Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Hi.....

Has anyone heard any news on what the results were for the Round2 poll on which NEW kit subject to release for 2013?
I voted for the 1/32 Galileo shuttle craft, I hope they release ALL the Trek kits listed in the poll, but I hope the shuttle wins first release, been waiting almost 40 years for an accurate shuttle kit, if it make's the cut, I hope they include figures:thumbsup:
Not really interested in the Iron Giant kit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,102 Posts
May not hear anything for awhile. Jamie at RC2 is working hard to get the 1:350 E ready for production and has a baby on the way. He stated he may not be able to even give an update on the E until next month. So I suspect we will not hear the results of the poll until then, if we do.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
They'll probably release all of them; the poll was likely just a way to determine which one to push out the door first, which I suspect will be the Galileo.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
718 Posts
They'll probably release all of them; the poll was likely just a way to determine which one to push out the door first, which I suspect will be the Galileo.
While that sounds nice, I think you're overly optimistic. Tooling and development isn't cheap. These ideas are all pricey to develop, and I expect that several of the ideas posted would never even break even.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,779 Posts
While that sounds nice, I think you're overly optimistic. Tooling and development isn't cheap. These ideas are all pricey to develop, and I expect that several of the ideas posted would never even break even.
And the Galileo is a costly model to make. It needs a very deep tool for the hull shell, unless they foolishly choose to make the hull out of flat sections that need to be aligned and glued. *brrrr*.

(and maybe that would be the best solution but I can't see it working well without an internal skeleton of framing, which would negate the interior details. However, that would likely be more accurate to the actual prop/set, so... :) )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,355 Posts
They could do it in flatish sections, like Moebius did the spacepod couldn't they?

With the curved bottom and internal structure it would be sturdy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,585 Posts
The only one of those I'm really interested in is the Iron Giant but I hope it's a detailed model not some toy like thing. I'd like to see it have a separate jaw, transparent eyes, moulded rivets and separate fingers. A choice of heads would be great too. One with a dent and another without.

I wish R2 would upgrade their larger K'Tinga kit too with a few new accurate parts instead of that small (no doubt not that detailed) 1/1000 kit in the poll.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,779 Posts
They could do it in flatish sections, like Moebius did the spacepod couldn't they?

With the curved bottom and internal structure it would be sturdy.
I would think so, after all the shape of the Shuttle was partially due to the realities of stage construction. I think (from the overall look) Jefferies original 'rocket ship' design may have been built on the idea of getting a war surplus aircraft drop tank to modify but nobody seemed to even try to cost that out, and making that from scratch was seemingly way too costly.

Duplicating the actual construction should allow an accurate look, but there is a difference due to scale. I'm thinking of that...what to call it? overhang? on the top. Can't mold the part as a single piece because of undercuts. Gluing the 'overhang' on as trim detail would probably look crappy. Man, I just don't know. I'm glad I don't have to try and work out the engineering. :)

The Space Pod had the benefit of the desire to look somewhat like the Apollo LEM so slap those flat sides together, man! :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
718 Posts
I would think so, after all the shape of the Shuttle was partially due to the realities of stage construction. I think (from the overall look) Jefferies original 'rocket ship' design may have been built on the idea of getting a war surplus aircraft drop tank to modify but nobody seemed to even try to cost that out, and making that from scratch was seemingly way too costly.

Duplicating the actual construction should allow an accurate look, but there is a difference due to scale. I'm thinking of that...what to call it? overhang? on the top. Can't mold the part as a single piece because of undercuts. Gluing the 'overhang' on as trim detail would probably look crappy. Man, I just don't know. I'm glad I don't have to try and work out the engineering. :)

The Space Pod had the benefit of the desire to look somewhat like the Apollo LEM so slap those flat sides together, man! :)
If it were ME....

I'd make the bottom as a two-piece arrangement (the main "boat bottom" and the inset area to the aft). This will allow the aft piece to be molded from the proper orientation, and will also allow for a "hinge capture" for the aft gear. Note that this would NOT include the engine, which would be a separate part. Mold orientation for this aft section would be perpendicular to the openings on that panel. The wing/fin details would be part of the main portion of this, similarly to what AMT originally did.

The top section would be in four sections - the left side exterior, the right side exterior, the front panel exterior (molded perpendicularly to the windows) and the top panel exterior. I say "exterior" because each of these would have ribs on the inside to help stand off the inner walls (and would have a recess area to support mounting the doors in "open/retracted" position).

