2020ŷޱ

CGI in Star Trek

Originally created by et al. for MemoryAlpha

Use of CGIComputerSoftwareComputerHardwareBuilding a CGIModelDurability of CGIModels
CGISuppliers to Star TrekCGI Starships and StructuresCGISpecies

 

CGI, or Computer-Generated Imaging (or imagery), is a relatively advanced method of producing on-screen illusionary effects to depict imaginary events.It is a form of "visual effects"(occasionally abbreviated as "VFX"), a term used to distinguish between effects generated or composited in (usually with computers, nowadays) and effects created live on the set duringfilming, which are referred to as "special effects" ("SFX"). Traditional methods of producing visual effects include such techniquesas as construction of physical or miniatures, manipulation of film elements, use of motion control photography and mattepainting. Most of the Star Trek productions still used traditional methods of creating SFX; it was not untilStar Trek: Enterprise that these methods were abandoned altogether, in favor ofCGI.

 

Use of CGI

CGI mesh of the Antares in TOS-R: "Charlie X"
CGI Federation and Romulan starships in "Tears of the Prophets"
The very first CGI created for Star Trek, was in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", wherethe Graphics Group of Lucasfilm was responsible for the effect as a subcontractor of the movie's effects company, (ILM).The Graphics Group would later evolve to .

Very limited CGI was used in the next fourStar Trek films and Star Trek: The Next Generation due to the expense of creating CGI images at the time, though producers and investigated the feasibility of applying CGI to the new televisionshow. "Eddie Milkis and I investigated the possibility of generating everything on the computer. We had great reservations about it, because it still didn't have the reality. The surface treatment wasn't totally believable [remark: Justman is referring to a CGI refit-Constitution-class that was commissioned for evaluation]; we could have gotten by, it would have been acceptable, but it wasn't satisfactory." as Justman recalled. (, accompanying booklet, page 14 and , no.37, page10) Milkis further elaborated, "It was incredibly good, and it took some real thinking on our part, but ultimately we decided that if something ever happened to that company and they couldn't deliver, then we'd have nothing. We were very concerned about that and ultimately they did go out of business."(Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, page11)

Of the Star Trek production team, and, at a later time to a lesser degree, , and were the foremost advocates of applying CGI, Stipes already overseeing some of its earliest applications, during the sixth season of TNG. Stipes already lobbied in vain for a CGI version of theUSSEnterprise-D during thatseason, "On 'The Chase' we were all over the galaxy -warp here and warp there- and I have basically the one or two jumps to warp that we had in stock. When TNG was started, the first bits of material were shot at ILM and they shot the original jump to warp with slit scan and streak photography. That served us very well for seven years, but it was very difficult to do and expensive. I had been pushing to build a CGI Enterprise, but no one wanted to incur the expense at that point so I lived with the stock shots."(, Vol. 27, No. 4/5, page 79) Aside from the perceived cost issue, there was also the barrier of reluctance of accepting the new technology by producers and makers of SFX, born and bred in the true and tried traditional methods of producing SFX. Essentially speaking for all of them, DS9's visual effects producer put it verysuccinctly, "It looks too pristine. I don't believe it." (Cinefantastique, Vol. 24, No. 3/4, page105)

A December 1993 Christmas party thrown by NewTek (the company that owns and markets the software) provided a key moment for overcoming the Trek producers' resistance to CGI, when Stipes met the animators of . Amblin's recalled, "David was always interested in getting 3-D incorporated into Star Trek. He saw the benefits of that probably before many of the other producers over there did. And so we invited him over here and showed him the facility and when Voyager came up he saw the opportunity to get this stuff involved. He and Dan Curry came by and we talked about what we can do and showed them some examples and eventually we gave them a bid to build a virtual Voyager." To prove their skills Gross and Grant Bouchet took some stock footage of a Maquis raider with the accompanying motion control data, provided by the studio, and added some CGI ships. Matching flight movements so perfectly, DS9 producers were not able to distinguish between the physical models and CGI models. Vice-president John Parenteau relatedfurther, "That meant a lot to Dan Curry, because Dan was weary. I think he had some bad experiences with CGI in the past and didn't feel it was quite there yet. But when we turned out their flight tests and people couldn't tell the difference, Dan started to realize that maybe we have finally conquered whatever barrier there had been before." (Cinefantastique2020欧洲杯晋级队伍, Vol. 27, No. 4/5, page 80)

2020欧洲杯晋级队伍The following gallery shows some notable examples of earlyCGI in Star Trek.

