ATTN DAVID STIPES: USS Hood's NCC # oddity (Tears of the Prophets)

60 views
Skip to first unread message

Dwight Williams

unread,
Jul 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/1/98
to

Brian Barjenbruch (bri...@home.com) writes:
> In 'Tears of the Prophets' the USS Hood is listed as NCC-42768. That's
> the number you gave in your earlier post. That's actually the number for
> the *Lakota* from 'Homefront' and 'Paradise Lost'; the Hood is supposed to
> be NCC-42296. Is this what I suspect it was, just a typo? Or were the
> Hood and Lakota both destroyed sometime back, and the new Hood just
> happened to get the Lakota's old NCC number?

I suspect "typo"...and I also suspect that *both* ships participated in the
battle of Chin'toka.

DO I get the Trek equivalent of a "No-prize"?
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Accidental Founder - _Chase_ Flame Keepers' Society

Dwight Williams

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

Brian Barjenbruch (bri...@home.com) writes:
>>> In 'Tears of the Prophets' the USS Hood is listed as NCC-42768. That's
>>> the number you gave in your earlier post. That's actually the number for
>>> the *Lakota* from 'Homefront' and 'Paradise Lost'; the Hood is supposed to
>>> be NCC-42296. Is this what I suspect it was, just a typo? Or were the
>>> Hood and Lakota both destroyed sometime back, and the new Hood just
>>> happened to get the Lakota's old NCC number?
>>
>>I suspect "typo"...and I also suspect that *both* ships participated in the
>>battle of Chin'toka.
>>
>>DO I get the Trek equivalent of a "No-prize"?
>

> Were there any refit Excelsior types there (a la Enterprise-B)? The
> Lakota is a refit Excelsior class, but all I saw were regular, non-refit
> ones.

I assume that doesn't mean they weren't there, just out of camera "frame".
That *was* a largish engagement, IMHO.

Timo S Saloniemi

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

In article <brianb1-0107...@cx31002-a.omhaw1.ne.home.com> bri...@home.com (Brian Barjenbruch) writes:
>>> In 'Tears of the Prophets' the USS Hood is listed as NCC-42768. That's
>>> the number you gave in your earlier post. That's actually the number for
>>> the *Lakota* from 'Homefront' and 'Paradise Lost'; the Hood is supposed to
>>> be NCC-42296. Is this what I suspect it was, just a typo? Or were the
>>> Hood and Lakota both destroyed sometime back, and the new Hood just
>>> happened to get the Lakota's old NCC number?
>>
>>I suspect "typo"...and I also suspect that *both* ships participated in the
>>battle of Chin'toka.

>Were there any refit Excelsior types there (a la Enterprise-B)? The


>Lakota is a refit Excelsior class, but all I saw were regular, non-refit
>ones.

Which is rather surprising, given that there exists a very detailed
model of the E-B/Lakota, as well as a decent CGI version. If that model
is not too clumsy to photograph, it would provide effective close-ups
for battle scenes like this. Perhaps the effects people wish to use only
CGI models they have prepared with "battle damage" sequences? Perhaps
there is no economical way to blow up an E-B-type ship yet? Still,
simple flybys could be done.

Apparently, big fleet action is pure CGI nowadays, and the CGI
arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
Oberth or Ambassador model yet.

Timo Saloniemi

Chris Wagner

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
> Apparently, big fleet action is pure CGI nowadays, and the CGI
> arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
> Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
> is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
> basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
> Oberth or Ambassador model yet.

This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to
get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!

Can anyone in production tell me why there are so many Miranda class
ships???

There is no way I would serve on a Miranda class in combat. Its almost
like throwing your life away. I don't know if one could even take out a
BOP, let alone a Jem Hadar fighter. I can see them being effective in
squadrons, say a minimum of six acting together, but I have never seen
this. They always act independantly just like a Galaxy class, which is
about *10 times* bigger.

Speaking of Galaxy's, do these ships kick ass or what? I've never seen
one get destroyed or even take major damage. Hell I be no Galaxy class
ship has been lost in the war at all! This assumes of course that they
have dropped the ridiculous priority of high tech and efficiency over
reliability and survivability. Heck if you even coughed on the
starboard power coupling of the E-D it would explode. And the warp core
breeched probably no less than 10 times in 7 years. These new Galaxy's
are what they were meant to be. Bad Asses.

If Starfleet used any sane fleet operations, the primary ship would be
the Ambassador class, being supported by New Orleans and Akiras. The
Galaxy would be the new ship supplanting the Ambassadors and the
Excelsiors would be the frigates. There would be no Miranda's in
combat.

Comments? Observations?

--
I am Billgatus of Borg. You will be assimilated.
Resistance is fut -GENERAL PROTECTION FAULT in BORG.EXE-

Darrell Lawrence

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>
> In article <brianb1-0107...@cx31002-a.omhaw1.ne.home.com> bri...@home.com (Brian Barjenbruch) writes:
> >>> In 'Tears of the Prophets' the USS Hood is listed as NCC-42768. That's
> >>> the number you gave in your earlier post. That's actually the number for
> >>> the *Lakota* from 'Homefront' and 'Paradise Lost'; the Hood is supposed to
> >>> be NCC-42296. Is this what I suspect it was, just a typo? Or were the
> >>> Hood and Lakota both destroyed sometime back, and the new Hood just
> >>> happened to get the Lakota's old NCC number?
> >>
> >>I suspect "typo"...and I also suspect that *both* ships participated in the
> >>battle of Chin'toka.
>
> >Were there any refit Excelsior types there (a la Enterprise-B)? The
> >Lakota is a refit Excelsior class, but all I saw were regular, non-refit
> >ones.
>
> Which is rather surprising, given that there exists a very detailed
> model of the E-B/Lakota, as well as a decent CGI version. If that model
> is not too clumsy to photograph, it would provide effective close-ups
> for battle scenes like this. Perhaps the effects people wish to use only
> CGI models they have prepared with "battle damage" sequences? Perhaps
> there is no economical way to blow up an E-B-type ship yet? Still,
> simple flybys could be done.
>
> Apparently, big fleet action is pure CGI nowadays, and the CGI
> arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
> Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
> is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
> basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
> Oberth or Ambassador model yet.
>
> Timo Saloniemi

Yeah.. WHERE IS THE AMBASSADOR CLASS SHIPS??? *L* I'd think there'd be
at least a couple still around, the USS Excalibur NCC-26517 being one of
them.

