test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Excelsior class

13

Comments

  • avoozuulavoozuul Member Posts: 3,196 Arc User
    I have it, I still enjoy it but yeah it needs a skin update.
  • chozoelder2ndchozoelder2nd Member Posts: 440 Arc User
    It's an Enterprise. As much as I dislike the boff layout of the T6 Resolute, I'd spend the zen on it if there was a model revamp knowing I wouldn't have to.
    SP9Pu.gif
  • scififan78scififan78 Member Posts: 1,383 Arc User
    I too have the Resolute though I don't use her much. When I do, I have the following

    Exclesior saucer
    Resolute neck
    Ent B hull
    Excel pylons (sometimes resolute)
    Ent B nacelles with glows

    Looks very good together in my opinion.
  • vampeiyrevampeiyre Member Posts: 633 Arc User
    I strongly suspect that a new variant of the Excelsior/Resolute will show up when Victory is Life drops, since that ship was featured so heavily in the series Dominion War arc. I hope my gut is right. If so, I'm hoping for Pilot and Command spec.
    "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am."
  • nikephorusnikephorus Member Posts: 2,744 Arc User
    scififan78 wrote: »
    I too have the Resolute though I don't use her much. When I do, I have the following

    Exclesior saucer
    Resolute neck
    Ent B hull
    Excel pylons (sometimes resolute)
    Ent B nacelles with glows

    Looks very good together in my opinion.

    That's what I use as well.
    Tza0PEl.png
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,659 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    I actually like the design of Discovery. Now... the earlier, teaser design they had... THAT looked horrible. And the concept art they drew from was pretty bad. But the final product actually makes the design look good.

    It went from this unholy hybrid of a D7 and Fed ship...
    fe995fefc7d69a9211d7142e22426cd7.jpg

    To this... actually good looking design
    bd9092d92a736b6c2129f0a25197c79d840eb196.jpg

    These two look almost identical to me. How can you like one and so vehemently hate the other?

    I prefer the 2016 model. The in show one's engine pods look too long imo,throws it off, especially from the side.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • theraven2378theraven2378 Member Posts: 5,985 Arc User
    Resolute Saucer
    Resolute neck
    Enterprise B hull
    Resolute pylons
    Enterprise B nacelles
    NMXb2ph.png
      "The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
      -Lord Commander Solar Macharius
    • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
      These two look almost identical to me. How can you like one and so vehemently hate the other?

      I guess its the general asthetics and the fact the "final product" design isn't so... compacted. The teaser doesn't quite feel like a Federation ship from the angles we saw her at, and pushing the nacelles so far forward like that doesn't work for her like it did for the Galaxy.

      Could they have used the same length nacelles? Yes. Could they have just pushed them back? Yes.
      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!)
    • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
      rattler2 wrote: »
      Agreed. Literally the only thing that makes her "huge" is she's more spread out and has long nacelles. But this shot here, perspective asside, show's she doesn't dwarf a Connie. She's arranged differently, but mass wise is still pretty comparable.
      She does not dwarf the Connie because they made the Connie bigger to compensate.
      https://trekmovie.com/2018/03/24/7-things-we-learned-about-star-trek-discovery-season-2-at-wondercon-visionaries-panel/
      Overall, I think we expanded the length of it to be within the world of our Discovery, which is bigger, so we did cheat it as a larger ship.
    • mirrorchaosmirrorchaos Member Posts: 9,844 Arc User
      redvenge wrote: »
      Overall, I think we expanded the length of it to be within the world of our Discovery, which is bigger, so we did cheat it as a larger ship.

      They nerfed the Enterprise's size and reduced her looks to the basic white ship with red-orange ramscoops, they went from fairly useful ship consoles to switches, TRIBBLE, lights and noises. What a tragic outcome for the Constitution class. Korax was right! the Enterprise should be hauled away AS Garbage!
      T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW.
      Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
    • mirrorchaosmirrorchaos Member Posts: 9,844 Arc User
      not a swear word under the correct circumstance but censored as such?

      A rounded handle on a door.
      T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW.
      Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
    • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
      edited April 2018
      not a swear word under the correct circumstance but censored as such?

      A rounded handle on a door.
      The censor doesn't like the word "TRIBBLE". Weird.