2020欧洲杯晋级队伍The cost of CGI production dropped dramatically after LightWave 3D became commercially available off the shelf in 1994.Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager had both implemented CGI in their title sequences (created in 1992 and 1994, respectively). Both series began their runs predominantly using traditional special effects methods, but transitioned to regular use of CGI in the late 1990s. The transition to CGI was completed in 1997, during DS9's sixth season and Voyager's fourth season; Voyager took the lead, having been unofficially designated as a testbed for the technology, andDS9 followed suit. Deep Space Nine was particularly well served by CGI in its last two seasons, allowing the series to showcaseDominion War battle scenes that would have been impossible using models.

Star Trek: Enterprise was exclusively done in CGI for almost all exterior ship shots, as were the movies from"Star Trek: Insurrection" onwards. Cost-effectiveness by that time had reached a level that made take the decision in 2005 to retro-apply CGI toStar Trek: The Original Series for virtually all its exterior SFX shots, resulting in the 2006 version ofTOS with revised ships, planetmodels and planet surfaces.

For the movies it was "Star Trek Generations" that marked the true breakthrough of CGI. Up until then CGI in motion pictures was employed in isolated instances on a limited scale, but in "Generations" CGI was used throughout the movie as an integral part for a wider variety of effects. Still, the amount of work in creating them was such that to ease their workload ILM solicited the help of other effects houses such as and . By the time"Star Trek: Insurrection" was in pre-production, it was decided that the SFX for the entirety of the production would be created in CGI. However, in a last-minute decision the film's SFX supervisors decided to create the scene with the destruction of the Son'a collector in motion control photography with physical studio models, because they believed that the scene could not yet be done convincingly in CGI. (Sci-Fi Fantasy Models, 1999, No's 34-35) Similarly, in"Star Trek Nemesis" the scene in which the USSEnterprise-E rams the Scimitar was achieved with physical models and motion control. (Cinefex, No.93, pages 107-109)

The perceived cheapness of CGI has been put more in perspective by Adam"Mojo" Lebowitz, at the time modeler and effects supervisor at :"I think the cost-effectiveness of it came slowly into play. A lot of people say, 'CGI is a lot cheaper, isn't it,' but the way I like to think of it is that CGI is not cheaper necessarily, but you get a lot more for your money and you can tweak it a lot more. They [the producers] like that, because with motion control if they had a complex shot that had a small problem it would be very, very expensive to go back and reshoot all the elements. But in fact I don't like to use the word 'cheaper'; CGI is more versatile, far more cost-effective." (Star Trek: The Magazine,Volume 1, Issue 6, page 47)

The versatility Lebowitz refers to, comes into play especially once the CGI model is finished and loaded onto a server. For example, an explosion which was originally done by pyrotechnics; stock footage of which was shot and later inserted in post-production in whatever production it was deemed necessary, a technique often used with the films and TNG. The only options open to editors of those days were, size, placement and intensity. In CGI, once an explosion has been modeled, the original file can be manipulated, with embedded or not software, to change intensity, color, direction, size, movement or in short changed completely beyond recognition and be inserted anywhere in a frame a producer likes, since nowadays productions are edited digitally, quite literally by a click of a mouse-button. This versatility has been proven exceptionally useful for the producers of Star Trek in CGIstudio models. Whenever a new design was called for in a script and, due to time or budgetary restraints, a new design was not feasible, existing CGI models of starships were used as they were easily adaptable into another type of ship, a method frequently employed during VOY and ENT, such as with thevarious modifications of the Akritirianpatrol ship2020欧洲杯晋级队伍. Using CGI also meant that pre-production evaluation shots of SFX by special effects supervisors, could be done on a computer screen instead of having it played out in real-time, thereby in the process eliminating the use of .

 

Computer Software

CGI made its tentative entry into the motion picture industry in the 1970's in movies like,"StarWars", ,"The BlackHole" and "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". In most cases the CGI were limited 3D- , aptly used as computer displays. TheGenesis effect sequence, created by ILM on their own in-house developed software for"The Wrath of Khan", was not only a CGI first for Star Trek, but was also the very first fully CGI realized 3D-sequence, not being a wire-frame but rather a full textured 3D-representation, ever to be shown in the motion picture business. CGI was generated using computer programs, developed at universities or by in-house programmers of SFX companies, meaning that interchangeability was non-existent. The first solid 3D CGI models were featured in the movies and"The LastStarfighter"2020欧洲杯晋级队伍. Though, in the first case, critically acclaimed, the movies were considered commercial failures and convinced directors and producers of the time that CGI could only be used in instances where effects were supposed to look like computer-images.

