Special Reference File: BASES

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 02, 2019 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Can we also see how a mobile base and OpBase compare to these bases?

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Thursday, May 02, 2019 - 02:55 pm: Edit

I would think that the P-CC also represents SAMs and Complat.

By jim howard (Noseybonk) on Thursday, May 02, 2019 - 03:37 pm: Edit

can we have all the current stuff in 60288 scale now please :P

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Thursday, May 02, 2019 - 04:00 pm: Edit

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 02, 2019 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Can we also see how a mobile base and OpBase compare to these bases?
---

If those bases use the 200 meter x 40 meter pod as used on the tug (from the Technical Manual), then sure, that could be done.

If those bases use some other size of pod, such as the smaller "civilian pod" that's been referenced occasionally, then no, not without some definition of what that pod size is.

Part of the problem with bringing the mobile base in would be the augmentation modules, which were included on the metal mini. The primary reason the "true" size of the base station and BATS battlestation are not finalized is because the augmentation modules size needs to be nailed down and factored into their scaling decision.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, May 02, 2019 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Hmmm, where does one get half (0.5) SSD box from (refit?) …

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, May 02, 2019 - 07:19 pm: Edit

That's where the company clerk keeps his tribbles.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Thursday, May 02, 2019 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Phaser-3 mounts only count for half-a-box in the volume calculations.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, May 03, 2019 - 07:54 am: Edit

You know what would be cool to go along with this? A pod comparison. Let's see how these compare:
- Federation pod (32 boxes)
- Civilian pod (25 boxes)
- Klingon pod (24 boxes)
- Lyran pallet (24 boxes)
- Gorn pod (31 boxes)
- Hydran pallet (27 boxes)
- ISC pod (32 boxes)

For each one, let's see what has been done and what *should* have been done. I think the results would be pretty interesting.

One of the root problem I see that keeps being done is confusing the Fed pod with the civilian pod. They are massively different in volume and, logically, should also be quite different in size. But it seems like the Fed pod dimensions are always used for *both* pods.

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Friday, May 03, 2019 - 12:09 pm: Edit

The Fed pod is 40m x 200m.
The Civilian pod is 40m x 160m.

They use the same docking mounts and they're close enough in size that the Fed pod can be used for fit checks for both.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, May 03, 2019 - 02:37 pm: Edit

One thing on the Star Base.

It's pods have to be too small. You should be able to fit like two CAs in *each* of those pods. And I think the CA illustration is longer than those pods are in diameter. A few cargo pod cylinders will fit, but you can't get a single CA in there, much less all the stuff you are supposed to be able to.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Friday, May 03, 2019 - 03:22 pm: Edit

I can't tell if you are challenging ADB's implementation of Franz Joseph's drawings into the game data, or if you are challenging my implementation of the drawing into the CAD models used for Shapeways (reflecting the game data).

The star base CAD model has the exact proportions of Franz Joseph's original drawings in the Star Fleet Technical Manual.

In-particular, it matches FJS' section-cut view of the docking module, filled with ships. That view defines the size of the star base relative to the various ships, as well as the cargo pod.

This was discussed and reviewed, at-length.

The cargo pod is exact to his drawings of them also in that book and is the
same model used for the tug, which also
exactly matches his drawings.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Friday, May 03, 2019 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Yessss, the Gornssss needed more ssspace for the Lager resssservessss.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Friday, May 03, 2019 - 05:12 pm: Edit

I am guessing what mjwest is saying is that the scales don't appear to line up in the images from Thursday, May 02, 2019 - 01:23 pm. If you were to try to put that CA into the docking modules on the SB...well the term that comes to mind is spandex fit. Granted, the CA would be turned 90 degrees on the vertical axis; but then you still have a tight fit as the space is a sphere...unless I am misreading things.

Could the scales be slightly off?

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Friday, May 03, 2019 - 05:53 pm: Edit

It's an optical illusion. Taking an actual ruler to the CA in the picture shows it's smaller than the starbase module by the correct amount, so the scale matches the canon drawing.

(Scaling errors in CAD software are usually spectacular. The cruiser wouldn't be off by a few pixels, it'd look more like something from the JJverse.)

Drop the cruiser down a bit in the FJ drawing, and there's room for a second cruiser inverted above it. The tractor beam operators may be sweating it a bit getting them through the doors, but a few scuff marks are to be expected.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, May 03, 2019 - 05:56 pm: Edit

What I was saying is that if you look at the length of the CA and you look at the diameter of the SB pod, the length of the CA won't fit in the SB pod.

However ... I actually took out a ruler and checked on the on-screen lengths, and I was wrong. The diameter is greater than the length of the CA after all. Don't know why my eyes couldn't see that. Weird; I usually pick that stuff up better. So, not only are my eyes turning into garbage, but the processing unit handling their input is apparently garbage, too.

And my concern on the cargo pod has never been the Federation cargo pod; it has always been the civilian cargo pod. They always seem to be used interchangeably, but they are not the same size.

But that is not really why I want to see the pod comparison. The real reason is because I know that the various shapes can work out surprisingly different for the same volume. Especially round ones (like the Gorn) and weird ones (like the Klingon and Lyran). It would be cool to see them in scale to each other just to understand what that actually looks like.

By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Friday, May 03, 2019 - 06:30 pm: Edit

Looking at the K7, would that be a commercial activity base at least in size?

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Friday, May 03, 2019 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Mike-

While it works; prospective looks a little tighter fit than what I think it should. As you inferred the thing should hold a MASSIVE fleet based on the docking points x6 modules. As for what you were perceiving, I was in the same ballpark...and it is Friday.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Friday, May 03, 2019 - 11:28 pm: Edit

The starbase docking modules fit a bunch of ships, as FJS showed it, just fine.
https://imgur.com/24FlASw

I'm not going to calculate how many docking points those are as I have other work to do and already did my own research. I'd ask that you do the same, if you're going to pick at a product that was reviewed extensively and has been on the market for over a year.

The modules will also hold an additional CAR, over and above what was shown in the Tech Manual.
https://imgur.com/DVV60tM

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Saturday, May 04, 2019 - 12:08 am: Edit

The Federation and Civilian cargo pods were largely interchangeable in the past because the size of the Civilian pod was largely undefined. The two were not differentiated in most artwork showing tugs or freighters.

The model for the 160-meter Civilian Cargo Pod is a relatively recent invention, introduced after the Shapeways project was started. As such, it generally doesn't show up in scaling discussions involving the FJ materials. The CCP was modeled to be interchangeable with the Federation pod, at least until you start stacking the different versions end-to-end (per R1.34).

By Mark Hutton (Trynda1701) on Saturday, May 04, 2019 - 09:42 am: Edit

Will

Thanks for showing those addition views of the SB docking module. I always thought that the FJ view looked overcrowded, the 'bow' view of the ships shows how that view can be a bit misleading!

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, May 04, 2019 - 01:20 pm: Edit

They'd fit better if you flip one of the CA over.


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 04, 2019 - 02:01 pm: Edit

I see on DEADLIEST CATCH those big "balloons" all of the ships carry to use when docking. Provides a soft bumper between ship and dock or ship and ship. Maybe they need something like that.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 04, 2019 - 02:06 pm: Edit

outdated, deleted

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, May 04, 2019 - 08:51 pm: Edit

SB Docking Module = 26

Fed CA = 8, TG = 7, DD = 6 (21 total) pod = 4 / 25

Tight fit …