Re: the engine pods - I don't call them warp engines, I call them "static subspace field pods" and envision them creating static subspace fields which allow the impulse drive to accelerate them FTL but don't actually create a "warp field"... thus allowing the "impulse drive shuttlecraft" line to be kept while still allowing the craft to behave as seen on-screen, which would be laughable if it couldn't travel above c.

Anyway, those pods would be very simple, except that I'd include parts for retracted front gear, or spring-loaded, extended front gear (choose one or the other). I'd probably make the front domes clear, even though the model didn't have that.

The engine pod supports would likely see some minor revision from the "as-built" version... you need some sort of thickness to permit power transfer between the hull and the pods, after all. Not sure how best to handle that, except that the "conduits" would need to be underneath the "known" surface of the wing/fins.

The impulse exhaust would be a separate piece. So would the little "hatches" which Spock worked on sometimes.

The interior would be offset from the exterior, and in the case of the side walls by a significant amount. One way to ensure that this "works" it to actually provide the phaser "drawer" as a separate part, able to be posed in closed or open positions.

The interior front wall is an "iffy" thing. Its the only part which just doesn't match between the set and the "full size prop" at all, and can't really be reconciled. I like Warped9's solution... treating it as a separate wall, at a significantly different angle than the outside wall. This leads to a related issue, though... the mismatch between the interior and exterior window shapes. Again, Warped9 decided that these are not actually windows... it just happens to be that there are three sensor pallets on the outside and three display screens on the inside. I have to say, though, this is the one "quibble" I have with his approach, and prefer to have actual physical windows (matching the exterior positions, and allowing them to deviate from the interior positions). This also means that we'll be able to see into the model interior through those windows (as well as the DOOR windows)

I want a light kit for this. The light kit will include impulse engine effects (flicker LEDs), ceiling lights, and clear control panels with lamps behind them. Also, lights inside the pilot/co-pilot sensor pods.

Overall... I think that the kit breaks down into a pretty straightforward, "skill level 2" type kit, with a reasonably large part count primarily due to having a full interior, and HOPEFULLY a lighting kit.

Oh... I want a rear compartment as well, also lit from the ceiling, with the door able to be mounted open or closed.

I do NOT want a "removable roof" by default, though what I've just described would permit this to be done, simply by leaving out the inner and outer roof sections (and, if present, the ceiling light elements).

Yeah... that'd work, and work nicely. Heck, R2 ought to hire me... I'd put the design for this together pretty quickly! :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
718 Posts
Don't forget turnable seats and figure's, some seated and some standing.:thumbsup:
Figures, I think, would be aftermarket... it's virtually impossible to make really good figures in injection molded styrene. But in cast resin, or in vinyl... you can get some amazing detail. Just not in "mass produced" quantities, but instead in "garage kit" quantities.

For me, I don't want figures with mine, anyway... but I have no doubt that, if this kit were released, someone would be producing figures in-scale in no time. (Hopefully someone who's a very skilled sculptor!)

As far as "turnable" seats... well, "poseable," maybe. In other words, so you can mount them in the position of your choice. But as far as I'm concerned, once mounted, they'd stay how you mount them.

I'm not talking about a toy here, and I don't think the rest of us are, either. I want a high-fidelity MODEL, which can be built in a number of different configurations. (The spring-loaded gear I suggested was, as much as anything, to protect the model from damage if you choose to display it gear-down.)

Just my take...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I hope my suggestions aren't making it sound toy like?
I plan on making a diorama to display the shuttle, so I guess what I was trying to get at as far as the swiveling seats, figures, etc...
Is for a diorama display, it would be nice to have it fuction like the life size set shuttle did.
Having an opening and closing door would be nice, but being able to chose, open or closed door display is fine, but changable.
CL mentioned a phaser drawer, good idea...I didn't think of that one:thumbsup:
But having things fuctional, or movable so you can change how it's displayed, changing the position of the seats, or having the door open or closed at different times would be a nice option.
That's all I was trying to suggest, not to make it toy like.
But I can see how it could give that impression.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
The problem with matching the three forward exterior panels with the three interior forward windows is one of proportion and angle. The angle of the inside bulkhead is steeper than the external hull. And there's also a metter of proportion. If you scale up the interior to align the exterior and interior panels you start sacrificing a lot of headroom. And if you just widen the interior cabin then the proportions of the interior are thrown way off from what we saw onscreen.