Things changed dramatically in 1993 when the movie "JurassicPark" was released and the TV series premiered. Modelers at ILM and Foundation Imaging used the in1990 commercially released first version of the software package (then called "Video Toaster Suite", a hardware/software combination; the software was from 1994 onward available as a stand-alone application) to create life-like convincing 3D CG imagery. The success of both productions meant the definitive breakthrough of CGI in the motion picture business and LightWave and its successive versions has become the premiere software package for its creation. The list of productions having used LightWave since 1993 is impressive and within a decade, traditional methods of producing SFX were relegated to the fringes. All companies that provided CGI for later seasons of DS9, VOY and the entirety of ENT used a version of LightWave, greatly improving production efficiency since computer files were easily interchangeable between the companies' platforms (The co-operation between Foundation Imaging and Digital Musefor the production of DS9: "Sacrifice of Angels" is a prime example).

Interchangeability of CGI-files created on different software platforms, is often possible, but it almost always means a fair amount of reprogramming and reconstructing as Digital Muse experienced when ILM turned over their ship models, made for "Star Trek: First Contact" for use inDS9. For some companies it is then more expedient to newly construct a CGI model from the groundup. "ILM actually released their Enterprise database to us, which was very nice of them. It was very helpful in the beginning, because we had all these animatics to create. However, their Enterprise was a fairly low-resolution model, and while we originally thought, 'Maybe we can just add to this database', that process became more trouble than it was worth, so we had come down and actually redigitize theEnterprise using the original miniature.", Santa Barbara Studio's effects supervisor said in preparation of"Star Trek: Insurrection". (, January 1999, page 41) Appearing in three movies, for which four different CGI companies provided the SFX, each using different software, the CGI version of the Sovereignclass was built from scratch no less than four times. Michael Stetson who had to rebuild theJem'Hadar fighter in LightWave from the files forDS9: "Sacrifice of Angels" gave another example, "I don't remember where exactly the original model came from, but I believe we got it as a .obj file that was a mess when it was imported into Lightwave (version 5.5ish back in '97) I had a couple of days to make it usable in Lightwave3D which involved seriously cleaning up the geometry (I think the original might have been ) and redoing the texture map since LW didn't have UV mapping back then."2020欧洲杯晋级队伍 (DrexFiles)

However, as supervisor Bruce Branit of Digital Muse explained, referring toDS9: "Sacrifice of Angels", sometimes the effort of transferring CG-files to another software format was worthwhile:

"It was the first time that anyone had actually assembled the entire Starfleet fleet in CG. Normally there were always a few ships they used for CG, and they pulled models out, and did motion control. Due to the nature of the show, there was no way they could do it with motion control. There was not enough time and not enough money. They were talking about having fifty to a hundred Starfleet vessels on screen at one time, and there was no way to pull that off in traditional ways. So we were a collecting point for anything that had been done in CG before. We brought the digital models in and converted them to LightWave, which is our rendering package of choice. The Enterprise-D had been done before, but in something else, so we were able to bring the geometry in, and bring some of the maps in, but we had to rebuild it. We had all the ingredients, so we could put it together much more quickly than building it from scratch. So now we have folders with the entire fleet all lined up in the same form, so we can just load a Reliant, we can load a Defiant, we can load an Excelsior, whenever we need it. That was the first real challenge, to get all that stuff in order, and to fill the garage with useable ships." (Cinefantastique, Vol.30, No.9/10, page 64)

Tackling the ILM models, done for "Star Trek Generations" and"Star Trek: First Contact", in an early stage, Digital Muse was able to showcase the upgraded versions already inDS9: "Call to Arms".

