test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Discoprise might change.......yay :D

24

Comments

  • tyler002tyler002 Member Posts: 1,586 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    The Connie is supposed to be the creation of a civilization FAR more advanced than US.

    Interesting ... I wonder why the technology inside the TOS Connie looks like stuff from 50+ years ago then?

    Because the designers chose that interior style? Just because something's more advanced, doesn't mean it has to look it if the designer doesn't want it to.
    tumblr_p7auh1JPC61qfr6udo4_500.gif
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    Ya see? This is why we cannot have nice things around here. Because very very few people who are fans of Star Trek can leave well enough alone. And no, I'm not in that group. Although I wish every day I was.

    Lemme break it down for ya. Nerds on YouTube who act like they are some sort of official (or is that faecal? So easy to get the two confused these days.) "news" outlet post a video about an Imaginary Spaceship being different from the previous Imaginary Spaceship in some very small insignificant way. Which will have no bearing at all on character development or storyline progress.

    The whole thing shrieks of self serving self aggrandizement on the part of Trek Yards. Whose sole raison d'etre is to get as many clicks as they can to make the advertisers happy and get paid by said advertisers through Google. Y'all think if Battlestar Galactica had caught on and Star Trek and Star Wars were gone, these two losers wouldn't have created Colonial Yards?
    PT Barnum was right.

    The entire Human race is doomed to extinction. Due to the rapid shallowing of the gene pool proven to exist by threads like this one.

    giphy.gif
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • marty123#3757 marty123 Member Posts: 670 Arc User
    > @thunderfoot006 said:
    > Ya see? This is why we cannot have nice things around here. Because very very few people who are fans of Star Trek can leave well enough alone. And no, I'm not in that group. Although I wish every day I was.
    >
    > Lemme break it down for ya. Nerds on YouTube who act like they are some sort of official (or is that faecal? So easy to get the two confused these days.) "news" outlet post a video about an Imaginary Spaceship being different from the previous Imaginary Spaceship in some very small insignificant way. Which will have no bearing at all on character development or storyline progress.
    >
    > The whole thing shrieks of self serving self aggrandizement on the part of Trek Yards. Whose sole raison d'etre is to get as many clicks as they can to make the advertisers happy and get paid by said advertisers through Google. Y'all think if Battlestar Galactica had caught on and Star Trek and Star Wars were gone, these two losers wouldn't have created Colonial Yards?
    > PT Barnum was right.
    >
    >
    > The entire Human race is doomed to extinction. Due to the rapid shallowing of the gene pool proven to exist by threads like this one.

    You’re wrong!
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
    tyler002 wrote: »
    Because the designers chose that interior style? Just because something's more advanced, doesn't mean it has to look it if the designer doesn't want it to.

    Here's another thing... maybe that looked super advanced back in the 60s, but by today's standards it doesn't.
    latest?cb=20100102194721&path-prefix=en
    For its time that was the height of advanced tech.

    But now compare it to what we are capable of creating today.
    38087199011_4c48980742_b.jpg

    Our ability to make sets and props has advanced greatly, allowing us to make more advanced looking things. Back in the 60s there was no concept of touchscreens. Today... that's commonplace. 3D Printing, advances in materials, higher quality materials...
    Many factors come into play.
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    Our ability to make sets and props has advanced greatly, allowing us to make more advanced looking things. Back in the 60s there was no concept of touchscreens. Today... that's commonplace. 3D Printing, advances in materials, higher quality materials...
    Many factors come into play.

    Maybe they should use holographic screens or neural implants instead of touchscreens due to how prevalent touchscreens are.

  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
    starkaos wrote: »

    Maybe they should use holographic screens or neural implants instead of touchscreens due to how prevalent touchscreens are.

    Roddenberry toyed with the idea of not even having consoles for TNG. Having everything be voice controlled. He tossed that idea as it wouldn't be very interesting in the end. So consoles came back.
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • alexmakepeacealexmakepeace Member Posts: 10,633 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    tyler002 wrote: »
    Because the designers chose that interior style? Just because something's more advanced, doesn't mean it has to look it if the designer doesn't want it to.