      And of course the obligatory Airplane II clip:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GyBfZ1xLhM
      Lorna-Wing-sig.png
    • ishigami2ishigami2 Member Posts: 138 Arc User
      artan42 wrote: »
      39634539184_bcbfbe9c8f_o.png

      I think your JJ Enterprise size is very generous.
      ILM made the visual effects and they said on two separate occasions that the Enterprise in the movies is about 720 meters long.
      It is huge in STO as well.

      An a different note: I think the difference in size is considerable. The Discovery dwarfs the Enterprise. It is like saying there is almost no difference between USS Alaska CB-1 (246m) and USS Missouri BB-63 (270m) when in reality the Missouri is almost twice the size of the Alaska… (34k tons vs. 57k tons).

    • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
      ishigami2 wrote: »
      I think your JJ Enterprise size is very generous.
      ILM made the visual effects and they said on two separate occasions that the Enterprise in the movies is about 720 meters long.
      It is huge in STO as well.

      An a different note: I think the difference in size is considerable. The Discovery dwarfs the Enterprise. It is like saying there is almost no difference between USS Alaska CB-1 (246m) and USS Missouri BB-63 (270m) when in reality the Missouri is almost twice the size of the Alaska… (34k tons vs. 57k tons).

      Length and Mass are seperate issues honestly. As for the KT Connie... "official" length from ILM aside the DETAILS on the hull clearly indicate a smaller ship, one more in line with the original Connie's size. The ONLY thing that scales her up is the shuttlebay scene in '09.
      USS_Enterprise_%28alternate_universe%29_shuttlebay.jpg
      That is LITERALLY the only reason she got scaled up. But then later in the same movie, we see the exact same style of shuttle that the Enterprise was able to take IN like two at a time coming out with just enough space for one! Not only that, there are several instances of hull details (like windows) not lining up with other ships known to be of a similar size (such as the Sovereign class), and even scenes where the Enterprise is damaged, it shows details that clearly indicate a size more in line with the Prime Connie, such as in Into Darkness where there's actually a chunk taken out of the saucer, and we see the cross section revealing at most two decks where the damage occured.

      So frankly... just like with other instances in Star Trek, ships seem to be able to change size based on the plot.
      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!)
    • tyler002tyler002 Member Posts: 1,586 Arc User
      I've seen a fairly lengthy examination where the model frequently shows it to be for a much smaller ship than the bloated Star Destroyer wannabe the film makers claim it is.

      The Enterprise Size Controversy, if anyone's interesting in reading.
      tumblr_p7auh1JPC61qfr6udo4_500.gif
    • ishigami2ishigami2 Member Posts: 138 Arc User
      The issue is that J.J. Abrams is a dork. He has no concept of distance, size, time and physics.
      How close is Qo'noS or Vulcan to the earth?
      Could you actually watch a black hole consuming a planet from a moon of that planet, a mass big enough to hold an earth like atmosphere and gravity, without being very irreversibly affected by said black hole?
      How can combat near the moon lead to a fall to earth?
      How can you see a death ray hitting several planets in different star systems from a planet at the other end of the galaxy?
      J.J. Abrams knows jack TRIBBLE about this stuff. He only knows what “looks cool”, in the eye of 5 year old.
      He is a fool.

      Oh I agree the ship was initially designed to be about the same size as the original but someone with a small TRIBBLE complex stepped in and requested an up scale.
      The movies several times clearly demonstrate that this someone got his scale up.
      Going *lalala* with fingers in your ears isn’t going to reverse that.

      In STO we have the star destroyer sizes anyway. Vengeance is about twice the length of Discovery ~ 1500 meters.
    • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,659 Arc User
      rattler2 wrote: »
      ishigami2 wrote: »
      I think your JJ Enterprise size is very generous.
      ILM made the visual effects and they said on two separate occasions that the Enterprise in the movies is about 720 meters long.
      It is huge in STO as well.

      An a different note: I think the difference in size is considerable. The Discovery dwarfs the Enterprise. It is like saying there is almost no difference between USS Alaska CB-1 (246m) and USS Missouri BB-63 (270m) when in reality the Missouri is almost twice the size of the Alaska… (34k tons vs. 57k tons).

