Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
A couple of years ago I drew up file to show my interpretation of correct deck for the ERTL command bridge. I found that the kits deck sections are grossly inaccurate and wanted something that would still use the majority of the kit parts but would be more symmetrical and would work as the basis for a better build. Of course I lost that file and finally got around to redoing it today.



I am well away of the work done by ZIZ. His design uses alll but two of the kit deck sections. As far as I am concerned the bridge had ten equal sections and each should be 36 degrees. I am not going to get into the whole 35.5 sections and 40 degree view screen argument.



The ERTL kit has two sections which vary in size and the others are not 36 derees. So anyway my point is that I feel that you need to create a new deck, one that will use the stock kit walls and you will have to build the view screen and elevator.



So here is my preliminary CAD drawing of the deck for the ERTL Command Bridge it's a .dxf file.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
I am curious, though, since you've obviously looked into this: Do the inaccuracies in the AMT kit tend toward the 35.5/40.5 arrangement shown on the set blueprint?

M.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
If I were to go to the trouble of building a new deck, I'd either:

-Build them all at 36 degrees and consider it the intended layout, or
-Build them as 35.5 except viewscreen at 40.5 to match the as-built "real" bridge.

Are you choosing the former, or do you reject the evidence about 35.5/40.5?
(I know you said you didn't want to get into this, but that's like saying "don't look!" :) )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
I've been convinced that the 35.5 and 40.5 was the way the set was actually built, but that it was probably intended to all look even - and for that matter does look even to the naked eye.

The best argument(MGagen's) that it was built 35.5/40.5 I've heard is that it would have been much simpler to draw even slices - but they didn't draw it that very simple way.

It was drawn in a very difficult manner. To draw 9 parts exactly even and one part a tiny bit larger you can't just criss-cross the centerpoint 5 times. You have to draw each ray from the center seperately and accurately.

That's a BIG pain in the butt! :lol:

The reason to do it?

I'm willing to bet the original set's pieces ended up being weird ridiculous English measurement system fractions that would have been a pain in the ass for the set carpenters to duplicate accurately ten times.(remember everybody used good, plain ole' English fractions back then - nobody used metrics - heck set carpenters probably still don't unless absolutely necessary).

So, being a practical set designer who knew the practical limits of his staff he rounded down the size of nine of the other pieces as little as he could to get to a workable set of measurements until the nine equal parts and the one slightly larger one were both easily buildable and recreatable using standard carpentry measurements.

A very practical solution.

Some might think I'm just guessing based on MGagen's statement - and I am.
But even if this is just a logical guess based on the evidence...

I would still ask anyone who would dismiss the theory to answer MGagen's question:

It is ridiculously more difficult to draw the Bridge as it was drawn, so if it wasn't really built that way, why go through all the difficulty to draw it that way?



Having said all that, I must say that I don't think it matters very much if one makes all the parts even. It would be unnoticable to the naked eye anyway, especially at full size.

I think the bigger problem is there are errors in the McMasters blueprints that I have seen no one post corrections to.

I don't really care if most parts are an infintessimal .5 degree off or a max 4.5 degrees in the viewscreen.

What I would like to see are corrections to the problems with the alcove/turbolift, Command Center area, and maybe the front viewscreen area redone with side walls as seen in TOS.(Not that the TAS info should be discarded, but there should be an optional version where the TOS area with that one panel pops open in case of emergencies via some nearby station button combo to reveal a hidden door to the emergency exit/entrance).

These are major issues that no one has fixed(at least in publicly available blueprints).
I could care less if someone tried to insert these fixes into a hair smaller or larger segments because I don't think anyone would ever notice that.

What is noticable are the errors in the alcove/elevator, Central Command, and viewscreen. If somebody were to fix those they would be a set prop hero and no one would give a hill of beans whether or not they used 35.5 or 36 degree slices.

I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that an able guy like Phil Broad will come through with some blues of those areas that will do just that! :thumbsup:


BTWay, glad to have you posting Asennad. Thanks for the file!

Don't sweat the 36 vs. 35.5 thing. As long as the other details are correct virtually no one will be worried about that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
Chuck_P.R. said:
The best argument(MGagen's) ...
the original set's pieces ended up being weird ridiculous English measurement system fractions that would have been a pain in the ass for the set carpenters to duplicate accurately ten times.
It's not only that: even if they used rulers that included these fractions, the cumulative error on cutting 10 sections would invariably leave lots of sanding (or shimming) to do when it's time to stick in the 10th one. I think it was assemble 9 sections, measure the space that's left over, and then make the last segment fit the as-built final space.

The thing that shows MJ's experience and qualifications is that he dimensioned them with this in mind -- planned for it. So, rather than end up with a final segment that was under or oversized randomly, he made sure it would be the viewscreen and that it would be a bit oversize. Smart.

(All the credit for this observation goes to MGagen. I'm just repeating.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
Come on guys! I don’t really care if it’s 100 percent accurate. No one is ever going to be able to tell if each section is 36 degrees or 35.5!

Using the stock kit base things won’t line up symmetrically and that’s what I am trying to fix.

I am going to cut out a base tomorrow and then I can really see if my design works or not.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top