Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 20 of 178 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Thanks for the welcome, Chuck.

I decided it might be best to start a new thread. Any and all discussions relating to the interior layout of the Refit are welcome here. I will admit that my own bias is toward the TMP-TSFS (original) refit. I see the -A as having a totally different interior layout.

- Dave


Here is a layout of the cargo bay as I see it. This is based on my research using various sources - the movies, Kimble TMP blueprints, Scott's Guide, and info from Andy Probert's website.

The black elements show the cargo bay sized using the Kimble TMP blueprint cargo pod dimensions. The red overlay shows my best guess at the size of the cargo bay based on the live action stage set that was built and filmed for TMP. Both cargo bay outlines are located relative to the turbo elevator tubes. I am assuming that the tubes are located in line with the exterior docking ports.

As you can see, the filming set lower level of the cargo bay appears to be too large to fit within the exterior hull.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
If I could make a suggestion:

It might be a good to idea post - if possible - any seperate detail sections like the cargo bay within a complete outline of the secondary hull(regardless of view - port/starboard/above/below/fore/aft...).

That way problems with scale can be almost immediately checked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Have you scaled the Kimble print to 1000' LOA (rather than the 990' he states)?
Yes, my set of TMP blueprints has the LOA specified as 304.8m => 1000'.

I very carefully scaled each sheet. I took multiple measurements, length beam, PH, SH, whatever I had numbers for and averaged the results. It did take me a while to realize that the discrepancies I found for the SH were the result of a typo on the blueprints. The printed SH LOA of 121m was actually a transposition of 112m. That was corrected years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
ZStar said:
Yes, my set of TMP blueprints has the LOA specified as 304.8m => 1000'.
That's just a little confusing. It is specified on the blueprints as 304.8m, which is 990'. I think you mean you did rescale it to 1000' (307.7m).

I hadn't noticed the transposition of 112/121. I scale mine by measuring the overall length, determining scale based on 1000' "actual"; and then measuring individual items. So, I never used his stated dimensions of individual hulls and such.

This brings up another question I've pondered in the past:
Is Kimble's ship off in proportions to account for the 1% length error, or is it just mis-scaled. (I know there are lots of details that don't match the final miniature. But what about the proportions?)

Specifically:
- are the primary hull, secondary hull, and nacelles sized correctly relative to each other?
- are they positioned correctly relative to each other (i.e., are the pylon length and angles correct?) (I know the nacelle pylons don't mount to the nacelles in the correct places.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I apologize for not making the context of my earlier graphic clearer. It is a little awkward. It represents a chunk taken out of the lower half of the SH, approximately where the lowest dark green level is in the Probert section. As a result, the contours will not correspond directly to the centerline outline of the SH if you were to overlay a correctly scaled top or bottom view. My hull and floor contours were carefully determined from transverse sections made along the length of the SH.

Thanks for bringing over the images from TrekBBS.

Does that help?

That's just a little confusing. It is specified on the blueprints as 304.8m, which is 990'. I think you mean you did rescale it to 1000' (307.7m).
Unless the TPTB have redefined the meter, all of my real world reference books say 1ft = 0.3048m => 1000ft = 304.8m. I am not sure how you arrived at 304.8m = 990ft.

This brings up another question I've pondered in the past:
Is Kimble's ship off in proportions to account for the 1% length error, or is it just mis-scaled. (I know there are lots of details that don't match the final miniature. But what about the proportions?)
According to Andy Probert, the Kimble blueprints represent the “as designed” proportions and features. The model makers deviated from those plans in some places, especially the SH contours. The Kimble blueprints show what I call the “pop bottle” pinch back by the shuttle elevators and workbee bays. The filming model has a more “football” shape to the SH.