      Length and Mass are seperate issues honestly. As for the KT Connie... "official" length from ILM aside the DETAILS on the hull clearly indicate a smaller ship, one more in line with the original Connie's size. The ONLY thing that scales her up is the shuttlebay scene in '09.
      USS_Enterprise_%28alternate_universe%29_shuttlebay.jpg
      That is LITERALLY the only reason she got scaled up. But then later in the same movie, we see the exact same style of shuttle that the Enterprise was able to take IN like two at a time coming out with just enough space for one! Not only that, there are several instances of hull details (like windows) not lining up with other ships known to be of a similar size (such as the Sovereign class), and even scenes where the Enterprise is damaged, it shows details that clearly indicate a size more in line with the Prime Connie, such as in Into Darkness where there's actually a chunk taken out of the saucer, and we see the cross section revealing at most two decks where the damage occured.

      So frankly... just like with other instances in Star Trek, ships seem to be able to change size based on the plot.

      Wu1Ooju.jpg

      Same for you, Ish.
      In my planned Kelvin comics, the Conies are going to be the 300 meter size, as it was intended to be.

      Oh, you also forgot to mention the actual bridge bubble...IF it is to be like 700 meters, the KK Connie, the bubble should be the same size of the original constitution, regardless. The one we see, and in game, that module makes the bridge look like the size of big house or something o.o
      dvZq2Aj.jpg
    • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
      edited April 2018
      > @rattler2 said:
      > Yea... the loadout of the Scimitar seemed way over the top, and the fact the Romulans, with their very good intel gathering and the frickin' Tal Shiar itself, didn't see this thing coming, and it was built right next door to Romulus itself! And we never actually saw her use them all. Although I think we can technically give her a pass on the name considering who was commanding her.
      >
      > At least Section 31 had the sense in Into Darkness to not build the Vengeance in Lunar orbit.

      Novelverse had a better explanation: the Scimitard was actually a Romulan-built ship, presumably billed as a hard counter to Jem battleships and Borg. Shinzon stole the thing in preparation for leading the Remans in revolt (and destroyed its drydocked sister ships).
      "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/
    • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
      ishigami2 wrote: »
      artan42 wrote: »
      39634539184_bcbfbe9c8f_o.png

      I think your JJ Enterprise size is very generous.
      ILM made the visual effects and they said on two separate occasions that the Enterprise in the movies is about 720 meters long.
      It is huge in STO as well.

      An a different note: I think the difference in size is considerable. The Discovery dwarfs the Enterprise. It is like saying there is almost no difference between USS Alaska CB-1 (246m) and USS Missouri BB-63 (270m) when in reality the Missouri is almost twice the size of the Alaska… (34k tons vs. 57k tons).

      Like I say, it's the size the model is built to. It's how big it appears every time you can see the windows or exposed interior.

      The shot below is impossible if the ship is Galaxy sized as there would be at least 4 decks, not 2 in the saucer.
      enterprise-exposed-deck.jpg

      Same here. Unless Spock is now this Spock then the ship's main distinguishing feature (the bridge window) wouldn't be visible on a Galaxy sized ship.
      enterprise-bridge-window.jpg

      See also Pike's shuttle leaving the ship, it's the same class of shuttle as earlier in the film, however it's now only just clearing the doors, something that would make the shuttle the size of the Defiant on a Galaxy sized ship.

      Basically, sod the 'official' size, the canon size is clearly different.

      As I said before, the 'official' size of the Prometheus (see here) is smaller than the Nova instead of the size of the Akira (as per the canon). The official size of the BoP is 109ish metres which would render them almost shuttles sized here.

      Basically nobody bends over backward to defend any of the other blatantly incorrect 'official' sized given from sources such as the woefully inaccurate DS9 Technical Manual or Eaglemoss Official Starship Collection yet everybody seems to think the Konni is some sort of special anomaly simply because the visual effects team increased its size for a couple of shots but left it normal sized the rest of the three films it was in.

      I mean the HMS Bounty went from this to this yet nobody bats any eye, but the Konni does it and suddenly it's treated as canon that it's supersized and poor JJ finds himself under more whining fanboi attacks for a artist's dramatic licence.

      ishigami2 wrote: »
      The issue is that J.J. Abrams is a dork. He has no concept of distance, size, time and physics.
      How close is Qo'noS or Vulcan to the earth?

      So business as usual for Star Trek then.
      ishigami2 wrote: »
      Could you actually watch a black hole consuming a planet from a moon of that planet, a mass big enough to hold an earth like atmosphere and gravity, without being very irreversibly affected by said black hole?

