOTS of rounded edges... sometimes barely noticeable.

(2)Impulse Grille Comparison
this shows the MMI PE set (top), the DLM decal (middle), and the graphics I created in Illustrator (bottom). Also in the upper right there are a couple of extreme close ups of some of the studio model grille detail.
When you look at the closeup detail (studio), you can clearly see that there is nothing consistent with the ending edges of the grille openings... some are square edged, some are triangle, some a combination... and the line thickness varies (thinner/tighter near top and bottom). I'm not sure if it's even possible to have photoetched brass with that kind of detail. My solution to the issue was to literally trace with vector/wireframe over really high res pic of the grilles and then skew & shear to compensate for photographic angles/distortions. The result is detail that maintains integrity no matter how much you enlarge it (provided you don't rasterize it!)

But enough of my yappin, check out the 2 pdf's (from the above link) and you (universal "you") be the judge.


----------



## starseeker

Gunstar1 said:


> I think we're losing sight of the goal of this thread - innacuracies of the PL model,


Holy crap, I know Shatner's aged badly, but who's bright idea was it to show us Vina (sp??) 40 years later? (See the first page of this thread...)


----------



## starseeker

Somebody had to do this. Attached below is a cross section of the engineering hull of the PL kit. Had to nuke an engineering hull as well as a couple of my attachments earlier in this thread to post this. If you compare the windows over the hangar bay doors on the PL kit to the Christies photos of the side of the miniature or to the Probert/Kimble or Kerr cross sections, the hangar doors don't seem to slant upwards at a great enough angle, making the down-sloping windows about 1/8" short in length. The windows themselves don't seem to have enough of a downward angle, either. 
The Kimble/Christie/Probert's images show the doors with the greatest angle, the Kerr(little Xs)in the middle, and the PL with the least angle. The Christie/Kimble/Kerr/Probert all show the upper windows to the in almost exactly the same place with the same downward slant, with the PL kit being that ~1/8" off. 
The PL kit might be a little bulgy around the middle. The Christie's picture matches the PL kit, but of all the sources, the Christies picture, because of the nature of photo distortion, is the least trustworthy. So as far as bulgy-ness goes, it's an even split - 50/50 either way.
Edit: realized that changing the outer door profile would have implications for the shape of the door opening, so I just went back and added that to the drawing. Looking at this, and how PL constructed the kit, this is not going to be an easy fix. Yet the hangar door/frame shapes are fairly - well, radically - different, as noticeable (once you notice them) as the impulse unit or the nacelle fronts. Rats. 
Anyone up for creating aftermarket parts for the other three of the Big 4 Mistakes (the 4th being the lower sensor assembly)? Arthur Pendragon, where are you???


----------



## marc111

Gunstar1,
Thanks for the great analysis of the DLM part. This was one of the first things that I bought and I thought it was really close so I had not checked closely. Now aI have a new list of tweeks to do.

Starseeker,
Thanks for the cutaway view. I wonder if it's possible to slightly modify the aft area around the clear ports and get it close?

Mark


----------



## starseeker

I tried this afternoon. Basically I just cut off the hangar door frame that I had cemented onto the hull, made a wedge of .080 Evergreen about 1/8 wide at the bottom and 3/16" wide at the top and inserted that between the hull and the frame. Superglue filler and I'm waiting for some Milliput to harden and tomorrow I'll sand it and see how it looks. It's a very close match in profile to the Kerr outline and the .080 won't get in the way of the clear parts that have to be attached from the inside. Tho it was very easy to do it this way, I was able to do it only because I'd cemented the entire eng hull together and then split it in half for the scan. I'm not sure how one would be able to do this by fitting the hull components together the way they're supposed to go, working from the outside. I think you'd have to cut the top/sides from the bottom of the hangar door frame and build the back (front end) of the frame up before re-attaching it to the eng hull. If it looks like it's worth scanning, I'll do that tomorrow.


----------



## starseeker

The milliput has hardened and I gave it a quick sand and from the outside it looks like I've changed nothing on the kit, except lost a couple of panel lines. But now the upper hangar deck windows and the slope of the walls matches, in this case, the Kerr profile quite closely. I used an .080 fillet as shown. Widening or narrowing the fillet around the top just a tiny bit more will allow the modeller to match the Probert or other profiles as desired. 
Now I cut off the hangar bay end unit from a completely cemented engineering hull, so the fillet I used and show is wide enough to make up for the thickness of my razor saw blade. If your end unit isn't already glued, you don't need to make it quite this wide. If the part isn't glued, you could build the part up using a two, possibly three part fillet to deal with the compound angle. Also, as you can see in the scan, the end unit of the hangar deck was sliced horizontally at deck level, because the back of the unit needs to angle more steeply. There you need some filler to make up for the cut, and to restore the curve. And you can see in the scan there's plenty of room using an .080 fillet to get the clear parts in from behind. 
Of course, the top details on the hull are now in the wrong place as well, and panel lines need to be re-scribed, so the domino effect begins... 
And if you're doing a cargo bay, this will also impact on the sides and ceiling of the bay. 
None of this is terribly hard to fix. But an out of box modeler who wishes to accuratize might be overwhelmed.
Which is why a DLM replacement piece would be truly invaluable here. (And a lower sensor assembly, and the nacelle tips, while we're at it. Arthur... Don...?) Unfortunately, with PL no longer making the kit and most modelers probably having finished theirs, there probably isn't a huge market for such pieces now, so scratching our own fixes is probably the only optiion we're going to have. 
Anyway, I THINK this is an actual error in the profile in the butt end of the kit. If I'm correct, this is one way to fix it.


----------



## marc111

OK, Gunstar1 got me really looking at the DLM part and its interface to the saucer. Here are my thoughts....
1) I sanded down the inside of the upper saucer to 1/2 its thickness in order to match the studio model. This left a .060 edge. 
2) As the studio model edges look a uniform width all along the perimeter, I added .030 to the bottom and side walls to match up the thickness.
3) This leaves the bottom of the center bulge a bit slim in thickness relative to the bottom surface of the engines at the rear edge so I will add a bit there to match it up to the proper thickness.
4) Gunstar1 is right that the trapezoidal shape of the center area is too rectangular. The bottom looks to be the correct width. When the top is properly scaled it is indeed to narrow. Now comes the interesting part. I measured the center bar on the saucer and it is indeed the proper width relative to the width of the bottom of the DLM center boss. The DLM part is slightly narrow at the top. If you increase the slant of its center area side walls to match the saucer bar you get the correct trapezoid.
5) I suspect that after these adjustments are made and the edges of the center boss are properly rounded over I will have a few outside lines to rescribe to match the correct slope angle.

I have faith that this will be a pain, but now that I am noticing it I will have to add the correct detailing.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## starseeker

Okay, I've been basing my ideas about the refit mostly on the Kerr drawings, but in a moment of insomnia and boredom I thought I'd see what was happening on other threads, and chose one at random. The last page of a thread debating the size of the TOS E contains this amazing post:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=1941875&postcount=451
This means that Gary Kerr himself did exactly what many of us are doing on this thread, altho we have the benefit of the Christie's photos. 
This is so cool. And I guess part of what excites me so about this revelation is that there will be no one "accurate", "perfect" model of any of the Es, but that each will have to be made a "perfect" that suits just the tastes their builder. We can still try to reconcile a degree here and a millimeter there, but really, no one will ever be more "accurate" than 2 or 3%. The idea that we don't have to be constrained by an illusory "perfection" is liberating.


