"Yet another Trek scale issue, help requested" Topic
20 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Spaceship Gaming Message Board
Areas of InterestScience Fiction
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleCracked windshield? No problem – just armor it!
Featured Profile ArticleOur Man in Southern California once again reports on GenCon California-style...
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
billclo | 24 Apr 2015 2:23 p.m. PST |
I'm building a TNG Trek fleet, and have run into a problem. I am using a Galaxy class at 5" as the baseline. I picked up an Excelsior, supposedly a Micromachine, but I see Micromachine and Furuta being used interchangably, and so I am really confused. The miniature should be 3.5" long to fit in with what I had calculated it ought to be. Normally I could live with one that is 3" long (which is what was advertised), but the Excelsior is significantly too narrow. I put one alongside a Reliant that is really close to the proper size, and the Excelsior really needs to be at least 1/4" wider. It looks ridiculous next to a Reliant. Does anyone else make an appropriate sized ship? The confusion over whether the ship is a Furuta or Micromachine isn't helping me any. |
Allen57 | 24 Apr 2015 3:50 p.m. PST |
There have been discussions of this in the message boards on the Starship Combat News website. Suggest you post your question there. Those guys have struggled with this many times. |
Virtualscratchbuilder | 24 Apr 2015 3:52 p.m. PST |
If your Galaxy is 5", you are working with a scale of 1/4950ish, which is a pretty odd scale. Excelsior should be 3.67 inches long at that scale. Don't think anyone makes ships in that scale. Some of the MicroMachines might accidentally be that scale. You are better off looking for a Galoob Galaxy (lots on Ebay), which at 6.35" is 1/3900 scale. Lots of ships available in that scale. Or… going down to 1/7000 – lots there too. |
billclo | 24 Apr 2015 4:55 p.m. PST |
I'm working with the Eaglemoss Galaxy at 5", and trying to get the relative sizes as close as I can. I'm calculating how long the ships should be based upon their length in meters. I am not trying for any particular scale; it's relative size that I am after. |
Virtualscratchbuilder | 24 Apr 2015 5:20 p.m. PST |
particular scale; it's relative size that I am after. What is the difference? |
billclo | 24 Apr 2015 5:40 p.m. PST |
What I mean is, I don't care what scale it is, as long as it's as close to the right length as I can get. The difficulty in locating accurate info on all the various minis hasn't helped either. No-one's fault, just the way it is. There are a few ships on Shapeways in 1/5000 scale, which is closer to what I need, but I haven't found the right ship yet. Here is what I am talking about, the Excelsior not looking right next to the Reliant:
If the Galaxy is 5" long (643m in length), here is what I calculated the other ships ought to be: Nebula: 3.5", Furuta is SUPPOSED to be this length, turned out to be 2.5" long. The Sutherland Hero Clix is supposed to be closer to 3" long, we'll see. Ambassador: 4" long. Furuta is supposed to be this long, we'll see when it arrives. Excelsior: 3.5" long. Furuta is actually just a hair over 3" long. This would be ordinarily close enough, but the saucer looks too narrow. The Reliant saucer in the picture is about right, the Excelsior's is at least 1/4" too narrow. It looks stupid alongside the Reliant. Can't yet find a Shapeways version close to the right length. May have to talk to a designer or two about a custom sized one. Akira: 4" long. Only one I can find is an Eaglemoss, which is 4.75" long, will have to live with this one. Sovereign: 5.33" long. Furuta has one that's 5" long, but there are quality complaints. Eaglemoss has one that's 5.75" long, have to live with that. Steamrunner: 2.9" long. Shapeways only item, can't find any good (high quality ones, not WSF material) ones that are longer than 1.78". Have to live with that until a better one comes along. Miranda/Reliant: 2.15" long. The Micromachine one is pretty close. Width is correct as well. Prometheus: 3.2" long. Have not yet found any. Intrepid/Voyager: 2.5" long, the Star Trek Attack Wing one might be suitable. |
wminsing | 24 Apr 2015 5:42 p.m. PST |
Yes, if you're trying to get the relative sizes right then you are trying for a particular scale, or least a narrow set of scales. :) I'd echo the advice to post over at SCN. Several folks have also tried similar projects. -Will |
billclo | 24 Apr 2015 5:46 p.m. PST |
Post made over on SCN, hope someone has an idea. |