Darrell Lawrence

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

A few Galaxy Class ships have gone down in battle.

Chris Wagner wrote:


>
> Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
> > Apparently, big fleet action is pure CGI nowadays, and the CGI
> > arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
> > Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
> > is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
> > basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
> > Oberth or Ambassador model yet.
>

Paul Cassidy

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

Chris Wagner wrote in message <359B68...@plebeian.com>...


>Timo S Saloniemi wrote:
>> Apparently, big fleet action is pure CGI nowadays, and the CGI
>> arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
>> Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
>> is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
>> basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
>> Oberth or Ambassador model yet.
>
>This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to
>get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
>I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
>Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
>honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
>They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
>using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!

Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)

Actually, I agree with your point. Some ships could be upgraded, but the
Miranda's just seem to small.

Chris Wagner

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

Darrell Lawrence wrote:
>
> Yeah.. WHERE IS THE AMBASSADOR CLASS SHIPS??? *L* I'd think there'd be
> at least a couple still around, the USS Excalibur NCC-26517 being one of
> them.

And the Nebulas!! I found it very very odd that there wasn't one Nebula
in the ToP battle.

Darrell Lawrence

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

At least there was a Nebula Class in Voyager's "Ship in a Bottle" ep.
chasing down the Prometheus *S*.

pwc...@earthlinkno.spamnet

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:12:57 +0100, "Paul Cassidy" <cas...@tinet.ie>
wrote:

Perhaps, but its still "roomier" than a Defiant.

The reason why there are so many Mirandas and Excelsiors? Maybe they
are actually hold-overs from the long Fed-Klingon hostilities during
Kirk's days and these ships are being pulled out of mothballs?


David Stipes

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

Dwight Williams wrote:

>
> Brian Barjenbruch (bri...@home.com) writes:
> > In 'Tears of the Prophets' the USS Hood is listed as NCC-42768. That's
> > the number you gave in your earlier post. That's actually the number for
> > the *Lakota* from 'Homefront' and 'Paradise Lost'; the Hood is supposed to
> > be NCC-42296. Is this what I suspect it was, just a typo? Or were the
> > Hood and Lakota both destroyed sometime back, and the new Hood just
> > happened to get the Lakota's old NCC number?
>
> I suspect "typo"
>
> DO I get the Trek equivalent of a "No-prize"?

Dwight, you get an "Atta-boy!" :)

David Stipes

David Stipes

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

Brian Barjenbruch wrote:

> Were there any refit Excelsior types there (a la Enterprise-B)? The
> Lakota is a refit Excelsior class, but all I saw were regular, non-refit ones.


There were only regular Excelsior style...no Enterprise B.

David Stipes

David Stipes

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

Timo S Saloniemi wrote:

> Which is rather surprising, given that there exists a very detailed
> model of the E-B/Lakota, as well as a decent CGI version. If that model
> is not too clumsy to photograph, it would provide effective close-ups
> for battle scenes like this. Perhaps the effects people wish to use only
> CGI models they have prepared with "battle damage" sequences? Perhaps
> there is no economical way to blow up an E-B-type ship yet? Still,
> simple flybys could be done.

It was more efficient to do all CGI ships. We did not think of modifying
the Excelsior into an Enterprise B.

>
> Apparently, big fleet action is pure CGI nowadays, and the CGI
> arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
> Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
> is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
> basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
> Oberth or Ambassador model yet.

I do not know of a CGI Yeager or "E-B." The Norway needs to be
resurfaced and modified and may be done on later episodes.

David Stipes

>
> Timo Saloniemi

David Stipes

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

Chris Wagner wrote:

>
> This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
> I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
> Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
> honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
> They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
> using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
>

> Can anyone in production tell me why there are so many Miranda class
> ships???


Yes. I like them. They explode nicely, don't you think?

David Stipes

David Stipes

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

Brian Barjenbruch wrote:
>
> In 'Tears of the Prophets' the USS Hood is listed as NCC-42768. That's
> the number you gave in your earlier post. That's actually the number for
> the *Lakota* from 'Homefront' and 'Paradise Lost'; the Hood is supposed to
> be NCC-42296. Is this what I suspect it was, just a typo?


Just an "OOPS"

David Stipes

devi...@ij.net

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

In article <359CA3...@earthlink.net>,

Hmmm, okay so we know the real reason, now what about the obligatory
explanation answer? Maybe they're actually the same... No, think about it.
This would be a great way to raise moral. Put all the undesirable Star Fleet
personnel on Mirandas, and send them into batter to be trashed. As an added
bonus, it makes officers on other ships feel really good about their chances
of surviving the war. No matter how incompetent the crew their serving with
is, at least they can always be thankful their not on a Miranda class.

"Sisko to decoy wings.... errr... I mean Miranda wings, prepare for full
frontal assault, Galaxy and Defiant wings: we'll try to outflank them by
heading for Risa. We'll be back, honest."


-Bob

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Chris Whitehead

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

LOL!! And of course the lead Miranda ship could be code-named "Pawn
Sacrifice". :)

Methinks the "official" reason for all the Mirandas is that the Feds are
pulling all the old ships out of mothballs due to desperation. I'd bet
even the Constitution-class ships are getting used. (Not that we'll ever
see one...) And Constitutions explode nicely too. :)
--
Chris Whitehead
UBC Computer Engineering Co-op Student
PMC-Sierra Inc. (Product Development)
Tel: (604) 415-6053 Ext. 2043
Chris_W...@pmc-sierra.bc.ca

Chris Wagner

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

David Stipes wrote:
>
> Chris Wagner wrote:
>
> >
> > This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
> > I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
> > Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
> > honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
> > They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
> > using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
> >
> > Can anyone in production tell me why there are so many Miranda class
> > ships???
>
> Yes. I like them. They explode nicely, don't you think?

Er, I don't know about you but I find it disconcerting to see Starfleet
Officers throwing their lives away.

You haven't answered my question yet.

--
You are dead. Cardassia is dead. Your people were doomed from the
moment they attacked us. "Broken Link"

Kroagnon

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

Chris Wagner wrote in message <359B68...@plebeian.com>...
>Timo S Saloniemi wrote:

>> Apparently, big fleet action is pure CGI nowadays, and the CGI
>> arsenal includes at least Steamrunner, Akira, Yeager, Excelsior,
>> Miranda, Galaxy and Defiant classes, possibly also Norway (which
>> is strangely missing of late) and the "E-B" Excelsior; and the
>> basic adversary/ally ships. Any others? There apparently is no
>> Oberth or Ambassador model yet.
>

>This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to
>get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
>I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
>Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
>honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
>They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
>using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!