----------



## uscav_scout

I wonder if the Gentelman / or lady who bought the Enterprise (at a steal mind you), who has to be a geek like us, (admit it) has looked over her millimeter by millimeter and wondered about how perfect the "real" Enterprise is.

Of course he/ she is a lucky B-----d (one; just to have her, and two; to be able to afford to have her)

Wonder if he/she got the rights to her? and would he/she be so kind to post the most detailed photo shoot ever done. (I'd burn a camera out or two)


----------



## fiercegaming

Didn't Paul Allen get it? Or was that just a rumor? Sorry for going OT.


----------



## Griffworks

I think at this point it's just a rumor. However, I find myself sort of hoping it's true, as that means it'll be treated respectfully. At least, IMNSHO. We might not get to take pics, but we'll at least be able to have a Geekgasm if we visit the SciFi Museum.


----------



## marc111

Referring to the impulse engine discussion:
1) OK I made a mistake. The edges of the DLM replacement part do not need to be thickened. They are the correct thickness. It is the upper deck of the saucer that forms the upper edge of the impulse engine shroud that needs to be seriously thinned. It should be taken down to 0.030 to match the part and the photo analysis.

2) I agree with all of Gunstar1's analysis on the other reshaping of the part.

3) I have also found that on the two DLM pieces that I have, there is a bit of asymetry from left to right in the angle of the basic impulse engine surface (where the grill is) and perhaps the rear center trapazoid. I will be altering the part to bring this into line. 

4) one other thing. Once you reduce the thickness of the deck the DLM parts center boss is too tall. When reduced to fit you get much closer to the correct shape for the center boss.

Even with this said the part gets you much closer than the original kit part and is easier to modify than start with a total scratch build. (I think)

Regards,
Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

Here's an issue not mentioned yet -
The outermost deflector grid line (outer-most concentric engraved circle) on the underside of the saucer.
On the studio model, the grid line falls just inside of where the underside goes from flat to concave - there is actually a slight convex curve in-between the flat and concave surface (such that the grid line is inside of that convex curve.

See the attached pdf for a clearer explanation. You may need to zoom in for some of the detail.

Check your pictures if you doubt the pdf.

Solution?
perhaps sand the area just inside of the PL grid line to be even with the concave area.....


----------



## irishtrek

I'm considering lighting up my PL refit so I was wondering what size leds do I need to get?


----------



## marc111

OK lets look at the fantail. There has been some recent discussion on Raytheons build thread because he is building up and extending the observation deck area above the shuttlebay doors. This got me curious so I went searching for the best pictures to use for comparison. I identified one side view from the christies pictures and one top view from the STTMP cloudster pictures that seemed to offer the least distortion.
Cloudster Detail
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f218/marc_david/Engineering Hull/ShuttlebayObservationDeck-1a.jpg
Christies Detail from one of the side shots
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f218/marc_david/Engineering Hull/ShuttlebayObservationDeck-2a.jpg

On these photos I have imposed the measurements I made and labeled them A through G.

I then made the same measurements on the PL Kit Parts.

Now we play the comparison game. First assume that the distance between the photon bumps and the rear edge of the observation deck (A) is correct. Now ratio it against all of the other measurements in both photos. Then multiply it by the kit measutrement of the denominator. This should result in the kit measurement for "A". Compare to actual A. Example:
(photo A/photo E) = "X"/kit E -> (photo A/photo E)*(Kit E) = "X" If X matches the measured kit number then the kit is correct. If it is off then we have a discrepancy to fix. I did these ratios for both measurements A and F as the two critical numbers I was most interested in.

Results:
After looking at the comparisons it looks like the kit is correct. I got about a 5% variance on the A reference and 2% on the F reference which is not too surprising. and this was on both sides of the kit measurement. This leades me to believe that the kit got the rearmost extension of the observation deck correct.

So what is incorrect? If you look at the photos in comparison to the kit part, I was able to determine 3 things that need to be corrected.
1) the windows on the upper slanting surface should not be parallelograms. The outer edge needs to be corrected so it slants inwards making these windows slightly trapezoidal.

2) The angle between the top surface of the deck area and the lower surface (where the 5 windows are) is to shallow an angle. This angle (interior) should be 88 to 90 degrees. This means the bottom edge will need to move inwards slightly to bring this to the correct angle.

3) Finally the transition from the rounded observation bulge to the plane of the main surface is too abrupt. A bit of addition and contouring is needed to make this transition broader and more gradual.

One other thing I noticed; at the vertical grid line just forward of the fantail there are 3 square bumps clustered around the junction of the gridlines on the PL kit. (only on this side in the view) Looking at the same area in the cristies, and the enterprise A shots and the STTMP shots these are not present. I double checked and the sign in the background of the christies photo reads correctly so there is no image reversal. These bumps should be removed.

Thanks to Ratheon for getting me to look at this area and I will be additng it to the accurizing page on my web page.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

One more thing -
The horizontal measurements on the PL seem good...
But it's the vertical where you can find the inaccuracies.

The height of the observation deck (with the 5 windows) should be almost 50% of that of the fantail/shuttle/landing deck (where the "Enterprise" decal would go). It seems that the correction needs to take place on the shuttle deck underside itself by adding material to increase thickness. That edge has always seemed a little wimpy/soft/small just like the ertl E.


----------



## marc111

Gunstar1 is correct. Analyzing 2 Cloudster STTMP shots and 3 Christies shots shows that the proportions are off on the kit. If we assume the observation deck is correct (and it appears to be at least for height) then the fantail at the rear where the name Enterprise is, is 0.030 too thin. I recommend adding this much.

P.S. My web page will be updated on Monday with additional accurizing details per this conversation and more construction progress.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

On the topic of the fantail, I was just browsing through my screencaps and B&W cloudster photos when I realized something about the underside of the fantail:

You know how the PL kit has the 2 underside options - the 1701-A has a deflector grid dividing up the underside of the fantail into rectangles, while the 1701 has just an outer grid following the edge of the underside....

The part for 1701 is wrong - 
Turns out that there should be no grid lines PERIOD! Should be smooth as a baby's bottom (apart from the little light-emitting box thingamabob), which is good news since the fantail needs to be thickened (won't have to re-scribe the existing grid line, but will have to fill the rest of it in)

For reference there are a couple of good close-up shots in the B&W, and the best screencaps are at the very end of TMP.


----------



## marc111

Yep you are right. I suspect it was a model kit trick to try to hide the fantail seam line.

Much as it is not canon for the refit it does bother me occaisionally that there are no grid lines there. I suspect it was more from oversight than design as it makes so much sence for there to be some.

Mark


----------



## TrekFX

*From a couple years ago, my analysis of the fantail*

http://members.aol.com/trekfx/hanger_deck.jpg

No time to explain at the moment... but you'll get the idea.


----------



## Gunstar1

Looks like a bit more needs to be added (height and radius) than initially thought.

As far as "canon", check your screencaps from II and III - same scenario - no grid lines whatsoever. Whether purposeful design or rushed production (I doubt, given that nothing else on the ship appeared to be rushed - but still possible) what we see on the screen for I, II, and III is consistent (apart from the sloppy paint job meant to make the ship look like a junker for II and III)


----------



## Gunstar1

Here's some new tweaks - 
the forward and rear edges of the warp engine pylons are too fat.
especially noticeable when looking at the darker intakes (forward) and vents (rear) - there should be only a very thin edge. Fix by sanding down?

