Topic: What we've been up to - from a Modeller's perspective.

[FoaS_XC]

Happy Chrismakwanzika...

Anyone want to take a guess as to the most common asked question on Dynaverse these days? Yup, you had it right: "What's going on with SFC:CE?" ... well, I'm happy to tell you that over the last couple months we've been hard at work. I asked Frey if I could show what I, specifically, have been working on and he was gracious enough to let it these out of the bag.

You see, part of the later planned stages of SFC:CE is art overhaul. Here's an early show of that effort.

All models so far come in under 8k polies (at their highest resolution) and will have a single texture with baked effects, full break models, and impressive levels of texture detail.

But here's the catch. As you all know Frey runs Dynaverse.net out of his own house and its an expensive endeavour. Want to help SFC:CE come about? Give this a read and Donate what you can spare towards the maintaining of the servers.

[FoaS_XC]

Care for a few SFC:CE wallpapers for the holidays?

Abbe-D
Abbe-S
Abbe-V
Akula
Constitution2
Fencer
Kirov
Miranda
Wolverine

[Klingon Fanatic]

Very nice but how about un update on the non-Federation fleets?

I would love to know what the Mirak, Klingon and what other COMPLETE ADVERSARY FLEETS are actually going to be available.

We can not hope to attract new players in ny great numbers without equally cool adversary ships, NEW STATTIONS, PLANETS and some added bells and whistles for the ADHD kids out there.

Thank you for sharing this news.

Qapla'

[FoaS_XC]

Oh don't worry. I plan on EVERYTHING getting some attention: Planets, Nebulas, Starbases, Freighters. I've already "donated" my Kzinti fleet (which will need an overhaul to meet the new standards) to the project.

[CaptCujo]

I can't wait to see the final product -

[Starfox1701]

Whats the CE stand for?

[FoaS_XC]

"Community Edition"

The idea is now that we have EAW's Source Code, we're bringing it up to OP standards and well beyond

[Chrystoff]

WOW! That's really something to look forward to!

[Norsehound]

Tangible evidence on a project is always a good sign Great looking presentation on our favorite classes and ships from elsewhere.

My only critique is against the Wolverine and the Fencer. Neither ship has enough changes to make them visually distinct from a baseline constitution profile. At least the Kirov has enough modifications to make it look different than just a Connie with the nacelles flattened out. Good show on the aft superstructure! And the Akula looks close enough to the original silhouette for me to be happy. Props on the Abbe as well!

[FoaS_XC]

Regarding the wolverine and fencer: There will be plenty of ships that break the mold, so I feel like its nice to have a couple that don't. Remember that our baseline is still SFB - I'm going to be using the Constellation for the F-GSC (Galactic Survey Crusier) and the Chandley for the F-CAD (Drone Cruiser), so there will be plenty of deviation. that being said, I wanted the wolverine and the fencer to "feel" like modifications of the original spaceframe. I feel like I can get away with that on occasion (but not to worry, I won't be letting things be as kit-bashy as SFB-proper).

Thank you on the Kirov and the others. That kirov aft hull was quite a pain the the bum.

also: I was very much tempted to throw the under-saucer deflector (ala Abbe) on the Miranda, but I didn't want to play too far from canon on an official design :3

[Lieutenant_Q]

Honestly, I'm glad he didn't.  When those ships were built it was, if not actual war, a high tension time.  Starfleet would want to get a lot of ships out as quickly as possible, why not use as many common parts as possible?  Kit-bashing is not necessarily a bad thing, but like all things it can be taken too far.

[Panzergranate]

So will the Knox be included as the new F-FF??

[Chrystoff]

I'm curious: Was there ever a heavy cruiser design in SFB that served both a troop transport and a cruiser role?

[FoaS_XC]

So will the Knox be included as the new F-FF??

Meaning the slight variant on the Miranda? It'll probably be used as a NCL variant along side the Miranda (which is another NCL variant). Just because someone calls it a Frigate doesn't mean it would work well for SFC's Frigate.

I'm curious: Was there ever a heavy cruiser design in SFB that served both a troop transport and a cruiser role?

I imagine there is, but even if there were I don't want to use an awesome ship like the Chandley for a ship that will never be used (A Commando Heavy cruiser... how many people flew that particular bird?)

