Topic: Speak softly, but carry a big stick...

[Centurus]

*looks at Azel*  Can I get you a drink buddy?  Coffee, beer, Jack Daniels?  Maybe a slave girl? 

Anyway, I love the ship.  With me, deciding what era a ship fits into doesn't always depend on how the ship looks, what her design is, what features she has.  It's also in how you write her story.  Every ship has a story to be told.  I remember when I started on the Mark 6 project.  I said she was to be an early 25th Century refit, but alot had assumed she was a Lost Era refit, and one individual even said that a 25th Century Connie was stupid and that it wouldn't fly, and that I should be smart and release it as a Lost Era ship.  I didn't.

I agree with you Azel, if people don't like it, they don't have to download it.  Personally, I don't have that problem.  I already love it. 

[Norsehound]

Azel: Would you or WZ rather I become a bot and spout mindless praise or give you my honest-to-goodness opinions?

I'm not saying WZ has made a terrible model at all, in fact all of his work has been of the best quality I have ever seen (with the possible exception of WillDecker, but his are retextures, and based on WZ's models). I'm only disputing it's TMP roots by pointing out minor, trivial details...because I can't really say anything else other than 'Woah, Cool model!"

I'm also on the lookout for TMP era models that don't carry any design influences from TNG, and look more linear and blocky instead of streamlined and aquatic. My suggestions are just nitpicks should WZ choose to modify his model or release a second version, which I doubt, and is unecissary given the history of this vessel.

And on the note of the Andromedan wars: it's a shame Paramount doesn't take some notes from SFB's history- the latter has much more continuity and consistancy than the storyline presented by Paramount so far.

[Core]

big stick indeed

[FoaS_XC]

Lol, FW, he didnt say 4 Warp Cores, he said 4 Warp Engines. (two in each nacelle) hence the double Grills.

[Grim Reaper]

I like the quality of the model, the sleekness of the design (for such a massive ship!!) and the feel of the vessel.

[Norsehound]

If I am 'destroying this community' then I'll gladly leave... I don't want to disrupt the delicate balance and work of these modlers.

And besides, better than getting a negative double digit on this karma rating thing, which I'll probably get anyway for opening my big yap.

Wondeful model WZ, but I don't play SFC anymore so I guess it's a no-download for me. Prasie to your Connie modle though, it's even better (IMO) than P-81's (Although his was magnificent also, 'specially with the missing mirror textures).

[OlBuzzard]

OK...WTF is wrong with you guys!
This model is in no way indicative of a TNG ship...not one TNG ship shares any features with this ship...other than the standard saucer/hull/nacelle combination.
In fact only TMP ships have the curved pylons...not straight as some of you think....do some research, and you'll see what I am talking about .
TNG ships have curved corners not curved pylons....ever heard of a ship called Akyazi?
I mean dammit, I have never seen such a BS complaint in my life...Look, if you don't like it...don't DL it...or build one your damned self.
pet peeve?? pet peeve!!
this is my pet peeve...a lot of hard work goes into building a ship to fit the bill, that doesn't look like a damned TMP Connie Kitbash that makes no sense(no offence to you kitbashers out there you know I support you!)...or some pathetic BS excuse for those fan-boyed "uber cruiser".
a real design that follows the line of thinking to make a transition from TMP towards the future, transcending the Eras ...Like the excelsior...and you guys whine about it???

....(and you wonder why I ducked out of here)

BTW:
Hello Sandman, MP, FW, FotS, Mackie, Ol'Buzz and others!!!

While I might not have expressed it EXACTLY like that ...  what I CAN and will say AZEL is:

 

Narrow minded, half-axxxx, closed boxed ideas that only approve of a select preconceived ideals:

TOS
TMP
certain schools of designs approved by certain Games
PRE-TOS ....  as long as it meets a particular criteria

sorry ...

Though I personally might not have designed the ship like this ... I try to see past my own personal pettiness ..  and see the design for what it is.