Not if you're using them for Kimakaze runs. Can you say "Warp Core Breach"?
Look at the Jem'Hadar fighters against the Klingon ships.

>
>Can anyone in production tell me why there are so many Miranda class
>ships???
>

>There is no way I would serve on a Miranda class in combat. Its almost
>like throwing your life away. I don't know if one could even take out a
>BOP, let alone a Jem Hadar fighter. I can see them being effective in
>squadrons, say a minimum of six acting together, but I have never seen
>this. They always act independantly just like a Galaxy class, which is
>about *10 times* bigger.

>Speaking of Galaxy's, do these ships kick ass or what? I've never seen
>one get destroyed or even take major damage. Hell I be no Galaxy class
>ship has been lost in the war at all! This assumes of course that they

The USS Odyssey was taken out by a Jem'Hadar Kimikaze run in the first DS9
episode involving the Dominion... the Galaxy-class seen in "Tears of the
Prophets" (supposed to be the USS Galaxy) had some major craters drilled
into it while making a pass on a weapons platform...

Looks to me these days that starfleet is giving the order to lower shields
during battle and transferring power to weapons, eh?

AMC

Stephen Sizemore

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

If there are so many Miranda class starships, why aren't they E-A style
Constitution class ships? I mean there's gotta be a few of 'em left,
they're not that much older than Miranda's.

It would be cool as all hell to see one loaded down with quantum torpedoes
phaser banks!!!

SJohnson

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to "dstip...@mediaone.net, "sp...@earthlink.net

Hey don't change a thing! The 'Miranda'-class are our space-based equivalent of TOS redshirts! And they DO explode nicely! : )

David Stipes wrote:

> Chris Wagner wrote:
>
> >
> > This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
> > I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
> > Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
> > honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
> > They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
> > using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
> >

> > Can anyone in production tell me why there are so many Miranda class
> > ships???
>
> Yes. I like them. They explode nicely, don't you think?
>

> David Stipes


Tai-Pan

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

In the "Sacrafice of Angels" if you look at top right-hand section of
your screen when they show the fleet you can see a "constitution class"

USS Valient
--
oozing on the muggy shore of the gulf coast
le...@fbtc.net

Chris Whitehead

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

Tai-Pan wrote:
>
> In the "Sacrafice of Angels" if you look at top right-hand section of
> your screen when they show the fleet you can see a "constitution class"
>

I seriously doubt it. AFAIK, all of the fleet shots were done with
computer graphics and there is no Constitution-class model. It could be
a Galaxy-class ship, since they resemble Constitutions from an extreme
distance. There were also a few Excelsiors in the fleet shots. Maybe
it's one of those?

The only other ship classes I recall seing are Defiants (aka Ass
Kickers), Peregrins (aka Maquis fighters), Akiras (aka new guys), and
Mirandas (aka cannon fodder). :)
None of these look anything like a Constitution-class ship. Feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong - pictures help immensely. :)

Henri Chen

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

Chris Whitehead wrote:
> Tai-Pan wrote:
> > In the "Sacrafice of Angels" if you look at top right-hand section of
> > your screen when they show the fleet you can see a "constitution class"
>
> I seriously doubt it. AFAIK, all of the fleet shots were done with
> computer graphics and there is no Constitution-class model. It could be
> a Galaxy-class ship, since they resemble Constitutions from an extreme
> distance. There were also a few Excelsiors in the fleet shots. Maybe
> it's one of those?
>
> The only other ship classes I recall seing are Defiants (aka Ass
> Kickers), Peregrins (aka Maquis fighters), Akiras (aka new guys), and
> Mirandas (aka cannon fodder). :)
> None of these look anything like a Constitution-class ship. Feel free to
> correct me if I'm wrong - pictures help immensely. :)

In my opinion, the strongest candidate for this look-alike is the
Steamrunner; see earlier in this thread for more info. The other ships
actually do not resemble a refit Constitution as much as a Steamrunner,
which, in my opinion, looks shockingly like one when viewed from a
distance.
Live long and prosper.

202129a (Henri Chen)

Reliant39

unread,
Jul 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/4/98
to

Chris Whitehead <359D48...@pmc-sierra.bc.ca> wrote...

>The only other ship classes I recall seing are Defiants (aka Ass
>Kickers), Peregrins (aka Maquis fighters), Akiras (aka new guys), and
>Mirandas (aka cannon fodder). :)
>None of these look anything like a Constitution-class ship. Feel free to
>correct me if I'm wrong - pictures help immensely. :)

I think that Mirandas are wrongly accused of being "cannon fodder".
It would seem as if there are so many destroyed, due to the simple fact
that (as someone else stated) they comprise about one third of the whole
fleet.

So if you have (I don't have exact figures, this is just hypothetical) a
fleet
of 300 ships, 100 of which are Mirandas, 100 of which are Excelsiors and
100 ships are from a varying range of classes, it would seem like the
Mirandas (and Excelsiors maybe, too, I have no idea how many there were
shot down of those (who knows how many were destroyed off camera)) were,
indeed, cannon fodder.

BTW, David Stiped said he liked the way Mirandas blew up, so that may
also be a completely different reason as to why we see so many of these
ships blow up instead of other ships (which might blow up, but which we
don't get to see).

Just a thought. :-)

mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1)

unread,
Jul 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/5/98
to

David Stipes wrote:
>
> mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1) wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. I wonder if CGI versions of certain trek ships like the
> > Enterprise-B might not be on DS9 because the models look TOO good? That
> > is did ILM make 5k bitmap texture maps, and 700,000 polygon models, so
> > they are extremely realistic but so fat RAMwise they are too big and
> > slow for television work? Do certain models have to be deliberately
> > dumbed down to work in programs like Lightwave 3d?
>
> We try to look better all the time. We do not avoid ships because they
> look too good.
>
> I believe you are correct that ILM does have a beautiful CGI
> Enterprise-B. No one on DS-9 visual effects thought to use it ot to ask
> for it.
>
> LightWave 3D can hold its own with large models. Case in point is
> "Titanic." Models do not have to be "dumbed-down" for LightWave.
>
> In certain cases lower resolution versions of Trek ships get used to
> save rendering time. These, however, are utilized in the background.
>
> --
> David Stipes, Visual Effects Supervisor, DS-9
>
> To respond, please remove X from address.