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

The Chandley was a marine transport in the FASA starship combat game. The two big built up areas/wings were for baracks, gymnasiums , training areas etc.  I guess the wings could be considered as missile storage for this purpose?  Otherwise it's a big waste of space to explain.

[FoaS_XC]

I do recall a photorp-boat variant, but even if not: I'm not above using her for something else.

[Starfox1701]

I if I might ask are community models going into this or will they all be Original construtions?

[FoaS_XC]

They're all going to be original builds.

[Klingon Fanatic]

The Chandley TMP version is a well rounded multi-role platform. Very mission versitile...Add marines, add science equipment or make it an auxilliary CV/Missile cruiser etc. I'd love to see it with a deflector built into the bottom of the saucer.

FASA lore be damned *cough* frigates...

I recommend the TMP era Belknap as the fast cruiser and Churchill as the FCX and were off to a great start.

[Starfox1701]

Do you have a list of needed hulls and races yet?

[Norsehound]

The Constellation as GSC is completely fitting since it seemed to carry that role into the decades following its introduction. It's hardly a warship, and seems to have more space for cargo than the Constitutions did.

There will be plenty of ships that break the mold, so I feel like its nice to have a couple that don't.

That may be true, but in the case of the Fast cruiser I still think those engines aren't dramatic enough of a change from the stock ones. Just glancing at the Wolverine you can't tell it's different from the connie unless you know what to look for. Personally I'd expect a completely different set of nacelles (With "black" patterns changed, perhaps with more sweep) and maybe the crystal at the top of the warp column changed- either a different color or a different assembly. These things tell me its the same spaceframe, just converted to produce and channel more power.

For the Fencer... I don't like designs that mess with the deflector dish like that. If the assembly could be smaller than how it appeared on Enterprise, it wouldn't be as big as it is. Plus I feel a hangar right there would interfere with what we know of the warp core (or it's a really small hangar). Instead I'd rather have everything behind the secondary hull docking port converted for hangar duty on the theory that you're converting that cargo deck into a full-fledged hangar and switching out primary hull labs for cargo space. You could think of it as docking the ship and letting the construction team go to town on the secondary hull. Take out the fan tail and smooth out the cylindrical hull to have a double-deck assembly. You could even put a hatch on the bottom as a drop-door.

I guess in the end I have different conventions and presumptions on starship design for Trek :\

[Terradyhne]

I if I might ask are community models going into this or will they all be Original construtions?

They're all going to be original builds.

ok than the CE will be the wrong edition name, if CE stands for "Community Edition" 

for the whole project i wish you much luck, as there would be so much work involved, for remaking all those fleets in such a high poly matter, like those Feds are.

[FoaS_XC]

The Constellation as GSC is completely fitting since it seemed to carry that role into the decades following its introduction. It's hardly a warship, and seems to have more space for cargo than the Constitutions did.

There will be plenty of ships that break the mold, so I feel like its nice to have a couple that don't.

That may be true, but in the case of the Fast cruiser I still think those engines aren't dramatic enough of a change from the stock ones. Just glancing at the Wolverine you can't tell it's different from the connie unless you know what to look for. Personally I'd expect a completely different set of nacelles (With "black" patterns changed, perhaps with more sweep) and maybe the crystal at the top of the warp column changed- either a different color or a different assembly. These things tell me its the same spaceframe, just converted to produce and channel more power.

For the Fencer... I don't like designs that mess with the deflector dish like that. If the assembly could be smaller than how it appeared on Enterprise, it wouldn't be as big as it is. Plus I feel a hangar right there would interfere with what we know of the warp core (or it's a really small hangar). Instead I'd rather have everything behind the secondary hull docking port converted for hangar duty on the theory that you're converting that cargo deck into a full-fledged hangar and switching out primary hull labs for cargo space. You could think of it as docking the ship and letting the construction team go to town on the secondary hull. Take out the fan tail and smooth out the cylindrical hull to have a double-deck assembly. You could even put a hatch on the bottom as a drop-door.

I guess in the end I have different conventions and presumptions on starship design for Trek :\

That's not a bad argument against the Fencer... I think I'll revisit it.

Also, perhaps you're right about the wolverine, it may need to be turned up a notch.

[FoaS_XC]

I if I might ask are community models going into this or will they all be Original construtions?