I dont know that I would have named it the Arizona simply out respect to the US Navys position on the matter.

BTW...  WZ ..  I mean no disrespect to you or your work making that statement.  Others who know me know the high regard that I hold sacred for those who serve in the armed forces protecting our freedom.  I particularly try to honor those who have given the supreme sacrifice for me to have the life that I enjoy today.  (Perhaps that was WZ's intent ...  )

please do not take this personal feeling of mine as a matter of dishonored criticism.....  (dat cool?)

I said all of that to say this:

We can offer helpful criticism or arguments without trashing someones work.  Not everything is posted with the intent of requesting PHILOSOPHICAL design techniques.

BTW...  It's not tearing down the community to review something .. or even to disagree...

Perhaps a review on HOW that is presented might be in order.

 

[Core]

I now wander what would happen if i ever decide to release any thing


& i am quite aware of the fact tat i ave been saying that i will for years now!!!
but the day is coming

[OlBuzzard]

That's the whole point ...

release it buddy !

[Core]

no textures on it .... cant do textures...

[Wicked Zombie]

I didn't see anything worth getting into such a ruckus over - if I didn't want criticism, I wouldn't have posted it. I just don't share the same viewpoint on certain aspects that others do, which is one of the main reasons I build my own ships. Though, if people want to go on about something, by all means - we modeler types don't get the chance to step up to the public soapboxes much these days.

While I seldom, if ever, agree on criticisms which are basically one's own personal tastes, I don't see any reason to discourage them. It shouldn't matter if one's a contributor or not as the whole point of the forums are to express viewpoints and considerations.

Of course, one has to be careful just how far they go in expressing those viewpoints. Hearing someone give the same old complaint about building a dozen Constitutions, or using piles of texture maps over and over again does get excessively repetitive, for example. As long as they haven't been pointed out before and are valid opinions, there isn't really anything wrong with such comments. That, and being tactful about it which isn't something most people here have ever had a problem with.

[Starforce2]

OK...WTF is wrong with you guys!
This model is in no way indicative of a TNG ship...not one TNG ship shares any features with this ship...other than the standard saucer/hull/nacelle combination.
In fact only TMP ships have the curved pylons...not straight as some of you think....do some research, and you'll see what I am talking about .
TNG ships have curved corners not curved pylons....ever heard of a ship called Akyazi?
I mean dammit, I have never seen such a BS complaint in my life...Look, if you don't like it...don't DL it...or build one your damned self.
pet peeve?? pet peeve!!
this is my pet peeve...a lot of hard work goes into building a ship to fit the bill, that doesn't look like a damned TMP Connie Kitbash that makes no sense(no offence to you kitbashers out there you know I support you!)...or some pathetic BS excuse for those fan-boyed "uber cruiser".
a real design that follows the line of thinking to make a transition from TMP towards the future, transcending the Eras ...Like the excelsior...and you guys whine about it???

....(and you wonder why I ducked out of here)

BTW:
Hello Sandman, MP, FW, FotS, Mackie, Ol'Buzz and others!!!

Ok, I don't care if the arizona here has curved pylons or not..but to say tmp ships have curved pylons and tng do not is wrong. Galaxy, Nebula, Sov, Runabouts all have curved pylons leading to the nacelles (akira doesn't, ambassador if u call that tng doesn't either.). Tmp ships, the true ones, do not. Connies, mirandas, excelciors and excleciors 2's, centaur, stagazer (constelation) all havestrait pylons. The only outstanding one is the oberth, and tehcnicly speaking the Nacelles are atatched directly to the ship and the pylons are for the lower sensor boom (and some say the core is down there too but no canon evidence support one way or another the location of the core) so they technicly are not nacelle pylons. Akayazi is not a canon ship. It's a fan ship. Fan made tmp have curved pylons, true tmp do not. Now, as for this ship being cool or not because it has curved pylons is not my point. I think I might prefer them strait, but the ship looks fine the way it is. I don't believe there is anything wrong with a tmp ship having a curved pylon. Certainly not a late era one like this.