    Here's another thing... maybe that looked super advanced back in the 60s, but by today's standards it doesn't.
    latest?cb=20100102194721&path-prefix=en
    For its time that was the height of advanced tech.

    But now compare it to what we are capable of creating today.
    38087199011_4c48980742_b.jpg

    Our ability to make sets and props has advanced greatly, allowing us to make more advanced looking things. Back in the 60s there was no concept of touchscreens. Today... that's commonplace. 3D Printing, advances in materials, higher quality materials...
    Many factors come into play.

    Which makes it odd that when they picked a design for the Discovery, they used an old design from before the first movie that was rejected, and rightly so, since it's basically a saucer and nacelles glued onto a Star Destroyer.
    d8c0f11b417949aae5b720ab0ece6418--star-trek-ralph-mcquarrie.jpg
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,276 Arc User
    that's a lukari ho'kuun, not a star destroyer - star destroyers are dagger-shaped, and that is very clearly a saucer glued to a TRIANGLE

    but since you brought up star destroyers, the vague similarity is no accident - the guy who did most of the ships in star wars is the same guy who created that abomination that (thankfully) got rejected back then, when people weren't TOTAL idiots​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • alexmakepeacealexmakepeace Member Posts: 10,633 Arc User
    that's a lukari ho'kuun, not a star destroyer - star destroyers are dagger-shaped, and that is very clearly a saucer glued to a TRIANGLE

    but since you brought up star destroyers, the vague similarity is no accident - the guy who did most of the ships in star wars is the same guy who created that abomination that (thankfully) got rejected back then, when people weren't TOTAL idiots​​

    Yes, that's why I made the comparison. McQuarrie loved his wedges, and they usually worked. The Phase II Enterprise was an exception.
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
    Which makes it odd that when they picked a design for the Discovery, they used an old design from before the first movie that was rejected, and rightly so, since it's basically a saucer and nacelles glued onto a Star Destroyer.
    d8c0f11b417949aae5b720ab0ece6418--star-trek-ralph-mcquarrie.jpg

    Not that odd at all actually. There are several ships in Star Trek that actually came from rejected concept art.
    One of the original concept pieces of the Defiant looked VERY different from what we got in the end.
    latest?cb=20100716122852&path-prefix=en
    Look familiar? Rejected concept art for the Defiant would find new life as the USS Equinox.
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 36,106 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    Which makes it odd that when they picked a design for the Discovery, they used an old design from before the first movie that was rejected, and rightly so, since it's basically a saucer and nacelles glued onto a Star Destroyer.
    d8c0f11b417949aae5b720ab0ece6418--star-trek-ralph-mcquarrie.jpg

    Not that odd at all actually. There are several ships in Star Trek that actually came from rejected concept art.
    One of the original concept pieces of the Defiant looked VERY different from what we got in the end.
    latest?cb=20100716122852&path-prefix=en
    Look familiar? Rejected concept art for the Defiant would find new life as the USS Equinox.

    Yep, and the Ambassador-Class was based on Probert's original concept for the Galaxy (with some tweaks).

    Thing is, the McQuarrie design could have looked good if the nacelles weren't so tiny. Which, funnily enough, seems to be the biggest fundamental change between it and USS Discovery.
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
    de2feb0eb738105d102fab9898d02701.jpg

    350?cb=20180221180657&path-prefix=en

    Nacelle size, shape of the hull, and beefier neck.
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • alexmakepeacealexmakepeace Member Posts: 10,633 Arc User
    The Discovery certainly looks better than McQuarrie's design, but I can't really call it a good design from an aesthetic standpoint. It's a matter of taste, of course, but to my eyes the saucer and the triangular hull don't work well together. It looks awkward, with the center of gravity off. It might have looked a little better if they'd put the saucer inline with the hull.