Also, having seen a lot of new builds finished and published in these forums, the back end/ shuttle door area has been bugging me. Part of the problem is one that cannot be fixed without molding your own secondary hull. Think of how the amt/ertl enterprise secondary hull is shaped - it exaggerates what is really going on, but at least they were aware of it. Kinda like a classic Coke glass, where it balloons out near the top but then the curve inverts as it moves towards the bottom, or think of an old fashioned hour glass cut at the narrow point. The problem with the PL kit is that the bulge (fattest point of the hull), which is just forward of the pylons, does not end just aft of the pylons (where the curve inverts a little) - it doesn't end at all, such that there is no curve inversion. This, I think, may make the fantail slightly too big. One solution may be to increase the main bulge so that one can achieve the proper tapering effect. Either way it would be a big headache. Since windows need to be made slightly smaller and grid lines filled in a bit (they are too pronounced), I might even try expanding the bulge a bit. Now that I'm looking at it, actually.... I think it would work really well to expand the bulge a little.... I think it would help from all angles - making the secondary hull a little less plainly cylindrical - it would even help the torpedo deck baseline!

The other thing is the shuttle bay doors and the left and right exposed guts with the blue lights in them. These two areas should be tighter against the edge of the doors, with a smaller space of "regular" white hull in between. BUT, the doors (PL and DLM) are also too narrow at the top. The PL is misshapen and the DLM is made up of flat panels, so one from scratch is probably in order.

*sigh* It never ends.


----------



## Mr. Canoehead

There is an inacuracy that I have noticed about the fantail that I wanted to share more for confirmation to see if I'm not mistaken on this. After looking at the B&W stills to see how I was going to make my fantail more accurate I noticed that on the Studio model those pieces beside the door, the ones with the three horizontal blue lights, it looks to me that they are supposed to line up with the top of the bay door or the bottom of that control room. On the PL piece they end up half way beside the control room. Take a look at this pic.


----------



## Gunstar1

That's right, they are supposed to end at the base of the observation deck - look at the last few posts and discussions about the observation deck - lots of stuff wrong with the back end of the secondary hull.


----------



## marc111

Also it is not 3 blue stripes. Look close at the screen caps and you will see there is supposed to be a 4th small blue stripe at the top of the first three. I had to scribe it in.

Gunstar To confirm your meaning on nacelle thickness
1) The rear profile is definately to thick by about 0.070 on each side at the flat rear surface.
2) Forward area: Are you referring to our previous discussion in the nacelle profiles thread that the basic width at the front is slightly too wide or are you referring to the slanting panel just behind the copper flux grills which lacks the thin lip at the rear?

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

I believe I said PYLONS of the warp engines - the things that connect the engines to the secondary hull. Like, wings. I'm not talking about the nacelles.


----------



## marc111

Sorry, you're right. Didn't get enough sleep last night. Hmmm have to think about that one. I thought I was happy with those.
Mark


----------



## Mr. Canoehead

marc111 said:


> Also it is not 3 blue stripes. Look close at the screen caps and you will see there is supposed to be a 4th small blue stripe at the top of the first three. I had to scribe it in.


Hrmm must be rather small since with all the times I have watch the movies I have never noticed that 4th blue stripe. I can see that the fantail is going to be a project in itself with all the corrections needed. 

Thanx for the info Marc, by the way awsome job thus far on your Refit


----------



## marc111

Thanks for the complements. Here is the screen cap that I got the 4 lights from. There are several clear views as Kirk tours the exterior of the ship.










Notice there are 4 stripes where the top one is quite small.

I think I may have to start a subsection on my accurizing page just for the fantail!!!

Regards,
Mark


----------



## Mr. Canoehead

Yea I see them now... and you had to scribe a new line you say, was it the top line or the bottom one that you had to add in?


----------



## marc111

Basicaly I had to cut in the entire shape as there were only 3 strips incised into the kit part. Even more of a pain was masking the 4 strips.

Mark


----------



## SteveR

Looks like an job for photo-etch.

Nice research, Marc. :thumbsup:


----------



## marc111

Thanks Steve. One more tidbit. The commentary on the length had me going back to my christies photo comparison. of the side view. I think this may be the same photo that Trekfx used in the jpg he posted. I did mine in photoshop and then calibrated things back to the kit. The primary dimension I used was from the curved corner to the tip of the fantail. By my calculations the fantail on the kit should be 0.050 longer than it is. This correlates well with the other view that the fantail heigth at the rear wall should be higher by 0.030.

Also to keep everything straight I went ahead and updated my accurizing page with all of the accumulated fantail information and pictures. It is on page one right after the Engineering Hull section.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

Another fantail tidbit -

The lower observation deck windows are not vertically centered, like on the PL kit. Their baseline is almost at the bottom of that negative-angled deck wall, where it meets the doors - such if you were inside the observation area, the windows would go pretty much to the floor.


----------



## marc111

You are right Andy. Although not quite on the floor they are definitly below center. Repositioning these could be a ral pain. Now that I've started the heavy work on the fantail I will probably have to make custom doors. With the extension the kit doors just won't work even after adjustments.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## WarpeD

Fantastic information, guys. Lots of nice nits picked so far. One thing that slaps me in the face is the size of the portholes. Too big. I've figured that the right diameter should be something like .05" based on work I did preparing to build my former Refit project. If the PL's portholes are bigger (need to measure mine when the kit gets here), I figure drilling them out to fit the smallest diameter of Evergreen tubing, and then redrilling when the Evergreen finishes curing. Sand smooth, insert fiberoptics or whatever at that point. Any thoughts on this?

Mark, your reference page is awesome. Thanks for the compilation....definitely my guide too!


----------



## SteveR

You can also try:

1. The clear windows are about the right size, apparently. Putty in the window holes, then while still wet, insert the clear window inserts and wipe off the excess. Sand down and polish the windows, then then punch small discs from masking tape (or similar) to mask the windows for painting. You can also use a drop of masking fluid, since you have the window as a guide.

2. Use clear resin to fill the window holes, then punch small discs from masking tape (or similar) to mask the windows for painting.

#1 has worked well for me.


----------



## Gunstar1

One more thing to add to the list - maybe people wanted to ignore it, or wish it away, but having seen so many of these put together by other modelers, I can ignore it no longer.....

The secondary hull has a major issue -
probably because they wanted to fit the shuttlebay interior....
The back half of the hull is too fat.
For example - the "spine" that extends from the dorsal to the top of the shuttlebay should have a gentle concave curve to it. Instead it is perfectly straight - which means the hull is missing that concave curve that can be clearly seen in the AMT/Ertle kit (as well as stills of the studio model, of course).

Let the debate begin......

Gunstar1


----------



## newbie dooby

Looks fine to me


----------



## DL Matthys

My brain hurts :freak: 
I needs to roll me a fat one.


----------



## ZStar

Over the years I have done a fair amount of research on the refit. In some shallow angle, rear quarter views I have noticed what I characterize as a slight “hump” between the shoulder blades of the warp pylons. I don’t know if that hump was intentional or if it is the result of time, stress, and/or fatigue on the model. I have seen no sign of that contour carrying around to the sides or the bottom of the secondary hull. 

I could be wrong. I have never had close access to the filming model. All my research is based on publicly available photos such as those at Phil Broad’s Cloudster site and various postings of photos from the Christies auction such as those found at the ST-Bilder site.

It is my understanding that the pronounced concave shape of the aft secondary hull, as seen in the AMT/Ertl model and the Kimble TMP blueprints, represents Andy Probert’s original design specs. The model as built seems to be more “football” shaped with the sides of the secondary hull being almost straight from the pylons to the shuttlebay opening. 