Without “ground truth” measurements taken directly from the filming model, you can get as many proportional measurements as you have photographs. I know, I have poured over all the pix I could lay my hands on. I have measured and remeasured.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
ZStar said:
It represents a chunk taken out of the lower half of the SH, approximately where the lowest dark green level is in the Probert section.
Yes, it was clear what the "ext hull at lower cargo deck ceiling" line was.
I'm not clear on the "interior floor line," though. I think it means "interrior hull line at lower cargo deck floor" and thus represents both the reduction due to curvature of the hull and the thickness of the hull. Correct?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I'm not clear on the "interior floor line," though. I think it means "interrior hull line at lower cargo deck floor" and thus represents both the reduction due to curvature of the hull and the thickness of the hull. Correct?
Yes, the floor line indicates where the inner hull surface meets the cargo deck floor. I assumed a hull thickness of 30cm or about one foot. The hull thickness is measured perpendicular to the external surface. The floor is intersecting the curving hull at an angle to the local hull perpendicular so the depicted thickness may be a little greater than 30cm. That probably doesn't show at the resolution of the image. I can provide another diagram if my description is not clear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
ZStar said:
I apologize for not making the context of my earlier graphic clearer. It is a little awkward. It represents a chunk taken out of the lower half of the SH, approximately where the lowest dark green level is in the Probert section. As a result, the contours will not correspond directly to the centerline outline of the SH if you were to overlay a correctly scaled top or bottom view.
If one were literally displaying a transverse slice of the ship, then of course you would not see the wider overhead view from the higher mid-line.

But it is still possible to draw it's position inside of just such an outline.

True the filming miniature and the Refit have differences in their exact shape.

However, I believe the overall secondary hull fore-to-aft proportions are essentially the same. A top centerline view of the Secondary hull might not be extremely accurate in it's port and starboard curves.

But the length fore to aft should still be accurate.

So it's not impossible to put the drawings within such a centerline, even if the ship is not that wide at that "slice" the largest centerline outlines can still be shown. They will still be extremely usefull for scaling purposes because the length fore to aft is known, and potentially ridiculously helpful as to how quickly you catch errors and what errors you catch.

More importantly, doing all work within such an outline(even if it's known to be off here and there on the port and starboard curvatures) will often allow you to instantly catch mistakes you wouldn't otherwise catch.

Most importantly, if you plot the interior faithfully within the errantly contoured drawing, you should be able to show all the points where the official blueprints and/or interiors are wrong.

Trust me, I've done hours apon hours of work on laying out interiors on more then one occassion, only to realize it just didn't fit the way I just imagined or assumed it was supposed to.

I've learned that assumptions are your enemy! They can make tons of time and effort become suddenly useless!

Ever since then, I've tried to make it a strict habit of always drawing things within the largest cross-section of the object in question.

Sometimes I will start with a drawing like Probert's side profile with the colored sections and then transpose the smaller section for more detailed drawing. But you should always start at least by doing that rather then just working on an interior piece without a view of the entire background it will be plugged into. Usually now, I don't transpose anything, if I'm drawing some little detail into the secondary hull its inside of a huge file that has the entire secondary hull at high resolution. I've become so paranoid about this problem that I'm often guilty of having as big as 120MB or larger file. It can be a pain without having a decent amount of ram or hard drive space - but if you do have both it's preferable to transposing the smaller section. You can never go wrong by drawing a detail, within an equally detailed drawing of the entire object you are working on.


Always show how big the section is and where it goes as you go along and you'll be a much happier camper.

It's no fun wanting to slap yourself for having done tons of work that you suddenly realize must now be totally reworked. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
BTWay,

Fantastic Source material! :thumbsup:

I understand and don't expect source material like this to be "plugged in" to anything.

This is very interesting stuff.

With this and a little more info, a large portion of the secondary hull might actually be able to be drawn accurately in an orthographic manner. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
Pertinent info from another thread:


ZStar said:
My own research agrees with USS Columbia. Fitting the cargo bay as depicted in Probert’s matte painting becomes very tight. Compared at the widest part of the secondary hull, the fit is comfortable, with room to spare outboard of the cargo alcoves. However, at the aft end of the cargo bay, the lower outboard alcoves get very close to the outer hull. It largely depends on how you size the cargo pods.



