Topic: USS Burke NCC-D301 Retexture

[Mariner]

My first retexture release, the USS Burke NCC-D301. This is a retexture work of Atra's FF, which now fits into my own personal interperatation of Masao Okazaki's Avenger/Predator Registry system.

 

Go to my site and get it here. http://www.freewebs.com/startrekmariner/shipdownloads.htm

[Azel]

NICE!!!
really good job mate  

[Mariner]

 Thanks.

I've got a few other ships that I've reregistered and retextured, such as  LS's Saladin's (and a Hermes variant ,) Atra's Bonaventure, and several DestyNova ships. I plan to get them all nice and ready for the site, but I'll need some things to finish a few of them...

Where can I get blank textures for Desty's FFB and FDW? Also, do you think Lord Schtupp wouod be willing to make a clean ("factory fresh") Pegasus? I need to make an NCC-S612 registry for her, so I can make THAT a Hermes too.

[Capt. Wildman]

Very nice, I look forward to seeing more!! Makes me seriously contemplate re-installing SFCII...... though I could just mess with SFCIII, maybe even download a TOS pack......
   

[SovereignEmpire]

That ship looks like the USS Boobyprise from the cartoon parody Star Wreck by Alvin and the Chipmunks, lol.  It?s pretty nice really.  You should make a USS Boobyprise registry  

[Dizzy]

Oh damn, I like that even better! Someone make that please!

[Fury_of_a_Seraph]

no one else has asked this, but i have to

why is it "D"301

[Marauth]

'D' is for Destroyer, it's a code Masao Okazaki used cuz there isn't really much space in between the Constitution class registries (his ones run 1700 to 1749, no irregularities) and the Miranda class registries (USS Miranda is 1833), the Avenger and Predator run after the Connie but before the TMP period so this saves the whole question of accomodating the registries. Though it does raise the question of why other Starfleet Museum ships don't follow this scheme, like the carriers could use NCC-V*** or the scouts could have used NCC-S***

Though Mariner really should have used 'F' in this case as the Burke is a frigate. NCC-F301, hmm.

Oh and I don't really like that secondary hull, it's way too spindly when you compare it to the saucer and nacelles of the Burke which are very voluminous.

[Mariner]

It is NCC-D301 because I see the Burke as a Fast Destroyer rather than a Frigate (which is really another name for a CL,) and Masao's Avenger/Predator classes carried the "D" registries to signify this. However, I had to bump up his registries to make the Saladin's fit into it (since they would start at NCC-D500, D501, etc.) Accordingly, this would make the Burke's older than the Connys, which they are.

Go see the Avenger/Predator here.

http://www.starfleet-museum.org/avenger-predator.htm


Anyway, here are previews of my next uploads...

 

 

 

   

[Reverend]

Quote:
'D' is for Destroyer, it's a code Masao Okazaki used cuz there isn't really much space in between the Constitution class registries (his ones run 1700 to 1749, no irregularities) and the Miranda class registries (USS Miranda is 1833), the Avenger and Predator run after the Connie but before the TMP period so this saves the whole question of accomodating the registries. Though it does raise the question of why other Starfleet Museum ships don't follow this scheme, like the carriers could use NCC-V*** or the scouts could have used NCC-S***

Though Mariner really should have used 'F' in this case as the Burke is a frigate. NCC-F301, hmm.

Oh and I don't really like that secondary hull, it's way too spindly when you compare it to the saucer and nacelles of the Burke which are very voluminous.  

I agree- although I generally dont like nacelles welded to saucers, this one really pulls it off without looking sloppy or clumsy- great work Mariner!!!!  

[Mariner]

I hope everybody realizes that this model is Atra's...

Oh, I have my own explanation on why larger ships don't have "Letter" Registries.

Quote:
 Perhaps the NCC's not only denote what number the particular ship is, but also it's function. For example, according to what TOS shows us, the Starships have numeric designations (NCC-1701, NCC-1017, etc.), along with Dreadnoughts (NCC-2120) and others (NCC-636, NCC-1864, etc.).


But, let's take the TAS freighters (NCC-Fxxx) as an example. Perhaps that the Letter-Prefixes (LP) is used separateley from the Strict-Numbers (SN) beacuse LP denote what specific function the ship has, but the SN system is used because Cruisers, Dreadnoughts, and Starships (and probably Frigates) have multi-mission capabilities.


I mean, seriously, it does make sense. Which is easier, to use a NCC-DSCFG1701 because the Enterprise is a Starship (and hence could fill in any of those roles,) or to just have SN (NCC-1701), and reserve LP for more specialized ships?


But, there's one little, easily explained nit that someone out there will pick up... What about the Revere and Columbia? They only had SN registires (NCC-595 and NCC-621), but they are scouts, so why don't they have an NCC-S595?

Wait a second, look at the nomenclature used in TMP to adress ships in general...

Quote:
 Scout Columbia, NCC-621 ... Scout Revere, NCC-595 ... Dreadnought Entente, NCC-2120

See the seperate Scout and Dreadnought designations? We can already surmise that the Entente is accounted for, and hence has a SN. But, if the "S" in an LP system means "Scout", then why, in essence, say Scout twice if you included both? If you said the "S" with the number, that's uncesessarily repeating yourself.


So why not simply drop the "S", and just metion it beforehand? Since we already know that the Columbia is a Scout, that means there are atleast 620 other Scouts, which is why we can just say "NCC-621", since we know it's already a scout. Also, since this is a verbal communication, it may be better to say the word "Scout" to be more precise.

Also, here a list of the LP Registry Types that have appeared in TAS and a few that I've come up with and seen.

NCC-F - Freighter
NCC-G - Robot Freighter (or Small Freighter)
NCC-D - Destroyer
NCC-T - Tender
NCC-DT - Destroyer Tender
NCC-S - Scout
NCC-M - Monitor

I hope this clears things up.