They're all going to be original builds.

ok than the CE will be the wrong edition name, if CE stands for "Community Edition" 

for the whole project i wish you much luck, as there would be so much work involved, for remaking all those fleets in such a high poly matter, like those Feds are.

It's a fitting name - it is going to be built by members of the community into the game that's been "dialed up to 11" compared to EAW/OP - which includes the models: We don't want to fall into a situation where someone might pull their contribution to the project halfway through the production pipeline - which is why we don't want to use models that already exist (think p81 and OP, there was a big stink back in the day about it). When time comes I hope to enlist the help of everyone willing here.

[Terradyhne]

We don't want to fall into a situation where someone might pull their contribution to the project halfway through the production pipeline - which is why we don't want to use models that already exist (think p81 and OP, there was a big stink back in the day about it).

ok this is a good way of thinking about it, i respect that, sorry than for my earlier post. 

[FoaS_XC]

Naw you're fine. You had a good concern.

[Panzergranate]

I have a plastic model of the Constellation Class.... I've always liked the design mainly as it is so radically different to the normal Star Fleet fare.

For one thing the engines are shorter and smaller than the usual TMP LN-64 Warp engine nachelles.

It does feature 6 forward firing tubes under the saucer front so its torpedo salvo is more than that of a Constitution II class. It has the conventional front twin Phaser emplacement of the top of the saucer but the lower saucer Phasers are split on to seperate bulges either side of the torpedo tubes. (USS Hathaway in TNG "Peak Performance") A bit of a problem regarding weapons hardpoints.

I've noticed that some people like to have the torpedo launcher in between the Warp engine mountings, which is completely wrong if one watches the TNG episode "The Battle" as the Stargazer launches its salvo of 6 Photons from under the saucer front.

If anything the Constellation class is considerably better armed than the Constitution II class but this is probally needed by a GSC operating alone.

I look forward to seeing the model.

[Starfox1701]

I always liked Belknap as a Fast CA class. there is even a veriant with different Necelles.

It does feature 6 forward firing tubes under the saucer front so its torpedo salvo is more than that of a Constitution II class. It has the conventional front twin Phaser emplacement of the top of the saucer but the lower saucer Phasers are split on to seperate bulges either side of the torpedo tubes. (USS Hathaway in TNG "Peak Performance") A bit of a problem regarding weapons hardpoints.
I've noticed that some people like to have the torpedo launcher in between the Warp engine mountings, which is completely wrong if one watches the TNG episode "The Battle" as the Stargazer launches its salvo of 6 Photons from under the saucer front.

Not according to the actual shooting model

[Klingon Fanatic]

The new Abbe with the deflector on the bottom saucer looks fantastic!

Please tell me that the new Akula has an under saucer deflector. I would like to see some uniformity in the Fed fleet. I say let's use this opportunity to correct some issues with the Chandley Class as well as the canon Miranda class too and give them a deflector either on the bottom saucer or like the Loknar (USS Phobos).

I have noted that the FASA pics of the Chandley vary regarding the amount of open space on the wing areas. The original main schematic is not detailed very much and yet other pictures show what resembles what the Chandley has beciome as an SFC model. There is no rule that states the Chandley couldn't have had variants as FOAS proposes.

Here are some pictures of the Old Chandley miniature showing solid wing areas a la the Marine variant:

http://users.sisna.com/roguewing/workshop/startrek/chandley1.html

Other solid wing areas:

http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/frigate_chandley_upg2.jpg

I'd like this one with a bottom saucer deflector:

http://www.shipschematics.net/startrek/images/federation/frigate_chandley_upg.jpg

Just my opinion about fleet uniformity...

[Klingon Fanatic]

I if I might ask are community models going into this or will they all be Original construtions?

They're all going to be original builds.

ok than the CE will be the wrong edition name, if CE stands for "Community Edition" 

for the whole project i wish you much luck, as there would be so much work involved, for remaking all those fleets in such a high poly matter, like those Feds are.

Terradyhne, I would be extremely disappointed if at least some of your models were not included in CE. You have a ton of excellent non-Federation ships that have yet to make it into SFC.

[GotAFarmYet?]

