Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,471
# 71
01-28-2013, 12:50 PM
Nice find.

stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More!
It's about time. DEVS NEED ACCOUNTABILITY.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,085
# 72
01-28-2013, 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stardestroyer001 View Post
The VFX people on DS9 forgot to include the exhaust trails from this single impulse engine.

After all, you can't have the impulse engines coming from a plugged vent.
You mean TNG, DS9 and Voyager. Since all versions of the Nebula-class; the original "Phoenix" model, the updated "Sutherland" model, and the CGI Galaxy-class based "Bonchune" model all omit the impulse grille.

It seems highly suspicious that all three variants don't have the normal impulse glow, especially since the CGI version was built out of the CGI Galaxy-class made for Generations. It seems really odd that they forgot it each time a new Nebula model was produced.

Star Trek staff illustrator and technical consultant Rick Sternbach, who refined the second Nebula-class shooting model, mentioned over on Doug Drexler's blog a possible reason for the lack of visible impulse ports:

Quote:
"One of the rationalizations I imagined ages ago for having no obvious impulse grilles involved capturing and compressing the impulse fusion reaction exhaust and later releasing it from special non-propulsive ports. If the Nebula class was employed in a stealthy surveillance mode, it would be smart to minimize all overboard emissions. Since most all "modern" impulse engines involve little or no pure rocket thrust, but more of a sub-warp drive, one could say that the familiar orange Starfleet glowy exhausts could be modified or eliminated."
Source: http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/...#comment-14934
---------------------------------------------------
U.S.S. Endeavour NCC-91771 - Nebula-class
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Leave nothing unattempted" - James Cook

Last edited by amosov78; 01-28-2013 at 02:52 PM.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 121
# 73
01-28-2013, 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairbeard1 View Post
These 2 stills from First Contact clearly show the impulse engines don't belong on the pylons.





Though they don't appear to be on the saucer either
Good find indeed, though to be honest those shots include almost no lighting which would have made the impulse engines visible, the lighting that is there for any length of time is off the warp nacelles for less the a second, otherwise theirs no lighting to it at all, no strobes, no fight/docking lights, no registry lighting even in that second shot theirs no lighting on even the nacelles. We were just not meant to be able to get a good enough shot to tell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amosov78 View Post
You mean TNG, DS9 and Voyager. Since all versions of the Nebula-class... *snip*
Guys seriously this is about the Steamrunner, please take the Nebula debate to its own thread if you'd like to continue discussing it.
"Lets see what this button does..."
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,471
# 74
01-28-2013, 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amosov78 View Post
You mean TNG, DS9 and Voyager. Since all versions of the Nebula-class; the original "Phoenix" model, the updated "Sutherland" model, and the CGI Galaxy-class based "Bonchune" model all omit the impulse grille.

It seems highly suspicious that all three variants don't have the normal impulse glow, especially since the CGI version was built out of the CGI Galaxy-class made for Generations. It seems really odd that they forgot it each time a new Nebula model was produced.

Star Trek staff illustrator and technical consultant Rick Sternbach, who refined the second Nebula-class shooting model, mentioned over on Doug Drexler's blog a possible reason for the lack of visible impulse ports:



Source: http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/...#comment-14934
Yes, I've seen that very post before you posted it. That begs the question, why doesn't the Galaxy-class saucer impulse engines do the same thing - cover the exhaust vents? Or the other newer ships produced during and after the Nebula-class, why don't they have their own "stealth mode"? Surely it would benefit the Defiant-class, of all ships.

It just doesn't follow canon. Rather than question ALL the ships after the Nebula-class "no-vents" configuration, we should just place the Nebula in its own category of "Whoops! The VFX people forgot!".