Just sayin' because I fussed with this in all sorts of ways to make it work. Any other way than the way I did it and you drastically change the look of the interior cabin. But that's me because I wanted my shuttlecraft to look near exactly like what we saw on screen.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
718 Posts
The problem with matching the three forward exterior panels with the three interior forward windows is one of proportion and angle. The angle of the inside bulkhead is steeper than the external hull. And there's also a metter of proportion. If you scale up the interior to align the exterior and interior panels you start sacrificing a lot of headroom. And if you just widen the interior cabin then the proportions of the interior are thrown way off from what we saw onscreen.

Just sayin' because I fussed with this in all sorts of ways to make it work. Any other way than the way I did it and you drastically change the look of the interior cabin. But that's me because I wanted my shuttle craft to look near exactly like what we saw on screen.
Understood, and agreed.

I'm just sayin... on the Galileo as I'd build her up, I'd be more than willing to compromise on the "perfectly matching the interior set proportions," given that the end result seems FUNCTIONAL.

That said, I think you got the "matchup" about as good as it possibly ever could be. I just want actual "glass" windows on the front of the cabin. Whether they're the "right shape and size" as seen on interior screen captures is less important to me, on a personal level.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
The problem with matching the three forward exterior panels with the three interior forward windows is one of proportion and angle. The angle of the inside bulkhead is steeper than the external hull. And there's also a metter of proportion. If you scale up the interior to align the exterior and interior panels you start sacrificing a lot of headroom. And if you just widen the interior cabin then the proportions of the interior are thrown way off from what we saw onscreen.

Just sayin' because I fussed with this in all sorts of ways to make it work. Any other way than the way I did it and you drastically change the look of the interior cabin. But that's me because I wanted my shuttlecraft to look near exactly like what we saw on screen.
How'd ya like to take on the bridge? :devil:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,621 Posts
How'd ya like to take on the bridge? :devil:
I've thought about the bridge although I haven't really examined it as much as you have as well as others. Besides I didn't get too hung up on it because I thought you and a few others were hashing it out pretty well. I applied myself to the Galileo and the TAS shuttlecraft because it really bugged me and no one was solving it in a way I could believe in. My approach was my solution and others are free to disagree as they wish. It works for me.

To do the bridge I'd have to know exact measurements---namely the exterior diameter of the bridge proper, it's height and the exact outer diameter of the bridge dome and it's exact shape. I'd also have to know the exact dimensions of that tube on the aft end of the bridge dome. Finally I'd try it with both a 947ft. ship as well as a 1080ft. Ship (or whatever size CLBrown came up with).

Fact is I'm not hung up on a forward facing bridge because we're dealing with a very advanced technology with inertial systems that would effectively negate any tangible sense that you weren't actually facing forward. I personally dislike the idea of having to sink the bridge almost all the way down to Deck 2 even though the height of the outer tube shape indicates the bridge doesn't actually sit at the very top of the dome. That's actually okay because it puts some wanted hull space and mechanicals between the bridge and the outer hull and the outside vacuum.

I'm not at all accepting of the idea the turbolift slides to the side before opening up onto the bridge. That strikes me as just needlessly complicated. Ditto with the far-out idea of the bridge itself rotating. Either the central turbolift shaft is aligned on the ship's centerline or it's offset to the side of the centerline. And if I have to sink the bridge pretty much right down to Deck 2 then to hell with it---I'll stick with an offset bridge.

As far as the hangar deck, or more accurately the shuttlecraft flight deck, I'm resistant to making it as small as some have done. I'd like a bit more room lengthwise as at least a nod to what we saw onscreen. And if we have to go partway under the support pylons then so be it---we're dealing with advanced 23rd century technology, materials, construction techniques and systems.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
In working out an after-the-fact justification for the bridge, I figured out various configurations, depending on the mission profile of a given ship, requiring more of a small crescent shaped turboshaft arrangement, allowing for the turbolift doors in the position we've always seen it, a version with it on the opposite side (swap the turbolift doors with the library computer station), one with two turbolift entries, one with the doors directly behind the command chair, and, just to be weird, one with three turbolift entries.

What it boils down to is this allows for the turbolift to go straight up to the bridge, which was typical, and also allow for the occasional up-and-to-the-side trip, and that scene in "The Squire of Gothos" where we saw two turbolift cars arrive at the bridge within seconds of each other.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top