Leave it to me to get back to the modelling questions:
So you went to one sheet which is fine, what is the sheet size you are going to work with?
will the engine be updated any so that the true 16 bit colors can be used, or will it only still render in 8 bit as before?
will it support other picture formats?
Spec maps?

[Norsehound]

lease tell me that the new Akula has an under saucer deflector. I would like to see some uniformity in the Fed fleet. I say let's use this opportunity to correct some issues with the Chandley Class as well as the canon Miranda class too and give them a deflector either on the bottom saucer or like the Loknar (USS Phobos).

I like the Miranda the way it is. I also like the Akula the way it is. I don't like the saucer-mounted oval deflector.

Adding to the sentiments about messing with the deflector dishes, Perfect circles seem to be common in the TMP era. The saucers are circular, the deflectors are circular, the cross-section for the secondary hull is circular. It isn't until TNG that a lot of oval shapes begin to appear. With the squeezed saucer deflector your introducing an eye-catching, light-emitting oval in a place where it should be bare hull. It's too distracting and out of place, imo. I tolerate it on the Abbe because that's how the Abbe was designed, but I wouldn't miss its absence. The Miranda looks awesome enough without a 'mouth' on the saucer.

However I wondered what a Connie secondary hull would look like mounted on the underside of the Chandley. If I didn't think the Miranda fit so well as a New Heavy cruiser, I'd think such a modified Chandley would fit just as well.

Re: Constellation

The armament was upped sure, but the increase in mass wasn't accommodated with an increase in weaponry. In fact she's missing contemporaries of the underbelly and fantail phaser mounts seen on the refit connie. You could even write off one of the photorp launchers as geared specifically for probes. It's just for the amount of mass added, it seems to be dedicated to colonization and scientific equipment instead of troop space or weapons arrays. That's why she makes a good auxiliary carrier.

Re: Fast Cruiser
Another suggestion might be to reduce the taper near the bottom of the nacelle struts to make it seem like there's more hold on the engines. No sense in having them tear off the ship if they're going twice the speed of the original design specifications. On the other hand as field emitters, are they really pushing the ship? or just emitting a stronger field that moves the ship? Either way it wouldn't be an overt deal, just something subtle to suggest a few more ribs and beams were added to the pylons to better connect the monster engines to their parent ship.

[FoaS_XC]

I like the Miranda the way it is. I also like the Akula the way it is. I don't like the saucer-mounted oval deflector.

Adding to the sentiments about messing with the deflector dishes, Perfect circles seem to be common in the TMP era. The saucers are circular, the deflectors are circular, the cross-section for the secondary hull is circular. It isn't until TNG that a lot of oval shapes begin to appear. With the squeezed saucer deflector your introducing an eye-catching, light-emitting oval in a place where it should be bare hull. It's too distracting and out of place, imo. I tolerate it on the Abbe because that's how the Abbe was designed, but I wouldn't miss its absence. The Miranda looks awesome enough without a 'mouth' on the saucer.

That's part of the reason why I left it out of the Miranda. I wasn't sure so I drifted on the side of caution. I do feel like it works on the Akula, however.

However I wondered what a Connie secondary hull would look like mounted on the underside of the Chandley. If I didn't think the Miranda fit so well as a New Heavy cruiser, I'd think such a modified Chandley would fit just as well.

I feel like it would get too massive at that point. I feel like it should either have the mouth-deflector (ala Abbe) or no deflector (ala Miranda).

Re: Constellation

The armament was upped sure, but the increase in mass wasn't accommodated with an increase in weaponry. In fact she's missing contemporaries of the underbelly and fantail phaser mounts seen on the refit connie. You could even write off one of the photorp launchers as geared specifically for probes. It's just for the amount of mass added, it seems to be dedicated to colonization and scientific equipment instead of troop space or weapons arrays. That's why she makes a good auxiliary carrier.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. There is enough room to get it to do what we want, methinks.

Re: Fast Cruiser
Another suggestion might be to reduce the taper near the bottom of the nacelle struts to make it seem like there's more hold on the engines. No sense in having them tear off the ship if they're going twice the speed of the original design specifications. On the other hand as field emitters, are they really pushing the ship? or just emitting a stronger field that moves the ship? Either way it wouldn't be an overt deal, just something subtle to suggest a few more ribs and beams were added to the pylons to better connect the monster engines to their parent ship.