The Amblin Imaging CGI model in the title sequence and its missing texture
Even interchangeability of CGI-files generated on the same software platforms was sometimes not without its problems asJohn Gross remembered in respect to transferring the CGI version of the USSVoyager from one version of LightWave to another:

"There are six shots in the opening title sequence, three of them had the CG ship that we built; the other three have the practical model. The three that had the CG ship were the one where it goes by the sun, the one where it goes through the smoky, particle stuff, and the last one, where it jumps to warp. (...) We always use beta software [remark: meant is a new version of Lightwave which at the time was available on two different computer systems, Amiga being the hardware component of the 1990 'Video Toaster Suite' package], which means there tend to be some bugs. As we were modeling Voyager, some of it was being done in the Amiga version; some was being done on the SGI version. If you transferred the model between the different systems, the textures-effectively the paint on the ship-would get lost. That happens in the final shot where the belly tips up toward us and Voyager goes to warp. It's something you don't really pick out unless you know it's there, but if you look at the bottom of the ship there are these three darker patches that aren't supposed to be there - it's where there are some ports and hull plating. That made it into the title sequence. Nobody said anything, and we never mentioned it!" (Star Trek: The Magazine, Volume 3, Issue 3, page 112)

Adam Lebowitz, no doubt speaking from experience, estimates that it will take six to twelve months of study in one's spare time to master the LightWave software. (Star Trek: The Magazine2020欧洲杯晋级队伍,Volume 1, Issue 6, page 51) As a consequence designers and modelers like , and made the transition from the traditional way of producing SFX to CGI.

Though LightWave is a prime software package for generating CGI, it is by no means the only software available; in fact the majority of Star Trek films does not sport CGI generated by LightWave. ILM uses a myriad of software, often in conjuncture with each other, both developed in-house and off-the-shelf and has not used LightWave for Star Trek since "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country". Santa Barbara Studios used in-house developed software () in conjuncture with off-the-shelf software(WaveFront, ViewPoint, ) to create thespatial phenomena in the title sequence ofVOY and the SFX in "Star Trek: Insurrection", whereas VisionArt had a package called "Side Effects' Prism" (which may explain why their services were no longer called upon after DS9's fifth season, when the studio continued with the LightWave using Digital Muse and Foundation, at least for televisedStar Trek). Of the later films, only the CGI in "Star Trek Nemesis" was done inLightWave.

 

ComputerHardware

CGI companies require a lower capital lay-out than full-fledged production companies as Lebowitz elaborates:

"At Foundation, most of our workstations are regular off-the-shelf PC's [prices of which dropped sharply in the 1990's] -the same as anyone reading the magazine probably has. Fast Pentiums with lots of RAM (256 megs or more) is about average. We don't need a lot of hard disc space, since all the frames get stored on a massive server. The render engines, which create all the animation frames, are a mix of Pentium computers and DEC Alphas (a faster PC). Other equipment includes videocards with Open GL, a mode that lets you preview LightWave scenes in a sort 'rough draft' mode in real time. All our machines also sport 'Perception' cards from DPS, which allow us to compile the final frames into full screen video playback. We also have a soda machine with a built-in icemaker!" (Star Trek: The Magazine,Volume 1, Issue 6, page 47)

The relatively low capital lay-out (essentially only office space and computers), however was also partly responsible for the high turnover in number of CGI companies, especially in the early days. As easy as it was to startup a company, it was also as easy to close down companies in situations as slow business (Amblin, Foundation) or hostile take-overs (Digital Muse). In case of bankruptcy a specific problem arises as Lebowitz showed in response to the question if Star Trek: Voyager could be transferred to HighDefinition,"When Foundation closed down, the servers ?along with the content ?were auctioned off. Much of the content may have been saved by artists who worked on the series, but it would have to be tracked down. No matter how you slice it, it would be a considerable amount of work to re-integrate the entire Voyager visual effects server and re-render the FX in HD. In addition, although the series was shot on film, the entire post-production process was finished on NTSC video; to create an HD episode of Voyager, would have to go back to the vaults, re-transfer the film and re-built the episodes from scratch using the original editing data ?if THOSE files still existed." ()In a similar earlier case with Digital Muse, Paramount, had the good sense to retain ownership of the contents and the the whole contents of Digital Muse's server was transferred one-on-one to the servers of its successor.

 

Building a CGI Model

...resulting in this final shot.