I was just reading a 3d design article on Lost In SPace and they were
talking about some mega sized bitmaps used for the 3d. Like 5k res
texturemaps just for the glass canopy, and the texturemap for the earth
was around half a gig.

On my computer at least, if I use real huge bitmaps, it slows down
rendering a lot. I thought the ultra high res textures used for film
models would slow rendering down when all hat extra detail usualy cannot
be seen on television.

Marc Ouellette

unread,
Jul 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/5/98
to

I would assume that some legal mumbo jumbo would stop the FX team on DS9
from using ILMs models, besides, doesn't ILM use an inhouse 3-D renderer?
I mean, they are the numder 1 FX house out there. And why use Lightwave
for Motion pictures, as far as high-res goes it isn't the best, it along
the lines of 3d studio Max 2 or Viz, fine for TV work but less than
adequate for a Movie, but then again I really get to into this stuff.....

Thanx for reading.....even though this makes no sense

--
Manipulate the medium
Marc Ouellette
SPAM...@vaxxine.com

To mail me remove the SPAM in front of of oryx@...

Timo S Saloniemi

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

In article <359D48...@pmc-sierra.bc.ca> Chris Whitehead <Chris_W...@pmc-sierra.bc.ca> writes:
>Tai-Pan wrote:
>>
>> In the "Sacrafice of Angels" if you look at top right-hand section of
>> your screen when they show the fleet you can see a "constitution class"
>>
>
>I seriously doubt it. AFAIK, all of the fleet shots were done with
>computer graphics and there is no Constitution-class model. It could be
>a Galaxy-class ship, since they resemble Constitutions from an extreme
>distance. There were also a few Excelsiors in the fleet shots. Maybe
>it's one of those?

Or, it could be a Steamrunner. In close-up, they look nothing like
Constitutions, but when seen from a distance, from bow and a bit below
waterline, it's easy to confuse them. The proportions and placement of
the saucers, secondary hulls and nacelles look similar from this POV
even though their exact shapes aren't.

>The only other ship classes I recall seing are Defiants (aka Ass
>Kickers), Peregrins (aka Maquis fighters), Akiras (aka new guys), and
>Mirandas (aka cannon fodder). :)
>None of these look anything like a Constitution-class ship. Feel free to
>correct me if I'm wrong - pictures help immensely. :)

Well, Steamrunners were used extensively in the war arc battles, but
apparently they are a bit less common in the latest battle scenes. They
are the ones with nacelles "punching through" the saucer hull and
connected at the back with down-angled pylons that join into a small
secondary hull w/deflector dish. Despite this radically "exotic"
appearance, they still do look like Constitutions from the said POV.

Timo Saloniemi

David Stipes

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

Marc Ouellette wrote:

And why use Lightwave
> for Motion pictures, as far as high-res goes it isn't the best, it along
> the lines of 3d studio Max 2 or Viz, fine for TV work but less than
> adequate for a Movie, but then again I really get to into this stuff.....

RE: LightWave's quality is less than adequate for movies? See "Titanic."

Along with high quality, LightWave 3D has a substantial cost advantage
over other software. It is relatively easy to use and NewTek is very
responsive to its clients.

Timothy A. Sullivan

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

> (snip)

>
> Er, I don't know about you but I find it disconcerting to see Starfleet
> Officers throwing their lives away.
>

After all, that's what Redshirts are for...

Paul Cassidy

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

Goober wrote in message <6nmjo8$9...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>In article <6ngiqj$3j...@scotty.tinet.ie>, "Paul Cassidy" <cas...@tinet.ie>
wrote:
>>
><snip>


>
>>>This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to
>>>get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
>>>I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and
>>>Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I
>>>honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
>>>They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
>>>using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
>>

>>Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)
>>
>>Actually, I agree with your point. Some ships could be upgraded, but the
>>Miranda's just seem to small.
>>
>>
>

>If memory serves me right, the U.S.S. Missouri lobbed 16" shells and cruise
>missles at IRAQ during the Gulf war. With upgraded fire control systems,
>anti-ship (ie: TOW) and anti-aircraft (ie: Phalanx) capabilities, the
Missouri
>can still kick some major ASS! Not too bad for a WW2 vintage battleship.
>
>
Hey, I agree completely. I love those old ships. But they are still WWII
vintage!

Chris Whitehead

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

Reliant39 wrote:
>
> Chris Whitehead <359D48...@pmc-sierra.bc.ca> wrote...

>
> >The only other ship classes I recall seing are Defiants (aka Ass
> >Kickers), Peregrins (aka Maquis fighters), Akiras (aka new guys), and
> >Mirandas (aka cannon fodder). :)
> >None of these look anything like a Constitution-class ship. Feel free to
> >correct me if I'm wrong - pictures help immensely. :)
>
> I think that Mirandas are wrongly accused of being "cannon fodder".
> It would seem as if there are so many destroyed, due to the simple fact
> that (as someone else stated) they comprise about one third of the whole
> fleet.

Well, I never said that they were *intentional* cannon fodder. They just
ended up that way. Probably because they are an old class of science
ship designed to have only light weaponry. Although the Reliant did give
the Enterprise a good whacking... Since they were designed for
scientific research as opposed to exploration/policing like the
Constitutions and Excelsiors, I don't think they were as easy to upgrade
to modern weaponry as the other ships. Besides, they explode nicely. :)

Marc Ouellette

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

I haven't seen Titanic yet, Now that I got it at the theatre I work at
maybe I'll take a peak, either way, I was overzealous and apologize......

Chris Tigger Wallace

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

In article <6nr22g$jh...@scotty.tinet.ie>, "Paul Cassidy" <cas...@tinet.ie>
wrote:
>

>Goober wrote in message <6nmjo8$9...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>>>>I honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
>>>>They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
>>>>using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
>>>
>>>Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)
>>>


A more apt choice would be the US using WWII destroyers in the Gulf
War. The Iowa class BB's, while old, were big ships that, when properly
outfitted, can hold their own. Kinda like the Excelsiors.

The Miranda would be more like a WWII DD, which even with modern
weapons, would still be pretty outclassed and would probably not survive a
cruise missile attack as well as a BB.