Virtualscratchbuilder | 24 Apr 2015 6:01 p.m. PST |
Right. So you have to care about scale if you want correct relative lengths. Your Galaxy is about 1/4950 so you need to look for other ships in that scale (1/5000 is close enough). Your Excelsior in the picture looks off because your micromachine Reliant is about 1/3900 and the Excelsior in the picture is about 1/5800. If you don't find what you need, LMK. Maybe I can build them for you. link |
DS6151 | 24 Apr 2015 7:30 p.m. PST |
The Reliant saucer in the picture is about right, the Excelsior's is at least 1/4" too narrow. It looks stupid alongside the Reliant. You're making the assumption the Reliant and Excelsior saucers are the same size. I see no particular reason to do that. I also don't see why the Miranda class would be in a TNG fleet. |
John Leahy | 24 Apr 2015 8:40 p.m. PST |
The Miranda class was around forever in the Trek universe through various upgrades I assume. I actually have almost all the Furuta Trek ships. I only have one Sovereign. I use the Trek clix Mirandas as they are smaller (by a little bit) over my Micro Machine ones. I picked up Akira, Steamrunners, Sabre and Norway class ships from online sellers and the Trek Clix ships. After years of assembling all these ships not everything scales out perfectly. Oh well, I can live with it. If they are somewhat close it works for me. Especially since I wanted a large Fed fleet to fight my Dominion/Cardassian/Breen ships. My Dominion BB ran about 50 bucks, IIRC. But it is sweet! Thanks, John |
gamershs | 24 Apr 2015 8:48 p.m. PST |
Please show me the actual spaceship so that I can see if the model looks correct to scale. Please not if you are worried about scale then find some huge parking lot to play the game to scale. Ran into this problem when I mixed Navel ships of 1/1200, 1/1250 and 1/1000. I pointed out that at the scale the game was being played at the ships were about the size of the smoke stack! |
billclo | 25 Apr 2015 2:57 a.m. PST |
You're making the assumption the Reliant and Excelsior saucers are the same size. I see no particular reason to do that.I also don't see why the Miranda class would be in a TNG fleet. I was curious about that as well. I did some quick research, and found that the Excelsior's beam was a bit larger than Reliant's. Now it's possible the beam is measuring the width of the engines, and not the saucer, but I don't have any blue-prints to work with. From the sources I have seen, Mirandas were refitted and used extensively during the Dominion War, possibly later. In any case, I wanted to be able to run battles from the movie era (Reliant, Excelsior, early Bird of Preys, Ktingas) up through the late 2300s. I did do an exercise to see how things look if I rescaled things, and used a Furuta Galaxy class as the baseline (about 4" long). Looks somewhat better. I still have some miniatures that haven't arrived yet, so I am going to wait to see how they all look side by side. It may turn out that I get smaller Reliant minis and go with it. I'd have to put the 5" Galaxy on the shelf for display or give it to my son, but neither is a bad choice really. :) |
Virtualscratchbuilder | 25 Apr 2015 5:24 a.m. PST |
I think there are some misconceptions around the use of "scale" here. When a number is quoted with a scale, as in 1/3900, it means that all the models that are made to that scale are 1/3900th the size of the original ship, and all models in that scale are the correct relative size to each other. Thus in 1/3900 a Galaxy is 6.35", an Excelsior 4.67", a Reliant 2.77", etc. When you buy a box of AMT 1/2500 scale Trek kits it means that all the kits in the box are of the correct relative size to each other, and are 1/2500th the size of the original ship. Note that the bigger the scale number, the smaller the ships – thus the popular 1/7000 gaming scale ships are much smaller than the 1/3900 ships. A 5" baseline Galaxy is 1/4953 scale and all other models would have to also be 1/4953 scale to be the same relative size, and a Reliant should be just under 2.25" to be the correct relative size. A 4" baseline Galaxy is about 1/6200 scale and all other models would also have to be 1/6200 scale to be the same relative size. If you are a little bit easy on your dimensions, the popular 1/7000 gaming scale gives you a 3.5" Galaxy, but it also means that the other ships in 1/7000 would be pretty close (87ish %) to the correct relative size of your 4" baseline Galaxy, and a Reliant should be about 1.5" long. I do my own personal Trek gaming in 1/2500 scale which means my ships are pretty big – a Galaxy is about 10" and a Reliant is almost 5".