An early wire-frame model by Santa Barbara Studios...
...resulting in this shot.
John Gross of Digital Muse breaks down the procedure of building a CGI-model:

A far more sophisticated wire-frame model by Amblin Imaging...
"If we get a design from the Trek Art Department, we might get just a 3/4 perspective drawing, or we may get all sides. It really depends on whether the ship is a 'hero' (one that will be seen a lot and close up) model or not. At that point, the artist assigned to modeling it will start breaking it down into its basic shapes and start creating it in the computer. Sometimes they'll start with a shape that is close (like a box) and start adding geometry and reshaping it to fit. Sometimes, they will have to create it polygon by polygon. Once the geometry is created, then it has to be surfaced to look real. This is where we'll add weathering, decals and the like to make it look like a real vessel. For almost all of the ships we built for DS9, there was an existing practical model to begin with. In the beginning of Voyager, there were existing models, but by the end, everything was CG. For the new series, Enterprise, everything will be CG. If a practical model does exist, that model will generally get delivered to us so we can have the real thing there to base the CG version upon. This was a lot of fun for DS9, because a lot of real models came through our shop. Things like the Reliant and Enterprise-A from Wrath of Khan, the Defiant, the Excelsior, Ferengi ships and Cardassians, At one point, I think we had about 8 models in house as we were building the CG fleet for DS9." ()

Building

2020欧洲杯晋级队伍A CGI effect conceived as a 3D solid object, whether it was a starship, structure or a celestial object, normally started out life as a or 3D Mesh as it is also referred to. As the name already suggests it is a simplified computer model defining the contours of the model in question. The more refined the wire-frame was (meaning the more contour lines the computer model has), the more refined the final CG-model was to become. In case of existing studio models, some companies like Santa Barbara Studios, and hired specialized companies like Viewpoint Data Labs or Cyberscan, who digitally scanned the physical models to construct a wire-frame CG model (a processsometimes referred to as digitizing), whether or not clad with a non-descript smooth skin generated for example as . Final application of skin, called mapping and animation were done at the effects houses themselves, using photographs taken from the actual physical studio models loaded into the computer programs. The CG-models, for example, of the Galaxy-class, Intrepid-class and Sovereign-class were thus conceived.

In the case of new models the meshes were created in the respective software modules freehand from either the design drawings or the actual physical studio models themselves. Gross's statement about the 3/4 perspective drawings is reminiscent of a remark made,"Most of the time with models all you need is a three-quarter view, and a couple of three-quarter angles on different parts of the ship." (Star Trek: The Magazine, Volume 1, Issue 2, page 22) Speaking for televised Star Trek, three-quarter views were preferred by some CG-modelers since they could load those drawings directly into their computers and build the meshes directly onto them, they already conveying a sense of 3-dimensionality, in essence cutting corners.

Rendering and animation

Once a model was built, the finished model was loaded intodedicated software, embedded into modules of a larger software package or not,for mapping, lighting and animation (imbuing the CG model with movement), aprocess referred to as and (if the software was part of a larger software package: loaded into a renderingengine). The term "rendering" is often incorrectly used to describethe whole creation process of a CGI-effect whereas it is only meant to describethe mapping and lighting stage, animation being a separate stage.

Other

While many CGI effects started out as solid 3D-objects, constructed at first as wire-frame meshes, not all CGI effects originated as such. Effects like water, clouds, rain, fire, dust, vapor, hair and such could not be realized by building wire-frame models, but were rather created by using particle generator programs. A pioneer program for creating these kind of effects was Santa Barbara Studios' software program, later embedded as a module in the software package, an alternative to LightWave 3D. It was this software that created much of the title sequence ofStar Trek: Voyager. Such was its importance that Dynamation earned developer Jim Hourihan an "Academy Award for Technical Achievement" in 1996.

More static vistas such as long views of landscapes, cities and space vistas were traditionally done as matte paintings. However, the advent of 2D image editorssuch as meant that many matte-paint artists traded their glass canvasses and brushes for a computer screen and a computer mouse. Once constructed, these kind of effects were loaded into the rendering software. In some cases 3D models of landscapes were first rendered and thenrefined by digital "overpainting" to act as scene backdrops. MaxGabl created many such effects for the remastered version of TOS.

 

Durability of CGIModels

After CGI was introduced in the production of movies and television shows, a further advantage besides versatility and economics, was believed to be the longer endurance of the CGI models over their physical counterparts. In practice however, reality has proven to be more stubborn in regard to the last argument. Advances in software and ineptitude at the studios in handling their property (amongst others in the situation described above in Foundation's case), have to this day caused CGI models to be of a far more fleeting nature than physical models. Lebowitz explains:

"When a CGI company is hired to do FX for a production, in theory all the assets they create are property of the studio. A smart studio should probably ask for regular backups of data for a variety of reasons, most important of which would be safety backups and potentially the need to re-create the work elsewhere.