A year or so ago someone (Mitchell Gore?) worked up some dimensions from set blueprints. The cargo bay was constructed from the Phase II Adm. Nogura’s office. According to those blueprints each quad pod alcove had an opening about 15’ x 8’6” and an assumed depth of about 8’. If you work from the Kimble TMP workbee/cargo train sheets you get dimensions of about 13’ x 7’6” x 6’6”.



The smaller size cargo pods and a corresponding smaller cargo bay can just barely be made to fit within the exterior hull at the aft end of the cargo bay. The larger pods, as actually constructed and filmed, result in the aft most pods extending outside the hull. An additional problem with the larger pods is that the outboard ends would be right up against the exterior hull where the filming model has the three closely spaced viewports on the cargo deck level. There would be no room for a person to squeeze in there and look out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Thanks for the tip, Chuck. When I'm working on a set of blueprints, I don't normally work within a copy of the max outline. I usually start from the exterior views so that I have a well defined surface. Then I start making sections and slicing planes so that I can have well defined limits for each deck. Once I have each deck volume well defined, then I start in on the details. I think I work in a similar fashion to what you have described.

I've learned that assumptions are your enemy! They can make tons of time and effort become suddenly useless!
Amen! I had already gone through the process descibed above before I realized the transposition of the 112m SH LOA into 121m. As I was working, I was thinking that the SH proportions didn't look right but I put more faith in the dimensional number. It was one of those "Duh! Oh, s**t!" moments when I realized the truth.

The image I posted was just clipped and cleaned to minimize the clutter and image size.

Columbia, thanks for pointing out the Kerr drawing at Cultman. I have seen those. Wow, would I love to see a high res set of his refit prints.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
ZStar said:
Amen! I had already gone through the process descibed above before I realized the transposition of the 112m SH LOA into 121m. As I was working, I was thinking that the SH proportions didn't look right but I put more faith in the dimensional number. It was one of those "Duh! Oh, s**t!" moments when I realized the truth.
It could be a little worse.

At least you aren't the guy who worked for NASA who forgot to convert his Mars landing calculations from metric back into English(or was it vice versa?) and lost an entire space probe!!!

Something tells me that's going to be a mistake he never makes a second time! :lol:


"Gee, you're home early honey."

"Yeah, well. I made one little screw up at work and they fired me..."

"That's outrageous! What happened?!?"

"I sort of forgot to convert a few numbers and caused a Martian Space Probe to crash."

"Oh. Well. Okay. Why did they have to fire you? Couldn't you just pay to replace it?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
There seems to be no completely accurate blueprints in existance of the Refit as built.

Countless people have remarked how accurate Thomas' PL Refit was to the filming miniature.

The overall contours of the kit are pretty much unchallenged as accurate.

There were a few small errors almost all of which were supposed to be corrected by the manufacturer before mass production began.

But the worst of these to my knowledge were a couple of errant scribe lines that should have been changed and a slight retouching of the neck thickness.

The decal placement drawings in the instructions of the kit are not scaled properly.
They have different portions that are proportionally incorrect.

They have so many corrections and differences that they do seem to be almost intentionally distorted so as not to be used as orthographic blueprints.

However, since the kit itself is known to be accurate I was able to take some measurements and figured out I could get what appears to be a 100% accurate rendering in blueprints to the kit's measurements by breaking down the views into smaller segments and adjusting those parts of the drawings.

It's a pain in the but to use calipers and measurements in order to match up the drawings with the actual measurements on the kit parts, but it is doable.

I have only done it on a couple of the elements, due to the time involved.

But if someone wanted to do the same thing they could scan the PL instructions, break them down into their seperate elements, and then properly scale each distorted part of the drawing, they could probably come up with a complete set of orthographic prints of the kit.

And the kit is allegedly much more accurate to the contours of the actual filming miniature then the TMP blueprints.