      Could you create a fully functional planet with life from a nebula?
      ishigami2 wrote: »
      How can combat near the moon lead to a fall to earth?

      How can travelling faster than Warp 10 turn you into a newt.
      ishigami2 wrote: »
      How can you see a death ray hitting several planets in different star systems from a planet at the other end of the galaxy?

      How close are the planets?
      ishigami2 wrote: »
      J.J. Abrams knows jack **** about this stuff. He only knows what “looks cool”, in the eye of 5 year old.

      So business as usual in the film and television industry.
      ishigami2 wrote: »
      He is a fool.

      Let's see your film...
      ishigami2 wrote: »
      Oh I agree the ship was initially designed to be about the same size as the original but someone with a small **** complex stepped in and requested an up scale.
      The movies several times clearly demonstrate that this someone got his scale up.

      Clear evidence from the film disproves this. Though you you seem to know a bit about how somebody with a 'small asterix complex' would act...
      ishigami2 wrote: »
      Going *lalala* with fingers in your ears isn’t going to reverse that.

      No but watching the film will.
      ishigami2 wrote: »
      In STO we have the star destroyer sizes anyway. Vengeance is about twice the length of Discovery ~ 1500 meters.

      STO isn't canon however the Jupiter Class is exactly the length of an Imperial Class Star Destroyer.

      The Dreadnought Class is about 800m in length. It's in the dialogue. Harrison specifically jumps about 40 metres, he jumps from the bridge to the rim of the saucer, you scale that along and you get something in the region of 800m. This fits with Harrison's earlier comments about the ship being twice the size of the Enterprise.​​
      22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
      Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
      JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

      #TASforSTO


      '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
      'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
      'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
      '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
      'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
      '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

      Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
    • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,354 Arc User
      In the Force Awakens example, the planets being destroyed are in a completely different star system from the one from which the event is being observed. That's more a script fault than a director issue, though, similar to the idea that the destruction of Vulcan could be observed from an outsystem observation post without special equipment. It falls under one of the subtropes of Sci-Fi Writers Have No Sense of Scale.

      The same is true of the "bigger is better" thing about ship sizes - an issue that tells me someone on the production staff for those movies is compensating for something. :wink: I'll go with the smaller, less ludicrous size indicated by the models, and nobody can change my mind.
      Lorna-Wing-sig.png
    • ishigami2ishigami2 Member Posts: 138 Arc User
      So the instances you pick are right and you ignore the ones which contradict you while ignoring what the creators say.
      I got it.

      You seem to think I’m stranger to this stuff. Like no one but you noticed how the Enterprise A miraculously went from 25 decks to 78+ in Final Frontier or how that Reman was able to fall into a bottomless pit in the Enterprise E despite being in a lower deck on the hull… or how everyone says different amount of decks the ship has.

      The probable reason for the huge BoP is that it is the same model as from TMP area. We know that the Galaxy model got shrunk because it was unhandy to work with it.
      So during filming the BoP would obviously be out of scale compared to the new smaller models. They explained it away with different "types" of BoP. Ranging from small vessel to large cruisers.
      But the real reason will be budget restrictions.
      This is probably also the real reason why Mirandas and Excelsiors stick around that long: They still had the models.
      Afaik the Enterprise B looks the way she looks only because the Excelsior model got modified for the DS9 Lakota.
      My memory might be off but once they switch to CGI you no longer encounter K’Vort cruiser size BoP.
      Scale issues on CGI only should not happen, Kelvin Timeline is CGI only.
      artan42 wrote: »
      Could you create a fully functional planet with life from a nebula?

      Everyone I know thinks it was pretty stupid scene and leap in logic.
      The difference is that it is a stupid scene in a great movie while the other is a stupid scene in an average meaningless popcorn-flick.
      One if forgiven, the other one not.
      artan42 wrote: »
      How can travelling faster than Warp 10 turn you into a newt.

      I don’t know. What will happen when you are everywhere at the same time?
      One is a fictional concept the other one actually exists. We know the distance of the moon to the earth and we know the gravimetric pull the earth and moon exerts.
      It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the scene would not happen. It is called suspense of disbelieve.

      And I’m not even saying that Voyager scene has it. But it is a different scope. Of course you can dig up stupid scenes from several decades of TV shows written and directed by dozens of different people.
      artan42 wrote: »
      How close are the planets?