Good notion! again: I'll play around with it some

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Fasa Andor would combine the constitution / chandley components mentioned. It was originally a torpedo boat I think for FASA. Kreeargh made one I think.

[Panzergranate]

Not according to the actual shooting model
[/quote]
Check again.... the Stargazer fires a salvo of 6 torpedoes originating from under the saucer at the Enterprise.

Data also makes it clear that the Stargazer (and therefore the 5 other Constellation class star cruisers) can fire a total of 6 torpedoes in a salvo.

The model I have does not have Photon tubes anywhere near the engines. Even the official pictures of the TNG show model show it does not have torpedo launchers between the nachelles. They are an addition of fanon....

I like the Abbe. It even appeared in DS9 on one occasion. Modifiying it for other purposes seems logical.

[Klingon Fanatic]

I like the Abbe. It even appeared in DS9 on one occasion. Modifiying it for other purposes seems logical.

Do you have a picture to show it in DS9?

[Starfox1701]

Not according to the actual shooting model

Check again.... the Stargazer fires a salvo of 6 torpedoes originating from under the saucer at the Enterprise.

Data also makes it clear that the Stargazer (and therefore the 5 other Constellation class star cruisers) can fire a total of 6 torpedoes in a salvo.

The model I have does not have Photon tubes anywhere near the engines. Even the official pictures of the TNG show model show it does not have torpedo launchers between the nachelles. They are an addition of fanon....

I'm not saying that the ship can't fire 6 torps but I can show you the torpedo tubes between the necelles.
The 1st pic shows the model as most people have seen her on TV. The details of the lunchers is completly obscured by the low resolution.
Pic 2 is the desk top model which came first and served as the foundation and plan for the shooting model.
pic 3 is the TNG trading card of the Constellation. The art department has iluminated several details not shown on the Hathaway and Stargazer. One feature is the dorsal torpedo tube.
pics4-8 show closeups of the dorsal and ventral areas that contain the torpedo lunchers. You can note 2 features. Feature 1 is the tube like structure that the art department ment to be the Torpedo tubes. Feature 2 are flat faced versions of the TMP Enterprise's torpedo launchers.  These are the places that most people placed the launchers for obvious reasons. Over time the art departments have retconed the luncher location to show the TMP Enterprise stile launchers as pic 9 shows. This model was built and rendered by Doug Drexler

[Starfox1701]

Pics 8 and 9

[Norsehound]

What's the say on Phasers, though? Any more other than the six on the primary hull?

[Kreeargh]

Fasa Andor would combine the constitution / chandley components mentioned. It was originally a torpedo boat I think for FASA. Kreeargh made one I think.

Please dont use the name-0-Kreeargh-0 in this topic. Whatever I did in the past is no glory to me.  KF made the model look good not me. KF sould get that glory!

[Starfox1701]

Based on the model there are 5 possible single mount phasers on the dorsal saucer. Footage of Hathaway shows weapons fire from ventral positions that mirror the forward dorsal rim single mounts even though there are none visiable on the studio model ventral rim area. There are at least 5  single mounts but it is reasonable to infere that at least some had matching ventral single mounts because no there is no clear footage of Hathaways ventral hull. I can't be sure of stern guns or torpedo tubes either. I have included the 2 best pics I could turn up of the model stern and the resolution is just not good enough to be sure one way or the other. The impulse vents seam to be missing so it is possible that weapons were model on that were not painted.

[Norsehound]

So that's...what...11 banks on the top of the saucer? I wonder why so many... Maybe the constellations are overgunned. That, or the phaser banks are something else.

There are nubs on the back of the nacelles but I think those are nav lights, not weapons. The only weapon-on-warp pod I recall was the Venture phaser strips. And of course, Klink disruptors.

[intermech]

I love the ships and new models, so don't take it wrong, that the first thing that I would want to do is add my own ships. Will we be able to add our own ships, UI and all?

Any chance of using a TOS Defiant, in there? . . .  J/J I know the answer to that.

[Starfox1701]

So that's...what...11 banks on the top of the saucer? I wonder why so many... Maybe the constellations are overgunned. That, or the phaser banks are something else.

There are nubs on the back of the nacelles but I think those are nav lights, not weapons. The only weapon-on-warp pod I recall was the Venture phaser strips. And of course, Klink disruptors.