Just for the heck of it, I then took TMP blueprints and did them in the same scale as the extrapolated views from the PL Kit.

Here is how the two match and differ, I've overlayed them.

As far as I know, this is the first publicly available analysis that has shown the difference between the pre-production TMP blueprints and the contours of the final filming model(in so much as the contours of the PL Refit are more accurate.)

I'm pretty sure that Garry Kerr was given all info needed to make an accurate Autocad rendering of the Refit as built, based on the posts he has made of certain parts of the Refit, and the naming and numbering conventions attached to those files(which indicate they are but a few of a buttload of files, suggesting that he has a complete set of Autocad files of the Refit.)

However, I don't suggest we hold our breath waiting for them to become publicly available.

There are reasons for this, of course. I'm just facing the facts that they won't be available anytime soon. :(

The only part of the PL kit that I know of that physically needs work other then a couple of scribe lines is the neck of the ship has to have it's thickness adjusted.

However that thickness is not visible from a side orthographic, so this drawing should be extremely accurate.

The PL kit's outlines are in black, TMP equivalent blueprint in red.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
The only part of the PL kit that I know of that physically needs work other then a couple of scribe lines is the neck of the ship has to have it's thickness adjusted.
The most detailed Kerr drawing at CultTVman is a front view if the torpedo tubes and neck. Assuming (always dangerous) the Kerr drawing is realtively undistorted and accurate, I get width dimensions of 12m (~40') for the torpedo deck and 7m (~23') for the neck. These correspond very accurately with measurements off my PL refit.

Does anyone know what these dimensions are "really" supposed to be?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
ZStar said:
I had already gone through the process descibed above before I realized the transposition of the 112m SH LOA into 121m.
That dimesion would make the secondary hull proportion look about like on the old South Bend toy Enterprise refit. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
ZStar said:
The most detailed Kerr drawing at CultTVman is a front view if the torpedo tubes and neck. Assuming (always dangerous) the Kerr drawing is realtively undistorted and accurate, I get width dimensions of 12m (~40') for the torpedo deck and 7m (~23') for the neck. These correspond very accurately with measurements off my PL refit.

Does anyone know what these dimensions are "really" supposed to be?
Nope. As there are no official drawings.

Could you post links to those other Kerr drawings you are talking about(and any other you know of?)

If you are looking at the very front in both cases that may be why you aren't seeing any problem. I vaguely remember that the PL kit allegedly(never paid attention at the time) had some problem with how much it tapered towards the rear.

So that might explain why there doesn't seem to be a problem if the drawings you are talking about are only of the front, or if you only checked the front portion.

Thomas did painstaking research and put as much as he could into the model

(again the couple of physical problems I know about he had slated to be corrected, but somehow the chinese company ignored his last few revisions and went straight to production. The reason I know this is because he had a thread here documenting the entire process of making the master and had published a list or corrections he was sending a couple of months or so before the kit ever went into production),

but because of legal reasons I doubt he can share his orthographics. That probably had to do with why the individual elements of his drawings were distorted in the kit instruction drawings.

However, I know from past experience that when people do this, they often will intentionally screw up the X and Y axisae of individual parts of the 2D drawing then paste them back together at strategic points.

If you can break up the drawing at the right places, find the percentages along the X and Y that they distorted them, you can correct them.

Sometimes there will even be an entire subsection that is totally undistorted thrown in with the rest of the drawing, such as where two different off shoots of the drawing plug into the undistorted portion.

But to be accurate even in such seeming apparent cases it is crucial to verify this by physical measurements of the model against the would be blueprints.

But the good news is with the Refit it is not that difficult to do such verifications.
Both Thomas' model and the subject have the obvious advantage(from a measuring and verification standpoint) of all those vertical and horizontal lines.

So it's easy to check and confirm(with calipers, not rulers of course) if the reworked drawing is accurate to the actual PL kit.
 
1 - 20 of 178 Posts
Top