Anyways, like kirahitomi said, this thread is about the Steamrunner, not the Nebula-class. Back to the Steamrunner...

stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More!
It's about time. DEVS NEED ACCOUNTABILITY.
Ensign
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 16
# 75
01-28-2013, 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirahitomi View Post
Good find indeed, though to be honest those shots include almost no lighting which would have made the impulse engines visible, the lighting that is there for any length of time is off the warp nacelles for less the a second, otherwise theirs no lighting to it at all, no strobes, no fight/docking lights, no registry lighting even in that second shot theirs no lighting on even the nacelles. We were just not meant to be able to get a good enough shot to tell.
I get what you're saying, but I still think if the ship was meant to have impulse engines on the pylons they would have been included in that scene since they took the time to add blue nacelle lighting.

By not having it on the pylons I would argue that they are indeed supposed to be on the saucer and the special effects guys figured no one will notice some red on the saucer that is partially blocked by these pylons. I'm reaching now, aren't I?
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,471
# 76
01-28-2013, 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairbeard1 View Post
I get what you're saying, but I still think if the ship was meant to have impulse engines on the pylons they would have been included in that scene since they took the time to add blue nacelle lighting.

By not having it on the pylons I would argue that they are indeed supposed to be on the saucer and the special effects guys figured no one will notice some red on the saucer that is partially blocked by these pylons. I'm reaching now, aren't I?
Nope, that makes sense. VFX people won't stuff the scene with as much detail as they possibly could. They probably didn't need to add too much detail to the Steamrunner anyways, it wasn't meant for looking up close.

stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More!
It's about time. DEVS NEED ACCOUNTABILITY.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 121
# 77
01-28-2013, 09:28 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairbeard1 View Post
I get what you're saying, but I still think if the ship was meant to have impulse engines on the pylons they would have been included in that scene since they took the time to add blue nacelle lighting.

By not having it on the pylons I would argue that they are indeed supposed to be on the saucer and the special effects guys figured no one will notice some red on the saucer that is partially blocked by these pylons. I'm reaching now, aren't I?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stardestroyer001 View Post
Nope, that makes sense. VFX people won't stuff the scene with as much detail as they possibly could. They probably didn't need to add too much detail to the Steamrunner anyways, it wasn't meant for looking up close.
I agree with stardestroyer001, it makes perfect sense, why bother putting in details that aren't going to be seen or are going to be vastly obscured. I mean after all the VFX at the time of this movie weren't created with the same super-high fidelity that modern HD movies are, they would have been much more limited on how much they could cram on the screen at once.
"Lets see what this button does..."
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 86
# 78
01-29-2013, 03:01 AM
What I don't get is the fact the Sabre class has no impule engines on the model either but they went with the Star Trek the Magazine layout of having them on the back of the saucer.

But with the Steamrunner they ignored both the Star Trek the Magazine and the Star Trek Fact Files plans (both were paramount licenced) and all of the licenced games and instead put it on an area which hardly any other ship has.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 121
# 79
01-29-2013, 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thanatos9t View Post
What I don't get is the fact the Sabre class has no impule engines on the model either but they went with the Star Trek the Magazine layout of having them on the back of the saucer.

But with the Steamrunner they ignored both the Star Trek the Magazine and the Star Trek Fact Files plans (both were paramount licenced) and all of the licenced games and instead put it on an area which hardly any other ship has.
Hence one of the many reasons we're trying so hard to get the Steamrunner fixed.
"Lets see what this button does..."
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,085
# 80
01-29-2013, 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thanatos9t View Post
What I don't get is the fact the Sabre class has no impule engines on the model either but they went with the Star Trek the Magazine layout of having them on the back of the saucer.

But with the Steamrunner they ignored both the Star Trek the Magazine and the Star Trek Fact Files plans (both were paramount licenced) and all of the licenced games and instead put it on an area which hardly any other ship has.
The Saber-class does have glowing impulse engines, though that is probably because the model was remade when used for the later seasons of DS9. You can see them in aft view image of the ship on this page: Saber-class CGI.
---------------------------------------------------
U.S.S. Endeavour NCC-91771 - Nebula-class
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Leave nothing unattempted" - James Cook

Last edited by amosov78; 01-29-2013 at 05:11 AM.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:04 PM.