[Tus-XC]

You best check your defnition of straight SF, the excel does not have straight struts, if it did they wouldn't have a bend befoe they attached to the naccel.  And technically speaking the oberth has 4 naccel struts, 2 pair per naccel,  not your perceptions of 2 pylons and two connecting pylons, one set you could technically call naccel struts and one set for connection purposes.  If you made that claim i could equally make the claim that the struts that connect it the saucer section are their to connect the saucer w/ the rest of the ship and are technically speaking not naccel struts (pylons).  No this is not the truth for the facts are curved, angled and straight pylons/struts are part of TMP no matter how much people would like to pick and choose thier canon. 

[ModelsPlease]

Hiya Azel (waiving)  .
Great ship WZ......so now are ya ready to take on the Elkins ???? I searched and search and finally found an F-14 for you to use in creating the weirdest Trek ship of all time .

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
-MP

[Starforce2]

You best check your defnition of straight SF, the excel does not have straight struts, if it did they wouldn't have a bend befoe they attached to the naccel.  And technically speaking the oberth has 4 naccel struts, 2 pair per naccel,  not your perceptions of 2 pylons and two connecting pylons, one set you could technically call naccel struts and one set for connection purposes.  If you made that claim i could equally make the claim that the struts that connect it the saucer section are their to connect the saucer w/ the rest of the ship and are technically speaking not naccel struts (pylons).  No this is not the truth for the facts are curved, angled and straight pylons/struts are part of TMP no matter how much people would like to pick and choose thier canon. 

Excel struts do have an angle in them, however this is a sharp angle, 90 degrees, not a bend or a curve. Thus they are still made from strait sections.

[Rod ONeal]

I can easily picture this as "the answer" to the Andromedan invasion. It would make me park my Intruder and break out the Dominator.

Awesome ship, WZ!

[Mackie]

uh... whatwhat? lots of words... MACKIE BASH SHIP! MACKIE BASH SHIP!

[Dawntreader]

Anyone else notice that this ship looks like a TMP version of the Sovereign class?  The arrangement of the features are almost identical.  A worthy predecessor, and makes sense too.

[Tus-XC]

You best check your defnition of straight SF, the excel does not have straight struts, if it did they wouldn't have a bend befoe they attached to the naccel.  And technically speaking the oberth has 4 naccel struts, 2 pair per naccel,  not your perceptions of 2 pylons and two connecting pylons, one set you could technically call naccel struts and one set for connection purposes.  If you made that claim i could equally make the claim that the struts that connect it the saucer section are their to connect the saucer w/ the rest of the ship and are technically speaking not naccel struts (pylons).  No this is not the truth for the facts are curved, angled and straight pylons/struts are part of TMP no matter how much people would like to pick and choose thier canon. 

Excel struts do have an angle in them, however this is a sharp angle, 90 degrees, not a bend or a curve. Thus they are still made from strait sections.

Umm no, straight sections and straight naccels/pylons are not the same at all.  The definition of straight requires there to be no bends period, not matter how sharp, for an object to be striaght.  Further a pylong/strut requirs some base connection point, this is its beginning, for the excel this is at a hub on top of the secondary hull.  from here the strut makes a bend to attach to the naccel.  the strut itself is the whole thing, not from where the bend is to the naccel

[OlBuzzard]

Anyone else notice that this ship looks like a TMP version of the Sovereign class?  The arrangement of the features are almost identical.  A worthy predecessor, and makes sense too.

This is the most plausible answer here !

I think we've became so argumentative that we've over looked the positive in the design.

At least the discussion has settled down to a more sensable "discussion" in stead of "blasting" the thunder out of the design... 

Good call DT....  excellent observation.!