Yea in SFB terms they could be ph3s or phGs With all the hanger space she is just begging to have GCV conversion anyway

[Lieutenant_Q]

Birth of the Federation had the Constellation classed as a Heavy Destroyer.  Quick, powerful, fragile.  It likely doesn't even have aft weaponry.  Honestly, that makes it perfect for a TMP GSC.

[Norsehound]

Kind of interesting when you think of how the classification system has shifted between the eras.

Putting aside the ostentatious and non-descriptive label of 'explorer', seems like things get lighter as the years go on. The constitution was updated but the replacement was the Miranda. Some say it's a frigate but I think being a New Heavy Cruiser fits quite well since it does more than the constitution can for smaller size and better firing arcs. The Excelsior was also unveiled but as a Explorer Dreadnought since it was clearly heavier than contemporary cruisers in firepower and size.

When the constitutions were phased out and the Constellations brought in the Excelsior became a cruiser while the Mirandas were downgraded to Frigate/Destroyer roles. This is presumably what also happened to the Constellation, started as a possible replacement for the Constitutions (CA) but was downgraded (DD?) when Excelsiors gained prominence. Maybe the Ambassador class was also introduced as a Dreadnought-weight ship.

By TNG the Miranda class is the lightest effective military unit in Starfleet (As Frigates since Oberths are a joke), Excelsiors are the backbone (light cruisers?) what few Ambassadors are medium enforcers and the utopian leaders of Star Fleet call their Galaxy-class battle-cruisers "Explorers", phasing out real heavy-hitting star ships until they got smacked around by the Borg and the Dominion (Sovereign, in spite of being an "explorer type 2", is better recognized as a Dreadnought or Assault cruiser from sources other than paramount).

It's odd... the Miranda has been in service longer than the Constellation but folk in TNG laughed at how aged and clunky the Constellation was. Perhaps because no Constellations were constructed past the initial designs, once Starfleet decided the Miranda class was the more economical option.

Blah blah essay on trying to rationalize television blah blah.

[Panzergranate]

Well the Excelsior mounts 16 x Phaser 1 with 5 x twin emplacements of the saucer alone and is classed as a battlecruiser in TMP.

My plastic model of the Stargazer has 4 x twin Phaser mounts placed around the top of the saucer and only 2 x RS / LS twin Phaser mounts on the underside of the saucer with the underside forward Phasers being single mounts on bulges on the hull near the saucer's edge. The torpedo tubes are cut into the saucer front underside beneath the hangar doors.

There is  a twin Phaser mounting on the saucer top side behind the bridge which would only have a upward firing arc in 3D combat or limited RA / LA angles in SFB / SFC 2D terms. I've no idea why it is on my model but in a 3D combat role would enable a Constellation to exert 8 x Phaser shots in the upward arcs.

Compared to the Constitution II class the Constellations are weaker on Phaser mount numbers, making them more CR (cruisers) than CA (heavy cruisers).

One has to remember that the Constellations would be out all alone exploring uncharted space with no back up so some ability for self defence in case the run away option fails.
 
The Oberth is mainly a scout ship so definately not much good as a warship. Armament is only a token twin forward Phaser mount.

You could try the frigate progression tree as follows:

Daran (fast frigate) -> Knox (frigate) -> Miranda (heavy frigate) -> Commanche (assault frigate)

For a light cruisers have you considered a Podesti class cruiser in the role??

[Starfox1701]

Well the Excelsior mounts 16 x Phaser 1 with 5 x twin emplacements of the saucer

I think its actually 27 x Phaser 1s Panzergranate. % twins Dorsal saucer, 5 twins ventral saucer, 4 singles vental enginering hull, and 3 dorsal stern 2 above the hanger shroud and 1 on top the central necelle pylon bulge.

Compared to the Constitution II class the Constellations are weaker on Phaser mount numbers, making them more CR (cruisers) than CA (heavy cruisers).

One has to remember that the Constellations would be out all alone exploring uncharted space with no back up so some ability for self defence in case the run away option fails.

I don't know if I would call it weaker. Truth be told Constellation looks like a Strike Carrier to me. Lots of hanger space, high strategic speed and a weapons fit that looks more comfortable on the egde of battle then in the middle. Using the ship as a GSC during peace time seam just the sort of thing Starfleet would do to camoflage their true intent from the Federtion bean counters. It would also explain why Constelations are so rare.