That’s my two nickels worth…


----------



## irishtrek

Huh? Are you talking about a side view or bottom view? Because I don't understand what exactly you are reffering to.


----------



## ZStar

I have attached a couple of pictures that show what I am talking about. In the rear quarter view you can see a slight distortion in the ridge that runs along the spine of the secondary hull. In the view from the bottom that distortion does not appear to be present along the side. Whatever is causing the "hump" does not appear to be symmetrical around the long axis of the hull. In other words, the profile along the spine (as seen from the side) does not appear to match the profile of the side as seen from the bottom.

Does that make things clearer? The attached photos are the best angles I have but I have reduced them to save space.


----------



## Gunstar1

It actually is the same (the hump above where the pylons connect) all the way around - not a construction accident or material failure. 
What makes it confusing is that area sliced out from under the shuttlebay.
The most forward point at which the "slice" starts is just when the curve of the hull (from forward) goes from convex to concave.
It's difficult to explain and even to clearly point out because of all the compound curves going on.
I'm compiling a bunch of photo examples and vector schematics (taken from the photos) to clarify and prove.

I'll just need some time....


----------



## irishtrek

Could just be the camera angle.


----------



## ZStar

I'm curious to see what you have Gunstar1. As I said in my first post, I could be wrong but I sure don't see the concave curve going all the way around. If it is there, it must be very subtle and nowhere near as pronounced as on the AMT/Ertl model or the TMP blueprints.


----------



## srspicer

Yes Opus Penguin, you are correct. 

Any who have the various Star Trek books will read that for realism, there would have to be illumination on the ship or it would be practically invisible 'in flight'. The self-illumination spot lights were the answer.

There is a really nice pre-production rendering of the 'E' in shadow accept for the spot lights, quite effective.

Cool thread, by the way. :thumbsup:


----------



## Mr. Canoehead

srspicer said:


> There is a really nice pre-production rendering of the 'E' in shadow accept for the spot lights, quite effective.



Any chance of posting a pic?


----------



## srspicer

I hope the image comes through, it is my first time placing an image in with the text. The image comes from 'The Art of Star Trek'.


----------



## srspicer

Gunstar1is correct in his annalysis. ( my Vulcan side)

If you can refer to your copy of Mr.Scott's guide to the 'E', Zstar, you will see from the various blue print views that the hull has a deffinite 'waist' to it.
The page that has the 'inboard profie' on it will show the 'hump' you refer to best. It just about lines up with the 'waist' that is visible on dorsal or 'top view' page. This 'waist' starts just beyond the pylon joints, towards the stern. This shape is slightly more pronounced on the side view than the top view. That may be throwing you off a bit.I have machined and carved qiute a few refits over the years, and that waist has to be there or it is rejected by the licensors.


----------



## ZStar

srspicer, I agree that the waist is there in the Scott's Guide blueprints but those are just reprints of the Kimble TMP blueprints. According to Mr. Probert, they accurately reflect his "as designed" specs but the filming model was not shaped in perfect agreement with those blueprints. 

What I would like to know is, does the filming model have a waist? From the photos I have seen, the waist if present is probably not nearly as pronounced as in the Kimble blueprints.



> I have machined and carved qiute a few refits over the years, and that waist has to be there or it is rejected by the licensors.


I do not mean this as a criticism but to what specifications were you carving? If your specs were based on the Kimble/Scott's Guide blueprints then yes they call for a waist - Probert designed the refit with a waist - but the makers of the filming model appear to have smoothed out the curves.

Is there anyone out there with more definitive photos or personal "hands on" experience with the filming model who can answer the question?


----------



## marc111

Ok I just got through looking at the CXhristies photos, the Post ST5 photos, the B&W Cloudster photos and screen caps.

1) Every top down shot that I can find shows no negative curvature on the sides between the pylon base and the fantail.
2) All of the side shots show either no negative curvature (concave)to the top linear spine detail or just a very small amount. 

The studio model just does not match those drawings. My opinion the PL Kit is very accurate in this area. It has straight side areas like the studio model and a very slight convex shape to the spine detail like the studio model. (I double checked with a straight edge.

Mark


----------



## srspicer

I had a fealing that would be the case. Even the shooting model for TOS deviated from the blue prints Mr. J originally created.


----------



## bigjimslade

*Torpedo Tube Detail*

Discovered this today...

The torpedo details are mirror images of the way the should be. The details on the left are on the right.


----------



## Griffworks

I might be missing something thanks to the COMM Nazi's here, but I don't see any images....


----------



## 1711rob

me see nothing...


----------



## bigjimslade

1711rob said:


> me see nothing...


That's because I didn't post any. 

I just said they are backwards.

The post with the wire should be on the right side and the post with six smaller posts should be on the left side (from ship POV)


----------



## marcus welby

Hello everyone,

Anyone keeping a tally/list of fixes/corrections during this thread?


----------



## marc111

Check out my accurizing page (link below). I have been tring to put in everycorrection detail I can find. It is oriented to the refit. so it does not cover some of the "A"s details.

http://www.showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/index.htm

Regards,
Mark


----------



## marc111

bigjimslade is correct. I had not noticed. Hmm. I am not sure how easy this is to fix but I will need to update my page with a picture example.

Mark


----------



## marcus welby

marc111,

Check out the image at bigjimslade's computer thread:
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=213102
might show what he means here


----------



## Roguepink

marc111 - that is an excellent reference site. Well done, and thank you.


----------



## marc111

I found one more nit to add. If you look at the leading edge of the pylon as it merges into the nacelle...
1) On the polar lights kit this is a blunt relatively flat merge of the pylon surface into the nacelle.

2) On the studio model it flares forward in a curving, narrowing merge comingto a point.

I will try to post a pic later.

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

Another note on pylons:

Look at both front and rear edges. The spacing is not correct inboard and outboard on either side of the vent channels. I don't think the width of the channels needs to change, rather the space on either side needs to be narrowed by sanding down the inboard and outboard surfaces, and so creating also a slightly more curved cross-section of the pylon.


----------



## marc111

One more comment on the dorsal. It has been noted that the vertical line of 4 windows that run just aft of the vertical blue stripe detail are too far from the stripe on the PL kit. This is true. they should be within .020in.

In doinfg the corrections I also found that the spacing between the windows is off. The spacing of the bottom two is corect that is counting up from the bottom, between windows 1 and 2. The spacing between 2 and 3 is too small and between 3 and 4 slightly too large. The end result is that the top window is way low compared tho the studio model.

Another annnoyance is that the line of the centers of the windows does not parallel the blue stripe as it should. Onl the PL kit it diverges as it goes up with each window being farther away from the edge of the blue stripe.

You basically have to correct the entire window line.

Mark


----------



## John Duncan

Wow, what a great site! It makes my head hurt to read it though. So many things to do!


----------



## marc111

OK, one more small annoyance: The clear plastic rectangular inserts for the front of the engineering hull (reaction thrusters). On the studio model the basic surface of the rectangle is even with the surface of the hull. 

On the kit the recess for the clear inserts causes them to slant inwards and be recessed below the hull surface at the rear. This needs to be corrected by wedging them up slightly to match the hull surface.

Still working on my Refit,
Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

Good! I was hoping we weren't out of small annoyances yet.... hoping to find some more to satisfy my refit-ocd


----------



## Ductapeforever

Has anyone here noticed the Officer's Lounge interior is wrong, I was about to place the decals showing the view of the engine nacels when I realized this should be the view looking aft.