Chris

Chris "Tigger" Wallace
(remove the ns- from my e-mail address to reply)

mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1)

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to


By the way, am thinkin about getting the darktree texture plugin. Has
anybody beta tested or tried it. The big professional companies can be
superior photorealisticaly because they can do it in renderman or custom
renderer. Darktree supposidly can give lightwave a custom shader deal
that could give it almost renderman like shading controll, without
massive programming skills required.

Jason Atkinson

unread,
Jul 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/7/98
to
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 23:12:12 GMT, tig...@nwlink.com (Chris "Tigger"
Wallace) wrote:


> A more apt choice would be the US using WWII destroyers in the Gulf
>War. The Iowa class BB's, while old, were big ships that, when properly
>outfitted, can hold their own. Kinda like the Excelsiors.
>

More like WW1 destroyers.

Jason Atkinson

unread,
Jul 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/7/98
to
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:12:57 +0100, "Paul Cassidy" <cas...@tinet.ie>
wrote:


>Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)

Battleships that would have been wiped out if the enemy had a real
navy with decent torps and missiles. Besides, those are only 50 years
old, and already obsolete and out of service. The Miranda design is
almost 100 years old. I think Star Fleet needs a major building
effort to replace Mirandas with Sabers and Defiants for the war. The
Mirandas can be stripped apart to recycle parts and materials to make
the new ships. Star Fleet also needs to give its shield strength
another boost, so we can actually notice them.


Chris Wagner

unread,
Jul 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/7/98
to
Chris Whitehead wrote:
> LOL!! And of course the lead Miranda ship could be code-named "Pawn
> Sacrifice". :)
>
> Methinks the "official" reason for all the Mirandas is that the Feds are
> pulling all the old ships out of mothballs due to desperation. I'd bet
> even the Constitution-class ships are getting used. (Not that we'll ever
> see one...) And Constitutions explode nicely too. :)

What also explodes nicely is the writers' butts after late night runs to
Tiajuana to get story ideas.

Chris Wagner

unread,
Jul 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/7/98
to
Reliant39 wrote:
> I think that Mirandas are wrongly accused of being "cannon fodder".
> It would seem as if there are so many destroyed, due to the simple fact
> that (as someone else stated) they comprise about one third of the whole
> fleet.

Its not the fact that they get destroyed but that they die so stupidly.
You could greatly multiply their combat effectiveness by organizing them
into wings of atleast 3 ships or better yet 6. 3 Miranda's acting
together could probably be 4 times as effective as 1 ship. It always
looks like the Miranda's go charging in first, hell bent on seeing some
action, and ending up getting vaped. They act like they're Galaxy's for
Pete's sake!!! I hate to break it to the writers but the Miranda hasn't
been in the Galaxy role for 80 years, when the Excelsiors came out.
The Jem Hadar have the sense to fight in squadrons, why not the
Miranda's???

> So if you have (I don't have exact figures, this is just hypothetical) a
> fleet
> of 300 ships, 100 of which are Mirandas, 100 of which are Excelsiors and
> 100 ships are from a varying range of classes, it would seem like the
> Mirandas (and Excelsiors maybe, too, I have no idea how many there were
> shot down of those (who knows how many were destroyed off camera)) were,
> indeed, cannon fodder.

The smartest way to use the Miranda's would be in a long range support
role. Since their shields are so weak they should let the more powerful
ships go toe to toe and give longer range phaser and torpedo support.
It would be mighty impressive to actually see some sound fleet tactics
instead of a big brawl in space, which is what ever battle so far has
been. It would go something like: As SF approached the enemy, the
Miranda's take up perimeter positions and all ships unleash a massive
torpedo assualt. As the battle progressed into melee the Mirandas
concentrate fire on any targets of oppurtunity. As the fleet advanced,
the Miranda's draw in to maintain optimum effectiveness without being
blown up by only 1 or 2 Jem Hadar torpdedoes.

> BTW, David Stiped said he liked the way Mirandas blew up, so that may
> also be a completely different reason as to why we see so many of these
> ships blow up instead of other ships (which might blow up, but which we
> don't get to see).
>
> Just a thought. :-)

Well, I like the way CARDASSIAN ships blow up. Hmph.

Chris Wagner

unread,
Jul 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/7/98
to
David Stipes wrote:
> RE: LightWave's quality is less than adequate for movies? See "Titanic."
>
> Along with high quality, LightWave 3D has a substantial cost advantage
> over other software. It is relatively easy to use and NewTek is very
> responsive to its clients.

Hey David, while we're on this, what hardware/software combo's do you
guys use? Hardware is so cheap now that anybody can make a Hyglac or
Beowulf machine that can dust several models of Cray for a fraction of
the price.

Chris Wagner

unread,
Jul 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/7/98
to
Jason Atkinson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:12:57 +0100, "Paul Cassidy" <cas...@tinet.ie>
> wrote:
>
> >Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)
>
> Battleships that would have been wiped out if the enemy had a real
> navy with decent torps and missiles. Besides, those are only 50 years
> old, and already obsolete and out of service. The Miranda design is

I wouldn't say that. The Iowa class is pretty much impervious to the
Exocet missle and even Harpoons couldn't sink one without multiple
hits. The Iowa is an extraordiary vessel. Only US Aircraft Carriers
are in the same league when it comes to durability and survivability.
In terms of offensive/defensive weapons systems, the Iowa is unrivaled
in the world. Aircraft carriers are completely dependant on fighters.
Add a little nasty weather and they're at a BB's mercy.

David S. Poepoe

unread,
Jul 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/7/98
to

Goober wrote in message

>>>This has got me thinking, with the rate at which Miranda classes seem to
>>>get splashed, are we *ever* going to run out of them? I don't think
>>>I've seen a battle where Mirandas made up less than 33% of the ships and

>>>Excelsiors making another 33%. The rest being various others. I


>>>honestly don't know why Starfleet even uses *any* Miranda's anymore.
>>>They are all at a minimum 50-80 years old. That's like the Air Force
>>>using B-29's in the Gulf War. Its ludicrous!
>>

What one should keep in mind is that the Miranda's were at one time the work
horse ships of the fleet, there were probably more of them in service than
the Consitutions. They fit a nice little spot as a small capital ship, many
fan books class them as frigates. Star Fleet undoubtedly has a policy for
actually building weapon platforms which can easily be upgraded when
necessary, which means that the Mirandas can stay in service for several
decades with drydocking for major upgrading every five years.