The same thing with Miranda.  She has all the halmarks of a very modular design. so she is perfect as the CL/NCL From the SFB prospective.

[Panzergranate]

Jackill's lists 16 x twin emplacements which would give 32 x Ph1's.

On the plastic model I have the saucer clearly has 5 x twin emplacements alone giving 10 x Ph1's.

At the period of TMP the Excelsior is the most heavily Phaser armed starship in Star Fleet.

It is weak on torpedo armament though which is probally why it doesn't quite make it into the dreadnaught group.

By TNG it is over armed with near obstellete Phasers when compared to a Galaxy or Sovereign. Just about a match for a Cardassian Galor class cruiser but out of its depth with TNG Romulan warships.

I would of expected to see surviving the Excelsiors refitted with colinator Phaser emitters (Ph4) by TNG in order to keep them relavent as warships. It was just laziness on the part of Paramount that the models weren't modified for the TNG and DS9 shows in this way.

[Lieutenant_Q]

I wouldn't necessarily call it laziness.  I would more like call it prudence.  Remember that the TOS movies were still going on.  Footage from ST:IV was ultimately used for the opening scene of ST:V, but as TNG went on, they started working on ST:VI, and I would imagine early on in the script writing they knew that they were going to need to use the Excelsior Model.  With that constraint they couldn't do much with the model to modernize it for TNG.  Shortly after ST VI, they did upgrade the Excelsior model.  The Enterprise B/Lakota model, but they didn't use too much of it because I think they liked the original Excelsior better.  I know I did.

[Starfox1701]

It is weak on torpedo armament though which is probally why it doesn't quite make it into the dreadnaught group.

Loadout is the same as Reliant but with a bigger magazine.

It was just laziness on the part of Paramount that the models weren't modified for the TNG and DS9 shows in this way.

I think it was budget, not lazyness. The would have had to build a new model which was a way more expensive thing then doing a new CGI mesh today. The art department quite often wanted to build shooting models that the bosses wouldn't pay for. All the Wolf 359 ships where suppose to get  shooting models eventually but most fell prey to Budget cuts.

[Norsehound]

Hey FoAS, just spotted something. The Wolverine has a saucer deflector doesn't it? Why use that when the main unit is just as good? On top of the other additions, maybe subtle changes to the deflector (Alternate colors, interior structures) could indicate that the unit is up-powered, instead of adding an additional dish.

On top of not liking those oval deflectors :\ I held that usually a deflector is designed so that it is adequate enough to cover the cross-section of the ship when travelling through warp. Mirandas don't have that big of a front profile compared to the Constitutions, so the secondary system it uses was enough. Same with the Constellation, and the Oberth had an interior model. I think in the Intrepid's case, either the designers felt the ship needed the extra redundancy, or the saucer was too far forward for the main deflector to cover it. *shrug*

Just wanted to comment on that detail. Hope we can see more of these ships soon, that connie is the most perfect rendition of the ship I've seen (Matching WillDecker's work).

[Panzergranate]

The general principle of the navigational deflector is to protect the ship from object impacts at sublight as objects entering a ship's warp field, when it is travelling at warp speed, have a physical velocity of zero as does the ship.

It is the warp bubble that is travelling faster than light in relatation to the rest of the universe, not the ship or other objects contained within it.

All object inside a warp bubble are isolated from the rest of the universe.

A ship at warp doesn't need deflectors as it has zero momentum inside a warp field.

Read up Aulbecere's theories of warp drive from 1956, Professor Stephen Hawkin's take on the very real current theories on warp dynamics plus the conclusions of NASA's Feb 1999 successful static warp field experiments.

[Klingon Fanatic]

The general principle of the navigational deflector is to protect the ship from object impacts at sublight as objects entering a ship's warp field, when it is travelling at warp speed, have a physical velocity of zero as does the ship.

It is the warp bubble that is travelling faster than light in relatation to the rest of the universe, not the ship or other objects contained within it.

All object inside a warp bubble are isolated from the rest of the universe.

A ship at warp doesn't need deflectors as it has zero momentum inside a warp field.

Read up Aulbecere's theories of warp drive from 1956, Professor Stephen Hawkin's take on the very real current theories on warp dynamics plus the conclusions of NASA's Feb 1999 successful static warp field experiments.