----------



## Opus Penguin

BIG discussion on this took place already. Basically the decals on the back wall are to represent holographic images along the back wall of the officer's lounge. Due to the fact that the filming set was not designed correctly to match the officer's lounge windows, this was an attempt to explain the difference. So, I believe it was Shane Johnson in his book "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" who stated it was in the officer's lounge but along the back wall. Shane frequents this forum so maybe he can elaborate more, but that was how I understood it.


----------



## JeffG

It's probably an electronic display that can project whatever angle of the ship they've got a monitor aimed at or any other image they'd want.


----------



## SteveR

Back in public school, we were using crayons to colour pictures of chickadees. Their bellies are white, but because I didn't have a white crayon, I used yellow. I could have left it white, but I felt I had to use a crayon.

This was the same thing. "Neat image, gotta use it somewhere. How about this wall? Not accurate, but gotta use it somewhere."


----------



## ZStar

I don’t know this is the best place or if this has been documented elsewhere. 

As I was reviewing images of the impulse engines I noticed that it appears the filming model was modified during the filming of TMP. Look at the space between the impulse intercoolers, where the impulse housing meets the neck. In the spacedock scene and in all of the more recent shots of the model, the intercoolers are merged across the back. In the departure and V’ger scenes, a gap is visible and the intercoolers are two separate wedges on either side of the neck.

I don’t think this is the result of mixing two different models as in the detailed section of the neck and secondary hull for TWOK. These scenes involve pullbacks that show all or most of the ship. 

You can confirm this yourself by checking the appropriate screencaps at TrekCore.com. See TMP chapters 6, 12, and 25.

I'm not sure anyone here is nit picky enough to care but I thought I would throw it out there.


----------



## SteveR

Perhaps the model in the first shot is real, and the others are CG?
(If we're looking at the Director's cut)

Check Cloudster.com for shots of the real miniature.


----------



## Gunstar1

The model does not change.

What you are seeing is the lighting changes.
Because of the elaborate setup with dental mirrors for spot lights etc, the lighting on the model is never consistent (almost) throughout all of TMP.
In this case, those lights on top of the photon deck are turned off on that first pic - so there is more diffused lighting present.
When the light comes from the lower sides, it casts a shadow in that little middle area.

It is one solid piece, just like the PL refit, just like the cloudster images, both color and B&W, and publicity photos.

Look at the screencaps more closely, you'll see it.


----------



## SteveR

Hmm. Sorry Gunstar, though your expertise is never in question, I think the dark trapezoid in the middle is too sharp and dark to be a shadow from an uplight. It looks like a cavity.

It should look _as dark as_, not _darker than_ the shadow on the underside of the impulse engine unit.


----------



## ZStar

Steve, I believe that I have a good eye for spotting cgi vs. model effects but you had me convinced… then I dug out an old video tape of TMP. It is definitely pre Director’s Edition, without any of the new Starfleet Headquarters matte paintings so I doubt there was any cgi work included. When I viewed the outbound section (when the refit first goes to impulse) I could see the same gap between the impulse intercoolers. I think the tape dates from the mid to late ‘90s.

To the best of my knowledge, all of the Cloudster pix are post TMP filming so they would reflect the final state of the model. I do not question that from that point on the space between the intercoolers was blocked off.

Gunstar, I agree with Steve. The edges of the “shadow” are too sharp and it is too dark given the illumination levels on the adjacent surfaces. I think there should be enough reflected/ambient light to show something across that space. My gut impression is that the “hole” is real.


----------



## Gunstar1

You really want to make me work for this, don't you? Adjacent spaces? Guys, it looks darker because that connecting piece that the dorsal fits into is not the white color of the main hull - it's the same darker blue-gray as other parts like the pylon vents. That's why it looks darker than the adjacent parts, which are white.


----------



## SteveR

Sorry Gunstar, your 4 recently posted images didn't show up here ... on Safari or FireFox.

At any rate, I think that ZStar is referring to this: In the first shot, the connecting piece between dorsal and impulse unit appears to be one piece, like an arch or bridge, no? In the other shots, it appears to be (to us, anyway) two support-like pieces with a cavity between them, as if the "bridge" were missing its center span. 

And yes, we realize the connecting piece is blue-gray -- by adjacent surfaces, he probably meant the left and right segments of the blue-gray connecting piece, not the darker center, as viewed in shots 2 and 3. So he's comparing _segments of the connecting piece_, not comparing the connecting piece to the rest of the hull.


----------



## ZStar

Steve, you interpreted my intentions correctly. The adjacent surfaces I was referring to are the two blue-gray intercooler panels on the sides, the underside of the central impulse housing and the back of the neck. In all views, those surfaces are visible as a result of direct or indirect lighting and show subtle shadow edges that fall across them. The dark "hole" in the middle of all of those, looks out of place. If there is a continuous "bridge" between the intercoolers I would expect to see a more deeply shadowed surface but not total blackness with sharp edges.


----------



## Gunstar1

try this attached jpeg then.
Some images have the running lights/spotlights on, some don't.
(I trust you can tell which)


----------



## SteveR

Okay, Gunstar -- you've convinced me.  

To explain the extra-dark shadow in the middle, it may be that the underside of the impulse units are receiving some fill light that isn't reaching the center portion of the connecting piece.

Sorry to make you work for it. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gunstar1

That's ok. I needed the workout!
(there's still plenty of details to talk about as far as the PL refit kit though)


----------



## ZStar

Gunstar, I won't go so far as to say you have convinced me but I will concede that I have failed to produce the extraordinary evidence to back up my extraordinary claim. You are probably correct but I still have trouble seeing how the deep, sharp shadow is created.

I hope you didn't strain anything in the workout and I appreciate your willingness to debate the issue.


----------



## Roguepink

The shadow is caused by closely set hard-focus lights. A single small light source set farther from an object creates an expanding but sharp shadow area. The shadow is sharp but larger than the object casting it. If we learn anything from these photos, we can discover the placement of the off-screen lighting.

Its a single piece.


----------



## Gunstar1

Ugh. Sometimes it helps to see a finished model to catch the inaccuracies of the kit. This may be more than some will want to tackle, but it would have a dramatic effect on the finished model:

This image of disillusionist's model (with superb paint job) shows the flaws of the deflector grid - the detail is way too large/soft/open/loose - to the point of making the model look much smaller...










both engraved lines and seam lines are just too big - the detail needs to be much finer to replicate the studiio model and get the scale across. Because this sticks out so much, I'm thinking the entire grid needs to be filled in and re-scribed (yuck) with finer results - this would also eliminate issues of the grid not lining up properly on the saucer and secondary hull - especially the saucer underside - the concentric circles are all out of place - the outermost is too far outside - it should start just inside where the surface goes concave upward. I believe the innermost circle is in the wrong place as well.


----------



## Raist3001

Too many unnecessary details pointed out for correction to this kit IMO.


----------



## Gunstar1

Raist3001 said:


> Too many unnecessary details pointed out for correction to this kit IMO.


This thread is for people to point out flaws in the kit and how one could address / tackle the issue if they choose. No one is forcing anyone to do anything here. These are the facts (and part of the discussion is figuring out as best we can) - do with them as you will. If you want to read the thread, read it, take what info is helpful for your own kit and run with it. If you want to voice an opinion on how you would modify your own build (or have a discussion about the relevance of particular defects), it might be better to start your own thread, so that this thread can stay on topic and be a good source of info for all, rather than a mish-mash of back-and-forth bickering between differing and unbending opinions. :thumbsup:


----------



## Raist3001

I shared an opinion which to my knowledge is still acceptable here. That opinion does not need to be accepted by you or anyone, and it was certainly not expressed to cause bickering. I have great respect for what Marc is trying to accomplish, and his work is extraordinary. 