This also brings up great failing of ST encyclopedias and the brains behind
them. No single class would be in production from Kirk's time to ST:DS9.
Much like there is contention that the Enterprise NCC-1701-B is actually a
seperate class from the Excelsior, what we see in DS9 should, realistically
be Miranda Mark IV or V's, if not some larger number. Okuda and others
would have solved many problems by looking at old issues of Jane's All the
World's Fighting Ships, rather than making Star Fleet ships seem like they
are cranked off the assembly line.

Not to mention the most important fact that sound tactics takes distant
backseat to storytelling. The horrendous losses of Star Fleet ships should
bring about an examination of Star Fleet officer training. The continued
use of close in combat, while looking great on screen, reinforces the idea
that Star Fleet Command is run by 12 year olds.

David Poepoe

Kasey Chang

unread,
Jul 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/8/98
to
Jason Atkinson wrote in message <35b16662...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

>More like WW1 destroyers.

REFITTED WW1 destroyers are still just as lethal. The only problem would be
their powerplant (they burn coal, not oil).

I believe many WW2 destroyers survived well into the 60's...

--

Kuo-Sheng "Kasey" Chang / MIS Developer / DisCopyLabs / Fremont, CA
K S Y @ I C P . O Address coded
A E C D S O Y C M to foil spam

Kasey Chang

unread,
Jul 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/8/98
to
Chris Wagner wrote in message <35A2B2...@plebeian.com>...

>Jason Atkinson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:12:57 +0100, "Paul Cassidy" <cas...@tinet.ie>
>> wrote:
>> >Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)

Hmmm... Did it have fire missions in the Gulf War? I'm not good in Gulf War
trivia. :-)

>> Battleships that would have been wiped out if the enemy had a real
>> navy with decent torps and missiles. Besides, those are only 50 years
>> old, and already obsolete and out of service. The Miranda design is

You wouldn't deploy a BB by itself any way. It's probably a part of a CVBG,
with occasional forays escorted by a couple destroyers and frigates for
shore bombardments.

For fun reading, try Vortex by Larry Bond, where Iowa traded punches with a
South African fortress armed with the famous G3 and G4 long range cannons
(they actually outrange the Iowa!)

>I wouldn't say that. The Iowa class is pretty much impervious to the

>Exocet missile and even Harpoons couldn't sink one without multiple
>hits. The Iowa is an extraordinary vessel. Only US Aircraft Carriers


>are in the same league when it comes to durability and survivability.
>In terms of offensive/defensive weapons systems, the Iowa is unrivaled
>in the world. Aircraft carriers are completely dependant on fighters.
>Add a little nasty weather and they're at a BB's mercy.

Iowas are MORE survivable than carriers. They don't have all the flammable
stuff onboard like a carrier does (planes and their ordnance). Its estimated
that it'll take at least six (more like eight) of those huge Soviet cruise
missiles like the Kitchen to kill a CVA. Add 25% to 50% for killing an
Iowa...

Reliant39

unread,
Jul 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/8/98
to
You make sense, but unless the writers start making sense I don't think
organised fleet action will EVER take place.

--
The adres in the headers is fake. Use this one instead:
jo...@worldonline.nl (if you want to reply to me).
_
Visit my site: http://callisto.worldonline.nl/~josho/


Chris Wagner wrote:

>Reliant39 wrote:


<SNIP text abou Miranda wrongly accused of being Cannon Fodder>

>Its not the fact that they get destroyed but that they die so stupidly.
>You could greatly multiply their combat effectiveness by organizing them
>into wings of atleast 3 ships or better yet 6. 3 Miranda's acting
>together could probably be 4 times as effective as 1 ship. It always
>looks like the Miranda's go charging in first, hell bent on seeing some
>action, and ending up getting vaped. They act like they're Galaxy's for
>Pete's sake!!! I hate to break it to the writers but the Miranda hasn't
>been in the Galaxy role for 80 years, when the Excelsiors came out.
>The Jem Hadar have the sense to fight in squadrons, why not the
>Miranda's???

<SNIP Continued about Mirandas blowing up>

>The smartest way to use the Miranda's would be in a long range support
>role. Since their shields are so weak they should let the more powerful
>ships go toe to toe and give longer range phaser and torpedo support.
>It would be mighty impressive to actually see some sound fleet tactics
>instead of a big brawl in space, which is what ever battle so far has
>been. It would go something like: As SF approached the enemy, the
>Miranda's take up perimeter positions and all ships unleash a massive
>torpedo assualt. As the battle progressed into melee the Mirandas
>concentrate fire on any targets of oppurtunity. As the fleet advanced,
>the Miranda's draw in to maintain optimum effectiveness without being
>blown up by only 1 or 2 Jem Hadar torpdedoes.


<SNIP About David Stipes liking how Mirandas blew up>

Nathaniel Forest

unread,
Jul 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/8/98
to
Jason Atkinson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:12:57 +0100, "Paul Cassidy" <cas...@tinet.ie>
> wrote:
>
> >Or like the US using WWII battleships in the Gulf war. :)
>
> Battleships that would have been wiped out if the enemy had a real
> navy with decent torps and missiles. Besides, those are only 50 years
> old, and already obsolete and out of service. The Miranda design is
> almost 100 years old. I think Star Fleet needs a major building
> effort to replace Mirandas with Sabers and Defiants for the war. The
> Mirandas can be stripped apart to recycle parts and materials to make
> the new ships. Star Fleet also needs to give its shield strength
> another boost, so we can actually notice them.


I remember reading on an official Marine Corp.
web page a quote from a Russian Admiral that stated
that the Russians had run simulations and tests to
see if they could elimanate the battleships and had
found out that nothing in their arsenal short of
nuclear weapons could inflict enough damage to cripple
the battleships. It turns out that the ships' extremely
thick hull is very effective at stoping missiles.

Darrell Lawrence

unread,
Jul 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/9/98
to

*L* Got that right. One of my favorite sayings: "A ship does not make a
Captain, rather a Captain makes a ship."