However, this rarely happens, most probably because it's just not anyone's assigned job. Who asks for the data? Who checks it? Where do they store it? Who keeps the records? All this would need to be answered and a process implemented and in most cases, either no one has thought it through or wanted to spearhead a new headache.Even if the data was backed up, if someone wanted to load up a spaceship model ten years later, success would be hard to come by. Do they have the right software? Since no two companies ever name their hard drives with the same letters or use the same directory structure, will the new user know where to find the files when their computer tells them, 'can't find G:/spaceship/wingtip/test/nogood/deleteme/finalimages/nosecone.png?' 

Even if all the ducks are in a row, often times the CG company, knowing full well the data they provide might be used to cut them out of the picture, will purposely not make it easy for the studio. Sure, they'll provide the models as asked, but not the setup/assembly files (hey, setup files are technically NOT the model).All this means is that the more time passes, the less likely it will be to re-create CG scenes. If all the data and the directory structure on a company's hard drive remains untouched, it's fine, but the moment you start to back stuff up and clear it off the server, your chances of success begin to dwindle. 

Some companies have hired data management specialists to protect against this sort of thing (will Pixar encounter a 'data chasm' when attempting to re-render all the scenes from the first two TOY STORY movies for their 3D releases?). However, since it means more money and something else to worry about, this is the exception rather than the rule.When Foundation tried to restore data from the first season of B5, we discovered that the backup software had automatically truncated all file names to 8.3 characters ?so when Lightwave was looking for a texture map called 'StarfuryWingLeft.PNG,' all it could find was a string of files called 'Starfur*.***.' This would mean a user would have to load each image map into Photoshop, figure out what it was and were it was supposed to go and essentially rebuild the model from random data.In essence, everything from the first two seasons were lost. The data was still there, but reconstructing it would have been a nightmare. 

I don't know what W[arner] B[rothers] did to 'lose' their own copy of the B5 files, but unless companies are more stringent about their data management in the future, I'm afraid there will always be a dozen reasons why the data can be 'lost' forever.The irony of all this is that when the switch was made from physical models to CG, everyone assumed we had entered a golden era when models would no longer fall apart in a warehouse somewhere, never to be used again. 'We have CG now, things last forever!'If only."()

As irony would have it, it are the same economics, whichwere part of the reasons for the introduction of CGI, that are also responsiblefor the fleeting nature of the CGI models, as studios are not willing to pay forthe upkeep of the computer files once the original production is in the can.This drawback has become quite obvious when Paramount released the remasteredDVD and Blu-ray editions of the feature films during 2009 - 2010. In the case ofStar Trek: The Motion Picture, only the original theatrical release couldbe remastered, as the computer files used by Foundation Imaging for the Director'sEdition2020欧洲杯晋级队伍 were no longer available.

 

CGISuppliers to Star Trek

2020欧洲杯晋级队伍The volatility of the CGI suppliers market as well as the early lack of some sort of industry standard in the 1990's made the producers weary to rely solely on one supplier. At any given time at least two CGI companies were employed as insurance. It was not until the second season of ENT that the market was settled down enough for the producers to rely on one supplier (Eden FX).

 

CGI Starships and Structures

Note The remark "upgraded" refers to the reprogramming and remapping of CGI models originally done in software other than LightWave 3D into this format.

Star Trek films

The Next Generation

Deep Space Nine

Voyager

Enterprise

 

CGI Species

The Next Generation

Deep Space Nine

Voyager

Enterprise

 

See Also

Redresses of the Husnock Ship - modifications forthe Jovis, Bajoran freighter and even the black smugglership

Redresses of the Karemma Ship - modifications for the Bajoran, Antarian, Ledosian and Xantoras visitor ship

Redresses of the Reptohumanoid Ship - modifications for the Vidiians, Dralians, Nygeans

Redresses of the Akritirian Patrol Ship - modifications for the Ba'neth, Lokirrim, Ledosians, Kriosians, pirates

Redresses of Tau's Pirate Fighter - modifications for Torat's and Kes's shuttles and the Benkaran ship

Redresses of the Ramuran Tracer Ship - modifications for the Kobali and the Annari

Redresses of Qatai's Vessel - modifications for Nocona's ship and forshuttles on Enterprise

 

Credits

Theoriginal article was created by et al. at Memory Alpha. The text has been republished inaccordance with Memory Alpha's policies. Thanks to Jrg and Ambassador Q for some additions!

 


at Wikipedia

 


Back to Quick Reference index