Seems a bit odd coming from you when you so openly share your opinions, even when they are OT.


----------



## Gunstar1

I was not taking a jab at you Tony - no need to start accusing - my point was that the opinions of this sticky thread topic were about issues of what could be fixed and how, not the much larger gray area of "such and such amount of accuracy is sufficient". That's why I responded generally about the topic and made a suggestion about starting a different thread since I thought your comment would lead to another debate ending in "to each his own" etc. That's all. We already went over that discussion about that Japanese guy rescribing lines and doing all sorts of intense modifications.

moving on to > "PL Refit Inaccuracies and Fixes"....


----------



## Raist3001

Gunstar1 said:


> moving on


Indeed.


----------



## SteveR

Anyway, I agree that the details are starting to look a bit soft. Accurate or not, sharper details would enhance the scale feel of the kit and as a result, the "imagination factor".

By that I mean, with a better scale feel, it'd be easier to imagine we're looking at a real ship. Or at least a filming miniature.


----------



## Gunstar1

Here's a good image set to compare deflector grid depth/thickness


----------



## Dale Jackson

Wow that's a beautiful comparison.

I think what I'll do on my PL kit is to obviously get all the lighting issues completed and then glue the engineering hull together and fill in those huge gaps to get it closer to the studio model as possible. I know there are accurizing issues, but I think I'm not going to tackle any major accuracy issues, but I'd like to fill those seams better before I start applying the detailed aztec patterns.


----------



## Model Man

marc111 said:


> Check out my accurizing page (link below). I have been tring to put in everycorrection detail I can find. It is oriented to the refit. so it does not cover some of the "A"s details.
> 
> http://www.showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/index.htm
> 
> Regards,
> Mark


That's above and beyond, Marc. That looks like it includes all of Raytheon's mods too?


----------



## Gunstar1

I have studied both builds closely and I think the only thing that Mark has not addressed yet that Raytheon has is the issue of window size. Both sites are really valuable when it comes to more hands-on accurizing references


----------



## Model Man

I just finished watching TWoK specifically for ship lighting ref.

While all the TMP stock footage is pretty much self-consistent, when ILM takes over just before the first punches are thrown, every 1701 setup thereafter has different lighting. Some attention was paid to what Trumbull did on the broadstrokes in TMP, but there is little apparent effort to match anything else. Lights are on, then they are off; positions and the very shapes of the light change.

The only semi-consistents are the dorsal, fwd saucer top and bottom, and the end of the nacelles. However, even all these change shape, intensity or even appear in different regions of their respective areas. Sloppy.

Reliant's lighting is generally sloppy in similar ways. It is also 'looser' than 1701's.

I paused most TMP shots and compared it to my PL 350 to see what was what. It's almost an entirely different ship! When reliant came on, I saw that ILM took Reliant's A,B.C decks and sensor dome and transferred them onto 1701-A. The Refit, as was, is a much more elegant form in all ways throughout.


Aside -A 1/350 Reliant may be immune to the Raytheon Methodology as portions of the pylons and the rollbar are lit. There is simply no interior space to house an led. But light sheet could possibly work...


----------



## marc111

Thanks for the kind words guys. I have been learning alot about light blocking from Raytheon. I will be using his lighting from inside for the spotlights. On the underside of the saucer I am experimenting with fiber optics for the window lights to allow them to light independent of the spot lights.

On the window size. While it is possible that the kit windows are slightly large it has not bugged me. What would bug me is if in trying to redrill them I messed up the machine precision of the vertical and horizontal placement of the windows, especially those in distinct lines. For this reason I am consciously leaving them alone except where I have been forced to move a window due to incorrect positioning on the kit.

Nice take on the gridlines Gunstar1. Tehy would look better if they were finer lines. The trick is to figure out some way to make them finer that still leaves them nice straight or curved lines without wiggles that would drive me crazy. Anyone who has a good idea how to do this with machine like precision please post it.

Mark


----------



## Gunstar1

I've been pondering the rescribing for a while - I'm sure it would be one of the more time consuming and nail-biting portions of accurizing.....

One thought I had was to make some adhesive vinyl strips that would butt up to one side of a given gridline. You could then glue some flexible metal strips that would also butt up to the same side of the gridline (metal glued to the vinyl). You then would have a form-fitting guide for all those nasty compound curves to which you could gently and slowly run a blade along - maybe backwards so that it would gouge rather than slice. I once used a metal ruler on an old mpc Slave I kit, where all recessed panel lines were actually molded as protruding detail. And that was on the round, compound curve part of the ship.... granted, the lines I gouged out were not as long as what would have to be done on the refit, but I think it would work well with a steady hand and some patience.

For the saucer concentric circles, I think a compass with blade attachment would work well - again, going backwards (the back side of the blade) would probably do the trick.

I've tried to think of various ways of using a dremel tool with some clamping devices and such, but I think it would be too hard to control a tool like that.

I don't know. That's what's on my mind.


----------



## Model Man

To prep for my imminent builds, I just printed this thread out... ONE HUNDRED pages later, I'm ready to start reading it. Oh, gotta bind the monster first! :freak:

Thanks to everyone for the groundwork. Us noobs stand on the shoulders of giants! :thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR

As a guide to scribing straight lines, thick Dymo labeller tape has worked for me.


----------



## Disillusionist

I HATE scribing. However, thick inaccurate panel lines was the one major thing that Andy Probert pointed out to us at Wonderfest that he didn't like about the PL kit. So, just maybe on a future build........I might attempt it....possibly


----------



## Richard38

Guys,

Has anyone though of filling them in and just painting them on or using decals? It is not the best solution, but might be much better scale wise I am betting 

Richard


----------



## Gunstar1

decal or painted lines might be attractive for a quicker fix - the only problem with that is that the ink on the surface would always be visible from every angle, and that does not behave the same as a narrow shallow channel in the surface.

You can see the difference in how the secondary hull appears in the movies - in TMP, sometimes you can hardly tell there are gridlines - but in every movie after, the secondary hull gridlines stick out much more because they ARE painted in for ST:II (because they messed up the support arm access areas and painted the rest of the gridlines to match so that the seams wouldn't stick out)


----------



## Richard38

Gunstar1,

you know I thought they looked different  but never figured out why

Richard


----------



## nautilusnut

*PL Refit fixes and inaccuracies*

Regarding the panel lines. I have drawn them on on many of my models with a mechanical pencil. It should be done on a flat coat if possible. Any mistakes can be washed off and the final result should be sealed with a coat of clear. The lines are very thin and look as good as engraved until you get your nose about 3" away- which is way too close on a model of this scale. Of couse, you need to fill the kit's original engraved lines first.


----------



## Gunstar1

Yeah pencil could be good - it would more reflect the 1701-A, but you might be able to adjust for the TMP refit by using a harder graphite, like 4H, so that the line is really light against a white hull.


----------



## Gunstar1

Does anybody have a good dead-on side view of a completed PL refit?

Something I want to take on is the engineering hull. I didn't want to before because it meant rescribing all grid lines, but there are now other reasons why I want to rescribe anyway, soooo.....

see the attached jpeg at the bottom - this is just to illustrate my point - I have yet to do some really close measurements to prove it - so I have represented the studio model (blue) and PL kit (red) in really exaggerated lines.