Half way down this page is a good summary of what Mr. P is referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity

[Norsehound]

So then it shouldn't matter how many the ship has?

[Starfox1701]

On trek ships these locations are also often where powerful sensors and scanners are fitted. With the duel Combat/Exploration design ethic of SF it makes sence that Fed ships would carry more of these across a far wider range of classes.

[FoaS_XC]

I've always interpreted it as that deflectors are needed at warp as well as during the warp-up.

I added the second deflector to the wolverine because of two reasons: (1) Thought it'd make sense for faster warp to need a supplementary deflector. (2) if you've ever seen the SFB Fast cruiser, it has an arrow-head saucer that I am NOT a fan of in the slightest. I figured the deflector was a move that made sense and was a change to the saucer that avoided the arrowhead.

[Norsehound]

Not a fan of the arrowhead, nor the mouth deflector.

if I recall, Classic CAFs also switched the buzzards from red to blue. How about switching the nav deflector color from blue to violet, or subtle structure adds?

I did note the one photorp launcher though. I thought it would be easier to just plug one hole and keep the other one intact (yes I know, flying contrary to the other structure mods I've already suggested, but the idea is that the structure changes are applied only when necessary, not just for cosmetic purposes).

*shrug*

[Chrystoff]

Definitely with you guys on the CAF "arrowhead" saucer. Glad your losing it!

So, what will you be considering for dreadnoughts and battleships?

[Chrystoff]

Not a fan of the arrowhead, nor the mouth deflector.

if I recall, Classic CAFs also switched the buzzards from red to blue. How about switching the nav deflector color from blue to violet, or subtle structure adds?

I did note the one photorp launcher though. I thought it would be easier to just plug one hole and keep the other one intact (yes I know, flying contrary to the other structure mods I've already suggested, but the idea is that the structure changes are applied only when necessary, not just for cosmetic purposes).

*shrug*

I always thought of the Belknap class cruisers as CAF's. Sort of a reduced size heavy cruiser, a bit faster, smaller crew, slightly less armament. Just a thought, as I know some people don't care for the design. http://www.kitsune.addr.com/SF-Conversions/Rifts-Trek-Ships/Federation_USS_Belknap.htm

[Tus-XC]

Nice work there fury

[atheorhaven]

Terradyhne, I would be extremely disappointed if at least some of your models were not included in CE. You have a ton of excellent non-Federation ships that have yet to make it into SFC.

Willing to port over *anything* that hasn't made it into SFC yet, as long as I have all the permissions from the modellers and texturers..  stating that publically in case anyone forgets. 

[atheorhaven]

Please dont use the name-0-Kreeargh-0 in this topic. Whatever I did in the past is no glory to me.  KF made the model look good not me. KF sould get that glory!

BS, can't slap paint on a house if there's no house.  Claim your due, you guys do nice work 

[Klingon Fanatic]

Please dont use the name-0-Kreeargh-0 in this topic. Whatever I did in the past is no glory to me.  KF made the model look good not me. KF sould get that glory!

BS, can't slap paint on a house if there's no house.  Claim your due, you guys do nice work 

Amen! So sayth the prophecy....

[Kreeargh]

Please dont use the name-0-Kreeargh-0 in this topic. Whatever I did in the past is no glory to me.  KF made the model look good not me. KF sould get that glory!

BS, can't slap paint on a house if there's no house.  Claim your due, you guys do nice work 

Amen! So sayth the prophecy....

I have already quit modeling that should be good enought to kill the bad karma and make sfc Rule agian.
So sayth the prophecy....  Arggggh   hes dead  Now back to topic!

[Chrystoff]

Just inquiring as to how this project is progressing! 

[Norsehound]

I get the sense that this was a one-time thing, and we won't see another graphic update for a while....

[FoaS_XC]

Well Frey just got a job, I just got a job. We're chugging along, but our talented coder's aren't quite ready for proper model development quite yet.

[Norsehound]

Here we are folks, one year later.

I don't know about the status of SFC:CE, but it seems a shame that those wonderful models are essentially unused because the mod they were made for wasn't completed. Is there any progress on the project? Is it still alive? Or should the models be released for the few of us left to enjoy?