      Do you really think that matters on a galactic scale?
      They blow up Coruscant and they watch it from Takonda… http://www.swgalaxymap.com/
      artan42 wrote: »
      Let's see your film...

      Because as we all know everyone who criticizes a film or their creators also has to be a director, producer, screenwriter, actor and special VFX artist.
      That is how the world works.
      artan42 wrote: »
      Clear evidence from the film disproves this. Though you you seem to know a bit about how somebody with a 'small asterix complex' would act...

      Clear evidence hu… like humans walking the saucer? Nah lets ignore that… oh a human walking the nacelle! - There evidence!
      Your own website discusses the large Enterprise, it is not just one scene.
      artan42 wrote: »
      No but watching the film will.

      I did and that thing feels so much larger than the original… also because of the interior. That factory scene certainly didn’t help to suggest a hull of only 150 meters or something...
      artan42 wrote: »
      The Dreadnought Class is about 800m in length. It's in the dialogue. Harrison specifically jumps about 40 metres, he jumps from the bridge to the rim of the saucer, you scale that along and you get something in the region of 800m. This fits with Harrison's earlier comments about the ship being twice the size of the Enterprise.

      Yet the hull alone crashes Alcatraz as a whole which is about 500 meter long…
    • baddmoonrizinbaddmoonrizin Member Posts: 10,247 Community Moderator
      Y'all aren't even trying to talk about the Excelsior anymore. :unamused:

      Qsn3vFp.png
      GrWzQke.png
      Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
      Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
      Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
      ----> Contact Customer Support <----
      Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
      Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
      Want the latest information on Star Trek Online?
      Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
    • theraven2378theraven2378 Member Posts: 5,985 Arc User
      edited April 2018
      I like my Excelsior, she does her job very well as she did in canon.
      NMXb2ph.png
        "The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
        -Lord Commander Solar Macharius
      • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
        ishigami2 wrote: »
        Afaik the Enterprise B looks the way she looks only because the Excelsior model got modified for the DS9 Lakota.
        My memory might be off but once they switch to CGI you no longer encounter K’Vort cruiser size BoP.

        Actually I believe they added the extra bits so that they wouldn't damage the base model. All the damage that the Ent-B suffers, is actually in the added on bits.

        http://www.sciencefictionarchives.com/en/collections/212/uss-enterprise-b-original-model-ncc-1701-b
        The flares were added for the specific purpose of damaging them during the Nexus escape sequence and as a way to keep the Excelsior model beneath undamaged.
        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!)
      • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
        artan42 wrote: »
        Could you create a fully functional planet with life from a nebula? ​​
        Sure. All the building blocks for a functioning planet could be found in a nebula. Space is rarely static. Planets and Stars collapse/explode and form dust clouds which slowly coalesce into new planets and stars.

        The better question is: "Where did Genesis get it's star from?"
        seaquest42 wrote: »
        Since the Enterprise A and Miranda class, got an updated correct Atzetc hull map, shouldn't the Excelisor class get an update Atzetc hull map as well? The current one looks really outdated since beta.
        I would like a high rez version at least. The Excelsior looks terrible if you zoom in.
      • theraven2378theraven2378 Member Posts: 5,985 Arc User
        edited April 2018
        The Enterprise B is a beautiful looking design, the bits they added on make the model look even better
        Original model
        latest?cb=20130812215342&path-prefix=en

        Modified model
        latest?cb=20100516214954&path-prefix=en

        latest?cb=20110219070326&path-prefix=en


        NMXb2ph.png
          "The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
          -Lord Commander Solar Macharius
        • theraven2378theraven2378 Member Posts: 5,985 Arc User
          ishigami2 wrote: »
          S
          Afaik the Enterprise B looks the way she looks only because the Excelsior model got modified for the DS9 Lakota.

          You're mistaken. The reason they built the large hull extensions onto the sides of the secondary hull of the Enterprise B model was because the script called for a large gash to be torn open in that location and they didn't want to damage the original model. They added other bits and bobs to complete the image of a refitted, upgraded ship.

          Presumably, the DS9 crew found it easier to repair or replace the damaged hull extension piece than to revert the model to original Excelsior configuration.

          They're good changes which adds to the beauty of the design, it's the main reason I got the Resolute, so I could fly the Ent B/Lakota
          NMXb2ph.png
            "The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
            -Lord Commander Solar Macharius
          Sign In or Register to comment.