Disillusionist posted a pic of a PL next to a Deboer - the Deboer engineering hull is a bit more on the money, if not overcompensating too much maybe (see right below)....










http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u96/The_Disillusionist/_DSC0010.jpg

I think I am going to make the hull thicker more towards the front (note thickest point with dotted line), thus creating the needed steeper angle at the very front, and I will shrink the fantail a little on the sides and moreso by raising the hangar deck and underside... I think... which is why I'm wondering if anyone has any good side view pics of a completed PL kit


----------



## Marco Scheloske

FSM-1 said:


> There's a better kit on the horizon.


In 1:350?

From whom?

You`re not talking about the re-issue, aren`t you? The model itself is not changed there.


----------



## Gunstar1

Here's something to note about decal accuracy.

On the studio model, whenever a deflector grid line crosses any registration mark/decal, that grid line essentially chops out the area of the decal being intersected.

On the attached blu-ray screencap, you can clearly see both registration and phaser warning stripe do not overlap or fill in the grid channel, though the metal texture of the phaser bank base IS visible in the channel.

Oh, and NCC-1701 top saucer decal is too small - I think there may be other markings that are incorrectly sized as well.....


----------



## starseeker

This is still a fabulous thread. Keep up the excellent work!

For the fun of it, I was looking for Raytheon's threads. They are all gone. Does anyone know if Raytheon's build threads are available at any sites? Even the Wayback Machine can find only two pages.


----------



## Gunstar1

I just spoke with him and it will be back up at some point


----------



## John Duncan

This thread continues to deliver!


----------



## trekman

I took out my old amt and despite its short comings its secondary hull is more tear drop shaped than the 1/350. I'll take a modified secondary hull 1/350 for my re-fit /or plans on how to proceed.


----------



## marc111

Just one more nit. And I wish they had not made the join line on the nacelle wings go down the edge center. The side and back reaction control openings are rectangular when they should be parallelagrams following the rear corner slant line angle.

Mark
Still working on base coats and aztec paints.


----------



## Gunstar1

Here's another image from ST III showing a good angle on the curvature of the engineering hull - the PL kit has the top spine (extending backward from the dorsal) totally straight, as well as the curvature of the hull not getting concave at all.... but you can clearly see in the screencap that the slope of the spine is most definately NOT constant - forward of the pylons it is nearly level, just aft of the pylons it is at it's steepest point, and then starts to level off again.

Hold up your PL engineering hull and compare the angle.


----------



## 67657

Glad I came to this thread; working on a 1/350 now.


----------



## ajmadison

Gunstar1 said:


> I've been pondering the rescribing for a while - I'm sure it would be one of the more time consuming and nail-biting portions of accurizing.....
> 
> I don't know. That's what's on my mind.


Here is my setup for an abortive 1/1000 effort I have since abandoned since the release of the R2 kit. But the concept is similar and should work easily well on the 1/350 kit. This is just for marking the lines.

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k170/ajmadison/1000_1_RefitE/013.jpg

Here is a close up of the laser line:

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k170/ajmadison/1000_1_RefitE/016.jpg

For scribing, I used dymo label tape as my guide, once the kit part was marked.

Here is a shot of the kit part/s prior to primer:

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k170/ajmadison/1000_1_RefitE/026.jpg

For marking the vertical lines, I used a slightly different set up, which was a home made level marking system. Basically a rod stuck in a piece of wood which could hold a pencil level at a constant height. A combination of a piece of brass sheet and more dymo label tape made it possible to scribe the vertical lines.

If there's interest, I'll photograph my level marking "system" in action and post'em. Hope this helps.


----------



## trekman

While I was looking at reference pics from sttmp Hd I also noticed that the top of the impulse deck dome was a yellow/ amber color when the ship first leaves space dock, the same as the rear impulse engines! In other movies it appears white, while the engines are red. Just something to keep in mind when making The motion picture ship.


----------



## Redspecial

ajmadison said:


> Here is my setup for an abortive 1/1000 effort I have since abandoned since the release of the R2 kit. But the concept is similar and should work easily well on the 1/350 kit. This is just for marking the lines.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For scribing, I used dymo label tape as my guide, once the kit part was marked.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For marking the vertical lines, I used a slightly different set up, which was a home made level marking system. Basically a rod stuck in a piece of wood which could hold a pencil level at a constant height. A combination of a piece of brass sheet and more dymo label tape made it possible to scribe the vertical lines.
> 
> If there's interest, I'll photograph my level marking "system" in action and post'em. Hope this helps.


Would love to see more if it's not too late to ask. I'm a dry sponge!

Devon


----------



## ajmadison

Redspecial said:


> Would love to see more if it's not too late to ask. I'm a dry sponge!
> 
> Devon


Here are all of my pictures from that (abortive) effort.

http://s88.photobucket.com/albums/k170/ajmadison/1000_1_RefitE/

Some of the techniques will obviously not work, but I discovered that even at 1/1000 scale, that some simple tools will allow you to do fine work.


----------



## Redspecial

Thank you!

Devon


----------



## darkwanderer

ajmadison, the links are still dead. Is there another way to show them?


----------



## Redspecial

darkwanderer said:


> ajmadison, the links are still dead. Is there another way to show them?


See http://s88.photobucket.com/albums/k170/ajmadison/

Devon


----------



## AlcyoneVX_91

Hi Guys & Girls.
My names LOU! and am new to the board (though I've been lurking for about 18 months). Finally after 15 years I'm picking up the paint & glue to start modeling again, which is the reason I've joined this forum. I've now got a massive problem. About 12 years ago I bought an AMT Enterprise-Final Frontier, mint, still sealed, opened it on Saturday to start it & low and behold, parts are missing. Some of the shuttle is not there, but the biggest disaster is the dorsal is missing. As this this is not scaled, I'm now asking is there anyone who has kit bashed this kit, and would be able to supply this section, or where I could find it.This is the 22"kit so the 1/1000 will not work & I'm hoping one of you Legends out there might have an answer for me,or you can PM me
Regards....LOU!:thumbsup:


----------



## eagledocf15

*Does anyone know where the painting guide went?*

Does anyone know where the painting guide from Trekmodeler went?


----------



## Opus Penguin

He states he is still working on it.


----------



## HDATX

*Trekmodeler paint guide*



eagledocf15 said:


> Does anyone know where the painting guide from Trekmodeler went?


He has released it. Order at trekmodeler.com


----------



## eagledocf15

*New items*

Are there any new update sets for the PL 350th Refit Enterprise


----------



## trekman

Long time no see. I was looking at the auction photos of the STTMP ship and I noticed that the shape of the photon torpedo launchers were more rounded than square at the edges. The front borders of the red tubes seem more pronounced and framed by squares. I don't know if this was mentioned before,if so forgive my tardiness.


----------



## eagledocf15

Any updates? 
Are there any new update sets and electronics sonce the last update?


----------



## Trek Ace

There was a recent announcement from Trekmodeler that he has created a new version of his lighting kit for the 1/350 refit.

Welcome to Trek Modeler.com


----------



## trekman

*Updates*

I don't know how new this is but HDAMODELWORX had some photo ectch parts for the Re-fit including 1/350 :smile2:worker bee and cargo carriers by Green strawberry.


----------



## Paulbo

trekman said:


> I don't know how new this is but HDAMODELWORX had some photo ectch parts for the Re-fit including 1/350 :smile2:worker bee and cargo carriers by Green strawberry.


Oh, goody, "recast" ParaGrafix parts with a couple of modifications so they can say "no, we didn't rip off ParaGrafix" even though their development shots (now taken down four years ago) clearly showed how they were duplicates of the ParaGrafix works.