Darrell

Jeff Peedin

unread,
Jul 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/10/98
to
In article <35A15B99...@telusplanet.net>, Lars P Ormberg says...
> Darrell Lawrence wrote:
>
> > Yeah.. WHERE IS THE AMBASSADOR CLASS SHIPS??? *L* I'd think there'd be
> > at least a couple still around, the USS Excalibur NCC-26517 being one of
> > them.
>
> Perhaps they just don't look attractive enough or streamlined enough to
> add to the appearance of a CGI fleet. More than likely nice looking
> modern Trek ships are the ones being prioritized (I see David mentioned
> they are working on improving their CGI Norway) rather than the
> Ambassador class which isn't exactly the prettiest girl on the block.

If they want nice looking modern ships why are there so many Mirandas?
The Ambassador class is a lot younger than the Excelsior and Miranda
classes. And I think it is a pretty nice looking ship.

Richie Kennedy

unread,
Jul 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/11/98
to
David Stipes wrote...

>
>Along with high quality, LightWave 3D has a substantial cost advantage
>over other software. It is relatively easy to use and NewTek is very
>responsive to its clients.


NewTek is based in a building in Topeka that the share with the USDA. I
visited their building on a field trip. They are a, well, interesting group
of people. One of the 'higher ups' has an interest in old TV's, and several
of them are around, as well as an old camera from WIBW-TV (which is also the
Topeka DS9 affiliate). Also around are a few Nerf guns to relieve stress.

Richie Kennedy, who is currently a Computer Science major at Kansas
University and a lifetime resident of Lawrence, KS

-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Richie Kennedy rou...@sunflower.com|
| |
|Route 56 Productions http://dv016s9.lawrence.ks.us/ |
|KU Crimson Girls http://dv016s9.lawrence.ks.us/crimson/ |
|High School Poms/Cheers http://dv016s9.lawrence.ks.us/spirit/ |
|Kansas Highways http://dv016s9.lawrence.ks.us/highways/ |
|The Gas Price Guide |
| http://dv016s9.lawrence.ks.us/gaspriceguide/index.pl |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

John Gross

unread,
Jul 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/12/98
to

Richie Kennedy wrote in message <6o8qro$b27$1...@supernews.com>...

>NewTek is based in a building in Topeka that the share with the USDA. I
>visited their building on a field trip. They are a, well, interesting
group
>of people. One of the 'higher ups' has an interest in old TV's, and
several
>of them are around, as well as an old camera from WIBW-TV (which is also
the
>Topeka DS9 affiliate). Also around are a few Nerf guns to relieve stress.
>
>Richie Kennedy, who is currently a Computer Science major at Kansas
>University and a lifetime resident of Lawrence, KS

Actually NewTek has relocated to Texas, where their corporate headquarters
now exist.

John Gross
Digital Muse
jo...@dmuse.com work
cas...@mediaone.net home


TheFlinx

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to

John Gross <cas...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<BtUp1.1363$0N.16...@cynws01.we.mediaone.net>...

In their early days in Topeka they kept curious visitors away with a sign
that read "OVER _3_ DAYS WITHOUT NUCLEAR MATERIAL SPILLS


Timo S Saloniemi

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
In article <35A2AE...@plebeian.com> Chris Wagner <wag...@plebeian.com> writes:
>Reliant39 wrote:
>> I think that Mirandas are wrongly accused of being "cannon fodder".
>> It would seem as if there are so many destroyed, due to the simple fact
>> that (as someone else stated) they comprise about one third of the whole
>> fleet.
>
>Its not the fact that they get destroyed but that they die so stupidly.
>You could greatly multiply their combat effectiveness by organizing them
>into wings of atleast 3 ships or better yet 6. 3 Miranda's acting
>together could probably be 4 times as effective as 1 ship. It always
>looks like the Miranda's go charging in first, hell bent on seeing some
>action, and ending up getting vaped. They act like they're Galaxy's for
>Pete's sake!!! I hate to break it to the writers but the Miranda hasn't
>been in the Galaxy role for 80 years, when the Excelsiors came out.
>The Jem Hadar have the sense to fight in squadrons, why not the
>Miranda's???

The Mirandas might be some sort of perimeter guard ships. Some of them
then must be guarding the forward perimeter as well - perhaps these
are pressed into attacking the enemy main forces "accidentally" (i.e.
they don't have time to retreat and let the main offensive forces
attack)?

The idea of perimeter guards may or may not be a valid one in the Trek
universe. One might envision the Mirandas as later-day Oliver Hazard
Perrys, launching intercept weapons (photon torpedoes instead of
Stardards here) from a low-cost platform to inflict some losses on
an enemy inbond to attack the main fleet. The ships would also be used for
providing neary suicidal close-in escort services with their phasers for
penetration attacks, as in "Sacrifice of the Angels" and "Tears of the
Prophets" - but only when Starfleet was feeling desperate. Usually,
the Mirandas would be caught in the action only by accident, and would
spend most of their time at the rim of the formation.

>The smartest way to use the Miranda's would be in a long range support
>role. Since their shields are so weak they should let the more powerful
>ships go toe to toe and give longer range phaser and torpedo support.

Indeed.

>It would be mighty impressive to actually see some sound fleet tactics
>instead of a big brawl in space, which is what ever battle so far has
>been. It would go something like: As SF approached the enemy, the
>Miranda's take up perimeter positions and all ships unleash a massive
>torpedo assualt. As the battle progressed into melee the Mirandas
>concentrate fire on any targets of oppurtunity. As the fleet advanced,
>the Miranda's draw in to maintain optimum effectiveness without being
>blown up by only 1 or 2 Jem Hadar torpdedoes.

In the "waiting at a starbase" establishing shots we often see three-ships
or even six-ships of Mirandas, suggesting that flotilla tactics are at
least part of the training if not actually used in combat.

Anyway, it would be nice to see the big fleets divided to smaller units
SOMEHOW, no matter what the logic or tactics. ANY grouping of ships would
be an improvement over the current free-for-all. Mirandas could go for
a dogfight if dramatically necessary - as long as *other* ships are shown
using *different* attack methods. Mirandas should fight differently from
Excelsiors or Galaxies as a starting point, and exact tactics could
then be left as an excercise to the viewer. It would be enough to see
the ships divided into definite formations - we could then invent explanations
and rationalizations to what these formations seem to be doing in the
battles.