There are some that do Trek gaming with the big 1/537 scale kits. They are the ones that need the parking lots. When the phrase "in scale" is used, it means that two or more objects being compared are the correct relative size to each other, or are in the same scale, whatever that number is. The Reliant and the Excelsior in the picture are not "in scale" – they are each a different scale and thus not the correct relative size. NB: 1/3900 is a popular model/gaming scale because it is very easy to figure out the relative size any model should be: Take the stated dimensions in meters of the original ship and move the decimal place two places to the left. For example, Enterprise E is stated at 685 meters: in 1/3900 that becomes 6.85 inches. No math needed. Akira class (many different feelings on how long these were, but I use 464 meters) becomes 4.64 inches. All other scales need a calculator to figure out. :) |
MacrossMartin | 25 Apr 2015 8:45 a.m. PST |
I have to confess, all this makes X-Wing look much more attractive… Or at least, within the Trek-verse, the original series. There, the ships of the major powers are of a similar size, (at least, not multiples of each other's proportions) and thus, easier to approximate. Is this one of the most serious stumbling blocks to gaming the TNG period? The difficulty of finding a sufficient variety of ships in a near-constant scale? Or is it the relative lack of variety in 'official' designs, beyond the cornucopia available to Starfleet? (Romulans in TNG get perhaps three classes throughout their entire fleet, for example.) Or, should I get out more? |
Virtualscratchbuilder | 25 Apr 2015 9:00 a.m. PST |
Is this one of the most serious stumbling blocks to gaming the TNG period? The difficulty of finding a sufficient variety of ships in a near-constant scale? Yup. That's why I make my own. That and as you say, the vast disparity in sizes. At the moment I am making a 1/2500 DDD. That means the wingspan will be over 20". While a Reliant is about 4.5" in my scale, a JH Battleship is over two feet. Or is it the relative lack of variety in 'official' designs, beyond the cornucopia available to Starfleet? Yup. But even the cornucopia has its downside when people are trying to come up with even more. Witness:
Make it stoooop……… |
Brother Jim | 25 Apr 2015 7:46 p.m. PST |
Here's the lengths of some of the Clix ships. Prometheus…63mm/2.48in Intrepid…..65mm/2.55in Nova………50mm/1.96in Nebula…….58mm/2.28in Oberth…….54mm/2.12in Excelsior….65mm/2.55in Galaxy…….75mm/2.95in I used a unit converter on my cell phone to go from mm to in so they may not be right. The Prometheus, Nebula and Excelsior are roughly 1/7000-ish. |
billclo | 26 Apr 2015 2:57 a.m. PST |
I've gone over the pros and cons of a 5" Galaxy scale, and 4". I think it will boil down to how they look once I have them lined up against each other. 4" scale does have it's attractions, but so does the 5". :( Wish this didn't have to be so challenging. Thanks guys, for the ideas. I'll post pics of what I come up with. |
billclo | 30 Apr 2015 9:58 a.m. PST |
I ended up going with the 4" scale. After I receive everything, this is what I will have: Feds: Furuta Sovereign (hard to find, pricey) Furuta Galaxy Class Shapeways Ambassador Furuta Nebula x 3 Akira/Thunderchild x 2 (Shapeways) 3 Excelsior 2 Sabre (old Hero Clix, not really a good match scale-wise) 3 Steamrunner (Shapeways) Klingon: 2 Negh'Var (Ender's) 4 Vorcha (Micro Machines) 6 Kvort (Hero Clix Bird of Prey); I'm scaling them as between the Ktingas and Vor'Cha in size. 12 B'rel (small Bird of Prey, from Studio Bergstrom) After scouring everywhere on the Net, including Shapeways, I was not able to find any suitable minis for the Mirandas and Ktingas. I probably am going to have to scratch-build these (scale size is 1.39" long, but they look better at 1.75"). I also was not able to find something suitable for the Norways (Studio Bergstrom has one that's close to the right size, but I don't care for the looks, and I am tapped out and can't justify a Shapeways one right now). If I don't get it for my birthday, I am going to get one of the Star Trek Attack Wing Deep Space Nine stations, and eventually run a convention game or two featuring an assault on it. :) |
John Leahy | 30 Apr 2015 10:29 a.m. PST |
I just use the model Deep Space 9. Things get even more interesting when you game in 1/2400 scale with Trek. |
|