----------



## FlyingBrickyard

Trek Ace said:


> There was a recent announcement from Trekmodeler that he has created a new version of his lighting kit for the 1/350 refit.


Oh good. That looks like a HUGE improvement over the kit I received (in 2011), which was quite... rough. Though it was good motivation to learn how to DIY.



Paulbo said:


> Oh, goody, "recast" ParaGrafix parts with a couple of modifications so they can say "no, we didn't rip off ParaGrafix" even though their development shots (now taken down four years ago) clearly showed how they were duplicates of the ParaGrafix works.


Also good to know, thanks for the heads up. I'll cross them off my list of acceptable vendors.


----------



## trekman

Hey Paulbo, I'm sorry I didn't know they were recast,I just thought they were new for the re-fit. Is their rec dec also a recast? I've never heard of Green Strawberry before. I have purchased stuff from HDAMODELWORX before and was happy with it.


----------



## Paulbo

Their rec-deck is "inspired" by my forced perspective version, though they've left a lot of detail out ... and added non-existent side balconies. They did steal my totally made up ceiling lighting as there's essentially no reference available for it.

(As with my other items, when they add "details" to make things different, they always make them inaccurate - case in point is the JJ-Prise set where they f'd up the bussard collector fans because they were seeing artifacts of the video images whereas I had the actual filming 3D model, or making the JJ-Prise bridge circular even though it isn't.)

They care naught for accuracy.


----------



## asalaw

Paulbo said:


> Their rec-deck is "inspired" by my forced perspective version, though they've left a lot of detail out ... and added non-existent side balconies. They did steal my totally made up ceiling lighting as there's essentially no reference available for it.
> 
> (As with my other items, when they add "details" to make things different, they always make them inaccurate - case in point is the JJ-Prise set where they f'd up the bussard collector fans because they were seeing artifacts of the video images whereas I had the actual filming 3D model, or making the JJ-Prise bridge circular even though it isn't.)
> 
> They care naught for accuracy.


I have all your 350 refit and 350 TOS stuff, and I can attest to the quality. I'd love to build a D'A Falcon with your upgrades too, but I can think of better uses for $1,200 than a model kit. :wink2:


----------



## FlyingBrickyard

asalaw said:


> I have all your 350 refit and 350 TOS stuff, and I can attest to the quality. I'd love to build a D'A Falcon with your upgrades too, but I can think of better uses for $1,200 than a model kit. :wink2:


Think of it not as *a* model kit, but rather a closely related series of smaller kits, collectively arranged and displayed in a Millennium Falcon shaped case. :grin2:

That's what I do. >


----------



## eagledocf15

TrekFX said:


> *Dorsal (engineering-saucer)*
> 
> Torpedo deck:
> 
> Issue: Aft section width should maintain width of engineering strongback/ dorsal spine. I think that the strongback area (below the vent thingie) also "sticks out" more in profile than the dorsal spine in photos, but it may be a matter of interpretation.
> 
> http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent17.jpg
> 
> http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent56.jpg
> 
> Possible solution: Aft walls of torp deck need to be gradually tapered in at the top. May need to add filler inside as the amount of material that will be removed probably exceeds the thickness of the plastic. Add a bit of styrene strip/sheet and putty as needed to the strongback, if it indeed needs it.
> 
> Issue/solution: Front section at the torp tubes should have more radiused edges inside and outside, decreasing radius going aft. Side wall planview looks good, so it's just a bit of sanding on the outside and a little fillet on the inside.
> 
> http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent61.jpg
> 
> Note: 6-14-05 Removed stuff about launcher tube area.


Do you have these images still? Cloudster no longer supported. Thanks


----------



## eagledocf15

Trek Ace said:


> I had already posted these observations on another site. I have added comparison photos for clarity:
> 
> *- the impulse deck (the clear piece with the exhaust ports)*
> _The shape is totally wrong. It is too deep vertically and the lower portion should angle upwards, not go straight back._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *- the grooved reinforcement panels on either side of the top of the dorsal and where they intersect the hull separation line.*
> _The rear "point" that curves downward should just intersect the line. Instead, it sticks down about 1/8-inch too far._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *- the rear of the torpedo bay at the bottom of the dorsal (the "spine" behind where the photon exhaust sits).*
> _From the point where it connects to the secondary hull "spine" it flares outward as it curves upward. It should not ever be any wider than the rear edge of the dorsal or the "spine" strip on the secondary hull.
> The problem is the torpedo bay is too wide at the rear. It should taper in to the width of the rear edge of the dorsal._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are still a few other things like the torpedo bay docking ports and dorsal panel lines. But, these first items jumped right out at me when I first inspected the parts out of the box. I noticed the hangar doors and rear fantail as well. But that has already been covered extensively elsewhere.


Do you still have these images? These are not displayed here. Thanks


----------



## eagledocf15

marc111 said:


> One more inaccuracy:
> On the rear surface of the nacelles a small "U" shaped piece with bumps is inserted around the center detail. The parts go into place as labeled in the kit and fit correctly.
> 
> However based on the following closeup:
> http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent46.jpg
> 
> The pattern of the bumps (look closely for the large square bump that appears just above the horizontal wing) is opposite to that shown on the cloudster and Christies pictures. For the best accuracy these two pieces need to be swapped and placed on the opposite nacelle compared to what is indicated in the instructions.
> 
> There are two indents at the bottom open end of the "U" shaped piece to allow it to fit correctly with the center detail piece. In order to swap the pieces and have everything fit correctly you need to file the shorter indent until it is the same length as the longer indent on the other side. This will allow you to then put each U piece on the opposite nacelle and bring the bumps into alignment with the photos.
> 
> If you want to get really picky you can also then adjust the number of some of the other bumps for a closer match as well.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark


Do you still have these images. Cloudster no longer supported. Thanks


----------



## Trek Ace

Trek Ace said:


> I had already posted these observations on another site. I have added comparison photos for clarity:
> 
> *- the impulse deck (the clear piece with the exhaust ports)*
> _The shape is totally wrong. It is too deep vertically and the lower portion should angle upwards, not go straight back._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *- the grooved reinforcement panels on either side of the top of the dorsal and where they intersect the hull separation line.*
> _The rear "point" that curves downward should just intersect the line. Instead, it sticks down about 1/8-inch too far._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *- the rear of the torpedo bay at the bottom of the dorsal (the "spine" behind where the photon exhaust sits).*
> _From the point where it connects to the secondary hull "spine" it flares outward as it curves upward. It should not ever be any wider than the rear edge of the dorsal or the "spine" strip on the secondary hull.
> The problem is the torpedo bay is too wide at the rear. It should taper in to the width of the rear edge of the dorsal._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are still a few other things like the torpedo bay docking ports and dorsal panel lines. But, these first items jumped right out at me when I first inspected the parts out of the box. I noticed the hangar doors and rear fantail as well. But that has already been covered extensively elsewhere.


I went back to page one and added the original photos to the thread. That was 17 years ago! I was only a kid of 69 then. Glad I still remembered where to find the pics. A mind is a terrible thing to lose.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing

Trek Ace said:


> I went back to page one and added the original photos to the thread. That was 17 years ago! I was only a kid of 69 then. Glad I still remembered where to find the pics. A mind is a terrible thing to lose.


Thank you for taking them time to find them and reload them! 🤙


----------



## irishtrek

something I discovered a few years ago is the horizontal fins on the warp nacelles of the filming model are narrow at the forward end but on the PL 350 they are the exact same thickness front and rear. My apologies if someone else has already posted this info.


----------