    I actually tooled around a little in photoshop, moving the saucer from out front until it's embedded in the wedge of the secondary hull. It's interesting... I don't know if I really like it, but I like it better than what we got. It basically turned into the Millennium Falcon with nacelles.

    eAS7ATS.jpg
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    Or did you think that those Congressmen who have been evincing their complete failure to grasp the Internet for the past year or so were just really stupid? They're smart enough, it's hard to get elected more than once if you're not, they just thought the important thing to watch was politics, not technology.

    It just shows the need for term limits for elected officials. If it is a good policy for the President, then it is good for everyone else. Also, it shows that the older generation will always have a problem with new technology. I am certain that most of us will have problems with operating whatever comes out in 50 years compared to our children or grandchildren.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
    > @artan42 said:
    > angrytarg wrote: »
    >
    > > @artan42 said:.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I've just rechecked their chanel and on top of their 1:14:23 video from yesterday they have another 22:07 one from today based around the same image.
    >
    > That's how I got the 90 mins 😁
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Oooh. You added them together. That's too complex a maths for me. Show off .​​

    Brainypigs will conquer world!
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    Which makes it odd that when they picked a design for the Discovery, they used an old design from before the first movie that was rejected, and rightly so, since it's basically a saucer and nacelles glued onto a Star Destroyer.
    d8c0f11b417949aae5b720ab0ece6418--star-trek-ralph-mcquarrie.jpg

    Not that odd at all actually. There are several ships in Star Trek that actually came from rejected concept art.
    One of the original concept pieces of the Defiant looked VERY different from what we got in the end.
    latest?cb=20100716122852&path-prefix=en
    Look familiar? Rejected concept art for the Defiant would find new life as the USS Equinox.

    And the Defiant herself started as rejected concept art for the Maquis raider.
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • zedbrightlander1zedbrightlander1 Member Posts: 14,762 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    Please no. I want the Discovery Enterprise to look like something that was created recently not 50 years ago.
    Agreed. I loved that old show, still do - but its strength lay in neither set design nor ship design, but rather in the stories told and the actors telling them. Redesigning the look of the Connie isn't exactly going to break this old fan's heart.

    Dax liked it the way it was.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPEgzqgTZqo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf8XgerKodQ

    Truth is, IMHO, Sci-fi is about how we perceive the future from our current period it is created in. So, for example, back In the 60s it was considered empowering for woman to wear less.
    uhura-skirt-trek.jpg

    Today, my niece see those short skirts as a pervy choice by 60s studio men to give pervy young men something to tune in for.
    To be fair, She never saw this item of clothing.
    latest?cb=20151031113033&path-prefix=en

    As far as what a Connie should look like, inside and out ( again IMHO ): Outside only minor variations, since it will be the first 30 years of it's run before the major re-fit to the STM/WoK version. The Interior can literal be placed any where between technology from ST:Ent to TOS / Okuda CGI updates still running currently on BBC America and on ME TV. Like, Dax, I have a fondness for the things of my youth. ;)

    I think it was Gene Roddenberry who once said, of the Enterprise, "It's simply a vehicle for story telling." Or maybe it was David Gerrold. Both love their little"Inside Baseball" joke about writing and story telling. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    f5cc65bc8f3b91f963e328314df7c48d.jpg
    Sig? What sig? I don't see any sig.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    Today, my niece see those short skirts as a pervy choice by 60s studio men to give pervy young men something to tune in for.
    To be fair, She never saw this item of clothing.
    latest?cb=20151031113033&path-prefix=en

    You should show your niece the skant to prove that TNG tried to give pervy young women something to tune in for.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
    In fairness, that skirt on Uhura was supposed to be a little longer. Nichelle Nichols kept hiking hers up. Then again, if I had legs like that, I'd probably want to show them off too.