Timo Saloniemi

Jason Atkinson

unread,
Jul 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/13/98
to
On 13 Jul 1998 06:40:31 GMT, tsal...@turmaliini.hut.fi (Timo S
Saloniemi) wrote:

>Anyway, it would be nice to see the big fleets divided to smaller units
>SOMEHOW, no matter what the logic or tactics. ANY grouping of ships would
>be an improvement over the current free-for-all. Mirandas could go for
>a dogfight if dramatically necessary - as long as *other* ships are shown
>using *different* attack methods.

We hear references to "wings" but they seem to be little more then
fancy names for hordes, by the way they behave. Still, I'd like to
think that the battle we see when the fleet in on the way to DS9 is an
exception rather then the rule, because they we so desperate to get to
DS9 before the mines were cleared they just tried to charge on through
as quick as they can.


Steve Pugh

unread,
Jul 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/14/98
to
On Sat, 11 Jul 1998 18:30:04 -0600, Lars P Ormberg
<larso....@telusplanet.net> wrote:

>Is it possible that Mirandas are also used because a CGI Miranda was
>available from the finale of "Generations"? (Were the Farragut et al.
>CGI in that? I don't know.)
>Of course, if this is true than why aren't there more good ol' Nebula
>classed ships?

The ships at the end of Generations were physical models not CGI.

However CGI Mirandas were presumable created for the battle in First
Contact.

Steve

--
"And all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by."
"Though a cloaking device, pulsed phaser cannons
and a full load of quantum torpedoes would be quite nice too."

Steve Pugh http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/4173/intro.html

Carl Seutter

unread,
Jul 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/16/98
to

How detailed do you want to get into the big battles? SoA alone would
probably consume over twenty hours for the first 15 minutes if any
detail and tactics were employed. Tim's appraisals of the uses and
properties of the Miranda class seem right on. They are what used to
be known as picket ships. They pack a punch; but they are light, cheap
vessels. They are good for patrols of all regions with minor
scientific missions as secondary or even primary roles. The use of one
as the protector on the Genesis project is a logical choice
considering the low status of Mirandas and their sting. A Miranda
patrolling in the area of a research vessel would raise far less
suspicion than a Constitution class refit. Or even an original build
for that matter. It would be expected that reinforcements could get
there soon enough to help out the Reliant. Regulus was well inside
Federation space.

The two Mirandas destroyed while escorting the Defiant seem to be a
desparation matter. The Akiras would be a better escort for such a
ship. They werw obviously tied up with other duties since we see a
couple in the distance after the Klingon arrival in SoA.

-Carl

David Stipes

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
Steve Pugh wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Jul 1998 18:30:04 -0600, Lars P Ormberg
> <larso....@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >Is it possible that Mirandas are also used because a CGI Miranda was
> >available from the finale of "Generations"?
>
> However CGI Mirandas were presumable created for the battle in First
> Contact.
>
> Steve
>

The Miranda shipes used in DS-9 were modeled, surfaced, and animated by
Digital Muse, not ILM.

David Stipes

unread,
Jul 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/19/98
to
David Stipes wrote:

>
> The Miranda shipes used in DS-9 were modeled, surfaced, and animated by
> Digital Muse, not ILM.


That is supposed to be Miranda ships....

mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1)

unread,
Jul 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/20/98
to


David, mentioned the trek film\tv look paradox earlier, and you said
that DS9 Voyager and the films are somehow in seperate 'universes'?

The reason i asked, and about that motion blurred torpedo thing is
that part of the trek look is the so called 'canon' what is officialy
trek and what isnt. I thought that the trek films took precidence way
OVER any of the tv shows.

Example, the borgs in TNG looked somewhat different from the first
contact borgs. Now the FC Borg are official canon borg, and they look
like that on Voyager, alhtough the cube ship kinda can't make up it's
mind to look like the TV or movie cube. In Generations and FC, the
combadges and then uniforms changed, they are officialy now the uniforms
of the two trek series. Spaceships like Akira class suddenly now pop up
in DS9 all the time, they have largely replaced other ships as the
official federatio fleet, everyone on DS9 now has First Contact phaser
rifles, or close facsimilies, and similar rifles and other props have
mysteriously materialized on Voyager.

Since we have never seen DS9 or runabouts, or Intrepid class ships, or
just about anything unique to the two series in the films, one could
argue that changes in FX and general look in Trek drift on way, and the
tv shows should imitate the films whenever possible.

Jason Atkinson

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to
On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:17:09 -0700, "mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1)"
<mco...@earthlink.net> wrote:


>
> The reason i asked, and about that motion blurred torpedo thing is
>that part of the trek look is the so called 'canon' what is officialy
>trek and what isnt. I thought that the trek films took precidence way
>OVER any of the tv shows.

Different torps. Different speeds. Different look.


> Example, the borgs in TNG looked somewhat different from the first
>contact borgs. Now the FC Borg are official canon borg, and they look
>like that on Voyager, alhtough the cube ship kinda can't make up it's
>mind to look like the TV or movie cube.

So? Why should they have only one type of cube? Why should they have
only one type of drone. Borg tech advances, so their look changes
some.


> In Generations and FC, the
>combadges and then uniforms changed, they are officialy now the uniforms
>of the two trek series.

Militaries change uniforms all the time. Over the 20 years of my
dad's career, only one item stayed the same.


> Spaceships like Akira class suddenly now pop up
>in DS9 all the time, they have largely replaced other ships as the
>official federatio fleet, everyone on DS9 now has First Contact phaser
>rifles, or close facsimilies, and similar rifles and other props have
>mysteriously materialized on Voyager.

So? Just like the army introducing new varieties of the M-16, or
replacing the M-60. Just like the Air Farce getting new planes.

Kroagnon

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to

mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1) wrote in message <35B3EC...@earthlink.net>...

> ... In Generations and FC, the


>combadges and then uniforms changed, they are officialy now the uniforms
>of the two trek series.

Have you been watching Voyager lately? Their uniforms have not changed.

Kroagnon

to respond via E-Mail, remove the nope- before my E-Mail address

mcooney (aka MCC goodguy1)

unread,
Jul 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/21/98
to


I belive Voyager premiered just a few months after Generations. That
movie, the squarer combadges moved on down to DS9 and Voyager. They
also tried CGI trek ships in that movie for the first time, and that
happened for Voyager's opening titles and later episodes. Also in
Genrations, for the first time, the escape pod hatches were clearly
marked, and on all ships on, were painted bright colors on the hull.
Enterprise-D, on the show, the pod hatches were just faint rectangular
protrusions.

Jason Atkinson

unread,
Jul 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/22/98