Author Topic: Hobbs's WIP (Read 100637 times)

TraxZion · « **Reply #480 on:** June 11, 2013, 02:35:36 PM »

nice work

Vortex · « **Reply #481 on:** June 11, 2013, 05:09:56 PM »

Quote from: hobbs on June 09, 2013, 11:44:05 AM

NCC 95426610 USS MASON - Future Ship (30th century???)

One would hope that SF would have set a new registry system up long before they got to such ridiculously large numbers. Could you imagine how big the ships would have to be to fit them on? xD

If I remember correctly, it was Matt Jefferies that once explained the setup with the registries. The first two digits were the Starship class, the second two the number of that ship in the class.

Ie; The Constitution would have been the 17th Class of Starship in SF, so the first two digits would be 17. Being the prototype, it would be designated 00. This would give the registry of NCC-1700.
The Enterprise would be the first production model, gaining the last two digits 01, making it NCC-1701.

This can also be reflected by the Excelsior being NX/NCC-2000.

Of course, people then just started randomly slapping on numbers without much thought other than "That's my kids/partners/family members birthday" or some other event.

hobbs · « **Reply #482 on:** June 11, 2013, 05:35:14 PM »

sorry for using my sons birthday

King Class Scout · « **Reply #483 on:** June 11, 2013, 06:27:39 PM »

jeffries said that? I doubt they went with that, cause scratch refit should technically be another number. any excelsiors would probably be 19 series, not 20 series and i doubt they jumped 100 ship designs in 50 years, considering how long they held onto the excells (ambassadors are 100 series) or they went through 600 designs between ambys and Gal's...

logic says it was done the same way the stardates ere...moved up into 5 digits to indicate time actually passed.

i was going to use 2100's for my Independence class (era X dreadnaught type)...then wiley used one of the numbers I was going to on one of his TOS design ships. *shrugs*

Don't get too fussy about reg numbers or early stardates. continuity wasn't exactly priority.

Phoenix Bondi · « **Reply #484 on:** June 11, 2013, 06:54:53 PM »

Quote from: Vortex on June 11, 2013, 05:09:56 PM

One would hope that SF would have set a new registry system up long before they got to such ridiculously large numbers. Could you imagine how big the ships would have to be to fit them on? xD

If I remember correctly, it was Matt Jefferies that once explained the setup with the registries. The first two digits were the Starship class, the second two the number of that ship in the class.

Ie; The Constitution would have been the 17th Class of Starship in SF, so the first two digits would be 17. Being the prototype, it would be designated 00. This would give the registry of NCC-1700.
The Enterprise would be the first production model, gaining the last two digits 01, making it NCC-1701.

This can also be reflected by the Excelsior being NX/NCC-2000.

Of course, people then just started randomly slapping on numbers without much thought other than "That's my kids/partners/family members birthday" or some other event.

don't be such a cannon nazi its his best work so far and if he wants to use a number dear to him, its his ship he can do as he damn well please's!

Vortex · « **Reply #485 on:** June 11, 2013, 11:54:46 PM »

Quote from: hobbs on June 11, 2013, 05:35:14 PM

sorry for using my sons birthday

Wasn't trying to get at you. Sorry if it came across that way.

Edit:
KCS: not entirely sure it was Jefferies. I doubt the refit wold have been a new class. I was just pointing out an explanation I read. From one perspective, Italy's sense as anyone working a dry dock repair could quickly gleam what type of ship they'd have coming in and which ship of that line it would be.

As for the miscounting, maybe they're decentants of the guys currently heading Microsoft. They can't count either.

Phoenix; I wasn't being a cannon nazi nor was I getting at him or telling him how he should do it.

Phoenix Bondi · « **Reply #486 on:** June 12, 2013, 05:24:02 AM »

well it really sounded like it,

Vortex · « **Reply #487 on:** June 12, 2013, 06:09:16 AM »

If that's the way you to interpret it, them fair enough, but it's not what I was intending to put across.

hobbs · « **Reply #488 on:** June 12, 2013, 08:08:36 AM »

fair enough

shall we move on lol
sorry for misinterpreting... im a sensitive old git these days where my Son or my ships are involved

Vortex · « **Reply #489 on:** June 12, 2013, 08:20:46 AM »

Understandable. Next time I'll wait until I'm not half asleep so that I remeber to put in plenty of smilies to sound less serious. :p

hobbs · « **Reply #490 on:** June 14, 2013, 12:45:53 PM »

something new im working on

Vortex · « **Reply #491 on:** June 14, 2013, 12:56:01 PM »

I was wondering how long until you posted something new. :p

Nice concept. You might want to either raise or lower the nacelles rather than have them flat like that. I think lower might suit this ship. Doesn't have to be much, just enough to give it more depth. With the secondary hull so far forward, I can't help but thing it's a DJ influence.

hobbs · « **Reply #492 on:** June 14, 2013, 01:02:07 PM »

Quote from: Vortex on June 14, 2013, 12:56:01 PM

I was wondering how long until you posted something new. :p

Nice concept. You might want to either raise or lower the nacelles rather than have them flat like that. I think lower might suit this ship. Doesn't have to be much, just enough to give it more depth. With the secondary hull so far forward, I can't help but thing it's a DJ influence.

lol if it was it was not conscious though i was looking at both wiley's and dj's stuff yesterday... and i started this ship this at about 2pm...
... the only thing i was consciously doing was trying to keep it in the same vein as the SS Mason

Edit: in regards to raising or lowering the nacelles... i tried that and it messed up the pylons lol... due no doubt its all one model lol... but i will work on it

hobbs · « **Reply #493 on:** June 14, 2013, 03:17:02 PM »

hows this?

Vortex · « **Reply #494 on:** June 14, 2013, 03:50:57 PM »

That looks good.Is that the impulse engine I see?

hobbs · « **Reply #495 on:** June 14, 2013, 03:51:40 PM »

yes it is

Vortex · « **Reply #496 on:** June 14, 2013, 04:25:09 PM »

Nice.

King Class Scout · « **Reply #497 on:** June 14, 2013, 06:25:58 PM »

*DROOL*

okay, yet another reason to contemplate fixing my HD

moed · « **Reply #498 on:** June 14, 2013, 10:22:54 PM »

Looking good Hobbs.

I'd suggest also making the saucer a bit more (just slightly mind you) arrow head shaped. The nacelle struts and nacelles make the ship look like it's moving forward just by sitting still... the saucer IMO needs to be in the same vein.

hobbs · « **Reply #499 on:** June 15, 2013, 08:04:20 AM »

another update

News:

Author Topic: Hobbs's WIP (Read 100637 times)