    It's also an example of how costume designers have trouble sometimes looking past their own eras. Just was the folks on Space: 1999 assumed sideburns on men would just get longer and fluffier over time, so the design for Star Trek assumed that the miniskirt, a major fashion innovation of the day, would just get shorter in Da Future.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    In fairness, that skirt on Uhura was supposed to be a little longer. Nichelle Nichols kept hiking hers up. Then again, if I had legs like that, I'd probably want to show them off too.

    It's also an example of how costume designers have trouble sometimes looking past their own eras. Just was the folks on Space: 1999 assumed sideburns on men would just get longer and fluffier over time, so the design for Star Trek assumed that the miniskirt, a major fashion innovation of the day, would just get shorter in Da Future.

    Then there is all the costumes created by William Theiss. Although he seemed to focus on female clothing, there is a few male clothing that are showing some skin. It would certainly be interesting to see what he would come up with if he had modern fashion techniques. This sentiment applies to any great artist. Voyager created a simulation of Leonardo da Vinci where he created a working glider. So it might be possible to create realistic simulations in a couple of centuries where Mozart and Beethoven are influenced by early 21st Century music.

    waytoeden_039.jpg
  • spiritbornspiritborn Member Posts: 4,248 Arc User
    edited December 2018
    If you ask me if they're change the design to be more like it was in TOS, they should make a blend refit and TOS designs. Take the nacelle pylons, the torp bay and the overall shape of the engineering hull from the refit. The neck (apart from the section hidden under the torp bay), Nav deflector assembly, saucer (including the impulse engines), the actually nacelles and the paint scheme from the TV series version.

    Thus creating a design that looks like it could become the refit without a total rebuild (especially if you scale it the same rough size as the refit) while still honoring the orginal.

    EDIT:obviously Small tweaks have to be made to better marry the 2 designs into 1 rather then looking like they took peices of 2 ships and glued them together, but I was talking about broad design elements not details.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    de2feb0eb738105d102fab9898d02701.jpg
    350?cb=20180221180657&path-prefix=en
    Nacelle size, shape of the hull, and beefier neck.
    Here's another angle:
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
    spiritborn wrote: »
    If you ask me if they're change the design to be more like it was in TOS, they should make a blend refit and TOS designs. Take the nacelle pylons, the torp bay and the overall shape of the engineering hull from the refit. The neck (apart from the section hidden under the torp bay), Nav deflector assembly, saucer (including the impulse engines), the actually nacelles and the paint scheme from the TV series version.

    Thus creating a design that looks like it could become the refit without a total rebuild (especially if you scale it the same rough size as the refit) while still honoring the orginal.

    EDIT:obviously Small tweaks have to be made to better marry the 2 designs into 1 rather then looking like they took peices of 2 ships and glued them together, but I was talking about broad design elements not details.

    2b2e9f85c5fefe99341ebbf2402af0f413fa7043.jpg
    So... the proposed Phase 2 Enterprise?
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • spiritbornspiritborn Member Posts: 4,248 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    spiritborn wrote: »
    If you ask me if they're change the design to be more like it was in TOS, they should make a blend refit and TOS designs. Take the nacelle pylons, the torp bay and the overall shape of the engineering hull from the refit. The neck (apart from the section hidden under the torp bay), Nav deflector assembly, saucer (including the impulse engines), the actually nacelles and the paint scheme from the TV series version.

    Thus creating a design that looks like it could become the refit without a total rebuild (especially if you scale it the same rough size as the refit) while still honoring the orginal.

    EDIT:obviously Small tweaks have to be made to better marry the 2 designs into 1 rather then looking like they took peices of 2 ships and glued them together, but I was talking about broad design elements not details.

    2b2e9f85c5fefe99341ebbf2402af0f413fa7043.jpg
    So... the proposed Phase 2 Enterprise?
    close but I'd have it with full on TOS nacelles, like the DSC upgrade had, not those hybrids. There's nothing wrong with the TOS design for the nacelles and those are components I could see easily being something you alter in a "refit", the problem with the TMP "refit" is that it doesn't share anything with pre-refit design making actually a totally new ship with same name and registry rather then the old after a refit.
Sign In or Register to comment.